Introducing
Your new presentation assistant.
Refine, enhance, and tailor your content, source relevant images, and edit visuals quicker than ever before.
Trending searches
By: Alexandra Sanchez
Ever since public schools have been around, it was common for students to start the day with a prayer. In the 1950s, the New York State Education Department passed a law that authorized schools to start each day with the Pledge of Allegiance followed by a short prayer. Despite the prayer being nondenominational, students had to recognize their dependence on God. It read as follows: “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our country”. Due to this, the law allowed students to excuse themselves from the prayer if they found it off-putting. Disturbed with the law, in 1959 Stephen Engel organized a group of parents and sued William Vitale, the school board chairman of Hyde Park, New York. They believed that it opposed the religious practices of both themselves and their children.
Does permitting state-made nondenominational prayer to be recited in public schools violate the establishment of religion clause of the First Amendment?
In a 6:1 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that yes, nondenominational prayer in public schools is unconstitutional. The first amendment prevents the government from interfering with religion and for the government to endorse any specific belief is inappropriate.
Since then, the Court has additionally ruled against prayer at official public school events and in 1985 when the state of Alabama allowed schools to give a moment of silence at the beginning of the day (for either prayer or meditation), the court ruled that it was unconstitutional as well.
A Wisconsin law required that parents send their children of 16 and under to a formal school. Under this law, Jonas Yoder and Wallance Miller, members of the Old Order Amish religion, and Adin Yutzy, a member of the Conservative Amish Mennonite Church, were charged for not sending their 14 and 15-year-old teenagers to school. After being tried in the state court and being found guilty, each was fined $5.00. The parents then appealed the case to the state supreme court, making the argument that sending their kids to public school went against their religion and exposed them to different values and practices. After the court sided with the parents, the state appealed to the Supreme Court in hopes to preserve their authority and law over mandatory school attendance, using parens patriae (the legal claim that they are responsible for their citizens) to make their point.
Does a mandatory state school law created for children 16 and younger violate the free exercise clause under the First Amendment, if the parent’s religious beliefs and customs command that their children be taken out of school after a certain age?
In a 7:0 decision, the Supreme Court ruled yes. They held that the Amish individual freedom of religion under the First Amendment outweighed the State’s interest in compelling school attendance. Additionally, forcing the children to attend public school would interfere with their religion and acceptance into the Amish society.
The court has since held their standing in regards to the case and a new case that has challenged the ruling has yet to be brought up.
In June 1971, Pentagon analyst, Daniel Ellsberg, released a top-secret seven-thousand-page document to the New York Times and the Washington Post, after becoming discouraged with the Vietnam war. The document revealed the story of how America entered the war and exposed government fraud. President Nixon claimed that it obstructed his ability to manage the war and his lawyers petitioned to a U.S. district court for national security reasons that the Times not be allowed to print the story. The papers put the government’s credibility on the line. After the lower court issued the order, armed guards arrived at the newspaper’s office in order to enforce the issue. The Times then decided to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Does the executive branch have the power to hinder the printing of reporter-obtained classified information in an effort to protect national secrets without violating the free press clause under the First Amendment?
In a 6:3 ruling, the Supreme Court decided that no, it is not okay. The newspaper has the right to print and publish the documents. Instead of fully explaining their majority rule, the Court issued per curiam opinion, which is a decision taken unanimously by the court majority.
Despite the Court ruling in favor of the newspaper, this was not the case for Ellsberg. He was convicted at his trial in 1917 under the Espionage Act because he did not have the right to leak the documents.
In the early 1900s, when the United States became more involved in World War 1, the Sedition and Espionage Acts were passed. The law prevented the publication of media that criticized the government, advocated treason, or encouraged dishonest behavior in the military. Charles Schenck, the secretary of the Socialist Party, was tried and convicted after printing 15,000 anti-draft pamphlets with the intention to discourage people from complying with the draft. Due to the circumstances at the time, the United States was concerned with such individuals who question the draft and war effort. Schenck appealed from the district court arguing that the draft was a form of involuntary servitude, which is unconstitutional under the Thirteenth Amendment. The case went up to the Supreme Court for hearing.
Does the government’s prosecution and punishment of individuals expressing opposition to the draft during wartime violate the free speech clause under the First Amendment?
In a 9:0 decision, the Supreme Court ruled no. It is not unconstitutional for these individuals to be tried and convicted given the circumstances.
Soon after the Court came to this conclusion, the case Abrams v. United States was presented before them and they decided to uphold their ruling for the same reasons. However, decades later in Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Court ruled that such speech is punishable only if its intent is to evoke lawless behavior and produce dishonest actions.
The case of District of Columbia V. Heller ruled that a ban on handguns violated the Second Amendment rights of the people. In 2010, following the case, multiple citizens filled suits against Chicago and Oak Park, Illinois since they passed a law that banned handguns. This especially was a problem for Otis McDonald, who lived in a high crime area and was unable to defend himself during the countless times his property was broken into. McDonald and his attorney argued that the ban hindered his Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
Does the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prevent states from banning their citizens from owning handguns under the Second Amendment?
In a 5:4 decision, the Court ruled that yes, the Second Amendment applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. The people’s right to defend themselves is necessary and at the heart of the birth given rights.
Since the case of McDonald V. Chicago, the Court has stuck with their decision and little has been done in regards to gun rights and bans ever since.
In the 2008 election, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were in a tight race for the Democratic Party nomination. During this time, the nonprofit organization Citizens United spent over $1,000,000 on a film that was critical of Hilary. The film was considered electioneering communications, which is any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that identifies a federal candidate and is released to the public. This challenged the McCain - Feingold Act, which restricted the campaign donation and engagement on behalf of corporations and nonprofit organizations. Due to the ongoing debate of politics and the media, in 2010 the case was brought up before the Supreme Court.
Does the McCain-Feingold Act violate the free speech clause of the First Amendment?
In a 5:4 decision, the Court ruled that the Mccain-Feingold Act was unconstitutional as it violated the freedom of speech granted under the First Amendment.
Fast forward to 2014, and the Supreme Court continued to make progress on the matter. In the case McCutcheon V. FEC, the Court ruled that placing a limit on the amount donors can contribute is unconditional as it limits their freedom of expression under the First Amendment.
In 1901, guidelines for redrawing state legislative boundaries were laid out in a piece of legislation Tennesse passed. As time passed, cities like Nashville, Memphis, and Knoxville became more urbanized and experienced an increase in population. However, Tennessee failed to redraw its 95 voting districts to reflect the influx of population. This eventually led to rural districts with fewer people having more of a say than those in urban centers. At one point, those in rural areas made one-thrid of the population yet accounted for two-thirds of the votes. This was a problem because it created a minority rule and as a result, Baker, a resident of a Tennessee urban area, sued the secretary of state. The case was taken to the Supreme Court.
Can the Supreme Court constitutionality control redistricting?
In a 6:2 decision, the Court ruled that yes, the federal government was constitutionality allowed to control redistricting. Especially in this case, as Tennessee was undermining the democratic ideal of an equal voice for all voters.
The case of Baker V. Carr impacted the country as a whole; all states had to redraw their boundaries in order for everyone’s vote to be weighted equally under the law. The Court’s ruling was reaffirmed again in 1964 in the Supreme Court case Reynolds V. Sims.
In 1993, when North Carolina’s state legislatures were drawing congressional districts, they created only one black-majority district. After it got denied, they submitted a second plan, however, it only included one more black-majority district which was no wider than the road it stretched across. As a result, five residents challenged the constitutionality of the legislature’s decision to create the odd-shaped districts. After the state court sided with the state and not them, the residents decided to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Is the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment being violated when drawing congressional districts with the intent to assure a majority black population?
In a 5:4 decision, the Court ruled that yes, it is unconstitutional especially since race was the only factor that played a role in the creation of those districts. This separates citizens without proper justification and therefore violates the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Court has stuck with their decision, however, this is still a problem to this day and as a result certain States have to redraw their districts.