Court Cases dealing with Court Cases dealing with Individual Rights (Bill of Rights)Individual Rights (Bill of Rights)

J. WorleyJ. Worley

CivicsCivics

Furman v. Georgia (1972)Furman v. Georgia (1972)

Supreme Court ruled the death penalty was Supreme Court ruled the death penalty was unconstitutional under the 8unconstitutional under the 8thth Amendment Amendment– Ruled it to be cruel and unusual punishmentRuled it to be cruel and unusual punishment

Courts were inconsistent in what they ruledCourts were inconsistent in what they ruled– Some would give death while others would give Some would give death while others would give

life imprisonmentlife imprisonment

Capital PunishmentCapital Punishment

Gregg v. Georgia (1976)Gregg v. Georgia (1976)

Supreme Court upheld the death penalty as Supreme Court upheld the death penalty as long as proper and consistent guidelines long as proper and consistent guidelines were provided to juries in deciding whether were provided to juries in deciding whether or not to sentence someone to deathor not to sentence someone to death

Restored and expanded the death penaltyRestored and expanded the death penalty

Capital PunishmentCapital Punishment

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

Supreme Court ruled that states are Supreme Court ruled that states are required under the 6required under the 6thth & 14 & 14thth Amendments to Amendments to provide an attorneys for criminal defendants provide an attorneys for criminal defendants who cannot afford them.who cannot afford them.

Legal RightsLegal Rights

Regents of the University of Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978)California v. Bakke (1978)

A white student was denied enrollment into A white student was denied enrollment into the medical school because the university the medical school because the university had reserved 16 spots for minoritieshad reserved 16 spots for minorities

Supreme Court ruled that such quotas Supreme Court ruled that such quotas violated the 14violated the 14thth Amendment BUT they did Amendment BUT they did affirm that race could be used by the school affirm that race could be used by the school as a consideration in admissionas a consideration in admission

Affirmative Action is challenged and parts Affirmative Action is challenged and parts are upheldare upheld

New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985)New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985) A student’s purse was searched & revealed the A student’s purse was searched & revealed the

student used and sold marijuanastudent used and sold marijuana Supreme Court ruled that in order for school Supreme Court ruled that in order for school

officials to conduct a search, they must have officials to conduct a search, they must have “reasonable suspicion” that a student is guilty of “reasonable suspicion” that a student is guilty of wrongdoingwrongdoing– Student was still found guilty since she was caught Student was still found guilty since she was caught

smokingsmoking The 4The 4thth Amendment rights apply to students Amendment rights apply to students

Students RightsStudents Rights

Bethel School District v. Frasier (1986)Bethel School District v. Frasier (1986)

Supreme Court ruled that schools can Supreme Court ruled that schools can prohibit speech that violates the values of prohibit speech that violates the values of public educationpublic education– In this case, the use of profanity at a school In this case, the use of profanity at a school

assemblyassembly

Student’s RightsStudent’s Rights

Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) Two students wore armbands to school Two students wore armbands to school

protesting the warprotesting the war Supreme Court ruled that student behavior Supreme Court ruled that student behavior

not disruptive to the learning environment is not disruptive to the learning environment is protected under the 1protected under the 1stst Amendment freedom Amendment freedom of speechof speech– In this case, wearing armbandsIn this case, wearing armbands

Student’s RightsStudent’s Rights

Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988)Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988) The school newspaper printed articles dealing with The school newspaper printed articles dealing with

pregnancy & divorce which the principal found pregnancy & divorce which the principal found inappropriate & censored itinappropriate & censored it– Took away student’s rights of 1Took away student’s rights of 1stst Amendment freedom of Amendment freedom of

speechspeech

Supreme Court ruled that a school/principal can Supreme Court ruled that a school/principal can censor any material that is not consistent with the censor any material that is not consistent with the school’s missionschool’s mission

The ruling made it clear that constitutional rights The ruling made it clear that constitutional rights do extend to schoolsdo extend to schools

Student’s RightsStudent’s Rights

Texas v. Johnson (1989)Texas v. Johnson (1989)

Man was arrested for burning a US flag in Man was arrested for burning a US flag in protestprotest

Supreme Court ruled that state laws Supreme Court ruled that state laws forbidding the burning of a US flag are forbidding the burning of a US flag are unconstitutional because they violate the 1unconstitutional because they violate the 1stst Amendment right of freedom of speechAmendment right of freedom of speech

Freedom of Expression & ReligionFreedom of Expression & Religion

Engel v. Vitale (1962)Engel v. Vitale (1962)

Supreme Court banned prayer in the Supreme Court banned prayer in the nation’s public schoolsnation’s public schools– Decision was made based on the 1Decision was made based on the 1stst

Amendment prohibition of the government Amendment prohibition of the government establishing a religionestablishing a religion

Freedom of Expression & ReligionFreedom of Expression & Religion

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)Miranda v. Arizona (1966) Ernesto Miranda was arrested for Ernesto Miranda was arrested for

kidnapping and rapekidnapping and rape He was interrogated by police without a He was interrogated by police without a

lawyer presentlawyer present– He confessed to the crimes during the He confessed to the crimes during the

interrogationinterrogation Supreme Court ruled that Miranda’s 5Supreme Court ruled that Miranda’s 5thth and and

66thth Amendment rights had been violated Amendment rights had been violated Established the Miranda Rights/WarningsEstablished the Miranda Rights/Warnings

Legal RightsLegal Rights

Mapp v. Ohio (1961)Mapp v. Ohio (1961)

Supreme Court ruled that evidence seized Supreme Court ruled that evidence seized from a person’s residence without a search from a person’s residence without a search warrant constitutes an “illegal search” and warrant constitutes an “illegal search” and cannot be used at trial (4cannot be used at trial (4thth Amendment) Amendment)

Legal RightsLegal Rights

In Re GaultIn Re Gault

Gerald Gault (15) was taken into custody for Gerald Gault (15) was taken into custody for allegedly making an obscene phone callallegedly making an obscene phone call– Police did not call his parents to inform themPolice did not call his parents to inform them

Juvenile court judge committed him to the State Juvenile court judge committed him to the State Industrial School until he is 21Industrial School until he is 21

Supreme Court ruled that the Juvenile Court Supreme Court ruled that the Juvenile Court proceedings did not comply with the 14proceedings did not comply with the 14 thth Amendment of the ConstitutionAmendment of the Constitution– Requirements include adequate notice of charges, Requirements include adequate notice of charges,

notification of both parents and the child of the juvenile’s notification of both parents and the child of the juvenile’s right to counsel, opportunity for confrontation & cross-right to counsel, opportunity for confrontation & cross-examination at the hearings, and adequate safeguard examination at the hearings, and adequate safeguard against self-incriminationagainst self-incrimination

Court found that these proceedings were not usedCourt found that these proceedings were not used

Essential QuestionsEssential Questions

1.1. How has the US Supreme Court protected How has the US Supreme Court protected the rights of citizens under the age of 18?the rights of citizens under the age of 18?

2.2. In what ways has the US Supreme Court In what ways has the US Supreme Court protected unpopular speech?protected unpopular speech?

3.3. Should criminals have the same rights as Should criminals have the same rights as law-abiding citizens?law-abiding citizens?