Download You be the Judge: Major Supreme Court Cases Miranda v. Arizona

You be the Judge: Major Supreme Court Cases
Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
Does the police practice of interrogating individuals without notifying them of their right to
counsel and their protection against self-incrimination violate the Fifth Amendment?
Miranda was arrested at his home and taken in custody to a police station where he was
identified by the complaining witness. He was then interrogated by two police officers for two
hours, which resulted in a signed, written confession. At trial, the oral and written confessions
were presented to the jury. Miranda was found guilty of kidnapping and rape and was sentenced
to 20-30 years imprisonment on each count. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Arizona held that
Miranda’s constitutional rights were not violated in obtaining the confession, however police
procedures were forever changed, requiring suspects be read their rights or “Mirandized.”
Roe v. Wade (1973)
Does the Constitution embrace a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy by abortion?
At the time Roe was decided, most states severely restricted or banned the practice of abortion.
However, these restrictions were challenged amid the sexual revolution and feminist
movements of the 1960s. In 1970, two recent graduates of the University of Texas Law School,
Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington, brought a lawsuit on behalf of a pregnant woman, Dallas
area resident Norma L. McCorvey ("Jane Roe"), claiming a Texas law criminalizing most
abortions violated Roe's constitutional rights. The Texas law banned all abortions except those
necessary to save the life of the mother. Roe claimed that while her life was not endangered, she
could not afford to travel out of state and had a right to terminate her pregnancy in a safe
medical environment. The lawsuit was filed against Henry Wade, Dallas Country District
Attorney, in a Texas federal court. The Texas court ruled that the law violated the Constitution.
Wade appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which reviewed the case throughout 1971 and 1972.
Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
May evidence obtained through a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment be admitted in a state
criminal proceeding?
The case originated in Cleveland, Ohio, when police officers forced their way into Dollree Mapp's
house without a proper search warrant. Police believed that Mapp was harboring a suspected
bomber, and demanded entry. No suspect was found, but police discovered a trunk of obscene
pictures in Mapp's basement. Mapp was arrested for possessing the pictures, and was convicted
in an Ohio court. Mapp argued that her Fourth Amendment rights had been violated by the
search, and eventually took her appeal to United States Supreme Court. At the time of the case
unlawfully seized evidence was banned from federal courts but not state courts.
Engel v. Vitale (1962)
Does the reading of a nondenominational prayer at the start of the school day violate the "establishment
of religion" clause of the First Amendment?
In 1951 the New York State Board of Regents (the State board of education) approved a 22-word
“nondenominational prayer” for recitation each morning in the public schools of New York. It
read: “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings
upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country.” The Regents believed that the prayer could
be a useful tool for the development of character and good citizenship among the students of the
State of New York. The prayer was offered to the school boards in the State for their use, and
participation in the “prayer-exercise” was voluntary. In New Hyde Park, New York, the Union
Free School District No. 9 directed the local principal to have the prayer “said aloud by each
class in the presence of a teacher at the beginning of the school day.”
Gideon v Wainwright (1963)
Does the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel in criminal cases extend to felony defendants in state
courts?
Clarence Earl Gideon was charged in Florida state court with a felony: having broken into and
entered a poolroom with the intent to commit a misdemeanor offense. When he appeared in
court without a lawyer, Gideon requested that the court appoint one for him. According to
Florida state law, however, an attorney may only be appointed to an indigent defendant in
capital cases, so the trial court did not appoint one. Gideon represented himself in trial. He was
found guilty and sentenced to five years in prison. Gideon filed a habeas corpus petition in the
Florida Supreme Court and argued that the trial court's decision violated his constitutional right
to be represented by counsel.
Schenk v. United States (1919)
Are Schenck's actions (words, expression) protected by the free speech of the 1st Amendment?
The case involved a prominent socialist, Charles Schenck, who attempted to distribute
thousands of flyers to American servicemen recently drafted to fight in World War I. Schenck's
flyers asserted that the draft amounted to "involuntary servitude" prohibited by the
Constitution's Thirteenth Amendment (outlawing slavery) and that the war itself was motivated
by capitalist greed, and urged draftees to petition for repeal of the draft. Schenck was charged by
the U.S. government with violating the recently enacted Espionage Act. The government alleged
that Schenck violated the act by conspiring "to cause insubordination ... in the military and
naval forces of the United States." Schenck responded that the Espionage Act violated the First
Amendment of the Constitution, which forbids Congress from making any law abridging the
freedom of speech.
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954)
Does the segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race deprive the
minority children of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the 14th Amendment?
In 1954, large portions of the United States had racially segregated schools, made legal by Plessy
v. Ferguson (1896), which held that segregated public facilities were constitutional so long as the
black and white facilities were equal to each other. However, by the mid-twentieth century, civil
rights groups set up legal and political, challenges to racial segregation. In the early 1950s,
NAACP lawyers brought class action lawsuits on behalf of black schoolchildren and their
families in Kansas, South Carolina, Virginia, and Delaware, seeking court orders to compel
school districts to let black students attend white public schools.
One of these class actions, Brown v. Board of Education was filed against the Topeka, Kansas
school board by representative-plaintiff Oliver Brown, parent of one of the children denied
access to Topeka's white schools. Brown claimed that Topeka's racial segregation violated the
Constitution's Equal Protection Clause because the city's black and white schools were not equal
to each other and never could be. The federal district court dismissed his claim, ruling that the
segregated public schools were "substantially" equal enough to be constitutional under the
Plessy doctrine. Brown appealed to the Supreme Court, which consolidated and then reviewed
all the school segregation actions together. Thurgood Marshall, who would in 1967 be appointed
the first black justice of the Court, was chief counsel for the plaintiffs.
Texas v. Johnson (1989)
Is the desecration of an American flag, by burning or otherwise, a form of speech that is protected under
the First Amendment?
Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag outside of the convention center where the 1984
Republican National Convention was being held in Dallas, Texas. Johnson burned the flag to
protest the policies of President Ronald Reagan. He was arrested and charged with violating a
Texas statute that prevented the desecration of a venerated object, including the American flag,
if such action were likely to incite anger in others. A Texas court tried and convicted Johnson.
He appealed, arguing that his actions were "symbolic speech" protected by the First
Amendment. The Supreme Court agreed to hear his case.
Sources:
http://www.infoplease.com/
https://www.oyez.org/
http://www.uscourts.gov/
Fisher v. University of Texas (2016)
Does the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment permit the consideration of race in
undergraduate admissions decisions?
In 1997, the Texas legislature enacted a law requiring the University of Texas to admit all high
school seniors who ranked in the top ten percent of their high school classes. After finding
differences between the racial and ethnic makeup of the university's undergraduate population
and the state's population, the University of Texas decided to modify its race-neutral admissions
policy. The new policy continued to admit all in-state students who graduated in the top ten
percent of their high school classes. For the remainder of the in-state freshman class the
university would consider race as a factor in admission.
Abigail N. Fisher, a Caucasian female, applied for undergraduate admission to the University of
Texas in 2008. Fisher was not in the top ten percent of her class, so she competed for admission
with other non-top ten percent in-state applicants. The University of Texas denied Fisher's
application.
Fisher filed suit against the university and other related defendants, claiming that the University
of Texas' use of race as a consideration in admission decisions was in violation of the equal
protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and a violation of42 U.S.C. Section 1983. The
university argued that its use of race was a narrowly tailored means of pursuing greater
diversity.
4
3
2
1
The student clearly
identifies what
amendment they used
and explains their ruling
with a logical argument
as to why their ruling
upholds the Bill of
Rights. The argument
provides details and
acknowledges another
point of view about the
case.
The student clearly
identifies what
amendment they used
and explains their ruling
with a logical argument
as to why their ruling
upholds the Bill of
Rights. The argument
lacks detail and fails to
acknowledge another
point of view about the
case.
The student clearly
identifies what
amendment they used
and explains their ruling
, they provide an
argument as to why
their ruling agrees with
the amendment , but
the argument is
unserious or doesn’t
make sense,
The student makes an
unclear ruling, uses an
incorrect amendment
or makes no argument.