Mapp v. Ohio (1961) Dollree Mapp Karl Vesely A2 Mapp v. Ohio (1961) Go Back “In overruling the Wolf case, the Court, in my opinion, has forgotten the sense of judicial restraint which, with due regard for stare decisis, is one element that should enter into deciding whether a past decision of this Court should be overruled.” An appeal to the Supreme Court was mostly on the grounds that the charges were violating the Freedom of Speech. If you are breaking the law, but the police only know because they break the law – who is in the wrong? “Indeed, we are aware of no restraint, similar to that rejected today, conditioning the enforcement of any other basic constitutional right. The right to privacy, no less important than any other right carefully and particularly reserved to the people, would stand in marked contrast to all other rights declared as "basic to a free society.“” The police forced their way into her home, producing an unverified warrant (assumed to be fake). Betting slips and pornographic books were found in the home and she was found guilty of obscenity charges. The Court ruled 6-3 that the exclusionary rule did actually apply. In 1949, the case Wolf v. Colorado ruled that the 4th Amendment’s protection against unreasonable search and seizure is applicable to the states. Dollree Mapp was approached at home by Ohio police officers with the suspicion that she had illegal gambling paper and equipment. She refused to let the officers in without a warrant. 1 . “Come back with a warrant” -> talk about how that is important and how Mapp v. Ohio was a landmark case in why coming back with a warrant is important as a fundamental civil liberty - Justice Tom Clark, majority opinion But – the exclusionary rule was not selectively incorporated. - Justice John Harland II, dissenting opinion Dollree Mapp The court didn’t see it that way, however.

Clinton v. NY (1998) Jayla Darby Appellant: Clinton Appellee: City of New York Clinton v. NY (1998) Background: President Clinton cancelled a provision in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. President's cancellation of a provision of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. The Line Item Veto Act, intended by Congress to limit government spending, allowed the President to veto a single appropriation or tax benefit within a large appropriation or tax bill without having to veto the entire bill. Line Item Veto: the power of a president, governor, or other elected executive to reject individual provisions of a bill Dissenting Position: The Line Item Veto Act does not violate any specific textual constitutional command. Decided: June 25,1998 Argued: April 27,1998 Is the President's ability to selectively cancel individual portions of bills, under the Line Item Veto Act, constitutional? Clinton is standing Outcome: The Rehnquist court decided the Line- Item Veto Act was unconstitutional.

OBERGEFELL V. HODGES Argued: April 28, 2015 Decided: June 26, 2015 Breanna Cox OBERGEFELL V. HODGES Argued: April 28, 2015 Decided: June 26, 2015 “Marriage today is not what it was under the common law tradition, under the civil law tradition. Marriage was a relationship of a dominant male to a subordinate female. That ended as a result of this Court's decision in 1982 when Louisiana's Head and Master Rule was struck down.” - RBG Should a marriage be defined between a man and a woman because that has always been the tradition? The Plaintiffs (Standing) The States Background Groups of same-sex couples sued their state agencies in Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, and Tennessee to challenge the constitutionality of those states' bans on same-sex marriage or refusal to recognize legal same-sex marriages that occurred in other states. The states' statutes violated the Equal Protection Clause The states violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment one group of plaintiffs brought claims under the Civil Rights Act “The Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment does not settle the definition of marriage, so that definition is left to the states“ “The people of the states are engaging in a robust debate about the issue, so the Court should not step in and give marriage a uniform national definition, abruptly ending that debate“ “State bans, either on marriage or recognition, were not passed to engage in discrimination, but simply to codify the traditional notion that marriage should be restricted to opposite-sex couples," Adopted children Parents leave kids Infertile parents Elderly couples Against the right to privacy Should a marriage be defined between a man and a woman because it is the only bonding that can produce a child? The Constitution does not address the right of same-sex couples to marry, and therefore the issue is reserved to the states to decide whether to depart from the traditional definition of marriage. "Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other State.” –Scalia quoting Article iv Should states be forced to recognize a same-sex marriage preformed in another state?