The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) plays an important role in the United States government. The U.S. Supreme Court is the highest court in the United States and is essential to protecting and interpreting the U.S. Constitution. SCOTUS typically hears 100 - 150 cases every year, most of which have implications that reach far beyond the individual parties involved. Three examples of landmark cases heard by the U.S. Supreme Court are Gideon v. Wainwright, McDonald v. Chicago, and Citizens United v. FEC.
In the case of Gideon v. Wainwright, in 1963 Clarence Gideon fought for the right to have an attorney in the event you cannot afford to pay for one. Gideon was a man with an eighth-grade education and few financial means. Gideon was charged with breaking and entering with the intent to commit a misdemeanor, a felony under Florida state law. At trial, Gideon requested that the judge appoint him a lawyer because he could not afford to pay for one. This request was rejected by the judge because under Florida law, counsel was only provided to people who had been charged with capital crimes. Gideon took his case to the Florida Supreme Court stating that his constitutional rights were violated, but his petition was denied. Finally, Gideon filed a petition to the United States Supreme Court and it was accepted. The Court agreed to decide whether counsel was guaranteed under the Sixth Amendment or not. The ruling was that counsel was guaranteed, and Betts v. Brady, which denied counsel to people who were being prosecuted by the state, was overturned. In its ruling, the Court held that the Sixth Amendment is a fundamental right that is essential to a fair trial, and, because of that, applies to the states through the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court that decided the case was politically middle. Chief Justice Warren along with the other 8 Justices all decided in favor of Gideon. This case originated in Bay County Circuit Court, Fourteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida. This case is most closely related to the Sixth Amendment, which states the accused has the right to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense. The case is a reflection of the Sixth Amendment because in Gideon v. Wainwright case, Gideon requested counsel and was denied, which he claimed it was a violation of the Sixth Amendment. The effects of Gideon v. Wainright can be seen in our legal system today, as citizens are guaranteed the right to an attorney; however, an outstanding issue that relates to the case is the varying quality of representation that exists today. With a stressed criminal judicial system, an important issue is finding ways to ensure that cases being tried by public defenders receive adequate attention.
In McDonald v. Chicago, The United States Supreme Court overruled the Chicago Handgun Ban, saying that it violated the Second Amendment, which gives citizens the right to keep and bear arms. The court ruled that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments as well as to the federal government. In 2008, Otis McDonald filed a lawsuit challenging a 1982 Chicago law banning the new registration of handguns and requiring handgun registration to be a requirement for owning a gun. This and other lawsuits were filed immediately following the Supreme Court’s ruling in another case, District of Columbia v. Heller. In the Heller case, the Court ruled that the law in question was enacted under the authority of the federal government and, as a result, the Second Amendment was applicable. In the McDonald case, plaintiffs argued that the Second Amendment should also apply to states. The District Court and the U.S Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit dismissed the case. The Supreme Court reversed the earlier decision, noting that the Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms applicable to states. The Court that decided this case leaned liberal. Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority, which was decided 5-4. The Lower Court where McDonald v. Chicago originated from was The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The Second and Fourteenth Amendment are the most closely related to this case. The relationship between the Second Amendment and McDonald v. Chicago is that Chicago banned handguns in 1982, and The U.S. Supreme Court ruled this to be unconstitutional, citing the Second Amendment, which gives all citizens the right to bear arms. The McDonald v. Chicago case is particularly relevant today in light of recent mass shootings that have taken place in the United States. As cities try to find ways to prevent these incidents from happening, the spotlight will be on cases such as this and the Second Amendment in general.
In Citizens United v. FEC, Citizens United, a conservative nonprofit organization, engaged the courts in an effort to prevent the application of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) to a political documentary the group wanted to broadcast during the primary elections. The BCRA act of 2002 regulated what corporations and labor unions could spend on electoral campaigns. Citizens United argued that Section 203 of BCRA, which prevents corporations or labor unions from funding electioneering communication from their general treasuries, violated the First Amendment and a person’s right to free speech. In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Citizens United by a decision of 5-4, finding that political spending is a form of free speech that is protected under the First Amendment. This ruling effectively gives corporations and labor unions freedom to spend money however they want on political campaigns. When the case was taken to the Supreme Court, the majority overturned parts of the BCRA, stating that “under the First Amendment, corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited.” The majority also maintained that “political speech is indispensable to a democracy, which is no less true because the speech comes from a corporation.” The court that decided the case leaned conservative. Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion of the Court, and Chief Justice Roberts wrote a concurring opinion, which emphasized how the Court handles constitutional issues. This case originated in The U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. Citizens United v. FEC is most closely related to the First Amendment because Citizens United argued that parts of the BCRA violated its freedom of speech. An issue related to this case and to the First Amendment in general is special interest lobbying and campaign spending. While politicians and the general public have raised questions about the potential for corruption, the First Amendment protects free speech. Today, many critics of special interest lobbying worry that special interest groups can use their money to influence political outcomes.
Works Cited
"About the Supreme Court." United States Courts, www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/about. Accessed 19 Aug. 2019.
"Citizens United v. Federal Election Committee." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/2008/08-205. Accessed 19 Aug. 2019.
Duignan, Brian. "Citizens v. Federal Election Committee." Encyclopædia Britannica, 27 June 2019, www.britannica.com/event/Citizens-United-v-Federal-Election-Commission. Accessed 19 Aug. 2019.
"Facts and Case Summary - Gideon v. Wainwright." United States Supreme Courts, www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/facts-and-case-summary-gideon-v-wainwright. Accessed 19 Aug. 2019.
"Gideon v. Wainwright." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/1962/155. Accessed 19 Aug. 2019.
"McDonald v. Chicago." Bill of Rights Institute, billofrightsinstitute.org/elessons/mcdonald-v-chicago-2010/. Accessed 19 Aug. 2019.
"McDonald v. Chicago." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/2009/08-1521. Accessed 19 Aug. 2019.
Comments
Post a Comment