Civil Liberties and the Supreme Court

Presidents Johnson and Kennedy appointed four justices

to the Supreme Court during their tenure. These justices
were Byron White, Arthur Goldberg (1962-1965), Abe
Fontas (1965-1969), and Thurgood Marshall (1967-1991)
who became the first "colored" man to sit as a justice on
the United States Supreme Court. The highest court in
the land became more liberal than ever with the addition
of these justices. With cases where the government was
involved and the main concern was liberties of the
people, the Supreme Court would often side with the
liberty of the citizen to make sure certain freedoms
would not be abridged. Since the Supreme Court was
mainly liberal, many of the justices thought that
government should not try to restrict liberty if it had no
legitimate reasons to do so.
In the famous Supreme Court case Bond v. Floyd (1966),
the court ruled that the Georgia House of
Representatives could not refuse to seat or elect
representatives of the people, even those who were against conscription during the Vietnam War
(1965-1975). In addition to that, the Supreme Court added that public officials and citizens could not
be punished for their views if they did not violate any city, state or federal laws. In the case of Tinker
v. Des Moines School District (1969), the Supreme Court justices ruled that students could not be
expelled because they wore black armed bands in protest against the Vietnam War.
In the case that involved the New York Times (New York Times v. Sullivan 1964), the court loosened
rules about well-known figures in society. Public officials could not win a judgment of libel case
against a publication because a statement was falsely created. Only truly recklessly false statements
made with malice were covered in libel laws. Justice Brennan added "even a false statement may be
deemed to make a valuable contribution to public debate."
In the public debate on obscenity, from 1957-1968, the Supreme Court decided thirteen cases in fifty
five separate opinions. The question of what is obscene and to what degree the government has in
restricting such material. In the case of Roth v. United States (1957), Justice Brennan believed that
he had found the answer. He observed that expression containing the "slightest redeeming social
importance" could be protected under the First Amendment and that what is or isn't obscene is
purely a personal matter.
In the heated debate about school prayers, the Engel v. Vitale (1962) case saw an end to this
practice within public schools. Civil libertarians gave praise to the Warren Court while Christian
Southerners were angered by the decision to remove God from the schools. There was even a
Southern Congressman who said "they put Negroes in the schools, and now they have driven out
God."
During any criminal procedure, the Supreme Court expanded the meaning of the rights of the
citizens accused of crimes and set new standards for law enforcement officers from this point on. In
the case of Mapp v. Ohio (1961), the Supreme Court forced all states to conform to the exclusionary
rule which held that evidence outside the terms of a search warrant could never be used against a
defendant. In another landmark case, Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), a man by the name of Clarence
Earl Gideon spent much of his adult life in prison never having a lawyer for his defense. When the
Court found out, it was decided that a "fair trial" meant a right to qualified legal counsel. This ruling
forced all states to retry every felony case in which the convicted never had counsel present.
Additionally, if a defendant could not afford an attorney, the state had to offer one.
Years later, in the Miranda v. Arizona (1966) case, the supreme court decided to strengthen the
understanding of the Fifth Amendment by addressing the need for a suspect to know his/her rights
and charges. This meant that all law enforcement officers must tell the suspect that he/she has the
right to remain silent, and if he/she gives up that right, anything he/she says could be used against
him/her. This case came about when a man named Ernesto Miranda was arrested for burglary in
Phoenix, Arizona and was talked into confessing to the crime without legal counsel.
In 1965, Planned Parenthood brought a case to the Supreme Court which was against an old 1879
Connecticut law which prohibited the use of any contraceptive device and the penalizing of anyone
giving information on birth control. In Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), Justice Douglas stated that
the Connecticut ban on contraception violated the established rights of privacy in the Ninth
Amendment. This ruling may have had an effect on the abortion debate in the oncoming decade.
Last but not least was the debate for fair and equal representation within elections. In the Baker v.
Carr (1962) case, the Supreme Court overruled earlier precedents and declared that lower courts
and it could choose if the boundaries of the state legislative branches were fair. In many states, the
legislatures had not reapportioned the districts for decades. Rural districts contained maybe less
than one-fifth of the population of the areas which were urban and suburban. The city dwellers
complained and were reminded that the United States Senate also did not represent voters in
proportion to their numbers. After the case, the underrepresented voters appealed and based it on
"one person, one vote." The Supreme Court agreed with their appeal.
In the case Gray v. Sanders (1963), Justice Douglas banned a Georgia system of awarding county
units to candidates for statewide office. The units were not based on population, but considerations
which was a practice taken into account as a violation against the equal protection clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment. The following year the Supreme Court decided on other cases that involved
state legislatures in Colorado, Delaware, New York, Virginia, Maryland, and Alabama.
Sources: