Foundational Documents (No Maryland or Lopez sorry)

Engel V Vitale (1962): AMENDMENT AND CONSTITUTIONAL CLAUSE

First Amendment: Establishment Clause

Engel V Vitale (1962): Case Facts

1) New York State Board of Regents authorized a short, non-denominational, voluntary prayer for recitation at the start of each school day

2) This practice was challenged by the parents of students who objected to the prayer, arguing that it violated the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment, which prohibits the government from establishing a religion

Engel V Vitale (1962): Case Holding/Significance

The Supreme Court ruled that the practice of reciting prayers in public schools, even if they are voluntary and nondenominational, violates the Establishment Clause because it endorses religion, especially before a “captive” audience

Wisconsin V Yoder (1972): Amendment and Constitutional Clause

First Amendment: Free Exercise Clause

Wisconsin V Yoder (1972): Case facts

1) Jonas Yoder and other members of the Amish community in Wisconsin who refused to send their children to school after the eighth grade, as required by state law

2) The Amish argued that attending high school conflicted with their religious beliefs and way of life

• The state prosecuted the parents for violating compulsory education laws

Wisconsin V Yoder (1972): Case Holding/Significance

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Amish, holding that the state’s interest in compulsory education beyond the eighth grade was outweighed by the parents’ 1st Amendment right to free exercise of religion

• The Court held that the Amish community’s way of life was deeply rooted in their religious beliefs and that forcing their children to attend school beyond the eighth grade would undermine those beliefs

Tinker V. Des Moines (1969): Amendment and Constitutional Clause

First Amendment: Free Speech (specifically symbolic speech)

Tinker V. Des Moines (1969): Case facts

1) A group of students in Des Moines, Iowa, wore black armbands to school to protest Vietnam War

2) The school district banned the armbands, and the students who wore them were suspended

3) The students and their parents sued the school district, arguing that the ban violated their First Amendment right to freedom of speech

Tinker V. Des Moines (1969): Case Holdings/Significance

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the students, holding that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”

• The court held that the school’s actions violated the students’ right to symbolic speech, as long as it did not disrupt the educational process

New York Times v. United States (1971): Amendment and Constitutional Clause

First Amendment: Freedom of the Press

New York Times v. United States (1971): Case Facts

1) Often referred to as the “Pentagon Papers” case, this case involved the Nixon administration’s attempt to prevent the New York Times and other news papers from publishing classified documents (Pentagon Papers) that detailed U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War

2) The government argued that publication of the documents would harm national security

New York Times v. United States (1971): Case Holdings/Significance

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the New York Times, holding that the government’s attempt to prevent publication through prior restraint violated the First Amendment’s protection of the freedom of the press

• The Court emphasized that prior restraint is only justified in cases where there is a “grave and immediate.imminent danger” to national security

Schenck v. United States: Amendment and Constitutional Clause

First Amendment: Freedom of Speech

Schenck v. United States: Case Facts

1) Charles Schenck, a socialist, distributed leaflets urging resistance to the military draft during WWI

2) He was charged with violating the Espionage Act of 1917, which made it a crime to obstruct military recruitment

3) Schenck argued that his speech was protected by the First Amendment

Schenck v. United States: Case Holdings/Significance

The Supreme Court upheld Schenck’s conviction, establishing the “clear and present danger” test for determining when speech could be restricted

• The Court held that speech that creates a “clear and present danger” of brining about substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent is not protected by the First Amendment

• In this case, Schenck’s leaflets were seen as creating such a danger by encouraging insubordination and undermining the draft

Gideon V. Wainwright (1963): Amendment and Constitutional Clause

Sixth Amendment: Right to Counsel/Fourteenth Amendment: Due Process Clause

Gideon V. Wainwright (1963): Case Facts

1) Clarence Earl Gideon was charged with breaking asnd entering a pool hall in Florida

2) Gideon, who could not afford a lawyer, requested that one be appointed to him, but the trial judge denied his request, citing state law which only allowed for appointed counsel in capital cases

3) Gideon was forced to represent himself and was convicted

4) He appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that his Sixth Amendment right to counsel had been violated

Gideon V. Wainwright (1963): Case Holding/Significance

The Court overturned its previous decision in Betts v. Brady (1942), which had held that the right to counsel in state cases was not fundamental and therefore not applicable to the states

• Gideon established the principle that all criminal defendants, regardless of their ability to pay, have a constitutional right to counsel, which led to the role of public defender

McDonald V. Chicago (2010): Amendment and Constitutional Clause

Second Amendment (Right to Bear Arms)/Fourteenth Amendment: Due Process Clause

McDonald V. Chicago (2010): Case Facts

1) The case involved a challenge to Chicago’s handgun ban, which prohibited the possession of handguns by individuals within the city limits
2) Otis McDonald, a Chicago resident, argued that the ban violared his Second Amendment right to bear arms and his 14th amendment right to due process

McDonald V. Chicago (2010): Case Holding/Significance

The Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms is applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause.

• The Court reaffirmed the individual's right to possess firearms for self-defense within the home and struck down Chicago's handgun ban as unconstitutional.

• McDonald v. Chicago extended the precedent established in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), which recognized an individual right to bear arms under the Second Amendment, to state and local governments, ensuring that they could not infringe upon this right.

Brown v. Board of Education (1954): Amendment and Constitutional Clause

Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

Brown v. Board of Education (1954): Case Facts

1) Oliver Brown, along with other plaintiffs, filed a class- action lawsuit against the Topeka Kansas Board of Education on behalf of his daughter, Linda Brown, who was denied admission to an all-white elementary school

2) The plaintiffs argued that racial segregation in public schools violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

Brown v. Board of Education (1954): Case Holding/Significance

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that racial segregation in public schools is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

• The Court overturned the "separate but equal" doctrine established in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), which allowed for racial segregation as long as facilities were deemed "equal."

• The Court held that separate educational facilities are inherently unequal and have a detrimental effect on minority children.

• Brown v. Board of Education marked a turning point in the Civil Rights Movement and set the stage for desegregation efforts in public schools and other institutions across the United States.

Citizens United V. Federal Election Commission (FEC) (2010): Amendment and Constitutional Clause

First Amendment Freedom of Speech

Citizens United V. Federal Election Commission (FEC) (2010): Case Facts

1) Citizens United, a nonprofit corporation, wanted to air a documentary it spent $1 million on that was critical of Hillary Clinton during the 2008 Democratic primary

2) This expenditure was restricted by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), which limited corporate funded political advertising close to elections

3) Raised the question of if the restriction of corporate funding for independent political broadcasts violates the First Amendment’s protection of free speech

Citizens United V. Federal Election Commission (FEC) (2010): Case Holding/Significance

The Supreme Court ruled that the government cannot limit independent political expenditures by corporations, associations, or labor unions.

• The Court argued that such restrictions violated the principle of free speech.

• The decision significantly altered campaign finance laws, leading to the rise of Super PACs

• It affirmed that political spending is a form of protected speech, sparking debates about the role of money in politics and its impact on democracy.