William Royster

William Royster

August 20th, 2019

AP Government and Politics

The Founding Fathers established three separate and autonomous branches to run the federal government effectively and democratically. The three branches were designed to place checks on each other to stop corruption and tyranny from spreading. The judicial branch decides what laws or actions are unconstitutional. This interpretation was upheld in Marbury v. Madison in 1803. This essay analyzes three court cases that display the role of the Supreme Court in the United States. The cases are Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962); United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995); and Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm'n, 558 U.S. 310 (2010).

The first example case that exemplifies the Supreme Court is Engel v. Vitale. The case was argued in front of the Supreme Court on April 3, 1962 (Oyez). Steven Engel sued the New York school board and its president, William Vitale. The State of New York and the New York school board had all students of public schools recite, along with the pledge of allegiance, “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country” (PBS 2017). The prayer was written by New York State Board of Regents and was recited every day. The New York Supreme Court was the first court to hear this case. The court decided that the prayer did not push religion on the students and parents and thus did not violate the U.S. Constitution. Engel, obviously, decided to take his case to the Supreme Court. 

Earl Warren served as Chief Justice of the court that decided this case. Warren is known for being pro-civil rights and civil liberties and was instrumental in ensuring the advancement in civil rights during the 1960’s (Encyclopedia Britannica 2019). The court that he serves was not as liberal as he was, but still leaned his ideological direction. The associate justices were Hugo Black (liberal), William O. Douglas (liberal), Tom C. Clark (conservative), John M. Harlan II (conservative), William Brennan (liberal), Potter Stewart (conservative), Byron White (middle justice), and Felix Frankfurter (conservative). A 4:4:1 ideological divide is considered split but Warren’s sway and many of Byron White’s pushed the court left. The court that eventually ruled on this case was not so conservative. Byron White and Felix Frankfurter did not make a ruling (Oyez) leaving a 4-3 ideological split towards the liberals of the court. Warren voted with the majority decision and picked Hugo Black to write the majority opinion. 

Engel v. Vitale is a challenge of the first amendment. The first amendment prohibits the establishment of religion and the restriction of the free expression of religion. It also protects freedom of press, speech, assembly and petition (US Constitution). Because the prayer was written and practiced in government funded schools, the question was whether or not that practice established government religion or came too close to it. In a 6 to 1 decision with concurrence from William O. Douglas, the court ultimately ruled that it did. Potter Stewart was the only dissenter (Encyclopedia Britannica 2009). 

The first amendment is arguably the most important and basic amendment in the bill of rights. It has been debated and argued for centuries and is just as relevant now as the day it was written. Recently, a U.S. appeals court ruled that President Donald J. Trump could not block critics on twitter. The judge and the prosecutors that argued the case claimed the blocking dissenters was a violation of the first amendment (NPR 2019). 

Many of the most influential Supreme Court cases have been challenges on the largest legislative body in the land, the United States Congress. A prime example of this is U.S. v. Lopez. In 1992, high school senior Alfonso Lopez carried a concealed weapon into Edison High School (Oyez). Lopez was tried in criminal court for violating the Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1990 (Legal Information Institute). He was sentenced to 6 months in prison until he and his legal team appealed his case (Oyez). The case was then heard by a fifth circuit U.S. appeals court. The court reversed his sentence and ruled the GFSZA to be unconstitutional. This case was brought to the Supreme Court in 1994.

The Chief Justice at the time of the case was William Rehnquist, a conservative justice nominated by Richard Nixon and made Chief Justice by Ronald Reagan (Ballotpedia). The court he lead was split. It had four conservatives: William Rehnquist, Sandra Day O’Connor, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas. Opposite the conservative bloc were four liberal justices: John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bater Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer (Oyez). Anthony Kennedy is the 9th justice and was effectively a middle justice. He mostly voted along with conservatives, given he was a Reagan appointee, but he voted with liberal justices quite often (CNN 2019). Rehnquist was apart of and wrote the majority decision. 

Article one of the constitution establishes the powers that the United States Congress holds. It, broadly, gives all legislative power and comprises the legislative branch of the constitution (US Constitution). The case ties to the first article of the constitution through article one, section eight, clause three of the United States Constitution, or the “commerce clause”. The commerce clause grants Congress the ability to regulate international, interstate trade and trade between Indian tribes and the federal government. The Supreme Court debated whether or not the Gun-Free School Zone Act was unconstitutional because it overstepped the bounds of how much Congress could regulate trade. In a partisan split, the conservatives of the court held the majority in a 5-4 decision. The court ruled that the Gun-Free School Zone Act did in fact directly violate the constitutional limits of the commerce clause. 

A challenge of a law based on the extent of the commerce clause was unheard of before 1995. From 1937 to 1995 had not struck down a law on the basis that it violated the commerce clause (Legal Information Institute). The commerce clause was important in 1995, it's important now and it was especially important in the 1960’s. The civil rights act of 1964, like so much other important legislation, was passed under the commerce clause. The argument was made that the discrimination against people of color had an adverse effect on the free flow of interstate travel (Legal Information Institute). 

The third and final case of this essay is Citizens United v. FEC. In 2008, a non-profit, conservation organization by the name of Citizens United, released a film entitled: Hillary: The Movie. The film`was highly critical of Hillary Clinton and was to be aired right before the 2008 democratic primary. The airing was struck down by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act or, the McCain-Feingold Act (Oyez). The BCRA was enacted in 2002 to limit the amount of money corporations and unions could spend on political campaigns and actions. It raised the amount of money individuals could spend on campaigns, banned “soft” money contributions from corporations and unions and prohibited “electioneering communications” or political advertisements funded or produced by unions or corporations (Encyclopedia Britannica 2017). An injunction was denied by a US district court in Washington D.C. before being heard by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court debated the merits of certain election laws from the BCRA itself to rulings from Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and McConnell v. FEC (History.com 2018).

Roberts’ Court in 2009 was close to a split court but more often than not went conservative. 4 of the justices were conservative (Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito) while four justices were liberal (Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor) (Oyez). The functional middle Justice was Anthony Kennedy. Kennedy was a conservative justice but very often broke from party to favor liberal decisions (CNN 2019). John Roberts was the Chief Justice for the decision. He was a part of the conservative, majority decision. 

This case directly challenges the first amendment. The first amendment protects the most important and basic of civil liberties. It protects freedom of speech, press, petition, religion and assembly. It also prohibits the government from establishing religion (US Constitution). It is the very reason the founding fathers decided to rebel from the British. Before this case, cases like it and election laws, a citizen’s right to donate to a political campaign was protected under free speech. Supporting a campaign is an expression of ideology falling under the umbrella of speech. The court questioned whether or not limiting the amount of money an organization can spend on a candidate or political cause violated the First Amendment's freedom of speech protection. Ultimately, the court ruled that restrictions on soft money contributions for political campaigns, like the ones found in the BCRA, were unconstitutional.

This case has been one of the most important Supreme Court decisions of the 21st century and considered by many to be one of the most disastrous. It has shaped how lawmakers make decisions as to what bills or policies they will support. One example, out of many, is gun control legislation. Most voters desire more background checks, even among Republican voters (fivethirtyeight 2019). But, the NRA has donated millions and millions to Republican and some democratic legislators to keep gun control laws weak (Politifact 2017).

The importance of the Supreme Court can not be overstated. It is the face of the judicial branch and has left and immeasurable mark on American history. It has the power to strike down any federal, local, or state laws that violate the constitution. It is responsible for stripping away constitutional protections for people of color during and after slavery and also ensuring the advancement of people of color in the 1950's and 60's. The court can repeal election and gun laws and also strike down a school practice.

Bibliography

1. "Engel v. Vitale." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/1961/468.
2. "Engel V. Vitale." Encyclopedia Britannica, 2019 Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 21 June 2019, www.britannica.com/event/Engel-v-Vitale.
3. "Engel v. Vitale." PBS, 2019 WGBH Educational Foundation, www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/engel-v-vitale/
4. "United States v. Lopez." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/1994/93-1260
5. Jones, Clifford A., and Brian Duignan. "Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002." Encyclopedia Britannica, 20 Mar. 2019, www.britannica.com/topic/Bipartisan-Campaign-Reform-Act.
6. "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/2008/08-205
7. "Citizens United v. FEC" History.com, 2019 A&E Television Networks, LLC., 24 Jan. 2019, www.history.com/topics/united-states-constitution/citizens-united
8. Platt, Spencer. Protesters with the 'Occupy Wall Street' movement demonstrate in New York. The Rolling Stone, 2018 Rolling Stone, www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/my-advice-to-the-occupy-wall-street-protesters-237797/
9. US Constitution. Amendment I. 
10. Smentowski, Brian P. "Earl Warren." Encyclopedia Britannica, 8 July 2019, www.britannica.com/biography/Earl-Warren