Supreme Court Decisions

Major Decisions-New Jersey v. T.L.O.

Major Decisions-New Jersey v. T.L.O.

New Jersey v. TLO: Balancing Student Rights and School Authority

Introduction

The Supreme Court case of New Jersey v. T.L.O. marked a significant turning point in the jurisprudence surrounding students’ Fourth Amendment rights within a school setting. This landmark case, decided in 1985, dealt with the fundamental question of how the Fourth Amendment applies to students in public schools and to what extent school administrators can search students’ belongings. In this article, we will explore the details of the New Jersey v. T.L.O. case, the major decisions that emerged from it, and its lasting impact on the delicate balance between students’ rights and school authority.

Background of New Jersey v. T.L.O.

The case of New Jersey v. T.L.O. began with a seemingly routine incident at Piscataway High School in New Jersey. In 1980, a teacher caught T.L.O., a 14-year-old student, smoking in the school bathroom, a clear violation of school rules. The teacher took T.L.O. to the principal’s office, where the assistant vice-principal, Theodore Choplick, questioned her about the incident. During the questioning, T.L.O. denied smoking and claimed she didn’t smoke at all. In response, Mr. Choplick demanded to see T.L.O.’s purse.

Upon searching T.L.O.’s purse, Mr. Choplick discovered not only cigarettes but also marijuana, drug paraphernalia, and a list of students who owed T.L.O. money. Consequently, T.L.O. was charged with possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia. She later moved to suppress the evidence obtained from her purse on the grounds that the search had violated her Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Major Decisions in New Jersey v. T.L.O.

New Jersey v. T.L.O. made its way to the Supreme Court, where the justices grappled with the critical question of whether the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures applied to public school students and, if so, to what extent. The Court’s ruling, delivered by Justice Byron White, established a two-part framework for evaluating the constitutionality of searches conducted by school officials within a school environment.

1. Reasonableness Standard:

The Court first determined that the Fourth Amendment applied to public school students. However, it acknowledged that students do not possess the same level of Fourth Amendment protection as adults. Instead, the Court established a “reasonableness” standard that balances students’ privacy rights against the school’s interest in maintaining discipline and ensuring the safety of students.

2. Scope of the Search:

The Court’s second major decision focused on the scope of the search. It held that school officials could conduct searches of students’ belongings if they had reasonable grounds to believe that a student’s possession violated school rules or the law. Importantly, the Court did not require school officials to obtain a warrant or have probable cause to search students. Instead, the search must be “reasonable” based on the circumstances.

The Legacy of New Jersey v. T.L.O.

The New Jersey v. T.L.O. decision had a profound impact on the relationship between students and public schools in the United States. It struck a delicate balance between protecting students’ Fourth Amendment rights and allowing schools to maintain a safe and orderly learning environment. Here are some key aspects of its legacy:

1. School Authority Upheld:

The decision reinforced the authority of school officials to maintain discipline and order within the school setting. By allowing searches based on reasonable suspicion rather than the stricter standards of probable cause and warrants, the Court recognized that school administrators needed flexibility to address potential threats and rule violations efficiently.

2. Impact on Student Rights:

While the Court upheld the application of the Fourth Amendment to public school students, it also recognized that students’ rights were not absolute within the school context. This decision established the idea that students have a diminished expectation of privacy in school compared to adults in other settings.

3. Legal Framework for Student Searches:

New Jersey v. T.L.O. provided a clear legal framework for evaluating the constitutionality of student searches. It required that searches be justified by reasonable suspicion and be conducted in a manner consistent with the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness standard. This framework has been used in subsequent cases to assess the validity of various types of student searches.

4. Ongoing Legal Debates:

The case left room for ongoing legal debates and challenges. Courts have continued to grapple with the definition of “reasonable suspicion” and the scope of searches in evolving contexts such as searches of electronic devices, drug testing, and more.

5. Balancing Act:

New Jersey v. T.L.O. underscored the delicate balance between students’ individual rights and the need for schools to maintain a safe and productive learning environment. It acknowledged that schools play a unique role in society and require specific rules and policies to fulfill their mission effectively.

Conclusion

New Jersey v. T.L.O. remains a pivotal Supreme Court case in the realm of student rights and school authority. Its major decisions established a legal framework that continues to shape how courts evaluate the constitutionality of student searches in public schools. While it upheld students’ Fourth Amendment rights, it also recognized the practical necessity for school officials to maintain order and discipline. In essence, the case reflects the ongoing tension between individual rights and collective needs within the educational system, a tension that remains relevant to this day.


New Jersey v. T.L.O. is a landmark case in U.S. legal history that established the legal threshold for searches conducted by public school officials. The case originated in 1980, when a high school student referred to by the initials T.L.O. was caught smoking in the school bathroom. The school’s assistant principal, suspecting that T.L.O. might be concealing drugs, searched her purse and discovered marijuana, as well as a small amount of money and other paraphernalia that suggested she was dealing drugs.

T.L.O. was subsequently charged with drug possession and distribution. However, her attorney argued that the search of her purse had violated her Fourth Amendment rights, which protect individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures. The case then made its way through the court system, ultimately reaching the Supreme Court.

In its decision, the Supreme Court established that public school officials may conduct searches of students if they have reasonable suspicion to believe that the search will turn up evidence of illegal activity or other violations of school rules. The Court held that the search of T.L.O.’s purse was justified because the assistant principal had reasonable grounds to believe that she was violating school policy and that illegal drugs might be involved.

The Court also noted, however, that searches conducted by school officials should be limited in scope and focused only on finding the specific evidence that prompted the search. The Court cautioned that schools should not use searches as a general means of rooting out student misbehavior or other types of wrongdoing.

New Jersey v. T.L.O. had a significant impact on public school policies throughout the country, as it established the legal standard for searches conducted by school officials. The decision also raised important questions about the rights of students, the scope of Fourth Amendment protections, and the responsibilities of school officials to maintain discipline and safety on school grounds.

Legal commentators have noted that the decision in T.L.O. remains relevant in today’s legal landscape, as schools continue to grapple with difficult issues related to student privacy, safety, and discipline. The decision serves as a reminder that schools must balance the need to maintain order and safety with the rights of individual students, and that any searches conducted by school officials must be governed by established legal standards and limits.

Overall, New Jersey v. T.L.O. represents an important moment in American legal history and underscores the need to balance individual rights with societal concerns related to public safety and order. The case demonstrates the Supreme Court’s commitment to carefully weighing the facts and legal principles in order to arrive at a just and appropriate decision, and highlights the continuing importance of legal precedents in guiding policy and practice in the field of education.


The Supreme Court has an extensive history in hearing cases in which the Amendments contained in the Bill of Rights are the issue of an alleged violation or infringement situation. However, the majority of the cases deal with adults in real-world situations.

On certain occasions, the question as to how the Constitution applies to students or those not legally considered adults arises.

A case in the 1960s, known as Tinker v. Des Moines, is an example of students and the application of Constitutional rights. The subject would arise some twenty years later once again in New Jersey v. TLO. The case of New Jersey v. TLO is in regards to a student being searched on school grounds because she was thought to be smoking in a non-smoking area of the campus. Even though TLO–such as the girl was referred to due to her name not being released because of her age–denied the accusations of her smoking, she was brought to the principal’s office.

Once there, the assistant vice-principal searched TLO’s purse, in which she found marijuana, several forms of paraphernalia, and letters that indicated that she was involved in dealing with marijuana at her school. Subsequently, TLO would be brought up on charges by the local police and sentenced to one-year probation. The matter was brought to the New Jersey Supreme Court, in which the probation charges were overturned on the grounds that the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution had been violated on TLO’s behalf. The State of New Jersey would then appeal to the United States
Supreme Court.

Warren E. Burger was the Chief Justice presiding over New Jersey v. TLO. After reviewing the case and the application of the Fourth Amendment under these circumstances, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of New Jersey. The Fourth Amendment was used to argue that the search conducted by the school official was unwarranted, and therefore, a violation of TLO’s Constitutional rights. The main the issue at hand was that even though the Fourth Amendment is to be applied to all people of the United States, in certain instances there has to be a balance in which its application cannot extend its limits that disrupt certain procedures affecting safety and the overall well-being of a group of people.

Such was the case in New Jersey v. TLO, in which it was determined that a school or
educational setting warrants some modification regarding the scope in which Students’ rights are applied. Though the Supreme Court did not denounce that the Fourth Amendment did not apply to students, a certain consideration to its application in this type of setting required some lax interpretations. The Fourth Amendment states that a search and seizure cannot be lawfully conducted without a warrant or probable cause.

However, in a school setting, a search is considered to be reasonable and within the constraints of the Fourth Amendment if there is reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is suspected. However, the Supreme Court also rested its the decision that such types of searches are to be conducted by the school themselves and that if law enforcement was to be involved, it could be in breach of a student’s Fourth Amendment rights.

Major Decisions-New York Times v United States

Major Decisions-New York Times v United States

New York Times Co v United States, better known as the “Pentagon Papers case,” was a landmark legal battle that tested the balance between national security and press freedom. In 1971, The New York Times published a series of articles about a classified government study of the Vietnam War, which had been leaked to the paper by a former Defense Department employee. The government sought to block further publication of the papers, arguing that their release threatened national security.

The case went before the Supreme Court, which ultimately issued a ruling in favor of The New York Times. In their decision, the Court held that the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of the press outweighed the government’s desire for secrecy and that a prior restraint on publication of the material was unconstitutional. The Court concluded that the government had failed to meet the heavy burden of proof necessary to justify an injunction on publication.

The decision was a resounding victory for press freedom and established an important precedent for the balance between government secrecy and the First Amendment’s protection of a free press. The ruling allowed American journalists to continue their tradition of reporting on government actions and holding public officials to account, even in the face of government efforts to suppress information.

New York Times Co v United States also set the legal standard for future cases involving national security and press freedom. The ruling established that the government must meet a high burden of proof to justify a prior restraint on publication of information and that the mere possibility of harm to national security is not sufficient to warrant such a restraint.

Furthermore, the decision highlighted the critical role of the press in a democratic society. The Court recognized that the free flow of information is central to the functioning of a democracy and that the public’s right to know is paramount. By upholding the rights of journalists to report on government actions, the Court ensured that the public would continue to have access to information critical to informed decision-making.

In conclusion, New York Times Co v United States was a critical case that helped to define the balance between national security and press freedom. The case demonstrated the important role of the press in holding public officials accountable and maintaining an informed public. It also established important legal precedents that continue to guide future cases involving government secrecy and the First Amendment’s protection of a free press. Ultimately, the decision reaffirmed the enduring value of press freedom in American society.


The U.S. Courts have constantly battled with the interpretation and application of the United States Constitution. An issue that is constantly arising in litigation
in the Supreme Court is the First Amendment of the Constitution.

The rights guaranteed under the First Amendment, such as the freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion, have often been the subject of debate in the U.S. Courts and continue to be so in today’s society. U.S. Courts would once again have the responsibility of evaluating First Amendment rights once again in 1971, when the Supreme Court would hear theNew York Times. United States case.

The New York Times. United States would not be the first time that the U.S. Supreme Court would hear a case dealing with the freedom of the press granted under the Constitution’s First Amendment. However, this case was significant in the sense that it would pit a Constitutionally-protected right against the overall security of the nation. The case would be based on the fact that the New York Times would obtain a copy of Government documents that would be known as the “Pentagon Papers.”

The Pentagon Papers were a report originating from the Department of Defense that detailed controversial Government tactics in regard to the Vietnam War. The New York Times wanted to publish the documents and make them accessible to the public nationwide. Initially, an injunction was levied against the New York Times that would prohibit it from publishing the Government Pentagon Papers. The government claimed that in making the documents public, the nation’s security would be at risk.

However, the famous newspaper would fight the injunction by citing the First Amendment right to the freedom of the press. Warren E. Burger was the Chief Justice to hear the
case in the Supreme Court. The Court faced a difficult decision regarding the applicability of the First Amendment and to what extent the Constitutional rights granted should be implemented. Even though the Constitution proves to be the ultimate form of law in the United States, in certain instances its absolute adherence could prove to be a dilemma, such as in this particular case with the Pentagon Papers.

Key factors that was considered was whether or not the publishing of the Pentagon Papers
proved to be a danger to national security and whether or not the people had the right to be informed. Furthermore, the justification for rendering a decision for either party can prove to have detrimental circumstances in the form of future precedence for Constitutional interpretation of the laws.

However, The court would eventually grant the decision toThe New York Times, holding that the First Amendment rights of the Constitution should be absolute. Nevertheless, the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court had been in disagreement in the final verdict and even had reservations about hearing the case. Regardless, the case regarding the Pentagon Papers would be ruled in favor of protecting First Amendment Rights, which would later become used as precedence for further cases involving the freedoms granted by the Constitution.

Korematsu v. United States

Korematsu v. United States

Korematsu v. United States is a landmark Supreme Court case that addressed the legality of Japanese internment during World War II. The case arose in 1942, when President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9066, which authorized the forced relocation and internment of Japanese Americans living on the West Coast. Fred Korematsu, an American citizen of Japanese descent, was arrested and convicted for violating the order and failing to report for relocation to an internment camp.

In his defense, Korematsu argued that the internment order violated his constitutional rights, particularly his Fifth Amendment rights to due process and equal protection. Despite his arguments, the Supreme Court upheld Korematsu’s conviction and the constitutionality of the internment program.

The Court’s decision was based on the premise that the government’s need to protect against potential espionage and sabotage during wartime outweighed Korematsu’s individual liberties. The Court held that “emergency situations” such as war time allowed the government greater latitude in restricting civil liberties.

However, the ruling in Korematsu v. United States has been widely criticized for being a gross violation of civil rights. The forced relocation and internment of Japanese Americans has been recognized as one of the most shameful chapters in American history and a clear example of institutionalized racism and xenophobia.

Over the years, the Korematsu decision has been widely discredited and condemned by many legal scholars and civil rights activists. In 1983, a federal commission was established to investigate the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, and it ultimately concluded that the program was a “grave injustice” that was based on “race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership.”

In 2018, the Supreme Court finally overruled its decision in Korematsu v. United States, stating that it had been “gravely wrong” and that it violated “fundamental principles of the Constitution.”

Korematsu v. United States remains one of the most controversial and consequential Supreme Court cases in American history. The decision stands as a stark reminder of the dangers of unchecked government power and the importance of protecting the civil liberties of all individuals, particularly in times of crisis.


Korematsu v. United States (1944) was a significant United States Supreme Court case that ruled that the Government’s use of Japanese internment camps during World War II was Constitutional.

This decision, written by Justice Hugo Black, was very controversial because it was the first time the Supreme Court ruled on racial discrimination based on the strict scrutiny standard. This means that the Supreme Court applied the most stringent interpretation of the law to justify the use of Japanese internment camps as superior to individual rights.

Executive Order 9066, passed in 1942 by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, ordered those with “Foreign Enemy Ancestry” to be sent to internment camps. Although the order did not technically name any ethnic groups, this applied to about 12,000 Japanese Americans. The U.S. Government considered these individuals to be of heightened risk to national security.

Fred Korematsu was a Japanese American living in California who, after being ordered into a Japanese internment camp, refused to leave his city. Korematsu claimed that the Executive Order violated his personal rights as specified by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. This Amendment in the bill of Rights states that no person shall be “deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of the law”. Korematsu argued that he was being deprived of his right to live freely without the appropriate legal
process. This due process of the law clause has been found in previous court cases to restrict the type of control that the Government is permitted to exercise over citizens.

Korematsu was arrested for violating the order. The Supreme Court found, based on the precedent of Hirabayashi v. the United States, that the Government The order was not based on racial prejudice but based on the fear of an incident similar to Pearl Harbor. Justice Black claimed in his decision that the United States military was acting properly because the U.S. feared a possible invasion from Japan. This temporary segregation of Japanese Americans was ruled to be constitutional on the basis of “military urgency”.

The case was decided on 6-3. Three Supreme Court Justices wrote dissents against the use of Japanese internment camps. These dissents compared the treatment of Japanese Americans to the policies of Nazi Germany and claimed that the Order was based entirely on racial discrimination rather than military necessity. Justice Frank Murphy’s dissent called the decision the “legalization of racism”. Korematsu’s argument for his refusal to relocate to a Japanese internment camp was based on a violation of both the Fifth Amendment and a writ of habeas corpus.

Under a writ of habeas corpus, a person should be able to obtain relief from unlawful detention. However, Korematsu was denied this right. Although Korematsu’s conviction was overturned in 1984, this was based on the ruling that the United States Government had supplied false information in the original court case. However, the 1944 decision that the Government’s use of racial discrimination by forcing Korematsu into a Japanese internment camp was Constitutional was not overturned.

Lochner v. New York

Lochner v. New York

Lochner v. New York was a landmark Supreme Court case that took place in 1905. The case arose after the State of New York passed an 1897 law that limited bakers to working no more than 60 hours per week or 10 hours per day. Joseph Lochner, a baker, was charged with violating the law, and he challenged the constitutionality of the statute under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.

The Supreme Court ultimately struck down the New York state law in a 5-4 decision, holding that the law violated the liberty of contract protected under the Due Process Clause. The Court reasoned that the government had no business interfering with the terms of private contracts between employers and employees, and that these contract rights were fundamental to the American economic system.

The Lochner decision became one of the most controversial and significant cases in the history American constitutional law. The case exemplified the Court’s willingness to strike down economic regulations and interventions by the government in favor of laissez-faire capitalism.

However, over time, Lochner v. New York has been widely criticized by legal scholars and historians. Critics argue that the decision was motivated more by the Court’s preference for capitalist economics than by sound legal reasoning or concern for individual liberties. Moreover, the decision has been accused of perpetuating the subordination of workers’ rights to those of businesses.

In the decades following Lochner, the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court shifted, and the Court became more willing to uphold economic regulations and labor protections. In particular, the New Deal reforms of the 1930s led to a shift in judicial attitudes, and the Supreme Court began to recognize the government’s legitimate interest in regulating the economy to protect the public welfare.

Today, Lochner v. New York stands as an important reminder of the historical tension between individual liberties and government regulation. While the decision has been largely discredited by legal scholars and historians, it remains a vital part of American constitutional law and a symbol of the long-standing struggle to balance individual rights with the public good.


Lochner v. New York (1905) was a significant the United States Supreme Court ruling which held that the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution provided individuals with the liberty of contract.

The Court held that the Fourteenth amendment includes the protection of personal rights. The Laws of 1897 were enacted in the State of New York and required, among other things, that people working in a bakery must not work more than ten hours per day or sixty hours per week (called the Bakeshop Act). Joseph Lochner was the owner of a bakery who was fined for requiring an employee to exceed these employment hours.

Lochner appealed this conviction and, after losing two appeals, he eventually appealed to the United States Supreme Court. Lochner claimed that his rights, specifically those laid out in the Fourteenth Amendment, were being violated. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees all citizens due process of the law before being deprived of “life, liberty, or property”. This Due Process Clause was shown in previous cases to limit the amount of control the Government was able to exercise over citizens. The type of control specifically questioned in this case was the ability of the Government to dictate the type of labor
contracts people are permitted to engage in.

Lochner enforced his right to freedom of contract. Lochner’s attorney argued against the defense saying that the Bakeshop Act was not protecting the health of bakery workers because modern bakeries were sufficiently ventilated. The United States Supreme Court’s decision, written by Justice Rufus Peckham held that the Bakeshop Act was unconstitutional. Peckham acknowledged that, although the freedom of contract doctrine was not unlimited, it did protect Lochner in this case. The Supreme Court Justice went on
to say that some labor restrictions by the Government are necessary to protect individuals who are being exploited, but that this does not apply to bakers.

This decision set precedent for several other cases including a ruling that declared
certain minimum wage laws unconstitutional. The Lochner case furthered the substantive
interpretation of the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. This means that not only does this Clause entitle a person to a proper legal procedure, but also limits the amount of control the U.S. Government can exercise over individuals. This case sparked a “Lochner era” where the Supreme Court declared plenty of statutes regulating labor conditions to be unconstitutional.

Major Cases- US vs. Nixon

Major Cases-US v Nixon

US v. Nixon is without a doubt one of the most significant Supreme Court cases in American history. The case arose during the Watergate scandal of the early 1970s, which involved President Richard Nixon’s administration’s attempt to cover up its involvement in illegal surveillance and break-ins targeting the Democratic Party’s headquarters at the Watergate complex.

As part of the investigation, special prosecutor Archibald Cox issued a subpoena demanding that President Nixon turn over audio tapes of conversations recorded in the Oval Office. Nixon initially refused to comply and argued that his executive privilege protected him from having to give up the tapes.

The case eventually made its way to the Supreme Court, which was tasked with deciding whether or not the president’s executive privilege was absolute or limited and whether the tapes were crucial evidence in a criminal case.

In the landmark decision of US v. Nixon, the Supreme Court found that no one, not even the president, is above the law. In an 8-0 decision (with Justice Rehnquist recusing himself), the Court ruled that the president’s executive privilege was not absolute and that the tapes were essential to the ongoing investigation of the Watergate scandal.

The decision was a landmark moment in American constitutional history that reaffirmed the principle of the rule of law and the separation of powers. The Supreme Court specifically rejected the argument that the president was a monarch or sovereign ruler with complete and unfettered power.

The ruling in US v. Nixon was a major blow to President Nixon, who was ultimately forced to turn over the tapes and resign from office in the aftermath of the Watergate scandal.

More than four decades later, the legacy of US v. Nixon continues to be felt throughout American politics and law. The case stands as a reminder of the importance of the judiciary as an independent branch of government, free from political interference or executive pressure. It also serves as an example of the power of the Constitution to protect American democratic institutions and promote accountability and transparency in government.


Following the unrest created by the Pentagon Papers and New York Times. United States trial, it was clear that there was much civil unrest regarding the situation of the United States’ involvement in the Vietnam War.

Further occurrences would prove to be fuel to the fire, such as the Kent State University shootings and President Nixon’s approval to attack Cambodia. However, all of the turmoil would finally be capped off by what became known as the Watergate Scandal. The Watergate Scandal would essentially place President Nixon in the middle of illegal activity, such as breaking and entering, burglary, and other such crimes.

Eventually, the senate would begin an investigation that would uncover the makings of a cover-up at the behest of the Nixon administration involving Watergate. Eventually, it would be discovered that Nixon had installed some form of taping a system that recorded conversations with members of his administration as well as his advisors. Nixon would refuse to release the tapes as demanded by the Supreme Court, claiming that this property was protected under executive privilege. Nixon would eventually comply, but the tapes would be partially erased.

The United States Supreme Court had several issues to tend to regard the Watergate Scandal and the involvement of President Nixon. However, the Watergate case had implications on the Constitutional level that had to be addressed. Firstly, the Constitution would have to be examined to evaluate whether the President had absolute power to withhold important information from the other branches of power and if the executive privilege clause could be claimed in such a circumstance.

Furthermore, the Court also had to address how such a dispute is to be settled to be concurrent with the separation of powers, regarding whether the Judicial or Executive Branch would have jurisdiction in resolving the matter. It was also considered whether or not if the claiming of executive privilege violated provisions of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments regarding Due Process.

The Chief Justice presiding over U.S. v. Nixon was Warren E. Burger and would provide for a unanimous Supreme Court decision in favor of the United States, demanding that the Nixon administration surrender the recordings. Burger noted that the question of executive privilege and its the application would prove to be determined by the courts and the Judicial Branch, particularly in this case where criminal activity was involved. Furthermore, Burger would also conclude that executive privilege, in this case, would prove to violate the Constitutional rights of citizens of the United States (See Also: The Constitution-Bill of Rights).

Concurrently, Burger also stated that the withholding of the tapes would prove to be violations of the Fifth Amendment as well as the Sixth Amendment. Because the Fifth Amendment provides for Due Process, it was necessary that the President comply with the orders of the Court so as to not impede the criminal proceedings. The Sixth Amendment provides that a defendant in a trial can be confronted by witnesses against the accused, thus extending the tapes as evidence necessary to continue the trial.

In general, the Supreme Court would provide a limitation to the Executive Branch by restricting the powers and liberties that the President can employ. His/her position as the President of the United States does not render him/her above Constitutional law. History proves that Nixon would resign his office as President in light of the incriminating evidence that was brought upon him through the impeachment trials. Nixon would be the first President of the United States to resign the position.

Major Decisions: Epperson v Arkansas

Major Decisions: Epperson v Arkansas

Epperson v Arkansas was a significant United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1968. The case centered around a state law in Arkansas that prohibited the teaching of evolution in public schools. The plaintiff, Susan Epperson, was a high school biology teacher who challenged the law on the grounds of its violation of the First Amendment.

The Supreme Court’s decision was a pivotal moment in the fight for academic freedom and the separation of church and state in American education. In the 7-2 ruling, the Supreme Court found that the Arkansas law was an unconstitutional infringement on academic freedom and violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

The court held that the law was an attempt to promote a particular religious view and impose it on students, which breached the principle of religious neutrality and the government’s obligation to remain neutral in religious matters.

The Epperson v. Arkansas decision was groundbreaking for many reasons. It marked the first time that a Supreme Court ruling explicitly struck down a state law that prohibited the teaching of evolution in public schools. This decision paved the way for later Supreme Court cases, such as Edwards v. Aguillard and Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School, that further reinforced the importance of teaching evolution in public schools as a valid and vital scientific concept.

Moreover, Epperson v. Arkansas also represented a crucial victory for advocates of academic freedom and progressivism in education. The Supreme Court declared that public schools had a responsibility to teach scientific theories and concepts free from religious bias or influence. This decision, therefore, represented a significant step towards the normalization of scientific inquiry and scientific literacy in American education.

In summary, Epperson v. Arkansas was a landmark decision that marked a turning point in the fight for academic freedom and religious neutrality in American public education. The Supreme Court’s ruling affirmed the importance of science and reason in education and set a precedent that continues to influence American public education today.


The Epperson v. Arkansas trial proved to be among the landmark Supreme Court decisions that would have certain questions or considerations based on the application of the United States Constitution.

The Epperson v. Arkansas case invokes the occurrences that happened nearly forty years earlier in Tennessee with theinfamous Scopes Trial of 1927. Even though Tennessee is one of the most famous states in which the teaching of evolution in schools was prohibited, it was not the only State to apply similar provisions at the State level.

The Scopes trial would be one of the landmarks Supreme Court Decisions that would prove to be repeated in a similar fashion once again with the Epperson v. Arkansas trial. The case revolved around an Arkansas State provision that prohibited the teaching of human evolution in schools. This statute, if violated, could levy hefty fines and dismissal from a teaching position under Arkansas laws. The provision would be challenged by a tenth-grade biology teacher, Susan Epperson.

Initially, the lower courts would rule in her favor, but an appeal at the Arkansas Supreme Court would overturn the decision, citing almost no legislation for the basis of its decision. Epperson would then also appeal and the case would reach theSupreme Court. Chief Justice Warren would oversee the proceedings and eventually render a decision in favor of Epperson. The Supreme Court decision would have ramifications at the Constitutional level on the basis that Arkansas could not implement statutes or laws to remove a segment or part of a curriculum on the basis that it conflicts with certain religious beliefs.

This practice is in violation of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, and therefore, unconstitutional. More specifically, it violated the Establishment The clause of the First Amendment, which states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” In seeking to protect certain religious views that were in conflict with the teaching of evolution, the Arkansas State laws would effectively be establishing a preference or inclination toward a particular religious sect.

The Supreme Court decision also regarded that such laws would also infringe on the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects the citizens’ from interference imposed by the State legislation or laws with their rights under the First Amendment. Though the main issue at hand was the violation of the First Amendment, the violation of the Fourteenth Amendment was also applied because the State laws imposed a restriction upon the freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

Even though the Court would agree that the issue of the school curriculum is to be determined and established by local officials and state governments, it could not impose teachings in which particular favoritism or inclination toward a religious faction is implemented, either directly or indirectly. Therefore, the Supreme The court decision of Epperson v. Arkansas would not allow the prevention of teaching evolution in schools.

Even though certain states would integrate biblical creation along with evolution as a way to circumvent the landmark Supreme Court decisions, this would only lead to further court decisions in which Epperson v. Arkansas would be used as precedent in the rulings.

Major Decisions-Employment Division v. Smith

Major Decisions-Employment Division v. Smith

Employment Division v. Smith was a landmark case that was decided by the United States Supreme Court in 1990. The case dealt with the question of whether religious belief was sufficient justification for breaking a law that did not specifically target religion. In the end, the Supreme Court ruled that religious beliefs could not be used as justification for violating a neutral and generally applicable law.

The case centered around two Native American men who were employees of a drug rehabilitation center in Oregon. They were fired for testing positive for the drug peyote, which they had consumed as part of their religious practice. The men applied for unemployment benefits but were denied by the Oregon Employment Division because they had been fired for cause.

The two men challenged the decision, arguing that their religious beliefs should exempt them from the drug testing requirements. The case made its way to the Supreme Court, which was tasked with deciding whether the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment would protect the men’s use of peyote as part of their religious practice.

In a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court found that the Free Exercise Clause did not provide protection for illegal activities committed as part of religious practices. The ruling declared that the government could enforce neutral and generally applicable laws even if their enforcement impinged on religious beliefs.

The decision in Employment Division v. Smith was a major departure from the Supreme Court’s earlier rulings on the Free Exercise Clause. In the past, the Court had provided significant protection for religious practices, even in cases where it conflicted with otherwise applicable laws. However, this case created a higher standard for religious exemptions to laws, requiring that the laws be specifically targeted at religion for such exemptions to be justified.

The ruling in Employment Division v. Smith had far-reaching implications for religious freedom and the relationship between religion and the law. It marked a significant shift towards a more secular interpretation of the First Amendment in the context of the law. The case also highlighted the ongoing tension between religious beliefs and the government’s responsibility to uniformly enforce neutral laws.

In conclusion, Employment Division v. Smith was a major decision that transformed the way the Supreme Court approached the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The case affirmed the power of the state to enforce neutral laws, even if their enforcement impacted religious practices. It remains an essential part of the ongoing discussions on the meaning of religious freedom and its implications in American society.


The Supreme Court case of Employment Division v. Smith was one that proved to be complex in its nature, for it had various concepts that had to be addressed in order to render a decision. Once again, the Supreme Court would be dealing with the application of First Amendment rights.

In the Employment Division v. Smith, the specific matter at hand was whether or not an employer could deny unemployment benefits to a person that was fired for the use of a controlled substance (See Also: Controlled Substances) for religious reasons.

Furthermore, the Court had to determine if such practice could be found to be in direct violation of First Amendment rights. The Employment Division v. Smith case specifically dealt with employees that were members of the Native American Church, which normally practices the ingesting of peyote as a religious ceremony.

These employees were fired on the basis of being found in possession of peyote, which is considered a criminal offense in the State of Oregon. The grounds of possession was the main reason that these employees were denied unemployment benefits, which would cause the matter to be brought to the courts. The State courts of Oregon would eventually reverse the prohibition of unemployment benefits on the basis that the use of peyote was protected under the First Amendment’s freedom of religion. The State would appeal to the United States Supreme Court, still holding the argument that such denial was proper due to the possession and use of peyote being a crime.

The Supreme Court, upon examining the case, would return the matter back to Oregon courts. The reasoning was that the State would have to conclude on its own accord if the use of illegal drugs for religious reasons would be in violation of the State’s own drug statutes. Oregon State would find that even though the consumption of illegal drugs for religious reasons was considered illegal, such ruling would also violate the First Amendment.

However, the a key factor behind the Oregon law was that it was not implemented with the purpose of singling out the Native American practice of ingesting peyote for religious purposes, but rather it applied to all residents of the State. On this basis, the Supreme Court, with Chief Justice William Rehnquist presiding, would rule in favor of the State and not of Smith. It would be the first time that the Supreme Court would rule against a person citing freedom of religion violations in United States history.

The main reasoning behind the decision of the Supreme Court was that it was concluded that Smith and the other employees were using their religious beliefs and First Amendment rights as a way to circumvent applicable laws regarding the use of illicit drugs or controlled substances. Furthermore, the Court also stated that such a breach of the freedom of religion was not caused as a direct effect of law, but rather a circumstantial happenstance. These laws were also not directed to prohibit the free exercise of religion to any particular religious sect, but rather intended to apply to the general public.

For this the reason, the Supreme Court decided that no First Amendment violation had occurred. To further support the decision, the Supreme Court also cited that the exemption to permit the religious use of a drug, peyote in this particular case, is Constitutionally-permissible, but not Constitutionally-required. Even though this would prove to be the first time in which the freedom of religion clause was not upheld by the Supreme Court, it would not undermine the Constitutional provision.

However, it did provide for a more succinct relationship between that of religion and Government. Even though in this particular case, it may be deemed that the Government interfered with religious practice, it did so in a sense that was inadvertent and as a contingency to an issue over which the Government does have control, the use of illegal drugs.

Major Decisions-Gibbons v. Ogden

Major Decisions-Gibbons v. Ogden

Prior to the United States Supreme Case of Gibbons v. Ogden, all commerce that was between the states was regulated by the states themselves. However, the case levied against Thomas Gibbons by Aaron Ogden would shape the way interstate commerce would ultimately change.

Gibbons sued Ogden on the basis that the State of New York granted a license for the operation of a steamboat to carry passengers from the State of New Jersey to the ports of New York City. Ogden argued that he had the sole monopoly over that specific waterway route and Gibbons was infringing upon a State-issued mandate or permission. However, Gibbons was issued a license for the same route by the Federal Government, specifically by the United States Congress (See Also: Article I).

Ogden would employ the argument that states controlled the laws regarding interstate matters. Furthermore, it was also argued that the State powers regarding interstate trade and commerce were on the same plane as those of Congress and should be equally upheld. The New York Courts would rule in favor of Ogden, restricting Gibbons’ use of the same route and maintaining Ogden’s monopoly.

Gibbons v. Ogden would eventually appeal the State’s decision and the matter would reach the Supreme Court. Presiding over the matter was Chief Justice John Marshall, now famously known for being a key component in shaping the application and interpretation of the Constitution and other important Supreme Court cases.

The main issue at hand that would be considered by Marshall was Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, known as the Commerce Clause. The Commerce The clause stated that Congress would have the power “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” Marshall would interpret the Commerce Clause on a broader scope, in which navigation would be included under the umbrella of the term “Congress” as used in the text. Furthermore, the Supreme Court would also reach the conclusion Congress’ power over State commerce should incorporate all aspects of the practice and such power would, therefore, also include regulation of interstate commerce and trade.

Marshall would eventually deem that the monopoly of the route established by the State of New York and Ogden was unconstitutional, for it interfered with the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce. The Supreme Court overturned New York’s decision and ruled in favor of Gibbons. Through Gibbons v. Ogden, the United States Supreme Court helped re-establish Congress’ power over interstate commerce and reinforce the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. Furthermore, it also helped re-affirm the central Government’s power in the United States’ Federal structure.

The decision affirmed that even though both states and the Federal Government have delegated and specific powers enumerated in the United States Constitution, it is the Federal power of the Government, in which Congress is supreme, that questions of jurisdiction of interstate commerce have prevalence.

The only time that State legislation would have any impact over interstate commerce would be in situations where concurrent jurisdiction would apply, such as for taxation purposes (See Also: However, there would be a period in time in which the Commerce Clause would be restricted due to another case, United States v. E.C. Knight Co., where congressional power would be limited. This period would last from 1895 until the 1930s, in which the Supreme Court would reinstate the original application of the Commerce Clause, as established in Gibbons v. Ogden.).

Major Decisions-Marbury v. Madison

Major Decisions-Marbury v. Madison

Marbury v. Madison is one of the most significant court cases in United States history. Its significance can be evaluated on different levels, however, the most
important is the fact that the case would grant the Supreme Court and the rest
of the Judicial branch extended powers not written into law by the Constitution.

Furthermore, it would be the first time that the Supreme Court would declare something as “unconstitutional”, setting precedence over the responsibility and power of the Judicial Branch in times to come. Marbury v. Madison was the result of William Marbury petitioning the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus in regards to his newly appointed position as Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia. A writ of mandamus, in simple terms, is simply a petition to the courts that a specific action be taken or barred.

James Madison, the Secretary of State at the time, refused to deliver certainly documents to Marbury that would establish his new office on the contingency that such documents were not delivered during the Presidency of John Adams, whose term had expired. The matter was brought to the Supreme Court, with Marbury basing his claims on the Judiciary Act of 1789. John Marshall, the Chief Justice, upon examination of the Act and the Constitution, would encounter several factors that proved problematic. Marbury’s main argument was based on the Judiciary Act of 1789, which would grant the Supreme
Court jurisdiction over writs of mandamus by the powers of Congress (See Also: Article I).

Marshall was faced with certain issues regarding the Constitution and the powers delegated to both Congress and the Supreme Court. Marshall and the Supreme Court
would have to address whether Article IIIof the Constitution sanctioned for Congress to modify original jurisdiction and if it had to power to do so. Furthermore, the original jurisdiction as defined in Article III provides for any written provisions regarding such practice, and if Congress modifies those Constitutional provisions, it becomes an issue of determining which of the two is to have more power. In the process, Marshall would be establishing the practice that is now known as judicial review.

Judicial review is one of the most important outcomes of this case because it would become the ability of the judicial branch to review practices of both the Legislative and Executive branches and declare laws unconstitutional. Judicial review is the power of the
courts to review laws or administrative practices and determine if they are within the confines allowed by the United States Constitution. Judicial review was established when Marshall used provisions in the Constitution that would lead him to state that the Congress did not have the power to modify the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction.

The Judiciary Act and the Constitution would prove to be conflicting legislation. Marshall would also determine that any Congressional act that is in conflict with the Constitution could not be deemed as law. Because the Constitution is deemed as the supreme law in the United States, the Courts must follow it precisely as their main function in the Judicial Branch. Therefore, by establishing judicial review, the Court would be able to decide how and when laws of the United States and Constitutional law applied to a particular matter, and that the Supreme Court should uphold the Constitution in higher regard. If laws conflict with the Constitution, then through judicial review, the Supreme Court must deem them as unconstitutional.

Ultimately, Marshall would declare that the Judiciary Act of 1789 that was passed by
Congress was unconstitutional and would, therefore, be rendered invalid. In the case of Marbury v. Madison, Marbury would lose the litigation and never take the position of Justice of Peace that was originally appointed to him. Marbury v. Madison would become one of the most important Supreme Court cases in United States history, for it established the precedent of judicial review, thus granting the Judicial Branch certain powers over the Legislative and Executive branches. Judicial review would essentially employ the system of checks and balances, thus ensuring the democratic process and structure of the United States Government.

Dred Scott v. Sandford

Dred Scott v. Sandford

Dred Scott v. Sandford was one of the most significant United States Supreme Court cases and had long-lasting consequences for American society. The case saw a slave named Dred Scott challenging his legal status as property and sparked enormous debates about the powers of the federal government and the role of the courts in American life.

Dred Scott was born into slavery in Virginia in the late 1700s but was taken to Missouri, a free territory, by his owner. Eventually, Scott sued for his freedom, arguing that his residence in a free state made him legally free. However, the case became much more complex as it wound its way up through the courts.

In 1857, the case finally reached the Supreme Court. The court was tasked with deciding on two key issues: whether Scott was legally considered a citizen of Missouri and whether his residence in a free state entitled him to freedom.

The court’s ruling was stunning. The Court held that Scott was not a citizen, primarily because the founding fathers viewed blacks as inferior and not intended to be American citizens. The Court also held that Scott’s time in a free state did not entitle him to his freedom as he technically remained the property of his owner, who had a legal right to own and dispose of his slaves as he wished.

The ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford effectively denied any hope of freedom for American slaves, deferring to the property rights of slaveholders over the basic rights of individuals. It also set the stage for the Civil War as abolitionists and their supporters viewed the ruling as a grave injustice.

The decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford was disastrous for the country and the Supreme Court’s reputation. The ruling put the court squarely in the spotlight as a political institution, fueling the heated debate over slavery and stoking tensions between the North and South. The decision further entrenched the notion that the Constitution was a pro-slavery document, and it helped propel the country toward the Civil War.

In conclusion, Dred Scott v. Sandford was a watershed Supreme Court decision that remains a touchstone of American history. It demonstrated the power of the Court to shape the nation’s identity and the deep-seated tensions that can arise when the Court’s judgments run counter to the broader social and political trends. Furthermore, it showcased how political conflict can become extraordinarily divisive and how even the most solemn of institutions can become embroiled in it.


The Dred Scott case was an important Supreme Court decision written by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney that has several key elements. First, the Dred Scott decision ruled that slaves and their descendants (even those not born into slavery) were not part of the population protected under the United States Constitution.

This court case held that the Federal Government was not able to abolish slavery in the territories and, consequently, slaves could not be removed from the possession of their owners without due process of the law.

Finally, it held that slaves were unable to become citizens of the The United States and, therefore, unable to file suit in a court of law. Dred Scott was a slave who was owned by John Emerson, a major in the United States Army. Throughout Emerson’s ownership of Scott, he was stationed at several places in the U.S., including the territory of Wisconsin and the State of Illinois. Both of these states were considered free states. During this time, Emerson allowed Scott to marry and experience other freedoms that were not generally allowed for slaves.

In 1837, Emerson was assigned to a military base in St. Louis, Missouri, at which point he left Scott and his wife in the Wisconsin Territory. Soon after, Emerson was transferred to Louisiana where he sent for Scott and his wife. After John Emerson’s death, Dred Scott attempted to purchase his freedom from Emerson’s wife but was unsuccessful. This prompted him to sue Emerson. Scott won his freedom temporarily, but on appeal, the decision was reversed.

In 1853, Scott once again sued for his freedom, this time in Federal court. This is referred to as the Scott v. Sandford case because Emerson’s brother, John Sandford, took over responsibility for the case. When the Missouri Supreme Court once again ruled that Scott was a slave, he appealed this decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Although the Supreme Court ruled that Missouri did not have the jurisdiction to make a ruling on the Scott v. Sandford matter, the Court continued on to make several decisions. One issue in the Dred Scott decision was that the Missouri Compromise had made Minnesota a free State and Scott had resided there for some time. The Supreme Court held that Congress did not have the power to declare territories to be free.

The Dred Scott’s decision had a great impact on the economy in the North. The Panic of 1857 ensued because of the uncertainty of the consequences that this court case would have on the existence of slavery in the territories. The railroads that were running east-west through the territories, as well as the banks that financed them, began to collapse.

The Dred Scott case did not have the same influence in the South where the cotton crops continued to thrive because of their use of slave labor. In 1854, the Kansas-Nebraska Act was passed which repealed the Missouri Compromise and allowed territories to determine whether they would be a slave state or a free State. This was seen as an effort by the Supreme Court to greatly expand the use of slavery. Most Southerners believed that, regardless of whether a territory was considered a slave or free State, they should be permitted to freely bring their slaves in and out of the territory.

The Dred Scott decision had many impacts on the issue of slavery. At the same time it weakened the political power of the North, it strengthened their beliefs that slavery should be abolished. Many Northerners reacted to the Dred Scott decision by speaking out against slavery. Even Northerners who reluctantly accepted slavery, as long as it was kept within the boundaries of the South, feared that the Dred Scott decision would expand
the use of slavery into all the territories. As a reaction to the North’s opposition, the South continually made threats to secede. Many Northern opponents to slavery argued that the Dred Scott decision was invalid.

The main finding of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott the case was that the Missouri Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction to rule on Scott’s freedom because Scott was not a citizen of Missouri. All subsequent rulings, claimed slavery opponents, were unnecessary and invalid because they were not relevant to the case. Basically, Southerners believed the Dred Scott case reinforced their right to own slaves, while Northerners saw the decision as an effort to spread slavery throughout the nation. Dred Scott eventually did receive his freedom. He purchased his emancipation from a man named Peter Blow, who was Scott’s first slave owner, in 1857.