Supreme+Court+Case+Part+Four

14th amendments – Rights of citizens (civil rights) – selective incorporation Dred Scott v Sandford (1857) ● The Court upheld property rights over human rights by saying that a slave, could not become a free man just because he traveled in “free soil” states with his master. A badly divided nation was further fragmented by the decision. “Free Soil” federal laws & the Missouri compromise Line of 1820 were held unconstitutional because they deprive a slave owner of the right to his “property” without just compensation. This narrow reading of the Constitution was an example of States’ Rights advocacy. Paul v Virginia (1896) ● Separate but Equal facilities were allowed and did not violate the “equal protection clause” of the Constitution Korematsu v United States (1944) ● 14th amendment, equal protection and due process ● The rights of people of suspect ethnic Backgrounds (internment of Japanese during WWII) ● Military has the benefit of the doubt in wartime. Brown v Board of Education (1954) ● 14th Amendment (equal protection clause) ● Precedent – Overturned Plessy v Ferguson and the “separate but equal” doctrine & that separate schooling of the races was unconstitutional and demanded that school desegregate with “all deliberate speed” (1970) ● 14th Amendment, Affirmative Action ● x a white male applied for admission to Medical school was rejected ● Medical school’s policy set aside 16 of 100 places for disadvantaged students to attract ethnic minorities, and he went to Court when he found that several applicants had been accepted with lower scores, grades etc. in the set aside policy. x sued the school for violation of the equal protection clause. ● The court ruled narrowly, providing an admission for x, but not overturning “affirmative action” preferring to take discrimination on a case by case basis. Gratz v Bollinger (2003) ● 14th amendment and affirmative action ● Does the University of Michigan's use of racial preferences in undergraduate admissions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964? ● Yes. In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the Court held that the University of Michigan's use of racial preferences in undergraduate admissions violates both the Equal Protection Clause and Title VI. Adarand Constructors inc. v Pena (1995) ● 14th Amendment, Affirmative Actin ● Challenged the provision that government agencies give preference to socially and economically disadvantaged individuals include Black Americans, Hispanic Americans, Native Americans, Asian Pacific Americans, and other minorities. ● all racial classifications, imposed by whatever federal, state, or local government actor, must be analyzed by a reviewing court under a standard of "strict scrutiny," ● Agencies must consider race-neutral alternatives before implementing race-conscious federal procurement programs.

Gerrymandering and the 14th amendment (Equal Protection Clause) Baker v Can (1962) ● Malapportionment violated the 14th amendment ● All districts must be contiguous and touching Reynolds v Sims (1964) ● One person one vote, all districts must be equal in POPULATON not AREA or SIZE Shaw v Reno (1993) ● 14th amendment and gerrymandering ● The legality of the redistricting turned on the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause. The people who filed the suit believed that the way the 12th district was redrawn was a racial gerrymander and violated their right to equal protection under the law ● The SC ruled that states with irregularly shaped electoral districts drawn with the intention of creating minority districts, could be challenged on equal protection grounds.

Powers of the President Ex Parte Miligan (1866) ● President, acting as commander in chief may not try citizens before military commissions when the civil courts are open (1973) ● President does not have absolute privilege against production of relevant information in a criminal investigation (executive privilege is not absolute) Clinton v Jones (1997) ● Sitting President not immune from civil litigations in federal courts under separation of powers Clinton v City of New York (1998) ● Line Item Veto violates Article II of the Constitution, only governors retain right to line-item veto

Federalism and Commerce Clause Gibbons v Ogden (1824) ● National government can regulate interstate commerce, not state governments. Heart of Atlanta Motel v United States (1964) ● Commerce clause ● Before the Civil Rights Act, the motel refused to rent its rooms to African Americans and stated that it planned to continue to do so. In order to do so legally, the motel sued the US government, which had the responsibility of enforcing the Civil Rights Act. Through the appeals process, the case reached the US Supreme Court ● As to the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Court held that the commerce clause of the Constitution permitted Congress to ban discrimination in places like the motel. United States v Lopez (1995) ● Commerce Clause ● x carried a concealed weapon to school, which was a violation of the Gun Free School Zone Act of 1990. He said the act was unconstitutional, for it was beyond control of the Federal government to regulate public schools. ● Court ruled in favor of state, saying that it was a constitutional exercise of Congress' well defined power to regulate activities in and affecting commerce, and the business' of elementary, middle and high schools affects interstate commerce. x challenged this to the Supreme Court. ● For years, Congress had used the Commerce clause to encroach into a number of areas usually reserved to the states under the 10th Amendment. ● This case ruled that the commerce clause does not give Congress unlimited powers that should be more appropriately reserved to the states. United States v Morrison (2000) ● Commerce Clause ● held that parts of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 were unconstitutional because they exceeded congressional power under the Commerce Clause and under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Gonzalez v Raich (2005) ● Congress may prohibit the local cultivation of marijuana for medicinal purposes under its Commerce Clause Power Gonzalez v Oregon (2006) ● United States Attorney General could not enforce the Controlled Substances Act against physicians prescribing drugs for the assisted suicide of the terminally ill as permitted by law as the Attorney General had tried to do on the basis of the Commerce clause.

Supreme Court Case Part One