Civil+Liberties

Landmark Supreme Court cases research
toc

For the following decisions dealing with Civil Liberties, do the following: 1. Explain the basic facts of the case. Include who the plaintiff and defendant are. 2. What was the Supreme Court’s decision? 3. In making its decision, on what precedence and/or constitutional principles did the court rely? Did the decision overturn previous precedence? 4. Was there a concurring opinion or dissenting opinion? What was the reasoning for these? 5. What lasting impact did this case decision have on civil liberties?

// Barron v. Baltimore //
1. Barron v. Mayor of Baltimore was argued and decided in 1833. In this case, John Barron, the owner of a "busy wharf", sued the city of Baltimore for violating his Fifth Amendment protection. Specifically, Barron argued that Baltimore "deprived him of his property" by taking "private property without just compensation". Baltimore was accused of violating his property rights by dumping earth from a road construction project into Baltimore Harbor. Baltimore's dumping made the wharf inaccessible (it was too shallow). A state court ruled in favor of Barron initially (awarding $4500 in damages), but an appellate court reversed that decision. 2. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the Bill of Rights and its protections did not apply to the states. As such, it dismissed Barron's case. 3. Under Chief Justice John Marshall, the court explained that "amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the State governments." The Supreme Court interpreted the Constitution to only apply to the federal government, which it created, and not state governments, for which it did not create. It did not overturn previous precedence. 4. There was no concurring, nor dissenting opinion. 5. This case decision set precedence by determining that states were not limited by the Bill of Rights, but state courts generally continued to apply the Bill of Rights as applicable, on the basis that the Bill of Rights fell under the concept of "common law". However, Barron v. Baltimore "prevailed in federal courts" and the Supreme Court reaffirmed this in United States v. Cruikshank. It was eventually overturned by the application of the Fourteenth Amendment's "due process clause" (prohibiting states from taking away citizens' property without due process). The result, the extension of many of the Bill of Rights protections "to the relationship between citizens and their states", is termed selective incorporation.

[Sources: http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendV_due_processs26.html http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/antebellum/landmark_barron.html]

Note from teacher: This ruling was an early "incorporation" decision, allowing states to circumvent some of the protections in the Bill of Rights

//Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow//
1 . Elk Grove Unified School District vs. Newdow was filed in 2000 and decided in 2004. It was an appeal sent to the Supreme Court that debated the violation of the First Amendment and the Establishment Clause. Michael Newdow, the plaintiff, was a non-custodial parent from Sacramento that sued the Elk Grove Unified School District, the defendant, for forcing his daughter to hear and recite the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance every morning. He claimed this phrase was an unconstitutional way of establishing a faith. He believed it hurt his daughter’s ability to freely exercise spirituality without the religious bias everyday. Though the District Court had dismissed him before, he appealed and was heard by the Supreme Court. 2. The Supreme Court had to decide two things. One was if Newdow was a legitimate parent to challenge this policy considering the mother had sole custody of his daughter. Secondly, they had to decide whether this phrase was, in fact, constitutional. His ex-wife, Sandra Banning, had previously filed a motion to intervene with the case saying she had exclusive custody and did not feel it was in her daughter’s interest to be represented by Newdow. Justice John Paul Stevens voiced his opinion on this case. The Supreme Court found that Newdow did not have standing to bring this suit because he didn’t have custody. Newdow attempted to sue as a “next friend”, a term that refers to a person who represents another whose under disability or unable to maintain a suit for themselves. The court still decided that he did not have standing, and thus the court never touched the question of constitutionality. Justices like Sandra Day O’Connor, Clarence Thomas, and Renquist all wrote concurrences. 3. The Court relied on the precedent that a legal guardian or parent is the only one who has custody of their child. However, for the second part of the case that was settled in 2010, they relied on the Establishment Cause. The Court upheld that this phrase in no way constituted an establishment of a national religion. They stood by the idea that this was not a “law respecting an establishment of religion” as stated in the clause of the First Amendment. This decision did not overturn the previous precedence. The court has always upheld the phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance and never allowed adults without custody to represent a child in court. 4. There was absolutely no dissenting opinion. Each of the judges voted for Elk Grove Unified School District. This is simply because they weren’t able to address the issue of the Pledge of Allegiance. They were stopped at the decision of whether he had power to defend his daughter. The fact that he did not have any form of custody made it easy for all judges to agree Newdow was not a “next friend” of his daughters. His mother, as a legal guardian, had authority to defend her daughter and bring up the case if she like. However, it was not Newdow’s authority or right to speak on his daughter’s behalf. 5. This court case left a lot to still be said on the issue. Because it remained unresolved, it opened up the argument for another person—one who is an actual legal guardian—to pick up after. The only effect it left was on custody. It established that if a person did not have custody or was a legal guardian of a minor, they did not have the right to sue or speak on their behalf if that child already has a parent to represent them. Being a biological parent doesn’t matter. This limited the role of “next friends”. However, this case lead to several other attempts to modify the allegiance. In 2005, a suit was filed on behalf of three unnamed families. Another case in Florida entitled Frazier v. Alexandre attempted to stop the allegiance all together, saying it violated the first and fourteenth amendment. The most recent action was taken in March of 2010, where the Ninth Circuit of the United States Court of Appeal upheld the use of “under God” in Newdow vs. Rio Linda Union School District. The final decision stated that this practice was of “ceremonial and patriotic nature” and did not establish a religion. Critics still feel the affect of this decision stifles our civil liberties and continue to fight to eradicate it. Sources: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-1624.ZS.html http://www.audiocasefiles.com/acf_cases/9534-elk-grove-unified-school-dist-v-newdow

// Everson v. Board of Education //
1. The case was in 1947 in Washington, D.C. The plaintiff was Arch R. Everson, and the defendant was the Board of Education of Ewing Town. At the time, the Board of Education was using public funds to reimburse parents that paid for their children to use public transportation to get to school, both public and Catholic. Everson claimed that reimbursing the parents of the religious-based private schools violated the separation of church and state. So, he took the case to court. Everson’s chief lawyers were Edward R. Burke and E. Hilton Jackson. The Board of Education’s lawyer was William H. Speer. The justices of majority were Hugo Lafayette Black, William O. Douglas, Frank Murphy, Stanley Forman Reed, Fred Moore Vinson, the justices of the minority were Harold Burton, Felix Frankfurter, Robert H. Jackson, Wiley Blount Rutledge 2. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Board of Education. They said the effect was indirect to the religious organization. The ruling was that in order to remain impartial to the religion, the state should treat everyone equaling since the reimbursement was to benefit the parents not the church, so to acknowledge the 1st amendment the court said they should be impartial to individual’s choice of religion. 3. The court set the precedence that in order to maintain separation of church and state, the legislation must treat all religious affiliations with same opportunities. 4. There was both concurring and dissenting opinion. The Concurring opinion was the ruling; to truly separate Church and state, the country must give equal opportunities to all people without differentiating their religion. The dissenting opinion believed that to truly separate State and Church, the country could not support any religious organization in any way. So, reimbursing parents of Catholic school children indirectly supported a religion and contradicted the separation of church and state. 5. The lasting impact was the government should not recognize religion as a factor to categorize opportunities for the citizens of the country. It is often quoted for its interpretation of the first amendment.

sources: http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/HistRC/hits?docNum=BT2303200032&tab=1&locID=hayw93983&origSearch=true&hdb=US&t=RK&s=1&r=d&items=0&secondary=true&o=&sortOrder=&n=10&l=dR&sgPhrase=true&c=1&tabMap=69&bucket=gal&SU=everson+v.+Board+of+Education
 * Teacher comment: The court used the phrase, "busing is religiously neutral" to support their ruling**

// Furman v. Georgia //
Furman v. Georgia included the defendant William Henry Furman. Furman is an African-American poor, mentally ill, and psychotic man who claimed that the Georgia death penalty was a cruel and unusual punishment. He was caught in the kitchen of William Joseph Micke Jr. and his family on August 11, 1967 with a gun. He shot Micke Jr. before he ran away, leaving him dead. Furman was then charged with murder and put to trial on September 20, 1968. Supreme Court decided that Georgia’s death penalty was unconstitutional. Five Supreme Court Justices voted and agreed to the capital punishment as cruel and unusual, but the other four Justices disagreed. Supreme Court based their decision on the eighth amendment of no excessive fines or cruel and unusual punishment. The decision did overturn previous precedence when Georgia originally approved Furman’s death penalty on April 24, 1969, but then the Furman appealed the case to the Supreme Court.

There were five justices who concurred that Furman’s death penalty was unconstitutional, but they had no concurring opinion. Justice William Douglas thought the punishment was unusual in the Unite States in regards of the eighth amendment since it discriminates against those who are of a different class, race, or wealth. He also stated that African Americans who were poor or ill were put to death for most of the times since juries were not advised. However under England’s Law, the unfairness was based on minorities and those who did not fit in within society. Justice William Brennan Jr. and Thurgood Marshall thought the capital punishment was cruel and unusual no matter the type of circumstances and should not exist at all. Chief Justice Warren Burger believed that if society thought the death penalty was used in an unjust manner, they can abolish or amend the law. The case did not completely outlaw capital punishment, but it did make it mandatory for states to stop racial, random, and unjust outcomes. Juries can now be guided to make the best decision on whether or not the defendant deserves to be put to death or not. http://www.enotes.com/supreme-court-drama/furman-v-georgia
 * __//Teacher note://__**
 * __//didn’t rule// //death penalty// //to be “cruel and unusual punishment”, but said it must be carried out in a fair and consistent way//__**

1. Basic Facts
**Plaintiff:** Clarence Earl Gideon (the defendant in the original hearing)
 * Defendant:** Louie L. Wainwright, Secretary to the Florida Department of Corrections


 * Sequence of Events:**
 * 1. Gideon was charged with a noncapital felony by the Florida State Court.
 * 2. Gideon, who had no funds for counsel, petitioned the Court to appoint counsel.
 * 3. The Court denied Counsel.
 * a. Court’s Reasoning: FL state law only permitted appointment for counsel for defendants in capital (not all criminal cases)
 * 4. Under his own counsel, Gideon was convicted and sentenced to prison.
 * 5. Gideon applied to the Florida (State) Supreme Court for a writ of Habeas Corpus.
 * a. Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment (Equal Rights Protection): Section 1, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States… nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
 * 6. State Supreme Court denied writ of habeas corpus.
 * 7. Gideon sued Louie. L. Wainwright and the Florida Department of Corrections.

2. Supreme Court Decision
Decision: In Favor of Gideon (Plaintiff), 9-0. The right to an attorney as a felon is a fundamental right, and therefore is required in both State and Federal courts. //__**We see "incorporation" with this decision**__//

3. Reasoning for Court Decision and Overturning Previous Precedence
**Reasoning** Fourteenth Amendment: The 14th Amendment was used in Betts v. Brady to extend counsel to indigent criminals in state courts. Sixth Amendment: The 6th Amendment states that “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right. . . to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.” The passage was previously interpreted as only pertaining to //__**federal courts**__// state courts. The combined powers of the 6th ad 14th amendments mandate the appointment of counsel (unless waived) in both state and federal courts.

Betts v. Brady (1942): This case had stated that defendants only needed a lawyer under specific circumstances (i.e. extreme illiteracy).
 * Overturned Decisions**

4. Concurring Opinion

 * Justice Clark:** Ruling in favor of Gideon only erases a distinction. Betts v. Brady established a distinction in due process between capital and noncapital cases. Justice Clark concluded that the Constitution holds no distinction within its text.


 * Justice Harlan**: In reference to the special circumstances outlined in Betts v. Brady, Justice Harlan wrote, “The mere existence of a serious criminal charge constituted in itself special circumstances requiring the services of counsel at trial. “ The right to counsel is fundamental through the Fourteenth amendment.

5. Lasting Impact
The courts act through an Adversarial System (innocent until proven guilty), and thus, the decision of Gideon v. Wainwright only enforces the right of the defendant to have an equal ability and competence to prove that he or she is innocent as the prosecution does to prove that he or she is guilty. Defendants do not need to be proven special or under the risk of capital punishment in order to receive fair treatment and resource under law. __//**However, this decision required counsel be appointed only for felonies, not midemeanors**//__

http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Gideon/ http://www.streetlaw.org//en/Case.8.aspx http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=372&invol=335//
 * Sources:**

Gitlow v. New York
//1. The plaintiff, Benjamin Gitlow, was a prominent member of the Socialist Party during the 20’s. In 1925, Gitlow published sixteen thousand copies of a Left-Wing Manifesto, which called for the creation of a socialist system through force, and he was arrested and convicted for violating the New York Criminal Anarchy Law of 1902. He then appealed the decision, arguing that his freedoms of speech and of press guaranteed under the First Amendment were being violated. 2. The Supreme court ruled in favor of Gitlow. 3. “For present purposes, we may assume that freedom of speech and of press…are among the fundamental personal rights and liberties protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from impairment by the State.” 4. The concurring opinion was that if someone utters what can lead to the endangerment of the foundations of the government and/or threats to overthrow it by unlawful means, punishment is justifiable. The dissenting opinion argued that Gitlow presented no present danger because only a small group of people identified with the manifesto and because it only stated an uprising in an “indirect time in the future”. 5. This case created the “Bad Tendency Doctrine”, which says that speech could be restricted when it had the tendency to lead to illegal action. Gitlow also led to the incorporation of freedom of speech into state governments. It also attempted to define more clearly the “clear and present danger” test that came out of Schenck v. United States. (Sources: , ) //

=
//1. This case involves the freedom of speech and press. In 1983 the principal of Hazelwood East High School found two inappropriate articles in the school-sponsored newspaper, The Spectrum. The two articles dealt with the topics of teen pregnancy at the high school and the effects of divorce on students. The principle, looking out for the students’ best interest, ordered to have the two pages containing those two articles removed. When students on the newspaper staff found those two pages missing, they filed a lawsuit against the school as a violation against the First Amendment. The main leader among the students, Cathy Kuhlmeier took the initiative to go to court.// =====

=
//2. On January 13// //th// //, 1988, the Supreme Court voted 5 to 3 in favor of the Hazelwood School District. The decision reversed the 8// //th// //Circuit in St. Louis Court of Appeals’ decision, which ruled to uphold the rights of the students. The Supreme Court ruled that the principal had the right to censor articles in the student newspaper that were considered to be contradictory to the school’s educational mission. They said “educators do not offend the First Amendment by exercising editorial control over the style and content of student speech in school-sponsored expressive activities so long as their actions are reasonable to legitimate pedagogical contents.” The Court found the principal’s concern to be “not unreasonable” and said that the content was inappropriate for freshmen.// =====

=
//3. There were two previous court cases involving the issue of the First Amendment and high school students. In Tinker v Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969). Here the Tinker children along with others were suspended from school for wearing black armbands in support for peace during the Vietnam War. The Court ruled that the school had to have a valid reason for such specific regulation. They found that the students did not cause any disruption and could continue their activity. In 1986, Bethel School District v. Fraser dealt with a high school student’s sexual innuendos. The student was suspended, and the Supreme Court ruled that the suspension was not in violation with the First Amendment. The Supreme Court had reversed the Court of Appeals decision saying that the school district’s policy was not in violation with the First Amendment. Seeing that the trend changed between these two decisions, the Hazelwood case followed precedence.// =====

=
//4. This case resulted with a dissenting opinion, filed by Justice William Brennan. He said that students should be given the opportunity to express their views. He claimed that the Court should have followed the Tinker precedent, because the articles were not disrupting the school’s atmosphere. Brennan also characterized this case as intolerable for the “contempt of individual rights”, oppressing the students from expressing their opinion freely.// =====

=
//5. This case allowed school districts to regulate non-forum curricular student publications before they were published. This meant that school officials had the right to censor any written material that they felt was inappropriate. Though today there is much more freedom in what students can publish in the newspaper, this court reaffirmed the authority the school has in controlling what content is best suited for students to read. But more than ever, there are now more advocates to fight against censorship as there has been a dramatic increase in censorship since then.// =====

Lemon v. Kurtzman
1. Explain the basic facts of the case. Include who the plaintiff and defendant are.
 * Plaintiff: Lemon
 * On behalf of taxpayers, they argued that Pennsylvania and Rhode Island’s laws providing funds for religious schools was unconstitutional because it went against the Establishment Clause
 * Defendant: Kurtzman
 * state treasurer of Pennsylvania
 * writing for the majority: Chief Justice Warren E. Burger

2. What was the Supreme Court’s (SC) decision? 3. In making its decision, on what precedence and/or constitutional principles did the court rely? Did the decision overturn previous precedence? 4. Was there a concurring opinion or dissenting opinion? What was the reasoning for these? 5. What lasting impact did this case decision have on civil liberties?
 * SC ruled that it was unconstitutional for Pennsylvania to pay for a religious, nonpublic school with government funds
 * Violated Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment which states that no laws can be passed that gives preference to a certain religion
 * SC declared “excessive entanglement” between religious institutions and government
 * No; the decision was unanimous (8-0)
 * SC’s decision resulted in the creation of the Lemon Test
 * In order to be constitutional, all laws related to religion must:
 * have a secular legislative purpose
 * have a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion
 * not foster an excessive government “entanglement” with religion

Sources http://www.firstamendmentschools.org/freedoms/case.aspx?id=477 http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/court/lemo_v_kurt.html

Mapp v. Ohio
//1. Police were suspicious that Dollree Mapp might be hiding someone involved in a bombing so they went to her house in Cleveland, Ohio. They knocked on her door and demanded to be allowed to enter, but she didn’t let them in because she believed that the policemen didn’t have a warrant. After staying outside her house, they forced themselves into her house and showed her a warrant. Their search brought them to a trunk with pornographic content. The policemen arrested Mapp and charged her with possessing obscene material. At the trial, the police officers did not show Mapp or the court the search warrant nor explain why. The court found Mapp guilty and sentenced her to jail. PLAINTIFF: DOLLREE MAPP DEFENDANTS: POLICE OFFICERS

2. Supreme Court’s Decision: In a 5-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mapp. 3. In making its decisions, the Supreme Court used the rule outlined in the Constitution that there should no unreasonable searches or arrests conducted without a warrant. This case upheld the Constitutional principle. In addition, the majority opinion was based on several earlier decisions, which required that the Fourth Amendment’s principle of evidence being presented in court must be lawfully attained be applied to states as well.

4. Justice Harlan had a dissenting opinion. Justice Harlan believed that this was a First Amendment issue because Mapp had been caught possessing pornographic content. He concluded that the majority had ignored the rule of judicial restraint

5. The effect that this case had on civil liberties was that people were able to protect criminals from sudden searches without any reason. Generally, ANY evidence presented in court must be attained legally. Thus, the scope of the ways in which investigators could track down criminals lessened since all evidence must be attained legally in order to be presented in court. __**Keep in mind that the officers in this case did have a warrant, but they went beyond the "scope" of that warrant, therefore, anything they discovered while beyond the scope was inadmissable in court.**__

.//

Miranda v. Arizona
//**1. March 31, 1960, Ernesto Miranda was arrested at his Arizona home. Police took him into custody and he was interrogated before his rights were informed to him, for he had right to an attorney being present during questioning. Police was successfully able to get a written confession signed by Miranda and also stated that the confession was voluntary, without any promises of immunity or threats. When the case went to trial, the prosecution used his confession as evidence against him. The defense objected and asked for evidence, but judged allowed the confession. Miranda was convicted on all accounts: kidnapping and rape. **


 * 2. Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Arizona State Supreme Court **__** (what decision? You didn't set out the basis for Miranda's appeal **** .) **__////** Ruled that he wasn't informed of his right to council and of his right to not be compelled to incriminate himself (be a witness against himself). Without these warnings, all statements made by Miranda were inadequate and inadmissible. **


 * 3. The Supreme Court based their decision on the 5th amendment to protect against self- incrimination. 5th Amendment protects against abuse of government authority in a legal procedure, thus the city of Arizona violated the 5th Amendment. There was no precedent until Miranda vs. Arizona. The case set the precedent itself. **


 * 4. Dissenting Opinion: no adequate basis for extending the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination to the police station. The ruling was derived more from the Sixth Amendment, which should properly have no bearing on police interrogation. **

[|http://www.essortment.com/all/mirandavsarizo_roui.htm]**
 * 5.**// **This case has protected an individual's rights from the state. When people get arrested now, they know that they do not have to confess to anything without being told their rights. People also have a higher chance of being found innocent if they do not talk.**
 * []

Roe v. Wade
//1) In 1973, Roe v. Wade made it legal to have an abortion in the United States. Jane Roe was the name used for Norma McCorvey, who filed the case saying that the law in Texas against abortion was unconstitutional. The defendant was the district attorney in Texas, Henry B. Wade.

2) The Supreme Court decided to rule that the Texas law banning abortion was unconstitutional, making it legal to have an abortion in the US without restrictions during the first part of pregnancy and with restrictions during the later part of pregnancy.

3) This decision was based off of the Ninth Amendment of the Constitution, which states, "the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people," and the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects a person’s right to privacy. This overturned the Texas law against abortion.

4) Three of the justices had a concurring opinion, and two justices had a dissenting opinion.

5) This case allowed abortions to be legal in the United States and gave way to a female’s right to privacy and choice about the issue of abortion.

__**Major aspect of this decision was the use of "right to privacy" and reproductive rights falling under the right to privacy. The case was less about abortion itself, but more specifically said that reproductive decisions are between a woman and her doctor and state and federal governments do not have the constitutional authority (9th Amendment as you cited) to intervene**__

[] [] //

=Schenck v. U.S. = //**Schenck v. US(1919)** set up the "clear and present danger" test to balance national security and freedom of speech when the court ruled against Schenck by saying that the language on mailings was more than just critical of the government but was "clear and present danger". Upheld the Espionage Act of 1917, that declared that people who interfered with the war effort were subject to imprisonment. It also declared that the 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech was not absolute as it could be limited if its exercise presented a "clear and present danger." This court case ultimately set up how the First Amendment is ultimately intrepreted.

media type="youtube" key="2ZCZd6qp95E" height="385" width="480"

//**Defendent:** United States
 * Plantiff:**// Charles T. Schenck


 * Court Decision:** Schenck was not protected in this case as the intrepration of the First Amendment depends on the situation. For this instance things that were permissable in peacetime can be punishable during wartime.


 * Precedence**: The court relied on the First Amendment and concentrated on the "freedom of speech" aspect. The court did not overturn previous precedence but rather solidified the Espionage Act of 1917. Their ability to rule in favor of the United States was based on the judicial branches power of judicial review. This can be traced back to Marbury v. Madison.


 * Opinion?** There was concurring opinon. There was most likely concurring opinion on this case as it was targeted toward the United States. Holmes' arguement is very strong as he compared this situation to a person falsely shouting fire in a theatre.//

//Citations//
// http://www.apstudynotes.org/us-history/supreme-court-cases/ http://www.oyez.org/cases/1901-1939/1918/1918_437 http://www.infoplease.com/us/supreme-court/cases/ar37.html //

Texas v. Johnson

 * //Explain the basic facts of the case. Include who the plaintiff and defendant are.//
 * //1984, Gregory Lee Johnson burnt the American flag in front of Dallas city hall//
 * //He was upset about nuclear weapons because it threatened the planet’s survival.//
 * //He wanted to protest against Reagan’s and corporate policies regarding nuclear weapons.//
 * //Marched the streets of Dallas chanting slogans and staging “die ins” to dramatize the consequences of nuclear weapons.//
 * //Plaintiff//
 * //Texas – accused Gregory Lee Johnson of “desecration of a venerated object” __**(which was a law in Texas)**__//
 * //Defendant//
 * //Gregory Lee Johnson – appealed his conviction, stating that the law that prohibited burning the flag violated his freedom of speech.//
 * //What was the Supreme Court’s decision?//
 * //They agreed with Gregory Lee Johnson//
 * //The law of desecrating the flag violated the First Amendment, which protected rights of symbolic speech//
 * //Symbolic speech is nonverbal communication//
 * //In making its decision, on what precedence and/or constitutional principles did the court rely? Did the decision overturn previous precedence?//
 * //The decision overturned previous precedence __**(It was a 5-4 decision)**__//
 * //Gregory was sentenced to one year in prison and fined $2,000//
 * //However, after Gregory stated that it violated his freedom of speech, Supreme Court changed their decision of sentencing and fining him because it is constitutional to practice symbolic speech of burning the flag.//
 * //Stromberg v. California//
 * //Was there a concurring opinion or dissenting opinion? What was the reasoning for these?//
 * //Concurring opinion//
 * //Supreme Court said that it’s wrong to burn the flag. However because the First Amendment protects freedom of speech, Supreme Court agreed with the majority that it’s wrong to burn the flag, but agrees on the fact that the First Amendment protects symbolic speech.//
 * //What lasting impact did this case decision have on civil liberties?//
 * //The impact the Texas v. Johnson case decision had on civil liberties is that it allows people to speak out about their emotions on certain issues through symbolic speech.//

//http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1988/1988_88_155///

Wallace v. Jaffree
1. Wallace v. Jaffree was argued on December 4th, 1984 and was decided on June 4th, 1985. The crux of the argument rested (hinged) upon the issue of the then-required minute of silence held “for meditation or voluntary prayer” before every class period being unconstitutional. Ishmael Jaffree was the plaintiff in this case, bringing the case that his children were forced into reciting prayers before school and, when they refused to participate, were ostracized from the class against the Mobile County School Board as defendants. The ending ruling made by the district court for the Southern District of Alabama was that the practice was allowable and ruled in favor of the defendants.

2. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the district court in a 6-2 ruling and declared the Alabaman policy of having a mandatory period of silence unconstitutional.

3. The Constitutional principle that the court relied on in making this decision was the Establisment Clause of the First Amendment, arguing that states have no greater power to restrain the individual freedoms protected by this clause than does Congress. As such, the Court ruled that the “religious indoctrination” that the children were experiencing was an example of an attempt at establishment of religion and, thusly, violated Constitutional principle. The law overturned no such precedence, but rather, set a precedent for cases to follow regarding the right to freedom of religion.

4. The concurring opinion in this case went along with the Supreme Court’s final ruling; the concurring opinion believed that the Alabama law violated Constitutional principle on the basis of restraining freedom of religion while future Chief Justice William Rehnquist represented the dissenting opinion declaring that the concurring opinion was based upon the writings of Thomas Jefferson, who was not the writer of the Constitution; therefore, the Establishment Clause was not necessarily a correlative of the Constitution.

5. In terms of civil liberties, this case had the lasting effect of establishing the concept of freedom of religion; if individuals have their beliefs violated and disrespected, they have the right to speak out against it. Furthermore, any form of religious indoctrination was made illegal.

-<[]>

-< []>

=
The state of Missouri made a law that limited the encouragement and performance of abortions and set new requirements on physicians regarding the practice. The United States District Court for the Western District of Missiouri, the plaintiff, prohibited the enforcement of the law but Missiouri Attorney General William L. Webster, the defendant, appealed to the Supreme Court. =====

=
<span style="color: #063c3c; font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;">The decision didn’t overturn any previous precedence, such as Roe v. Wade, although it did restrict access to abortions in the state of Missouri. =====

=
<span style="color: #063c3c; font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;">Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Justices Scalia and O’Connor wrote separate concurrences to uphold the law. Rehnquist had the plurality opinion (Justices White and Kennedy agreed) and thought the Missouri law demonstrated the state’s interest in protecting potential human life. Justice Scalia thought they should’ve overturned Roe v. Wade while Justice O’Conner reasoned the law was constitutional. =====

=
<span style="color: #063c3c; font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;">It didn’t provide a definite rule on whether the law’s declaration that human life begins at conception was constitutional or not. The Supreme Court ruled that states could govern and make laws in an area that had originally thought to have been forbidden under Roe v. Wade. =====

//**Also partly a "federalism" decision by allowing states to set policy about abortions - not have the federal gov regulate it - as long as the state doesn't go as far as to try to refuse abortions**//