Supreme Court Cases II

Miranda v. ArizonaIssue: Rights of Suspected Criminals

19661966

Police arrested Miranda for Police arrested Miranda for kidnapping/rapekidnapping/rape

Identified in lineup and Identified in lineup and confessedconfessed

Never been advised of his Never been advised of his right to an attorney present right to an attorney present during interrogationduring interrogation

Miranda had been questioned, Miranda had been questioned, had confessed, and had had confessed, and had signed a written statement signed a written statement without without being told that he had being told that he had a right to a lawyer; a right to a lawyer; his his confession was used at trial.confession was used at trial.

Miranda rights/5th amendment

•The Court said that if police DO NOT inform people they arrest about certain constitutional rights including:•5th amend: Right Against Self-Incrimination•then their confessions MAY NOT be used as evidence at trial.

The decision reversed the Arizona court's conviction of Ernesto Miranda on kidnapping and rape charges.

In re Gault

Issue: Rights of Juveniles

15 year old making 15 year old making indecent phone calls indecent phone calls to neighborto neighbor

He is arrestedHe is arrested

Parents were not Parents were not calledcalled

Never interviewed the Never interviewed the neighbor! neighbor!

Juveniles have similar Juveniles have similar rights as adults.rights as adults.

OYEZ - In re Gault - Oral Argument

Tinker v. Des Moines Schools

Issue: Students and Free Speech

19691969Students protest Students protest Vietnam war with Vietnam war with black arm bandsblack arm bandsGet suspendedGet suspendedSupreme Court ruled that this violated their 1st amendment right of free speech and EXPRESSION!

Furman (FIRM) v GeorgiaFacts of the Case: Furman was burglarizing a private home when a family member discovered him. He attempted to flee, tripped and fell. The gun that he was carrying went off and killed a resident of the home. He was convicted of murder and sentenced to deathQuestion: Does the imposition and carrying out of the death penalty in these cases constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments?Answer:YES.

Furman v. Georgia

Issue: Legality of the Death Penalty

Decision by Supreme Court stopped the death penalty under state laws in 1972!Ruled that the death Ruled that the death penalty amounted to cruel penalty amounted to cruel and unusual punishment and unusual punishment (violates___ amendment)(violates___ amendment)39 states stopped it39 states stopped itNow, 38 states have Now, 38 states have rewritten death penalty rewritten death penalty laws to meet laws to meet requirements of this case!requirements of this case!

US v. NixonIssue: Powers of the President and Executive Privilege

1970: Pres. Nixon named an UN-indicted co-conspirator in a criminal investigation

Ordered to turn over tapes of conversations about the break-in

He refused to turn over tapes

Ruling: PRESIDENT is not above the law

Ordered to give up the tapes

He resigned shortly after this

Wallace v. Jaffree

Issue: Religion in schools

School day to begin with “moment of silent mediation or voluntary prayer”

student parent sued student parent sued saying that prayer saying that prayer violated theviolated the

Establishment ClauseEstablishment Clause by by compelling students to compelling students to praypray

Prayer found to be Prayer found to be unconstitutionalunconstitutional

New Jersey v. TLONew Jersey v. TLOIssue:students and searches Issue:students and searches 19851985

Teacher at a high Teacher at a high school caught girls school caught girls smoking in the smoking in the bathroombathroomAllowed to smoke in Allowed to smoke in some areas but not some areas but not b-roomb-roomOne said (tlo) she One said (tlo) she was smoking the was smoking the other said she other said she wasn’t.wasn’t.

Principal told TLO to give him her purseFound cigs and rolling papersThought she was using…

MarijuanaDecided to search her purse even more! Found weed, pipe, list of names -- assumed she was?Upheld 4th amendment!

Appropriate Search and seizure applies to public schools too

California v. Bakke

Issue: Legality of Affirmative Action

BarsBars quota systems in college quota systems in college admissionsadmissions

Allows admissions of colleges to have affirmative action programs giving advantage to minorities

Bakke had been rejected 2 times by the medical school, even though he had a higher grade point average than a number of minority candidates who were admitted. As a result of the decision, Bakke was admitted to the medical school and graduated in 1982.

Hazelwood Schools v. Kuhlmeier (1987)

Issue: Free Speech of Students

Upheld the right to public high school administrators at Hazelwood high Hazelwood high school school to censor to censor stories in the school stories in the school newspaper newspaper (teen (teen pregnancies and pregnancies and divorce)divorce)Wasn’t violation of 1st amendment! b/c it was a school sponsored activity

Texas v. Johnson

Issue: Free Speech and Flag Burning

Allowed to burn the flag.

In bad taste but…

Protected under 1st amendment speech and expression!

Swann v. Charlotte Mecklenburg

Issue: Forced Busing of Students

19711971

Allowed to “bus” students to make it more racially equal in schools

To To promote integrationpromote integration of public schools.of public schools.

Felt it was a good fix for Felt it was a good fix for the problem of racial the problem of racial imbalance among imbalance among schools!schools!

Escobedo v. Illinois (1964)Escobedo v. Illinois (1964)Danny Escobedo was a suspect in the Danny Escobedo was a suspect in the murder of his brother-in-lawmurder of his brother-in-law was picked was picked TWICE TWICE by police for by police for questioning.questioning.He asked for his lawyer to be present, & his lawyer asked to see him…but BOTH were told to wait until the questioning was over! During police questioning, he made some During police questioning, he made some statements that incriminated himself. statements that incriminated himself. A motion was made to suppress the statements as evidence, but he was still charged with murder

• .

Story…• Police said he had given the info VOLUNATARILY Police said he had given the info VOLUNATARILY

and the courts upheld the conviction.and the courts upheld the conviction.• Issue?Issue? • Was the refusal by police to honor Was the refusal by police to honor

Escobedo’s request to consult with his Escobedo’s request to consult with his lawyer a violation of his 6lawyer a violation of his 6thth amendment amendment rights?rights?

• WHO CARES?WHO CARES? This case extended the right of the

accused to have an attorney present during questioning.

Info obtained w/o this right is inadmissible in court

Leandro v. North CarolinaLeandro v. North Carolina(1997)(1997)Six urban school districts stated that the state funding formula Six urban school districts stated that the state funding formula did not provide them with sufficient money to educate their at-did not provide them with sufficient money to educate their at-risk students and students for whom English is not their first risk students and students for whom English is not their first

languagelanguage..

NOT EQUAL!!!NOT EQUAL!!!

North Carolina Supreme Court cases requiring North Carolina Supreme Court cases requiring that public school that public school FUNDING must be EQUAL & FAIR!

““...every child of this state shall have an ...every child of this state shall have an opportunity to receive a sound basic education opportunity to receive a sound basic education in our public schools.” in our public schools.”

Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc vs Us 1964

Facts of the Case:  Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

forbade (prevented) racial discrimination in places of public accommodation if their operations affected commerce.

The Heart of Atlanta Motel in Atlanta, Georgia, refused to accept Black Americans and was charged with violating Title II.

Question? Did Congress, in passing Title II of the 1964

Civil Rights Act, exceed its Commerce Clause powers by depriving motels, such as the Heart of Atlanta, of the right to choose their own customers?

Conclusion: 

The Court held that the Commerce Clause allowed Congress to regulate local incidents of commerce

and the Court concluded that places of public accommodation had no "right" to select guests.

Bethel School District vs. Bethel School District vs. FrasierFrasier

1986 (free speech at school)1986 (free speech at school)

Student wrote a sexually explicit speech for Student wrote a sexually explicit speech for commencement speechcommencement speechstudent was suspended for 3 days for violating student was suspended for 3 days for violating the school’s code of conduct and was removed the school’s code of conduct and was removed from the list of those eligible to talk at graduationfrom the list of those eligible to talk at graduationHis parents appealed the School District’s His parents appealed the School District’s decision, and the Washington District Court decision, and the Washington District Court upheld Frasier’s right to free speechupheld Frasier’s right to free speech

……

The U.S. Supreme Court took the case, The U.S. Supreme Court took the case, disagreeing with the other courts, and disagreeing with the other courts, and ruled that the school board had acted ruled that the school board had acted appropriately.appropriately.

Did Bethel School District violate the first Did Bethel School District violate the first amendment by punishing Matt and not amendment by punishing Matt and not upholding his freedom of speech?upholding his freedom of speech?

“…The determination of what manner of speech in the classroom or in school assembly is inappropriate properly rests with the school board.”

- Chief Justice Burger

•You do not have unlimited speech at school!

Engel v. VitaleEngel v. Vitale1962- prayer and school: NO!

1951 the New York State Board of Regents (the State board of education) 1951 the New York State Board of Regents (the State board of education) approved a 22-word “nondenominational prayer” for recitation each morning approved a 22-word “nondenominational prayer” for recitation each morning in the public schools of New York. in the public schools of New York.

““Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country.” Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country.”

The Regents believed that the prayer could be a useful tool for the The Regents believed that the prayer could be a useful tool for the development of character and good citizenship among the students of the development of character and good citizenship among the students of the State of New York. State of New York.

The prayer was offered to the school boards in the State for their use, and The prayer was offered to the school boards in the State for their use, and participation in the “prayer-exercise” was participation in the “prayer-exercise” was voluntary. voluntary.

In New Hyde Park, New York, the Union Free School District directed the In New Hyde Park, New York, the Union Free School District directed the local principal to have the prayer local principal to have the prayer “said aloud by each class in the presence “said aloud by each class in the presence of a teacher at the beginning of the school day.”of a teacher at the beginning of the school day.”

Some parents objected the prayer, citing separation of church and stateSome parents objected the prayer, citing separation of church and state

The State appeals court upheld the use of the prayer, “so long as the The State appeals court upheld the use of the prayer, “so long as the schools did not compel any pupil to join in the prayer over his or his parents' schools did not compel any pupil to join in the prayer over his or his parents' objection.”objection.”

Constitutional IssuesConstitutional IssuesThe question before the Court involved the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment. Did the Regents of New York violate the religious freedom of students by providing time during the school day for this particular prayer? Did the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment prevent schools from engaging in “religious activity”? Was the “wall of separation” between church and state breached in this case?

Arguments:

For Engel (the parents): The separation of church and state requires that government stay out of the business of prescribing religious activities of any kind. The Regents' prayer quite simply and clearly violated the 1st Amendment and should, therefore, be barred from the schools.

For the Regents of the State of New York: The New York Regents did not establish a religion by providing a prayer for those who wanted to say it. Countless religious elements are associated with governments and officials, reflecting the religious heritage of the nation. New York acted properly and constitutionally in providing an optional, nonsectarian prayer.

DecisionDecisionThe Court found the New York Regents' prayer to be unconstitutional.

Justice Hugo Black wrote the opinion for the 6-1 majority: “We think that by using its public school system to encourage recitation of the Regents' Prayer, the State of New York has adopted a practice wholly inconsistent with the Establishment Clause. There can, of course, be no doubt that New York's program of daily classroom invocation of God's blessings…in the Regents' Prayer is a religious activity…”

The Court's decision was not, Black pointed out, antireligious. It sought, rather, only to affirm the separation between church and state. “It is neither sacrilegious nor antireligious to say that each separate government in this country should stay out of the business of writing or sanctioning official prayers…”

Gregg v. Georgia (1976)Gregg v. Georgia (1976)