PoliSci 2

Start Studying!

Terms

undefined, object

copy deck

Marbury vs. Madison: Judicial Review (1803)
Â• Jurisdiction:
o Original: hears it in the first instance (goes directly to Supreme Court)
o One state sues another (usually over boundaries, approx. 5 a year)
Â• Appellate: a court having jurisdiction to review cases and issues that were originally tried in lower courts.
Â• Background: Federal Judiciary Act of 1789 passed by Congress, set up courts with 6 members (9 today) and appellate courts. Problem with Section 13 that provided that the Supreme Court may issue a writ of mandamus, a court order saying official not doing their job
Â• Facts: Election of 1800 Jefferson defeated Adams. During long period between election and taking office, the Federalists (defeated) reorganized the court system by decreasing # of members (from 6 to 5) to make sure Jefferson couldnÂ’t appoint anyone. Adams appointed 59 lower level judges with Midnight Appointments (all federalists). DidnÂ’t approve all in time. Marbury appointed but paperwork not completed in time so new secretary of state, Madison, wouldnÂ’t finish paperwork = no appointment. Marbury asked Supreme Court for Writ of Mandamus to get his job from Madison. Old secretary of state is new Supreme Court Justice = John Marshall
Â• Question: Is Marbury entitled to the position?
Â• Ruling: Marshall said yes heÂ’s entitled to the position HOWEVER the court canÂ’t issue it because Section 13 (writ of mandamus) is unconstitutional
o A law contrary to the constitution is null and void
o First time the Supreme Court didnÂ’t just interpret, actually ruled unconstitutional.
McCulloch vs. Madison: (1819)
Â• Background: controversy started during WashingtonÂ’s administration and lasted many years. Hamilton said the country needed a bank but Jefferson said it wasnÂ’t in constitution. Bank of U.S. (BUS) was created and the country wouldnÂ’t be here without it.
o Hamilton a lose/broad constructionist
o Jefferson a strict constructionist
o Fight over bank the spirit of political parties.
Â• Facts:
o Bank/law was about to expire
o 1816- Second BUS created
o States wanted power to regulate banks
o Maryland placed tax on federal bank in its boarders ($25,000 taxed branch bank in Baltimore. James McCulloch wouldnÂ’t pay)
Â• Question:
o Can state government tax national government?
o Can Congress create bank if not in Constitution?
Â• Ruling:
o Â“Power to tax involves power to destroyÂ” Â–John Marshall
o Inter-governmental tax immunity: state canÂ’t tax federal government.
o CanÂ’t create bank because even though bank isnÂ’t in constitution itÂ’s implied power.
Barron vs. Baltimore: (1833)
Â• Background: Barron owned a fishing wharf. Without consulting Barron, the city of Baltimore diverted natural waterways leaving him bankrupt. Barron decided that the 5th amendment was being violate (Taking Clause)
Â• Ruling: Chief Justice John Marshall said he had no case because the Bill of Rights only applies to national government (led to Dred Scott case)
Missouri vs. Holland: (1920):
Â• Background: Congress tried to regulate duck and geese hunting but courts threw out the case because it wasnÂ’t in the jurisdiction of the government. U.S. made treaty with Great Britain and Canada regulation hunting (with law)
Â• Facts:
o Congress passes regulations
o Holland tried to enforce but Missouri said they couldnÂ’t
Â• Ruling: By itself the law is unconstitutional but with the treaty it becomes Â“law of the landÂ” or constitutional. Holland could enforce regulations
Cummings vs. Missouri: (1867)
Â• Background: republicans (North) passed a Test Oath law which said before you could become a professional (lawyer, teacher, etc.) you had to take an oath swearing you wouldnÂ’t sympathize with South. Father Cummings was preaching without a license and was fined.
Â• Ruling: test oath law was a Bill of Attainder and unconstitutional because it singled out confederates/soldiers (Prohibited/denied powers)
Slaughterhouse Cases: ~ privileges and immunities(1873)
Â• Background: After Civil War there was an outbreak of disease due to raw sewage and dead carcasses being dumped into the waterways. The state legislature passed a law that granted a monopoly to one slaughterhouse that everyone had to use. Competing slaughterhouses said that the government hurt their business and brought a lawsuit saying that it violated their privileges and immunities.
Â• Ruling: 2 kinds of citizenship, state and U.S. States canÂ’t discriminate against a citizen coming in from another state (a U.S. citizen) but can discriminate against itÂ’s own citizens.
Â• OPENED UP DOORS FOR RACIAL SEGREGATION!
Gibbons vs. Ogden: ~ Expansion of Commerce Clause(1824)
Â• Background: Robert Fulton developed first shipping business (across water). Sold business to Gibbons and Ogden but they had a falling out. Gibbons starts own company and gets license. Takes to court. Ogden wins and appeals made.
Â• Question: who has authority to regulate waterways? State or national?
Â• Ruling: John Marshall says that national government has authority to regulate it because itÂ’s used to travel. He defined commerce as shipment of goods and services but people as well (allowed Congress to pass laws regulating involvement or travel of people).
NLRB vs. Jones-Laughlin Steel Corp.: ~ Expansion of Commerce Clause (1937)
Â• Background: 1935 Congress passed Wagener Act (Magna Carta of Labor) allowing for collective bargaining (right to organize union). Passed under Commerce Clause. NLRB regulated elections in unions.
Â• Facts: Jones-Laughlin fired employees for participating in unions, NLRB said that the Corp. violated rights. Steel Corp. said that theyÂ’re not participating in interstate commerce so NLRB has no jurisdiction.
Â• Question: Is manufacturing part of inter-state commerce?
Â• Ruling: Court says manufacturing is part of inter-state commerce so Wagner Act applies (manufactures and sells across state lines).
Williams vs. North Carolina: ~ Under Exparte Divorce, under Full Faith and Credit (1949)
Â• Background: Mr. Williams and Mrs. Hendrix wanted to get married but they had wait two years to get a divorce. Instead they decided to take a Â“vacationÂ” to Las Vegas where they stayed for 6 weeks in order to gain residency and then they notified their spouses that they wanted a divorce and got married. When they returned to North Carolina they were charged with bigamy.
Â• Ruling: The court said that because the couple didnÂ’t set up residency (vote, change address, set up utilities) the divorces werenÂ’t legal.
Kentucky vs. Dennison: ~ Rendition and extradition(1999)
Â• Background: California was being overrun by welfare benefits. Passed law that said people werenÂ’t entitled to benefits of welfare until theyÂ’ve lived there one full year. Until then they received the benefits that they would have received in their original state. Three women brought lawsuit against Rita Seamz, director of Social Services.
Â• Ruling: California violated a personÂ’s right to privileges and immunities. Citizens can decide to move to any state but a state doesnÂ’t have the right to choose their citizens.
Puerto Rico vs. Brandstad: ~ Rendition and extration(1987)
Â• Background: Ron Calder was an air traffic controller from Iowa living in Puerto Rico. He went to the mall and got in a fight over a parking space. He ran over the other manÂ’s pregnant wife, killing both. He was arrested and charged with homicide. Posted bail and returned to Iowa. Governor of Iowa asked for extradition from Governor of Iowa, Terry Branstad but he only agreed if Calder got a fair trial (Puerto Rico a commonwealth, American citizens)
Â• Ruling: Thurgood Marshall reversed the ruling in Kentucky vs. Dennison saying the original case was a product of the time. (Happened when Bobby Knight who punched out a guard, canÂ’t return to Puerto Rico) ***HAVE TO GRANT EXTRADITION
Heart of Atlanta Motel vs. U.S.: ~ Civil Rights Act of 1964, passed under commerce clause (1937)
Â• Background: 1935 Congress passed Wagener Act (Magna Carta of Labor) allowing for collective bargaining (right to organize union). Passed under Commerce Clause. NLRB regulated elections in unions.
Â• Facts: Jones-Laughlin fired employees for participating in unions, NLRB said that the Corp. violated rights. Steel Corp. said that theyÂ’re not participating in interstate commerce so NLRB has no jurisdiction.
Â• Question: Is manufacturing part of inter-state commerce?
Â• Ruling: Court says manufacturing is part of inter-state commerce so Wagner Act applies (manufactures and sells across state lines).
Katzenbach vs. McClung ~: Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed under Commerce Clause(1964)
Â• Background: Ollie McClungÂ’s BBQ didnÂ’t serve blacks even though 2/3 of its employees were African-Americans. Attorney General Katzenbach prosecuted the restaurant. Owner said that they didnÂ’t participate in interstate commerce because they served locals and got their meat locally.
Â• Ruling: restaurant was participating interstate commerce because the local meat distributor got their meat from out of state.
Engel vs. Vitale: ~ Establishment Clause (1962)
Â• Background: Board of Regions, governing board of education in New York, decided that all school children had to begin the school day with a prayer. Steven Engle challenged the law under the Establishment Clause.
Â• Ruling: Court agreed saying the government, state or federal, has no business composing or imposing prayers.
Â• Prayer allowed if initiated by students.
Walz vs. Tax Commission: ~ 1st amendment, establishment clause (1971)
Â• Background: Fredrick Walz goes to law school and thought there was a problem with taxation. Bought a small parcel of land in Staten Island and refused to pay any property taxes because he thought it wasnÂ’t fair that the churches donÂ’t have to pay them. Files a lawsuit contending that the tax break for churches violates the Establishment Clause.
Â• Ruling: DidnÂ’t violate Est. Clause. If we tax the church we run the risk of government interfering with religion- Â“power to tax involves the power to destroyÂ” says Marshall. Court said it was nothing more than Benevolent Neutrality; itÂ’s better to not get involved to prevent confusion.
Â• Note: if the church engages in moneymaking activities then itÂ’s taxable.
U.S. vs. Seeger~ establishment clause(1965)
Â• Background: During Vietnam War. Seeger was drafted and decided he was a Conscientious Objector (CO, can still serve even if you canÂ’t be on the battlefield). To be a CO you had to believe in a supreme being or the existence of God. Seeger said he didnÂ’t believe in God but believed in Â“being goodÂ”
Â• Ruling: Religion doesnÂ’t require the belief in a supreme being or a particular doctrine or dogma. You must be sincere in your belief and that belief must occupy a central part of your life. Today your religion has to have an association, community who also has those beliefs.
Everson vs. board of education: ~ 1st Amendment, establishment clause
Â• Background: State of New Jersey authorized local school districts to be used to reimburse parents of children who rode the bus to Parochial School. Taxpayer, Archie Everson, felt it was a violation of the establishment clause because it was using tax money for supporting a religious institution.
Â• Ruling: Justice Hugo Black said the law wasnÂ’t unconstitutional. Said it was okay under the Child Benefit Theory- who benefits the most, the children or the state. The primary beneficiary of this law is the child not the religion. Justice Black said the Establishment Clause means this:
o Government canÂ’t set up church
o CanÂ’t compel you to go to church
o CanÂ’t tax to support church
o CanÂ’t aid religion
o CanÂ’t prefer one religion over another
o CanÂ’t punish a person for his/her beliefs
o Classic Quotation: Â“There is a wall of separation between church and stateÂ” Â–Thomas Jefferson
Â• Thomas Jefferson had no involvement in writing the First Amendment, wrote this in a letter.
Minersville vs. Gobitis: ~ Flag salute cases (1940)
Â• Background: Minersville school district had a policy that every school child recite the pledge. Walter Gobitis, a Jehovah witness, had to children in the school district. His children were kicked out of school for not saluting the flag (Â“GodÂ” was not in the pledge yet).
Â• Ruling: 8-1 decision. Justice Frankfurter said that national unity is the basis of national security. There is a purpose to saluting the flag: to make the nation one.
West Virginia vs. Barnette: ~ Flag salute cases (1943) = Â“The Great ReversalÂ”
Â• Background: West Virginia required school children to say pledge. Almost identical to Minersville vs.Gobitis.
Â• Ruling: Justice Jackson said itÂ’s an unflattering compliment to our democracy when we require people to be patriotic. Â“If thereÂ’s any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no person should be compelled to think a certain way.Â”
Reynolds vs. U.S.: ~ Free Excersise Clause (1879)
Â• Background: George Reynolds was a high-ranking official in the Mormon Church. He was prosecuted and convicted for having two spouses under federal law (before Utah was a state) prohibiting having more than one living wife. Said his religious beliefs were that he was to keep as many wives as he could support or heÂ’d be sent to eternal damnation so it was violating his freedom to practice his religion.
Â• Ruling: Unanimous decision held up the law. Justice Waite said, Â“while marriage has religious overtones, that it is still a contract that comes under the governments sanctions and that government has the right to do whatÂ’s in the interest of society and families are the foundation of society and itÂ’s best if there is just one spouse.Â” If every person could ignore a law because it goes against your religion then every person would be a nation unto himself. There would be a break down of society.Â” You have a right to your religious belief but it has to be weighted in the interest of the people.
Dred Scott vs. Sanford: (1857)
Â• Background: In 1920, territory of Missouri wanted to become a state but it wouldÂ’ve set off the balance of free and slave states. Missouri Compromise allowed MO to enter as slave state and Maine as a free state.
Â• Facts: Dred Scott was born in to slavery in VA in 1795. His owner/master moved to MO. His owner died, Dred was sold to Dr. Emerson (U.S. army). They moved to IL then Frt. Snelling (free territory) and back to St. Louis where Dr. E died. Widow moved to NY while Dred stayed in STL. Sons of original owner brought lawsuit on his behalf to get his freedom (Sanford = ownerÂ’s sons). Argued that moving to and from free states makes you free
Â• Ruling: Justice Taney (from Maryland, slave owner) said he couldnÂ’t bring case because persons of color werenÂ’t citizens when constitution was written and MO compromise was unconstitutional because 5th amendment because congress canÂ’t deprive withes of their right to own slaves (right to property)
Â• 1857: second time that Judicial Review was practiced.
Â• Importance: couldnÂ’t solve the slavery issue (Supreme Court couldnÂ’t even) had to have Civil War to solve.
Gitlow vs. New York: (14th amendment protected 1st amendment right to free speech
Â• Background: member of left-wing group printed pamphlets urging the over throw of the government.
Â• Ruling: although the first amendment protects against state incursions on freedom of expression, Gitlow could be punished because his expression would ted to bring evils that the state had the right to prevent.
Westside School Dist. vs. Mergens: (Challenged Equal Access Act in 1991)
Â• Background: Bridget Mergens wanted to form a Christian prayer group. Went to school principle but he said that she couldnÂ’t form group without a teacher sponsor. However if she did have a teacher sponsor, the teacher couldnÂ’t enforce prayer. Filed lawsuit under the Equal access Act of 1984
Â• Ruling: Her rights were violated. The Equal Access Act is legitimate and she has the right to form the organization. (Chess club isnÂ’t part of curriculum but it has access so the prayer group must have access to facilities).
Marsh vs. Chambers: ~ establishment clause (1983)
Â• Background: State of Nebraska hired a chaplain to begin all functions of the Legislature. State Rep. Chambers filed a lawsuit against state treasurer Mash to get an injunction to stop payments to chaplain. Said it violated the Establishment Clause
Â• Ruling: DidnÂ’t violate the Establishment Clause. Chief Justice Burger was an Â“accommodationistÂ” because he said that there is no way to completely separate religion and government. Chief Justice was a Â“separationistÂ”. Burger said religion is part of our culture and is believed by a majority so itÂ’s not a violation of the EC. Is a violation if imposed in schools because children are impressionable but not a violation in government because they are adults.
Widmar vs. Vincent: ~ Equal Access under 1st amendment (1981):
Â• Background: Clark Vincent was the leader of the Christian Evangelical group and asked to use a room in the student union to promote his organization. He was denied use of the room and filed a lawsuit against Dean Widmar at UMKC. Students claimed it was violation of free exercise of religion and University said it was violation of Establishment clause because itÂ’s a state college, government money.
Â• Ruling; For the University to deny the group to meet is a violation of free speech and free exercise.
Â• View Point/Content Based Discrimination- When the government is involved in determining what views are okay to be heard, censorship. NOT ACCEPTABLE
Torasco vs. Watkins: ~ 1st amendment, freedom of religion= no test oath(1987)
Â• Background: Ron Calder was an air traffic controller from Iowa living in Puerto Rico. He went to the mall and got in a fight over a parking space. He ran over the other manÂ’s pregnant wife, killing both. He was arrested and charged with homicide. Posted bail and returned to Iowa. Governor of Iowa asked for extradition from Governor of Iowa, Terry Branstad but he only agreed if Calder got a fair trial (Puerto Rico a commonwealth, American citizens)
Â• Ruling: Thurgood Marshall reversed the ruling in Kentucky vs. Dennison saying the original case was a product of the time. (Happened when Bobby Knight who punched out a guard, canÂ’t return to Puerto Rico) ***HAVE TO GRANT EXTRADITION
Lemon vs. Kutzman: ~ aid to parochial schools (1971)
Â• Background: State of Pennsylvania permitted the use of public money to supplement teachersÂ’ salaries that taught at Parochial schools.
Â• Ruling: Supreme Court struck down the law as a violation of the Establishment Clause. Court developed a 3pronged test to determine if aid to parochial schools was unconstitutional:
Â• Whatever form the aid is, it must e of a secular (nonreligious) purpose.
Â• Aid must neither advance nor hinder religion (must be neutral)
Â• The aid cannot foster excessive governmental entanglement with religion.
o Said okay to be paid for by government
Â• Can loan SECULAR textbooks to parochial schools.
Â• School nurses paid for by tax dollars
Â• School lunch programs
o Okay to loan computers, tape records, etc. as of 2001
Tinker vs. Des Moines School Dist.: ~ Symoblic Speech (1969)
Â• Background: Students (including the Tinker children) in the Des Moines school district wanted to wear black armbands as a form of protest to the Vietnam War. The school passed a rule against the armbands. The Tinker children brought a lawsuit saying the rule violated their freedom of symbolic expression
Â• Ruling: Justice said, Â“Children do not lose their rights at the school house gates.Â” Other students were allowed to wear crosses, and other political buttons but the rule only outlawed armbands, which canÂ’t be done (if you outlaw one thing you have to outlaw all things).
Texas vs. Johnson: ~ Symbolic Speech (1989)
Â• Background: In 1984 at the GOP national convention in Dallas, Texas someone stole an American flag from a flagpole and stood on the street corner. Gregory Johnson (part of communist youth brigade) took the flag and burned it while chanting. Arrested and convicted under the Texas law against desecrating the flag. Johnson appealed and said it violated his right of symbolic speech.
Â• Ruling: 5-4 ruled that it was a form of expression. Justice Brenner said it was a freedom we enjoy and is protected.
New York Times vs. Sullivan: ~ Defamation (1964)
Â• In 1962 there was a one-page ad paid for by a civil rights group that talked about Montgomery Alabama where students were peacefully protesting segregation. The ad said that the local police Â“conducted a ring of terrorÂ”. Mr. L.B. Sullivan, the commissioner of police, brought a lawsuit against the New York Times. He said that even though his name was not used everyone knew he was associated with the police force and the ad made him look bad. He sued the paper and got $500,000. Ruling overturned.
Â• Ruling: Supreme Court said that if every public official could sue when criticized wrongly then people would be afraid to criticize the government. It would have a chilling effect on the news. People have a right to speak and to print. Public officials can sue but they must prove actual malice. Originally applied to public officials but now also applies to public figures.
o Actual Malice: total disregard for the truth.
o Public figure: anyone who achieves fame (good) or notoriety (bad).
Griswold vs. Connecticut: ~ 9th Amendment= right to privacy (1965)
Â• Background: state had law against discussing/distributing birth control (10th amendment protecting health, morals) Griswold had Planned Parenthood, says she has right to discuss with married couples.
Â• Ruling: law struck down because it violates couples privacy (not in constitution but implied in 1,3,4,5 and 9)
Â• Penumbra: Â“shadowÂ”. Privacy implied in 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 9th)
Roe vs. Wade: ~ right to privacy (1973)
Â• Background: 2 women who attended University of Texas law school (pioneers) who thought law against abortion violated womenÂ’s rights. Found woman, Norma McCourvey, who claimed to have been raped, became pregnant and wanted and abortion which was illegal.
Â• Facts: women built case on 9th amendment right to privacy (penumbra). Not in constitution, said it violated 10th amendment.
Â• Ruling: Divide pregnancy into 3 trimesters
* 1st- womanÂ’s choice
* 2nd Â– the state can make laws to regulate under what conditions it can take place
* 3rd- the state can prohibit abortion
o McCourvey, wasnÂ’t really raped, had child (case was a class action lawsuit on behalf of all women). Now against abortion.
Weeks vs. United States: Â• Background: Mr. Weeks lived in KC and he was engaged in illegal use of lottery tickets (sending them through the mail). While he was at work, police went to his house without a warrant and looked around his house. A neighbor let them in and they found incriminating evidence. He was arrested.
Â• Ruling: Justice Day said, Â“When police take such actions it violates the 4th amendment because itÂ’s illegal search and seizure. Evidence taken without a warrant is not allowed.Â”
o Only applied to national government
o U.S. one of few countries that follow the Exclusionary Rule.
o 1961~ Mapp vs. Ohio
Mapp vs. Ohio: (1961)
Â• Extends 4th amendment and exclusionary rule to cover states
Â• Background: Dolree Mapp lived in an upstairs apartment in a residential neighborhood in Ohio. Police thought that she was harboring a man who was wanted for many wrong doings. She wouldnÂ’t allow the police to enter without a warrant. They left and then returned with a piece of paper that she took. They entered, ruffed her up and searched her house. Guy wasnÂ’t there but they did find pornography. She was charged and convicted with possession of porn.
Â• Ruling: Exclusionary rule applies to state officials.
Miranda vs. Arizona: (1966)
Â• Background: Ernesto Miranda was arrested and charged with kidnapping and rape. After two hours of questioning he confessed and later was convicted. MirandaÂ’s lawyer appealed and argued that Miranda had never been informed of his right to remain silent and to be represented by counsel.
Â• Ruling: Ruled for Miranda and established the Miranda rights.
Schenck vs. U.S.~ Seditious Speech: (1989)
Â• Background: In 1984 at the GOP national convention in Dallas, Texas someone stole an American flag from a flagpole and stood on the street corner. Gregory Johnson (part of communist youth brigade) took the flag and burned it while chanting. Arrested and convicted under the Texas law against desecrating the flag. Johnson appealed and said it violated his right of symbolic speech.
Â• Ruling: 5-4 ruled that it was a form of expression. Justice Brenner said it was a freedom we enjoy and is protected.
Brandenburg vs. Ohio: ~ Seditious Speech (1969)
Â• Background: Brandenburg was a member of KKK and called up a TV station saying that they were to have a rally and urged the station to cover it. Reporter and cameraman went out to cover it and saw a burning cross, weapons, etc. Brandenburg was interviewed on camera saying, Â“If government doesnÂ’t stop repressing white people then some revengence would take placeÂ”. Brandenburg was tried and convicted under state Sedition Law.
Â• Ruling: overturned the conviction because there must be a Â“clear and imminentÂ” (immediate) danger. He had a qualifier. Set tone.
Near vs. Minnesota: ~ free press/prior restraint (1931)
Â• Background: Minnesota had a gag law that allowed the government to stop someone from publishing something in advance. J.M. Near published a weekly scandal sheet in which he wrote about public officials. He was a bigot and also called the mayor sheriff, etc. gang members. Officials went to court and got an injunction prohibiting him from future publications under the gag law. The Chicago Daily Tribune came to his assistance and brought a lawsuit claiming that it was in violation of his freedom of press.
Â• Ruling: 5to 4-decision court said that it was a prior restraint. Said there are some instances when the government can stop publications in advance (publishing military plans) but canÂ’t in general. Let them publish and then sue them.
New York Times vs. U.S.: ~ free press/prior constraint (1931)
Â• Background: Minnesota had a gag law that allowed the government to stop someone from publishing something in advance. J.M. Near published a weekly scandal sheet in which he wrote about public officials. He was a bigot and also called the mayor sheriff, etc. gang members. Officials went to court and got an injunction prohibiting him from future publications under the gag law. The Chicago Daily Tribune came to his assistance and brought a lawsuit claiming that it was in violation of his freedom of press.
Â• Ruling: 5to 4-decision court said that it was a prior restraint. Said there are some instances when the government can stop publications in advance (publishing military plans) but canÂ’t in general. Let them publish and then sue them.
Plessy vs. Ferguson: ~ 14th Amendment/Separate but Equal (1896)
Â• Background: Homer Plessy, who was 1/8 African American, boarded a train but was asked to leave the car restricted to whites. Plessy went to court and argued that the statute providing separate cars for whites and blacks was contrary to the 14th amendmentÂ’s equal protection clause.
Â• Ruling: the 14th amendment Â“could not have been intended to abolish distinctions based upon color or to enforce social equality.Â” Bore the Â“separate but equal doctrineÂ”.
Brown vs. Board of Education: (1954): (reversal of Plessy vs. Ferguson)
Â• Ruling: established that segregation of races in public schools violates the equal protection clasue of the 14th amendment.
Gideon vs. Wainwright: (1963)
Â• Background: Panama City, Florida someone broke into a pool hall and stole some things from a vending machine. Police investigated and found a witness who said he had see Gideon. Police find Gideon in a rundown hotel. He had been in and out of prison four times, married several times, no job, and suffering from tuberculosis. Gideon asks for an attorney but it wasnÂ’t allowed at state level. He tried to be his own attorney and did an okay job but he was sentenced to 5 years in jail. While in jail he studied the law wrote letter to Supreme Court saying his rights were violated by not being allowed a lawyer.
Â• Ruling: Gideon issued a new trial and an attorney. Made it so that the court has to appoint you an attorney at state and federal level.

Start Studying!

Deck Info

Number of cards 41