Civic Literacy Workshop 2 - Landmark Supreme Court Cases PDF

Florida Atlantic University Center for Learning And Student Success CIVIC LITERACY EXAM PREPARATION Workshop #2 Landmark Supreme Court Cases AGENDA: Civic Literacy Requirement What do you already know? 22 Landmark Supreme Court Cases Practice Test and Review Survey Other wo...

Florida Atlantic University Center for Learning And Student Success CIVIC LITERACY EXAM PREPARATION Workshop #2 Landmark Supreme Court Cases AGENDA: Civic Literacy Requirement What do you already know? 22 Landmark Supreme Court Cases Practice Test and Review Survey Other workshops and testing reminders Center for Learning And Student Success (CLASS) Civic Literacy Requirement: All students at Florida public colleges and universities are REQUIRED to demonstrate competency in civic literacy to graduate. It is expected that you meet this requirement by the INSERT end of your first-year. IMAGE HERE Fall 2018 – Summer A 2021 [POS 2041 or AMH 2020] or passing exams [AP, CLEP] or the Civic Literacy Test($10 in person & $12.75 Honorlock) Summer B 2021 – Fall 2021 & thereafter [POS 2041 or AMH 2020] or passing exams [AP, CLEP] AND the Civic Literacy Test Center for Learning And Student Success (CLASS) Civic Literacy Requirement Enrollment Year: You only need 60% on the Civic Literacy test to pass and you can take it as many times as you need to in order to earn the passing score. See your Academic Advisor for specific details on YOUR Civic Literacy Requirement. INSERT IMAGE More information on the test will be provided! HERE AP exams (High School) US History score 4-5 = AMH2010 & AMH2020 (6cr) Government Politics U.S. score 3 = POS2041 (3cr) CLEP exams ($25.50) American Government score 50 = POSX041 (3cr) Center for Learning And Student Success (CLASS) Let’s See What you Know – How many of these 22 Landmark Supreme Court Cases do you know? Brown v. Board of Education Marbury v. Madison Bush v. Gore McCulloch v. Maryland Citizens United v. FEC Miranda v. Arizona D.C. v. Heller New Jersey v. T.L.O. Dred Scott v. Sandford Plessy v. Ferguson Engel v. Vitale Regents of the U. of California v. Bakke Gibbons v. Ogden Roe v. Wade Gideon v. Wainwright Texas v. Johnson Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier Tinker v. Des Moines Korematsu v. United States United States v. Nixon Mapp v. Ohio West Virginia v. Barnette Center for Learning And Student Success (CLASS) Dred Scott v. Sandford In 1834, slave Dred Scott was purchased in Missouri and then brought to Illinois, a free (non-slave) state. His owner and he later moved to present-day Minnesota where slavery had been recently prohibited, and then back to Missouri. When his owner died, Scott sued the widow to whom he was left, claiming he was no longer a slave because he had become free after living in a free state. At a time when the country was in deep conflict over slavery, the Supreme Court decided in 1857 that Dred Scott was not a “citizen of the state” so they had no jurisdiction in the matter, but the majority opinion also stated that he was not a free man. Declared the Missouri Compromise of 1820 (had declared free all territories west of Missouri and north of a specified latitude) unconstitutional. Court ruled Congress lacked power to ban slavery in U.S. territories. Fifth Amendment protects rights of slave owners – slaves are property. "... We think they [people of African ancestry] are... not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word "citizens" in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States...." — Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, speaking for the majority Center for Learning And Student Success (CLASS) Plessy v. Ferguson (14th Amendment; separate but equal is constitutional, upheld racial segregation) In 1890, Louisiana passed a statute called the Separate Car Act declaring that all rail companies carrying passengers in Louisiana must provide separate but equal accommodations for white and non-white passengers. The penalty for sitting in the wrong compartment was a fine of $25, or 20 days in jail. A group of black citizens joined forces with the East Louisiana Railroad Company to fight the Act. In 1892, Homer Plessy, who was one-eighth black, purchased a first-class ticket and sat in the white-designated railroad car. Plessy was arrested for violating the Separate Car Act and argued in court that the Act violated the 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution. After losing twice in the lower courts, Plessy took his case to the U.S. Supreme Court, which upheld the previous decisions that racial segregation is constitutional under the separate but equal doctrine. "The object of the [14th] Amendment was undoubtedly to enforce the absolute equality of the two races before the law, but in the nature of things it could not have been intended to abolish distinctions based upon color, or to enforce social, as distinguished from political, equality, or a commingling of the two races upon terms unsatisfactory to either." —Justice Henry Billings Brown, speaking for the majority Center for Learning And Student Success (CLASS) Brown v. Board of Education (14th Amendment – equal protection clause; separate is not equal) In Topeka, Kansas in the 1950s, schools were segregated by race. Each day, Linda Brown and her sister had to walk through a dangerous railroad switchyard to get to the bus stop for the ride to their all-black elementary school. There was a school closer to the Brown's house, but it was only for white students. Linda Brown and her family believed that the segregated school system violated the 14th Amendment and took their case to court. Federal district court decided that segregation in public education was harmful to black children, but because all-black schools and all-white schools had similar buildings, transportation, curricula, and teachers, the segregation was legal. The Browns appealed their case to the Supreme Court, stating that even if the facilities were similar, segregated schools could never be equal to one another. The Court decided that state laws requiring separate but equal schools violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. "We conclude that the doctrine of 'separate but equal' has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal." —Chief Justice Earl Warren Center for Learning And Student Success (CLASS) Regents of the U. of California v. Bakke (14th Amendment Equal protection clause) In the early 1970s, the medical school of the University of California at Davis devised a dual admissions program to increase representation of disadvantaged minority students. Allan Bakke was a white male who applied to and was rejected from the regular admissions program, while minority applicants with lower grade point averages and testing scores were admitted under the specialty admissions program. Bakke filed suit, alleging that this admissions system violated the Equal Protection Clause and excluded him on the basis of race. The Supreme Court found for Bakke against the rigid use of racial quotas, but also established that race was a permissible criteria among several others. "... Race or ethnic background may be deemed a "plus" in a particular applicant's file, yet it does not insulate the individual from comparison with all other candidates for the available seats." — Justice Powell, Speaking for the Court Center for Learning And Student Success (CLASS) Bush v. Gore (14th Amendment – equal protection clause) During 2000 election, the vote count in Florida was extremely close – too close to call. Whoever won the electoral votes in Florida would win the election and thus the presidency. A recount ensued. It was challenged that the use of different standards of counting the ballots in different counties was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause (14th Amendment). The Court agreed and let the initial count and vote certification stand which slightly favored Bush – who then went on to win the presidency. Details: On 11/8/2000, the Florida Division of Elections reported that Bush won the state’s electoral votes by a margin of 1,784 votes, less than 0.5% of the votes cast, so a statutorily mandated recount occurred. After the machine recount, Bush’s margin decreased. The Court decided that the use of different standards of counting votes in different counties violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Center for Learning And Student Success (CLASS) Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission This 2010 Supreme Court case is about campaign finance. The Court held that the free speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits the restriction of independent expenditures for communications by corporations (both for and non-profit), labor unions and other associations. In the case, the organization Citizens United sought to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton and to advertise the film just before the 2009 Democratic primary election. Federal law prohibited this type of broadcast within 30 days of a primary election, but the Court found this law conflicted with the U.S. Constitution. Political spending is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment, and the government may not keep corporations or unions from spending money to support or denounce individual candidates in elections. Center for Learning And Student Success (CLASS)  V Engel v. Vitale (First Amendment – freedom of religion) In the New York school system, each day began with a nondenominational prayer acknowledging dependence upon God. In 1962, this action was challenged in Court as an unconstitutional state establishment of religion in violation of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court agreed, stating that the government could not sponsor such religious activities. Holding: School initiated-prayer in the public school system violates the First Amendment. Center for Learning And Student Success (CLASS)  V West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (First Amendment – freedom of speech) In the 1940s, West Virginia public schools required all teachers and pupils “to participate in the salute honoring the Nation represented by the Flag.” Refusal resulted in expulsion and potential fines and jail time. The Barnetts were Jehovah’s Witnesses who were instructed by their father not to salute the flag or recite the pledge and were expelled for their refusal. The Supreme Court found that it was unconstitutional for public schools to compel students to salute the flag. Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment protects students from being forced to salute the American flag or say the Pledge of Allegiance in public school. Center for Learning And Student Success (CLASS)  T Texas v. Johnson (First Amendment – symbolic speech) In a political demonstration during the Republican National Convention in Texas, protesting the policies of the Reagan Administration and of certain corporations based in Dallas, Gregory Lee Johnson doused an American flag with kerosene and set it on fire. No one was hurt or threatened with injury, but some witnesses said they were seriously offended, and Johnson was charged and convicted with the desecration of a venerated object, in violation of the Texas Penal Code. In a split decision in 1989, the Supreme Court determined that Johnson’s actions were symbolic speech protected by his First Amendment Rights. "If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable...." —Justice William Brennan, speaking for the majority Center for Learning And Student Success (CLASS)  T Tinker v. Des Moines (First Amendment – symbolic speech) John and Mary Beth Tinker of Des Moines, Iowa, wore black armbands to their public school as a symbol of protest against American involvement in the Vietnam War. When school authorities asked that the Tinkers remove their armbands, they refused and were subsequently suspended. The Supreme Court decided that the Tinkers had the right to wear the armbands, with Justice Abe Fortas stating that no one expects students to “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” "... In the absence of a specific showing of constitutionally valid reasons to regulate their speech, students are entitled to freedom of expression of their views." — Justice Fortas, speaking for the majority Center for Learning And Student Success (CLASS)  HH Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (First Amendment – freedom of press/speech) The principal of Hazelwood East High School edited two articles of the Spectrum, the school’s student-written newspaper, before publication. In May 1983, he decided to have certain pages pulled because of the sensitive content in two of the articles, and acted quickly to remove them in order to meet the paper’s publication deadline. The journalism students felt that this censorship was a direct violation of their First Amendment rights. The Supreme Court decided that the Principal had the right to such editorial decisions, as he had “legitimate pedagogical concerns” and administrators can edit materials to reflect school values. "... 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 reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns." —Justice White, speaking for the majority Center for Learning And Student Success (CLASS)  DC=2 D.C. v. Heller (Second Amendment – right to bear arms) A landmark case in which the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that the District of Columbia's handgun ban and requirement that lawfully-owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee. It also stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated. It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms for self- defense or if the right was intended for state militias Center for Learning And Student Success (CLASS)  Mapp, Ohio=4 Mapp v. Ohio (Fourth Amendment – illegal search and seizure) Suspicious that Dollree Mapp might be hiding a person suspected in a bombing, the police went to her home in Cleveland, Ohio. They knocked on her door and demanded entrance, but Mapp refused to let them in because they did not have a warrant. After observing her house for several hours, the police forced their way into Mapp's house, holding up a piece of paper when Mapp demanded to see their search warrant. As a result of their search, the police found a trunk containing pornographic materials. They arrested Mapp and charged her with violating an Ohio law against the possession of obscene materials. At the trial the police officers did not show Mapp and her attorney the alleged search warrant or explain why they refused to do so. Nevertheless, the court found Mapp guilty and sentenced her to jail. After losing an appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court, Mapp took her case to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1961. The Court determined that evidence obtained through a search that violates the Fourth Amendment is inadmissible in state courts. "... our holding that the exclusionary rule is an essential part of both the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments is not only the logical dictate of prior cases, but it also makes very good sense. There is no war between the Constitution and common sense." —Justice Clark, speaking for the majority Center for Learning And Student Success (CLASS)  Initals=minor New Jersey v. T.L.O. (school privacy and searches) A New Jersey high school student was accused of violating school rules by smoking in the bathroom, leading an assistant principal to search her purse for cigarettes. The vice principal discovered marijuana and other items that implicated the student in dealing marijuana. The student tried to have the evidence from her purse suppressed, contending that mere possession of cigarettes was not a violation of school rules; therefore, a desire for evidence of smoking in the restroom did not justify the search. The Supreme Court decided that the search did not violate the Constitution and established more lenient standards for reasonableness in school searches. "... The warrant requirement, in particular, is unsuited to the school environment... [T]he legality of a search of a student should depend simply on the reasonableness, under all the circumstances, of the search... Such a search will be permissible in its scope when the measures adopted are reasonably related to the objectives of the search and not excessively intrusive in light of the age and sex of the student and the nature of the infraction. " —Justice Byron White, speaking for the majority Center for Learning And Student Success (CLASS)  M Miranda v. Arizona (Fifth Amendment – self incrimination; Sixth Amendment – right to counsel) Ernesto Miranda was arrested after a crime victim identified him, but police officers questioning him did not inform him of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, or of his Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of an attorney. While he confessed to the crime, his attorney later argued that his confession should have been excluded from trial. In 1966, the Supreme Court agreed, deciding that the police had not taken proper steps to inform Miranda of his rights. "... the prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self- incrimination." —Chief Justice Earl Warren, speaking for the majority Center for Learning And Student Success (CLASS)  W Gideon v. Wainwright (Sixth Amendment – right to attorney) In June 1961, a burglary occurred at a pool room in Florida. Police arrested Clarence Earl Gideon after he was found nearby with a pint of wine and some change in his pockets. Gideon, who could not afford a lawyer, asked a Florida Circuit Court judge to appoint one for him arguing that the Sixth Amendment entitles everyone to a lawyer. The judge denied his request and Gideon was left to represent himself. He did a poor job of defending himself and was found guilty of breaking and entering and petty larceny. From his prison cell, he handwrote a petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear his case and it agreed. The Court unanimously ruled in Gideon’s favor, stating that the Sixth Amendment requires state courts to provide attorneys for criminal defendants who cannot otherwise afford counsel. "If an obscure Florida convict named Clarence Earl Gideon had not sat down in his prison cell... to write a letter to the Supreme Court... the vast machinery of American law would have gone on functioning undisturbed. But Gideon did write that letter, the Court did look into his case... and the whole course of American legal history has been changed." —Robert F. Kennedy Center for Learning And Student Success (CLASS) Roe v. Wade Jane Roe was an unmarried and pregnant Texas resident in 1970. Texas law made it a felony to abort a fetus unless “on medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother.” Roe filed suit against Wade, the district attorney of Dallas County, contesting the statue on the grounds that it violated the guarantee of personal liberty and the right to privacy implicitly guaranteed in the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and 14th Amendments. In deciding for Roe, the Supreme Court invalidated any state laws that prohibited first trimester abortions. “We … acknowledge our awareness of the sensitive and emotional nature of the abortion controversy, of the vigorous opposing views, even among physicians, and of the deep and seemingly absolute convictions that the subject inspires.” — Justice Blackmun (1973), majority opinion in Roe v. Wade Center for Learning And Student Success (CLASS) Korematsu v. United States After Pearl Harbor was bombed in December 1941, the military feared a Japanese attack on the U.S. mainland and the American government was worried that Americans of Japanese descent might aid the enemy. In 1942, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed an executive order forcing many West Coast Japanese and Japanese Americans into internment camps. Fred Korematsu, a Japanese American, relocated and claimed to be Mexican-American to avoid being interned, but was later arrested and convicted of violating an executive order. Korematsu challenged his conviction in the courts saying that Congress, the President, and the military authorities did not have the power to issue the relocation orders and that he was being discriminated against based on his race. The government argued that the evacuation was necessary to protect the country and the federal appeals court agreed. Korematsu appealed this decision and the case came before the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court agreed with government and stated that the need to protect the country was a greater priority than the individual rights of the Japanese and Japanese Americans. "As long as my record stands in federal court, any American citizen can be held in prison or concentration camps without trial or hearing. I would like to see the government admit they were wrong and do something about it, so this will never happen again to any American citizen of any race, creed, or color." —Fred Korematsu (1983), on his decision to again challenge his conviction 40 years later Center for Learning And Student Success (CLASS) Marbury v. Madison (Judicial Review; Supremacy Clause) At the end of President John Adams’ term, his Secretary of State failed to deliver documents commissioning William Marbury as Justice of the Peace in DC. Once President Thomas Jefferson was sworn in, in order to keep members of the opposing political party from taking office, Jefferson told his Secretary of State (James Madison), to not deliver the documents needed for Marbury’s appointment. Marbury sued, asking the Supreme Court to issue a writ requiring them to deliver the documents necessary to officially make Marbury Justice of the Peace. The Marbury v. Madison decision resulted in establishment of the concept of judicial review, the ability of federal courts to declare legislative and executive actions unconstitutional; Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. Established the Constitution as actual law, not just political ideals. It is…the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is... If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each. — Chief Justice John Marshall Center for Learning And Student Success (CLASS)  BB Gibbons v. Ogden (Commerce Clause) In 1808, the government of New York granted a steamboat company a monopoly to operate its boats on the state's waters, which included bodies of water that stretched between states. Aaron Ogden held a license under this monopoly to operate steamboats between New Jersey and New York. Thomas Gibbons, another steamboat operator, competed with Aaron Ogden on this same route but held a federal coasting license issued by an act of Congress. Ogden filed a complaint in New York court to stop Gibbons from operating his boats, claiming that the monopoly granted by New York was legal even though he operated on shared, interstate waters. Gibbons disagreed arguing that the U.S. Constitution gave Congress the sole power over interstate commerce. After losing twice in New York courts, Gibbons appealed the case to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court determined that the commerce clause of the Constitution grants the federal government the power to determine how interstate commerce is conducted. Federal Law supersedes state law. Center for Learning And Student Success (CLASS) McCulloch v. Maryland (Implied powers of the federal government from the Constitution; necessary and proper clause) Maryland imposed a tax on the national Bank of the United States by passing a law that forced all banks that were created outside of the state to pay a yearly tax. They questioned the federal government’s ability to grant charters without explicit constitutional sanction. James McCulloch, a branch employee, refused to pay the tax. The State of Maryland sued McCulloch saying that Maryland had the power to tax any business in its state and that the Constitution does not give Congress the power to create a national bank. McCulloch was convicted and fined, but he appealed the decision in 1819. The Supreme Court determined that Congress has implied powers – broad power to implement the enumerated powers of the Constitution - that allow it to create a national bank, even though the Constitution does not explicitly state that power, and that Maryland’s taxing of its branches was unconstitutional. "... Although, among the enumerated powers of government, we do not find the word "bank" or "incorporation," we find the great powers to lay and collect taxes; to borrow money; to regulate commerce; to declare and conduct a war; and to raise and support armies and navies... But it may with great reason be contended, that a government, entrusted with such ample powers... must also be entrusted with ample means for their execution. " —Chief Justice John Marshall Center for Learning And Student Success (CLASS) United States v. Nixon (No one is above the law) A congressional hearing about President Nixon’s Watergate break-in scandal revealed that he had installed a tape-recording device in the Oval Office. The special prosecutor in charge of the case wanted access to these taped discussions to help prove that President Nixon and his aides had abused their power and broken the law. A subpoena was issued and Nixon’s incomplete compliance was challenged and eventually taken to the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court decided that executive privilege is not limitless, and the tapes were released. "... Absent a claim of need to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets, we find it difficult to accept the... [absolute] confidentiality of presidential communications." — Chief Justice Warren Burger Center for Learning And Student Success (CLASS) Summary First Amendment Fourth Amendment (search/seizure) Citizens United v. FEC Mapp vs. Ohio Engel vs. Vitale (religious prayer in school) New Jersey vs. TLO (searches in school) W. Virginia Board of Ed. vs. Barnette (speech, religion - pledge) Fifth and Sixth Amendment Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (freedom of Miranda vs. Arizona (5th – self press/speech - school) incrimination; 6th attorney) Texas v. Johnson (symbolic speech/ Gideon vs. Wainright (6th; attorney) flag burning) Tinker v. DesMoines (symbolic speech - armband in school) Second Amendment DC vs. Heller Center for Learning And Student Success (CLASS)  OTHER Summary Dred Scott v Sanford (African ancestry, not 13th and 14th Amendment citizen of the state) Plessy vs. Ferguson (rail car; Gibbons v Ogden (commerce clause; federal equal protection; separate but government determines interstate trade) equal) Korematsu v U.S. (Japanese relocation; Brown vs. Board of Education protecting U.S. more important than their (equal protection; separate rights) NOT equal) Marbury v. Madison (Judicial Review, Regents of the UC vs. Bakke Supremacy Clause) (equal protection; race McCulloch v Maryland (implied powers of admissions) federal government from Constitution) Roe v Wade (personal liberty & right to privacy from First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and 14 th Amendments) US v Nixon (no one is above the law) Center for Learning And Student Success (CLASS) Wrapping Up: Practice Test Practice Test results and Survey Other workshops Testing reminders Center for Learning And Student Success (CLASS)