Court Cases no. 4

 𝘭𝘰𝘢𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 . . .

✬✧✬✧✬✧✬✧★✧✬✧✬✧✬✧✬

𝔼𝕟𝕘𝕝𝕖 𝕧 𝕍𝕚𝕥𝕒𝕝𝕖 

• Does the reading of nondenominational prayer at the start of the school day violate the "establishment of religion" clause of the 1st Amendment?
• 6-1 decisions for Engel
• The state cannot hold prayers in public schools, even if participation is not required and the prayers are not tied to a particular religion 
• Hugo L. Black, the Court held that the decision to use its school system to facilitate recitation of official prayer violated the Establishment Clause

𝕃𝕖𝕞𝕠𝕟 𝕧 𝕂𝕦𝕣𝕥𝕫𝕞𝕒𝕟 

• Do statutes that provide state funding for non-public, non-secular schools violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment? 
• 8-1 Decision for Lemon 
• The Court also noted the potential political implications of public funding like schools there could be some division in and is towards a different religion. 

𝕎𝕚𝕤𝕔𝕠𝕟𝕤𝕚𝕟 𝕧 𝕐𝕠𝕕𝕖𝕣 

• Did Wisconsin's requirement that all parents send their children to school at least until age 16 violate the 1st First Amendment by criminalizing the conduct of parents who refused to send their children to school for religious conduct? 
• unanimous decision 
• Court held that individual's interests in the free exercise of religion under the 1st Amendment outweighed the State's interests in compelling school attendance beyond the 8th grade

𝕃𝕖𝕖 𝕧 𝕎𝕖𝕚𝕤𝕞𝕒𝕟 

• Does the inclusion of clergy who prayers at official public school ceremonies violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?
• 5-4 Decision 
• The Court held that government involvement and the cornerstone principle of the Establishment Clause is that government may not compose an official prayer to recite as part of a religious program carried on by the government. 

ℤ𝕒𝕝𝕖𝕞𝕒𝕟 𝕧 𝕊𝕚𝕞𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕤-ℍ𝕒𝕣𝕣𝕚𝕤 

• Does Ohio's school voucher program violate the Establishment Clause? 
• 5-4 Decision for Zelman 
• Court held that the program does not violate the Establish Clause and they reasoned that Ohio's program is undertaken to provide educational opportunities to children 

𝕊𝕔𝕙𝕖𝕟𝕔𝕜 𝕧 𝕌𝕟𝕚𝕥𝕖𝕕 𝕊𝕥𝕒𝕥𝕖𝕤 

• Did Schenck's conviction under the Espionage Act for criticizing the draft violate his First Amendment right to freedom of speech? 
• Unanimous Decision for the United States 
• The Court held that the Espionage Act did not violate the 1st Amendment and was an appropriate exercise of Congress' wartime authority
• Holmes reasoned that the widespread dissemination of the leaflets was sufficiently likely to disrupt the conscription process 

𝔾𝕚𝕥𝕝𝕠𝕨 𝕧 ℕ𝕖𝕨 𝕐𝕠𝕣𝕜 

• Does the First Amendment prevent a state from punishing political speech that directly advocates the government's violent overthrow? 
• 7-2 Decision for New York 
• The Court reasoned the government could punish speech that threatens its basic existence because of the national security implications.

ℂ𝕙𝕒𝕡𝕝𝕚𝕟𝕤𝕜𝕪 𝕧 ℕ𝕖𝕨 ℍ𝕒𝕞𝕡𝕤𝕙𝕚𝕣𝕖 

•  Did Chaplinsky's conviction violate the First Amendment?
• Unanimous decision for New Hampshire 
• The Court identified certain categorical exceptions to 1st amendment protections, including obscenities, certain profane and slanderous speech, and "fighting words". Chaplinsky's is "fighting words" because they caused direct harm to the target which didn't cause disseminating ideas to the public so his rights were protected. 

𝕌𝕟𝕚𝕥𝕖𝕕 𝕊𝕥𝕒𝕥𝕖𝕤 𝕧 𝕆'𝔹𝕣𝕚𝕒𝕟 

• Was the law an unconstitutional infringement of O'Brien's freedom of speech? 
• 7-1 decision for the United States 
• Justice Earl Warren established a test to determine whether governmental regulation involving symbolic speech was justified and the formula was examined to see whether the regulation is unrelated to the content was tailored to achieve the government's interest

𝕎𝕖𝕤𝕥 𝕍𝕚𝕣𝕘𝕚𝕟𝕚𝕒  𝔹𝕠𝕒𝕣𝕕 𝕠𝕗 𝔼𝕕𝕦𝕔𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟 𝕧 𝔹𝕒𝕣𝕟𝕖𝕥𝕥𝕖 

• Did the compulsory flag- salute for public schoolchildren violate the First Amendment? 
• 6-3 Decision for Barnette 
• The court overruled its decision in Minersville School District v. Gobitis and said that public school children to salute to the flag was unconstitutional. 
• The court found that the 1st Amendment can't enforce a unanimity of opinion on any topic like a national symbol like the flag 

𝕋𝕚𝕟𝕜𝕖𝕣 𝕧 𝔻𝕖𝕤 𝕄𝕠𝕚𝕟𝕖𝕤

• Does a prohibition against the wearing of armbands in public school, as a form of symbolic protest, violate the students' freedom of speech protections guaranteed by the First Amendment?
• 7-2 Decision for Tinker 
• The Supreme Court said that armbands were separated from the actions of those who conduct them as they are a representation of pure speech

ℕ𝕖𝕨 𝕐𝕠𝕣𝕜 𝕋𝕚𝕞𝕖𝕤 𝕧 𝕌𝕟𝕚𝕥𝕖𝕕 𝕊𝕥𝕒𝕥𝕖𝕤

• Did the Nixon administration's efforts to prevent the publication of what it termed "classified information" violate the First Amendment?
• The decision for New York Times 
• The publication did not cause a direct and immediate event imperiling the safety of American forces the restraint was unjustified 

𝔹𝕦𝕔𝕜𝕝𝕖𝕪 𝕧 𝕍𝕒𝕝𝕖𝕠

• Did the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 and related provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 violate the First Amendment’s freedom of speech and association clause?
• Decision for Buckley 
• The practices do not necessarily enhance the potential for corruption that individuals can do, The court found that restricting them was unnecessary 

𝕋𝕖𝕩𝕒𝕤 𝕧 𝕁𝕠𝕙𝕟𝕤𝕠𝕟

• Is the desecration of an American flag, by burning or otherwise, a form of speech that is protected under the First Amendment?
• 5-4 decision 
• The Court agreed that Johnson burning the flag was protected under the 1st amendment and that his actions were a political

𝕄𝕠𝕣𝕤𝕖 𝕧 𝔽𝕖𝕕𝕖𝕣𝕚𝕔𝕜

• Does the 1st Amendment allow public schools to prohibit students from displaying messages about using illegal drugs during school events?
• 5-4 decision for Morse 
• The court believed that promoting drug use in school went against the school’s promotion of not using drugs. This was not protected under the 1st amendment 

𝔻𝕖𝕁𝕠𝕟𝕘𝕖 𝕧 𝕆𝕣𝕖𝕘𝕠𝕟

• Does Oregon’s statute violate the due process clause of the 14th amendment?
• The court decided that the statute did violate the 14th amendment but the De Jonge’s sole offense was assisting a public meeting held under the auspices of the Communist party

𝔹𝕣𝕒𝕟𝕕𝕖𝕟𝕓𝕖𝕣𝕘 𝕧 𝕆𝕙𝕚𝕠

• Did Ohio’s criminal syndicalism law, prohibiting public speech that advocates various illegal activities, violates Brandenburg’s right to free speech as protected by the 1st and 14th Amendments?
• Decision for Brandenburg
• The court decided that Ohio’s law did violate Brandenburg’s right to freedom of speech

ℙ𝕚𝕔𝕜𝕖𝕣𝕚𝕟𝕘 𝕧 𝔹𝕠𝕒𝕣𝕕 𝕠𝕗 𝔼𝕕𝕦𝕔𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟

• Was Pickering’s letter constitutionally protected free speech?
• 8-1 decision for Pickering 
• Pickering’s freedom of speech was violated because his speech was not known as false or reckless. 

ℕ𝕖𝕒𝕣 𝕧 𝕄𝕚𝕟𝕟𝕖𝕤𝕠𝕥𝕒

• Does the Minnesota “gag law” violate the free press provision of the 1st Amendment?
• 5-4 decision for Near 
• The court ruled that there could not be any prevention in the publication of the press. It is only after publication that the ones who published shall be punished. However only if the publication violates the rights of people, not the government.  

𝕌𝕟𝕚𝕥𝕖𝕕 𝕊𝕥𝕒𝕥𝕖𝕤 𝕧 𝕄𝕚𝕝𝕝𝕖𝕣 

• Does the 2nd Amendment protect an individual's right to keep and bear a sawed-off double-barrel shotgun?
• Unanimous decisions for the United States 
• The Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual the right to keep and bear a sawed-off double-barrel shotgun 

𝔻𝕚𝕤𝕥𝕣𝕚𝕔𝕥 𝕠𝕗 ℂ𝕠𝕝𝕦𝕞𝕓𝕚𝕒 𝕧 ℍ𝕖𝕝𝕝𝕖𝕣 

• Do the provisions of the District of Columbia Code that restrict the licensing of handguns and require licensed firearms kept in the home to be kept nonfunctional violate the 2nd Amendment? 
• 5-4 Decision 
• It was said to be unconstitutional if there is a trigger lock mechanism 

𝕄𝕔𝔻𝕠𝕟𝕒𝕝𝕕 𝕧 ℂ𝕙𝕚𝕔𝕒𝕘𝕠 

• Does the connection between the 2nd and the 14th amendment' privileges and immunities or due process clauses and thereby made applicable to the states?
• 5-4 Decision for Otis Mcdonald 
• The 14th makes the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense applicable to the states 

𝕎𝕠𝕝𝕗 𝕧 ℂ𝕠𝕝𝕠𝕣𝕒𝕕𝕠

• Were the states required to exclude illegally seized evidence from trial under the 4th and 14th Amendments?
• 6-3 Decision for Colorado 
• 14th Amendment does not subject to criminal justice which means that illegally obtaining evidence does not have to be excluded from trials in all cases

𝕄𝕒𝕡𝕡 𝕧 𝕆𝕙𝕚𝕠 

• Were the confiscated materials protected from seizure by the 14th Amendment? 
• 6-3 Decision for Mapp 
• The Court declared that all evidence by searches and seizures in violation of the 4th Amendment is invalid in a state court 

𝕌𝕟𝕚𝕥𝕖𝕕 𝕊𝕥𝕒𝕥𝕖𝕤 𝕧 𝕃𝕖𝕠𝕟 

• Is there a "good faith" exception to the exclusionary rule? 
• 6-3 Decision for the United States 
• The court agreed there is an expectation.  The evidence that was seized mistakenly could be introduced at trial because they want the ability to deter illegal police conduct. 

ℝ𝕚𝕝𝕖𝕪 𝕧 ℂ𝕒𝕝𝕚𝕗𝕠𝕣𝕟𝕚𝕒 

• Was the search on Riley's phone violating his 4th Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches? 
• Unanimous decision for Riley 
• The Court said that a phone is a place that is filled with private information which means the search was bad. However, the court did rule that warrantless searches of cell phones might be permitted in an emergency 

𝔼𝕤𝕔𝕠𝕓𝕖𝕕𝕠 𝕧 𝕀𝕝𝕝𝕚𝕟𝕠𝕚𝕤 

• Was Escobedo denied the right to counsel as guaranteed by the sixth amendment? 
• 5-4 Decision for Escobedo 
• The court had agreed that Escobedo's 6th Amendment rights had been violated 
• He was not warned of his right to remain silent and he had requested a lawyer only to be denied 

𝕄𝕚𝕣𝕒𝕟𝕕𝕒 𝕧 𝔸𝕣𝕚𝕫𝕠𝕟𝕒 

• Does the 5th Amendment's protection against self-incrimination extend to the police interrogation of a suspect? 
• 5-4 decision for Miranda 
• The defendant was required to be warned before questioning, as well as the right to an attorney, and only after all of the warnings are given that the defendant can waive any of their rights. 

ℕ𝕖𝕨 𝕐𝕠𝕣𝕜 𝕧 ℚ𝕦𝕒𝕣𝕝𝕖𝕤 

• Would the Court suppress Quarles's statement because the officer had failed at the time to read Quarles his Miranda rights? 
• 5-4 Decision for New york 
• The court had believed that there is a"public safety" exception to the issue of the Miranda warnings to suspects.  It was because the police officer was asking for the location of the weapon which means his failure to read the warnings did not violate the Constitution

ℍ𝕒𝕞𝕕𝕚 𝕧 ℝ𝕦𝕞𝕤𝕗𝕖𝕝𝕕 

• Did the government violate Hamdi's 5th Amendment right to due process by holding him indefinitely, without access to an attorney because the Executive Branch declared him as an "enemy combatant"? 
• 6-3 Decision for Yaser Esam Hamdi 
• The 5th Amendment due process guarantees gives a citizen held in the U.S as an enemy combatant the right to contest the detention. 

𝔾𝕣𝕖𝕘𝕘 𝕧 𝔾𝕖𝕠𝕣𝕘𝕚𝕒

• Is the imposition of the death sentence prohibited under the 8th and 14th amendments as a "cruel and unusual" punishment? 
• 7-2 Decision 
• The punishment of death was not violating the 8th nor 14th amendment. 

𝔾𝕠𝕟𝕫𝕒𝕝𝕖𝕤 𝕧 𝕆𝕣𝕖𝕘𝕠𝕟 

• Did the Controlled Substances Act authorize the attorney general to ban the use of controlled substances for physician-assisted suicide in Oregon? 
• 6-3 Decision
• The Court decided that Congress intended the CS to prevent doctors only from engaging in illicit drug dealing

𝔾𝕚𝕥𝕝𝕠𝕨 𝕧 ℕ𝕖𝕨 𝕐𝕠𝕣𝕜 

• Does the 1st Amendment prevent a state from punishing political speech that directly advocates that government's violent overthrow?
• 7-2 Decision for New York
• New York could prohibit advocating violent efforts to overthrow the government under the Criminal Anarchy

ℙ𝕚𝕖𝕣𝕔𝕖 𝕧 𝕊𝕠𝕔𝕚𝕖𝕥𝕪 𝕠𝕗 𝕊𝕚𝕤𝕥𝕖𝕣𝕤 

• Did the Act violate the liberty o parents to direct the education of their children?
• Unanimous Decision for Society of Sister 
• Parents are able to take control of their children's education and the state can not impose their rights 

ℙ𝕠𝕨𝕖𝕝𝕝 𝕧 𝔸𝕝𝕒𝕓𝕒𝕞𝕒

• Did the trials violate the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment?
• 7-2 Decision for Powell 
• The Court held the trails denied due process because the defendants were not given reasonable time and opportunity to secure counsel in their defense

ℂ𝕒𝕟𝕥𝕨𝕖𝕝𝕝 𝕧 ℂ𝕠𝕟𝕟𝕖𝕔𝕥𝕚𝕔𝕦𝕥 

• Did the Cantwells' convictions violate the 1st Amendment? 
• Unanimous Decision for Cantwells 
• Cantwell's actions are protected by the 1st and 14th amendments. The general regulations on offering services were legitimate restrictions because on religious grounds were not 

𝕎𝕠𝕝𝕗 𝕧 ℂ𝕠𝕝𝕠𝕣𝕒𝕕𝕠 

• Were the states required to exclude illegally seized evidence from trial under the 4th and 14th Amendments? 
• 6-3 Decisions for Colorado 
• It was said that states should exclude evidence from trial if it was illogically obtained, but left the ultimate decision of the exclusion is from the State

𝔾𝕣𝕚𝕤𝕨𝕠𝕝𝕕 𝕧 ℂ𝕠𝕟𝕟𝕖𝕔𝕥𝕚𝕔𝕦𝕥 

• 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? 
• 7-2 Decisions for Griswold 
• The Court explanations that the Constitution did protect the right of marital privacy but n explicitly protect a general right to privacy   

ℝ𝕠𝕖 𝕧 𝕎𝕒𝕕𝕖 

• Does the Constitution recognize a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy by abortion?
• 7-2 Decision for Jane Roe 
• The Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment is a fundamental "right to privacy's that protects a pregnant woman's choice whether to have an abortion 

𝔹𝕠𝕒𝕣𝕕 𝕠𝕗 𝔼𝕕𝕦𝕔𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟 𝕠𝕗 𝕀𝕟𝕕𝕖𝕡𝕖𝕟𝕕𝕖𝕟𝕥 𝕊𝕔𝕙𝕠𝕠𝕝 𝔻𝕚𝕤𝕥𝕣𝕚𝕔𝕥 ℕ𝕠. 𝟡𝟚 𝕠𝕗 ℙ𝕠𝕥𝕥𝕒𝕨𝕠𝕞𝕚𝕖 𝕧 𝔼𝕒𝕣𝕝𝕤 

• The students are required to submit to a drug testing during Student Activities Drug Testing Policy does that consistent with the 4th Amendment? 
• 5-4 Decision for Board of Education 
• The court believes that the School District's is interested in detecting and preventing drug use among its student 

𝔹𝕣𝕠𝕨𝕟 𝕧 𝔹𝕠𝕒𝕣𝕕 𝕠𝕗 𝔼𝕕𝕦𝕔𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟 

• Does segregation of public education based on race violate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment? 
• unanimous decision for Brown 
• Separate but equal educational facilities for racial minorities are inherently unequal, violating the Equal Protection Clause for the 14th Amendment 

ℙ𝕝𝕖𝕤𝕤𝕪 𝕧 𝔽𝕖𝕣𝕘𝕦𝕤𝕠𝕟 

• Does the Separate Car Act violate the 14th Amendment? 
• 7-1 Decision for Ferguson 
• Segregation was unequal treatment because of race and the 14th Amendment had established that there is absolute equality for races before the law 

𝕊𝕨𝕒𝕟𝕟 𝕧 ℂ𝕙𝕒𝕣𝕝𝕠𝕥𝕥𝕖 𝕄𝕖𝕔𝕜𝕝𝕖𝕟𝕓𝕖𝕣𝕘 ℂ𝕠𝕦𝕟𝕥𝕣𝕪 𝕊𝕔𝕙𝕠𝕠𝕝𝕤 

• Were federal courts constitutionally authorized to oversee and produce remedies for state-imposed segregation? 
• Unanimous Decision 
• The Court dealt with the desegregation plan by upholding the busing programs that aimed to speed up the racial integration 

𝕄𝕚𝕝𝕝𝕚𝕜𝕖𝕟 𝕧 𝔹𝕣𝕒𝕕𝕝𝕖𝕪 

• Can a federal district court order remedial education programs for students who had been subjected to segregation? 
• Unanimous Decision 
• The District Court's order did not violate the 11th Amendment and the order had emphasized the construction of the desegregation plans

ℂ𝕒𝕝𝕚𝕗𝕠𝕣𝕟𝕚𝕒 𝔹𝕠𝕒𝕣𝕕 𝕠𝕗 ℝ𝕖𝕘𝕖𝕟𝕥𝕤 𝕧 𝔹𝕒𝕜𝕜𝕖

• Did the University of California violate the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause when they rejected Bakke's application for admission to its medical school? 
• 8-1 Decision for Bakke 
• The court contended that any racial quota had violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964
• The court managed to minimize white opposition and extended the gains for racial minorities 

𝕎𝕖𝕓𝕖𝕣 𝕧 𝕂𝕒𝕚𝕤𝕖𝕣 𝔸𝕝𝕦𝕞𝕚𝕟𝕦𝕞 

• Did Kaiser Aluminum's training scheme violate the Civil Rights Act prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race?
• 5-2 Decision for United Steelworkers
• The Court said it wasn't unconstitutional because there is no prevention in white employees from advancing in the company 

𝔾𝕣𝕦𝕥𝕥𝕖𝕣 𝕧 𝔹𝕠𝕝𝕝𝕚𝕟𝕘𝕖𝕣 

• Did the University of Michigan Law School's use of racial profiling in student admission violate the 14th Amendment?
• 5-4 Decision 
• The Court ruled in favor because they said that the school reviews each applicant in detail so it is seen as an educational benefit 

𝔾𝕣𝕒𝕥𝕫 𝕧 𝔹𝕠𝕝𝕝𝕚𝕟𝕘𝕖𝕣 

• Did the University of Michigan Law School's use of racial profiling in student admission violate the 14th Amendment?
• 6-3 Decision for Gratz
• It was unconstitutional for the school to deny a student for their race. 

⌨ 𝓢𝓽𝓾𝓭𝔂 𝓣𝓲𝓶𝓮

✬✧✬✧✬✧✬✧★✧✬✧✬✧✬✧✬