Important Supreme Important Supreme Court CasesCourt Cases

……and the affect the courts’ and the affect the courts’ decisions have on our lives.decisions have on our lives.

Gibbons v. Gibbons v. OgdenOgden1824

People InvolvedPeople InvolvedGibbonsGibbons – a man who wanted to sail – a man who wanted to sail his steam ships in the waters of New his steam ships in the waters of New York York state for his business state for his business and was and was denieddenied

OgdenOgden – Given the right by Robert – Given the right by Robert Livingston to sail his ships in New York Livingston to sail his ships in New York waters waters (in accordance with NY law)(in accordance with NY law)

Livingston & FultonLivingston & Fulton – the only two men – the only two men who were given the right to sail the who were given the right to sail the waters of New York for their waters of New York for their business(es) by the state of New Yorkbusiness(es) by the state of New York

How the case went downHow the case went downGibbons decides to sail his shipsGibbons decides to sail his ships in in the waters that were off-limits to the waters that were off-limits to him according to NY lawhim according to NY lawOgdenOgden (working for Livingston (working for Livingston) is ) is able to get an injunction against able to get an injunction against Gibbons Gibbons to keep him off of the to keep him off of the waterswatersGibbons appeals, saying that Gibbons appeals, saying that Congress’ laws supersede state laws Congress’ laws supersede state laws and that Congress has the right to and that Congress has the right to regulate trade/commerce (which regulate trade/commerce (which applied to them)applied to them)

How the case went down, How the case went down, cont’dcont’d

Gibbons is denied in two Gibbons is denied in two more courts, but the more courts, but the Supreme Court saw the Supreme Court saw the case by granting case by granting certioraricertiorari..

““a writ issuing from a a writ issuing from a superior court calling up superior court calling up the record of a proceeding in an  record of a proceeding in an inferior court for review.” inferior court for review.”

Issues InvolvedIssues InvolvedThe Constitution states that The Constitution states that “The “The Congress shall Congress shall have the Power…To have the Power…To regulate Commerce…among the regulate Commerce…among the several Statesseveral States.” –Article I, Section 8 .” –Article I, Section 8 (Commerce Clause)(Commerce Clause)

Does this mean that Congress can regulate Does this mean that Congress can regulate commerce within each states’ boundaries or commerce within each states’ boundaries or only if it is commerce that takes place across only if it is commerce that takes place across state borders (involving multiple states) or state borders (involving multiple states) or internationally?internationally?Is it the states’ right to regulate and use Is it the states’ right to regulate and use their own waterways exclusively, or is that their own waterways exclusively, or is that up to Congress?up to Congress?

Decision of the CourtDecision of the Court(Written by John Marshal) (Written by John Marshal)

***Gibbons wins!******Gibbons wins!***

– Because the waterways of New York are Because the waterways of New York are along the coast and it is not entirely an along the coast and it is not entirely an internal commerce issue, the Congress has internal commerce issue, the Congress has supremacy. The acts of Congress that supremacy. The acts of Congress that regulate commerce on waterways and regulate commerce on waterways and anything interstate or outside of the U.S. anything interstate or outside of the U.S. are constitutional and New York’s law that are constitutional and New York’s law that limited the rights to the waterways is limited the rights to the waterways is obsolete because it conflicts with obsolete because it conflicts with Congress.Congress.

– Gibbons has the right to use the Gibbons has the right to use the waterways to conduct business/trade, etc.! waterways to conduct business/trade, etc.! (because Federal law supersedes state (because Federal law supersedes state law.law.

Do you agree with the Courts Do you agree with the Courts Decision?Decision?

What issues/concerns did this What issues/concerns did this case address?case address?

Texas v. JohnsonTexas v. Johnson

19891989

Texas vs. Johnson-1989Texas vs. Johnson-1989

background of the case-background of the case-– during the 1984 Republican National convention during the 1984 Republican National convention

in Dallas, TX, Gregory Johnson joined an in Dallas, TX, Gregory Johnson joined an organized political protest in opposition to organized political protest in opposition to Reagan administration policies and some Dallas Reagan administration policies and some Dallas based corporations. Demonstrators marched based corporations. Demonstrators marched through the streets, chanting their message. As through the streets, chanting their message. As the march progressed, a fellow protestor handed the march progressed, a fellow protestor handed Johnson an American flag that had been taken Johnson an American flag that had been taken from a flag pole at one of their protest locations.from a flag pole at one of their protest locations.

Texas vs. Johnson-1989Texas vs. Johnson-1989– Upon reaching city hall, Upon reaching city hall, Johnson doused the flag Johnson doused the flag

with kerosene and set it ablazewith kerosene and set it ablaze. Johnson and his . Johnson and his fellow demonstrators circled the burning flag and fellow demonstrators circled the burning flag and shouted “America, the red, white, and blue, we shouted “America, the red, white, and blue, we spit on you.” Although no one was really hurt or spit on you.” Although no one was really hurt or threatened with injury by the act, many who threatened with injury by the act, many who witnessed it were deeply offendedwitnessed it were deeply offended. Johnson was . Johnson was arrested charged, and convicted of violating TX arrested charged, and convicted of violating TX law that made it a crime to desecrate a law that made it a crime to desecrate a “venerable object.” “venerable object.” He received a sentence of He received a sentence of one year in prison and was ordered to pay a one year in prison and was ordered to pay a $2,000 fine.$2,000 fine.

Texas vs. Johnson-1989Texas vs. Johnson-1989

Johnson appealed his conviction, Johnson appealed his conviction, arguing that the TX flag desecration arguing that the TX flag desecration statute violated the 1statute violated the 1stst amendment. amendment. The The state of TX held that it had an interest state of TX held that it had an interest in preserving the flag as a symbol on in preserving the flag as a symbol on national unity. Indeed, national unity. Indeed, in previous in previous cases, the SC had referred to the cases, the SC had referred to the American flag as “national property.”American flag as “national property.”

Texas vs. Johnson-1989Texas vs. Johnson-1989

Decision of the court Decision of the court – majority opinion (5-4)majority opinion (5-4)– The first amendment literally forbids the The first amendment literally forbids the

abridgment only of “speech”, abridgment only of “speech”, but we have long but we have long recognized that its recognized that its protection does not end at the protection does not end at the spoken or written word…spoken or written word…

– Johnson Johnson was not prosecuted for was not prosecuted for the expression the expression of just of just any ideaany idea; he was ; he was prosecuted for prosecuted for his his expression of expression of dissatisfaction with the policies of dissatisfaction with the policies of this countrythis country, expression situated at the core of , expression situated at the core of our first amendment values…our first amendment values…

Texas vs. Johnson-1989Texas vs. Johnson-1989– If he had burned the flag as a means of disposing of If he had burned the flag as a means of disposing of

it because it was dirty or torn, he would not have it because it was dirty or torn, he would not have been convicted of flag desecration under this TX been convicted of flag desecration under this TX law… The Texas law is thus not aimed at protecting law… The Texas law is thus not aimed at protecting the physical integrity of the flag in all the physical integrity of the flag in all circumstances, but is designed instead to protect it circumstances, but is designed instead to protect it only against impairments that would cause serious only against impairments that would cause serious offense to others.offense to others.

– The government may not prohibit the expression of The government may not prohibit the expression of any idea simply because society finds the idea itself any idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeableoffensive or disagreeable

In June 2006, Congress considered an amendment to In June 2006, Congress considered an amendment to make it illegal to desecrate the flag U.S.- it was make it illegal to desecrate the flag U.S.- it was defeated by one vote in the Senatedefeated by one vote in the Senate

Do you agree with the Courts Do you agree with the Courts Decision?Decision?

What issues/concerns did this What issues/concerns did this case address?case address?

Gideon vs. Gideon vs. Wainwright Wainwright

19631963At the time the Constitution was adopted, British courts denied lawyers to individuals charged with treason or felonies. People accused of criminal misdemeanors, however, were provided lawyers. The American colonies and, later, the states, rejected this practice. Most of the original 13 states allowed defendants in all cases to have lawyers. Through the years, the

Supreme Court has heard several cases involving the question of whether poor criminal defendants had a right to a lawyer at public expense, or

whether the sixth amendment merely meant that the govt. could not stop accused persons from hiring one.

Gideon vs. WainwrightGideon vs. Wainwright

In 1961 Clarence Earl Gideon was arrested in Florida for breaking into a Panama City pool hall with the intent to steal money from the vending machines. This was a felony. When Gideon appeared in court, his request for a court-appointed lawyer was denied, as Florida law only required lawyers for defendants charged in capital offenses. Gideon defended himself at trial. He was found guilty, and sentenced to five years in prison. He submitted a hand-written petition to the Supreme Court. He challenged the constitutionality of his conviction, as he had not been granted counsel.

Gideon vs. WainwrightGideon vs. WainwrightDecision of the court (unanimous) 9-0Decision of the court (unanimous) 9-0– Reason and reflection require us to recognize that Reason and reflection require us to recognize that

in our adversary system of criminal justice, an in our adversary system of criminal justice, an person hauled into court, who is person hauled into court, who is too poor to hire a too poor to hire a lawyer, cannot be assured a fair trial unless lawyer, cannot be assured a fair trial unless counsel is provided for him. counsel is provided for him.

– The constitution makes no distinction between The constitution makes no distinction between capital and noncapital cases. The 14capital and noncapital cases. The 14thth amendment requires due process of law for the amendment requires due process of law for the deprival of “liberty” just as for deprival of “life”, deprival of “liberty” just as for deprival of “life”, and there cannot constitutionally be a difference and there cannot constitutionally be a difference in the quality of the process based merely upon a in the quality of the process based merely upon a supposed difference in the sanction involved. supposed difference in the sanction involved.

Gideon vs. WainwrightGideon vs. Wainwright

Summary of the Case1961 Clarence Earl Gideon was arrested in Florida for breaking into a Panama City pool hall with the intent to steal money from the vending machinesWhen Gideon appeared in court, his request for a court-appointed lawyer was denied

Gideon vs. WainwrightGideon vs. Wainwright

He was found guilty, and sentenced to five years in prison. He submitted a hand-written petition to the Supreme Court. He challenged the constitutionality of his conviction, as he had not be granted counsel.

Court agreed Unanimously that Gideon should have been granted counsel

Do you agree with the Courts Do you agree with the Courts Decision?Decision?

What issues/concerns did this What issues/concerns did this case address?case address?