Political Science at Huntingdon College
Huntingdon College | Political Science | Courses | What's New?
PSC 314: Political theory and Constitutional Law.
Supreme Court Opinions: Students' Notes.
Compiled (thanks) by Dr. Jeremy Lewis |   Revised 21 Feb. 2007; with additional outlines.
  • Definitions
  • Plessy v. Ferguson, (1896)
  • Brown v Board of Education (1954)
  • Bolling v Sharpe (1954)
  • Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)
  • Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
  • Roe v Wade (1973)
  • Bowers v Hardwick (1986)


    • Definitions
    Krista Leachman Spring 2003

    Plessy v. Ferguson, (1896)
    Walker Garrett (2005)
    Background:
    "           The Civil Rights Cases (1883) implied that the 14th amendment did not apply to actions taken by "individuals" that abridged other citizen's rights, only to actions by the federal or state governments. In that case, the Court had invalidated most of the Civil Rights Act of 1875, which had been an attempt by Radical Republicans in Congress to protect the civil rights of African Americans from infringement.

    "           1890, Louisiana passed a law that required separate accommodations for blacks and whites on railroads, including separate railway cars. An organization was formed to protest this, and a man of 1/8 African American, 7/8 Caucasian heritage (Plessy) was asked to attempt to ride in the white section of a Louisiana train.

    "           The authorities onboard the train discovered Plessy's African American makeup and promptly removed Plessy and then proceeded to arrest him

    "           Plessy was represented by Albion Tourgee and Samuel L. Phillips. They went against Judge John Ferguson represented by Alexander Porter Morse. Plessy was convicted and sentenced to pay a $25 fine.

    Why this case is so important: Plessy v Ferguson cemented the doctrine of "separate but equal."

    This case approved of legal segregation in public facilities, and ruled that states could prohibit the use of public facilities by African Americans.

     The conviction came from a 7-1 decision, with the opinion of the court delivered by Justice Henry B. Brown. Justice David J. Brewer abstained, and Justice John Marshall Harlan delivered a famous dissent.

     Plessy v. Ferguson provided legal precedent to support the segregation which had already begun in the South through the "Jim Crow" laws. This case also provided for even more widespread segregation such as the segregation of the federal government in Washington, D.C. during Woodrow Wilson's administration in the 1910's.

     The beginning of the end of segregation supported by Plessy v. Ferguson came with the Brown v.
    Board of Education of Topeka case which ended segregation in schools.


    Brown v Board of Education
    By  Kristi Winstead, 2003
    The case was filed in Topeka, Kansas during the 1950's

    Background:
    Linda Brown was a 3rd grade African American.
    She walked approx. a mile to school everyday although a "white" school was located only seven blocks from her home.
    Her father, Oliver Brown, attempted to enroll her in the "white" school.
    However, she was not allowed to enroll at the facility.

    Her father brought his concerns to the NAACP; the NAACP took a concern in the matter and filed action against the board of education.

    Ruling of Lower Courts:
    The court, however, ruled in favor of the board of education based on the ruling in Plessy v Ferguson.

    Plessy v Ferguson:
    Stated that sep. but equal was infact legal as long as interstate commerce was not an issue.  In-state seperation was legal and could in fact continue as long as equality was maintained.

    Background:
    The NAACP then brought the case before the Supreme Court.

    Ruling of the Supreme Court:
    The court heard the case on Dec. 9, 1952 but failed to reach a decision.
    The case was reheard on Dec. 7th and 8th of 1953.
    On May 17, 1954 Chief Justice Earl Warren read the decision of the unanimous court:

    the court ruled in favor of Brown based on the idea that seperation in a learning enviornment was not and could not be equal.


    Bolling v Sharpe
    By  Kristi Winstead, 2003
    Background:
    In 1947 Gardner Bishop and the Consolidated Parents Group, Inc. "began a crusade to end segregated schooling in Washington, D.C.

    The "black schools" in D.C. were overcrowded. Many students had to attend schools in shifts such as from 8AM till 12PM and the next group
    would attend from 12:45PM until 5:15PM.

    Students at the all black Browne Junior High School were attending in shifts during 1947 due to an over capacity by about 700 students.

    A local all white school was opperating in single shifts and had app. 150 open spaces.

    In 1950 Bishop attempted to get eleven young African-American students admitted to John Philip Sousa Junior High School, an all white school.

    When the students were turned down, Charles Hamilton Houston, the special counsel to the NAACP, provided legal representation for the group.
    James Nabrit,Jr. soon replaced Houston after Houston dealt with medical issues.

    Argument:
    The sole issue debated was not that black schools were inferior to the white schools, but simply that it was segregation itself that was wrong.
    This point had never been argued alone.

    Ruling:
    The court dismissed the case on the basis of a recent ruling by the Court of Appeals in Carr v. Corning that segregated schools were constitutional in the District of Columbia.

    The U.S. Supreme Court rendered a separate opinion on Bolling v Sharpe because the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was not applicable in the District of Columbia.


    Gideon v. Wainwright
    Krista Leachman Spring 2003
    -Clarence Earl Gideon was arrested in 1961, and charged with breaking and entering a pool hall with intent to commit petty  larceny (a felony).

    -He did not have a lawyer and asked that one be appointed to him by the court.

    -He was denied the right saying that under Florida state law, a lwayer was only appointed in a capital offense.

    -He was sentenced to 5 yrs. in prison and he appealed to the Supreme Court and they agreed to review his case.
      -Abe Fortas was appointed to represent him.

    -In 1963, the Supreme Court overturned his conviction and said that the right to cousel is guaranteed in federal trials in the sixth  amendment of the constitution.

    -State failure to provide counsel for a defendant charged with a felony violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth  Amendment to the Constitution.


    Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
    By: Steven Witt (2005)

    The Chief Justice in the case has had a very exciting life so to speak. Earl Warren has had a number of landmark rulings. Among them were, Brown v. Board of Education (1954) on desegregation in public schools, Mapp v. Ohio (1961) on search and seizure by police, and Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) on the right to counsel in criminal trials in state courts.

    In this particular case we have a suspect (Ernesto Miranda) who has been identified by the victim in a kidnapping and rape case. He was then interrogated but only after he signed a confession document stating that he was “with full knowledge of my legal rights, understanding that any statement I make may be used against me.” The trial proceeded and Miranda’s confession was entered as evidence, and despite the officer’s testimony that Miranda had not been told of his right to have an attorney present during interrogation, Miranda was found guilty.

    The Supreme Court of Arizona upheld the conviction on the grounds that Miranda had not specifically requested an attorney. The ruling resulted in what we now know as the “Miranda rights”, a statement read to any suspect by law enforcement officers during an arrest.
     

  • The Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution states simply that an individual is not to be compelled to incriminate himself.
  • 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.
  • Individuals must be warned prior to any questioning that they have the right to remain silent, that anything you say can be used against you in a court of law, that you have the right to the presence of an attorney and that if you cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for you prior to any questioning if you so desire.


    • From the testimony of the officers and by the admission of respondent, it is clear that Miranda was not in any way appraised of his right to consult with an attorney and to have one present during the interrogation, nor was his right not to be compelled to incriminate himself effectively protected in any other manner. Without these warnings the statements were inadmissible.
     


    Roe v. Wade
    Jonathan Lyons, Spring 2007
     Based on Two cases:
     -Texas-an unmarried woman sought an abortion in a state where it was illegal unless the mother’s life was at risk
     -Georgia-a poor, married mother of three sought an abortion in a state where permission from a panel of doctors and hospital officials was necessary

     -A Texas statute made it illegal to “procure an abortion”

     -Ms. Norma McCorvey (using Roe was a pseudonym) of Texas challenged that the statute violated her right to privacy given in the Fourteenth Amendment.

     -The three-judge panel in Texas stated that the Texas statute indeed violated her right to privacy and ruled in favor of Roe. The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 to overturn the statute and thus legalizing abortion throughout the states.

     -Justice Blackmun’s opinion- stated that the Constitution does not see the fetus as a person as the state does. The Constitution does not make the choice to have an abortion moral, but does grant the right to choose

     -The Supreme Court furthered the decision by giving states the right to regulate abortions in certain circumstances but gave all women the right to an abortion in the First Trimester.  The court decided the states could regulate abortions according to which trimester the woman’s pregnancy was currently in. States could not interfere with a woman’s right to an abortion during the first three months of a pregnancy.

    -In the Second Trimester, states could now regulate abortion only if it was reasonably related to the mother’s health.

    -In the Third Trimester states were given the authority to regulate and absolutely ban abortions.  In the Third Trimester the fetus has reached viability (the fetus can survive outside of the mother’s body)
     

    Roe v. Wade (1973)
    (Tegan Cole 2005)

    - Background:
    Roe brought the case to the Supreme Court against the state of Texas and their laws that criminalized abortion.  Roe a single parent brought this case up because she wanted an abortion but she could not due to the fact that the Texas statute only allowed an abortion when it was needed to save the mother’s life.
    - The supreme court came to a 7-2 decision where they overturned the Texas statute and made abortion legal through out the United States.  They overturned the statute due to the fact that it violated the right to privacy that women had over the choices they have to make with their bodies.

    - Justice Blackmun wrote the opinion of the court:

    ~ The statute clearly violates the concept of personal liberty as held by the 14th Amendment’s
    due process clause and also personal life is protected by the Bill of Rights.

    ~ The laws are out of date and need to be updated to the 20th Century.  There were reasons in
    the 19th Century for having such laws but they are no longer needed due to the great
    advancement of medicine.

    ~ There are three reasons for these laws, one to discourage illicit sexual conduct, abortion being
    very unsafe as a medical procedure in the 19th Century, the state’s interest in protecting prenatal life.

    ~ The Constitution does not clearly define a right of privacy but the decisions of the court does
    and the statute is clearly a violation of the privacy ensured by the court.  The 9th amendment is
    broad enough to encompass a woman’s right to have an abortion or not.

    ~ The Constitution does not see the fetus as a person as the state does and therefore abortion is legal.

    ~ The Constitution does not make the right to have an abortion moral but it is the right to make a
    choice whether to have an abortion or not.  The practice of an abortion is legal and the
    stipulations on an abortion are left up to the state after the first trimester.

    - Justice White and Justice Rehnquist Dissent
    ~ The court has no right to place the scope of a woman’s choice under the 14th Amendment.


    Bowers v. Hardwick (1986)
    By Tegan Cole, 2005
    Background:
    The case was about Hardwick who was being arrested for public drunkenness and was found in his home engaging in oral sex with another person of the same sex.  He was arrested because it violated the Georgia statute of sodomy, in reference to banning oral and anal sex.

    Hardwick challenged that it was unconstitutional for the state to limit consensual sex between two partners of the same sex as long as they were consenting adults.  He claimed a right to privacy and claimed that under the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments his rights were violated under the due process clause.

    The Ruling:

    The court was split and gave a 5-4 ruling in reversal of the 11th circuit court of appeals ruling.
    Justice White delivered the opinion of the court:
    ? The right to privacy was not invaded and the case has no legitimacy under the due process clause because it is not a Constitutional issue and majority belief still invalidates his claim because it is seen still by the majority as immoral.
    ? The due process clause only protects life, liberty, and property to a person and their right to maintain and keep it.  The rights of homosexuality do not fall under these categories.
    ? The idea of homosexuality was not provided for in the Constitution because at the time of the founding fathers there was a common law that made sodomy illegal and it was not meant to be in the Constitution’s jurisdiction.
    ? The law, based on morality like many other laws, is Constitutional because it protects the rights of those who are not a part of it.  The basis for morality is that it keeps order and if laws that were based on morality were rejected then where would the courts be today?
    Justice Burger in his concurring opinion:
    ? Hardwick should not undermine the power of the state just because it suits his sexual preferences better.
    Justice Blackmun delivered the dissenting opinion of the court:
    ? Intrusion on a person’s privacy should not be biased according to sexual orientation.
    ? The courts have focused too much on the fact of homosexuality and not on the fact whether the person’s rights were violated or not.
    ? Sexual intimacy is part of life and should not be limited due to sexual orientation.
    Aftermath:
    The Georgia law was stuck down later in 1997 in Powell v. State.  The law was also struck down by the Supreme Court in 2003 in Lawrence v. Texas.