U.S. Supreme Court Updates

Chapter 1: What is Law? Our Constitutional Framework

Gonzales v. Raich (the medical marijuana case)
Notions about federalism, limited government and the scope and limits of the Congressional power to pass laws based on the Commerce Clause are explored in the Supreme Court’s 6 to3 decision in the medical marijuana case. The Court ruled that the primary federal drug control law was a valid exercise in federal lawmaking power, even as applied to persons in California who had grown and used marijuana under their state’s law which permitted use of medical marijuana. Additional teaching materials developed by Street Law are available here.

Chapter 2: Lawmaking – Agencies

Gonzales v. Raich
See the materials on the Court’s medical marijuana case, above. Additional teaching materials developed by Street Law available here.

Massachusetts v. EPA
In this 5-4 decision the court ruled that the state of Massachusetts (and others) had standing to challenge in federal court the EPA's decision not to regulate greenhouse emissions under the Clean Air Act. Additional teaching materials developed by Street Law available here.

Chapter 3: Advocacy- Voting

Crawford v. Marion County Election Board
In this case, the court upheld an Indiana law requiring voters to present a government issued photo ID when casting their ballot. The court concluded that the interest of the state in preventing voter fraud outweighed the burden that the law placed on voters. Additional teaching materials developed by Street Law are available here.

Chapter 3: Campaign Finance Reform

FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life
A sharply divided Supreme Court ruled that the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (also known as the McCain-Feingold law) does violate the First Amendment by preventing the broadcast of certain issue-oriented ads that mention a candidate during the period just before an election. Additional teaching materials developed by Street Law are available here.

Randall v. Sorrell
The Supreme Court upheld its decision in Buckley v Valeo and struck down Vermont's contribution and expenditure limits. Additional teaching materials developed by Street Law are available here.

McConnell v. Federal Election Commission
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the McCain Feingold legislation, finding that the law's restriction on speech was minimal and that the concerns of preventing corruption or the appearance of it were significant. Additional teaching materials developed by Street Law available here.

Chapter 7: Crime in America- Guns and the Law

District of Columbia v. Heller
In this 5–4 decision the court struck down the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns, holding that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to gun ownership. Additional teaching materials developed by Street Law are available here.

Chapter 7: Crime in America – Substance Abuse and Crime

Gonzales v. Raich
See the materials on the Court’s medical marijuana case, above. Additional teaching materials developed by Street Law available here.

Chapter 12 : Search and Seizure

Arizona v. Gant
In a 5-4 decision, the Court affirmed that in order for a warrantless vehicular search at the time of an arrest to be constitutional, the arrestee has to be within reach of the passenger compartment, or it has to be reasonable that a search of the vehicle will turn up evidence of the crime for which the person is being arrested. Additional teaching materials developed by Street Law are available here.

Safford v. Redding
In an 8-1 decision, the Court held that Safford Middle School violated Savana Redding’s Fourth Amendment rights when school officials conducted a strip search for prescription-strength ibuprofen pills. Additional teaching materials developed by Street Law are available here.

Virginia v. Moore
After stopping Moore for driving without a license, police officers arrested him and searched his hotel room, finding sixteen grams of crack cocaine. The arrest and search was in violation of state law, which only permitted officers to issue a citation for driving without a license. In a unanimous decision, the Court held that the cocaine could be used against Moore in court because the search did not violate the Fourth Amendment, even though it violated state law. Additional teaching materials developed by Street Law are available here.

Scott v. Harris
In this case police were led on a high speed chase by a motorist who the police had attempted to stop for speeding. The chase ended when the police bumped the driver off the road causing him very serious injury. The Court held that this use of force was reasonable, given the public danger that was created by the chase. Additional teaching materials developed by Street Law are available here.

Brendlin v. California
The Court found that a passenger is seized for Fourth Amendment purposes when the driver of a car is stopped by police. The effect of this is that police will not be able to use evidence seized from a passenger when the stop of the driver violates the Fourth Amendment. Additional teaching materials developed by Street Law are available here.

Georgia v. Randolph
In a 5-3 decision the Court held that the consent of one co-occupant to shared premises over the express refusal of another co-occupant is not enough to justify a warrantless entry in the home. Additional teaching materials developed by Street Law are available here.

Samson v. California
In a 6-3 decision the Court held that a suspicionless search of a parolee is constitutional because the parolee has a reduced expectation of privacy while California has an interest in maintaining control of parolees and preventing repeat offenders. Additional teaching materials developed by Street Law are available here.

Brigham City v. Stuart
In a unanimous decision the Court held that police may enter a home without a warrant when they believe that an occupant is seriously injured or imminently threatened with such an injury. Such a situation falls under the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment. Additional teaching materials developed by Street Law are available here.

Illinois v. Caballes
The Supreme Court ruled that a sniff of a car’s exterior by a trained drug dog as part of a legal traffic stop was not a search and did not require individualized suspicion. Additional teaching materials developed by Street Law are available here.

Thornton v. United States
The Supreme Court ruled that police can search the interior of a car even when the suspect in question was not in the vehicle when the police initiated contact. Additional teaching materials developed by Street Law are available here.

Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a state law imposing criminal penalties for the failure to answer a police officer’s request for ones name when the officer is conducting a stop based on reasonable suspicion. Additional teaching materials developed by Street Law are available here.

U.S. v Banks
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the police do not need to wait more than 15 seconds before breaking down the door to an apartment to execute a warrant for the search of a home. Additional teaching materials developed by Street Law available here.

U.S. v. Flores-Montano
The Supreme Court held unanimously that border officials do not violate the Fourth Amendment if they take apart sections of a car at a border crossing, even if their search is based only on reasonable suspicion and not on probable cause. Additional teaching materials developed by Street Law available here.

Chapter 12: Interrogations and Confessions

Missouri v. Seibert
The Supreme Court held that when police intentionally question suspects before reading them their Miranda warnings, statements subsequently repeated after the warnings are read are inadmissible in court. Additional teaching materials developed by Street Law are available here.

Yarborough v. Alvarado (the Juvenile Miranda Case)
The Supreme Court ruled that federal courts can not overturn final state court rulings unless they clearly conflict with existing Supreme Court precedents, and do not need to specially consider the age of a juvenile defendant in determining "custody" in Miranda cases. Additional teaching materials developed by Street Law are available here.

Chapter 14: Criminal Justice Process: The Trial – Right to Confront a Witness

Davis v. Washington

Hammon v. Indiana
In Davis and Hammon the Court explored the scope and limits of the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. Additional teaching materials developed by Street Law are available here.

Chapter 15: Criminal Justice Process: Sentencing and Corrections- Capital Punishment

Kennedy v. Louisiana
Patrick Kennedy was found guilty of raping his eight year old step-daughter, and was sentenced to death by a Louisiana court. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court struck down his sentence, holding that a state law that allowed the imposition of the death penalty for child rape violates the Eighth Amendment. Additional teaching materials developed by Street Law are available here.

Kansas v. Marsh
In a 5-4 decision the Court held that a sentencing statute which requires the death penalty when aggravating and mitigating evidence is in balance does not violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Additional teaching materials developed by Street Law are available here.

Roper v. Simmons (the juvenile death penalty case)
The Supreme Court ruled in a 5 to 4 decision that it was unconstitutional to apply the death penalty to a defendant who was 16 or 17 at the time of the commission of his crime. The decision was based in part on the Court’s decision in Atkins (see page 181). Additional teaching materials developed by Street Law are available here.

Chapter 16: Juvenile Justice

Roper v. Simmons
See the materials on the Court’s juvenile death penalty case, above. Additional teaching materials developed by Street Law available here.

Chapter 17: Law and Terrorism- Detention, Interrogation

Boumediene v. Bush
Lakhdar Boumediene, an Algerian native, was arrested in Bosnia in 2002 based on the suspicion that he was part of a plot to blow up the U.S. embassy there. Classified as an enemy combatant, he was taken to the U.S. military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. He filed a writ of habeas corpus in federal court, but after finding that the Guantanamo detainees had no right to habeas corpus, the court dismissed his case. In 2006, Congress passed the Military Commissions Act which prevented federal courts from hearing the habeas petitions of Guantanamo detainees. In a 5 to 4 decision the Court found that alien enemy combatants held at Guantanamo Bay have a constitutional right to challenge their detention in federal court using the writ of habeas corpus. Additional teaching materials developed by Street Law are available here.

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld
The Court ruled 5-3 that the military commissions set up for Guantanamo Bay detainees lacked the authority to proceed because they violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Conventions. Additional teaching materials developed by Street Law are available here.

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld
The Supreme Court ruled that although Congress had authorized special rules for the detention of alleged "enemy combatants," when such combatants are citizens of the United States they are entitled to some form of due process that includes access to courts. Additional teaching materials developed by Street Law are available here.

Rumsfeld v. Padilla
The Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that Jose Padilla had improperly filed his case in New York, because at the time of the filing he was held in South Carolina. Additional teaching materials developed by Street Law are available here.

Rasul v. Bush & al Odah v. United States (the Guantanamo Bay Detention Cases)
The Supreme Court ruled in these two cases that federal courts have the power to hear cases from foreigners held in areas over which the United States has nearly absolute control, such as Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. This decision allowed those detainees to challenge their detention in federal court. Additional teaching materials developed by Street Law are available here.

Chapter 19: Intentional Torts – Intellectual Property

Metro-Golden-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.
The Supreme Court ruled in a unanimous decision that one who distributes a device (such as Grokster’s peer to peer file sharing software) with the objective of promoting its use to infringe copyrights can be liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties (individual users). Additional teaching materials developed by Street Law are available here.

Chapter 39 – Expression in Special Places – the First Amendment in Public Schools

Morse v. Frederick
In a 5 to 4 decision the Court found that a public high school principal did not violate a student's First Amendment rights when she confiscated a banner that read: “Bong Hits for Jesus.” The 14 foot banner had been displayed by the student at a parade during the school day on the street in front of the school. While the display of the banner did not disrupt the parade, the majority found that schools were authorized to punish a pro-drug message that was contrary to school policy. Additional teaching materials developed by Street Law are available here.

Chapter 40: Freedom of Religion - Establishment Clause

Van Orden v. Perry (the Texas Ten Commandments case)
In a 5 to 4 decision the Court allowed the display of the text of the Ten Commandments on a monument that had been placed on the grounds of the state capital 40 years earlier. Additional teaching materials developed by Street Law are available here.

McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky
In the companion case to Van Orden, the Court ruled, again 5 to 4, but this time that government ordered posting of a version of the text of the Ten Commandments on courthouses in two Kentucky counties violated the First Amendment. Additional teaching materials developed by Street Law available here.

Locke v. Davey
The Supreme Court found room between the prohibitions of the establishment clause and the freedom guaranteed by the free exercise clause to allow states to decide not to fund higher education meant to teach religious devotion even when it funds other areas of study. Additional teaching materials developed by Street Law are available here.

Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow
The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Ninth Circuit holding that the recitation of the pledge is unconstitutional, with a majority finding that under California state law Newdow did not have standing to bring the claim on behalf of his daughter. He did not have legal custody over his daughter. Additional teaching materials developed by Street Law are available here.

Chapter 40: Freedom of Religion – Free Exercise Clause

Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao Do Vegetal
In an 8-0 decision the Court allowed the use of Hoasca tea for sacramental use by a small religious group despite the fact that it contained a hallucinogen which was banned by the Controlled Substances Act. The Court relied on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act which says that the federal government may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion unless it shows a compelling interest which the government did not do in this case. Additional teaching materials developed by Street Law are available here.

Chapter 41: Due Process

Caperton v. Massey Coal Co.
This case asked if a state judge should be required to recuse himself from a case where one of the parties made significant financial contributions to the judge’s election campaign. A sharply divided Court ruled that yes, a judge should recuse himself if the failure to recuse would create a serious risk of actual bias that would threaten due process. Additional teaching materials developed by Street Law are available here.

Castle Rock v. Gonzales
Mrs. Gonzales filed suit against the town of Castle Rock for failing to enforce a restraining order a court had issued against her husband. She had called police repeatedly over a period of several hours to report that he had taken their children, in violation of the court order. The police did not act. Ultimately the husband murdered the three children. She argued that under the 14 th Amendment’s due process clause she had a protected property interest in having the police enforce this order. A federal court of appeals agreed with her but the Supreme Court reversed. The Court ruled against her, in part at least, because they were reluctant to limit the discretion of police when deciding how to respond to calls for assistance. Additional teaching materials developed by Street Law are available here.

Kelo v. City of New London
The City of New London approved a comprehensive development plan that called for purchasing property in distressed parts of town and then leasing it to private developers in order to create jobs and increase tax revenues. Most of the land for this project was purchased from willing sellers, but some did not want to sell their homes. The city used its eminent domain power to acquire this property for just compensation. The homeowners who did not want to sell to the city believed that the government’s eminent domain powers could not be used to take property and then turn it over to private developers. They believed that eminent domain powers could only be used to take land for public use (such as roads, bridges, etc.). In a controversial 5 to 4 opinion the Court upheld the city’s use of its eminent domain powers, noting that the property taken would be used for an acceptable public purpose. Additional teaching materials developed by Street Law are available here.

Chapter 43: Discrimination – Discrimination in Employment

Ricci v. DeStefano
The New Haven, CT, Fire Department hired an outside company to design an exam to determine the most qualified candidates for promotions; none of the African American test-takers and only two of the Hispanic test-takers scored well enough to be considered for the promotion. The city decided not to certify the results for fear of being accused of employment discrimination. The firefighters who scored well enough to be considered for a promotion filed a lawsuit against the city, stating that they had in turn been discriminated against.

A divided Court held that the decision to throw out a fire department’s test results constituted disparate treatment of those firefighters eligible for promotion because the results were thrown out based solely on race. Additional teaching materials developed by Street Law are available here.

Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White
The Court held that a worker complaining of retaliation on the job may sue even if that individual has not suffered an ultimate adverse action such as firing or denial of promotion. Reassignment to a less attractive job or a temporary suspension without pay can constitute retaliation. The Court set this standard to evaluate Title VII retaliation claims in the future: a plaintiff must show that the challenged action was materially adverse which means that it well might have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination. Additional teaching materials developed by Street Law are available here.

Chapter 43: Discrimination – Discrimination Based on National Origin and Citizenship Status

Jama v. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Jama had his refugee status terminated for a criminal conviction. Federal law sets out the steps for removing such persons from the US. When he didn’t designate a country, the judge ordered him removed to Somalia, the country of his birth. Jama objected because Somalia did not have a functioning government and therefore could not agree in advance to his being sent there. The Supreme Court ruled that advance consent was not required. Additional teaching materials developed by Street Law are available here.

Chapter 43: Discrimination – Discrimination Based on Gender

Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White
The Court held that a worker complaining of retaliation on the job may sue even if that individual has not suffered an ultimate adverse action such as firing or denial of promotion. Reassignment to a less attractive job or a temporary suspension without pay can constitute retaliation. The Court set this standard to evaluate Title VII retaliation claims in the future: a plaintiff must show that the challenged action was materially adverse which means that it well might have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination. Additional teaching materials developed by Street Law are available here.

Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education
Jackson, the coach of the girls’ basketball team at a public high school, complained to his supervisors that his team was not receiving equal funding or equal access as required under Title IX. He was subsequently dismissed from his coaching duties. Jackson sued, arguing that Title IX did not allow for retaliatory dismissals. Writing for a narrowly divided Court (5 to 4), Justice O’Connor found that not protecting someone like Jackson from retaliation would frustrate the purpose behind Title IX. Additional teaching materials developed by Street Law are available here.

Chapter 43: Discrimination - Discrimination Based on Disability

Chapter 43: Discrimination - Discrimination in Voting Rights

LULAC v. Perry
The Court held that mid-decade redistricting done primarily for partisan purposes does not violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court did, however, hold that two of the new voting districts drawn by the 2003 Texas legislature did violate the Voting Rights Act and must be redrawn so as not to dilute minority votes. Additional teaching materials developed by Street Law are available here.

Chapter 43: Discrimination - Discrimination Based on Race

Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District
In a 5 to 4 decision the Court found that the Seattle school district's use of race in making assignments to the city's public high schools was a violation of the 14^th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The policy was not narrowly tailed to achieve a compelling governmental interest. The four dissenters, along with Justice Kennedy who wrote a concurring opinion, believed there is a strong governmental interest in reducing racial isolation in schools. The dissenters believed that Seattle's policy was narrowly tailored to meet that interest; Justice Kennedy did not think this policy was narrowly tailored. Additional teaching materials developed by Street Law are available here.

Chapter 45: Immigration Law – Persons Seeking Humanitarian Protection in the United States (Available in 8^th edition text ONLY)

Negusie v. Holder
Daniel Negusie of Eritrea was forced to serve in the Eritrean army under threat of death, and later escaped the country and requested asylum in the U.S. His application for asylum was denied because his prison guard activities categorized him as a “persecutor.” The Court held that Board of Immigration Appeals and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals misapplied a World War II Nazi case and remanded the decision to the BIA. Additional teaching materials developed by Street Law are available here.