logo

Supreme Court Briefs

Thumbnail
Did the United States Give Away Half of Oklahoma? | McGirt v. Oklahoma
80K views • about 1 year ago
Well, kind of. In episode 76 of Supreme Court Briefs, a pedophile and a murderer unwittingly cause Native Americans to gain more rights. Produced by Matt Beat and Beat Productions, LLC. All images/video by Matt Beat, found in the public domain, or used under fair use guidelines. Music by @GunnarOlsenMusic. Mr. Beat's Supreme Court Briefs playlist: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLHtE7NbaKRef-x3QBDpwvJsr6i1Z3I6TN Creative commons credits: DOUNIA PRODUCTIONS, Christiane Kokubo, geoff dude Here's an annotated script with footnotes: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Y2m7oyecLSVB83MwcegQYImeMkSNaJ_FkmUuVUL4vFk/edit?usp=sharing Check out cool primary sources here: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2019/18-9526 Other sources used/referenced: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/18-9526 https://www.enidnews.com/oklahoma/news/new-mcgirt-challenge-making-its-way-through-courts/article_87a47eb2-51a6-5c25-8cbc-121bc25605eb.html https://2017-2021.state.gov/briefings-foreign-press-centers/understanding-america-native-american-rights-and-the-mcgirt-vs-oklahoma-supreme-court-decision/ https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-134/mcgirt-v-oklahoma/ https://www.bu.edu/bulawreview/files/2022/01/MILLER-DOLAN.pdf https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UH3B5MLCEU Join this channel to get access to perks: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmYesELO6axBrCuSpf7S9DQ/join For business inquiries or to send snail mail to Mr. Beat: https://www.iammrbeat.com/contact.html https://www.youtube.com/c/iammrbeat/about How to support and donate to my channel: Subscribe to @iammrbeat & hit the notification bell 🔔 Join for great perks on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/iammrbeat Donate to Mr. Beat on Paypal: https://www.paypal.me/mrbeat Buy Mr. Beat a coffee: https://ko-fi.com/iammrbeat Cameo: https://www.cameo.com/iammrbeat Subscribe to my second channel: The Beat Goes On Patreon for The Beat Goes On: https://www.patreon.com/thebeatgoeson Connect with me: Links: https://linktr.ee/iammrbeat Website: https://www.iammrbeat.com/ Podcast: https://anchor.fm/thebeatpod Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/mrbeat/ @beatmastermatt on Twitter: https://twitter.com/beatmastermatt Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/iammrbeat/ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/iammrbeat Beatcord: https://discord.gg/g8cZPjt TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@iammrbeat Merch: https://matt-beat-shop.fourthwall.com/ https://www.bonfire.com/store/mr-beat/ https://sfsf.shop/support-mrbeat/ https://amzn.to/3fdakiZ Affiliate Links: Useful Charts: https://usefulcharts.com/?aff=12 Fourthwall: https://link.fourthwall.com/MrBeat StreamYard: https://streamyard.com/pal/d/5272340869152768 #supremecourtcases #supremecourtbriefs #supremecourt McGirt v. Oklahoma was a huge win for Native American rights. Ever since, every Native American tribal citizen who had been convicted under state law for crimes committed on reservation lands could now seek a new trial in federal courts. Well, in Oklahoma, at least…for now. At the time of the McGirt decision, this applied to around 1,900 Oklahoma prisoners alone. More broadly speaking, the McGirt decision made it clear that around half of Oklahoma was NATIVE AMERICAN land, not Oklahoma land. This includes the state’s second-largest city, Tulsa. That’s a big freaking deal, folks. Now, the McGirt decision was later somewhat weakened by the Supreme Court case Castro-Huerta v. Oklahoma of 2022. In that decision, the Court said non-tribal members could still be prosecuted for crimes in state and federal courts. Regardless, McGirt v. Oklahoma gave tribal sovereignty a huge boost.
Thumbnail
The Gay Wedding Cake Case | Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission
102K views • over 1 year ago
In episode 75 of Supreme Court Briefs, a baker refuses to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, which leads to a big national debate between religious freedom and civil rights. Produced by Matt Beat and Beat Productions, LLC. All images/video by Matt Beat, found in the public domain, or used under fair use guidelines. Music by @Dyalla. Mr. Beat's Supreme Court Briefs playlist: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLHtE7NbaKRef-x3QBDpwvJsr6i1Z3I6TN Here's an annotated script with footnotes: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Bkk-ld6Gs3IgZb5iPmExTzURHZi-o3CNVyKFTgCtEp8/edit?usp=sharing Check out cool primary sources here: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2017/16-111 Other sources used: https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/masterpiece-cakeshop-ltd-v-colorado-civil-rights-commn/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission https://www.aclu.org/cases/masterpiece-cakeshop-v-colorado-civil-rights-commission https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/06/the-court-slices-a-narrow-ruling-out-of-masterpiece-cakeshop/561986/ https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/arlenes-flowers-masterpiece-cakeshop/ Join this channel to get access to perks: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmYesELO6axBrCuSpf7S9DQ/join For business inquiries or to send snail mail to Mr. Beat: https://www.iammrbeat.com/contact.html https://www.youtube.com/c/iammrbeat/about How to support and donate to my channel: Subscribe to @iammrbeat & hit the notification bell 🔔 Join for great perks on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/iammrbeat Donate to Mr. Beat on Paypal: https://www.paypal.me/mrbeat Buy Mr. Beat a coffee: https://ko-fi.com/iammrbeat Cameo: https://www.cameo.com/iammrbeat Subscribe to my second channel: The Beat Goes On Patreon for The Beat Goes On: https://www.patreon.com/thebeatgoeson Connect with me: Links: https://linktr.ee/iammrbeat Website: https://www.iammrbeat.com/ Podcast: https://anchor.fm/thebeatpod Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/mrbeat/ @beatmastermatt on Twitter: https://twitter.com/beatmastermatt Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/iammrbeat/ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/iammrbeat Beatcord: https://discord.gg/g8cZPjt TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@iammrbeat Merch: https://matt-beat-shop.fourthwall.com/ https://www.bonfire.com/store/mr-beat/ https://sfsf.shop/support-mrbeat/ https://amzn.to/3fdakiZ Affiliate Links: Useful Charts: https://usefulcharts.com/?aff=12 Fourthwall: https://link.fourthwall.com/MrBeat StreamYard: https://streamyard.com/pal/d/5272340869152768 #supremecourtcases #supremecourtbriefs #supremecourt Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission highlighted the tensions between religious freedom and anti-discrimination laws. More accurately, it highlighted the tensions between Christians and the LGBTQ+ community. Despite all the progress the LGBTQ+ community has made in recent decades, it’s a community that millions of Americans still refuse to accept. While Charlie Craig and David Mullins never liked the spotlight and have kept a low profile ever since this decision, Jack Phillips has become somewhat of an activist. He later got in trouble for breaking the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act again for refusing to bake a cake for a transgender person. On January 26, 2023, Phillips lost that case in the Colorado Court of Appeals. While the Court said that gay couples still should have civil rights protections under the laws and the Constitution, religious and even philosophical objections to same-sex marriage are protected forms of “expression.” That said, this decision was narrow. The Court did not address the broader question of whether or not businesses had a constitutional right to discriminate against same-sex couples. Still, critics said this decision could lead to further discrimination against marginalized groups under the guise of religious freedom.
Thumbnail
When Can Speech Be Banned? | Schenck v. United States
111K views • over 2 years ago
I wrote a new book all about the Supreme Court. Order your copy here: http://amzn.to/45Wzhur In episode 68 of Supreme Court Briefs, a Socialist Party leader distributes thousands of pamphlets encouraging young men to resist getting drafted to fight in World War One, but apparently that's illegal for real. Produced by Matt Beat. All images/video by Matt Beat, found in the public domain, or used under fair use guidelines. Music by @badsnacks. Mr. Beat's Supreme Court Briefs playlist: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLHtE7NbaKRef-x3QBDpwvJsr6i1Z3I6TN Check out cool primary sources here: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/249us47 Other sources used: https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/193/schenck-v-united-states https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/249/47 http://landmarkcases.c-span.org/Case/5/Schenck-v-United-StatesTom http://www.trinityhistory.org/AH/pdfs/Schenck%20Case.pdf https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/2019/11/27/women-defendants-contributed-mightily-to-first-amendment-jurisprudence/ #supremecourtbriefs #supremecourt #apgovt For business inquiries or to send snail mail to Mr. Beat: https://www.iammrbeat.com/contact.html https://www.youtube.com/c/iammrbeat/about Buy Mr. Beat merch: https://www.iammrbeat.com/merch.html Buy Mr. Beat's book: https://amzn.to/386g7cz How to support Mr. Beat: Donate to Mr. Beat for great perks on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/iammrbeat Donate to Mr. Beat on Paypal: https://www.paypal.me/mrbeat Buy Mr. Beat a coffee: https://ko-fi.com/iammrbeat “Free” ways to show support: Subscribe to my channel Turn on notifications Like, share, and comment on my videos Connect: Mr. Beat on Cameo, yo: https://www.cameo.com/iammrbeat?qid=1... Mr. Beat on Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/mrbeat/ Mr. Beat on Twitter: https://twitter.com/beatmastermatt Mr. Beat on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/iammrbeat/ Mr. Beat on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/iammrbeat Mr. Beat's Discord server: https://discord.gg/g8cZPjt Mr. Beat's TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@iammrbeat?lan... Mr. Beat’s website: https://www.iammrbeat.com/ Mr. Beat's band: http://electricneedleroom.net/ Mr. Beat’s second channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJYl... Listen on Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/artist/62BsM... Mr. Beat favorites: POP! Icons: George Washington https://go.magik.ly/ml/11jrb/ Shampoo: https://rb.gy/vlqeym Acne fighter: https://rb.gy/a6dnb0 Wallet: https://shop.ekster.com/mr-beat2 Recommended books: Republic, Lost by Lawrence Lessing https://go.magik.ly/ml/11jul/ Truman by David McCullough https://go.magik.ly/ml/11jwc/ How the States Got Their Shapes by Mark Stein https://go.magik.ly/ml/1fdvf/ Command and Control by Eric Scholosser https://go.magik.ly/ml/1fdvi/ The Age of Fracture by Daniel Rodgers https://go.magik.ly/ml/1fdvn/ Blowback by Chalmers Johnson https://go.magik.ly/ml/1fdvw/ The Third Reich at War by Richard Evans https://go.magik.ly/ml/1fdvt/ Railroaded by Richard White https://go.magik.ly/ml/1fdwq/ The War on Normal People by Andrew Yang https://go.magik.ly/ml/1fdwi/ A Short History of Reconstruction by Eric Foner https://go.magik.ly/ml/1fdwk/ The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt https://go.magik.ly/ml/1fdwn/ Studio equipment: Canon EOS M50 Camera EF-M 15-45mm Lens https://amzn.to/3dcNPen Samtian LED Video Light Kit https://amzn.to/3llDwHO TroyStudio Acoustic Panel https://amzn.to/33CkqHn Blue Snowball iCE USB Mic https://amzn.to/2GseOHa Affiliate Links: Useful Charts: https://usefulcharts.com/?aff=12 Typesy: https://ereflect.postaffiliatepro.com... Kids Connect: https://kidskonnect.com/?ref=iammrbeat Ekster: https://ekster.com?sca_ref=444709.jvl... I use MagicLinks for all my ready-to-shop product links. Check it out here: https://www.magiclinks.com/rewards/re... FTC Disclosure: This post or video contains affiliate links, which means I may receive a commission for purchases made through my links. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1917 Charles Schenck, the general secretary of the Socialist Party, prints and mails more than 15,000 copies of pamphlets to men drafted into the military to fight in World War One. Drafted meaning that, under the Selective Service Act, they HAD to enlist, whether they wanted to or not. So what did these pamphlets say? Well basically, resist the draft. The pamphlet said the draft was basically no different than slavery, which of course goes against the Thirteenth Amendment, ya know. It’s worth noting that Schenck, and generally the entire Socialist Party, was STRONGLY against the war, claiming it was only being fought to benefit Wall Street investors who would make money from selling stuff to the military. As it turns out, by distributing these pamphlets, Schenck was breaking the Espionage Act.
Thumbnail
Did His Travel Ban Target Muslims? | Trump v. Hawaii
190K views • over 2 years ago
I wrote a new book all about the Supreme Court. Order your copy here: http://amzn.to/45Wzhur In episode 65 of Supreme Court Briefs, the President of the United States, Donald Trump, tries to ban immigrants from certain countries, and it doesn't go so well. Produced by Matt Beat. All images/video by Matt Beat, found in the public domain, or used under fair use guidelines. Mr. Beat's Supreme Court Briefs playlist: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLHtE7NbaKRef-x3QBDpwvJsr6i1Z3I6TN Check out cool primary sources here: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2017/17-965 Additional sources/further reading/watching: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/17-965 https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/trump-v-hawaii-3/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13769 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13780 https://www.c-span.org/video/?441663-1/supreme-court-upholds-trump-administration-travel-ban-5-4 https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/17-965_h315.pdf https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJYTj-VI_L8 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._Hawaii https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/20/proclamation-ending-discriminatory-bans-on-entry-to-the-united-states/ https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/hawaii-v-trump/ https://i.insider.com/5c1bc7bc0df1762b4701acd4?width=600&format=jpeg&auto=webp https://ballotpedia.org/Trump_v._Hawaii For business inquiries or to send snail mail to Mr. Beat: https://www.iammrbeat.com/contact.html https://www.youtube.com/c/iammrbeat/about Buy Mr. Beat merch: https://matt-beat-shop.fourthwall.com/ https://www.bonfire.com/store/mr-beat/ https://sfsf.shop/support-mrbeat/ Buy Mr. Beat's book: https://www.amazon.com/presents-Ultimate-American-Presidential-Election/dp/B08W7DWJYY/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1PT59MBW4VPPR&keywords=mr.+beat&qid=1649950136&sprefix=mr.+beat%2Caps%2C121&sr=8-1 How to support Mr. Beat: Donate to Mr. Beat for great perks on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/iammrbeat Donate to Mr. Beat on Paypal: https://www.paypal.me/mrbeat Buy Mr. Beat a coffee: https://ko-fi.com/iammrbeat “Free” ways to show support: Subscribe to my channel Turn on notifications Like, share, and comment on my videos Connect: Mr. Beat on Cameo, yo: https://www.cameo.com/iammrbeat?qid=1... Mr. Beat on Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/mrbeat/ Mr. Beat on Twitter: https://twitter.com/beatmastermatt Mr. Beat on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/iammrbeat/ Mr. Beat on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/iammrbeat Mr. Beat's Discord server: https://discord.gg/g8cZPjt Mr. Beat's TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@iammrbeat?lan... Mr. Beat’s website: https://www.iammrbeat.com/ Mr. Beat's band: http://electricneedleroom.net/ Mr. Beat’s second channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJYl... Listen on Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/artist/62BsM... Mr. Beat favorites: POP! Icons: George Washington https://go.magik.ly/ml/11jrb/ Shampoo: https://rb.gy/vlqeym Acne fighter: https://rb.gy/a6dnb0 Recommended books: Republic, Lost by Lawrence Lessing https://go.magik.ly/ml/11jul/ Truman by David McCullough https://go.magik.ly/ml/11jwc/ The Ultimate American Presidential Election Book: Every Presidential Election in American History (1788-2016) by Matt Beat https://amzn.to/3fdakiZ How the States Got Their Shapes by Mark Stein https://go.magik.ly/ml/1fdvf/ Command and Control by Eric Scholosser https://go.magik.ly/ml/1fdvi/ The Age of Fracture by Daniel Rodgers https://go.magik.ly/ml/1fdvn/ Blowback by Chalmers Johnson https://go.magik.ly/ml/1fdvw/ The Third Reich at War by Richard Evans https://go.magik.ly/ml/1fdvt/ Railroaded by Richard White https://go.magik.ly/ml/1fdwq/ The War on Normal People by Andrew Yang https://go.magik.ly/ml/1fdwi/ A Short History of Reconstruction by Eric Foner https://go.magik.ly/ml/1fdwk/ The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt https://go.magik.ly/ml/1fdwn/ Studio equipment: Canon EOS M50 Camera EF-M 15-45mm Lens https://amzn.to/3dcNPen Samtian LED Video Light Kit https://amzn.to/3llDwHO TroyStudio Acoustic Panel https://amzn.to/33CkqHn Blue Snowball iCE USB Mic https://amzn.to/2GseOHa Affiliate Links: Useful Charts: https://usefulcharts.com/?aff=12 Typesy: https://ereflect.postaffiliatepro.com... Kids Connect: https://kidskonnect.com/?ref=iammrbeat Ekster: https://ekster.com?sca_ref=444709.jvl... I use MagicLinks for all my ready-to-shop product links. Check it out here: https://www.magiclinks.com/rewards/re... FTC Disclosure: This post or video contains affiliate links, which means I may receive a commission for purchases made through my links. Trump v. Hawaii strengthened the president’s authority over immigration and national security matters. Still, the decision remained controversial, as many folks just saw it as a sneaky way for Trump to prevent Muslims from entering the country. #supremecourtbriefs #apgov #scotus
Thumbnail
When Does Speech Incite Violence? | Brandenburg v. Ohio
182K views • over 7 years ago
I wrote a new book all about the Supreme Court. Order your copy here: http://amzn.to/45Wzhur Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/iammrbeat Mr. Beat's band: http://electricneedleroom.us Mr. Beat on Twitter: https://twitter.com/beatmastermatt In episode 17 of Supreme Court Briefs, a KKK leader gets his hate rally on TV, and then promptly gets arrested. Wait a second, what about freedom of speech? Produced by Matt Beat. Music by Matt Beat (Electric Needle Room). All images found in public domain or used under fair use guidelines. Check out cool primary sources here: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1968/492 Other sources used: http://www.acluohio.org/archives/cases/brandenburg-v-ohio https://archive.org/stream/bub_gb_gesCAAAAMBAJ/bub_gb_gesCAAAAMBAJ_djvu.txt http://www.huffingtonpost.com/clay-calvert/slender-man-meets-the-fir_b_5470902.html We Must Not Be Afraid to Be Free: Stories of Free Expression in America By Ronald K.L. Collins, Sam Chaltain https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/brandenburg-v-ohio/ Clarence Brandenburg leads a Ku Klux Klan rally. He invites a Cincinnati TV station out to cover the event. They agree, and film portions of the rally, showing men in robes and hoods, some carrying guns, and others shouting horrible ethnic slurs. They also film them burning of a cross. Brandenburg concluded the rally with a speech, and portions of it ended up airing on TV. In that speech, Brandenburg said “If our President, our Congress, our Supreme Court continues to suppress the white, Caucasian race, it’s possible that there might have to be some revengeance taken.” Ok, so I don’t know what that word, “revengeance” means. I Googled it, and Urban Dictionary told me it’s “the act of gaining revenge at a rate of at least 2.54 times greater to that of standard revenge.” So yeah, that doesn’t seem too nice. It seems rather threatening, actually. After the TV station aired the KKK rally, local authorities arrested Brandenburg for leading the rally and arranging it to be on the news. They charged him with breaking the Ohio Criminal Syndicalism Act, a law that prohibited promoting violence as a means for social or political change. A local court convicted Brandenburg, fined him $1,000, and sentenced him to one to ten years in prison. Brandenburg argued that his actions were protected under both the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment. Even though he hated the ACLU, he asked them for help after he ran out of money to pay for legal counsel. In early 1968, Brandenburg appealed to the Ohio First District Court of Appeal, which agreed with the lower court. So then he appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court, who dismissed his appeal without even giving an opinion. To the courts in Ohio, it was clear that this speech was not protected under the First Amendment, and they used the Supreme Court case Dennis v. United States to back this up. However, Brandenburg and the ACLU wasn’t done yet. They appealed to the Supreme Court, and the Court heard arguments on February 27, 1969. Brandenburg’s lawyer, Allen Brown, convinced Brandenburg to stay home. Probably for the best. Brown received several threats over the phone for representing a KKK leader. Some even accused him of agreeing with KKK positions. But Brown later said he was just defending free speech. The Court announced its decision on June 8, 1969, siding unanimously with Brandenburg, and reversing the decisions of the lower courts. Not one judge authored the decision, showing how unified the Court was with it. They argued the Ohio Criminal Syndicalism Act went against Brandenburg’s right to free speech. The Court presented what’s known as the Brandenburg test, also more boringly known as the imminent lawless action test. This ended up strengthening the Clear and Present Danger doctrine adopted by the Court and written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in Schenck v. United States.It also overruled the “bad tendency” test set later by Whitney v. California. The Brandenburg test had two parts. 1) speech can be banned if it is “directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action.” and, most importantly, 2) it is “likely to incite or produce action.” Because Brandenburg’s rally and speech was more vague and didn’t make it seem likely that the KKK was going to actually carry out a revolt against the government, blacks, and Jews, it passed the Brandenburg test. Their speech was protected by the First Amendment. Brandenburg v. Ohio further protected speech, even speech that was extremely offensive and unpopular. It provided an answer to the debate between those who wanted more government control of speech to keep people safe and those who wanted speech to be as free as possible. The Brandenburg test continues to be the standard when Americans want to punish speech that is meant to get people angry to a point where they violent.
Thumbnail
Bong Hits 4 Jesus? | Morse v. Frederick
209K views • almost 8 years ago
I wrote a new book all about the Supreme Court. Order your copy here: http://amzn.to/45Wzhur Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/iammrbeat Mr. Beat's band: http://electricneedleroom.us Mr. Beat on Twitter: https://twitter.com/beatmastermatt Mr. Beat's Merch: https://www.iammrbeat.com/merch.html In the fourth episode of Supreme Court Briefs, Mr. Beat goes back to 2002 to look at darn high schoolers causing mischief with a banner about marijuana. Is it their First Amendment right or are they disrupting school? Joseph Frederick, a student at Juneau-Douglas High School, excitedly waited with his friends for the Olympic Torch relay runner, who would be coming by at any moment. Despite the cold, the school had decided to have a small field trip to let its students see the Olympic relay pass through on its way to the games down in Salt Lake City. Frederick and the other students gathered across the street from the school. They were surrounded by the media, also there to capture the moment on film. As the Olympic relay approached, Joseph and his friends revealed a 14-foot banner that read “Bong Hits 4 Jesus.” The media captured the whole thing on film. As soon as she noticed it, the principal, Deborah Morse, immediately came over and told the students to take it down. After Joseph refused, she snatched the banner away and later suspended Joseph for ten days. Morse cited the school’s anti-drug policy, as the banner clearly referenced marijuana. Joseph later recalled that the original suspension was five days, but Morse doubled it after he quoted Thomas Jefferson concerning free speech. He also argued the banner was never about promoting drug use. He just wanted to attract the attention of the media. Well, I’d say he succeeded. Helped by the American Civil Liberties Union, Joseph Frederick sued the principal and the Juneau school district, arguing that he was denied freedom of speech as protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution. He also wanted to clear his name and sought monetary awards for the trouble of going through the process. The United States District Court for the District of Alaska dismissed Joseph’s case, based on the legal precedent set by the Supreme Court in Bethel School District v. Fraser. In that case, the Court ruled that vulgar or offensive speech could be banned in schools. However, the Ninth Circuit Court reversed the decision of the District Court. They unanimously argued that Joseph and his friends absolutely had the right to hold the banner, if it was actually on school grounds, not across the street from school grounds. They claimed the Fraser case didn’t apply here. They said Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, a Supreme Court case that protected student political speech, applied here instead. They went on to argue that what Joseph did wasn’t as offensive and more political in nature than the vulgar speech seen in the Fraser case. It also didn’t cause a disturbance at the school. Eventually, the case would up going to the Supreme Court anyway. They heard oral arguments on March 19, 2007. Ken Starr, the famous lawyer who heavily investigated the Clinton administration during the 1990s, spoke on behalf of the school district. He said, “To promote drugs is utterly inconsistent with the educational mission of the school. The court has spoken more broadly with respect to the need to defer to school officials in identifying the educational mission.” Joseph Frederick’s lawyer, Douglas Mertz, argued that the case was about free speech, and he emphasized that the torch relay was not school sponsored, nor was the banner on school property. In fact, Joseph had apparently not been to school the entire day. Regardless, the Court apparently viewed the event as a school event. It ruled 5-4 in the school board’s favor, arguing that the First Amendment does not prevent schools from limiting speech at a school event, especially when it promoted the use of illegal drugs. Chief Justice John Roberts classified the banner as “school speech,” which protects student speech due to the First Amendment. However, it also protected the school’s right to limit student speech if it is disruptive. He cited Bethel School District v. Fraser and another Supreme Court case, Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, to back up this legal precedent. In other words, this wasn’t about protecting political protest, this was about protecting students from the dangers of drug abuse. Justice Clarence Thomas not only agreed, but added that student speech should be limited further, arguing that the Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District case should be overturned. Morse v. Frederick further restricted student speech, but it didn’t solve the debate. Many still demand more protection of school speech.
Thumbnail
Is the Death Penalty Illegal?!? | Gregg v. Georgia
134K views • over 3 years ago
I wrote a new book all about the Supreme Court. Order your copy here: http://amzn.to/45WzhurIn In episode 62 of Supreme Court Briefs, the Supreme Court determines the death penalty is unconstitutional, but then later says it actually kind of is. Produced by Matt Beat. All images/video by Matt Beat, found in the public domain, or used under fair use guidelines. Music by Quinn Parsley. Check out his stuff at https://www.youtube.com/c/QuinnParsley. #supremecourt #supremecourtbriefs #apgov Check out cool primary sources here: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1971/69-5030 https://www.oyez.org/cases/1975/74-6257 Other sources used/further reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furman_v._Georgia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregg_v._Georgia https://www.themarshallproject.org/2016/03/30/it-s-been-40-years-since-the-supreme-court-tried-to-fix-the-death-penalty-here-s-why-it-failed https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/408/238 https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/blog/on-this-day-supreme-court-temporarily-finds-death-penalty-unconstitutional https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/408/238.html https://law2.wlu.edu/deptimages/powell%20archives/69-5030_JacksonGeorgia.pdf https://law.justia.com/cases/texas/court-of-criminal-appeals/1969/43907-2-5.html https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/amendment-viii/clauses/103 https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/428/153/ http://landmarkcases.c-span.org/Case/26/Gregg-v-Georgia https://billofrightsinstitute.org/e-lessons/gregg-v-georgia-1976 http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/gregg.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troy_Leon_Gregg https://www.aclu.org/other/death-penalty-101 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_United_States Cameo, yo: https://www.cameo.com/iammrbeat?qid=1614915028 Snail mail Mr. Beat: PO Box 1982 Lawrence, KS 66044 Donate to Mr. Beat for great perks on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/iammrbeat Buy Mr. Beat's book, The Ultimate American Presidential Election Book: Every Presidential Election in American History (1788-2016) https://amzn.to/3fdakiZ Donate to Mr. Beat on Paypal: https://www.paypal.me/mrbeat Buy Mr. Beat T-shirts, coffee mugs, etc.: https://www.iammrbeat.com/merch.html Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/mrbeat/ Mr. Beat's band: http://electricneedleroom.us Mr. Beat on Twitter: https://twitter.com/beatmastermatt Mr. Beat on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/iammrbeat/ Mr. Beat on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/iammrbeat Mr. Beat's Discord server: https://discord.gg/g8cZPjt Mr. Beat's Tiktok: https://www.tiktok.com/@iammrbeat?lang=en Mr. Beat favorites: Useful Charts: https://usefulcharts.com/?aff=12 Recommended books: Republic, Lost by Lawrence Lessing https://go.magik.ly/ml/11jul/ Truman by David McCullough https://go.magik.ly/ml/11jwc/ Studio equipment: Canon EOS M50 Camera EF-M 15-45mm Lens https://amzn.to/3dcNPen Samtian LED Video Light Kit https://amzn.to/3llDwHO TroyStudio Acoustic Panel https://amzn.to/33CkqHn Blue Snowball iCE USB Mic https://amzn.to/2GseOHa I use MagicLinks for all my ready-to-shop product links. Check it out here: https://www.magiclinks.com/rewards/referral/mrbeat/ FTC Disclosure: This post or video contains affiliate links, which means I may receive a commission for purchases made through my links. Texas and Georgia The 1960s Texas sentences one man to death and Georgia sentences two men to death for crimes involving rape and murder. However, their lawyers argued that they didn’t deserve the death penalty for their crimes and appealed their cases. But, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and Supreme Court of Georgia both upheld the death sentences of all three men. That said, the three cases did catch the attention of the Supreme Court, who combined them into one to see if they went against the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution. In particular, the clause that said there shall be no “cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” Well what the heck did that really mean? The Court heard oral arguments for the cases on January 17, 1972. The big question was “Did sentencing these three men to death go against both the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments?” The Court said yes, although it was a close one. In a 5-4 decision, the Court announced on June 29, 1972 that the death penalty in the cases of these three men was indeed cruel and unusual punishment and therefore went against the Constitution.
Thumbnail
Strengthening the Second Amendment | D.C. v. Heller
178K views • almost 7 years ago
I wrote a new book all about the Supreme Court. Order your copy here: http://amzn.to/45Wzhur Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/iammrbeat Mr. Beat's band: http://electricneedleroom.net/ Mr. Beat on Twitter: https://twitter.com/beatmastermatt In episode 27 of Supreme Court Briefs, a gun ban in the District of Columbia gets challenged, and the Supreme Court seriously looks at the 2nd amendment for the first time in nearly 70 years. Check out cool primary sources here: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2007/07-290 Other sources used: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_Control_Regulations_Act_of_1975 http://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/the-second-amendment/the-supreme-court-the-second-amendment/dc-v-heller/ https://www.thetrace.org/2016/03/dick-heller-second-amendment-hero-abolish-gun-regulation/ https://www.britannica.com/event/District-of-Columbia-v-Heller https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/clarence-thomas-guns/553910/ http://reason.com/archives/2008/11/18/how-the-second-amendment-was-r https://www.huffingtonpost.com/sanford-levinson/dc-v-heller-a-dismaying-p_b_109472.html https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/gun-show/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/02/22/does-the-second-amendment-really-protect-assault-weapons-four-courts-have-said-no/?utm_term=.b4152e52fef3 Photo credits: Slowking4 Music credits: Jermaine Hysten Robert A. Levy of the libertarian think tank the Cato Institute, seeks to challenge a DC law that made it illegal to possess handguns, automatic guns, or high capacity semi-automatic guns. In fact, the law, which had been effect since 1976, said DC residents couldn’t even keep them in their own homes. Levy tries to find DC residents to sue the city, based on his argument that the gun ban went against the Second Amendment of the Constitution. Levy would fund the whole thing. He found six residents with various backgrounds who agreed to sue, among them Shelly Parker, a software designer who wanted a gun to defend herself against violent drug dealers in her neighborhood. Levy chose her to be the leading plaintiff. Also among the plaintiffs was a dude named Dick Heller. Heller was a licensed police officer who got to carry a gun for his security job guarding federal buildings, yet it was illegal for him to have a gun in his own home. Heller was passionately against the gun ban and spent years fighting it, even previously going to the National Rifle Association, or NRA, in attempt to sue the city. The NRA had declined. In district court, Levy and his plaintiffs had no success. In fact, District Court Judge Ricardo Urbina dismissed the lawsuit. However, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit reversed that dismissal, saying D.C.’s gun ban was unconstitutional. The Court argued that the Second Amendment “protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.” They also argued that right existed before the Constitution existed, and that the idea of owning a gun was that it could be used for things like hunting and self-defense. Not only self-defense from intruders to the home, but even tyrannical governments. Woah. Man, bold statements there. Oh yeah, they also said the only plaintiff who could claim damage, though, was Dick Heller, who apparently was the only one who had applied for a handgun permit but was rejected. The District of Columbia appealed to the Supreme Court, and Heller was like, “yeah, please do.” You see, the Supreme Court had kept pretty silent on The Second Amendment throughout American history. In fact, it hadn’t even considered the true meaning of the Second Amendment for about 70 years, so when it agreed to hear the case on November 20, 2007, it was certainly historic, which is why I guess I’m making a video about this case. I mean, duh, Mr. Beat. Anyway, the Court heard oral arguments on March 18, 2008. The big question was “Did the DC law restricting access to guns kept in the home go against the Second Amendment?” The Court said “yes.” On June 26, 2008, it announced it had sided with Heller. It was 5-4. The Court argued the Second Amendment wasn’t just about having a well-regulated militia, and that the term “militia” wasn’t just those serving in the military. They said the Second Amendment was also about individuals having the right to have weapons to defend themselves. So this part was independent from this part. So banning guns commonly used for protection violated the Second Amendment. However, the Court added that the Second Amendment is not unlimited. Not everyone should be able to get a weapon. It wasn’t a right to have a weapon whenever or for whatever purpose. And the type of weapon mattered. Extremely dangerous weapons, not commonly used for hunting or self defense could be banned. Really, most of the arguments revolved around the self-defense argument.
Thumbnail
When Abortion Became Legal | Roe v. Wade
234K views • almost 8 years ago
I wrote a new book all about the Supreme Court. Order your copy here: https://amzn.to/3p8nV64 or visit https://www.iammrbeat.com/merch.html. Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/iammrbeat Mr. Beat on Twitter: https://twitter.com/beatmastermatt In the first episode of Supreme Court Briefs, Mr. Beat explains one of the most controversial cases in American history- Roe v. Wade. A young woman named Norma McCorvey was single, pregnant, and scared about her future. She wanted an abortion. But in Texas, abortions were illegal, except in cases in which the mother’s life was in danger. McCorvey had planned on having one anyway, at an illegal clinic. However, police shut down that clinic. Desperate, Norma soon found out that two lawyers were looking for women who were seeking abortions in order to fight the Texas law that banned them. The lawyers, Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee, decided to take Norma’s case over several others. The two were not much older than Norma. On March 3, 1970, Coffee officially filed a complaint at the Dallas federal district courthouse, giving Norma a pseudonym, “Jane Roe,” to protect her identity. They were suing the State of Texas, arguing its abortion law was unconstitutional. Defending the state of Texas was Henry Wade, the district attorney of Dallas. By this time, Norma was six months’ pregnant. The District Court looked at Norma’s case along with two other related cases. On June 17, 1970, the three-judge panel of the Court unanimously called the Texas abortion law unconstitutional, saying it broke the right to privacy assumed under the Ninth Amendment. However, they did not act to stop enforcement of the law. The defense appealed the ruling, and it went to the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, Norma had given birth to the baby she had originally thought about killing, and put the baby up for adoption. The case sat for a year and a half. Finally, on December 13, 1971, the Supreme Court heard arguments. In his opening argument, defense attorney Jay Floyd made a bad joke that probably hurt his case. Go against Weddington and Coffee, he said, “It’s an old joke, but when a man argues against two beautiful ladies like this, they are going to have the last word.” The joke was not well received. The entire courtroom was silent, and Chief Justice Warren Burger gave him a cold glare. Regardless, by the end of arguments, all of the justices agreed the Texas law was bad, but for different reasons. But the case sat some more, because two justices, Hugo Black and John Harlan, had recently retired and were not yet replaced. In January, Lewis F. Powell and William Rehnquist joined the court, but it wasn’t until October of 1972 that they heard arguments again. The Court announced their decision on January 22, 1973. With a 7-2 majority vote, they went in favor of Roe, arguing that abortion fell under the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Again, it came down to a right to privacy. Basically, the Court ruled a woman had the right to an abortion until the fetus reached an age of “viability.” Viability means that the baby would be able to survive independently, outside of the mother’s womb. Well back then, doctors believed this to be around the 28th week of pregnancy. Today, thanks to the wonders of technology, that’s around the 22nd week of pregnancy. The two justices who disagreed with the decision were Byron White and William Rehnquist, one of the new dudes on the Court. White argued the Court was just making up a new constitutional right and didn’t have the authority to do so. Rehnquist argued the other justices were expanding the 14th Amendment to mean something much more than its original authors intended. Regardless, the decision essentially legalized abortion and declared many state laws unconstitutional because of this. Before the Roe v. Wade decision, 30 states had outlawed abortion, and the other states restricted it in at least some way. Roe v. Wade sparked a contentious debate that continues to this day. On one side, supporters of the Roe v. Wade decision are often called “pro-choice,” meaning it should be the woman’s choice whether she wants the abortion or not. Opponents of the Roe v. Wade decision are often called “pro-life.” They argue that, because life begins at conception, any abortion should be regarded as murder. The abortion issue has become even more divisive in recent years. In fact, many people vote for politicians simply based on whether they are pro-life or not. So whatever happened to Norma McCorvey? Well, in a 1984 TV interview, she revealed herself as “Roe,” and became a pro-choice advocate, even volunteering at a women’s clinic. At first, she went around telling the press that she had wanted the abortion because she was raped. However, she later said that this was a lie- she had made it up. Norma published an autobiography in 1994, called I Am Roe. Soon after this, in a surprising turn of events, she quit her job at the abortion clinic and became pro-life.
Thumbnail
Do You Have to Say the Pledge of Allegiance? | West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette
107K views • about 7 years ago
Want a specific SCOTUS case covered? Your idea gets picked when you donate on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/iammrbeat Mr. Beat's band: http://electricneedleroom.net/ Mr. Beat on Twitter: https://twitter.com/beatmastermatt In episode 19 of Supreme Court Briefs, a bunch of Jehovah's Witnesses don't salute the American flag nor say the Pledge of Allegiance, and almost everybody else freaks out about it. Produced by Matt Beat. Music by Matt Beat (Electric Needle Room). All images found in public domain or used under fair use guidelines. Check out cool primary sources here: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/319us624 Other sources: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102008085 http://thejehovahswitnesses.org/about-us.php http://www.dailybulldog.com/db/opinion/from-the-desk-of-the-bulldog-a-lesson-on-patriotism-from-a-9-year-old-boy/ https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/310/586 https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/07/us/lillian-gobitas-klose-90-dies-stood-against-mandatory-pledge.html http://www.nytimes.com/1988/09/11/us/pledge-dispute-evokes-bitter-memories.html?pagewanted=all https://www.britannica.com/event/West-Virginia-State-Board-of-Education-v-Barnette http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/319/624.html Germany The 1930s The Nazis arrest thousands of Jehovah’s Witnesses across the country who refuse to salute the Nazi flag. Why didn’t they salute the Nazi flag? Well, for starters, it’s against their religion to salute a flag, as they believe by doing so idolizes the state rather than God. After these German Jehovah’s Witnesses were thrown into concentration camps for not saluting the Nazi flag, leaders of the church in the United States called for an end of participation in daily flag salutes that had become mandatory in American schools. Anyway, because the children of Jehovah’s Witnesses refused to salute the American flag and refused to say the Pledge of Allegiance, they got in a lot of trouble. Some administrators even threatened to send these kids to juvy or have their parents arrested. In Minersville, Pennsylvania, a dad named Walter Gobitas had his children not participate in the Pledge. By doing so, the entire family was actually breaking a local law, and they all became marginalized and were straight up attacked by the other citizens of Minersville. Residents boycotted the Gobitas family store, and the kids were bullied at school. One of them had rocks thrown at her. Another one was hurt after his teacher tried to force his hand out to salute the flag during the Pledge. The kids, of course, were eventually expelled for their Pledge boycotts. But their dad, Walter, fought the law that forced students to salute the flag and say the Pledge of Allegiance. Gobitas based his argument on the fact he thought the law violated both the First and Fourteenth Amendments. His case ended up going all the way to the Supreme Court. That case, announced on June 3, 1940, was called Minersville School District v. Gobitis...yeah, a clerk misspelled Gobitas’ name on court records. Details, right? Anyway, the Court ruled against Gobitis, arguing that the law that forced students to say the pledge was NOT a violation of religious freedom. It was an 8-1 decision, with Justice Felix Frankfurter, one of the dudes who started the American Civil Liberties Union, ironically, giving the majority opinion. So yeah, things were not looking so good after this case for the Jehovah’s Witnesses, especially since now they were huge targets for continuing to refuse to say the pledge. Nearly 1500 Jehovah’s Witness were physically attacked in over 300 cities across the country. In Wyoming, one was tarred and feathered. Some were lynched. Others were forced out of town after having their homes burned to the ground. This made Supreme Court justices like Frank Murphy feel guilty. Murphy actually said he regretted his decision in the Gobitis case and wanted an opportunity to revisit the issue. Sure enough, that opportunity came fairly quickly, as Jehovah’s Witnesses boldly continued to defy the Pledge and flag salute. On January 9, 1942, the West Virginia State Board of Education ordered all teachers and students in the state to salute the flag and say the Pledge. Well, this story sounds familiar. Another dad, this one named Walter Barnett, had his kids not salute the flag nor recite the Pledge. And again, the principal expelled those kids, whose names were Marie and Gathie Barnett. However, on the advice of a lawyer, Walter sent his kids right back to school, where they were called “Nazis” and “Japs” by fellow classmates. And….each day, the school would send them right back home. The Barnetts sued the State Board of Education, taking them to the United States District Court for themselves and other families who were fighting the same thing. #supremecourt #scotus #apush
Thumbnail
Does Congress Have Implied Powers? | McCulloch v. Maryland
182K views • almost 8 years ago
Want a specific SCOTUS case covered? Your idea gets picked when you donate on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/iammrbeat Mr. Beat's band: http://electricneedleroom.net/ Mr. Beat on Twitter: https://twitter.com/beatmastermatt In the second episode of Supreme Court Briefs, Mr. Beat makes one of the most boring Supreme Court cases in American history somewhat more interesting. It was, after all, QUITE A FREAKING BIG DEAL. Washington, D.C. 1816 The United States Congress gets together to create the Second Bank of the United States. I like to call it the Bank of the U.S. 2.0. The bank’s main purpose was to handle all monetary transactions for the federal government. Most who supported its creation thought that the economy wasn’t so stable without a central bank. And yet, the bank still had its critics. The next year, it opened in Philadelphia, and everything was all groovy, until that same year the feds tried to open another branch in Baltimore, Maryland. But Maryland legislators were like, “oh, so you want to open a branch here? Ok fine, then you’ll have to pay a tax.” Well, it wasn’t quite like that. The state’s General Assembly just passed a law that said that all banks in Maryland not chartered by the state legislature had to pay a tax. The head of the bank’s Baltimore branch, James McCulloch, said “ain’t no way we payin’ that tax.” He felt that the law had been passed to target the Bank of the United States to hurt its operation. After he refused to pay the tax, the state of Maryland sued him. In a state court, Maryland argued that the Constitution says nothing about the federal government having the right to create a central bank. Therefore, any Bank of the United States was unconstitutional. Maryland won the case, but eventually the case was appealed to the Supreme Court. The Court heard oral arguments on February 22, 1819. They ruled the federal government DID have the authority to create such a bank. Boom, take that Maryland. Their decision was unanimous. Chief Justice John Marshall, aka Lil’ John, argued there was precedence for a national bank. After, the First Bank of the United States came before the Second. However, more importantly, Marshall argued that just because the Constitution does not explicitly say the federal government can create a bank, doesn’t mean it can’t. He brought up the Necessary and Proper Clause of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, which says Congress has the power “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper” to help the nation. Marshall said the federal government had several powers that weren’t specifically listed out in the Constitution but still were implied. Second, the Court said Maryland couldn’t tax the Bank because the Supremacy Clause of Article 6 of the Constitution said federal laws overruled state laws. Finally, the Court argued Maryland’s tax violated constitutional sovereignty by throwing a penalty to all Americans in favor people of the people of just one state. Man, Supreme Court. Mic drop. I guess McCulloch could take on an entire state after all. McCulloch v. Maryland justified the idea of “implied powers.” After this case, the Necessary and Proper Clause meant the federal government had powers beyond what was explicitly stated in the Constitution. It also justified the Supremacy Clause, giving the federal government even more power over the states. In fact, I would argue that no other Supreme Court case has done more to strengthen the federal government compared to the state governments than this one.
Thumbnail
Is Prayer Allowed at Public School? | Engel v. Vitale
235K views • almost 8 years ago
Want a specific SCOTUS case covered? Your idea gets picked when you donate on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/iammrbeat Mr. Beat's band: http://electricneedleroom.net/ Mr. Beat on Twitter: https://twitter.com/beatmastermatt In the third episode of Supreme Court Briefs, Mr. Beat examines the first of many Supreme Court cases dealing with the separation of church and state- Engel v. Vitale. The state board of education said that students were to open each day with a nondenominational prayer. Students across New York were to say: “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country.” Now, before some of you freak out, just calm down. Alright? CALM DOWN. The prayer was voluntary. It was purely promoted as a tool for character development. Now, I say voluntary, but if parents did not want their kids saying the prayer, they did have to take action and it was kind of a pain in the butt. Well in July 1958, the Board of Education of Union Free School District Number 9, decided to have its students say the prayer. Students could opt out with their parent’s signature. However, a group of families complained that the prayer went against their religious beliefs. With the help of different organizations, the families decided to fight the prayer in court. Five parents, three Jewish and two who weren’t big on organized religion, sued the state school board President, William Vitale, on behalf of their children. They argued that the prayer violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which should be applied because of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Basically, it was a separation of church and state issue. Alphabetically, the first parent listed as a plaintiff was Steven Engel, so he ended up being the one who got all the attention. Engel later recalled how his kids were bullied at school for the lawsuit, and other families received obscene letters and phone calls in the middle of the night. Vitale and the school board argued that they did not establish one particular religion with the prayer, nor did they force students to say the prayer. They also brought up that the prayer simply reflected the country’s religious heritage. In the state court system, Engel and his fellow plaintiffs had absolutely no success. In 1959, they lost their case before the Supreme Court of New York. The next year, they lost before the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York. The year after that, they lost before the Court of Appeals of New York, where Chief Judge Charles Desmond wrote “Not only is this prayer not a violation of the First Amendment (no decision of this or of the United States Supreme Court says or suggests that it is) but a holding that it is such a violation would be in defiance of all American history, and such a holding would destroy a part of the essential foundation of the American governmental structure.” Geez Charles. That was harsh. Anyway, Engel and company next, of course, appealed to the Supreme Court, where all of a sudden things looked a lot better for them. The case was argued on April 3, 1962. On June 25, the Court ruled 6-1 in Engel and company’s favor. Two of the justices, Felix Frankfurter and Byron White didn’t take part in the decision. The Court said the prayer was unconstitutional. Justice Hugo Black wrote the opinion for the majority, writing “It is neither sacrilegious nor antireligious to say that each separate government in this country should stay out of the business of writing or sanctioning official prayers…” Basically, they agreed with the plaintiffs, determining the prayer broke the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The one dissenting opinion came from Justice Potter Stewart, who brought up early examples of religion in government, like “In God We Trust” being on coins. Engel v. Vitale reasserted the importance of the separation between church and state. It basically banned state officials from trying to make prayer an official part of public schools, and it was the first of several cases in which the Court used the establishment clause to ban religious activities in public schools. The decision remains controversial to this day.
Thumbnail
Are Tomatoes Fruits or Vegetables? | Nix v. Hedden
90K views • over 7 years ago
Want a specific SCOTUS case covered? Your idea gets picked when you donate on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/iammrbeat Here's what Mr. Beat has to say about tomatoes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUnvmteAxKo Mr. Beat on Twitter: https://twitter.com/beatmastermatt In episode 5 of Supreme Court Briefs, Mr. Beat looks at that one time the Supreme Court heard arguments about whether tomatoes were fruits or vegetables. No joke. For the record, Mr. Beat hates tomatoes. John Nix was one of the most successful sellers of produce in the city. His company was among the first to ship fruits and vegetables from warmer climates like Bermuda and Florida to New York. However, he became upset after hearing about a new law passed by Congress. The law, called the Tariff of 1883 (Congress has never been that good at naming laws by the way), required a tax to be paid on imported vegetables. As it turns out, that meant that Nix’s tomatoes that he imported would be taxed, even though he and his buddies all thought a tomato was clearly a fruit, not a vegetable. Fruits were exempt from the law. Four years later, Nix and his family finally decided to take action in federal court. They sued Edward Hedden, the Collector of the Port of New York, to get back the money they had been paying on tomatoes. Now, just so we are clear, tomatoes are fruits. In my opinion, horrible, disgusting...fruits, but nonetheless they are fruits. However, most people didn’t know that, and the definition was different in terms of trade and commerce. At the trial, Nix and his lawyers read the dictionary definitions of both “fruit” and “vegetable,” and witnesses even testified about their definitions. On May 14, 1889, the federal judge went with Heddon, arguing that the public tends to think that tomatoes are a vegetable, so therefore it should be considered a vegetable under the Tariff Act of 1883. John Nix and his family appealed, and the Supreme Court heard the case in April 1893. The lawyers on both sides made pretty good use of dictionaries. The defense team responded to the tomato definitions with definitions of the words pea, eggplant, cucumber, squash, and pepper. In response to that, Nix’s team read in evidence the definitions of potato, turnip, parsnip, cauliflower, cabbage, carrot, and bean. So basically the lawyers went back and forth reading definitions for awhile. It became an all-out dictionary war. Just like the federal judge, the Court ruled unanimously in favor of Heddon. It argued that tomatoes must be classified under the customs regulations as a vegetable, based on how they are used and popularly perceived. Justice Horace Gray didn’t deny that, scientifically speaking, a tomato was a fruit. However, he argued that when words have acquired no special meaning in trade or commerce, the ordinary meaning must be applied by the court. Therefore, he claimed dictionaries can’t be used as evidence, but merely as aids to help add context to the case. Yeah, take that, you stupid dictionaries! Nix v. Hedden set a precedent for court interpretation of common meanings, especially dictionary definitions. It also kind reinforced the false belief that tomatoes are vegetables. But the truth is overrated, right? In 2005, the New Jersey state legislature designated the tomato as the official state vegetable. Their justification? Nix v. Hedden.
Thumbnail
Where Do Your Miranda Rights Come From? | Miranda v. Arizona
294K views • over 7 years ago
I wrote a new book all about the Supreme Court. Order your copy here: http://amzn.to/45Wzhur Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/iammrbeat Mr. Beat's band: http://electricneedleroom.us Mr. Beat on Twitter: https://twitter.com/beatmastermatt In episode 6 of Supreme Court Briefs, you have the right to remain silent. Mr. Beat looks at the origins of the Miranda rights. I'll give you a hint- they are named after a guy named Miranda. Check out cool primary sources here: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1965/759 Phoenix, Arizona March 13, 1963 Police arrest Ernesto Miranda, a suspect linked to the kidnapping and rape of an 18-year old woman ten days earlier. In a police lineup, the victim identified Miranda as the attacker. For two hours, officers aggressively interrogated Miranda about the attack. The officers did not tell Miranda that he did not have to answer the questions, nor did they allow him to call a lawyer. Hmmmm….I guess Miranda didn’t pay attention when his teacher taught him about the Bill of Rights in government class. Anyway, the officers broke Miranda down, and he confessed to the crime, even signing a statement that described the details of the attack. When this confession was later used in court, of course Miranda was found guilty, even though his lawyer argued that the police pressured him to confess. Miranda was sentenced to up to 30 years of prison. Miranda appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court, based on the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. You know, the part of the Fifth Amendment that says you cannot be forced to testify against yourself, aka the right to remain silent, and the part of the Sixth Amendment that says you have a right to an attorney. But the Arizona Supreme Court agreed with the lower court. Welp, Miranda appealed again, and the Supreme Court reviewed the case in June 1966. And this was a tough one. In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that Miranda’s confession could not be used as evidence because the officers had denied his 5th and 6th amendment rights. Chief Justice Earl Warren gave the opinion of the Court. Warren brought up that the police done messed up by misleading Miranda and not making it clear to him his rights. Warren said, “The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to remain silent, and that anything he says will be used against him in court; he must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation, and that, if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him.” Hmmm, that kind of sounds familiar. The justices on the Court who disagreed with the majority generally argued that the Constitution didn’t say anything about making a suspect aware about his or her rights. They also argued this gave too much power to suspects and would make police interrogation work much more difficult. They were afraid it might be more difficult to convict criminals. After the decision, police across the country had to inform suspects of their rights after they arrested them. They became known as the Miranda rights or Miranda warnings. (clip) After the Miranda case, the Court tried to strike a balance between public safety and the rights of the accused. Several later decisions ended up granting exceptions to the Miranda warnings. Some of these exceptions were BIG exceptions, actually. Still, Miranda v. Arizona has had a huge impact on law enforcement in the United States by empowering those accused of a crime. According to several studies, the decision hasn’t affected detectives’ abilities to solve crime much. So whatever happened to Ernesto Miranda? Even though the Supreme Court threw out his original trial, he was once again placed on trial in Arizona using different evidence. That evidence? A woman who lived with Miranda during the time of the offense testified that he had confessed to her about committing the crime. In 1967, he was again found guilty and sentenced up to 30 years in prison. However, he was released early due to good behavior, in 1972. Miranda returned to his old neighborhood and made a living autographing what became known as “Miranda cards,” which contained the text of the warning read to suspects. Tragically, he was stabbed to death in a bar fight on January 31, 1976. Police arrested a dude suspected of murdering Miranda. Ironically, that dude, unlike Miranda, exercised his right to remain silent and was later released after there was no evidence to prove he did it.
Thumbnail
Why Most People Lose Defamation Lawsuits | New York Times v. Sullivan
84K views • almost 2 years ago
Join this channel to get access to perks: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmYesELO6axBrCuSpf7S9DQ/join In episode 70 of Supreme Court Briefs, a police commissioner sues the New York Times for defamation after it runs an ad that talks trash about his department. Produced by Matt Beat (Beat Productions). All images/video by Matt Beat, found in the public domain, or used under fair use guidelines. Music by @ElectricNeedleRoom(Mr. Beat's band). Download the song here: https://electricneedleroom.bandcamp.com/track/we-want-to-be Mr. Beat's Supreme Court Briefs playlist: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLHtE7NbaKRef-x3QBDpwvJsr6i1Z3I6TN Here's an annotated script with footnotes: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IJIT7809e-BjuC1s961TdIJzbBjt1HJwO_JUVDpa5h4/edit?usp=sharing Check out cool primary sources here: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1789-1850/32us243 Other sources used: https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/525/barron-v-baltimore https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/32/243/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barron_v._Baltimore https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/supremecourt/antebellum/landmark_barron.html A related case: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCMQ5MrQfs0 For sponsorship and business inquiries or to send snail mail to Mr. Beat: https://www.iammrbeat.com/contact.html https://www.youtube.com/c/iammrbeat/about How to support and donate to my channel: On YouTube subscribe to @iammrbeat & hit the notification bell 🔔 Join for great perks on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/iammrbeat Donate to Mr. Beat on Paypal: https://www.paypal.me/mrbeat Buy Mr. Beat a coffee: https://ko-fi.com/iammrbeat Book me on Cameo, yo: https://www.cameo.com/iammrbeat Subscribe to my second channel: @mattbeatgoeson Join Patreon for The Beat Goes On: https://www.patreon.com/thebeatgoeson Connect with me: Links to everything: https://linktr.ee/iammrbeat My website: https://www.iammrbeat.com/ My podcast: https://anchor.fm/thebeatpod Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/mrbeat/ @beatmastermatt on Twitter: https://twitter.com/beatmastermatt Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/iammrbeat/ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/iammrbeat Beatcord: https://discord.gg/g8cZPjt Mr. Beat's TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@iammrbeat Mr. Beat merch: https://matt-beat-shop.fourthwall.com/ https://www.bonfire.com/store/mr-beat/ https://sfsf.shop/support-mrbeat/ https://amzn.to/3fdakiZ #supremecourtbriefs #supremecourt #apgovt New York City March 29, 1960 The New York Times publishes a full-page advertisement called “Heed Their Rising Voices,” which aimed to shine a spotlight on the persecution of and violence against civil rights protestors throughout the South. It specifically talks trash about the Montgomery, Alabama police force, saying that they had arrested Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. seven times and that “truckloads” of them had stormed the Alabama State College. So uh…yeah…the ad had definitely stretched the truth. When Montgomery’s police commissioner, L.B. Sullivan, saw the ad, he was like “what the heck?!?” He viewed it as a personal attack on him and his entire police force. Even though the ad didn’t specifically name Sullivan, he decided to write the New York Times anyway, asking the newspaper to publish a retraction of the ad. In other words, Sullivan wanted the New York Times to take it all back and admit to publishing false information. Well, the New York Times issued no such retraction. Instead, its lawyers wrote Sullivan a nice little letter that said the newspaper had no good reason to publish a retraction. Specifically, their letter said, “we…are somewhat puzzled as to how you think the statements in any way reflect on you,” adding, “you might, if you desire, let us know in what respect you claim that the statements in the advertisement reflect on you.” Uh-huh. Sullivan didn’t like that so much, either. He sued the New York Times, saying the newspaper broke Alabama’s law for libel, a type of written defamation that hurt the reputation of someone or something. He also sued four African American ministers mentioned in the ad. After this, the New York Times did issue a retraction, but only for the Governor of Alabama, John Patterson….not Sullivan. In the Circuit Court of Montgomery County, Sullivan only had to prove that the New York Times published mistakes and that they probably hurt his reputation. The court sided with Sullivan, ordering the New York Times to award him with $500,000 in damages, which is nearly $5 million in today’s money. The New York Times appealed to the Alabama Supreme Court, but it agreed with the lower court. After this, the newspaper appealed again, this time to the SUPREME Supreme Court, who agreed to hear oral arguments in January 1964. The New York Times, of course, argued that the freedom of speech and freedom of the press parts of the First Amendment protected their right to publish that ad. It also argued that Alabama’s libel law specifically went against the First Amendment.
Thumbnail
Ending School Segregation | Brown v. Board of Education
359K views • over 7 years ago
I wrote a new book all about the Supreme Court. Order your copy here: http://amzn.to/45Wzhur Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/iammrbeat Mr. Beat's band: http://electricneedleroom.us Mr. Beat on Twitter: https://twitter.com/beatmastermatt In episode 8 of Supreme Court Briefs, the Court unanimously has major issues with Plessy v. Ferguson, and ends up dramatically changing the future of the Civil Rights Movement by ruling segregation "inherently unequal.” Check out cool primary sources here: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/347us483 Additional sources used: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_brown.html https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/04/two-milestones-in-education/361222/ https://www.nps.gov/brvb/index.htm Reading Through History: The Great Supreme Court Cases Topeka, KS 1950 Schools were segregated by skin color. Each day, 8-year old Linda Brown and her sister had to walk one mile, crossing several busy railroad tracks along the way, to get to a bus that led them to school across town. Now, an elementary school already existed just four blocks from their home, but this school was for white children only, and Linda Brown and her sister were African American. Linda’s father, Oliver Brown, tried to enroll her in the white only elementary school, but the principal of the school wouldn’t allow it. So Brown to the Topeka’s branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, or NAACP, and asked for help. The NAACP had actually already been planning on challenging segregation in public schools. The organization helped 12 other African American parents attempt to enroll their children in whites-only schools in the Topeka school district. A major goal of the NAACP was to bring down the precedent set up by Plessy v. Ferguson, the 1896 Supreme Court decision that said segregated facilities based on skin color was ok, as long as both facilities were the same quality. This became known as the “separate but equal” doctrine. The NAACP helped Brown and the rest of the parents sue the Board of Education of the city of Topeka after the district continued to refuse to let their children enroll in whites-only schools. The parents claimed their children’s rights, as protected by the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, were being violated. The NAACP put Oliver Brown at the head of the roster as a legal strategy. The Board of Education argued that segregation was already a way of life, and segregated schools simply got them ready for the segregation they would encounter as adults. They also claimed that segregated schools were not harmful to black children. The United States District Court for the District of Kansas heard the case, and ruled in favor of the Board of Education, using the ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson as their justification. And yet, weirdly, the three-judge District Court panel argued that segregation hurt African American children. Still, they insisted that whites-only and blacks-only schools in Topeka were of equal quality in terms of facilities, the qualifications of teachers, transportation, and what they were taught. Brown and the rest of the parents appealed to the Supreme Court. As it turns out, there were parents across the country fighting fiercely against school segregation in public schools as well. In 1952, the Court considered five different cases that all dealt with the issue. Ultimately, the Court just combined all five cases under the name of Brown v. Board of Education. The NAACP had been involved in all five cases, and appointed Thurgood Marshall, a future Supreme Court justice, to argue the case for Brown. The Court heard the case in spring of 1953, but remained divided on the issue, and they knew this was a big freaking deal, so they didn’t want to rush it. Chief Justice Fred Vinson was really worried about a close vote that would dramatically change the country, and he, in particular, wanted to postpone the decision. He died in September, and President Dwight D. Eisenhower nominated Earl Warren, the former governor of California, as Vinson’s replacement. The Court reheard the case in December 1953, with Warren now leading. For several months, the justices debated and discussed the case. Warren was able to do what Vinson was not- he brought all the Justices together to agree on a unanimous decision. That’s right. On May 17th, 1954, the court voted 9-0 in support of Brown. This overturned the now infamous Plessy v. Ferguson decision, saying that segregation of schools based on skin color went against the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The court also argued that segregated schools made African American children feel inferior and damaged their development. Warren gave the opinion of the Court, saying “We conclude that in the field of public education, the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.”
Thumbnail
Can You Burn An American Flag? | Texas v. Johnson
225K views • over 7 years ago
I wrote a new book all about the Supreme Court. Order your copy here: http://amzn.to/45Wzhur Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/iammrbeat Mr. Beat's band: http://electricneedleroom.us Mr. Beat on Twitter: https://twitter.com/beatmastermatt In episode 7 of Supreme Court Briefs, a dude named Johnson burns the American flag and the whole country seems to freak out. Does the First Amendment protect flag burning? Check out cool primary sources here: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1988/88-155 Additional sources used: https://billofrightsinstitute.org/educate/educator-resources/lessons-plans/landmark-supreme-court-cases-elessons/texas-v-johnson-1989/ https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/a-history-of-the-flag-burning-controversy/ http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/26/flag.amendment/index.html Reading Through History: The Great Supreme Court Cases Dallas, Texas August 22, 1984 Protesters marched through the streets, destroyed property, spray-painted walls, broke windows, and threw dirty diapers and beer cans just outside of the Republican National Convention. Someone stole an American flag from a flagpole from a downtown building. Eventually, that flag ended up in the hands of Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigade member Gregory Lee Johnson. At the height of the protests, Johnson poured kerosene on the flag and set it on fire. While the flag burned, he chanted stuff like “Red, white and blue, we spit on you, you stand for plunder, you will go under” and “Reagan, Mondale, which will it be? Either one means World War III.” Although no one got physically hurt because of it, some people who saw Johnson do this were pretty offended by it. Soon after, police arrested him and charged him with violating a Texas law that said you can’t vandalize respected objects, if such action were likely to get people mad. A Texas court convicted Johnson and he was sentenced to one year in person and fined $2,000. He appealed his case to the Fifth Court of Appeals of Texas, but lost the appeal. He appealed again to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, and they actually overturned his conviction, saying the First Amendment to the Constitution protects flag burning as symbolic speech. It also argued that Johnson did not hurt or threaten anyone by burning the flag. Texas was like nuh-uh, and it asked the Supreme Court to hear the case. The Supreme Court agreed, and they heard arguments on March 21, 1989. At first, the Court considered if the First Amendment protected non-speech acts, since this wasn’t about Johnson’s verbal communication. So basically, they wondered if the act of burning the American flag should be considered expressive conduct. Ultimately, they determined it was. In a highly controversial decision, the Court ruled 5-4 in favor of Johnson. The Court said that Texas could not ban flag burning. They also argued that Texas’ law that said you can’t vandalize respected objects didn’t prevent disturbing the peace. In fact, another Texas law already existed to prevent disturbing the peace without targeting flag burning. Justice William Brennan delivered the opinion, but I am going to quote Justice Anthony Kennedy, as he put it pretty well. He said, “The hard fact is that sometimes we must make decisions we do not like. We make them because they are right, right in the sense that the law and the Constitution, as we see them, compel the result. And so great is our commitment to the process that, except in the rare case, we do not pause to express distaste for the result, perhaps for fear of undermining a valued principle that dictates the decision. This is one of those rare cases.” The court had two major dissents. The first, by Justices William Rehnquist, Byron White, and Sandra Day O’Connor, argued that the American flag had a “unique status” that should be protected from desecration. Rehnquist wrote, “The flag is not simply another "idea" or "point of view" competing for recognition in the marketplace of ideas. Millions and millions of Americans regard it with an almost mystical reverence regardless of what sort of social, political, or philosophical beliefs they may have.” Justice John Paul Stevens had a slightly different dissent. He argued it was more than about the flag being an important symbol. He argued that Johnson was only punished for how he expressed his opinion, not the opinion itself. So basically, the decision automatically made laws in 48 of the 50 states invalid. However, just two weeks later, Congress passed the Flag Protection Act, which made it a federal crime to desecrate the American flag, kind of like a middle finger to the Supreme Court. But the Court had the last laugh. The same five person majority of justices struck down the law in the 1990 case United States v. Eichman. Since then, many in Congress have tried several times to pass an amendment outlawing flag burning, but each time they come up short.
Thumbnail
Why You Get a Lawyer If You Can't Afford One | Gideon v. Wainwright
275K views • over 7 years ago
I wrote a new book all about the Supreme Court. Order your copy here: http://amzn.to/45Wzhur Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/iammrbeat Mr. Beat's band: http://electricneedleroom.net/ Mr. Beat on Twitter: https://twitter.com/beatmastermatt In episode 9 of Supreme Court Briefs, a man can't afford a lawyer, struggles to defend himself in court, gets convicted of a crime he didn't commit, writes a letter, and everything turns out all groovy. Check out cool primary sources here: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1962/155 Additional sources used: http://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/facts-and-case-summary-gideon-v-wainwright https://www.justice.gov/atj/legacy-gideon-v-wainwright http://sixthamendment.org/the-right-to-counsel/history-of-the-right-to-counsel/gideon-v-wainwright-the-watershed-moment/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/gideon-v-wainwright-case-providing-defendants-an-attorney-turns-50/ Reading Through History: The Great Supreme Court Cases Panama City, Florida June 3, 1961 Sometime between midnight and 8am, someone breaks into the Bay Harbor Poolroom and steals money from a cash register. One witness reported that they had seen a man named Clarence Earl Gideon walk out of the poolroom at around 5:30 that morning, walking out with a wine bottle and his pockets filled with wads of cash. Gideon, a drifter who spent most of his adult life in and out of different prisons for nonviolent crimes, was an easy target. Police arrested him for breaking and entering and trying to steal. Well as it turns out, Gideon had no money. Because he couldn’t afford a lawyer, he asked a Florida Circuit Court judge to appoint one for him, claiming the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees everyone a lawyer. The judge was like, “sorry dude,” and denied his request. Florida law only allowed the court to provide a lawyer if the defendant was charged with a capital offense, or one so serious that death might be the punishment. And so, Gideon was left to represent himself, and most say he didn’t do that good of a job defending himself. The court found him guilty of the accused crimes and sentenced him to five years in prison. While serving his sentence in a Florida state prison, Gideon began to teach himself law, which made even more confident that his rights were being violated when the Florida Circuit Court refused to provide a lawyer for him. From his prison cell, he hand wrote a letter directly to the Supreme Court. Not only did the Supreme Court actually read his petition, they agreed to actually hear his case. Gideon’s lawsuit specifically went against the Secretary of the Florida Department of Corrections, who was a dude named H.G. Cochran. However, Cochran went up and done retired, and was replaced by another dude named Louie Wainwright. So Gideon was suing Wainwright. Get it? Gideon v. Wainwright? Anyway, the Supreme Court was being all nice and assigned Gideon a well established Washington, D.C. lawyer and future Supreme Court justice named Abe Fortas to represent him. As it turns out, the Supreme Court had been waiting for this opportunity. Back in 1932, in Powell v. Alabama, the Court had decided that people accused of crimes should both be notified that they have the right to a lawyer and should be provided one if they can’t afford one. However, this only applied to capital offenses. And then, ten years later, the Court decided in Betts v. Brady that, unless there were special circumstances, people didn’t have to have a lawyer provided for them by the state. Well, with Gideon, the Court said THE HECK WITH YOU BETTS. No, not Mr. Betts. Betts v. Brady. They overturned Betts v. Brady. On March 18, 1963, the Court announced unanimously, in favor of Gideon. It argued that the Sixth Amendment doesn’t point out a difference between capital and noncapital cases. It also said the 14th amendment gave the federal government authority to control state laws that denied 6th amendment rights. The decision did not free Gideon from prison. Rather, he got a new trial with a new lawyer provided by the government of Florida. The new trial took place August 5, 1963, five months after the Supreme Court. His new lawyer completely discredited the original case against Gideon. The jury found Gideon not guilty after just one hour of deliberation. Gideon was free. Gideon v. Wainwright further protected the rights of the accused, which the Warren Court would also do again three years later with the Miranda v. Arizona decision. Hey check out that episode if you haven’t already. The decision also greatly expanded the power of the 14th amendment, protecting individual rights against both federal and state laws that threatened them. Sadly, today many states do not provide adequate funding for their public defender systems. As matter of fact, the state of Missouri was recently sued due to this.
Thumbnail
Protecting Whistleblowers | New York Times Co. v. United States
209K views • almost 7 years ago
I wrote a new book all about the Supreme Court. Order your copy here: http://amzn.to/45Wzhur Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/iammrbeat Mr. Beat's band: http://electricneedleroom.us Mr. Beat on Twitter: https://twitter.com/beatmastermatt In episode 24 of Supreme Court Briefs, a man exposes dark government secrets about the Vietnam War, and gets in big trouble from the government for it. Should whistleblowers be protected? Produced by Matt Beat. Music by Electric Needle Room (Matt Beat). All images found in public domain or used under fair use guidelines. Punching sound effect: Mike Koening (CC) http://soundbible.com/1773-Strong-Punch.html Check out cool primary sources here: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1970/1873 Other sources used: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers McNamara, Robert (1996). In Retrospect. Random House. http://www.history.com/topics/vietnam-war/pentagon-papers https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/403/713 http://magicvalley.com/opinion/columnists/other-view-trump-s-ugly-assault-on-the-first-amendment/article_435b4521-a42d-5e83-a9a8-3102c5f4e0d3.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/24/business/media/spielberg-post-media-trump.html http://www.pbs.org/pov/mostdangerousman/timeline/ Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara creates the Vietnam Study Task Force at the Pentagon to create a study of the Vietnam War, which, by the way, was raging on the time with no end in sight. This study was to remain classified but released to the public eventually, as McNamara wanted to leave a written record for historians. Working on this task force was a dude named Daniel Ellsberg, who became very troubled by what he found. You see, the Pentagon was telling the American public one thing, but actually doing other things. For example, the Pentagon was lying about escalating the war even when victory was hopeless. It had covered up doing some quite horrible things, like illegal bombings in places like Cambodia and Laos, and the use of chemical warfare. Well Ellsberg, who had become strongly against the Vietnam War, decided he was going to fight the power! In October 1969, he and his friend Anthony Russo began secretly photocopying pages from this study, which eventually became known as The Pentagon Papers. By the way, the Pentagon Papers were thousands of pages long. So yeah, he photocopies and decides to take them to the press to expose all of the Pentagon’s dirty secrets. In March 1971, he gave 43 volumes of the Pentagon Papers to Neil Sheehan, a reporter for The New York Times. On June 13, 1971, the New York Times began publishing a series of articles based on what Ellsberg had leaked. It also included excerpts from the actual Pentagon Papers. When President Richard Nixon read these articles, he was like, “this kind of makes our government look bad...plus, isn’t this putting our national security at risk?” By the way, that’s EXACTLY how he sounded. A couple days later, the Nixon administration got a federal court to force the New York Times to stop publishing articles about the Pentagon Papers. Nixon’s Attorney General, John Mitchell, argued that Ellsberg and Russo were guilty of breaking the Espionage Act of 1917, so this “prior restraint,” or pre-publication censorship, was justified. In fact, the Nixon administration argued that the Times publishing the Pentagon Papers put the country’s security at risk. Meanwhile, the Washington Post got in on the action and began publishing its own articles about the Pentagon Papers. The assistant U.S. Attorney General, William Rehnquist, a future Supreme Court chief justice, also tried to prevent the Post from publishing any more Pentagon Papers secrets. Eventually, 17 other newspapers published parts of the study. On June 28, 1971, Ellsberg surrendered to face criminal charges under the Espionage Act. The next day, a young Senator named Mike Gravel, who inexplicably throws a rock in a pond later in life, read the Pentagon Papers out loud for three hours, entering them into the Senate record. As you could imagine, by the time the American public is fired up about the revelations contained in these documents. Newspapers kept publishing stories about the Pentagon Papers, and the District Court for the District of Columbia and Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit both let them, so the Supreme Court decided to quickly step in, combining the cases against both the New York Times and the Washington Post. In case you hadn’t figured this one out by now, this was an obvious First Amendment issue. The Court heard arguments about whether or not the Nixon administration's efforts to prevent the publication of the Pentagon Papers went against the First Amendment. Was prior restraint justified? Did releasing this information put national security at risk?
Thumbnail
Why You Can Buy The Next President | Citizens United v. FEC
212K views • over 7 years ago
I wrote a new book all about the Supreme Court. Check it out here: http://amzn.to/45Wzhur Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/iammrbeat Mr. Beat's band: http://electricneedleroom.us Mr. Beat on Twitter: https://twitter.com/beatmastermatt In episode 10 of Supreme Court Briefs, a corporation argues it has the right to spend as much money as it wants on a political campaign because of the First Amendment. Check out cool primary sources here: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2008/08-205 Additional sources: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22scotus.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 http://dailycaller.com/2010/01/29/in-defense-of-citizens-united-v-fec/ http://truth-out.org/archive/component/k2/item/94728:the-story-of-citizens-united-v-fec http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/citizens-united-v-federal-election-commission/ Washington, D.C. 2007 A self-described conservative non-profit corporation called Citizens United wants to release a documentary. The film, called Hillary: The Movie, (hey that’s a pretty catchy title) talks a bunch of trash about Hillary Clinton, who just so happens to be running for President. Citizens United wanted to distribute and advertise the film within a month before the Democratic primary elections in January 2008. However, this would be a violation of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, aka BCRA (bikruh), aka the McCain-Feingold Act, the latest law that limited how political campaigns were paid for. BCRA said corporations or labor unions can’t spend money from their general treasury to broadcast anything through the mass media that specifically brings up a candidate running for federal office within 30 days of a primary. Anticipating that the Federal Election Commission, or FEC, might try to stop the release of their documentary, Citizens United went ahead and took the FEC to the United States District Court, essentially saying “don’t even think about it, FEC.” Citizens United claimed BCRA didn’t apply to Hillary: The Movie, because the film wasn’t clearly for or against a candidate. It also claimed that the Supreme Court decision FEC v. Wisconsin Right To Life justified them releasing the film within 30 days of the Democratic primaries. Not only that, but Citizens United argued that portions of BCRA straight up violated the FIrst Amendment to the Constitution. On January 15, 2008, the three-judge U.S. District Court said “nope, sorry Citizens United.” You can’t have your injunction, you gotta let the FEC regulate. The court said the film was clearly just meant to get people to not vote for Hillary Clinton, I mean...it was called Hillary: The Movie, for crying out loud. They also said the film was meant to be strategically shown right before the primaries for this purpose, and they cited the Supreme Court decision in McConnell v. FEC as justification that the FEC could prevent the showing up this film. Citizens United was like you know what? I’m appealing to the Supreme Court. Now, as you know, this can be a long process. What ended up happening was Hillary Clinton did not get the Democratic nomination and Barack Obama ended up being elected President later that year. But that ended up being irrelevant other than the fact that Obama nominated a new justice, Sonia Sotomayor, that agreed with the justice she replaced, David Souter. Throughout 2009, the Supreme Court heard multiple arguments about the case. The Court had remained very divided on the issue. Things got pretty philosophical. Finally, on January 21, 2010, the Court ruled 5-4 in favor of Citizens United, arguing that the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment prohibited the government from limiting money spent by corporations, labor unions, and other associations, on political campaigns. Specifically, we’re talking about independent political expenditures, or political campaign contributions not directly affiliated with the candidate. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion. “If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.” The Court's ruling basically freed corporations and unions to spend as much money as they want to elect or defeat candidates, as long as they didn’t contribute directly to candidates or political parties. The majority also argued that First Amendment protects ASSOCIATIONS of individuals, not just individual speakers, so you can’t prohibit speech based on the identity of the speaker. So corporations have free speech rights just like you or I. The idea of Corporate Personhood, or the legal notion that corporations share some of the same legal rights and responsibilities held by individuals, had pretty much been established by the Supreme Court since the 1800s. In this case, the Court definitely ruled that corporations are people man, corporations are people. Justice John Paul Stevens led the opinion of the dissent.
Thumbnail
The Supreme Court Case That Led to The Civil War | Dred Scott v. Sandford
422K views • over 7 years ago
I wrote a new book all about the Supreme Court. Order your copy today! http://amzn.to/45Wzhur Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/iammrbeat Mr. Beat's band: http://electricneedleroom.net/ Mr. Beat on Twitter: https://twitter.com/beatmastermatt In episode 11 of Supreme Court Briefs, a slave fights for his family's freedom after they live in free states for a while. Check out cool primary sources here: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/60/393/case.html Additional sources: https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/dred-scott-decision-still-resonates-today-2 https://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/DredScott.html http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/antebellum/landmark_dred.html http://www.sos.mo.gov/archives/resources/africanamerican/scott/scott.asp St. Louis, Missouri Some time between 1830 and 1833 Dr. John Emerson, an United States Army surgeon, buys a slave named Dred Scott. Emerson moved around a lot, and he always took Scott with him. In 1836, Emerson moved to Fort Armstrong, Illinois, taking Scott with him of course. Interestingly, Missouri was a state where slavery was legal, but in Illinois it was not. The next year, Emerson moved again, this time to the territory of Wisconsin (which is now in the state of Minnesota), where slavery was also illegal. While there, Dred Scott fell in love and married Harriet Robinson, another slave owned by a dude named Lawrence Taliaferro. Emerson ended up moving back to Missouri again shortly after this, leaving Dred and Harriet behind and leasing them out to other army officers. Well guess what? Emerson fell in love, too. He met a chick named Eliza Irene Sanford, who went by Irene, after he moved down to Louisiana for a bit. Hey I told you he moved a lot. Emerson married Sanford in Louisiana, and soon after asked Dred and Harriet to join him again. Harriet was pregnant and ended up having the baby on the trip down somewhere between Illinois and Wisconsin, in free territory. The Emersons and Scotts returned to Missouri a couple years later. John Emerson died in 1843, and Irene inherited his estate and the Scott family. However, for the next three years, Dred and Harriet Scott were hired out to different people. Dred and Harriet first tried to buy their freedom, but that didn’t work. So on April 6, 1846, the Scotts, with some help from legal advisors, sued Irene Emerson to obtain freedom from slavery. By this time, they had two kids. What’s crazy is that the Scotts were able to pay for it due to the family of Dred Scott’s previous owner helping out. The Scotts went through three lawyers over a 14-month period, but ultimately lost the case due to a technicality. Dred and Harriet Scott could not prove they were actually Irene Emerson’s slaves. However, the Scotts lawyers were able to get them a second trial. Due to a major fire, a cholera epidemic, and several other delays, that trial didn’t begin until January 1850. In this trial, they were able to prove that they were Emerson’s slaves.The jury favored the Scotts, granting them their freedom. Yay! Hold up. Not so fast, Emerson’s lawyers said. After all, Emerson would be losing four slaves, worth a lot of money. Her lawyers asked for a new trial, but they were denied. So then they appealed to the Missouri Supreme Court, who reversed the decision, arguing the Scotts were still slaves and they should have sued for freedom when they had the chance back when they lived in a free state. Well dang, so the Scotts were still slaves. But this saga isn’t over yet. Dred Scott sued again, on November 2, 1853, this time in federal court. For this suit, a lawyer named Roswell Field agreed to help free of charge. Except, this time, he wasn’t suing Emerson. He was suing her brother, John Sanford, who now claimed ownership of him. Aw how sweet, she gave him a gift. What a nice sister. Scott also alleged that Sanford assaulted his family. The judge went with Sanford because of the Missouri Supreme Court decision that said the Scotts were still slaves. Field was determined to get this one to the Supreme Court, though, as he wanted to settle the question: “did living in a free state or territory permanently free a slave?” The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, but not until February 1856. Keep in mind this is 10 YEARS after the Scotts first sued for freedom. Just Dred officially filed, with the implication his family would be freed as well if they sided with him. It became known as Dred Scott v. Sandford. Wait...SANDford? Yep, even though John Sanford’s name was, you know, Sanford, a clerk misspelled his name in court records and it stayed that way. The Supreme Court justices argued the case multiple times the rest of the year, finally giving a decision on March 6, 1857. The Court ruled 7-2 in favor of Sanford. One final time, Dred Scott and his family were denied their freedom. #supremecourtbriefs #apush #dredscottdecision
Thumbnail
Same-Sex Marriage Becomes Legal | Obergefell v. Hodges
197K views • over 7 years ago
I wrote a new book all about the Supreme Court. Order your copy today! http://amzn.to/45Wzhur Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/iammrbeat Mr. Beat's band: http://electricneedleroom.net/ Mr. Beat on Twitter: https://twitter.com/beatmastermatt In episode 12 of Supreme Court Briefs, a gay couple go to great lengths to get married, and ultimately help change how the Supreme Court interprets the 14th amendment as it pertains to same-sex marriage. Check out cool primary sources here: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2014/14-556 Additional Sources: https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2015/06/same-sex-marriage-pioneer-hails-u-s-supreme-court-ruling/ http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2015/04/14/obergefell-takes-lead-landmark-gay-marriage-case/25783191/ http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/uncucumbered/tuesday_scotus_hears_marriage_equality_arguments_meet_the_plaintiffs http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/06/26/us/annotated-supreme-court-decision-on-doma.html?_r=1& https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/the-dangerous-doctrine-of-dignity/391796/ https://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/his-huband-died-in-2013-but-jim-obergefell-is-still-fighting?utm_term=.spaZR6rJB#.tgZE2KDAy https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/how-jim-obergefell-became-the-face-of-the-supreme-court-gay-marriage-case/2015/04/06/3740433c-d958-11e4-b3f2-607bd612aeac_story.html?utm_term=.b5fb8bbadef5 Jim Obergefell (Ohberguhfell) reads a news story online about the Supreme Court decision in a case known as United States v. Windsor. In that case, the Court decided that part of the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional. This meant that same-sex married couples could have federal benefits as long as they were married in states where same-sex marriages were legal. Jim turned to his boyfriend of more than 20 years, John Arthur, who was laying in bed. Arthur could no longer walk due to ALS, also known as Lou Gehrig’s disease, which was quickly destroying his body. Obergefell kissed Arthur on the forehead and said, “let’s get married.” “Ok,” Arthur replied. They chose Maryland as the state to get married in, as same-sex marriage was illegal in their home state of Ohio. Turning to friends and family on Facebook, the couple raised $13,000 to have an ambulance take them to the airport, where they then boarded a medically equipped plane to the Baltimore-Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport, just outside Baltimore. On that day, July 11, 2013, they were married inside the plane on the tarmac. Unfortunately, once they returned to Ohio, they learned that Jim would not be listed on John’s death certificate as his surviving spouse. The reason? Ohio didn’t recognize their marriage for any purpose at all. So Jim and John sued John Kasich. Ok, so really they sued the state of Ohio, but Kasich was the governor so his name went down as the defendant. And it was really just Jim at this point as John was too weak to act. Jim argued that Ohio discriminated against same-sex couples who had married legally outside of the state. On July 22, the District Judge, a dude named Timothy Black, recognized the marriage, preventing Ohio from leaving John’s name off the death certificate after he died. Just three months later, John Arthur did pass away. While Jim’s name indeed did appear as John’s surviving spouse on the death certificate, Ohio had appealed this to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. As it turns out, several others were suing their states for the same reason. The Sixth Circuit combined six different decisions from four different states. Jim Obergefell’s case was just one of the six. On November 6, 2014, by a vote of 2-1, the Sixth Circuit ruled in favor of the states with the laws banning same-sex marriage. It cited the Supreme Court case Baker v. Nelson, a decision which said states can limit marriage to persons of the opposite sex, as justification for their ruling. Writing for the majority, Judge Jeffrey Sutton wrote: "Not one of the plaintiffs' theories...makes the case for constitutionalizing the definition of marriage and for removing the issue from the place it has been since the founding: in the hands of state voters." Jim and all the others challenging the state same-sex marriage bans appealed to the Supreme Court. The Court agreed to hear four of the same-sex marriage cases that directly challenged state laws banning same-sex marriage. One of these was Obergefell v. Hodges. Wait a sec. Who is Hodges? Hodges was the new dude appointed by Kasich to be Ohio’s health director back in August 2014, so yay, now his name gets to randomly go down in history!
Thumbnail
Why Stop-and-Frisk is Legal | Terry v. Ohio
151K views • over 4 years ago
I wrote a new book all about the Supreme Court. Order your copy today! http://amzn.to/45Wzhur In episode 55 of Supreme Court Briefs, an undercover detective stops and frisks three men who were acting "suspiciously" outside of a jewelry store. Was that an invasion of their Fourth Amendment rights? #supremecourtbriefs #4thamendment #stopandfrisk Want a specific SCOTUS case covered? Your idea gets picked when you donate on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/iammrbeat Donate on Paypal: https://www.paypal.me/mrbeat Buy Mr. Beat T-shirts, coffee mugs, etc.: https://sfsf.shop/support-mrbeat/ Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/mrbeat/ Mr. Beat's band: http://electricneedleroom.net/ Mr. Beat on Twitter: https://twitter.com/beatmastermatt Mr. Beat on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/iammrbeat/ Mr. Beat on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/iammrbeat Mr. Beat's Discord server: https://discord.gg/waK44fH Produced by Matt Beat. All images by Matt Beat, found in the public domain, or used under fair use guidelines. Thanks to the AP Archive for additional footage. Check out cool primary sources here: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1967/67 Other sources used: https://dcist.com/story/20/06/08/dc-black-lives-matter-blm-demands-change-how/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio https://www.acluohio.org/archives/cases/terry-v-ohio https://www.crimemuseum.org/crime-library/criminal-law/terry-ohio/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/392/1/ https://olemiss.edu/depts/ncjrl/pdf/katzMSLJ04.pdf Images https://www.freshwatercleveland.com/features/ohio-civics-essential-terry-vs-oh.aspx https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/terryvohio_newspaper/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop-and-frisk_in_New_York_City Creative commons credits: Xvex7 longislandwins Cleveland, Ohio October 31, 1963 That’s right, Halloween Martin McFadden, a Cleveland detective with 39 years of experience, gets suspicious when he sees two men pacing back and forth in front of a jewelry store. The two men, John Terry and Richard Chilton, would go back and forth, according to various reports, between 12 and 24 times. They took turns starting a block or two away, and then would routinely walk up to the jewelry store window to peek in, and return back to chat about it. Soon, a third man, named Carl Katz, approached Terry and Chilton and talked with them and then left. McFadden had seen enough. After the three men rejoined in front of Zucker’s, a clothing store, McFadden decided to approach them. McFadden was in street clothes, but identified himself as a police officer and asked them for their names. After the men “mumbled something” in response, McFadden frisked them. Frisk, by the way, means patting someone down to search for hidden weapons or illegal stuff. Well after McFadden frisked the men, he found a .38-caliber automatic pistol in Terry’s overcoat pocket and a .38-caliber revolver in Chilton’s pocket. Later McFadden would argue he only did a pat-down before reaching into their pockets for the guns. At the trial, Terry and Chilton’s lawyer argued the evidence of the guns couldn’t be used in court since McFadden’s frisk of them went against the Fourth Amendment. It was an illegal search and seizure. You see, there was this law called the exclusionary rule. The exclusionary rule said you couldn’t use evidence if the police got it illegally. The Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court disagreed, finding Terry and Chilton guilty. They ruled that, due to both the suspicious nature of their behavior and McFadden’s concern for his own safety, the “stop-and-frisk,” as it’s now commonly known, was reasonable. Terry appealed to the Ohio District Court of Appeals, which agreed with the lower court. So he appealed again, this time to the Supreme Court of Ohio, but it dismissed the appeal saying that it involved “no constitutional question.” By the time Terry had tried to appeal his case to the United States Supreme Court, it was 1967, a time when more and more Americans were losing their trust in the police. Especially African Americans. Oh, by the way, here is what Terry looked like. Here is what Chilton looked like. Here is what Katz looked like. The Supreme Court did hear arguments on December 12, 1967. The big question: was the stop and frisk of Terry and the other men a violation of the Fourth Amendment? The Court said no. On June 10, 1968, it announced it had sided with Ohio. It was 8-1. They said that the police could stop-and-frisk suspects as long as there was a “reasonable suspicion” that the suspect was actually about to commit a crime. So the search and seizure was reasonable in Terry and the others’ case since it did seem like they were gonna rob that jewelry store. After all, McFadden had 39 years of police experience, so he would know better than about anyone what an armed robbery was about to look like.
Thumbnail
Going to Prison For Criticizing the Government | Debs v. United States
153K views • over 7 years ago
I wrote a new book all about the Supreme Court. Order your copy today! http://amzn.to/45Wzhur Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/iammrbeat Mr. Beat's band: http://electricneedleroom.net/ Mr. Beat on Twitter: https://twitter.com/beatmastermatt In episode 13 of Supreme Court Briefs, Eugene Debs gives a speech criticizing war and praising socialism. He promptly gets arrested for breaking the Sedition Act, and spends the next several years fighting for his freedom. Check out cool primary sources here: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/249us211 Additional sources: "A People's History of the United States" by Howard Zinn http://www.encyclopedia.com/politics/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/debs-v-united-states-249-us-211-1919 http://uscivilliberties.org/cases/3678-debs-v-united-states-249-us-211-1919.html Canton, Ohio June 16, 1918 Eugene Debs, the famous labor activist and five-time Socialist Party of America presidential candidate, gives a speech, opposing World War One. He is careful with his words, for he knows that, under the Sedition Act of 1918, he could go to prison for criticizing the war or President Woodrow Wilson. In his speech, he did not specifically mention World War One nor criticize President Wilson. Even so, Debs was pretty courageous to give this speech. I’ll have Mark Ruffalo read you a sample of it. “They have always taught and trained you to believe it to be your patriotic duty to go to war and to have yourselves slaughtered at their command. But in all the history of the world you, the people, have never had a voice in declaring war, and strange as it certainly appears, no war by any nation in any age has ever been declared by the people.” Two weeks later, police arrested Debs and charged him with breaking the Sedition Act. In federal court, Debs argued that he was justified giving the speech due to the First Amendment. He also argued that the Sedition Act was unconstitutional. At his trial, he gave a speech to the court that one journalist said was “one of the most beautiful and moving passages in the English language.” Apparently the court wasn’t all that moved. On November 18, 1918, they found Debs guilty. The judge sentenced him to 10 years in prison and said he could never vote again. Debs appealed the conviction to the Supreme Court. This was a time when the Court was looking at a lot of cases involving free speech. Three weeks before the Court heard arguments from Eugene Debs and his lawyers, they heard arguments for a case called Schenck v. United States. In this case, the Court ended up deciding that speech should be limited if it leads to people committing a crime. This was where the “clear and present danger” doctrine came from. Basically, if speech can directly lead to hurting the country, then the Court said it can be limited. So the Court checked out several statements that Debs had made regarding the war. In each one of them, Debs was careful to attempt to comply with the Sedition Act of 1918 and the rest of the Espionage Act. However, the Court ended up concluding that his ultimate goal with these statements was obstructing the draft and thus hurting the war effort. On March 10, 1919, in a unanimous opinion, the Court announced it agreed with the lower court, upholding Debs’ conviction. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr (OliWen in the house!) gave the opinion. Holmes admitted that the speech Debs got in trouble for was mostly just about socialism. However, Holmes argued that the speech also was meant to get people fired up against American involvement in World War One to a point where people resisted the draft. Eugene Debs went to prison on April 13, 1919. A protest of his imprisonment directly led to the May Day riots of 1919. But, I mean, in 1919 riots were totally the rage all across the country anyway. Even in prison, Debs wouldn’t shut his mouth. He remained politically active, writing a series of columns talking trash about the prison system. Oh yeah, and he also ran for President from prison. Really. In the election of 1920, Debs got 3.4% of the popular vote, by far the most anyone has ever got running for President from prison. Debs. v United States was just one of several Supreme Court cases dealing with the limits of free speech that all took place right after World War One ended. It justified limited speech especially during times of crisis, like war. On December 13, 1920, Congress got rid of the Sedition Act. A year later, the new President, Warren Harding, freed Debs from prison. However, prison had taken a toll on his health. He died less than five years later.
Thumbnail
Broadcast Television on Your Phone? | ABC v. Aereo
53K views • over 7 years ago
I wrote a new book all about the Supreme Court. Order your copy today! http://amzn.to/45Wzhur Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/iammrbeat Mr. Beat's band: http://electricneedleroom.net/ Mr. Beat on Twitter: https://twitter.com/beatmastermatt In episode 14 of Supreme Court Briefs, a company trying to show broadcast television on phones and tablets gets sued by, you guessed it, broadcast companies. Check out cool primary sources here: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2013/13-461 Additional sources used: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/26/business/media/supreme-court-rules-against-aereo-in-broadcasters-challenge.html?_r=0 http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/american-broadcasting-companies-inc-v-aereo-inc/ https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-461_l537.pdf http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/06/abc_v_aereo_ruling_the_supreme_court_s_terrible_technological_analogies.html New York City March 14, 2012 A company called Oreo launches. Uh yeah, they provide the best cookies around, and...hold up...wait a minute...my mistake, I’m sorry. A company called Aereo (air-e-o) launches, allowing people to view live broadcast television on Internet-connected devices. For $8 to $12 a month, viewers could access the airwaves on their phone or tablet no matter where they were. Well a bunch of broadcasting companies didn’t like that so much. Two weeks before the launch, ABC, CBS, NBC, and FOX had all sued Aereo, arguing that the company threatened their copyrighted material because the streaming of live broadcast television in this way counted as a “public performance,” which means they needed to get a special license. The four broadcasting companies argued that Aereo broke part of the interestingly named Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act, which said you have to negotiate with broadcasters before you carry their signals. ABC, CBS, NBC, and FOX all basically said Aereo was stealing both their programming and customers. After the broadcasting companies failed to stop the launch of Aereo in federal court, they appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. This court agreed with the lower court, saying Aereo had the right to do this as their streams to subscribers were not “public performances,” so there wasn’t copyright infringement. This happened on April 1, 2013. By this time, Aereo was quickly growing and expanding across the country, getting awesome reviews from both the media and customers. But the broadcasting companies weren’t done yet...obviously. I’ve found corporations tend to have a lot of money to take others to court, for some strange reason. Anyway, the broadcasters appealed to the Supreme Court, and on January 10, 2014, the Court agreed to hear the case. This time around, the broadcasters had lots of allies, including the NFL, Major League Baseball, the Department of Justice, the United States Copyright Office, and some judge in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, who blocked Aereo in his district. Probably due to those allies, it was not looking good for Aereo. On June 25, 2014, the Court ruled in favor of the broadcasters, 6-3, and against Aereo. The Court explained Aereo was definitely breaking copyright law as it acted like a cable company that rebroadcasted copyrighted content. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the dissenting minority, saying the Court should not be making judgements on new technologies- it was the job of Congress. Before the Supreme Court decision, Aereo had about 80,000 subscribers. Well, three days after the decision, they all lost the service. Aereo filed for bankruptcy on November 21, 2014, and was later bought by TiVo for $1 million. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. v. Aereo, Inc. kept the status quo in broadcasting. Many argue it limited innovation. Critics say it’s likely the consumers who got screwed over the most in this one. #supremecourt #scotus #apgov
Thumbnail
When Does a Police Officer Go Too Far? | Graham v. Connor
167K views • over 7 years ago
I wrote a new book all about the Supreme Court. Order your copy today! http://amzn.to/45Wzhur Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/iammrbeat Mr. Beat's band: http://electricneedleroom.net/ Mr. Beat on Twitter: https://twitter.com/beatmastermatt In episode 15 of Supreme Court Briefs, a man with diabetes is beat up by the police who think he is drunk and just robbed a convenience store. Spoiler alert- he didn't. Check out cool primary sources here: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1988/87-6571 More sources: http://www.policemag.com/channel/patrol/articles/2014/10/understanding-graham-v-connor.aspx https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/why-it-will-be-very-hard-prosecute-cop-who-shot-terence-crutcher?utm_content=bufferf97d4&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-singer/when-the-supreme-court-de_b_11329416.html http://www.salon.com/2014/09/06/shoot_first_ask_later_why_the_concept_of_reasonable_fear_is_anything_but_reasonable/ https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2014/0822/How-a-1989-Supreme-Court-case-will-shape-Ferguson-investigation https://soc320lscr.wordpress.com/2014/11/03/excessive-force-reasonableness-and-graham-v-connor/ Dethorne Graham, who has diabetes, is about to have an insulin reaction. He has his friend, William Berry, drive him to a nearby convenience store to get some orange juice to counteract the reaction. Once he gets inside, he sees a really long line, making the store not so convenient anymore, and rushes back out to the car, directing his friend to drive him somewhere else to get the sugar he needs. Meanwhile, someone across the street is watching them. That someone is M.S. Connor, a police officer who was a bit uneasy about what he just witnessed. To him, it looked like Graham was robbing the convenience store, based on the fact that he entered and exited the store so quickly in what seemed to be a getaway car. Officer Connor immediately followed Graham and Berry’s car, flashing the patrol lights to pull them over about half a mile away from the store. As Connor approached the car, Berry frantically told him that Graham was a diabetic and he needed sugar immediately. Not believing him, Connor told the two to wait while he tried to figure out what happened back at the store. As Connor called for backup in his patrol car, Graham got out of the car, ran around it twice, and collapsed on the curb, passing out. Connor handcuffed Graham. By the time the backup, which was four other cops, arrived, Graham had regained consciousness. The cops seemed to assume that Graham was just drunk. Some of them didn’t believe Graham had diabetes. When Graham pleaded with them to check his wallet for a diabetic identification card, one of the officers told him to “shut up” and slammed him down on the hood of the car. The officers roughed up Graham pretty bad, throwing him head first into the patrol car. Later Graham claimed they gave him a bunch of cuts and bruises, injured his shoulder, and even broke his foot. As Graham waited in the back of the patrol car, a friend came by with some orange juice for him. However, the officers didn’t let him have it! Eventually, Officer Connor got a report that Graham had done nothing wrong at the convenience store, and the officers drove him home and released him. NO HARD FEELINGS, MAN. SO WE’RE COOL, RIGHT? Well, no, we are not cool. Graham later sued the five involved police officers, as well as the city of Charlotte. Graham argued his constitutional right to be free from excessive force had been violated. The district court used a due process test from a case known as Johnson v. Glick to determine if the officers were acting out of “good faith” or just acting “maliciously or sadistically.” In other words, were the cops trying to keep order or were they abusing their power? The district agreed with the city, justifying the actions of the police officers. Graham appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which agreed with the lower court. Graham appealed again, and the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case in October 1988, almost four years after the incident. Because Graham claimed his Fourth Amendment rights were violated, the Court had to make a decision based on how reasonable it was for the cops to do what they did strictly based on the Fourth Amendment. Because “objective reasonableness” could be interpreted in many many ways, the Court concluded such a case would be better judged from the perspective of the officers on the scene. On May 15, 1989, the Court announced they were unanimously in favor of Connor. The Court told the Fourth Circuit to look at the case again through the lens of the Fourth Amendment. They argued that doing that would make subjective concepts like malicious intent not applicable. Therefore, Connor was reasonably justified to assume that Graham had broken laws.
Thumbnail
The Federal Government Gets More Power | Gibbons v. Ogden
147K views • over 7 years ago
I wrote a new book all about the Supreme Court. Order your copy today! http://amzn.to/45Wzhur What Supreme Court case should I cover for this series next? In episode 16 of Supreme Court Briefs, two dudes fight over whether or not one can operate his steamboat in New York. In the end, the federal government just gets more power. Produced by Matt Beat. Music by Matt Beat (Electric Needle Room). All images found in public domain. Check out cool primary sources here: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1789-1850/22us1 More sources: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/22/1 http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/22/1.html https://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/antebellum/landmark_gibbons.html New York State 1808 The New York state legislature grants Robert Livingston and Robert Fulton exclusive privileges to operate their steamboats on the rivers of the state. If those names sound familiar, it’s because Livingston was, I don’t know, A FOUNDING FATHER OF THE UNITED STATES, and Fulton, I don’t know, BUILT THE FIRST WORKING STEAMBOAT. Anyway, those two had exclusive privileges on the rivers of New York, meaning, no one else, meaning there’s no competition, meaning it’s a monopoly, baby. Two other dudes, Thomas Gibbons and Aaron Ogden, bought a franchise from Livingston and Fulton so they could operate steamboats in New York, even though they hated the monopoly Livingston and Fulton had and at first tried to get around it. Three years later, Gibbons and Ogden’s partnership ended. However, Gibbons kept on sending his steamboats from New Jersey to New York, despite no longer having the license to do so. Gibbons argued he could because he had a federal license from Congress, thanks to an old law regulating trade along the coast. Oh Gibbons, you sneaky person, you. Obviously, Ogden, who was the former governor of New Jersey I might add, was very angry about this, as his former partner was taking away business from him by skirting passed a state law. Ogden made a complaint in the Court of Chancery of New York, asking them to stop Gibbons from operating steamboats there. Gibbons got a lawyer named Daniel Webster, a famous Congressman and later Senator and Secretary of State, to defend him. Webster argued that Congress had the final say over buying and selling stuff across state lines thanks to the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The what? The Commerce Clause, punks: Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 Congress can “ "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." But the Court of Chancery and Court of Errors of New York both said “nuh-uh,” and sided with Ogden, forcing Gibbons to stop his steamboat operations there. So Gibbons appealed to the Supreme Court. As the Court heard arguments in February 1824, the biggest question for them to answer was: “Was New York able to regulate commerce within its borders, even if that commerce depended on commerce in other states?” The Court said “no.” On March 2, 1824, the Court unanimously voted in favor of Gibbons. They agreed with Webster’s argument, that the Congress’s power overruled New York’s due to the Commerce Clause, but they also argued the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution guaranteed this. Chief Justice John Marshall, aka Lil’ Jon, defined the word “commerce,” saying it included navigation on interstate waterways. He even defined the word “among,” saying “among the several states” meant basically mixed together. So whenever state laws conflicted Congress could step in. Gibbons v. Ogden was the first of several Supreme Court decisions that increased the power of the federal government over the states. It greatly broadened the power of Congress, and that trend has continued to the present day.
Thumbnail
Why You Don't Hear Dirty Words on Radio or TV | FCC v. Pacifica Foundation
95K views • about 7 years ago
I wrote a new book all about the Supreme Court. Order your copy today! http://amzn.to/45Wzhur Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/iammrbeat Mr. Beat's band: http://electricneedleroom.net/ Mr. Beat on Twitter: https://twitter.com/beatmastermatt In episode 18 of Supreme Court Briefs, a son doesn't like his teenage son hearing bad words on the radio, so takes action. George Carlin, meanwhile, remains perplexed. Produced by Matt Beat. Music by Matt Beat (Electric Needle Room). All images found in public domain or used under fair use guidelines. Check out cool primary sources here: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1977/77-528 Other sources: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/filthywords.html https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2012/05/the-7-dirty-words-turn-40-but-theyre-still-dirty/257374/ https://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/constitutional-law/constitutional-law-keyed-to-stone/freedom-of-expression/fcc-v-pacifica-foundation/ https://constitutionallawreporter.com/2012/06/28/the-supreme-court-and-filthy-words-federal-communications-commission-v-pacifica-foundation/ http://cbldf.org/about-us/case-files/obscenity-case-files/obscenity-case-files-fcc-v-pacifica-foundation-george-carlins-seven-dirty-words/ New York City October 30, 1973 A radio station, owned by Pacifica Foundation, broadcasts George Carlin’s “Filthy Words” monologue. You know, the one where he famously proclaimed the seven dirty words that tend to make society the most upset? Well, a man named John Douglas, who was driving his 15-year old son, happened to turn his car radio on during the broadcast. Needless to say, Douglas was upset. He wrote the Federal Communications Commission, or FCC (Eminem FCC won’t let me be) complaining that the station had played something not appropriate for his kid to hear. The FCC found that certain words Carlin had said depicted “sexual and excretory (XCRUHTORY) activities” in an indecent way, and the radio station played it in the early afternoon “when children are undoubtedly in the audience.” The FCC wrote a scolding letter to Pacifica Foundation, saying essentially saying “shame on you!” They claimed Pacifica broke U.S. Code regarding obscene language on the radio. But Pacifica was like “we played it during an educational program about taboo language” and “we warned listeners before it aired about its indecency.” Pacifica tried to get the FCC to reconsider, but the FCC wouldn’t budge. It’s important to note the FCC didn’t punish Pacifica or anything. Regardless, Pacifica appealed the FCC’s response to the Court of Appeals for D.C., arguing the FCC was unfairly censoring them. The Court of Appeals reversed the FCC’s action, agreeing that it WAS unfair censorship. On October 7, 1977, the FCC appealed to the Supreme Court, and the Court agreed to hear arguments in April 1978. Early on, justices made the distinction between “indecent” and “obscene.” They argued they weren’t the same thing. I know, right? I had always thought they were. So the question became: Can the FCC regulate a radio broadcast that is indecent but not obscene? Indecent speech, after all, was protected by the First Amendment. The Court decided yes. On July 3, 1978, the Court had announced it sided with the FCC. By a vote of 5 to 4, it was obviously a close one. The Court said Carlin’s routine was “indecent but not obscene,” arguing the FCC could censor it on the radio to protect children from offensive material and make sure unwanted speech doesn’t come into one’s home. The Court said the FCC could forbid indecent broadcasts during hours when children would likely be among the audience. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the opinion of the divided court, arguing the First Amendment didn’t protect Carlin’s routine on the radio. “We have long recognized that each medium of expression presents special First Amendment problems. And of all forms of communication, it is broadcasting that has received the most limited First Amendment protection” Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation was the first time the Court reviewed the power of government to penalize bad language over the airwaves. It empowered the FCC, having a chilling effect on radio and television stations across the country. Critics say it just has justified unnecessary censorship. George Carlin died in 2008, but today his legacy is huge. Many comedians cite Carlin as an influence and he’s one of the most beloved comedians of all time. What is not beloved is this court case, which ultimately is what banned Carlin’s “7 dirty words.” It remains one of the most controversial Supreme Court cases in American history.
Thumbnail
Can You Start a Satan Club at School? | Westside Community Board of Education v. Mergens
78K views • about 7 years ago
I wrote a new book all about the Supreme Court. Order your copy today! http://amzn.to/45Wzhur Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/iammrbeat Mr. Beat's band: http://electricneedleroom.net/ Mr. Beat on Twitter: https://twitter.com/beatmastermatt In episode 20 of Supreme Court Briefs, high school students want to start a Bible Study Club, but their principal won't let them, saying it breaks the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Produced by Matt Beat. Music by Jermaine Hysten. All images found in public domain or used under fair use guidelines. Check out cool primary sources here: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1989/88-1597 Additional sources used: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1816&context=aulr https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/496/226 http://www.firstamendmentschools.org/freedoms/case.aspx?id=497 http://www.phschool.com/atschool/ss_web_codes/supreme_court_cases/mergens.html https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7l4_01VbfIY http://via.library.depaul.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2068&context=law-review http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/29/with-help-from-the-secula_n_1638950.html Omaha, Nebraska 1985 A group of students at Westside High School wants to form a Christian Bible Study Club that would meet after school, but on school grounds. One of the students, Bridget Mergens, asks the principal, James Finley, if they can do so, but he says no, saying the school could not allow a staff member to sponsor it. So Mergens and the rest of the students took the school district, Westside Community Schools, to court, saying the district broke the Equal Access Act, a law passed the previous year that required secondary public schools to provide equal access for its students to all extracurricular clubs. The students argued that denying the bible study club went against the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution. The U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska ruled in favor of the school district, arguing the district did not violate First Amendment nor Fourteenth Amendment rights. They also said the district didn’t break the Equal Access Act. The students appealed to the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which reversed the decision of the lower court. While the Court of Appeals said the Equal Access Act could have been written better, it said it was constitutional. More importantly, it said the district was taking away the students’ First Amendment rights by not allowing them to meet on school premises during “non-instructional time.” Westside Community Schools appealed to the Supreme Court. The core issue was whether or not the Equal Access Act violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by its requirement that schools allow clubs not related to stuff being taught in schools. Were religious clubs protected under that as well? The Court heard oral arguments on January 9, 1990, but it wasn’t until June 4 that they decided. In an 8-1 decision, the Court sided with Mergens and the rest of the students, saying the Bible Study Club could meet, but that their sponsor could not get paid for it. If the sponsor got paid, this might seem like an endorsement of one religion, which would break the Establishment Clause. It upheld the Equal Access Act. It also said that when public schools allow any clubs- including those that have little to do with what’s being taught in classes at the school- meet on school grounds, they have to open it to all clubs, religious or not. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote the opinion. “Allowing students to meet on campus and discuss religion is constitutional because it does not amount to 'state sponsorship of a religion.” Westside Community Board of Education v. Mergens didn’t settle the separation of church and state issue for sure, but it did settle the right for students to use public facilities to talk about their religion, as long as it wasn’t part of the regular curriculum. In recent years, atheist clubs have popped up in high schools across the country, and people have been offended. But guess what? They have the right to do that thanks to this case.
Thumbnail
A Pathway to Same-Sex Marriage | United States v. Windsor
92K views • about 7 years ago
I wrote a new book all about the Supreme Court. Order your copy today! http://amzn.to/45Wzhur Check out Tristan's video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sS0PuvwruU Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/iammrbeat Mr. Beat's band: http://electricneedleroom.net/ Mr. Beat on Twitter: https://twitter.com/beatmastermatt In episode 21 of Supreme Court Briefs, two women get married in Canada, but the United States federal government does not legally recognize it thanks to a law called the Defense of Marriage Act. Produced by Matt Beat. Music by Jermaine Hysten. All images found in public domain or used under fair use guidelines. Click here for cool primary sources: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2012/12-307 Other sources used: https://www.aclu.org/cases/lesbian-and-gay-rights/windsor-v-united-states https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/12-307 https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/26/supreme-court-doma-decision_n_3454811.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/27/opinion/the-expanding-power-of-us-v-windsor.html Toronto, Canada May 2007 After being in a relationship together for 44 years, Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer get married. In Canada, same-sex marriage is legal. However, in New York City, where Edie and Thea live, it is not. In fact, at the time the United States had a law called the Defense of Marriage Act, aka DOMA, which defined (marriage Princess Bride clip) as the union of one man and one woman. That law also said states didn’t have to recognize same-sex marriages that were granted in other states. So even when the state of New York recognized their marriage the next year, the federal government did not. Thea died in 2009, leaving her estate to Edie Windsor. Windsor tried to get the federal estate tax exemption since she was a surviving spouse. However, she couldn’t due to DOMA, which said this exemption didn’t apply to same-sex marriage. Everyone’s favorite organization, the Internal Revenue Service, or IRS, denied Windsor’s claim, and said she had to pay more than $363,000 in estate taxes. Well, she did pay it, but on November 9, 2010, Windsor sued the federal government seeking a refund saying this was discrimination and that DOMA was unconstitutional. While the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York was looking at the case, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the Department of Justice would not defend the constitutionality of the part of DOMA that applied to Windsor’s case. Despite this momentum for Windsor, she faced opposition from Paul Clement and the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, or BLAG, who stepped in to defend DOMA. On June 6, 2012, Judge Barbara Jones declared Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional as it went against the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Jones ordered a tax refund, including interest, for Windsor. The Department of Justice appeared to want to allow this case to become the law of the land and seemed to predict that this would happen, which may explain why it allowed an appeal from Clement and BLAG. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit agreed with the lower court. Judge Dennis Jacobs wrote, "Our straightforward legal analysis sidesteps the fair point that same-sex marriage is unknown to history and tradition, but law (federal or state) is not concerned with holy matrimony. Government deals with marriage as a civil status—however fundamental—and New York has elected to extend that status to same-sex couples." But the Justice Department wasn’t done yet. It wrote the Supreme Court, seeking judicial review of the decisions of both the District Court and Appellate Court. BLAG also petitioned the Supreme Court to review it. Well, obviously, the Court agreed to take on the case (After all this is an episode of SUPREME COURT BRIEFS, isn’t it), and they heard oral arguments on March 27, 2013. On June 26, 2013, they announced their decision, voting 5-4 in favor of Windsor. The Court held that Section 3 of DOMA, the one that said marriages could only be between men and women, was unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Basically, they argued the Constitution said the federal government couldn’t step in to treat state-sanctioned marriages between men and women differently than state-sanctioned marriages between those of the same gender. Justice Anthony Kennedy was pretty much the swing vote on this. Many were not sure where the conservative leaning justice would stand on such a socially liberal issue. Oh did the Court talk trash about DOMA. They wrote, “DOMA undermines both the public and private significance of state-sanctioned same-sex marriages; for it tells those couples, and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognition. This places same-sex couples in an unstable position of being in a second-tier marriage. The differentiation demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects.”
Thumbnail
Can Texas Secede From the Union? | Texas v. White
106K views • about 7 years ago
I wrote a new book all about the Supreme Court. Order your copy today! http://amzn.to/45Wzhur Electric Needle Room's album is here: https://electricneedleroom.bandcamp.com/album/pitchfork-wont-review-this Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/iammrbeat Mr. Beat's band: http://electricneedleroom.net/ Mr. Beat on Twitter: https://twitter.com/beatmastermatt Grant Hurst's video on the subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxC2UDzVbSo&t=49s Correction: 01:05 Apparently one of my sources was wrong. Paschal was not governor when Texas seceded, just a vocal opponent of secession. Sam Houston was the governor when Texas seceded. Houston was against it and kicked out of the office due to his loyalty to the Union. In episode 22 of Supreme Court Briefs, Texas sells bonds from a country it claims to no longer be a part of. After all is said and done, the Supreme Court decides whether or not Texas has a right to secede from the Union. Produced by Matt Beat. Music by Electric Needle Room (Matt Beat). All images found in public domain or used under fair use guidelines. Check out cool primary sources here: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1850-1900/74us700 Additional sources used: https://www.britannica.com/event/Texas-v-White https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/74/700 https://tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/jrt01 http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2013/01/on_secssion.html https://tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/fpa46 Austin, Texas 1851 As promised in the Compromise of 1850, the United States Congress pays the state of Texas $10 million in bonds. Flash forward to February 1, 1861, and both Texas citizens and members of the Texas state legislature vote for the state to secede, or leave the United States. This was, of course, right before the American Civil War began. In 1862, as the war raged on and Texas fought on the side of the Confederate rebels, it began to run out of money. And so, the Texas legislature cashed in its remaining bonds to buy war supplies. To make sure the bonds wouldn’t be purposely made worth less by the U.S. Treasury-due to the fact that, I don’t know, Texas was now a foreign nation at war against them!-the Texas legislature hid where the bonds came from, and didn’t even have the governor at the time, George Washington Paschal, sign them. I probably should say that Paschal had remained loyal to the Union during the war. Two brokers named George W. White and John Chiles bought 136 of those bonds. After the Confederates surrendered and the Civil War ended, the Union forced Texas, as well as all other former rebel states, to create a new state constitution and new state government loyal to the United States. That new state government found about those bonds sold to White and Chiles, and now wanted them back. So they sued them. Oh, and check it. Texas wasn’t messin around. They took White, Chiles, and the rest of the bond holders directly to the highest court in the land, the Supreme Court, on February 15, 1867. White and Chiles, however, argued that the Texas government had no right to sue in the Supreme Court because Texas wasn’t even a part of the United States when they bought the bonds. But the Texas government argued that they never really left the Union. Sure, Texas seceded, but Governor Paschal never approved it. But wait, there’s more! White and Chiles also argued that looking at this case was out of the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction since Texas residents, in 1867, were still under military rule and thus had no representation in Congress nor constitutional rights. The Court heard arguments in February 1869. The Court wondered...could Texas reclaim those bonds? Heck, was Texas even eligible to be seeking them with the Supreme Court? As in, were they or weren’t they a state during military rule during the Reconstruction period after the war? The Court announced their decision on April 12, 1869, voting 5 to 3 in favor of Texas. The Court argued Texas did have the right to sue for those bonds back. They also argued that when the Texas legislature voted to secede from the Union during the Civil War, um, yeah, that didn’t count. Throughout the war, the Court argued Texas was still a state, and that they couldn’t have seceded if they wanted to. Chief Justice Salmon Chase, a former Secretary of the Treasury for Abraham Lincoln, wrote, “When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation.” Chase did argue that while Texas still owned the bonds, it done messed up letting them go, and had to pay White and Chiles to make up for their troubles. Texas v. White is that Supreme Court case that always gets brought up when talking about how states can’t secede from the rest of the country. Many argue that that the Constitution doesn’t let states secede, and this case often backs them up. #supremecourtbriefs #supremecourt #ushistory
Thumbnail
How Interracial Marriage Bans Ended | Loving v. Virginia
162K views • about 7 years ago
I wrote a new book all about the Supreme Court. Order your copy today! http://amzn.to/45Wzhur Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/iammrbeat Band: http://electricneedleroom.net/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/beatmastermatt Corrections: 4:20 The arrow points to Mississippi. Alabama is to the east. In episode 23 of Supreme Court Briefs, a woman with darker skin and a man with lighter skin get married and get arrested and kicked out of the state of Virginia. For several years, they fight for their marriage all the way to the Supreme Court. Check out Cypher's video about the film "Loving" here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgRzTmiT0r0 Check out cool primary sources here: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1966/395 More sources: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/11/us/50-years-after-loving-v-virginia.html?mcubz=3&_r=0 http://time.com/4362508/loving-v-virginia-personas/ https://www.britannica.com/topic/Loving-v-Virginia http://www.mixedracestudies.org/wordpress/?tag=richard-loving https://billofrightsinstitute.org/educate/educator-resources/lessons-plans/landmark-supreme-court-cases-elessons/loving-v-virginia-1967/ https://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Loving_v_Commonwealth_March_7_1966 http://time.com/4533385/life-magazine-loving-grey-villet/ http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/05/18/intermarriage-in-the-u-s-50-years-after-loving-v-virginia/ Mildred Jeter, a woman of both African American and Native American ancestry, discovers she is pregnant, and Richard Loving, a Caucasian, is the father. The two decide to get married, and they live happily ever after. The end. Except wait. Nope, in the state of Virginia, interracial marriages are illegal. So Jeter and Loving go up to Washington, D.C., where interracial marriages are legal, tie the knot on June 2, 1958, and return home to live with each other back in Virginia. Well somehow word must got out about the couple, because shortly thereafter, the local sheriff ordered a late night raid of their home. So yeah, in the middle of the night, police not only burst into their home but also into their bedroom, hoping to catch them having sex, which also was illegal. The Lovings were actually sleeping, and awoke to being arrested for violating Virginia’s Racial Integrity Act, the law that said whites and non-whites could not marry each other. The Lovings pled guilty, and the judge sentenced them to one year in prison. However, their sentence was suspended as long as they moved out of Virginia and never returned as a married couple for 25 years. So the Lovings moved up to the same city where they got married, Washington D.C. The Lovings did occasionally sneak back down to Virginia, but for five years they lived in DC and basically hated it. As Mildred and Richard’s family grew in DC, they missed their family back home, and probably the clean country air. In 1964, tired of living as an exile, Mildred wrote Attorney General Robert Kennedy. Kennedy referred her letter to the American Civil Liberties Union, or ACLU, who then reached out to the Lovings. The ACLU’s two volunteer cooperating attorneys, Bernie Cohen and Philip Hirschkop, filed a motion on behalf of the Lovings to the Virginia Caroline County Circuit Court, requesting it to allow the marriage since denying it broke the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. The County Circuit Court didn’t respond, so Cohen and Hirschkop sued the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. After no luck there, the ACLU helped the Lovings appeal to the Virginia Supreme Court. While the Virginia Supreme Court also upheld the constitutionality of the interracial marriage ban, it did get rid of the sentence banning the Lovings from the state of Virginia. It’s important to note that during all of this, Mildred and Richard Loving got a lot of national media attention. They absolutely were not looking for all of this attention, but it obviously did help raise awareness of their struggle, especially after Life Magazine came out and took pictures of them. Anyway, the ACLU pretty much expected all the pushback from the state of Virginia, so they were well prepared to appeal to the Supreme Court. The Lovings decided to stay home on April 10, 1967, when the Court heard oral arguments. By that time, nine years had passed since they got married. On June 12, 1967, the Court announced it had unanimously sided with the Lovings, overturning their convictions and ruling Virginia’s interracial marriage ban as unconstitutional. Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote the opinion, which stated that Virginia’s Racial Integrity Act went against both the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Said Warren: “The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.”
Thumbnail
Can Recorded Testimony Be Used in Court? | Crawford v. Washington
64K views • almost 7 years ago
I wrote a new book all about the Supreme Court. Order your copy here: http://amzn.to/45Wzhur or visit https://www.iammrbeat.com/merch.html. Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/iammrbeat Mr. Beat's band: http://electricneedleroom.us Mr. Beat on Twitter: https://twitter.com/beatmastermatt In episode 25 of Supreme Court Briefs, a man stabs another man, but calls it self-defense. However, the only witness can't testify in court, so they use her recorded police interrogation instead. Wait a second, CAN THEY DO THAT?!? Produced by Matt Beat. Music by Electric Needle Room (Matt Beat). All images found in public domain or used under fair use guidelines. Computer error sound effect by Mike Koenig Photo by Lwp Kommunikacio https://www.flickr.com/photos/lwpkommunikacio/13774906804 Check out cool primary sources here: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2003/02-9410 Other sources used: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-9410.ZO.html https://www.theconstitutionproject.com/portfolio/the-confrontation-clause/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawford_v._Washington http://federalevidence.com/pdf/2007/13-SCt/Crawford_v._Washington.pdf https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/541/36/ Olympia, Washington August 5, 1999 Sylvia Crawford tells her husband, Michael Crawford, that a man named Kenneth Lee had attempted to rape her. Michael Crawford, who had been heavily drinking some alcohol, does not go to the police to report this. Instead, the very angry and very drunk Crawford goes to Kenneth Lee’s apartment. Crawford and Lee get into a fight, and the next thing you know Crawford is stabbing Lee in the stomach. During the stabbing, Crawford’s hand also got cut. After the police did get involved, they arrested both Michael and Sylvia Crawford and interrogated them separately. Michael and Sylvia gave similar accounts of what happened, but there was one important difference. Michael claimed he had stabbed Kenneth out of self-defence, but Sylvia said Kenneth did not have a weapon. This would cause the police to question Michael’s story. How could it be self-defence if Kenneth didn’t even have a weapon? The State of Washington charged Michael Crawford with assault and attempted murder. State law said people married didn’t have to testify against each other in court, so at Michael’s trial, Sylvia didn’t take the stand. However, the police had recorded her interrogation, and the judge allowed the deputy prosecutor, Robert Lund, to use that tape as evidence that Michael was attempting murder, not acting in self-defense. Crawford’s lawyers were like, “hold up man, you can’t use that tape!” They said Mrs. Crawford’s recorded statements couldn’t be used as evidence unless they were able to cross examine her, which, as I previously said, under state law they couldn’t. The defense argued this went against the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. Crawford had a right to confront his accuser in court, and you can’t cross examine a recording of a voice. Believe me, I have tried. I yell at my own voice recordings all the time. But nevertheless, the recording was still used as evidence, and influential evidence at that. The State convicted Crawford of attempted murder and assault and sentenced him to about 15 years in prison. However, the Washington Court of Appeals overturned the decision, arguing that, due to the precedent set by the Supreme Court case Ohio v. Roberts, Sylvia Crawford’s recorded testimony was not reliable enough. Ohio v. Roberts also dealt with the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment and set up this reliability standard. However, the Washington Supreme Court overturned the Washington Court of Appeals decision and said that Sylvia’s recorded testimony was reliable because it complemented Michael’s testimony well. So they reinstated his conviction. Goodness, all these different interpretations of the same evidence. That never happens! The Supreme Court was like, “we want in on this action,” and requested to review the case on June 9, 2003. On November 10 that same year, they heard oral arguments. The big question for this case was, “Does using testimony from out of the court, with no chance for cross-examination, go against the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment?” The court said “yes, why yes it does.” On March 8, 2004, the ruled in favor of Crawford, 9-0. Yep, it was unanimous. The Court argued that Sylvia Crawford’s recorded statement from the police interrogation violated Michael Crawford’s Sixth Amendment right to confront her about it in court. Justice Antonin Scalia gave the opinion. He argued that any out-of court statement that is “testimonial” should not be allowed as evidence, unless this statement came from a person who had no way of testifying in court AND this person could be cross-examined by the defendant ahead of time. Crawford v. Washington overturned Ohio v. Roberts. It made it much more difficult to allow “hearsay” evidence to be used in court.
Thumbnail
Why Illegal Immigrants Can Attend Public School | Plyler v. Doe
98K views • almost 7 years ago
I wrote a new book all about the Supreme Court. Order your copy here: http://amzn.to/45Wzhur or visit https://www.iammrbeat.com/merch.html. Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/iammrbeat Mr. Beat's band: http://electricneedleroom.us Mr. Beat on Twitter: https://twitter.com/beatmastermatt In episode 26 of Supreme Court Briefs, illegal immigrants get kicked out of public schools in Tyler, Texas and a local district starts charging them to attend school there because they're illegal. Produced by Matt Beat. Music by Jermaine Hysten. All images found in public domain or used under fair use guidelines. Photos credits: Pax Ahimsa Gethen https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:DACA_rally_SF_20170905-8471.jpg Noah Scialom https://www.flickr.com/photos/ftmeade/7370371244 Sound effect credits: Punch sound effect by Mike Koenig Check out cool primary sources here: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1981/80-1538 Other sources used: https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/plyler-v-doe-public-education-immigrant-students https://www.aclu.org/blog/immigrants-rights/school-everyone-celebrating-plyler-v-doe https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/457/202 https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/plyler-v-doe-still-guaranteeing-unauthorized-immigrant-childrens-right-attend-us-public https://www.apmreports.org/story/2017/08/21/plyler-doe-daca-students http://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/access-education-rule-law Tyler, Texas 1975 Under the leadership of James Plyler, the Tyler Independent School District begins charging $1,000 a year for unauthorized immigrant students to attend school there. It had justified this decision by a recent Texas law that said it wouldn’t use taxpayer money to educate students who were not “legally admitted” into the United States. Not only that, the law said school districts could deny students enrollment if their parents couldn’t prove they were legal citizens. And that’s exactly what the Tyler Independent School District started doing. In fact, in 1977 it began kicking kids out of school if they didn’t have United States birth certificates. In response, four families affected by this new policy sued the school district. The district court, which, in order to protect their privacy identified them using pseudonyms, decided that the kids should be allowed to go to school and found both the state law and the school district’s policy unconstitutional. They argued the law and policy went against the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. The school district appealed, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit agreed with the lower court. The district appealed to the Supreme Court, and the Court agreed to hear the case, combining it with a similar case, weirdly called Texas v. Certain Named and Unnamed Alien Child. By golly that could be a great band name, come to think of it. Anyway, the Court heard oral arguments on December 1, 1981. The Court had a difficult time with this one, and wouldn’t announce its decision until June 15, 1982. In a 5-4 decision, they sided with the families, and struck down the Texas law that withheld funds from educating students who were illegal aliens. The Court argued that illegal aliens and their children, even though they weren’t citizens were still people, who deserved the same rights as protected under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Because they viewed education as a right, and because they weren’t hurting the state that much by going to school, the Court said these students should be able to go. Leading the dissent was Justice Burger, who argued it wasn’t the judicial system’s place to solve this issue, but that it ought to be solved through the legislative process. This might surprise some, but the dissent actually said these kids should be able to go to school. They just argued the Constitution didn’t allow them to decide on this. With all the debate today about DACA, or the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, the immigration policy that lets the children of illegal aliens not get kicked out of the country among other things, Plyler v. Doe is an extremely relevant case. Today, school administrators in K-12 public schools can’t even ask about a child’s immigration status. Notice how I said K-12. Post secondary schools can still have restrictions based on citizenship status. Years later, James Plyler, the superintendent who fought these families who wanted their undocumented kids to attend school, who in fact this case was named after, changed his mind. On the 25th anniversary of the decision, in 2007, Plyler said that Texas law that withheld funds from educating students who were illegal aliens “would have been one of the worst things to happen in education - they’d cost more not being educated. Right after we let those youngsters in, I was pleased.”
Thumbnail
Why YouTube Can Exist | Sony v. Universal
101K views • almost 7 years ago
I wrote a new book all about the Supreme Court. Order your copy here: http://amzn.to/45Wzhur or visit https://www.iammrbeat.com/merch.html. Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/iammrbeat Mr. Beat's band: http://electricneedleroom.us Mr. Beat on Twitter: https://twitter.com/beatmastermatt In episode 28 of Supreme Court Briefs, Universal Studios, Disney, and other media corporations sue Sony for copyright infringement after Sony creates this device that can record stuff so that viewers can watch it later. Check out cool primary sources here: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1982/81-1687 Other sources used: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betamax https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/01/the-court-case-that-almost-made-it-illegal-to-tape-tv-shows/251107/ http://blog.legalsolutions.thomsonreuters.com/legal-research/today-1984-supreme-court-decides-sony-betamax-case/ http://articles.latimes.com/2014/jan/17/opinion/la-ed-betamax-ruling-anniversary-20140117 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Universal_City_Studios,_Inc. Photo credits: Sound effect credits: Punch sound effect by Mike Koenig Sony develops a new technology called Betamax. It was the first video tape recording form made widely available for the public. People could use this technology to, for the first time ever, record stuff from live TV or even from other recordings for future use. Now, eventually, Betamax would lose the of the late 1970s and early 1980s to its archenemy, the dreaded VHS. While Beta was a formidable opponent, VHS triumphed, until it eventually was defeated in another war to the great DVD. Anyway, for the first couple years, before VHS entered the scene, Betamax was living the dream, the next big thing. But many corporations in the film and television industries did not like this new technology so much. Universal Studios, the Walt Disney Company and other TV and film corporations sued Sony’s American-based operations in California District Court for copyright infringement. These corporations argued that Sony’s customers were using the Betamax recording devices to record copyrighted programs so they could view them later. The nerve! Two years later-man things can move slowly in court- the California District Court ruled in favor of Sony, arguing that recording for noncommercial home use fell under fair use guidelines, and that access to free public information was protected under the First Amendment under fair use. One major problem with fair use, however, is that it can be interpreted many ways, you know like the Bible, or the Constitution? Universal Studios and the rest appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court, who in 1981 reversed the lower court’s decision, saying that yes, Sony was contributing to copyright infringement by selling these Betamax machines. They argued the main purpose of Betamax was copying, and even suggested damages to be paid to the TV and film corporations and further legal restrictions on Betamax and similar home recording technologies like VHS. By this time, though, both Beta and VHS were selling like crazy. Sony of course appealed to the Supreme Court, who heard oral arguments on January 18, 1983. The Court really struggled with this one. And they’re weren’t divided politically, meaning this wasn’t your typical conservative/liberal divide. Perhaps they just had a hard time grasping the implications of this new technology. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a dissenting opinion expecting the Court to rule against Sony and for Universal and the rest. However, he wrote the opinion as if it was a majority opinion. By sneakily doing this, he may have persuaded two justices, William Brennan and Byron White to come his way. On January 17, 1984, the Court finally announced its decision. It was 5-4, in favor of Sony. The Court argued that many broadcast copyright holders didn’t care if their programming was copied for home use. The most famous example of this was Fred Rogers or Mr. Rogers’ Neighborhood fame. Rogers testified at the district court and said he was cool with it, saying it actually helped his show be seen more.
Thumbnail
Do Students Have Free Speech in School? | Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District
303K views • over 6 years ago
I wrote a new book all about the Supreme Court. Order your copy here: http://amzn.to/45Wzhur or visit https://www.iammrbeat.com/merch.html. Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/iammrbeat Mr. Beat's band: http://electricneedleroom.us Mr. Beat on Twitter: https://twitter.com/beatmastermatt In episode 29 of Supreme Court Briefs, students protest the Vietnam War by wearing armbands to school. After some of them get suspended for doing so, the families sue the school district, arguing the students' First Amendment rights were violated. Check out cool primary sources here: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1968/21 https://www.aclu.org/other/tinker-v-des-moines-landmark-supreme-court-ruling-behalf-student-expression https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinker_v._Des_Moines_Independent_Community_School_District https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/tinker-v-des-moines-protecting-student-free-speech http://time.com/5171160/gun-control-student-protest-history/ https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/education/2018/03/13/national-school-walkout-heres-how-tinker-v-des-moines-paved-way/420075002/ http://www.sacbee.com/news/state/california/article205826534.html Photo credits: Amalex5 Rhododendrites WestportWiki Andrew Imanaka Sound credits: Mike Koening 15-year old John Tinker, his 13-year old sister Mary Beth Tinker, his 11-year old sister Hope Tinker, and his 8-year old brother Paul Tinker, along with his friend 16-year old Christopher Eckhardt, wear black armbands to school as a way to protest the ongoing Vietnam War. The principals of the schools all told their students they couldn’t wear these armbands or they would be punished. Well, they wore them anyway. The principals suspended John, Mary Beth, and Christopher, saying they couldn’t come back to school unless they came not wearing the armbands. The students would not return to school until January, but in protest worse black clothing every day for the rest of the school year. Meanwhile, after the suspension of the students made the front page of The Des Moines Register, the Iowa Civil Liberties Union approached the Tinkers and said “hey, uh, the school district can’t do that. You should sue them. We will help you.” Actually, the ACLU, or American Civil Liberties Union, stepped in to help the Tinker family and Eckhardt sue the Des Moines Independent Community School District, arguing that the First Amendment protected the students’ right to protest at school. Obviously, the kids couldn’t sue, so their dads were the ones who filed suit. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa upheld the prohibition of armbands. While it acknowledged the students had the right to protest under the First Amendment, their concern was that a school would have a hard time keeping an orderly environment where students could learn stuff if protests like this were going on. The Tinkers and Eckhardts appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, but that court was evenly divided, so they appealed directly to the Supreme Court, who heard arguments on November 12, 1968. So West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette had already said students had constitutional protections at school, but this case dealt specifically with free speech rights. Dan Johnston, the lawyer for the students, said the district had previously let other kinds of political speech occur and that it didn’t disrupt learning at school. Allan Herrick, the lawyer for the district, said the district should be allowed to limit speech if it seems like it could lead to “violence, disorder, and disruption.” That didn’t convince the Court, though. On February 24, 1969, it announced it had sided with Tinker and company. It was 7-2. The Court argued the armbands symbolized pure speech that was completely separate from any actions of those wearing them. The Court also argued that just because they were students on school property didn’t mean they lost their First Amendment right of freedom of speech. Justice Abe Fortas wrote, "It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate" Justice Hugo Black wrote a dissent saying that the armbands did, in fact, disrupt school activities, and later Supreme Court cases like Bethel School District v. Fraser and Morse v. Frederick would seem to favor his perspective with this case. Regardless, Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District has been a hugely influential and frequently cited case regarding First Amendment rights for students. It created the Tinker Test, or a way to see if student speech is actually disruptive at school. It weakened the legal idea that the school takes the place of the parent while the student is in attendance. You could even say the Tinker decision paved the way for the recent National School Walkout that took place in schools across the country.
Thumbnail
When The Supreme Court Tried to Prevent Indian Removal | Worcester v. Georgia
192K views • over 6 years ago
I wrote a new book all about the Supreme Court. Order your copy here: http://amzn.to/45Wzhur or visit https://www.iammrbeat.com/merch.html. Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/iammrbeat Mr. Beat's band: http://electricneedleroom.us Mr. Beat on Twitter: https://twitter.com/beatmastermatt In episode 30 of Supreme Court Briefs, the Supreme Court makes an important ruling, and the state of Georgia and Andrew Jackson completely ignore it. Check out cool primary sources here: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1789-1850/31us515 Other sources used: http://www.umass.edu/legal/derrico/marshall_jow.html http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/articles/government-politics/worcester-v-georgia-1832 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/31/515 http://www.todayingeorgiahistory.org/content/worcester-v-georgia http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/articles/government-politics/george-r-gilmer-1790-1859 http://www.todayingeorgiahistory.org/content/treaty-new-echota Sound credits: Mike Koenig Music by Isaac Sander, Sam Sigourney, and Matt Beat. Georgia The 1820s The Cherokee Nation, which held territory within Georgia’s borders, as well as in North Carolina, Alabama, and Tennessee, is threatened by the increasing amount of Americans who were trespassing and wanting to straight up take over their land. Georgia governor George Gilmer, as well as most of the Georgia legislature, made it very clear they wanted the Cherokee out of the state. In 1827, the Cherokee Nation formally established a constitutional government and declared themselves sovereign, meaning American laws didn’t apply to them. This, of course, angered governor Gilmer and the legislature, and they annexed all Cherokee land in the state, dismantled the Cherokee government, and redistributed much of their land to white citizens. Not only that, but three years later Congress passed and President Andrew Jackson signed the Indian Removal Act, which gave the President the power to negotiate treaties to remove Native Americans from their lands. While all of this was going on, white missionaries were working with the Cherokee Nation to help them defend their sovereignty and continue to resist the Georgia laws that was kicking them off their own land. The Georgia legislature didn’t like this so much, so they passed a law that specifically banned “white persons” from living with the Cherokee without special permission from the state. But several of these missionaries were rebels, you could say- they refused to leave. Two of them who refused to leave were Elizur Butler, a doctor from Connecticut, and Samuel Worcester,a minister from Vermont. Local authorities arrested Butler and Worcester for “residing within the limits of the Cherokee nation without a license” and “without having taken the oath to support and defend the constitution and laws of the state of Georgia.” They were convicted and sentenced to hard labor for 4 years as punishment. Worcester and Butler appealed the decision with the help of lawyers paid for by the Cherokee Nation, and their case ended up going to the Supreme Court. The Court heard arguments in February 1832. Worcester and Butler’s main argument was that the government of Georgia, by making laws that allowed it to force the Cherokee Nation to do whatever it said, was unconstitutional because only Congress could make treaties and deals with Indian tribes. On March 3, 1832, the Supreme Court announced it had sided with Worcester and Butler, voting 5-1 in their favor. Chief Justice John Marshall, aka “Lil’ John,” delivered the opinion. He argued the Georgia law was unconstitutional and got in the way of the federal government's authority. He said, "The Cherokee nation, then, is a distinct community occupying its own territory in which the laws of Georgia can have no force. The whole intercourse between the United States and this nation, is, by our constitution and laws, vested in the government of the United States." In other words, he recognized the Cherokee as an independent nation. Georgia couldn’t pass laws controlling Spain or France, so why could they pass laws controlling the Cherokee? So what did Georgia do in response to this decision? They ignored it. And Worcester and Butler stayed imprisoned. And President Andrew Jackson didn’t force Georgia to follow the Supreme Court decision, and instead said the Cherokee Nation better get out of Georgia or fall in line with their laws. Eventually Worcester and Butler were freed from prison only after they promised to stop helping the Cherokee resist the Georgia laws. In 1835, a faction of Cherokees broke away and secretly signed the Treaty of New Echota, which gave up Cherokee lands in Georgia in exchange for money. This group claimed to be representing all of the Cherokee, but they were not. In 1838, the U.S. Army forced almost all remaining Cherokees off of their lands in Georgia and marched them to Indian Territory in what is now Oklahoma.
Thumbnail
The Difference Between Gambling and Gaming | FCC v ABC
44K views • over 6 years ago
I wrote a new book all about the Supreme Court. Order your copy here: http://amzn.to/45Wzhur or visit https://www.iammrbeat.com/merch.html. Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/iammrbeat Mr. Beat's band: http://electricneedleroom.us Mr. Beat on Twitter: https://twitter.com/beatmastermatt In episode 31 of Supreme Court Briefs, a game show gives away money and stuff, and the FCC gets all upset and tries to stop it. Check out Buck Russell's channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/kmsimedia Music by Drew Gerber. Check out cool primary sources here: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5455721301867974049&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr Other sources used: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/347/284/case.html http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep347/usrep347284/usrep347284.pdf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_the_Music_(U.S._TV_series) https://books.google.com/books?id=-UeveLMilioC&pg=PA1919&lpg=PA1919&dq=fcc+v+abc+1954&source=bl&ots=TZ5lR6nDfE&sig=6_PTofedxcvECYdqg3w3MIhqNAg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwikhpi3yLfaAhULMd8KHbsvAHsQ6AEIajAI#v=onepage&q=fcc%20v%20abc%201954&f=false http://www.jimramsburg.com/stop-the-music-audio.html Sound effect: Mike Koenig New York City March 21, 1948 The American Broadcasting Company, or ABC, debuts a new radio game show called Stop the Music! Here’s how the show worked. Either an orchestra would play a popular song or two singers would hum a popular song, and the host, Bert Parks, would stop them by shouting “Stop the music!” This was Park’s signal that he had a contestant on the line whom he had called at random. This contestant was to guess the name of the song just played. If the contestant correctly guessed the name of the song, she or he won a prize, usually an expensive household appliance. If the contestant got the song wrong, the show chose a member of the studio audience to identify the song to win the prize. Six weeks after the show debuted, a North Carolina contestant won a jackpot of $17,000, or more than $179,000 if they’d won today and you adjusted for inflation. The show was a hit, and other broadcasters took notice, starting their own prize giveaway shows. Later, Stop the Music! was turned into a TV show. Not everyone was a fan. The National Association of Broadcasters accused these prize giveaway shows of “buying an audience.” The Federal Communications Commission, or FCC, (Eminem clip?) said the shows were breaking lottery laws and threatened to take away the license of any radio or TV station that aired them. In response, ABC sued the FCC because the FCC wouldn’t let them be. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled in favor of ABC, and so the FCC appealed to the Supreme Court. Now this whole process took awhile. The Court didn’t hear arguments until February 1, 1954. This was the same group of justices who heard arguments for the Brown v. Board of Education decision, by the way. At the root of this issue was whether or not shows like Stop the Music! promoted gambling. On April 5, 1954, the Court announced it had also sided with the broadcasters, ruling 8-0. The Court said the FCC straight up misinterpreted the lottery laws. These quiz shows were not gambling, as they were contests, and skill was involved, not chance. FCC v. ABC further legitimized the quiz show and further protected prize giveaway shows in general. Despite Stop the Music! quickly losing popularity and the quiz show trend of the late 1940s and early 1950s just being a fad, you could say this little known case played a big role in further making the game show a fixture of American culture.
Thumbnail
Can the Police Use Evidence They Got Illegally? | Mapp v. Ohio
235K views • over 6 years ago
I wrote a new book all about the Supreme Court. Order your copy here: http://amzn.to/45Wzhur Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/iammrbeat Mr. Beat's band: http://electricneedleroom.us Mr. Beat on Twitter: https://twitter.com/beatmastermatt In episode 32 of Supreme Court Briefs, police break into a home of a citizen and later charge her with having sexually explicit material. Music by Isaac Sander. Check out cool primary sources here: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1960/236 Other sources used: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mapp_v._Ohio https://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/criminal-procedure/criminal-procedure-keyed-to-saltzburg/searches-and-seizures-of-persons-and-things/mapp-v-ohio-3/ http://www.clevelandmemory.org/legallandmarks/mapp/illegalsearch.html http://cobras.clevelandsgs.com/2010/12/virgil-ogletree/ https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/10/us/dollree-mapp-who-defied-police-search-in-landmark-case-is-dead.html https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/367/643/case.html https://billofrightsinstitute.org/educate/educator-resources/lessons-plans/landmark-supreme-court-cases-elessons/mapp-v-ohio-1961/ Photo credits: Shawn Lea Mikerussell Nick Youngson Cleveland, Ohio May 23, 1957 Someone sets a bomb off at Don King’s house. Yep, that Don King, the future boxer promoter who at the time was a controversial bookie who had many enemies. So yeah, apparently one of those enemies was whoever bombed his house that day. The Cleveland police got a tip that a another bookie named Virgil Ogletree might have been involved with the bombing, and that he was hiding out in the house of Dollree Mapp. They also suspected stuff to make a bomb might be at the house. Three Cleveland police officers get to Mapp’s house, knock on the door and she answers. They ask to enter, but Mapp says “you gotta warrant?” After the police say no, she refuses to let them in. Two of the officers leave, but one hangs out across the street to stake out the place. Three hours later, even more officers return and knock on her door. This time Mapp doesn’t answer, and they break down the door and enter without permission. Mapp asks again to see a warrant. One of the officers shows her a piece of paper that is supposedly the warrant. She snatches the paper and puts it in her blouse. The officer reaches inside her clothing and she resists while he tries to get it back. He eventually does it get it back, and that piece of paper is never seen again. The police handcuffed Mapp and continued to search her home. They did find Ogletree, who later was cleared of being connected to the bombing, but while they were looking for him they also found evidence of illegal gambling, a pistol, and a small collection of sexually explicit materials that a previous resident had left behind. The Cleveland police arrested Mapp for having the gambling stuff but was later cleared. However, she didn’t cooperate with authorities very well, and several months later they turned around and charged her with having the sexually explicit materials, which apparently was illegal in Ohio at the time. Illegal, Mr. Beat? Yes, in 1957 it was illegal to possess “obscene materials.” Mapp was found guilty and sentenced to up to seven years in prison. Mapp appealed to the Ohio Court of Appeals for the Eighth District, arguing that the Ohio law banning the possession of obscene material went against the First Amendment. But what about the Fourth Amendment, Mr. Beat? (weird voice) Well, surprisingly, the Fourth Amendment wasn’t Mapp’s focus, but she could have also said that the police broke the Fourth Amendment when they searched through her stuff. Specifically, the police had no probable cause to suspect her of having the sexually explicit books, and they couldn’t use the books as evidence in court because they were found without a warrant. In addition, Mapp could have argued to get the 4th Amendment applied to both the state and local level, not just the federal level. The Ohio Court of Appeals agreed with the lower court, so Mapp appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court. They also agreed, so she appealed to the Supreme uh Supreme Court. By this time, 4 years had passed since the police had raided Mapp’s home. The Court heard oral arguments on March 29, 1961. It was soon apparent that the Court didn’t give a darn about the First Amendment...in this case. Lemme finish. They didn’t give a darn about the First Amendment IN THIS CASE. Instead, they were all focused on the 4th amendment. You see, there was this law called the exclusionary rule. The exclusionary rule said you couldn’t use evidence if the police got it illegally. It had been applied since 1914 in the ruling for the case Weeks v. United States, but only at the federal level. In the 1949 decision Wolf v. Colorado, the Court had declined to extend exclusionary protections at the state level. On June 19, 1961, the Court announced its decision.
Thumbnail
Do You Have the Right to Remain Silent? | Salinas v. Texas
95K views • over 6 years ago
I wrote a new book all about the Supreme Court. Order your copy here: http://amzn.to/45Wzhur Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/iammrbeat Mr. Beat's band: http://electricneedleroom.us Mr. Beat on Twitter: https://twitter.com/beatmastermatt In episode 33 of Supreme Court Briefs, police question a dude named Salinas about a murder, and they claim his silence made him seem guilty. He claims "the right to remain silent." Produced by Matt Beat. All images and video used under fair use, original content, or found in the public domain. Music by Jermaine Hysten. Photo credits: Alpha Stock Images http://alphastockimages.com/ Nick Youngson http://nyphotographic.com/ Check out cool primary sources here: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2012/12-246 Other sources used: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/06/supreme-court-salinas-v-texas-ruling-explained/314145/ https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/12-246 http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/06/salinas_v_texas_right_to_remain_silent_supreme_court_right_to_remain_silent.html http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/06/opinion-recap-if-you-want-to-claim-the-fifth/ https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/18/us/supreme-court-hands-down-three-decisions-that-are-5-to-4.html https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Man-shows-up-for-urine-test-arrested-in-murder-1583481.php Houston, Texas December 18, 1992 Someone shoots and kills two brothers, named Juan and Hector Garza. Houston police arrive to the murder scene and find shotgun shell cases, but not much else. Later, they invite Genovevo Salinas (Saw-leen-ahs) down to the station for questioning. Salinas apparently had been at a party at the Garza residence the night before the murder. He voluntarily goes down to the station, and the police do not arrest him nor read him the Miranda warning since he was free to leave at any time. They question Salinas for an hour, and he even agrees to give the police his shotgun for testing. However, according to the police report, Salinas stopped answering questions once the cops asked him if the gun would match the shells from the scene of the crime. The police also reported that after he was asked the question he acted much more nervously and seemed deceptive. Salinas left shortly after this. Soon after this, police found out that indeed, Salina’s gun matched the casings at the murder scene. They also heard from a witness who said Salinas had admitted to killing the victims. So, a warrant went out for his arrest, but they couldn’t find him. They later found out he had fled to Mexico. Flash forward almost 15 years later, in 2007, and a dude under a different name in Houston is arrested for drug charges. The fingerprints matched those of someone already in their system. It was Salinas. Boy was he surprised when he was arrested for the murder of the Garza brothers. But Salinas wasn’t going down without a fight. At his trial, the prosecutor brought up how Salinas got all silent after the police asked him if the gun casings matched his shotgun, which was evidence that he was guilty. Salinas argued that the Fifth Amendment protected his right to remain silent, you know, to avoid self-incrimination. However, in the end the trial court found Salinas guilty of the murders, but he only given 20 years in prison and a $5,000 fine? Man, the justice system is weird. It’s appeal time, baby. Salinas appealed to the Fourteenth Court of Appeals of Texas, and they agreed with the lower court. Salinas appealed again to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, who...yep, agreed with the lower courts. So he appealed to the Supreme Court, and they agreed to hear the case in January 2013, hearing arguments on April 17, 2013, more than 20 years after the murders. The lawyers for Salinas argued Miranda v. Arizona, and a case called Griffin v. California, both protected his 5th amendment right to remain silent. Griffin v. California specifically brought up how prosecutors can’t use a suspect’s silence as evidence against her or him to the jury. And the Miranda decision, well I have a video about that one so just watch it mmmk? The prosecution for Texas argued, however, that the Fifth Amendment just protected citizens from being forced into incriminating themselves. Salinas was not forced to be there. He volunteered. So basically the question the Court looked at was “Does the Fifth Amendment protect a defendant’s refusal to answer questions to the cops before she or he is read the Miranda warning or is arrested?” The Court said “no.” On June 17, 2013, the Court announced it had sided with Texas, voting 5-4.
Thumbnail
What Does the Second Amendment REALLY Mean? | US v. Miller
92K views • over 6 years ago
I wrote a new book all about the Supreme Court. Order your copy here: http://amzn.to/45Wzhur Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/iammrbeat Mr. Beat's band: http://electricneedleroom.us Mr. Beat on Twitter: https://twitter.com/beatmastermatt In episode 34 of Supreme Court Briefs, state troopers find an illegal sawed-off shotgun in the car of two gangsters, which leads to the only Supreme Court case about the Second Amendment of the 20th century. Produced by Matt Beat. All images and video used under fair use, original content, or found in the public domain. Music by Joykill, featured on Brown Bear Records. Photo credits: Fibonacci Blue Gillfoto Check out cool primary sources here: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/307us174 Other sources used: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/miller.htm http://migration.nyulaw.me/sites/default/files/ECM_PRO_060964.pdf http://www.encyclopediaofarkansas.net/encyclopedia/entry-detail.aspx?entryID=4742 http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0801/0801usvmiller.htm Siloam Springs, Arkansas April 18, 1938 Both Oklahoma and Arkansas state troopers pull over Frank Layton and Jack Miller, two known gang members (The O’Malley Gang) known for going around and robbing places. They find an unregistered, sawed-off shotgun in the car and arrest them for breaking the National Firearms Act, or NFA, a federal law passed in 1934 that put an excise tax on making, selling, and transporting certain firearms and required people had to register those firearms if they had them. Also, the NFA said such gun owners had to report transporting the guns across state lines to the federal government when moving. The gun Layton and Miller had was untaxed and unregistered. Layton and Miller argued that the National Firearms Act was unconstitutional because it not only went against the 2nd Amendment, but also the 10th Amendment. The District Court judge, a dude named Heartsill Ragon (what a heartbreaker he was), acted like he agreed and dismissed the case, saying the NFA violated the Second Amendment. Here’s the thing, though. Apparently judge Ragon was cool with the NFA, and just ruled that way because he knew Miller had just ratted out a bunch of his gangster friends and would have to go into hiding after he was released. Also, Miller wouldn’t pay a lawyer to appeal to the Supreme Court anyway. So yeah, the United States of America appealed the case by skipping the appellate courts and going directly to the Supreme Court, who heard arguments on March 30, 1939, and just as Ragon had predicted, the defense didn’t even show up. Yep, absolutely no arguments were made and no evidence was presented on behalf of either Jack Miller or the Second Amendment. The Court heard lots from the attorneys for the United States, though. Their main arguments were: #1 - The NFA was mainly a way to collect revenue, so the Treasury Department gave the feds the authority to enforce it #2 - Eh, look, the defendants transported the sawed-off shotgun from Oklahoma to Arkansas, so this was totally interstate commerce And #3 - Sooo, the Second Amendment only protects having military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia, and the weapon found in Layton and Miller’s car, a double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches, ain’t ever been used in any militia. On May 15, 1939, the Court reached its decision. It sided with the United States, reversing the lower court, and saying the National Firearms Act indeed was constitutional. It was 8-0. Justice William Douglas did not participate in this case. So the Court held that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual the right to have a sawed-off double barrel shotgun because that specific weapon was not a reasonable weapon for either a well-regulated militia or self defense. US v. Miller was the only Supreme Court case that directly dealt with the Second Amendment in the 20th century. In fact, it wouldn’t be until 2008 when the Supreme Court tackled the Second Amendment again, in a case called DC v Heller. I have a video for that one. Check it out after this one and stuff. Interestingly, both gun control advocates and gun rights advocates interpret US v. Miller as a decision that helps their side. Gun control folks say the decision is proof that the federal government is justified regulating certain types of firearms. Gun rights folks say the decision was good because it explicitly and specifically stated people have the right to own a firearm for self-defense and to form militias. However, today US v. Miller doesn’t seem to solve the gun control debate- it just seems to complicate it.
Thumbnail
The Supreme Court Ruling That Led To 70,000 Forced Sterilizations | Buck v. Bell
134K views • over 6 years ago
I wrote a new book all about the Supreme Court. Order your copy here: http://amzn.to/45Wzhur To learn more about this case: https://amzn.to/2tY5Ffa Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/iammrbeat Paypal: https://www.paypal.me/mrbeat Mr. Beat's band: http://electricneedleroom.us Twitter: https://twitter.com/beatmastermatt Mr. Beat on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/iammrbeat/ In episode 35 of Supreme Court Briefs, the state of Virginia passes a law saying that stupid or immoral people are not allowed to have kids and must be sterilized. A woman named Carrie Buck fights back. Yes, this all actually happened. Produced by Matt Beat. All images and video used under fair use, original content, or found in the public domain. Music by Jermaine Hysten. Photo credits: Morgan Riley Taber Andrew Bain Susan in Cville Ishi Check out cool primary sources here: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/274us200 Other sources used: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/html/eugenics/static/themes/39.html http://exhibits.hsl.virginia.edu/eugenics/3-buckvbell/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_Integrity_Act_of_1924 Cohen, Adam (2016). Imbeciles: The Supreme Court, American Eugenics, and the Sterilization of Carrie Buck. New York, New York: Penguin Press. ISBN 978-1594204180. https://www.facinghistory.org/resource-library/supreme-court-and-sterilization-carrie-buck https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Sterilization_Act_of_1924 https://acluva.org/en/news/shameful-history-eugenics-virginia https://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Buck_v_Bell_1927 https://inspire.redlands.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1006&context=alura http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=D6133AE9B6F8999D494CAAB2E30A209E?doi=10.1.1.514.879&rep=rep1&type=pdf Madison Heights, Virginia September 10, 1924 Eugenics doctor Albert Sidney Priddy, the dude in charge of the Virginia State Colony for Epileptics and Feebleminded, requests to sterilize 18-year old patient Carrie Buck. According to Dr. Priddy, Buck had the mental age of a 9-year old, and argued that if she was allowed to have children, this would be dangerous for society. So just so we are clear here, he wanted to force her to go through a procedure so that she could never have kids because of her genetics. Wait, hold up. Let’s go back a bit, because this story is even more messed up than this. So Carrie Buck was the daughter of Emma Buck, who previously was taken away by the state from Carrie and her siblings when Carrie was a kid. Virginia confined Emma to-you guessed it-the Virginia State Colony for Epileptics and Feebleminded for prostitution, immorality...oh and having syphilis. So Carrie grew up with foster parents, who treated her like a slave. How did Carrie also end up at the Virginia State Colony for Epileptics and Feebleminded? Her foster parents sent her there for hopelessly bad behavior, sleeping around, and “feeblemindedness.” I’m not joking. Also, they sent her there apparently as a result of being raped by her foster mother’s nephew. Again, I am not joking. Since Carrie Buck was declared mentally incompetent to raise her child, her now former foster parents ended up adopting the baby. At 7 months old, that baby, whose name was Vivian, would also be declared “feeble-minded.” So anyway, back to Dr. Priddy trying to sterilize Carrie. He first wanted to make sure it was legal. I mean, the state had passed a law called the Virginia Sterilization Act of 1924, which allowed doctors to forcibly sterilize patients who supposedly had genetic traits that would be damaging to society if passed on to the next generation. However, the law had yet to be tested in the courts. So the board of the Virginia State Colony for Epileptics and Feebleminded got it to happen. After ordering Buck sterilized, the board appointed her a random dude named Robert Shelton to be her guardian. He was the guardian of several of the institution’s patients and got paid for doing it, by the way. Buck’s lawyer was a dude named Irving Whitehead, who was a eugenics fan who wanted the sterilization law. Oh, and apparently he was also on the board, helping request Buck’s sterilization. In fact, he was good friends with Albert Priddy and Aubrey Strode, who represented Priddy in court. There’s no conflict of interest there! Whitehead made no effort to challenge the accusations that Buck was feeble minded, of course. Shelton appealed the sterilization to the Circuit Court of Amherst County, who agreed the sterilization should take place. Shelton appealed again to the Supreme Court of Virginia, who also agreed it should take place. So one more appeal to the Supreme Court. By this time, Priddy had died and his successor, Dr. John Bell, now represented the Virginia Colony. 0:00 Introduction 0:02 Supreme 1:42 Vivian 2:28 Irving Whitehead 2:42 Aubrey Strode 3:24 1. due process of the law 5:08 65,000 Americans 5:57 October 19, 1927
Thumbnail
When the Supreme Court Justified Japanese Internment Camps | Korematsu v. United States
217K views • over 6 years ago
I wrote a new book all about the Supreme Court. Order your copy here: http://amzn.to/45Wzhur or visit https://www.iammrbeat.com/merch.html. Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/iammrbeat Donate on Paypal: https://www.paypal.me/mrbeat Mr. Beat's band: http://electricneedleroom.us Mr. Beat on Twitter: https://twitter.com/beatmastermatt Mr. Beat on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/iammrbeat/ In episode 36 of Supreme Court Briefs, after the United States government forces Japanese American citizens into relocation centers during World War II, one man refuses and gets himself into some big trouble. Produced by Matt Beat. All images and video used under fair use, original content, or found in the public domain. Music by Sans Amp. Check out cool primary sources here: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/323us214 Other sources used: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korematsu_v._United_States https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/radiolab-presents-more-perfect-american-pendulum-i/ https://bellocollective.com/radiolabs-more-perfect-flunks-a-key-history-lesson-bace14ee7050 Reading Through History: The Great Supreme Court Cases, by Jake Henderson and Robert Marshall https://amhistory.si.edu/perfectunion/collection/image.asp?ID=1208 https://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/162780/roosevelt-japanese-internment https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/fred-korematsu-fought-against-japanese-internment-supreme-court-and-lost-180961967/ http://time.com/5324434/supreme-court-travel-ban-karen-korematsu/ Photo credits: Nick Youngson Lorie Shaull Fibonacci Blue Pearl Harbor, Hawaii December 7, 1941 Japan drops bombs on an American naval base, killing more than 2400 Americans, and injuring 1000 more. In response, the United States declares war on Japan, officially entering World War II. Increasingly, Americans viewed anyone of Japanese heritage suspiciously. Japanese Americans had already faced racism and discrimination in the country for nearly 100 years. After the Pearl Harbor attack, that racism and discrimination went to the next freaking level, as many thought Japanese Americans might be more loyal to Japan than the United States, sharing military secrets with them and stuff or trying to sabotage the war effort. Despite there being no evidence whatsoever that this was happening, Japanese American persecution increased. People bought Jap-hunting licenses. Life Magazine published an article illustrating how to tell the difference between a Japanese person and Chinese person by the shape their nose and height. In California, the racism and paranoia seemed to be worse. A barber shop there advertised “free shaves for Japs” with a disclaimer that read “not responsible for accidents.” A funeral parlor advertised “I’d rather do business with a Jap than an American.” Several people called for removing all Japanese Americans from western states and forcing them to live in concentration camps somewhere else. President Franklin Roosevelt, who had a record of being racist against the Japanese, agreed with this idea. He signed Executive Order 9066. It ordered the roundup of 120,000 Americans of Japanese descent to 1 of 10 concentration camps, called officially “relocation centers.” It also said Japanese Americans weren’t allowed to be in California at all, as well as much of Oregon, Washington, and Arizona, unless they were in one of the camps, of course. Fred Korematsu was one of the Japanese Americans who said the heck with Executive Order 9066. He stayed in California. He had a girlfriend who was not Japanese American there he didn’t want to leave, and just thought Roosevelt’s order was wrong. So after his entire family left for one of the camps, he stayed behind, became a welder, and tried not to stand out too much. He changed his name and got a fake ID. Later, he even tried to have plastic surgery on his eyes to look less Japanese. The plastic surgeon who worked on him didn’t do the procedure but took his money anyway. Shortly after this, someone reported him and he was arrested. After his arrest, he never saw his girlfriend again, by the way. Eventually, Korematsu found himself in federal prison. The American Civil Liberties Union, or ACLU, reached out to him there and offered to represent him in court. Korematsu said heck yeah. Together, they argued that Executive Order 9066 went against the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. In court, Korematsu’s loyalty to the United States was never in question. Still, in federal court in San Francisco, he was convicted, given five years of probation, and sent to a concentration camp in Utah. He appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals, who agreed with the lower court. He then appealed again, and the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, hearing arguments in October 1944, with the war still raging on. During arguments, the Court considered a similar case from the previous year called Hirabayashi v. United States. That one upheld Executive Order 9066.
Thumbnail
A Legal Slave Uprising? | United States v. The Amistad
200K views • over 6 years ago
I wrote a new book all about the Supreme Court. Order your copy here: http://amzn.to/45Wzhur or visit https://www.iammrbeat.com/merch.html. For more about the Amistad Case, check out "Mutiny on the Amistad: The Saga of a Slave Revolt and Its Impact on American Abolition, Law, and Diplomacy" by Howard Jones, available here: https://amzn.to/2OhyMmM In episode 37 of Supreme Court Briefs, a slave uprising on a ship called The Amistad leads it to the shores of the United States, where the Supreme Court eventually determines their fate. This episode was suggested by my wonderful Patreon supporter Elcaspar! Want a specific SCOTUS case covered? Your idea gets picked when you donate on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/iammrbeat Donate on Paypal: https://www.paypal.me/mrbeat Mr. Beat's band: http://electricneedleroom.us Mr. Beat on Twitter: https://twitter.com/beatmastermatt Mr. Beat on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/iammrbeat/ Produced by Matt Beat. All images and video used under fair use, original content, or found in the public domain. Music by Electric Needle Room (Matt Beat). Check out cool primary sources here: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1789-1850/None Other sources used: https://www.gilderlehrman.org/content/john-quincy-adams-and-amistad-case-1841 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._The_Amistad https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/40/518.html https://www.history.com/topics/amistad-case https://www.law.cornell.edu/background/amistad/summary.html https://www.law.cornell.edu/background/amistad/priorhist.html http://www.virginia.edu/woodson/courses/aas405c/talk.htm Photo credits: DanTD Havana, Cuba June 27, 1839 A Spanish ship called The Amistad (ahmichad) leaves for the Province of Puerto Principe (prince e pay), another part of Cuba. On board, 53 illegally purchased African slaves. On July 2nd, one of the slaves broke free and freed others on the ship. Soon there was an uprising. After a big struggle that resulted in the deaths of the captain of the ship and at least three others, the slaves took over the ship, forcing two dudes named Jose Ruiz and Pedro Montez to redirect the ship across the Atlantic Ocean to Africa. Ruiz and Montez deceived the Africans, however, and ended up sailing the Amistad up the east coast of the United States, dropping anchor just off the coast of Long Island, New York, on August 26, 1839. The United States Revenue Cutter Service...wait wait a second...What the heck is this organization? Well just think of them as the Coast Guard before the Coast Guard existed. Anyway, the United States Revenue Cutter Service, led by Americans Thomas Gedney and Richard Meade, arrested the Africans after they reached the shore and took custody of the Amistad. Gedney and Meade made sure the Africans were brought to Connecticut, since slavery was still technically legal in that state. After President Martin Van Buren found out about them, he was like, send them back to Cuba to go on trial. Spain, who controlled Cuba at the time, was like “yeah, bring them here.” After all, the Amistad was a Spanish ship and Ruiz and Montez were Spanish citizens. Britain chimed in since they had a deal with Spain prohibiting the slave trade south of the equator and said that this slave uprising at sea fell under international law. But a bunch of abolitionists were ultimately able to pressure the United States government to keep the Africans in the country, and they got a trial in the District of Connecticut. Keep in mind that at the time, the slave trade was illegal in the United States. The Africans were charged with mutiny and murder. In court, there were a lot of people involved and wanting stuff. First, Ruiz and Montez argued the Africans were slaves and their property. They also argued that since the slave trade was legal in Spain, they had a right to regain control of them. And then there was a lawyer representing Spain, who argued the the slaves rightfully be returned to Ruiz and Montez or sent back to Africa. The Africans, who were represented by an abolitionist group called the Amistad Committee, all argued that they were born free in their native Africa and unlawfully kidnapped to be sold as slaves. Plus, they landed in New York, where slavery was illegal. The Amistad Committee also accused Ruiz and Montez of assault, kidnapping, and false imprisonment. And then, Gedney, as well as several others who helped Ruiz and Montez “rescue” the “cargo,” aka Africans, argued they deserved a piece of the pie. They were like, we helped you get your slaves, so can we have a few? Another Spanish dude named Antonio Vega tried to get the captain’s personal slave, claiming he actually owned him. Whew. What a mess of a case. The district court ruled that the Africans aboard the Amistad were unlawfully kidnapped, and ordered the U.S. government to return them to Africa. It was appealed by Martin Van Buren to the Circuit Court and then to the Supreme Court.
Thumbnail
Can the Police Take Your DNA? | Maryland v. King
96K views • over 6 years ago
I wrote a new book all about the Supreme Court. Order your copy here: http://amzn.to/45Wzhur or visit https://www.iammrbeat.com/merch.html. In episode 38 of Supreme Court Briefs, a man is arrested and a sample of his DNA is taken and put into a database. The DNA sample comes back months later to reveal it matched the DNA in a rape case and he is charged with the rape. Wait a second, what about the Fourth Amendment? This episode was suggested by my wonderful Patreon supporter Beau Branch! Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/iammrbeat Paypal: https://www.paypal.me/mrbeat Mr. Beat's band: http://electricneedleroom.us Twitter: https://twitter.com/beatmastermatt Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/iammrbeat/ Produced by Matt Beat. All images and video used under fair use, original content, or found in the public domain. Music by Electric Needle Room (Matt Beat). Check out cool primary sources here: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2012/12-207 Other sources used: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland_v._King https://www.businessinsider.com/scalias-dissent-in-maryland-v-king-2013-6 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-scalia-analysis/analysis-with-trademark-vigor-justice-scalia-dissents-in-dna-case-idUSBRE95211Y20130603 https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/04/us/supreme-court-says-police-can-take-dna-samples.html http://www.wboc.com/story/13286643/salisbury-man-sentenced-to-life-for-rape https://www.washingtonian.com/2013/04/30/truth-and-consequences/ http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/06/supreme_court_and_dna_collection_maryland_v_king.html?scrlybrkr=2b70fde4 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/12-207 http://www.ncsl.org/Documents/cj/ArresteeDNALaws.pdf Photo credits: daveparker Jay Cross Chris Yarzab West Midlands Police Salisbury, Maryland April 10, 2009 Police arrest Alonzo King, Jr. for waving a gun at a group of people. They later find a 12-gauge shotgun in his car and charge him with assault. So you see, in Maryland there’s this law called the DNA Collection Act. It gives the police the authority to collect DNA samples and put them in a database prior to convicting the person. So back at the station, police get a sample of King’s DNA by swabbing the inside of his cheek, sending it to be analyzed and uploaded to the database. On August 4, the results came back, showing King’s DNA matched the DNA in an unsolved rape case from 2003. A grand jury said dude, we are indicting you for that, so King went on trial for the rape case. King was like, what? What does that have to do with the reason why I got arrested in the first place? He filed a motion to block the DNA evidence from being used in court for Wicomico County, saying his Fourth Amendment rights were broken because the DNA swab fell under unreasonable searches and seizures. The judge denied his motion, and King pleaded not guilty to the rape charge. The DNA sample was the only real evidence linking King to the rape. The trial court found him guilty, and he was sentenced to life in prison. However, King appealed to the Maryland Court of Appeals, who reversed the conviction, saying the DNA sampling went against the Fourth Amendment as King argued. They argued King’s right to privacy was more important than Maryland’s desire to use his DNA to identify him. And yet, they still said the DNA Collection Act was constitutional. Maryland appealed the ruling, asking the Supreme Court to look at the case, and they did on February 26, 2013. The main issue with this case was whether or not the Fourth Amendment allowed states to sample and analyze DNA from folks arrested but not convicted of serious crimes. The Court announced their decision on June 3rd. They sided with Maryland. It was 5-4, but it wasn’t your typical liberal-leaning vs. conservative-leaning decision. I mean, you had Antonin Scalia on the same team as Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, for crying out loud. Justice Anthony Kennedy gave the opinion, arguing the DNA swab test did NOT violate the Fourth Amendment because it served the safety of the state of Maryland, yet wasn’t too invasive where a warrant would be needed. The Court also argued that the DNA records were basically just an extension of other ways the police already kept databases of people they arrested to help solve future crimes, comparing it to things like fingerprinting. Justice Scalia wrote a passionate dissent, arguing the Fourth Amendment definitely prohibits the police from searching a person for evidence of a crime if it’s a completely different crime than the one the person was arrested for. Scalia argued sure, the DNA of arrested people helps the police solve more crimes, but they could also solve more crimes if they collected DNA anytime someone enrolled in public school or got a driver’s license, which was an absurd thing to consider. #supremecourtbriefs #scotus #supremecourtcases
Thumbnail
How the Supreme Court Decided the 2000 Election | Bush v. Gore
322K views • about 6 years ago
I wrote a new book all about the Supreme Court. Order your copy here: http://amzn.to/45Wzhur or visit https://www.iammrbeat.com/merch.html. In episode 39 of Supreme Court Briefs, it's the most controversial Presidential election in American history (except maybe the Election of 1860 or Election of 1824), mainly because the Supreme Court ultimately decides its outcome. Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/iammrbeat Paypal: https://www.paypal.me/mrbeat Mr. Beat's band: http://electricneedleroom.us Twitter: https://twitter.com/beatmastermatt Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/iammrbeat/ Special thanks to the AP Archives for footage for this video. Produced by Matt Beat. All images and video used under fair use, original content, or found in the public domain. Music by Electric Needle Room (Matt Beat). Check out cool primary sources here: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2000/00-949 Other sources used: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/supremecourt/future/landmark_bush.html https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/12/06/precedent-and-prologue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore?scrlybrkr=ed4d8ce6 http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/righttovote.html http://old.post-gazette.com/election/20001217pztimeline.asp Sound effect credits: Mike Koenig Photo credits: Michael Rivera Elvert Barnes In one of the closest presidential elections in American history, George W. Bush held a narrow lead over Al Gore. Out of nearly 6 million ballots in Florida, only 1784 votes separated the two. Under Florida law, and since the United States has a winner takes all system, the candidate with the most votes in the state got all of its electoral votes. Because it was so freaking close, state law said there had to be a machine vote recount. After the recount, it was even closer! Now, Bush’s lead was just 327. No worries. Florida law also allowed Gore the option of a manual vote recount, meaning counting them by hand, in whatever counties Gore wanted. He was like, “Uh, yeah,” and picked four counties: Broward, Miami-Dade, Volusia, and Palm Beach. The problem, though, was that Gore was running out of time. Florida law also said (man Florida law says a lot) the state’s election results have to be certified within seven days of the election. Since election day was November 7, that meant the deadline was November 14th. Well three of those four counties didn’t get er done before the deadline. Despite those counties trying to get an extension, the Florida Secretary of State, Katherine Harris, went ahead and announced she would be certifying the votes, ending all the recounts. Al Gore was like nuh-uh. He and Palm Beach County tried to get an injunction against Secretary Harris to prevent her from certifying the votes until those three counties got their recounts done. The Florida Supreme Court said “sure,” and granted the injunction on November 17. On November 21, it ruled that Secretary Harris had to let those counties finish recounting with a new deadline of November 26th. But Miami-Dade county was like, “nah man, that’s not enough time,” and it gave up counting! Gore said “hey hey hey Miami-Dade, you must count,” and tried to get another court order to force them but that one failed. On November 26, Harris certified the election, giving Bush what was now just a 537-vote victory. You know what? Gore sued Harris, arguing the certified results were invalid because the recount process wasn’t finished yet. The Leon County Circuit dismissed his lawsuit, so Gore appealed to the Florida Supreme Court, which, on December 8, ruled in favor of Gore. They demanded that all votes not counted by voting machines had to be manually recounted if they hadn’t been already. Well George W. Bush stepped in and said “hey hey hey hey...now wait just a minute” and appealed this decision to the United States Supreme Court. And holy crap, THE VERY NEXT DAY the Supreme Court reviewed the case. Why did the Supreme Court respond quicker than it ever does? Well, this was obviously important. Soon, the deadline for electors to formally submit their choice would be there, and soon after the new President would have to be inaugurated. Things needed to move along. The Court heard oral arguments on December 11th. Through all of this, protesters lined the streets outside. Rarely throughout American history did the country seem so divided. Things were tense, to say the least. So what was the Court really looking at in this case? Well, the issue now was whether or not the Florida Supreme Court violated Article II Section 1 Clause 2 of the Constitution, specifically the part that says: “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors…” So could the Florida Supreme Court really step in on this? Also, Bush argued that the recounts went against the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. #supremecourtbriefs #scotus #apush
Thumbnail
How Long Does a Patent Last? | Impression Products v. Lexmark
61K views • about 6 years ago
I wrote a new book all about the Supreme Court. Order your copy here: http://amzn.to/45Wzhur or visit https://www.iammrbeat.com/merch.html. In episode 40 of Supreme Court Briefs, a printer toner manufacturer sues a company that refills their printer toner cartridges and resells them for a lower price. How long does a patent last, anyway? Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/iammrbeat Donate on Paypal: https://www.paypal.me/mrbeat Mr. Beat's band: http://electricneedleroom.us Twitter: https://twitter.com/beatmastermatt Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/iammrbeat/ Special thanks to the AP Archives for footage for this video. Produced by Matt Beat. All images and video used under fair use or found in the public domain. Music by Electric Needle Room (Matt Beat). Check out cool primary sources here: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2016/15-1189 Other sources used: https://www.finnegan.com/en/insights/the-aftermath-of-impression-products-v-lexmark.html http://fortune.com/2017/03/21/supreme-court-lexmark-printers/?scrlybrkr=28062e76 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/30/business/supreme-court-patent-rights-lexmark.html https://www.wired.com/2017/06/impression-v-lexmark/?scrlybrkr=d88179eb https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impression_Prods.,_Inc._v._Lexmark_Int%27l,_Inc.?scrlybrkr=ed4d8ce6 https://www.impressionproductsinc.com/about-us https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/15-1189 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/05/31/how-a-supreme-court-ruling-on-printer-cartridges-changes-what-it-means-to-buy-almost-anything/?utm_term=.56388ffe500b http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Impression-Products-v.-Lexmark-cert-petition-no-appendix.pdf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhaustion_doctrine_under_U.S._law?scrlybrkr=ed4d8ce6 https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3177040/lexmark-international-inc-v-impression-products-inc/ Photo credits: AgnosticPreachersKid #supremecourtbriefs #scotus #apgov A company called Impression Products makes money by buying up old printer toner cartridges, refilling them with more toner, and selling them at a much lower price than it’d cost to buy one brand new. Well, Lexmark, one of the companies that makes those printer toner cartridges, didn’t like that so much, as it was, you know, cutting into their profits. Lexmark sued Impression Products, arguing that by fixing up and reselling its old printer cartridges without their permission, Impression was not respecting the patent Lexmark held on them. Lexmark said it didn’t just own the patent for the product when it first sold- it owned it for future resales, and they thought they deserved some of that profit Impression was getting. So first, we are talking about United States patent law here, which Article 1, section 8, clause 8 of the Constitution talks about. “Promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries” But could you be more specific please? Well it’s all spelled out in Title 35 of the U.S. Code, which I’m not going to read to you because that would put you to sleep. One thing that is important here is what’s known as the exhaustion doctrine, which limits how much control someone has over their patent once the final sale is made. For example, if I make a guitar and sell it to Jim Bob, and Jim Bob later converts that guitar into a boat and resell it as a boat, the exhaustion doctrine applies. I don’t get some of that profit from Jim Bob selling the boats. Basically, there were two parts to this case. One, as I mentioned earlier, Impression was reselling the cartridges after it re-filled them with toner, but two, they were also importing cartridges Lexmark had sold in other countries. The district court said that patent was exhausted, yo. So Impression could refill those cartridges. However, it also said that didn’t apply to those imported cartridges because there wasn’t a law or case that said patent protections ended for stuff sold outside the country. So both sides appealed. In addition, the U.S. government stepped in to be on the side of Lexmark. It ended up in the Federal Circuit of DC. They voted 10-2 in favor of Lexmark for BOTH parts of the case, using two other federal circuit cases to back up their ruling. That said, they said buyers generally could do what they want with a patented product after they bought it. But if patent holders wanted restrictions, they should be respected. Impression appealed again, and the Supreme Court agreed to look at the case, hearing oral arguments on March 21, 2017. That wasn’t that long ago guys. The newly appointed justice Neil Gorsuch didn’t hear arguments, so he did not vote in this one. On May 30, 2017, the Court announced its decision. It sided with Impression Products. Impression Products v. Lexmark was a victory for consumers and a major setback for companies trying to use their patents to attack other companies.
Thumbnail
Why Does the U.S. Have Birthright Citizenship? | United States v. Wong Kim Ark
107K views • about 6 years ago
I wrote a new book all about the Supreme Court. Order your copy here: http://amzn.to/45Wzhur or visit https://www.iammrbeat.com/merch.html. In episode 41 of Supreme Court Briefs, a man born in the United States is denied entry into the country after his parents are forced out of the country. But wait, doesn't the 14th Amendment guarantee him birthright citizenship? Or does it? Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/iammrbeat Donate on Paypal: https://www.paypal.me/mrbeat Mr. Beat's band: http://electricneedleroom.us Mr. Beat on Twitter: https://twitter.com/beatmastermatt Mr. Beat on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/iammrbeat/ Music by Something and the Whatevers: https://somethingandthewhatevers.bandcamp.com/album/epic-fail Produced by Matt Beat. All images by Matt Beat, found in the public domain, or used under fair use guidelines. Check out cool primary sources here: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1850-1900/169us649?fbclid=IwAR1wCTle07UkPlMKtD07L5vcQpoVLsuAdQMrkdPfe-pEj14KAH2WvHH-14M Other sources used: http://encyclopedia.densho.org/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2018/10/30/birthright-citizenship-trump-inspired-history-lesson-th-amendment/?utm_term=.20b78725f100 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark?scrlybrkr=ad9549a0#Background https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Law_of_1802?scrlybrkr=ad9549a0 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2018/10/31/trump-takes-us-back-to-the-darkest-days-of-american-xenophobia/?utm_term=.b68170a7da32 https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/10/31/birthright-citizenship-wong-kim-ark-222098 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2610859 Photo credits: Franco Folini Ken Lund #supremecourtbriefs #scotus #apgov San Francisco 1868, or 1871...or perhaps 1873. Wong Kim Ark is born. His parents are Wong Si Ping and Wee Lee, both immigrants from China and not United States citizens. According to the Naturalization Law of 1802, the two could never become citizens because they weren’t “white.” Whatever the heck that means. Due to the Chinese Exclusion Act discriminating against them, the Wongs moved back to China, when Kim Ark was 9. But a few years later, Kim Ark came right back to California because he wanted to make much more money. This was not a problem for Kim Ark because, since he was born in San Francisco, he was automatically an American citizen thanks to the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment. In 1890, Wong went to China to visit his parents, and he came back home to the United States with no problem. However, four years later when he went back to China to visit them, he was denied re-entry upon his return. He was like “dude, I live here.” They were like, “nope, not anymore. You’re not a citizen.” During the five months when Wong fought for re-entry into the country, U.S. Customs kept him confined on different ships just off the coast of San Francisco. Fortunately for Wong, he got support from an organization called the Chinese Six Companies to help him fight for his citizenship. It went to federal district court. So let’s break out that 14th Amendment, shall we? So there’s the Citizenship Clause of it, and what they focused on the most was different interpretations of this phrase here: “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Does that cover when a child is born in the U.S. to parents who both are not citizens? Wong’s lawyers argued yes. The United States had been waiting to test out the Citizenship Clause for awhile, and here was their chance. Henry Foote, a former Confederate soldier, represented the United States, calling Wong a “accidental citizen,” not the term you usually hear today, which is “anchor baby.” On January 3, 1896, the district judge sided with Wong, declaring him a citizen since he was born in the United States. The U.S. government appealed the decision directly to the Supreme Court because...well...they could, and the Court heard oral arguments on March 5, 1897. Soooo, COULD the government deny citizenship to people born in the United States in any circumstance? The Court said “no.” In a 6-2 decision, they ruled in favor of Wong, declaring that any child born in the country to parents of a foreign country is automatically a citizen. UNLESS...the parents are foreign diplomats, or the person is born on a public ship, or the parents are nationals of a foreign enemy country that is trying to take over the United States. But yeah, you’re born here? You a citizen, buddy! The Court relied on English common law tradition just as much as they relied on the 14th Amendment for this one. Leading the dissent was Chief Justice Melville Fuller, joined by justice John Harlan. They both argued that the history of American citizenship broke with the tradition of English common law after it declared independence in 1776. In particular, they wondered about the part of the citizenship clause that said “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
Thumbnail
Why the Supreme Court Is Relevant | Marbury v. Madison
204K views • almost 6 years ago
I wrote a new book all about the Supreme Court. Order your copy here: http://amzn.to/45Wzhur or visit https://www.iammrbeat.com/merch.html. In episode 42 of Supreme Court Briefs, the Supreme Court becomes kind of a big deal by getting judicial review. #supremecourtbriefs #apgov #apush Subscribe to @JackRackam Jack's video about Lil' John aka John Marshall: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ne0s4Z-k9a4&feature=youtu.be Subscribe to @EdonEdTech Subscribe to @StacksFacts Playlist to gif exchange videos: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLlt1h57yoMAGu0kUH0550siK5QHGUmBT6 Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/iammrbeat Donate on Paypal: https://www.paypal.me/mrbeat Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/mrbeat/ Mr. Beat's band: http://electricneedleroom.net/ Mr. Beat on Twitter: https://twitter.com/beatmastermatt Mr. Beat on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/iammrbeat/ Produced by Matt Beat. All images by Matt Beat, found in the public domain, or used under fair use guidelines. Music by Electric Needle Room (Mr. Beat's band). Check out cool primary sources here: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1789-1850/5us137 Other sources used: https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/supremecourt/democracy/landmark_marbury.html https://www.britannica.com/topic/Judiciary-Act-of-1801 http://law2.umkc.edu/Faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/judicialrev.htm Sound credits: Mike Koenig Photo credits: Quarax The District of Columbia March 2, 1801 President John Adams just has a couple days left in office, but he’s been pretty busy making last-minute appointments for his Federalist friends to important positions. It’s basically a mad rush to get them in before the new President, his arch enemy Thomas Jefferson, takes over. He nominates 23 justices of the peace, basically judges in lower courts, in Washington county. One of those nominated was a dude named William Marbury. Like Adams, Marbury was a Federalist who talked a lot of trash about Jefferson when he ran against Adams before the election of 1800. Even though Adams nominated Marbury and the other 22 folks, and even though the Senate approved their nomination on March 3, and even though later that day Adams signed the commissions, which were basically the final orders so they could get to work, several of them didn’t get the job. Wait...what? Why? Well John Marshall (aka “Lil’ John”), the acting Secretary of State for President Adams, did not deliver those commissions on time. At noon the next day, March 4, Thomas Jefferson officially took over as President. He instructed his Secretary of State, James Madison to only deliver those commissions to some of the nominees. You know, the ones he liked. One of the people who never got his commission was William Marbury. Yeah Jefferson didn’t like him. Marbury was like “that’s messed up man, I was promised that job.” He wanted to force Madison to deliver that commission, so he petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case and the Court actually said “sure, let’s do this.” They heard arguments on February 11, 1803. Oh, guess what? By this time, John Marshall was Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Wait a second, isn’t that a conflict of interest? Shouldn’t Marshall recuse himself from making a decision for the c---nahhhh 4 of the 6 justices on the Court discussed three big questions for this case. Should Marbury and the other Justice of the Peace nominees get the jobs they were promised? Can they even sue in court to get their jobs? Hold up, does the Supreme Court even have the authority to say they COULD have their jobs? The Court announced their decision on February 24, 1803. All four sided with Marbury. They thought Marbury deserved that position and thought yeah, he should be able to sue to get it. However, hold up...Madison kind of won, too, because the law that enabled Marbury to sue to begin with, The Judiciary Act of 1789, was actually unconstitutional because it gave the Supreme Court more power than the Constitution allowed. Wait, so the Supreme Court decided to weaken their own power? Well, not exactly. You see, John Marshall knew what he was doing. He pretty much did this. He had the long term in mind, baby. While the Court gave up power by declaring the Judiciary Act unconstitutional, they also gave the Court a far greater power. The power of judicial review, meaning they could call out laws if they went against the Constitution. So if the Court could declare the Judiciary Act unconstitutional, they could declare ANY law Congress passed unconstitutional, you see? Lil’ John and the rest of the Court had made the Supreme Court kind of a big deal. Dare I say. DARE I SAY. This was the most important Supreme Court case in American history.
Thumbnail
Is Gerrymandering Legal? | Shaw v. Reno
191K views • almost 6 years ago
I wrote a new book all about the Supreme Court. Order your copy here: http://amzn.to/45Wzhur or visit https://www.iammrbeat.com/merch.html. In episode 43 of Supreme Court Briefs, the North Carolina state legislature gerrymanders to help African Americans since North Carolina, ya know, doesn't historically doesn't elect African Americans. #supremecourtbriefs #apgov #gerrymandering Want a specific SCOTUS case covered? Your idea gets picked when you donate on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/iammrbeat Donate on Paypal: https://www.paypal.me/mrbeat Buy Mr. Beat T-shirts, coffee mugs, etc.: https://www.iammrbeat.com/merch.html Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/mrbeat/ Mr. Beat's band: http://electricneedleroom.us Mr. Beat on Twitter: https://twitter.com/beatmastermatt Mr. Beat on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/iammrbeat/ Produced by Matt Beat. All images by Matt Beat, found in the public domain, or used under fair use guidelines. Music by Electric Needle Room (Mr. Beat's band). Check out cool primary sources here: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1992/92-357 Other sources used: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/509/630 http://roseinstitute.org/redistricting/shaw/ https://www.nytimes.com/1993/04/16/news/fairness-or-racial-gerrymander-justices-study-serpentine-district.html https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/ap-us-government-and-politics/interactions-among-branches-of-government/congressional-behavior/a/shaw-v-reno?scrlybrkr=bec271b9 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3012670 https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/where-did-term-gerrymander-come-180964118/?scrlybrkr=24495b2b https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaw_v._Reno?scrlybrkr=91e1abc7 https://www.voanews.com/a/us-supreme-court-acts-in-gerrymandering-cases-/4443836.html?scrlybrkr=ef3379ed Photo credits: Jim Bowen Steve Nass Sound credits: Mike Koenig North Carolina 1990 None of the state’s 11 Representatives in Congress are African American, despite the fact that 20% of the state’s population was. As matter of fact, since the Civil War North Carolina had only elected a total of 4 African Americans to the U.S. House of Representatives. After the 1990 census, North Carolina gained a district, so they were going to get a new Representative. The state legislature was like, we need an African American to represent this district, so they intentionally created a district made up of mostly African Americans under the assumption they would vote one in. After the legislature submitted their plans to the U.S. Department of Justice, Attorney General Janet Reno was like “nah, not good enough,” and rejected them, saying there needed to be another district where minorities would have a chance to represent constituents in order to comply with the Voting Rights Act. So the state legislature went back to the drawing board, this time drawing up another district to help get another African American to represent North Carolina in Congress. Now, this district was a bit...odd shaped. I mean, just look at it here. It ran along Interstate 85 for 160 miles, breaking up counties and towns and grouping together places that typically were NOT grouped together. In some places, the district was only as wide as the highway itself. And well...wouldn’t you know it...in 1992 residents of both of those redrawn districts elected African Americans to represent them. Both were North Carolina’s first African Americans to get into Congress in the 20th century. Well this made some North Carolina folks upset, you could say. They said that those districts were racially gerrymandered to get African Americans elected there. In case you didn’t know, gerrymandering means manipulating how the boundaries of districts are drawn to either favor one group or hurt another group. Gerrymandering is something of an infamous American tradition. As much as Americans hate the practice, it’s been around since the early days of the country. It was named after a dude named Elbridge Gerry (I know, his name is pronounced differently), who, as governor, signed the bill that approved a weirdly shaped district that benefitted his political party in the state of Massachusetts. The district’s shape somewhat resembled a salamander. So get it? Gerry which turned into Gerry plus salamander equals gerrymander? Anyway, in this case, five North Carolina residents, led by a person named Ruth Shaw, sued both the state and the federal government, arguing that District 12, in particular, was gerrymandered so much that it went against the 14th Amendment’s tubular Equal Protection Clause. Again, they argued it was racial gerrymandering, not political gerrymandering, and they argued the drawn district didn’t go against the “one person, one vote” established in the case Reynolds v. Sims. Arguments kept coming back to whether or not North Carolina’s redistricting plan went against the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.