1960s Supreme Court Cases Chris Pacis Part I: Judicial activism is the loose interpretation of the Constitution in order

to push a political idea or policy, such as conservatism or liberalism. It is reading between the lines and assuming certain ideologies not intended by the original author. This is done often to influence public policy on a certain matter. Inversely, judicial restraint is the limiting of judicial power by confining any decisions to those that only uphold the Constitution. Judicial activism and judicial restraint is analogous to the Constitutional differences of Hamilton and Jefferson: Hamilton believed in an elastic view of the Constitution, whereas Jefferson believed in a strict following of the Constitution. Likewise, the difference between judicial activism and restraint is that activism encourages judges to look beyond the Constitution and follow it elastically, while restraint confines judges to only ruling in favor of the Constitution. The Warren Court spanned from 1953 to 1969. Thought to be among the most conservative of politicians, when appointed to chief justice of the Supreme Court, Earl Warren became known as perhaps the most liberal of all judges. He was accused of judicial activism for many reasons. Being a liberal, he supported the expansion of peoples rights, like civil rights and civil liberties. An example of his judicial activism is the ruling of Brown v. Board of Education (1954) where Warren ruled it unconstitutional to segregate public schools. The Constitution had no specific rules for slavery, so Warren ruled in favor of racial integration for public schools. Those who oppose judicial activism suggest that judges be limited to only the powers granted to them in the Constitution. They argue that judicial activism would put control of the law into the hands of the judges, that is, the judges can create their own laws or statutes, depending on how they freely interpret the Constitution. They also say that this would go against the ideals of true democracy, for the judges, not the people or any other form of government, would decide the laws and policies that apply to all citizens. Defenders of judicial activism claim that it is the duty of judges to interpret the law in the fashion they believe would uphold the Constitution and the rights of individuals; judicial activism is the nature of judicial review. Judges are elected because it is believed they have fair knowledge and understanding so as to review laws and court cases in the soundest way that upholds individual rights over constitutionality. They argue that they must protect individual rights over the Constitution. The Constitution is flawed, so it is the job of the court to interpret the law that is the most fitting for individuals and the most beneficial for all American citizens.

Part II: Roth v. United States (1957) Facts of the Case The United States had made it against the law to publish otherwise obscene, lewd, lascivious, or of indecent media forms. Thus, a New York literary businessman by the name of Samuel

Roth was convicted of mailing an obscene book to requestors. He petitioned to the court, claiming his conviction was unconstitutional and that it denied him the freedom of speech. Issue Did the federal obscenity law obstruct the First Amendment freedom of speech? Did the Constitution protect obscenity under the First Amendment freedom of speech clause? Decision & Reasoning 6-3, against Roth The Warren Court ruled against the petitioner, Roth, judging that the federal obscenity law was constitutional. They concluded that the banning of obscene materials is constitutional as long as the material within the medium meets the requirements of obscenity, and thus negatively affecting children and those sensitive to obscene material. Obscenity was said to be unnecessary and value-less. They also stated that the First Amendment did not protect obscenity. Obscenity was defined as any material that is harmful to certain viewers, and thus constitutionally right to be banned for the greater good. Evaluation of the Case The decision is important because to ban all together certain materials labeled obscene would technically be against the First Amendment. It was one of the Warren Courts least liberal decisions, and the Warren Court was very liberal. Three of the justices believed that the First Amendment did in fact protect obscenity, as it is a form of speech. The obscenity law thus inhibits the freedom of speech by banning the distribution of certain obscene media forms. This decision would be a step away from peoples rights. The decision is even reiterated in Miller v. California (1973) when the court once again ruled that obscenity is not protected under the First Amendment. It limited individual rights by preventing ones who deem so-called obscene work as art. Banning obscene works prevents certain individuals from truly and legally expressing their selves.

Engel v. Vitale (1962) Facts of the Case The New York government allowed a school to compose a school prayer. The prayer was both short and voluntary. Several parents and students, represented by Stephen Engel, sued the school, claiming that the prayer was a violation of the Establishment Clause. Issue Did the school-sponsored, optional, and brief prayer at the beginning of the school day violate the First Amendment Establishment Clause? Decision & Reasoning 6 1, for Engel The Warren Court ruled the government-sponsored prayer at the beginning of every school day unconstitutional. Regardless of the fact that the prayer was both short and

voluntary, it was still a violation of the Establishment Clause, prohibiting the establishment of a government policy respecting any form of religion. Two courts prior to the United States Supreme Court all ruled the prayer constitutional. Engel kept appealing to the next higher court, where the Supreme Court then reversed the ruling. They reiterated the importance of the separation between church and state, and that the prayer crossed the lines. Even if it was non-mandatory, it still violates the Establishment Clause via the phrase Almighty God. Evaluation of the Case The decision was important because it would be used as a base for subsequent court cases. The Supreme Court will rule against the establishment of a government-sponsored religion for any court case, except for Marsh v. Chamber (1983) where the Court ruled it constitutional for Nebraska state sessions to open with a prayer. The decision offered some dissent. Many argued that the prayer was non-mandatory and even brief. The argument is general sound among the justices, however, two of the judges refused to vote. The majority of Americans found the decision to be wrong. The ruling is unsound with previous laws, for money has inscribed onto it the phrase In God We Trust, so a small prayer should be allowed. Technically, that phrase violates the Establishment Clause, too, but it is constitutional in the eyes of both Americans and the Supreme Court. This sort of limited individual rights in the sense that the practice of religion during school was denied, but it did not really forbid any student to practice their religion by themselves during the school day. If anything, it sort of expanded the individual rights for those who did not believe in an Almighty God because it thus allowed them to freely continue their schooling without complications of conflicting relgions.

Baker v. Carr (1962) Facts of the Case Republican Plaintiff Charles Baker complained that the votes of the city-dwellers in Tennessee were worth less than the votes of the rural-dwellers. The population of the city was much bigger than the rural areas. Because a census had not been taken since 1901, Baker sued the Tennessee Secretary of State Joe Carr for this predicament, for he was in charge of the conduct of elections. Issue Was it within the Supreme Courts power to rule over cases regarding legislative issues? Decision & Reasoning 6 2, for Baker The Warren Court ruled in favor of Baker, claiming that the Supreme Court did have the power to judge over legislative issue. They stated that it was a judicial question, for it dealt with redistricting. Unlike past cases dealing with the separation between powers, this case is directed more towards in unequal protection under state laws; votes of a certain kind of citizen were being denied or were worth less than others. The Supreme Court ruled thus that the case was judicially arguable. The case was sent back to the district courts.

Evaluation of the Case In the past, arguments dealing with the separation of power and apportionment were argued under the Guaranty Clause. However, those claims dealt with political issues, therefore nonarguable in the court of law. In this court case, it did not directly deal with apportionment, but rather, equal protection. It is under this equal protection that makes this case arguable in the Supreme Court. The decision caused much dissent and was a vigorously and arduously decided case. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of previous courts, as well. The dissenting justices argued that the complaint is seeking legislative equality over a legislative issue, so they must seek aid from the legislative and political systems, not the court systems. Although in the past apportionment issues had been denied in the Supreme Court, this case can be used to reiterate the equality of each vote. It was used to formulate the famous one person, one vote standard. This expands individual rights because it made the votes of everyone equal. Equal voting makes sure that all citizens thus have an equal say in the government and laws and policies that apply to them. Without this, many Americans would essentially lack the ability to [effectively] vote.

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) Facts of the Case Clarence Gideon, charged with attempted misdemeanor in Florida, was tried and convicted, sentenced to five years in prison. He was denied counsel in the Florida courts because he did not commit a capital offense. In prison, he asserted his right of habeas corpus, claiming that the denial of counsel was a violation of his First Amendment right to counsel. He could not afford an attorney himself, so he asked the court to provide him with one. Gideon sued corrections director Louie Wainwright, stating that the courts denial of counsel violated his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments rights. Issue Did the court violate the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments rights of counsel and due process, respectively, by denying the indigent defendant, Gideon, counsel? Decision & Reasoning 9 0, for Gideon The Warren Court unanimously ruled in favor of Gideon. They concluded that it was an obvious and fundamental right of any American citizen, especially indigents, to have counsel. It violated the Sixth because Gideon was denied counsel. He was sentenced to jail, but might not have been had he an attorney. Thus, it was not a fair trial. It also deprived him of the Fourteenth, because his right to liberty and a fair trial under the Due Process Clause were denied. They concluded that no one should be denied counsel. Evaluation of the Case This case is important in upholding the right to counsel, transforming it into one of the many procedural guarantees in a court trial. From this case, all future cases would thus have to grant counsel to any convicted. The argument was more than sound in the Supreme Court, for the vote

was unanimous. Because it is an enumerated right, stated in the Sixth Amendment, it was obvious to many who knew of the law that the conclusion was sound. Previously, the right to counsel depended on the severity or type of case presented. In Gideon v. Wainwright, the rule changed to becoming a right to every convicted to have counsel. This expanded individual rights by providing everyone who is tried for anything the right to counsel, such that they would not have to face their accusers alone and without proper help. This prevents the incarceration of any one that might have been prevented if counsel was available.

NYT v. Sullivan (1964) Facts of the Case City commissioner L.B. Sullivan was, in a way, responsible for the incarceration of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. in an Alabama trial for perjury. The New York Times then published an ad, claiming that Kings arrest was part of a conspiracy to stop his civil rights movement. Sullivan sued the New York Times, claiming that the published ad defamed him, on grounds that the information printed was false and written with malice. He won full support of the local court system, but the case was then appealed to the Supreme Court. Issue Because of Alabamas libel law, not requiring Sullivan to prove actual harm, Sullivan won the case against the NYT. Did the libel law thus obstruct the freedom of speech and press stated in the First Amendment? Decision & Reasoning 9 0, for NYT The Warren Court ruled that the freedom of speech and press were denied by the ruling in favor of Sullivan. To back it up, the justices stated that malice is so defined as any wrongful knowledge written in full contempt and lucidity of the false and reckless action. Thus, the First Amendment was violated because, even if the information published was false, the NYT had the right to publish it freely. Evaluation of the Case This case was important because it established the malice law, defining clearly what malice was and what was convictable. Also, the libel law of Alabama was repealed, thus requiring one to prove actual malice had been inflicted. In previous court cases, this would have flown easily into the hands of people like Sullivan, that is, when it came down to white versus black, the white would most likely receive court advantage, especially in the southern states. However, this case established the malice law for future cases, making sure that no one can be sued and convicted just because one says theyve been insulted or defamed. One must now prove theyve been defamed personally for a conviction to be

made. This increased individual rights by making it harder for one to convict another of defamation or malice. A conviction based on malice is most-likely opinion-based, therefore hard to prove in court. No longer can whites say they were insulted by blacks, sue them, and win a court case.

Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) Facts of the Case Danny Escobedo was arrested and convicted for murder of his step brother. However, the process consisted of a warrantless arrest, hours of interrogation, and negligence to informing the interrogated about his rights. Also, Escobedo was denied counsel. After hours of interrogation, he was convicted of murder. However, he appealed. Escobedo sued Illinois for depriving him of the right to counsel, as so stated in the Sixth Amendment. Issue Did Illinois deny Escobedo of his right to counsel during a police interrogation? Decision & Reasoning 5 4, for Escobedo The Warren Court, split, concluded that any one is entitled to see their attorney during a police interrogation. Illinois had denied Escobedo the right to see his counsel, therefore creating an unfair trial. Furthermore, the measures to inform the suspect of their rights were not taken. In other words, Illinois did not convict Escobedo correctly and fairly. The justices used Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) as precedent. Evaluation of the Case This case was important because it upheld the decision of right to counsel, established in Gideon v. Wainwright (1963). The decision also acquitted a man who convicted murder. The court was split in the decision. Five of the judges believed the man to have been in an unfair trial, thus deserving of freedom. He was denied of his Constitutional rights. However, the other four judges marked that his acquittal would have a major adverse effect on the conviction of crime and completely confuse Americans: a man who was convicted of murder was acquitted. For future cases, if this should ever occur, they would have to hold this, unless they decide to overturn this ruling. In other words, anyone unfairly convicted, regardless of the severity of the crime, may be acquitted. These reaffirmed individual rights, for it upheld and furthermore guaranteed the rights granted in the Sixth Amendment, that is, the right to counsel. Also, the rights stated in the Fifth Amendment, the right of a convicted individual to fair trial circumstances.

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) Facts of the Case Estelle Griswold and C. Buxton were arrested for being accessories to a crime. In Connecticut, the use of contraceptives was prohibited, but Griswold and Buxton counseled married couple into using birth control. They were tried and convicted guilty in Connecticut. They appealed to the Supreme Court. Griswold and Buxton sued Connecticut, stating that their conviction violated marital privacy of the right to professional counseling for contraceptives. Issue Does the Constitution protect marital privacy? Did Connecticut violate marital privacy by convicting Griswold and Buxton of counseling the use of contraceptives, though illegal in Connecticut? Decision & Reasoning 7 2, for Griswold The Warren Court ruled in favor of Griswold, stating that the Constitution does protect marital privacy, and Connecticut did violate this protection. Even though the right to marriage not explicitly stated in the neither the Bill of Rights nor the Constitution, the right to privacy is granted by them. Because the Warren Court was liberal and was of judicial activists, a looser interpretation allowed them to rule that the Constitution did protect marital privacy, if it protected privacy in general. Moreover, the majority argued that the privacy of marriage was a traditional right, much older than the any form of government-created law, and therefore must be honored as such. Yes, Connecticut did violate this privacy. The state law prohibiting the use of contraceptives in a marriage violated a couples right to privacy of their actions. Also, because the counseling was professional, for Griswold was the Exec. Dir. of the Planned Parenthood League and Buxton was the Med. Dir. for the League. The law was thus nullified on the grounds that it invaded privacy. Evaluation of the Case This case was a landmark case. Its importance lies in the fact that it set new precedents for future cases, either because the protection of marital privacy had not been argued over prior or because previous jurisprudence voted against its protection. Amongst the justices, two argued that the Constitution did not explicitly protect the right to marital privacy. Therefore, the residents who opposed the prohibiting of contraceptives must take it up with their state officials. The majority retaliated that doing so would only nullify the Ninth Amendments protection of un-enumerated rights. In previous jurisprudence, the constitutionality of the law was never enforced because the court either never got to the ruling or technicalities prevented it from being enforced. Plus, the privacy statutes were never truly enforced to begin with. However, after this case, many subsequent cases referenced Griswold v. Connecticut, stating that the right to privacy in any case in protected under the Constitution. The right expanded individual rights because it granted people the right to marital privacy. This right is not stated in the Constitution, but It will still be enforced by the law.

Bond. v. Floyd (1966) Facts of the Case Julian Bond, an African America, was elected onto the Georgia House of Representatives. However, the House refused to seat him because he opposed the Vietnam War, as he was a part of a student anti-war group. He refused to rescind his anti-war views, so the House did not seat him. Since the District Courts upheld the Houses decision to not seat him, he appealed to the Supreme Court. Julian Bond sued the Georgia House of Representatives on the grounds that his First Amendment rights were violated. Issue Did the Georgia House of Representatives violate Bonds First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and opinion? Decision & Reasoning 9 0, for Bond The Warren Court unanimously decided that the Georgia House of Representatives had no right to disallow Bond from a seat because he opposed the Vietnam War. They defended their decision by stating that, although a state may impose all regulations and necessary oaths to elected officials, they had no right to deny them the right of opinion of freedom of speech; they were not allowed to limit what elected officials thought of about national policies. Evaluation of the Case The case was important, for yet another African American will win a court case concerning is civil rights. This was proof of the advancing civil rights movement. The decision was definitely sound; it was unanimous amongst all the justices. They all concluded the same idea: that the First Amendment may not be obstructed by state policies for elected officials with unpopular opinions. Past cases would have completely disregarded Bond, for he was an African American. Although this was not a landmark case, its importance still lies with the fact that an African American during this time period won a court case for a legislative position. This will serve as precedent and be useful for reference for future similar cases.

Miranda v. Arizona (1966) Facts of the Case Ernesto Miranda was convicted of kidnapping and raping an 18-year-old woman. During his interrogation, he was not informed of his rights to counsel, remain silent, and selfincrimination. The police deliberately deprived him of his basic rights in order to coerce a confession out of him. He did eventually sign a confession, which was used against him in court. Although his lawyer notified the District Court of his clients deprival of rights, the justices based the conviction of the evidence, sentencing Miranda to prison. His attorney appealed to the Supreme Court. Ernesto Miranda sued Arizona for incorrectly interrogating him by not notifying him of his criminal rights, thus allowing for his conviction in trial. Issue By not notifying Miranda of his criminal rights during the interview and thus successfully convicting him of all his crimes, did the Arizona police violate Mirandas Fifth and SixthAmendment right to knowledge of these enumerated criminal rights? Decision & Reasoning 5 4, for Miranda The Warren Court held that the prosecutors could not use any evidence wrongfully coerced from the defendant in court. Police interrogations must notify the suspect of all his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights to right to counsel, remain silent, and selfincrimination. Any evidence presented to the court that was obtained without usage of the correct interrogation prerequisites was thus considered invalid. They defended their decision with previous jurisprudence Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) and Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), for both cases dealt with the denial of counsel to a suspect. Both were acquitted because the evidence was wrongfully obtained or the trial was unfair. In Mirandas case, the evidence was not obtained correctly and the trial was thus unfair. The justices concluded that all criminals must be notified of their criminal rights. Evaluation of the Case The case was a landmark split decision for the Supreme Court. It set the precedent that criminal were given the right to know their criminal rights if they are unaware. Furthermore, it established that evidence improperly obtained cannot be used in court; police had to fairly interrogate all suspects, whether or not they were guilty. The decision was tough amongst the justices. Those who dissented the majority opinion warned that criminals would now demand their rights, preventing justice from being served. Regardless, the majority argued that if justice cannot be proved without fair trial, then it is not a justice worth proving. In the past, such as Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) and Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), it was ruled that criminals must be given their Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights. If not, then all results in court are invalid until a fair trial is issued. Being a landmark case, this case the precedent for future criminal trials, as well as future police interrogations. It expanded individual rights. Criminals, guilty or not, were thus given the right to know their rights. The court established the Miranda Warning, stating that all criminals must be notified of all their rights and, if they feel so inclined, must knowingly waive them all if the prosecutors are to convict them without the use of the rights.