KBwPL6UG

1Supreme Court
2Case Studies 
3To the Teacher
4The Supreme Court Case Studies booklet contains 68 reproducible Supreme Court case studies.
5These cases include landmark decisions in American government that have helped and continue
6to shape this nation, as well as decisions dealing with current issues in American society. Every
7case includes background information, the constitutional issue under consideration, the Court’s
8decision, and where appropriate, dissenting opinions.
9Each two-page study requires students to analyze the case and apply critical thinking skills.
10An answer key is provided in the back of the booklet.
11Copyright © by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Permission is granted to
12reproduce the material contained herein on the condition that such material be reproduced only for
13classroom use; be provided to students, teachers, and families, without charge; and be used solely
14in conjunction with Glencoe Social Studies products. Any other reproduction, for use or sale, is
15prohibited without written permission from the publisher.
16Send all inquiries to:
17Glencoe/McGraw-Hill
188787 Orion Place
19Columbus, Ohio 43240
20ISBN 0-07-830788-0
21Printed in the United States of America
221 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 047 07 06 05 04 03
23Glencoe/McGraw-Hill
24Table of Contents
25To the Teacher ...................................................................................................................................................... ii
26Supreme Court Case Studies
27Case Study 1: Marbury v. Madison, 1803 ............................................................................................................ 1
28Case Study 2: McCulloch v. Maryland, 1819 ....................................................................................................... 3
29Case Study 3: Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 1819......................................................................................... 5
30Case Study 4: Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824 ................................................................................................................. 7
31Case Study 5: Dred Scott v. Sandford, 1857 ......................................................................................................... 9
32Case Study 6: Ex Parte Milligan, 1866 ................................................................................................................. 11
33Case Study 7: Slaughterhouse Cases, 1873........................................................................................................... 13
34Case Study 8: Reynolds v. United States, 1879 ..................................................................................................... 15
35Case Study 9: Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896 ................................................................................................................. 17
36Case Study 10: Northern Securities Company v. United States, 1904.................................................................. 19
37Case Study 11: Weeks v. United States, 1914........................................................................................................ 21
38Case Study 12: Schenck v. United States, 1919..................................................................................................... 23
39Case Study 13: Gitlow v. New York, 1925............................................................................................................. 25
40Case Study 14: Whitney v. California, 1927......................................................................................................... 27
41Case Study 15: Olmstead v. United States, 1928 .................................................................................................. 29
42Case Study 16: Near v. Minnesota, 1931 .............................................................................................................. 31
43Case Study 17: Powell v. Alabama, 1932.............................................................................................................. 33
44Case Study 18: DeJonge v. Oregon, 1937 .............................................................................................................. 35
45Case Study 19: West Coast Hotel v. Parrish, 1937................................................................................................ 37
46Case Study 20: Minersville School District v. Gobitis, 1940................................................................................. 39
47Case Study 21: Betts v. Brady, 1942...................................................................................................................... 41
48Case Study 22: West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 1943.......................................................... 43
49Case Study 23: Endo v. United States, 1944 ......................................................................................................... 45
50Case Study 24: Korematsu v. United States, 1944 ................................................................................................ 47
51Case Study 25: Everson v. Board of Education, 1947 ........................................................................................... 49
52Case Study 26: McCollum v. Board of Education, 1948....................................................................................... 51
53Case Study 27: Dennis v. United States, 1951 ...................................................................................................... 53
54Case Study 28: Feiner v. New York, 1951.............................................................................................................. 55
55Case Study 29: Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, 1954 ............................................................... 57
56Case Study 30: Yates v. United States, 1957.......................................................................................................... 59
57Case Study 31: Barenblatt v. United States, 1959................................................................................................. 61
58Case Study 32: Mapp v. Ohio, 1961 ................................................................................................................... 63
59Case Study 33: Baker v. Carr, 1962 .................................................................................................................... 65
60Supreme Court Case Studies iii
61Case Study 34: Engel v. Vitale, 1962................................................................................................................... 67
62Case Study 35: Abington School District v. Schempp, 1963 ............................................................................... 69
63Case Study 36: Gideon v. Wainwright, 1963 ...................................................................................................... 71
64Case Study 37: Escobedo v. Illinois, 1964 ........................................................................................................... 73
65Case Study 38: Reynolds v. Sims, 1964............................................................................................................... 75
66Case Study 39: Wesberry v. Sanders, 1964.......................................................................................................... 77
67Case Study 40: Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, 1964........................................................................... 79
68Case Study 41: Miranda v. Arizona, 1966.......................................................................................................... 81
69Case Study 42: Sheppard v. Maxwell, 1966........................................................................................................ 83
70Case Study 43: Katz v. United States, 1967 ........................................................................................................ 85
71Case Study 44: Gregory v. Chicago, 1969 ........................................................................................................... 87
72Case Study 45: New York Times v. United States, 1971 ..................................................................................... 89
73Case Study 46: Reed v. Reed, 1971...................................................................................................................... 91
74Case Study 47: Wisconsin v. Yoder, 1972............................................................................................................ 93
75Case Study 48: Roe v. Wade, 1973...................................................................................................................... 95
76Case Study 49: United States v. Nixon, 1974 ..................................................................................................... 97
77Case Study 50: Gregg v. Georgia, 1976............................................................................................................... 99
78Case Study 51: Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 1978.............................................................. 101
79Case Study 52: Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation v. Weber, 1979.................................................. 103
80Case Study 53: New Jersey v. T.L.O., 1985 ......................................................................................................... 105
81Case Study 54: Wallace v. Jaffree, 1985 .............................................................................................................. 107
82Case Study 55: Bethel School District v. Fraser, 1986 ........................................................................................ 109
83Case Study 56: Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 1988.......................................................................... 111
84Case Study 57: Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives Association, 1989 ............................................................ 113
85Case Study 58: Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health, 1990....................................................... 115
86Case Study 59: California v. Acevedo, 1991 ....................................................................................................... 117
87Case Study 60: International Union, UAW v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 1991 ...................................................... 119
88Case Study 61: Payne v. Tennessee, 1991............................................................................................................ 121
89Case Study 62: Arizona v. Fulminante, 1991 ..................................................................................................... 123
90Case Study 63: Shaw v. Reno, 1993 .................................................................................................................... 125
91Case Study 64: National Organization for Women (NOW) v. Scheidler, 1994................................................. 127
92Case Study 65: Agostini v. Felton, 1997.............................................................................................................. 129
93Case Study 66: Illinois v. Wardlow, 2000 ........................................................................................................... 131
94Case Study 67: Alexander v. Sandoval, 2001...................................................................................................... 133
95Case Study 68: Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, 2001.................................................................. 135
96Answer Key ....................................................................................................................................................... 137
97iv Supreme Court Case Studies
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234Answer Key
235CASE STUDY 1
236Marbury v. Madison, 1803
2371. The Marbury v. Madison case established
238the right of the Supreme Court to rule on
239the constitutionality of laws.
2402. It provided a way to check the powers
241of Congress and the president, and thus
242more effectively balanced the powers of all
243three branches of the federal government.
2443. On the one hand, Marshall declared the
245Judiciary Act unconstitutional because the
246power for Congress to pass such an act
247was not mentioned in the Constitution. Yet
248at the same time he believed the Supreme
249Court had the power to declare a law
250unconstitutional, even though this power
251was not specifically mentioned in the
252Constitution.
2534. Answers will vary. Students who favor
254the Court’s power may say that it provides
255a check on Congress and more equally
256balances the power of the three branches
257of government. Students who oppose
258the Court’s power may say that since congressional
259representatives are elected, they
260represent the will of the people, so the
261laws passed by Congress should stand and
262not be subjected to a review by a court of
263appointed judges.
2645. Answers will vary. Students who think the
265influence of personal politics on Court
266rulings is improper may say that legal opinions
267should be based on a legal interpretation
268of the Constitution law and not on
269politics. Students who accept political
270influence on Court rulings as proper may
271say that it often reflects the will of the
272majority.
273CASE STUDY 2
274McCulloch v. Maryland, 1819
2751. The McCulloch case established the principle
276that Congress has implied powers not
277specifically stated in the Constitution.
2782. The “necessary and proper” clause gives
279Congress the authority to make any laws
280that are required to carry out its enumerated
281tasks.
2823. The Court ruled that the United States
283Bank was immune to the Maryland tax
284because as an arm of the federal government
285it is not required to pay state taxes.
2864. Federalists believed in a strong national
287government, and the McCulloch decision
288reflects that point of view in that it limited
289the power of the states to tax any part
290of the federal government.
2915. The McCulloch decision greatly enlarged
292the powers of the federal government by
293stating that it is “supreme within its
294sphere of action,” and has powers that
295are not specifically set forth in the
296Constitution.
297CASE STUDY 3
298Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 1819
2991. Dartmouth College remained a private
300institution and was protected under
301Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution
302from interference by the state. The
303trustees were reinstated to administer the
304college, and the college records, the corporate
305seal, and other corporate property
306were returned to the trustees by the state
307treasurer.
3082. Chief Justice Marshall explained that if a
309state or other sovereign—here the British
310crown—granted a charter of incorporation,
311the charter has “every ingredient of a
312complete and legitimate contract.”
3133. The Dartmouth case established that a
314corporate charter granted by the state
315comes under the protection of the contract
316clause that prohibits states from
317making any laws that impair the obligation
318of a contract. Therefore, businesses
319could flourish without being subjected to
320interference by the state.
3214. If states wanted to provide higher education,
322they had to provide publicly funded
323institutions because the Dartmouth decision
324prohibited the states from taking over
325private institutions.
3265. The Dartmouth decision weakened the
327power of the states by ruling that even
328though states have the power to charter
329corporations, corporations are protected
330from interference by the states because
331they are protected under the contract
332clause in Article 1, Section 10 of the
333Constitution, which prohibits states from
334making any laws that impair the obligations
335of a contract.
336CASE STUDY 4
337Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824
3381. A trucking company operating between
339San Francisco and Portland would be
340regulated by both federal and state governments.
341Each state, for example, could
342impose taxes on the company’s purely instate
343business, but the federal government
344could set safety standards for vehicles using
345the interstate highway system.
3462. Unless he defined navigation as a part of
347commerce, he would not have been able
348to deal with the question of interstate
349commerce in the United States.
3503. Jackson said Marshall expanded federal
351power over commerce to a breadth never
352exceeded, because the Gibbons decision
353opened the way for Congress to regulate
354interstate commerce, which now constitutes
355the great bulk of commerce in this
356country. Marshall also laid the groundwork
357for regulating activities that are
358indirectly, as well as directly, involved in
359interstate commerce.
3604. Both cases gave the federal government
361powers than are not spelled out literally
362in the Constitution; thus both decisions
363diminished states’ powers and increased
364those of the federal government.
3655. Answers will vary. Students agreeing with
366the Gibbons decision may say that the federal
367government is needed as a power
368greater than the states to make decisions
369about issues involving more than one state.
370Students opposed to the Gibbons decision
371may say a state has the right to regulate
372business within its boundaries, so the federal
373government should not have interfered
374with New York’s right to assign an exclusive
375ferryboat license for a New York port.
376CASE STUDY 5
377Dred Scott v. Sandford, 1857
3781. When the Supreme Court ruled that the
379Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional,
380it held that Congress had no power
381to ban slavery in the territories. Thus
382Scott’s claim that he had been in free territory
383where slavery was not permitted
384was invalid.
3852. The Dred Scott decision severely hampered
386legal efforts to end slavery through
387court procedures.
3883. Slaveholders were obviously pleased with
389the decision because it foreclosed legal
390efforts by abolitionists to end slavery.
3914. The Court said that since African
392Americans were not citizens of the United
393States, they did not have the legal right to
394sue in a federal court.
3955. The Dred Scott decision is important
396because although it was intended to
397settle the question of slavery, it adopted
398an extreme view and unleashed a storm
399of protest against the Court, which ultimately
400became a factor in the coming of
401the Civil War.
402CASE STUDY 6
403Ex Parte Milligan, 1866
4041. The Court concluded that neither
405Congress nor the president could grant the
406military authority to try civilians, so long
407as civilian courts were still functioning.
4082. General Hovey probably thought a military
409court would declare Milligan guilty,
410whereas a civilian court might find him
411not guilty.
4123. According to the Court’s ruling, military
413rule would take precedence over civilian
414authority when civilian courts were not
415operating.
4164. Four justices thought Congress should
417be responsible for deciding in special
418circumstances whether a military court
419could try civilians.
4205. Habeas corpus is an important part of the
421Constitution because it prevents authorities
422from legally holding a prisoner as
423long as they wish without filing formal
424charges against that individual. This was
425in keeping with the spirit of the Bill of
426Rights, which restricted governments
427from denying personal freedoms.
428★
429★
430★
431★
432★
433★
434Supreme Court Case Studies 137
435CASE STUDY 7
436Slaughterhouse Cases, 1873
4371. The Court ruled that the protections
438of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth
439Amendments did not apply to the butchers
440in the Slaughterhouse Cases. The Court
441stated that the amendments were designed
442only for the protection of formerly
443enslaved people.
4442. The ruling in the Slaughterhouse cases
445nullified the Dred Scott decision.
4463. The Court’s decision meant that as a
447butcher, you would not have been able to
448supply meat in New Orleans unless you
449did business as part of the licensed
450monopoly.
4514. State governments gained more than the
452federal government from the Court’s decision
453in the Slaughterhouse cases, since the
454Court ruled that the protections of the
455Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments
456did not curb Louisiana’s power to grant a
457monopoly.
4585. Answers will vary. Students who agree
459with the Court’s majority opinion might
460say that the Fourteenth Amendment
461makes the states responsible for enforcing
462laws that protect the rights of citizens, and
463that since the state granted the monopoly,
464it was legal. Students who oppose the
465decision might point out that if the
466butchers were denied work because of the
467monopoly, they would be forced to work
468for the monopoly, which could be considered
469forced servitude, illegal under the
470Thirteenth Amendment.
471CASE STUDY 8
472Reynolds v. United States, 1879
4731. Chief Justice Waite supported Congress’s
474right to legislate against religious practices
475that might have a harmful effect on the
476social order. In the Reynolds case,
477polygamy was so viewed. Congress, therefore,
478had the right to prohibit such a
479practice.
4802. Polygamy was one aspect of the Mormon
481religion, as ritual murder might be in
482another religion, contrary to the mores
483of Western society. The Court did not
484believe the religious protections of the
485First Amendment should include behaviors
486offensive to civilized society.
4873. The Court recognized that there are
488sometimes circumstances when the freedoms
489guaranteed by the First Amendment
490must be curtailed to avoid anarchy or
491other social chaos.
4924. The Court could justify regulating
493marriage because in addition to being “a
494sacred obligation,” marriage also involves
495a civil contract that needs to be regulated
496by law.
4975. Answers will vary. Students might justify
498the actions of government authorities in
499singling out one person to prosecute
500because society wanted polygamy
501stopped, and the authorities probably felt
502that prosecuting one person would do so.
503Students who feel the action is unjust
504might say that choosing only one person
505for prosecution left others who had committed
506the same crime unpunished.
507CASE STUDY 9
508Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896
5091. The majority opinion of the Supreme
510Court claimed that the Fourteenth
511Amendment aimed to establish the equality
512of the races, but was not intended to
513abolish distinctions based on color or to
514enforce social equality. Furthermore, they
515stated the Louisiana law was reasonable
516because states could legally segregate the
517races in the exercise of their police powers.
5182. The separate-but-equal principle means
519segregation is legal as long as equal facilities
520are provided for each race.
5213. Justice Harlan dissented from the majority
522opinion on the grounds that segregation
523based on race was inconsistent with the
524freedoms and equality established by the
525Constitution.
5264. Plessy based his appeal in part on the
527Thirteenth Amendment because it banned
528“involuntary servitude,” and segregation of
529railroad cars was a form of such servitude.
5305. The Plessy decision affirmed the legality
531of segregation practices in the Southern
532states. Although the Court’s decision
533required equality of public facilities, the
534Southern states made no effort to carry
535out this requirement.
536CASE STUDY 10
537Northern Securities v. United States,
5381904
5391. The Court’s decision extended the meaning
540of the word commerce to apply to
541companies not directly engaged in interstate
542commerce but which nevertheless
543controlled such commerce.
5442. Justices Brewer and Harlan agreed that
545Northern Securities Company was guilty
546of unlawful restraint of trade and had
547thus violated the Sherman Antitrust Act.
548Justice Brewer did not agree with the rest
549of Justice Harlan’s reasoning, including
550the idea that a combination need not be
551directly involved in commerce in order to
552restrain it or to have the potential to
553restrain it.
5543. The fact that the railroads operated in several
555states brought them into the category
556of interstate commerce, which the Constitution
557gave Congress the power to regulate.
5584. Members of the majority differed on several
559points: whether the word commerce
560should have a broad or narrow interpretation
561and what constituted restraint of
562trade.
5635. The Court’s decision clearly established
564the principle that the ownership of an
565interstate business as well as its direct
566operation fell within the definition of
567commerce and thus within the power of
568Congress to regulate it.
569CASE STUDY 11
570Weeks v. United States, 1914
5711. The Supreme Court ordered that Weeks’s
572papers be returned to him because they
573had been illegally seized and could not be
574used as evidence against Weeks in court.
5752. The exclusionary rule bars evidence that
576is obtained illegally from being used in a
577trial.
5783. The Court’s ruling in the Weeks case increased
579the likelihood that police officers
580would obtain a warrant prior to searching
581for and seizing evidence that could be relevant
582to the case they were investigating.
5834. Common law held that relevant evidence
584could be submitted in court no matter
585how it had been obtained. The Weeks ruling
586overturned this common practice and
587established that illegally obtained evidence,
588no matter how relevant, could be
589excluded at a trial.
5905. Students who agree with the Court’s
591ruling might say that a trial would not be
592fair if illegally seized evidence was admitted
593and that it is just as necessary in a civilized
594society for law enforcement officers to
595obey the law as it is for other citizens.
596Students taking the opposite position
597may say that the exclusionary rule allows
598guilty persons to go free and that all relevant
599evidence should be allowed at trial, no
600matter how it was obtained.
601CASE STUDY 12
602Schenck v. United States, 1919
6031. The Espionage Act was passed to discourage
604people from interfering with the
605government’s efforts to build an army to
606fight World War I.
6072. The clear and present danger principle
608meant that under dangerous circumstances,
609such as falsely calling “fire” in a
610crowded theater or trying to undermine
611the nation’s efforts to raise an army during
612a war, free speech may be curtailed.
6133. Holmes accepted the limitations on
614Schenck’s freedom of speech only because
615the nation was at war.
6164. Students’ answers will vary. Some may say
617that the government has a right to take
618action against anyone or anything that
619might interfere with the war effort. Others
620will argue that First Amendment rights
621have to be upheld in all circumstances
622because not to do so would seriously
623diminish the protections guaranteed by
624the Bill of Rights.
6255. Holmes’s subsequent dissent reveals
626that he greatly respected the First
627Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of
628speech and that he was willing to limit
629those guarantees only in times of crisis
630when a real and definite danger threatened
631the nation and the clear and present
632danger principle could be applied.
633★
634★
635★
636★
637★
638★
639138 Supreme Court Case Studies
640CASE STUDY 13
641Gitlow v. New York, 1925
6421. The Court did not explain why it applied
643the First Amendment protections to the
644states; rather it assumed the application of
645these rights to the states under the Fourteenth
646Amendment due process clause.
6472. No. The Court held that a state could constitutionally
648prohibit an entire class of
649subversive speech, and it was not necessary
650to prove that such speech would produce
651a specific result.
6523. The Court did not prohibit the reading of
653any so-called subversive literature.
6544. Answers will vary. Students who agree
655with the majority opinion may say that
656states have a right to make and enforce
657laws against those individuals who advocate
658the overthrow of an elected government
659by force, violence, or anarchy.
660Students who agree with Holmes’s dissent
661may say that although Gitlow’s radical
662ideas were unpopular, there was no evidence
663they were effective in influencing
664others to bring about a violent uprising,
665so Gitlow presented no clear and present
666danger to the government and should not
667have been prosecuted.
6685. Answers will vary. Students who agree
669with unlimited freedom of speech and
670press may draw a distinction between
671speech and actions, saying that individuals
672should only be prosecuted for violent or
673unlawful actions, not unpopular ideas or
674speech. Students who think there should
675be some limitations on speech and the
676press may cite examples in which what is
677said or written may incite hatred of a specific
678group or be dangerous to the public,
679such as providing instructions for bomb
680making.
681CASE STUDY 14
682Whitney v. California, 1927
6831. Whitney was convicted of criminal
684syndicalism for being a member of the
685Communist Labor Party; the party was
686found to have been organized to advocate,
687teach, and abet criminal syndicalism.
6882. The Court ruled that the Communist
689Labor Party to which Whitney belonged
690endangered the government of California
691and the public peace and security.
6923. Brandeis, unlike Sanford, held that merely
693holding opinions that were offensive to
694the government, even though they may
695result in some violence or the destruction
696of property, is no reason for prohibiting
697freedom of speech.
6984. Students’ opinions will vary. Some will say
699that membership in such an organization
700may lead to acts that threaten the government
701and should therefore be banned.
702Others may say that membership should
703not be punished because it involves only
704agreement with the aims of the organization
705and is therefore a belief, which is
706protected by the First Amendment.
7075. The justices may have held that if the
708defendant performed no criminal act, the
709defendant should not be punished for his
710or her beliefs. (This is what the Court held
711in the 1969 case of Brandenburg v. Ohio.)
712CASE STUDY 15
713Olmstead v. United States, 1928
7141. The majority of justices on the Court felt
715that the Fourth Amendment applied only
716to things, not to hearing or sight, so the
717amendment did not apply to telephone
718wiretaps, which involve hearing.
7192. The Court said that the means by which
720evidence is obtained is unimportant as
721long as the evidence is pertinent.
7223. Under the Olmstead ruling, the evidence
723would be admissible since the Court indicated
724that it did not matter how evidence
725was secured as long as the evidence
726was pertinent.
7274. Brandeis was commenting on the fact that
728the majority of justices were willing to
729accept an illegal seizure of evidence to
730achieve a socially desired end, the conviction
731of Olmstead.
7325. Answers will vary. Students who agree
733with the Court’s decision may say that
734telephone speech is not the same as a
735person’s house, papers, or effects and is
736therefore not protected by the Fourth
737Amendment. Students who disagree with
738the decision may say that telephone speech
739is just as personal as letters, property, and
740other effects and should, therefore, be protected
741by the Fourth Amendment and, in
742turn, by the Fifth Amendment, which protects
743a citizen from incriminating oneself.
744In addition, they may support the requirement
745of government prosecutors to follow
746the law scrupulously when building cases
747against defendants.
748CASE STUDY 16
749Near v. Minnesota, 1931
7501. No. Censorship may be permitted in times
751of war or against obscene publications.
7522. The Fourteenth Amendment applies the
753freedoms of the First Amendment to the
754states.
7553. The lawyer should claim that, according
756to the Near decision, prior censorship of
757the press is not legal. The press can only
758be held responsible for the truth of their
759information after publication, not before.
7604. The mayor could sue the paper for libel
761if he/she could prove that the paper published
762information it knew to be false.
7635. The Near decision is important because it
764bans prior censorship of the press.
765CASE STUDY 17
766Powell v. Alabama, 1932
7671. The defendants’ guilt was not an issue for
768the Court to decide. Whether a defendant is
769guilty or innocent is a matter for a jury or
770a trial court, sitting as the fact finder, to
771decide. As a general rule, the Supreme
772Court rules only on whether the trial met
773constitutional standards.
7742. The Fourteenth Amendment’s requirement
775of due process of the law was at the
776heart of the Court’s examination of the
777Powell case.
7783. Answers may vary. One possibility is
779that the trial court behaved as though it
780believed that Powell and his friends, as
781African Americans, were not entitled to
782anything more than a brief, routine hearing
783in court, and that the defendants were
784probably guilty anyway.
7854. The trials were so speedy that they took
786only one day each, a very short time for
787capital cases. The defendants had little
788time to prepare their defense and no
789attorney to help them conduct their case.
7905. Without a lawyer, it is assumed that a
791defendant does not have the ability to
792defend himself, even if the defendant is
793otherwise well educated; hence the saying
794that any person, even a lawyer, who
795attempts to defend himself or herself has
796a fool for a client.
797CASE STUDY 18
798DeJonge v. Oregon, 1937
7991. Answers may vary. One possibility is that
800the right to assemble peacefully is foundational
801to United States civil and political
802freedoms in much the same way as are free
803press and free speech.
8042. The decision applied to the states the
805freedoms of the Bill of Rights through
806the Fourteenth Amendment.
8073. Probably not, because the facts show that
808it had been widely advertised as organized
809by the Communist Party.
8104. Not only the defendant but also the
811American people in general, because the
812Court’s decision reaffirmed their fundamental
813right to assemble and to speak at
814such assemblies.
8155. Possible answers: Students who favor
816limits may say that the right to assemble
817should be limited when there is a danger
818of a riot or other dangerous circumstances.
819Students who support no limits may say
820that the right to assemble peacefully is such
821a basic right that any lawful limitation
822might encourage other limitations.
823CASE STUDY 19
824West Coast Hotel v. Parrish, 1937
8251. The economic conditions of the 1930s
826forced the justices to rethink their attitudes
827toward the constitutionality of
828social and economic legislation.
8292. The majority based its decision on the
830belief that enacting legislation that protects
831women and other workers whose
832economic bargaining position may be
833★
834★
835★
836★
837★
838★
839★
840Supreme Court Case Studies 139
841weak from unscrupulous and overreaching
842employers is a legitimate use of
843government power.
8443. The Court overruled a previous decision
845that had been regarded as a controlling
846precedent.
8474. The constitutional scholar was saying
848that support for the judicial philosophy
849expressed by the dissent essentially had
850ended because of the economic realities
851during the 1930s and that this case
852marked the end of the period when the
853Court ruled against the constitutionality
854of laws that sought to regulate business.
8555. Students’ answers will vary. Some students
856may say that if the West Coast Hotel case is
857typical of the Court’s attitudinal change
858about social and economic regulations,
859the Court probably will decide that regulating
860business is permissible in the
861future. Other students may say that it is
862impossible to forecast how the Court is
863likely to rule in future cases.
864CASE STUDY 20
865Minersville School District v. Gobitis,
8661940
8671. The flag salute helped form a sense of
868patriotism, or “cohesive sentiment,” which
869is at the basis of a free society.
8702. The Court should not overrule the
871wisdom of the legislature, and the courtroom
872is not the place to debate issues of
873educational policy.
8743. Answers may vary. One possibility is that
875the Court would support an individual’s
876right to salute or not salute the flag in
877accordance with the individual’s personal
878beliefs.
8794. Student answers will vary. Students who
880say they would have protested may support
881their protest by recalling that all of
882our liberties have been won through individual
883or group protests against government
884restrictions. Students who say they
885would not have protested may agree with
886the Court that it is important to build a
887cohesive society and that saluting the flag
888is one way to accomplish that end.
8895. To civil libertarians, the Gobitis decision
890seemed to be a wrongheaded decision
891based on a very limited understanding of
892the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees.
893CASE STUDY 21
894Betts v. Brady, 1942
8951. Earlier law could be interpreted as allowing,
896but not requiring, that an indigent
897defendant be represented by counsel.
8982. The Sixth Amendment applies to federal,
899not state, jurisdiction. Matters related to
900the state must be viewed in the light of
901the due process clause of the Fourteenth
902Amendment.
9033. Justice Black based his dissent on the ruling
904in the Powell case and that the right to
905counsel is fundamental to the Sixth and
906Fourteenth Amendments.
9074. In the Powell case, a capital crime had
908been involved, so the lack of proper
909counsel along with other elements violated
910every principle of fairness; the Betts
911case, on the other hand, was not a capital
912case. Roberts’s judgment on the question
913of providing counsel was that each case
914had to be decided on its own merits. He
915thought that to deny counsel might be
916“shocking to the universal sense of justice”
917in one case but not in another.
9185. Roberts emphasized that “Every court has
919power . . . to appoint counsel where that
920course seems to be required in the interest
921of fairness.” Students who agree with
922Justice Roberts may say that an impartial
923judge, who represents the people, should
924have the authority to decide how to spend
925the people’s tax money and which defendants
926do or do not need legal counsel to
927provide a fair trial. Students who do not
928agree with Justice Roberts’s position may
929say that all defendants are considered
930innocent until found guilty and that they
931all should be guaranteed counsel to protect
932their legal rights while preparing for
933and during their trial.
934CASE STUDY 22
935West Virginia State Board of Education
936v. Barnette, 1943
9371. The flag salute was considered to be
938a form of utterance, or speech, so the freedoms
939guaranteed in the First Amendment
940would apply to the flag salute as well as to
941speech.
9422. In the Gobitis case, the Court ruled that
943the state’s flag salute requirement was
944constitutional because there were situations
945in which freedom of religion could
946be restricted; in the Barnette case, the
947Court ruled that the state’s flag salute requirement
948was unconstitutional because it
949violated the principles of the First
950Amendment that limited government.
9513. The Court held that “to believe that patriotism
952will not flourish if patriotic ceremonies
953are voluntary and spontaneous
954instead of a compulsory routine is to make
955an unflattering estimate of the appeal of
956our institutions to free minds. . . .”
9574. Answers may vary. Students may mention
958that freedoms are sometimes
959restricted during times of war, national
960unrest, or natural disasters.
9615. Student answers will vary, but they should
962include the idea that the rights guaranteed
963by the Bill of Rights, in this case the First
964Amendment, apply to all beliefs, whether
965they are accepted by the majority or only
966by a minority.
967CASE STUDY 23
968Endo v. United States, 1944
9691. The Court focused on the fact that
970Mitsuye Endo was an American citizen
971whose loyalty had never been questioned.
9722. Other Japanese Americans could have
973sued successfully for their release on the
974grounds that they were American citizens
975and that their Japanese ancestry did not
976preclude them from being loyal to the
977United States.
9783. Justice Murphy believed that the whole
979internment program was unconstitutional,
980whereas Douglas defended the relocation,
981but argued that the authority to detain a
982citizen or place conditions on the person’s
983release, as protection against espionage or
984sabotage, is exhausted when that person’s
985loyalty is conceded.
9864. Students’ answers will vary. Probably most
987students, more than half a century after
988World War II, will agree with Justice
989Murphy. Some students, however, may
990agree with Douglas on the grounds that
991the internment program, as unfair as it
992was, was an attempt by the government to
993protect the nation.
9945. Students may speculate that, as is often
995true in important cases that involve constitutional
996questions, some other person
997or organization opposed to the government’s
998internment program on constitutional
999grounds paid the legal costs
1000involved.
1001CASE STUDY 24
1002Korematsu v. United States, 1944
10031. The evacuation orders were based on the
1004war powers of the president and Congress.
10052. Answers will vary. Students will probably
1006express outrage that his or her patriotism
1007could have been so severely questioned.
10083. Black’s stand in this case did not enhance
1009his reputation as a defender of people’s
1010rights.
10114. Justice Murphy argued that the Japanese
1012Americans had been deprived of equal
1013protection of the law and procedural
1014due process guaranteed by the Fifth
1015Amendment.
10165. Answers will vary. Students who agree
1017with the description may say that the government’s
1018use of the military against its
1019own citizens is definitely alarming.
1020Students who disagree with the description
1021may say that during times of war, the
1022government sometimes needs to approve
1023restrictions that would never be considered
1024in ordinary times.
1025CASE STUDY 25
1026Everson v. Board of Education, 1947
10271. There was concern that denying benefits
1028to students attending parochial schools
1029would be seen as discrimination against
1030religion.
10312. Yes, the Court’s ruling would probably
1032apply to such schools as well since the
1033reasoning was that paying for transportation
1034is similar to providing police and fire
1035protection.
10363. Justice Rutledge argued that the cost of
1037transportation was part of the cost of
1038education, and since the instruction was
1039★
1040★
1041★
1042★
1043★
1044★
1045140 Supreme Court Case Studies
1046primarily religious, reimbursement for
1047transportation costs was not allowable.
10484. Probably not, since paying the teachers
1049was clearly part of the cost of parochial
1050school education.
10515. Answers will vary. Students who agree
1052with Justice Black may say that tax-subsidized
1053transportation to schools falls into
1054the same category as police and fire protection
1055and should therefore be available
1056to all children, not just to those in public
1057school. Students who agree with Justice
1058Rutledge may stress that the purpose of
1059reimbursing transportation costs is to
1060defray costs, and that the cost of transportation
1061is no less a part of religious
1062instruction than teachers or textbooks.
1063In order to maintain the separation of
1064church and state, the state must withhold
1065what the Constitution forbids it to give.
1066CASE STUDY 26
1067McCollum v. Board of Education, 1948
10681. on the grounds that religion and government
1069should be separate from each other
10702. Frankfurter meant that the separation
1071between religion and government is so
1072important that it should not be easily
1073disregarded.
10743. the customs of the people
10754. Answers may vary. One possibility students
1076may suggest is that the justices all
1077wanted to go on record in a decision that
1078varied so markedly from the Everson
1079decision.
10805. Answers will vary. Students who agree with
1081the decision will probably stress the separation
1082of church and state in the Constitution.
1083Those who disagree with the decision
1084may argue that religious education is positive
1085for the community and the country
1086and is supported by a majority of people.
1087Therefore religious instruction should be
1088allowed in public schools as long as all religions
1089are provided equal access.
1090CASE STUDY 27
1091Dennis v. United States, 1951
10921. The Smith Act had to pass the clear and
1093present danger test.
10942. Vinson claimed that only the existence of a
1095conspiracy need be proved, while Black and
1096Douglas held that overt acts were necessary
1097to convict, and that only speeches and publications
1098had been proven.
10993. Under the Court’s reasoning, you might
1100have been found guilty because, according
1101to the Smith Act, it was illegal to advocate
1102the overthrow of the government by force
1103or violence.
11044. Students’ answers will vary. Students who
1105favor protection may say that freedom of
1106speech and thought are protected by the
1107First Amendment, and it has been well
1108established that these protections are especially
1109important for those who advocate
1110unpopular positions. Students who oppose
1111protections may point out that groups who
1112want to change the government already have
1113recourse to do so peacefully; they need not
1114conspire to overthrow a legal government by
1115force or violence.
11165. The Court might have agreed with Justices
1117Douglas and Black that advocacy alone is
1118not sufficient to prove illegality.
1119CASE STUDY 28
1120Feiner v. New York, 1951
11211. Justice Vinson said the police acted properly
1122to prevent public disorder.
11232. Justice Black saw the majority decision as
1124subjecting all speeches, political or otherwise,
1125to the supervision and censorship of
1126the local police, which he viewed as a long
1127step toward totalitarian authority.
11283. Students who agree with Justice Vinson’s
1129ruling may reason that police need the
1130power to protect public safety even if their
1131actions interfere with an individual’s right
1132to free speech. Students who agree with
1133Justice Black’s dissent may express concern
1134about the possibility of overzealous police
1135officers censoring public speech, especially
1136speech that they consider offensive, instead
1137of protecting speakers from unsympathetic
1138audiences.
11394. Justices Black, Douglas, and Minton
1140thought the job of the police in this situation
1141was to protect freedom of speech, so
1142their most important task would be to
1143protect the speaker, especially one who was
1144espousing unpopular ideas.
11455. Speakers would probably be careful not to
1146say anything that might incite their listeners
1147to riot.
1148CASE STUDY 29
1149Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka,
1150Kansas, 1954
11511. Recognizing the psychological impact that
1152segregation had on children was necessary in
1153order to show that segregation violated the
1154equal protection clause of the Fourteenth
1155Amendment.
11562. The Brown decision affected all public
1157schools, both in the North and the South,
1158so it probably directly affected more people
1159than any other Court decision.
11603. Students who agree with the Brown
1161decision may point out that segregated
1162schools violate the basic principles of
1163equality upon which the United States is
1164founded. Students who disagree with the
1165Brown decision may point out that
1166African American students in integrated
1167schools may have to fit into a setting that
1168is dominated by the white culture, whereas
1169they may learn better in a cultural setting
1170that is more familiar to them.
11714. Students’ answers may vary. One possible
1172answer is that many people in the South
1173loudly denounced the Brown decision
1174with a determination not to obey the
1175Court’s ruling.
11765. The justices may have realized that a ruling
1177either way in the Brown case was bound to
1178be controversial, so they may have planned
1179a show of unanimity in order to decrease
1180public dissension on the issue.
1181CASE STUDY 30
1182Yates v. United States, 1957
11831. Advocacy is merely supporting a cause or
1184proposal; incitement is urging or encouraging
1185others to take action in support of a
1186cause or proposal.
11872. The Court held that the trial judge’s
1188instructions were inadequate because he
1189had not informed the jury that to convict
1190under the Smith Act, the prosecution
1191needed to prove not only that the defendants
1192had advocated overthrowing the
1193government, but also that they had
1194intended to incite people to such action.
11953. In Dennis, the Court made no distinction
1196between advocacy and incitement; in
1197the Yates case, the Court did make that
1198distinction.
11994. The Yates case determined that persons
1200who simply advocate communism are not
1201guilty of violating the Smith Act.
12025. Students who agree with the Yates decision
1203may say that the First Amendment
1204protects unpopular speech, so people who
1205advocate Communist causes should be
1206protected unless they take or incite others
1207to take some illegal action in support of
1208their cause. Students who disagree with
1209the decision may point out that elected
1210governments need laws to help protect the
1211public interest by prosecuting groups like
1212the Communists, who not only advocate
1213the forcible overthrow of the government
1214but are also well organized enough to act
1215illegally in support of their beliefs.
1216CASE STUDY 31
1217Barenblatt v. United States, 1959
12181. The Court ruled that the First Amendment
1219does not give a witness the right to resist
1220governmental inquiry in all circumstances,
1221and when competing individual
1222and the governmental interests are at stake,
1223a balance must be struck in favor of the
1224government.
12252. The Court assumed that the committee
1226did have a specified purpose and that its
1227work conformed with Congress’s intentions
1228because Congress had regularly provided
1229appropriations for the committee’s
1230work and had raised it to a standing
1231committee.
12323. All dissenting judges agreed that
1233Barenblatt’s First Amendment rights had
1234been violated.
12354. Since the Court defended the committee
1236against all the attacks made on it by
1237Barenblatt, there was no reason why the
1238committee would have to change how it
1239operated.
1240★
1241★
1242★
1243★
1244★
1245★
1246Supreme Court Case Studies 141
12475. Students who agree with the Court’s decision
1248may say that the Communist Party
1249was a dangerous threat to this country, so
1250Congress had a right to thoroughly investigate
1251its members even if some of their
1252First Amendment and Fifth Amendment
1253protections had to be relinquished.
1254Students who agree with the dissent may
1255say that Congress should never, under any
1256circumstances, ignore the protections provided
1257citizens by the Bill of Rights. To do
1258so is to violate the Constitution.
1259CASE STUDY 32
1260Mapp v. Ohio, 1961
12611. Illegally seized evidence violates the constitutional
1262right to privacy.
12632. Convicting a criminal by using illegally
1264seized evidence can undermine a government’s
1265authority and determination to
1266observe its own laws.
12673. The illegally seized evidence in the Mapp
1268case was so-called obscene material.
12694. Evidence rejected as illegally seized in
1270a federal case was acceptable in a state
1271court.
12725. Students who agree with the Mapp decision
1273may emphasize the idea that the
1274authority of government is weakened by
1275failure to observe its own laws. Students
1276who disagree with the decision may say
1277that too many criminals are set free
1278because of the legal technicalities created
1279by the exclusionary rule.
1280CASE STUDY 33
1281Baker v. Carr, 1962
12821. The case did not involve a political question;
1283it presented a “case” or “controversy”
1284and if the appellants were correct, the federal
1285courts had the authority and ability to
1286fashion a remedy. The case was therefore
1287justiciable or subject to review by a federal
1288court under Article III, Section 2 of the
1289Constitution.
12902. the practice of states refusing to reapportion
1291legislative districts to reflect changes
1292in the distribution of their population
12933. The Baker decision stated that a citizen
1294in the state can ask a federal court to consider
1295whether the legislative districts of
1296the state are proper.
12974. Students who agree with Justice Brennan
1298may say that the Court had the right to
1299require states to undergo redistricting
1300every ten years according to provisions in
1301the Constitution so as to eliminate
1302inequities and maintain fairness in legislative
1303representation. Students who agree
1304with Frankfurter’s dissent may say that
1305federal courts should not be deciding
1306questions involving the internal policies
1307of the states.
13085. Answers may vary. Possible answer: The
1309Baker decision reinforced the democratic
1310principle that every citizen’s vote should
1311carry the same weight.
1312CASE STUDY 34
1313Engel v. Vitale, 1962
13141. The justices decided that it was unconstitutional
1315for the government to
1316prescribe prayer or governmentally sponsored
1317religious activity because such
1318action violates the establishment clause.
13192. Students who agree with Justice Black’s
1320opinion may say that any prayer as part of
1321a governmental program, whether or not
1322the prayer is compulsory, breaches the
1323separation between Church and State.
1324Students who agree with Justice Potter’s
1325dissent may say that the Court has interfered
1326with the free exercise of religion.
13273. The Hyde Park schools had to abandon
1328their practice of reciting a daily prayer.
13294. Students’ answers will vary, but they
1330should understand that the Founders were
1331not against religion and that the motto on
1332the bills is nothing more than a statement,
1333not an activity.
13345. Student opinions will vary, but they
1335should show thoughtful consideration of
1336the implications of the Engel decision.
1337CASE STUDY 35
1338Abington School District v. Schempp,
13391963
13401. The Bible may be read and discussed in
1341public schools as literature or in a historical
1342context.
13432. Laws must neither advance nor inhibit
1344religion and must have a legitimate
1345secular purpose.
13463. The states held that Bible reading
1347promoted moral values, contradicted
1348materialistic trends, and perpetuated our
1349institutions and the teachings of literature.
13504. Students who agree with the Abington ruling
1351may say that it is appropriate to read
1352the Bible for historical or literary studies,
1353but that promoting religious activity in a
1354public school violates the First
1355Amendment. Students who agree with the
1356dissent may say that the ruling denied the
1357rights of children who want to take part in
1358religious prayer.
13595. No, for the same reason that Bible reading
1360was ruled unconstitutional; civil authority
1361and religious activity must remain separate.
1362Government must maintain strict
1363neutrality, neither aiding nor opposing
1364religion.
1365CASE STUDY 36
1366Gideon v. Wainwright, 1963
13671. The Court felt that Gideon, as well as most
1368other people, did not have the legal expertise
1369to defend himself adequately in a criminal
1370proceeding, and that legal counsel for a
1371defendant is necessary to ensure a fair trial.
13722. No, a defendant can act as his or her own
1373lawyer if he or she is mentally competent,
1374or the Court will appoint a lawyer for the
1375defendant.
13763. The Court said its judgment in the Betts
1377case was wrong because it broke with
1378precedents established in earlier cases,
1379such as the Powell case.
13804. The Court ruled that lawyers for defendants
1381in criminal cases are necessities not
1382luxuries.
13835. The Gideon decision put poor defendants
1384on the same legal plane as those defendants
1385who can afford to hire their own
1386criminal attorneys.
1387CASE STUDY 37
1388Escobedo v. Illinois, 1964
13891. A lawyer must be provided when police
1390shift from investigation to accusation.
13912. Goldberg referred to the right of a person
1392accused of a crime to be advised of
1393his/her Fifth Amendment protection
1394against self-incrimination.
13953. Many police officers would probably object
1396to the Court’s ruling on the grounds that
1397it interfered with their ability to obtain
1398confessions and would thus make convicting
1399criminals more difficult.
14004. Justices Harlan and Stewart thought that
1401the Court’s decision gave too many advantages
1402to the criminal and thwarted
1403legitimate functions of the police.
14045. Students’ answers will vary. Students who
1405agree with the ruling may say that it is
1406important to protect the rights of innocent
1407people who might find themselves
1408being interrogated by the police and that
1409convicting the guilty can and should be
1410accomplished without sacrificing those
1411rights. Students who agree with the dissent
1412may say that the ruling allows criminals to
1413go unpunished because it interferes with
1414the ability of the police to obtain the
1415necessary information and confessions to
1416successfully prosecute dangerous criminals.
1417CASE STUDY 38
1418Reynolds v. Sims, 1964
14191. The Court had to decide whether
1420the state apportionment system in
1421Alabama met the equal protection standards
1422of the Fourteenth Amendment.
14232. The Court rejected the comparison for
1424two reasons: First, giving each state two
1425seats in the United States Senate was a
1426necessary compromise to create the
1427United States as a nation. Second, the
1428original states, unlike the Alabama counties,
1429are independent and sovereign and so
1430might be treated more favorably than a
1431state might treat its counties.
14323. The Reynolds v. Sims ruling would force
1433states to redistrict to assure that each
1434voting district in the state contained the
1435same number of voters.
14364. Students’ answers may vary. One possible
1437answer is that since heavily populated
1438★
1439★
1440★
1441★
1442★
1443★
1444★
1445142 Supreme Court Case Studies
1446areas like cities had been underrepresented
1447in the Alabama state legislature,
1448city dwellers would probably be
1449pleased with the Court’s ruling.
14505. Students’ answers may vary. One possible
1451answer is that the “one person, one vote”
1452principle ensures that each person’s vote
1453carries the same weight, so that everyone
1454has an equal voice in government, as a
1455true democracy requires.
1456CASE STUDY 39
1457Wesberry v. Sanders, 1964
14581. The Court’s decision says that the state
1459would have to reapportion its congressional
1460districts so that each district had about the
1461same number of people.
14622. According to Justice Black, Article I, Section
14632, of the Constitution means that all electoral
1464districts must have essentially the
1465same number of people. Representation
1466must reflect the population.
14673. Black said the Founders intended that the
1468districts within each state would have
1469essentially the same population, except
1470that a state would always have at least one
1471representative no matter how small.
14724. Justice Harlan would say that there is
1473nothing unconstitutional about the population
1474distribution described in question 1.
14755. Students’ answers will vary. Students who
1476agree with the decision may say that in a
1477democracy one person’s vote in an election
1478should be worth as much as another
1479person’s and that the Court has a responsibility
1480to see that this happens. Students
1481who disagree with the decision may say
1482that the Court had no jurisdiction to rule
1483in this case because according to the
1484Constitution the states have control of
1485their elections, subject only to the supervising
1486power of Congress, not that of the
1487Supreme Court.
1488CASE STUDY 40
1489Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States,
14901964
14911. The Court’s decision required the motel
1492to accept African American guests or, if it
1493chose not to do so, to close its business.
14942. The Court felt that accepting the constitutionality
1495of the interstate commerce question
1496was sufficient to deny the motel’s
1497appeal.
14983. Both decisions said that the commerce
1499clause was sufficient authority for Congress
1500to enact the Civil Rights Act.
15014. Students’ answers will vary. One possible
1502answer is that Justice Clark’s reputation as
1503a conservative was probably weakened
1504because conservatives normally apply strict
1505interpretations to the Constitution, whereas
1506the Court’s interpretation in this decision
1507broadened the power of the commerce
1508clause.
15095. Students’ answers will vary. Students who
1510agree with the Court’s interpretation may
1511say that the government needs to ban discrimination
1512whenever and wherever it
1513exists. Students who disagree with the
1514Court’s interpretation may say that owners
1515of private businesses should have the
1516right to choose their customers and how
1517to operate their businesses as they wish
1518without government interference.
1519CASE STUDY 41
1520Miranda v. Arizona, 1966
15211. The Supreme Court held that if a person
1522has not been informed of his or her right
1523to remain silent under interrogation, his
1524or her Fifth Amendment rights have been
1525violated.
15262. Unless an accused person has been
1527informed of his or her Miranda rights and
1528has waived those rights, a confession cannot
1529be used as evidence against that person
1530in a trial.
15313. Before questioning someone about his or
1532her involvement in a crime, a police officer
1533must inform the person of his or her
1534Miranda rights. However, if the officer is
1535just gathering information about the crime,
1536the officer may take witnesses’ statements
1537without informing them of their Miranda
1538rights.
15394. The conviction would probably be overturned.
15405. Students’ answers will vary. Students who
1541agree may say that justice is not served by
1542warning a criminal that he or she should
1543not speak without the presence of a
1544lawyer. In some cases a criminal might be
1545inclined to confess to a crime but will not
1546do so if he or she is warned not to.
1547Students who disagree may say that a person
1548in police custody is under severe pressure
1549and emotional stress and, therefore,
1550may have a reduced capacity for good
1551judgment. For this reason having counsel
1552present during an interrogation is vital in
1553order to protect the person’s legal rights.
1554CASE STUDY 42
1555Sheppard v. Maxwell, 1966
15561. The pretrial publicity and the circus
1557atmosphere made it impossible for
1558Sheppard to receive a fair trial, thus
1559depriving him of his due process rights
1560protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
15612. The Supreme Court said that the trial
1562judge might have prevented lawyers and
1563others from discussing certain aspects of
1564the case, might have warned the press
1565about publishing material that had not
1566been part of the court’s proceedings,
1567might have shielded the jury from the
1568onslaught of press coverage, and might
1569have asked local officials to regulate the
1570dissemination of information by their
1571employees.
15723. Students’ answers will vary. One possible
1573answer is that a truly professional reporter
1574probably would have welcomed the
1575Court’s decision because the responsibility
1576of the press is to publish facts about a
1577trial, not to focus on the sensational
1578aspects surrounding a high-profile case.
1579A reporter only interested in publishing
1580sensational stories would probably have
1581resented the decision.
15824. Students’ answers will vary. Some students
1583may say that televising trials helps to educate
1584the public about the justice system.
1585Others may say that television can
1586increase the public’s interest in a trial to
1587the point that public reaction might influence
1588the outcome and, therefore, the fairness
1589of a trial.
15905. Sheppard’s second trial was probably
1591conducted in a more orderly, restrained
1592fashion.
1593CASE STUDY 43
1594Katz v. United States, 1967
15951. Students’ answers will vary. Students who
1596agree with Justice Stewart’s opinion may
1597say that the Fourth Amendment protects
1598individuals’ right to privacy and that
1599police should not in any way violate this
1600constitutional right in order to gather
1601evidence. Students who agree with Justice
1602Black’s opinion may say that the Fourth
1603Amendment guarantees protection for
1604people to be secure in their persons,
1605houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable
1606searches and seizures, but the
1607amendment does not protect telephone
1608conversations in public booths.
16092. The FBI could have applied for, and on the
1610facts of this case, almost certainly would
1611have obtained a warrant to record Katz’s
1612telephone conversations.
16133. The individual did not meet Harlan’s first
1614test: that he expected the conversation to
1615be private.
16164. The Court’s decision probably would not
1617apply since no wiretap was involved and
1618the police officer did not plan to overhear
1619the conversation.
16205. A literal interpretation means that Justice
1621Black looked only at the words of the
1622Constitution and not for their broader
1623implications in the modern world.
1624CASE STUDY 44
1625Gregory v. Chicago, 1969
16261. Chief Justice Warren found that Illinois
1627mistakenly assumed the marchers were
1628charged with refusal to obey a police officer
1629when they were actually charged with
1630holding a demonstration.
16312. Justice Black charged that the disorderly
1632conduct statute was unconstitutionally
1633vague.
16343. The Court’s decision supported the First
1635Amendment’s protection of the right to
1636free speech and peaceable assembly.
16374. Students’ answers may vary. One
1638possible answer is that the police may
1639have believed that if the demonstration
1640★
1641★
1642★
1643★
1644★
1645★
1646Supreme Court Case Studies 143
1647stopped, the violence by the neighborhood
1648crowd would also stop.
16495. No. The police, for example, could have
1650arrested the marchers if they had responded
1651to the neighborhood crowd by attacking
1652them physically.
1653CASE STUDY 45
1654New York Times v. United States, 1971
16551. Answers will vary. Justices may have felt
1656that the reasoning behind their individual
1657conclusions was important, not only to
1658the public, but also in future cases with
1659similar issues. Because many war protesters
1660mistrusted the government and
1661believed officials were withholding information
1662from the public with regard to the
1663war, the justices may have felt a need to
1664reaffirm the public’s confidence that constitutional
1665guarantees still protected their
1666rights.
16672. The case advanced rapidly because the
1668Times had already begun preparations for
1669publishing the Pentagon Papers, and if
1670publication was to be stopped permanently,
1671the case would have to be decided
1672quickly.
16733. This case is important because it established
1674the First Amendment’s nearabsolute
1675ban on official restriction before
1676the act of publication.
16774. Justice Black said that even the original
1678injunction should have been denied on
1679First Amendment grounds because the
1680press was protected so that it could bare
1681the secrets of government and inform the
1682people.
16835. Students’ answers will vary. Students who
1684support the New York Times may say that
1685freedom of the press needs to be protected
1686so that the press can report the facts
1687behind the government’s actions and can
1688keep the people informed. Students who
1689agree with the government’s position may
1690say that secrecy in government is necessary,
1691and that disclosure of government
1692secrets sometimes can cause difficulties.
1693CASE STUDY 46
1694Reed v. Reed, 1971
16951. Students’ answers will vary. Possible
1696answers might be that the hostility
1697between the parents was so intense that
1698each would go to almost any length to
1699outdo the other. Another answer might be
1700that some outside organization saw in this
1701case the possibility of overturning yet
1702another example of discrimination against
1703women. (This in fact was true, since several
1704briefs by “friends of the court” were
1705filed by representatives of civil liberties
1706organizations and women’s groups.)
17072. The Idaho supreme court reversed the
1708intermediate appellate court on the
1709grounds that the choice of men over
1710women was required by Idaho law and
1711that the statute gave courts no discretion
1712to depart from its terms.
17133. Students’ answers may vary. One likely
1714possibility would be that no extended discussion
1715was required because the facts of
1716the case bore out a clear violation of the
1717equal protection clause of the Fourteenth
1718Amendment.
17194. Students’ answers may vary. One possibility
1720may be that the justices might have
1721ruled that the Court should not interfere
1722with the administrative requirements of a
1723state.
17245. Students’ answers may vary. A possible
1725conclusion may be that the Supreme
1726Court of 1971 was very forthright in ruling
1727against any form that a violation of
1728equal rights might take.
1729CASE STUDY 47
1730Wisconsin v. Yoder, 1972
17311. Students’ answers will vary. Those who
1732agree with the Court’s decision may say
1733that the state’s power to impose educational
1734regulations must be balanced
1735against the traditional interests of longestablished
1736religious groups, as these
1737groups are protected from governmental
1738interference by the First and Fourteenth
1739Amendments. Students who agree with
1740Justice Douglas’s dissenting opinion may
1741note that Douglas raised another issue in
1742the case when he argued that parents’
1743beliefs about education should not be
1744imposed on their children. The class may
1745want to discuss the role of parents versus
1746the state in education and also whether
1747Douglas’s statement that religion is an
1748individual experience means that parents
1749do not have the right to impose religious
1750beliefs on their children.
17512. Students’ answers will vary. One possible
1752answer is that the Court’s decision may
1753not protect this religious group from government
1754regulation because the group
1755has only a five year history, whereas the
1756Amish, about which the Court made its
1757decision, were a religious sect with a long
1758history of demonstrated beliefs.
17593. Students’ answers may vary. One possible
1760answer is that the Wisconsin v. Yoder decision
1761defined some limits on the government’s
1762power to regulate religious schools,
1763especially those schools representing a
1764long history of demonstrated religious
1765beliefs. Since the schools administered by
1766Orthodox Jews also represent a long history
1767of demonstrated religious beliefs, the
1768Court’s decision would probably strengthen
1769the position of those Orthodox Jews
1770who are opposed to governmental interference
1771in their educational system.
17724. Students’ answers will vary. Those who
1773agree with critics of the Wisconsin v. Yoder
1774decision may say that in a democracy, it is
1775in a state’s interest to have educated citizens;
1776therefore, the state’s education
1777requirement should apply to all citizens,
1778and that the Court’s decision set a precedent
1779that gave one group the authority to
1780defy the state’s education requirements,
1781thus weakening the state’s authority in
1782educational matters. Students who disagree
1783with the critics may say that freedom
1784of religion is a basic right guaranteed
1785by the First and Fourteenth Amendments
1786and that the state should not interfere
1787with a parent’s legitimate right to provide
1788his or her child with a religious education.
1789CASE STUDY 48
1790Roe v. Wade, 1973
17911. The Court extended an individual’s
1792constitutional right to privacy to include
1793activities related to marriage, procreation,
1794contraception, and the termination of a
1795pregnancy.
17962. A state may regulate procedures and conditions
1797under which abortions are performed
1798after the first trimester and before
1799fetal viability. At the point when the fetus
1800is capable of living outside the womb, the
1801state may forbid abortions unless the life
1802of the mother is threatened.
18033. The reasoning underlying the Court’s
1804decision was based on medical knowledge
1805that divided a woman’s pregnancy into
1806trimesters and evidence showing abortion
1807early in pregnancy is safer than childbirth.
18084. Justice Rehnquist doubted that the constitutional
1809rights of liberty were so broad
1810that they prohibited a state from regulating
1811abortion during the first trimester.
18125. Students’ answers will vary. Possible answer:
1813Some key definitions related to the abortion
1814issue were not resolved by the Court’s
1815decision, such as when life begins, when
1816the “point of viability” occurs, and what
1817constituted exceptions to the prohibition
1818or regulation of late-term abortions “to
1819preserve maternal health,” because maternal
1820health is also not defined.
1821CASE STUDY 49
1822United States v. Nixon, 1974
18231. The president claimed a need to protect
1824the confidentiality of high-level communications
1825and to protect the independence
1826of the executive branch through the separation
1827of powers.
18282. No, the Court held that executive privilege
1829may be invoked for situations in which
1830the president needs to protect “military,
1831diplomatic, or sensitive national security
1832secrets.”
18333. Students’ answers will vary. Students who
1834agree that a president must reveal material
1835for a criminal trial may say that an individual
1836cannot receive a fair trial unless he
1837or she has access to all relevant information
1838and evidence concerning the crime.
1839Students who disagree may say that a
1840president needs to be able to keep conversations
1841with others confidential, otherwise
1842advisers will be hesitant to speak freely
1843and to provide the president with needed
1844information and advice.
1845★
1846★
1847★
1848★
1849★
1850144 Supreme Court Case Studies
18514. The Court forced President Nixon to turn
1852the tapes over to the federal trial court,
1853and their contents revealed that he had
1854violated federal laws through his efforts to
1855withhold and cover up information pertinent
1856to a federal crime.
18575. The statement means that in our
1858government even a president is not above
1859the law and that this case reinforced the
1860democratic nature of our government.
1861CASE STUDY 50
1862Gregg v. Georgia, 1976
18631. Gregg faced execution.
18642. Students’ answers may vary. One possible
1865answer is that the defendant’s previous
1866conviction for capital murder or a history
1867of serious assaultive criminal convictions.”
18683. In the Gregg case the Court squarely
1869upheld the death penalty.
18704. The Court found it to be valid if the punishment
1871did not involve the unnecessary
1872and wanton infliction of pain and was
1873proportionate in severity with that of the
1874crime.
18755. Students’ answers will vary. Justice
1876Marshall argued that capital punishment
1877served no useful purpose because it did
1878not deter crime. Justice Brennan argued
1879that the death penalty treated members of
1880the human race as nonhumans. Students
1881who view the issue in its practical implications
1882might agree with Justice Marshall
1883and conclude that the death penalty
1884should then be allowed if and when it is
1885proven to deter crime. Those who view
1886capital punishment from a more moralistic
1887viewpoint would probably agree with
1888Justice Brennan’s view that the practice
1889violates human dignity. Some students
1890might argue that Brennan’s arguments are
1891more persuasive because Marshall’s arguments
1892allow for circumstances in which
1893he might find capital punishment acceptable,
1894should it be proven to deter crime.
1895CASE STUDY 51
1896Regents of the University of
1897California v. Bakke, 1978
18981. The Court ruled that the university’s special
1899admissions program was unconstitutional
1900because it gave preference to a
1901group of individuals based solely on the
1902individual’s race or ethnic origin.
19032. The Court suggested that the medical
1904school devise an admissions program that
1905makes race one factor among others in a
1906competition for all available places.
19073. The Court ruling was a victory for Bakke
1908because he finally could be admitted to the
1909medical school.
19104. Students’ answers may vary. One possibility
1911is that an African American student
1912would probably stand a better chance
1913under the medical school’s original plan
1914because that plan used a separate admission
1915process that favored minority students,
1916while under the Court’s plan, race
1917would be only one criterion used for
1918admission.
19195. Students’ answers will vary. Students who
1920deny that the Court’s ruling was a death
1921blow to affirmative action may say that
1922the Court still allowed for racial and ethnic
1923criteria to be used for admissions purposes
1924but not as the sole criterion. Other
1925students may say that before the Court’s
1926decision, minority students were accepted
1927at many schools for the purpose of racial
1928balance and fairness; if schools do not pursue
1929this as a goal, their need to include
1930minority students will diminish.
1931CASE STUDY 52
1932Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical
1933Corporation (and United Steelworkers
1934of America) v. Weber, 1979
19351. A literal reading of Title VII did not take
1936into account the spirit of the law and the
1937intention of Congress, which was to break
1938down the old patterns of racial segregation
1939and hierarchy in employment and to
1940provide opportunities for African
1941Americans in occupations that had been
1942traditionally closed to them.
19432. Students’ answers will vary. Students who
1944support Justice Brennan’s actions may say
1945that it was important for him to understand
1946Congress’s intention in passing the
1947law before he made a decision about the
1948case. Students who think Justice Brennan’s
1949opinion was incorrect and inappropriate
1950may say that Congress’s intentions were
1951not relevant, that the case should have
1952been decided solely on what was said or
1953not said in the statute.
19543. Students’ answers will vary. Students who
1955agree with the majority opinion may say
1956that the company’s plan broadened
1957opportunities for African Americans by
1958offering them opportunities that had been
1959traditionally closed to them, and that any
1960adverse aspects of the plan for other individuals
1961were only temporary. Students
1962who agree with the dissent may say that
1963the company’s plan was unconstitutional
1964because it discriminated against some individuals
1965by giving preferential treatment to
1966others.
19674. Students’ answers will vary. One possible
1968answer is that without the decision the
1969company’s attempts to open employment
1970opportunities to all would have slowed or
1971been deferred.
19725. Students’ answers will vary. Some students
1973may be willing to sacrifice their own
1974opportunity because achieving racial balance
1975in employment is extremely important
1976to the future of the country as a
1977whole. Other students may say that they
1978would not support discrimination under
1979any circumstances, even for a greater
1980good.
1981CASE STUDY 53
1982New Jersey v. T.L.O., 1985
19831. Police officers usually must have probable
1984cause, while school officials need only
1985have reasonable grounds for a search.
19862. The Court felt that school officials must
1987have the authority to maintain order and
1988discipline in the schools.
19893. Students’ answers will vary. Students who
1990think the search was reasonable may say
1991that T.L.O. was caught violating the school
1992smoking rule, so it was reasonable for the
1993assistant vice-principal to search her purse
1994in order to confiscate any cigarettes she
1995might still have. Students who think the
1996search was unreasonable may say that
1997T.L.O. should have been punished for smoking
1998in school but that her privacy should
1999not have been invaded.
20004. No, school officials need to have reasonable
2001grounds for suspecting that the
2002search will turn up evidence that the student
2003has violated or is violating either the
2004law or the rules of the school.
20055. Students’ answers will vary. Students who
2006agree with the Court’s decision may say
2007that school officials need the flexibility to
2008deal with problem students immediately
2009in order to maintain order and discipline.
2010To ensure the safety of the other students,
2011they sometimes cannot wait for search
2012warrants and other legal procedures before
2013taking action. Students who agree with the
2014dissent may say that students are citizens
2015and, as such, are entitled to the same rights
2016and protections as other citizens.
2017CASE STUDY 54
2018Wallace v. Jaffree, 1985
20191. The Alabama law was intended to provide
2020public school students a daily opportunity
2021to pray silently in the classroom on a voluntary
2022basis.
20232. The Court ruled that the Alabama law was
2024an effort to promote prayer in the public
2025schools and thus violated the First
2026Amendment.
20273. Justice O’Connor probably would not
2028have objected to Alabama’s law on constitutional
2029grounds if the law had not mentioned
2030religion because she believes that a
2031moment of silence without the stated purpose
2032of promoting religion is, in itself, not
2033unconstitutional.
20344. Chief Justice Burger maintained that the
2035only reason the Court found Alabama’s
2036law unconstitutional was that the law used
2037the word prayer and that the intended
2038purpose of the Alabama law was no more
2039unconstitutional than the use of chaplains
2040in state legislatures and Congress.
20415. Students’ opinions will differ. Students
2042who agree with Justice Stevens may say
2043that government should be completely
2044neutral toward religion and that
2045Alabama’s law clearly sent a message of
2046approval for prayer, which is an inappro★
2047★
2048★
2049★
2050★
2051Supreme Court Case Studies 145
2052priate message to be given to public
2053school students. Students who agree with
2054Chief Justice Burger’s dissent may say that
2055the Alabama legislature did not endorse
2056religion because voluntary prayer was
2057only one of the authorized activities
2058during the moment of silence. The law
2059allowed students freedom to pray or not
2060to pray and that as Justice O’Connor
2061pointed out: “During a moment of
2062silence, a student who objects to prayer is
2063left to his or her own thoughts, and is not
2064compelled to listen to the prayers or
2065thoughts of others.”
2066CASE STUDY 55
2067Bethel School District v. Fraser, 1986
20681. The Court ruled that schools have a basic
2069responsibility to prepare students for
2070responsible citizenship; thus, the Court
2071considered it appropriate for school
2072officials to insist that students stay within
2073the boundaries of socially appropriate
2074behavior.
20752. Unlike Tinker in which students wore
2076armbands to school to protest the Vietnam
2077War, the Fraser case involved a student’s
2078objectionable and disruptive, but essentially
2079nonpolitical, speech.
20803. Students’ answers may vary. One possibility
2081is that the Court would probably have
2082ruled that school authorities would have
2083no right to punish a student for speech or
2084action that did not disrupt the school’s
2085basic educational mission.
20864. The Court ruled that students do not necessarily
2087have the same First Amendment
2088rights as adults because freedom of speech
2089must be balanced against society’s countervailing
2090interest in teaching students
2091the boundaries of socially appropriate
2092behavior.
20935. Students’ opinions will differ. Students
2094who agree with the Court’s ruling may say
2095that school teachers and administrators
2096need to be able to prevent or to discipline
2097student behavior that undermines the
2098school’s basic educational mission.
2099Students who disagree may say that the
2100First Amendment should apply to all citizens
2101regardless of their ages or occupations
2102and that by putting age limitations
2103on the protection of speech, the Court has
2104weakened the First Amendment.
2105CASE STUDY 56
2106Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier,
21071988
21081. The Court reasoned that a school newspaper
2109is part of the school curriculum rather
2110than a public forum and, as a result, needs
2111to be under the control of the school
2112officials.
21132. In the Tinker case the students were
2114expressing their own political opinions
2115about the Vietnam War, while in the
2116Hazelwood case the student newspaper was
2117part of the school curriculum and was a
2118tool for teaching and learning.
21193. Justice Brennan feared that the decision
2120would teach students to discount the
2121important principles of our government
2122as mere platitudes instead of teaching
2123them to respect the diversity of ideas that
2124is fundamental to the American system.
21254. Students’ answers will vary. One possibility
2126is that the principal might have discussed
2127his “serious doubts” about the
2128articles with the journalism teacher and
2129students in an effort to reach a consensus
2130about how to solve the privacy and ethical
2131problems before publication.
2132CASE STUDY 57
2133Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives
2134Association, 1989
21351. The FRA issued new regulations after
2136drunkenness and the use of drugs by railroad
2137employees while on the job continued
2138despite earlier regulations against the
2139use of intoxicants while on the job.
21402. The Court ruled that the public’s right to
2141safety outweighed the employees’ privacy
2142rights.
21433. Railroad passengers would most likely
2144favor Justice Kennedy’s opinion because
2145it gave greater weight to public safety,
2146including passenger safety, than Justice
2147Marshall’s opinion.
21484. Justice Marshall suggested that fellow
2149workers might provide evidence of
2150impaired behavior or that only workers
2151who showed some signs of impairment
2152should be tested.
21535. Students’ answers will vary. Some students
2154may say that the Court ruling weakens
2155Fourth Amendment protections but that
2156public safety is more important than the
2157rights of a few railroad workers. Other
2158students may say that Fourth Amendment
2159guarantees against search and seizure have
2160been severely weakened because railroad
2161authorities are not required to show probable
2162cause or even individualized suspicion
2163prior to requiring a search, and that
2164blood and urine testing allowed by the
2165ruling is especially invasive.
2166CASE STUDY 58
2167Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department
2168of Health, 1990
21691. The Court ruling meant that the hospital
2170would continue to keep Nancy Cruzan
2171alive on life-support systems.
21722. No. The Court stated that a living will
2173executed by a patient would permit the
2174withdrawal of the life-support systems.
21753. None. Justice Brennan believed that there
2176was a fundamental right to be free of
2177unwanted medical treatment.
21784. The Court deals only with constitutional
2179issues and does not enter into the realm of
2180morality.
21815. Students’ answers will vary. Some students
2182may say that it is immoral to prolong a
2183person’s life using artificial means if the
2184person is in a persistent vegetative state
2185without any hope of recovering, and that,
2186in the absence of a living will, the family,
2187not the state, should be making decisions
2188for a loved one. Other students may say
2189that the state should not allow family
2190members the legal right to make lifeending
2191medical decisions without some
2192prior written permission from the patient
2193or some other substantial proof that the
2194family member’s views are the same as the
2195patient’s.
2196CASE STUDY 59
2197California v. Acevedo, 1991
21981. The Court believed that the police officers’
2199search of the bag in Acevedo’s car
2200without a warrant did not violate
2201Acevedo’s Fourth Amendment protections
2202because they had probable cause, so their
2203search was reasonable and their seizure of
2204the bag of marijuana was legal.
22052. Unless the police had probable cause to
2206suspect you of carrying illegal materials
2207on your person or in your car, they could
2208not legally search you or your car.
22093. Students’ answers will vary. Students who
2210agree with Justice Blackmun may say that
2211once probable cause is established, the
2212police should be able to search and, if necessary,
2213seize both the contents of the automobile
2214and the contents of any container
2215found in the automobile. Students who
2216agree with Justice Scalia may say that the
2217Fourth Amendment does not require a
2218prior warrant for searches and seizures; it
2219only prohibits searches and seizures that
2220are unreasonable; and the police should be
2221able to conduct searches or seizures for
2222which they have probable cause and which
2223they consider reasonable. Students who
2224agree with Justice Stevens may say that an
2225individual’s privacy is most important,
2226and that according to the Fourth
2227Amendment, police need to obtain a warrant
2228before they have the legal right to
2229search an individual’s house or property.
22304. Students’ answers will vary. Students who
2231think that police benefited from the decision
2232may say it has enabled the police to
2233conduct searches or seizures without
2234being concerned that their actions are illegal
2235and that they can now search and seize
2236evidence without getting a prior warrant
2237as long as the search is considered reasonable—which
2238generally means being supported
2239by probable cause. Students who
2240think that individuals benefited from the
2241decision may say that the decision has
2242done much to clarify when a police search
2243and/or seizure is or is not legal, and it will
2244limit police searches and seizures to only
2245those in which the police have probable
2246cause for their actions.
22475. Students’ answers will vary. One possible
2248answer is that the Court began to make
2249clear what the term unreasonable, as stated
2250★
2251★
2252★
2253★
2254★
2255146 Supreme Court Case Studies
2256in the Fourth Amendment, means because
2257the Court ruled in this specific case
2258that the police explanation of probable
2259cause for their search and seizure was
2260reasonable.
2261CASE STUDY 60
2262International Union, UAW v. Johnson
2263Controls, Inc., 1991
22641. Johnson Controls, Inc., knew that lead
2265exposure might harm a woman’s unborn
2266fetus.
22672. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits
2268gender discrimination in hiring policies,
2269and Johnson Controls excluded fertile
2270females but not fertile males from holding
2271a certain type of job.
22723. The Court said the woman herself, and
2273not the employer, should make the decision
2274whether she should work at a leadexposing
2275job.
22764. Judge White thought that companies
2277might want to exclude women from certain
2278jobs to avoid being sued by workers
2279or their children who have been harmed
2280because of hazardous working conditions.
22815. Students’ answers will vary. Students who
2282agree with the Court’s ruling may say that
2283it is illegal for a company to discriminate
2284against women in its hiring policies and
2285women, as well as men, should have the
2286right to make an informed choice as to
2287whether they want to work in hazardous
2288conditions. Students who disagree with
2289the Court’s ruling may say that the state
2290has a duty to protect the health of an
2291unborn fetus if a parent chooses to
2292endanger it.
2293CASE STUDY 61
2294Payne v. Tennessee, 1991
22951. Victim impact evidence is a presentation of
2296the emotional injury and other damaging
2297effects a crime has on a victim’s family and
2298friends.
22992. In the first phase of a capital murder trial,
2300the jury decides whether or not a defendant
2301is guilty. In the sentencing phase of
2302the trial, the jury fixes or recommends a
2303sentence.
23043. Students’ answers may vary. One possible
2305answer is that since they recommended the
2306death penalty, members of the jury evidently
2307gave very little weight to the testimony
2308of Payne’s witnesses.
23094. Students’ answers will differ, but they may
2310include these ideas: that a sentence should
2311be based solely on evidence of the crime
2312presented during the first phase of a trial;
2313that since each side in the penalty phase
2314of a trial is interested only in pressing for
2315its advantage, the material presented at
2316this phase is most likely skewed or biased
2317and is therefore not worthwhile; that evidence
2318about the victim’s character has
2319nothing to do with the blameworthiness
2320of the defendant; and that admitting victim
2321impact evidence may encourage a jury
2322to recommend a punishment based on
2323the worthiness or unworthiness of the
2324victim or the degree of loss to a family or
2325community.
23265. Supreme Court decisions provide guidelines
2327for Congress, state legislatures, and
2328federal and state courts as to what is or is
2329not constitutional. Changing these legal
2330guidelines can cause confusion and cast
2331doubt on the integrity of the judicial
2332process.
2333CASE STUDY 62
2334Arizona v. Fulminante, 1991
23351. The original trial court judged
2336Fulminante’s confessions to have been
2337voluntary, denied his motion to suppress
2338them as coerced, and convicted
2339Fulminante of murder. The Arizona
2340supreme court reversed Fulminante’s conviction
2341and ordered that he be retried
2342without the use of the first confession,
2343which the Arizona supreme court judged
2344to be coerced.
23452. A harmless error is an error that (applying
2346the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard)
2347is deemed not to have affected the outcome
2348of a case.
23493. Fulminante claimed his confession should
2350not be admissible as evidence against him
2351because he said it was coerced and that
2352admitting it as evidence against him at
2353trial was a possible violation of his right
2354to due process under the Fifth and
2355Fourteenth Amendments.
23564. The 1967 ruling said that a coerced confession
2357can never be considered “harmless
2358error” and was always grounds for overturning
2359a conviction. The ruling in the
2360Fulminante case set a new precedent: that
2361a coerced confession introduced at trial, in
2362itself, does not necessarily require that a
2363conviction be reversed.
23645. Students’ answers will vary. Students who
2365agree with the Court’s reasoning in 1967
2366may point out that a confession would
2367have such a powerful effect on the jury
2368that it could never be considered harmless
2369error if it was discovered to be coerced
2370after the confession was presented at trial.
2371Students who disagree with the Court’s
2372reasoning in 1967 may say that each case
2373is different from every other case and
2374should be decided on the merits of the
2375particular case. There could be some situations
2376in which a coerced confession does
2377not impact the court’s decision to the
2378extent that a conviction would have to
2379be overturned.
2380CASE STUDY 63
2381Shaw v. Reno, 1993
23821. The boundaries for the Twelfth District
2383were created to increase minority representation
2384in Congress.
23852. Five white citizens in the Twelfth District
2386claimed that their right to equal protection
2387under the law, as stated in the
2388Fourteenth Amendment, had been
2389violated.
23903. The Court was not opposed to creating
2391districts on the basis of race. It objected to
2392districts that were based solely on race.
2393Race could be taken into account as long
2394as traditional districting principles were
2395also followed—compactness, contiguity,
2396and respect for political divisions.
23974. Justice Stevens criticized the Court’s
2398emphasis on the shape of a district
2399because he believed that discriminatory
2400racial gerrymandering could occur just as
2401easily in a regularly shaped district as in
2402an oddly shaped district. He stated impartiality
2403is violated when a group with
2404power over the election process defines
2405electoral boundaries to enhance its own
2406political strength at the expense of
2407minorities, but that impartiality is not
2408violated when the majority facilitates the
2409election of a member from the minority.
24105. Students’ answers will vary. Students who
2411favor creating minority districts may say
2412that minority representation in Congress
2413and in state legislatures is important for
2414justice and fairness in this country, otherwise
2415minority voters do not have equal
2416protection under the law, and that white
2417voters have not been harmed. Students
2418who oppose gerrymandering may say that
2419the practice was reprehensible when it was
2420used to keep African Americans out of
2421power, and the practice is just as objectionable
2422now even if it is used to accomplish
2423a reverse purpose.
2424CASE STUDY 64
2425National Organization for Women (NOW)
2426v. Scheidler, 1994
24271. The RICO Act was originally passed to
2428make it illegal for organized criminals to
2429use violence or extortion to shut down
2430businesses.
24312. Students’ answers may vary. Those who
2432believe that the Court should have
2433enforced the statute as written may argue
2434that it is the Supreme Court’s responsibility
2435to determine the intent of the law—
2436using a broad interpretation. Those who
2437believe the Court should have enforced
2438the intent of Congress may argue that
2439Congress was specific about the intent of
2440RICO. The law was intended to combat
2441criminal activity such as bribery, extortion,
2442and racketeering.
24433. The Court ruled that RICO, although it
2444was intended to punish criminals, applied
2445to the NOW case, even if the group
2446involved did not have any financial
2447motive.
24484. The Court’s decision did not punish
2449Scheidler and the others. It sent the case
2450back to a district court for retrial.
2451★
2452★
2453★
2454★
2455★
2456Supreme Court Case Studies 147
24575. Justices Souter and Kennedy urged the
2458courts to use prudence because of the
2459“First Amendment rights that could be
2460at stake.”
2461CASE STUDY 65
2462Agostini v. Felton, 1997
24631. Public school teachers could provide
2464remedial instruction to parochial school
2465students on the premises of their
2466parochial schools.
24672. The mayor was delighted that the city
2468would no longer have to spend money to
2469lease vans in which to provide remedial
2470instruction for parochial school students.
24713. The Court said that it would no longer
2472judge religion-related cases on the basis of
2473the three presumptions that it had previously
2474held.
24754. Students’ answers may vary. One possible
2476answer is that while it is always risky to predict
2477how the Supreme Court is likely to
2478rule, the decision in the Agostini case indicates
2479that the Court had created a more
2480receptive climate for church-state cases.
24815. Students’ answers will vary. Students who
2482agree with the decision may say that
2483remedial instruction paid for with federal
2484tax money should be available to all children
2485who need it no matter what their
2486religious beliefs or where they go to
2487school as long as the instruction does not
2488promote religion. Students who disagree
2489may say that the decision encourages an
2490entanglement between teachers paid with
2491public money and parochial schools and
2492thus erodes the principle of separation
2493between church and state which is fundamental
2494to the Constitution.
2495CASE STUDY 66
2496Illinois v. Wardlow, 2000
24971. The Court said that a location’s
2498characteristics are relevant in helping
2499determine whether the circumstances
2500warrant further investigation.
25012. The lower courts believed that merely
2502fleeing from the scene was not sufficient
2503to create reasonable suspicion.
25043. Answers will vary. Students may agree
2505with the lower courts that Wardlow’s
2506behavior was not reasonably suspicious,
2507or they may take into consideration that
2508flight in an area of drug trafficking is reasonably
2509suspicious.
25104. No. The evidence that was seized is not
2511the issue in this case. The conduct of the
2512officers in the stop and search is the constitutional
2513issue.
25145. Police officers may be less concerned with
2515the constitutionality of stop and frisk
2516searches.
2517CASE STUDY 67
2518Alexander v. Sandoval, 2001
25191. The state had amended its constitution to
2520make English the official language. This
2521meant that such tests would have to be
2522given in English.
25232. Sandoval cited Title VI of the Civil Rights
2524Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination
2525on the basis of national origin.
25263. The majority believed that Title VI did
2527not provide a “private right of action” for
2528a citizen who felt discriminated against if
2529the state policy was not intentionally discriminatory.
25304. Justice Stevens pointed out that the Court
2531had ruled in prior decisions that a private
2532right of action exists. He believed the justices
2533were not interested in applying the
2534intent of Title VI.
25355. Answers will vary. Students may support
2536English as the official language as a policy
2537not directed against any individual or
2538group. Others may believe that such a
2539policy will necessarily put some groups at
2540a disadvantage.
2541CASE STUDY 68
2542Whitman v. American Trucking
2543Associations, 2001
25441. Congress has responsibility to pass laws.
2545In this case, the issue was whether a federal
2546agency had assumed the power of
2547Congress.
25482. The lower courts believed that Congress
2549had delegated too much power to the
2550EPA.
25513. The Supreme Court held that the Clean
2552Air Act provided enough guidance for the
2553EPA to make decisions about NAAQS.
25544. The Supreme Court said that these laws
2555should specify what decision-making
2556authority the agencies have in carrying
2557out the laws Congress has passed.
25585. This ruling provides support for federal
2559agencies to make decisions that support
2560the intent of congressional legislation.
2561★
2562★
2563★
2564★
2565148 Supreme Court Case Studies