Wesberry v.

Sanders
Decided: February 17, 1964 Constitutional Principal: Article 1, Section 2, Paragrap 1! "o#position o$ t e %ouse o$ &epresentatives Background: 'a#es P. Wesberry, 'r. $iled a suit against t e (overnor o$ (eorgia, "arl ). Sanders, protesting t e state*s apportion#ent sc e#e. + e Fi$t "ongressional ,istrict ad a population t-o to t ree ti#es larger t an so#e o$ t e ot er districts in t e state. Wesberry clai#ed t is syste# diluted is rig t to vote co#pared to ot er (eorgia residents. + e case .uestioned - et er or not (eorgia/s congressional districts violated t e 14 t A#end#ent or deprived citi0ens t e $ull bene$it o$ t eir rig t to vote. Decision: 6 votes $or Wesberry, 1 votes against. + e "ourt eld t at (eorgia*s apportion#ent sc e#e grossly discri#inated against voters in t e Fi$t "ongressional ,istrict. 2ecause a single congress#an ad to represent t-o to t ree ti#es as #any people as -ere represented by congress#en in ot er districts, t e (eorgia statute contracted t e value o$ so#e votes and e3panded t e value o$ ot ers. Long Term: Wesberry and t e "ourt*s later 4one person, one vote4 decisions ad an i#pact on t e #a5eup o$ t e %ouse, t e content o$ public policy, and on electoral politics.

&eynolds v. Si#s
Decided: 'une 16, 1964 Constitutional Principal: ).ual Protection "lause Background: 7n 1961, 8.9. Si#s, ,avid '. :ann, 'o n 8c"onnell, and ot er voters $ro# 'e$$erson "ounty, Alaba#a, c allenged t e apportion#ent o$ t e state legislature. + e Alaba#a "onstitution prescribed t at eac county -as entitled to at least one representative and t at t ere -ere to be as #any senatorial districts as t ere -ere senators. Population variance ratios o$ as great as 41;to;1 e3isted in t e Senate. Decision: < votes $or Si#s, 1 vote against + e "ourt up eld t e c allenge to t e Alaba#a syste#, olding t at ).ual Protection "lause de#anded 4no less t an substantially e.ual state legislative representation $or all citi0ens....4 Long Term: Senator )verett ,ir5sen o$ 7llinois led a $ig t to pass a constitutional a#end#ent allo-ing une.ual legislative districts. States -ere re.uired to 4 onest and good $ait 4 e$$orts to construct districts as nearly o$ e.ual population as practicable.

&oe v. Wade
Decided: 'anuary 22, 1971 Constitutional Principal: ,ue Process =14t A#end#ent rig t to privacy> Background: &oe v. Wade ruled unconstitutional a state la- t at banned abortions e3cept to save t e li$e o$ t e #ot er. Decision: 7 votes $or &oe, 2 votes against + e court ruled t at a rig t to privacy under t e due process clause o$ t e 14t A#end#ent e3tended to a -o#an*s decision to ave an abortion, but t at rig t #ust be balanced against t e state*s t-o legiti#ate interests in regulating abortions! protecting prenatal li$e and protecting -o#en*s ealt . Arguing t at t ese state interests beca#e stronger over t e course o$ a pregnancy, t e "ourt resolved t is balancing test by tying state regulation o$ abortion to t e tri#ester o$ pregnancy. Long Term: + e decision gave a -o#an total autono#y over t e pregnancy during t e $irst tri#ester and de$ined di$$erent levels o$ state interest $or t e second and t ird tri#esters. As a result, t e la-s o$ 46 states -ere a$$ected by t e "ourt*s ruling.

&o#er v. )vans
Decided: 8ay 2?, 1996 Constitutional Principal: A#end#ent 2 violates t e ).ual Protection "lause. Background: "olorado voters adopted A#end#ent 2 to t eir State "onstitution precluding any @udicial, legislative, or e3ecutive action designed to protect persons $ro# discri#ination based on t eir 4 o#ose3ual, lesbian, or bise3ual orientation, conduct, practices or relations ips.4 Follo-ing a legal c allenge by o#ose3ual and ot er aggrieved parties, t e state trial court entered a per#anent in@unction en@oining A#end#ent 2*s en$orce#ent. Decision: 6 votes $or )vans, 1 votes against + e "ourt eld t at A#end#ent 2 o$ t e "olorado State "onstitution violated t e e.ual protection clause. A#end#ent 2 singled out o#ose3ual and bise3ual persons, i#posing on t e# a broad disability by denying t e# t e rig t to see5 and receive speci$ic legal protection $ro# discri#ination. Long Term: + e case as produced c anges in t e legal status o$ gays and lesbians and t e structure and operation o$ #odern anti;discri#ination la-s. + e 2oulder and ,enver anti; discri#ination ordinances pro ibited discri#ination on account o$ se3ual orientation in places o$ public acco##odation, - ic include otels, restaurants, ospitals, dental clinics, t eaters, ban5s, co##on carriers, travel and insurance agencies, and s ops and stores t at deal -it goods and services.

S#it v. All-rig t
Decided: April 1, 1944 Constitutional Principal: &ig t to vote, speci$ically -it in t e 14t and 16t a#end#ents being violated according to race. Background: A resolution o$ t e ,e#ocratic Party o$ +e3as, a group t at t e +e3as Supre#e "ourt ad dee#ed a 4voluntary association,4 allo-ed only - ites to participate in ,e#ocratic pri#ary elections. S.S. All-rig t -as a county election o$$icialA e denied Bonnie ). S#it , a blac5 #an, t e rig t to vote in t e 194? +e3as ,e#ocratic pri#ary. Decision: S#it -on. + e "ourt agreed t at t e restricted pri#ary denied S#it is protection under t e laand $ound in is $avor, saying t at t e state ad allo-ed discri#ination to be practiced by delegating its aut ority to t e ,e#ocratic Party. Long Term: 7t overturned t e +e3as state la- t at aut ori0ed t e ,e#ocratic Party to set its internal rules, including t e use o$ - ite pri#aries. + e court ruled t at t e state ad allo-ed discri#ination to be practiced by delegating its aut ority to t e ,e#ocratic Party. + is a$$ected all ot er states - ere t e party used t e rule.

C.S. v. %arriss
Decided: 'une 7, 1964 Constitutional Principal: 7n$re.uently litigated statutes Background: Bobbyists c allenged t e &egulation o$ Bobbying Act $or being unconstitutionally vague and unclear. 7n Harriss, t e Supre#e "ourt responded by up olding t e act*s constitutionality, but also by narro-ing t e scope and application o$ t e act. + e "ourt ruled t at t e act applies only to paid lobbyists - o directly co##unicate -it #e#bers o$ "ongress on pending or proposed $ederal legislation. Decision: Long Term: + e Supre#e "ourt issued a 6;1 decision stating t at t e case o$ Cnited States v. %arriss s ould be reversed and up olding t e la- in .uestion D7n$re.uently litigated statute ; 2 C.S.". E 261F as constitutional. + e @udg#ent rested on t e "ourt*s aut ority over @udicial revieat t e national level. 7t -as decided by an opinion o$ t e court and -as conservative in nature.

C.S. v. Gi3on
Decided: 'uly 24, 1974 Constitutional Principal: CS "onst. Art. 77 Background: A grand @ury returned indict#ents against seven o$ President &ic ard Gi3on*s closest aides in t e Watergate a$$air. + e special prosecutor appointed by Gi3on and t e de$endants soug t audio tapes o$ conversations recorded by Gi3on in t e 9val 9$$ice. Gi3on asserted t at e -as i##une $ro# t e subpoena clai#ing 4e3ecutive privilege,4 - ic is t e rig t to -it old in$or#ation $ro# ot er govern#ent branc es to preserve con$idential co##unications -it in t e e3ecutive branc or to secure t e national interest. Decision: < votes $or Cnited States, ? votes against + e "ourt eld t at neit er t e doctrine o$ separation o$ po-ers, nor t e generali0ed need $or con$identiality o$ ig ;level co##unications can sustain an absolute, un.uali$ied, presidential privilege. Long Term: + e "ourt granted t at t ere -as a li#ited e3ecutive privilege in areas o$ #ilitary or diplo#atic a$$airs but gave pre$erence to 4t e $unda#ental de#ands o$ due process o$ la- in t e $air ad#inistration o$ @ustice.4

&eed v. &eed
Decided: Gove#ber 22, 1971 Constitutional Principal: ).ual Protection Background: + e 7da o Probate "ode speci$ied t at 4#ales #ust be pre$erred to $e#ales4 in appointing ad#inistrators o$ estates. A$ter t e deat o$ t eir adopted son, bot Sally and "ecil &eed soug t to be na#ed t e ad#inistrator o$ t eir son*s estate. According to t e Probate "ode, "ecil -as appointed ad#inistrator and Sally c allenged t e la- in court. Decision: 7 votes $or &eed, ? votes against + e "ourt eld t at t e la-*s dissi#ilar treat#ent o$ #en and -o#en -as unconstitutional. + e "ourt argued t at 4DtFo give a #andatory pre$erence to #e#bers o$ eit er se3 over #e#bers o$ t e ot er, #erely to acco#plis t e eli#ination o$ earings on t e #erits, is to #a5e t e very 5ind o$ arbitrary legislative c oice $orbidden by t e ).ual Protection "lause o$ t e Fourteent A#end#ent. Long Term: Ad#inistrators o$ estates cannot be na#ed in a -ay t at discri#inates bet-een se3es.

C.S. v. :irginia =1996>

Decided: 'une 26, 1996 Constitutional Principal: ).ual Protection Background: + e :irginia 8ilitary 7nstitute =:87> boasted a long and proud tradition as :irginia*s only e3clusively #ale public undergraduate ig er learning institution. + e Cnited States broug t suit against :irginia and :87 alleging t at t e sc ool*s #ale;only ad#issions policy -as unconstitutional inso$ar as it violated t e Fourteent A#end#ent*s e.ual protection clause. 9n appeal $ro# a ,istrict "ourt ruling $avoring :87, t e Fourt "ircuit reversed. 7t $ound :87*s ad#issions policy to be unconstitutional. :irginia, in response to t e Fourt "ircuit*s reversal, proposed to create t e :irginia Wo#en*s 7nstitute $or Beaders ip =:W7B> as a parallel progra# $or -o#en. Decision: 7 votes $or Cnited States, 1 vote against + e "ourt eld t at :87*s #ale;only ad#issions policy -as unconstitutional. 2ecause it $ailed to s o- 4e3ceedingly persuasive @usti$ication4 $or :87*s gender;biased ad#issions policy, :irginia violated t e Fourteent A#end#ent*s e.ual protection clause. Long Term: Wit t e :87 decision, t e ig court e$$ectively struc5 do-n any la- - ic , as 'ustice (insburg -rote, 4denies to -o#en, si#ply because t ey are -o#en, $ull citi0ens ip stature, e.ual opportunity to aspire, ac ieve, participate in and contribute to society.4

2oy Scouts o$ A#erica v. ,ale

Decided: 'une 2<, 2??? Constitutional Principal: A#end#ent 1! Speec , Press, and Asse#bly Background: ,ale, an )agle Scout, $iled suit in t e Ge- 'ersey Superior "ourt, alleging, a#ong ot er t ings, t at t e 2oy Scouts ad violated t e state statute pro ibiting discri#ination on t e basis o$ se3ual orientation in places o$ public acco##odation. Decision: 6 votes $or 2oy Scouts o$ A#erica, 4 votes against + e "ourt eld t at 4applying Ge- 'ersey*s public acco##odations la- to re.uire t e 2oy Scouts to ad#it ,ale violates t e 2oy Scouts* First A#end#ent rig t o$ e3pressive association.4 7n e$$ect, t e ruling gives t e 2oy Scouts o$ A#erica a constitutional rig t to bar o#ose3uals $ro# serving as troop leaders. Long Term: + e court eld t at t e constitutional rig t to $reedo# o$ association allo-s a private organi0ation li5e t e 2oy Scouts o$ A#erica =2SA> to e3clude a person $ro# #e#bers ip - en 4t e presence o$ t at person a$$ects in a signi$icant -ay t e group*s ability to advocate public or private vie-points.4

2ro-n v. 2oard o$ )d.

Decided: 8ay 17, 1964 Constitutional Principal: ).ual Protection "lause o$ t e 14t A#end#ent Background: 2lac5 c ildren -ere denied ad#ission to public sc ools attended by - ite c ildren under la-s re.uiring or per#itting segregation according to t e races. + e - ite and blac5 sc ools approac ed e.uality in ter#s o$ buildings, curricula, .uali$ications, and teac er salaries. Decision: 9 votes $or 2ro-n, ? votes against &acial segregation in public education as a detri#ental e$$ect on #inority c ildren because it is interpreted as a sign o$ in$eriority. + e long; eld doctrine t at separate $acilities -ere per#issible provided t ey -ere e.ual -as re@ected. Separate but e.ual is in erently une.ual in t e conte3t o$ public education. Long Term: State la-s establis ed separate public sc ools $or blac5 and - ite students unconstitutional. + e decision overturned t e Plessy v. Ferguson decision o$ 1<96, - ic allo-ed state;sponsored segregation, as it applied to public education.

2us v. (ore
Decided: ,ece#ber 12, 2??? Constitutional Principal: ).ual Protection "lause o$ t e 14t A#end#ent guarantees individuals t at t eir ballots cannot be devalued by 4later arbitrary and disparate treat#ent.4 Background: t e Florida Supre#e "ourt ordered t at t e "ircuit "ourt in Beon "ounty tabulate by and 9??? contested ballots $ro# 8ia#i;,ade "ounty. 7t also ordered t at every county in Florida #ust i##ediately begin #anually recounting all 4under;votes4 because t ere -ere enoug contested ballots to place t e outco#e o$ t e election in doubt. (overnor (eorge 2us and is running #ate $iled a re.uest $or revie- in t e C.S. Supre#e "ourt and soug t an e#ergency petition $or a stay o$ t e Florida Supre#e "ourt*s decision. Decision: 6 votes $or 2us , 4 votes against Go constitutional recount could be $as ioned in t e ti#e re#aining Long Term: &uled t at no alternative #et od could be establis ed -it in t e ti#e li#it set by +itle 1 o$ t e Cnited States "ode =1 C.S.".>. + ree concurring @ustices also asserted t at t e Florida Supre#e "ourt ad violated Article 77, E 1, cl. 2 o$ t e "onstitution, by #isinterpreting Florida election la- t at ad been enacted by t e Florida Begislature.

2a5er v. "arr

Decided: 8arc 26, 1962 Constitutional Principal: 2a5er*s argu#ent -as t at t is discrepancy -as causing i# to $ail to receive t e 4e.ual protection o$ t e la-s4 re.uired by t e Fourteent A#end#ent. Background: " arles W. 2a5er and ot er +ennessee citi0ens alleged t at a 19?1 la- designed to apportion t e seats $or t e state*s (eneral Asse#bly -as virtually ignored. 2a5er*s suit detailed o- +ennessee*s reapportion#ent e$$orts ignored signi$icant econo#ic gro-t and population s i$ts -it in t e state. Decision: 6 votes $or 2a5er, 2 votes against + e "ourt eld t at t ere -ere no suc .uestions to be ans-ered in t is case and t at legislative apportion#ent -as a @usticiable issue. Long Term: + e "ourt $or#ulated t e $a#ous 4one person, one vote4 standard under A#erican @urisprudence $or legislative redistricting, olding t at eac individual ad to be -eig ted e.ually in legislative apportion#ent. + e "ourt also decided t at in states -it bica#eral legislatures bot ouses ad to be apportioned on t is standard, voiding t e provision o$ t e Ari0ona "onstitution - ic ad provided $or t-o state senators $ro# eac county and si#ilar provisions else- ere.

S-eatt v. Painter
Decided: 'une 6, 196? Constitutional Principal: ).ual Protection "lauseA 14t A#end#ent again.. Background: 7n 1946, %e#an 8arion S-eatt, a blac5 #an, applied $or ad#ission to t e Cniversity o$ +e3as Ba- Sc ool. State la- restricted access to t e university to - ites, and S-eatt*s application -as auto#atically re@ected because o$ is race. W en S-eatt as5ed t e state courts to order is ad#ission, t e university atte#pted to provide separate but e.ual $acilities $or blac5 la- students. Decision: S-eatt -on + e "ourt eld t at t e ).ual Protection "lause re.uired t at S-eatt be ad#itted to t e university. + e "ourt $ound t at t e 4la- sc ool $or Gegroes4 -ould ave been grossly une.ual to t e Cniversity o$ +e3as Ba- Sc ool. + e "ourt argued t at t e separate sc ool -ould be in$erior in a nu#ber o$ areas, including $aculty, course variety, library $acilities, legal -riting opportunities, and overall prestige. Long Term: + e court eld t at, - en considering graduate education, intangibles #ust be considered as part o$ 4substantive e.uality.4

Ge- 'ersey v. +B9

Decided: 'anuary 16, 19<6 Constitutional Principal: A#end#ent 4! Fourt A#end#ent =unreasonable searc es> Background: +.B.9. -as a ig sc ool student. Sc ool o$$icials searc ed er purse suspecting s e ad cigarettes. + e o$$icials discovered cigarettes, a s#all a#ount o$ #ari@uana, and a list containing t e na#es o$ students - o o-ed +.B.9. #oney. +.B.9. -as c arged -it possession o$ #ari@uana. 2e$ore trial, +.B.9. #oved to suppress evidence discovered in t e searc , but t e "ourt denied er #otion. Decision: 6 votes $or Ge- 'ersey, 1 votes against Go decision. 7n an anony#ous opinion, t e Supre#e "ourt restored t e case to t e calendar $or reargu#ent. 7n addition to t e previously argued .uestion, t e "ourt re.uested t at t e parties brie$ and argue t e additional .uestion o$ - et er t e assistant principal violated t e Fourt A#end#ent in opening +.B.9/s purse. Long Term: According to sc ool o$$icials, sc ools re.uire a 4reasonable suspicion4 to per$or# a searc .

%a#dan v. &u#s$eld
Decided: 'une 29, 2??6 Constitutional Principal: Cni$or# "ode o$ 8ilitary 'ustice Background: Sali# A #ed %a#dan, 9sa#a bin Baden*s $or#er c au$$eur, -as captured by A$g ani $orces and i#prisoned by t e C.S. #ilitary in (uantana#o 2ay. %e $iled a petition $or a -rit o$ abeas corpus in $ederal district court to c allenge is detention. 2e$ore t e district court ruled on t e petition, e received a earing $ro# a #ilitary tribunal, - ic designated i# an ene#y co#batant. Decision: 6 votes $or %a#dan, 1 votes against + e court eld t at neit er an act o$ "ongress nor t e in erent po-ers o$ t e )3ecutive laid out in t e "onstitution e3pressly aut ori0ed t e sort o$ #ilitary co##ission at issue in t is case. Absent t at e3press aut ori0ation, t e co##ission ad to co#ply -it t e ordinary la-s o$ t e Cnited States and t e la-s o$ -ar. Long Term: + e (eneva "onvention, as a part o$ t e ordinary la-s o$ -ar, could t ere$ore be en$orced by t e Supre#e "ourt, along -it t e statutory Cni$or# "ode o$ 8ilitary 'ustice. %a#dan*s e3clusion $ro# certain parts o$ is trial dee#ed classi$ied by t e #ilitary co##ission violated bot o$ t ese, and t e trial -as t ere$ore illegal.

Boving v. "o##on-ealt o$ :irginia

Decided: 'une 12, 1967 Constitutional Principal: ).ual Protection Background: 7n 196<, t-o residents o$ :irginia, 8ildred 'eter, a blac5 -o#an, and &ic ard Boving, a - ite #an, -ere #arried in t e ,istrict o$ "olu#bia. + e Bovings returned to :irginia s ortly t erea$ter. + e couple -as t en c arged -it violating t e state*s anti#iscegenation statute, - ic banned inter;racial #arriages. + e Bovings -ere $ound guilty and sentenced to a year in @ail Decision: 9 votes $or Boving, ? votes against + e "ourt eld t at distinctions dra-n according to race -ere generally 4odious to a $ree people4 and -ere sub@ect to 4t e #ost rigid scrutiny4 under t e ).ual Protection "lause. + e :irginia la-, t e "ourt $ound, ad no legiti#ate purpose 4independent o$ invidious racial discri#ination.4 Long Term: + e "ourt re@ected t e state*s argu#ent t at t e statute -as legiti#ate because it applied e.ually to bot blac5s and - ites and $ound t at racial classi$ications -ere not sub@ect to a 4rational purpose4 test under t e Fourteent A#end#ent. + e "ourt also eld t at t e :irginia la- violated t e ,ue Process "lause o$ t e Fourteent A#end#ent.

8iranda v. Ari0ona
Decided: 'une 11, 1966 Constitutional Principal: Sel$;7ncri#ination Background: 9n 8arc 11, 1961, )rnesto 8iranda -as arrested, by t e P oeni3 Police ,epart#ent, based on circu#stantial evidence lin5ing i# to t e 5idnapping and rape o$ an 1<; year;old girl ten days earlier. %o-ever, at no ti#e -as 8iranda told o$ is rig t to counsel, and e -as not advised o$ is rig t to re#ain silent or t at is state#ents during t e interrogation -ould be used against i# be$ore being presented -it t e $or# on - ic e -as as5ed to -rite out t e con$ession e ad already given orally. At trial, - en prosecutors o$$ered 8iranda*s -ritten con$ession as evidence, is court;appointed la-yer, Alvin 8oore, ob@ected t at because o$ t ese $acts, t e con$ession -as not truly voluntary and s ould be e3cluded. Decision: 6 votes $or 8iranda, 4 votes against + e "ourt eld t at prosecutors could not use state#ents ste##ing $ro# custodial interrogation o$ de$endants unless t ey de#onstrated t e use o$ procedural sa$eguards 4e$$ective to secure t e privilege against sel$; incri#ination.4 Long Term: + e "ourt speci$ically outlined t e necessary aspects o$ police -arnings to suspects, including -arnings o$ t e rig t to re#ain silent and t e rig t to ave counsel present during interrogations =8iranda &ig ts>.

GH +i#es v. C.S.

Decided: 'une 1?, 1971 Constitutional Principal: A#end#ent 1! Speec , Press, and Asse#bly Background: + e Gi3on Ad#inistration atte#pted to prevent t e Ge- Hor5 +i#es and Was ington Post $ro# publis ing #aterials belonging to a classi$ied ,e$ense ,epart#ent study regarding t e istory o$ Cnited States activities in :ietna#. + e President argued t at prior restraint -as necessary to protect national security. Decision: 6 votes $or Ge- Hor5 +i#es, 1 votes against + e "ourt eld t at t e govern#ent did not overco#e t e 4 eavy presu#ption against4 prior restraint o$ t e press in t is case. Long Term: + e signi$icance o$ t e case and t e -ording o$ t e 'ustices/ opinions ave added i#portant state#ents to t e istory o$ precedents $or e3ceptions to t e First A#end#ent, - ic ave been cited in nu#erous Supre#e "ourt cases since.

Print0 v. C.S.
Decided: 'une 27, 1997 Constitutional Principal: 1< C.S.". 922A Gecessary I Proper "lause Background: + e 2rady %andgun :iolence Prevention Act =2rady 2ill> re.uired 4local c ie$ la- en$orce#ent o$$icers4 ="B)9s> to per$or# bac5ground;c ec5s on prospective andgun purc asers, until suc ti#e as t e Attorney (eneral establis es a $ederal syste# $or t is purpose. "ounty s eri$$s 'ay Print0 and &ic ard 8ac5, separately c allenged t e constitutionality o$ t is interi# provision o$ t e 2rady 2ill on be al$ o$ "B)9s in 8ontana and Ari0ona respectively. Decision: 6 votes $or Print0, 4 votes against + e "ourt e3plained t at - ile "ongress #ay re.uire t e $ederal govern#ent to regulate co##erce directly, in t is case by per$or#ing bac5ground;c ec5s on applicants $or andgun o-ners ip, t e Gecessary and Proper "lause does not e#po-er it to co#pel state "B)9s to $ul$ill its $ederal tas5s $or it Long Term: + e 2rady 2ill could not re.uire "B)9s to per$or# t e related tas5s o$ disposing o$ andgun;application $or#s or noti$ying certain applicants o$ t e reasons $or t eir re$usal in -riting, since t e 2rady 2ill reserved suc duties only $or t ose "B)9*s - o voluntarily accepted t e#. + e political poles ave reversed $ro# Mack and Printz, especially a$ter t e attac5 on t e World +rade "enterA - ere Mack and Printz protected conservative local aut orities $ro# liberal $ederal po-er, it also no- protects liberal local aut orities $ro# conservative $ederal po-er.