Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
supreme court decisions and civil rights
supreme court rulings in connection with american civil rights
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: supreme court decisions and civil rights
6. Rumsfeld v. Padilla 542 US 426 (2004) Donald H. Rumsfeld was the petitioner, while Jose Padilla was the respondent. Jose Padilla returned from Pakistan in 2002; he arrived in Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport. It was there that Padilla was detained by the Department of Defense until determined if he was an “enemy combatant” in terms with al Qaeda. It was said by the FBI that Padilla’s presence in the US was to create terroristic attacks. Padilla was moved to a military brig located in South Carolina where he was kept for the time being. His representation, Donna Newman, filed for a petition of habeas corpus for Padilla. His next friend suggested that Padilla’s detention violated the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments, as well as …show more content…
The writ of habeas corpus should have been filed towards the person directly accountable for Padilla’s containment. Therefore, Padilla should have filed against the commander of the military brig he was held at, which was located in South Carolina. However, it was also stated that the President did not have the power to declare American citizens, not located in a combat zone, an “enemy combatant.” 7. Vieth v. Jubelirer 541 US 267 (2004) The Pennsylvania General Assembly redrew the district map of the state in order to create electoral constituencies for the congressional elections after the 2000 census. The census decreased the size of the Pennsylvania Congressional delegation by two. The map was then challenged by Richard Vieth, the appellee. The appellant, Robert C. Jubelirer was the President of the Pennsylvania Senate. The Democratic candidates claimed this map change benefited the Republicans. The Democrats claims the redistricting plan was unconstitutional based on the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It was decided on April 28, 2004, that the Court decided not to intervene because there wasn’t a proper solution the courts could make. Justice Scalia that a solution did not exist. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that he believed the Court should not give up to finding …show more content…
This case starts with the Civil Rights Act of 1965 which was the response to decades of voting discrimination, in specific, racial discrimination. However, in this Act, it required parts of the country to deliver tests as a perquisite to voting, this was known as Section 4 of the act. These locations had lower voter turnouts. Districts are prohibited from changing their election laws without gaining authorization in court, this is stated in Section 5 of the act. Shelby County wanted to argue if the renewal of all sections of the Civil Rights Act of 1965 are out of Congress’s jurisdiction, specifically Section 5 which does not allow for the district to revise Section 4. It was to be decided if Congress went against the Tenth Amendment and Article Four of the Constitution. On June 25, 2013, it was ruled, in 5-4 decision that Section 4 of the act is unconstitutional and does not match up with the current conditions of the country. This also meant that the court ruled Section 5 is no longer needed and the Congress cannot justify keeping it any longer. The Constitution allows for the states to regulate
v. Lopez (1995) continues to affect the judicial system to this day. This case is the precedent for many of the Supreme Court cases concerning the commerce clause. Following U.S. v. Lopez, the Supreme Court had many Affordable Care Act cases. In these cases, the powers of Congress, under the Commerce Clause, were again limited. The congressional powers were limited because the Court declared that the Affordable Care Act “did not license Congress to include in the PPACA a provision that required individuals to purchase health insurance”(Commerce Clause). The Affordable Care Act trials show that Congress cannot always make whatever law that they want, and they cannot use the Commerce Clause as an excuse or abuse its power. This case further proved the reasoning behind the decision in U.S. v
Congress as well as the Supreme Court have been decidedly silent on this issue. Due to
The case was taken to appeals court where they affirmed the verdict and neither court
In 1965, at a time of racial discrimination in America and the emergence of a strong Civil Rights Movement, congress enacted the Voting Rights Act (VRA), which prohibits discrimination in voting. Congress could not end racial discrimination in voting by suing one jurisdiction, state, etc. at a time. Rather, Congress passed Section 5 of the VRA, which required states and local governments with a history of racially discriminating voting practices to get the approval of the U.S. Attorney General or a three-judge panel for the U.S. District Court for D.C. (“preclearace”) in order to make any changes to their voting practices. Section 4(b) said that the preclearance requirement applied to states and political subdivisions that used a “test or device” to limit voting and in which less than 50% of the population was registered to vote, or voted, in the presidential elections of 1964, 1968, or 1972. Nine states and seven subdivisions in other states are subject to the requirement in Section 5, which has been amended three times and was reauthorized for an additional 25 years in 2006. The Supreme Court however, has been skeptical about the constitutionality of the law. In the Supreme Court’s decision on Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder (2009), the Court avoided the constitutionality of Sections 4(b) and 5 of the VRA. Shelby County, Alabama, is covered in Section 5 because all of Alabama is covered. The county went to court in Washington to strike down Section 5 of the VRA.
Despite the 14th and 15th constitutional amendments that guarantee citizenship and voting right regardless of race and religion, southern states, in practice, denied African Americans the right to vote by setting up literacy tests and charging a poll tax that was designed only to disqualify them as voters. In 1955, African Americans still had significantly less political power than their white counterparts. As a result, they were powerless to prevent the white from segregating all aspects of their lives and could not stop racial discrimination in public accommodations, education, and economic opportunities. Following the 1954 Supreme Court’s ruling in Brown vs. Board of Education that segregation in public schools was unconstitutional, it remained a hot issue in 1955. That year, however, it was the murder of the fourteen-year-old Emmett Louis Till that directed the nation’s attention to the racial discrimination in America.
Facts: Clarence Earl Gideon was charged in Florida state court with a felony: for illegally entering a pool hall with the intention of committing a misdemeanor. When Gideon arrived in court he requested an attorney as he could not afford one at that time. However, in accordance with Florida state law at the time the court told Mr. Gideon that they were unable to appoint an attorney for him as the case was not for a capital offense. Mr. Gideon was found guilty at trial and was sent to five years in prison. Gideon petitioned the Florida State Supreme court habeas corpus in which he argued that he Bay County court's decision violated his constitutional right to be represented a lawyer at trial. The Florida State Supreme Court denied relief. Reasoning that the Supreme Court of the United States created
Avoiding the conflict between security and civil liberties, by identifying Mr. Padilla as an enemy combatant, comprises the value of the government’s accountability as a law-abiding state. Legal systems operating under the Rule of Law should never have an “off-thebooks” approach to necessity; even the defense of necessity must be justified lawfully (Timmons, ). As stated in the case study, the president labeled Mr.Padilla as “an enemy combatant who poses a serious and continuing threat to the American people and our national security.” However, the president’s attempt ...
The Office of the State Public Defender and the Habeas Corpus Resource Center spend a tot...
In 2001 the Texas Legislature was in a deadlock of a new district map to coincide with the census. Because they were unable to agree on a map the state law requires a Legislative Redistricting Board which includes: the Lieutenant Governor, the Speaker of the House, Attorney General, Comptroller, and the Land Commissioner, to take on the task of creating the district map. The Republicans were seeking a new map increase their control of the State Congress. However, the Democrats felt the minority votes were being diluted by gerrymandering, as well as, violate the Voting Rights Law.
A Writ of Habeas Corpus is an authoritative order forcing governments to provide the “body” of the detainee in which the legality of their detention and individual liberties will be challenged. Historically associated with civil liberty violation and the injustice of illegally detaining potentially enemies of the state, jurisdictional issues regarding their detaining location have made justice difficult to administer and deliver. Detaining enemies for their participation, involvement, and/or ties to threats of terror towards the United States will result the confinement of combatants, as solidified by the US Constitution, however, to what extent will they be forced to stay?. Residents of Guantanamo Bay are just; enemies of the state, accused individual that have been arrested and detain with minimal civil human rights to our jurisdictional due process that we American’s hold dear; with only a Writ of Habeas Corpus as their life line to legality and freedom. Although controversial in its conception and implementation by US presidential administration, judiciary members have cordially interpreted cases of questionable detention and the legality of doing so. It is truly unfortunate when individuals are tossed into confinement illegally with no help and/or the promise of their restorative freedoms (ACLU, 2014).
By the year 2000, Texas Republicans had taken control of the executive branch, house, and senate within the state government. After elections in 2002, Republicans also gained a majority in the U.S. House of Representatives, but the state of Texas sent seventeen Democrat and fifteen Republican representatives to Washington. This ratio was disproportional to the voting percentages statewide where Republican congressional candidates had received fifty six percent of the votes. So the Texas State Legislature backed by House Majority Leader and Texan Tom DeLay began to push for a redistricting of Texas congressional districts. The Texas Legislature had failed to pass any redistricting legislation during the 2001 regular legislative session. Republicans, saw an opportunity for a major political gain by redistricting Texas so in 2003 a redistricting bi...
Overall, the ruling in this case was a perfect interpretation of the Constitution. Despite opposition claiming that it is not addressed in the Constitution, too few rights are ever addressed in the Constitution of the United States. That is why there is a thing called Judicial Review. By utilizing judicial review, the interpreters of the law –Supreme Court, may make changes to policies and laws. Abortion, medicinal marijuana, and marriage fall under the umbrella of Equal Protection since they correspond to the rights and liberties of US citizens.
... be the most monumental obstacle in the battle for equal rights for blacks. The 3/5 compromise demonstrates the tendency toward black inferiority that would not be extinguished for 200 years. The constitution clearly reserves certain authorities for the states. In Section 4, the founders detailed, “The times, places, and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each state…” This seemingly small provision, however, had dramatic implications for the avocation of civil rights. This clause allowed states to utilize literacy tests and other methods of determining voter eligibility that were clearly white biased. By denying the national government a veto over state law, segregation continued to thrive in Southern states. The separation of powers that is outlined in each section of the constitution also promoted segregation by preventing a national majority from striking against “tyranny in the states (92)”. These constitutional provisions support Kernell and Jacobson’s argument that “a fragmented constitutional system largely answers the question of why it took so long to eradicate, slavery, segregation, and other forms of discrimination.” (93)
The majority opinion was delivered by Justice Anthony Kennedy. Agreeing with Kennedy were Justices Stevens, O’Connor, Scouter, Ginsburg, and Breyer. Kennedy stated that the intention of the CSA was not to “define general standards of medical practices”. They determined that the CSA was established in efforts of limiting the drugs themselves, not the medical decisions associated with the drugs. The dissenting opinion was delivered by Justice Scalia and was joined by Justices Roberts and Thomas. They declared that John Ashcroft had “sufficient grounds” for the interpretation of the Controlled Substance Act and the conclusions made after said interpretation (Scalia, 2006). Justice Scalia had made three grounds on which the Attorney General was able to make his interpretation valid. Additionally, John Ashcroft was covered by the statutory phrase “public health and safety” in Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council Inc. and the ruling in that said case.
The book’s title, with its dry allusion to the separation of powers, does not do it justice. “Guantánamo and the Abuse of Presidential Power” represents the best account yet of what Mr. Margulies calls “a human rights debacle that will eventually take its place alongside other wartime misadventures, including the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II, the prosecutions under the Espionage and Sedition Acts during World War I, and the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus during the Civil War.”