Pre-Law: Constitutional Law

Facts of the Case:

After witnessing John W. Terry and two other men repeatedly passing a store window and talking, a police officer in Cleveland, Ohio, became suspicious that they were scouting the establishment for a robbery. The policeman came up to them, introduced himself, and searched their outer garments (frisk). He discovered Terry and another man carrying concealed weapons. Terry was found guilty of carrying a concealed weapon. He claimed his Fourth Amendment rights had been violated by the search.

Issue:

Did the officer’s stop and frisk of Terry violate the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures?

Decision:

In a decision that established an exception to the Fourth Amendment's requirements for a warrant and probable cause, the Supreme Court (8-1) declared that stop and frisk was constitutional and established the "reasonable suspicion" standard, which permits officers to stop and perform a limited search for weapons if they have specific and articulable facts that suggest a person may be armed and dangerous.

Citation:

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).

Facts of the Case:

While looking for a fugitive, police in Cleveland, Ohio, broke into Dollree Mapp's house without a warrant. They discovered pornographic materials during the search, which was against Ohio law. Although Mapp claimed that the search infringed upon her Fourth Amendment rights, she was found guilty based on this evidence.

Issue:

Did the use of illegally obtained evidence in state courts violate the Fourth Amendment and the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Decision:

The exclusionary rule, which was previously only applicable in federal cases, was extended to state courts by the Supreme Court's decision (6-3) that evidence gathered through unlawful search and seizure cannot be used in state courts. By guaranteeing that illegally obtained evidence is not admissible in federal or state prosecutions, this ruling reinforced Fourth Amendment protections.

Citation:

Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961).

Facts of the Case:

A high school student, Alfonso Lopez, was charged under the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 for bringing a handgun to school. Lopez challenged the law, arguing that Congress exceeded its authority under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution by regulating gun possession in a local school zone.

Issue:

Does the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 exceed Congress’s power to legislate under the Commerce Clause?

Decision:

The Court ruled in favor of Lopez, holding that the Gun-Free School Zones Act was unconstitutional because carrying a gun in a school zone is not an economic activity that substantially affects interstate commerce. This decision marked a limit on the scope of Congress’s powers under the Commerce Clause and reinforced the principle of federalism.

Citation:

United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, (1995)

Facts of the Case:

A New York public school encouraged students to recite a short, voluntary prayer at the start of each school day. A group of parents challenged the practice, arguing that it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by promoting religion in a public institution.

Issue:

Does the recitation of a prayer in public schools, even if voluntary and non-denominational, violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?

Decision:

The Court ruled in favor of Engel, holding that the state-sponsored prayer in public schools was unconstitutional. The decision emphasized that the government should not be involved in composing or promoting religious activities, as doing so violates the separation of church and state established by the First Amendment.

Citation:

Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, (1962)

Facts of the Case:

The state of Maryland attempted to tax the Baltimore branch of the Second Bank of the United States. James McCulloch, the bank's cashier, refused to pay the tax. Maryland argued that the federal government had no constitutional authority to create a national bank.

Issue:

Does Congress have the authority to establish a national bank, and can a state tax a federal institution?

Decision:

The Court ruled in favor of McCulloch, holding that Congress had implied powers under the Necessary and Proper Clause to create a national bank. The Court also declared that states cannot tax federal institutions, reinforcing the principle that the Constitution and federal laws are supreme over state laws.

Citation:

McCulloch v. Maryland, U.S 17, 316, (1819)

Facts of the Case:

Before President John Adams' presidency ended, he appointed several justices, including William Marbury, to the Court. However, when Thomas Jefferson took office, his Secretary of State, James Madison, refused to deliver the commissions. Marbury and others petitioned the Supreme Court to compel Madison to provide the documents.

Issue:

Did Marbury have a legal right to his commission, and did the Supreme Court have the authority to order its delivery?

Decision:

Marbury had a right to his commission. However, the Court also held that the Judiciary Act of 1789, which gave the Supreme Court the power to issue writs of mandamus in this context, was unconstitutional. The case established three major presidents: the Supreme Court is not a court of original jurisdiction, no branch of the government can expand or take away power from the other, and the most important power of the Supreme Court is judicial review.

Citation:

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).

Facts of the Case:

Several African American students, including Linda Brown, were denied admission to white public schools under laws allowing racial segregation. The case was a consolidation of five cases: Brown v. Board of Education (Kansas), Briggs v. Elliott (South Carolina), Davis v. County School Board (Virginia), Gebhart v. Belton (Delaware), and Bolling v. Sharpe (Washington, D.C.). The plaintiffs argued that segregated schools were inherently unequal and violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Issue:

Does the segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race deprive minority children of equal educational opportunities, thus violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Decision:

Yes. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled that racial segregation in public education is inherently unequal and unconstitutional. The Court held that separate educational facilities for Black and white students violate the Equal Protection Clause, overturning Plessy v. Ferguson as it applied to education.

Citation:

Brown v. Board of Education , 347 U.S. 483 (1954)

Facts of the Case:

In 1965, a group of students in Des Moines, Iowa—including John and Mary Beth Tinker—wore black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War. School officials had adopted a policy banning the armbands and suspended the students for violating it. The students and their families sued, claiming that their First Amendment right to free speech had been violated.

Issue:

Does the First Amendment protect the right of students to wear armbands in public school as a form of symbolic protest?

Decision:

Yes. In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court held that students do not lose their constitutional rights to freedom of speech when they enter school property. The Court ruled that the armbands represented pure speech and that the school had failed to show that the expression would cause a substantial disruption. Therefore, the suspensions violated the students’ First Amendment rights.

Citation:

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969)

Facts of the Case:

Mr. Clarence Earl Gideon was charged with felony breaking and entering a pool hall with the intent to commit a crime in the state of Florida. When he appeared in court, he could not afford a lawyer and asked the judge to appoint him one as he stated it was a Constitutional right. The court denied his request on the basis that they only appointed lawyers for capital cases. He had to represent himself, leading him to be found guilty.

Issue

 Does the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel in criminal cases extend to felony defendants in state courts?

Decision:

Yes, In an unanimous decision the court ruled that states are required to provide attorneys to defendants who cannot afford them. These are constitutional rights found in the 6th amendment and applied to states through the 14th amendment. Criminal defendants have the right to an attorney if they can’t afford one.

Citation:

Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963)

Facts of the Case:

Aaron Ogden held a state-granted monopoly to operate steamboats in New York waters, while Thomas Gibbons operated a competing service under a federal coastal license. Ogden sued to stop Gibbons from operating in New York, claiming Gibbons was violating his exclusive rights.

Issue:

Does the State of New York have the authority to grant a monopoly that interferes with Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce?

Decision:

The Court ruled in favor of Gibbons, holding that the federal government has exclusive power to regulate interstate commerce under the Commerce Clause. The New York monopoly conflicted with federal law and was therefore invalid. The decision reinforced the supremacy of federal law in matters of interstate trade.

Citation:

Gibbons v. Ogden,  U.S. 22 , (1824)

Facts of the Case:

Dred Scott, an enslaved man, sued for his freedom after living in free territories with his owner. He argued that his residence in free states made him a free man. The case reached the Supreme Court as a dispute over his legal status and citizenship.

Issue:

Can an enslaved person or their descendants be considered U.S. citizens with the right to sue in federal court? Did living in a free territory make Scott free?

Decision:

The Court ruled against Scott, holding that enslaved people and their descendants were not citizens and could not sue in federal court. The Court also declared the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, stating that Congress lacked the authority to prohibit slavery in the territories. This decision intensified national tensions over slavery.

Citation:

Dred Scott v. Sandford,  U.S. 393, (1857)

Facts of the Case:

Estelle Griswold, the Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, and Dr. C. Lee Buxton, a physician, were convicted under a Connecticut law that prohibited the use of contraceptives and banned anyone from assisting others in obtaining them. Griswold and Buxton opened a birth control clinic to provide information and medical advice to married couples regarding contraception, deliberately challenging the law.

Issue:

Does the Constitution protect the right of marital privacy against state restrictions on a couple's ability to be counseled in the use of contraceptives?

Decision:

Yes. In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution does protect the right to marital privacy. While the right to privacy is not explicitly stated in the Constitution, the Court held that it is implied by several amendments that create "penumbras," or zones, that establish a right to privacy. Therefore, the Connecticut law violated this constitutional right.

Citation:

Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)

Facts of the Case:

During World War II, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9066, which authorized the military to exclude individuals of Japanese ancestry from designated military areas. Fred Korematsu, a U.S. citizen of Japanese descent, defied the order by remaining in California. He was arrested and convicted for violating the military’s exclusion order. Korematsu argued that the order violated his constitutional rights.

Issue:

Did the government’s internment of Japanese Americans during World War II violate the Constitution?

Decision:

No. In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court upheld Korematsu’s conviction, ruling that the need to protect against espionage during wartime justified the exclusion order. The Court held that the internment was not based on race but on military necessity, even though it targeted a specific ethnic group. This decision was heavily criticized and later formally denounced, though not overturned until many years later.

Citation:

Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944)

Facts of the Case:

Mr. Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Phoenix, Arizona, and charged with rape and kidnapping. The police interrogated him for two hours, and he later confessed to the crime. That confession was used in court, and he was convicted. Mr. Miranda was never informed of his right to an attorney or his right to remain silent before the interrogation.

Issue

Does the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination extend to the police interrogation of a suspect?

Decision:

The court ruled that the statements could not be used in court unless the defendant was informed of their rights. This ruling established Miranda rights: the right to remain silent, anything you say can be used against you in court, and the right to an attorney, and if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you. Therefore, law enforcement must inform suspects in custody of their constitutional rights before an interrogation.

Citation:

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)

Facts of the Case:

Clarence Brandenburg was convicted under Ohio’s Criminal Syndicalism statute after he made a speech at a Klan rally. His speech included derogatory remarks towards the government and implied revenge. The rally was recorded and they were carrying firearms and burning a cross.

Issue

Does Ohio’s Criminal Syndicalism law violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments by criminalizing mere advocacy of violence without a clear incitement to imminent lawless action?

Decision:

The court ruled in favor of Brandenburg, holding the Ohio Law violated the first and fourteenth amendment.The court established the Brandenburg Test to determine when speech is unprotected, as long as the speech does not cause immediate violence. Or incite violence.  The Ohio law was overly broad because it punished mere advocacy of illegal action at some undefined future time rather than imminent lawless action. Therefore, it violated the First Amendment’s protection of free speech.

Citation:
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, (1969)

Facts of the Case:

The New York Times and Washington Post sought to publish the “Pentagon Papers,” a classified Department of Defense study on U.S. involvement in Vietnam. The Nixon administration attempted to prevent publication, arguing that it would threaten national security. The government sought a court injunction to stop the newspapers, leading to a First Amendment challenge.

Issue:

Did the Nixon administration’s efforts to prevent the publication of the Pentagon Papers violate the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of the press?

Decision:

The Court ruled in favor of the New York Times, holding that the government's attempt to impose prior restraint was unconstitutional. The justices emphasized that the First Amendment severely limits the government’s ability to censor the press, especially in the absence of immediate, direct harm to national security. The government did not meet the heavy burden of proof required for prior restraint.

Citation:

New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713, (1971)

Facts of the Case:

During the 2000 presidential election, the results in Florida were so close that a recount was triggered. The Florida Supreme Court ordered a manual recount of ballots in certain counties. George W. Bush challenged the decision, arguing that the different standards of counting violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Issue:

Did the Florida Supreme Court’s order for a manual recount violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Decision:

The Court ruled in favor of Bush, holding that the lack of uniform standards in the recount process violated the Equal Protection Clause. Because there was no consistent way to determine voter intent across counties, the recount was deemed unconstitutional. The Court effectively ended the recount, securing Bush’s victory in the 2000 election.

Citation:

Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98,  (2000)

Facts of the Case:

Students at Hazelwood East High School wrote articles for the school-sponsored newspaper that included topics on teen pregnancy and divorce. The school principal removed the articles before publication, claiming the content was inappropriate. The students argued this was a violation of their First Amendment rights.

Issue:

Did the principal’s deletion of the articles from the school newspaper violate the students’ First Amendment right to freedom of speech?

Decision:

The Court ruled in favor of Hazelwood School District, holding that schools may exercise editorial control over school-sponsored activities if their actions are reasonably related to legitimate educational concerns. Because the newspaper was part of the school curriculum, it was not a public forum, and the school had the authority to regulate its content.

Citation:

Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260, (1988)