24 Shades o f t he United States C onstitution A Collection of Court C ases By Calvin Leon
Table o f Contents 2 3NAACP v. A labama 4District of C olumbia v . Heller 5Mapp v . O hio 6Miranda v . Arizona 7Dickerson v. US 8Powell v . A labama 9Gideon v. W ainwright 10Argersinger v . Hamlin 11Hamdan v . Rumsfeld 12Gregg v. G eorgia 13McCleskey v. Kemp 14Griswold v. C onnecticut 15Roe v. W ade 16Webster v. R eproductive Health Services 17Planned Parenthood v. C asey 18Stenberg v . C arhart 19Bowers v . H ardwick 20Lawrence v. Texas 21Korematsu v . U nited States 22Reed v . R eed 23Miller v. Johnson 24Jones v . M ayer 25University o f C alifornia v . BakkeBrown v . B oard o f E ducation 1
1. NAACP v. Alabama 1958THE B ASICS: Who was i nvolved? - The N ational Association for the Advancement of C oloredPeople a nd t he s tate o f A labama What H appened? - T he state o f Alabama wanted the N AACP t o release all o fthe n ames a nd a ddresses they had f or all of their m embers When was it decided? - J une 3 0, 1 958 Where did t he i ssue occur? - Alabama S tate CapitolCONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION: “Did A labama’s r equest for m ember informationinfringe on the D ue Process Clause of t he F ourteenth A mendment?”DECISION: Unanimous d ecision in favor of N AACP The s upreme c ourt s ided w ith N AACP b ecause p eople are protected b y t hefourteenth a mendment to j oin groups “ dedicated t o the a dvancements of beliefs a ndideas”. Alabama asking t o s eize this information would violate the free a ssociation of i tsmembers.HOW D OES IT A FFECT M ODERN D AY LIFE?: This r uling gives g rounds f or p eople w ho w ant to remain private to the state i nwhat they support. T he s tate c an’t find o ut w hat o rganizations you are in b y l ookingthrough their d ata.MY THOUGHTS: If I were to h ave been on thecourt w hen t his case came b eforeit, I would h ave sided with NAACPbecause people s hould b e able tofreely join p eaceful organizationsand stand u p f or what t hey believein w ithout b eing h arassed b y theirstate government i ndividually. 2
2. District of Columbia v. H eller 2008THE BASICS: Who w as involved? - District o f C olumbia e t al., Dick A nthony H eller What H appened? - Washington DC had C ode w hich limited gun registrationrights and overregulated t he rules of o wning a f irearm. For e xample, a r egisteredfirearm must be d isarmed even i f the w eapon is l ocated safely a t s omeone's home). When w as it d ecided? - M arch 18, 2 008 Where d id the i ssue o ccur? - M etropolitan Police DepartmentCONSTITUTIONAL Q UESTION: “ D id D C C ode t hat required all f irearms i n homes b edisarmed w hen not i n use and restricted t he licensing of h andguns v iolate t he SecondAmendment?”DECISION: 5 - 4 decision i n favor o f H eller Majority O pinion: T he s trict Code of D C violated the Second Amendmentbecause c itizens should b e allowed to keep guns at home. A lso there doesn’t have t obe a “militia” formed in o rder t o o wn a firearm. Dissenting O pinion: T he S econd A mendment d oes not allow c itizens to o wn gunsno m atter w hat. T he S econd Amendment p rotects the right t o bear arms f or certainmilitary p urposes but not “just because”.HOW DOES IT A FFECT MODERN D AY LIFE?: It a llows p eople who l ive i n D C t o h ave morelenient rules on o wning guns, similar to t he majority o fthe country.MY T HOUGHTS: If I were t o h ave been o n the c ourt w hen this casecame before i t, I w ould h ave s ided w ith D C b ecausereading t he A mendment c onservatively how it waswritten, t he A mendment doesn’t a llow t he l egislature t oregulate n onmilitary use a nd ownership o f w eapons.Plus, t he Second A mendment w as w ritten w henhandguns did n ot e xist. 3
3. Mapp v . Ohio 1961THE BASICS: Who w as i nvolved? - Dollree M app, the state of Ohio What H appened? - Police unlawfully entered M app’s h ome i n s earch o f specificevidence. However, p olice discovered unrelated evidence that t hey u sed t o c onvictMapp o f a d ifferent drime. When was i t d ecided? - June 1 9, 1 961 Where did the i ssue o ccur? - Mapp’s R esidenceCONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION: “ Were t he c onfiscated m aterials protected by the FirstAmendment? (May e vidence obtained t hrough a s earch i n v iolation of the FourthAmendment b e admitted i n a state criminal proceeding?)”DECISION: 6 - 3 in favor o f Mapp“All e vidence o btained b y s earches a nd seizures i n violation o f the Constitution is, b y[the F ourth Amendment] inadmissible in a state c ourt”. A ny evidence obtained i n anillegal f ashion h ad t o be excluded from s tate court.HOW D OES IT AFFECT MODERN DAY LIFE?: Any evidence obtained i n an i llegal fashion has t o be e xcluded f rom s tate c ourt.MY THOUGHTS: If I w ere t o h ave been o n t he c ourt when this case c ame b efore i t, I w ould h avestayed neutral because I wouldn’t want to support e ither s ide. Supporting O hio wouldmean t hat p olice would b e a ble to j ust e nter your h ome and do w hatever t hey want ifthey find s omething i ncriminating, b ut supporting M app would m ean that a ny evidence,no m atter h ow incriminating, w ould be i nstantly e xcluded i f a cop found i t i llegally, w hichcould g et in t he w ay o f justice b eing served properly. 4
4. Miranda v . Arizona 1966THE B ASICS: Who w as i nvolved? - What Happened? - Ernesto M iranda was f orced to write a confession and wasnot given his rights during arrest. When w as i t d ecided? - June 1 3, 1 966 Where d id t he i ssue o ccur? - P hoenix, A rizonaCONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION: “ Do t he F ifth A mendment’s p rotection a gainstself-incrimination extend to the p olice i nterrogation o f a suspect?”DECISION: 5 - 4 d ecision i n favor o f M irandaSelf-incrimination is p rotected a gainst in a ll s ituations. S uspects must always b e r eadtheir r ights ( Miranda R ights).HOW DOES I T AFFECT M ODERN DAY LIFE?: If you a re a rrested for a nything E VER, i t is required for you t o b e given yourMiranda Rights. Everyone h as them and everyone must hear them no matter t he c rime.MY T HOUGHTS: If I were to h ave b een on the court when this c ase c ame b efore it, I would h avesided with Miranda because the police s houldn’t b e a llowed to m anipulate s omeonewho d oesn’t know t he r ules i nto c onfessing like they did. 5
5. Dickerson v . US 2000THE B ASICS: Who w as involved? - C harles D ickerson, the F BI What Happened? - Dickerson a dmitted to b eing a g etaway d river f or a series ofbank heists. However, he a dmitted them B EFORE b eing arrested and b eing r ead h isMiranda R ights. Dickeron’s s tatement w as also voluntary. When was it d ecided? - J une 26, 2000 Where d id t he issue o ccur? - FBI Field OfficeCONSTITUTIONAL Q UESTION: “May Congress legislatively o verrule M iranda v.Arizona a nd i ts w arnings t hat govern the a dmissibility of s tatements made d uringcustodial i nterrogation?”The F ourth Circuit’s d ecision w as l ater reversed b y t he Supreme C ourt.DECISION: 7 - 2 i n f avor of Dickerson No. M iranda R ights g overns t he v alidity of s tatements made w hile a ninterrogation is in place.HOW DOES I T AFFECT MODERN DAY LIFE?: Nothing i s d irectly impacted b ythis case b ecause a similar courtcase w as used before this one(Miranda v . Arizona).MY T HOUGHTS: If I were to h ave been o n t hecourt w hen this case c ame before it,I would have s ided with D ickersonbecause e veryone m ust b e read t heirMiranda r ights w hen t hey arearrested. P lus, i f h e said s omethingbefore h e w as arrested, t here i s n oway to t ell if h e w as lying o r not. 6
6. Powell v . Alabama 1932THE BASICS: Who w as i nvolved? - N ine b lack youths, t wo w hite women, a nd t he s tate ofAlabama ( walk into a bar) What Happened? - Nine b lack y ouths were c harged with r aping t wo w hitewomen. The t rial process w as very q uick a nd all were s entenced to death. T here w asbarely any c onsulting. When was i t decided? - N ovember 7, 1932 Where did the issue o ccur? - AlabamaCONSTITUTIONAL Q UESTION: “ D id t he trials v iolate t he D ue P rocess C lause of theFourteenth Amendment?”State court ruled t hat t heir rights were n ot v iolated.DECISION: 7-2 in favor for Powell e t al. Yes, t he c lients were n ot given e nough time a nd opportunity t o secure c ounsel i ntheir defence. The t rials denied d ue process.HOW D OES IT A FFECT MODERN DAY L IFE?: The c ourt case o nly supports due process. I t d oesn’t directly impact us t oday.However, it w as an i nspiration for To Kill a Mockingbird, s o t here's that...MY THOUGHTS: If I were t o have been o n t he c ourtwhen t his c ase c ame b efore it, I wouldhave sided with P owell e t al. b ecause theywere n ot g iven nearly e nough t ime todefend t hemselves, e specially in a s ystemthat was set up a gainst them i n t he f irstplace. 7
7. Gideon v. W ainwright 1963THE B ASICS: Who w as i nvolved? - C larence G ideon, Louie W ainwright What Happened? - G ideon was charged for breaking a nd entering, which is afelony. F lorida s tate l aw o nly appointed a ttorneys i n c apital c ases, s o he was f orced torepresent h imself and went to prison. When w as it d ecided? - M arch 1 8, 1 963 Where did t he i ssue occur? - Bay C ounty C ircuit CourtCONSTITUTIONAL Q UESTION: “ Does the S ixth A mendment’s r ight to counsel incriminal cases extend to felony d efendants i n state c ourts?”Convicted b y B ay C ounty C ircuit CourtDECISION: Unanimous decision in f avor of G ideon Yes. Gideon did not have p roper defense, so it w as an u nfair trial. Theconstitution r equires state courts t o appoint a ttorneys to p eople w ho c annot a fford theirown.HOW DOES I T AFFECT M ODERN D AY L IFE?: The trial does not have a h uge i mpactexcept f or the f act that it u pheld t he SixthAmendment which s ays e very person h as t he rightto a lawyer.MY T HOUGHTS: If I w ere t o h ave b een on the court w henthis case came before i t, I would h ave sided withGideon because it i s ridiculous t o h ave s omeonedefend t hemselves in c ourt w hen t hey havenowhere near the q ualifications as a real attorney. 8
8. Argersinger v . H amlin 1972THE B ASICS: Who w as i nvolved? - Jon A rgersinger, H amlin What H appened? - A rgersinger was c harged f or carrying a concealed w eapon,which i s against F lorida law, b ut i s not a f elony. H e w as not represented by a n a ttorney. When w as it decided? - June 1 2, 1 972 Where d id the issue occur? - L eon C ounty CourthouseCONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION: “ Do t he S ixth and Fourteenth A mendments g uaranteea right t o c ounsel t o defendants who a re a ccused of committing m isdemeanors?”Florida S upreme Court’s d ecision w as l ater overruled by t he Supreme CourtDECISION: U nanimous d ecision i n f avor of A rsinger They e xtended their G ideon v . Wainwright d ecision to c over s ome misdemeanorsas w ell. E very c riminal has a right t o an attorney if they have a chance of f acing jail time,even if i t is a m isdemeanor.HOW D OES IT A FFECT M ODERN DAY LIFE?: It gives access t o a ttorneys to e ven m ore people who face trial. N ot j ust felonies,but m isdemeanors a s w ell.MY THOUGHTS: If I were to h ave b een o n t he courtwhen t his c ase came before i t, I w ould h avesided with A rgersinger because t he s amerules should a pply t o everyone regardless o fwhat crime t hey c ommit. 9
9. Hamdan v. R umsfeld 2006THE B ASICS: Who was i nvolved? - Salim Hamdan, D onald R umsfeld What H appened? - H amdan was B in Laden’s c hauffeur who was i mprisoned bythe US military i n G uantanamo B ay. He r eceives a hearing from a “ military c ourt”because he is an enemy c ombatant, w here he is c onvicted. Hamdan f iled a p etition fora w rit o f habeas c orpus t o challenge t his. H amdan’s h abeas corpus was g ranted, rulingto decide if h e w as a prisoner of war (Geneva C onvention) b efore b eing t ried b y themilitary. When was it d ecided? - J une 2 9, 2006 Where did t he issue occur? - Guantanamo PrisonCONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION: - ”May the r ights p rotected b y the G eneva Conventionbe e nforced i n f ederal court t hrough habeas corpus petitions? Was t he militarycommission e stablished to try H amdan and others f or alleged w ar c rimes in the War o nTerror authorized b y t he Congress or the i nherent powers o f t he President?”United States Court o f Appeals f or the District o f Columbia CircuitDECISION: 5 - 3 in f avor o f Hamdan Yes and no. Geneva C onvention l aws, w ar l aws a nd f ederal laws a pply.However, Hamdan's e xclusion from certain parts o f h is trial made t he trial i llegal.HOW DOES IT A FFECT MODERN DAY L IFE?: There w as n ot a huge i mpact on modern d ay l ife. Prisoner o f w ar c omplicationsdon’t affect the m ajority o f people, b ut it was s till a n i mportant c ase.MY T HOUGHTS: If I were t o have b een o n t he court w henthis c ase c ame before i t, I w ould have sided withHamdan, even t hough I w ould m orally side w ithRumsfeld. If t he d ecision was based o njudgement, I would n ot s ide with a t errorist affiliate.However, there were c omplications i n the trial 10
process w hich d id m ake Hamdan's “ trial” invalid and i llegal. 10. Gregg v. Georgia 1976THE B ASICS: Who was i nvolved? - G regg, t he state of G eorgia What Happened? - G regg w as f ound g uilty of a rmed robbery a nd murder. Hewas s entenced to t he capital p unishment. Gregg challenged his death s entence s ayingthat i t was “cruel and unusual” which v iolated t he E ighth A mendment and F ourteenthAmendment. When was i t decided? - July 2 , 1 976 Where d id the issue o ccur? - Georgia State C apitolCONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION: “ Is the imposition o f t he d eath s entence prohibitedunder t he Eighth and F ourteenth A mendments as “cruel a nd unusual” p unishment?”The Supreme C ourt o f G eorgia s entenced him to death a nd t he Supreme Court u pheldtheir decision.DECISION: 7 - 2 in f avor o f Georgia The d eath penalty i s not a cruel o r u nusual punishment. E xtreme crimes call forextreme punishments.HOW D OES I T A FFECT MODERN DAY LIFE?: The court case d id not c hange a nything b ecause t he r uling w as a lready k nown.MY T HOUGHTS: If I w ere to have b een on t he c ourtwhen t his c ase c ame before i t, I wouldhave s ided with Georgia becauseextreme c rimes should be met withextreme punishments. 11
11. McCleskey v. K emp 1987THE BASICS: Who was involved? - M cCleskey, Kemp What H appened? - M cCleskey was a b lack man w ho w as sentenced to d eath f ormurdering a w hite c op. McCleskey f iled a writ o f habeas c orpus saying that blackpeople a re statistically g iven the death penalty more than white people a re. When was i t decided? - A pil 22, 1 987 Where d id the i ssue occur? - D ixie F urniture S toreCONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION: “Did t he statistical s tudy p rove that M cCleskey’ssentence violated t he Eighth a nd Fourteenth A mendments?”The U nited States C ourt of A ppeals for t he E leventh Circuit’s decision w as upheld b ythe S upreme Court.DECISION: 5 - 4 i n f avor of K emp McCleskey couldn’t p rove t hat there was a ctually a ny d iscrimination i n hisspecific case. T he s tudy he p resented didn’t r elate t o his case, so the s upreme c ourtbasically s aid “ so what”.HOW D OES I T A FFECT MODERN DAY L IFE?: It doesn’t.MY THOUGHTS: If I w ere to have been on the courtwhen this case came b efore i t, I w ouldhave sided with K emp becauseMcCleskey’s data has n othing to do withhis case. H is d ata m ay have been truewhich i s not good, but i t still didn’t reallyapply to h is case. 12
12. Griswold v . C onnecticut 1965THE BASICS: Who was i nvolved? - Estelle Griswold, t he s tate of C onnecticut What Happened? - Griswold w as a d irector of a Planned P arenthood f acility. S hewas convicted o f b reaking C onnecticut law which c riminalized counselling and o thermedical treatment t o married couples s eeking abortion. When was it d ecided? - June 7 , 1965 Where did t he i ssue occur? - Planned P arenthood B irth C ontrol C linicCONSTITUTIONAL Q UESTION: “ Does the constitution p rotect t he right o f maritalprivacy against s tate r estrictions on a c ouple's ability t o be c ounseled in t he u se o fcontraceptives?”Circuit C ourt for the S ixth Circuit c onvicted the d efendants.DECISION: 7 - 2 i n f avor of G riswold Through a combination o f the First, T hird, F ourth, and N inth Amendments,Griswold is p rotected b y the r ight to p rivacy i n marital r elations. The C onnecticut l awwas v oided because it c onflicted with t his right.HOW D OES I T A FFECT MODERN D AY L IFE?: This case i s a very i mportant p iece for p ro-choice a bortion defenders. I t alsomade c linics easier to b e legal.MY T HOUGHTS: If I w ere to have b een o nthe court w hen this c ase c amebefore i t, I w ould h ave s ided w ithGriswold b ecause a married,agreeing couple should be able t odecide w hether t hey are ready fora c hild o r n ot and that s hould betheir d ecision and not t he s tates. 13
13. Roe v. Wade 1973THE B ASICS: Who w as involved? - J ane R oe ( fake n ame), Henry Wade What Happened? - R oe w anted to have a n a bortion, which i s i llegal under T exaslaw. She argued that h er r ights were being violated. When w as it d ecided? - J anuary 2 2, 1 973 Where d id the issue o ccur? - U S D istrict C ourt for the N orthern D istrict o f TexasCONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION: “Does the C onstitution embrace a woman’s r ight t oterminate h er p regnancy b y a bortion?”Judgement f or p laintiffs, d enied.DECISION: 7 - 2 i n favor o f R oe The court said t hat under the r ight t o privacy, which is p rotected b y t heFourteenth A mendment, a woman has a r ight t o a n abortion during the first t rimester.HOW DOES I T AFFECT M ODERN D AY L IFE?: This w as one of the m ost impactful c ourt d ecisions e ver. 46 s tates w ere a ffectedby t he c ourt's r uling, making a bortion legal e verywhere.MY THOUGHTS: If I were t o havebeen on the c ourt whenthis case came before i t, Iwould h ave sided w ithRoe b ecause the r ight t oprivacy i s p rotected in theconstitution a nd R oe i s incharge of h er own b ody. 14
14. Webster v . R eproductive Health Services 1989THE BASICS: Who w as involved? - What Happened? - M issouri L aw h ad a f ew a bortion restrictions: clinics a ndpublic employees cannot assist in unnecessary abortions ( not s aving m other’s l ife),encourage abortion, and physicians were r equired to d o viability tests on women d uringtheir 20th w eek o f p regnancy. S ome saw t his as a violation o f privacy. When w as i t d ecided? - J uly 3, 1 989 Where d id the issue o ccur? - R eproductive H ealth ServicesCONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION: “Did the Missouri r estrictions u nconstitutionallyinfringe upon the right t o p rivacy for t he Equal P rotection Clause o f the F ourteenthAmendment?”United States Court of Appeals f or t he E ighth C ircuitDECISION: 5 - 4 i n favor of Webster The C ourt r uled that none o f the Missouri L aws were u nconstitutional. T hey didnot i nfringe on t he Due P rocess Clause and did n ot necessarily stopped abortions, t heyonly r egulated it.HOW D OES IT AFFECT M ODERN D AY L IFE?: States cannot b an abortion, b ut t hey a re allowed t o regulate i t.MY T HOUGHTS: If I were t o have b een o nthe c ourt w hen t his c ase camebefore it, I would have sidedwith R eproductive H ealthServices because the intentionof t he Missouri L aws are still tostop a s many p eople f romhaving abortions a s possible, 15
which i s t o some a mount a violation. 15. Planned Parenthood v . C asey 1992THE B ASICS: Who was involved? - What Happened? - A n ew P ennsylvania law was enacted s aying t hat t here wasnow a 2 4 hour waiting p eriod f or a n a bortion, that minors n eed c onsent, a nd that womenhad t o n otify t heir h usband (if m arried). When was it decided? - June 2 9, 1992 Where did t he i ssue occur? - Pennsylvania S tate C apitolCONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION: “Can a state r equire women w ho want an abortion t oobtain informed c onsent, wait 2 4 hours, i f m arried, n otify their h usbands, a nd, if minors,obtain p arental consent, w ithout v iolating their r ight t o abortion a s guaranteed by R oe v.Wade?”United S tates Court o f A ppeals f or t he T hird CircuitDECISION: 5 - 4 i n favor o f P lanned Parenthood The husband provision w as removed, but t he other p rovisions w ere l eft as t heywere. They s tood b y provisions that lined up w ith t heir Roe v . Wade decision.HOW DOES IT AFFECT MODERN DAY LIFE?: It doesn’t a dd any major new i mpacts because i t used Roe v. W ade a s a m arkeron what s hould and shouldn’t be allowed.MY T HOUGHTS: If I w ere to have beenon t he c ourt w hen t his casecame before it, I would havesided with PlannedParenthood b ecause i treaffirmed R oe, w hich w asalready established by theSupreme C ourt. 16
16. Stenberg v. Carhart 2000THE B ASICS: Who w as involved? - What H appened? - Nebraska L aw prohibits “ partial b irth abortion” (living unbornchild delivered, but d ies in t he process). C arhart argued that it was u nconstitutional,vague, and placed an undue b urden on himself and his f emale c lients. When was i t d ecided? - J une 2 8, 2000 Where did t he issue o ccur? - N ebraska G eneral AssemblyCONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION: “ Does the N ebraska s tatute, w hich m akes theperformance of a “ partial birth a bortions” a crime, violate t he liberty protected b y d ueprocess o f the F ourteenth A mendment in t he U .S. Constitution?United S tates C ourt of Appeals for t he Eighth CircuitDECISION: 5 - 4 in f avor o f C arhart The Nebraska l aws v iolate t he U .S. C onstitution, a s i nterpreted in Casey andRoe. I t c reated f ear t hat d octors would b e i mprisoned f or doing t heir j ob.HOW D OES IT A FFECT M ODERN D AY L IFE?: It f ixed Nebraska laws, but n ot m uch outside of Nebraska w as changed.MY THOUGHTS: If I were to have been on t he c ourtwhen this case c ame before i t, I w ould havesided with C arhart because d octors like h imwere just doing their j ob and it’s a w oman’schoice t o have an abortion o r not a sinterpreted by t he c onstitution. 17
17. Bowers v . Hardwick 1986THE B ASICS: Who w as involved? - M ichael H ardwick, Bowers What Happened? - Georgia police walked in on H ardwick w hile he was in t he a ctof c onsensual h omosexual sodomy with another a dult in h is own b edroom. Hardwickwas charged w ith b reaking sodomy laws i n Georgia, a nd Hardwick c hallenged t his. When w as it d ecided? - J une 30, 1 986 Where did t he issue occur? - Hardwick’s A partmentCONSTITUTIONAL Q UESTION:” Does t he C onstitution c onfer a f undamental right u ponhomosexuals t o e ngage i n c onsensual sodomy, t hereby invalidating the l aws of manystates w hich m ake s uch c onduct i llegal?”United States Court o f Appeals f or the E leventh C ircuitDECISION: 5 - 4 in f avor o f Bowers There w as nothing i n the constitution that p rotected s odomy and the s tates w ereallowed to outlaw it.HOW D OES I T A FFECT M ODERN D AY LIFE?: The court's ruling does n ot affect t oday because this d ecision w ould later b echanged by t he s upreme court.MY T HOUGHTS: If I were t o have beenon t he c ourt when this c asecame b efore it, I w ould h avesided w ith H ardwick b ecauseconsenting adults s hould b eable t o d o w hat they w ant i nthe privacy o f their home a slong as it doesn’t a ffectanyone. 18
18. Lawrence v. T exas 2003THE B ASICS: Who was i nvolved? - J ohn Lawrence, Tyron G arner, the state o f Texas What Happened? - When p olice got a w eapons disturbance report, policeentered Lawrence’s apartment to find him a nd G arner engaging i n a p rivate, sexual act.Because of a T exas a nti-gay l aw, t hey w ere a rrested and convicted of d eviate sexualintercourse. When w as i t d ecided? - June 2 6, 2003 Where did the i ssue occur? - John Lawrence’s A partmentCONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION: “Do t he c riminal c onvictions o f J ohn L awrence andTyron G arner under the T exas \"Homosexual C onduct\" law, w hich c riminalizes s exualintimacy by s ame-sex c ouples, b ut n ot identical b ehavior b y different-sex couples,violate the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of e qual p rotection o f l aws? Do t heircriminal c onvictions for a dult c onsensual s exual i ntimacy in the home v iolate their vitalinterests i n l iberty a nd privacy p rotected by the Due P rocess Clause o f the FourteenthAmendment? S hould Bowers v. H ardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), be o verruled?”State appellate c ourtDECISION: 6 - 3 in favor o f Lawrence The C ourt ruled that “ their right t o l iberty under the Due P rocess C lause g ivesthem the f ull r ight t o engage i n their c onduct w ithout intervention o f the government”.HOW D OES IT A FFECT MODERN DAY LIFE?: Policy making w as changed b ecause s amesex i nteraction was now tolerated i n T exas.MY T HOUGHTS: If I w ere t o have b een o n t he c ourt when thiscase came before it, I would h ave s ided w ithLawrence because I t hink that everyone s hould beable t o practice their o wn sexual p reference freelyas long as i t’s private a nd consensual. 19
19. Korematsu v. United States 1944THE BASICS: Who was i nvolved? - F red Korematsu, United S tates What Happened? - In W WII, Executive order 9066 a llowed the military to e xcludeJapanese a ncestral c itizens from areas t hat were f ound t o be critical to national d efenseand p ossibly vulnerable t o e spionage. K orematsu b roke t his O rder b y staying i nCalifornia. When w as i t decided? - December 1 8, 1 944 Where did the i ssue occur? - S an Leandro, CaliforniaCONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION: “Did the President a nd C ongress g o beyond their w arpowers b y implementing exclusion and r estricting the rights o f A mericans of Japanesedescent?”DECISION: 6 - 3 in favor of United S tates The decision was lawful because it was a t ime o f w ar, and the need for p rotectionwas m ore i mportant than Korematsu’s r ights. It was justified during t imes o f “ emergencyand p eril”.HOW D OES IT AFFECT MODERN DAY L IFE?: It s hows the government's f ull p ower and w hat they could p otentially d o i f theyneeded t o do it.MY THOUGHTS: If I were to havebeen on the court whenthis c ase c ame before it,I w ould h ave s ided withthe U S becausealthough it may n ot bepretty, s ometimescontroversial m oves l ike 20
that are the o nes t hat m ust be made to k eep o ur country s afe. 20. Reed v . Reed 1971THE B ASICS: Who w as i nvolved? - S ally Reed, C ecil Reed What H appened? - After their s on died, t hey both w anted all of h is s tuff l ikecaring parents d o. I daho law says t hat t he male t akes p riority o ver the f emale, s o Sallychallenged t his. When was i t d ecided? - November 22, 1 971 Where did the i ssue occur? - Former Ada County CourthouseCONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION: “Did the I daho P robate Code v iolate the E qualProtection Clause of t he F ourteenth Amendment?”Idaho Supreme CourtDECISION: Unanimous decision in favor o f S ally R eed The laws unequal treatment o f men a nd w omen m akes i t unconstitutional. T ogive one sex m ore value t han the other i s forbidden by t he E qual P rotection Clause.HOW DOES I T AFFECT M ODERN D AY LIFE?: This w as a nother s tep forward f or gender e quality, p roving that t he Constitutionstates t hat all m en and w omen were created e qually.MY T HOUGHTS: If I w ere to h ave b eenon t he court w hen t his c asecame before i t, I would h avesided w ith Sally b ecause aman s houldn't h ave an u nfairadvantage o ver a w omanbecause o f his sex. 21
21. Miller v . Johnson 1995THE B ASICS: Who w as involved? - What H appened? - People b elieved t hat Georgia created a r edistricting p lanbased on r acial considerations. Most of the r epresentatives were white and t he EleventhDistrict w as redrawn in order to produce three m ajority-black d istricts. When was i t d ecided? - June 29, 1995 Where d id the issue occur? - G eorgia G eneral AssemblyCONSTITUTIONAL Q UESTION: “Is r acial gerrymandering of the c ongressionalredistricting p rocess a violation o f t he E qual P rotection C lause?”DECISION: 5 - 4 in f avor of Miller Yes, there are s ometimes reapportionment plans t hat a re s o r andomly drawn thatthe o nly p ossible way it could be drawn like t hat i s to segregate voters b ased o n r ace.HOW D OES I T A FFECT M ODERN DAY L IFE?: Gerrymandering i s still a v ery b ig p roblem t oday, a nd it i s s till being addressed.MY T HOUGHTS: If I were t o h ave been on t he c ourt when t his c ase c ame b efore it, I w ould h avesided w ith Miller because p ersonally f or m e looking at t he s hapes of some d istricts isvery e nraging. W hen I look at some of t he ludicrous shapes that t hey m ake, I h ave t ocount to ten because i t gets m e s o frustrated. G errymandering i s ridiculous and I amsurprised it is s till a llowed t o an extent. 22
22. Jones v . Mayer 1968THE BASICS: Who was involved? - What Happened? - J ones (black) s aid that a r eal estate company ( Myer) r efusedto sell him a home i n a c ertain a rea b ecause o f his s kin c olor. When was i t decided? - June 1 7, 1968 Where did the issue occur? - Alfred Realty C ompanyCONSTITUTIONAL Q UESTION: “Did t he defendant violate 42 U .S.C. S ection 1 982which g uarantees e qual r ights to all citizens m aking real estate transactions?”United S tates Court o f Appeals f or t he Eighth C ircuitDECISION: 7 - 2 in favor o f J ones Section 1982 o f t he c ongressional a ct was m ade to p rohibit a ll discriminationagainst b lacks i n the sale a nd r ental of property.HOW D OES I T AFFECT M ODERN DAY L IFE?: Today, a nyone c an buy or r ent property, a s l ong as you h ave e nough m oney a ndyou are a person who is g ood w ith the company.MY THOUGHTS: If I w ere t o h ave b eenon t he court w hen t his c asecame before i t, I would h avesided with Jones becausethe real e state companyshould not be a llowed torefuse to sell h im a h ousejust because of h is skincolor. 23
23. University of California v. Bakke 1978THE BASICS: Who w as involved? - Regents of t he University of California, Allan Bakke What H appened? - A llan Bakke, a 3 5yo white m an, w as r ejected f rom g oing tothe University of C alifornia twice. T he u niversity r eserved 16 s pots i n e ach c lass f or“qualified” minorities in order t o e ven o ut c lasses better. Bakke’s q ualificationsexceeded most o f t he minority s tudents, but still wasn’t a dmitted i n j ust because he w aswhite. When w as i t decided? - J une 2 6, 1978 Where d id t he i ssue occur? - University of C alifornia at DavisCONSTITUTIONAL Q UESTION: “Did the University o f C alifornia violate t he FourteenthAmendment's e qual protection clause, a nd t he Civil R ights A ct of 1964, by p racticing anaffirmative action policy t hat r esulted in t he r epeated rejection of B akke's application foradmission to its m edical s chool?”Supreme court o f C aliforniaDECISION: 8 - 1 i n favor o f B akke No and Y es. A ny racially based g overnmental system v iolated the Civil RightsAct o f 1 964, but also r ace was p ermissible a s o ne o f the several a dmission c riteria.HOW D OES IT A FFECT M ODERN DAY LIFE?: This court c ase s eems d ated to us n ow, with a n issue l ike this b eing a d ay t o d aything in t oday's society.MY THOUGHTS: If I w ere to have b een o n t hecourt when t his case came b efore i t, Iwould h ave sided with t he U niversity ofCalifornia b ecause i t is crucial forsociety t o e ncourage a ll r aces tobecome i nvolved and grow. 24
24. Brown v. Board of E ducation 1955THE B ASICS: Who was i nvolved? - Oliver B rown, Board o f Education of T opeka What Happened? - After racial discrimination i n p ublic education w as f ound t o b eunconstitutional, t he court wanted to find t he d irectives t o h elp i mplement its newlyfounded constitutional p rinciple. “ The court requested f urther argument o n t he i ssue o frelief”. When was it d ecided? - M ay 31, 1955 Where d id t he issue o ccur? - Board of E ducationCONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION: “ What means should be used t o i mplement theprinciples a nnounced i n B rown I?”DECISION: Unanimous d ecision in f avor of Brown e t al. The c ourt d ecided t hat t he problems f ounded i n B rown I n eeded various localsolutions. T hey said that l ocal s chool a uthorities m ust act p romptly a nd move towardsfull c ompliance “with a ll deliberate s peed”HOW DOES I T AFFECT M ODERN DAY LIFE?: This c ourt c ase helped a pply non-segregated s chools a nd helped make t hem areality.MY THOUGHTS: If I w ere to have been on thecourt w hen t his case came before it, Iwould have s ided w ith B rownbecause if all schools a re equal t henthere is no reason why they should b eseparate. It was time for w hiteschools t o grow u p and live i n u nison. 25
Works C ited● https://www.oyez.org/● https://www.wikipedia.org/● www.uscourts.gov/● https://images.google.com/ 26
Search
Read the Text Version
- 1 - 27
Pages:
