Judicial Branch Chief Justice John Roberts 2005 Bush (#2)

Judicial Branch

Chief Justice John Roberts

• 2005

• Bush (#2)

John Paul Stevens/Elena Kagan

• 1975 2010

• Ford Obama

Antonin Scalia

• 1986

• Reagan

Anthony Kennedy

• 1988

• Reagan

David Souter/Sonia Sotomayor

• 1990 2010

• Bush (#1) Obama

Clarence Thomas

• 1991

• Bush (#1)

Ruth Bader Ginsburg

• 1993

• Clinton

Steven Breyer

• 1994

• Clinton

Samuel Alito

• 2006

• Bush (#2)

Jurisdiction• Original Jurisdiction- hear case first

• Appellate Jurisdiction- hear case on appeal

-----------------------------------------------------------

• Exclusive Jurisdiction- only federal courts

• Concurrent Jurisdiction- state and federal

Two BORING but Important Cases

• Marbury v. Madison (1803)

• McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

• Established use of JUDICIAL REVIEW

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

*Established IMPLIED POWERS by upholding the Necessary and Proper Clause

Usted tiene el derecho de guardar silencio/mantener

silencio. Lo que diga puede ser usado en su contra. Tiene el

derecho a un abogado y tenerlo presente durante interrogacion.

Si no tiene dinero para conseguir un abogado, uno le sera

designado antes de cualquier pregunta, si usted desea.]

Miranda v. ArizonaMiranda v. Arizona

1966

• The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to remain silent, and that anything he says will be used against him in court; he must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation, and that, if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him.

• If the individual indicates in any manner, at any time prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease ... If the individual states that he wants an attorney, the interrogation must cease until an attorney is present. At that time, the individual must have an opportunity to confer with the attorney and to have him present during any subsequent questioning.

Miranda Rights

• You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to have an attorney present during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you.

Gideon v WainwrightGideon v Wainwright

1963

Clarence Gideon

• 6th Amendment= “assistance of counsel for his defense”

• 5th Amendment= nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

• 14th Amendment= nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

Due Process= legal procedures MUST be followed

Gideon v WainwrightGideon v Wainwright

If a person cannot afford an attorney, then one must be provided.

• 6th Amendment= “assistance of counsel for his defense”

• 5th Amendment= nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

• 14th Amendment= nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

Due Process= legal procedures MUST be followed

Mapp v. OhioMapp v. Ohio

1963

Mapp v. OhioMapp v. Ohio

Evidence obtained by illegal means is inadmissible in court.

Gideon v WainwrightGideon v Wainwright

1963

Clarence Gideon

Gideon v WainwrightGideon v Wainwright

If a person cannot afford an attorney, then one must be provided.

Have an average to above average afternoon!

What…. what????????

• Miranda v Arizona

• Gideon v Wainwright

• Mapp v Ohio

• No Warrant= No Evidence

• Police must read rights

• No $$= given an attorney

What…. what????????

• Miranda v Arizona

• Gideon v Wainwright

• Mapp v Ohio

• Police must read rights

• No $$= given an attorney

• No Warrant= No Evidence

What…..what???? Part 2

• You best be Gideon me an attorney

• You’ll need a Mapp with that warrant

• Miranda

New Jersey v TLONew Jersey v TLO

1985

New Jersey v TLO

New Jersey v TLO

• School officials can search under “reasonable suspicion”

• Reasonable versus Probable

Tinker v Des Moines (1969)Tinker v Des Moines (1969)

• "It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."

Tinker Test

• Disrupt classwork?

• Create substantial disorder?

• Interfere with the rights of others?

Tinker v Des Moines (1969)Tinker v Des Moines (1969)

• The court upheld students right to free speech.

Bethel School v FraserBethel School v Fraser

1986

"I know a man who is firm - he's firm in his pants, he's firm in his shirt, his character is firm - but most of all, his belief in you the students of Bethel, is firm. Jeff Kuhlman is a man who takes his point and pounds it in. If necessary, he'll take an issue and nail it to the wall. He doesn't attack things in spurts - he drives hard, pushing and pushing until finally - he succeeds. Jeff is a man who will go to the very end - even the climax, for each and every one of you. So please vote for Jeff Kuhlman, as he'll never come between us and the best our school can be. He is firm enough to give it everything."

Bethel School Policy

• "Conduct which materially and substantially interferes with the educational process is prohibited, including the use of obscene, profane language or gestures."

Bethel School v Fraser

• Schools can limit disruptive/ inappropriate speech

What…..what???? Part 2

• You best be Gideon me an attorney

• You’ll need a Mapp with that warrant

• Miranda

Morse v FredrickMorse v Fredrick

2007

Morse v FredrickMorse v Fredrick

See Bethel v Fraser

Same rules apply to extracurricular events

• You best be Gideon me an attorney

• You’ll need a Mapp with that warrant

• Miranda

• TLO- Take your Little hands Out of my purse

• Morse- Beeping Banner

• Bethel- Bet he’ll say it!

• Tinker-

Brown v Board of EducationBrown v Board of Education

1954

Homer Plessy

Linda Brown and Family

Earl Warren

Charles Schenck

Schenck v United States

1919

Espionage Act 1917

• Prohibited interference with military operations and recruitment

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.

Charles Schenck

Schenck v United States

• “clear and present danger” test

• Since replaced by the

“imminent lawless action” test

Korematsu v. United States

1944

Fred Korematsu

Bottom Line

• The court has history of limiting rights during times of war.

Religion in the Courts• Establishment Clause

– “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”

– Separation of church and state

• Equal Access Act of 1984– Extracurricular club access to facilities– Religious clubs– Gay-Straight Alliance clubs

• Religious School Busing?????

Who should decide on gay marriage?

• The Court

• The Congress

• The States

Judicial Activism versus Judicial Restraint

Should justices “legislate from the bench”?

• Abortion

• Gay Marriage

Jurisdiction• Original Jurisdiction-

• Appellate Jurisdiction-

-----------------------------------------------------------

• Exclusive Jurisdiction-

• Concurrent Jurisdiction-

# of Justices (Supreme Court)

Role of Judicial Branch

Hint: _______________ law

Length of Supreme Justice Term

Cases only heard in federal court

Schools may limit profane speech

Political speech is protected in school

Only appellate jurisdiction

Gideon?

Can be heard in BOTH federal and state courts

Lowest level of federal courts are called?

Reversed Plessy v. Ferguson

Reasonable Suspicion

When justices “legislate from the bench”

No speech posing “clear and present danger”

Establishment Clause provides separation of?

Miranda?