SUPREME COURT

What is the Most Influential Supreme Court Case in History? Hannah Lester Glen Allen High School

SUPREME COURT

Abstract This paper will explore sixteen of the most noteworthy Supreme Court cases from 1803 on, assessing their societal impact based upon their implications of the status quo and their relative staying power. By examining actual case briefs as well as relying upon the arguments of various scholarly articles published in journals of law and the like, it is the assertion of this paper that the landmark Supreme Court decision in the 1954 case Brown v. Board of Education has had the most influence on American society in history due to the extreme scrutiny to which it was subjected by the public as well as its enforcement at the hands of federal troops commissioned by President Eisenhower. Introduction Ever since the principle of judicial review was established by the 1803 Supreme Court case Marbury v. Madison, landmark Court decisions have become a preeminent method of enacting social change in the United States. However, constitutional interpretation varies from Justice to Justice; and the lens through which constitutional provisions are viewed is in constant evolution in line with the changing mores and values of society. This research paper will profile sixteen cases and will culminate in the naming of the most influential Supreme Court case in history, which is predicted to be Brown v. Board of Education (1954) at the outset. Influence will be assessed in terms of societal impact; and within those parameters, must meet two conditions: 1) that the case in question challenged/changed the status quo, and 2) that the decision has had a lasting effect on society as well as current legislationthat it has not been since invalidated and that it has been enforced as was intended. Freedoms of Speech and Religion 2

SUPREME COURT

Gitlow v. New York (1925) Gitlow v. New York essentially aimed to answer the question of whether the First Amendment (particularly, the freedom of speech and of the press) applied to the states. Petitioner Benjamin Gitlow, who was a member of the Socialist Party of America, was charged with criminal anarchy under New York law after he distributed copies of a document which advocated the overthrow of the existing government. The Court issued a conditional ruling: while it held that no state could deny its citizens their First Amendment rights based upon the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, it also reserved that right to prohibit speech that is deemed as having a dangerous tendency (The Oyez Project). While Gitlow v. New York did affirm the freedom of speech, it denied its absolutism; thus setting forth a precedent that still holds true today. Although the landmark Court case Barron v. Baltimore (1833) had established that the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government, Gitlow represented a departure that has since become the standard, with most provisions having now been selectively incorporated to apply to state and local governments as well (Conservapedia). Engel v. Vitale (1962) Engel v. Vitale pondered the still-contentious issue of prayerand more generally, the presence of religionin schools. Several Jewish families in the Herricks School District of New York protested the voluntary daily recitation by the schoolchildren of a prayer which explicitly mentioned the Almighty God, contradicting their religious beliefs. In an unpopular decision, the Court ruled that the supposedly nondenominational prayer violated the Establishment Clause

SUPREME COURT

of the First Amendment by showing deference to a single religion and was therefore unconstitutional (The Oyez Project). Engel v. Vitale provided a seminal protection to the freedom of speech by maintaining the separation of church and state as it was first imagined by Thomas Jefferson. With the subsequent case Abington School District v. Schempp (1963), school-led Bible readings were declared unconstitutional. Since 1962, multiple organizations (most notably the American Civil Liberties Union) have been established to preserve individual liberties (Schempp, 2012). Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) The essential question deliberated on in Tinker v. Des Moines was whether a symbolic protest could be considered an expression of the freedom of speech. The petitioners in this case included a group of students who, in December of 1965, had worn black armbands to school as a representation of their opposition to the Vietnam War. The principals of their respective schools responded by asking anyone seen wearing an armband to remove it lest they face suspension. The school district was sued, and when the case reached the Supreme Court it was decided that the armbands did in fact exemplify speech; the right to which prevails on school property. Furthermore, there must be a sufficient indication that it is in the best interest of the general population for school officials to justify the suppression of speech (The Oyez Project). Recent Supreme Court case Morse v. Frederick (2007) challenged the precedent set by Tinker, ruling that school officials at Juneau-Douglas High School in Juneau, Alaska were within their authority to suspend a student in violation of the schools anti-drug policy when he displayed a banner reading BONG HiTS 4 JESUS; following the same reasoning as the decision in Bethel School District v. Fraser (1986). 4

SUPREME COURT

Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) Lemon v. Kurtzman was a case regarding the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, remembered for its creation of the Lemon test. All three cases involved, heard and ruled on simultaneously, concerned laws in both Pennsylvania and Rhode Island which appeared to show favoritism by providing financial aid to educational institutions with ties to the Catholic Church. The Court held unanimously that the statutes in question were unconstitutional and set forth several guidelines for legislation subject to the Establishment Clause, speaking mainly to the laws purpose and effect and advising that it must not result in an excessive entanglement of government and religion (The Oyez Project). A scholarly article published in the Missouri Law Review criticized the Court for stringently applying the Lemon test to cases involving the Establishment Clause, arguing that it was instead intended to act as a series of helpful signposts (Russell, 1995). The Lemon test has additionally been criticized because it relies disproportionately on subjectivity. However, others have expressed their approval of its prevailing authority, citing the lack of a suitable alternative. Miller v. California (1973) Miller v. California was a case calling into question the scope of the First Amendment that established a three-prong standard which redefined obscenity. Marvin Miller, a man who owned a business specializing in adult films and books, was convicted of distributing obscene material by mailillegal in his home state of Californiaafter several recipients filed formal complaints against him. He believed that he was justified in doing so based upon the First Amendment guarantee of the freedom of speech. The Court affirmed Miller in a 5-to-4 ruling,

SUPREME COURT

and conceived the standards by which obscene materials should be judged, revised from the earlier Memoirs v. Massachusetts (1966) (The Oyez Project). A scholarly article published in the William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal argues that the Miller Test is no longer applicable and should be revised, providing a case study of sorts (the obscenity trial of the members of hip-hop group 2 Live Crew) to support the assertion (Duvall, 1992). Some have said that obscene speechso long as it is not injuriousshould be entitled to the same protection as are other forms of expression, citing the subjectivity of the three-prong test (Yale Law & Technology, 2012). Civil Rights Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857) Dred Scott v. Sanford, frequently thought of as the worst decision in Court history, is credited with indirectly catalyzing the Civil War. Dred Scott was an African-American slave who lived in Missouri but traveled to states and territories where slavery was outlawed with his owners. Scott attempted to sue on the grounds that his residence in free territory equated to his freedom, but was denied. The Courts ruling established two controversial ideas: 1) that blacks were not citizens and as such, did not retain the right to file suit; and 2) that the federal government could not ban slavery in territories acquired after 1787 (e.g., the Louisiana Territory) (The Oyez Project). The Dred Scott decision has been said to have been counterproductive, inciting more sectional tension in the United States rather than resolving the question of slavery as it was intended to do. Unsurprisingly, northerners were dissatisfied with the ruling while it was praised 6

SUPREME COURT

by southerners. Northerners not only disagreed with the decision from a political standpoint, but a moral one as well. Meanwhile, southerners viewed Dred Scott v. Sanford as a victory for states rights. Overall, the case was simply one domino in a chain of events ending inevitably in war (Oswald, 2012). Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) Plessy v. Ferguson more or less condoned racial segregation in public places so long as the doctrine of separate but equal was applied. The case arose when a Louisiana man named Homer Plessy, who refused to move from his seat in a whites only train car, was arrested. The Court ruled 7-to-1 that the law was constitutional, stating that the requirement of equal facilities satisfied the terms of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (The Oyez Project); a holding that was invalidated in 1954 with Brown v. Board of Education. Plessy v. Ferguson essentially legalized segregation, allowing Jim Crow laws to propagate and permitting the treatment of African Americans as second-class citizens. The decision was a disheartening regression from the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments (so-called Civil War Amendments) and an undoing of the progress achieved during Reconstruction. However, the tide turned with Brown v. Board, nearly 60 years later (Ferris University). Brown v. Board of Education (1954) The significance of Brown v. Board of Education, possibly the most widely recognized Supreme Court case in history, lies in its admittance that the doctrine of separate but equal did not deliver on its promise of equality. The case resulted from a class action lawsuit and was decided jointly with two other cases originating in various other states. All 9 Justices reached a 7

SUPREME COURT unanimous decision in favor of the plaintiffs, asserting that separate but equal schools were, by definition, unequal and thus deprived minority children of the equal protection guaranteed to them by the Fourteenth Amendment (The Oyez Project). The post-Brown v. Board of Education era is characterized as turbulent and somewhat violent, associated with social upheaval (Chadwick, 2007). The decision was met with much backlash from the public, forcing President Eisenhower to intervene by sending in federal troops to enforce the integration of Central High School. However, despite initial resistance, Brown v. Board is now remembered as having inspired the dream of a society based on justice and racial equality (Library of Congress, 2004). Rights of the Accused & the Right to Privacy Weeks v. US (1914) Weeks v. US established what would come to be known as the exclusionary rule, which states that illegally obtained items (items obtained without a warrant) may not be used as evidence in a criminal trial. The petitioner, Fremont Weeks, was convicted of a crime after police entered his home and seized his personal belongings without first obtaining a search warrant. The Court voted unanimously in Weekss favor, upholding that the police had violated his Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures (The Oyez Project). While the exclusionary rule is believed by many to be a protection of the public against police misconduct, the argument has also been presented that the technicalities it permits prevent the police and prosecutors in pursuit of justice from properly performing their jobs (Street Law, Inc.). A scholarly article published in the UCLA Law Review argues that the exclusionary rule 8

SUPREME COURT

has become increasingly weakened since its inception, calling into question whether the decision continues to hold weight today (Kaye, 2011). Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) Gideon v. Wainwright extended the defendants right to counsel, as granted by the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution, to state courts as a further protection of the rights of the accused. The petitioner, Clarence Earl Gideon, was accused of a burglary at a poolroom in Florida. Gideon was unable to afford counsel and asked that he be appointed a lawyer, but was informed that Florida state law provided for a court-appointed lawyer only in capital cases (those seeking the death penalty). Gideon was subsequently convicted of the crime, and filed a habeas corpus petition. The Court ruled unanimously that his Sixth Amendment rights had been violated, with Justice Tom C. Clark noting that the right to counsel should be uniformly applied (The Oyez Project). In a 1963 speech, then-Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy statedin reference to Gideonthe whole course of American legal history has been changed. However, a scholarly article published in the Yale Law Journal argues that the rights of the accused as guaranteed by Gideon v. Wainwright have yet to be fully actualized half a century later because the system is fundamentally flawed, with prosecutors having the upper hand on the defense (Bright & Sanneh, 2013). Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) Griswold v. Connecticut is a landmark case because it is the first time the right to privacy has been recognized as implicit within the Bill of Rights. Estelle Griswold, Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, was convicted along with her colleague for 9

SUPREME COURT

counseling married couples as to their birth control options. Justice William O. Douglas, writing for the majority, declared that the various amendments to the Bill of Rights create penumbras that allude to privacy. Therefore, the right to privacy in marital relations is guaranteed to all citizens (The Oyez Project). A fact sheet from Planned Parenthood asserts that acceptance of the use of contraceptives has become nearly unanimous in the United States; it acknowledges that providing universal access to birth control has not yet been realized, but that Griswold endowed this mission with constitutional protection. Additionally, various statistics citing increases in maternal, infant, and family health are utilized as evidence to support the Courts decision in Griswold v. Connecticut (Planned Parenthood, 2000). Miranda v. Arizona (1966) Following in the footsteps of Gideon v. Wainwright, Miranda v. Arizona similarly preserved the rights of the accused by ensuring that suspects in custody of law enforcement are informed of their right to counsel and privilege against self-incrimination. The case concerned multiple instances, ruled on concurrently, in which defendants had been interrogated by police some in extreme conditionswithout ever being properly notified of their rights. The Court decided 5-to-4 that the practices in question were unconstitutional and additionally listed the rights that were necessary for police to communicate to suspects (The Oyez Project), which have collectively come to be known as the Miranda rights. A scholarly article published in the book series Crime and Justice: A Review of Research questioned the impact Miranda has had on the criminal justice system, citing little effect on confession rates as well as arguing that it has not substantially inhibited the ability of 10

SUPREME COURT

prosecutors to achieve convictions. The police are still able to elicit confessions from suspects as they are said to employ strategies to evade or blatantly violate the Courts ruling (Leo & Thomas, 2002). Roe v. Wade (1973) Without the precedent set by Griswold v. Connecticut, the Courts decision in Roe v. Wade would not have been possible. The petitioner, Jane Roe, wanted to abort her pregnancy but was prohibited in doing so under Texas law, which allows abortions only when the mothers life is at risk. In a 7-to-2 ruling, the Court extended the recently established right to privacy to a womans right to an abortion. However, a state reserves the right to make laws regarding abortions after the first trimester of pregnancy (The Oyez Project). The case is still hotly debated: because of its controversial nature, Roe v. Wade has continued to attract attention 40+ years after its ruling and is therefore relevant even today, with the two camps (pro-life and pro-choice) continuing to organize themselves in popular protest and with the support of various advocacy groups on either side (Applewhite, 2013). Abortion is a polarizing issue to say the least, one on which a consensus has not yet been reached; though polling data has reflected that public support of the Courts decision has increased over time (The Oyez Project). Scope of Government Marbury v. Madison (1803) Marbury v. Madison is notable for its establishment of the principle of judicial review, meaning that the Supreme Court reserves the power to judge the constitutional validity of a law. 11

SUPREME COURT

The petitioner, William Marbury, was appointed to a governmental post during the final days of John Adamss presidency. When the position was not granted to him thereafter, he petitioned the Court; which voted unanimously against him, declaring Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional and instituting judicial review in the process (The Oyez Project). Without the principle of judicial review, the argument can be made that all forthcoming decisions would have been negated. Thus, it is integral to the power of the judiciary, as Nelson argues in his novel Marbury v. Madison: The Origins and Legacy of Judicial Review (2000). Indeed, this landmark case served the purpose of leveling the playing field between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches; as the Founding Fathers anticipated with the doctrine of separation of powers. Korematsu v. US (1944) Korematsu v. US tested the scope of government by questioning whether or not the President and Congress were justified in restricting the rights of Japanese Americans during World War II. The case referenced Executive Order 9066, authorized by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, which allowed the military to discriminate against citizens of Japanese ancestry as they were considered a potential threat to national security. The majority ruled on the side of the US, reasoning that the need to protect the country from espionage overruled individual rights (The Oyez Project). Although the decision was never explicitly overturned, it has since been acknowledged by the Department of Justice as an error of judgment. Current Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has been quoted as saying, you are kidding yourself if you think the same thing will not happen again" in war time (Weiss, 2014). Though it has been identified as a universally condemned case, Korematsu v. US has found 12

SUPREME COURT

supporters in recent years in conservatives Judge Richard Posner and columnist Michelle Malkin (Somin, 2013). United States v. Nixon (1974) United States v. Nixon limited the power of the president and affirmed the authority of the Supreme Court. Amidst the Watergate Scandal, President Richard Nixon was subpoenaed for audio tapes of his conversations that had been recorded in the Oval Office and likely contained damning evidence. Nixon refused, claiming executive privilege (the power of the executive branch to withhold information in the public interest) protected him from releasing the requested documents. The Court responded swiftly, ruling unanimously that presidential privilege is not an absolute entitlement and may not interfere with the fair administration of justice (The Oyez Project). President Nixon resigned fifteen days after the Courts decision was announced. His successor, Vice President Gerald Ford, issued a presidential pardon to Nixon, effectively halting any efforts to prosecute him further (Coffey, 2012). The Watergate scandal as a whole is representative of the corruption of power, a cautionary tale which contributed heavily to the now widespread distrust by the public of the government. Conclusion Brown v. Board of Education has had the most influence upon affecting societal shifts in the United States because of its considerable radicalism, with Marbury v. Madison coming in a close second for its foundational value. Despite the fact that all forthcoming decisions would have been negated had Marbury v. Madison not been put into effect, Brown v. Board of 13

SUPREME COURT

Education presented a greater threat to the status quo and is arguably the most widely recognized Supreme Court case in recent memory.

14

SUPREME COURT

Applewhite, J. S. (2013, January 19). Roe v. Wade. Retrieved from http://news.yahoo.com/photos/roe-v-wade-slideshow/ Bright, S. B., & Sanneh, S. M. (2013, June). Fifty years of defiance after Gideon v. Wainwright. Yale Law Journal, 122. Retrieved from http://yalelawjournal.org/images/pdfs/1178.pdf Chadwick, A. (Interviewer) & Brown, M. (Interviewee). (2007). Segregation showdown at Little Rock [Interview audio file]. Retrieved from http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11912932 Duvall, S.A. (1992). A call for obscenity law reform. William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal, 1. Retrieved from http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1551&context=wmborj Ferris University. Plessy vs. Ferguson: Separate isnt equal. Retrieved from http://www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/links/misclink/plessy/homepage.htm Gitlow v. New York. (n.d.). In Conservapedia. Retrieved from http://www.conservapedia.com/Gitlow_v._New_York Kaye, D. H. (2011). Unraveling the exclusionary rule: From Leon to Herring to Robinson--and back? UCLA Law Review, 58. Retrieved from http://www.uclalawreview.org/pdf/discourse/58-11.pdf Leo, R. A. & Thomas, G. C., III (2002). The effects of Miranda v. Arizona: Embedded in our national culture? [Abstract]. Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, 29. Library of Congress. (2004). With an even hand: Brown v. Board at fifty. Retrieved from http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/brown/brown-aftermath.html 15

SUPREME COURT

Nelson, W. E. (2000). Marbury v. Madison: The origins and legacy of judicial review. Lexington, Kentucky: University Press of Kentucky. Oswald, A. (2012). The reaction to the Dred Scott decision. Voces Novae: Chapman University Historical Review, 3. Retrieved from http://journals.chapman.edu/ojs/index.php/VocesNovae/article/view/328/704 Planned Parenthood. (2000). Griswold v. Connecticutthe impact of legal birth control and the challenges that remain. Retrieved from http://lobby.la.psu.edu/013_Contraceptive_Coverage/organizational_statements/Planned_ Parenthood/Planned_Parenthood_The_Impact_of_Legal_Birth_Control.htm Russell, S. E. (1995). Sorting through the establishment clause tests, looking past the lemon. Missouri Law Review, 60. Retrieved from http://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3242&context=mlr Schempp, E. (2012). The 50th anniversary of Engel v. Vitale: Ending public school-led prayer. Retrieved from https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/10/ Somin, I. (2013). Suzanna Sherry on the case for judicial activism. Retrieved from http://www.volokh.com/2013/08/20/suzanna-sherry-on-the-case-for-judicial-activism/ Street Law, Inc. Friend or foe? Debating the exclusionary rule, part I. Retrieved from http://www.streetlaw.org/en/Page/344/Friend_or_Foe_Debating_the_Exclusionary_Rule_ Part_I W Coffey. (2012, November 10). The story of Watergate. Retrieved from http://waltercoffey.wordpress.com/tag/u-s-v-nixon/ 16

SUPREME COURT Weiss, D. C. (2014, February 4). Scalia: Korematsu was wrong, but you are kidding yourself if you think it wont happen again. ABA Journal. Retrieved from http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/scalia_korematsu_was_wrong_but_you_are_kid ding_yourself_if_you_think_it_won Yale Law & Technology. (2012). The Miller test and the value of obscene speech. Retrieved from http://www.yalelawtech.org/uncategorized/the-miller-test-and-the-value-ofobscene-speech/

17