Exam 2: Precedent

Roe v. Wade

• Abortion

• Established trimester framework

• The right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision

• The State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life

• Any women is entitled to an abortion at her request if she is able to find a medical advisor willing to undertake the procedure

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization

• Abortion

• Overrules Roe v. Wade

• Rules that abortion is NOT a constitutional right and gives the power of abortion to the peoples elected representatives, the State.

• There was no mention in the Constitution of the right to abortion, and before Roe v. Wade it was considered a crime

State v. Merrill

• Abortion

• Unborn Child rule

• The Unborn child rule states that an unborn child is an offspring of a human being conceived and so it would count as two murders.

• A woman was 28 days pregnant and killed by a gunshot wound, also killing the fetus. The attacker was charged with two murders. Of the woman and her baby.

Hollis v. Commonwealth

• Abortion

• Born Alive Rule

• The born alive rule states that you cannot undergo criminal conviction for a dead fetus, only an infant that was born alive

• A man dragged his wide outside and forced his hand up her vagina to kill the fetus. The viable fetus died.

• The dead fetus was delivered by abdominal incision, but the man cannot undergo criminal conviction because the infant was not born alive.

• The infant needs to be born and completely separate from the mother.

Hughes v. State

• Abortion

• Viable Fetus

• If an unborn fetus was viable at the time of injury, then it is considered a human being

• A man who was intoxicated collided with a vehicle. The woman inside the vehicle was nine months pregnant and the baby died

• The man was convicted of first-degree murder

• A viable fetus is a person

State v. Gray

• Abortion

• A mother cannot be a parent until she gives birth to a child. To be a parent means to have a child that has been birthed

• A parent cannot be prosecuted for child endangerment for substance abuse occurring BEFORE the birth of the child

• A woman was addicted to cocaine and did it while pregnant, so when she gave birth to her baby the baby was also addicted and underwent withdrawal symptoms

• She cannot be found guilty of child endangerment because she was not technically a parent

State v. Forrest

• Euthanasia

• Mercy killing is murder

• There is no legal distinction between mercy killing and killing with hatred or malice

• A son went to visit his father who was dying, the father began coughing and gurgling and the son took out a pistol put it to his father’s temple and fired.

Washington v. Glucksberg

• Euthanasia

• Physician-assisted suicide is not a fundamental liberty protected by the due process clause

• A state has a right to prohibit physician-assisted suicide

• It is a crime to assist in suicide

• It is an American common-law tradition for assisting in suicide to be a felony. It never contained an exception for those who were near death

• It is in a state’s interest to protect life. While also protecting the integrity and ethics of the medical profession. Also understanding the negatives of having assisted suicide being an option, and possible coercion that could come of it

Vacco v. Quill

• Euthanasia

• There is a difference between assisted suicide and refusing lifesaving treatment

• Everyone no matter their physical condition is entitled to refuse unwanted lifesaving medical treatment. Complying with the equal protection clause

• Difference between intently causing suicide, and knowingly causing a death by pulling the plug

Lawrence v. Texas

• Gay Rights

• Right to sodomy

• Liberty allows people the right of intimate association. What adults do in the confine of their home is their own private life and a personal bond. Not up to the government

• The constitution allows homosexual persons to make that choice

• Criminalizing same-sex sexual activity is unconstitutional

Michael M v. Superior Court of Sonoma County

• Gay Rights

• Statutory Rape

• The government needs to show Intermediate Scrutiny. There must be a substantial relationship between gender and the law’s objective

• This law makes it a criminal act for a male to have sexual intercourse with a woman under 18 who is not his wife.

• Only women can become pregnant so they can suffer disproportionately, the statute protects women from sexual intercourse at an age when consequences are particularly severe.

• If it was a gender-neutral statute, then the female would be less likely to report violations, especially if they feared they themselves would be subject to criminal prosecution

• A woman can get pregnant, physical injury, loss of chastity, and concerns about religions and moral attitude’s towards sex

Johnson v. California

• Gay Rights

• Racial segregation is ONLY ok is applied with strict scrutiny

• The question at hand is equal protection of the laws?

• A States Department of Corrections has an unwritten policy segregating prisoners in double cells in reception center for up to 60 days each time they enter a new correctional facility, in order to prevent violence caused by racial gangs

• This department claims that its policy should be exempt from categorial rule because it is neutral. But in the case of Brown v. Board of Education separate can never be equal or neutral

• By housing people of the same race together it can breed further hostility among prisoners and reinforce racial and ethnic divisions. While most other states manage their systems without reliance on racial segregation

• This did not pass the judicial review of strict scrutiny

Virginia v. Black

• Freedom of Speech

• True Threat

• Burning a cross with the KKK as an act of political expression and it ok. But if you burn it and put it in someone’s yard then that is a true threat.

• The act of burning a cross with an intent to intimidate a person or groups of persons violates the First Amendment

• True threats encompass those statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals

• Context Matters

• Two people attempted to burn a cross on the yard of an African American. Both were charged with attempted cross burning and conspiracy to commit cross burning

Texas v. Johnson

• Freedom of Speech

• Political expression is protected under the 1st Amendment

• A man publicly burned an American flag as a means of political protest. While people were chanting “America, the red, white, and blue, we spit on you".

• People were offended but the first Amendment protects offensive speech

• His actions were to convey a particularized message, and the likelihood was great that the message would be understood by those who viewed it.

• The political nature and expression made it a sufficient element of communication. There are other examples of political expression. Gestures, Arm band, etc.

Cohen v. California

• Freedom of Speech

• Profanatory language is protected under the 1st Amendment

• “One man’s vulgarity is another’s lyric”

• A man was in a courthouse wearing the words “Fuck the Draft” he was then arrested for offensive conduct, but his arrest was overruled

• It was a political statement not directed at any individual which could cause a fight. As long as there is no sign or intent to incite disobedience or to disrupt the draft you cannot punish someone for the underlying content of the message

• It is not considered fighting words.

Miller v. California

• Freedom of Speech

• Obscene material can be regulated by the States

• Gives us the definition of obscenity

• States have a legitimate interest in prohibiting dissemination or exhibition of obscene material

• It is obscene if it lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value to merit First Amendment protection

• States can regulate obscene material, and instill safeguards

Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton

• Freedom of Speech

• Obscene Material is not protected by the First Amendment

• State interests include regulating to juveniles and unconsenting adults (passerby) and the interest of the public in the quality of life and the total community environment

• The government CANNOT legitimately impede an individual’s desire to see or acquire obscene plays, movies, and books. But it is not a right protected by the 1st Amendment

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen

• Right to bear arms

• Being able to carry a firearm in public is a fundamental constitutional right

• The state cannot require individuals to show a special need to carry firearms publicly

• Historically there have been laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in schools and government buildings. But other places that are not historically considered sensitive you are constitutionally able to carry firearms

District of Columbia v. Heller

• Right to bear arms

• The 2nd Amendment protects and individuals right to possess a firearm for self-defense within the home

• A pre-existing right for people to keep and bear arms

• This place was trying to say that any handgun within the home must be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock at all times, rendering it inoperable. This is unconstitutional

• We do not restrict the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation

Gregg v. Georgia

• Capital Punishment

• Capital Punishment does not violate the 8th Amendment

• A man was charged with committing armed robbery and murder. He shot and killed two men and then robbed them

• The jury decided that there were enough aggravating circumstances so he would receive the death penalty

• The imposition of the death penalty for the crime of murder has a long history of acceptance both in the US and in Englan

Coker v. Georgia

• Capital Punishment

• The death penalty for the rape of a women is excessive

• It is cruel and unusual punishment

• A man escaped from prison and raped a woman then kidnapped her, but she was eventually found unharmed

• He was given the death penalty for rape, but it was ruled that it was excessive to the crime that was committed