The Supreme Court of the United States hears many cases each year that challenge the authority and law,
and ultimately create lasting change. In addition, Constitutional laws that were made many years ago may
not apply to society’s needs anymore. Examples of important SCOTUS cases that impacted society and
challenged the law are Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 US 335 (1963), McDonald v. Chicago, 561 US 742 (2010),
and Citizens United v. FEC, 558 US _ (2010). These cases are examples of how the amendments that were
so carefully made to intentionally include everyone and everything can be twisted and tweaked in ways to
encompass a new developing society with new standards. In these cases, as well as many other court cases,
the law was challenged by people who believe that aspects of the amendments are sometimes unjust, that a
law conflicts with the claims of the Constitution, or that the rights that should be defended by the Constitution
are violated which motivates them to take action.
challenged the law are Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 US 335 (1963), McDonald v. Chicago, 561 US 742 (2010),
and Citizens United v. FEC, 558 US _ (2010). These cases are examples of how the amendments that were
so carefully made to intentionally include everyone and everything can be twisted and tweaked in ways to
encompass a new developing society with new standards. In these cases, as well as many other court cases,
the law was challenged by people who believe that aspects of the amendments are sometimes unjust, that a
law conflicts with the claims of the Constitution, or that the rights that should be defended by the Constitution
are violated which motivates them to take action.
The Gideon v. Wainwright case began in June of 1961 when Clarence Earl Gideon was charged with a
felony for burglary. He asked the Court for an appointed attorney because he was unable to afford one, but
his request was denied as Florida law only permitted an appointed attorney to those who were charged with
capital offenses. Gideon then petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus arguing against the director of Florida’s
Division of Corrections, Louie L. Wainwright, saying that the judge refused to a fair trial, but was rejected.
So he filed for another petition, and after hearing Gideon's Constitutional arguments in January of 1963, the
mostly liberal court with 2 conservatives and 7 liberals ruled 9-0 that states must provide legal counsel to
indigent defendants. At the time there were a lot of movements in society, like the civil rights movement,
which could have prompted the mostly liberal view of the Court. Chief Justice Earl Warren was a liberal who
played a role in allowing Gideon another chance to be justified by agreeing to hear the oral arguments of
his petition, voting in favor of Gideon, and assigning him to an attorney: Abe Fortas. This case originated
with the Bay County Circuit Court, where Gideon was convicted of burglary and denied his first petition,
but later advanced to the Supreme Court of the United States where Gideon filed his handwritten petition.
The case of McDonald v. Chicago started when Otis McDonald, a retired custodian, filed suit against a
handgun ban due to safety concerns of being unable to defend against crime. He argued that the ban
violated the right of individuals to possess and carry weapons, but the Chicago trial court rejected his
argument because the 2nd amendment was not applicable to state law. Although the case originated with the
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, it became a US Supreme court case later with a
middle-road but mostly liberal chief justice, John Roberts, who oversaw the Supreme court during the case,
presided over the oral arguments, and voted with the majority in favor of McDonald. On September 3, 2009,
the US Supreme Court granted certiorari to the McDonald case and after hearing oral arguments that the
2nd amendment should apply to the states through the Due Process Clause, the Supreme Court reversed the
lower court decision and came to a disposition ruled 5-4 consisting of a court with 5 conservatives and 4
liberals that people have the right to bear arms under state government and federal government on
June 28, 2010.
Citizens United v. FEC was a case that determined whether corporations have the same rights as a person
does to use freedom of speech when it comes to using private corporate money to help fund political
advertising. It started when a conservative corporation, Citizens United, wanted to release a documentary
criticizing the liberal senator and presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton. Although the laws made due to the
disposition of a previous case, McConnell v. FEC, 540 US 93 (2003), saying that because of the wide
influence that big corporations possess, the political free speech and private funding they have and can
provide should be minimalized due to the possibility of corruption, could cause the Federal Election
Commission (FEC) to impose penalties. So, Citizens United went to the Washington. D.C U.S. District
Court to argue that the laws violated the First Amendment's free speech clause and that BCRA’s Section 203
was unconstitutional because the film wasn’t exactly an electioneering communication, but their argument
was rejected by the Court. Soon after, the United States Supreme Court took the case and decided to
overrule the previous court decision and McConnell v. FEC on January 21, 2010 by concluding with a 5-4
vote that there is no limit to the funding of political broadcasts by corporations in elections under the First
Amendment because corporations should have the same freedom of speech that people do. The lower court
that first heard the case was the Washington. D.C U.S. District Court who rejected Citizens United’s appeal,
but advanced to the U.S Supreme Court after being granted a writ of certiorari. The Court was made up of
5 conservatives and 4 liberals with the middle-road but mostly liberal chief justice: John Roberts, who led
the oral arguments, set the Court’s meeting agenda, and voted with a concurring opinion in support of
Citizens United. This disposition could be biased and have something to do with how the majority
(5 justices) were republican and would be against Democrat Hillary Clinton.
The cases I presented: Gideon v. Wainwright, McDonald v. Chicago, and Citizens United v. FEC are
examples of important cases that have shaped and heavily influenced society today by leaving lasting
change. Gideon’s case relates to modern day issues of government discrimination by not always following
all legal steps and rights that an individual has which ultimately leads to not every citizen being equally
protected by law only due to circumstances that are irrelevant to the law, like being poor in this case, and
also relates to the modern day question of whether having an assigned public lawyer puts you at a
disadvantage to people with a paid private lawyer. McDonald’s case relates to the gun controversy in
America today because the right to bear arms has been under scrutiny following many mass shootings,
and the fear of not being able to defend against crime conflicts with the fear of gun violence which has
been shown through the many people advocating for gun control. Citizens United’s case relates to corrupt
politics in recent elections because of corporations that financially benefit from a candidate and give
money to boost their publicity through broadcasts, signs, etc… which take over our TV’s and cities.
The amendments that are most closely related to the Gideon v. Wainwright case are the 6th and 14th
amendment. The 14th amendment guarantees due process which is the requirement that the government
must respect the fundamental rights to a person without any exception (like the 6th amendment being
considered exclusively for the federal court and not state court) and equal protection which means that the
government must protect the rights of every person no matter their differences in order to prevent
discrimination under law. Gideon dealt with this discrimination as he was denied legal counsel, which is a
fundamental right from the 6th amendment which guarantees a fair trial to criminal defendants, just because
of being poor. While in the McDonald v. Chicago case, the 14th amendment was relevant through it’s
Due Process Clause as well because the 2nd amendment wasn’t applied under state court. Citizens United
v. FEC is closely related to the 1st amendment because it puts into question whether big corporations have
the same freedom of speech rights as an individual person has. As society changes, parts of the Constitution
become outdated and previous laws no longer hold up, and it is our job to recognize when it is time to take
action and when change is necessary, but the Supreme Court’s job to make the best possible decision by
recognizing each side of a case in order to create a positive difference.
WORKS CITED (URLS)
Nadia Van Den Berg
Comments
Post a Comment