Civil Rights and Liberties PDF

Civil Rights and Civil Liberties 3.1 - The Bill of Rights Learning Objectives: Explain how does the Constitution protect liberties and rights Identify the rights are protected by the Bill of Rights Liberties and the Constitution Federalist vs Anti-Federalist conflict ○ Many states reluct...

Civil Rights and Civil Liberties 3.1 - The Bill of Rights Learning Objectives: Explain how does the Constitution protect liberties and rights Identify the rights are protected by the Bill of Rights Liberties and the Constitution Federalist vs Anti-Federalist conflict ○ Many states reluctantly ratified the Constitution or did not at all Need of a Bill of Rights (just like England) ○ Madison (F) - The Constitution already has enough! : Separation of Powers & Checks and Balances, besides any rights official listed means that any not listed are subject to government overreach Madison eventually changes his opinion and helps draft a list of 12 rights Original Twelve (1. Determining size of House Reps - still not an Amendment) (2. When Congress can change its pay - became the 28 Amendment) 1.Freedoms, Petitions, Assembly 2. Militia and Bear Arms 3. No Quartering of Soldiers 4. No Unreasonable Search and Arrest 5. Rights in Criminal Cases 6. Right to a Fair Trial 7. Rights in Civil Cases 8. Bail, Fines, Punishment 9. Rights kept by the People 10. Rights kept by the States or the People  Fear of the Federal Government ○ The Bill of Rights were written in protection from the federal government Meaning… that the State governments were not subject to the Bill of Rights (Barron v. Baltimore) Seizure of public property for private use Church membership for political office Selective Incorporation (applying Bill of Rights @ the state level) comes by later to overturn this precedent A Culture of Civil Liberties ○ Today, the Bill of Rights can be considered the invisible appendage of any US Citizen ○ Rights are practices freely without a secondhand thought unless… Suspected of criminal behavior Public Interest outweighs Personal Liberties Driver’s Licenses “Gun! Fire! Bomb!” ○ American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) will step in to ○ challenge in court (among other groups) Interpreting the Bill of Rights There have been monumental changes in American history since the Bill of Rights conception… ○ Civil War ○ World Wars ○ Economic Depressions ○ Social Shifts … that have challenged the flexibility of the Constitution The Supreme Court of the United States has interpreted new laws, clarified meanings in the Constitution, and reinterpretation past precedent… IN ORDER TO Protect citizens from Federal and/or Local Government Ergo -> Supreme Court behavior shape the Nation’s behavior ○ Women and Minorities ○ Criminals and Citizenry 3.2 - Freedom of Religion Learning Objectives: Describe the Supreme Court’s interpretations of Freedom of Religion Explain the Supreme Court case Engel v. Vitale (1962) Explain the Supreme Court case Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) Is this allowed by the Constitution? The Founders: Church and State US history and its ties to religious freedom ○ Puritans, Quakers, etc. 1785 Virginia tax to fund an established state church ○ Madison: “no law should support any true religion”... “no government should tax anyone, believer or non-believer, to fund a church” Supported by his faction argument in Fed 10 ○ Jefferson: “wall of separation” between Church and State; further his advancement for a want for a Bill of Rights in the Constitution  Establishment clause ○ Government cannot establish a national Constitutional religion Provisions ○ Governing institution cannot sanction, recognize, favor, or disregard any religion “Christianity > Islam” Free Exercise clause ○ Government cannot prevent religious practices from taking place Unless the act is is illegal or threatens the “interest of the community” Who is the community? SCOTUS interpretations ○ Commitment to individual liberties ○ Balance religious practice of majorities with the right to free exercise of minority religious practices or no religious practices  Engel v. Vitale (1962) 🗒 Leading up to Engel ○ In the 1950s, students were to recite a nondenominational prayer following the Pledge of Allegiance (students could be mute or have written permission not to participate) Facts of Engel ○ 1959 - Ten parents (Engel) sued the local school board because the official prayer was contrary to their beliefs, religions, or religious practices. Question before the Court ○ Does allowing a state-created, nondenominational prayer voluntarily recited in public schools violate the First Amendment’s establishment clause? Ruling - Yes for Engel et al., 6-1 Reasoning ○ Because a public institution created prayer with mandatory attendance, the school made religion its business ○ Because of the 14th Amendment and Incorporation, States as well as the Federal gov’t are not allowed to back up a religion Inclusion of “God” in prayer ○ Students are able to opt-out but “I don’t want to be left out” :( Assessing the Establishment Clause Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) ○ Can states pay secular teachers (English/math) at religious schools with state funds? ○ SCOTUS: “Well…they could improperly involve their faith in their teaching” Burger - Wall of Separation is really a “blurred, indistinct, and variable barrier” Lemon Test - Set of guidelines to aid in determining “excessive entanglement” -> complicated combination of Church and State platforms ○ To avoid excessive entanglement, a policy must: 1. Have secular purpose (that neither endorses nor disapproves of religion) 2. Have an effect that neither advances nor prohibits religion 3. Avoid creating a relationship between religion and government that entangles either in the internal affairs of the other FYI: This was challenged twice in the past 4 years ○ American Legion v. American Humanist Association (2019) [Cross Memorial] ○ Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022) [Prayer following football]  Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) 🗒 Facts of Wisconsin ○ Wisconsin statute required parents with children 16 and under to send their children to a formal school ○ Jonas Yoder took his children out per Amish customs for trade (not “learning subjects”) b/c of the free exercise clause ○ He was tried and found guilty in criminal court → state court overruled local → state then appealed to Supreme Court (to preserve its authority to regulate compulsory school attendance since education is a state power via 10th amendment) ○ State said that education-less children would become a burden to society i.e. affect public safety thereby making it the state’s problem Question before the Court ○ Does a state’s compulsory school law for children age 16 and younger violate the First Amendment’s free exercise clause for parents whose religious belief and customs dictate they keep their children out of school after a certain age? Ruling: Yes for Yoder, 7:0 (Free Exercise > State Health & Safety) Reasoning ○ More schooling WOULD change them contrary to their Amish development ○ Less schooling WOULD NOT cause them to be burden to society 3.3 - Freedom of Speech Learning Objectives: Describe the Supreme Court’s interpretations of Freedom of Speech Explain the Supreme Court case Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) Explain the Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States (1919)  Defining Protected Space Founders Intent ○ Free Speech with the objective of preventing government censorship Seditious libel - charge of fine and/or jail for talking against the gov’t ○ Protest through assembly and print allowed for Independence Therefore, preserved the right at the very top of the Bill of Rights Time, Place, and Manner Regulations (in the Era of Protests) ○ David O’Brien -> burned draft card in front of a Boston courthouse ○ Paul Cohen -> wore a jacket with the statement “f–k the Draft” ○ Who is protected? In O’Brien’s case -> violated Selective Service Act (upheld by higher court) ○ Disrupted the authority of Congress to raise an army & in a public space that encouraged others to do the same Speech NOT protected In Cohen’s case -> disruption of the Peace by offensive conduct (overruled by higher court) ○ Speech did not incite public protest nor refused to enlist Speech WAS protected  Time, Place, and Manner Test ○ 1. The restriction be content neutral. That is - it must not suppress the content of the expression, only the method ○ 2. The restriction must serve a significant government interest. ○ 3. The restriction must be narrowly tailored. i. The law must be designed in the most specific target way possible, avoiding spillover in other areas. ii. Draft card is a very specific item compared to a flag (Texas v. Johnson) ○ 4. There must be adequate alternative ways of expression. i. The court can suppress expression on the basis of time, place , and manner if there are other times, places, and manners in which the idea can be expressed.  Tinker v. Des Moines ICSD (1969) 🗒 Facts of Tinker ○ Students Mary Tinker, John Tinker, and Christopher Eckhardt were planning to protest the Vietnam war by wearing black armbands ○ School got intel on the protest and prepared to stop students from entering Their reasoning was that the bands would disrupt the learning environment they had to maintain i.e., other students may be antagonistic and cause issues ○ Students are suspended until they return without armbands Question before the Court ○ Does a public school ban on students wearing armbands in symbolic, political protest violate a student’s First Amendment freedom of speech? Ruling: Yes for Tinker, 7:2 Reasoning ○ No evidence of disruption that took place (Students 1st > School’s concerns of disorder) ○ Suspension failed Time, Place, and Manner test It was intended to quiet the students’ antiwar message to avoid possible disruptions  Symbolic Speech following Tinker Synder v. Phelps Skokie v. American National Socialist Morse v. Frederick Party  Obscene Speech - words or pictures that are concerned with lewd, filthy, or disgusting ○ The 1st Amendment does not protect it nor national standard fully defines it ○ The Court has tried to balance individual liberty with community interests (to ban obscene material) The Obscene Timeline ○ Roth v. United States (1957) Court defines obscene as “ the average person, apply contemporary community standards”, finds that it “appeals to the prurient [dirty] interest” State and Fed obscene laws are valid because obscene material does not have any “social importance” ○ 1960s-70s - Sexual Revolution! Growth in the prurient industries, Court overturns 31 obscenity laws Court struggles to balance obscenity laws: “I know it when I see it” ○ Miller Test following Miller v. California (1973) - Checklist for identifying obscene speech The average person apply contemporary community standards finds it appeals to the prurient interest It depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by state law It lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value  Schenck v. United States (1919) 🗒 Facts of Schenck (pronounced like shank) ○ 1917 - Sedition and Espionage Act: no publications that talked against the government, support treason or insurrectionist behaviors, or incited disloyalty in the military ○ Schenck (sec’y of the Socialist Party) passed out anti-war leaflets stating that the draft was a form of involuntary servitude which was outlawed by the 13th Amendment ○ Schenck imprisoned and later appeals from the district court Question before the Supreme Court ○ Does the government’s prosecution and punishment for expressing opposition to the military draft during wartime violate the First Amendment’s free speech clause? Ruling: No, for the United States, 9:0 Reasoning ○ There’s a distinction between an honest opinion and a statement that could pose a “clear and present danger” [States precedent for balancing demands for free expression and government’s need for a free society] ○ Context also matters (“This wouldn’t have been an issue prior or following wartime”)  Speech following Schenck Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) Abrams v. United States (1919) You can teach people about the KKKʼs values as long as Holmes changes his earlier opinion: only if the speech has a it doesnʼt directed to do lawless actions AND likely to clear and present danger that will bring about substantive produce such action evils” 3.3 - Freedom of the Press Learning Objectives: Describe the Supreme Court’s interpretations of Freedom of the Press Explain the Supreme Court case New York Times Co. v. United States (1971) Free Press in a Democracy Founders Intent ○ “Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press and that cannot be limited without being lost” - Thomas Jefferson (Free Speech ensures accountability on the Government) A Modern Interpretation: Press and Speech Not a clear distinction between the liberties of “press” and “speech”; but just like all speech is not free speech, not all press is considered free press Libel - false statements in print about someone that defames ○ In the US there is a high standard to fill before defamation New York Times Co. V. Sullivan (1964) ○ Civil Rights group printed inaccuracies about Montgomery City Commissioner L.B. Sullivan ○ Sullivan sues for Libel and wins in Alabama Court ○ New York Times appealed on the grounds that slight mistakes should be protected vs intentional defamation ○ The Court agrees -> Such easy libel would restraint debate and reporting “If the freedoms of expression are to have ‘breathing space’ that they need… to survive” Recipe for libel suit ○ Offending writer knowingly lied (even with obvious truth available) ○ Writer did it with malicious intent to defame ○ Actual damages were sustained  New York Times Co. V. United States (1971)🗒 Before New York Times ○ In the selective incorporation case of Near v. Minnesota (1931), the SCOTUS ruled that a state law preventing the printing of radical propaganda violated freedom of the press Prior Restraint - the right to stop spoken or printed expression in advance (the government has NO executive privilege) Facts of New York Times ○ Pentagon Papers (1971) were a set of documents unearthing US policies in Vietnam via a dude named Daniel Ellsberg ○ Nixon’s lawyers petitions a US district court to order the Times to refrain from printing in the name of national security Lower court obliged and issued an injunction (order) and armed guards arrived at the office to enforce the injunction ○ Times appeals to the Supreme Court  New York Times Co. V. United States Question before the Supreme Court ○ Can the executive branch block the printing of reporter-obtained classified government information in an effort to protect national secrets without violating the First Amendment’s free press clause? Ruling: No, for New York Times, 6:3 Reasoning ○ National security does not justify prior restraint (censorship BEFORE publication) ○ In rare instance, the Court issued a per curiam opinion - judgement of the majority without reference to specific justices The newspaper had a right to print the documents BUT Ellsberg did not have the right to leak them (he was later convicted under the espionage act) ○ The court mainly relied on the reasonings of other similar cases (persuasive precedent)