Docstoc

Landmark_Cases

Document Sample
Landmark_Cases Powered By Docstoc
					    Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)
   The Missouri Compromise of 1820 outlawed
    slavery forever in certain areas. Dred Scott's
    owner took him to these free areas. Thus, Scott
    became free forever.
            Dred Scott Decision
   The Missouri Compromise of 1820 that
    outlawed slavery in some future states was
    unconstitutional because Congress does not
    have the authority to deny property rights of
    law-abiding citizens. Thus, Scott was always a
    slave in areas that were free.
        Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)
   In 1890, Louisiana passed a statute called the
    "Separate Car Act", which stated "that all railway
    companies carrying passengers in their coaches in this
    state, shall provide equal but separate
    accommodations for the white, and colored races, by
    providing two or more passenger coaches for each
    passenger train, or by dividing the passenger coaches
    by a partition so as to secure separate
    accommodations. . . . " The penalty for sitting in the
    wrong compartment was a fine of $25 or 20 days in
    jail.
               Plessy Decision
   Although not specifically written in the
    decision, Plessy set the precedent that
    "separate" facilities for blacks and whites were
    constitutional as long as they were "equal."
    The "separate but equal" doctrine was quickly
    extended to cover many areas of public life,
    such as restaurants, theaters, restrooms, and
    public schools.
    Koremastu v. United States (1944)
   When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, destroying much of
    the American Pacific Fleet, the American military became concerned about the
    security of the mainland United States, particularly along the West Coast. The
    Japanese military had achieved significant and swift success throughout the
    Pacific. Many Americans turned their fear and outrage over the actions of the
    Japanese government on people of Japanese descent, both citizens and non-citizens,
    living lawfully in the United States.
   Fred Korematsu was an American-born citizen of Japanese descent who grew up in
    Oakland, California. He tried to serve in the United States military, but was
    rejected for poor health. He was able, however, to get a job in a shipyard. When
    Japanese internment began in California, Korematsu evaded the order and moved to
    a nearby town. He also had some facial surgery, changed his name and claimed to
    be Mexican-American. He was later arrested and convicted of violating Exclusion
    Order No. 34 issued by General DeWitt, which barred all persons of Japanese
    descent from the “military area” of San Leandro, California. There was no question
    at the time of conviction that Korematsu had been loyal to the United States and
    was not a threat to the war effort.
Korematsu v. United States Decision
   By 6-3 margin, the Court upheld Korematsu’s
    conviction. The Court adopted a new test (strict
    scrutiny), holding that any law or order that
    discriminated on the basis of race or ethnicity could
    only be constitutional if it served an extremely
    important purpose for the government (referred to as
    a compelling state interest). However, the Court
    found that the Government had met its burden
    because discrimination against the Japanese in this
    case served the government’s military concerns about
    the possibility of Japanese spies.
Brown v. Board of Education (1954)
   In the early 1950s, Linda Brown was a young African
    American student in the Topeka, Kansas school
    district. Every day she and her sister, Terry Lynn, had
    to walk through the Rock Island Railroad Switchyard
    to get to the bus stop for the ride to the all-black
    Monroe School. Linda Brown tried to gain admission
    to the Sumner School, which was closer to her house,
    but her application was denied by the Board of
    Education of Topeka because of her race. The
    Sumner School was for white children only.
        Brown v. Board of Education
                 Decision
   U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas
    (1951)
       The court found that segregation has a negative effect on
        black children, but it decided that segregated schools did
        not violate the Fourteenth Amendment because facilities,
        transportation, teachers, and other factors were equal.
   Supreme Court of the United States (1954)
       Ruling determined that segregated schools are "inherently
        unequal" and violate the Fourteenth Amendment.
   Supreme Court of the United States (1955)
       Declared that schools should be desegregated with "all
        deliberate speed."
        Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
   Ernesto Miranda was a poor Mexican immigrant living in
    Phoenix, Arizona, in 1963. Miranda was arrested after a crime
    victim identified him in a police lineup. Miranda was charged
    with rape and kidnapping and interrogated for two hours while
    in police custody. The police officers questioning him did not
    inform him of his Fifth Amendment right against self-
    incrimination, or of his Sixth Amendment right to the
    assistance of an attorney.
   As a result of the interrogation, he confessed in writing to the
    crimes with which he was charged. His written statement also
    included an acknowledgement that he was aware of his right
    against self-incrimination. During his trial, the prosecution
    used his confession to obtain a conviction, and he was
    sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison on each count.
     Miranda v. Arizona Decision
   Supreme Court of the United States
       Reversed the Arizona Supreme Court and held that
        statements obtained from defendants during
        interrogations in police-dominated atmosphere
        without full warning of right to remain silent and
        right to counsel violated the Fifth and Sixth
        Amendments and were inadmissible.
        Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)
   John and Mary Beth Tinker were public school students in Des Moines, Iowa in December of
    1965. As part of a group against American involvement in the Vietnam War, they decided to
    publicize their opposition by wearing black armbands to school. Having heard of the students'
    plans, the principals of the public schools in Des Moines adopted and informed students of a
    new policy concerning armbands. This policy stated that any student who wore an armband to
    school would be asked immediately to remove it. A student who refused to take off his or her
    armband would be suspended until agreeing to return to school without the band.
   Two days later and aware of the school policy, the Tinker children and a friend decided to
    wear armbands to school. Upon arriving at school, the children were asked to remove their
    armbands. They did not remove the armbands and were subsequently suspended until they
    returned to school without their armbands.
   The children returned to school without armbands after January 1, 1966, the date scheduled
    for the end of their protest. However, their fathers filed suit in U.S. District Court. This suit
    asked the court for a small amount of money for damages and an injunction to restrain school
    officials from enforcing their armband policy. Although the District Court recognized the
    children's First Amendment right to free speech, the court refused to issue an injunction,
    claiming that the school officials' actions were reasonable in light of potential disruptions
    from the students' protest. The Tinkers appealed their case to the U.S. Court of Appeals but
    were disappointed when a tie vote in that court allowed the District Court's ruling stand. As a
    result they decided to appeal the case to the Supreme Court of the United States
    Tinker v. Des Moines Decision
   Supreme Court of the United States (1969)
       Ruled in favor of the students, declaring that the
        armband protest was protected by the First
        Amendment right of free speech
                  Roe v. Wade (1973)
   In the latter part of the nineteenth century and the first half of the twentieth
    century, most states adopted laws strictly regulating the availability of
    abortions. Many states outlawed abortion except in cases where the
    mother’s life was in jeopardy. Illegal abortions were widespread and often
    dangerous for women who undertook them because they were performed in
    unsanitary conditions.
   The sexual revolution that began in the second half of the twentieth century
    resulted in public pressure to ease abortion laws. As some states began to
    relax abortion restrictions, some women found it relatively easy to travel to
    a state where the laws were less restrictive or where a doctor was willing to
    certify medical necessity.
   However, poor women often could not travel outside their state to receive
    treatment, raising questions of equality. Statutes were often vague, so that
    doctors did not really know whether they were committing a felony by
    providing an abortion. In addition, government interference in sexual
    matters was beginning to be called into question by a changing conception
    of privacy
             Roe v. Wade Decision
   Supreme Court of the United States (1973)
       The case was originally argued on December 13, 1971 and
        was reargued on October 11, 1972. The decision was
        delivered on January 22, 1973. In a 7-2 opinion, the Court
        decided that (a) during the first trimester of pregnancy a
        woman could have an abortion on demand without
        interference from the state; (b) during the second trimester
        the state could regulate abortions for safety but could not
        prohibit them entirely; and (c) during the third trimester,
        the state could regulate or forbid all abortions except to
        save the life of the mother.
            Regents of the University of
            California v. Bakke (1978)
   In the early 1970s, the medical school of the University of California at Davis
    admitted 100 students each year. The university used two admissions programs: a
    regular admissions program and a special admissions program. The purpose of the
    special admissions program was to increase the number of minority and
    "disadvantaged" students in the class. Applicants who were members of a minority
    group or who believed that they were disadvantaged could apply for the special
    admissions program.
   Allan Bakke was a white male. He applied to and was rejected from the regular
    admissions program in 1973 and 1974. Minority applicants with lower scores than
    Bakke's were admitted under the special program.
   After his second rejection, Bakke filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of Yolo
    County, California. He wanted the Court to force the University of California at
    Davis to admit him to the medical school. He also claimed that the special
    admissions program violated the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth
    Amendment says, in part, "No State . . . shall deny to any person . . . the equal
    protection of the laws." Bakke said that the University, a state school, was treating
    him unequally because of his race. He thought that if he were a minority that he
    would have been admitted to the school.
Regents of CA v. Bakke Decision
   Supreme Court of the United States
       Writing for a divided Court, Justice Powell holds
        that the quota system used by the University of
        California at Davis medical school is
        unconstitutional, but that race could be used as a
        "plus" in the application process.
       New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985)
   In 1980, a teacher at Piscataway High School in New Jersey found two girls
    smoking in a restroom. One of the girls was T.L.O., a freshman who was 14 years
    old. Smoking in the restrooms was a violation of school rules (but was permitted in
    other areas of the school). The teacher took the two girls to the principal's office,
    where they met with Assistant Vice Principal Theodore Choplick. The second girl
    admitted that she had been smoking. T.L.O. said she had not been smoking and said
    that she did not smoke at all.
   Choplick took T.L.O. into his office and instructed her to turn over her purse. He
    opened the purse and found a pack of cigarettes. He took the cigarettes out of the
    purse and showed them to T.L.O. He accused her of having lied about smoking in
    the restroom. As he removed the cigarettes, he noticed a package of cigarette rolling
    papers. He believed that cigarette rolling papers were a sign of involvement with
    marijuana. Therefore, he decided to search further in T.L.O.'s purse. He found the
    following items: a small amount of marijuana, a pipe, empty plastic bags, a
    significant amount of money in one-dollar bills, a list of students who owed T.L.O.
    money, and letters implicating T.L.O. in dealing marijuana
     New Jersey v. T.L.O. (cont…)
   Choplick then called T.L.O.'s mother and the police. The mother came to
    the school. The police asked her to take her daughter to the police station.
    Choplick gave the items from the purse to the police. At the police station,
    T.L.O. admitted that she had been selling marijuana at school. As a result
    of her admission and the evidence from the purse, the State of New Jersey
    brought delinquency charges against T.L.O. in the Juvenile and Domestic
    Relations Court of Middlesex County.
   T.L.O. tried to have the evidence from her purse kept out of court, saying
    that the search violated the Fourth Amendment. She also argued that her
    confession should be suppressed, because it resulted from the illegal search.
    The juvenile court turned down her Fourth Amendment arguments,
    although it did agree that the Fourth Amendment applies to searches by
    school officials. However, it held that a school official may search a student
    if that official has a "reasonable suspicion that a crime has been or is in the
    process of being committed, or reasonable cause to believe that the search
    is necessary to maintain school discipline or enforce school policies."
                 New Jersey v. T.L.O.
   Juvenile Court of New Jersey
        T.L.O. is held to be a delinquent on the basis of evidence from the search of her
         purse and her confession. She is sentenced to one year of probation.
   Appellate Division of New Jersey
        T.L.O. appeals her conviction. The Appellate Division finds no Fourth
         Amendment violation.
   Supreme Court of New Jersey
        T.L.O. appeals the Appellate Division's Fourth Amendment ruling to the
         Supreme Court of New Jersey. The Court overturns the conviction and holds
         the search to be a violation of T.L.O.'s Fourth Amendment rights.
   Supreme Court of the United States
        The Supreme Court reverses the New Jersey Court's ruling, holding that
         searches by school officials are constitutional without a warrant as long as they
         are "reasonable."
    Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988)
   In May 1983, students in the Journalism II class at Hazelwood East High School in
    St. Louis, Missouri, created the final edition of the school paper, the Spectrum.
    Before publishing the paper, they submitted it to their advisor, Howard Emerson, so
    he could review it. Emerson was new to the job, so he followed the procedures of
    the previous advisor. Those guidelines required him to give Principal Robert
    Reynolds, the opportunity to review the paper before it was published.
   When Principal Reynolds reviewed the paper, he found two articles that concerned
    him. The first dealt with the issue of teen pregnancy. It included comments from
    pregnant students at the school. To protect their privacy, names were not given.
    However, when Reynolds read the article, he realized that the details in the article
    would make it easy for other students to identify the pregnant teens. The second
    article addressed the issue of divorce. Like the first article, this one included
    personal articles. One student, whose parents were divorced, made negative
    comments about her father. She said that her father was always out with the guys
    and that her father didn't spend enough time with the family. Principal Reynolds
    was troubled by the fact that the father had not been given a chance to defend
    himself by responding to his daughter's comments. He also noticed that the article
    mentioned sex and birth control. He did not think that students in ninth grade
    should be reading about sex and birth control.
    Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988)
   Reynolds wanted the journalism students to modify the articles. However,
    it was almost the end of the school year. If they took the time to revise, they
    would miss the deadline for publishing the newspaper. If that happened, the
    other students might never get to read the paper. He felt like he had to act
    quickly, so he told Emerson to delete the two pages with the offending
    articles and publish the rest of the Spectrum. He told his supervisors about
    this decision and they agreed with him.
   The students had worked hard on the paper and felt that they had followed
    proper journalism procedures. If they had been approached about the
    problems, they may have been able to correct them. They were upset to
    find out instead that two pages, which included a number of nonoffensive
    articles, had been deleted. They felt that their First Amendment rights had
    been violated. They took the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
    District of Missouri.
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier Decision
   U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri
    Students seek relief, claiming that their First
    Amendment rights were violated when Principal
    Reynolds deleted two pages from their newspaper
    prior to its publication. They ask for an injunction and
    monetary relief. The court denies it, saying that the
    students' rights were not violated. The court clarifies
    by saying when activities are "an integral part of the
    school's educational function," which the production
    of the newspaper is, officials may impose restraints
    on students' speech as long as their decision has a
    "substantial and reasonable basis."
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier Decision
   U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
    The students appeal the decision of the lower court.
    The appeals court reverses the decision of the lower
    court, saying that students' First Amendment rights
    were violated. The newspaper is a "public forum," so
    school officials can censor its contents only when
    "necessary to avoid material and substantial
    interference with school work or discipline . . . or the
    rights of others." There is no evidence that such a
    disruption would have occurred.
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier Decision
   Supreme Court of the United States
    The Court reverses the decision of the Court of
    Appeals, saying that the students' First Amendment
    rights were not violated. The newspaper is not a
    public forum and "educators do not offend the First
    Amendment by exercising editorial control over the
    style and content of student speech in school-
    sponsored expressive activities so long as their
    actions are reasonably related to legitimate
    pedagogical concerns

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:5
posted:10/22/2011
language:English
pages:24