SUPREME COURT CASESNOTES IN P. 67-69 (RIGHT SIDE)

Plessy v. FergusonBrown v. Board of EducationMiranda v. ArizonaDistrict of Columbia vs. Heller

Instructions Create a word map for each of the

cases discussed.

Case Name

Issue Argument & Amendments

Ruling Significance/Importance

Words to know Segregation is the separation of

people based on race.

Precedent – a past court decision that serves as a guide for future situations

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

Place: Louisiana Issue: A man named Homer Plessy refused

to move from the “white” train car to the “colored” train car. Plessy was 7/8ths white and 1/8 black, making him “colored” according to Louisiana law.

Argument: Having a separate train car based on race violated his 13th and 14th amendment rights, which forbids states from denying "to any person within their jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". The case went all the way to the Supreme Court.

Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that having separate train cars did not violate Plessy’s Constitutional rights. Justice John Marshall Harlan entered a

powerful -- and lone -- dissent, noting that "in view of the Constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens. There is no caste here. Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens."

Importance: The Plessy decision set the precedent that "separate" facilities for blacks and whites were constitutional as long as they were "equal." The "separate but equal" doctrine was quickly extended to cover many areas of public life, such as restaurants, theaters, restrooms, and public schools.

Brown vs. Board of Education “Probably no case ever to come

before the nation’s highest tribunal affected more directly the minds, hearts, and daily lives of so many Americans…. The decision marked the turning point in the nation’s willingness to face the consequences of centuries of racial discrimination.”

Brown v. Board of Education (1954) Issue: In Topeka, Kansas, a black

third-grader named Linda Brown had to walk one mile through a railroad switchyard to get to her black elementary school, even though a white elementary school was only seven blocks away. Linda's father, Oliver Brown, tried to enroll her in the white elementary school, but the principal of the school refused.

Brown v. Board- Plaintiffs Brown vs. the Board of Education was

actually 5 cases put together, all involving black students trying to attend “white” schools or improve the “black” schools.

Cases were from Kansas, Virginia, South Carolina, Delaware, and the District of Columbia.

It became known as Brown vs. the Board of Education because Oliver Brown’s name was first, alphabetically.

The Ruling & Arguments

On May 17,1954, the Supreme Court issued their decision that the precedent of the “separate but equal” clause (from Plessy v. Ferguson) as far as education was unconstitutional.

Significance

“School desegregation obviously did not happen overnight, but the Brown vs. Board of Education decision was the legal decision necessary to make it happen, ever. By the time the decision was handed down by the Supreme Court in 1954, Linda Brown had already moved on to attend middle school.”

Miranda vs. Arizona (1966) Background: Before 1966, people who

were arrested had no legal protection against police questioning methods, and some law enforcement officials used threats and physical abuse to obtain confessions that weren’t completely voluntary. Often, people who were arrested weren’t aware of their 5th amendment rights.

Miranda v. Arizona

Issue: Ernesto Miranda was a poor Mexican immigrant living in Phoenix, Arizona in 1963. A Phoenix woman was kidnapped and raped. She identified Miranda in a police lineup.

Miranda was arrested, charged with the crimes, and questioned by the police for two hours.

Argument/Amendments

Police officers questioning Miranda did not inform him of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination (to remain silent), or of his Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of an attorney.

Miranda admitted to committing the crime, but his attorney later argued that his confession should have been excluded from trial.

Ruling

The Supreme Court agreed with Miranda’s attorney, deciding that the police had not taken proper steps to inform Miranda of his rights.

This ruling resulted in the introduction of certain procedures that police must follow before questioning someone in custody.

Significance

The police must make sure the person understands his or her rights.

Police must follow the procedures by reading the following statements. You’ve probably heard these Miranda rights on TV crime shows.

Miranda Warning

Cartoon Cases

District of Columbia vs. Heller (2008) Issue: District of Columbia banned all

firearms in the home unless they are disabled (taken apart or with a trigger lock). You weren’t allowed to register a weapon, but it was illegal to carry an illegal one. Heller, a police officer, applied for a permit to carry at home but was denied.

Argument/amendment: Heller argued his 2nd amendments rights were being violated because he could not use his firearm for self-protection in his home.

Heller…

Ruling: Heller won. Supreme Court stated that the District of Columbia’s ban violated the 2nd amendment.

Importance: Supreme Court stated that while D.C.’s ban was unconstitutional, it did not imply that the 2nd amendment allowed everyone to carry weapons anywhere they wanted. States are able to enforce laws limiting who carries and where.