Download Supreme Court Case Study - Augusta County Public Schools

Supreme Court Case Study
Vouchers for Bussing Students to Parochial Schools
Everson v. Board of Education, 1947
Background of the Case
A New Jersey law allowed local school boards to provide financial reimbursement to
parents for the cost of transporting their children to school using the public transit system.
The law included the subsidy for children attending private, Catholic schools and nearly all
of the children benefitting from the policy attended Catholic schools. Arch R. Everson
brought suit on the grounds that taxpayer funds were provided to transport children to
private, religious schools. He argued this was government financial support for religion and
was a violation of the New Jersey constitution and the First Amendment’s prohibition of
religious establishment.
Constitutional Issue
Did the New Jersey statute violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by
providing government financial support for religious education?
COURT DECISION: No. In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that because the government was
giving money to parents and not to a religious institution is was not supporting a religion. The
majority reasoned that providing transit for children was akin to providing fire and police protection for parochial schools. Transportation had nothing to do with the religious mission of the
schools.
Supreme Court Case Study
Prayer in Public School
Engel v. Vitale, 1962
Background of the Case
In the early years of public education in America, prayers in schools were an
important part of education. Since most of the students were of the same religion, there was
no question about whether a prayer was appropriate or not. As the population grew and
became more diverse, people began to question the practice. Some people wanted to end the
practice.
In 1951, the New York state government approved a short prayer that could be said at
the public schools in the state. The prayer read: “Almighty God, we acknowledge our
dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and
our Country.” School districts were not required to use the prayer, and students were not
required by law to recite it. In 1958, the New Hyde Park school district adopted the prayer
and made a rule that it be recited each day in every class. Students could be excused from
reciting it.
Steven Engel, a New Hyde Park parent of two children, objected to this practice and
asked a state court to order the schools to stop reciting the prayer. The state court refused to
prohibit the prayer. Engel then appealed his case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Constitutional Issue
The First Amendment prohibits governments from establishing a religion. Does the daily,
voluntary reciting of a prayer in school by students violate this part of the Constitution?
COURT DECISION: The Supreme Court ruled 6-1 that the prayer violated the
First Amendment’s “establishment clause” because they believed the government
was encouraging religious beliefs in students.
“When the power, prestige and financial support of government is placed behind
a particular religious belief, the indirect coercive pressure upon religious minorities to conform to the prevailing officially approved religion is plain.”
Supreme Court Case Study
State Financial Aid for Religious Instruction
Lemon v. Kurtzman, 1971
Background of the Case
In 1968 the Pennsylvania state legislature passed the Nonpublic Elementary and
Secondary Education Act. The law allowed the state Superintendent of Instruction to
provide financial reimbursement to private schools — mostly Catholic schools — to pay for
the salaries of some teachers. To be eligible, the teachers whose salaries were to be
reimbursed had to teach secular subjects using secular textbooks and materials.
This case was decided together with Earley v. DiCenso and Robinson v. DiCenso, two
Rhode Island cases that involved direct payment of salary supplements to teachers in nonpublic schools, most of which had a religious mission.
Constitutional Issue
Does making state financial aid available to religious schools violate the Establishment
Clause of the First Amendment by creating too much government support for religious activities?
COURT DECISION: Yes. This case was important in that the Court established a three-part
way to determine if an action of the government violates the Establishment Clause. This has
come to be called the “Lemon Test.”
To be constitutional, a statute:
1) must have "a secular legislative purpose"
2) must have principal effects which neither advance nor inhibit religion
3) must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion."
In Lemon, the Court decided that the financial aid for parochial schools aided the teaching of
religion, and that the "continuing state surveillance" needed to ensure the law was being
carried out properly would “entangle” the government with religious practices.
Supreme Court Case Study
Moment of Silence in Public Schools
Wallace v. Jaffree, 1985
Background of the Case
In the 1980s, after the Supreme Court had declared many forms of prayer in the
schools unconstitutional, 25 states passed so called “moment of silence laws.” States hoped
that these laws would meet the Court’s standards of constitutionality. The laws were
designed to promote a new type of school prayer. The new laws allowed schools to set aside
a moment of silence to allow students to engage in silent meditation. The intent of the laws
was to give students an opportunity to pray.
Alabama had a law that allowed a one-minute period of silence in all public schools.
The law stated that this moment was “for meditation or voluntary prayer.” Ishmael Jaffree, a
parent of three school children in Mobile County, Alabama, challenged the moment-ofsilence law. He claimed that the law violated the First Amendment prohibition against the
establishment of religion.
Constitutional Issue
Does a law which authorizes schools to establish a moment-of-silence violate the First
Amendment’s prohibition against establishing religion? Was the Alabama law, as quoted above,
unconstitutional?
COURT DECISION: The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the Alabama law was an
endorsement of religion. Schools were telling children “you should pray.” The
court believed that the Alabama law sent a message to students that the
government favored prayer.
Supreme Court Case Study
Clergy Led Prayer at Public School Graduation
Lee v. Weisman, 1992
Background of the Case
In keeping with the practice of several other public middle and high school principals
in Providence, Rhode Island, Robert E. Lee, a middle school principal, invited a rabbi to
speak at his school's graduation ceremony. Daniel Weisman's daughter, Deborah, was among
the graduates. Hoping to stop the rabbi from speaking at his daughter's graduation, Weisman
sought a temporary restraining order in District Court - but was denied. After the ceremony,
where prayers were recited, Weisman filed for a permanent injunction barring Lee and other
Providence public school officials from inviting clergy to deliver invocations and
benedictions at their schools' ceremonies. The school argued that the prayer was nonsectarian, and that participation in the prayer was voluntary: Students did not have to attend
the ceremony, and if they did attend they did not have to stand for the prayer. When the
Court of Appeals affirmed a District Court ruling against the schools, Lee appealed to the
Supreme Court.
Constitutional Issue
Does a prayer at a public school graduation, led by a clergy member (minister, rabbi, etc.),
violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?
COURT DECISION: The Court ruled 5-4 that the situation in this case creates "a
state-sponsored and state-directed religious exercise in a public school.” The
requirement that students stand silently and respectfully represented an indirect and
subtle coercion to support religion.
Supreme Court Case Study
Prayer at Public High School Football Games
Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe (2000)
Background of the Case
Prior to 1995, a student elected as Santa Fe High School's student council chaplain
delivered a prayer, described as overtly Christian, over the public address system before
each home varsity football game. One Mormon and one Catholic family filed suit
challenging this practice and others under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
The District Court enjoined the public Santa Fe Independent School District (the District)
from implementing its policy as it stood. While the suit was pending, the District adopted a
new policy, which permitted, but did not require, student-initiated and student-led prayer at
all the home games and which authorized two student elections, the first to determine
whether "invocations" should be delivered at games, and the second to select the
spokesperson to deliver them. After the students authorized such prayers and selected a
spokesperson, the District Court entered an order modifying the policy to permit only
nonsectarian, nonproselytizing prayer. The Court of Appeals held that, even as modified by
the District Court, the football prayer policy was invalid. The District petitioned for a writ of
certiorari, claiming its policy did not violate the Establishment Clause because the football
game messages were private student speech, not public speech.
Constitutional Issue
Does the Santa Fe Independent School District's policy permitting student-led, studentinitiated prayer at football games violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?
COURT DECISION: Yes. In a 6-3 decision the Court held that the District's policy
violates the Establishment Clause. The Court concluded that the football game
prayers were public speech authorized by a government policy and taking place on
government property at government-sponsored school-related events and that the
District's policy involved both perceived and actual government endorsement of
religion at school events. Such speech is not properly characterized as "private.”
In dissent, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, joined by Justices Antonin Scalia
and Clarence Thomas, noted the "disturbing" tone of the Court's opinion that
"bristle[d] with hostility to all things religious in public life."
Supreme Court Case Study
Use of school building by religious club
Good News Club v. Milford Central School (2001)
Background of the Case
The Milford Central School had policy allowing individuals and organizations in the
community to use the school facilities during non-school hours for "social, civic, and
recreational meetings and entertainment events, and other uses pertaining to the welfare of
the community, provided that such uses shall be nonexclusive and shall be opened to the
general public." The Good News Club, a Christian organization, applied to use the school
for meetings of having "a fun time of singing songs, hearing a Bible lesson and memorizing
scripture.” School officials denied the club’s application on the grounds that the club’s
activities were the equivalent of religious worship. The adult leaders of the Good News Club
filed suit in federal court.
Constitutional Issue
Since the school’s policy of offering a “limited public forum” to community groups was open
to other groups holding events in the interest of community welfare — such as Boy Scout
meetings — did the school’s concern about the Constitution’s establishment clause justify their
denying the club’s application?
COURT DECISION: No. The court ruled 6-3 that the school did not have a
legitimate concern regarding religious establishment and that the club’s free speech
rights had been violated.
Supreme Court Case Study
Free Exercise of Religion: Use of Peyote by Native Americans
Employment Division of Oregon v Smith, 1990
Background of the Case
Alfred Smith and Galen Black were both members of the Native American Church.
As part of the church’s religious ceremonies, they both ingested peyote, a natural
hallucinogen that was illegal in Oregon. They were subsequently fired from their jobs at a
private drug rehabilitation clinic. When they applied for unemployment benefits from the
state, they were denied because the reason for their termination was judged to be workrelated “misconduct.” They sued the state of Oregon, claiming that their right to free
exercise of religion included use of peyote according to Native American tradition.
Constitutional Issue
Can the state deny unemployment benefits to workers who are fired for using illegal drugs
in religious ceremonies?
COURT DECISION: Yes. The Court ruled 6-3 that the law did not discriminate
against a particular religion. The state was merely enforcing an anti-drug law that
applied to all citizens equally. Therefore, the men’s right to freely exercise their
religion was not infringed. Allowing exceptions to laws that apply to everyone,
Justice Scalia wrote in the majority opinion, "would open the prospect of
constitutionally required exemptions from civic obligations of almost every
conceivable kind."
Supreme Court Case Study
Free Exercise of Religion: Mormon practice of polygamy
Reynolds v United States, 1878
Background of the Case
George Reynolds was a secretary to Brigham Young, leader of the Mormon church.
He was convicted of bigamy in federal court and challenged his conviction. At trial,
Reynolds stated that he was a member of the Mormon church and a believer in its doctrines.
He said that it “was the duty of male members of said church, circumstances permitting, to
practise polygamy; . . . that this duty was enjoined by different books which the members of
said church believed to be of divine origin, and, among others, the Holy Bible, and also that
the members of the church believed that the practice of polygamy was directly enjoined
upon the male members thereof by the Almighty God, in a revelation to Joseph Smith, the
founder and prophet of said church; that the failing or refusing to practise polygamy by such
male members of said church, when circumstances would admit, would be punished, and
that the penalty for such failure and refusal would be damnation in the life to come."
Reynolds also stated that he “had received permission from the recognized authorities in
said church to enter into polygamous marriage.”
Constitutional Issue
Does the federal anti-bigamy statute violate the First Amendment's free exercise clause
because plural marriage is part of religious practice?
COURT DECISION: No. The Court ruled unanimously that the government can
punish criminal activity even if it is accepted by a religion. Behavior ruled to be
criminal can be regulated by the government without regard to the free-exercise
clause.
Supreme Court Case Study
The Right to Worship Freely: Animal Sacrifice
Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, Florida, 1993
Background of the Case
This case involves practices of the Santeria religion. Santeria originated among the
Yoruba people of Western Africa in the nineteenth century. When thousands of Yoruba were
brought to Cuba as slaves, their religious practices were combined with the beliefs of the
Roman Catholic church. The Cuban Santeria express their devotion to spirits called orishas
through the Catholic saints. The basis of Santeria is a personal devotion to orishas which is
expressed through animal sacrifice. Sacrifices are performed at births, marriages, cures for
the sick, and other celebrations. Animals used by Santeria include chickens, ducks, guinea
pigs, goats, and turtles. The sacrificed animal is cooked and then eaten during most
ceremonies.
The Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc., and its leader, Ernesto Pichardo, announced
plans to establish a house of worship, school, museum and cultural center in the city of
Hialeah, Florida. Residents of the city were very concerned, and the city council held an
emergency public hearing in June, 1987. City officials then began a long process of trying to
write a law against sacrificing animals as part of a religious practice. Eventually, the city
created a law which made it illegal "to unnecessarily kill, torment, torture, or mutilate an
animal in a public or private ritual or ceremony not for the primary purpose of food
consumption."
The Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc., filed suit in federal court claiming that the
city law violated their First Amendment right to worship freely. The U.S. District Court
found in favor of the city, as did the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. The case was then
appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Constitutional Issue
How far can a religion go in worshipping as they please? If the religious practices of a
group go against the moral beliefs of the community, can’t the local government pass a law
forbidding those practices? What religious practices can be outlawed?
COURT DECISION: The Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that the ordinance passed by
the Hialeah City Council was neither neutral nor generally applicable. The law
targeted specific religious practices and was therefore unconstitutional. The
government may not make the practices of one certain religion illegal.
Supreme Court Case Study
Creating a Clear and Present Danger
Schenck v. United States, 1919
Background of the Case
Charles Schenck was a member of the Socialist Party of the United States during
World War I. He wrote, published and mailed approximately 15,000 copies of a pamphlet to
prospective U.S. military draftees urging them to resist the draft. Schenk’s essay stated that
the draft is “a monstrous wrong against humanity in the interest of Wall Street’s chosen
few.” (majority opinion in Schenck v. United States). Schenck’s writings included such
phrases as: “Do not submit to intimidation,” and "If you do not assert and support your
rights, you are helping to deny or disparage rights which it is the solemn duty of all citizens
and residents of the United States to retain." Schenck condemned the cold-blooded
ruthlessness of the government, equated the draft with slavery, and challenged the power of
the federal government to send soldiers to fight in foreign lands. Schenck did not promote
actions beyond civil disobedience and the changing of federal laws.
Schenck was prosecuted under the Espionage Act of 1917 for attempting to cause
insubordination within the military. He appealed to the Supreme Court claiming that his
First Amendment rights had been violated.
Constitutional Issue
Did the First Amendment protect Schenck’s right to free expression? Can the government
punish someone for this behavior?
COURT DECISION: The Supreme Court upheld Schenck’s conviction in a 9-0 ruling. "The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that
they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."
Supreme Court Case Study
First Amendment Rights for Ku Klux Klan leaders
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 1969
Background of the Case
Charles Brandenburg was the leader of a local Ku Klux Klan group in Ohio. He was
convicted under an Ohio state law which made it illegal to advocate (speak in support of)
terrorism. During his trial, the prosecutor presented two films that a news reporter had taken
at one of the Klan gatherings at Brandenburg’s request. The first film showed twelve hooded
men, some of whom carried guns, standing around a burning cross. Most of what the men
said could not be heard, but a few scattered phrases could be understood to be insulting
toward blacks and Jews. The same film showed Brandenburg making a speech to the group.
During the speech, Brandenburg suggested that if the President and Congress continued to
“suppress the white race, it’s possible that there might have to be some revengence taken.”
A second film showed Brandenburg delivering the same type of speech to five hooded
men, some of whom carried guns. During this speech, Brandenburg stated that he believed
blacks should be sent back to Africa and Jews to Israel.
Brandenburg was convicted in an Ohio trial court, and the case was eventually
appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Constitutional Issue
Charles Brandenburg was a racist whose beliefs would be considered extremely offensive
to certain people. He also made threatening statements in his speech, although he was not
specific in his threats. Should the speech of Charles Brandenburg be protected by the First
Amendment?
COURT DECISION: The Supreme Court ruled that Brandenberg’s speech, while
offensive, was not likely to lead to immediate lawless action and was therefore
NOT a “clear and present danger.”
Supreme Court Case Study
“Fighting” Words
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 1942
Background of the Case
Walter Chaplinsky was a Jehovah’s Witness who was distributing religious literature
for his sect on a street corner in Rochester, New Hampshire on a busy Saturday afternoon.
Several citizens complained to the city marshal that Chaplinsky was speaking out against all
religion, denouncing it as a “racket.” The marshal supported Chaplinsky’s right to free
expression but warned him that the crowd of people was growing restless. A short time later,
a traffic officer noticed a public disturbance and “escorted” Chaplinsky toward the police
station without arresting him. On the way they encountered the city marshal. Chaplinsky
then publically confronted the marshal, saying: “You are a God damned racketeer” and “a
damned Fascist and the whole government of Rochester are Fascists or agents of Fascists.”
Chaplinsky was then arrested under a New Hampshire law which prohibited "any
offensive, derisive or annoying word to any other person who is lawfully in any street or
other public place," or "call him by any offensive or derisive name."
Constitutional Issue
Does the New Hampshire law prohibiting a person from using offensive language toward
another in a public place violate the First Amendment’s protection of free speech?
COURT DECISION: Some forms of expression--among them obscenity and
fighting words--do not convey ideas and thus are not subject to First Amendment
protection. In this case, Chaplinsky uttered fighting words, i.e., words that "inflict
injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace."
Supreme Court Case Study
Flag Desecration (Can Flag Burning Be Made Illegal?)
Texas v. Johnson, 1989
Background of the Case
Gregory Lee Johnson, a member of the American Communist Youth Party,
participated in a protest at the 1984 Republican National Convention. The purpose of the
protest was to speak out against President Reagan’s policies. As they marched to the
convention hall, some of Johnson’s fellows bent a flagpole outside a bank and removed the
American flag. They handed the flag to Johnson, who placed it under his shirt until the
march reached its destination.
At the convention site, Johnson removed the flag from under his shirt and attempted
to ignite it. When the flag would not light, he doused it with kerosene and set it on fire.
While the flag burned, protesters chanted: “Red, white and blue, we spit on you!”
Johnson was arrested under a Texas law that made it illegal to desecrate (treat with
extreme disrespect) the American flag. The purpose of the law was to prevent a “breach of
peace” such as a riot that could result from the public desecration of the flag. He was
sentenced to one year in jail and fined $2,000. The Texas appeals court overturned the
conviction, and the state of Texas appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Constitutional Issue
The American flag is a special symbol in our nation. It represents many things: democracy,
the veterans who have died in wars, our unity. Many people believe that the flag deserves to be
protected by law. Mr. Johnson believed that he was expressing his political beliefs through a
special type of protest, and that nobody was harmed by his actions. Should the First Amendment
protect people who hate this country and express such beliefs? Should the expression of certain
beliefs be against the law? Should there be a law specifically to protect the American flag?
COURT DECISION: The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the Texas law forbidding
flag burning was unconstitutional because the law made it a crime to express
certain political views.
Supreme Court Case Study
Right of Students to Express Political Opinions
Tinker v. DesMoines School District, 1969
Background of the Case
John and Mary Beth Tinker, as well as several other students, objected to American
involvement in the Vietnam War. As a way of showing their objection, they planned to wear
black armbands to school. When school officials learned of the planned protest, they quickly
adopted a “no armband” rule, although they allowed students to wear other symbols. The
Tinkers came to school with the armbands on and were immediately suspended for violating
a school policy. They sued the school district claiming that their First Amendment rights had
been violated.
Constitutional Issue
Can school officials prohibit the expression of certain beliefs if the method of expression
does not disrupt school activities or interfere with the rights of other students? Should students be
allowed to discuss controversial topics at school? Does the First Amendment protect a student’s
right to voice his or her opinion about important issues facing the country?
COURT DECISION: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Tinker children.
The Court stated that “students [at school] are entitled to freedom of expression
of their views.”
“When a student is in the classroom, cafeteria, the playing field, or on campus
during authorized hours, he may express his opinions, even on controversial subjects like the conflict in Vietnam, if he does so without materially and substantially interfering with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation
of the school and without colliding with the rights of others.”
Majority opinion of the Supreme Court, Tinker vs. DesMoines
Supreme Court Case Study
Rights of Students to Free Speech
Bethel School District v. Fraser, 1986
Background of the Case
Matthew Fraser, a student at Bethel High School in Pierce County, Washington, gave
a speech to a school assembly prior to the election of class officers. The purpose of Fraser’s
speech was to nominate and support one of his friends for the position of vice-president of
the student council. About 600 students were in voluntary attendance at the assembly.
Students who did not attend the assembly reported to study hall.
Fraser had written a very clever nominating speech. While not actually using any
profane words, the speech contained an “elaborate, graphic, explicit sexual metaphor.” He
had shown the speech in advance to two of his teachers. Both warned him that the speech
was “inappropriate” and that he “probably should not deliver it.”
Fraser ignored the advice of the teachers and gave his speech, complete with body
motions to demonstrate the “metaphor.” The speech disrupted the assembly. Students
“hooted and yelled.” Others seemed to be embarrassed. The principal suspended Fraser for
three days, and removed his name from a list of possible graduation speakers.
A Bethel High School rule prohibited conduct that “materially and substantially
interferes with the educational process...including the use of obscene, profane language or
gestures.” Fraser sued the school district claiming that he had a First Amendment right to
give the speech.
Constitutional Issue
If Fraser was an adult giving his speech in the “real world,” he would have offended people
but he would not have been punished by the government. Do students in school have less freedom
of speech than adults in the outside world? Does the First Amendment’s protection of free speech
mean that school officials cannot limit obscene and vulgar speech in school?
COURT DECISION:The Court ruled 7-2 that the school has the authority to prohibit offensive speech at a school assembly. The Court stated that while students
have a right to express their views, schools have a duty to teach students socially
responsible behavior.
Supreme Court Case Study
Rights of Students to Free Speech
Morse v. Frederick, 2007
Background of the Case
In January 2002, the Olympic Torch Relay passed through Juneau, Alaska, right in
front of Juneau-Douglas High School. As part of an official school event, students were
allowed to leave classes and go out to the road to watch the torch relay pass by. Joseph
Frederick, an 18-year-old senior at JDHS, had not yet entered school that day. He arrived for
the parade and stayed across the street from the school with some friends. When the torch
arrived, with TV cameras rolling, Frederick and his friends unfurled a large banner that read
“Bong Hits 4 Jesus.” The principal, Deborah Morse, ran across the street and seized the
banner. Morse suspended Frederick for five days for violating the school’s anti-drug policy.
Frederick filed suit in federal district court, but the court dismissed the case citing the
precedents of Fraser and Tinker. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the
decision. The Juneau school board then appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Constitutional Issue
Did the message on the banner promote drug use? Can students promote the use of
illegal drugs at school-supervised events? Did the principal have authority over Joseph Frederick
at the time of his actions?
COURT DECISION: The Court ruled 5-4 against Frederick. The Court decided
that “Bong Hits 4 Jesus,” while “cryptic,” was a pro-drug message the equivalent
"[Take] bong hits" or "bong hits [are a good thing]." and that schools can censor
messages promoting drug use. The Court affirmed the principle that students in
school do not have the same free-speech rights as adults outside of school.
Supreme Court Case Study
Government’s Power to Control Obscene Materials
Miller v. California, 1973
Background of the Case
Marvin Miller was one of the West Coast’s biggest sellers of sexually-explicit materials by
mail-order. He conducted large-scale mailings of advertisements for his pornographic books
and magazines. He was found guilty in a California state court on a misdemeanor charge of
knowingly distributing obscene material.
Constitutional Issue
Is the sale and distribution of obscene materials by mail protected under the First
Amendment's freedom of speech guarantee?
COURT DECISION: No. In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that obscene
materials does not enjoy First Amendment protection.
The Court developed a test to determine whether material is obscene.
(a) whether 'the average person, applying contemporary community standards'
would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest. . .
(b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual
conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law
(c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or
scientific value."
Supreme Court Case Study
Evidence Obtained in a Search
Mapp v. Ohio, 1961
Background of the Case
In May, 1957, police officers arrived at the house of Dollree Mapp after receiving a
tip that a fugitive was hiding there. Mapp refused to admit the police officers. They called
headquarters and watched the house while they waited.
Three hours later several more police officers arrived. They knocked on the door, and
when Mapp did not immediately answer, they forced open the door and entered. Mapp
demanded to see a search warrant. One of the officers showed her a piece of paper, claiming
it was a search warrant. Mapp grabbed the paper and stuffed it down her shirt. After a
scuffle, the officers got the paper back and handcuffed Mapp.
While this was happening, Mapp’s lawyer arrived, but the police refused to let him
enter the house or talk to his client. The police then began to search the house. They did not
find the fugitive in the house. However, during their search of the entire house they found
some books and pictures that they believed were obscene. Mapp was charged with
possession of obscene materials — a violation of Ohio state law — and convicted.
At her trial, the state did not produce a search warrant as evidence, and had no
explanation for why there wasn’t one. Mapp was convicted of violating the state’s obscenity
laws. The Ohio Supreme Court upheld her conviction, and Mapp appealed her case to the
U.S. Supreme Court.
Constitutional Issue
Suppose the police come to your house when a neighbor reports that he thinks he saw
someone breaking in. The police search your entire house, and find a supply of illegal drugs. Can
this evidence be used in a trial to convict you of drug possession? If the police “accidentally” find
evidence of a crime during a search, should they be able to use the evidence in court?
COURT DECISION: The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of Dollree Mapp. They determined
that Mapp’s right to privacy had been violated by an unconstitutional search. The Court
realized that because of this ruling, criminals would sometimes be allowed to go free.
EXCLUSIONARY RULE: Evidence obtained in an unlawful search may not be used as
evidence in court. (The evidence must be excluded from the trial.)
Supreme Court Case Study
Due Process: A Poor Defendant’s Right to a Lawyer
Gideon v. Wainwright, 1963
Background of the Case
In 1961, Clarence Earl Gideon, a homeless, eighth-grade dropout who had served four
prison terms, was arrested for breaking into a poolroom in Florida and stealing a pint of
wine and $5 change from a cigarette machine.
At his trial Gideon asked the judge to appoint a lawyer for him since he could not
afford to hire one himself. The judge refused because under Florida law a lawyer was
provided only for a defendant in a capital case — one in which death was a possible penalty.
Gideon then pleaded not guilty. He conducted his own defense, but was found guilty
and sentenced to five years in prison. From prison, Gideon made a handwritten plea to the
U.S. Supreme Court. He asked them to accept his case as a pauper (a poor person), and
asked the Supreme Court to appoint a lawyer for him.
Constitutional Issue
The right to counsel (a lawyer) is guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. But lawyers cost a
lot of money and not everyone can afford them. The Supreme Court had ruled in an earlier case
that defendants facing the death penalty would have a court appointed lawyer. But Gideon was a
common thief accused of a minor crime. In this case, the Court had to explore whether every
criminal defendant is entitled to a lawyer. Do you think that Clarence Gideon deserved to have a
court appointed (and paid) lawyer for his defense?
COURT DECISION: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 9-0 in favor of Gideon, stating that it is an
“obvious truth” that any person who faces criminal charges in court cannot be assured a fair
trial without the assistance of a lawyer. Since the Bill of Rights guarantees a fair trial — and
specifically the right to counsel — then the court must provide a lawyer to criminal defendants
who cannot afford one. The decision established guarantees of procedural due process for
criminal defendants.
Supreme Court Case Study
Due Process: Fifth & Sixth Amendment Protections
Miranda v. Arizona, 1966
Background of the Case
In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Phoenix, Arizona for the kidnapping and
rape of an 18-year-old woman. Miranda had a troubled history with the law that included a
criminal conviction when he was in the eighth grade, several episodes of incarceration and a
dishonorable discharge from the army.
Following his arrest in 1963, he was identified by the victim in a police line-up and
then taken to an interrogation room. The police did not make a special effort to explain
Miranda’s constitutional rights to him. He was questioned by police for two hours. Miranda
then wrote out and signed a confession to the crime. At the bottom of the handwritten
confession was a typed statement that he had “full knowledge of my legal rights,
understanding any statement I make may be used against me” and stating that he voluntarily
gave up those rights.
At his preliminary hearing two weeks later, the court denied Miranda the assistance of
counsel. He did have a lawyer at his trial. The lawyer objected to the use of the signed
confession as evidence but was overruled. Miranda was found guilty and sentenced to 20
years in prison.
Constitutional Issue
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?
COURT DECISION: The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that Miranda’s constitutional
rights had been violated by the police. The burden is on the police to use a
procedure that is "effective to secure the privilege against self- incrimination." If a
suspect does not know he has “the right to remain silent” then his confession
cannot be used as evidence against him. Miranda’s conviction was overturned.
Ernesto Miranda was retried without his confession as evidence. He was convicted
and sentenced to 20-30 years in prison. He was paroled five years later and stabbed
to death in a barroom argument four years after his release.
Supreme Court Case Study
Right to Habeas Corpus for Terror Suspects
Rasul v. Bush and Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 2004
Background of the Case
These two cases deal with the right of habeas corpus, the right of an arrested person to appear before
a judge.
The Rasul case involved four British citizens and one Australian citizen captured in Afghanistan and
Pakistan in the War on Terror. The men were taken to the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Their
families filed a petition for habeas corpus to declare their detention in a military prison to be
unconstitutional. These men and all other men held at Git’mo had been declared “enemy combatants” by
the U.S. military. With this status the military could hold them until the end of the War on Terror which is,
in actuality, indefinitely. As “enemy combatants” they were not given legal counsel, informed of the
charges against them or offered a fair trial.
Yaser Hamdi, and American citizen was captured in Afghanistan along with some Taliban fighters.
He was turned over to the U.S. military who took him to Git’mo and declared him an “illegal enemy
combatant” after which he was transferred to a naval brig and Norfolk. Hamdi’s father insisted that Yaser
was a relief worker, not a Taliban fighter, and petitioned for habeas corpus. The suit claimed that Hamdi’s
imprisonment violated his Fifth Amendment rights to due process by holding him indefinitely without
access to an attorney.
Constitutional Issue
Who has authority over these detainees? Do the federal courts have jurisdiction, thus giving
the men access to the civilian court system? Or, must the courts defer to the executive authority to
capture, hold and try enemy soldiers during a war?
COURT DECISION: In both cases the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that “enemy
combatants” held at Guantanamo Bay prison have the right to challenge their
detention before an impartial judge. The right to habeas corpus is a fundamental
right guaranteed to citizens (Hamdi) and non-citizens (Rasul, et al).
Supreme Court Case Study
Constitutionality of the Death Penalty
Furman v. Georgia, 1972
Background of the Case
The Court examined the constitutionality of the death penalty in this case.
During the trial, an unsworn statement from Furman was admitted as evidence. In it,
Furman stated that in trying to flee the house he tripped and fell, the gun accidentally
discharged and killed the homeowner. This contradicted a previous statement in which
Furman described turning and firing blindly into the dark. The unsworn admission was used
as evidence to convict Furman of murder, and he was sentenced to death. The sentence was
not carried out pending his appeal.
Constitutional Issue
Does the imposition and carrying out of the death penalty in these cases constitute cruel and
unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments?
COURT DECISION: Yes. In a 5-4 decision, the Court officially ruled that the death penalty is
cruel and unusual punishment. In several different opinions totaling over 200 pages, the
Justices explored many aspects of the use of the death penalty. Only two believed it is
unconstitutional in all circumstances. The arbitrary nature with which capital punishment is
applied in the U.S. was a major issue, as was the racial bias against black defendants.
Furman resulted in a four year moratorium on the use of the death penalty as 37 states rewrote
legislation to ensure due process in the use of the sentence.
In 1976, in Gregg v. Georgia, the Court ruled 7-2 that the death penalty is constitutional if
certain criteria are used to fairly apply the sentence.
Today 34 states use the death penalty, 16 do not. Since 1973, 130 condemned people have been
released after being exonerated by new evidence.
Supreme Court Case Study
Eminent Domain
Kelo v. New London, Connecticut, 2005
Background of the Case
The Fifth Amendment states that “nor shall private property be taken for public use
without just compensation.” This is known as the “Takings Clause.”
Susette Kelo was one of many homeowners in the South Trumbell neighborhood in
New London. The New London Development Corporation, a private company, convinced
the city government that a comprehensive redevelopment of the property in South Trumbell
would result in over 3,000 new jobs and $1.2 million per year in tax revenue for the city.
The city government accepted this argument and condemned the properties in South
Trumbell — including Kelos — and turned them over to the NLDC. Kelo was compensated
for her move and the city even moved her house. The other homeowners were also fully
compensated.
Unfortunately, after the homeowners moved and the city paid compensation, the
NLDC was unable to obtain the required financing and the development of the property
stopped. South Trumbell became a large, empty lot.
Constitutional Issue
Does it violate the Fifth Amendment’s “Taking Clause” if a city government takes away
private property and transfers it to a private company in the hope that development of the
property will lead to economic improvement for the city. Does the “public good” outweigh the right
of private property ownership?
COURT DECISION: In a very unpopular decision, the Court ruled 5-4 in favor of the City of
New London. The Court determined that taking private property to sell to a private developer
was “public use” under the Fifth Amendment. “Public use,” according to the majority, did not
mean that the land was literally to be “used” by the “public.” “Public use” could be more
broadly defined as having a “public purpose.”
Supreme Court Case Study
An Individual Right to Bear Arms
District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago
Background of the Case
The Second Amendment states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the
security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed.” In Heller, the District of Columbia had passed a series of laws regarding gun
ownership including: a ban on the registration of handguns, requiring licensing for all pistols
and requiring that all firearms be kept unloaded and disassembled or trigger-locked. A group
of gun owners filed suit, claiming that their right to bare arms was being infringed. The
district court ruled against them, reasoning that the Second Amendment applied only to
militias, not individuals. The Court of Appeals saw it differently, finding an individual right
to own firearms.
Constitutional Issue
Does the Second Amendment mean that individuals have a right to own firearms, or only
“people” as part of an organized militia such as the National Guard?
COURT DECISION: The ruled 5-4 that the Second Amendment protects an
individual’s right to own and use guns for traditional purposes such as selfdefense.
Since the District of Columbia is not a state, the Heller decision only applied to “federal
enclaves.” Gun rights activists immediately sought to expand Heller to states by filing suit
against handgun bans in Chicago and Oak Park, Illinois. The two district courts dismissed the
suits and the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissals.
Constitutional Issue
In McDonald, the Court was asked to settle the same question as Heller: Does the Second
Amendment protect the individual right to own firearms? Further, does this right apply to the
states?
In another 5-4 decision, the Court determined that the right to bear arms is
"fundamental to the Nation's scheme of ordered liberty" and “"deeply rooted in this Nation's
history and tradition.” Since it is a “fundamental right” it can be incorporated to the state’s
under the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause.
Supreme Court Case Study
The Right to Privacy
Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965
Background of the Case
The word “privacy” does not appear in the Bill of Rights. Do other rights imply the
right to privacy? That question was tested in Griswold.
An 1879 Connecticut law made it illegal to use "any drug, medicinal article or
instrument for the purpose of preventing conception." Furthermore, the law prohibited
doctors from counseling couples regarding the use of birth control, stating "any person who
assists, abets, counsels, causes, hires or commands another to commit any offense may be
prosecuted and punished as if he were the principle offender." The law had been challenged
more than once, but its constitutionality had never been determined. In 1961, Estelle
Griswold, Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, and Dr. C.
Lee Buxton, a physician and Yale medical school professor, opened a family planning clinic
specifically to test this law. They were arrested within a short time for providing married
couples with information and instruction on avoiding pregnancy.
Constitutional Issue
Does the Constitution protect the right of privacy for married couples who seek counseling
COURT DECISION: Yes. The Court issued a 7-2 decision finding that the right to privacy
exists in certain parts of the Bill of Rights. Specifically, the First, Third, Fourth and Ninth
Amendments have guarantees that create “zones of privacy” The Griswold case “concerns a
relationship lying within the zone of privacy created by several fundamental constitutional
guarantees.”
Supreme Court Case Study
The Right to an Abortion
Roe v. Wade, 1973
Background of the Case
In 1969, a single woman, Norma McCorvey, pregnant with her third child, traveled to
Texas to get an abortion. While abortion was against the law in most cases in Texas, state
law permitted it in cases of rape or to save the life of the mother. She planned to lie in order
to obtain an abortion. Her original plan failed, so she tried to obtain an illegal abortion, but
found the “clinic” closed.
She was referred to two attorneys who took up her cause and filed suit on her behalf
challenging the constitutionality of the Texas law.
Constitutional Issue
Does the Constitution contain the right of a woman to end her pregnancy by abortion?
COURT DECISION: In this historic and widely controversial decision, the Court ruled 7-2 that
the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause protects the right to privacy, which includes a
woman’s right to have an abortion.
In this decision, the Court divided pregnancy into three trimesters. In the first trimester Roe
grants a woman complete autonomy to decide what to do with her body. As pregnancy
advances, the Court stated, the state’s interest in protecting prenatal life and protecting the
health of the mother increase.
Today in the United States, a woman has the legal right to an abortion in the first trimester of
pregnancy.
Supreme Court Case Study
The Right to an Abortion
Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 1989
Background of the Case
The state of Missouri passed a law in 1986 putting several restrictions on abortions.
The law stated that the “life of each human being begins at conception” and required that
unborn children be considered to have equal rights to everyone else. State funds could not
be used for abortions or to counsel women to have abortions. It prohibited abortions
performed by state employees and in public health facilities (unless it was to save the life of
the mother). Doctors were required to perform “viability tests” if the woman was in or
beyond her twentieth week of pregnancy.
Constitutional Issue
Did the Missouri restrictions unconstitutionally infringe upon the right to privacy or the
Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
COURT DECISION: The Court issued a 5-4 decision supporting Missouri’s restrictions. They
determined that the preamble could not be applied, so it did not violate the Constitution.
Regarding the use of state funding and facilities, the Court ruled that the government was not
required to enter into the abortion business. The counseling provision produced no controversy,
the Court said. Finally, the Court upheld the viability test reasoning that the state’s interest in
protecting prenatal life may begin before viability. The Court also stated that it was not
reconsidering the essential decisions made in Roe.
Supreme Court Case Study
The Right to an Abortion
Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 1992
Background of the Case
Since Roe v. Wade was decided, states have tinkered with their abortion statutes in an
effort to restrict women’s ability to obtain them. Pennsylvania tightened their abortion
restrictions in 1988 and 1989. Among the changes:
 A married woman was required to get permission from her husband before
obtaining an abortion (informed consent).
 A female minor was required to get permission from one parent (with a “judicial
bypass” available in some cases).
 All women seeking an abortion were required to wait 24 hours between their visit
with the doctor and the performance of the abortion.
Constitutional Issue
Can a state legislate these requirements without violating the rights established by Roe?
COURT DECISION: The ruled 5-4 in favor of Planned Parenthood. This case established a
new way to measure whether new state laws violated the Roe decision. If the purpose or effect
of the law places an “undue burden” on women seeking an abortion, the law is invalid. The
Court defined undue burden as "substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an
abortion before the fetus attains viability." In this case the only restriction that the Court found
to be an undue burden was the requirement to get consent from the husband.