Supreme Court CasesPaul ButricoBlock 1 B/D

Gibbons v. Ogden Historical Context

› Trial took place on March 2, 1824› Early 19th Century

United States steadily expanding› Steamboat developed by Robert R.

Livingston and Robert Fulton in 1807. Became fastest form of transportation

Before railroads

Gibbons v. Ogden Historical Context (Continued)

› Dispute centered around claims from rival steamboat franchises. New York State gave Aaron Ogden exclusive

permission to operate steamboat ferries on the Hudson river, between New York City and New Jersey.

Thomas Gibbons operated two ferries along this same course.

Gibbons v. Ogden Arguments

› Ogden Wanted an injunction against Gibbons Claimed that New York State had given him

exclusive privilege to utilize the route.› Gibbons

Argued he could use this route due to the Act of Congress of 1793 pertaining to the regulation of coastal commerce.

Gibbons v. Ogden Arguments (Continued)

› Gibbons Act of Congress in 1793

Stated that  "no ships or vessels, except such as shall be so enrolled and licensed, shall be deemed ships or vessels of the United States,entitled to the privileges of ships or vessels employed in the coasting trade or fisheries."

Gibbons v. Ogden Decision

› Chief Justice John Marshal ruled in favor of Gibbons. The exclusive grant given to Ogden by New

York Sate violates the Act of Congress presented by Gibbons

Gibbons v. Ogden Decision (Continued)

› Interpreted Commerce Clause of Constitution Decided that Congress had the right to

regulate the goods being traded and the right to regulate the navigation of these goods.

Gibbons v. Ogden Significance

› Set precedent for expansion of congressional power over comerce.

› Now Congress could regulate every aspect of trade.

Schenck v. United States Historical Context

› Trial Took place on March 3, 1919› May 18, 1917: Congress Passes

Conscription Act Federal Crime to obstruct country’s war

effort (WWII)› June 17, 1917: Congress passes Espionage

Act Allowed government to form a military draft.

Schenck v. United States Historical Context (Continued)

› Socialist Party sent 15,000 leaflets to drafted men from the Party’s headquarters in Philadelphia. stated the first section of the thirteenth

amendment and the sentence “Do not submit to intimidation.”

› Charles T. Schenck was the general secretary of the Philadelphia headquarters. Schenck arrested

Schenck v. United States Arguments

› Schenck He had exercised his first amendment rights. Not enough evidence to tie him to sending

the pamphlets.› United States

Schenck was in violation of the Espionage Act.

Schenck v. United States Arguments (Continued)

› Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes presented 3 arguments that tied Schenck to the leaflets:1. Schenck was the general secretary of the

Socialist Party’s headquarters, from where the pamphlets were sent from.

2. A report written by Schenck stated that he received new leaflets.

3. Schenck was given $125 to send the leaflets through the mail.

Schenck v. United States Decision

› Schenk found guilty Schenk was obviously involved with sending

the leaflets. Leaflets not protected by the 1st Amendment

during wartime. The words in the leaflets presented a “clear

and present danger,” and therefore are not protected by constitutional rights.

Schenck v. United States Significance

› Marked the first time the Supreme Court ruled in favor of limiting speech.

› Established the criteria of “a clear and present danger.”

Korematsu v. United States Historical Context

› December 7, 1941: Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor

› December 8, 1941: U.S. enters World War II

› February 19, 1942: President Roosevelt issues Executive Order 9066 banned “all persons of Japanese ancestry,

both alien and non-alien,” from the western coast of the U.S. and established internment camps for the banned citizens. 

Korematsu v. United States Historical Context (Continued)

› Fred Korematsu refused to leave his home during the Japanese-American evacuation.

› The Trial took place in 1944

Korematsu v. United States Arguments

› Korematsu The restrictions placed on the civil rights of

Japanese-Americans were unconstitutional. › United States

The loyalties of some of the Japanese-Americans resided with Japan and removing all of them from the west coast was the only logical way to ensure the U.S.’s safety.

Korematsu v. United States Decision

› 6-3 majority ruled Korematsu guilty. According to Justice Hugo Black…

Restrictions of civil liberties of a racial group are usually subject to scrutiny. Only when public security is in doubt are they

justifiable.

Korematsu v. United States Significance

› Highly criticized court case. Never been explicitly overturned

1983: Congress declared the case “overruled in the court of history.”

› Civil Liberties Act of 1988 contained a formal apology.

Miranda v. Arizona Historical Context

› Civil Rights Movement ongoing.› U.S. & U.S.S.R. involved in space race.› U.S. entrenched in Vietnam War.

Enormous amount of protest

Miranda v. Arizona Historical Context (Continued)

› Ernesto Miranda arrested for kidnapping, Rape, and Robery. 1963

› Trial took place on June 19,1966› Miranda confessed to the crime after

interrogation. Was not informed of his right to an attorney

and against self-incrimination.

Miranda v. Arizona Arguments

› Miranda Because Miranda was not read his rights, the

confession given by Miranda was not a valid piece of evidence. Rights stated in 5th & 6th Amendments

5th Amendment: Right to remain silent 6th Amendment: Right to an attorney

Miranda v. Arizona Decision

› Ruled in favor of Miranda, 5-4 A person must be read his/her right against

self-incrimination and right to an attorney, prior to any questioning. Because these rights were not read, the confession

given by Miranda after interrogation was inadmissible.

Miranda v. Arizona Significance

› Establishment of the “Miranda Rights” Allows the defendant to defend himself by

remaining quiet. Attorney present at questioning protects

defendant from “evils,” of interrogation.

Roe v. Wade Historical Context

› Most states heavily restricted or banned abortion

› Feminist movement of 1960’s› Two University of Texas graduates brought

a lawsuit on behalf of Norma L. McCorvey ("Jane Roe") Filed against Henry Wade, Dallas Country

District Attorney.

Roe v. Wade Argument

› Roe Texas law banning abortions violated Roe’s

constitutional rights. Texas law stated abortion was permutable only if

the mother’s life was in danger. Roe’s life was not in perile but she could not afford to

travel to have an abortion or afford to keep the child. Wade

› Defended the Texas State law

Roe v. Wade Decision

› Supreme Court ruled in favor of Roe, 7-2 Texas law violated Roe’s right to privacy

1st, 4th, 9th, and 14th Amendments protect an individual's "zone of privacy.“ marriage, contraception, parenting, and abortion are

acts that lie in this “zone of privacy.”

Roe v. Wade Decision (Continued)

› Amendments 1st Amendment: Freedom of Speech 4th Amendment: Violation of unreasonable

search and seizure (of the child) 9th Amendment: Bill of rights not only or

necessarily most rights of people. 14th Amendment: Due process and equal

protection must be provided to citizens.

Roe v. Wade Significance

› One of the most controversial decisions in history Presently heavily debated

› First time court ruled based on ethics, religion, and biology.

› Texas law deemed unconstitutional but… Cases where abortion is illegal, such as when

the mother is in the third trimester of pregnancy.

Regents of CA v. Bakke Historical Context

› 1961: President John F. Kennedy first references “affirmative action,” in Executive Order 10925.

› 1965: President Lyndon Johnson first enforces affirmative action in Executive order 11246

› 1969: President Nixon initiates “Philadelphia Order Strictest enforcement of fair hiring practices.

Regents of CA v. Bakke Historical Context (Continued)

› Medical school of the University of California at Davis established a quota that required 16 minorities admission.

› Allan Bakke (white) was denied admission twice. Bakke had a higher GPA and higher

standardized test scores than minority students recently admitted. Bakke sued the school.

Supreme Court case in 1978

Regents of CA v. Bakke Arguments

› Bakke The medical school's admission policy

violated… Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 The 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.

Regents of CA v. Bakke Decision

› The court ruled that UCAL’s quota policy was unconstitutional. School racially discriminated against whites

because it restricted whites from 16 admission opportunities based on their race. Violates Equal Protection Clause in 14th Amendment

Regents of CA v. Bakke Decision (Continued)

› Also ruled that a school is allowed to take race into account during the admissions process… Only if considered along with other factors in

a case-by-case comparison.

Regents of CA v. Bakke Significance

› Outlawed racial quotas.› Established basis on how much weight

race carries in college admissions process.

"Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 (Commerce)." The Founders' Constitution. The University of Chicago, 2000. Web. 9 June 2013. <http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_3_commerces14.html>.Brunner, Borgna. "Timeline of Affirmative Action Milestones." Infoplease. Pearson Education, 2007. Web. 10 June 2013. <http://www.infoplease.com/spot/affirmativetimeline1.html>.Dangerfield, George. "The Steamboat Case." Quarrels That Have Shaped the Constitution. Ed. John A. Garraty. New York: Harper, 1987. 57-69. Print.Konkoly, Toni. "Korematsu v. United States (1944)." Supreme Court Cases. PBS, Dec. 2006. Web. 9 June 2013. <http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/personality/landmark_korematsu.html>.Lawson, Don. Landmark Supreme Court Cases. Hillside: Enslow, 1987. Print.

Works Cited

McBride, Alex. "Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)." The Supreme Court. PBS, Dec. 2006. Web. 9 June 2013. <http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/antebellum/landmark_gibbons.html>.- - -. "Miranda v. Arizona (1966)." The Supreme Court. PBS, Dec. 2006. Web. 10 June 2013. <http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_miranda.html>.- - -. "Regents of University of California v. Bakke (1978)." The Supreme Court. PBS, Dec. 2006. Web. 10 June 2013. <http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_regents.html>.- - -. "Roe v. Wade (1973)." The Supreme Court. PBS, Dec. 2006. Web. 10 June 2013. <http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_roe.html>.The People History. Copyscape, 2004. Web. 10 June 2013. <http://www.thepeoplehistory.com/1966.html>.Ryan, Bernard, Jr. "Schenck v. U.S. Appeal: 1919." Great American Trials. Ed. Edward W. Knappman. Detroit: Gale, 1994. 284-87. Print.

Works Cited (Continued)