New York Times Co. v. United States

The New York Times Co. received the "Pentagon Papers" from Daniel Ellsberg. Ellsberg stole the classified documents from the pentagon related to the Vietnam war and U.S. policy. The NY Times published and distributed the papers. The government ordered them to stop temporarily, moving the case to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that The NY Times should be allowed to publish the papers because of the First Amendment of free speech. Even the period where the publication was delayed was a violation of the constitution. Unless the issue being debated could potentially bring people harm, the speech should not be held back. Furthermore, it was the government's responsibility to keep the information confidential.
I believe it was the right of the NY Times to publish the work, especially since there was no direct harm done to anyone. The Vietnam war still followed through. The censorship issue comes into part today with the website Wiki-leaks, which leaks confidential information from the government. It should be a right to let the information go to the public, as long as it does not deemed harmful to individuals.

Gitlow v. New York

In 1925 Benjamin Gitlow taught people to overthrow the government with two published works. His work violated New York law which prohibited organized government overthrow with force or violence. The case was moved to the Supreme Court after issues were found relating to the First Amendment of free speech and press.
The Court emphasized that states were bound by the First Amendment because federal rules over state law. Furthermore, it was decided that speech could only be bound if it formulated "clear and present danger", said Justice Edward Sanford. States could not punish speech unlawfully because doing so would actually cause more problems for the government's own constitutional state. there could be even more reasons for overthrow, because of the lack of legitimacy within the government.
I agree with the outcome of the trial, except cases censoring speech vary from case to case. Some cases are on border with causing actual harm or not. It is hard to decide weather or not speech is lawful or not.

Brown V. board of Education of Topeka, Kansas

In 1954, multiple cases were brought up to the Supreme Court in relation to segregation of public schools based on race. The courts ruled that separate but equal facilities had no place. The separate educational facilities fostered sub pa education for African Americans and deprived individuals of equal rights to attend white only public schools. The Court's decision took out public schools' inferiority complex for minorities.
The segregation of African Americans from functional public schools is obviously bad and did not agree with the constitution's intent of equality.

A video from the Discovery Channel about the case:

Gideon v. Wainwright

In 1963, Clarence Earl Gideon was arrested for breaking and entering with the intention of burglary. He was denied an attorney at the court and was found guilty after trying to defend himself. He was found guilty and sentenced to prison. Gideon petitioned to the Supreme Court via in forma pauperis.

The court overturned the decision in the Betts v. Brady case. This case made it possible for the Sixth Amendment of counsel in criminal cases to not be required in special cases.
The supreme Court took the Betts case decision away, making a fair trial with counsel required. A counsel is needed to assist lawyers present cases well before a Judge. Gideon was acquitted of his charges.
 I agree with the decision that counsel is required. It was not in the constitution's (founding fathers) interests for people to be unjustly violated by the law. Before this case, convicted criminals could be unfailrly treated and sentences without adequate help.
Here is an educated summary of the case by PBS.

Miranda V. Arizona

Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Phoenix, Arizona for kidnap and rape. He gave a written confession after two hours of interrogation. Miranda appealed to the Supreme Court because he was not advised of his right to an attorney nor his right to remain silent. The court ruled that Miranda's conviction was to be overturned on the basis of the Fifth Amendment which guarantees no one to be "compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." Without being read his rights, Miranda was not protected under the law and was unlawfully stripped of his rights.

The result of the Miranda v. Arizona case of 1966 was that convicted individuals must be told their rights of silence and an attorney. If they are not told these rights, everything said afterwards is void and can not be used in the court.

Here is a tid-bit of info relating to the Miranda Rights;

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke

Before 1973, UC Davis' medical school admitted students differently based on race. Minorities and disadvantaged students were admitted separately and subsequently, were accepted with lower GPA's or Medical College Aptitude Test scores than regular students. Alan Bakke was denied from the university even though he had substantially higher aptitude scores than average. He sued the school and California's court found the admissions unlawful, violating both federal and state constitutions.The Supreme Court agreed with his appeal and forced UCD to accept Bakke.

The Supreme Court decided that the admissions program did not follow the fourteenth amendment for equal individuals. The amendment was originally made to bridge the differences of the white and black communities and to block out any form of preference based on ethnicity or condition of prior servitude. Justice Powell explained that

it was no longer possible to peg he guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment to the struggle for equality of one racial minority.

The university was justly found to have unfair advantages for minorities.
I agree with the case's outcome because the admissions were not carried out equally. I am personally going through college admissions and feel as though this is a very important issue today. I hear people talking about not putting down a race when applying especially if they are Asian. UC's admit more individuals who are less fortunate financially or are part of minority groups. I know people who are 1/16th or 1/8th native American who use their race for better admission rates.

Here is an exceptional article about the case from Cornell University's Law School website.

Plessy v. Ferguson

In 1890, Plessy refused to give up his seat on a section of a train in New Orleans Louisiana. Even though he was only 1/8th black, he was arrested and ordered to be imprisoned by Ferguson, a local judge. Plessy appealed to the US Supreme Court on the thirteenth and fourteenth amendments, which forbade slavery and gave everyone equal protection of the laws respectively.
The court ruled that the 13'th amendment issue about a legal distinction between white and colored people "had no tendency to destroy the legal equality of the two races." For the fourteenth amendment issue, Justice Henry Brown argued in favor of absolute racial equality before the law. The court decided that segregation laws were a matter of public policy, not a violation of the fourteenth amendment. I do not agree with the court's decision, where segregation was still excepted. The whole issue seems backwards

Miller V. California

Miller sent out a large amount of explicit pornographic brochures in 1973 and was found guilty of breaking obscenity laws in California. Miller appealed, challenging the state's power to prosecute him despite guarantees of free speech and press under the first amendment. The Supreme Courts voted 5 to 4 on the side of California, stating that Miller's material could harm people. Chief Justice Burger therefore suggested that each state should have diverse regulations on the law, because every state has different tastes. Burger defended himself saying, "this diversity is not to be strangled by the absolutism of imposed uniformity..."
I completely agree with the decision to limit pornography. Seeing porn everywhere would not be in most people's tastes including my self. There has to be a line drawn, specifically where there is obscene material. Although the porn did not directly hurt anyone, it was still serious. The matter crossed the first amendments jurisdiction and California came up top.

Roe V. Wade

Back in 1973, 21 year old Jane Roe filed a suit against District Attourney Wade of Dallas County Texas. She wanted to have an abortion, but the fetus did not endanger her life in any way so the doctor did not give her an abortion. Even if a woman was a victim of incest or rape, they could not abort a baby in Texas.
Roe argued that it was a right to obtain abortion with the help of the fourteenth amendment and the right of privacy in the bill of Rights. She won in a 7 to 2 vote on both points. This case sent shock waves through America, affirming the right of privacy, fetal rights, and womens' rights.



Even though Roe was adamant in her argument a few decades ago, she is not a Cristian who believes in the illegality of abortion. She cites that there have been 50 million abortions since her Supreme Court case in 1973, and that these children deserve to live. No doubt, this statistic is sad, but I do believe women should have the right to abortions. If these children were born, they would live in potentially dangerous environments without care.

U.S. vs Nixon

During the Nixon reelection campaign in 1974, burglars broke into the Democratic National Committee's headquarters. These burglars were found to be tied with President Nixon. Nixon recorded many conversations in the Oval Office, which he refused to hand over to the court. He claimed that he had executive privilege, which protected him from being forced to turn in confidential Executive Branch material. The court decided that Nixon had to turn in the tapes, which in turn led to limitations for presidential powers. I agree with the court's verdict that Nixon had no right to hold the tapes. He was guilty for recording tapes of the opposing party (democrats) and was forced to resign after the scandal. He deserved the repercussions of his actions. Here is a video of his resignation speech.



As a result of his scandal, the courts argued against executive privilege. Nixon claimed he was out of the jurisdiction of law, as he was the president. As history shows, he was not, and had to give over his stolen tapes and resign.