Katherine Young

Katherine Young 

Ms.Gordon

AP Government and Politics

06/19/2019

Supreme Court Cases

Since its establishment in 1789, the United States Supreme Court has heard more than 2,000 cases, each having a far-reaching impact on the regulations and laws in the United States. Three specific cases illustrate just how far-reaching that impact is. The case of Gideon v. Wainwright (Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963)) heard in 1963, ensured that in all criminal prosecutions, defendants were granted a fair trial, and therefore had the right to a defense lawyer. The case of McDonald v. Chicago (McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010)) protected the rights of Americans to bear arms by ruling that the Second Amendment applies to states and local governments as well as the federal government. Finally, the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010)) allowed corporations, associations, labor unions, or interest groups to use their money without restriction in political ads or other political tools advocating for the election of a candidate or advising against the election of a candidate. 

The Supreme Court case of Gideon v. Wainwright (372 U.S. 335) was a case that further strengthened the right to a fair trial by ensuring that defendants charged with a crime have the right to a lawyer. On August 4th, 1961, Clarence Earl Gideon was convicted of breaking and entering into a pool room in Panama City, Florida. However, before the start of his trial in the Florida Court, he was refused a court-appointed lawyer when he requested one. Clarence Earl Gideon was thus forced to represent himself in his trial, and as a consequence was found guilty and sentenced to five years in prison. Gideon believed that his trial was unjust and by using the prison library he was able to file a habeas corpus petition to the Florida Supreme Court on the grounds that it was unconstitutional that he was denied a lawyer at his trial. After the Florida Supreme Court denied his petition Clarence Earl Gideon appealed to the United States Supreme Court which accepted his appeal. On January 15th, 1963 the U.S. Supreme Court began to hear oral arguments in the case of Gideon v. Wainwright (372 U.S. 335 (1963). The case carried on for two months and the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of Gideon. The Chief Justice during that time period was Earl Warren, and the Warren Court was viewed as liberal because of their rulings on previous cases such as Brown v. Topeka Board of Education. Since the court had a liberal majority and the ruling was unanimous in favor of Gideon, Chief Justice Warren did not have a large role in the decision. The opinion of the Court was written by Justice Black and he wrote that the Sixth Amendment requires all states to provide a lawyer to any criminal defendant charged with any type of felony. The Sixth Amendment says “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence”(U.S. Constitution. Amend IV). This amendment essentially protects the right of a defendant who is accused of a crime by ensuring that they are tried by an impartial jury of their peers, that they are aware of the charges that are brought against him or her, that they have the ability to call up witnesses in their favor, and that they are able to have a defense attorney to help prove their innocence. The Sixth Amendment was written in order to ensure that no one would be prosecuted unfairly and that every single suspect was able to properly defend themselves regardless of economic wealth. Although it is still true that you have the right to a lawyer in any criminal proceedings, the court-appointed lawyer that you receive in this day and age is almost certainly underpaid and overworked. According to a Brennan Center for Justice report published in 2012, “The average amount of time spent by a public defender at arraignment is often less than six minutes per case. And that is when counsel is present and allowed to give information, which is not always the case. In many large jurisdictions, over half of all cases are ‘disposed of’”(Giovanni, 2012). So although it is written that everyone has the right to a fair trial this is almost never the case for those who are economically disadvantaged and those who are unable to afford a lawyer to represent them at their trial. 

The United States Supreme Court case of McDonald v. Chicago (561 U.S. 742) is another example of how the United States Supreme Court has such a far-reaching impact on the laws and regulations in the United States. Petitioners from Oak Park and Chicago argued that various codes and laws were unconstitutional because they prohibited the possession of handguns in residential homes unless they were registered. However, after 1982, it was prohibited to register any new handguns. On these grounds, Otis McDonald, Coleen Lawson, and others filed a lawsuit against the City of Chicago in the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. When Otis McDonald, Coleen Lawson, and several others filed against the City, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois rejected their arguments for unconstitutionality by saying that the Seventh Circuit had “squarely upheld the constitutionality of a ban on handguns a quarter-century ago,” id., at 753 (citing Quilici v. Morton Grove, 695 F. 2d 261 (CA7 1982)). Thus they decided that the district judge presiding over the case has a “duty to follow established precedent in the Court of Appeals to which he or she is beholden, even though the logic of more recent case law may point in a different direction.” Id., at 753. Determined to win their case, they appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court which accepted their appeal, and the U.S. Supreme Court began to hear arguments on March 2nd, 2010. On June 28th, 2010 the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the Second Amendment did, in fact, apply to states because of the due process clause that was incorporated in the Fourteenth Amendment. The vote was 5-4 with five voting in favor and four voting against, with Justice Alito writing the court's opinion. The role of the Chief Justice, in this case, was not very significant. Chief Justice Roberts voted with the majority and did not write the court opinion. The Roberts court during that time period was considered conservative with 5 right-leaning judges and 4 left-leaning judges. According to the New York Times, “In its first five years, the Roberts court issued conservative decisions 58 percent of the time. And in the term ending a year ago, the rate rose to 65 percent, the highest number in any year since at least 1953”(Liptak, 2010). The Second Amendment most closely relates to this case. When the Constitution was being written, the writers included this amendment because during that time period there was no United States standing army. By including the Second Amendment citizens would’ve been able to destroy rebellions or insurrections if needed. This case is a reflection of the Second Amendment because, without this amendment, citizens would be unable to have private arms in their homes and therefore, the case of McDonald v. Chicago would cease to exist. Fast forward 9 years from 2010 and the Second Amendment is still a very controversial topic. People argue that the Second Amendment should be completely abolished due to the recent amount of mass shootings and school shootings that have occurred. However, others say that keeping guns in homes makes neighborhoods and communities safer. Although the topic is argued very often and appears in the media on a daily basis, cases like McDonald v. Chicago and NRA v. Chicago have prevented any measure of gun control from occurring in the United States.

The case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Committee (558 U.S. 310) helped to further establish where corporations, associations, and unions are able to spend their money regarding political elections. This landmark case concerning the finance of political campaigns determined that spending by corporations, associations, and unions is a form of protected speech under the first amendment. When Citizens United attempted to air their film “Hillary”, a film criticizing the presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in 2008, the corporation was found in direct violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act which prohibited any type of electioneering communication by any labor union, corporation, or association within 60 days of an election. However the corporation of Citizens United found that this was unjust, so they filed for an injunction against the F.E.C. in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. However, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia rejected the injunction by saying that section 203 of the BCRA did in fact apply. After this rejection, Citizens United appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which granted their appeal on November 14th, 2008. On March 24th, 2009, the United States Supreme Court began to hear oral arguments for Citizens United v. F.E.C. (558 U.S. 310), and on January 21, 2010, the United States Supreme Court ruled that it was, in fact, unconstitutional with a 5-4 vote. The majority found that section 203 of the BCRA which prohibited all expenditures by unions and corporations essentially violated the First Amendment. Justice Kennedy wrote that “Political speech is indispensable to decision making in a democracy, and this is no less true because the speech comes from a corporation rather than an individual.’ Bellotti, 435 U. S., at 777 “(Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm'n, 558 U.S. 310 (2010)). The court during this time (the Roberts Court) was considered largely conservative with five right-leaning judges, and four left-leaning judges. To reiterate, according to the New York Times, “In its first five years, the Roberts court issued conservative decisions 58 percent of the time. And in the term ending a year ago, the rate rose to 65 percent, the highest number in any year since at least 1953” (Liptak, 2010). The Chief Justice did not play a very large role in the decision since Chief Justice John Roberts voted with the majority, and he did not write the opinion of the court. The amendment that most closely relates to the case of Citizens United v. F.E.C. (558 U.S. 310) is the First Amendment. The framers of the Constitution included the First Amendment because at America’s birth citizens demanded basic rights such as free speech. An issue that relates to this case and the amendment that pertains to this case is the amount of control that lobbyists now have in the federal and local legislative system. Due to Citizens v. F.E.C. (558 U.S. 310), corporations, and lobbyists are now able to spend an unprecedented amount of money in their treasury to fund ads and campaigns calling for or against the election of a certain candidate. The NRA itself spent over $55 million in the 2016 election alone. Because of this large amount of spending legislators and senators have started to represent the views of the large lobbyist groups keeping them in power rather than the people and voters. This application of the First Amendment has caused many problems in our legislative system such as a misrepresentation of the views and values that a legislator upholds. Instead of people being represented in the legislative system, it is big money companies who only seek to make the most profit with the least spending. 

Throughout this essay, it has been demonstrated the far-reaching impact that the U.S. Supreme Court has had on the regulations and laws in the United States. The various rulings that the Supreme Court has handed down throughout the years, continue to shape our society and regulations in the U.S. Without the case of Gideon v. Wainwright (372 U.S. 335), criminal defendants would have no lawyer or representative to represent themselves during a trial if they did not have the money to hire one themselves. Without the case of Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113), women would be unable to have access to abortions and would have very little say in what happens in regards to their body. The United States Supreme Court plays a fundamental role in shaping the foundation of the United States and upholding the values upon which the United States was built. Freedom, Equality, and Justice.