An Analysis of Three Supreme Court Cases
To fully understand the american Supreme Court, there are several cases you need to be well-versed in, so that you may understand why the Supreme Court made the decisions it did, and how exactly it interprets the constitution. Once you understand these cases, you can apply what you know to others, ones that are perhaps lesser known. Three of those cases are analyized below. They include summaries of the case, the disposition, and what the leaning of the court is. Those cases are as follows: Citizens United vs FEC-588 US 310 (2010), Us vs Lopez-514 US 549 (1995), and Engel Vs Vitale- 370 US 421 (1962).
Citizens United vs FEC-588 US 310 (2010) was a Supreme Court Case decided in 2010.. In 2002, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) was passed. In section 203 of the BCRA, it states that corporations and labor unions cannot use money from their treasury to pay for what is known as “electioneering communications.” Electioneering communications are any form of radio, tv, or satellite broadcasts that promote the defeat or election of a candidate running for federal office, within sixty days of a general election, and within thirty days of a primary election. In 2008, conservative nonprofit Citizens United, the appellant in this particular case, wanted to release a documentary that was critical of then Senator Hillary Clinton, who was in the running for the democratic nomination for president. The time that they wanted to release the documentary fell within thirty days before the primaries, and thus was considered an electioneering communication, and therefore prohibited by federal law. Citizens United then protested that section 203 of the BCRA violated the First Amendment right to free speech, both when applied to Hilary: the movie, and that sections 201 and 203 were also unconstitutional as when applied to the circumstances. They reached the decision that section 203 was not unconstitutional on its face, because that decision had already been decided by the Supreme Court in McConnell Vs. FEC-540 US 93 (2003) , a Supreme Court case in which the Supreme Court maintained that most of the BCRA was constitutional. The District court also maintained that Hilary was basically a form of express advocacy, because the purpose of the movie was to convince voters that Senator Clinton was unfit for office, and therefore section 203 had not been applied unconstitutionally. The Supreme Court agreed to review the decision of the lower court. The US Supreme Court first expected to make a decision based on the grounds and circumstances of the film, but soon asked both parties to file additional briefs addressing whether it should reconsider all, or only parts of two previous briefs, McConnell vs. FEC-540 US 93 (2003), and Austin vs. Michigan Chamber of Commerce-494 US 625 (1990) , which was a case that the US Supreme Court decided, in which they upheld a Michigan law that stated that corporations could not use their treasury funds for “independent expenditures” that supported or opposed a candidate, although it said they could create an independent fund designed solely for political purposes, to make those expenditures.
In their decision, the US Supreme Court voted 5-4 in favor of Citizens United, and overturned parts of their verdict of McConnell vs. FEC-540 US 93 (2003), and the whole of their verdict of Austin vs. Chamber of Commerce-494 US 625 (1990).
In their decision, the majority said that under the First Amendment corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority. He was joined by fellow justices Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Chief Justice John Roberts. The dissent was written by Justice John Paul Stevens. He was joined by fellow justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomyor, and Stephen Breyer. In their decision, the majority stated that political speech is indispensable in a democracy, and just because the political speech is coming from a corporation does not make it any less valid. The majority also said that the BCRA’s disclosure requirements as applied to Hilary were constitutional, saying that disclosure is justified by a “governmental interest” in “providing the electorate with information” about how much a corporation is spending on election-related purposes. The Court also upheld the disclosure requirements for political advertising sponsors, and it maintained that corporations and unions cannot make direct contributions to candidates.
The court at this time was split down the middle concerning the ideologies and leanings of the justices, and would probably be considered a middle court. Out of the nine justices, four justices, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice John Roberts had a more conservative voting record. Four other justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomyor, And John Paul Stevens, had a more liberal voting record. There was one swing vote, Anthony Kennedy, who, although was a swing vote, and could vote more liberally, generally voted more conservatively. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote a concurring majority opinion separate from the one written by Anthony Kennedy. In it, he explained more of why he and the majority made the decision they did. In it, he emphasized the care that the court employs when it handles constitutional issues, and the attempts the court makes to avoid constitutional issues when possible. This is being stated in relation to this particular case, because there were no narrow grounds on which the court could rule, and the court was forced to handle the issues that the First Amendment caused in this case. The lower court that first heard this case was the US district court. The US district courts are the general trial courts of the US federal court system. Citizens United first filed their complaint in the district court for the District of Columbia. In their complaint, they challenged the constitutionality of the statutory provisions governing “electioneering commissions.” A three-judge court was convened to hear the case, and, as stated previously, Citizens United was denied the injunction by the district court. Citizens United then appealed to the US Supreme Court.
The amendment which I believe most closely relates to this particular case is the First Amendment. The First Amendment is one of the most important, if not the most important Amendment. The First Amendment guarantees five things for those of us who live in the US, each one important to our democracy. The First Amendment guarantees the right to religion, by prohibiting Congress from promoting one religion over others, and by prohibiting Congress from restricting an individual’s religious practices. The First Amendment also guarantees the right to freedom of speech, exempting hate speech, and the right to free press, and prevents the government from restricting what the press can say and publish. These combined also guarantee the right to freedom of expression. Lastly, it guarantees the rights of citizens to gather peacefully, and the right of citizens to petition the government. The First Amendment is the basis of the case, as Citizens United believed that the BCRA was unconstitutional because it violated their First Amendment right to free speech when applied to Hilary. Citizens United felt that, because each citizen is guaranteed the right to free speech, and them making the documentary was them expressing their opinion and exercising their right to free speech, then the BCRA was unconstitutional because it was putting restrictions on their free speech. It also relates to the first amendment in the way that the case kind of brings up the issue of the limits to free speech that corporations have, and whether they have the same rights to free speech. The US Supreme Court was also forced to make their decision based on the First Amendment issues within the case. To relate this case to an issue that is relevant today, we can look to the 2020 elections. Many candidates who are in the running have denounced super PACs from corporations, which the Supreme Court ruled was allowed in Citizens United.
The next case to be looked at is U.S. Vs. Lopez-514 US 549 (1995). U.S. Vs. Lopez-514 US 549 (1995) was decided in 1995. Alfonso Lopez, a high school student, carried a concealed weapon into his high school, located in San Antonio. Under Texas law, he was charged with firearm possession on school premises. Shortly after this, the state charges were dropped, as federal agents then charged him with violating a federal criminal statute, the Gun-Free school zones act of 1990. Lopez was sentenced to serve in prison. Lopez challenged his conviction, by stating that the Gun-Free School Zones Act was unconstitutional, and an overreach of Congress’ power. Important to this case is the fact that schools were controlled by state and local governments, and not the federal government. The federal government responded to Lopez by saying that they had the authority to ban guns in schools under its commerce power, and with the Commerce clause, which gave Congress the power to regulate commerce. The government argued that the Gun-Free School Zones Act was related to commerce because guns in school could lead to gun violence. The gun violence would then make people less likely to travel through the areas where it occurred. The government also argued that guns in school would cause a disruption in learning, leading to less educated citizens, which would negatively affect commerce. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Lopez, and rejected the claims of the government. The Supreme Court said that the law was not substantially related to commerce. The other main argument that the Supreme Court made was that, when the court took into account what the government was saying, it was hard to see any of the government’s power limitations, even in areas where states had typically made their own decisions. Therefore, if the Supreme Court were to rule in favor of the government, then it would be hard to find anything that Congress wouldn’t be able to regulate and have power over. In addition to this, the Supreme Court cited some writings on the balance between state and federal power, and talked about their belief in limited government, which states that the federal government does not have any power except those granted to it in the Constitution.
The Court that decided this case was much like the one that decided FEC vs. Citizens united. There were four justices with a more conservative voting record: Chief Justice William Rheinquist, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, Justice Clarence Thomas, And Justice Antonin Scalia. There were four justices with a more liberal voting record: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Justice John Paul Stevens, Justice David Souter, and Justice Steven Breyer. And there was one swing vote, Justice Anthony Kennedy. The four more conservative justices, as well as Justice Anthony Kennedy, made up the majority, voting in favor of Lopez, and striking down what the government was saying. The four more liberal justices made up the dissent, voting in favor of the government. In this particular decision, the role that the Chief Justice, William Rheinquist, played, was that he wrote the majority opinion for the case. The case first originated in Texas, but state charges were dropped as federal charges were picked up. After a bench trial, Lopez was sentenced to six months in prison, but he challenged this conviction, leading to the case being heard by the Supreme Court.
In relation to this case, I think that none of the amendments are very closely related to it. I think what is most closely related to this case is the Commerce Clause. The Commerce Clause is a clause in the Constitution that gives Congress full power to “regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the indian tribes.” (as was the case at the time it was written.) I think that this case is the most closely related to the Commerce Clause, because the Commerce clause was what the government based their argument on. They talked about how they had the power to regulate guns in schools due to the Commerce Clause, because guns in school would negatively affect Commerce. It also tied into the discussion about how much power Congress actually had over regulating things. This case can be related to today’s climate, because the issue of guns, and gun control, is prevalent in our society. America is in the midst of a mass shooting epidemic, and many of them happen on school grounds. If the decision had been different in this case, perhaps today’s school shooting rate might be as well.
The third and final case to be looked at relates to regulation in schools as well. Engel Vs Vitale- 370 US 421 (1962) was decided in 1962. The New York Board of Regents allowed for a voluntary prayer to be recited before school. A group of organizations came forward and challenged this decision, claiming that the recitation of the prayer violated the First Amendment’s establishment of religion clause, because the prayer being recited was the promotion of one religion over others. Their arguments were rejected by the New York Court of Appeals, but the Supreme Court agreed to hear their case. The Court ruled in favor of the group of organizations, stating that the state “cannot hold prayers in public schools, even if participation is not required, and the prayer is not tied to a particular religion.” The government upheld that the use of the school system to facilitate prayer did violate the establishment clause, and was therefore unconstitutional. They further cited the policy’s breach of separation between church and state. The court, under Chief Justice Earl Warren was a progressive court, handing down revolutionary court decisions, such as Brown v. Board of Education. While Warren had been nominated by a republican president, he turned out to be a progressive justice. Overall, the court had a liberal majority, although some justices could be considered swing votes. In this case, the Chief Justice did not physically play much of a role, but his overall leanings, and the fact that the court under him was a progressive one, could have possibly influenced the decision that was made. The case first originated in New York, and was heard by the New York Court of Appeals, under the circumstances that a group of organizations challenged the new prayer rule. The Amendment that I think is most closely related to this case is the first amendment, specifically the section about freedom of religion. The First Amendment guarantees every american the right to practice whatever religion they want without persecution, and it also prohibits the government from promoting one religion over another. This case was about just that, as it was felt that the institution of the prayer was promoting one religion over the other, and thus it was in violation of the first amendment. Today, many people, while not being directly persecuted for their religion, are indeed sometimes refused things, and profiled in today’s society, simply because of their religion.
These three cases are essential in understanding the way the Supreme Court, and many other judicial courts for that matter, operate. As stated earlier, they are not the only cases which you need to understand. The Supreme Court is a complex entity, and by simply reading and understanding a few cases, you cannot know everything about it. However by learning more, and reading more, you might just start to.
Sources:
Comments
Post a Comment