Noah Rosenberg


  • Scouts cases
    Noah Rosenberg

  • 1. Engel v. Vitale, 1962
The debate about the separation of church and state was brought to the Supreme Court in 1962, in the case of Engel v. Vitale. The case was based on a pre-written prayer that was recited in New York public schools every morning after the Pledge of Allegiance. An unusual group of people banded together to fight this policy, from religious Jews who objected to the Christian nature of the prayer, to atheists who objected to any prayer at all. The group protesting the policy claimed it violated the First Amendment.
In New York, in the New Hyde Park school district, the lawsuit regarding daily prayer was first filed. This followed New York State Law, which required the school day to begin with the Pledge of Allegiance and a prayer.  Even in 1962, the law said students could choose to leave the room when the prayer was said. A parent (Engel) sued the school board (President Vitale) on behalf of his child, stating that it violated, through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Establishment Clause in the First.  The respondents argued that the prayer was not mandatory and was sufficiently vague as not to represent any specific religion. The petitioner did not think the government should be drafting and requiring prayers at all. The case began in 1959 in the New York State Supreme Court, which upheld the prayer policy. The Appellate court also upheld the policy, as did the New York Court of Appeals. Despite being upheld three times, it was not upheld in the Supreme Court in 1962. 
In 1962 the Supreme Court Chief Justice was Earl Warren, whose court was very liberal, and in a 6-1 vote (with two justices abstaining), the court ruled that the prayer was unconstitutional. Justice Stewart was the only dissenting judge, who thought that the vagueness of the prayer and the ability of students to leave during the prayer was enough. SIx other Justices, however, found that the prayer violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."  The Court rejected the argument that the prayer was vaguely worded, ruling that no prayer at all can be supported by the government. The majority ruled that the fact the prayer was non-denominational and that students could leave were useless arguments because the Establishment Clause strictly prohibits supporting religion. One of the "Warren Court's" three major rulings is often cited as Engel v. Vitale.

Because this ruling was related to just school-sponsored prayer, many other cases have been brought to the Court over the same issue. These included prayer during classes, student-led prayer, prayer during football games, and prayer during graduation. It has also involved voluntary prayer. In all cases, the Supreme Court has ruled the same way it ruled in Engel v. Vitale. 



           U.S. v. Lopez

This case, although its solution upheld the right of Lopez to bring a gun to school, spurred other legislation that prohibited the presence of guns on school property. The case is interesting because it was the first time since 1937 that the Supreme Court thought Congress had gone too far and overstepped its powers.
There was never any disagreement about the facts of the case. It began in the spring of 1992 with a 17-year-old Texas high school student, Alfonso Lopez, who showed up to school with an unloaded .32 caliber revolver and five cartridges, although the gun was unloaded. He was found with the gun, which he said he was selling to another student for $44. In any case, he was charged with violating federal law, the "Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990." Lopez freely admitted he brought the gun to school; that was not the issue. The issue that was raised was that Congress had gone too far in passing the gun-free act, because of where they placed their reasoning for doing so: the Commerce Clause. It was the first time since 1937 that the Commerce Clause had been used to legislate public schools. 
Lopez asked for a dismissal, but the trial court rejected his plea and he was convicted. He appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, saying that Congress didn't have the right to ban guns under the Commerce Clause (because what commerce was being affected?). The 5th Circuit agreed and reversed the conviction. They did think the law was a good one, however, and suggested that it be rewritten under some other part of the Constitution. The Court said
that the gun situation had a "trivial impact" on commerce. The government filed for certiorari, asking that the decision be reviewed by the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court agreed to hear it.
However, the government could not prove that the gun clause affected interstate commerce. They tried to draw a line to violence in schools resulting in communities where people would not want to live, and that kind of argument, but the Supreme Court, 5-4, shot it down. They affirmed the Court of Appeals. Chief Justice Rehnquist and his court were viewed as conservatives.  He himself was a conservative Republican. The Court under Rehnquist often upheld state's rights against the government getting too involved in state business (like the Lopez ruling). There are other rulings since then when the Court has limited federal power. Congress rewrote the Gun Act defining that the gun must have “moved in” interstate commerce, and so far it has been upheld.

Citizens United v. FEC

In Citizens United v. FEC, the underlying question is, "Are corporations people?" And the Supreme Court answered, in 2010: yes.
It all began with a movie about Hillary Clinton. A conservative non-profit organization, Citizens United, made a movie criticizing Hillary Clinton. This was seen as violating the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), which prohibited corporations, unions, etc. from endorsing political candidates in electronic communication. The case was first argued March 24, 2009; reargued in September of the same year, and finally decided January 2010. In December 2007, Citizens United filed a complaint in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, challenging the constitutionality of laws governing "electioneering communications" A three-judge panel ruled against Citizens United. In 2008, the District Court found for the FEC as well. The Supreme Court then agreed to hear it. 
The Roberts Court ruled, in a 5-4 decision, that political spending is a form of free speech protected by the First Amendment. The Roberts Court is seen as more conservative than the Rehnquist Court. It removed limits on spending for political broadcasts paid for by corporations. One dissenter, John Paul Stevens, argued that the authors of the Constitution meant "individual people" had free speech, not corporations. He thought that allowing corporations to endorse candidates would weaken the impact of individual votes.The Court held that BCRA violated the First Amendment. In doing so, the Court overruled itself on two earlier cases. 
The decision is highly controversial; as many as 75% of Americans have come out against it. President Obama thought it was a mistake; Mitch McConnell approved of it. The case is limited to election "communications" and prohibits direct contributions. It also says that corporations must show where they got their money from. One of the sticky points in this ruling
is whether the person broadcasting information has to be a "bona fide" communicator. In the Hillary movie case, the company that produced the movie  was not thought to be a bona-fide moviemaker. 
When John Paul Stevens wrote the dissent, because he was retiring, he criticized Roberts freely, saying that he went beyond where he should have gone with his power and manipulated the verdict.  Roberts wrote explicitly why sometimes the Supreme Court has to overrule itself, as it did in this case. The ruling is highly controversial and has been discussed by academics, legal authorities, in the pages of the New York Times, and in other court cases. 





Comments

Post a Comment