The Supreme Court of the United States exists to interpret the U.S. Constitution and make final rulings on cases that can no longer be appealed. Many times throughout history, the Supreme Court has ruled on controversial cases that have changed the course of the future. Gideon v. Wainwright, McDonald v. Chicago, and Citizens United v. FEC are three examples of groundbreaking cases heard by the United States Supreme Court.
In the case of Gideon v. Wainwright, Clarence Gideon was charged with breaking and entering in the Florida state court. Gideon asked for a lawyer to be appointed to him by the court. However, Florida laws stated that only defendants unable to afford counsel in capital cases may be appointed an attorney. Forced to represent himself, Gideon was then found guilty and received a sentence of five years in prison. Gideon filed against the Florida Supreme Court, arguing they violated his constitutional right to be provided with counsel, who in turn denied his request. The case then went to the United States Supreme Court who ruled, unanimously, that the Sixth Amendment applies to state courts as well as federal courts. The court’s decision was politically middle. Justice Black wrote for the majority opinion, Chief Justice Warren and the seven other justices concurred. This trial relates to the Sixth Amendment, the right to a speedy trial, a fair jury, and, an attorney if requested by the defendant, because the Supreme court interpreted the amendment so that counsel could be given to defendants in state courts as well as in federal courts. The case and this new interpretation of the Sixth Amendment has greatly impacted our criminal justice system, as it allows all citizens the right to an attorney, no matter where tried.
The case of McDonald v. Chicago brought up the question of whether the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments as well as the federal government because it is incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment, which says that states cannot deprive citizens of “liberty,” which the Supreme Court began interpreting as some rights in the Bill of Rights. In 2008, Otis McDonald challenged the city of Chicago’s ban on handguns. Many lawsuits like McDonald’s had followed the Supreme Court’s decision in the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment allowed for citizens to keep handguns for self defense purposes. This case originated in the United States District Court, and was upheld in the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. When the case went to the Supreme Court, Justice Alito, Jr., wrote for the majority, arguing that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment. The court ruled (5-4) for Otis McDonald, with Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kennedy, Scalia, and Thomas concurring. This court leaned liberal. This case relates to the Second and Fourteenth amendment, as the question in this case was whether the Fourteenth Amendment includes the Second Amendment. McDonald v. Chicago and its related amendments relate to the many mass shootings that have been recently occurring in the US, as gun control is debated around the country.
In the case of Citizens United v. FEC, Citizens United tried to prevent the application of the BRCA, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, to its movie Hillary: The Movie, which expressed opinions that then senator Hillary Clinton would be unfit for president. Citizens United argued that section 203 in the BRCA, which regulates corporations from funding electioneering communications, is unconstitutional, with section 203 violating the First Amendment. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that political spending is a form of free speech, protected in the First Amendment. Justice Kennedy wrote for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Alito, and Thomas concurred. Citizens United v. FEC originated in the US District Court in Washington, DC. The deciding court leaned politically conservative. This case relates to the First Amendment because it questions whether political spending was protected in the First Amendment. This case hugely impacts future elections, as it allows groups to spend unlimited amounts of money on political campaigns.
These cases were all very significant, as they changed the way that certain amendments in the Constitution are interpreted by the Supreme Court. Because of these landmark cases, all citizens are allowed counsel, the ban on handguns in Chicago was reversed, and the limit on political spending by corporations was removed.
Works cited
“Citizens United vs. FEC.” History,
“Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.” Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/2009/08-205. Accessed 20 Aug. 2019.
"McDonald v. Chicago." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/2009/08-1521. Accessed 19 Aug. 2019.
“McDonald v. Chicago (2010).” Bill or Rights Institute, https://billofrightsinstitute.org/elessons/mcdonald-v-chicago-2010/. Accessed 19 Aug. 2019.
Comments
Post a Comment