Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye vs. Hialeah 1993

I chose to discuss this case because it is more local. As you may or may not know, Santeria is the practice of black magic which involves animal sacrifice and voodoo. The influence of the Caribbean attributes to the presence of this practice in South Florida. This case deals with the Free Exercise Clause which prohibits the government to deny the practice of a certain religion. The separation of Church and State guarantees this. The Supreme Court only gave the permissive result to the specific church, Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, to practice these animal sacrifice rituals. All the ordinances agree with this decision. Not everyone may agree with these practices, however, you can't contest it because of the Free Exercise Clause.

Facts of the Case:
The Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye practiced the Afro-Caribbean-based religion of Santeria. Santeria used animal sacrifice as a form of worship in which an animal's carotid arteries would be cut and, except during healing and death rights, the animal would be eaten. Shortly after the announcement of the establishment of a Santeria church in Hialeah, Florida, the city council adopted several ordinances addressing religious sacrifice. The ordinances prohibited possession of animals for sacrifice or slaughter, with specific exemptions for state-licensed activities.

Question:
Did the city of Hialeah's ordinance, prohibiting ritual animal sacrifices, violate the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause?

Conclusion:
Yes. The Court held that the ordinances were neither neutral nor generally applicable. The ordinances had to be justified by a compelling governmental interest and they had to be narrowly tailored to that interest. The core failure of the ordinances were that they applied exclusively to the church. The ordinances singled out the activities of the Santeria faith and suppressed more religious conduct than was necessary to achieve their stated ends. Only conduct tied to religious belief was burdened. The ordinances targeted religious behavior, therefore they failed to survive the rigors of strict strutiny.

Loving vs. Virginia 1967

It is imperative to acknowledge the impact that this case has on many people now. More than seven percent of the 59 million married couples in the United States are interracial. I would say that the last name of Richard Loving is very ironic in this case. According to the Virginia antimiscengenation laws, they banned interracial marriage and sometimes sex between members of two different races. This was solely a case based on racial discrimination. This case violated the fourteenth amendment which gives equal protection to all people. In recent days we would look at this case as totallly ridiculous and we would never deny the right to marriage for interracial couples. Our issue that is posed to us now is the case of gay marriage. I guarantee that in our lifetime we will see the result of that case in a Supreme Court decision.

Facts of the Case:
In 1958, two residents of Virginia, Mildred Jeter, a black woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, were married in the District of Columbia. The Lovings returned to Virginia shortly thereafter. The couple was then charged with violating the state's antimiscegenation statute, which banned inter-racial marriages. The Lovings were found guilty and sentenced to a year in jail (the trial judge agreed to suspend the sentence if the Lovings would leave Virginia and not return for 25 years).

Question:
Did Virginia's antimiscegenation law violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion:
Yes. In a unanimous decision, the Court held that distinctions drawn according to race were generally "odious to a free people" and were subject to "the most rigid scrutiny" under the Equal Protection Clause. The Virginia law, the Court found, had no legitimate purpose "independent of invidious racial discrimination." The Court rejected the state's argument that the statute was legitimate because it applied equally to both blacks and whites and found that racial classifications were not subject to a "rational purpose" test under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Katz vs. United States 1967

This case is very important because it involves our personal privacy. This case is based on the fourth amendment which deals with search and seizure. Phonebooths may not be prevalent now everyday, however, the fact that the government can tap into our conversations that easily is perplexing. All it takes for the government to make such an action is to tap a conversation. The phonebooth is considered public property so it was way easier for the government to obtain the conversation that Katz was having. Nowadays with cell phones, it's easy to tap a conversation, but its hard to get the warrant to do so.

Facts of the Case:
Acting on a suspicion that Katz was transmitting gambling information over the phone to clients in other states, Federal agents attached an eavesdropping device to the outside of a public phone booth used by Katz. Based on recordings of his end of the conversations, Katz was convicted under an eight-count indictment for the illegal transmission of wagering information from Los Angeles to Boston and Miami. On appeal, Katz challanged his conviction arguing that the recordings could not be used as evidence against him. The Court of Appeals rejected this point, noting the absence of a physical intrusion into the phone booth itself. The Court granted certiorari.

Question:
Does the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures require the police to obtain a search warrant in order to wiretap a public pay phone?

Conclusion:
Yes. The Court ruled that Katz was entitled to Fourth Amendment protection for his conversations and that a physical intrusion into the area he occupied was unnecessary to bring the Amendment into play. "The Fourth Amendment protects people, not places," wrote Justice Potter Stewart for the Court. A concurring opinion by John Marshall Harlan introduced the idea of a 'reasonable' expectation of Fourth Amendment protection.

Tinker vs. Des Moines Ind. Comm. School Dist. 1969

This case is very important to teenagers because it deals with freedom of expression. The arm bands worn by the students exemplify the protest against the Vietnam War. The issue presented by the school was that it caused a disruption. This case deals with the first amendment which grants freedom of expression. As long as the action does not pose a direct threat to people it is okay to do. It is obvious that armbands can not do any harm. They were simply a very good way to show opposistion of the Vietnam War. I find that many people struggle to express themselves everyday because they live in fear that they will be reprimanded for the action they take, which is why after you review this case you can see how protected you really are by the constitution.

Facts of the Case:
John Tinker, 15 years old, his sister Mary Beth Tinker, 13 years old, and Christopher Echardt, 16 years old, decided along with their parents to protest the Vietnam War by wearing black armbands to their Des Moines schools during the Christmas holiday season. Upon learning of their intentions, and fearing that the armbands would provoke disturbances, the principals of the Des Moines school district resolved that all students wearing armbands be asked to remove them or face suspension. When the Tinker siblings and Christopher wore their armbands to school, they were asked to remove them. When they refused, they were suspended until after New Year's Day.

Question:
Does a prohibition against the wearing of armbands in public school, as a form of symbolic protest, violate the First Amendment's freedom of speech protections?

Conclusion:
The wearing of armbands was "closely akin to 'pure speech'" and protected by the First Amendment. School environments imply limitations on free expression, but here the principals lacked justification for imposing any such limits.The principals had failed to show that the forbidden conduct would substantially interfere with appropriate school discipline.

California vs. Greenwood 1988

What this case proves is that you are never safe after you throw something away. The Supreme Court ruled that once you put a trashcan on the street corner, the substances inside are no longer you property and any officially can legally search the contents. The case seems to go against the reasonable expectation of privacy but it doesn't. Once you discard something, you made the conscience decision that you no longer want the item, or whatever you threw into the garbage can . So this case clearly deals with what you throw away can come back to haunt you. The downside on the officials side is that they have to actually prove that whatever found in the trashcans were discarded by the person. Just remember, don't think that throwing something away gets you out of trouble because it could backfire on you later.

Facts of the Case:
Local police suspected Billy Greenwood was dealing drugs from his residence. Because the police did not have enough evidence for a warrant to search his home, they searched the garbage bags Greenwood had left at the curb for pickup. The police uncovered evidence of drug use, which was then used to obtain a warrant to search the house. That search turned up illegal substances, and Greenwood was arrested on felony charges.


Question:
Did the warrantless search and seizure of Greenwood's garbage violate the Fourth Amendment's search and seizure guarantee?


Conclusion:
Voting 6 to 2, the Court held that garbage placed at the curbside is unprotected by the Fourth Amendment. The Court argued that there was no reasonable expectation of privacy for trash on public streets "readily accessible to animals, children, scavengers, snoops, and other members of the public." The Court also noted that the police cannot be expected to ignore criminal activity that can be observed by "any member of the public."[Oyez]

Miranda vs. Arizona 1966

One of the most important laws still used today are the Miranda Laws. Those are the laws read to you by a police officer when under arrest. It is those laws which inform you of your rights at the time. I would have to say that the Miranda laws are the most well known laws. They include " you may choose to remain silent anything you say or do can be used against you in the court of law..." and if you actually listen to the law it is very effective. In recent days all cops have to have a camera located in the front of the vehicle in order to record themselved reciting these laws. If the laws are misread or a mistake is made while reading the law to a victim, it opens full opportunity or a mistrial. So, these laws do have a massive impact on those who get arrested, and if you get arrested and don't hear the law being given to you, then you won the case plain and simple.


Facts of the Case:
The Court was called upon to consider the constitutionality of a number of instances, ruled on jointly, in which defendants were questioned "while in custody or otherwise deprived of [their] freedom in any significant way." In Vignera v. New York, the petitioner was questioned by police, made oral admissions, and signed an inculpatory statement all without being notified of his right to counsel. Similarly, in Westover v. United States, the petitioner was arrested by the FBI, interrogated, and made to sign statements without being notified of his right to counsel. Lastly, in California v. Stewart, local police held and interrogated the defendant for five days without notification of his right to counsel. In all these cases, suspects were questioned by police officers, detectives, or prosecuting attorneys in rooms that cut them off from the outside world. In none of the cases were suspects given warnings of their rights at the outset of their interrogation.


Question:
Does the police practice of interrogating individuals without notifiying them of their right to counsel and their protection against self-incrimination violate the Fifth Amendment?


Conclusion:
The Court held that prosecutors could not use statements stemming from custodial interrogation of defendants unless they demonstrated the use of procedural safeguards "effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination." The Court noted that "the modern practice of in-custody interrogation is psychologically rather than physically oriented" and that "the blood of the accused is not the only hallmark of an unconstitutional inquisition." The Court specifically outlined the necessary aspects of police warnings to suspects, including warnings of the right to remain silent and the right to have counsel present during interrogations [Oyez]

Chisholm vs. Georgia 1793

To begin with, each case reviewed by the Supreme Court sets a precedent that is applicable to cases being heard even today. The earliest case available on www.Oyez.com is Chisholm vs. Georgia 1793. The purpose of the case was to answer a main question (which is presented below.) This goes on to prove that a minor issue can still uphold as a law/ precedent over 200 years later.


Facts of the Case:

In 1777, the Executive Council of Georgia authorized the purchase of needed supplies from a South Carolina businessman. After receiving the supplies, Georgia did not deliver payments as promised. After the merchant's death, the executor of his estate, Alexander Chisholm, took the case to court in an attempt to collect from the state. Georgia maintained that it was a sovereign state not subject to the authority of the federal courts.

Question:

Was the state of Georgia subject to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the federal government?

Conclusion:

In a 4-to-1 decision, the justices held that "the people of the United States" intended to bind the states by the legislative, executive, and judicial powers of the national government. The Court held that supreme or sovereign power was retained by citizens themselves, not by the "artificial person" of the State of Georgia. The Constitution made clear that controversies between individual states and citizens of other states were under the jurisdiction of federal courts. State conduct was subject to judicial review. [Oyez]

Main Focus

The main focus of the Supreme Court is to overlook a case and to determine whether it follows Constitutional guidelines. As you may or may not know, The Constitution only protects against government action not private matters. The Supreme Court does not just review any case. Cases are never directly sent to The Supreme Court. The case must begin in the Federal Circuit in one of the US District Courts or in a state trial court. If a verdict is unsatisfactory, the next thing to do is appeal that case to the US Federal Court of Appeals for the Federal District. If the verdict is still unsatisfactory, it can be submitted to the US Supreme Court which will then decide on whether or not to hear the case. If the case is accepted the Judges will hear both arguments and determine, based on majority opinion, the outcome.
There are justices in the Supreme court, they are:(chief Justice) John G. Roberts, Jr., John Paul Stevens, Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Samuel A Alito, Jr., Sonia Sotomayor. Each individual judge plays and imparative role in the decision making process. Each judge bases their decision on their position on the political standpoint. The justices are the most important people when it comes to setting precedents for the country's legal system