Gov Book

Court v. Case Keyanna Safforld

table of contents Barron v. Baltimore p. 1-2 Gitlow v. New York p. 3 Lemon v. Kurtzman p. 4-5 p. 6 Engel v. Vitale  Schenck v. US p. 7 Miller v. California p. 8-9 Texas v. Johnson  p. 10-11 NAACP v. Alabama p. 12 D.C v. Heller p. 13-14 Mapp v. Ohio  p. 15 Miranda v. Arizona p. 16 Griswold v. CT p. 17-18 Plessy v. Ferguson p. 19-20 Brown v. Board of ED Smith v. Allwright p. 21 Korematsu v. U.S p. 22 Craig v. Boren p. 23-24 Bowers v. Hardwick p. 25 Lawrence v. Texas p. 26Regents of UC v. Bakke p. 27 Grutter v. Bollinger p. 28 p. 29United Steelwork v. Weber p. 30 p. 31 Reed v. Reed p. 32 Harper v. Va Board 

barron v. Baltimore John Barron sued the city of Baltimore in Maryland after a new water flow adjustment law passed which resulted in his water being cut off to his property. A nearby construction site caused the fluctuation of water flow. Mr. Barron owned a business on the Baltimore Harbor and due to the lack of water, his boats were unable to dock. As a result, his boats were damaged and his business was affected. The district courts gave Barron $4,500 for the damages. The city of Baltimore appealed but an appellate court reserved it. Barron petitioned the U.S Supreme Court and the review of the case was granted. Do state and national governments have the right to interfere with private property without notifying the owner?  Is this a violation of Barron's 5thamendment rights? (5th Amendment: private property should not be taken for public use without just compensation) Majority Opinion: The Bill of Rights were designed to regulate abuses by the federal government, not the state governments. Due to this, Barron cannot say his 5th Amendment rights were being violated by the state government because it only restricts the federal government. In a unanimous decision for the mayor of Baltimore, the court ruled that the limitations of government stated by the 5th Amendment are targeted 1specifically at the federal government.   

barron v. Baltimore This case does not have much of an impact today because the decision ruled that the Bill of Rights restricts the federal government which was the main intent of the adoption of them.  If I were on the court, I would have ruled in favor of Barron because I feel like the Bill of Rights should restrict not only the federal government but the state governments too. I believe Barron's 5th Amendment right was violated because the stategovernment should not have the right to take private property for public use without compensating the owner.  2

Gitlow v. New York A socialist named Benjamin Gitlow did not agree with how the United States governed its people so he published papers about how bad the government was. Gitlow was convicted of violating legislation which outlawed anti-government speech and then claimed that the state of New York was violating his 1st and 14th amendment rights. The lower courts ruled that the New York statute is constitutional.Is punishing someone of anti-government speech a violation of the 1st Amendment? (1st Amendment: freedom of speech) Majority Opinion: This New York statute is not unreasonable and is within the state's power to keep peace within the state and regulate threatening speech.  Dissent: The only way a state can prohibit speech is if it presents a clear danger to the public.  Supreme Court ruled with the lower courts that the statute is constitutional.  This case has an impact today because it was the \"First Amendment protection of speech first incorporated to states.\" Thus, it is a significant case to learn. I agree with the ruling of the Supreme Court. In order to keep the peace, states should be able to prohibit threatening speech.   3

Lemon v. Kurtzman The state of Pennslyvania passed a law that allowed a local government to use money to fund religious-based educational programs. A Pennslyvania instructor named Alton Lemon claimed that this law violated the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment which does not allow the establishment of state laws interfering with religious matters. Lemon filed this case against David Kurtzman, an acting Superintendent of the Department of Public Instruction in PA. The lower courts ruled that this law violated the 1st Amendment. Is the government's direct funding of religious practices a violation of the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment? Majority Opinion: The funding favors one religion over another which is prohibited by the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment. There is an \"excessive entanglement\" of the State in religious affairs. Dissent: Withholding assistance to religious practices is a violation of the free exercise clause. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Lemon that the state law was a violation of the 1st Amendment and funding should have a secular legislative purpose and should neither advance or inhibit religion. 4

Lemon v. Kurtzman This case has a big impact today because it clearly states what type of funding from the government is constitutional pertaining to religion. I agree with the ruling of the Supreme Court. I believe that fundingshould have a secular legislative purpose so the government does not interfere with religion.  5

Engel v. vitale A New York law required public schools to start their day with the pledge of allegiance and a prayer to show their dependence on God. A parent sued the school arguing that this was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment. The Court of Appeals ruled that this was not a violation of the 1st Amendment.  Is school-sponsored prayer in public schools a violation of the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment? (Establishment Clause:Congress shall make no law respecting to the establishment of religion.) Majority Opinion: Argued that the school-sponsored prayer violates the Establishment Clause and that any public promotion of religion also violates it.  Dissent: Argued that the Establishment Clause was only meant to prohibit the establishment of a school- sponsored church. The Supreme Court ruled that school-sponsored prayer in public schools violates the Establishment Clause. This case has a great impact today because public schools know that school-sponsored prayer is unconstitutional. I agree with the ruling of the Supreme Court because I believepublic schools should not be able to lead prayer due to the factthat everyone has different religious beliefs.  6

Schneck v. US A general secretary of the U.S Socialist party named Charles Schneck opposed the military draft and printed thousands of papers telling men to resist military service. He was arrested for violating the Espionage Act. (made the use of abusive language about the government a federal offense) The district court believed he violated the Act. Schneck was convicted on three counts and sentenced 10 years in prison for each count. Are Schneck's actions protected under the 1st Amendment? (free speech clause) Majority Opinion: Schneck is not protected under the free speech clause. He created a \"clear and present danger.\"  The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of the United States.    This case has an impact today 7 because it states that free speech isprotected under the 1st Amendmentunless it creates a \"clear and present danger.\" I agree with the Supreme Court's ruling because Shneck should not force men to oppose military service. Everyone should be able to choose for themselves. 

Miller v. California A man named Marvin Miller was an owner of a business that was known to be sexual in nature. He began to send advertising campaigns to many citizens of California that didn't even request them. When one was sent to a mother and a child, the mother filed a complaint to the police department. Miller was found guilty for distributing material that was not suitable for the public. After he was arrested, he claimed that his 1st Amendment right to express himself freely was being violated. Lower courts remanded for further proceedings.  Is the distribution of obscene material protected by the 1st Amendment? (freedom of speech) Majority Opinion:  There are basic guidelines for determining if material is obscene. Material is obscene if it appeals to the prurient interest of sex, shows sexual conduct and lacks artistic, political, scientific value.  Dissent:  It is not right to send people to jail for something that is unclear. (argues that what is obscene is or not is unclear. 8

Miller v. California This case has a great impact today because it gave some basic guidelines to figure out if material is obscene or not. Thus, if a similar case happened, they would know to reference this case to figure it out.  I agree with the ruling of the Supreme Court because Miller shouldnot be able to send obscene material to homes that do not request it.  9

Texas v. Johnson In Dallas, Texas there was a Republican National Convention going on. Outside of the convention, Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag to protest the policies of Ronald Reagan. He was arrested and charged for this but Johnson argued that this was a violation of symbolic speech rights protected by the 1st Amendment. In the Texas Court of Appeals, it held that the statue was a violation of the 1st Amendment.  Did Texas violate Johnson's 1st Amendment rights? (Freedom of speech/expression) Majority Opinion:  The 1st Amendment was made to protect unpopular speech and expression. Johnson burned the flag to express himself in an unpopular way. The 1st and 14th Amendments protect Johnson's actions.  Dissent: Flag burning should not be protected under the 1st Amendment. There are other ways for Johnson to express his feelings about the government. Burning a flag has no more protection under the 1st Amendment than \"violent words\" do.  The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Johnson stating that him burning a flag was symbolic speech protected under the 1st Amendment.  10

Texas v. Johnson This case has a big impact today because the decision ruled that the burning of the American flag is symbolic speech protected under the 1st Amendment. The American flag is a symbol of our country to this day and is important to many people. I agree with the ruling of the Supreme Court. People should have the right to do what they please to express themselves if it does not physically hurt anyone by any means.  11

NAACP v. Alabama The state of Alabama demanded a list of members from the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People based on their foreign corporation law to stop the advancement of the association. (NAACP) The NAACP gave Alabama some data but not the list of members. The trial court imposed a $100,000 fine on the NAACP. Is it constitutional for Alabama to require the NAACP to send in a member list? Does it violate the right to assemble under the 1st Amendment? Majority Opinion:  Alabama requiring a list of members from the NAACP violates its right to assemble under the 1st Amendment.   The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of the NAACP stating that the requirement to send in a member list is unconstitutional. This case has a great impact today because associations are able toassemble without demands from their state. I agree with the rulingof the Supreme Court because associations should never beunfairly treated. They should be able to advance and do what theyplease as the right to assemble states.  12

DC v. HELLER A District of Columbia police officer named Dick Heller was authorized to carry a handgun on duty but when he applied for a personal 1-year handgun license, his application was denied. Heller sued D.C. because he felt his 2nd Amendment rights were being violated. The D.C. Court of Appeals stated that Heller's rights were being violated. Does the D.C. rule violate Heller's 2nd Amendment rights? (the right to bear arms)Majority Opinion: The 2nd Amendment protects the rightto bear arms and extends the traditional meaning ofmilitias. Individuals should be allowed to bear arms forself-defense for their family and property. They should alsobe allowed to register guns and receive licenses forpersonal use. Dissent: The 2nd Amendment is extended only to themilitia which was the original intent. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Heller stating that hehas the right to register guns and receive licenses forpersonal use. 13

DC v. HELLERThis case has a great impact today because it allows people to registerguns for personal use. I agree with the Supreme Court's ruling because I believe people should have the right to bear arms as the U.S Constitution states under the 2nd Amendment. Heller has the right to own a gun for personal use with proper registration.  14

mapp v. Ohio Dollree Mapp's home was being searched for a fugitive. The police officers did not find a fugitive but they did find obscene material. This material was found illegally because the police did not have a search warrant. Mapp demanded a search warrant and the lower courts ruled that the evidence obtained is not admissoible in court. Is the evidence obtained a violation of the 4th Amendment? (random search and seizures) Majority Opinion: All evidence obtained by illegal search and seizures is inadmissible. Thus, Mapp cannot be charged for the obscene material because it was illegally obtained.  The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mapp stating that evidence obtained illegally cannot be used against someone because it violates the 4th Amendment. This case has a great impact today because it makes police officers aware that they have to have a search warrant to use evidence obtained. I agree with the Supreme Court's ruling because it is not fair for the accused to have illegally obtained evidence used against them.  15

miranda v. Arizona Ernesto Miranda was arrested and brought to a local police station to be questioned about a kidnapping and rape case. After hours of interrogation, Miranda confessed to the crimes. Miranda was found guilty and was never read his 5th Amendment rights. The Court of Appeals ruled that Miranda's rights were not violated because he did not request to counsel.   Were Miranda's right violated under the 5th Amendment? Majority Opinion: The government needs to inform those convicted of their 5th Amendment rights. If they are not informed of these rights, the information obtained in the interrogation is not admissible in court. Dissent: The 5th Amendment against self-incrimination was never intended to forbid any pressures against self- incrimination.   The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Miranda stating that those convicted must be read their 5th Amendment rights.  This case has a great impact today because those convicted must be read their \"Miranda rights\" also known as their 5th Amendment rights. I agree with the Supreme Court's ruling because it is important for people to know their 5th Amendment rights when they are convicted of a crime.  16

Griswold v. CT Estelle Griswold, the Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut and licensed physician were arrested for giving medical advice to married couples about preventing conception. Griswold argued that this arrest violated her 14th Amendment rights. The lower courts upheld the convictions and then Estelle appealed to the Supreme Court. Does the Constitution protect martial privacy rights? Does it violate her 14th Amendment rights? (right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) Majority Opinion: The right to marital privacy is such a basic and fundamental right that should not be infringed upon.  Dissent: This is not a violation of Griswold's rights because it is not unconstitutional to prevent this advice.   The Supreme Court overturned the Connecticut's law and ruled in favor of Griswold stating that the state law violated the right to privacy within a private setting.  This case does not really have a great impact todaybecause it did not create a law or change much. Iagree with the Supreme Court's ruling becauseGriswold should have the right to give advice tomarried couples about conception.  17

Griswold v. CT 18

Plessy v. Ferguson The Louisiana Separate Car Act required that all railroads operating in the state have \"separate but equal\" accommodations for white and Africa American passengers. Homer Plessy who was 7/8th white and 1/8th African American took a seat reserved for white passengers and was forced to move. When Plessy refused to move to a passenger seat for African Americans, he was arrested and was charged with violating the Separate Car Act. In the trial court, the judge dismissed the contention that the act was unconstitutional. Does this Louisiana Act violate Plessy's 14th Amendment rights? (grant full and equal rights to African American) Majority Opinion: The Act did not conflict with the14th Amendment because the amendment wasintended to secure only the legal equality of AfricanAmericans and whites. The accommodations wereequal but just separate.Dissent:  The Act is a violation of the 14thAmendment because it should allow AfricanAmericans \"full and equal rights.\" They should havea right to sit where they desire. Supreme Court ruled that the Act was notunconstitutional.  19

Plessy v. FergusonThis case does not have an impact today because now, there is no such thing as \"separate but equal\" because it was overturned byanother case. I would have ruled in favor of Plessy because he has the right to sit wherever he desires. I believe it was a violation ofhis 14th Amendment rights to try and make him change his seat.  20

brown v. board of ed In Topeka, Kansas Oliver Brown and various other black students were denied admission to schools that white students attended. The children sued and argued that their 14th Amendment rights were being violated under the Equal Protection Clause. The trial court ruled that the segregation was harmful to black students.   Do \"separate but equal\" laws deprive black children of their education? Does it violate their Equal Protection Clause under the 14th Amendment? Majority Opinion: The separate but equal facilities are inherently unequal and violate the 14th Amendment. Segregation based on race creates a sense of inferiority.  Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of Brown stating that separate but equal facilities are unequal.  This case has a huge impact 21 today because now everyone ofany race can use any facility that they want to. I agree with the Supreme Court's ruling because people should have an equalopportunity to attend any school they see fit.

smith v. allwright Lonnie Smith, a dentist living in Texas was not allowed to vote in the Democratic primary elections because he was African American. Smith believed this was a violation of his 14th and 15th Amendment tights. The district courts denied Smith and the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision.  Is denying African Americans the right to vote in the primary aviolation of their 14th Amendment (equal protection of laws) and 15th Amendment (the right of citizens to vote) Majority Opinion: These restrictions against blacks were unconstitutional. This abridged Smith's right to vote which violates the 15th Amendment.  Supreme Court ruled in favor of Smith stating that not allowing him to vote in a primary because of his race violates his 15th Amendment rights. This case has a huge impact today because it made it unconstitutional to deny African Americans the right to vote in primaries. Thus, now everyone is able to vote without restrictions. I agree with the Supreme Court's ruling because I believe no one should ever be denied the right to vote because it directly violates the 15th Amendment.  22

korematsu v. us Ten weeks after the U.S entered World War 2, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed an executive order that removed people of Japanese ancestry from military areas and communities that were off-limits to them. Over 120,000 of them were relocated to detention camps. A Japanese- American citizen named Fred Korematsu did not relocate, had plastic surgery to alter his appearance, and changed his name and claimed he was of Spanish descent. He was arrested for failing to relocate and was given 5 years of probation in federal court in San Fransisco. The U.S Court of Appeals ruled that Korematsu violated military orders.Was the evacuation order constitutional? Does it violate the 14th Amendment? (equal protection) Majority Opinion: The evacuation order is constitutional and valid. Korematsu failed to relocate under an executive order. This is not the matter of the executive order itself but the fact that he refused to follow it. Dissent: The executive order is an act of racism and violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.  Supreme Court ruled that the evacuation order violated by Korematsu was valid. 23

korematsu v. usThis case does not have an impact today because it ruled that therelocation of Japanese-Americans during World War 2 is valid. I disagree with the Supreme Court's ruling. I feel like the evacuation and relocation of a race is racism and unnecessary. Although Korematsu violated the executive order, that ordershould have never been in place to begin with because I feel like it violates the 14th Amendment.  24

Craig v. boren An Oklahoma statute prohibited the sale of 3.2 percent of alcoholic beer to males under 21 but permitted the sale of beer to females over 18. Craig, a liquor vendor sued an Oklahoma state official because he felt this law violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The lower courts statistically found that men caused more accidents than females from drunk driving and that the statute would help with road safety.  Does this Oklahoma statute violate the 14th Amendment? (equal protection)Majority Opinion: The statistics do not show thatmales are more likely to drunk drive than females.Medium scrutiny for gender discrimination. Dissent: The statistical evidence justifies theOklahoma statute. Thus, it should be constitutional.  Supreme Court ruled that the statute wasunconstitutional based on the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.  I believe this case has an impact today because it established amedium scrutiny (\"In order to overcome the intermediatescrutiny test, it must be shown that the law or policy beingchallenged furthers an important government interest by meansthat are substantially related to that interest.\") for genderdiscrimination. I agree with the Supreme Court's ruling becauseI believe one gender should not have a lower drinker age thananother. 25

bowers v. hardwick Mr. Hardwick was caught violating a Georgia Sodomy law that made it illegal to engage in sexual activity with the same gender. Hardwick sued to challenge the constitutionally of the law. While the trial court rejected the claim, the Court of Appeals reversed it and held that the law violated fundamental rights because the homosexual activity is private. Does this law violate the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment? ( equal life, liberty and property) Majority Opinion: There are no constitutional practices for acts of sodomy. States have the right to outlaw those practices.  Dissent: The homosexual activity is a private practice and should be allowed.    Supreme Court ruled that the sodomy law is constitutional.  I believe this case does not have much 26 of an impact today because it waseventually overturned by another case. I disagree with the Supreme Court'sruling because I believe Hardwick hasthe right to love who he wants to love. It is his private life and a law should not regulate how he wants to live it. 

Lawrence v. texas Police entered John Lawrence's home in response to a reported weapon disturbance. When they entered the home, they saw Lawrence engaging in a sexual act with another man. Both of the men were arrested and convicted of violating a Texas statute that prohibited the same sex from engaging in sexual activity. The State Court of Appeals ruled that this statute was not unconstitutional and did not violate the 14th Amendment. Does this Texas statute violate the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment? (equal protection)Majority Opinion: Homosexuals have the fundamental right to engage in sexual activity in private. The state does not have a right to impose its own moral perspective on individuals.  Dissent: Bowers v. Hardwick ruled that the homosexuals engaging in sexual activity is unconstitutional. Thus, this case should do the sameSupreme Court ruled in favor of Lawrence stating that the statute violates his 14th Amendment rights.I believe this case has a great impact today because itallows homosexuals to engage in sexual activity in theirprivate home. I agree with the Supreme Court's rulingbecause I believe people should be able to love who theywant to love and do what they please without infringementof the government. 29

regents of the uc v. bakke A white man named Allan Bakke was applied to the University of California Medical School at Davis and was rejected both times. The school reserved 16 out of 100 slots for each class for qualified minority students. Bakke's test scores exceeded many of the other students so he argued that he was rejected solely on race. The lower courts ruled to accept Bakke. Did the University of California violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment? Majority Opinion: The racial quota system violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Protection Clause. Race could be an admission criterion but not the only deciding factor. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Bakke stating that race could be considered in admissions but racial set- asides are unconstitutional.  I believe this case has a huge 28 impact today because it ruled that in college admissions, racecan be considered but not be theonly deciding factor. Most teens apply to college after high school so this is an important case. I agree with the SupremeCourt's ruling because I believe there should not be racial set- asides for any race. 

grutter v. Bollinger A white resident of Michigan named Barbara Grutter with a 3.8 GPA applied for admission at University of Michigan's Law School and was denied. The Law School admitted that they use race as a factor in making admission decisions to achieve diversity in their student body. The District Court encouraged the school to keep doing that to achieve diversity while the Court of Appeals disagreed. Does the University of Michigan's use of racial preference violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment? Majority Opinion: Diversity is a compelling interest thatcan be used as a \"plus\" in admissions. The goal ofattaining more minority students does not turn theprogram into a racial quota.Dissent: It violates the Due Process Clause because ituses racial preferences. The Supreme Court ruled that race can be used as a\"plus\" in admissions.  This case has a great impact today because itruled that race could be used as a \"plus\" inadmissions. Many students apply for college andare encouraged to list their race. Colleges are ableto use that as a plus in admissions because of thiscase. I agree with the Supreme Court's rulingbecause I believe race can be used as a plus toincrease diversity.  29

United steelworks v. Weber The United Steelworks of America implemented a training program to increase the number of the company's skilled black workers. Weber, a white man was not able to join this program and believed this was a form of reverse discrimination. The lower courts believed the program was a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Did this company violate the Civil Rights Act of 1964? (prohibits discrimination on the basis of race) Majority Opinion: The program does not violate the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because it sought to eliminate racial segregation and discrimination in employment.  Dissent: The program violates the Civil Rights Act because it is reverse discrimination by denying a race to train in the program.  The Supreme Court ruled that the program did not violate the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  This case only decided that a specific 30program did not violate an act so it does not necessarily have an impact today. I agree with the Supreme Court's ruling because I believe it is great that the program wanted to increase thediversity of the company. It sets a greatexample for other companies and gives a great opportunity to minorities. 

Reed v. Reed For the propose of appointing administrators of estates, an Idaho Probate Code specified that males must be preferred over females. Sally and Cecil Reed were divorced and after the death of their son, they both sought to be named the administrator of their son's estate. The male (Cecil) was appointed the administrator and due to this, Sally challenged the court but the lower courts rejected this challenge.Does the Idaho Code violate the Equal Protection Law of the 14th Amendment? Majority Opinion: The Idaho Code is unconstitutional because there is an unequal treatment of women and men. It is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to give preference to a gender. The Supreme Court unanimously in favor of Sally Reed stating that there should not be a preference for one gender.  Without this case's ruling, states 31 could probably get away with a preference for one gender so thisdecision is important. I agree with the Supreme's Court ruling because there should never be a preference for one gender. It is unfair and it violates the 14th Amendment.  

harper v. Va state board of elections A resident of Virgina named Annie Harper believed that the state's poll tax was illegal. Although the District Court dismissed the case, it went straight to the Supreme Court afterward.  Does this poll tax violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment? Majority Opinion: This poll tax violates the 14th Amendment. Fee-paying has no relation to voting qualifications.  Dissent: Only the legislature, not the courts can strike down a poll tax.  The Supreme Court ruled that the poll tax violates the 14th Amendment.  This case has a great impact because there are no poll taxes today. This case ruled that poll taxes violate the 14th Amendment. I agree with the Supreme court's ruling because I believe poll taxes are very unnecessary and that people should not be taxed in order to vote.  31