Important Supreme Court Case Rulings and Concepts
http://www.oyez.org/
The judicial branch, and the Supreme Court in particular, have played a key role in determining practical applications of governmental powers and personal liberties. It takes the vagueness of the personal liberties outlined in the US Constitutions and attempts to make specific rulings which attempt to clarify what the government and the people of this country are allowed to do under the US Constitution and laws. The Court’s rulings are a way to informally amend the US Constitution and are used much more frequently than the formal method which has only happened 27 times.
Some general terms you will need for the whole packet:
due process clause- Clause contained in the 5th and 14th amendments of the US Consitution. Over the years, it has been construed to guarantee to individuals a variety of rights ranging from economic liberty to criminal procedural rights to protection from arbitrary governmental action.
substantive due process- Judicial interpretation of the 5th and 14th amendments’ due process clause that protects citizens from arbitrary or unjust laws from states. States have the legal burden to prove that their laws were/are a valid exercise of their reserved powers.
incorporation doctrine – An interpretation of the Constitution that holds that the due process clause of the 14th amendment requires that state and local governments also guarantee rights.
selective incorporation – A judicial doctrine whereby most but not all of the protection found in the Bill of Rights are made applicable to the states via the 14th amendment. (See Chart below for rights that have been incorporated to the states and local gov’t as well as the cases that have done this.)
fundamental rights/freedoms – Those rights defined by the Court to be essential to order, liberty, and justice and therefore entitled to the highest standard of review which is known as strict scrutiny. These rights include but are not limited to speech, religion, criminal proceedings, and voting.
“Test” – a term used for guidelines/doctrine established in Supreme Court rulings that attempt to provide parameters on future rulings on similar topics. Examples include the “Miller test” for obscenity cases and the “Lemon test” for religion in public schools
Speech/Press/Assembly - Concepts and Terms:
“Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me.”
We have all heard of this famous phrase but I also think we know words can hurt just as much as physical harm. But does this mean those words should be limited? Supreme Court cases involving speech have to balance a citizens right to voice an opinion versus the impact negative or hurtful speech may have on a community or individual.
Types of speech that have more limitations:
1. Commercial speech – Speech used in business, advertising, etc. Highly regulated
2. Libel – False written statements that harm someone’s reputation. In the US it is harder to win in court – you must prove there was a malicious intent to harm the person’s reputation. In Great Britain it is easier to sue for libel.
3. Slander –False spoken statements that harm someone’s reputation.
4. Obscenity- Material that is considered sexually offensive by community standards. Violence and profanity can also be regulated but under a different specific standards.
“Miller Test” – created from Miller v California (1973) Used as the standard for enforcing state and local law involving obscene material. It has three parts :
· Whether the average person, applying contemporary community (local) standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole is sexually explicit
· Whether the work depicts/describes, in a clearly offensive way, sexual conduct or etc. . . specifically defined by applicable state law,
· Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. (This is also known as the (S)LAPS test- [Serious] Literary, Artistic, Political, Scientific).
The work is considered obscene only if all three conditions are satisfied.
The first two prongs of the Miller test are held to the standards of the community, and the last prong is held to a reasonable person standard. The reasonable person standard of the last prong acts as a check on the community standard of the first two prongs, allowing protection for works that in a certain community might be considered obscene but on a national level might have redeeming value.
* Congress has written several laws attempting to regulate Internet pornography involving children ( in the pornography or accessing the pornography) but Court rulings have been complex and have not always been supportive of the laws due to the nature of the Internet not being a local community.
5. Speech that creates a dangerous situation
Clear-and-present danger doctrine or “test” – created from Schenck v U.S. (1919): court sees whether the words used could create a clear and present danger – if so they can be punished.
Direct incitement “test” – new speech test from Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969); holds that advocacy of illegal action is protected by the First Amendment unless an imminent lawless action is intended and likely to occur.
Other Speech Terms/Concepts:
prior restraint – prohibition of speech/publication before it happens; the Court has consistently protected (with a few exceptions for national security) news agencies and people from the government’s attempt at prior restraint; basically verbal, written, and other forms of speech are punished after it has taken place.
least-restrictive – If speech, press, is to be restricted in should be done in the least restrictive manner possible. Example – if the local government is going to ban a particular book on Nazi Germany from the local school library they shouldn’t get rid of all the books about WWII.
symbolic speech – Symbols, signs, and other methods of expression generally also considered to be protected by the First Amendment.
Fighting words – Words by their very utterance inflict injury or tend or incite an immediate breach of peace. Fighting words that include profanity, obscenity, or threats can be regulated.
Hate Speech – involves school, local, and state laws that limit speech that creates or fosters an intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment. Example – 2/3 or colleges have banned this type of speech including information posted on web sites that can be attributed to a student.
Important Speech/Press/Assembly Cases
Case Name and Judge Vote Important Concepts from ruling
Schenck v U.S. (1919)
Clear and present danger test
Gitlow v New York (1923)
Dangerous tendency
Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)
Direct incitement
New York Times v US (1971)
also called the Pentagon papers case
prior-restraint
Miller v California (1973) See Notes above
Obscene material
Tinker v Des Moines Indep. School(1969)
Symbolic student speech
Texas v Johnson (1989)
Symbolic speech
New York Times v Sullivan (1964)
libel
Hazelwood v Kuhlmeier (1987)
Student newspaper
Religion Terms and Concepts:
The two major constitutional clauses involving religion sometimes clash. Many religion cases involve a balance of these two clauses and many of them started from situations in public schools. Older Court rulings said the government can only supply books and busing to religious schools but more recent rulings have further blurred the lines of what the government can provide to religious schools. Religious speech in public schools has become more limited however. State and local governments can ban religious activity if there is a compelling state interest to do so (illegal drug use, polygamy, etc)
Establishment clause
Free exercise clause
Wall of separation
“Lemon test”
Important Religion Cases
Case Name and Judge Vote Important Concepts from ruling
Everson v Board of Education (1947)
School busing to private games
Engel v Vitale (1962)
Voluntary prayer in public school
Lemon v Kurtzman (1971) See definition above for answer
Public funding for private schools
Zelman v Simmons-Harris (2000)
School vouchers
Reynolds v United States
polygamy
Oregon v Smith (1990)
Use of drugs for religious ceremonies
Sante Fe Independent School v Doe. (2000)
Student led prayer at public school
Wisconsin v Yoder
Mandatory school attendance
Criminal Procedure Terms and Concepts:
These cases deal mainly with amendments- 4-8 of the US Bill of Rights.
exclusionary rule
good-faith exception
probable cause
search warrant
warrantless searches
Patriot Act
double jeopardy
due process – see definition on first page of speech and religion packet
enemy combatant
Important Cases
Case Name and Judge Vote Important Concepts from ruling
Gideon v Wainwright (1963)
Right to an attorney
Mapp v Ohio (1961)
Exclusionary rule
Miranda v Arizona (1966)
Miranda warnings
Furman v Georgia (1972)
Death penalty
Gregg v Georgia (1976)
Death penalty
US v Leon (1984)
Good faith exception
Maryland v Craig (1990)
Child testimony in a trial
Rasul v Bush (2004)
Enemy combatants and Guantanamo Bay
Hamdan v Rumsfeld (2005)
Enemy combatants and Guantanamo Bay
Important Miscellaneous Cases
Case Name and Judge Vote Important Concepts from ruling
Marbury v Madison (1803) Judicial review precedence set. That is all you need to know for this case.
McCulloch v Maryland (1819) 9-0 Elastic clause allows Congress to do other activities for its enumerated powers and in this case – create a national back. It also said the federal government is supreme to the states and can’t be taxed by them.
Gibbons v Ogden (1824) Congress (and not the states) regulates interstate commerce and waterways.
Baker v Carr (1961) 6-2 Said reapportionment conducted by state legislatures can be questioned in federal courts if there is a possibility of infringement on voting rights. Later case clarifications elaborated on Baker v Carr. These included the “one person- one vote” Gray v. Sanders concept and that districts can’t be formed predominantly based on racial makeup (1962) of the population Hunt v. Cromartie (1999)
Korematsu v US (1944) Strict Scrutiny case where the court upheld federal gov’t treatment of
Japanese internment camps Japanese placement in camps. Court has upheld different treatment
of races based executive action or law if for national security of some
other compelling national interest.
US v Lopez National govt can use commerce clause to control state police power of gun regulation
Bush v Gore (2000) Did the Florida Supreme Court violate Article II Section 1 Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution by making new election law? Do standardless manual recounts violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Constitution?
Conclusion
Noting that the Equal Protection clause guarantees individuals that their ballots cannot be devalued by "later arbitrary and disparate treatment," the per curiam opinion held 7-2 that the Florida Supreme Court's scheme for recounting ballots was unconstitutional. Even if the recount was fair in theory, it was unfair in practice. The record suggested that different standards were applied from ballot to ballot, precinct to precinct, and county to county. Because of those and other procedural difficulties, the court held that no constitutional recount could be fashioned in the time remaining (which was short because the Florida legislature wanted to take advantage of the "safe harbor" provided by 3 USC Section 5). Loathe to make broad precedents, the per curiam opinion limited its holding to the present case.
Rehnquist (in a concurring opinion joined by Scalia and Thomas) argued that the recount scheme was also unconstitutional because the Florida Supreme Court's decision made new election law, which only the state legislature may do.
Breyer and Souter (writing separately) agreed with the per curiam holding that the Florida Court's recount scheme violated the Equal Protection Clause, but they dissented with respect to the remedy, believing that a constitutional recount could be fashioned. Time is insubstantial when constitutional rights are at stake.
Ginsburg and Stevens (writing separately) argued that for reasons of federalism, the Florida Supreme Court's decision ought to be respected. Moreover, the Florida decision was fundamentally right; the Constitution requires that every vote be counted.
McConnell v FEC (2003)
In early 2002, a many years-long effort by Senators John McCain and Russell Feingold to reform the way that money is raised for--and spent during--political campaigns culminated in the passage of the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002 (the so-called McCain-Feingold bill). Its key provisions were a) a ban on unrestricted ("soft money") donations made directly to political parties (often by corporations, unions, or well-healed individuals) and on the solicitation of those donations by elected officials; b) limits on the advertising that unions, corporations, and non-profit organizations can engage in up to 60 days prior to an election; and c) restrictions on political parties' use of their funds for advertising on behalf of candidates (in the form of "issue ads" or "coordinated expenditures").
The campaign finance reform bill contained an unusual provision providing for an early federal trial and a direct appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, by-passing the typical federal judicial process. In May a special three-judge panel struck down portions of the Campaign Finance Reform Act's ban on soft-money donations but upheld some of the Act's restrictions on the kind of advertising that parties can engage in. The ruling was stayed until the Supreme Court could hear and decide the resulting appeals.
Question
1. Does the "soft money" ban of the Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002 exceed Congress's authority to regulate elections under Article 1, Section 4 of the United States Constitution and/or violate the First Amendment's protection of the freedom to speak?
2. Do regulations of the source, content, or timing of political advertising in the Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002 violate the First Amendment's free speech clause?
Conclusion
With a few exceptions, the Court answered "no" to both questions in a 5-to-4 decision written by Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and John Paul Stevens. Because the regulations dealt mostly with soft-money contributions that were used to register voters and increase attendance at the polls, not with campaign expenditures (which are more explicitly a statement of political values and therefore deserve more protection), the Court held that the restriction on free speech was minimal. It then found that the restriction was justified by the government's legitimate interest in preventing "both the actual corruption threatened by large financial contributions and... the appearance of corruption" that might result from those contributions.
In response to challenges that the law was too broad and unnecessarily regulated conduct that had not been shown to cause corruption (such as advertisements paid for by corporations or unions), the Court found that such regulation was necessary to prevent the groups from circumventing the law. Justices O'Connor and Stevens wrote that "money, like water, will always find an outlet" and that the government was therefore justified in taking steps to prevent schemes developed to get around the contribution limits.
The Court also rejected the argument that Congress had exceeded its authority to regulate elections under Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution. The Court found that the law only affected state elections in which federal candidates were involved and also that it did not prevent states from creating separate election laws for state and local elections.