Court Cases to Know and Love 2011-2012 1) Marbury v.

Madison, 1803 Case Background and SUPC Decision: William Marbury was named a federal judge in the midnight appointments of John Adamss presidency. James Madison, the incoming Secretary of State, was instructed by the incoming president (Thomas Jefferson) to not deliver the appointments. Marbury sued in the SUPC. The SUPC had to answer the questions of whether or not the appointments were valid and whether or not the SUPC held jurisdiction over such a debate. The SUPC ruled that Marbury was entitled to his appointment and that the SUPC was the arbiter of the law (it gave the court the power to judicial review). This is one of the most important (if not the most important) cases to go before the SUPC. Constitutional Clause: supremacy 2) McCulloch v. Maryland, 1819 Case Background and SUPC Decision: The state of Maryland taxed the national bank. The SUPC ruled that a state does not have the ability to tax the federal government. This solidified the supremacy of the federal government (as opposed to affirming the power of state governments). Constitutional Clause: Supremacy, necessary and proper 3) Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824 Case Background and SUPC Decision: A New York state law gave two individuals the right to operate steamboats in waterways between New Jersey and New York. One of the steamboat operators claimed that states didnt have a right to regulate interstate commerce. The SUPC agreed and said that only Congress can regulate interstate commerce. Constitutional Clause: Commerce 4) Barron v. Baltimore, 1833 Case Background and SUPC Decision: Barron said the city of Baltimore owed him compensation for destruction to his business. The SUPC ruled that even though Barron felt his amendment rights under the Bill of Rights were violated, the Bill of Rights did not apply to the state governments (only to the national government). This was a big deal because it was as if the SUPC was telling the states that they did not have to protect their citizens rights under the Bill of Rights. This would later be overturned. Constitutional Clause: Supremacy, 5th Amendment (eminent domain) 5) Dred Scott v. Sandford, 1857 Case Background and SUPC Decision: Dred Scott was a slave who resided in free areas of the country. Once he returned to a slave area, he sued for his freedom in court. The SUPC ruled that slaves are not citizens and therefore cannot sue in court AND ruled the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional (in an attempt to prevent this problem from happening again). Constitutional Clause: Article III and IV (based upon these articles Scott could never be a citizen)

6) Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896 Case Background and SUPC Decision: Homer Plessy boarded a railcar that was designated For Whites Only. Plessy was one-eighths African-American and seven-eighths white and was arrested for breaking the law when he was not sitting in the railcar marked For Coloreds. Plessy felt his 14th Amendment rights were not being protected under this law (Louisiana Separate Car Act). The SUPC ruled that separate but equal facilities were constitutional. Constitutional Clause:14th Amendment, separate but equal Interesting Fact: Homer Plessys arrest was planned in an attempt to constitutionally challenge the LA law. 7) Weeks v. US, 1914 Case Background and SUPC Decision: Police searched the home of Fremont Weeks without a warrant and seized papers that implicated Weeks in the illegal sale of lottery tickets. The SUPC ruled that this search was illegal and established the exclusionary rule (evidence obtained illegally (meaning, without a warrant) will not be used in court). Constitutional Clause: 4th Amendment 8) Schenck v. US, 1919 Case Background and SUPC Decision: Schenck distributed flyers denouncing the draft and pushing socialism. The SUPC established the clear and present danger test. The clear and present danger test said that speech that encourages dangerous action is not protected. The SUPC ruled that his actions were unconstitutional and not protected under the 1st Amendment. Constitutional Clause: Alien and Sedition Acts; 1st Amendment 9) Gitlow v. New York, 1925 Case Background and SUPC Decision: Gitlow was arrested for distributing socialist propaganda and convicted under state anarchy law in New York. Gitlow felt his freedom of speech was violated under the New York law. The SUPC ruled that this can be a threshold issue (meaning it depends) and it is really up to state legislatures to determine the restrictions of speech as long as the laws are reasonable. The SUPC also ruled that while speech is protected it can be limited if it promotes a dangerous tendency. Constitutional Clause: 5th Amendment, 1st Amendment 10) Near v. Minnesota, 1931

Case Background and SUPC Decision: Publisher Jay Near was prevented from publishing an article under a gag law in Minnesota. The SUPC ruled that this was unconstitutional because it violated the 1st Amendment. Therefore, the government cannot censor the press. Constitutional Clause:1st Amendment (freedom of press, speech) 11) Palko v. Connecticut, 1937 Case Background and SUPC Decision: Palko was tried for 1st degree murder. He was instead found guilty of 2nd degree murder. The court won an appeal, tried him again and he was found guilty of

1st degree murder and sentenced to death. The SUPC ruled that this second conviction did not violate the double jeopardy clause (clause that says you cant be tried for the same crime twice) of the 5th amendment. This was a big ruling because the SUPC said that protection against double jeopardy was not a FUNDAMENTAL right, unlike freedom of speech and thought. Palko died in the electric chair in 1938. Constitutional Clause:Double jeopardy, 5th amendment 12) West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 1943 Case Background and SUPC Decision: West Virginia State Board of Education required that the flag salute be compulsory, and refusal to salute the flag was viewed as insubordination and was punishable by expulsion and charges of delinquency. The SUPC said that such punishment was a violation of the 1st amendment and was a compulsory unification of opinion. Then, Justice Robert Jackson wrote Mrs. Lehmans favorite SUPC quote [i]f there is any fixed star in our , constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein." Constitutional Clause:1st amendment, freedom of religion 13) Korematsu v. U.S., 1944 Case Background and SUPC Decision: The military, under orders of FDR, deemed such areas in the US as critical to national defense and ordered the removal of citizens living in those areas. Fred Korematsu remained in one such area and violated the orders of the army. Korematsu claimed that the army and the government went beyond their war powers and intentionally excluded Americans of Japanese descent. The SUPC sided with the government and held that in times of peril, the government can suspend individual rights. Constitutional Clause: Discrimination, war powers of the president 14) Everson v. Board of Education, 1947 Case Background and SUPC Decision: A NJ law allowed financial reimbursements to parents who sent their children to public school on public transportation. Children who went to Catholic schools (parochial schools) also qualified for this reimbursement. Everson felt this was a violation of the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment because the state of NJ was helping parents send their kids to Catholic school by reimbursing them. The SUPC said that this was constitutional because the government of NJ wasnt sending money to the school itself, just to the parents. Constitutional Clause: 1st Amendment, establishment clause 15) Brown v. Board of Education, 1954 Case Background and SUPC Decision: Black and white children were segregated in the public school system. The plaintiff (Brown, along with others in a class action lawsuit) said that the doctrine of separate but equal segregation denied black students their equal protection under the 14th amendment. The SUPC agreed and said that separate but equal was unconstitutional. This overturned Plessy v Ferguson, 1896. Constitutional Clause: 14 amendment equal protection clause

16) Roth v. U.S., 1957 Case Background and SUPC Decision: Roth operated a bookstore and was convicted of mailing obscene items under a federal statute. Roth felt that this was a violation of freedom of expression. The SUPC ruled that obscenity was not protected under the 1st Amendment. The court felt that obscene materials had no social purpose and therefore did not need to be protected. They also established an obscenity test stating that items should be evaluated under this standard, whether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to prurient interest." The court said that this definition of obscenity was fair warning to all and applied under due process. Constitutional Clause: 1st Amendment 17) Mapp v. Ohio, 1961 Case Background and SUPC Decision: Dollree Mapps home was searched as the police thought she was harboring a fugitive. Instead they found a trunk of obscene materials and convicted her under an obscenity law. The SUPC ruled that since the evidence was found illegally they it was therefore inadmissible in court. This was a HUGE court decision. It changed the rules for all levels of the court system because it said that all evidence obtained illegally would be inadmissible in court. This would create a lot of problems, as police would struggle to determine when evidence was illegal or legal. Constitutional Clause:4th Amendment 18) Engel v. Vitale, 1962 Case Background and SUPC Decision: The Board of Regents for the state of NY established a voluntary school prayer at the beginning of each day. It read as such, Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and beg Thy blessings upon us, our teachers, and our country." Engel filed a petition with the court and said it was a violation of the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment. The SUPC agreed and said that regardless of the fact that it was nondenominational and voluntary, it was still an establishment (endorsement) of religion by the state of NY. Constitutional Clause:1st amendment, establishment clause Pronounced like: Engull v Vee Tal 19) Baker v. Carr, 1962 Case Background and SUPC Decision: Baker felt that TN was violated citizens rights by its failure to take into redistricting accounts the shifts in the states population. The SUPC had to answer the question of whether or not they had jurisdiction over redistricting cases. The SUPC ruled that legislative apportionment was a justiciable issue (an issue over which the court had jurisdiction). Constitutional Clause:14th amendment 20) Abington School District v. Schempp, 1963 Case Background and SUPC Decision: This case deals with bible reading in public schools. At the beginning of the school day, students in PA were required to read 10 verses of the bible. After finishing the verses, students were required to recite the Lords Prayer. Students could be excused

from the recitation with a note from their parents. Did this violate the religious freedom clause of the 1st Amendment? The SUPC said it did, the SUPC felt that not only did it violate the freedom of religion clause, but it also violated the establishment clause because the PA school system intended the activity to be religious. A parental note of exclusion did not make it okay. Constitutional Clause:1st amendment 21) Gideon v. Wainwright, 1963 Case Background and SUPC Decision: Gideon was charged by a FL court for breaking and entering. He did not have enough money to pay for a lawyer. When he requested that the court appoint him a lawyer, the court refused, stating that they were only required to appoint lawyers to indigent (poor) defendants in capital cases. As a result, Gideon defended himself and was found guilty. He was sentenced to 5 years in prison. Gideon claimed that the court violated his 6th (fair trial) and 14th amendment rights (equal protection). The SUPC unanimously agreed and said that in the courtroom, lawyers were necessities, not luxuries. Constitutional Clause:6th amendment, 14th amendment Interesting Fact: The movie, Gideons Trumpet, is based upon this court case. 22) Wesberry v. Sanders, 1963 Case Background and SUPC Decision: Wesberry filed suit against the governor of GA, Carl Sanders, claiming that his district had a population 2-3 times the size of others votes, thus diluting Wesberrys vote. The SUPC ruled that GAs districts grossly discriminated against others and stated that no right is more precious, than the right to vote. Constitutional Clause:14th amendment 23) NY Times v. Sullivan, 1964 Case Background and SUPC Decision: Sullivan, a police chief in Montgomery, filed a suit against a local newspaper that had indicated his guilt and improper behavior in the imprisonment of Martin Luther King, Jr. Sullivan filed a libel suit, and under AL law, a petitioner did not have to prove that he was harmed in order to win a libel suit. Sullivan won $500,000 in the lawsuit. The SUPC ruled that the AL law was unconstitutional because it did not require the petitioner to prove harm. This was a violation of freedom of the press. The only time that the government would not protect the press if when false statements were made with malice. Constitutional Clause:1st amendment freedom of the press 24) Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965 Case Background and SUPC Decision: Griswold was the executive director of a Planned Parenthood in Connecticut. Griswold, along with other employees of Planned Parenthood, gave family planning advice (including birth control advice) to married couples. Griswold was convicted under a Connecticut law that prevented people from providing advice to couples for the purposes of preventing conception. The question before the SUPC was whether or not the constitution protected the rights of married couples to receive this counseling. The SUPC said that it did. They stated that although there was no explicitly stated amendment that says, right to privacy, that it

was implied within the shadows of the 1st, 3rd, 4th and 9th amendments. They called those shadows penumbras. This was a monumental case as it laid the groundwork for Roe v. Wade. Constitutional Clause:1st, 3rd, 4th, and 9th amendments 25) Miranda v. Arizona, 1965 Case Background and SUPC Decision: The SUPC was called in to question the constitutionality of a number of cases in which the defendants testified, or incriminated themselves, without knowing of their right to counsel. In none of the cases were defendants given information about their rights during an interrogation. One defendant was even questioned for 5 days without being notified of his right to counsel! The SUPC ruled that these interrogation procedures violated their 5th amendment rights of self-incrimination. The court even outlined a specific warning (known as the Miranda warning) that all interrogators must read to suspects. A typical Miranda Warning reads as such, You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say or do can and will be held against you in the court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you. Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you? Constitutional Clause: 5th Amendment due process Interesting Fact: Miranda made a living charging police officers to autograph their Miranda cards. 26) United States v OBrien, 1968 Case Background and SUPC Decision: David OBrien burned his draft card at a Boston courthouse. He claimed that he was exercising his 1st amendment rights in opposition to the war. He was convicted under a law that made it a federal crime to burn/destroy a draft card. The SUPC ruled that this law was constitutional. They felt that the law did not directly prohibit OBriens right to freedom of speech. Constitutional Clause:1st amendment 27) Lemon v. Kurtzman, 1971 Case Background and SUPC Decision: Teachers in PA were receiving supplements to their salary for teaching secular (nonreligious) subjects in Catholic schools. The SUPC ruled that the salary supplements violated the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment. This case is monumental because the court also established the Lemon Test as a way to evaluate whether or not an action is in violation of the establishment clause. The Lemon Test is as follows: 1. The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose; 2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; 3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion. Another one of Mrs. Lehmans favorite SUPC quotes is excessive government entanglement. So, what the Lemon Test means is that every time an action is called into question, courts must apply the Lemon Test to it to determine its constitutionality. If ANY of the three prongs are called into question, then the action is unconstitutional. Thats why this case is a big deal. Constitutional Clause:1st amendment establishment clause 28) Miller v. California, 1973

Case Background and SUPC Decision: Miller conducted a mass advertisement/mailing marketing his sale of adult material. He was convicted under a California law that prohibited the distribution of obscene materials. Some people complained that his catalogs were too explicit. The SUPC ruled that the sale of explicit material did not have 1st amendment protection. The SUPC then modified the obscenity test as follows: "[t]he basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be: (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; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. Constitutional Clause:1st amendment freedom of expression 29) Roe v. Wade, 1973 Case Background and SUPC Decision: Roe, a Texas woman, sought to terminate her pregnancy. Texas law prohibited abortion except in cases to spare the mothers life. The SUPC ruled that a womans right to an abortion fell within the constitutional bounds of a womans right to privacy (from Griswold). The court gave the pregnant woman total autonomy over her body during the 1st trimester, but placed varying state requirements over her body during the 2nd and 3rd trimesters. As a result, 46 states had to change their laws. Thats a lot of states! Constitutional Clause:1st , 3rd, 4th, and 9th amendments Interesting Fact: Jane Roes real name is Norma McCorvey. She later became a pro-life activist. 30) U.S. v Nixon, 1974 Case Background and SUPC Decision: After a grand jury returned indictments for Nixons aides in the Watergate affair, the prosecution sought access to the Nixon tapes. Nixon claimed that he had the right of executive privilege and would not hand the tapes over to prosecution. The SUPC ruled that the executive branch was not completely immune from due process of the law. This was a big deal because Nixon resigned shortly after this ruling. Constitutional Clause:Powers of the president, executive privilege 31) Buckley v. Valeo, 1976 Case Background and SUPC Decision: In an attempt to keep corruption out of political campaigns, Congress placed a limit on the amount an individual can donate to a political campaign. This included a limit on the amount a person can donate to his or her own campaign. The SUPC upheld portions of this law claiming that limits on individual donations uphold the integrity of campaign finance, but that you could not limit the amount an individual can contribute to their own campaign because that violates their 1st amendment rights. Constitutional Clause: 1st amendment freedom of speech 32) Gregg v. Georgia, 1976 Case Background and SUPC Decision: A jury found Gregg guilty of armed robbery and murder and sentenced him to death. Gregg appealed his case stating that the death penalty was cruel and

unusual punishment that violated the 8th and 14th amendments. The SUPC ruled that the death penalty was not cruel and unusual in certain criminal cases, such as murder. Constitutional Clause: 8th and 14th Amendments Cruel and unusual punishment 33) U.C. Regents v. Bakke, 1978 Case Background and SUPC Decision: Allan Bakke, a 35-year-old white man, was denied admission to the University of California Medical School at Davis. He applied two times and was rejected both times. The school reserved 16 spots for qualified minorities. Bakkes qualifications (GPA and test scores) were well above the minority students qualifications that were admitted to the program. Bakke felt that the school violated his rights under the 14th amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. There was no single majority opinion in the case. What ultimately happened was that the SUPC ordered that Bakke be admitted to the school and stated that the rigid use of the quota system violated the 14th amendment. However, the SUPC stated that use of race as admission criteria was permissible. Constitutional Clause: 14th Amendment, Civil Rights Act of 1964 34) New Jersey v. T.L.O., 1985 Case Background and SUPC Decision: T.L.O. (Tracy Lois Odem name protected due to her being a juvenile) was accused of smoking cigarettes in the school bathroom. A further search by the schools vice-principal uncovered rolling papers, marijuana, a large stack of $1 bills and a list of students who owed T.L.O. money. T.L.O. claimed that the search violated her 4th and 14th amendment rights. The SUPC said that the search was constitutional because she was caught smoking in the bathroom. The sign of rolling papers in her purse was the exception to the constitutional rule that you must have a warrant to search a persons belongings. The school was right to conduct the search and the rolling papers were appropriate probable cause. Constitutional Clause:4th Amendment, 14th Amendment 35) Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, 1988 Case Background and SUPC Decision: The school newspaper of Hazelwood East High School was called The Spectrum. It was written and edited by the students. In one edition, the school principal found two of the articles to be inappropriate (articles dealt with students who were pregnant and parental divorces). He ordered that the articles be withheld from publication. Cathy Kuhlmeier and two other students brought the case to court based upon 1st amendment rights. The SUPC ruled that schools were not required to affirmatively promote particular types of student speech. Schools were responsible for educating students about appropriate speech and they had the right to prohibit speech that did not align with the shared values of a civilized social order. In this case, the principals actions were constitutional. Constitutional Clause:1st amendment 36) Hustler v. Falwell, 1988 Case Background and SUPC Decision: A lead story in a 1983 issue of Hustler Magazine featured a parody of an actual advertisement claiming that Jerry Falwell (a Fundamentalist minister and political leader) had drunken and incestuous relations with his mother in an outhouse. Hustler sued based on libel and invasion of privacy. Hustler Magazine appealed on the grounds of 1st amendment rights. The SUPC ruled that Hustler Magazines actions were constitutional. Their

explanation was that since Falwell was a public figure he could not recover libel under grounds of emotional distress without showing that the offending publication contained a false statement of fact, which was made with "actual malice." Constitutional Clause:1st Amendment freedom of speech 37) Employment Division v. Smith (aka Oregon v. Smith), 1988 Case Background and SUPC Decision: Smith was fired for suing peyote in a religious ceremony at his Native American church. He claimed this was a violation of the free exercise clause of the 1st Amendment. The SUPC ruled that the free exercise clause permits the state to prohibit peyote because it was a neutral law (and not one that only discriminated against one religion). Constitutional Clause:1st Amendment free exercise clause 38) Texas v. Johnson, 1989 Case Background and SUPC Decision: In 1984, in front of the Dallas City Hall, Gregory Johnson burned an American flag as a means of protest against the Reagan administration. Johnson was convicted under a TX law that outlaws flag desecration. He was sentenced to one year in jail and a $2,000 fine. He appealed to the Supreme Court on the grounds of the 1st Amendment. The SUPC ruled that his 1st Amendment rights were violated because his actions were expressive and had a political nature. The fact that some people found it to be offensive was not a responsibility of the government. Furthermore, the SUPC said that the government cannot limit what messages are communicated through certain symbols. Then, they said another one of Mrs. Lehmans favorite SUPC quotes, "[i]f there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable." 39) United States v. Eichman, 1990 Case Background and SUPC Decision: In 1989, Congress pact the Flag Protection Act making it a crime to desecrate an American flag or any likeness of an American flag(burning it for the sake of a proper disposal was okay). Eichman burned a flag in protest of the U.S.s foreign policy. Another man, Haggerty, burned a flag in protest of the flag Protection Act. Both men appealed on grounds of the 1st Amendment. The SUPC ruled that the act was unconstitutional and used the ruling of Texas v Johnson as precedent. The act suppressed freedom of expression. Constitutional Clause:1st amendment - freedom of expression 40) Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 1992 Case Background and SUPC Decision: The PA legislature amended its abortion law in 1989 mandating individual consent, or parental consent (if pregnant woman was underage) and spousal consent (if the pregnant woman was married) and a 24-hour waiting period. Many abortion rights groups appealed the decision on the grounds that it violated Roe v. Wade. This was a really bitter decision for the SUPC. They stated that the laws in states (like PA) were constitutional as long as it did not place an undue burden on the pregnant woman seeking an abortion. If the laws provided a big obstacle to the woman then they were not okay. The only part of this PA law that failed the undue burden test, was the spousal consent requirement. Everything else passed. Constitutional Clause:1st, 3rd, 4th and 9th amendments

41) Shaw v. Reno, 1993 Case Background and SUPC Decision: North Carolina submitted a redistricting plan that resulted in two minority-majority districts (two black majority districts). Five North Carolina residents sued claiming that the only purpose of this redistricting plan was to ensure the election of black representatives. They sued based on the grounds that their 14th Amendment rights were being violated by the creation of these racially gerrymandered districts. The SUPC ruled that their rights were violated because the shape was so bizarre that it suggested an ulterior motive. The court remanded the decision (gave it back to the state to deal with) because they wanted the state government to have a chance to look at it again. Constitutional Clause:14th amendment equal protection clause 42) U.S. v. Lopez, 1995 Case Background and SUPC Decision: Lopez, a 12th grade student, carried a concealed weapon into his Texas high school. He was charged with the violation of a federal statute, the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. He was sentenced to 6 months in prison. Lopez sued on the grounds that the congressional act exceeded the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause. The SUPC agreed and said that Congress had no right to regulate guns in school zones on the grounds that guns in school zones affect economic activity. Constitutional Clause:Commerce clause 43) Romer v. Evans, 1995 Case Background and SUPC Decision: Colorado added an amendment to their state constitution that precluded any act from being passed that protected anyone from discrimination based upon their, "homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships." Homosexual groups in Colorado posed a legal challenge, claiming that this amendment was a violation of their equal protection rights under the 14th amendment. The SUPC agreed and said that this state amendment was unconstitutional and that preventing protection from discrimination for homosexuals was wrong. The only time that such prevention would be constitutional is if it advanced a legitimate government interest and in the case of Colorado, it did not. Constitutional Clause:14th Amendment equal protection clause 44) Printz v. US, 1997 Case Background and SUPC Decision: The Brady handgun Violence Prevention Act (Brady Bill) required state law enforcement officers to do a background check on all gun purchasers. Printz (a state law enforcement official) claimed that this was unconstitutional because Congress was reaching beyond their powers in the necessary and proper clause. The SUPC agreed and stated that Congress did not have the right to mandate background checks and that this was a right left to the states. Constitutional Clause:Necessary and proper clause 45) Clinton v. City of New York, 1998 Case Background and SUPC Decision: President Clinton selectively cancelled provisions of various bills under the Line Item Veto Act. A group in New York sued claiming that this was unconstitutional. The SUPC agreed and said that the line item veto was a violation of the

10

presentment clause of the Constitution. A line-item veto was essentially giving the president the power to amend bills on his own. Constitutional Clause:Presentment clause 46) Bush v. Gore, 2000 Case Background and SUPC Decision: The Florida Supreme Court ordered that every county in Florida must manually recount all under-votes (ballots which didnt clearly indicate a vote for president). Bush filed suit claiming that this order violated equal protection under the 14th amendment. The SUPC agreed in a per curiam (generally unanimous and anonymous) decision stating that the Florida Supreme Courts decision was unconstitutional. The SUPC felt that there was no way to ensure that everyones votes were being counted equally and under the same standards and guidelines. This was a divisive issue for the court, as some felt it wasnt their jurisdiction (the instead thought it was a political question) and others felt it should have been left up to the state of Florida to decide without SUPC involvement. Constitutional Clause:14th amendment equal protection clause 47) Stenberg v. Carhart, 2000 Case Background and SUPC Decision: The state of Nebraska passed a law that prohibited a partial birth abortion, unless such an action was necessary to save the life of the mother. It defined a partial birth abortion as " as a procedure in which the doctor "partially delivers vaginally a living unborn child before killing the... child," and defined the latter phrase to mean "intentionally delivering into the vagina a living unborn child, or a substantial portion thereof, for the purpose of performing a procedure that the [abortionist] knows will kill the... child and does kill the... child." If any medical provider violates the law it is a felony. Carhart, a medical provider, sued claiming that the law was unconstitutional and placed an undue burden on the medical provider and the mother. It also stated that this law violated the liberty protected under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. The SUPC agreed, stating that this law was unconstitutional because it placed an undue burden on the woman seeking an abortion. (As outlined in Casey). The law was unconstitutional because it did not provide any exceptions for cases in which the mothers health is threatened (just when she was in danger of death). Constitutional Clause:1st, 3rd, 4th, and 9th amendments 48) U.S. v Morrison, 2000 Case Background and SUPC Decision: While enrolled at Virginia Tech, Christy Brzonkala alleged that Antonio Morrison and James Crawford (both football players) had raped her. Brzonkala filed a complaint under a Virginia Tech statute and Morrison was suspended for two semesters. Crawford was not punished. Brzonkala appealed the case through the school and eventually Morrisons punishment was suspended for being too excessive. Brzonkala dropped out of school as a result and filed suit under the federal Violence Against Women Act of 1994. Crawford and Morrison filed suit claiming that Congress did not have the right to pass the VAWA, which provided civil punishment for gender-motivated crimes. Congress passed this law based upon the commerce clause of the Constitution. The SUPC ruled that Congress had no right to enact a statute like this based upon the commerce clause because it didnt affect commerce. Constitutional Clause:Commerce clause 49) Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 2002

11

Case Background and SUPC Decision: Ohio sponsored a program that provided vouchers for students to attend the public or private schools of their choosing. Over 82% of the schools participating had a religious affiliation and over 96% of students participating were attending religious schools. A group of Ohio taxpayers sued on the grounds that the school voucher program violated the establishment clause. The SUPC disagreed and said the program was constitutional because the only people who benefitted from the religion were the people who voluntarily took part in the program. The government of Ohio was not advancing a religion as a result. Constitutional Clause:1st amendment establishment clause 50) Ashcroft v. ACLU, 2002 Case Background and SUPC Decision: Congress passed the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) to prevent minors from accessing pornography online. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) sued claiming that the act was unconstitutional because it applied community standards to decide what was obscene or not. They felt that the most puritanical communities would restrict material to the more tolerant ones. The SUPC agreed and stated that the COPA had not provided effective means as to evaluate what material was appropriate and inappropriate. Constitutional Clause:1st amendment freedom of expression 51) Lawrence v. Texas, 2003 Case Background and SUPC Decision: Responding to a reported weapons disturbance in a private residence in Houston, police entered the home of John Lawrence and found him and another adult male engaging in a private, consensual act. Lawrence and Tyron Garner (the other male) were convicted of deviate sexual intercourse which prohibited people of the same sex to engage in certain sexual acts. This case went to the court on the grounds that it violated the equal protection clause and due process under the 14th amendment. The SUPC agreed that the Texas law was unconstitutional because there should be no reason that the government can prevent two consenting people from engaging in certain activities in private, stating, "Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. Constitutional Clause:3rd amendment right to privacy 52) Boumediene v. Bush, 2008 Case Background and SUPC Decision: Lakdhar Boumediene was seized by US Intelligence officers when they suspected his involvement in an attempt to attack the US embassy there. He and his co-conspirators were classified as enemy combatants and detained at Guantanamo Bay. He did not receive a writ of habeas corpus. The SUPC ruled that even though Boumediene was held at Guantanamo, he still deserved his 5th amendment rights. Constitutional Clause: Due Process, 5th Amendment 53) District of Columbia v. Heller, 2008 Case Background and SUPC Decision: A group of private gun bearers brought suit against a D.C. law that barred the registration of handguns, required licenses for all pistols, and mandated that all legal firearms be kept unloaded and disassembled or trigger locked. The private gun bearers felt that this was a violation of the 2nd amendment the right to bear arms. The essential question was

12

whether or not the right to bear arms is associated with participation in the militia. The SUPC agreed with the private gun bearers and ruled the D.C. law unconstitutional. Constitutional Clause:2nd amendment

54) Safford United School District v. Redding, 2008 Case Background and SUPC Decision: Redding, an 8th grader at Safford Middle School was stripsearched by school officials on the basis of a tip that she was in possession of ibuprofen (school policy prohibited student possession of ibuprofen). Redding filed suit and claimed that the strip search was a violation of her 4th amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure (the school officials even searched her underwear). The SUPC agreed that her 4th amendment rights were violated and that school officials did not need to search her underwear. They said the search must be related and appropriate based upon the claim. The SUPC also ruled that school officials were not liable as there was no clear law defining the parameters of a reasonable search. This was a big deal for Justice Stevens who wrote, in his dissent, "[i]t does not require a constitutional scholar to conclude that a nude search of a 13-year old child is an invasion of constitutional rights of some magnitude." Constitutional Clause:4th amendment unreasonable search and seizure 55) Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, 2010 Case Background and SUPC Decision: Citizens United (a conservative, non profit organization) produced a movie called Hilary: The President, in which they express opinions about Hilary Clintons ability to be a good president. Citizens United claimed that the limitations placed upon them by the BCRA (2002) were unconstitutional. The SUPC agreed, stating that corporate spending cannot be limited in political campaigns. Constitutional Clause:1st amendment 56) Snyder v Phelps, 2011 Case Background and SUPC Decision: The family of decease Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder filed suit against the Westboro Baptist Church for picketing at his funeral. They held signs that said, Thank God for dead soldiers, and Fag troops. The family was awarded $5 million in damages, but a Federal Court of Appeals said that the churchs speech was protected. The question before the SUPC was if the 1st Amendment protects protestors at a funeral from liability from inflicting emotional harm on the family of the deceased? The SUPC said in an 8-1 decision that yes, even if the words were repugnant, and offensive. Constitutional Clause: 1st Amendment Freedom of expression, speech

13