Court Cases (Prillaman)

McDonald V. Chicago

Background: The case arose in 2010, when Otis McDonald, a retired Black custodian, and others filed suit in U.S. District Court. The suit challenged a 1982 Chicago law that generally banned the new registration of handguns and made registration a prerequisite for possessing firearms.

Amendment: Does the Second Amendment apply to the states because it is incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment's Privileges and Immunities or Due Process clauses and thereby made applicable to the states?

Outcome:The Supreme Court reversed the Seventh Circuit, holding that the Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense applicable to the states.

Loving vs. Virginia 

Background: The Loving case was a challenge to centuries of American laws banning miscegenation, which means marriage or sexual relations between people of different races. Restrictions on miscegenation existed as early as the colonial era, and all but nine states had a law against it at some point in their history.

Amendment:Did Virginia's anti miscegenation law violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Outcome: In a unanimous decision, the Court held that distinctions drawn according to race were generally "odious to a free people" and were subject to "the most rigid scrutiny" under the Equal Protection Clause.

Texas vs. Johnson 

Background: Most early flag desecration statutes prohibited marking or otherwise defacing a flag design, as well as by using the flag in commercial advertising or showing contempt for the flag in any way. Contempt was taken to mean publicly burning it, trampling on it, spitting on it or otherwise showing a lack of respect for it.

Amendment:Is the desecration of an American flag, by burning or otherwise, a form of speech that is protected under the First Amendment?

Outcome: In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that Johnson's burning of a flag was protected expression under the First Amendment.

Mapp vs. Ohio

Background: Suspicious that Dollree Mapp might be hiding a person suspected in a bombing, the police demanded entrance to her home. Mapp refused to let them in because they did not have a warrant. The police later forced their way into her house. They were holding up a piece of paper, but when Mapp demanded to see their search warrant, they would not show it to her.

Amendment: Were the confiscated materials protected from seizure by the Fourth Amendment?

Outcome: In an opinion authored by Justice Tom C. Clark, the majority brushed aside First Amendment issues and declared that all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Fourth Amendment is inadmissible in a state court.

Obergefell vs. Hodges

Background: Jim Obergefell's name is associated with the Supreme Court case that made same-sex marriage legal in America.

Amendment:Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?

Outcome: Justice Anthony M. Kennedy delivered the opinion for the 5-4 majority. The Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees the right to marry as one of the fundamental liberties it protects, and that analysis applies to same-sex couples in the same manner as it does to opposite-sex couples.

Korematsu vs. US

Background: This case was in 1944 when Fred Korematsu, a Japanese American citizen, was convicted for refusing to comply with an Executive order (9066), which required the forced relocation of all Japanese Americans to prisons during World War II. He challenged the executive order, arguing it violated his constitutional rights.

Amendment: The case was focused on whether the government’s internment policy violated the 5th Amendment’s due process and equal protection under law. Korematsu argued that the order violated and discriminated against Japanese Americans based on their race.

Outcome: The supreme court ruled 6-3 in favor of the U.S. government, justifying Korematsu’s conviction. The other justices said that the ruling was unconstitutional and racially motivated.

Gideon vs. Wainwright 

Background: In 1961, Clarence Earl Gideon was charged for Burglary in Florida. He requested a court appointed lawyer but he was denied because the state only provided lawyers for capital cases. He was forced to represent himself, he was convicted and sentenced to 5 years in prison.

Amendment: The case decided if the 6th amendment’s right to a lawyer also applied to state courts through the 14th amendment which states that “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Outcome: The supreme court ruled in favor of Gideon 9-1, stating that states must provide lawyers to defendants who cannot afford one. This decision overturned a few other trials like Betts V. Brady and enforced the right to a fair trial.

Roper vs. Simmons 

Background: Christopher Simmons was sentenced to death in 1993 at the age of 17. His appeals were denied until 2002, when the Missouri supreme court reconsidered his case. They ruled that executing minors was unconstitutional.

Amendment: The 8th amendment prohibits cruel or unusual punishment. 

Outcome: The supreme court ruled in a 5-4 decision they also ruled that executing minors was unconstitutional. The court found that making the standards of decency made the juvenile death penalty cruel and unusual which goes against the 8th amendment.

Powell vs. Alabama

Background: In 1931, nine black youth were accused of raping two white women in Alabama. They were quickly tried in the courts and were sentenced to death, with the trials only last one day. The lawyers appointed to represent the youths didn't have time to consult with the youths and prepare a proper defense.

Amendment: The due process clause in the 14th amendment guarantees fair treatment under the law, which includes the right to a fair trial and legal representation. 

Outcome: The court ruled 7-2 that the trials violated the defendant's right to due process. The court said that the lawyers and youth were not given enough time to prepare a defense which made the trials unfair.

Engle vs. Vitale 

Background:The New York state Board of Regents created a nondenominational prayer for students to say at the start of each school day. Students had the choice to not participate, but a group of students, including Steven Engel, opposed the prayer and sued the school board president, William Vitale.

Amendment: The 1st amendment prohibits the government from establishing a religion. This is known as the Establishment Clause, which also protects the freedom of religion. 

Outcome: In a 6-1 decision the supreme court ruled that prayer in schools was unconstitutional. The court stated that the state public schools encouraged prayer which violated the Establishment Clause, as it involved the government in religious practice.

Smith vs. employment division

Background: Two counselors were fired for using a peyote in a religious ceremony. A peyote is a cactus that contains a powerful hallucinogenic substance in it. They were denied unemployment benefits, but the Oregon courts ruled in their favor, saying that it violated their 1st amendment rights. The case later returned to the supreme court.

Amendment: The 1st amendment protects the freedom of religion.

Outcome:The supreme court ruled 6-3 that the state could deny unemployment benefits. Justice Scalia stated that religious beliefs don’t exempt people from following laws that apply to everyone else.

Gitlow vs. New York

Background: Gitlow, a socialist, was arrested in 1919 for disturbing a manifesto that called for the violent overthrow of the government. He was convicted under New York’s Criminal Anarchy law, which made it illegal to encourage those actions. Gitlow argued that his speech didn’t incite any immediate actions and that it should be protected under the first amendment.

Amendment: The 1st amendment protects the freedom of speech, but it doesn’t allow any speech that incites violence against the government.

Outcome:The supreme court ruled 7-2 in favor of New York, stating that the state could punish Gitlow for his speech because it threatened the government. The court also established the incorporation doctrine, meaning the bill of rights applies to the states. Justice Holmes argued that his speech was too nonrealistic to pose an actual threat to the people and government.