2/11/11 B- Day Do Now: 1.Write down your homework Chapter 7 quiz review due on Tuesday Chapter 7Quiz on Wednesday Bring headphones to class on Monday 2.

2/11/11B- Day

Do Now: 1. Write down your homework• Chapter 7 quiz review due on Tuesday• Chapter 7Quiz on Wednesday• Bring headphones to class on Monday2. Clear your desk except for a pen or pencil and a copy of

the Bill of Rights (textbook or notes). 3. Your group will be given a Supreme Court Case to read

about. Answer the questions about your case. Your group will be asked to report to the class.

4. Use the Bill of Rights to figure out which Amendment is being examined in the case.

Landmark Cases of the Supreme Court

Texas v. Johnson (1989)Flag Burning

• Which Amendment is in question?

• What did the Supreme Court decide?

Texas v. Johnson (1989)Flag Burning

The Court Rules:

The First Amendment literally forbids the abridgment only of "speech", but we have long recognized that its protection does not end at the spoken or written word. While we have rejected "the view that an apparently limitless variety of conduct can be labeled 'speech' whenever the person engaging in the conduct intends thereby to express an idea," . . .

Texas v. Johnson (1989)Flag Burning

• We have not automatically concluded, however, that any action taken with respect to our flag is expressive. Instead, in characterizing such action for First Amendment purposes, we have considered the context in which it occurred.

Texas v. Johnson (1989)Flag Burning

• . . Johnson burned an American flag as part - indeed, as the culmination - of a political demonstration that coincided with the convening of the Republican Party and its re-nomination of Ronald Reagan for President. The expressive, overtly political nature of this conduct was both intentional and overwhelmingly apparent. . . .

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)Self-Incrimination, Due Process

•Which Amendments are in question?

•What did the Supreme court decide?

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)Self-Incrimination, Due Process

• The Supreme Court said: • In a 5-4 opinion, the Supreme Court ruled in

favor of Miranda.  The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice Earl Warren, concluded that defendants arrested under state law must be informed of their constitutional rights against self-incrimination and to representation by an attorney before being interrogated when in police custody.  Justices Clark, Harlan, Stewart and White dissented.

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)Self-Incrimination, Due Process

• In their majority opinion, the justices explained that the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination is fundamental to our system of justice, and is “one of our Nation’s most cherished principles.”  This guarantee requires that only statements freely made by a defendant may be used in court. 

Mapp v. Ohio (1961)

• Which Amendments are in question?

• What did the Supreme court decide?

Mapp v. Ohio (1961)

• The case was decided six to three. 

• The court ruled that Mapp’s 4th Amendment rights were violated.

Mapp v. OhioExcerpts from the courts decision

• The criminal goes free, if he must, but it is the law that sets him free. Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws, or worse, its disregard of the charter of its own existence.

• . . . Our decision, founded on reason and truth, gives to the individual no more than that which the Constitution guarantees him, to the police officer no less than that to which honest law enforcement is entitled, and, to the courts, that judicial integrity so necessary in the true administration of justice.

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)Right to Counsel

• Which Amendments are in question?

• What did the Supreme court decide?

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)Right to Counsel

The Court’s Decision:

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Gideon in a unanimous decision.  Justice Black wrote the opinion for the Court, which ruled that the right to the assistance of counsel in felony criminal cases is a fundamental right(6th Amendment), and thus must be required in state courts as well as federal courts.  Justices Harlan and Clark wrote concurring opinions.

Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988)Censorship, Student Press Rights

• Which Amendments are in question?

• What did the Supreme court decide?

Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988)Censorship, Student Press Rights

• The Supreme Court ruled against the students in a 5-3 decision.  Justice White wrote the majority opinion, concluding that the First Amendment does not prevent school officials from exercising reasonable authority over the content of school-sponsored publications. 

• The majority opinion first considered whether school-sponsored student newspapers are public forums.  If they were public forums, school officials would not be allowed to exercise editorial control over the content of the paper.

• The school newspaper in this case was not open to the unlimited contribution of students, teachers and other members of the community, but was instead published as part of the curriculum of a journalism class.  Therefore, its primary function was for educational purposes, and the newspaper did not constitute a public forum.