Transcript AP US Supreme Court Presentation

Supreme Court Review
You need to know
1.The Case
2. The Precedent of the case
3. The year the decision was handed down
Marbury v. Madison
Here’s How it Happened…
• The time was 1800.
• John Adams (a federalist) unhappily lost
his presidential re-election bid to Thomas
Jefferson (a republican).
• Before leaving office, Adams wanted to keep
as much control as possible.
• At the “eleventh hour,” Adams appointed and
the senate confirmed all 16 federal circuit
court judges provided for in the judiciary act
of 1801.
• Their objective was to fill all judicial positions
with federalist friends and maintain control
over the judiciary.
• William Marbury was one of the 42 justices
of the peace appointed to the District of
Columbia.
• However, Marbury’s appointment was among
a few that were signed and sealed but not
delivered before Adams’ term came to an
end.
• Jefferson took office; he did not recognize
Adams’ appointment of Marbury because it
was never delivered.
• So, Marbury appealed to the Supreme Court
for a court order demanding his appointment
to be delivered to him.
• The basis for Marbury’s appeal was that the
Judiciary Act of 1789 gave the Supreme
Court the power to order Secretary of State
Madison to give Marbury the promised
appointment.
• John Marshall declared that Marbury had a
right to his appointment as a justice of the
peace.
• But as he began to study the Federal
Judiciary Act of 1789, he found that there is
nothing the Supreme Court can do about
enforcing Marbury’s appointment.
• Marshall declared that
the section of the
Judiciary Act of 1789
that gave the Supreme
Court the right to issue
orders (such as in
Marbury’s case) was
unconstitutional.
• Marshall concluded
there was no way for
Marbury to get his
appointment from
Madison.
• As a result of this
action, the Supreme
Court’s power to
overrule acts of
Congress because they
are unconstitutional
became know as
judicial review.
• perhaps the most
important opinion in
Supreme Court
history.
Legacy
• This first great case secured the Court’s power of
judicial review,—its ability to uphold or deny the
constitutionality of congressional or executive
actions—and established the judiciary as an
independent, co-equal branch of the federal
government. Revolutionary!
• From the President’s power to nominate and the
Senate’s power to confirm Supreme Court justices to
the occasional “great exertions” of constitutional
amendment, the Court remains firmly embedded
within our Constitution’s system of checks and
balances.
McCulloch v Maryland
What Was The Issue In The Case?
• The dispute that led to McCulloch v
Maryland originated in 1790 between
Secretary of the Treasury Alexander
Hamilton, who wanted congressional
authority to build a Bank of the
United States, and Secretary of State
Thomas Jefferson and Attorney
General Edmund Randolph, who both
opposed.
• Despite the opposition, Congress
created the First Bank of the United First and Second National
States in 1791. After the bank’s charter
Bank
expired in 1811, the bank was reinstituted as the Second Bank of the
United States in 1816 to help solve the
severe economic problems of
America.
What Was The Issue In The Case?
(continued)
• The economic troubles
continued, though, and many
states went against the bank
because it asked for loans owed
by the states.
• The State of Maryland fought
back by making a law to tax any
bank not chartered by the state.
• When James McCulloch, the
cashier of the Baltimore branch
of the Bank of the United States,
refused to pay the tax in 1819,
the issue went to the Supreme
Court.
What Were The Results Of The Case?
• The important case established two
important principles.
• (1) The Constitution grants Congress implied
powers that are in the nature of the
Constitution as a plan for a practically
functional government.
• (2) State action may not hinder real
constitutional uses of power by the Federal
government.
• Since it was also ruled that federal laws have
supremacy over state laws, Maryland had no
power to interfere with the bank's operation
by taxing it.
• The statement was written by Chief Justice
John Marshall, a man whose many decisions
influence modern constitutional law.
How Was the Case Resolved?
• John Marshall supported this conclusion with three
arguments.
• First, the court argued that the Constitution was a
social contract created by the people at the
Constitutional Convention. Since the government
proceeds from the people, the federal government is
supreme to a state government based on the
agreement of the people.
• Second, Congress is bound to act under explicit or
implicit powers of the Constitution. Even though
"banks" are not included, there are powers that allow
the laying and collecting of taxes, borrowing money
and regulating commerce, etc. Although not directly
stated, Congress has the implied right to form the
bank.
How Was the Case Resolved?
(continued)
• Third, Marshall agrees with the opinion
written under the Necessary and Proper
Clause, which allows Congress to have an
objective that is within the listed powers as
long as it is logically related to the objective
and allowed by the Constitution.
• Marshall rejected Maryland's interpretation
of the clause because many of the written
powers would be useless. For those reasons,
"necessary" does not mean the only way to do
something and applies to procedures to use
all constitutionally created powers.
• In conclusion, Congress has the authority to
spread legislation as long as the result is
allowed under the Constitution and used for
the objective.
Were There Any Issues That Influenced The
Outcome?
• During this case, the Panic of 1819 and
other economic problems had caused
many states to oppose the new Second
Bank.
• The court might have ruled that the
federal government was the supreme
authority maybe because it wanted to
quell people during the Panic of 1819; it
might have also wanted to suppress any
possible state rebellions by asserting the
authority of the national government.
• The case was important because it meant
that no state laws could conflict with
national laws; also, it allows the federal
government to have more control over
our rules than does a state government.
Gibbons vs. Ogden:
Steamships and permits
and lawyers, oh my.
It was a warm summer’s day
when…
This is actually a picture of the
Hudson river.
So these dapper fellas, Robert Fulton and Robert R. Livingston,
got their hands on a monopoly on steamboat navigation in state
waters by the state of New York, with the condition that they
would develop a steamboat that could travel four miles per hour
upstream on the Hudson. They did. Aaron Ogden then bought
the rights to operate the steamboats between New Jersey and
New York city from the two men. However, another fella,
Thomas Gibbons, had a federal coasting license, granted under a
1793 Act of Congress, and operated steamboats between New
Jersey and New York, in competition with Ogden. Because, duh,
Ogden wanted his monopoly secure, he sued Gibbons!
It’s Gavel Time!!!
Grrrrrrr!!!!
The case was one that asserted just how much power the federal government had. The
legislation in question was the Commerce Clause in Article I, Section 8 of the constitution. It
states that Congress has the power "[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and
among the several States. . . ." As evident by New York’s decision, it seemed the power of the
state was more relevant. When Gibbons appealed to the Supreme Court, he contended that
he was protected by a federal license to engage in coast trade. Ultimately, the original ruling
based upon state law was overturned, and Gibbons won. The supreme court asserted the
principle that states could not interfere with the power of congress to regulate commerce.
Ze importahnce!
Gibbons vs. Ogden - Set the tone on the importance of interpretation.
- Dismantled navigational monopolies in New York and
Louisiana, also allowing other states to follow suit.
- By easing the laws on sea-navigation (with and without
commerce), the case facilitated the settlement of the
American West.
Factors (x-1)(x+1)
There were many political factors, such as a
government searching for whether its power should be
centralized or not. A crazy advocate was presiding
chief justice John Marshall, who had stark (lol)
nationalistic intentions. Basically…federal
power…whoo!!!
 That’s a steamboat!
Dred Scott v. Sanford
Who?
• Dred Scott was the name
of an African-American
slave. He was taken by his
master, an officer in the
U.S. Army, from the slave
state of Missouri to the free
state of Illinois and then to
the free territory of
Wisconsin. He lived on
free soil for a long period
of time.
What?
• When the Army ordered his Scott’s master to go back to Missouri, he
took Scott with him back to that slave state, where his master died. In
1846, Scott was helped by Abolitionist lawyers to sue for his freedom
in court, claiming he should be free since he had lived on free soil for a
long time. The case went all the way to the United States Supreme
Court.
• The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Roger B. Taney, was a former
slave owner from Maryland.
Outcome
•
•
In March of 1857, Scott lost the decision as
seven out of nine Justices on the Supreme
Court declared no slave or descendant of a
slave could be a U.S. citizen, or ever had been a
U.S. citizen. As a non-citizen, the court stated,
Scott had no rights and could not sue in a
Federal Court and must remain a slave.
The Supreme Court also ruled that Congress
could not stop slavery in the newly emerging
territories and declared the Missouri
Compromise of 1820 to be unconstitutional.
The Missouri Compromise prohibited slavery
north of the parallel 36°30´ in the Louisiana
Purchase. The Court declared it violated the
Fifth Amendment of the Constitution which
prohibits Congress from depriving persons of
their property without due process of law.
Effects
•
•
At that time there were nearly 4
million slaves in America. The court's
ruling affected the status of every
enslaved and free African-American
in the United States. The ruling
served to turn back the clock
concerning the rights of AfricanAmericans, ignoring the fact that
black men in five of the original
States had been full voting citizens
dating back to the Declaration of
Independence in 1776.
Overall, the Dred Scott decision had
the effect of widening the political
and social gap between North and
South and took the nation closer to
the brink of Civil War.
Significance
• The significance of the Dred Scott decision is that it comes in
the wake of Bleeding Kansas, it comes three years after the
Kansas-Nebraska Act. The country has now struggled for three
years to understand the implications of popular sovereignty in
the West and how the West would be settled, free or slave. And
now this case of old Dred Scott finally gets to the Supreme
Court, and the Supreme Court says not only did Dred Scott not
have the right to even sue in a federal court because he's black
and [not] a citizen, but it goes one step further. It goes for a
much broader decision, and in Chief Justice Taney's words,
blacks had no rights which whites had to recognize.
Plessy vs. Ferguson
1896
Life during the time of the case
• The 1890’s symbolized
the decline of the populist
party leading to a sever
increase in white
supremacy which
triggered a strict
definition of the color line
• 1887 marked the
beginning of segregated
seating on trains in
Florida, which would
provide for the legal
separations of races in
Florida
Jim Crow Laws
• The enforcing legislation
of the of the legal
separation of races was
known as the Jim Crow
Laws. They applied to
almost every public
facility including
bathrooms, restaurants,
streetcars, hotels, and
cemeteries
• In 1890 the South
became a society
completely segregated by
law for the first time.
Plessy vs. Ferguson; The Case
• In 1892 Homer A. Plessy
challenged a Louisiana law that
supported separate but equal
facilities for blacks and whites on
railroad cars. IN the original case
John . Ferguson a criminal district
judge overruled Plessy’s plea
stating that the law was
considered unconstitutional.
• Plessy then proceeded to bring
action against Ferguson stating
that the law violated a clause of
the 14 amendment which
guaranteed citizens equal
protection of the laws
• The Supreme Court case upheld
the Louisiana law and ruled that
the amendment’s goal was not to
ensure the equality of all races
siding with Ferguson’s original
decision.
The Aftermath
• The Plessy vs. Ferguson
case was considered a
landmark supreme court
decision concerning racial
segregation
• In the ruling, the court
established the concept of
“ separate but equal”
public facilities for blacks
and whites
• The case was the basis for
over 50 years of
widespread segregation
and lack of social
acceptance for African
Americans in the South
• Even thought the court case
established the idea of “ separate
but equal” the reality was that, in
a material sense, the conditions of
African Americans were almost
always inferior to those of Whites.
• The purpose of segregation was
almost simply to exaggerate the
superiority whites felt towards
African American rather than to
actually create “ separate but
equal “ conditions for both races.
• The concept of “separate but
equal” would not be realized to be
unconstitutional or even be
attempted to be altered for almost
another 60 years until the
Supreme Court case Brown vs.
Board of Education case in 1954
SCHENCK V. UNITED
STATES
1919
Who, When, Where?
• Who:
• Defendant: Charles Schenck a Socialist
• He was a former General Secretary of the Socialist Party
of America.
• Against: The United States Charles Schenck was
arrested in Philadelphia Pennsylvania.
• When:
• Argued: January 9, 1919
• Decided: March 3, 1919
• Where:
• Charles Schenck was arrested in Philadelphia
Pennsylvania.
What:
• During World War I, Schenck circulated
15,000 leaflets to recently drafted men
expressing opposition to drafting. He did
this by mentioning the 13th amendment
which abolished slavery or involuntary
servitude. Since the draft was involuntary
Schenck argued that drafting was against
the 13th. Furthermore he proposed that
drafted men should show their opposition.
Problem:
• The question presented was: Are
Schenck's actions (words,
expression) protected by the free
speech clause of the First
Amendment?
Conclusion:
• Schenck was charged with conspiracy to
violate the Espionage Act by attempting to
cause insubordination in the military and to
obstruct recruitment. His conviction was
deemed constitutional because the First
Amendment did not protect speech
encouraging insubordination.
• Ultimately: our rights our given up in time
of war.
Korematsu Vs. United States
Argued October 11, 12,
1944.
Overall Issue
Decided December
18, 1944.
• The Korematsu Vs.
United States court case
involved a controversial 6-3
decision of the Supreme
Court that affirmed the
conviction of a Japanese
American citizen who
violated an exclusion order
that barred all persons of
Japanese ancestry from
designated military areas
during World War II.
Korematsu
• Fred Toyosaburo Korematsu, an
American citizen of Japanese
descent, was convicted in
federal court for remaining in a
designated military area in
California contrary to a Civilian
Exclusion Order issued by an
army general that required
persons of Japanese ancestry
to report to assembly centers as
a prelude to mass removal from
the West Coast.
• He unsuccessfully appealed his
conviction to the circuit court of
appeals and was granted
certiorari by the Supreme Court.
Korematsu Vs.
United States
(simple version)
The Big Question
•
“Did the President and Congress go beyond their war powers by
implementing exclusion and restricting the rights of Americans of Japanese
descent?"
•
Since Korematsu was convicted of violating an executive order military
commanders established military zones and impose restrictions on activities
in order to protect against espionage and sabotage.
•
•
Federal law made violation of these orders a crime.
The entire West Coast and southern Arizona were designated as military
zones.
•
The restriction and exclusion orders applied to all enemy aliens as well as
the Japanese
•
Other orders imposed an 8 p.m. to 6 a.m. curfew on all persons of
Japanese ancestry in designated West Coast military areas.
Cont.
•
Orders such as these were once challenged in
Hirabayashi v. United States.
•
The Supreme Court upheld and said that this
was a means of protection and sustained the
conviction.
•
The Court relied upon that case as support for
its refusal to rule that Congress and the
president exceeded their war powers in
excluding persons of Japanese descent from
the West Coast in Korematsu.
•
Although it acknowledged that being
prohibited from the area where one's home is
located is a more severe hardship than a tenhour curfew, the Court accepted the claims of
the government that such drastic measures
were necessary to adequately protect the
country.
Hirabayashi
The Decision
•
The Japanese American internment was not unconstitutional because the
need to protect against espionage outweighed Korematsu's individual rights,
and the rights of Americans of Japanese descent.
•
Justice Black argued that race-based compulsory exclusion, though
constitutionally suspect, was justified by the government's assertion of
wartime necessity.
•
The decision in Korematsu v. United States has been one of much
controversy. Indeed, Korematsu's conviction for evading internment was
overturned on November 10, 1983 after Korematsu challenged the earlier
decision by filing for a writ.
•
The Courts accepted the writ because in Korematsu's original case, the
government had knowingly submitted false information to the Supreme
Court that had a material impact on the Supreme Court's decision.
Impact and Final Thought
•
The case has not been overturned
however, and does remain a valid
precedent. This case was the only
one in which racial discrimination in
the United States has been upheld
despite the strict scrutiny standard.
•
Even though that this was an
unexpected decision it opened doors
for the rights of all people.
Period 3
By Jennifer Nguyen
Background cont.d
•The Browns felt that the decision of the Board violated
the Constitution. They sued the Board of Education of
Topeka, alleging that the segregated school system
deprived Linda Brown of the equal protection of the laws
required under the Fourteenth Amendment.
•Thurgood Marshall, an attorney for the National
Association for the Advancement of Colored People
(NAACP), argued the Brown's case.
•1951: a class action suit was filed against the Board of Education of the City of
Topeka, Kansas by 13 Topeka parent plaintiffs in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas. It called for the school district to reverse its policy of racial
segregation.
•The case of Brown v. Board of Education as heard before the Supreme Court
combined four cases: Brown itself, Briggs v. Elliott (filed in South Carolina), Davis v.
County School Board of Prince Edward County (filed in Virginia), and Gebhart v.
Belton (filed in Delaware), all NAACP-sponsored cases.
Background
•In Topeka, Kansas Linda Brown and her sister had to walk through
a dangerous railroad switchyard each day to get to the bus stop for
the ride to their all-black elementary school a mile away. Brown was
denied admission by the Board of Education of Topeka to the
closer Sumner School because of her race.
•Under the laws of the time, many public facilities were segregated
by race, allowed by the precedent-setting Plessy v. Ferguson case
(1896).
•At the time of the Brown case,
a Kansas statute permitted,
but did not require, cities of
more than 15,000 people to
maintain separate school
facilities for black and white
students. On that basis, the
Board of Education of Topeka
elected to establish
segregated elementary
schools. Other public schools
in the community were
operated on a nonsegregated,
or unitary, basis.
•May 17, 1954: Chief Justice Earl Warren and his
court unanimously handed down a 9-0 decision
which stated, in no uncertain terms, that “separate
educational facilities are inherently unequal.”
[Brown I (segregation unconstitutional)]
•The decision moved towards the end of school
segregation and led to school integration of both
blacks and whites. The case influenced the civil
rights movement in the coming years.
George E.C. Hayes, Thurgood
Marshall, and James Nabrit,
congratulating each other, following
Supreme Court decision.
"We conclude that the doctrine of 'separate but equal'
has no place. Separate educational facilities are
inherently unequal."
—Chief Justice Earl Warren
Miranda V. Arizona
Miranda V. Arizona
• In 1963, Ernesto Miranda
was arrested for robbery,
kidnapping, and rape.
• Miranda was interrogated
by police and singed a
confession to all three
crimes
• During Miranda’s trial,
prosecutors were only
able to offer his
confession as evidence
Miranda V. Arizona
• Miranda was convicted of
rape and kidnapping and
sentenced to 20-30 yrs
on both charges.
• Miranda’s lawyer, Alvin
Moore, appealed to the
Arizona supreme court.
• Chief Justice, Earl
Warren overturned
Miranda’s conviction.
Constitutional Issues
•
•
•
Does the police practice of
interrogating individual without
notifying them of their right to
counsel and their protection
against self-incrimination violate
the Fifth Amendment?
Do interrogation practices also
violate the Sixth Amendment right
to an attorney if the suspect had
not been aware of his rights?
Court took case because of
previous cases under the same
circumstances. The court needed
to make a final decision
considering a suspect’s
notification of his rights.
Precedent
•
•
Justice Warren ruled that no
confession could be admissible
under the fifth amendment selfincrimination clause.
Warren also ruled that upon
arrest, Police officers are required
to read the arrestee his rights.
(Miranda warning)
- the person in custody must, prior
to interrogation be informed that
he has the right to remain silent,
and that anything he says will be
used against him it court; he has
the right to consult with a lawyer
and to have the lawyer with him
during interrogation, and that if he
cannot afford a lawyer one will be
appointed to represent him.
Political/Social Issues
• Legal aid movement in the 1960s
-provide indigent defendants with legal aid
• Creation of the Legal Services Corporation
under the Great Society program because of
several public interest groups.
• law enforcement as first saw Miranda warning as
an insult that promoted a negative view of police
officers.
• Decision contributed to legitimacy of police
interrogations which were previously seen as
barbaric and unjust.
Roe v. Wade
Origin of Case
•Originated in Texas in March 1970.
•Norma McCorvey (given the name
“Jane Roe” to protect her identity)
challenged the constitutionality of Texas
criminal abortion laws that prohibit
abortion unless under medical advice
or for the purpose of saving the
mother’s life.
•The Texas District Attorney Henry
Wade was the defendant in the case.
Norma McCorvey
Origin of Case cont…
•McCorvey claimed that she had
become pregnant by rape.
•A three-judge district court ruled for
"Jane Roe", but refused to grant
against the enforcement of the laws.
Henry Wade
Case in the Supreme Court
•Both "Jane Roe" and defendant
Wade appealed to the Supreme
Court and the case was argued there
on December 13, 1971.
•Chief
Justice
Warren
Burger
assigned the opinion of the Court to
Harry Blackmun, who wrote an
opinion that would strike the Texas
law down as unconstitutionally
vague.
Harry Blackmun
Case in the Supreme Court cont…
•Chief
Justice
Warren
Burger
proposed that the case be put over for
reargument,
and
the
justices,
unimpressed with the first oral
argument
in
the
case
and
underwhelmed by Blackmun's opinion,
voted to reargue the case on October
11, 1972.
Chief Justice Warren Burger
Supreme Court Decision
•The court issued its decision
on January 22, 1973, with a 7
to 2 majority, voting to strike
down Texas's abortion laws.
•To this day, Roe v. Wade
remains one of the most
controversial Supreme Court
decisions in the United States.
Supreme Court Justices
Regents of the University of
California v. Bakke
How it all began...
Facts of the Case
• Allan Bakke, a thirty-five-year-old white man, had twice
applied for admission to the University of California
Medical School at Davis. He was rejected both times.
• The school reserved sixteen places in each entering
class of one hundred for "qualified" minorities, as part of
the university's affirmative action program, in an effort
to prevent unfair minority exclusions from the medical
profession.
• Bakke's qualifications (college GPA and test scores)
exceeded those of any of the minority students
admitted in the two years Bakke's applications were
rejected.
• Bakke argued, first in the California courts, then in the
Supreme Court, that he was excluded from admission
At the Superior Court of
California...
• Bakke filed suit to allow him into the medical
school.
• He claimed that the school had discriminated
against him on the basis of his race and thus
violated his rights under:
– the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment,
– the California Constitution, and
– Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
• Decision?
– The California Supreme Court favored of Bakke, in a
vote 8 to 1, and UC appealed to the United States
Supreme Court.
At the Supreme Court...
• So... did the University of California violate the
Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection
clause, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, by
practicing an affirmative action policy that
resulted in the repeated rejection of Bakke's
application for admission to its medical school?
• No and yes
• There was no single majority opinion.
At the Supreme Court...(cont.)
• The decision was indeed split with...
– Four of the justices believed that any racial
quota system supported by government
violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
• Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr., agreed, casting the
deciding vote ordering the medical school to admit
Bakke.
– And four of the remaining justices believed
that the use of race as a criterion in
admissions decisions in higher education was
constitutionally permissible.
• Powell joined that opinion as well, contending that
the use of race was permissible as one of several
admission criteria.
“. . . 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
In conclusion...
• The nature of this split opinion created controversy over
whether Powell's opinion was binding...
• However, In 2003 in Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v.
Bollinger the Supreme Court affirmed Powell's opinion.
• In the end, ...the Court managed to minimize white
opposition to the goal of equality while extending
opportunities for racial minorities through affirmative
action
Texas vs. Johnson
(1989)
Public Flag Burning
Basic Issues:
• After publicly burning an American flag as a means of
political protest, Gregory Lee Johnson was convicted of
desecrating a flag in violation of Texas law.
• This case presents the question whether his conviction is
consistent with the First Amendment.
Why is this a legal issue?
• According to the 1st Amendment, “Congress shall make
no law…abridging the freedom of speech…”
• According to Gregory Lee Johnson this means that the
Texas law prohibiting the desecration of the American
Flag is a direct violation of his 1st Amendment right for
freedom of speech.
• According to the Supreme Court, the Texas law was
unconstitutional, and could only be enforced if the
burning of the flag had caused a disturbance of the
peace.
The Precedent
• Due to this case, the 1st Amendment must now be strictly
interpreted, allowing all liberal standings and supporters
to protest against anything, anywhere, as long as it
consists of peaceful assembly, and does not infringe
upon the rights of other citizens.
Influence
• Just five years before, in 1984, a protest at the
Republican National Convention against the Regan
administration caused the arrest of Johnson, a member
of the Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigade, after
burning the American Flag.
• This Communist movement in the United States was
influenced by the tail end of the Cold War, and the Soviet
Union.
Summary
• In the Texas vs. Johnson case, Johnson, an outspoken
liberal, marched on the Republican National Convention
in 1984, and burned an American flag on its steps. The
state of Texas, which had passed a law prohibiting the
act of burning an American flag, arrested Johnson at the
scene. Later, at The Supreme Court, it was decided that
the act of flag burning is not illegal as long as it does not
abridge a peaceful assembly. Also, they decided that the
law restricting flag burning violates the 1st Amendment,
and is unconstitutional.
Gideon v
Wainwright
Basics Issues
* Clarence Earl Gideon is accused of burglarizing and stealing
from a poolroom in Panama City, Florida. Gideon requested a
lawyer but Florida law allowed Gideon’s request to be denied.
(During this time lawyers were only appointed in Capital
cases.) He represented himself in a jury trial and was convicted
as charged.
How did it get to the Supreme Court?
Circuit Court of the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida
Gideon is denied Representation (he can’t afford it), and must represent himself. He is charged and
convicted of breaking and entering.
State v. Gideon (1961)
Supreme Court of the State of Florida
Gideon writes to the Supreme court of Florida. He believes Florida’s denial of an appointed lawyer is a
violation of his rights. Gideon applies to the state supreme court for a write of habeas corpus (an
order asking that he be freed because he was illegally imprisoned). The court denies the request.
Gideon v. Cochran (1961)
Supreme Court of the United States
The court agrees to hearing Gideon’s case. He is appointed a lawyer. The court unanimously agrees
that Gideon’s XI and XIV rights had been violated. The Court sides with Gideon overturning Betts v. Brady.
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)
*Note: Just before the Supreme Court made its decision, Louie L. Wainwright *
*replaced Cochran as Director of the Division of Corrections*
The Precedent Set
* The Court unanimously agreed that Gideon’s 6th and 14th amendment rights
had been violated.
* XI amendment - In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the
right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and
district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall
have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature
and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against
him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and
to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
* XIV amendment -Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United
States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United
States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce
any law, which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of
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.
The Importance of Gideon v. Wainwright
"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
* The resulting Supreme Court
decision, Gideon v. Wainwright,
guaranteed state-funded counsel
to poor defendants facing felony
charges. The decision was one of
many by the Supreme Court under
Chief Justice Earl Warren that
protected the rights of accused
criminals and extended the
guarantees in the Bill of Rights to
state actions. The holding was
expanded in 1972 to require
counsel for any defendant who
would spend even one day in jail if
found guilty.
* Gideon’s Trumpet, a movie, tells
of Gideon’s Journey for justice.
Nixon v. US
When executive
privilege goes too far…
NixoN’s presideNcy
•
•
Nixon pulls off a victory for the
Republicans by running
against Democrat candidate
Nixon largely focused on
pulling out of Vietnam,
something that overshadowed
his corrupt administration.
Nixon was obsessed with the
anti-war movement, and
illegally authorized break ins,
phone tapping, and opening
mail. CREEP, Nixon’s
committee to re-elect, had
illegally raised over 20 million,
much of which was used to
fund Nixon’s dirty deeds,
including Watergate.
Information
Leaks
• Early in the morning of June17, 1972 police had
•
caught and charged five men caught with wire tapping
equipment and cameras breaking in to the Democratic
National Committee’s national headquarters in
Washington D.C.
Nixon’s administration attempts to cover Watergate up,
but the criminals confess, leading to an extensive
investigation of the Nixon White House
Nixon v. US
When executive
privilege goes too far…
NixoN’s presideNcy falls
Apart
• Senate votes 77 to 0 to
establish an investigative
committee, and many top
figures in Nixon’s
administration resign.
• The President remained
steadfast though, and
“stonewalled” the
committee’s demands to
surrender the tapes from the
cameras secretly installed in
the Oval Office.
NixoN’s fiNal days
•
•
•
•
On June 30, The House of
Representatives voted three articles of
impeachment against Nixon: obstruction
of justice, abuse of power, and acting to
subvert the Constitution.
Two days later supreme court ruled that
Nixon could not use executive privilege
as justification for refusing to turn over
the tapes. Under duress, Nixon released
the tapes on August 5 which contained
evidence that he had ordered the cover
up of Watergate six days after its
occurrence.
Facing conviction if impeached, Nixon
became the first president to resign on
August 9, 1974.
The next day Gerald Ford was in turn a
president.
NixoN’s legacy
•
•
•
Nixon’s abuses led to adopt
several reforms. In 1974, an
improved Freedom of Information
Act gave citizens greater access to
files in federal agencies.
The Fair Campaign Practices Act
of 1974 limited campaign
contributions and provided a
stricter accountability and public
financing of presidential
campaigns. This proved ineffectual
because groups could make
multiple donations. This made
such financing increasingly
important in future elections.
Above all, Nixon’s scandal hurt the
credibility the government in all
parts.