Rasul v. Bush (2001)
*Rasul was tortured because he looked like a terrorist
*Bush administration did the torture and said it was just
-9/11
-go to Afghanistan to fight
-Guantanamo Bay-Cuba/700 men
-torture in Delta
“the us is not only denying the detainees fundamental rights but is jeopardizing any claim that is a country ruled by law”
*****supreme court: Habeaus corpus: freedom from unlawful imprisonment
-Independent sovereignty-in cuba different laws
-Geneva article V (POW)-right to trail if they think you are/aren’t a prison of war
-absolute control-US control (forced fed food on sundays)
-VOTING: 6-3 in favor of Rasul and was released
-violated Humans Rights Violation
-Misrepresenting populace
-setting precedents-soldiers have lawyers
-trial in own country?!?!
Note: Patriot Act (pictures of soldiers with their “kill”)
United States v. Nixon (1974)
•Watergate break-in: nixon order men to break into the democratic headquarters at watergate to gain and advantage in the 1972 election
-criminal trial and subpoena: ordered President to hand over everything
-said he had the right to hold those documents because he was the President
-nixon said it was invalid: 1. Dispute within the Executive branch and the court had no right because of separation of powers 2. Conversations and documents are privileged and cannot be subpoenaed
-does not on its own prohibit the court from issuing the subpoena to compel a criminal investigation
-“the legitimate needs of the judicial process may outweigh Presidential privilege” President isn’t above the law 8-0 (1 didn’t vote because he didn’t want to be bias)
**president isn’t above the law and it was unanimous which was more powerful
CT v. Griswold (1965)
*prohibits the use of any “any drug” medicinal article or instrument of the purpose of contraception
-during social purity time period
-related cases: Tileson v. Ullman (1943) & Poe v. Ullman (1961): both said that they couldn’t proscribe drugs to them because the law prohibited it
-violates the 1st, 4th, 9th, and 14th Amendment
*supreme court ruled: contraception should be legal to married couples
Clark v. Arizona (2006)
-truck was circling around neighborhood; officer got dispatched to call; Eric Clark was shooting
Legal questions: Mott rule with Mens Real violate Due Process?
Insane?
Does the states defense of mental insanity violate due process fi it does not follow M’Neghten Rule
Importance: insanity plea
*ruling 6-3 favor of Arizona
Impact: •written laws in the future •new AZ insanity law
September 10, 2013
Miranda v. Arizona (1963)
Ernesto Miranda was not read his rights when he was accused of raping and kidnapping an 18year old
-during interrogation he was not read his rights
Issues: 5th amendment (right to remain silent, the right against self-incrimination)
-6th amendment (right to counsel-trial by jury)
Ramifications: interrogation limits: if the suspects asks for attorney questioning is ceased
-police procedure: must be read rights
Precedents: Escobedo v. Illinois (1954) counsel present during interrogation
-Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) gov. will provide counsel if you can’t afford one
Tinker v. Des Moines (1965)
I was clicking for Roxanne's presentation, so I'll get the notes from her tomorrow in class!!
Parents vs. Seattle (2007)
Background: •Seattle school district allowed students to apply to high schools of choice
•district used a system of tie breakers to decide where students where using race as a choice
-parents brought districts to court and
Issues: school district decided by race
-diversity
Importance: desegregation/integration that district wanted
-parents believed it violated civil rights act and equal protection clause of the 14th amendment
Ruling: 4-1-4 (4: wrong to choose who goes to which school 4: said it was okay 1: neutral)
districts did not meet requirements or “narrowly tailored”
RULED in favor
NYTimes v. Sullivan (1964)
Background: plaintiff: L.B Sullivan defendant: NY Times
Sullivan files for libel and defamation; case wins
•plaintiff: filed for libel and defamation
NYTimes posted article: “Heed their Rising Voices”
•Defendant: protection of 1st amendment rights, free speech clause
Ruling: 9-0 (NYTimes) no presence of actual malice
Lau v. Nichols (1974)
Chinese students were denied English courses in school
-began to fail classes
Issue: Chinese american students w/limited english proficiency (SFUSD
Not receiving 14th amendment rights (racial segregation)
Filed law suit against SFUSD
District court denied relief w/Court of Appeals affirming
Petition went to Supreme Court:
•Recognized civil rights of English Language Learners (ELL)
•Granted more rights to ELL
Ruled: Guaranteed students opportunity to a “meaningful education” regardless of language background
New York Times v. United States (1971)
Issues: freedom of press
NYTimes wanted to post confidential documents but US thought it would damage national security
Ramifications: 4 days
-confidential papers about Vietnam War
Court: 6-3 in favor of NYTimes (1st amendment freedom of press and speech)
-the gov. Failed to show the publications would damage national security
Related cases: Near v. Minnesota (1930)
Lovell v. City of Griffin (1938)
Houchins v. KQED, Inc. (1978)- Houchins denied the KQED to interview prisoners
Baze v. Rees (2008)
Baze=inmate at Kentucky and he was sentenced to the death penalty because he murdered 2 ppl.
was violation of 8th amendment: cruel and unusual punishment (inject with the three drugs)
-alternative methods? Yes but this was the “least” painful but he still refused
Revaluation of death penalty
National attention to the issue because Baze said if the paralyzing drug wasn’t used properly it could cause extreme pain later
•Court said it doesn’t violate the 8th amendment because it says there won’t be no pain
Ruled: 7-2 against Baze
“Rest in part on the faulty assumption about the retributed force of the death penalty”
Related cases: gregg v. Georgia (1976)
-Furman v. Georgia (1972)
No comments:
Post a Comment