3 West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) Require public school students to salute flag & recite the Pledge of AllegianceConsequences: expulsion; lose parental custodyJehovah’s Witnesses challenged on 1st Amendment grounds (Free Exercise of Religion & Free Speech)Issue: Does compulsory flag-salute violate 1st & 14th (?)Holding: 6-3 in favor of studentsReasoning: “If 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.”Impact?
5 Engel v. Vitale (1962)New York state law required public schools to begin each day with a state authorized prayer drafted by the State Board of Regents.(“Almighty God”)Jewish parents argued that state-sponsored prayers in public schools violate the Establishment Clause (1st Amendment)Issue: Does NY requirement violate 1st Amendment?Holding: 6-1 decision in favor of parentsthe Court held that school officials may not require devotional religious exercises during the school day, as this practice unconstitutionally entangles the state in religious activities and establishes religionImpact?Moment of silence (1985); school graduation prayer (1992); school sporting events prayer (2000)
7 Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)Students planned to wear black armbands to school to protest U.S. involvement in the Vietnam WarSchool officials adopted a no-armband rule (even though they allowed students to wear other symbols).The students nonetheless wore the armbands to school. Students were suspendedIssue: Can school officials censor non-violent student speech (symbolic speech); Violation of 1st Amendment (Freedom of Speech)
8 Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) Impact? Holding: 7 – 2 in favor of studentsReasoning: School officials’ duties to provide a safe learning environment must be balanced against students’ free-expression rights"It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."Rule: School officials cannot censor student speech unless school officials reasonably forecast that the speech will cause a material and substantial disruption of school activities or collide with the rights of others. Mere apprehension of disturbance or an offense given is not enoughDissent: (Black) … teachers, parents, and elected school officials will surrender control of the American public school system to public school students.Impact?
10 Bethel School District v. Fraser (1986) A public high school student delivered a nominating speech on behalf of another student at a student assembly. The speech contained elaborate and immature sexual innuendo.Fraser was suspended for violating the school’s no-disruption rule, which prohibited “obscene, profane language.”; no graduation speechIssue: Does suspension violate 1st Amendment under Tinker standard -without substantial disruption?Holding: 7-2 in favor of schoolReasoning: The vulgar speech differs from the pure political message of Tinker. School officials were not censoring speech based on viewpoint. Rather, they were punishing the student for using vulgar and lewd terms at a student assemblyInterest in teaching students the boundaries of socially appropriate behaviorImpact?
12 Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988) School newspaper wanted to publish student-written articles about teen pregnancy and the impact of divorce on kidsPrincipal deletes articles from issueIssue: Does the censorship violate 1st Amendment rights under the Tinker standard.Holding: 5-3 in favor of schoolReasoning:School officials can censor school-sponsored student publications when they have purposes reasonably related to legitimate educational concerns;Private student speech vs. student speech that occurs in school-sponsored activities. School-sponsor: educators have more control b/c could be considered school’s perspectiveImpact?
14 Morse v. Frederick (2007)Students took a mini-field trip across the street to view Olympic Torch runner. Unraveled a 14-ft banner, “Bong Hits 4 Jesus”Frederick refused Principal Morse’s instruction to take banner down 10 day suspensionIssue: 1st Amendment rights violated? Censorship based on content of speechHolding: 5-4 in favor of schoolReasoning: Frederick's speech occurred "at a school event"; second, that the speech was "reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use”Dissent: view-point discrimination; Tinker should apply b/c it is a political messageImpact?
15 Morse v. Frederick (2007) Dissent continued: “Admittedly, some high school students (including those who use drugs) are dumb. Most students, however, do not shed their brains at the schoolhouse gate, and most students know dumb advocacy when they see it. The notion that the message on this banner would actually persuade either the average student or even the dumbest one to change his or her behavior is most implausible.” (Justice Stevens)
17 New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985)A New Jersey high school student was accused of violating school rules by smoking in the bathroom, leading an assistant principal to search her purse for cigarettes; found marijuana paraphernaliaT.L.O. confessed; NJ brought juvenile delinquency chargesIssue: Did search violate 4th Amendment right against unreasonable search & seizure?Holding: 6-3 in favor of New Jersey and the schoolReasoning: school officials do not need a warrant to justify a search as long as the search was reasonable under the circumstancesRule: school officials are only required to have a “reasonable suspicion” that a student has violated school rules; do not need to have probable causeThe privacy interest of students must be balanced against the interest of teachers and school officials in maintaining order and discipline in schoolImpact?
19 Board of Edu. of Pottawatomie Cty v. Earls (2002) School district adopted the Student Activities Drug Testing Policy. The policy required drug testing of all students who participated in any extracurricular activities (before & during; randomly)Two students challenged the application of the policy to them (but not to athletes – 1995 SC Case).Issue: Does policy violate 4th Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures?Holding: 5-4 in favor of school boardReasoning: Balance students’ limited expectation of privacy with school’s interest in protecting the safety and health of the studentsMinimal invasion of privacy; no criminal consequencesDissent: students being targeted by this policy have not been shown to have problems with drug use. The testing of these students is, therefore, unreasonable.Impact?
21 Safford Unified School District v. Redding (2009) A 13-year-old girl at an Arizona school district was suspected of possessing ibuprofen.School officials searched the girl's belongings, then strip-searched her to make sure that she was not hiding the medication in her underwear.Issue: Did search violate the student's 4th Amendment right?Holding: 8-1 in favor of studentReasoning: weighed the student’s privacy interests against the need of educators to maintain a safe learning environmentNo reasonable suspicion that drugs presented a danger or were concealed in her underwearImpact?
23 Texas v. Johnson (1989)Johnson attended a political demonstration during the Republican National Convention in Dallas to protest policies of the Reagan AdministrationHe doused the flag with kerosene and set it on fireJohnson was charged with flag desecration of under the TX Penal Code (1 year prison/$2000)Issue: Did conviction violate 1st Amendment (speech)?Holding: 5-4 in favor of JohnsonReasoning: “if 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.” “we do not consecrate the flag by punishing its desecration, for in doing so we dilute the freedom that this cherished emblem represents.”Dissent: Texas’s prohibition on flag burning did not regulate the content of Johnson’s message, but only removed one of the ways in which this message could be expressed
25 District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) D.C. had one of the strictest gun laws in the country. It included a ban on virtually all handgunsHeller believed the law made it impossible for him to defend himself in his homeIssue: Does D.C. gun ban violate 2nd Amendment right to bear arms?Holding: 5-4 in favor of HellerReasoning: In the 1st, 4th, and 9th Amendments, the phrase “the right of the people” is used only to refer to individual rights—that is, rights held by people as individuals.2nd Amendment: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.Dissent: the scope of that individual right was limited to the connection with militia service; D.C. ban was a reasonable restrictionImpact?
27 Mapp v. Ohio (1961)Bombing suspect was hiding in Mapp's house; police failed to produce a search warrantPolice gained access by forcibly opening at least one door; held up a piece of paper claiming it was a search warrantPolice found a trunk containing "lewd and lascivious" books, pictures, and photographs. Mapp found guiltyIssue: Should evidence obtained through a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment be excluded as evidence in a state criminal trial?Holding: 5-3 in favor of MappReasoning: “the criminal goes free, if he must, but it is the law that sets him free.” “Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws.”Dissent: 1st Amendment issue, not 4thImpact?
29 Miranda v. Arizona (1966)Miranda was arrested after a crime victim identified him in a police lineup; charged with rape and kidnappingMiranda confessed after 2 hours of interrogation; no mention of 5th (self-incrimination) or 6th (counsel) rightsConfession used in trial; sentence each crimeIssue: Do the police have an obligation to ensure that the accused person is aware of 5th Amendment rights?Holding: 5-4 in favor of MirandaReasoning: only statements freely made by a defendant may be used in court.“the modern practice of in-custody interrogation is psychologically rather than physically oriented,”Dissent: the new requirements would impair police officers duties and would have harmful effects of crime on societyImpact?
31 Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) Impact? Burglary in poolroom in FL. Police arrested Gideon and charged him with breaking and enteringGideon (poor) asked the judge to appoint attorney for him as required by 6th Amendment; judge denied request b/c state court not federal courtFound guilty – sentenced to 5 years (started law study)Issue: In state criminal trials, are indigent defendants entitled to a lawyer, even in noncapital cases?Holding: 9-0 in favor of GideonReasoning: the government and defendants considered the aid of a lawyer in criminal cases absolutely necessary. ($ spent on trials)Impact?
33 Roe v. Wade (1973) Dissent: no privacy right mentioned in USC Impact? Jane Roe (pseudonym) was unmarried & pregnant; wanted an abortionTX abortion law made it a felony to abort a fetus unless “on medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother.” Roe challenged statute (Wade = D.A.)Issue: Does TX law violate 14th Equal Protection & right to privacy (found implicitly in 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th and 14th)?Holding: 7-2 in favor of RoeReasoning: a woman’s choice whether to have an abortion is protected by her right to privacy.14th: “depriv[ing] any person of … liberty … without due process of law,” - protected a fundamental right to privacy.State interest must be compelling - balance protection of mother & protection of fetus – state interest strengthens with each trimester; viability testDissent: no privacy right mentioned in USCImpact?
35 Casey v. Planned Parenthood (1992) PA passed the Abortion Control Act - required women to give "informed consent” (parent / husband); 24-hour waiting period; clinics report to stateIssue: Does PA law violate SC’s ruling in Roe v. Wade?Holding: Plurality opinion (upheld right to abortion/Roe)Reasoning: Right to privacy that is protected from state interference in "marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education.Rule: 1st trimester regulation okay for health of mother; no limit to accessRule: Viability stage (the point at which states may constitutionally outlaw abortions) slightly before 3rd trimesterRule: State regulation cannot impose a substantial obstacle
37 Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) Impact? LA Separate Car Act (1890); shall provide “equal but separate accommodations”; penalty $25 or 20 days in jail; civil rights group organized a challenge to lawHomer Plessy, one-eighth black LA citizen, purchased 1st class ticket & sat in white only section; arrestedIssue: Does law violate 14th Amendment Equal Protection clause?Holding: 7 – 1 in favor of Ferguson (district court judge)Reasoning: the Fourteenth Amendment was only concerned with legal, not social, equality.Racial prejudice could not be overcome by “an enforced commingling of the two races.”Rule: “separate but equal” doctrineImpact?
39 Brown v. Board of Education (1954) Linda Brown was a young African American student in the Topeka, Kansas school district. Attended an all-black school; denied admission to white school (closer)KS law: 15,000+ population permitted separate facilities; Topeka school board – separate elem. schoolsIssue: Did school board violate equal protection clause 14th Amendment?Holding: Unanimous decision in favor of Brown (overrules Plessy)Reasoning: “separate education facilities are inherently unequal”Examine the more subtle, intangible effect of segregationSeparating children solely on the basis of race created a feeling of inferiority in the “hearts and minds” of African American childrenBrown II: “with all deliberate speed.”
41 Regents of the Univ. of CA v. Bakke (1978) Medical School of the University of California at Davis reserved 16 out of 100 seats in its entering class for minorities (quota)Allan Bakke, a white applicant, denied admission (MCAT scores, GPA, and benchmark scores were "significantly higher" than recently admitted minorities)Issue: Does quota system violate Civil Rights Act of 1964 & 14th Amendment Equal Protection clause?Holding: 5-4 decision (quota system not constitutional)Race is considered as one of many admission factors and used to remedy past findings of discrimination and to promote diversityDiversity in the classroom is a positive thingU.C.-Davis's program went too far
43 Bush v. Gore (2000)The outcome of 2000 election hinged on FL; Bush led VP Gore by about 1,800 votesBecause the returns were so close, FL law called for an automatic machine recount of ballotsBush with a bare 327-vote lead; FL law allowed Gore the option of "manual vote recounts”Gore opted for manual recounts in four counties with widespread complaints of voting machine malfunctionFL also required Secretary of State (Katherine Harris) to certify election results within 7 days of election (Nov. 26)3 of 4 counties unable to meet deadline & Harris rejected extension; Harris certified election for BushGore sued secretary; SC of FL ruled all ballots cast but not counted by voting machines must be manually recounted
44 Bush v. Gore (2000)Issue: Does recount violate 14th Amendment Equal Protection ClauseHolding: 5-4 "per curiam" (non-specially authored)the Florida Supreme Court's recount order was unconstitutional because it granted more protection to some ballots than to others, violating the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.Voting for a president constituted a "fundamental right" strictly guarded by the Equal Protection Clause, and that the Florida Supreme Court's order violated this right because it was "arbitrary."
Your consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.