This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dred Scott V Stanford (1856)FACTS: Dred Scott was a slave in Missouri. His owner Dr. Emerson took Scott and moved to Illinois which was a free state under the Missouri Compromise of 1820. Dr. Emerson died and Scott was forced to move back to Missouri with Dr. Emerson’s wife who ended up selling Scott to John Sanford. However, Missouri was not a free state so therefore Scott was now a slave again. Scott sued the Missouri courts for his freedom, claiming that he was a free man since he was a resident in a free state. The case was brought to the federal court under diversity jurisdiction. While Sanford claimed that since Scott is a Negros of African descent and the descendant of slave so therefore he could not be a citizen under article three of the constitution.Question of law: Is Dred Scott a free man or a slave?Majority Opinion: Chief Justice Taney stated, “Blacks are not intended to be included under the word citizen under the constitution.” The court rules that former slaves cannot be citizens under the III and IV articles. Taney argued that only congress could confer national citizenship. However the court came to the conclusion that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional. Minority Opinion: 2
It arrived at the Supreme Court under appellate jurisdiction--make this a bit more clear by stating it at the VERY end of the facts section.
Sam WoodcockBrown V. Board of Education (1952)Facts:Black children were not allowed to attend the public schools that were attended by white children in Topeka Kansas. In 1951, Oliver Brown, who was a black man and a worker in the city of Topeka Kansas sued the board of education of Topeka Kansas for not allowing his daughter, Linda Brown, to attend an all white neighborhood pubic school. The board of Education of Topeka Kansas stated that the schools for white children and colored children were separate but equal. This case arrived in the Supreme Court under appellate jurisdiction. Question/s of Law:1. Is the segregation of public schools, or the separate but equal schools, discriminatory and therefor an unconstitutional violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment? (Taken from Mr. Gulotta Presentation) Majority Opinion:Yes, the segregation of public schools, or the separate but equal schools is an unconstitutional violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. The separate but equal schools were found to be not equal in many ways leaving the colored children with less opportunity. The separation of schools made the colored children feel inferior to the white children. The court rejected the separate but equal act. Minority Opinion:None
Black elementary children where not allowed in white schools--high schools had been combined.
Nick O’Connor Brown v. Board of Education (1952)Facts: Black children were not allowed to attend the same public schools that white children attended. In Topeka, Kansas, 1951, Oliver Brown wanted to enroll his daughter, Linda Brown, in an all white neighborhood school. The Topeka Board of Education denied this enrollment because of race. The Board stated the schools were separate, but equal. Oliver Brown sued the Topeka Board of Education. It arrived at the Supreme Court under appellate jurisdiction. Questions of Law: 1. Are separate but equal public schools discriminatory and make them an unconstitutional violation of the equal protection clause stated in the 14th amendment? (Obtained through Mr. Gulotta’s Plessy to Brown powerpoint)Majority Opinion: Yes, separate but equal public schools are discriminatory and make them an unconstitutional violation of the equal protection clause stated in the 14th amendment. The phrase “separate but equal” was made false. Being separate provides minority children with the impression that they are inferior to the white children. Separate but equal is actually found to be not equal and therefore it was rejected. Minority Opinion: None
- Jared Shatkin Miranda Vs. Arizona (1965) Facts:Ernesto Miranda raped a 17-year-old woman in Arizona. He was arrested 10 days later and confessed that he did commit this crime. Miranda was not informed of the rights to remain silent, the rights to an attorney or the counsel. Miranda was not informed that anything he said would be used against him in a court of law. Miranda therefore was not “given warnings of their rights at the outset of their interrogation”. (Oyez) Question of Law:Do the police have the right to interrogation of a an individual without notifying them of their rights as an individual, rights to counsel, and their rights to protect themselves from self incrimination violate the 5th Amendment of the constitution? (Oyez) Minority Opinion:The minority opinion was that the “right to counsel” already existed in the 6th amendment of the constitution. The other opinion is that they said that nowhere in the constitution did suspects have the “right” of interrogation without warning. Majority Opinion:The Court came to a conclusion that prosecutor’s could not use statements given to them by the interrogation of the defendant unless that defendant was issued his rights under the 5th amendment from the prosecutor verbally. Therefore in the Miranda vs. Arizona case (1965) (Oyez) the police failed to verbally inform Ernesto Miranda of his rights as a citizen under the 5th amendment. Therefore Ernesto Miranda was not guilty.
Last sentence of facts must tell the reader how this case got to the supreme court.Your majority opinion is not clear--we will have to clear it up in class.
Miranda v. Arizona (1965)Facts: In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested based on circumstantial evidence linking him t a kidnapping and rape of a 17-year-old woman 10 days prior. After two hours of interrogation, Miranda confessed and signed a sworn confession. However, Miranda was at no time told of his right to counsel, and he was not advised of his right to remain silent, or that his statements could be used against him in court. Miranda’s appeal went first to the Arizona Supreme Court, then to the US Supreme Court through appellate jurisdiction.Question of Law: Does police interrogation without telling the suspect of their right to counsel and their protection against self-incrimination violate the 5th amendment?Majority Opinion: 5 Votes for Miranda; The court held that prosecutor could not use statements obtained through interrogation if the interrogation tactics violated the 5th amendment. The court specifically outlined the needed aspects of police warnings to suspects, including warnings of the right to remain silent and the right to have counsel present during interrogations.Minority Opinion: 4 Votes against; The dissenting justices felt that the decision was not supported by the Constitution, and that there is no such right ever mentioned. There was a partial dissent because “the right to counsel” is in the 6th amendment.Daniel Bernstein
When must the suspect be read these important rights?
Connor KillianDred Scott v. Sandford (1856)Facts: Dred Scott was a slave in Missouri. From 1833 to 1843, he lived in Illinois and in an area of the Louisiana Territory, where slavery was forbidden by the Missouri Compromise of 1820. After returning to Missouri, Scott sued unsuccessfully in the Missouri courts for his freedom, claiming that his residence in free territory made him a free man. Scott then brought a new suit in federal court. Scott's master maintained that no pure-blooded Negro of African descent and the descendant of slaves could be a citizen in the sense of Article 3 of the Constitution.Question of Law: Was Dred Scott a free man or a slave?Majority Opinion: 7 votes for Sandford. Dred Scott was a slave. Under Articles 3 and 4 of the Constitution, no one but a citizen of the United States could be a citizen of a state, and that only Congress could confirm your national citizenship. Taney reached the conclusion that no person descended from an American slave had ever been a citizen for Article 3 purposes. The Court then held the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, hoping to end the slavery question once and for all.Minority Opinion: 2 votes against
amazing case--it is almost believable that they wanted war.
Gideon v. Wainwright (1962)Facts:In Florida, Gideon was charged of breaking and entering, which is a felony. He was not a wealthy man and usually paid for things in only coins, and could not afford an attorney. When in court he asked to be given a lawyer and the judge denied his request. Gideon was forced to represent himself in court and was ruled guilty and sentenced to 5 years in prison. This case reached the supreme court on appellate jurisdiction.Question of Law:Is denying a person a right to an attorney in court a violation of their right to a fair trial stated in the 6th amendment and due process of law stated in the 14th amendment? (information from Oyez)Majority Opinion: Unanimously the court decided that Gideon had the right to an attorney and if he could not afford it, one would be appointed to him. They did this because it was clearly not a fair trial if Gideon had to represent himself without the lawyer experience. People who could not afford their own attorneys would have them appointed to them due to due process of law in the 14th amendment. Minority Opinion: None-Will Aldam
terse yet accurate.
HattieShelley v. Kraemer (1948)Facts: The Shelley’s, an African American family, bought a house in St. Louis Missouri. A restrictive covenant disallowing African-Americans to live in the house was written in 1911 and they were oblivious to it. Their neighbors, the Kraemer’s, sued the Shelley’s preventing them from living in the house they purchased. The court ruled this constitutional because the restrictive covenant was a “private agreement” amongst the original owners of the house. This was brought to the Supreme Court upon appellate jurisdiction. Question/s of Law: Were the Shelley’s being robbed of their rights to the Equal Protection Clause under 14th amendment by enforcing this restrictive covenant?Majority: The Supreme Court said yes, it took away the Shelley’s rights as citizens of the United States. The court finally ruled blindly to race and the 14th amendment was interpreted correctly. Racial covenants are unconstitutional.Minority: None.
Hurtado v. California (1884)Facts: Hurtado discovered that his wife was having an affair with a man named Jose Antonio Estuardo. Hurtado shot and killed Estuardo and was arrested for the crime. Hurtado was denied the right of inditement by a Grand Jury, and was brought to trial by a judge. At the time California's constitution gave judges the power to bring people to trial just by looking at the information that was presented to him. Hurtado was tried and convicted of murder. He was sentenced to death. This case reached the Supreme Court through appellate Jurisdiction. Question of Law:Does a state criminal proceeding based on information rather then a grand jury inditement violate the 14th Amendment's due process clause?Is a Grand Jury inditement required by the 5th amendment applicable to state criminal trials via the 14th amendment?Does the Bill of Rights apply to the states?Majority Opinion:7 votes for California. The Supreme Court ruled that Hurtado's right of due process was not violated even though he did not receive the inditement by a grand jury. They believed the 14th amendment was not meant to apply the 5th amendment to state criminal trials. Each state should be able to make its own laws on this process as long as it doesn't infringe the right of someone given by the 14th amendment; which gives a person protection of their "Life, Liberty, and property." They ruled, and I quote, " Hurtado's due process right was not violated because an information is 'merely a preliminary proceeding and can result in no final judgement.' He further concluded that Hurtado received a fair trial."Minority Opinion:1 vote for Hurtado. Justice John Marshall harlan wrote the following, " The people of the states would not have argued for a Bill of Rights if they did not expect it to apply. The idea that in a capital offense one can be denied a Grand Jury is certainly a violation of what makes this country a republic: our civil liberties."
awesome--this is a great brief! A+
Bryan BohatyThe Board of Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819)Facts: When William Plumer was elected Governor of New Hampshire he wanted to make Dartmouth College into a public institution, it was private at the time as per the original corporate charter. In Dartmouth’s Charter, it says the college would be private, for the education of “Native Americans and others.” The New Hampshire State Legislature passed a law rescinding Dartmouth’s original charter and issuing a new one, changing the name to Dartmouth University and making it into a publicly funded school with a new Board of Trustees. The old Board sues the former Secretary and Treasurer of Dartmouth College, and current Secretary and Treasurer of Dartmouth University, Woodward, for the seal of Dartmouth College and old College records, if the case was won, Dartmouth College would be reinstated. The case arrives to the Supreme Court upon appellate jurisdiction.Question of Law: Is a corporate charter a contract protected by the contract clause of the Constitution?Majority Opinion: In a six to one decision, the Marshall court ruled that a corporate charter that is protected by the contract clause. The judges also specified that all contracts issued before the U.S. was a country must be honored because they are private contracts. The Court ruled that even though the contract was issued by the government of the time, it must stil be honored because no state can change an existing contract. Minority Opinion: There was one vote against, however Duvall, the dissenter, did not write an opinion.
Terry v. Ohio (1968)FACTS: An Undercover Police Officer observed Terry and two other men presumably casing a store. The Officer conducted a stop and frisk discovering two handguns. Terry was sentenced to three years and charged with carrying a concealed weapon. Terry v. Ohio arrived at the Supreme Court upon appellate jurisdiction. QUESTIONS OF LAW: Did the search and seizure of Terry and his accomplices in violation of their fourth amendment rights?MAJORITY OPPINION: The search and seizure of Terry and his accomplices is constitutional. The officer had probable cause to stop and frisk Terry and two others. “The exclusionary rule has its limitations,” the rule is in place to protect people from unnecessary searches and seizures for the purpose of gathering evidence, not searches and seizures for the prevention of crime. MINORITY OPPINION: In violation of the fourth amendment, the officer infringed upon the right to protection from unnecessary searches and seizures. The minority opinion was rationalized by confirming, “The exclusionary rule has its limitations.” The one judge not in concurrence with the opposing eight believed that it is unconstitutional to use evidence from an unnecessary search and seizure in court.-Thomas Benfield
Roe v. Wade (1971)Facts of the Case: A Texas woman, by the name of “Roe”, desired to end her pregnancy through the process of abortion. The laws of Texas forbid abortions, unless the pregnancy endangered the mother’s life. They claimed that these laws were in violation of her right to privacy given by the fourth amendment. They also argued the ninth amendment, which granted the people every right not prohibited from them in the Constitution and the fourteenth amendment, which states, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”. This case reached the Supreme Court upon appellate jurisdiction.Question of Law:Is it constitutional for the States to regulate laws denying women the right to end their pregnancy within the first trimester?Majority Opinion: In a 7-2 decision the Supreme Court ruled that due to the ninth and fourteenth amendments, the laws in Texas regarding abortion are unconstitutional. They defined that the word “Person” in the constitution does not refer to the unborn. Therefore, up until the end of the first trimester the women have the legal right to abort her pregnancy. Thus, overturning all State laws the prohibit abortion in the first three months of pregnancyMinority Opinion: The court had no reason to interfere with the State laws protecting human life and there was no need to constitutionally protect the right to terminate a pregnancy. Camryn Biasin
Terry v. Ohio (1968)Facts : Detective Martin McFadden saw two men (John Terry and Richard Chilton and a third man, Katz) and McFadden suspected them of planning a “stick up” or “casing a job” (to rob at gun point). McFadden confronted them and proceeded to conduct a "stop and frisk," which he discovered two revolvers. Terry and Chilton were both convicted with carrying a concealed weapon and sentenced to 3 years in jail. This case was then sent to the US Supreme Court on Appellate Jurisdiction.Question of Law : Was this search and seizure constitutional or did it violate the 14th Amendment? What allows an officer to conduct a "stop and frisk?" What makes a search unreasonable?Majority opinion:The US Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that it is reasonable for officers to conduct a “stop and frisk” if there is suspicion of a violent crime or suspicion of a dangerous weapon. Weapons seized during a search does not violate the 14th Amendment and can be used as evidence. This is necessary for the protection of officers and other people in the vicinity. However, officers cannot "stop and frisk" someone for evidence (i.e. drugs, theft, etc.). Minority opinion :Justice William Douglas reasoned that granting the power of search and seizure to law enforcement officers “would grant powers […] even a magistrate would not possess” (magistrate means judge). He believed this violated the 4th Amendment and would give officers too much power.
Maisie NoesenMarbury v Madison (1803)Facts:President John Adams issued forty-two justices of the peace and sixteen new circuit court justices for the District of Columbia under the Organic Act. William Marbury was a proposed recipient of an appointment as justice of the peace. Jefferson’s Secretary of State, James Madison refused to give Marbury commission. Marbury applied directly to the Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of mandamus to compel James Madison, to deliver the commissions. The Judiciary Act of 1789 had granted the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus “…to any courts appointed, or persons holding office, under the authority of the United States (Attorney Dianna L. Abdala).”Questions of Law:Has the applicant a right to the commission he demands?When a right has been violated, do the laws of his country afford him a remedy?Is the remedy a mandamus issuing from this court? Majority Opinion:Yes, Marbury has the right to the commission. The grant of commission to Marbury became effective when signed by President Adams. Yes, the law must grant Marbury a remedy. When a person is being denied a constitutional right the country must give that person the right. No, the Supreme Court does not have original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus. The Judiciary Act of 1789 states that the supreme court can issue a mandamus is US official upon Original Jurisdiction. Minority Opinion: None
"Barron V Baltimore (1833)"Facts: Barron owned a Dock. Ship men would pay Barron to unload cargo on his dock. The city of Baltimore cleaned its streets and Dumped the waste near Barron’s dock which displaced the water and hindered his business. As a result, Barron sued the city of Baltimore using the Fifth Amendment for evidence. The amendment states, “…the government cannot use private property without just compensation to the owner.” The case went to the Supreme Court by way of appellate jurisdiction. Question of Law: 1) Does the Bill of Rights apply to the states and lesser governments?Majority Opinion: No. The original intent of our founding fathers was to check the power of the Federal government and not state governments. As a result, the Bill of Rights applies to the federal government and not the states. Thus the states can make their own laws pertaining to their population’s needs. Minority Opinion: NoneBy: Kimberley Henry
Fletcher V Peck (1810) Facts: In 1800, John Peck acquired land that was part of a legislative grant from the Georgia state legislature in 1795. This grant divided a property between four companies but was voided because “all rights and claims under it” were considered “to be invalid” (Oyez). In 1804 Peck sold the land he got to Robert Fletcher. Fletcher sued Peck because during the purchase, Peck said that the sale of the land to him was legitimate, since Fletcher thought that was a false statement he assumed that Peck committed a breach of contract and had no legal right to sell the land. This case arrived at the Supreme Court under appellate jurisdiction. Question of Law: Could the contract between Fletcher and Peck be invalidated by an act of the Georgia legislature? Majority Opinion: The court came up with a unanimous opinion. No the contract between Fletcher and Peck could not be invalidated by an act of the Georgia legislature. The property was “legally “passed into the hands of a purchaser for a valuable consideration,”” (Oyez). The court could not invalidate any contract or grant made by previous legislative acts. Minority Opinion: None-Robbie Fiamengo
Haden CosmanSchechter Poultry Corp. v. United States (1934)Facts: Section 3 of FDR’s National Industrial Recovery Act (part of new deal legislation) gave the president the power to pass legislation that will regulate employment standards for workers, e.g. length of workweek, minimum wage, minimum age of employees. The case reached the Supreme Court via appellate jurisdiction.Question of Law:• Was Congresses’ decision to give legislative power to the President unconstitutional? Majority Opinion: Yes, the Hughes court ruled that Section 3 of the National Industrial Recovery Act was unconstitutional, because the NIRA did not explicitly outline industry regulation, but just gave the president the legislative power to make industry standards, where he deems them necessary. The court unanimously ruled that the NIRA was an unconstitutional entrustment of legislative authority.Minority Opinion: None
In Re Gault (1967) Facts: 15 year old Gerald F. Gault was arrested with a friend for making rude phone calls. Gault's parents were not informed of the arrest. Gault was already on probation for larceny at the time. At the Juvenile hearing the complainant, Mrs.Cook, never appeared. After reading the reports and questioning the police and probation officers the Judge sentenced Gault to spend six years in the state detention center. While the max adult penalty at the time was a $50.00 fine. This case reached the supreme court under appellate jurisdiction. Question of Law:Under the fourteenth amendment and the due process clause were procedures used to sentence Gault constitutional? Majority Opinion:No, the procedures that were used to commit Gerald Gault were unconstitutional. The rights for Juveniles should be the same rights provided to adults under the 14th amendment, such as the right to confront witnesses and the right to consul. Juveniles should also be granted few extra rights, such as the right for immediate parental notification. Minority Opinion: Justice Potter Stewart believed that Juveniles should not be afforded the same rights as adults in court and that the procedures used to commit Gault were constitutional because of his belief that Juvenile trials were not criminal trials. He felt that the purpose of a detention center was to correct a condition and not to punish a criminal act, so Juvenile's should not have the same rights as criminals.
Fletcher vs. Peck (1810)Facts:Georgia sold state land, occupied by the Cherokees to the Mississippi Land Company. After that the Mississippi Land Company sold that land to JohnPeck. Peck then sells that land to Fletcher. The new state Georgia Legislature seizes the land sale and recovers the land. Fletcher believes the land was illegitimate so he sues Peck for breaching the contract between the two men. The case goes to the Supreme Court under appellate jurisdiction.Question of Law:Does this violate the contract Clause of the US constitution? Was Georgia canceling the land sale unconstitutional?Majority Opinion:John Marshal and the rest of the court voted that The Contract Clause (article 1section10) of the US Constitution was violated therefor Georgia legislature could not take away the land or invalidate the contract. Minority Opinion:None
Hayden DunhamHurtado v. California (1883) Facts: Joseph Hurtado found out that his wife was having an affair with friend Jose Estuardo. Hurtado shot and killed Jose. Hurtado was then arrested, tried and convicted on an information for murder by the State of California. An information is a set of written accusations by the prosecutor. Later Hurtado claimed that California denied him of his right to an indictment by a grand jury. A grand jury indictment requires a majority vote of the grand jurors. Questions of law:1. Did California violate the 14th amendment’s due process clause, when they originally did not give Hurtado a trial by a grand jury? 2. Does the bill of rights apply to the states?Majority Opinion: The supreme court ruled 7-1 against Hurtado stating that his due process was not violated by a grand jury. The majority reasoning was that the 14th amendment and the 5th amendment were not intended to apply to state criminal trials. Matthews stated that the states should have the freedom to decide laws, and that the 14th amendment was not intended to guarantee the right of a grand jury to the average criminal. Matthews concluded by saying that Hurtado received a fair trial. Minority Opinion: The minority consisted of only Justice John Marshall Harlan. Harlan wrote the lone dissent stating “The people of the states would not have argued for a bill of rights if they did not expect it to apply. The idea that in a capital offense once can be denied a grand jury is certainly a violation of what makes this country a republic: our cicil liberties.” Therefore the bill of rights applies to all state and local government agencies.
MCCULLOCH v. MARYLAND (1819)Facts: In 1816, the United States Congress created the Second Bank of the United States of America. Two years later in 1818, the state of Maryland taxed the Bank by imposing a "Stamp Tax" for the National Bank. James W. McCulloch, the head cashier at the Maryland Branch then refused to pay the tax. McCulloch was fined for not paying the tax and the case was brought to the Supreme Court under appellate jurisdiction. Question of Law:Did the Congress have the power to create the National Bank in the first place?Does the state of Maryland have the power to tax the Federal government?Majority Opinion:Yes Congress has the power to create a National Bank. The Elastic Clause gives the Congress power to change and create for the betterment of the United Sates. The Bank was created in "Good Faith" therefore the creation of the bank was constitutional. The state of Maryland did not have the Power to tax the Federal government. The Federal Government is the "Supreme Law of the Land". This means that no state or and other form of government can contradict the Federal government.Minority Opinion:None-George Frick
Eric SamuelEscobedo V Illinois (1964)Facts:The fifth, 14th, and sixth amendment was violated when Escobedo was denied tosee his lawyer while the police were interrogating him. Escobedo'sbrother, who was a convict from Chicago was shot and killed. Escobedowas arrested the next morning without a search warrant. The policeinterrogated him for fourteen hours. Escobedo asked to see his lawyer, but the cops told him that his lawyer didn't want to see him. Hislawyer was in fact trying to get in touch with Escobedo, but thePolice told him that Escobedo didn't want to see him. The cops forcedEscobedo to make statements that would get him arrested. He filed for an appeal case in the supreme court where it was in his favor 6-3. Chief Justice Warren was the presiding Judge over this case. Question of Law:Was the police unconstitutional for not letting Escobedo see his lawyer?Majority Opinion: Yes, The Police was unconstitutional dealing with Escobedo. Once a general inquiry is focused on a person, that person has to be granted his Constitutional Rights. Once a person ask for his lawyer you have to grant that request also. Minority Opinion: None
Powell v. Alabama (1932)Facts: A group of African American A group of African-American young men were on a freight train going through Alabama. They got into a fight with some young white males and ended up throwing them off the train. A message was sent, requesting all blacks be removed from the train. Two white girls on the train testified that they had been raped by six different African American boys in turn. They all were taken into custody. The trial judge appointed “all members of the bar” for the purpose of the arraignment. The defendants themselves were illiterate or ignorant, unable to read or write. They were all tried separately, and each trial lasting a day. Each of them were convicted, and sentenced to death.Question of Law: Did the trials violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? Majority Opinion: Yes. The court held that the trials denied Due Process because the defendants were not given reasonable time and opportunity to secure counsel in to their defense. Though judge George Sutherland did not rest the court holding on the right-to-counsel guarantee of the Sixth Amendment, he implicated that guarantee repeatedly. Minority Opinion: Two votes against the fact that the Due Process Clause was denied to the young African American men. Chris Gaynor
Dissent Butler, joined by McReynoldsThey stated that the boys did have attorney's.
In Re Gault (1966) Facts:Fifteen-year-old Gerald Francis Gault was taken into custody for allegedly making a prank phone call with a friend. At that time Gault was on probation for larceny. The police failed to contact Gault’s parents who where both at work. The complaint Mrs. Cook never showed up for his juvenile hearing. The juvenile court judge sentenced him to The State Industrial School until he turned 21 years old.Question of Law:Did the legal process used by the court violate the fourteenth amendment of the constitution? Majority Opinion: Yes, the legal procedure used by the juvenile court in Arizona is unconstitutional. Because they are citizens according to the constitution, which mean they are entitled, under the fourteenth amendment, to the same due process as adults; such as right to an attorney, the to a timely notification of charges, the right to confront witnesses, and the right to self-incrimination.Minority Opinion: Justice Steward stated that the fourteenth amendment due process in juvenile cases are not applicable to those of adult criminal cases. Also, that detention centers are not the same as a prisons; its goal is to rehabilitate were as a prisons job is to incarcerate. Joe Pezza
The last sentence of the facts must tell the reader how the case arrived at the Supreme Court
Slaughter-House Cases (1873)Facts: Butchers on the northern outskirts of New Orleans were dumping excess waste from their slaughterhouses into the Mississippi river, which would flow down stream into New Orleans. The level of water in the Mississippi river was relatively low creating multiple problems with sewage, including serious health issues with the drinking water. The population of New Orleans attempted to change the location of the slaughterhouses to southern New Orleans. After the plan to move locations failed the state of Louisiana created a centralized area to rent out different slaughterhouses in southern New Orleans. After the government made the centralized slaughterhouses company, there was a law implemented that only at this centralized slaughterhouse could animals be slaughtered and disposed. These regulations gave the state of Louisiana a monopoly over the slaughtering industry, which would eventually lead to the bankruptcy of butcher in New Orleans. The case was tried in lower courts and was in favor of Louisiana, and was appealed to the Supreme Court.Questions of Law: Is the state of Louisiana infringing on the butchers’ 13th and 14th amendment rights by having a monopoly over the slaughter industry?Majority Opinion: The case was voted against with the majority votes of five. The judges stated that the 13th and the 14th amendments were not violated by the states and it is the policing power of the states to take action. The 14th amendment wasn’t violated because it only applies to a United States citizenship and not a state citizenship making the butchers claim invalid, and the intentions of the 14th amendments were for the protection of slavery abolishment,Minority Opinion: The case was voted against with the minority votes of four. The judges states that in the first clause of the 14th amendment it states “All persons born and naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State where they reside". This clause shows that there is a dual citizenship to the plaintiffs as United States citizens and also individual state citizens, and that the 14th amendment grants them the right to protection from the state of Louisiana.Will Knight
great job Will
Tyler Behring The Board of Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819)Facts:William Plumer wanted to make Dartmouth College into a public institution after he was elected Governor of New Hampshire. Dartmouth was private at the time due to the original corporate charter. Dartmouth’s Charter states that the college would be private and be for the education of “Native Americans and others.” The New Hampshire State Legislature passed a law taking away Dartmouth’s original charter and changing the name to Dartmouth University. Thus making it into a public school with a new Board of Trustees. The old Board sues the former Secretary and Treasurer of Dartmouth College, and current Secretary and Treasurer of Dartmouth University, Woodward, for the seal of Dartmouth College and old College records. If the case was won by the old board, Dartmouth College would be reinstated. The case arrives to the Supreme Court upon appellate jurisdiction.Question of Law:Is a corporate charter a contract protected by the contract clause of the Constitution?Majority Opinion:In a six to one decision, the Marshall court ruled that the corporate charter is protected by the contract clause. The judges also specified that all contracts issued before the U.S. was a country must be honored because they are private contracts. The Court ruled that no state can change an existing contract, even if the contract was issued by the government before the U.S was a country. Minority Opinion:There was one vote against, however Duvall, the dissenter, did not write an opinion.
Plessy V. Ferguson (1896)Facts: In 1892, Homer Adolph Plessy attempted to sit in a "whites only" car of a Louisiana train. But he’s was 1/8 Black and refuse to move to sit in the black railway carriage car, He was arrested because he was in violation of the Louisiana segregations laws.Question of Law:Constitutionally can states requiring people to use “separate but equal” segregated facilities due to their race?Majority Opinion:Yes 7 to 1. Lead by Justice Henry Billings Brown they voted to keep racial segregation because they believed the separate facilities did not go against the 14th amendment as long as they were equal. He believed the 14th amendment was meant to create equality for all races in the court of law. Not to desegregate them socially or to ”abolish distinctions based upon color”(Justice Brown).Minority Opinion:Justice John Marshall Harlan was the dissenting opinion. He said that everyone knows that the purpose of the statute was to exclude the colored people from coaches occupied by whites. He believed that the constitution is “color blind” , all races are equal, and the “separate but equal” act was discriminatory. Because it’s a violation of the 14th Amendment because it denies blacks their right to travel in the same public conveyance on a public highway as whites.
it reached the Supreme Court on appellate juridiction.--The main point of your question is good,but re-wording it a bit would make it better.John Marshall Harlan was heroic man.
Shelley v. Kraemer (1948)Facts: In 1911 a restrictive covenant was enforced within a St Louis, Missouri neighborhood. This indenture ordered that “People of the Negro or Mongolian race” were not able to purchase a home within that community. In 1945 a young African American family under the name of Shelley purchased a home within this district without knowing about this condition. In protest a white couple under the name of Kraemer decided to sue the Shelleys in order to restrain them from taking procession of the land in which they had purchased. The court then decided that because the restrictive covenant was within a private corporation it could be enforced. The Shellys were then sued and kicked off their property. They then proceeded to take the case to the Supreme Court under appellate jurisdiction. Questions of Law: Are restrictive covenants legal under the Fourteenth Amendment and the equal protection clause?Majority: No, because the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment says a state may not "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Restrictive Covenants contradict this amendment by the action of denying the rights of certain individuals ability to purchase property based on their race and color. Minority: None
It is interesting that this is a majority opinion of 6-0--three judges did not take part.Good job
Mapp V Ohio (1961)Facts:Police believe a fugitive was hiding in Mapps house. The police department knocked on her door and demanded entrance but Mapp refuses unless they have a warrant. The showed a blank piece of paper and went right in, searching the entire house, finding no fugitive but pornographic photos and objects. She is arrested and charged with "knowingly possessing lew and lascivious materials". It reached the supreme court through appellate jurisdiction.Questions of Law:1. Was the search the police did legal?2. In the law in ohio pertaining to pornography constitutional?Majority Opinion:The case voted for with six votes. Mapp was convicted of possessing obscene material after and admittedly police search. The Supreme Court of Ohio ruled that her conviction was valid. Minority Opinion:The case was voted against with 3 votes. Jack Fox
Your brief is very poorly researched and not at all accurate - I will discuss the case in class for all those involved--I suggest that the members of the class ignore this brief when studying.
"This case was instituted by the plaintiff in error, against the City of Baltimore, under its corporate title of "The Mayor and City Council of Baltimore," to recover damages for injuries to the wharf property of the plaintiff,At the trial of the cause in the Baltimore county court, the plaintiff gave evidence tending to prove the original and natural course of the streams, the various works of the corporation from time to time to turn them in the direction of this wharf, and the ruinous consequences of these measures to the interests of the plaintiff."Proof that this case was appellate jurisdiction.
Roe v. Wade (1973)Facts of the Case:In 1970, A single pregnant woman living in Texas wanted to have an abortion was denied by a hospital due to the Texas Laws criminalizing abortions, which only allowed abortions to save a mothers life. McCorvy claimed that she had been raped which had resulted in the pregnancy. They challenged the constitutionality of the Texas abortion laws under the 4th, 9th and 14th claiming it was a violation of their constitutional rights. The defendant, District attorney was Henry Wade represented the state of Texas.This case was brought to the supreme court under appellate jurisdiction. Question of Law?:Does the Constitution protect a woman's right to receive an abortion?Majority Opinion:The vote was 7-2. Th court decided that a woman does have the right to receive an abortion under the 14th amendment. During the first trimester a woman is allowed to receive an abortion. The second trimester of pregnancy was regulated by the state and the third trimester would only be allowed to save the mother's life. They declared Texas abortion laws to be unconstitutional and got rid of the states laws that stopped a pregnant woman from receiving an abortion during the first three months of pregnancy.Minority Opinion:The court believed that it was in violation of the constitution by in allowing an abortion. Some of the members in the court thought that an unborn fetus is and should be considered a "person".Bella Sinsigalli
Barron V Baltimore (1833)Facts :The city of Baltimore reconstructed its road system, which rerouted streams into the displaced sand into Baltimore harbor. Mr. Barron owned a wharf where he operated a company that unloaded cargo ships. The newly displaced sand was rerouted near Mr. Barron’s Warf, which changed the water level making his pier unsalable. Barron sued the city under the 5th amendments just compensation clause of the U.S. constitution. This case went to the Supreme Court on appellate jurisdiction after Barron’s claim had been denied by the city.Question of Law : Is the Bill of rights applicable to the state and local governments. Dose the 5th amendment allow the states to take private property without just compensationMajority opinion : No, the bill of rights does not apply the states it was intended to limit the power of the national government. Baltimore did not have to compensate Barron for lost wages under the bill of rights. Minority opinion :None Mark Nordhausen
* "which rerouted streams and displaced sand into Baltimore harbor." *
In the minority opinion the judges cited the 10th amendment duty of the state to regulate governmental powers not delegated to the federal government.
Mapp V Ohio (1961)Facts:Dollree Mapp was convicted of possessing inappropriate photographs, this happened after an Ohio police department illegally searched her home, and claimed they were looking for a fugitive. Mapp appealed her conviction because she believed they tok away her right of freedom of expression.Questions of Law:Was the search the police did legal?Is the law in Ohio pertaining to pornography constitutional?Majority Opinion:6The court put to the side the issue with the First Amendment and said that "all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is, by (the Fourth Amendment), inadmissible in a state court." Dollree Mapp had been convicted on the basis of illegally obtained evidence. This made it so that illegally obtained evidence was excluded from all courts of the government. Minority Opinion: 3 Jack Fox
*Please delete my previous postGideon v. Wainwright (1963)Facts: Gideon was charged with breaking and entering a commercial building. Gideon was not wealthy, and could not afford a lawyer to represent him in court. Before his trial began, Gideon requested the court appoint him a lawyer, because he could possibly be facing state prison. He was denied the request, stating that it was not an exceptional circumstance. Gideon then defended himself in court and was convicted by the jury, he was sentenced to five years in state prison. Brought to court under appellate jurisdiction. Questions of law: Was the court denying Gideon the right to a fair trail by not appointing him a lawyer? Was this violating the sixth and fourteenth amendments?Majority opinion: (9-0) The court ruled unanimously that Gideon had a right to an attorney, and one would be appointed to him if he could not afford one. The court ruled that if someone is denied the right to an attorney, they were denying the right to a fair trial. In addition, this was violating the sixth amendments “guarantee of counsel” and the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. This ruling will be made “applicable to the states”. Those who cannot afford an attorney will have the right to one. It was then made clear to those who heard the case that "lawyers in criminal courts are necessities, not luxuries."Minority Opinion: None.Works cited:"GIDEON v. WAINWRIGHT." Gideon v. Wainwright. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Nov. 2012. .Allison Bliven
Jack O'Donoghue Mapp V Ohio (1961)FACTS: Dollree Mapp was suspected of hiding a fugitive in her house, so the police asked to search it. After she refused the police returned with a fake search warrant and searched the house. While searching the basement they found a chest filled with pornographic photos. She was sentenced to seven years in prison and appealed the case. QUESTIONS OF LAW: Was the search legal? Can illegally obtained evidence be used in state court?MAJORITY OPINION: In a 6-3 decision Chief Justice Warren wrote "All evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is inadmissible in a state court."This also extended the Federal Exclusionary Rule to state and local governments so that no illegally obtained evidence can be used in any courts. MINORITY OPINION: Three men thought that illegally obtained evidence did not neccasarilly have to be excluded in state courts, because of Wolf V Colorado (1948).
Marbury v Madison (1803)Facts: The case opened up on March 2nd, 1801. A federalist by the name of William Marbury was designated as a Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia along with several others. They were appointed by John Adams near the end of his presidency. When Thomas Jefferson took office, both the president and his secretary James Madison refused to deliver to the men. Marbury then took his case to the Supreme Court under the Judiciary Act of 1789 where the Supreme Court was allowed to issue writs of mandamus to federal officers when they demanded their appointment. This case was brought to the Supreme Court under Original Jurisdiction. Questions of Law: 1. Does the applicant have a right to the commission he demands? 2.When a vested right is denied, or when a right has been violated, did the laws of the country afford him a remedy? 3.Is the remedy a mandamus issue from the court?The majority opinion was unanimous. Because the commission was issued, signed by the president, and then sealed by the secretary of state, this document was valid and Marbury did have a right to the commission he demanded. Marbury had a right to all of this therefore he should he afforded a remedy from the laws of the country because he was denied a vested right. The mandamus was not an issue from the court because it was an unconstitutional grant of power which was found in the Judiciary Act of 1789.Minority Opinion: noneMurphy Newman
*SEE THIS ONEPlessy V Ferguson (1896)Facts: In Louisiana there was a law that blacks and whites could not use the same railway cars. In 1892, Homer Plessy, who was seven-eighths white took a seat in a “whites only” train car in Louisiana. He was asked to move but refused and was arrested. This case was brought to court under appellate jurisdiction. Question of Law:Can states constitutionally require people of different races to use separate facilities (separate but equal)? Majority Opinion: 7 votes for Ferguson. Justice Henry Billinds Brown upheld racial segregation in the states. The justices agreed on the separate-but-equal doctrine because they believed it didn’t go against the fourteenth amendment. They said this because they believed the fourteenth amendment created equality for all races in the court of law, but wasn’t intended to desegregate socially.Minority Opinion:1 vote against. Justice John Marshall Harlen was the lone dissenter. He wrote, “Our Constitution is color-blind”, and he also stated that our country is not divided up into blacks and whites or males and females, but we are all equal-Katie Moffett