Bill of Rights andSupreme Court Cases

 

Marbury v. Madison 1803Sample slide:

•  Include the rights in question of your case• What amendment (or provisions of that amendment) is the

case dealing with?• Established the power of the Judicial Branch• The Supreme Court has JUDICIAL REVIEW• If the a law and the Constitution conflict, the court can strike

the law down  Cite your source on the slide!!!"Marbury v. Madison." The Oyez Project | U.S. Supreme Court Oral Argument Recordings, Case Abstracts and More. Web. 19 Dec. 2010. <http://www.oyez.org/>.

Lemon v. Kurtzman  1971 The rights in question: Secular school districts and state aid to parochial schools- Lemon test to be constitutional aid to church schools must have a clear secular non-religious purpose, in main affect neither advance or inhibit religion and avoid excesive governement entaglement with religion.   - The freedom of religion is dealt with in this case. - The first amendment is the amendment connected with this case.  - Deals with the purpose of church-affiliated schools and their influence upon children of impressionable age.  (primary schools)- Deals with what aid to church schools is constitutional or not.  Cite sources:-United States Government book-Online source: Cornell University law school website: www.law.cornell.edu

Wisconsin v. Yoder

• Freedom of religion • WI brought Amish to court• WI said it was freedom of religion• Don't need to go because it's against their religion

  

Engel v. Vitale

• Engel v. Vitale dealt with the freedom of religion and prayer.• According to the first amendment "establishment clause"• The court interpreted the prayer (say prayer) as

unconstitutional.• According to the court the prayer contradicted with the first

amendment (cite amendment's interpretation)• The court has judicial power to rule and interpret laws.• The prayer was ruled unconstitutional.• Court protected people from government's implementation

of a specific prayer. Sources: "Engel v. Vitale" The Oyez Project | U.S. Supreme Court Oral Argument Recordings, Government textbook

Schenck v. United States

 • April 6, 1917, the United States entered World War 1• The Espionage Acts was designed to prevent  sabotage and

spying• Penalties of up to $10,000, 20 years in prison or both• The Schenck Case• Clear and present danger!

       Source: "Schenck v. United States"The Oyez Project | U.S. Supreme Court Oral Argument Recordings, Case Abstracts and More. Web. 19 Dec. 2010. <http://www.oyez.org/>.

Bethel v. Fraser

• 1986 - Matthew Fraser, student, gave inappropriate speech at school assembly

• Suspended for 3 days, removed from list of "possible graduate speakers"

•  Father took case to court claiming suspension was in violation of 1st amendment (freedom of speech) and due process clause of 14th amendment.

• Was put back on graduation speaker list and was elected by classmates to be graduation speaker.

     Source:http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/firstamendment/bethel.html

Texas v. Johnson 

•One year sentence in jail-$2000 fine •Burned American flag in protest against Reagan administration •Protected by the first amendment •Had the right to express his ideas in protest •Supreme court overruled the state law because of the right to freedom of expression       chaaaaaaaaas

Tinker v. Des Moines School District

December 11th, 1965 Students wore armbands to protest the Vietnam War. They were threatened to remove them or be suspended, by the principal.  Right to Freedom of Speech The 1st Amendment - Symbolic Speech (black armband)  "Tinker v. Des Moines" The Oyez Project | U.S. Supreme Court Oral Argument Recordings, Case Abstracts and More. web. 20 dec 2010. http://www.oyez.org/.

Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier  school newspaper wrote about issues such as pregnancy or divorce or things that affected the students in a negative way. the principal deleted the sections of the school newspaper because it identified the divorced parents when he thought they should be given the chance to respond to the story. umm, yeah students have the right to free speech but the school should have some regulation on the content of the school newspaper. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazelwood_v._Kuhlmeier

Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network

The Rights In Question: Freedom of AssemblyFirst Amendment Court said that "fixed buffer zones" are consitiutional but "floating buffer zones" are unconstitutional.Buffer zone: a perimeter around a facicility, intended to limit how close protesters can get to a facility. Cites: "Firstamendmentcenter.org: Assembly - Topic." Firstamendmentcenter.org: Welcome to the First Amendment Center Online. Web. 20 Dec. 2010. <http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/assembly/topic.aspx?topic=buffer_zones>.

Columbia v. Heller

 2008    2nd amendment states that we have the right to bear arms.    The District of Columbia generally prohibits the possession of handguns.     Dick Heller is a D.C. special police officer authorized to carry a handgun while on duty. He applied for a registration certificate for a handgun that he wished to keep at home, but the District refused.    he wanted to keep a firearm on him while in his home for selfdefence. lqkwhflkskhflkashdflkasjhdfklashdlfkahsd  Cite: "Columbia v. Heller." Google Scholar. Web. 20 Dec. 2010. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2739870581644084946&q=columbia v. heller&hl=en&as_sdt=400000000000002&as_vis=1.

Mapp v. Ohio 1961 • 4th amendment in question*

*Bans all "unreasonable searches" without warrant.

• Perimeters of warrant must be followed**In order to use in court

•  OHPD also assaulted Mapp after falsified warrant issued.• OHPD was not specific on searched materials.• Mapp was convicted using materials not warranted for

search.• U.S. Supreme Court ruled that evidence cannot be included

when procured by illegal means. Cite: "C-SPAN Supreme Court Series: Search and Seizure and the 'Exclusionary' Rule." Politics Daily. 10 Dec. 2010. Web. 20 Dec. 2010. http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/12/10/c-span-supreme-court-series-search-seize-and-the-exclusionary/. Mapp v. Ohio article handed out in class.

 

California v. Acevedo

• In 1991 Acevedo was convicted in California state court with possession of marijuana for sale and moved to suppress the marijuana found in the bag.

• They didn't have a warrant, but the officer did see him put the marijuana into his trunk.

• Right in question: 4th amendment "warrant clause."•  Forbids unreasonable search and seizure.

  • Site: http://www.4lawschool.com/criminal/acevedo.shtml

New Jersey v. T.L.O.

• Rights of the 4th amendment: The rights of the people against unreasonable seraches and seizures. The 14th Amendment rights to privacy do not extend into every aspect of a person's private affairs.

• The fourth and fourteenth amendments. • Fourth amendments rights in school. REASONABLE

SUSPISION!!!!• Supreme court also ruled that it was consitutional.

 Sources:  http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/tlo.htmlSupreme court of the united states. Supreme court case study #53 sheet.

Katz v. United States

• In 1967, Charles Katz transmitted gambling information across state lines via public telephone

• FBI wiretapped public area to gather evidence to convict him• Fourth Amendment gives rights against search and seizure• Supreme Court ruled that the case was a case of search

and seizure--"people were protected and not simply areas."• Wiretapping now prohibited without a warrant.• Katz's conviction was reversed.

   Remy, Richard C., "United States Government: Democracy in Action"http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=389&invol=347

Miranda v. Arizona

• "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you do and say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you." 

•  Fifth Amendment •  After giving a suspect these warnings, the police may not

go on interrogating unless uspects " Knowingly and intelligently" waive their rights.

• Police never stated rights to Miranda.• "Miranda v. Arizon." Landmarks: Historic U.S. Supreme

Court Decisions: 61-64. Print.

Sheppard v. MaxwellSamual Shappard got accused of killing his pregnant wife and the judge who ran the trial didn't protect his Fifth Amendment right to a fair trial. "After suffering a trial court conviction of second-degree murder for the bludgeoning death of his pregnant wife, Samuel Sheppard challenged the verdict as the product of an unfair trial. Sheppard, who maintained his innocence of the crime, alleged that the trial judge failed to protect him from the massive, widespread, and prejudicial publicity that attended his prosecution. On appeal from an Ohio district court ruling supporting his claim, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed. When Sheppard appealed again, the Supreme Court granted certiorari." The Oyez Project, Sheppard v. Maxwell , 384 U.S. 333 (1966) available at: (http://oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_490) (last visited Tuesday, December 21, 2010).

Gideon v. Wainwright

• You have the right to an attorney in a court case• Gideon was refused a lawyer when he was tried for robbery• He was forced to defend himself and was found guilty of his

crimes• The case was taken to the Supreme Court where they found

that refusal of an attorney was an infringement on the 6th amendment

Kimbrough v. United States

Pleaded guilty to four sentences: conspiracy to distribute crack and powder; possession with intent to distribute more than 50 grams of crack; possession with intent to distribute powder; and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking offense. Kimborough was sentenced to 15 years in prison. He got a 4.5 sentence reduction which qualified as abuse of discretion.  A drug trafficker dealing in crack cocaine is subject to the same sentence as one dealing in 100 times more powder cocaine. 8th Amendment

Death Penalty

• Furman v. Georgia- Determined it was used in racial ways.• Woodson v. North Carolina- Unconstitutional law due to

nonspecific terms.• Gregg v. Georgia- Death Penalty is acceptable in extreme

crimes.     Sources:

Graham v. Florida• Terrence Graham attempted armed buglary, charged with

assult when he was 16.• At 17 accused of home invasion robbery• Sentenced to life in prison, no parole, but lawyers appealed

sentance, they say unconstitutional• Age 18 is the age below which a defendant may not be

sentenced to life without parole for a nonhomicide crime. • States cannot guarantee eventual freedom to an offender• States must impose a sentance that provides opporunities

for release based on maturity•  Only applies for non homicidal crimes• U.S. is only country where children are sentenced to death in

prison•  Sources: http://topics.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/08-7412

  and

Mcculloch v. Maryland

•  • Can state tax or control federal owned things? • Can state control constitution? • Federal vs. State•   This case regards the 10th amendment•  Health care, who has control?

Roe v. Wade

• The case of Roe vs. Wade was a supreme court case that brought abortion rights into question

 • Roe stated that her ninth and fourteenth amendment rights

were violated  • The court held that a woman's right to an abortion fell within

the right to privacy (recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut) protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.  

    http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1971/1971_70_18

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke• Universities saved place for minority students to provide

equality• Allan couldn't integrate the university because of the progam• The trial court declared that program as violation of 14th

amendment• Appeals to The supreme Court and agreed with Blakes's

claim• Appeals to supreme court who was divided about the case•  Brennan Opinion: Program justified and fair because

remedying the effects of past social discrimination•  Stevens opinion: Discrimination, violation of 14th

amendment• Allan Bake was finally admitted to the university but legal

results were unclear for many years.

Brown v. Board of Education

• The 14th Ammendment was violated.• Separation and segregation of schools; unequal education

and opportunities.• Had to be decided by the Supreme Court because they tried

first at a local level and state level, then joined in with the NAACP and other states, such as Delaware, Virginia, and South Carolina.

•  Was decided in 1954 in Topeka, Kansas.• Declared State Law for segragating schools unconstitutional.•  information courtesy of www.nationalcenter.org/brown.html