Gvo/Econ- Vinson

Unit Three

Landmark Supreme Court Cases

For this extended assignment, we’re going to be looking at important Supreme Court decisions in several
categories related to civil rights and liberties. Your first step will be to look into the various cases below and
decide which ones you will focus on.

Freedom of Religion Freedom of Speech/Expression

Engel v. Vitale Schenck v. United States
Edwards v. Aguillard Texas v. Johnson
McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky Tinker v. Des Moines
Reynolds v. United States Cohen v. California
W. Virginia Board of Ed. v. Barnette

Equal Protection/Due Process Search and Seizure

Gideon v. Wainwright Mapp v. Ohio
Miranda v. Arizona New Jersey v. T.L.O.
Korematsu v. United States Katz v. United States
Obergefell v. Hodges California v. Acevedo
Vernonia School Dist. v. Acton

Privacy
Griswold v. Connecticut
Stanley v. Georgia
Roe v. Wade
Lawrence v. Texas

You’ll need to choose one case from each category, and do some research in order to provide the required
information. I’ve provided some helpful websites to get you going, and we’ll cover some key concepts during
synchronous class time that will make the information you find easier to understand.

● https://www.landmarkcases.org/legal-concepts
● https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/supreme-court-landmarks
● https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/programs/constitution_day/landmark-cases/

See the example and grading rubric below:

 Example

Name and year of case: Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas (1954)

Background (tell me the
story of how this case reached
the SCOTUS):
The family of Linda Brown (a young African-American girl), with the legal
assistance of the NAACP, sued the School Board of Topeka Kansas, because Linda
was prevented by state law from attending a school for white children (schools
and other public institutions in Kansas were racially segregated at the time).
Thurgood Marshall, the lawyer for the NAACP, argued that Linda Brown’s
constitutional rights were being violated by the state’s segregation laws. These
laws were considered constitutional at the time due to the Supreme Court's
previous decision in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), which established the “separate
but equal” precedent. This essentially meant that as long as there were “equal”
facilities for black and white children it was legal for them to be separate.

Amendments/Rights 14th Amendment- Equal Protection Clause

involved:

The Court’s decision: The Court ruled unanimously in the plaintiff’s favor; stating that segregated
schools were “inherently unequal” and therefore violated the Equal Protection
Clause of the 14th Amendment (this overturned the Plessy decision). The Court
later ruled that public schools should be desegregated “with all deliberate speed”.

Precedent set: This decision established that ALL laws which allowed for segregated public
facilities were in violation of the Constitution, and were therefore null and void.
This essentially put an end to de facto (legal) segregation in the United States;
individual states could no longer maintain laws that required the separation of
races in schools, buses, public restrooms and drinking fountains, etc.

Rubric:
Category 5 points 4 points 3 points 2 points 1 point

Explanation of Clearly tells the story Adequately tells the Tells the basic outline Some aspects of the Key aspects of the case
of the people/issues story behind the case, of the story behind the story behind the case are unclear or missing.
Case (Background)
involved, including including some specific case, but lacks detail. are vague or missing.
specific details. details .

Understanding of Shows a strong Shows a basic Shows some Shows little Shows a lack of
understanding of the understanding of the understanding of the understanding of the understanding of the
Legal Concepts
legal claim of the legal concepts legal concepts legal concepts legal concepts
Involved plaintiff(s) and involved. involved. involved. involved.
constitutional concepts
involved.

Explanation of Clearly explains how Adequately explains Somewhat explains Does not adequately Fails to explain how
the court’s decision how the court’s how the court’s explain how the court’s the court’s decision
Precedent Set
will be applied to state decision will be decision will be decision will be will be applied to state
laws/similar cases. applied to state applied to state applied to state laws/similar cases.
laws/similar cases. laws/similar cases. laws/similar cases.

Name and year of case:
Background (tell me the
story of how this case reached
the SCOTUS):
Amendments/Rights
involved:
The Court’s decision:
Precedent set:
Name and year of case:
Background (tell me the
story of how this case reached
the SCOTUS):
Freedom of Religion
Engel v. Vitale
. Supreme Court sessions are opened with the term, “God save the United
States and this Honorable Court.” In the U.S. democracy, public schools
were institutions that were already set with teachings of citizenship, rights,
and freedoms. This case was about whether public schools had a role in
promoting those values through the daily recitation of prayer. For instance,
After the bell would ring during a school day, New York classrooms would
have the students salute the U.S flag. Students and teachers would
volunteer to recite the school-provided prayer, which was drafted by the
state education agency. Schools provided would have prayers that would be
said aloud.
The first amendment- protects the right to religious worship. It also shields
Americans from the establishment of state-sponsored religion.
The Court agreed to read it. The Supreme Court’s decision was ruled a 6-1,
in favor of the objecting parents. Justice Black wrote the majority opinion
and Justice White did not participate.
Before the case was decided, it was common for schools to start the day
with a non- denominational prayer. The Court’s decision in this case ended
that practice in public schools.
Freedom of Speech/Expression
Schenck v. United States
The Espionage Act stated, “Whoever, when the United States is at war, …
shall willfully obstruct the recruiting or enlistment service of the United
States, to the injury of the service or of the United States, shall be punished
by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than
twenty years, or both.” The Supreme court had to decide on this case
whether or not the speech would be punished for violating the Espionage
Act, which was protected by the First Amendment. Charles T. Schenck was
convicted of violating the Espionage Act after printing and mailing 15,000
fliers to draft-age men arguing that conscription was unconstitutional and
urging them to resist. Charles T. Schenck was the general secretary for the
Socialist Party chapter in Philadelphia. He was convicted of violating the
Espionage Act after printing and mailing 15,000 fliers to draft-age men
arguing that conscription (the draft) was unconstitutional and urging them
to resist. Elizabeth Baer, a fellow executive committee member of the
chapter, was also convicted. The conscription was a form of “involuntary
servitude,” which was outlawed by the 13th Amendment. Schenck was told
to tell his Congressman to have the law repealed. He adopted more fiery

Amendments/Rights
involved:
The Court’s decision:
Precedent set:
Name and year of case:
Background (tell me the
story of how this case reached
the SCOTUS):
Amendments/Rights
involved:
The Court’s decision:
language and spoke, “do your share to maintain, support and uphold the
rights of the people of this country.” In 1917, Schenck asked the trial court
for a new trial and was denied. He appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, and
they agreed to review his case in 1919.
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which protects the freedom
of speech.
Justice Holmes accepted the possibility that the First Amendment did not
only prevent Congress from exercising prior restraint, but the First
Amendment could also be interpreted to prevent the punishment of speech
after its expression. The Espionage Act’s criminalization of speech that
caused a disruption of the operation of the military was not a violation of
the First Amendment. Some speech does not merit constitutional
protection. The Constitution does not protect efforts to induce the criminal
act of resisting the draft during a time of war.
Schenck fashioned a new and important rule. It allowed Congress to
authorize the punishment of speech based on both its content and
viewpoint.
Equal Protection/Due Process
Korematsu v. United States
The Japanese military attacked the U.S. naval base at Pearl Harbor in
Hawaii, which was a U.S. territory. The next day, the United States declared
war on Japan and entered World War II as part of the Allied Powers. The
war ended in 1945, but the Korematsu case was argued and decided while
the conflict continued. The Executive Order 9066 was an area exclusion
order that forced Japanese immigrants and Japanese Americans out of their
communities on the West Coast into internment camps. An internment
camp imprisons large groups of people who have not been charged with or
convicted of a crime. Fred Korematsu was a Japanese American who
refused to move to an internment camp, and was arrested and convicted of
violating President Roosevelt’s executive order. He was denied due process,
which is guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. He also argued that the
executive order did not treat Japanese Americans equally to other citizens
and therefore he was also protected by the Equal Protection Clause of the
14th Amendment. President Roosevelt argued that Japan invaded a
territory of the United States and posed a threat to the mainland.
Korematsu appealed his case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit, and they agreed with the lower District Court. He then asked the
Supreme Court of the United States to hear his case, and they agreed.
Fifth Amendment - due process
14th Amendment - protected by the Equal Protection Clause
The Supreme Court held that President Roosevelt’s executive order

Precedent set:
Name and year of case:
Background (tell me the
story of how this case reached
the SCOTUS):
Amendments/Rights
involved:
The Court’s decision:
Precedent set:
requiring the internment of Japanese Americans was constitutional. The
majority opinion, concurring opinion and the separate dissents were all
written.
After release, Fred Korematsu relocated and became a civil rights activist.
In 1876, President Gerald Ford signed a proclamation that officially ended
Executive Order 9066 and apologized to all who had been held in the
camps.
Search and Seizure
Mapp v. Ohio
In a federal case, the U.S. Supreme Court created the exclusionary rule. The
Court ruled that if federal law enforcement officers violate someone’s
Fourth Amendment rights and search their home without a warrant, any
evidence obtained during the search cannot be used against them at trial.
Mapp v. Ohio considered whether the exclusionary rule should be
incorporated against the states and require exclusion of illegally seized
evidence from state trials. Dollree Mapp worked for an illegal gambling
operation. The police received an anonymous tip that a person who was
wanted for questioning about a bombing was hiding in Mapp’s home. The
police went to her house and asked to enter but she refused to let them in
without a search warrant. The police came back with a piece of paper
claiming it was a search warrant. Mapp took the “search warrant” and the
police physically fought her to get it back and the paper wasn’t a search
warrant. The police did not produce it at her trial. Mapp was arrested and
convicted of knowingly possessing pronographic materials in violation of
an Ohio state law. She appealed her conviction and argued that the search
violated the Fourth Amendment because the police did not have a warrant
and that the illegally seized evidence should have been excluded from her
trial. The state of Ohio disagreed, claiming that the exclusionary rule under
the Fourth Amendment only applied to federal trials, not cases in state
court for violating state law. Mapp asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear
her case, and the Court agreed.
Fourth Amendment - search warrant right of privacy
The Supreme Court stated that the exclusionary rule does apply to the
states.
The case went back to the trial court. Mapp was found not guilty of
violating the Ohio statute because the state could not use the evidence
seized by the police in their unlawful search. She was then convicted of
drug possession.

Name and year of case:
Background (tell me the
story of how this case reached
the SCOTUS):
Amendments/Rights
involved:
The Court’s decision:
Precedent set:
Privacy
Roe v. Wade
Jane Roe (a pseudonym used to protect her identity) wanted to terminate
her pregnancy. Texas law made it a felony to abort a fetus unless “on
medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother.” Roe filed a
lawsuit to all other women as well who were to become pregnant and seek
abortions. The lawsuit was filed against Henry Wade, and he claimed that
the state law violated the U.S. Constitution. A three-judge federal District
Court ruled the Texas abortion law unconstituitional under the Ninth
Amendment. The District concluded that “the fundamental right of single
women and married persons to choose whether to have children is
protected by the Ninth Amendment,” which applies to the states through
the 14th Amendment.
Ninth Amendment- certain rights shall not be construed to deny or
disparage others retained by the people
14th Amendment - no state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States
The U.S. Supreme Court decided in Roe’s favor. The opinion of the Court,
recognized that a woman’s choice whether to have an abortion is protected
by the Constitution.
There was an immediate impact of the decision which was the striking
down of laws that banned or severely restricted abortions in 30 states,
including Texas. Several states have passed laws regulating abortion and
these are often challenged in court. The decision acted as precedent for
several later decisions regarding abortion.