The warrantless seizure of documents from a private home violated the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures, and evidence obtained in this manner is excluded from use in federal criminal prosecutions. Western District of Missouri reversed and remanded.
Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
Const: Amendment 4, 14, Incorporation of the Bill of Rights onto states
The Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures, as applied to the states through the Fourteenth, excludes unconstitutionally obtained evidence from use in criminal prosecutions. Ohio Supreme Court reversed.
Escobedo v. Illinois (1964)
Const: Amendment 6, 14, Incorporation, Right to cancel
Where a police investigation begins to focus on a particular suspect who has been refused counsel, his statements to police are excluded.
Furman v. Georgia (1972)
Const: Amendment 5, 14, Due Process, Self- Incrimination The Fifth Amendment privilege against self- incrimination requires law enforcement officials to advise a suspect interrogated in custody of his rights to remain silent and to obtain an attorney. Arizona Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
Powell v. Alabama (1932)
Const: Amendment 14, due process clause
Defendants' conviction was unconstitutional because they were denied the assistance of counsel from the time of their arraignment until the beginning of their trial, in violation of the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause. Under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, counsel must be guaranteed to anyone facing the possibility of a death sentence, whether in state or federal courts
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)
Const: Amendment 6, 14, Right to Counsel, Incorporation of the Bill of Rights onto states
The Sixth Amendment right to counsel is a fundamental right applied to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution's due process clause, and requires that indigent criminal defendants be provided counsel at trial. Supreme Court of Florida reversed.
Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
Const: Amendment 5, 14
The Fifth Amendment privilege against self- incrimination requires law enforcement officials to advise a suspect interrogated in custody of his rights to remain silent and to obtain an attorney. Arizona Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
Gregg v. Georgia (1976)
Const: Amendment 8, Cruel and Unusual Punishment
The imposition of the death penalty does not, automatically, violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment. If the jury is furnished with standards to direct and limit the sentencing discretion, and the jury's decision is subjected to meaningful appellate review, the death sentence may be constitutional. If, however, the death penalty is mandatory, such that there is no provision for mercy based on the characteristics of the offender, then it is unconstitutional.
New Jersey v. TLO (1985)
Const: Amendment 4, Search and Seizure
(1) Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures applies to searches conducted by public school officials (Administrators) , and (2) search of student's purse was reasonable.
Kelo v. City of New London (2005)
Const: 5th amendment eminent domain
The governmental taking of property from one private owner to give to another in furtherance of economic development constitutes a permissible "public use" under the Fifth Amendment. Supreme Court of Connecticut decision affirmed.
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)
Const: 14 th amendment
The "separate but equal" provision of private services mandated by state government is constitutional under the Equal Protection Clause. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1971)
Const: 14th Amendment- Equal Protection Clause
Segregation of students in public schools violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, because separate facilities are inherently unequal. District Court of Kansas reversed.
Vernonia School District v. Acton (1995)
Const: Amendment 4- Search and Seizure
The Fourth Amendment allows random drug testing of high school students involved in athletic programs.
The Equal Protection Clause applies only to state action, not segregation by privately owned businesses.
Korematsu v. United States (1944)
Const: 5 th Amendment
The exclusion order leading to Japanese American Internment was constitutional. Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978)
Const: 14 th amendment- Affirmative Action
The Court held that while affirmative action systems are constitutional, a quota system based on race is unconstitutional.
Adarand Constructors v. Pena (1974)
Const: Amendments 5,14- Due Process Clause
All racial classifications, imposed by whatever federal, state, or local government actor, must be analyzed by a reviewing court under a standard of "strict scrutiny," the highest level of Supreme Court review (such classifications are constitutional only if they are narrowly tailored measures that further compelling governmental interests). Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)
Const: Amendment 14- Affirmative Action
University of Michigan Law School admissions program that gave special consideration for being a certain racial minority did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment.
Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)
Const: Amendment 1,3,4,5,9,14- Right to privacy
A Connecticut law criminalizing the use of contraceptives violated the right to marital privacy. Connecticut Supreme Court reversed. Roe v Wade (1973)
Const: Amendment 14
Texas law making it a crime to assist a woman to get an abortion violated her due process rights. U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas affirmed in part, reversed in part. Lawrence v. Texas (2003)
Const: Amendments 14- due process
A Texas law classifying consensual, adult homosexual intercourse as illegal sodomy violated the privacy and liberty of adults to engage in private intimate conduct under the 14th Amendment. Texas state courts reversed and charges dismissed. Gratz v. Bollinger (2003)
Const: Amendment 14- Equal Protection Clause A state university's admission policy violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because its ranking system gave an automatic point increase to all racial minorities rather than making individual determinations. Eastern District of Michigan affirmed in part, reversed and remanded.
Reed v. Reed (1971)
Const: Amendment 14- Equal Protection
Administrators of estates cannot be named in a way that discriminates between sexes.
Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989)
Const: Amendment 14
The Court approved a Missouri law that imposed restrictions on the use of state funds, facilities and employees in performing, assisting with, or counseling on abortions. The Supreme Court thus allowed for states to legislate in an area that had previously been thought to be forbidden under Roe, reversing the Eighth Circuit.
Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)
Const: Amendment 1, 14- Due Process Clause
A Pennsylvania law that required spousal awareness prior to obtaining an abortion was invalid under the Fourteenth Amendment because it created an undue burden on married women seeking an abortion. Requirements for parental consent, informed consent, and 24- hour waiting period were constitutionally valid regulations. Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part. Pollock v. Farmers Loan and Trust Co. (1895)
Const: Direct Taxing The unapportioned income taxes on interest, dividends and rents imposed by the Income Tax Act of 1894 were, in effect, direct taxes, and were unconstitutional because they violated the rule that direct taxes be apportioned.
Powell v. McCormack (1969)
Const: Congressional Qualifications
Congress may not in any way alter the qualifications of its members from the exclusive list given in the Constitution (age, length of citizenship, and inhabitant of state where elected). Therefore, "excluding" a Congressman by a two-thirds majority vote is not allowed although the Constitution allows expulsion by a two-thirds vote. National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sebelius (2012)
Const: The Individual mandate was acceptable if construed as a tax, and the majority of the Affordable Care Act was constitutional
Cruzan v. Missouri (1990)
Const: Amendments 9,14- Due Process Clause, Right to Privacy
acceptable to require "clear and convincing evidence" of a patient's wishes for removal of life support.
National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel (1937)
Const: Amendment 5- due process, article1- commerce clause Congress had the power, under the Commerce Clause, to regulate labor relations.
US Term Limits, Inc. V. Thorton (1995)
Const: Amendment 17 congressional qualifications
States cannot impose qualifications for prospective members of Congress stricter than those in the Constitution
VL Order Judge Mary Ann Grilli - Santa Clara County Superior Court - Dong v. Garbe Vexatious Litigant Proceeding Santa Clara Superior Court - Attorney Brad Baugh - Presiding Judge Rise Jones Pichon
California Judicial Branch News Service - Investigative Reporting Source Material & Story Ideas