This site is 100% ad supported. Please add an exception to adblock for this site.

US SUPREME COURT CASES / US GOVERNMENT FINAL / SEMESTER 1

Terms

undefined, object
copy deck
SHEPPARD V. MAXWELL
YEAR / 1966 - RULING / 8 - 1 / made it clear that a criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial can justify restrictions on the press's First Amendment rights to cover criminal trials; the Supreme court was careful to explain that any restrictions on the press must be no broader than necessary to ensure that the defendant is tried in court and not in the press
ENGEL V. VITALE
YEAR / 1962 RULING / 6 - 1 / held that the establishment clause was violated by a public school districts practice of starting each day with prayer; the supreme court explained that under the establishment clause religion is a personal matter to be guided by individual choice, they also noted that the establishment clause was intended to protect against religious persecution that often results when government aligns itself with a particular religion; in short the Court concluded that the establishment clause was intended to keep government out of religion thus making it unacceptable for government to compose prayers for anyone else to recite
WHITNEY V. CALIFORNIA
YEAR / 1927 / upheld the California Criminal Syndicalism Act against a challenge by Charlotte Whitney, who claimed that the statute violated her First Amendment rights of speech and association; the statute made it a crime for anyone to become a member of any group known to espouse political change, particularly change that would effect the distribution of wealth in the country
ROE V. WADE
YEAR / 1973 - RULING / 7 - 2 / held that females have a constitutional right under various provisions of the Constitution - most notably the due process clause - to decide whether or not to terminate a pregnancy; the Court's decision in this case was the most significant in a long line of decisions over a period of 50 years that recognized a constitutional right of privacy
JAFFE V. REDMOND
YEAR / 1996- RULING / 7 - 2 / held for the first time that federal rules of evidence recognize a pyschotherapist-patient privilege, which protects confidential communications in that context from compelled disclosure at a criminal trial or a civil trial; the Court cautioned that the privilege is not absolute and might be required to yield if, for example, a therapist 's disclosure is required to avert serious harm to the patient or another
GIDEON V. WAINWRIGHT
YEAR / 1963- RULING / UNANIMOUS/ overruled Betts v. Brady and held for the first time that poor defendants in criminal cases have the right to a state-paid attorney under the Sixth Amendment; the rule announced in this case has been refined whenever the defendant, if convicted, can be sentenced to more than six months in jail or prison
KATZ V. UNITED STATES
YEAR / 1967- RULING / 7 - 1 / overruled Olmstead v. United States; the Court announced that the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures applies to people, not places, it also applies to telephone wiretaps, and this means, as a general rule, that police must have a court order to place a wiretap
SCHENEK V. UNITED STATES
YEAR / 1919 RULING / upheld convictions under the Federal Espionage Act; the defendants were charged under the Act with distributing leaflets aimed at inciting draft resistance during WWI; their defense was that their anti-draft speech was protected by the free speech clause; the Court unanimously rejected the defense, explaining that whether or not speech is protected depends on the context which it occurs; here, said the Court, the context was the nation's war effort because the defendant's anti-draft rhetoric created a "clear and present danger" to the success of the war effort, it was not protected speech
MAPP V. OHIO
YEAR / 1961- RULING 6 - 3/ extended the exclusionary rule announced in Weeks v. United States to state and local law-enforcement officers; after this case, evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment could not be used by the prosecution as evidence of a defendant's guilt in any court - federal, state or local
DRED SCOTT V. SANFORD
YEAR / 1857 -RULING 7 - 2 / was decided before the Fourteenth Amendment was added to the constitution (the Fourteenth Amendment provides that anyone born or naturalized in the United States is a citizen of the nation and his/her state of residence); in this case the Court held that a slave was property and had no rights under the constitution, the court's decision was met with outrage in the North and a prime factor precipitating the Civil War
ESCOBEDO V. ILLONOIS
YEAR /1964- RULING / 5 - 4 / the forerunner of the Miranda v. Arizona; the Court reversed the murder conviction of Danny Escobedo who gave damaging statements to police during questioning, throughout the questioning Escobedo repeatedly but unsuccessfully asked to see his attorney; in holding that Escobedo's Sixth Amendment right to counsel had been violated, the Court explained that an attorney could have assisted Escobedo in invoking his Fifth Amendment right to against self-incrimination
PLESSY V. FERGUSON
YEAR / 1896- RULING / 7 - 1 / upheld the separate-but-equal doctrine used by Southern states to perpetuate segregation after the Civil War officially ended de jure, or law mandated, segregation; at issue in the case was a Louisiana law requiring passenger trains to have "equal but separated accomadations for the white and colored races;" the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment 's equal protection clause required only equal public facilities for the two races, not equal access to the same facility; the case was overruled in Brown v. Board of Education (1954)
GREGORY V. CITY OF CHICAGO
YEAR / 1969 - RULING / UNANIMOUS SIGNIFICANCE / struck down the disorderly conduct convictions of several protesters who marched from city hall to the mayor's home to press their demand that the city's schools should be desegregated; the Court held that peaceful protest is protected by the First Amendment
MIRANDA V. ARIZONA
YEAR / 1966 - RULING / 5 - 4 / held that a person in police custody cannot be questioned unless told that he/she has the right to - remain silent, an attorney (at the government's expense if the person is unable to pay), that anything the person says after acknowledging that he/she understands these rights, can be used as evidence of guilt at trail; these advisements constitute the Miranda warnings and operate to ensure a person in custody will not give will not give up unknowingly the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination
BAKER V. CARR
YEAR / 1962- RULING / 6 - 2 / established that federal courts can hear suits seeking to force state authorities to redraw electoral districts; the plaintiff's wanted the population of each district to be roughly equal to the population in all other districts; before this case it was thought that federal courts had no authority under the Constitution to decide issues of malapportionment

Deck Info

15

permalink