4,993
edits
Landmark Supreme Court cases: Difference between revisions
→Major "Courts" (Chief Justices)
| Line 163: | Line 163: | ||
|1971 | |1971 | ||
|Burger | |Burger | ||
|freedom of the press | | - prior restraint | ||
- freedom of the press | |||
| | | | ||
* Freedom of the press (1st amendment) | * Freedom of the press (1st amendment) | ||
| | | | ||
* the New York Times (NYT) newspaper published the leaked "Pentagon Papers," which were secret reports by the Pentagon regarding the U.S. intervention in Vietnam; the government fought to stop their publication based on national security grounds and that the possession of them by the NYT was illegal, | * the New York Times (NYT) newspaper published the leaked "Pentagon Papers," which were secret reports by the Pentagon regarding the U.S. intervention in Vietnam; the government fought to stop their publication based on national security grounds and that the possession of them by the NYT was illegal | ||
* the Court ruled that the government's need to keep certain secrets (i.e., classified information) was subordinate to constitutional protections of the press, even if those secrets were unlawfully released (leaked) | * the government was asking for "prior restraint" of further publication of the Papers (there were 7,000 pages, so the NYT started printing selections, upon which time the Government ordered the NYT to halt publication ("prior restraint" = to stop criminal behavior before it is actually done) | ||
* the ruling stated that when balanced against the freedom of the press, the government "carries a heavy burden of showing justification for the imposition of such a restraint | * the Court ruled that the government's need to keep certain secrets (i.e., classified information) was subordinate (less important than) to constitutional protections of the press, even if those secrets were unlawfully released (leaked) | ||
* the ruling stated that when balanced against the freedom of the press, the government's position for prior restraint "carries a heavy burden of showing justification for the imposition of such a restraint" | |||
* the Court created a standard for testing the importance of keeping state secrets to the "grave and irreparable danger" standard | * the Court created a standard for testing the importance of keeping state secrets to the "grave and irreparable danger" standard | ||
* other issues include, ''censorship, prior restraint, injunction'' | * other issues include, ''censorship, prior restraint, injunction'' | ||
| Line 176: | Line 178: | ||
|Roe v. Wade | |Roe v. Wade | ||
|1973 | |1973 | ||
|Burger | |||
|right to privacy | |||
| | | | ||
* due process (14th amendment | |||
* 9th amendment reservation of the rights of the people | |||
| | | | ||
* the court ruled that the Fourteenth amendment's "Due Process" clause creates a "right to privacy" | |||
* the court reasoned that the "due process" clause provides protection against excessive government restrictions of "personal liberty" | |||
* the ruling struck down laws that banned abortion but still allowed some regulation of abortion, such as time limits on the age of the fetus and its "viability" for birth (which it deemed was in the 3rd trimester and so allowed for bans on abortion on it). | |||
* dissent: | |||
** Justice White argued that the Court has no standing to choose between a mother and an unborn child and said that in the decision the Court had exceeded it's powers of judicial review; he felt it was a political and not judicial question | |||
** Justice Rehnquist argued that the Court had invented a right that the writers of the 14th Amendment had not intended, as when it was adopted in 1868 there were 36 state or territory laws limiting abortion | |||
| | | | ||
| | * [[wikipedia:Griswold_v._Connecticut|Griswold v. Connecticut]] (1965: held that laws banning contraception violated the right to marital privacy (in marriages) and that that right to privacy was implicit in the 1st, 3rd, 4th & 5th amendments) | ||
| | * [[wikipedia:Planned_Parenthood_v._Casey|Planned Parenthood v. Casey]] (1992: held that laws restricting abortion, such as mandatory waiting periods, spousal or parental notice, etc. had to meet the "undue burden standard" of creating undue or burdensome restrictions on individual rights) | ||
* Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (pending as of April 2022) | |||
|- | |- | ||
|Schenck v. United States | |Schenck v. United States | ||
| Line 284: | Line 297: | ||
=== Legal Tests & Rules === | === Legal Tests & Rules === | ||
* "Grave and probable danger" rule (Dennis v. US, 1951) | * "'''Grave and irreparable danger standard''' "(NY Times v. US, 1971) | ||
** updated from the "grave and probable danger" rule (Dennis v. US, 1951) | |||
** the government must show "irreparable" (unfixable) danger in order to justify "prior restraint" | |||
*** "prior restraint" = stopping an action or behavior before it happens, usually referring to halting the publication of something that might pose a harm to national security | |||
* '''Undue burden standard''' | |||
** a law must not create an "undue" (unnecessary) or overly burdensome or that is overly restrictive of fundamental rights | |||
== Full list of Landmark Supreme Court cases == | == Full list of Landmark Supreme Court cases == | ||