NE _____ Name:
Date:
Period:
The SUPREME COURT and PRIVACY:
th th
Under What Circumstances Do the 9 and 14 Amendment Protections Apply?
DIRECTIONS: Read the following brief descriptions of the privacy cases that have come before the Supreme
Court. Then, apply the Griswold v. Connecticut ruling (see below) to the cases to determine how you think the
Court should rule. Finally, explain the actual court ruling in the space provided.
Griswold v. Connecticut (1965): in striking down a Connecticut statute that made the use of birth control
devices a crime, the Court ruled that:
1) specific guarantees in the First, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments create a “zone of privacy” that
is protected by the Ninth Amendment
2) by virtue of the 14th Amendment due process clause, the states must respect this “zone.” (Think of
the “sponge” metaphor.)
___________________________________________________________________________________________
ABORTION
1) Roe v. Wade (1973)
Decided: January 22, 1973
Reargued: October 11, 1972
Argued: December 13, 1971
Facts of the Case
Roe, a Texas resident, sought to terminate her pregancy by abortion. Texas law prohibited abortions except to
save the pregnant woman's life. After granting certiorari, the Court heard arguments twice. The first time,
Roe's attorney -- Sarah Weddington -- could not locate the constitutional hook of her argument for Justice
Potter Stewart. Her opponent -- Jay Floyd -- misfired from the start. Weddington sharpened her constitutional
argument in the second round. Her new opponent -- Robert Flowers -- came under strong questioning from
Justices Potter Stewart and Thurgood Marshall.
Question Presented: Does the Constitution embrace a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy by abortion?
How Should the Court Rule? Why?
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
How Did the Court Rule? Why?
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
2) Webster v. Reproductive Health Services
Argued: April 26, 1989
Decided: July 3, 1989
Page 1
Facts of the Case
In 1986, the state of Missouri enacted legislation that placed a number of restrictions on abortions. The
statute's preamble indicated that "[t]he life of each human being begins at conception," and the law codified
the following restrictions: public employees and public facilities were not to be used in performing or
assisting abortions unnecessary to save the mother's life; encouragement and counseling to have abortions was
prohibited; and physicians were to perform viability tests upon women in their twentieth (or more) week of
pregnancy. Lower courts struck down the restrictions.
Question Presented: Did the Missouri restrictions unconstitutionally infringe upon the right to privacy or the
Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
How Should the Court Rule? Why?
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
How Did the Court Rule? Why?
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
3) Planned Parenthood v. Casey
Argued: April 22, 1992
Decided: June 29, 1992
Facts of the Case
The Pennsylvania legislature amended its abortion control law in 1988 and 1989. Among the new provisions,
the law required informed consent and a 24 hour waiting period prior to the procedure. A minor seeking an
abortion required the consent of one parent (the law allows for a judicial bypass procedure). A married
woman seeking an abortion had to indicate that she notified her husband of her intention to abort the fetus.
These provisions were challenged by several abortion clinics and physicians. A federal appeals court upheld
all the provisions except for the husband notification requirement.
Question Presented: Can a state require women who want an abortion to obtain informed consent, wait 24
hours, and, if minors, obtain parental consent, without violating their right to abortions as guaranteed by Roe
v. Wade?
How Should the Court Rule? Why?
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
How Did the Court Rule? Why?
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
STUDENT RIGHTS
4) Vernonia School District v. Acton
Argued: March 28, 1995
Page 2
Decided: June 26, 1995
Facts of the Case
An official investigation led to the discovery that high school athletes in the Vernonia School District
participated in illicit drug use. School officials were concerned that drug use increases the risk of sports-
related injury. Consequently, the Vernonia School District of Oregon adopted the Student Athlete Drug Policy
which authorizes random urinalysis drug testing of its student athletes. James Acton, a student, was denied
participation in his school's football program when he and his parents refused to consent to the testing.
Question Presented: Does random drug testing of high school athletes violate the reasonable search and
seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment?
How Should the Court Rule? Why?
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
How Did the Court Rule? Why?
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
5) Owasso Independent School Dist. No. I011 v. Falvo
Argued: November 27, 2001
Decided: February 19, 2002
Facts of the Case
Kristja J. Falvo asked the Owasso Independent School District to ban peer grading, or the practice of allowing
students to score each other's tests, papers, and assignments as the teachers explain the correct answers to the
entire class, because it embarrassed her children. When the school district declined, Falvo filed an action
against the school district, claming that such peer grading violates the Family Educational Rights and Privacy
Act of 1974 (FERPA). FERPA authorizes federal funds to be withheld from school districts that permit
students' "education records (or personally identifiable information contained therein)" to be released without
their parents' written consent and defines education records as "records, files, documents, and other materials"
containing information directly related to a student, which "are maintained by an educational agency or
institution or by a person acting for such agency or institution.” Disagreeing with Falvo, the District
Court held that grades put on papers by another student are not "education records." In reversing, the Court of
Appeals found that grades marked by students on each other's work are "education records," such that the
very act of grading is an impermissible release of information to the student grader.
Question Presented: Does the practice of peer grading violate the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act
of 1974?
How Should the Court Rule? Why?
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
How Did the Court Rule? Why?
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Page 3
6) Board of Education v. Earls
Argued: March 19, 2002
Decided: June 27, 2002
Facts of the Case
The Student Activities Drug Testing Policy adopted by the Tecumseh, Oklahoma School District (School
District) requires all middle and high school students to consent to urinalysis testing for drugs in order to
participate in any extracurricular activity. Two Tecumseh High School students and their parents brought suit,
alleging that the policy violates the Fourth Amendment. The District Court granted the School District
summary judgment. In reversing, the Court of Appeals held that the policy violated the Fourth Amendment.
The appellate court concluded that before imposing a suspicionless drug-testing program a school must
demonstrate some identifiable drug abuse problem among a sufficient number of those tested, such that
testing that group will actually redress its drug problem, which the School District had failed to demonstrate.
Question Presented: Is the Student Activities Drug Testing Policy, which requires all students who participate
in competitive extracurricular activities to submit to drug testing, consistent with the Fourth Amendment?
How Should the Court Rule? Why?
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
How Did the Court Rule? Why?
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
SEXUAL ORIENTATION
7) Bowers v. Hardwick
Argued: March 31, 1986
Decided: June 30, 1986
Facts of the Case
Michael Hardwick was observed by a Georgia police officer while engaging in the act of concensual
homosexual sodomy with another adult in the bedroom of his home. After being charged with violating a
Georgia statute that criminalized homosexual sodomy, Hardwick challanged the statute's constitutionality in
Federal District Court. Following a ruling that Hardwick failed to state a claim, the court dismissed. On
appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that Georgia's statute was unconstitutional.
Georgia's Attorney General, Michael J. Bowers, appealed to the Supreme Court and was granted certiorari.
Question Presented: Does the Constitution confer a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in
consensual sodomy, thereby invalidating the laws of many states which make such conduct illegal?
How Should the Court Rule? Why?
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
How Did the Court Rule? Why?
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Page 4
_______________________________________________________________________________________
8) Lawrence and Garner v. Texas
Decided: June 26, 2003
Argued: March 26, 2003
Facts of the Case
Responding to a reported weapons disturbance in a private residence, Houston police entered John Lawrence's
apartment and saw him and another adult man, Tyron Garner, engaging in a private, consensual sexual act.
Lawrence and Garner were arrested and convicted of deviate sexual intercourse in violation of a Texas statute
forbidding two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct. In affirming, the State
Court of Appeals held that the statute was not unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment, with Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), controlling.
Question Presented:
Do the criminal convictions of John Lawrence and Tyron Garner under the Texas "Homosexual Conduct"
law, which criminalizes sexual intimacy by same-sex couples, but not identical behavior by different-sex
couples, violate the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of equal protection of laws? Do their criminal
convictions for adult consensual sexual intimacy in the home violate their vital interests in liberty and privacy
protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? Should Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S.
186 (1986), be overruled?
How Should the Court Rule? Why?
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
How Did the Court Rule? Why?
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Page 5