Name Year Constitutional Vote and Verdict Reasoning & Person

Question Pertinent Phrasing

Twining v. 1908 The constitutionality By a vote of 8 to 1, Before the adoption Jack
New Jersey of two men charged the Supreme Court of the 14th Wilkins
with fraud in New ruled that the 5th amendment, the Bill
Jersey who said they Amendment rights to of Rights and the
were protected not self incriminate 5th amendment did
under the 5th applied only to not apply to state
Amendment and federal court cases. courts. Yet the court
refused to testify John Marshall Harlan did not reach a
during their trial in a was the lone voter decision on whether
state court case. who said the 5th the defendants 5th
amendments rights amendment rights
applied to all courts. were violated.
Cantwell v. 1940 The constitutionality The vote was Protected by the Jack
Connecticut of the state's action unanimous in that First and Fourth Wilkins
in convicting the while general amendments, one
Cantwells with regulations and does not need a
inciting a breach of requirements of license to practice
the peace and solicitation were religious solicitation
violating the legal, restrictions even though the
solicitation statute based on religious message was
violated their First grounds were not offensive to many, i
Amendment right to legitimate under the did not physically
free exercise of First and Fourteenth harm anyone and
religion Amendments. was protected by
religious freedom
and the freedom of
speech
Youngstown 1952 In April of 1952, By a 6 to 3 vote, the The Court argued Jack
Sheet & President Harry Supreme Court that "the President's Wilkins
Tube Co. v. Truman issued an decided that the power to see that
Sawyer order directing President did not the laws are
Secretary of have the authority is faithfully executed
Commerce Charles issue and order to refutes the idea that
Sawyer to seize and take over businesses. he is to be a
operate most of the lawmaker." They
nation's steel mills. established that the
Youngstown Sheet & commander and
Tube Co. tested the chiefs power of
constitutionality of using force does not
the Presidents extend to labor
authority to give disputes.
such orders legally.
Gideon v. 1963 Are state courts Gideon 9-0 The Sixth Bradford
Wainwright required under the Amendment right to Jones
Sixth Amendment to counsel is one of the
furnish legal counsel fundamental rights
in criminal cases for that the state courts
defendants who must follow, listed
cannot afford an within the
attorney? Fourteenth
Amendment. The
Fourteenth
Amendment’s due
process clause
states that all
criminal suspects
must have an
attorney at trial.
Escobedo v. 1964 Does the Sixth Escobedo 5-4 The Fifth Bradford
Illinois Amendment Amendment’s Jones
guarantee that protection of
criminal suspects suspects against
have the right to self-incrimination
counsel during police provides further
interrogations? protection during
the interrogation,
requiring a
knowledgeable
attorney to be
present unless not
wanted by the
suspect.
Powell v. 1969 Whether Congress With a vote of 8-1, The reasoning was Mason
McCormack has the authority to the Supreme Court found in Article I, Wallin
exclude from being decided that a Section 5, of the US
sworn in and person duly elected Constitution where
enrolled upon its or appointed could it stated that each
rolls a person who not be excluded from house would be the
has been duly Congress, but judge of the
elected or appointed Congress had the qualifications of its
by the people or the right to expel any own members
executive authority members. followed
of his/her district or immediately by it
state and who stating that each
otherwise meets the house has the
requirements set in authority to expel a
the United States member with a two-
Constitution for thirds majority vote.
serving in Congress.
Roe v. Wade 1973 The constitutionality With a vote of 7-2, Their reasoning was Mason
 of the Texas criminal the Supreme Court based upon the Wallin
abortion laws, which ruled that abortion constitutional right
prohibited an was a fundamental to privacy created
abortion except on right under the by the Due Process
medical advice in Constitution of the Clause of the
order to save the United States. A Fourteenth
mother’s life. state could not Amendment.
prohibit an abortion
prior to viability(baby
could live outside the
womb, about 7
months). After
viability, a state could
not prohibit an
abortion if the
mother’s life or
health would be in
danger.
Board of 1982 Whether the Island With a vote of 5-4, A school board, Mason
Education, Trees Union Free the Supreme Court which was in charge Wallin
Island Trees School District's ruled that it was of the moral, social,
v. Pico Board of Education’s indeed violating the and intellectual
decision to ban First Amendment’s development of
certain books from freedom of speech students, was still
its junior high and protections. subject to the First
high school libraries, Amendment and its
based on their protections.
content, violated the
First Amendment's
freedom of speech
protections.

Bethel v. 1986 The constitutionality The US Supreme The Court ruled that Jack
Fraser of the Bethel School Court changed the the right for Wilkins
Board's policy for Court of Appeals in a students to express
lewd and obscene 7-2 vote to continue themselves freely,
speed and the the suspension of honoring the
punishment of Matthew Fraser, freedom of speech
Matthew Fraser for saying that Bethel defined in the first
his sexual innuendo school district's amendment, yet
filled speech. The policy did not violate they prohibited
speech was given the First Amendment certain styles of
during the expression that are
nomination of sexually vulgar.
classmate Jeff
Kuhlman.
Westside 1990 Does the Equal 8 votes for Mergen-1 The situation was Ishan
Community Access Act prohibit a against; the Supreme placed under the Zaman
Schools v. public school from Court decided that Equal Access Act.
Mergens denying a student the club could hold The Supreme Court
religious group their meetings, but distinguished
permission to meet the sponsor could between
on school premises not be paid. Paying “curriculum” and
during the sponsor would “noncurriculum”
noninstructional truly be an student groups.
time? If so, does the endorsement of Because the group
Act violate the religion. The decision had no concrete ties
Establishment Clause effectively allowed with any curricular
of the First religious activities to aspects of the
Amendment? take place in public school, the club
schools. could be permitted.
Vernonia v. 1995 Is the subjection of 6-3 In favor of The Fourth Bradford
Acton high school athletes Vernonia Amendment allows Jones
to mandatory drug random drug testing
tests is violating the of high school
Fourth Amendment students involved in
rights of the athletic programs.
students?
Clinton v. 1998 Whether the Line With a vote of 6-3, The Presentment Mason
City of New Item Veto Act of the Supreme Court Clause of the Wallin
York 1996, which allowed ruled the Line Item Constitution, which
the President to Veto Act of 1996 was outlined federal
legally nullify specific unconstitutional. legislative
provisions of procedure by which
appropriations bills, bills that originated
was Constitutional. in Congress would
become federal law,
was being violated.
The Act had given
the President the
power to
unilaterally amend
or repeal parts of
bills passed by
Congress.
PGA Tour v. 2001 Is the PGA Tour is Supreme Court in The Americans with Bradford
Martin required to conform favor of Martin 7-2 Disabilities Act Jones
and adhere to the ensures everyone is
Americans with on a leveled playing
Disabilities Act? field; making sure
that no one’s lack of
ability (disability)
will be a handicap.
McConnell v. 2003 Does the "soft 5 votes for The Supreme Court Ishan
Federal money" ban of the McConnell-4 against; reasoned that Zaman
Election Campaign Finance the Supreme Court money is property
Commission Reform Act of 2002 answered no to both and not speech.
exceed Congress's questions. The Court Still, not all political
authority to regulate determined that the speech is protected
elections under restrictions on free by the First
Article 1, Section 4 of speech were minimal Amendment from
the United States and that the government
Constitution and/or restrictions were infringement. In the
violate the First necessary to limit interest of
Amendment's corruption. The mitigating
protection of the Court also decided corruption, the
freedom to speak? that Congress had Court reasoned that
Do regulations of the not exceeded its the restriction was
source, content, or authority. legitimate and
timing of political justified. Justices
advertising in the O’Connor and
Campaign Finance Stevens
Reform Act of 2002 communicated that
violate the First “money, like water,
Amendment's free will always find an
speech clause? outlet.”
Kelo v. City 2005 Does a city violate 5 votes for City of The majority Ishan
of New the Fifth New London-4 determined that Zaman
London Amendment's against; the Supreme because the city was
takings clause if the Court decided that taking the land for a
city takes private the city's taking of public economic
property and sells it private property to development plan
for private sell for private and not for private
development, with development interests, the
the hopes the qualified as a "public takings fell under
development will use" within the “public use.” A
help the city's bad meaning of the broad interpretation
economy? takings clause. of the meaning of
“public use” in the
Fifth Amendment
was used by the
majority.