| |
Sign Up for Our FREE eLessons!
Our topical eLessons help teachers demonstrate the connection between America’s founding principles and students’ lives. Delivered directly to your inbox, each eLesson includes historical content, classroom activities, discussion questions, and suggestions for further reading. Sign up for all three and receive up-to-date content and resources every week.
Click here to sign up for FREE now! |
| |
| Supreme Court Wrap-up - Summer 2009 | | Synopsis: The United States Supreme Court concluded its 2008-2009 term in June. This final Bill of Rights in the News eLesson provides resources and discussion questions for three of the last cases decided by the Court. These involve the privacy rights of students, the Fourteenth Amendment rights of firefighters denied promotions, and the constitutional rights of prisoners to access to DNA testing. | Supreme Court decisions made in the 2008-09 term
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iibIonvD9lXE3_8yLBp_n1R7fZBQD995GMG03
- What was the constitutional question in Safford Unified School District #1 v. Redding (2009)?
Did school officials violate the Fourth Amendment rights of a thirteen-year-old girl when they strip-searched her on the suspicion she might be hiding ibuprofen in her underwear?
- How did the Court rule?
The Court ruled (8-1) that school officials had violated the student’s rights. The search was unconstitutional. “Because the suspected facts pointing to Savana did not indicate that the drugs presented a danger to students or were concealed in her underwear, Wilson did not have sufficient suspicion to warrant extending the search to the point of making Savana pull out her underwear….Here, the content of the suspicion failed to match the degree of intrusion.”
- Read the Fourth Amendment. Do you agree that the search was unconstitutional? Why or why not?
Some students may agree with the ruling that school officials acted unconstitutionally, violating the student’s Fourth Amendment rights by conducting such an intrusive search on relatively weak evidence. The suspicion, if true, (possessing prescription ibuprofen) was not potentially dangerous enough to justify their actions. Others may disagree, arguing that since the school is charged with protecting students’ health and safety, the search was constitutional.
- What were the facts of the case in Ricci, et al. v. DeStefano, et al. (2009)?
The city of New Haven gave firefighters an exam to determine who would be promoted. Twenty-seven of the 118 candidates who took the test were black; none of those individuals scored high enough for a promotion. Fearing a lawsuit, the city of New Haven threw out the test results. The white and Hispanic firefighters who had scored high enough for promotions sued.
- What was the constitutional question in Ricci, et al. v. DeStefano, et al. (2009)?
Did the city of New Haven violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which prohibits discrimination in employment) and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when it threw out results of a promotion exam because no blacks qualified for promotions?
- How did the Court rule? Do you believe the ruling was correct?
The Court ruled (5-4) that the city had acted unconstitutionally: “Fear of litigation alone cannot justify an employer’s reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions”. The Court did not answer the question of whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment.
Some students may agree with the Court, saying as Chief Justice Roberts asserted in a previous case, “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” Without demonstrating that the city had intentionally acted to keep blacks promotions, there was no valid or constitutional reason to throw out the test results. Other students may disagree with the Court, arguing as the dissenting Justices did, that the city of New Haven was justified in throwing out test results because it reasonably feared a “disparate impact” lawsuit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The firefighters had no “right” to a promotion, and no one was promoted in preference to them.
- What were the facts in the case of District Attorney's Office for the Third Judicial District, et al. v. Osborne (2009)?
Osborne was convicted of kidnapping and rape in 1994 in an Alaska state court. His conviction was based in part on DNA evidence, as well as Osborne’s confession to the crime. After Osborne was convicted, he tried to gain access to a new type of DNA testing to prove he was innocent. This specific type of testing had not been available ay the time of his trial. When this access was denied, Osborne sued in federal court.
- What were the arguments on each side?
Osborne argued that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protected his right to access evidence that might prove his innocence. The state argued that Osborne needed to demonstrate that the DNA evidence might prove his innocence, and the fact that he had confessed prevented this possibility.
- How did the Supreme Court rule? Do you believe the ruling was correct?
The Court ruled (5-4) that there was no constitutional right for convicted persons to have access to the state’s DNA evidence used against them at trial. The Court ruled that procedures for granting prisoners access to DNA evidence were rightly handled by lawmakers in states and Congress, and not the federal judiciary: “To suddenly constitutionalize this area would short-circuit what looks to be a prompt and considered legislative response.”
Accept reasoned answers.
| | Last Edited On 7/7/2009 8:58:00 AM | | | |
| |
