Mira Littmann

    

 Mira Littmann 

AP Government Summer Assignment

  

     

    The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest judicial court in the country. The court is made of nine esteemed Justices, who are appointed by the current president when a position is open, and hold the job for life. The cases reviewed by the Supreme Court are some of the most vital in developing American values and political structure, and have an immense impact on the future of the country.

One such case was Engel v. Vitale (370 U.S. 421, 1961), in which a New York state law required schools to start the day with a prayer. The prayer did not belong to any specific religion, but involved students declaring their connection to God. It read as follows: “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our country.” The law did not force students to participate in the prayer, but a parent sued the school for violating the First Amendment Establishment Clause. This clause prohibits the establishment of any official religion by the government, or any bias towards a specific religion (U.S. Const. amend I.). The New York state courts upheld the school’s right to enforce this law, so the group of parents headed to the Supreme Court. The main question the Supreme court answered was whether or not school-promoted prayer violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The verdict was yes, that it does. The final vote was 6-1. The only dissenting opinion was held by Justice Stewart, who believed that the Establishment Clause only referred to the establishment of a religion by Congress, and not by schools. He also thought that since the New York law allowed abstention and was a nondenominational prayer, it did not tie in closely with the amendment. The ideology of Justices involved in Engel v. Vitale varied, with the majority opinion being backed by four left-leaning Justices and two right-leaning ones.

    At most public schools across the country, the pledge of allegiance is stated in the morning before classes start. This pledge is not far from the prayer recited in New York schools, because it reads “nation under God”. Schools in Evanston have recently made it optional to participate in the pledge of allegiance, but the scenario is characteristically similar to Engel v. Vitale.

Another pivotal case in United States history was the one of United States v. Lopez (514 U.S. 549, 1995). Alfonso Lopez was a twelfth grader who attended school while carrying a hidden gun. He was arrested and charged with violating a Texas law that prohibited guns on school grounds, but eventually was convicted of violating the Gun Free Schools Act, which is a federal offense. He appealed to the Supreme Court, and his main argument was that his case was not federal jurisdiction. Since schools are controlled at the state level, Lopez argued, the federal government had no right to convict him. In an 1819 case called McCulloch v. Maryland (17 U.S. 316, 1819), the Supreme Court had ruled that federal laws hold more weight than state ones. However, Lopez’s lawyer suggested that Congress had no right to pass the Gun Free Schools Act in the first place, because schools are state controlled. The Federal Government argued that Congress has control of all interstate commerce, and that the gun Lopez had was an example of such interstate commerce. The Commerce Clause in the Constitution (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3) states that Congress can control “commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes,” and is often used as a justification by Congress for controlling aspects of state proceedings. The main question the Supreme Court answered in this case was if the Gun Free Schools Act was beyond Congress’ jurisdiction. The court made 5-4 decision for Lopez and his lawyers, because Congress was overreaching its power. Five right-leaning Justices held the majority opinion, which was that the Gun Free Schools Act was in no way related to commerce.

    Gun usage is not the only power struggle Congress has with the American states. Use of recreational marijuana is currently legal in many individual state governments, but remains illegal under federal law. This means that marijuana users in states like California could be in good standing with state law, but could be arrested by federal agents.

A third crucial American court case was Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (558 U.S. 2010). In 2002, senators McCain and Feingold passed an act called the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA). The BCRA regulated the sponsorship of political campaigns by corporations, and required companies to include a disclaimer when supporting or opposing a political campaign. The bill also prohibited company funding of a campaign to come directly from the company’s general treasury, and disallowed any advocacy to come from corporations within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary election. Years later, an organization called Citizens United protested the bill as it applied to their release of a movie. The movie in question was focused on Hillary Clinton’s capabilities to run for president. Citizens United argued that the BCRA violated the First Amendment right to free speech. However, a previous case called McConnell v FEC had already reached the conclusion that the BCRA was not unconstitutional (540 U.S. 93, 2003). This case was cited in the United States District Court’s denial of Citizens United’s injunction. The District Court ruled that BCRA was not unconstitutional, and that it could be fairly applied to Hillary: The Movie because the movie contained advertisements against Secretary Clinton. 

    The main questions raised by the Supreme Court were as follows:

1. Was the assessment of McConnell v FEC accurate in saying that BCRA was constitutional?
2. What qualifies as a campaign endorsement? If there is not a clear statement for or against a candidate is it subject to regulation by the BCRA?
3. Does Hillary: The Movie meet the requirements of the BCRA?

A 5-4 decision ruled that First Amendment rights to free speech are protected, even if the speaker is a corporation. Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, and was joined by four other right-leaning Justices. The four dissenting justices were left-leaning. A second decision held that the portion of BCRA that required disclosure of endorsement by the organizations was constitutional.

The final decision of Citizens United rests on the belief that all residents of the United States have an inherent right to freedom of speech. The first amendment states that “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech,” (U.S. Const. amend I). These words mean that individuals are free to express their own opinions about the government whenever they wish. The amendment does not, however, state whether this right is granted to only individuals, or to large groups of individuals as well. The amendment also does not clarify whether political donations are a form of free speech. In Citizens United, the court ruled that donations are a form of free speech, and that large organizations have a right to free speech.

Many democratic politicians are opposed to the verdict of the Citizens United case, and believe that allowing large organizations to donate to political causes is corrupting American democracy. They worry that organizations with heaps of influential money crowd out the average American’s opinion on politics, and uneven the playing field when it comes to making fiscal decisions. For example, organizations like the National Rifle Association (NRA) could donate to presidential campaigns, which might put in place a certain amount of pressure for the president to pass laws that would please the NRA (but perhaps not the rest of the American population.)

So far, seven democratic candidates have pledged to repeal the decision of Citizens United, working with an organization called End Citizens United, which has collected over four million members, and advocates around the country against the involvement of companies in politics. The organization is made up of self proclaimed “democrats fighting for reform”, and their website says they are working to push “big money” out of politics. 

    Even though the Supreme court has concluded their review of the three cases just presented, the verdicts are still debated today. As America grows and changes, so do her political opinions. In today’s age, the differences between political opinions stand more obvious than ever, and U.S. citizens stand at a crossroads. When studying past Supreme Court cases, it is important to remember that the debate is never truly over.

Works Cited:

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (558 U.S. 2010)

United States v. Lopez (514 U.S. 549, 1995)

Engel v. Vitale (370 U.S. 421, 1961)

First Amendment to the United States Constitution  (U.S. Const. amend I)

McCulloch v. Maryland (17 U.S. 316, 1819)

McConnell v FEC (540 U.S. 93, 2003)