Marbury v. Madison
Holding: 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.
Big Test: This essentially gave the court the power of judicial review by allowing the court to strike down legislation that is unconstitutional.
Marsh v. Chambers (prayer before the beginning of legislation session in NE)
Holding: Court said this did not violate the constitution. This was an originalist opinion . Looked at intentions of framers and framers also started with prayer.
Dissent: Non originalist view need to let the constitution evolve if it was at school clearly unconstitutional. It violates advancement of religion.
Griswold v. Connecticut (Marriage is an association which is protected by privacy)
Holding: 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.
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 (early takings case 5th not applicable to states)
Facts: Barrons wharf trashed by city development. Barron sues under the fifth and jury agrees taking has happened.
Holding: Marshall ruled intentions of framers trumped language and fifth did not apply to the states no taking
Slaughter House Cases (P and I clause does not include all rights set out in BofR)
Holding: 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.
Facts: Law in louisiana gave monopoly to one slaughter house, ct said it was ok.
No Incorporation: Due process is about procedure. Test: Does it offend fundamental fairness
Total Incorporation: Is it inconsistent with concept of ordered liberty?
Selective Incorporation Some apply others don’t. Which are most important ones?
Adamson v. California (self incrimintion claim in state ct judges comments_
Holding: This is a no incorporation view this would violated the 5th in federal court but it does not apply to states.
Dissent; Bill of Rights should be applicable to states.
Duncan v. Louisiana (Selective incorporation approach (modern interp)
Holding: 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?
Dissent: Is this procedurally fair? ( a judge is fair)
SECOND AMMENDMENT
U.S. v. Miller (last time supreme court looked at 2nd ammendment 1939)
Facts: Transporting sawed off shotgun from Oklahoma to Arkansas
Holding: Narrow: individual right to bear arms but only for commonly used arms in militia
Strict: no individual right to bear arms must be member of milita
Quilici v. Morton Grove (law made it illegal to have handguns in town)
Holding: second ammendment does not apply to states only federal cites to early decision ruling second not incorporated city free to ban.
U.S v. Emerson ( indicted for possessoin of firearm while under restraining order)
Holding: Right to keep and bear arms is a personal liberty meant for individuals and right to bear arms a check against federal govt. looked at history. Not a supreme court decision.
UNREASONABLE SEARCHES 4TH AMMENDMENT
New Jersey v. TLO ( student caught smoking and vp searched without warrant)
Holding: 4th ammendent does apply to public schools, vp employee of state, don’t need warrant because maintain order in school. Only need Reasonable Suspicion, lower standard than probable cause, either broke shool rule or law, court says this was ok. There is a balance between 4th and legitimate government interest.
Dissent: Need to have probable cause, zone of privacy, vp should have stopped once he found cigs.
Veronia v. Acton (football players at junior high school given urine test)
Holding: Court holds blanket search is permissible, suspicionless search, atheletes have less privacy and participation was vouluntry.
Earls v. Board of Education Tecumsah ( urine testing in all school activities)
Holding: Case is being heard right now, looks like it could be allowed.
National Trasury Employee Union v. Von Raab (urine testing for custom officers)
Holding: Okay to test custom offficers did not violate the 4th ammendment
Note: Scalia dissented in this probably b/c not a school
Chandler v. Miller ( unconst. To make GA candidates for gov. submit to drug test)
Holding: Violated the 4th, only 1 dissenter, case was argued by the man himself
TAKINGS OF PRIVATE PROPERTY 5TH AMMENDMENT
Factors in deciding a taking:
1. Economic impact (dimunition of value) if valueless=taking
2. Inteferes with investor backed expectations
3. 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: City passed a law prohibiting certain building on landmarks. Had to be approved and was not but city did offer transferrable developmental rights.
Holding: Property still had value so not a taking, city can place restrictions on landmarks without being a taking, doesn’t effect how they have been operating and given transferrable development rights.
Dissent: Not all property around Penn Central subject to same rules, looks suspicious, air rights had been taken, city des
ld be unable to change the outcome but would only be making a advisory decision.
Bowers v. Hardwick (no const. Rt to engage in homosexual sodomy)
Facts: Hardwick arrested for same sex sodomy per GA law which criminalized sodomy Hardwick claims right to decisional and spatial privacy.
Holding: 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.
Dissent: Focuses on privacy issues and what is more private then intimate relationship between two adults.
Two privacy issues involved (1) decisional (2) spacial
Engbloom v. Carey (2nd cir. Only 3rd amm. Case heard to found to violate)
Facts: prison guards booted out of barracks and national guard is moved in
Holding: concerned about privacy and says this violated 3rd and that house is more than just a fee simple owner in property.
Dissenters: Framers never intended for this to be included. But all agree 3rd amm. Is applicable to the states.
Kyllo v. U.S.
Facts: govt . using thermal imaging to scan a house to find if marijuana is being harvested in the home
Holding: 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.
Frisby v. Shultz (abortion doctor being picketed.)
Holding: 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.
FOURTEENTH AMMENDMENT SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS
LIBERTY TO CONTRACT
Lochner v. New York (new york was trying to protect family unit)
Facts: State passed a law that limited the number of hours a day and a week that a baker could work.
Holding: Individuals have a right to contract and state should not interfer unless safety , health , morals are involved. May be justified in certain cases but not in the case of Bakers, state should take laissez faire approach and keep hands off, the law is unreasonable.
Dissent: HOLMES (one of most famous Dissents
