# data[].attributes.body
Background & Facts

Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Arizona for an alleged 🤬 and kidnapping. He was questioned by the police for several hours and confessed to the crime while in custody. Miranda argued that because he was not informed of his fifth amendment rights by the police, his confession should not be used against him in trial.

Issue

Should criminal suspects be informed of their fifth and sixth amendment rights upon arrest?

Argument for Plaintiff

While Miranda was being interrogated, he was not informed of his right to a lawyer or of his right against self-incrimination guaranteed under the 5th and 6th amendments. Although he confessed to his crimes, the police obtained this information in an unconstitutional manner by failing to inform him of his rights as an accused person.

Argument for Defendant

Because Miranda was previously arrested, he should have been aware of his rights.

Decision

Chief Justice Warren delivered the Supreme Court's decision that law enforcement officials must inform suspects of their rights (self incrimination, counsel) upon arrest and before interrogation.
This case set the precedent for "Miranda Rights", or the rights that law enforcement are required to read to those being questioned for a crime.

# data[].attributes.body
Background:

Ogden wanted to stop gibbons from operating steamboats between New York and New Jersey because he had a monopoly granted by the state of New York. Gibbons said he had free ability to use the water since congress preceded over interstate trade and it was shared waters.

Issue:

Should congress be able to allow trading in between states above a state licence.

Argument for Plaintiff:

Monopoly license from New York should be allowed to stop Ogdens competition from operating steamboats in between New York and New Jersey.

Argument for Defendant:

Gibbons should be able to operate anywhere since he has a license from congress to operate steamboats.

Decision:

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Gibbons.  The justices agreed that the Commerce Clause gave Congress the power to regulate the operation of steamboats between New York and New Jersey. This case set the precedent for congress exercising their right to control interstate commerce.

# data[].attributes.body
BACKGROUND:

Dred Scott was a slave from Missouri who then became free in Illinois.  When his owner died, Scott sued the widow to who he was married to, claiming he was no longer a slave because he had become free after living in a free state.

He never became free though.
He argued that he was in a free state therefor he should be free.

ISSUE:

Whether a slave was considered a free person.

Argument for defendant:

Dred Scott argued that he was free because he escaped into a free state and became free in that state.

Argument for plaintiff:

The Supreme court came to the decision that he was not free because he escaped and he was originally from a territory.

Decision:

Supreme Court ruled that slaves, whether free or slave, were not American citizens and could not sue in federal court. The Supreme Court also said that Congress lacked power to ban slavery in the U.S. territories.

# data[].attributes.body
Background:
- In 1890, a statute was passed in Louisiana called the Separate Car Act, which provided "equal but separate" train cars for black and white citizens. The Citizen's Committee to Test the Constitutionality of the Separate Car Act, a group of blacks who were trying to fight the act, and the East Louisiana Railroad Company worked together to send Homer Plessy, a black man, to ride on a white train car. Plessy was arrested for violated the act.

Issue:
Should segregation be allowed as long as the two separated conditions are "equal".

Argument for Defendant
The 14th amendment was put into place to enforce the equality of all citizens. Plessy argues that by being arrested for being in the white car, the 14th Amendment was being violated.
By segregating the blacks to separate cars, Plessy believed it was branding them as inferior.

Argument for Plaintiff
Since the 14th Amendment says "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws", the amendment can't be used to enforce social equality, just political equality.
The Act was not branding the blacks as inferior, that is a belief of the blacks themselves. Social Inequality cannot be fixed through law so as long as the conditions of both races are "equal", then they can be separate.

Court's Decision:
By a 7-1 vote, the Supreme Court ruled in favor to Ferguson. They rejected Plessy's argument about the Amendments. Justice Henry Brown said Plessy's 13th Amendment argument was "too clear for argument". Then, court decided his 14th Amendment argument that "it could not have been intended to abolish distinctions based upon color, or to enforce social....equality." So, the court is saying the 14th Amendment is only used for legal equality.

# data[].attributes.body
Background:

Plessy vs Ferguson case allowed segregation based on race. Though the case argued that there was not equal protection under the laws (14th amendment).

Linda Brown tried to transfer schools in order to have a safer and more accessible bus ride to a closer school but was rejected because of her race. Once again citing the unequal protection of laws.

In Plessy v. Ferguson “separate but equal” was established and when the courts for brown failed to overturn this ruling they brought it to the supreme court.

Issue:

Whether or not segregation upheld the equal protection of citizens under the law.

Argument of Plaintiff:

Brown believed that segregated schooling was unconstitutional because it reduced the benefits of African American children in public schooling. Despite the ruling of "separate but equal" it would never truly be an equal opportunity with discrimination against race.

Argument of Defendant:
That schools offered the same building, transportation, curriculum, and teachers in all schools. They maintained a "separate but equal" clause.
Decision:

The court decided that state laws with separate but equal ruling violated the 14th amendment by failing to equally protect all students. Ultimately deciding that this law is unconstitutional and the court ruled in favor of Brown over the Board of Education.

# data[].attributes.body
Background:

-In Panama City, FL a burglary was committed and a witness claimed to see Clarence Earl Gideon in the pool room.
-He was charged with breaking and entering but could not afford a lawyer.
-When he asked for one, under the sixth amendment he was told that poor people don’t have to be provided with a lawyer unless there are special circumstances.
-He was forced to represent himself and was sentenced to 5 years in prison. There, he educated himself on the law and then wrote to the supreme court to hear his case.

Issue:

-Should the judge be allowed to deny Gideon a lawyer based on the fact that he does not have to be provided one unless it is a capital crime, or there are “special circumstances”?

Argument For Plaintiff:

-The right for everyone to have a lawyer, by the sixth amendment. If a plaintiff cannot afford a lawyer, then one will be provided for them. It states “to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.”
-Therefore since he was not given equal protection under the law as stated in the 14th amendment, Gideon’s basic human rights were taken away.

Argument For Defendant:

-A right to have a lawyer is only given if the plaintiff can afford it. Since Gideon’s case was not a federal crime, and he was not under “special circumstances”, therefore he was not given the fundamental right to a free lawyer.

Court’s Decision:

-The court overruled the decision from the previous Betts vs. Brady case that said provided lawyers were only for special circumstances.
-The justices decided that the constitution did not make any distinction between federal and nonfederal and requires defendants to have standard due process of law in both situations.
-The right to a council is a fundamental and essential right.

# data[].attributes.body
Background and facts:

After Pearl Harbor was bombed in December 1941, the military feared a Japanese attack on the U.S. mainland and the American government was worried that Americans of Japanese descent might aid the enemy.

In 1942, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed an executive order forcing many West Coast Japanese and Japanese Americans into internment camps

Fred Korematsu, a Japanese American, relocated and claimed to be Mexican-American to avoid being interned, but was later arrested and convicted of violating an executive order

Argument for Plantiff:

Korematsu challenged his conviction in the courts saying that Congress, the President, and the military authorities did not have the power to issue the relocation orders and that he was being discriminated against based on his race.

Argument for Defendant:

The government argued that the evacuation was necessary to protect the country and the federal appeals court agreed. Korematsu appealed this decision and the case came before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Constitutional questions:
As we can see from Korematsu's quote,  "As long as my record stands in federal court, any American citizen can be held in prison or concentration camps without trial or hearing. I would like to see the government admit they were wrong and do something about it, so this will never happen again to any American citizen of any race, creed, or color." —Fred Korematsu (1983) ". The US violated the 5th, 8th, and 14th amendments. He was deprived of life, liberty and happiness without due process of law, was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, and did not have equal protection from the law absent of race or color.

# data[].attributes.body
Background:
- John and Mary Beth Tinker were high school students who were protesters in America's involvement in the Vietnam War.
- In order to protest, they wore black arm bands.
- The school later enforced a no arm band policy in response to their protest
- The students were suspended until they returned to school without their arm bands.
- The children returned to school without arm bands after their suspension on January 1, 1966 and wore black clothing for the remainder of the year.

Constitutional Issue:
- The first amendment: Freedom of religion, assembly, press, petition, and speech

Arguments of petitioner (fathers):
- Students can't be denied their first amendment rights, nor can they be punished for expressing them.

Arguments of respondent (schools):
- The armbands were a disruption in the school setting

Final decision and effects:
- The court ruled 7-2 in favor of the students, saying that students' rights aren't removed when they walk through the front door of a public school
- Thanks to the ruling, over the years the ACLU has successfully defended the right of students to wear an anti-abortion armband, a pro LGBT shirt, and shirts critical of political figures.

# data[].attributes.body
Background and facts:

President John Adams and Congress creating new inferior federal courts and judges. Adams ordered appointments of new judges on his way out of office, but some appointments were not physically delivered by the end of his term.

William Marbury was one of those appointments.

Incoming President Thomas Jefferson didn't like his nominations, and ordered his Secretary of State, James Madison, to block the appointments.

Marbury requested that the Supreme Court issue a writ of mandamus - a power granted to the Supreme Court by Congress in the Judiciary Act of 1789.

Issue:

Who interprets the Constitution and laws? Who has final say on whether an act of government violates the Constitution.

Argument for plaintiff:

Jefferson and Madison violated the Constitution by blocking the appointments.

The Supreme Court had the power to order the commission be delivered.

Argument for defendant:

Adams appointment was invalid because his commission was not delivered before the expiration of Adams' term as president.

Decision

Madison didn't have to deliver the commission to Marbury.

The Supreme Court also did not have the authority to require Madison to deliver the commission.

Judiciary Act of 1789 was in conflict with the original jurisdiction set up for the Supreme Court in the Constitution.

Supremacy Clause

Chief Justice Marshall checked a power granted to the Court by Congress, but granted the courts the power of JUDICIAL REVIEW