-
Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy Railroad Company v. City of Chicago, Amendment: 5th, Provision:Eminent Domain.
Chicago wanted to connect two parts of a street over private property, the land got condemned. Under Eminent Domain they had the right to take the property but has to compensate for it which they didn't by only paying them $1. The court decided this violated their Fifth Amendment right. -
Gitlow v. New York, Amendment: 1st, Provision: Freedom of Speech
Gitlow was arrested for distributing a Left Wing Manifesto that called for the establishment of socialism through strikes. He was convicted under New York's Criminal Anarchy Law for advocating the overthrow of the government. He appealed the case to the Supreme court. The court concluded Ne York couldn't prohibit advocating violent efforts to overthrow the government under the Criminal Anarchy Law. The court said Gitlow had not violated the clear and present danger test. -
Near v. Minnesota, Amendment: 1st, Provision: Freedom of the Press (prior Restraint)
The Saturday Press accused local officials of being implicated with gangsters. Minnesota officials sought a permanent injunction against the newspaper that it violated the Public Nuisance Law by being defamatory. The question asked was did the gag law violate the free press provision. The court decided that the statute authorizing the injunction was unconstitutional. Based on the analysis of the law's general applications not this specific case, the court held the restraint was invalid. -
DeJonge v. Oregon, Amendment: 1st, Provision:Freedom of Assembly.
A meeting held by the Communist Party addressed jail conditions and a maritime strike. The police raided the meeting while it took place. Dejonge was arrested and charged with violating the State's criminal syndicalism statute. The court decided it violated the due process from the 14th amendment and wanted to preserve the rights of freedom of speech and assembly from the first amendment. -
Cantwell v. Connecticut, Amendment: 1st, Provision: Free exercise of Religion.
Cantwell and his sons were Jehovah's witnesses walking door to door when some angry pedestrians weren't happy with their anti-Catholic agenda. They were arrested and charged with violation of Connecticut statute for solicitors to have a certificate and a breach of the peace. The question was whether their convictions violated the First Amendment. The court determined that Cantwell's actions were protected by the First amendment. -
Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing, Amendment: 1st, Provision: Government establishment of Religion.
New Jersey law authorized reimbursement by local school boards of the cost of public transportation including religious private schools. Everson filed a lawsuit alleging that this was an indirect aid to religion which violated the first amendment. The question was did New Jersey violate the first amendment. The court determined the law did not violate the First amendment. Justice Black reasoned that the law did not pay money to religious schools, and it didn't directly support them. -
In re Oliver, Amendment: 6th, Provision: Public Trial.
Oliver was subpoenaed to the grand jury for questioning about gambling. He himself wasn't accused of a crime or represented by a lawyer, they decided he was giving false answers and evaded questions. He was convicted and given 60 days in jail without counsel. He appealed to the Supreme Court where they determined his rights were violated. -
Mapp v. Ohio, Amendment: 4th, Provision: Exclusionary Rule.
Dollree Mapp was convicted of possessing obscene material after the police illegally searched her house for a fugitive. The question was whether the materials were protected under the Fourth Amendment. The court ruled that all evidence obtained by illegal search and seizures was inadmissible in a state court. -
Robin v. California, Amendment: 8th, Provision: Cruel and Unusual Punishment.
A jury found the defendant guilty under a California statute that criminalized being addicted to narcotics. His conviction was appealed and went under review by the Supreme Court under the question of was his conviction violation of cruel and unusual punishment. The court decided that laws imprisoning a person afflicted with narcotic addiction is a violation of cruel and unusual punishment under the 8th Amendment. -
Ker v. California, Amendment: 4th, Provision: Protection against unreasonable search and seizure (warrants)
Police were investigating drugs in the area where a dealer had been seen with Ker. They went to Ker's apartment the next day and arrested him after seeing marijuana around his house in the open. He said his rights were violated and the court ruled it didn't violate his right since they had enough probable cause to search. -
Gideon v. Wainwright, Amendment: 6th, Provision: Right to Counsel in felony cases.
Gideon was charged in Flordia with breaking and entering. He appeared in court without a lawyer and requested the court-appointed him one. Florida state law said lawyers were only appointed in capital cases. It was appealed to the Supreme Court with the question does the Sixth Amendment right to counsel in criminal cases extends to state courts. They decided yes the Sixth Amendment right to counsel did extend to state courts. -
Edwards v. South Carolina, Amendment: 1st, Provision: Freedom to Petition.
At the South Carolina State Government, 187 black students were convicted in a magistrate's court of breach of the peace for peacefully assembling. They were able to get their case appealed to the Supreme Court to debate if their convictions and arrest were in violation of the First Amendment. The court Stated the student's rights were violated and reversed the criminal convictions by an 8-1 decision. -
Malloy v. Hogan, Amendment: 5th, Provision: Protection against self-incrimination.
Malloy was arrested during a gambling raid, after pleading guilty he was sentenced to one year in jail and fined $500 for a misdemeanor. He was later asked to testify about gambling activities in Hartford he refused saying they were trying to get him to self incriminate. He was imprisoned for refusing and he filed a habeas corpus petition. The court ruled the Fifth Amendment protects from compulsory self-incrimination. -
Pointer v. Texas, Amendment: 6th, Provision: Rights to Confront Witnesses
Pointer was arrested on robbery charges, he represented himself at his trial. The state used a transcript of Philips's testimony as evidence. The defense objected to the use of the transcript as a denial of Pointer's right to confront a witness. It was overruled and he was convicted. The court ruled that the right of confrontation under the Sixth Amendment required Texas to allow Pointer an opportunity to confront Dillard through council. -
Miranda v. Arizona, Amendment: 5th, Provision: Right to be informed of rights upon arrest.
Miranda was arrested for kidnapping and rape, he was not informed of his rights upon his arrest. When they were interrogating him they asked one question after the other until he finally admitted to it. He appealed stating he wasn't read his rights and therefore didn't know he could remain silent. The court that the confession couldn't be used since he wasn't informed of his rights under the Fifth Amendment. -
Klopfer v. North Carolina, Amendment: 6th, Provision: Right to a Speedy Trial.
Klopfer was charged with criminal trespass when he to part in a civil rights demonstration in a restaurant. The jury could not reach a verdict. The judge continued the case twice when the state moved for a molle prosequi with leave. This allows the state to suspend its prosecution indefinitely. Klopfer objected saying that violated his sixth amendment right to a speedy trial, and the court agreed with him. In a unanimous decision that indefinitely suspending a trial violates the sixth amendment. -
Duncan v. Louisiana, Amendment: 6th, Provision: ARight to compulsory process to obtain witnesses for defense (subpoenas)
Duncan was found guilty of assaulting a white youth by slapping him with his elbow. He was sentenced to 60 days in prison and fined $150. He requested a jury trial but was denied. The appeal questioned if the State of Louisiana was obligated to provide a trial by jury. The court decided yes a trial by jury has to be guaranteed under the Sixth Amendment. -
Benton v. Maryland, Amendment: 5th, Provision: Protection Against Double Jeopardy.
Benton was charged with burglary and larceny in Maryland court. He was sentenced to ten years in prison, he won his appeal but the case was remanded and he was indicted for larceny and burglary. The question was whether or not his second conviction was violating his Fifth Amendment right. The court ruled yes it was violating his rights and upheld the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. -
Schilb v. Kuebel, Amendment: 8th, Provision: Protection against excessive bail.
Schilb was acquitted of leaving the scene and paid his fine, but the amount he paid was returned and raised higher. The court said this was a violation of his Eighth Amendment of excessive bail. -
Rabe v. Washington, Amendment: 6th, Provision: Right to be informed of nature of accusations.
Rabe was not informed of the reason for his arrest and was convicted. The court reversed the conviction saying since it violated his Sixth Amendment right. -
Argersigner v. Hamlin, Amendment: 6th, Provision: Right to council for imprisonable misdemeanors.
Argersinger was charged with carrying a concealed carry weapon they charged him the maximum penalty. He was not represented by an attorney, and the question was does the Sixth Amendment guarantee a right to counsel to defendants accused of misdemeanors. Yes, they decided it did guarantee the right to counsel and looked to Gideon v. Wainwright for example. -
Mcdonald v. Chicago, Amendment: 2nd, Provision: Right to keep and bear arms.
Several lawsuits had been filed over Chicago gun banning laws. The question was whether the Second Amendment applied to states. Which the court decided the protection under the Second Amendment did apply to states. -
Timbs v. Indiana, Amendment: 8th, Provision:Protection against excessive fines.
Timbs was charged with two counts of felony dealing and one of conspiracy to commit theft. He later pled guilty to one charged and was offered a plea and he eventually accepted and was sentenced to six years of prison and was fined for many things. The court decided under the Eighth Amendment Excessive Fines Clause is incorporated protection applicable to the states.