Right to Bear Arms
| Right to Bear Arms: District of Columbia v Heller (2008) | ||||||||||
|
||||||||||
| The
Court ruled 5 to 4 that the Second Amendment is more than a right of
states to maintain militias and does, in fact, protect an
individual's right to keep firearms in the home. The Court struck
down a District of Columbia firearms regulation without deciding
precisely what types of gun regulations might be constitutional.
The Court has yet to decide whether the Second Amendment restricts
state firearm regulations as well as regulations of the federal
government. |
| Right
to Abortion: Casey
v Planned Parenthood of Pennsylvania (1992) |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
| The Court ruled 5 to 4 to affirm the
central holding of Roe v Wade, that women have a right to have an
abortion. In so doing, three justices (Kennedy, O'Connor, and
Souter) abandoned the rigid trimester framework of Roe and announced that states had a right to
regulate in the field so long as the regulations placed no "undue
burden" on the right of women to have an abortion. Blackmun and
Stevens would have affirmed Roe in its entirety. The four dissenting
justices would have overruled Roe. |
| "Partial-Birth" Abortion: Gonzales v
Carhart (2007) |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
| The Court, voting 5 to 4, upheld a federal
law banning so-called "partial birth abortions" (which Congress
declared where "never medically indicated") . The Court,
in an opinion by Justice Kennedy, did not rule out "as applied"
challenges to the law. |
| Right to Die: Cruzan
v Missouri Department
of Health (1990) |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
| The Court upheld a Missouri law that
disallowed the disconnection of a feeding tube to a patient in a
persistent vegetative state unless the patient's preference for
termination could be established by "clear and convincing
evidence." The four dissenters would not have allowed the state
to set so high of standard for termination under the facts of the case. |
| Right to Intimate Relations: Lawrence
v
Texas (2003) |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
| The Court, by a 5 to 4 vote, voted to
overrule a 1986 decision and hold that the due process liberty clause
protects the right of consenting adults to engage in sodomy. The
Court overturned the convictions of two gay men who violated a Texas
statute criminalizing homosexual sodomy. Justice O'Connor did not
find a substantive due process violation, but would have found the ban
on homosexual, but not heterosexual, sodomy to violate the equal
protection clause. The three dissenters (Rehnquist, Thomas,
Scalia) would have upheld the Texas law. |
| Gender Discrimination: United
States v
Virginia (VMI)(1996) |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
| The Court, by a 7 to 1 vote, found that
Virginia violated the equal protection clause by failing to provide to
females an education substantially equal to that provided males at the
Virginia Military Institute. Virginia operated a military school
for women, but the Court found that the curriculum and standards of the
new school differed significantly from the program open to men at
VMI. The decision effectively opened VMI to women. Justice
Thomas, who had a son enrolled at VMI, did not participate in the case. |
| Affirmative Action: Grutter
v Bollinger
(2003) |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
| The Court, by a 5 to 4 vote, upheld an
affirmative action program used by the University of Michigan to
determine admissions to its law school. The Court held that it
was permissible to give some preference to racial minorities as part of
a larger program to enhance diversity in the student body. The
four dissenters believed that the program denied white applicants equal
protection of the laws. |
| Vote Counting: Bush
v Gore (2000) |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
| The Court, on a 5 to 4 vote, decided to
stop the recounting in 2000 presidential election in Florida,
effectively giving Florida's electoral votes-- and with it, the
election--to George W. Bush. Five members of the Court found that
the Florida Supreme Court's recount order, recounting only certain
types of ballots in only some of Florida's counties, violated the
equal protection rights of Florida voters in other counties to have
thier "overvotes" and "undervotes" treated the same way. Two
other justices, Breyer and Souter, also found the Florida Supreme
Court's order
to violate equal protection, but unlike the five justices in the
majority, they would have allowed the recount to continue under new
guidelines. |
| School Prayer: Lee
v Weisman (1992) |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
| The Court, on a 5 to 4 vote, found that the
decision of a public school principal to invite a member of the clergy
to offer invocation and benediction prayers at a middle school
graduated ceremony violated the clause of the Constitution that
prohibits an "establishment" of religion. |
| 10 Commandments on Public Ground: Van
Order
v Perry (2005) |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
| The Court, on a 5 to 4 vote, held that the
placement in front of the Texas State Capitol of a large stone monument
engraved with the Ten Commandments did not constitute an "establishment
of religion." The Court noted that the monument, placed among a
number of other monuments that did not have religious messages, had a
primarily secular purpose of reminding people of the role religion
played in shaping our national history. The Court distinguished
the Texas monument from a framed listing of the Ten Commandments in a
county courthouse which the Court, on the same day and also by a 5 to 4
vote, said did constitute an
establishment clause violation. Justice Breyer was the swing vote
in the two cases. |
| Free Exercise of Religion (Peyote Case): Employment
Division v Smith (1990) |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
| The Court, on a 5 to 4 vote, overruled
years of caselaw on the meaning of the free exercise clause and held
that the enforcement of a neutral and generally applicable criminal law
did not violate free exercise rights, even if someone's religious
exercise was substantially burdened by the law. In the three
decades prior to this case, the Court had repeatedly said that the
government must show a compelling state interest and narrowly tailored
means when it substantially burdens religious exercise. The case
involved the question of whether unemployment benefits could be denied
to a Native American who lost his job because he used peyote as part of
a religious service. Justice O'Connor concurred in the result,
but disagreed that the Court should abandon its prior test. |
| Taking Homes for a Private Developer: Kelo
v City of New London (2005) |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
| The Court, on a 5 to 4 vote, held that a
city's plan to condemn homes in a residential neighborhood and give the
acreage to a private developer for $1 for a 99-year lease to create an
upscale development did not violate the Fifth Amendment's requirement
that takings of property be for "a public use." (Of course,
as provided by the Fifth Amendment, the government had to provide "just
compensation" for the taking.) |
| Executing Minors:
Roper v Simmons (2005) |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
| The Court, on a 5 to 4, vote held that the
execution of criminals for crimes commited when they were under 18
years of age offended "evolving standards of decency," and hence
constituted "cruel and unusual punishment" in violation of the Eighth
Amendment. |
| Beatings by Prison Guards: Hudson
v
McMillian (1992) |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
| The Court, on a 7 to 2 vote, reversed a
Court of Appeals decision that held that beatings of prisoners by
prison guards constitute cruel and unusual punishment only when the
beating leaves the prisoner with a "significant injury," which had been
defined as one leaving a permanent injury or requiring
hospitalization. The Court held that a beating of a Louisiana
prisoner (which left loose teeth and a cracked dental plate)
constituted cruel and unusual punishment, as would any "wanton and
unnecessary infliction of pain." The two dissenters thought
beatings by guards are not covered by the Eighth Amendment protections. |
| Drug Testing of Students: Board
of
Education v Earls (2002) |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
| The Court, on a 5 to 4 vote, upheld a
school district policy that required all students participating in
extra-curricular programs to submit to urine testing for drugs.
The Court found the search to be reasonable within the meaning of the
Fourth Amendment prohibition of "unreasonable searches." In a
concurring opinion, Justice Breyer suggested the policy might not be
constitutional if it extended to all students, including those who did
not participate in extra-curricular programs. |
| Using Heat Sensing Detectors on Private
Homes: Kyllo
v United States (2001) |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
| The Court, on a 5 to 4 vote, ruled that the
use of thermal-imaging equipment, without a warrant, on private homes
to detect the possible presence of marijuana growing equipment
constituted an unreasonable search and therefore violated the Fourth
Amendment. |
| Flag Burning: Texas
v Johnson (1989) |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
| The Court, on a 5 to 4 vote, held that the
burning of the American flag was protected expressive activity under
the First Amendment, and reversed the conviction of a flag-burning
demonstrator. |
| Nude Dancing: Barnes
v Glen Theatre (1991) |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
| The Court, on a 5 to 4 vote, held that the
First Amendment does not protect the right to dance totally nude in a
strip club and that a state law prohibiting indecent exposure (so long
as it covered most forms of public nudity, and wasn't aimed just
at nude dancing) could be enforced against strippers. Justice
Souter, in a concurring opinion, suggested that he did not believe that
indecent exposure laws could be enforced against actors or dancers
participating in serious artistic performances where the "adverse
secondary effects" in this case would be unlikely to exist. |
| State Ban on Discrimination Against Gays
& Freedom Not to Associate: Boy
Scouts of America v Dale (2000) |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
| The Court, by a 5 to 4 vote, held that New
Jersey violated the freedom of association rights (protected as an
aspect of the free speech clause) of the Boy Scouts when it ordered the
Boy Scouts to reinstate a scout leader the organization had dismissed
because he was a homosexual. The Court found that the Boy Scouts
had the right not to associate with persons who the organization
believed would undermine its expressive values. |
| Federal Regulation of Violence Against
Women: United
States v Morrison (2000) |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
| The Court, by a 5 to 4 vote, held that
Congress lacked authority either under the Commerce Clause or the
Fourteenth Amendment to enact a law that created a federal remedy for
gender-motivated violence. |
| Federal Regulation of Medical Marijuana: Gonzales
v Raich (2005) |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
| The Court, by a 6 to 3 vote, held that
Congress had the power under the Commerce Clause to criminalize the
private growing and consumption of marijuana, even if the consumption
complied with California law allowing marijuana to be used for medical
purposes. |
| Right of "Enemy Combatants" to Challenge
Detention: Hamdi
v Rumsfield (2004) |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
| The
Court, by an 8 to 1 vote, held that persons classified as "enemy
combatants" and held at Guantanamo after the 9-11 terrorist action had
a constitutional right to challenge their classification despite a
presidential order to the contrary. Justice Scalia contended that
Hamdi had a right a criminal trial under the Sixth Amendment, while the
other justices in the majority argued that the due process clause gave
Hamdi a right to challenge his classification, but did not go so far as
to hold that Hamdi had a right to a full-blown trial. |
| Military Commissions: Hamdan
v Rumsfield
(2006) |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
| The
Court, by a vote of 5 to 3, found that President Bush lacked the
constitutional authority to authorize trial by military commission of
prisoners held at Guantanamo. The Court ruled that in the absence
of congressional authorization, the President had no implied authority
under Article II to authorize trials using the process proposed. Three
dissenters argued that Congress
had "constitutionally eliminated jurisdiction over the case" and that
therefore the case should be dismissed. Chief Justice Roberts, who participated in
the decision below that the Court reviewed, recused
himself. |
Exploring Constitutional Law
|
|
||||||||||