Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM

Copy

Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.

DeleteCancel

Make your likes visible on Facebook?

Connect your Facebook account to Prezi and let your likes appear on your timeline.
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.

No, thanks

Supreme Court Cases

Ex parte v. Milligan, Nixon v. U.S., Clinton v. Jones, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld
by

Linh Chau

on 28 September 2012

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Supreme Court Cases

By:
Lucia Torres & Linh Chau Supreme Court Cases Ex parte v. Milligan
Nixon v. U.S.
Clinton v. Jones
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld Cases: Who: Lamdin P. Milligan and Union army
What: Milligan and four other men were arrested for trying to steal weapons and free Confederate soldiers held in prisoner-of-war camps
Where: Indiana
When: 1866
How: Milligan petitioned for a writ of habeus corpus several days before his trial and the Supreme Court issued a writ of certiorari to review the case which is then brought to the court.
Chief Justice: Salmon P. Chase Ex parte v. Milligan Jones V. Clinton . Decision (9 votes for Jones, 0 against) The decision was in favor of JONES because the president does not have immunity from civil lawsuits relating to personal conduct not part of his official duties. It was brought to the Supreme Court because Clinton asked the distinct court to dismiss the case on presidential immunity and prohibit Jones from refiling the case again after the end of presidency.The district court rejected to the presidential immunity, both appealed and the case soon went to the Supreme Court. When?-Argued since January till decision, May 1997. Where?- Arkansas and the Supreme Court What?- Paula Jones sued against President Clinton saying that the President made sexual harassment while he was he governor of Arkansas. Why the Supreme Court? Who?- Jones V. Clinton Citation http://www.4lawschool.com/conlaw/cli.shtml http://joannad.wordpress.com/writings/law-assignments/clinton-v-jones-brief/ Chief justice was Warren Burger and he delivered the opinion of the court. United States v. Nixon Who?-U.S v. Nixon What?-President Nixon refused to turn over the audio tapes of the Oval office conversations. Where?-White House When?-Decision was made July 1974. Why the Supreme Court? Nixon refused to turn the tapes to Congress, claiming that the tapes were covered by the "Executive Privilege".He claimed that the president had the right to hide communication that could not be looked at by any other branch.The district court ruled against Nixon,Nixon appealed and the case went to the Supreme Court. Court decision-In July 1974, the Supreme Court decided that Nixon must hand over the tapes.The court said that under the Constitution the Judicial branch had the final voice, not the Executive branch.After that Congress began impeachment proceedings against Nixon for his actions but Nixon resigned from office before he got impeached. The Supreme Court ruled that the military tribunal lacked the jurisdiction and that he should be tried in a federal civilian court. The court also went on to say that a military tribunal took away Milligan's basic rights like the trial by jury, the right to be sentenced separately from trial, and other civilian rights. Ruling: Milligan argued that the military tribunal can't try him because he was an American citizen living in a non-rebellious state, thus giving him the right to a trial in a civilian court. The military tribunal however, argues that he was suspected to be traitor of the Union by working against them. Argument http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/antebellum/landmark_exparte.html

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2005/2005_05_184 Citation http://www.infoplease.com/us/supreme-court/cases/ar41.html http://www.4lawschool.com/conlaw/nus.shtml Who: Hamdan v. Rumsfeld Hamdan, Osama bin Ladin's former chauffer was charged with conspiracy and was tried by a military commission and was granted Habeas Corpus to dispute this charge. Donald H. Rumsfeld,
Secretary of Defense Salim Ahmed Hamdan What: When:
March 28, 2006 -
June 29, 2006 Where:
Guantanamo Prison Why:
Hamdan had petitioned for the writs of habeas corpus How:
The Supreme Court issued a writ of certiorari to hear the case. Hamdan petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus arguing that his detention was unlawful, and that his detainment and scheduled commission was also illegal. To back him up were the Center of Constitutional Rights (CCR) and a host of international human rights organization that filed an amicus curiae.

The Bush Administration captured and detained Hamdan ruling him as an "enemy combatant". They argue that the Supreme Court does not have the standing to review the case. The Supreme Court ruled that the military commissions set up by the Bush Administration violated the detained suspects' rights that was provided in the Geneva Convention and the Uniform Code of Military Rights. http://ccrjustice.org/ourcases/past-cases/hamdan-v.-rumsfeld-(amicus) Citation http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/constitutional-law/constitutional-law-keyed-to-sullivan/separation-of-powers-constitutional-law-keyed-to-sullivan-constitutional-law-law/hamdan-v-rumsfeld/ http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5751355 http://uspolitics.about.com/od/supremecourt/a/hamdan_rumsfeld.htm The majority opinion of the court, written by Justice John Paul Stevens, states that the military commission lacked the jurisdiction because it violates the UCMJ and the Geneva Conventions. The case was significant because reaffirmed the Court's large role and commitment to guarding personal liberties even in the gravest national demand. This was a landmark case because of the Constitutional protection of civil rights that we take for granted today. http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/future/landmark_hamdan.html In the majority opinion of the court, Justice David Davis says that the Constitution prohibited military trials of civilians when civilian courts are open. The opinion of the court was given by Justice John Paul Stevens. Chief Justice:
William Rhenquist Chief Justice:
John G. Roberts Ruling Argument Signifigancy
Full transcript