Strauder v. West Virginia (1880)
1. A West Virginia law declared that only whites may serve on juries.
2. Does the state law barring blacks from jury service violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? (Yes)
3. States cannot infringe on the rights of citizens to serve on juries, and the rights of blacks are protected.
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)
1. The state of Louisiana enacted a law that required separate railway cars for blacks and whites. In 1892, Homer Adolph Plessy--who was seven-eighths Caucasian--took a seat in a "whites only" car of a Louisiana train. He refused to move to the car reserved for blacks and was arrested.
2. Is Louisiana's law mandating racial segregation on its trains an unconstitutional infringement on both the privileges and immunities and the equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment? (No)
3. Separate-but-equal basis for Constitution. States were not out of bounds to use segregation, because segregation was considered not active discrimination. Blacks and Federal Government lose, states win.
Cumming v. Richmond County Board of Education (1899)
1. Blacks of Richmond County, GA objected to having their tax dollars go to paying for an all white school when they denied blacks the right to go to high school. (the tax money was supposed to be split by racial contribution to go to the black and white schools)
2. Did Richmond County Board of Education's decision to fund only the white school violate the separate-but-equal standards set by Plessy v. Ferguson? (No, becasue the tax money the decision of the funding was classified as monetary and not racially motivated)
3. States and white elitists win. National government, Reconstruction ideals, Republicans, and blacks lose. Bypasses Constitutional responsibility altogether.
Lochner v. New York (1905)
1. The state of New York enacted a statute forbidding bakers to work more than 60 hours a week or 10 hours a day.
2. Does the New York law violate the liberty protected by due process of the Fourteenth Amendment? (Yes)
3. State interfered with freedom of contract between employer and employee (Viewed as a labor law). Failure for labor control by the state and federal government, but protects people's rights to have regulatory laws passed by their representatives.
Muller v. Oregon (1908)
1. Oregon enacted a law that limited women to ten hours of work in factories and laundries.
2. Does the Oregon law violate a woman's freedom of contract implicit in the liberty protected by due process of the Fourteenth Amendment? (No)
3. Gain for states to regulate labor and for labor protection. Loss for women, who were considered unequal and inferior to men, and needed protection.
Schenck v. United States (1917)
1. During World War I, Schenck mailed circulars to draftees. The circulars suggested that the draft was a monstrous wrong motivated by the capitalist system. The circulars urged "Do not submit to intimidation" but advised only peaceful action such as petitioning to repeal the Conscription Act. Schenck was charged with conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act by attempting to cause insubordination in the military and to obstruct recruitment.
2. Are Schenck's actions (words, expression) protected by the free speech clause of the First Amendment? (No)
3. Loss for individual rights, and gain for national government. WWI provides a clear and present danger, which overrides his actions of free speech.
Gitlow v. New York (1925)
1. Gitlow, a socialist, was arrested for distributing copies of a "left-wing manifesto" that called for the establishment of socialism through strikes and class action of any form. Gitlow was convicted under a state criminal anarchy law, which punished advocating the overthrow of the government by force. At his trial, Gitlow argued that since there was no resulting action flowing from the manifesto's publication, the statute penalized utterences without propensity to incitement of concrete action. The New York courts had decided that anyone who advocated the doctrine of violent revolution violated the law.
2. Is the New York law punishing advocacy to overthrow the government by force an unconstitutional violation of the free speech clause of the First Amendment? (No)
3. The actions was in the process of creating a possible threat to public security, "Dangerous Tendency Test". (The legislature may decide that an entire class of speech is so dangerous that it should be prohibited. Those legislative decisions will be upheld if not unreasonable, and the defendant will be punished even if her speech created no danger at all.) Loss for individual rights, and gain for state power.
DeJonge v. Oregon (1937)
1. On July 27, 1934, at a meeting held by the Communist Party, Dirk De Jonge addressed the audience regarding jail conditions in the county and a maritime strike in progress in Portland. While the meeting was in progress, police raided it. De Jonge was arrested and charged with violating the State's criminal syndicalism statute. The law defines criminal syndicalism as "the doctrine which advocates crime, physical violence, sabotage or any unlawful acts or methods as a means of accomplishing or effecting industrial or political change or revolution." After being convicted, De Jonge moved for an acquittal, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to warrant his conviction. Disagreeing, the State Supreme Court distinguished that the indictment did not charge De Jonge with criminal syndicalism, but rather that he presided at, conducted and assisted in conducting an assemblage of persons, organization, society and group called by the Communist Party, which was unlawfully teaching and advocating in Multnomah county the doctrine of criminal syndicalism and sabotage.
2. Does Oregon's criminal syndicalism statute violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? (Yes, because they convicted the assembly not the individual of violating the law)
3. Loss for the state and gain for individuals. The law violated due process of the14th, and to protect freedom of assembly as made by the 1st.
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954)
1. Black children were denied admission to public schools attended by white children under laws requiring or permitting segregation according to the races. The white and black schools approached equality in terms of buildings, curricula, qualifications, and teacher salaries. This case was decided together with Briggs v. Elliott and Davis v. County School Board of Prince Edward County.
2. Does the segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race deprive the minority children of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the 14th Amendment? (Yes)
3. Segregation and separate-but-equal in Public Education were thrown down as never being able to be equal becasue of psychological implications of inferiority. White elitists and segregated states lose, while blacks and national government win.
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1955)
1. After its decision in Brown I which declared racial discrimination in public education unconstitutional, the Court convened to issue the directives which would help to implement its newly announced Constitutional principle. Given the embedded nature of racial discrimination in public schools and the diverse circumstances under which it had been practiced, the Court requested further argument on the issue of relief.
2. What means should be used to implement the principles announced in Brown I?
3. Local school authorities and courts. The federal government and blacks lose, due to discriminatory handling of local government keeping segregation in the partial hands of the state.
Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
1. Dollree Mapp was convicted of possessing obscene materials after an admittedly illegal police search of her home for a fugitive. She appealed her conviction on the basis of freedom of expression.
2. Were the confiscated materials protected by the First Amendment? [May evidence obtained through a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment be admitted in a state criminal proceeding?] (No)
3. Loss for the state and federal government, but gain for individual rights.
Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
1. The Court was called upon to consider the constitutionality of a number of instances, ruled on jointly, in which defendants were questioned "while in custody or otherwise deprived of [their] freedom in any significant way." In Vignera v. New York, the petitioner was questioned by police, made oral admissions, and signed an inculpatory statement all without being notified of his right to counsel. Similarly, in Westover v. United States, the petitioner was arrested by the FBI, interrogated, and made to sign statements without being notified of his right to counsel. Lastly, in California v. Stewart, local police held and interrogated the defendant for five days without notification of his right to counsel. In all these cases, suspects were questioned by police officers, detectives, or prosecuting attorneys in rooms that cut them off from the outside world. In none of the cases were suspects given warnings of their rights at the outset of their interrogation.
2. Does the police practice of interrogating individuals without notifiying them of their right to counsel and their protection against self-incrimination violate the Fifth Amendment? (Yes)
3. States and national government lose power, individuals gain power by protecting their rights against self incrimination. Miranda Rights now must be said before arrest.
Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)
1. This case was heard concurrently with two others, Earley v. DiCenso (1971) and Robinson v. DiCenso (1971). The cases involved controversies over laws in Pennsylvania and Rhode Island. In Pennsylvania, a statute provided financial support for teacher salaries, textbooks, and instructional materials for secular subjects to non-public schools. The Rhode Island statute provided direct supplemental salary payments to teachers in non-public elementary schools. Each statute made aid available to "church-related educational institutions."
2. Did the Rhode Island and Pennsylvania statutes violate the First Amendment's Establishment Clause by making state financial aid available to "church- related educational institutions"? (Yes)
3. Win for the individual and national government be keeping separation of church and state. Monitoring would become excessive and tie state ever closer to church.
University of California Regents v. Bakke (1978)
1. 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 redress longstanding, 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 contended, first in the California courts, then in the Supreme Court, that he was excluded from admission solely on the basis of race.
2. 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)
3. Rigid use of Affirmative Action violates the 14th Amendment, but loose use of affirmative action is admissible. Gain for minorities in higher education, and gain for majority applicants by removing barring standards.
Grove City College v. Bell (1984)
1. Grove City College, a private, coeducational liberal arts school, sought to preserve its institutional autonomy by consistently refusing state and federal financial assistance. The College did, however, enroll a large number of students who received Basic Educational Opportunity Grants (BEOG's) through a Department of Education-run program. The DOE concluded that this assistance to students qualified the College as a recipient of federal assistance and made it subject to the nondiscrimination requirements of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. When the College refused to comply with the requirements, the DOE attempted to terminate assistance to the student financial aid program. The College challenged the DOE's actions.
2. Was Grove City College subject to federal requirements because its students received federal grants? Did the provisions of Title IX violate the First Amendments rights of the College? (No)
3. There is no difference between aid given to the institution and the students attending, so the school's aid program is subject to government regulation in order to avoid discrimination. The school can choose withdraw from getting the BEOGs if it doesn't want to associate with them, per its 1st amendment rights.