Mary Wade

Mary Wade

AP Government

August 10th, 2019

AP United States Government Supreme Court Case Analysis

Throughout American history, the Supreme Court has been a crucial part in government when determining a conclusion to a high profile, influential case. The court consists of Justices, appointed by various Presidents, who decide the fate of the case at hand. Some prime examples of supreme court cases are,  Citizens United v. FEC, McDonald v. Chicago, and Gideon V. Wainwright. 

Citizens United, a group with conservative interests, produced a film about whether or not Hillary Clinton would be a good president, the movie was claiming that she would not. The Federal Election Committee (FEC) claimed that they were violating the BCRA, section 203, which is in place to prevent big corporations from funding projects, like the movie, that are influential by supporting or slandering an electoral candidate. Citizens United argued that section 203 is in violation of the first amendment limiting their free speech by stopping the corporation's ability to support a presidential candidate. This case was then brought to the supreme court to determine whether Citizens United or the FEC was in violation. The court at the time leaned more conservative with five republican members voting that The BCRA was in violation of the first amendment, the other four who were liberals voted that it was not in violation. Chief Justice John Roberts, was in favor of Citizens United. He had conservative views aligning with that of the film. Roberts agreed that the BCRA was violating the first amendment, by limiting free speech. He made it so corporate spending on political campaigns was no longer regulated. Because of Citizens United v. FEC Companies spending money on political campaigns is legal and protected by the first amendment, freedom of speech. The first amendment gives us our right as American citizens to have free speech, Americans can speak whatever they believe without fear of persecution. corporations argued that just because they were not individual people supporting a candidate, they should still have the same right to freedom of speech and be able to endorse whoever they choose. However, 85% of Americans currently think that big corporations have too much power, and that they are drowning individual's right to free speech, because corporations have access to essentially a limitless pool of money to support their candidate, that the individuals can't compare. The reason that big companies want to spend so much money supporting a candidate of their choice is that the person they are supporting will make laws or get rid of laws that limit the company's profit. For example, the coal industry helped to fun Trump's campaign in the 2016 election, in return Trump would block environmental laws that restrict coal companies. 

Otis McDonald, a 76 year old man living in Chicago, felt unsafe in his dangerous neighborhood. He had been robbed multiple times and didn’t have a good way of protecting himself, because handguns had been banned in Chicago. McDonald was a legal gun owner, but none of the guns he had would fire fast enough for him to protect himself against intruders. McDonald filed a lawsuit against Chicago saying his second amendment rights were violated. He claimed that Chicago’s ban on handguns was breaking the second amendment. When the case went to the supreme court. the question at hand was whether or not the states were able to infringe on American people’s right to bear arms. The fourteenth amendment was meant to protect citizens fundamental rights, which the right to bear arms was one of, and the states were in depriving the citizens of that. The court responded that the gun laws in Chicago were unconstitutional and that the state had the right to choose their gun laws, because it is protected by the second and fourteenth amendment. It was decided on a five to four vote, by the supreme court, that the right to bear arms applied to America as a whole. Meaning that the states were in violation and McDonald had the right to own a handgun. Currently, gun control is a controversial topic in America, this case allowing American citizens to own handguns affects me as well as my school, and the rest of America's citizens, especially school children. Now since school shootings are so common, giving people the right to bear quick-firing guns scares me and many other school children across America. It gives people easier access to a dangerous weapon, that could possibly fall into the wrong hands, and could destroy peoples lives.

Clarence Earl Gideon was an uneducated poor man. He had a hard life being in and out of prisons on nonviolent crimes, and getting by on little money. He was charged with breaking and entering in Florida, when he went before a judge requesting an attorney and was denied, Gideon was forced to represent himself. Despite his best efforts, he was sentenced to five years in prison. Instead of giving up, Gideon decided to fight his conviction, he wrote to the Supreme Court, claiming that his sixth amendment rights were violated. The sixth amendment gives every citizen the right to an attorney if wanted, this should be regardless of crime or economic status. The supreme court was made up of majority democrats, which included Chief Justice Earl Warren. The court ruled that Florida was in violation of the sixth amendment and that Clarence Earl Gideon was entitled to the right of an attorney. This ruling set the standard for future cases, and made sure that all people being tried had access to an attorney.