United States and Virginia, Facts of the Case - Law and Society | GVPT 331, Study notes of Political Science

Download United States and Virginia, Facts of the Case - Law and Society | GVPT 331 and more Study notes Political Science in PDF only on Docsity! US v Virginia (Gender Segregation) Thursday, March 10, 2011 12:29 PM United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996) Facts of the Case  Virginia Military Institute (VMI) traditionally VA's only male-only undergraduate institution of higher learning  US brings suit, alleges that VMI's male-only admissions policy violates equal-protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment  District Court rules in favor of VMI  Appeal to 4th Circuit Court, reverses district court's ruling.  VMI offers to create a separate women's institution called Virginia Women's Institute for Leadership (VWIL)  Both district and circuit court approve plan to establish VWIL o Circuit Court stated that the two programs are "substantially comparable"  Appeal to US Supreme Court  After Supreme Court's ruling, VMI's Board of Visitors voted 8-7 to admit women Issue  Does VMI's creation of VWIL as a separate but comparable program to the male-only institution satisfy the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? Holding  7-1; No, VMI's male-only admissions policy is unconstitutional, regardless of the creation of VWIL. Rationale  Justice Ginsburg, for the majority, stated that VMI could not show "exceedingly persuasive justification" for their sex-based admissions policy  Also held that the 4th Circuit's decision to describe VWIL as "substantially comparable" was misplaced; and that all gender-based qualifications must be evaluated with "strict scrutiny" Separate Opinions  Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote a concurring opinion to do away with VMI's male-only policy, but now based on a violation of the Equal Protection Clause o "Had Virginia made a genuine effort to devote comparable public resources to a facility for women, and followed through on such a plan, it might well have avoided an equal protection violation." o Rehnquist's rationale supported separate but equal facilities had both VMI and VWIL offered the same quality of education and were of the same "overall caliber"  Justice Scalia's Dissent o Dissenting from the majority, Justice Scalia argued that the majority was applying 'strict scrutiny' standards when a standard of 'intermediate scrutiny' had been applied to similar cases in the past.  Justice Thomas excused himself from the ruling because his son was enrolled at VMI at the time, which created a conflict of interest. Analysis  Although VMI was the last remaining public school that was all male, this decision by the Supreme Court can be applied to any public institution with gender-biased policies that create unequal opportunities for women simply because they are women. Marbury v Madison (Judicial Review) Thursday, March 10, 2011 9:30 AM  Created Judicial Review o Checks and balances o Prestige to the supreme court o First time Court invalidated law by calling it unconstitutional o Established precedent of courts being able to 'make law'  Background to Marbury o John Marshall is the Court's 3rd Chief Justice; the first was John Jay; the second was Oliver Ellsworth o Before Marshall, the Court was considered weak and insignificant  When capitol moved from NYC to DC, nobody bothered to house the court  Supreme Court met in dark committee room #2 in capital, shared with district and appellate courts until 1808  Early justices explicitly involved in politics  The Marshall Court o Marshall helped remove Court from partisan politics and created sense of cohesion o Marbury v Madison fits within Marshall's desire to enhance prestige and power of the Supreme Court Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)  Facts of the Case o March 2, obscure federalist named William Marbury was designated as justice of peace in DC  Part of larger lame-duck Federalist plan to stack courts with federalist judges until Federalists regained power in Congress & White House  Adam's made over 200 nominations of Federalists  Judiciary Act of 1789; added to original jurisdiction of Supreme Court (Constitution gives original jurisdiction for certain types of cases: Ambassadors, Public Ministers, Consuls, and all cases where a state is a party)  1789 Act added a few other types of cases for original jurisdiction  Judiciary Act of 1801  Modified Judiciary Act of 1789 Issue  The central issue in Roper v. Simmons was if the US Constitution's Eight Amendment's bar against "cruel and unusual punishment" extends to protect individuals from capital punishment if under the age of 18 when crime was committed. Holding  5-4; capital punishment applied to an individual who was a minor when crime was committed is cruel and unusual punishment, and thus unconstitutional. Application of Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment as well as 'evolving standards of decency' test  With this decision, the Supreme Court overturned its 1989 ruling in Stanford v. Kentucky, as well as overturning statutes in 25 states. Rationale  In the majority were Justice Kennedy, joined by Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsberg, and Breyer  By first applying the 'evolving standards of decency' test, as seen in 2002 ruling Atkins v. Virginia (though originally seen in 1958 Trop v. Dulles), the court ruled that executing a person who was under the age of 18 at the time of the crime was considered "cruel and unusual punishment," violating the Eight Amendment; extended to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment  Majority also pointed to large amounts of research showing that minors did not possess the maturity nor responsibility of adults, and were more vulnerable to negative peer pressure. This research combined with a minor's lack of control over their own environment (less of an option to escape crime-prone environment) leaves minors less responsible than adults for their behavior.  Also applied 'national consensus' position, citing the increasing unpopularity among states of sentencing minors to execution; with only three states executing juveniles in the previous ten years. Similarly, the majority noted that the United States was the only country which allowed the execution of juveniles.  This decision effectively drew the line for adulthood in the US at 18 years old; overturning ruling of Stanford v. Kentucky. Separate Opinions  Concurring Opinion  Justice Steven's Concurrence, joined by Justice Ginsburg: o Joined the majority opinion primarily based on the concept of 'evolving standards of decency' o Argued that if the meaning of the Eight Amendment had been frozen the day it was ratified, it would not restrict much of what we consider "cruel and unusual" today. ("it would pose no impediment to the execution of 7-year-old children today.")  Dissenting Opinions  Justice Scalia's Dissent, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Thomas: o Dissent put forward the argument that a "national consensus" may not have actually been established by current state laws; noting that only 18 of 38 (47%) 'death-penalty' states prohibited the execution of juveniles (60% of total states prohibiting capital punishment with non death penalty states included) o For the originalists on the court, Justices Scalia and Thomas, however, the primary question was not if a national consensus had been formed, but if the concept of a 'national consensus' was relevant at all.  For Scalia and Thomas the appropriate question was if capital punishment for minors would have been considered "cruel and unusual" when the Bill of Rights was ratified (1791) o Justice Scalia not only questioned the relevance of international law, a factor in the majority's rationale, but also asserted that the majority was selectively acknowledging international law when it was supportive of their decision; for example, according to Scalia, international abortion regulations were stricter than those in America, yet not factored into decisions such as Roe v. Wade. o In addition, Justice Scalia argued that the majority opinion was anti-democratic, as the Constitution lays out that the court should rule on what the law says, not what it should say. And when it comes to 'evolving standards of decency,' it is the job of the legislature to propose changes in law based on any 'evolving' 'national consensus' they perceive; it is not for the court to decide de facto consensus.  Justice O'Connor's Dissent: o In first paragraph of dissent, O'Connor seems disturbed by the fact that a 17 year old cannot receive death-penalty regardless of amount of brutality and premeditation demonstrated. o Points to lack of evidence that has emerged to prove a national consensus since the Supreme Court upheld capital punishment for minors in Stanford v. Kentucky in 1989 o While Justice O'Connor agrees that, as a group, juveniles are undoubtedly less mature and more prone to peer pressure and misjudgments. However, she also states that "at least some 17 year old murderers" are sufficiently mature to understand and control their actions, impulses, and environment. Analysis In my view, neither the majority nor the minority offer truly compelling arguments in support of their respective opinions. However, I also think that this is because of the difficulty in interpreting the Eight Amendment to define what exactly is "cruel and unusual." This standard for maximum punishment is quite subjective and it will probably not be the case that you could get any 9 people to agree to an exact definition. Because of this difficulty in sufficiently supporting one opinion based on the definition of what is cruel and unusual, the Justices were forced to offer arguments such as the concept of 'national consensus', offering scientific research in favor of one opinion, and pointing to the practices of other countries; all of which tend to be weaker arguments at their core and create an even greater difference of opinion. Miranda v Arizona (5th Amendment Rights) Monday, April 11, 2011 6:19 PM Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. (1966) Facts of the Case  Ernesto Arturo Miranda, an indigent nearly illiterate truck-driver, was arrested on March 13, 1963 based on circumstantial evidence linking him to the kidnap and rape of an 18 year-old female ten days before.  Upon arrest, Miranda was interrogated by police for two hours and did not request an attorney, after which he signed a confession to the rape charges  At no time while being detained was Miranda told of his 5th Amendment right to remain silent o Based on this, Miranda's attorney, Alvin Moore, in district court argued that his confession was not truly voluntary and should be inadmissible  District court overruled Miranda's objections and, based mainly on his confession and identification by victim, found him guilty of both rape and kidnapping; sentencing him to 20-30 years in prison.  On behalf of Miranda, Moore appealed decision to Arizona Supreme Court asserting that confession should not have been admissible during district court trial.  Arizona Supreme Court upheld Miranda's conviction; specifically citing Miranda's failure to request an attorney upon arrest  Appealed to US Supreme Court and heard in 1966; several similar cases around the country at the same time Issue  The issue in Miranda v Arizona was if evidence obtained by police upon arrest, including confessions, was admissible in court if the accused was unaware and not informed of his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights to due process and access to an attorney.  More broadly, is the government required to inform individuals of their Constitutional rights prior to arrest and interrogation? Holding  5-4; due to the nature of interrogation, no confession could be constitutionally permissible unless suspect had been informed of and understood his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights and had knowingly waived them.  Also held what had to happen if the accused invoked their rights, stating, "If the individual indicates in any manner… [to invoke his rights], the interrogation must cease until an attorney is present…" Rationale  Writing for the majority and joined by Justices Black, Douglas, Brennan, and Fortas, Chief Justice Warren began the opinion of the Court by citing various precedents including Escobedo v Illinois (1964), Cohens v Virginia, and Brown v Walker.  Stated that there was a coercive nature inherent in the act of interrogation, and as such, an individual must be made aware of their Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights prior to police questioning. Separate Opinions  Justice Clark's concurrence in part, dissent in part: o Argued that the majority opinion went "too far too fast" o Would apply the "totality of the circumstances" test; which would require the court to consider in each case whether the necessary warnings were given and if they were not, the