civil rights civil liberties supreme court cases

Supreme court cases Project

Bakke v. California Board of Regents

Year: Case took place in 1978
Result: 5-4, vote in favor of Bakke
Related Constitutional issue/ Amendment: Equal Protection clause of the !4th Amendment
Civil rights or Civil liberties: Civil rights
Significance/precedent: The court forced the medical to accept Blakke. In doing so the court limited the white resistance to equality of races. The court also made it clear how race could be used as a factor in affirmative action, rather than race being the only factor. By the court clarifying the use of affirmative action this strengthen the civil rights movement.
Quote from majority opinion: Justice Stevens, "The meaning of the Title VI ban on exclusion is crystal clear: Race cannot be the basis of excluding anyone from a federally funded program."
Dissent: The 4 justices that voted against Bakke felt the medical school was justified. They believed it was appropriate for the school to just use the race as a factor in affirmative action. Especially if it is a race that has been discriminated against badly in the past.
6-word summary: 14th Amendment equality; clarifying affirmation action.

Bethel v. Fraser

Year: Case took place in 1986
Result: 7-2, in favor of Bethel school district
Related Constitutional issue/ Amendment: 1st Amendment freedom of speech, press, assembly
Civil rights or Civil liberties: Civil liberties
Significance/precedent: Court ruled that it was appropriate for the school prohibit the obscene or vulgar language. They could prohibit this language because it was not a political message, which the court had ruled in Tinker v. Des Moines could not be prohibited. Court also said that the school could limit lewd speech because it conflicted with the "fundamental values of public school education." The courts decision began concept that students dont have same rights in school.
Quote from majority opinion: "We granted certiorari to decide whether the First Amendment prevents a school district from disciplining a high school student for giving a lewd speech at a school assembly."
Dissent: Justice Marshell disagreed with with courts opinion of the speech interfering with the values of public school education. Marshell believed the speech did nothing of the such. Justices Stevens said that the schools disruptive conduct rules where unclear and no decsion could not be clearly made.
6-word summary: Freedom of speech; Speech in schools.

Boy scouts of america v. dale

Year: Cases took place in 2000
Result: 5-4, in favor of Boy Scouts of America
Related Constitutional issue/ Amendment: 1st Amendment speech, press, assembly
Civil rights Civil liberties: Civil rights
Significance/precedent: The court ruled in favor of Boy Scouts of America. Dale had argued that the Boy Scouts where violating New Jersey state law prohibiting discrimination of an individual based on their sexual orientation. The court ruled since the Boy Scouts where a private organization and have members outside of New Jersey they did not have to adhere to that state law.
Quote from majority opinion: "Consequently, we have long understood as implicit in the right to engage in activities protected by the First Amendment a corresponding right to associate with others in pursuit of a wide variety of political, social, economic, educational, religious, and cultural ends."
Dissent: Justice Stevens dissent made the point that is was never adressed in the Scout handbook, code, or founding principles. The founding principles rather say that a scout "should be morally straight" or "clean". In the whole entire handbook or code it never once address sexual orientation. Justice Stevens and the other 4 did not see this related to homosexuals can not join the organization.
6-word summary: Boy Scouts America; Homosexuals Boy Scouts

california v. greenwood

Year: 1988
Result: 6-2, in favor of California
Related Constitutional issue/ Amendement: 4th Amendment search and seizure
Civil rights or Civil liberties: Civil liberties
Significance/precedent: The court held that the police where justified in the search of the trash. The police where aloud to do this because the trash was out on the street open to any animal or person to go threw. The court said that police can't be expected to ignore criminal activity that is clearly present and visible. The court quoted the case Katz v. United States "what a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection."
to reinforce the argument. This now the reason why police can go threw your trash as long as it is out in the curb or street.
Quote from majority: "California could permissibly conclude that the benefits of excluding relevant evidence of criminal activity do not outweigh the costs."
Dissent: Justice Brennan believed that the police or even anyone going threw the trash bags ia a violation of privacy. Had Greenwood been carrying the bags and while he was carrying the police took them and searched them he would have won. That is how it worked in United States v. Chadwick. Brennan said “scrutiny of another's trash is contrary to commonly accepted notions of civilized behavior.”
6-word summary: Trash for public; Police search legal

cruzan v. missouri

Year: 1990
Result: 5-4, in favor of the Director, Missouri Dept. of Health
Related Constitutional issue/ Amendment: 14th Amendment Due process clause
Civil rights or Civil liberties: Civil liberties
Significance/precedent: When your in a physical state you don't have the ability to choose if you are on life support or not. There was no proof that Curzan did not want the life support treatment. Since that could not be proven the court deemed that the the Missouris refusing the end life support was indeed Constitutional. This was the first case in the United States Supreme court that had to do with right to death and right to life.
Quote from majority: "no clear and convincing evidence of what Nancy Cruzan wanted."
Dissent: The dissent argued that Nancy Cruzan wasn't the same person anymore. Justice Brenna said "Nancy will never interact meaningfully with her environment again. She will remain in a persistent vegetative state until her death." Her family and her friends said Nancy would be opposed to being kept alive this way.
6-word summary: right to die; right to live

engel v. vitale

Year: 1962
Result: 6-1, in favor of Engel
Related Constitutional issue/Amendment: 1st Amendment Religion Establishment Clause
Civil rights or Civil liberties: Civil liberties
Significance/precedent: Since the court ruled in favor of Engel this meant that the prayer enforced was unconstitutional. This was the beginning of many court cases about religion in school or in public. This also led to the creation of many regulations about religion. Engel v. Vitale would become the basis in many religion cases to come to court.
Quote from the majority: "Neither the fact that the prayer may be denominationally neutral nor the fact that its observances on the part of students is voluntary can serve to free it from the limitations of the Establishment Clause..."
Dissent: Justice Steward, the only justice who opposed, argued the prayer was constitutional. The prayer was not directed to one religion at all. The prayer was not required. If any student want to participate in the prayer they could. The students did not have to say the prayer. That is why Justice Steward believed it was constitutional.
6-word summary: Religion in School: Establishment of religion

Furman v. Georgia

Year: 1972
Result: 5-4, in favor of Furman
Related Constitutional issue/Amendment: 8th Amendment cruel and unusual punishment
Civil rights or Civil liberties: Civil rights
Significance/precedent: This case deemed the death penalty unconstitutional in this case. This limited the use of the death penalty by creating some factors to be taken in to consideration when giving a sentence for a crime. These considerations are race, how severe the crime was, how brutal the crime was and some others. After this ruling the death penalty wasn't used for some time.
Quote from majority: "These death sentences are cruel and unusual in the same way that being struck by lightning is cruel and unusual. For, of all the people convicted of rapes and murders in 1967 and 1968, many just as reprehensible as these, the petitioners are among a capriciously selected random handful upon whom the sentence of death has in fact been imposed. My concurring Brothers have demonstrated that, if any basis can be discerned for the selection of these few to be sentenced to death, it is the constitutionally impermissible basis of race. See McLaughlin v. Florida, 379 U.S. 184 (1964) But racial discrimination has not been proved, and I put it to one side. I simply conclude that the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments cannot tolerate the infliction of a sentence of death under legal systems that permit this unique penalty to be so wantonly and so freakishly imposed."
Dissent: The 4 Justices argued that the death penalty was constitutional. Their reasoning for that was that the death penalty was protected under the Anglo-American legal tradition for serious crimes.
6-word summary: accidentally killing punishable; death penalty cruel

gideon v. wainwright

Year: 1963
Result: 9-0, in favor of Gideon
Related Constitutional issue/ Amendment: 6th amendment Right to counsel; 14th Amendment due process clause
Civil rights or Civil liberties: Civil liberties
Significance/precedent: Even though the 6ht Amendment gives "right counsel" Gideon was not given one. Had Mr. Gideon not pursued this case to The supreme court this right given to you in the 6th Amendment would not be enforced in court today.
Quote of majority: “this noble idea cannot be realized if the poor man charged with a crime has to face his accusers without a lawyer to assist him.”
6-word summary: right to counsel; lawyer for poor

Hazelwood v. kuhlmeier

Year: 1988
Result: 5-3, in favor of Hazelwood school district
Related Constitutional issue/Amendment: 1st Amendment Speech and Press
Civil rights or liberties: Civil liberties
Significance/precedent: The court ruled the School was justified to edit the paper. The school was justified since the newspaper was a school funded paper and therefor it could be edited by the school. The court then said a school could edit school paper as long as their actions were "reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns."
Quote from majority: A school need not tolerate student speech that is inconsistent with its basic educational mission, even though the government could not censor similar speech outside the school only when the decision to censor a school-sponsored publication, theatrical production or other vehicle of student expression has no valid educational purpose."
Dissent: The 3 Justices who voted in favor of Kuhlmeier felt the principle of the school broke a promise by editing the articles. The Justices aslo felt that the he violated the first Amendment which they felt very important. They questioned if the articles really where "dangerous" to publish.
6-word summary: Press in school; Censorship in school

korematsu v. us

Year: 1944
Result: 6-3, in favor of US
Related Constitutional issue/Amendment: 5th Amendment/Presidential Executive Order 9066
Civil rights or Civil liberties: Both
Significance/precedent: The court ruled in Governments favor. They believed the countries safety was more important the the rights of every Japanese-American or even Asian-American. This is the only case the court upheld because of race.
Quote from majority: “The need to protect against espionage outweighed Korematsu's rights. Compulsory exclusion, though constitutionally suspect, is justified during circumstances of emergency and peril."
Dissent: They believed that to base who to put into these camps or the camps alone where racist. Why would you put US citizens who have been her for generations into these camps. It was unconstitutional and even a characteristic of a tyranny.
6-word summary: Fifth Amendment violated; race based arrest

Lemon v. kurtzman

Year: 1971
Result: 8-0, in favor of Lemon
Related Constitutional issue/Amendment: 1st Amendment Establishment Clause
Civil rights or Civil liberties: Civil liberties
Significance/precedent: The court ruled that the funds given to schools was for a secular purpose. Therefor this an establishment of religion in schools. The lemon test, used to help in cases like this, was created and used often.
Quote from majority: “To be constitutional, a statute must have a secular legislative purpose, it must have principal effects which neither advance nor inhibit religion, and it must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion.”
6-word summary: Religion in school; school funded by church

mapp v. ohio

Year: 1961
Result: 6-3, in favor of Mapp
Related Constitutional issue/Amendment: 4th Amendment search and seizure
Civil rights or Civil liberties: Civil liberties
Significance/precedent: The court ruled in favor of Mapp. They ruled in her favor because the police entered her home with a fake warrant. If the warrant had been real even they still wouldn't be able to arrested her since the warrant, had it been legal, would have been for the search of a fugitive. This ruling began the policy of illegally obtained evidence being thrown away, or not being able to be used in the conviction of someone.
Quote form majority: “We hold that all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution [is] inadmissible in a state court…. Were it otherwise…the assurance against unreasonable…searches and seizures would be [meaningless].”
Dissent: Justices Harlan, Whittaker and Frankfurter all believed the evidence was valid. Even though the search warrant was illegal and would have only been for the search of a fugitive. They believed that only the federal government is can not use evidence illegally obtained.
6-word summary: illegal search warrant; illegally obtained evidence

miranda v. arizona

Year: 1966
Result: 5-4, in favor of Miranda
Related Constitutional issue/Amendment: 5th Amendment self incrimination
Significance/precedent: Miranda one this case because he was nit read his rights. He was not informed he had the right to silence and was forced to testify against him self. Since Miranda won because he wasn't informed of rights. This led to the creation of the Miranda rights which is read to you when you are being arrested. The Miranda rights inform you of right to silence and lawyer and other things.
Quote from majority: "The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to remain silent, and that anything he says will be used against him in court; he must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation, and that, if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him."
Dissent: They argued these rights of being informed of rights to silence and lawyer are not mentioned in the Constitution. The dissent quoted former Justice Robert H. Jackson: "This Court is forever adding new stories to the temples of constitutional law, and the temples have a way of collapsing when one story too many is added." The dissent argued that these rights are not part of English common law.
6-word summary: Rights of accused; fifth Amendment rights

n.j. v. tlo

Year: 1985
Result: 6-3, in favor of New Jersey
Related Constitutional issue/Amendment: Amendment 4 search and seizure
Civil rights or Civil liberties: Civil liberties
Significance/precedent: The ruling in favor of N.J. meant that schools have special power. In the courts mind students in schools loss some rights guaranteed under the Constitution. in this case the search was aloud because of reasonable suspicion.
Quote from majority: “The gist of the opinion is that the Fourth Amendment does not strictly apply to schools since they are acting in the place of parents but there is still a general requirement that searches be reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances.”
Dissent: The Justices in the dissent agreed the approach to searches in schools. The Justices how ever disagreed with the probable cause for the searchs.
6-word summary: Drugs and paraphernalia; searches in school

ny times v. us

Year: 1971
Result: 6-3, in favor of New York Times
Related Constitutional issue/Amendment: Amendment 1speech, press, assembly
Civil rights or Civil liberties: Civil liberties
Significance/precedent: Since the New York times won the Pentagon papers they planed to publish where not endangering to the public. Nixon claimed the papers where and tried to stop the publication of them threw prior restraint but the court ruled that the prior restraint was unjustified and unreasonable.
Quote from majority: "In the First Amendment the Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors. The Government's power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the Government."
Dissent: The dissenting opinion argued that the freedom of the press interfered with the goals of the complex Government. They argued the document was too large for the court for fully review and really was dangerous to the public. They believed a lack of attention towards national security was present.
6-word summary: Pentagon papers dangerous? Prior restraint right?

planned parenthood v. casey

Year: 1992
Result: 5-4, in favor of Planned Parenthood
Related Constitutional issue/Amendment: 14th Amendment Due Process Clause
Civil rights or Civil liberties: Civil liberties
Significance/precedent: The ruling in Planned Parenthoods favor meant that this was the first ever time the Supreme court had ruled in favor of restricting abortion laws. You must notify the father of the child before the abortion now.
Quote from majority: "Liberty finds no refuge in a jurisprudence of doubt. Yet 19 years after our holding that the Constitution protects a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy in its early stages, Roe v. Wade (1973), that definition of liberty is still questioned. Joining the respondents as amicus curiae, the United States, as it has done in five other cases in the last decade, again asks us to overrule Roe."
Dissent: The dissent believed the new standard was pointless. They believed that Roe v. Wade had established the new standard for abortion and it should stay that way.
6-word summary: right to abortion; father has knowlage

plessy v. ferguson

Year: 1896
Result: 7-1, in favor of Ferguson
Related Constitutional issue/Amendment: Amendment 14 Due Protection Clause
Civil rights or Civil liberties: Civil rights
Significance/precedent: SInce the court ruled in Ferguson this started something. This began the the idea of Separate but Equal. This meant racial segregation now had something strong to fall back on. The idea that being separate is okay as long as they are.
Quote from majority: "We consider the underlying fallacy of the plaintiff's argument to consist in the assumption that the enforced separation of the two races stamps the colored race with a badge of inferiority. If this be so, it is not by reason of anything found in the act, but solely because the colored race chooses to put that construction upon it."
Dissent: The only Justice who voted in favor of Plessy was Justice Harlan. Harlan believed "Our constitution is colorblind." He believes the Constitution gives rights to all citizens and should nto tale away rights based on race.
6-word summary: Separate but Equal; Discrimination in Louisianan

reno v. aclu

Year: 1997
Result: 9-0, in favor ACLU
Related Constitutional issue/Amendment: 1st Amendment speech, press, assembly
Civil rights or Civil liberties: Civil liberties
Significance/precedent: The act was not passed because it was vague and deeply violated the 1st Amendment. The act just cover obscen material. The act did not define obscen at all.
Quote from majority: "We are persuaded that the CDA lacks the precision that the First Amendment requires when a statute regulates the content of speech. In order to deny minors access to potentially harmful speech, the CDA effectively suppresses a large amount of speech that adults have a constitutional right to receive and to address to one another."
6-word summary: Communication Decency act; first Amendment violation

Roe v. wade

Year: 1973
Result: 7-2, in favor of Roe
Related Constitutional issue/Amendment: !4th Amendment Due Process Clause
Civil rights or Civil liberties: Civil liberties
Significance/precedent: Since Roe won this gave new right to women. Now if a woman wanted to get an abortion she could. This was aloud as long as they where in there first trimester. This led to change in abortion laws in over 40 states.
Quote from majority: “We… acknowledge our awareness of the sensitive and emotional nature of the abortion controversy, of the vigorous opposing views, even among physicians, and of the deep and seemingly absolute convictions that the subject inspires.”
Dissent: The 2 dissenting Justices believed the courts foundation for the ruling is not supported by the Constitution. They believed the life that could come would and is more valuable than the one its coming from. They believed that everyone had the right to live.
6-word summary: Abortion protected by right to privacy?

Schenk v. maxwell

Year: 1919
Result: 9-0, in favor of US
Related Constitutional issue/Amendment: 1st Amendment freedom of speech
Civil rights or Civil liberties: Civil liberties
Significance/precedent: The court ruled completely against Schenk. According to the court the letters sent where "a clear and present danger" and had to be dealt with. This case was proof that our Civil liberties can be denied in times of war.
Quote from majority: "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."
6-word summary: Liberties in wartime; first Amendment rights

sheppard v. maxwell

Year: 1966
Result: 8-1, in favor of Sheppard
Related Constitutional issue/Amendment: 6th Amendment/14th Amendment Due process
Civil rights or Civil liberties: Civil liberties
Significance/precedent: Sheppard won because he was not given a fair trail. The judge was biased along with the media. The media reported heavily on the case and created biased opinions in the jury and others. The result of the Supreme courts ruling was that now media had to be less intense when in came to reporting.
Quote from majority: “While we cannot say that Sheppard was denied due process by the judge’s refusal to take precautions against the influence of pretrial publicity alone, the court’s later rulings must be considered against the setting in which the trial held. In light of this background, we believe that the arrangements made by the judge with the news media caused Sheppard to be deprived of that ‘Judicial serenity and calm to which [he] was entitled.”
Dissent: The only Justice to oppose, Justice Black, disagreed with the argument of whole case. He believed the impossible for the media to influence the court. He argued “The carnival atmosphere at trial could easily have been avoided since the courtroom and courthouse premises are subject to the control of the court."
6-word summary: Unfair biased trail; media to intense

swann v. charlotte meck board of ed

Year: 1971
Result: 9-0, in the favor of Charlotte Meck board of ed
Related Constitutional issue: 14ht Amendment Equal Protection
Civil rights or Civil liberties: Civil rights
Significance/precedent: This case is important because it is about a school district that meet segregation head on and hard. It advocated segregation by changing school districts and busing. Some students went to schools more than an hour away.
Quote from majority: “We granted certiorari in this case to review important issues as to the duties of school authorities and the scope of powers of federal courts under this Court's mandates to eliminate racially separate public schools established and maintained by state action.”
6-word summary: redistricting and busing; attempt to segregate

texas v. johnson

Year: 1989
Result: 5-4, in favor of Johnson
Related Constitutional issue/Amendment: 1st Amendment speech
Civil rights or Civil liberties: Civil liberties
Significance/precedent: Th court ruled in Johnson favor. The ruled in his favor because this flag burning was a form of political expression. In doing so this abolished any anti flag burning laws.
Quote from majority: "For we are presented with a clear and simple statute to be judged against a pure command of the Constitution. The outcome can be laid at no door but ours. The hard fact is that sometimes we must make decisions we do not like. We make them because they are right, right in the sense that the law and the Constitution, as we see them, compel the result. And so great is our commitment to the process that, except in the rare case, we do not pause to express distaste for the result, perhaps for fear of undermining a valued principle that dictates the decision. This is one of those rare cases."
Dissent: The dissenting Justices felt that the American flag was too strong a symbol to be burned. Justice Paul Stevens said this about the flag "is more than a proud symbol of the courage, the determination, and the gifts of nature that transformed 13 fledgling Colonies into a world power. It is a symbol of freedom, of equal opportunity, of religious tolerance, and of good will for other peoples who share our aspirations...The value of the flag as a symbol cannot be measured." The Justices believe in the first Amendment rights just not the way he expressed them.
6-word summary: Flag burning; freedom of symbolic speech

Thompson v. oklahoma

Year: 1989
Result: 5-3, in favor of Thompson
Related Constitutional issue/Amendment: 8th Amendment cruel and unusual punishment
Civil rights or Civil liberties: Civil liberties
Significance/precedent: The ruling in Thompsons favor meant he could not be executed. This was decided because of his age of 15. This gave birth to the law that you could not be executed if you where under the age of 16.
Quote from majority: "The most salient statistic that bears on this case is that every single American legislature that has expressly set a minimum age for capital punishment has set that age at 16 or above. When one adds these 18 States to the 14 that have rejected capital punishment completely, it appears that almost two-thirds of the state legislatures have definitely concluded that no 15-year-old should be exposed to the threat of execution. Where such a large majority of the state legislatures have unambiguously outlawed capital punishment for 15-year-olds, and where no legislature in this country has affirmatively and unequivocally endorsed such a practice, strong counterevidence would be required to persuade me that a national consensus against this practice does not exist."
Dissent: They argued if a person is over 16 but commits a crime bad enough to be given a death penalty then why should someone under 16 not be given the death penalty. The brutality of the murder alone no matter what age deserved the death sentence.
6-word summary: Teen death penalty; death penalty age

wallace v. jaffree

Year: 1985
Result: 6-3, in favor of Jaffree
Related Constitutional issue/Amendment: 1st Amendment Establishment of religion
Civil rights or Civil liberties: Civil liberties

Significance/precedent: The court ruled in favor of Jaffre. This meant that the prayer time and activities in school was an attempt to establish religion. This meant it was an unconstitutional thing to do and the case reinforced the establishment clause and made it stronger.

Quote from majority: “The State's endorsement of prayer activities at the beginning of each school day is not consistent with the established principle that the government must pursue a course of complete neutrality toward religion.”
Dissent: They argue that there is no prayer at the beginning of the day just a time of silence that the schools suggest you could pray during. It was just an endorsement for a moment of silence dissented Justice Burger. Justice Burger also claimed the use of the lemon test in the case was no used properly. They argued that the Establishment Clause was religion established by law and no law established the quiet time the schools had.
6-word summary: Establishment Clause violations; religion in school