Anasha Roberts

Block 3
April 29, 2014
Case Law Project
Establishment
Marbury vs. Madison
Background
o On his last day in office, President John Adams named forty-two justices of the
peace and sixteen new circuit court justices for the District of Columbia under the
Organic Act. The Organic Act was an attempt by the Federalists to take control of
the federal judiciary before Thomas Jefferson took office. The commissions were
signed by President Adams and sealed by acting Secretary of State John Marshall,
but they were not delivered before the expiration of Adamss term as president.
Thomas Jefferson refused to honor the commissions, claiming that they were invalid
because they had not been delivered by the end of Adamss term. William Marbury
was an intended recipient of an appointment as justice of the peace. Marbury
applied directly to the Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of mandamus
to compel Jeffersons Secretary of State, James Madison, to deliver the
commissions. The Judiciary Act of 1789 had granted the Supreme Court original
jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus to any courts appointed, or persons
holding office, under the authority of the United States.
Question
o Who decides the constitutionality of laws: the Court or the Congress?
Answer
o In ruling a portion of the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional, the Court made
clear that it was emphatically the province of the judiciary to say what the law is.
This decision established the precedent for judicial review.
Legal Reasoning
o Judicial Review gives the Supreme Court the right to judge the constitutionality of
the other 2 branches of government.
Consequences
o The establishment of the Judicial Review is the major consequence.
Dartmouth College vs. Woodward
Background
o In 1816, the New Hampshire legislature attempted to change Dartmouth College-- a
privately funded institution--into a state university. The legislature changed the
school's corporate charter by transferring the control of trustee appointments to
the governor. In an attempt to regain authority over the resources of Dartmouth
College, the old trustees filed suit against William H. Woodward, who sided with the
new appointees.
Question
o Did the New Hampshire legislature unconstitutionally interfere with Dartmouth
College's rights under the Contract Clause?
Answer
o The Court agreed with Dartmouth and decided that the College's corporate charter
qualified as a contract between private parties, with which the legislature could not
interfere.
Legal Reasoning
o US Const. Art 1, Section 10
Consequences
o Historians believe that the decision greatly encouraged business investment and
growth
Ex parte McCardle
Background
o William McCardle was arrested by federal authorities in 1867 for writing and
publishing a series of editorials in his Mississippi newspaper. The editorials were
sharply critical of Reconstruction. McCardle sought a writ of habeas corpus on the
ground that the Reconstruction Acts under which he was arrested were
unconstitutional. McCardle appealed to the Supreme Court under an 1867
congressional statute that conferred jurisdiction on appeal to the High Court. After
hearing arguments in the case, but prior to announcing a decision, the Congress
withdrew its 1867 act conferring jurisdiction.
Question
o May the Congress withdraw jurisdiction from the High Court after that jurisdiction
has been given?
Answer
o The Court validated congressional withdrawal of the Court's jurisdiction
Legal Reasoning
o Military Reconstruction Act
Consequences
o Congress is allowed to exercise its authority to prevent the Supreme Court from
hearing certain types of politically sensitive cases
Federalism
McCulloch vs MD
Background
o In 1816, Congress chartered The Second Bank of the United States. In 1818, the
state of Maryland passed legislation to impose taxes on the bank. James W.
McCulloch, the cashier of the Baltimore branch of the bank, refused to pay the tax
Question
o Did Congress have the authority to establish the bank? Did the Maryland law
unconstitutionally interfere with congressional powers?
Answer
o In a unanimous decision, the Court held that Congress had the power to incorporate
the bank and that Maryland could not tax instruments of the national government
employed in the execution of constitutional powers
Legal Reasoning
o US Const. Art 1, Section 8 Clauses 1 and 18
Consequences
o This case declared that the United States government had implied powers as well as
those specifically listed in the Constitution. The decision provided the avenue for
the federal government to expand or evolve its powers to meet an ever-changing
world.
Gibbons vs. Ogden
Background
o A New York state law gave to individuals the exclusive right to operate steamboats
on waters within state jurisdiction. Laws like this one were duplicated elsewhere
which led to friction as some states would require out-of-state boats to pay
substantial fees for navigation privileges. In this case Thomas Gibbons -- a
steamboat owner who did business between New York and New Jersey under a
federal coastal license -- challenged the monopoly license granted by New York to
Aaron Ogden. New York courts consistently upheld the state monopoly.
Question
o Did the State of New York exercise authority in a realm reserved exclusively to
Congress, namely, the regulation of interstate commerce?
Answer
o The unanimous Court found that New York's licensing requirement for out-of-state
operators was inconsistent with a congressional act regulating the coasting trade.
The New York law was invalid by virtue of the Supremacy Clause
Legal Reasoning
o US Const. Art 1, Section 8, Clause 3
Consequences
o Established that only Congress has the power to control commerce between states
We the People
US Term Limits vs Thorton
Background
o On November 3, 1992, Arkansas voters adopted Amendment 73 to their State
Constitution. The "Term Limitation Amendment," in addition to limiting terms of
elected officials within the Arkansas state government, also provided that any
person who served three or more terms as a member of the United States House of
Representatives from Arkansas would be ineligible for re-election as a US
Representative from Arkansas. Similarly, the Amendment provided that any person
who served two or more terms as a member of the United States Senate from
Arkansas would be ineligible for re-election as a US Senator from Arkansas.
Question
o Can states alter those qualifications for the U.S. Congress that are specifically
enumerated in the Constitution?
Answer
o No. The Constitution prohibits States from adopting Congressional qualifications in
addition to those enumerated in the Constitution
Legal Reasoning
o Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 1: Composition of the House of Representatives
Consequences
o The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that states cannot impose
qualifications for prospective members of the U.S. Congress stricter than those
specified in the Constitution. The decision invalidated the Congressional term
limit provisions of 23 states.
Shaw vs. Reno
Background
o The U.S. Attorney General rejected a North Carolina congressional reapportionment
plan because the plan created only one black-majority district. North Carolina
submitted a second plan creating two black-majority districts. One of these
districts was, in parts, no wider than the interstate road along which it stretched.
Five North Carolina residents challenged the constitutionality of this unusually
shaped district, alleging that its only purpose was to secure the election of
additional black representatives. After a three-judge District Court ruled that they
failed to state a constitutional claim, the residents appealed and the Supreme Court
granted certiorari.
Question
o Did the North Carolina residents' claim, that the State created a racially
gerrymandered district, raise a valid constitutional issue under the Fourteenth
Amendment's Equal Protection Clause?
Answer
o Yes. The Court held that although North Carolina's reapportionment plan was
racially neutral on its face, the resulting district shape was bizarre enough to
suggest that it constituted an effort to separate voters into different districts
based on race
Legal Reasoning
o Equal Protection
Consequences
o The 14th amendment. Protects against racial gerrymandering
Miller vs. Johnson
Background
o Between 1980 and 1990, only one of Georgia's ten congressional districts was
majority-black. According to the 1990 decennial census, Georgia's black population
of 27% entitled blacks to an additional eleventh congressional seat, prompting
Georgia's General Assembly to re-draw the state's congressional districts. After
the Justice Department refused pre-clearance of several of the Assembly's
proposed new districts, the Assembly was finally successful in creating an additional
majority-black district through the forming of an eleventh district. This district,
however, was called a "geographic monstrosity" because it extended 6,784.2 square
miles from Atlanta to the Atlantic Ocean. In short, "the social, political, and
economic makeup of the Eleventh District tells a tale of disparity, not community."
Question
o Is racial gerrymandering of the congressional redistricting process a violation of the
Equal Protection Clause?
Answer
o Yes. In some instances, a reapportionment plan may be so highly irregular and
bizarre in shape that it rationally cannot be understood as anything other than an
effort to segregate voters based on race
Legal Reasoning
o Equal Protection
Consequences
o The 14th amendment. Protects against racial gerrymandering
Checks and Balances
US vs. Nixon
Background
o Walter Nixon, a Federal District Judge, was convicted of a felony, making false
statements to a grand jury. The House of Representatives voted three articles of
impeachment; impeachment in the Senate followed. In accordance with Senate Rule
XI, a Senate committee heard the evidence and reported its findings. The full
Senate convicted Nixon and sought to remove him from office. Nixon challenged
Senate Rule XI in federal court on the ground that the rule violated the
impeachment clause of the Constitution, which declares that "the Senate shall have
the sole Power to try all Impeachments." The lower courts deemed the issue
nonjusticiable and declined to intervene in the dispute.
Question
o Is Nixon's claim -- that Senate Rule XI violates the Impeachment Trial Clause --
justiciable, i.e., appropriate for judicial resolution?
Answer
o No. A unanimous Court held that the question of whether or not the Senate rule
violated the U.S. Constitution was nonjusticiable since the Impeachment clause
expressly granted that the "Senate shall have sole Power to try any impeachments."
Legal Reasoning
o Article 1, Section 3, Paragraph 6
Consequences
o Defined the power of the president to claim executive privilege
US vs. Curtiss Wright Export Corp
Background
o Curtiss-Wright was charged with conspiring to sell fifteen machine guns to Bolivia,
which was engaged in an armed conflict in the Chaco. This violated a Joint Resolution
of Congress and a proclamation issued by President Roosevelt.
Question
o Did Congress in its Joint Resolution unconstitutionally delegate legislative power to
the President?
Answer
o The Court agreed that the President was allowed much room to operate in executing
the Joint Resolution; it found no constitutional violation.
Legal Reasoning
o US Const. Art. II
Consequences
o Congress may provide the President with a special degree of discretion in external
matters which would not be afforded domestically.
US vs. Lopez
Background
o Alfonzo Lopez, a 12th grade high school student, carried a concealed weapon into his
San Antonio, Texas high school. He was charged under Texas law with firearm
possession on school premises. The next day, the state charges were dismissed
after federal agents charged Lopez with violating a federal criminal statute, the
Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. The act forbids "any individual knowingly to
possess a firearm at a place that [he] knows...is a school zone." Lopez was found
guilty following a bench trial and sentenced to six months' imprisonment and two
years' supervised release.
Question
o Is the 1990 Gun-Free School Zones Act, forbidding individuals from knowingly
carrying a gun in a school zone, unconstitutional because it exceeds the power of
Congress to legislate under the Commerce Clause?
Answer
o Yes. The possession of a gun in a local school zone is not an economic activity that
might, through repetition elsewhere, have a substantial effect on interstate
commerce. The law is a criminal statute that has nothing to do with "commerce" or
any sort of economic activity.
Legal Reasoning
o 18 U.S.C. 922
Consequences
o Lopez raised serious questions as to how far the Court might be willing to go in
implementing judicial safeguards against federal encroachments on state
sovereignty. This precedent takes special significance in cases where the federal
government is attempting to limit private conduct.
Civil Rights
Plessy vs. Ferguson
Background
o The state of Louisiana enacted a law that required separate railway cars for blacks
and whites. In 1892, Homer Adolph Plessy--who was seven-eighths Caucasian--took a
seat in a "whites only" car of a Louisiana train. He refused to move to the car
reserved for blacks and was arrested.
Question
o Is Louisiana's law mandating racial segregation on its trains an unconstitutional
infringement on both the privileges and immunities and the equal protection clauses
of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Answer
o No, the state law is within constitutional boundaries. The majority upheld state-
imposed racial segregation. The justices based their decision on the separate-but-
equal doctrine, that separate facilities for blacks and whites satisfied the
Fourteenth Amendment so long as they were equal.
Legal Reasoning
o US Const. Amend 14, Section 1
Consequences
o Plessy vs. Ferguson legitimized the move towards segregation practices begun
earlier in the South.
Brown vs. BOE
Background
o Black children were denied admission to public schools attended by white children
under laws requiring or permitting segregation according to the races. The white and
black schools approached equality in terms of buildings, curricula, qualifications, and
teacher salaries. This case was decided together with Briggs v. Elliott and Davis v.
County School Board of Prince Edward County.
Question
o Does the segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race deprive
the minority children of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the 14th
Amendment?
Answer
o Yes. Despite the equalization of the schools by "objective" factors, intangible issues
foster and maintain inequality
Legal Reasoning
o US Const. Amend 14, Section 1
Consequences
o The long-held doctrine that separate facilities were permissible provided they were
equal was rejected.
California vs. Bakke
Background
o Allan Bakke, a thirty-five-year-old white man, had twice applied for admission to the
University of California Medical School at Davis. He was rejected both times. The
school reserved sixteen places in each entering class of one hundred for "qualified"
minorities, as part of the university's affirmative action program, in an effort to
redress longstanding, unfair minority exclusions from the medical profession.
Bakke's qualifications (college GPA and test scores) exceeded those of any of the
minority students admitted in the two years Bakke's applications were rejected.
Bakke contended, first in the California courts, then in the Supreme Court, that he
was excluded from admission solely on the basis of race.
Question
o Did the University of California violate the Fourteenth Amendment's equal
protection clause, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, by practicing an affirmative
action policy that resulted in the repeated rejection of Bakke's application for
admission to its medical school?
Answer
o No and yes. There was no single majority opinion. Four of the justices contended
that any racial quota system supported by government violated the Civil Rights Act
of 1964. Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr., agreed, casting the deciding vote ordering the
medical school to admit Bakke. However, in his opinion, Powell argued that the rigid
use of racial quotas as employed at the school violated the equal protection clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment. The remaining four justices held that the use of race
as a criterion in admissions decisions in higher education was constitutionally
permissible. Powell joined that opinion as well, contending that the use of race was
permissible as one of several admission criteria
Legal Reasoning
o Equal Protection
Consequences
o The use of quotas in such affirmative action programs was not permissible

Free Speech
NY Times vs. Sullivan
Background
o Decided together with Abernathy v. Sullivan, this case concerns a full-page ad in the
New York Times which alleged that the arrest of the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.
for perjury in Alabama was part of a campaign to destroy King's efforts to
integrate public facilities and encourage blacks to vote. L. B. Sullivan, the
Montgomery city commissioner, filed a libel action against the newspaper and four
black ministers who were listed as endorsers of the ad, claiming that the allegations
against the Montgomery police defamed him personally. Under Alabama law, Sullivan
did not have to prove that he had been harmed; and a defense claiming that the ad
was truthful was unavailable since the ad contained factual errors. Sullivan won a
$500,000 judgment.
Question
o Did Alabama's libel law, by not requiring Sullivan to prove that an advertisement
personally harmed him and dismissing the same as untruthful due to factual errors,
unconstitutionally infringe on the First Amendment's freedom of speech and
freedom of press protections?
Answer
o The First Amendment protects the publication of all statements, even false ones,
about the conduct of public officials except when statements are made with actual
malice (with knowledge that they are false or in reckless disregard of their truth or
falsity).
Legal Reasoning
o Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly
Consequences
o The case collapsed
NY Times vs. US
Background
o In what became known as the "Pentagon Papers Case," the Nixon Administration
attempted to prevent the New York Times and Washington Post from publishing
materials belonging to a classified Defense Department study regarding the history
of United States activities in Vietnam. The President argued that prior restraint
was necessary to protect national security. This case was decided together with
United States v. Washington Post Co.
Question
o Did the Nixon administration's efforts to prevent the publication of what it termed
"classified information" violate the First Amendment?
Answer
o Yes. In its per curiam opinion the Court held that the government did not overcome
the "heavy presumption against" prior restraint of the press in this case.
Legal Reasoning
o Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly
Consequences
o Justice Brennan reasoned that since publication would not cause an inevitable,
direct, and immediate event imperiling the safety of American forces, prior
restraint was unjustified.
Texas vs. Johnson
Background
o In 1984, in front of the Dallas City Hall, Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American
flag as a means of protest against Reagan administration policies. Johnson was tried
and convicted under a Texas law outlawing flag desecration. He was sentenced to
one year in jail and assessed a $2,000 fine. After the Texas Court of Criminal
Appeals reversed the conviction, the case went to the Supreme Court.
Question
o Is the desecration of an American flag, by burning or otherwise, a form of speech
that is protected under the First Amendment?
Answer
o The Court held that Johnson's burning of a flag was protected expression under the
First Amendment. The Court found that Johnson's actions fell into the category of
expressive conduct and had a distinctively political nature. The fact that an
audience takes offense to certain ideas or expression, the Court found, does not
justify prohibitions of speech
Legal Reasoning
o Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly
Consequences
o The Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society
finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable
Right of Privacy
Grisswald vs. Conn
Background
o Griswold was the Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of
Connecticut. Both she and the Medical Director for the League gave information,
instruction, and other medical advice to married couples concerning birth control.
Griswold and her colleague were convicted under a Connecticut law which
criminalized the provision of counselling, and other medical treatment, to married
persons for purposes of preventing conception.
Question
o Does the Constitution protect the right of marital privacy against state restrictions
on a couple's ability to be counseled in the use of contraceptives?
Answer
o Though the Constitution does not explicitly protect a general right to privacy, the
various guarantees within the Bill of Rights create penumbras, or zones, that
establish a right to privacy
Legal Reasoning
o Due Process
Consequences
o The Connecticut statute conflicts with the exercise of this right and is therefore
null and void
Roe vs. Wade
Background
o Roe, a Texas resident, sought to terminate her pregnancy by abortion. Texas law
prohibited abortions except to save the pregnant woman's life. After granting
certiorari, the Court heard arguments twice. The first time, Roe's attorney -- Sarah
Weddington -- could not locate the constitutional hook of her argument for Justice
Potter Stewart. Her opponent -- Jay Floyd -- misfired from the start. Weddington
sharpened her constitutional argument in the second round. Her new opponent --
Robert Flowers -- came under strong questioning from Justices Potter Stewart and
Thurgood Marshall.
Question
o Does the Constitution embrace a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy by
abortion?
Answer
o The Court held that a woman's right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy
(recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut) protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
The decision gave a woman total autonomy over the pregnancy during the first
trimester and defined different levels of state interest for the second and third
trimesters
Legal Reasoning
o Due Process
Consequences
o The laws of 46 states were affected by the Court's ruling.
Webster vs. Reproductive Health Services
Background
o In 1986, the state of Missouri enacted legislation that placed a number of
restrictions on abortions. The statute's preamble indicated that "[t]he life of each
human being begins at conception," and the law codified the following restrictions:
public employees and public facilities were not to be used in performing or assisting
abortions unnecessary to save the mother's life; encouragement and counseling to
have abortions was prohibited; and physicians were to perform viability tests upon
women in their twentieth (or more) week of pregnancy. Lower courts struck down
the restrictions.
Question
o Did the Missouri restrictions unconstitutionally infringe upon the right to privacy or
the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Answer
o The Court held that none of the challenged provisions of the Missouri legislation
were unconstitutional
Legal Reasoning
o Due Process
Consequences
o Overturns all state laws outlawing or restricting abortion that were inconsistent
with the decision
Religious Freedom
Lemon vs. Kurtzman
Background
o This case was heard concurrently with two others, Earley v. DiCenso (1971) and
Robinson v. DiCenso (1971). The cases involved controversies over laws in
Pennsylvania and Rhode Island. In Pennsylvania, a statute provided financial support
for teacher salaries, textbooks, and instructional materials for secular subjects to
non-public schools. The Rhode Island statute provided direct supplemental salary
payments to teachers in non-public elementary schools. Each statute made aid
available to "church-related educational institutions."
Question
o Did the Rhode Island and Pennsylvania statutes violate the First Amendment's
Establishment Clause by making state financial aid available to "church- related
educational institutions"?
Answer
o Yes. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Burger articulated a three-part test
for laws dealing with religious establishment. To be constitutional, a statute must
have "a secular legislative purpose," it must have principal effects which neither
advance nor inhibit religion, and it must not foster "an excessive government
entanglement with religion.
Legal Reasoning
o Establishment of Religion
Consequences
o The verdict in Lemon v. Kurtzman led to the creation of the Lemon Test. This test is
a classification system that is used to see whether or not state laws regarding
funding or creating religious institutions with public money violate the United States
constitution.
Engle vs. Vitale
Background
o The Board of Regents for the State of New York authorized a short, voluntary
prayer for recitation at the start of each school day. This was an attempt to defuse
the politically potent issue by taking it out of the hands of local communities. The
blandest of invocations read as follows: "Almighty God, we acknowledge our
dependence upon Thee, and beg Thy blessings upon us, our teachers, and our
country."
Question
o Does the reading of a nondenominational prayer at the start of the school day
violate the "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment?
Answer
o Yes. Neither the prayer's nondenominational character nor its voluntary character
saves it from unconstitutionality. By providing the prayer, New York officially
approved religion.
Legal Reasoning
o Establishment of Religion
Consequences
o This was the first in a series of cases in which the Court used the establishment
clause to eliminate religious activities of all sorts, which had traditionally been a
part of public ceremonies.
Edwards vs. Aquillard
Background
o A Louisiana law entitled the "Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and
Evolution-Science in Public School Instruction Act" prohibited the teaching of the
theory of evolution in the public schools unless that instruction was accompanied by
the teaching of creation science, a Biblical belief that advanced forms of life
appeared abruptly on Earth. Schools were not forced to teach creation science.
However, if either topic was to be addressed, evolution or creation, teachers were
obligated to discuss the other as well.
Question
o Did the Louisiana law, which mandated the teaching of "creation science" along with
the theory of evolution, violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment as
applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment?
Answer
o Yes. The Court held that the law violated the Constitution. Using the three- pronged
test that the Court had developed in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) to evaluate potential
violations of the Establishment Clause, Justice Brennan argued that Louisiana's law
failed on all three prongs of the test
Legal Reasoning
o Establishment of Religion
Consequences
o They continue to use the Lemon Test for cases similar to this one
Due Process
Miranda vs. Arizona
Background
o 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
o 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?
Answer
o 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."
Legal Reasoning
o Self-Incrimination
Consequences
o 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.
Mapp vs. Ohio
Background
o Dollree Mapp was convicted of possessing obscene materials after an admittedly
illegal police search of her home for a fugitive. She appealed her conviction on the
basis of freedom of expression.
Question
o Were the confiscated materials protected by the First Amendment? (May evidence
obtained through a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment be admitted in a
state criminal proceeding?)
Answer
o The Court brushed aside the First Amendment issue and declared that "all evidence
obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is, by [the Fourth
Amendment], inadmissible in a state court
Legal Reasoning
o Amendment 4: Fourth Amendment
Consequences
o It placed the requirement of excluding illegally obtained evidence from court at all
levels of the government. The decision launched the Court on a troubled course of
determining how and when to apply the exclusionary rule.
Furman vs. Georgia
Background
o Furman was burglarizing a private home when a family member discovered him. He
attempted to flee, and in doing so tripped and fell. The gun that he was carrying
went off and killed a resident of the home. He was convicted of murder and
sentenced to death (Two other death penalty cases were decided along with Furman:
Jackson v. Georgia and Branch v. Texas. These cases concern the constitutionality
of the death sentence for rape and murder convictions, respectively).
Question
o Does the imposition and carrying out of the death penalty in these cases constitute
cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendments?
Answer
o Yes. The Court's one-page per curiam opinion held that the imposition of the death
penalty in these cases constituted cruel and unusual punishment and violated the
Constitution
Legal Reasoning
o Amendment 8: Cruel and Unusual Punishment
Consequences
o The Court's decision forced states and the national legislature to rethink their
statutes for capital offenses to assure that the death penalty would not be
administered in a capricious or discriminatory manner.