Marbury v. Madison
Holding:
Big Test:
Marsh v. Chambers
Holding:
Dissent:
Griswold v. Connecticut
Holding:
Incorporated or Not Incorporated?
1st Amendment: Fully incorporated.
2nd Amendment: No Supreme Court decision on incorporation since 1876 (when it was rejected).
3rd Amendment: No Supreme Court decision; 2nd Circuit found to be incorporated.
4th Amendment: Fully incorporated.
5th Amendment: Incorporated except for clause guaranteeing criminal prosecution only on a grand jury indictment.
6th Amendment: Fully incorporated.
7th Amendment: Not incorporated.
8th Amendment: Fully incorporated
Barron v. Baltimore
Facts: Barrons wharf trashed by city development. Barron sues under the fifth and jury agrees taking has happened.
Holding:
Slaughter House Cases
Holding:
Facts:
No Incorporation:
Total Incorporation:
Selective Incorporation
Adamson v. California
Holding:
Dissent;
Duncan v. Louisiana
Holding:
Dissent:
SECOND AMMENDMENT
U.S. v. Miller
Facts:
Holding:
Strict: no individual right to bear arms must be member of milita
Quilici v. Morton Grove
Holding:
U.S v. Emerson
Holding:
UNREASONABLE SEARCHES 4TH AMMENDMENT
New Jersey v. TLO
Holding:
Dissent:
Veronia v. Acton
Holding:
Earls v. Board of Education Tecumsah
Holding: Case is being heard right now, looks like it could be allowed.
National Trasury Employee Union v. Von Raab
Holding:
Note: Scalia dissented in this probably b/c not a school
Chandler v. Miller
Holding:
TAKINGS OF PRIVATE PROPERTY 5TH AMMENDMENT
Factors in deciding a taking:
Economic impact (dimunition of value) if valueless=taking
Inteferes with investor backed expectations
Character of govt. action (seizure almost always a taking)
Land use regulations are upheld where (1) safety (2) health (3) general welfare are promoted.
Penn Central Transportation v. New York City
Facts:
Holding:
Dissent:
Dolan v. City of Tigrad
Facts:
Holding:
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council
Facts:
Holding:
Dissent:
DEATH PENALTY 8TH AMMENDMENT
Cruel and Unusual Test
Inconsistent with evolving standards of decency
Wanton and unnecessary inflicition of pain
Deliberate indifference
Furman.v. Georgia
Facts:
Holding:
Gregg v. Georgia
Holding:
McClesky v. Kemp
Facts:
Holding:
Dissent:
Hudson v. McMillan
Holding:
Dissent:
CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION FOR THE HOME (1, 2, 3, 4 AMMEND)
Poe v. Ullman
Dissent: Harlan:
Stanley v. Georgia
Facts:
Holding:
Ravin v. State
Facts:
Holding:
Independent and Adequate State Grounds:
Bowers v. Hardwick
Facts:
Holding:
Dissent:
Two privacy issues involved (1) decisional (2) spacial
Engbloom v. Carey
Facts:
Holding:
Dissenters:
Kyllo v. U.S.
Facts:
Holding:
Frisby v. Shultz
Holding:
(abortion doctor being picketed.)Can not picket in front of peoples houses the states compelling interest to protect the privacy of the home trumps a persons first ammendment right to picket.Court foucuses on 4th amm. And wheter this is a legal search must have two things two be search (1) subjective expectation of privacy (2) is it seen as reasonable by the people , level of technology must be something normal use of the general public, if police want to use get a warrant. Deep roots of protection in the home.govt . using thermal imaging to scan a house to find if marijuana is being harvested in the homeFramers never intended for this to be included. But all agree 3rd amm. Is applicable to the states.concerned about privacy and says this violated 3rd and that house is more than just a fee simple owner in property. (2nd cir. Only 3rd amm. Case heard to found to violate)prison guards booted out of barracks and national guard is moved in Focuses on privacy issues and what is more private then intimate relationship between two adults.State met Rational Basis Test since there was not fundamental right involved. Protect morality and health, court concerned about slippery slope in the home, liberty of sodomy not traditional or implicit concept of liberty. (no const. Rt to engage in homosexual sodomy)Hardwick arrested for same sex sodomy per GA law which criminalized sodomy Hardwick claims right to decisional and spatial privacy.makes it where sup ct can not hear a case that they would be unable to change the outcome but would only be making a advisory decision.State did not prove that it presents strong danger to prevent this and extended the protection in the home from Stanley.(alaska supreme court)Govt. may be able to say public use is wrong but have no business in the home this violates the protection in the home. Can be interpreted in two ways (1) Broad: this decision opens an argument that protects all things in the home (2) Narrow: only applies to literature and filmman charged with possession of marijuana in home in alaska(9-0 decision)suspected of bookmaking, they came in and searched but did not find anything they did find some tapes and watched them and charged him with having obscence materials. we should respect the home and not allow govt intrusion in the home of a person as we might allow it to be done on the outside, This dissent led to the decision in Griswold v. Connecticut. Framers werent concerned with people in prison.(prisoner was put in shackles and was hit several times)This was cruel and unusual punishment because it was “wanton and unnecesary”Shouldn’t worry about future right know he showed it was racial moti
tes to early decision ruling second not incorporated city free to ban. Narrow: individual right to bear arms but only for commonly used arms in militia (last time supreme court looked at 2nd ammendment 1939)Transporting sawed off shotgun from Oklahoma to ArkansasIs this procedurally fair? ( a judge is fair) (Selective incorporation approach (modern interp)Sixth ammend. Rt to trial by jury is incorporated when the punishment is serious 6 months or more. TEST: Is the right basic to American Scheme of Justice?Bill of Rights should be applicable to states. (self incrimintion claim in state ct judges comments_This is a no incorporation view this would violated the 5th in federal court but it does not apply to states. Some apply others don’t. Which are most important ones?Is it inconsistent with concept of ordered liberty?Due process is about procedure. Test: Does it offend fundamental fairnessLaw in louisiana gave monopoly to one slaughter house, ct said it was ok. (P and I clause does not include all rights set out in BofR)Privileges and immunities clause did not protect fundamental rights of the first 8 ammendments through the 14 P and I clause making this a dead letter for later use. Equal Protection really only deals with protection of ex slaves.(early takings case 5th not applicable to states)Marshall ruled intentions of framers trumped language and fifth did not apply to the states no taking (Marriage is an association which is protected by privacy)Non originalist opinion. Look at future consequences of intrusion in private lives. Rt to privacy not directly mentioned but is a penumbra found in many amendments.Non originalist view need to let the constitution evolve if it was at school clearly unconstitutional. It violates advancement of religion.(prayer before the beginning of legislation session in NE)Court said this did not violate the constitution. This was an originalist opinion . Looked at intentions of framers and framers also started with prayer.This essentially gave the court the power of judicial review by allowing the court to strike down legislation that is unconstitutional.Section 13 of the judiciary act violates Art. 3 Sec. 2 by expanding the original jurisidiction of the Supreme Court. This can not be done.
