Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Court Cases, Also denied lawyer - Coggle Diagram
Court Cases
1st Amendment
Speech
Obscenities
Roth v. U.S.
Roth was convicted of selling obscene and lewd books.
The court kept the conviction saying that obscenity was not protected speech.
Bethel v. Frasier
Fraser gave a speech at a school assembly that was declared obscene and was then suspended for 2 days.
The court decided the school was justified in doing this because it was counted as vulgar and offensive language.
Miller v. California
Miller mailed out ads for obscene material and was convicted for distributing obscene material.
The court decided that it was not protected speech since it had no social value.
Reno v. ACLU
The 1996 communications decency act limiting the transmission of obscene and indecent material.
The court ruled that the act violated the first amendment because it was not specific in its definition of indecent.
Symbolic
Virginia v. Black
Burning the cross in VA should be allowed since VAs laws around it are written that every burning of it is interpreted as intent to intermediate.
The court decided that the law about burning to intimidate was legal but having it be where all cases of cross burning are considered intimidation is unconstitutional.
Texas v. Johnson
Johnson burned an American flag and was sentenced to a year in prison but appealed under the 1st amendment.
The court decided that it was protected speech saying that just because people take offense to it does not make it unprotected.
U.S. v. Nixon
Nixon wanted to withhold information because of executive privilege of not having to share information with the other branches.
The court ruled that high level communication did not need to be confidential.
Expression
Gitlow v. New York
Gitlow distributed a manifesto calling for the overthrow of the government by force. The argument being that this speech incites the violent overthrow of the government.
The court decided that the government could punish speech that threatens national security.
Brandenburg v. Ohio
Ohio had a law that made it illegal to advocate for crime, violence, terrorism, etc. as a method of political reform.
The court decided that this law did violate free speech because the law made it illegal the teaching of some doctrine.
Chaplinksy v. New Hampshire
Chaplinsky was distributing papers attacking religions and the town marshal. This went against a law prohibiting intentionally offensive speech etc.
The court upheld the conviction saying that those were “fighting words” and caused direct harm to the marshal.
-
Freedom Of Religion
County of Allegheny v. ACLU
The argument was: is a Christian nativity scene put up and in a public county courthouse a violation of the establishment clause? Is it showing that the government favors one religion?
The court decided yes, especially with the message on the nativity being about God and the birth of Jesus christ.
Lukumi Babalu Aye v. Hialeah
Is banning animal sacrifice a violation of the free exercise clause because it prevents people from freely practicing their religion?
The court decided yes since the law banning animal sacrifice was exclusive to the church and was an overstep of the city.
Reynolds v. U.S.
An LDS member wanted to marry a woman while still being married arguing it was a part of their religion to do so, so there being laws forbidding it were unconstitutional.
The court ruled against Reynolds saying that they can't outlaw the belief of polygamy but can outlaw the practice of.
Wisconsin v. Yoder
Members of the Amish community refused to send their kids to high school against Wisconsin law. They argued that high school attendance was contrary to their beliefs.
The court sided with the Amish saying that school beyond 8th was greatly conflicted with the Amish way of life and practice. As well as the benefit not being worth the cost.
Sherbert v. Verner
Sherbet refused to work on Saturdays because it was her holy day and thus was not eligible to receive unemployment benefits. She argued that this discriminated against her beliefs.
The court sided with Sherbert saying this restriction on unemployment put a significant burden on her to exercise freely.
Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius
Hobby Lobby health coverage did not cover contraceptives because of their religious values. Is this allowed under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act?
The court decided yes its allowed because otherwise religious corporations would be forced to fund something that went against their religious beliefs.
Van Orden v. Perry
There was a ten commandments monument on Texas government building grounds. The argument was that this showed government endorsement of religion.
The court decided no that having a monument promoting a message that goes with doctrine is not unconstitutional.
Media
Scandalous Media
Near v. Minnesota
The case involved a law allowing prior restraint on malicious or scandalous publications. The argument was whether this law violated the freedom of the press.
The court ruled that the state law was unconstitutional, deciding that freedom of the press was a constitutional right.
NY Times v. Sullivan
The NYT published a critical article about an official raising the question if the media is protected from libel suits under the 1st amendment.
The court ruled in favor of the NYT establishing that the press has to be wrong to be held accountable and have genuine malice.
Hustler v. Falwell
Falwell sued Hustler for damages caused by their publishing of a parody story.
The court decided that yes public figures like Falwell are subject to parodies.
New York Times v. U.S.
This was about the NYT and the pentagon papers and if the NYT was allowed to publish them or if it was a breach of national security.
The court decided that NYT was allowed to publish under the first and that security is not an excuse to remove the 1st amendments protection.
Protest
Schenck v. U.S.
He distributed leaflets telling people to ignore their draft letters. The argument was that the espionage act was violating his freedom of speech.
The court ruled that the espionage act was not in violation and decided that this was a direct threat to conscription in the military.
U.S. v. O’Brien
O’Brien burned his draft card in front of the courthouse in protest of the war. There's a law prohibiting destruction of draft cards. Is this law unconstitutional?
The court decided that it was a constitutional law.
Snyder v. Phelps
The Snyder family sued over protest at the funeral of their fallen son who was a military service member.
The court decided that protests at the funeral of service members is protected speech.
5th Amendment
Miranda Rights
Miranda v. Arizona
Miranda was not read his 5th amendment rights and even after giving a connection to the case sued to have the case overturned since he were not read his rights.
The court agreed that since Miranda was not read his 5th amendment rights that it was a violation of the 5th.
Ashcraft v. Tennessee
Ashcraft was questioned for 36 hours straight by officers and ended up confessing after having not slept or had a break. The argument being he was held illegally and also not given access to a lawyer.
The court decided that this confession was not valid since Ashcraft's 6th amendment right to a lawyer was not observed and the fact that he had been held for 36 hours straight.
.
Dickerson v. US..
Dickerson confessed to being a getaway driver but claimed that he was not read his Miranda rights and that his statement should be suppressed as result. The government argued that due to 18 USC Section 3501 that since the confession was voluntary even if Miranda rights were not read that the confession is still valid.
The court decided that Section 3501 did not overrule Miranda rights and that Miranda rights governs admissibility of statements.
Due Process
Nix v. Williams
Williams killed a 10 year old girl and got rid of the body along the side of a road. He then gave statements that led to the discovery of the body without an attorney present. The argument being that since there was no attorney that this was improperly obtained evidence.
The court decided that since the body would have been discovered eventually without Williams' help that it was valid evidence.
Hamdiv. Rumsfeld
Hamdi was captured by the military in Afghanistan and declared an enemy combatant after fighting against the US forces. It was then learned he was an American citizen. After being transferred to a prison in VA he petitioned to be released since his 5th amendment rights were violated by being held indefinitely and not given access to a lawyer. The question being as an enemy combatant was his 5th amendment rights limited?
The court decided that yes as an enemy combatant that his rights were limited but that he was allowed to contest his detention.
Raich v. Gonzalez
Medical marijuana was legalized in CA but was not consistent with the CSA and after the DEA took some of this marijuana a group of people sued citing the commerce clause and that Medical marijuana could not be regulated by congress in a state where it is legal.
The court decided that the commerce clause allowed congress to regulate local activities including the cultivation and distribution of marijuana.
Self Incrimination
Penry v.Johnson
Penry, who had many mental issues, was sentenced to death. The judge wanted to suppress the psychiatric report due to concerns with the 5th amendment. This information was withheld from the jury and he was sentenced to death. The question being was withholding this information constitutional?
The court decided no, that this information was necessary to the jury's decision. Since the report even if held in considerable doubt would have à substantial effect on the case.
Private Porperty
Kelov. City of New London
The city was taking private land to sell to private developers for the good of the city’s economy. The owners of this land sued arguing that the 5th protected them from seizure unless just compensation is given but also that land may only be taken for public use and that the argument of private developers counting as public use
The court decided that the city taking the land was constitutional and qualified as public use. Since the city was taking it for the good of the public.
Schools
Expression in schools
-
Speech
Morse v. Frederick
Does the 1st amendment protect speech promoting drug use if its a student at a school event?
The court decided that that speech is not protected because it undermines the school's drug policy and promotes illegal activity.
Expression
Tinker v. Des Moines
Students wore black armbands in support of ending the war in Vietnam; the courts argued that suspension as punishment for this was reasonable at first.
The supreme court decided that the armbands were an expressions of free speech and since it did not interfere with the school proceedings it was allowed.
Elk Grove School District v. Newdow
Are the words “under god” in the pledge of allegiance à violation of the first amendment?
The case was dismissed because Newdow, the father of a student in the school system, did not have custody of her.
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier
A principal didn't allow 2 articles in a school newspaper to be printed because they were considered inappropriate.
The court decided that schools were able to control the school newspaper since it was sponsored by the school.
-
Private Schools
Piercev. Society of Sisters
The Society of Sisters was a group that cared and educated orphans. There was a law requiring children in the district to be sent to public schools. The question arose of is this constitutional? Are private schools not an option?
The court decided that yes guardians are allowed to send their children to private schools if they wish to.
Zelman v. Simmons-Harris
Is the school voucher program that allows parents to give their funding to private religious schools instead of public endorsement of religion by the government?
The court decided that it was constitutional since it was part of Ohio's duties to provide schooling for its citizens. Also that since it was the parents choice not the governments it was allowed.
Everson v. Board of Ed.
Issue was aid to religious education. NJ had a law supporting transportation to religious private schools 96% of which were catholic. The argument being that this was indirect aid to religion by the government.
Court first upheld state laws allowing students who attend private religious schools to receive transportation.
4th Amendment
Search & Seizure
Terry v. Ohio
Terry and his associates were searched by a plainclothes officer who found illegal weapons on them. Terry argued that this was an illegal search and seizure under the 4th.
The court decided that this was a reasonable search and that the officer was correct in searching them. Since Terry was believed to be armed and thus was a danger to the officer.
Floridav. Bostick
Bostick gave permission for police on a bus to search his bag, after searching it they found cocaine and used it to convict him. Bostick argued that it was illegally obtained.
The court decided that it was legally obtained. Since Bostick had the choice to refuse/decline but didn't take it even after being advised by the officers.
Illinois v. Caballes
Caballes was found to have weed in his trunk during a traffic stop after a drug sniffing dog alerted officers to it. He claimed that this violated the 4th. This raised the question, is it ok to use a drug sniffing dog during a traffic stop?
The court decided that yes it's ok. Caballes 4th amendment rights weren't violated and reasonable suspicion was not needed to use a drug sniffing dog.
Warrants
Weeks v. US
Weeks’s home was searched by the police without a warrant and resulted in evidence that was used to convict him. Weeks argued this violated the 4th since there was no warrant.
The court agreed with Weeks and also sided with his request to have his possessions returned. The court upheld the 4th amendment.
U.S. v. Leon
Police searched Leon's house with a warrant seizing a large amount of drugs but a judge later found the warrant to be given mistakenly. The argument being that since it was a wrongly issued warrant that the evidence taken at this house was not permissible.
The court decided that the police acted with “good faith” and that evidence seized with a mistakenly issued warrant was still valid in court.
Katzv. U.S.
Katz used a public phone booth that was wiretapped by the police and with that information he was convicted. The argument was that the 4th protected his conversation since there was no search warrant.
The court decided yes that the 4th applied in this case. The court said that “the 4th protects people not places” meaning that Katz was protected while in the phone booth.
Mapp v. Ohio
Mapp was found with obscene material during a supposed illegal search of her home. The argument being that she was protected by the 4th amendment in her home.
The court decided that yes this was a violation of the 4th and that as such the evidence was inadmissible in court.
6th Amendment
Powell v. Alabama
9 young black men were sentenced to death after only a few days of trials for each. The argument was that they were not given enough time to form a defense which violates their rights.
The court decided that they were not given enough time to put together a defense and was a violation of the 6th amendment.
Denied lawyer
Escobedo v. Illinois
Escobedo confessed to murder after several hours of questioning. He requested to talk to his lawyer which was denied. He argued that this was a violation of his 6th amendment rights.
The court decided yes that this was a violation and that he should have been allowed to see his lawyer as soon as he was in custody.
Gideon v. Wainwright
Gideon was denied his request for a lawyer due to Florida state law. He was forced to represent himself and was found guilty. The argument being that this violates his 6th amendment right to counsel.
The court agreed that this was a violation of the constitution and that lawyers are always required to be provided to defendants.
14th Amendment
Wolf v. Colorado
Wolf objected to evidence presented at trial for his co-defendants since it would be inadmissible if the trials were separate. All the convictions were upheld.
The court decided that evidence even if seized illegally is not forbidden under the 14th in all cases.
Privacy
Birth Control
Roe v. Wade
Roe filed a suit against Wade claiming that her right to privacy should allow her to have an abortion.
The court sided with Roe saying that the 14th gives women the right to an abortion since it falls within the right to privacy.
Griswold v. Connecticut
Buxton opened a birth control clinic despite a state law banning the use of contraception. Aftering being convicted the argument that they were protected by the 14th was presented.
The court sided with Griswold. The court said that the right to privacy and thus contraception was evident in the 1st, 3rd, 4th and 9th amendments.
Webster v. Reproductive Health Services
Missouri put restrictions on abortion which were struck down by the lower courts. It then went to the supreme court.
The court decided that Missouri had no unconstitutional restrictions and that it was not a constitutional question as the preamble was not applied in a concrete manner.
Planned Parenthood v. Casey
PA introduced new abortion control laws in 1988 that changed many aspects of abortion including notifying the husband in case of the woman being married. Other restrictions included a 24 hour waiting period and in the case of being a minor consent of one parent. The question being are these restrictions constitutional?
The court reaffirmed roe but allowed all of PA’s restrictions besides for the notification of the husband. They said that it was à “undue burden” to notify the husband
2nd Amendment Guns
DC v. Heller
Heller wanted to keep a firearm in their home without a license. Arguing that the 2nd amendment gives them the right to do such.
The court decided that yes it was unconstitutional for DCs restriction on firearms and that Heller should be allowed to keep a firearm in their home.
8th Amendment
Death Penalty
Gregg v. Georgia
Gregg was given the death sentence and sued under the 8th
saying that the death sentence was cruel and unusual.
The court decided that the death punishment was
constitutional and did not violate the 8th or 14th.
Roper v. Simmons
Simmons was sentenced to death as a minor but after a case (Atkins vs VA) that the execution of minors could be considered cruel and unusual punishment.
The court decided that yes the death sentence for
minors was cruel and unusual.
.
Furman v. Georgia
Furman accidentally killed a member of the home he was robbing after he fell and the gun went off. He was given the death sentence and the argument was that this was a violation of the 8th due to the nature of the case.
The court decided yes that this was considered cruel and unusual punishment and was a violation of the 8th.
7th Amendment
Trial By Jury
Duncan v. Louisiana
Duncan was refused a jury trial by LA after slapping a fellow youth on the elbow.
The court decided that this was unconstitutional and that the jury trial is a pillar stone of the American justice system and has to be provided upon request.
-