Petitioner's claim - Swift is practically an intrastate company that butchers livestock and sells fresh meat. The company buys the livestock from out of state, butchers them within the state, and sells the meat to others who ship the meat out of state toward the East.

Petitioner's arguments -
- The commerce is intrastate.

Respondent's arguments -
- The company's commerce acts like interstate commerce.
- The company also effectively controls bidding on its stock. This caused prices to appear to be cheaper than they really were.

Verdict - Swift and Company commerce acted like interstate commerce and their hopeful monopoly violated the Sherman Antitrust Act.

Historical Significance - This case helped to clarify the meaning of the Sherman Antitrust Act; this also allowed the act to be applied to more business.

Schenck v. U.S.

• The Espionage Act of 1917 prevents willful subordination in the military
• Schenk's subordination presented a "clear and present danger" by being counter-productive to the effort of the country in World War I; thus it was not protected by freedom of speech

Verdict - The court unanimously agreed that insubordination in the military is not protected by the 1st amendment

Historical significance - This case placed limitations on the rights granted by the 1st amendment by stating that these rights are not protected in certain situations

Schechter v. US

Petitioner's arguments -
- The National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933 is unconstitutional.

Respondent's arguments -
- Implied powers, as broadened by McCulloch v. Maryland, allows for the government to create the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933.

Verdict - The NIRA is unconstitutional because the code authority group didn't have legislative powers.

Historical Significance - This case struck down the NIRA, kept the businesses from making their own regulations, and helped preserve the free market.

Korematsu v. US

Date: Dec. 18, 1944

Petitioner - Toyosaburo Korematsu
Respondent - United States

Petitioner's claim - Toyosaburo Korematsu, a person of Japanese ethnicity, lived in the San Francisco Bay area. He defied a military order that would have sent him to government camps. Korematsu changed his name and face in order to continue with his job.

Petitioner's arguments -
- The military order was not necessary for national security.

Respondent's arguments -
- The Japanese ethnicity on the west coast posed a threat to national security, so the military order was issued.

Verdict - The court decided that the internment was constitutional.

Historical Significance - The Italians and the Germans did not have to undergo the same treatment during World War II as the Japanese. This case particularly highlights the racial prejudices of this period.

---

Individual Liberties

Dennis v. U.S. Yates v. United States of America Communist Party v. Subversive Activities Control Board Engel v. Vitale Griswold v. Connecticut New York Times v. U.S. Texas v. Johnson Back to Top

Dennis v. U.S.

Decision – June 4, 1951

Petitioner - Eugene Dennis, a leader of the Communist Party
Respondent – The United States of America

Petitioner’s claim – The Smith Act violates an individual’s constitutional rights.

Petitioner’s Arguments –
- The Smith Act, which prevents advocacy of government overthrow, is unconstitutional.
- His right to freedom of speech is violated by this act.
- His conviction also violated his 5th Amendment right to due process.

Respondent’s Arguments –
- Free speech is not an unlimited right.
- If free speech presents a danger to the government, it can and should be limited in those circumstances.

Verdict – The Supreme Court felt that the Smith Act is constitutional, and that free speech can be limited in necessary circumstances.

Historical Significance – The verdict of this case took away some of the freedom of speech that is expected by all Americans, and gave more power to the government to control this right.

Yates v. United States of America

Decision – June 17, 1957

Petitioners – Yates and 13 other members of the Communist Party.
Respondent – United States of America

Petitioner’s claim –
It is constitutional for a person or group to advocate the future overthrow of the government.

Petitioner’s Arguments –
- The Smith Act, which prohibited organization of government overthrow, only includes active attempts to overthrow the government.
- Yates’s group was merely engaging in passive actions.
- Yates’s right to freedom of speech should allow him to advocate the overthrow of the government.

Respondent’s Arguments -
- The petitioners violated the Smith Act by advocating the overthrow of the government.
- Freedom of speech does not protect Yates’s right to advocate the overthrow of the government because it goes against national security.

Verdict – The Supreme Court reversed earlier convictions of the petitioners and sent some of the cases back to the lower courts. They stated that the Smith Act did not prevent belief in an idea, distinguishing between advocacy of a specific action and “advocacy of forcible overthrow of the government as an abstract doctrine.”

Historical Significance – In this case, free speech won out over Congressional power, showing the importance of the idea of free speech.

Communist Party v. Subversive Activities Control Board

Decision – June 5, 1961

Petitioner – The Communist Party of the United States of America
Respondent – The Subversive Activities Control Board

Petitioner’s Claim – That the 1950 Internal Security Act is unconstitutional.

Petitioner’s Arguments –
- The McCarran Act, also known as the 1950 Internal Security Act, is unconstitutional.
- The McCarran Act violates the right to privacy of United States citizens.

Respondent’s Arguments –
- The McCarran Act is constitutional.
- The McCarran Act requiring Communist Party members to register with the government, is necessary in order to maintain National security.

Verdict – The registration requirement for Communist Party members was upheld by the Supreme Court.

Historical Significance – The verdict of this case gave the federal government more power over political parties, even though the government’s powers seemingly violated the constitutional right to privacy.

Engel v. Vitale

Decision - June 25, 1962

Petitioner – Engel, of the State of New York
Respondent – Vitale, of the State of New York

Petitioner’s Claim – The concept of an official state prayer is unconstitutional.

Petitioner’s Arguments –
- The existence of an official state prayer is unconstitutional.
- The prayer was against the religious beliefs of many families in the schools.
- A state prayer that was to be recited each day at school violated the separation of church and state that was granted by the 1st Amendment, as well as violating 14th Amendment rights.

Respondent’s Arguments –
- The prayer that was given was non-denominational.
- The school system did not in any way force students to recite the prayer.

Verdict – The Supreme Court decided that the official state prayer is unconstitutional.

Historical Significance – This case demonstrated the importance of the separation of the church and state, and ended the previous practice of allowing prayer in public schools.

Griswold v. Connecticut

Decision – May 11, 1964

Appellants – Griswold, Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, and Buxton, a licensed physician and professor
Appellee - State of Connecticut

Appellants’ claim – That their conviction on the basis of giving advice to women about birth control was unconstitutional.

Appellants’ Arguments –
- It is unconstitutional to prevent the appellants from giving medical advice to adults.
- By preventing couples from deciding whether or not to use contraceptives, the state violates the rights of married people and violates the right to privacy.

Appellee’s Arguments –
- Connecticut state law prevents the use of contraceptives.
- A Connecticut Statute also says that a person helping someone break the law is personally equally responsible for breaking that law.

Verdict – The Supreme Court overturned decisions of lower courts, stating that the laws preventing the use of contraceptives violate the right to privacy.

Historical Significance – The verdict of this case upholds the constitutional right to privacy, and limits the state’s control of reproduction when concerned with married couples.

New York Times v. U.S.

Decision – June 30, 1971

Petitioner – United States of America
Respondent – New York Times Co.

Petitioner’s claim – The prevention of the publication of the Pentagon Papers was constitutional.

Petitioner’s Arguments –
- The Pentagon Papers, which held classified information about the Vietnam War, should not have been published.
- The President has the right to prevent publication of such materials if it is a matter of National security.

Respondent’s Arguments –
- The prevention of the Pentagon Papers violates the right to freedom of speech.
- The Pentagon Papers’ publication was not a matter of national security.

Verdict – The government cannot censor the media unless they can clearly show that the information is important to National security, which the Pentagon Papers were not.

Historical Significance – The decision of this case limited the ability of the government to censor the media, an issue that had and has been important for a long time.

Texas v. Johnson

Decision – June 21, 1989

Petitioner – State of Texas
Respondent – Gregory Lee Johnson, Texas resident

Petitioner’s claim – It is constitutional to have a law making it illegal for a person to desecrate the American flag.

Petitioner’s Arguments –
- Texas state law prevents people from being allowed to desecrate the flag.
- The desecration of the flag is a criminal offense.

Respondent’s Arguments –
- The statute preventing him from burning the American flag in protest of the Reagan administration’s policies is unconstitutional because it violates his right to freedom of speech.

Verdict – The Supreme Court decided that the statute preventing the desecration of an American flag is unconstitutional and violates the right to freedom of speech.

Historical Significance – The verdict of this case took away some of the government’s power to make laws based on ideas that it finds disagreeable, because these laws can violate a person’s freedom of expression.

---

Equal Protection and Family Law

Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Roe v. Wade Regents v. Bakke Webster v. Reproductive Health Brown v. Board of Education Mapp v. Ohio Gideon v. Wainwright Escobedo v. Illinois Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S. Miranda v. Arizona Terry v. Ohio Tinker v. Des Moines U.S. v. Nixon Clinton v. Jones Back to Top

Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg

Decision – April 20, 1971

Appellant – James Swann, a North Carolina resident
Appellee – The Charlotte-Mecklenburg school district in North Carolina

Appellant’s claim – That the local school system was not doing enough to desegregate the schools.

Appellant’s Arguments –
- A forced method of integrating the schools by busing is not enough to fully integrate the schools.

Appellee’s Arguments -
- The forced integration is an acceptable means of promoting desegregation.
- Rezoning school attendance zones is necessary in order to achieve a better ratio of whites to blacks in public schools.

Verdict – The Supreme Court agreed that this method of integration was acceptable, and that the only situation when this should not be allowed is when the child’s education and health are affected by busing.

Historical Significance – This decision upheld the importance of desegregation without overly inconveniencing the students.

Roe v. Wade

Decision - January 22, 1973

Plaintiff - Norma McCorvey, under the pseudonym Jane Roe
Defendant – Henry B. Wade, Texas District Attorney

Plaintiff’s claim – The Texas law preventing Roe from having an abortion was unconstitutional.

Plaintiff’s Arguments –
- The law preventing Jane Roe from having an abortion violated her right to personal liberty granted in the 14th Amendment.
- The law also violated her constitutional right to privacy.

Defendant’s Arguments –
- The fetus itself has a right to life.
- The law does not violate her rights because it is protecting the rights of the unborn child.

Verdict – The Supreme Court decided that a woman could have an abortion in certain circumstances. In the first trimester, a woman can have an abortion for any reason. During the second trimester, regulations of abortions would be allowed if they were necessary to protect the mother’s health, and in the third trimester, the state may issue a ban on abortion in order to protect the now viable unborn child.

Historical Significance – This case was a big step in gaining more freedom for women, who prior to this decision were not allowed at all to have abortions. This case gave them the freedom to choose whether or not to have an abortion, even if her life is not threatened by keeping the child.

Regents v. Bakke

Decision – June 28, 1978

Petitioner – Allan Bakke, a white male
Respondent – University of California Regents

Petitioner’s claim – It is unconstitutional for the University of California to deny Bakke admission.

Petitioner’s Arguments –
- The University of California reserves 16% of its admission slots for only minority students.
- This program violates students’ 14th Amendment rights to equal protection of the law.
- Bakke scored higher on aptitude tests than many of the minorities who got into the University when he didn’t, proving that the University was allowing in less-qualified minority students.

Respondent’s Arguments –
- The University’s special admission program is designed to undo the wrongs of many years of racial discrimination.

Verdict – The court did not have a majority decision on this issue. The final verdict was that Bakke would be allowed to enter Davis Medical School, and that particular program was invalidated because Bakke was not allowed to apply to the special admission seats. However, the court decided that “Government may take race into account when it acts not to insult any racial group but to remedy disadvantages cast on minorities by past racial prejudice.”

Historical Significance – Although this case allowed for the admission of Bakke at a single University, it allowed for affirmative action programs at other institutions and schools. After this case, many affirmative action programs developed and continued.

Webster v. Reproductive Health Services

Decision – July 3, 1989

Appellants – William Webster, Missouri Attorney General
Appellee – Reproductive Health Services

Appellant’s claim – That the overturn of the law restricting abortions was unconstitutional.

Appellant’s Arguments –
- The government is not obligated to be an advocate of abortion.
- Each state should be allowed it’s own statement about when life begins.

Appellee’s Arguments –
- A woman should be given the right to privacy by being allowed to have an abortion.
- Abortions are a very safe procedure
- Abortions had been legal throughout history until the 1850’s.

Verdict – The Supreme Court upheld the restrictions on abortion access in Missouri state law.

Historical Significance – This decision moved in the opposite direction of Roe v. Wade (although it did not overturn the Roe v. Wade decision), allowing states to pass restrictive legislation on abortions.

Brown v. Board of Education Topeka, Kansas (I & II)

Decision - May 17, 1954 and May 31, 1955

Prosecutor – Several African American parents of elementary school aged kids
Respondent – Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas

The parents argued that the schools of the children were unequal and that their kids were not getting the same education as those of the opposite color.

Main arguments:

Prosecution –
- Schools aren’t separate and equal; the facilities are unequal.
- Segregation teaches inferiority among the children.

Respondent –
- Segregation prepares black children for the reality of life.
- Several African Americans have overcome segregation and become famous.

Verdict – The segregation of schools is ordered by the Supreme Court and Plessy v. Ferguson is overturned.

Historical Significance- This case abolished racial discrimination in schools, a compulsory environment of learning. The most memorable phrase from this case is “separate but unequal.” A year later another decision was reached on Brown v. Board of Education; segregation in schools should proceed “with all due speed.”

Mapp v. Ohio

Decision - June 19, 1961

Prosecutor – Dollree Mapp
Respondent – State of Ohio

Dollree Mapp’s house was forced into after police officers told her that another person said a suspect for a case was hiding in her house. Miss Mapp asked to see a “warrant” and was shown a piece of paper; in the police’s search obscene material was found. At her trial the search warrant wasn’t produced.

Main arguments:

Prosecution –
- The seizure of materials was illegal and violated the 4th Amendment.

Respondent –
- Illegally seized evidence is not unconstitutionally disregard, which comes from the case Wolf v. Colorado.

Verdict – Mapp was released from prison and the court overturned the previous decision of Wolf v. Colorado.

Historical Significance- The case has led to other issues on when “good faith” and “inevitable discovery” occur and some evidence becomes illegal, then it might still be allowed into a trial.

Gideon v. Wainwright

Decision - March 18, 1963

Prosecutor – Clarence Earl Gideon, a common layman
Respondent – State of Florida

Gideon was charged with causing trouble in a poolroom; for his trial he had no counsel, since his case wasn’t a capital case and Gideon was literate. Gideon proceeded to conduct his own trial to the best of his ability; Gideon was convicted of the offense.

Main arguments:

Prosecution –
- A layman can’t conduct a fair trial.
- Betts v. Brady needs to be overturned
- A fair trial in these circumstances could only happen by chance.

Respondent –
- The layman was able to handle his own defense.
- “Due process clause” inhibits states’ rights.
- There is no guarantee to counsel in the 6th Amendment.

Verdict – “The Gideon case is a success story for the Bill of Rights. States must now provide lawyers for all criminal defendants who cannot afford them.” (193, May It Please the Court...)

Historical Significance- The case started to change criminal proceedings that led up to Miranda v. Arizona.

Escobedo v. Illinois

Decision - June 22, 1964

Prosecutor – Danny Escobedo
Respondent – State of Illinois

Danny Escobedo was brought in for questioning by the police for a murder case; Danny didn’t know that he could remain silent while the police interrogated him. Escobedo repeatedly asked for his lawyer, but was not allowed to talk to him.

Main arguments:

Prosecution –
- Violation of the 6th Amendment and 14th Amendment occurred (refusal of the right of counsel for Escobedo)
- The statement made by Escobedo must be thrown out

Respondent –
- Escobedo made the damaging statement during interrogation and it can legally be used.

Verdict – Escobedo’s case was sent back to the lower court for his personal fate. This case continued the decision of Gideon v. Wainwright by stating that a criminal is allowed counsel before interrogation.

Historical Significance: The case help establish certain rights later used in the famous Miranda v. Arizona case in regards to the “Miranda rights”.

Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S.

Decision - December 14, 1964

Prosecutor – Motel’s owners
Respondent – US government for discriminated black travelers.

Black travelers were denied the ability to rent rooms at this particular hotel. The motel’s owners say they don’t have to serve all races, even though the motel gets most of its business from the nearby interstates highways.

Main arguments:

Prosecution -
- Congress abused the powers given in the commerce clause in the Constitution.
- People aren’t commerce.
- The respondent’s arguments are trash.

Respondent -
- Discrimination of hotels/motels impairs interstate travel, a form of commerce.
- Congress has authority to combat restraint on interstate commerce.
- Regulation of the conduct of a business isn’t taking its property.

Verdict – The motel had to admit all persons regardless of race.

Historical Significance: The case ended racial discrimination in hotels and changed American life.

Miranda v. Arizona

Decision - June 13, 1966

Prosecutor – Ernest Miranda
Respondent – State of Arizona

Ernest Miranda was charged with kidnapping and raping a woman in Arizona. The only evidence submitted at the trial was Miranda’s confession after interrogation.

Main arguments:

Prosecution –
- Police should tell suspect of their rights in a criminal case.
- The rights given in the Constitution are appreciated and used by those who know them (the rich and intelligent) while others don’t know understand these rights.

Respondent –
- Cross-examination is important evidence; limiting this is detrimental to the judicial system.

Verdict – Miranda was retried and, reconvicted (without the use of his earlier confession) and was sentenced to prison. Miranda rights are now read to suspects at an arrest.

Historical Significance: Miranda rights, the right to remain silent and other rights, are read to suspects as they’re arrested. “The Miranda case remains controversial. But studies show that Miranda warnings have not reduced confessions or freed criminals.” (222, May It Please the Court…)

Terry v. Ohio

Decision - June 10, 1968

Prosecutor – John Terry
Respondent – State of Ohio

John Terry and another man suspiciously walked the same block and looked into the same store window. After each pass-through, both the men would confer over something; a third man came up and talked and left with the other two. A police officer was wary of them and frisked Terry and found a gun.

Main arguments:

Prosecution –
- The officer acted out of job experience when there was not probable cause. Job experience doesn’t count.
- Touching Terry meant that the officer had to have probable cause.

Respondent –
- There is basically no difference between reasonable suspicion and probable cause.
- There was probable cause when the police officer found the gun in Terry’s coat.
- The officer frisked Terry to protect the officer for his own safety.

Verdict – The frisk of Terry was constitutional and the weapon could be used as evidence.

Historical Significance: The case was narrowly defined by those who wrote the court opinions due to the fact that “tempers that flare during a “stop and frisk” can spark violence, even rioting,” when concerned with minority groups and police. (208, May It Please the Court …)

Tinker v. Des Moines

Decision - February 24, 1969

Prosecutor – Mary Beth Tinker, a middle schooler
Respondent – Des Moines School District

Mary Beth Tinker and six other children wore black armbands to protest Vietnam in their schools. The principals in Des Moines met together and verbally agreed on a policy to prevent disruptions and violence by suspending students who refused to take off their armbands.

Main arguments:

Prosecution –
- The armbands were not disruptive.
- Mary Beth Tinker was suspended after she took off her armband and returned class occurring with the principal’s verbal policy.
- Tinker’s 1st Amendment rights were abused.

Respondent –
- School board doesn’t have to wait for violence before taking action.
- School board acted in good faith.
- The court should tell Mary Beth where she can’t wear her armband.

Verdict – Mary Beth won the right to wear the armband. Students and teachers still have rights that are important.

Historical Significance: The famous quote from this decision is that “it can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”

U.S. v. Nixon

Decision - July 24, 1974

Prosecutor – US Government
Respondent – President Richard Nixon

Five men broke into Watergate and tried to bug the phones stationed there. Richard Nixon refused to hand over the subpoenaed tapes to the special prosecution for the scandal.

Main arguments:

Prosecution –
- The impeachment proceedings are likely to occur.
- The tapes have a possible relation to the Watergate issue.
- Executive privilege isn’t absolute.

Respondent –
- President withheld the tapes because they are confidential and probably pertinent to national issues.

Verdict – Nixon tried to defy Supreme Court and not hand over the tapes; Nixon did and he also was impeached. The court also limited executive privilege.

Historical Significance: The case caused unrest and distrust within American society; we lost lots of trust in our government after the Watergate scandal and Nixon’s resignation of the presidency.

Clinton v. Jones

Decision - May 27, 1997

Prosecutor – President Bill Clinton
Respondent – Paula C. Jones

Paula C. Jones claimed that while Bill Clinton was governor, he sexually harassed her and that she was later punished through denied opportunities in the field of politics.

Main arguments:

Prosecution –
- There is immunity for the president while he is serving in office.
- Try this case once the Clinton leaves office.

Respondent –
- The president withheld my constitutional rights.

Verdict – The president doesn’t have immunity in this case and Paula Jones received compensation for damages done. Bill Clinton was impeached

Historical Significance: The historical significance hasn’t yet been concluding due to the recentness of this case.