14th Amendment & Barron v. Baltimore

• Summarized study notes

14th Amendment

Barron v. Baltimore (1833)

• The Bill of Rights applies only to the federal government, not state governments
• This ruling was challenged later by the Incorporation Doctrine, which gradually applied the Bill of Rights to the states via the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause
• City construction projects diverted water flow, making John Barron's wharf useless for business
• Barron sued Baltimore under the 5th Amendment's Takings Clause, arguing the government had taken his property without just compensation
• The Supreme Court ruled against Barron, saying the 5th Amendment only restricts federal power
• The Court did not develop a specific legal "test", instead, Chief Justice John Marshall used a textualist approach, looking at the Constitution's language and intent
• The Constitution specifies when it applies to states (like in Article I, Section 10), but does not explicitly extend the Bill of Rights to states
• "Barron's Boat Gets Beached"
• It set the stage for debates on incorporation, which was later addressed by cases like Gitlow v. New York (1925) and Palko v. Connecticut (1937)

Hurtado v. California (1884)

• The 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause does NOT require states to follow the 5th Amendment's guarantee of a grand jury indictment in criminal cases
• This case reinforced the selective incorporation approach, meaning not all rights in the Bill of Rights automatically apply to states
• Hurtado was charged with murder in California
• Instead of being indicted by a grand jury, the state used an "information" process i.e a judge decided there was enough evidence for trial
• Hurtado argued this violated the 5th Amendment's guarantee of a grand jury indictment
• Supreme Court ruled against him, saying states don't have to use grand juries because the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause doesn't automatically apply all federal rights to states
• The Court focused on the meaning of "due process" in the 14th Amendment and decided it does not require grand juries
• The ruling used a historical approach, looking at English common law and early American legal traditions to determine whether grand juries were essential part of due process
• "Hurtado Hit Hard"
• It shaped how selective incorporation worked-some rights would eventually apply to states
• It was later challenged by Duncan v. Louisiana (1968), which incorporated the 6th Amendment right to a jury trial but still left grand jury indictments out

Slaughterhouse Cases (1873)

• The Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment does not apply most rights (including the Bill of Rights) to the states
• The Court ruled that state citizenship and federal citizenship are separate, and the 14th Amendment only protects rights tied to federal citizenship, not general civil rights
• This ruling weakened the power of the 14th Amendment and limited the ability to apply the Bill of Rights to the states
• Louisana passed a law creating a state-controlled slaughterhouse monopoly, forcing butchers in New Orleans to close their independent businesses, unless they worked at the state-sanctioned slaughterhouse
• Butchers sued, claiming this violated their right to work (economic liberty) under the 14th Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause
• The Supreme Court ruled against the butchers, stating that the 14th Amendment was meant to protect formerly enslaved people from state oppression, not to guarantee broad civil rights
• The Court used a narrow interpretation of the Privileges or Immunities Clause, ruling that it only applied to federal rights (like the right to travel, use federal courts)
• This decision gutted the Privileges or Immunities Clause, meaning future cases had to rely on the Due Process Clause for incorporation instead
• "The Butchers Butcher Bolster"
• Barron ruled that the Bill of Rights only applies to the federal government
• Slaughterhouse reinforced this by saying the Privileges or Immunities Clause doesn't apply the Bill of Rights to the states either
• Together, these cases delayed incorporation and allowed states to ignore most of the Bill of Rights until the Supreme Court reversed course in the 20th century
• Hurtado followed the same logic as Slaughterhouse i.e states don't have to apply federal legal protections unless the Court says they do
• The Hurtado ruling rejected automatic incorporation of the Bill of Rights, just like Slaughterhouse rejected automatic protection of general civil rights
• Slaughterhouse ruling is still controversial because the Court essentially made the Privileges or Immunities Clause useless
• This forced the Supreme Court to rely on selective incorporation through the Due Process Clause instead

Palko v. Connecticut (1937)

• The 14th Amendment's Due Process incorporatess only fundamental rights from the Bill of Rights
• This case established the "fundamental rights" test-a standard for determining which rights should be incorporated and apply to the states
• The ruling helped pave the way for gradual incorporation of protections from rights through the 14th Amendment
• Palko was convicted of second-degree murder in Connecticut
• The state, dissatisfied with the conviction, appealed the case and Palko was convicted of first-degree murder after a secont trial
• Palko argued that this violated the double jeopardy protection in the 5th Amendment
• Supreme Court ruled against Palko, stating that double jeopardy is not a fundamental right applicable to the states through the 14th Amendment
• The Court introduced the "fundamental rights" test, asking if a right is rooted and essential
• Key idea: The Court wouldn't incorporate every provision of the Bill of Rights, only those essential for liberty and fundamental to the American system of justice
• "Palko Pleads Prohibition"
• Palko is considered one of the key steps in the gradual incorporation doctrine that led to the full incorporation of many rights in the Bill of Rights
• It marks a shift toward protecting certain fundamental rights and limiting states' power when those rights are at stake Incorporated Rights (Fundamental Rights):
• Freedom of Speech
• Freedom of Religion
• Freedom from self-incrimination (in later cases)
• Right to a jury trial (e.g., in Duncan v. Louisiana)

Non-Incorporated Rights (Not Fundamental):

• Double Jeopardy (in Palko), which was not deemed fundamental enough to apply to the states

• Right to a grand jury indictment (in Hurtado), where the Court concluded that states didn't need to use grand juries as part of due process

• Cardozo's test focused on whether a right is of the essence

• Under this test, the Court ruled that protection against double jeopardy was not a fundamental right and didn't apply States

Duncan v. Louisiana (1968)

• The 6th Amendment right to a jury trial in criminal cases is fundamental and incorporated to the states through the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause
• This case marked an important step in the incorporation of the Bill of Rights and was a clear application of the "fundamental rights" test developed in Palko v. Connecticut (1937)
• Gary Duncan in Louisiana, was charged with misdemeanor for allegedly slapping a white boy
• Louisiana law did not allow for a jury trial in cases where the offense was punishable by less than two years in prison
• Duncan argued that this violated his 6th Amendment right to a jury trial
• The Court applied the fundamental rights to determine whether or not a jury is fundamental
• The Court emphasized that the right to a jury trial has been part of tradition since American settlement
• The Court ruled that the 6th Amendment right should be incorporated against the states via the 14th Amendment
• "Duncan Distributes Donuts"
• In Palko, the Court decided that some rights fundamental and applied
• Duncan picked up on Palko, marking one of the first steps in broad reaching bill of rights protections
• Palko helped set the standard, and Duncan was an example

1st Amendment

Reynolds v. United States (1879)

• The First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause protects religious beliefs, but it does not always protect religious practices that violate criminal laws or public policy
• This case introduced the Belief-Action Distinction, meaning: The government can not regulate religious beliefs
• Government may regulate religious actions if they violate laws
• George Reynolds, a Mormon, was charged under a Federal anti-bigamy law for practicing polygamy
• Reynolds argued that his religious duty to practice polygamy should protect him under the First Amendment
• The government argued that polygamy was harmful
• There is key distinction between belief and action: The government can not interfere with religious beliefs
• Practices can be regulated if they conflict with law, if the law applies equally
• Compare polygamy to human sacrifices
• The Court ruled that polygamy was not protected
• Government has the power to regulate religious practices, even if its a moral problem
• Reynolds: Both deal with limits of freedom, but reach different conclusions
• Reynolds : Court ruled against freedom, stating the government can regulate
• Sherbert: Court rules in favor, by imposing conditions of 'interests'
• Reynolds : Belief against action that is regulated
• Sherbert different, requiring reasonable need to restrict

Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940)

• The First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause and Free Speech Clause, applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, protect individuals
• Jesse Cantwell and his sons, who were Jehovah's Witnesses, went door to door in a Catholic neighborhood in Connecticut, distributing literature
• Cantwell was arrested and convicted under a Connecticut law requiring permit before soliciting donations
• Cantwell argued that this law violated his First Amendment by restricting his religious expression: Did the permit requirement violate 1st?
• Supreme Court ruled in favor of Cantwell and struck down the Connecticut law and incorporated the Free Exercise Clause through the Fourteenth Amendment
• 1. Prior Restraint on Religion: CT law gave officials power in deciding who can solicit.
• 2. Offensive Speech Isn't Enough: speech didn't incite clear violence The Valid Secular Policy Test (Pre-Sherbert Era) is: laws that burden is okay because the law serves a legitimate concern
• Cantwell: First case to incorporate against states! This focuses on religious freedoms
• Imagine Cantwell with a loudspeaker as govt. tries to shut him down
• Both cases expanded religious freedom protections under the First Amendment
• Sherbert focused on economic burdens while Cantwell was more free speech

Sherbert v. Verner (1963)

• The First Amendment protects individuals, unless the government has a compelling interest and has the least restrictive means
• This is the Sherbert Test
• Adell Sherbert, a Seventh-day Adventist, was denied unemployment benefits in South Carolina because she refused a job requiring her to work on Saturday
• Sherbert argued forcing her to work her Sabbath violated her First Amendment right
• The state argued the denial was justified because they had a deterrent
• South Carolina's denial was never justified, and did not achieve these interests
• This set precedent for balancing government interests and freedoms
• The religious freedom test was from Sherbert to strict (i.e employment)
• Narrow Tailoring: The government must show least damaging means of achieving any objective
• Scrutiny-like for Religion-specific
• Substantial Burden on religious practice, is there a compelling government interest? Big difference is compelling interest Reynolds: the Court does not require reasons to banning.

Braunfeld v. Brown (1961)

• A law that incidentally burdens religious practice does not necessarily violate if it's neutral
• The does not have to accomodate every religious practice
• Abraham Braunfeld, an Orthodox Jewish merchant in Pennsylvania, observed the Jewish Sabbath (Saturday) and didnt work Saturdays
• Pennsylvania had a Sunday closing law
• Braunfeld argued that the law hurt his business and closed on Saturday and Sunday
• He challenged the law by claiming its a burden on freedom
• The Court did not apply and rationalized/validate law
• There is no attempt to impact religion, instead its for benefit of everyone through standard
• This makes it impossible for Jews to conduct normal trade
• Braunfeld v. Brown limited religious exemptions by ruling that laws can incidentally burden religious practice This case later was mentioned to justify weaker standards

Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)

• Amish Rights analysis under Free Excercise Compulsory education laws is a concern on religious beliefs Can the state force Amish children to attend school beyond 8th grade, their beliefs? Compulsion does not overweight Amish' beliefs against the system
• Wisconsin had required school until 16
• The State argued the state law
• The Court ruled that the law was not overbearing in this case
• The Courts ruled in favor of Amish, under strict-rights analysis

1. The Court said that the law should not interfere with religious belief
2. The burden is too immense and Amish communities self-sufficiency. Yoder's: from the Amish's perspective

Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith (1990)

• State laws which impose a restriction of religious activity are constitutional if non discrimitory
• That religious actions cant be taken into account with unemployment or any other reasons
• Drug test for drug councellors That ban on peyote violates amendment right and limits freedom Held- The court ruled the ban by Oregon legal Scalzi: state doesn't need to exempt laws that violate with religious beliefs This created the end for 7 Verner Smith- you are partying with everyone else, but not allowed with this one thing even with freedom

Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye Inc. v. City of Hialeah (1993)

• Regulations that are created to be targetted strict guidelines while neutral regulation the laws is fine like example employment rights Neutral laws-are like in Employee Division v. Smith Subject- To strict with laws specifically related to it
• That a church uses animal sacrificies where sacrifices are illegal to be done

School District of Abington Township v. Schempp (1963)

• That public schools, can violate the 1st amendment: The Lemon Test Test to determine public violation (that is): They're doing religion activities, violate school and government rules with no basis
• Student rights, do have ability to not do prayer Schools have rights to teach students and be involved with prayers With the rules you try to not bring religion and division

Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002)

• Programs allowing students to take private options as long as they are choosen don't violate standards of liberty Ohio- voucher programs that provide funds for income families Student is not limited in the religious aspect and is still doing other stuff the students
• the program allowed parents to have choise: Secular, Education and not limited With public program, the parents choose what area of school they want for the voucher system Zelman is that there are choises

Edwards v. Aguilard (1987)

• You can not violate science schools by telling them there are no other religious explanations
• The Louisiana law was being used for religious doctrine and can not interfere with science You "can't balance with religion and science"

Van Orden v. Perry (2005)

• The estalibishment cause: You can not use this statue as a religious message and not promote religion

American Legion v. American Humanist Association (2019)

• Does not tell a government to remove their religious symbol- it is not about elimination

Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022)

You can express yourself personally without infringement on others. And government has other options also because it is a new first amendement

Schenck v. United States (1919)

• A "clear and present danger" test was established through that courts speech can be restricted if threat to safety and national security. Charles Schenck, urged to the court during WW 1 by claiming their rights were protected under first amendment speech The people were ruled that it can be restricted present and clear danger that is in line with public safety, The courts said that there are limitations with the first amendment

Gitlow v. New York (1925)

• The government is allowed to restrict how and what gets viewed.
• Benjim was arrested for distributing works that showed the end of times would be an issue between government overthrow Gilo and his speech protected were not, claims the first amendment with not

Brandenburg v Ohio (1969)

the free to speak but cannot incite violence is also in play to protect speech Brandenburg- A leader speaking to go and cause chaos where as you can only limit speech that incites unlawful actions

Modern approaches that use Free Expression cases

We are now using a modern lens that must have:

• political views.
• content vs neutral restrictions: high scrutiny.
• government can not discriminate. Those are not protected by our system. We can not let hate happen within a society, we can't restrict what we don't like Hostile aduiences: Speech that is inflammatory that is used to provoke the audience Fighting Words: When used inflame or used to fight.

United States v. O'Brien (1968)

Law will regulate the means of speech to do so (actions that would interfere) facts: burning draft card is against the law, in respect for military It upheld that you can say what you want but can not take a act and the court was in agreement for law upheld

• test became key test for evaluating limits and not supressing

Texas v Johnson (1989)

• The court ruled in favor of the actions against to be protected. To have laws, it protects from the government Johnson burned America and the courts was like that is just what he is doing No rule to stop what people decide to do or say and not in line with the government

Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000)

• The state cannot force any to sign up for membership that is against their by laws and freedom to assemble.
• the group does not want to do that

WV State Board of Education v Barnette (1943)

• You don't have to salute and you are fine
• the government can't compell

303 Creative LLC v. Elenis

• This says that you can not give services that violate other religions You can't discriminate even if you don't agree or its against your religious beliefs The side said that the couple said that they must build the wedding plans against morals

Chaplinsky v New Hampshire (1942)

• There is 2: Fighting Words. The government can not restrict its likely that a person and group will fight with words and are not protected from first amendment

Code vs Calfiornia (1971)

• If a state has limited expression and even if it isn't, you can express thoughts Imagine a bad outfit to make a point There is a right of freedom and that can be limited I don't have to listen to what people like and that is one form of express itself

Tinker v. Des Moines

School have the right not to allow actions that would distrupt the school Tinker allowed students not to do so if it was peaceful enough

Morse Frecerick

• There is not full freedom during the school day
• Courts may not allow something if is in violation

Welker v. Texas

Licence plates are not a form of Free speech The goverment doesn't have to agree or support it

Hules v. Ham

The action to give free speech is not unconstitutional

Near v. Minnesota (1931)

There are no actions to do that so that you can not express yourself Imagine a person can express themselves

Hudson (1980)

• What the courts can do to decide if it is to hard/ is right What the courts did to make government show its interest that is not too much to ask

Mccullen and Coakley

• That freedom can not be infringed with speech but limited They could not speak, so they couldn;t say what they want

Griswald vs Conneticut (1965)

• There is the right to personal choice They did not have these choices so the law was in opposition

Roe v Wade vs lauronce, and others. This did

There is a legal reason that the government could try to give other rights because it is an opression

Notes on the 14th Amendment and Barron v. Baltimore (1833). The Supreme Court ruled that the Bill of Rights applies only to the federal government, not state governments. This ruling was challenged later by the Incorporation Doctrine, which gradually applied the Bill of Rights to the states via the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause.