The Supreme Court Cases by yyd29786

VIEWS: 0 PAGES: 18

									The Supreme Court
      Cases
      Tyler Smith
    Matt Cunningham
              Incorporation
   Barron v. Baltimore (1833)
   Palko v. Connecticut (1937)
             Barron v. Baltimore
                February 16, 1833
 Facts                        Constitutional Questions
John Barron was co-owner      Does the Fifth Amendment
  of a profitable wharf in      deny the states as well as
  the harbor of Baltimore.      the national government
  As the city developed and     the right to take private
  expanded, large amounts       property for public use
  of sand accumulated in        without justly
  the harbor, depriving         compensating the
  Barron of the deep            property's owner?
  waters which had been
  the key to his successful
  business. He sued the
  city to recover a portion
  of his financial losses.
           Barron v. Baltimore
 Decision
No. The Court announced its decision in this case without
  even hearing the arguments of the City of Baltimore.
  Writing for the unanimous Court, Chief Justice Marshall
  found that the limitations on government articulated in
  the Fifth Amendment were specifically intended to limit
  the powers of the national government. Citing the intent
  of the framers and the development of the Bill of Rights
  as an exclusive check on the government in Washington
  D.C., Marshall argued that the Supreme Court had no
  jurisdiction in this case since the Fifth Amendment was
  not applicable to the states.
Unanimous decision
                   Palko v. Connecticut
                         December 6, 1937
   Facts of the Case:
       Charged with First Degree Murder
            Convicted of Second Degree Murder
                 Sentenced to Life in Prison
       State of Connecticut appealed and won a new trial
            Palko convicted of First Degree Murder
                 Sentenced to the Death Penalty
   Question of the Case:
       Does Palko's second conviction violate the protection
        against double jeopardy guaranteed by the Fifth
        Amendment because this protection applies to the
        states by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment's due
        process clause?
             Palko v. Connecticut
   Supreme Court Decision:
       Supreme Court upheld Palko’s second conviction.
       He noted that some Bill of Rights guarantees--such as
        freedom of thought and speech--are fundamental,
        and that the Fourteenth Amendment's due process
        clause absorbed these fundamental rights and applied
        them to the states. Protection against double
        jeopardy was not a fundamental right.

   Palko died in Connecticut's gas chamber in April
    1938.
         Freedom of Religion
   Wallace v. Jaffree (1985)
   Westside Community Schools v. Mergens
    (1990)
              Wallace v. Jaffree
                     June 4, 1985
 Facts                         Constitutional Questions
An Alabama law authorized      Did Alabama law violate the
  teachers to conduct            First Amendment's
  regular religious prayer       Establishment Clause?
  services and activities in
  school classrooms during
  the school day. Three of
  Jaffree's children
  attended public schools in
  Mobile.
              Wallace v. Jaffree
 Decision
Yes. The Court determined the constitutionality of
  Alabama's prayer and meditation statute by applying the
  secular purpose test, which asked if the state's actual
  purpose was to endorse or disapprove of religion. The
  Court held that Alabama's passage of the prayer and
  meditation statute was not only a deviation from the
  state's duty to maintain absolute neutrality toward
  religion, but was an affirmative endorsement of religion.
  As such, the statute clearly lacked any secular purpose
  as it sought to establish religion in public schools,
  thereby violating the First Amendment's Establishment
  Clause.

Vote 6 to 3
    Westside Community Schools v.
              Mergens
                               June 4, 1990
   Facts of the Case:
       Westside High School administration denied
        permission to a group of students to form a Christian
        club with the same privileges and meeting terms as
        other Westside after-school student clubs
            Cited the Establishment Clause
            Mergen and other students sued after the school board
             upheld the administration's denial
                  The students alleged that Westside's refusal violated the Equal
                   Access Act
                      Requires that schools in receipt of federal funds provide
                       "equal access" to student groups seeking to express
                       "religious, political, philosophical, or other content"
                       messages
            On appeal from an adverse District Court ruling, the Court of
             Appeals found in favor of the students
    Westside Community Schools v.
              Mergens
   Questions of the Case:
       Was Westside's prohibition against the formation of a
        Christian club consistent with the Establishment
        Clause, thereby rendering the Equal Access Act
        unconstitutional?

   Supreme Court Decision:
       The Court held that since Westside permitted other
        noncurricular clubs, it was prohibited under the Equal
        Access Act from denying equal access to any after-
        school club based on the content of its speech.
    Freedom of Speech and Press
   Near v. Minnesota (1931)
                   Near v. Minnesota
                            June 1, 1931
  Facts of case                          Constitutional Question
Jay Near published a scandal sheet in
   Minneapolis, in which he attacked     Does the Minnesota "gag
   local officials, charging that they     law" violate the free press
   were implicated with gangsters.         provision of the First
   Minnesota officials obtained an
   injunction to prevent Near from         Amendment?
   publishing his newspaper under a
   state law that allowed such action
   against periodicals. The law
   provided that any person
   "engaged in the business" of
   regularly publishing or circulating
   an "obscene, lewd, and lascivious"
   or a "malicious, scandalous and
   defamatory" newspaper or
   periodical was guilty of a
   nuisance, and could be enjoined
   (stopped) from further committing
   or maintaining the nuisance.
            Near v. Minnesota
 Decision
The Supreme Court held that the statute authorizing the
  injunction was unconstitutional as applied. History had
  shown that the protection against previous restraints
  was at the heart of the First Amendment. The Court held
  that the statutory scheme constituted a prior restraint
  and hence was invalid under the First Amendment. Thus
  the Court established as a constitutional principle the
  doctrine that, with some narrow exceptions, the
  government could not censor or otherwise prohibit a
  publication in advance, even though the communication
  might be punishable after publication in a criminal or
  other proceeding.
       Equal Protection of Laws –
               Minorities
   Lawrence v. Texas (2003)
                Lawrence v. Texas
                      June 26, 2006
   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.
       the State Court of Appeals held that the statute was
        not unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of
        the Fourteenth Amendment and Bowers v. Hardwick
              Lawrence v. Texas
   Questions of the Case:
       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?
               Lawrence v. Texas
   Supreme Court Decision:
       the Court held that the Texas statute making it a
        crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in
        certain intimate sexual conduct violates the Due
        Process Clause.
       "Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause
        gives them the full right to engage in their conduct
        without intervention of the government. The Texas
        statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can
        justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of
        the individual."
       The Court overruled Bowers.

								
To top