September 11, 2013
Apprendi v. New Jersey (1994-2002)
One black family moved into a neighborhood
Clark Apprendi (white) shot their house because he didn’t like them (black)
-made a confession saying he didn’t like them
•During the trial, he took his confession back so he wouldn’t be charged with
-bias against African American
Charged with 23 counts; only guilty of 3 of them
-Apprendi said his rights weren’t given to him (his plea)
Ruling: 5-4 (Apprendi won the trial)
Importance: -You can’t judge one’s case thought facts without evidence because it is both morally and ethnically wrong
-America is all about fighting for rights and in this case Apprendi’s rights were violated
Served 12 years in prison
Loving v. Birginia (1967)
Mildred Jeter, a black women was a wife of Richard Loving.
-Virginia was part of the 16 states that were against different race marriages
-Four mouthes into their marriage in 1965
“Almighty God created the races and he placed them on separate continents...the fact he separated the races shoes that He did not intend for the races to mix”
-violated the 14th Amendment (Due Process)
Connection: Gay marriage
Ruling: in favor of the Lovings
United States v. Windsor (2010-2013)
Issues: right of same sex couples to marry
Constitutionality of DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act)
Power of people to govern themselves v. Power of court to pronounce the law
Ramifications: discussion of rights for same-sex couples
Could enable other individuals to challenge traditional definitions of marriage
Arguments: DOMA tells couples that their marriage are unworthy of federal recognition
“majority arms well every challenger to a state law restricting marriage to its traditional definition”
Related: Hollingsworth v. Perry-Prop 8 violates due process and equal protection law
Ruling 5-4 (section 3 of DOMA to be unconstitutional )
McCollum v. B.O.E (1945-48)
Background: Champaign Council on Religious Education
Issues: violated first amendment (separation of churches and state in the US)
-equal protection clause of the 14th amendment
Ruling: Illinois supreme court ruled in favor of the school (jan 1946)
- Supreme Court 8-1 (favor of McCollum (March 1948))
Veronica School District v. Acton (1995)
Students who wanted to participate in sports had to take a drug test because coaches required it
-James’s parents though it was “violating” their son’s privacy
-violates 4th amendment
Issue: violates 4th amendment
Ruling: 6-3 (the athletes were reasonable of the 4th amendment)
Samson v. California (2006)
Donald Curtis Samson was on parol and officers randomly searched him and found meth in the cigarets
Argument: violated his 4th amendment
-he had agreed to the search...
Issue: trial lasted from Feb. To Dec. (2006)
Ruling- 6-3 (California)
-samson was sentenced to 7 years in prison
Precedents: us v. Knights (2001)
Guy on probation and there was suspicious activity
Related cases: US v. Montoya de Hernandez
PAROL VS. PROBATION
-you get out of prison (serious crime!!) ()
-you get in trouble but don’t go to jail (probation officer) (not that serious)
United States v. Hirabayashi (1943)
Interment camps
-Pearl Harbor
Issues: presidential executive order and power of the military authority discriminated against japanese american descent?
-5, 6,7th, and 14th amendment violated
**okay because it was during a time of war.....**
Supreme Court said a sorry to Hirabayashi even though he was da
Ruling: 5-4 (internment camps were okay)
New Jersey v. TLO (1985)
Issues: Constitutionality of a search of public high school student
-violated 4th amendment
Ramifications power to a students with the rights of the 4th
-Power of school administration
-Drug paraphernalia/ safety of school
Events leading to case: comic because a principal searched her purse and found
Arguments: Powell and O’Conner felt that students in primary and secondary educational setting should not have the same level of protection of searches of those in juveniles and adult
Precedents: Board of Education v. Earls
Ruling: 6-3 (reasonable search)
Bakke v. University of California (1978)
Background: -16 of of 100 spots saved for minority student
-rejected Bakke twice because there wasn’t more room for more white
Case: violated 14th amendment equal case
Affirmative actions programs not follow the constitution?
-cannot accept people based on race
Ruling: 5-4 split (unconstitutional cannot be binding decision but consisted)
Related cases: Grutter. Vollinger (2003)-neutral
-Gratz v. Bollinger (2003)-unconstitutional
September 13, 2013
Hustler Magazine v. Falwell (1988)
Issues: article was about the first time Falwell had sex (with mom...)
Falwell sued because of emotional distress
•awarded $150,000 for emotional distress
Hustler Magazine sued because the 1st amendment freedom of press was violated
Ruling: 8-0 (Hustler)
Falwell had to give back the money because it wasn’t legal
Batson v. Kentucky (1996)
Background: James Batson is a black male convicted of burglary
-all four black men were dismissed by Peremptory Challenge (not fair)
Issues; violated the Equal protection clause of the 14th amendment
-violated the right to have a jury drawn from the cross section of community
Arguments: race is not sufficient as a reason to dismiss a juror even by Peremptory challenge
Ruling: 7-2 (Batson)
Since then...Batson Challenge: objection to peremptory challenge
- Edmonson v. Leeswille concrete
- JEB v. Alabama ex re TB (1994)-excluded based on sex
Tinker v. Des Moines (1965)
Issue: during the Vietnam war, three students wore arm bands that were against the war
Case: Violated=Freedom of speech (it wasn’t interfering with class)
Ruling: 7-2 (Tinker)
Roe v. Wade (1973)
Issue: Norma McCorvey (alias Jane Roe) wanted to get an abortion but it was against the Texas state law
-James Hallford, physician, intervened and said he wanted to challenge state too because it was illegal to violate patient and doctor confidentiality
-Jon and Mary Doe also intervened and said it was illegal
Violated Due Process and 14th amendment
-state cannot tell doctors what they can and can’t do medically
-Due Process Clause protects the right to privacy including right to terminate pregnancy
Ruling: 7-2 (Roe)
No comments:
Post a Comment