New York Times Co. v. United States (1971)

Daniel Ellsberg, a political scientist working for the Pentagon, stole classied papers called, “The Pentagon Papers.” He then gave these documents to The New York Times, which began publishing them. Just a couple days later, the government was granted an order to stop the publishing of these papers. The case was quickly appealed to the US Supreme Court. The question was: Could the government prevent the publication of materials because they could be endangering national security?

The Court’s decision was issued per curiam. This means that the decision came from the Court as whole, rather than there being one writer for the opinion, all nine justices wrote their own opinion. Justice Hugo L. Black wrote that he felt the whole reason behind “freedom of the press” in the First Amendment was so that the press could let out government secrets and inform the people. Justice William O. Douglas agreed and added that there is nothing barring the press from publishing this kind of information. I agree with the Court’s decision for this case. Justice Black’s argument makes perfect sense. Today there a lot of information gets leaked to the public. It is as if the freedom of the press keeps the government on its toes and prevents it from committing any acts of corruption. If the government could control everything that gets published, there would be much more “behind the scenes” things taking place.  

This case is often compared to Wikileaks, which is a company responsible for leaking much government information to the public. This video discusses the similarities and differences between these two situations.

Gitlow v. New York (1925)

Benjamin Gitlow was convicted for violating the 1902 New York Criminal Anarchy Act. This Act prohibited speaking, teaching, advising, printing, pblishing, circulating, selling, distributing or publicly displaying of organized anarchy. Gitlow was caught teaching the necessity to overthrow the government and he made two publications based off of the Communist Manfiesto. This case deals with the issue of whether or not the First Amendment’s protections of press and free speech are included in the Fourteenth Amendment, which then makes them applicable at state level.
With a 7 to 2 vote, the Court decided to approve Gitlow’s conviction. I don’t think I completely agree with this ruling. We are given the right to free speech and free press. I don’t see why it is okay for the government to censor or simply remove people’s publications or teachings for self-preservation. Our government is unique in that the citizens are allowed to freely express what they want. If the government always removed anything that seemed threatening, it would become oppressive.

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas

This case represents a collection of cases all dealing with a similar issue. It was the issue of black children being denied admission to the public white schools. This goes back to the Plessy v. Ferguson case in 1896 which determined that having separate but equal facilities for white and colored people does not go against the guaranteed equal protection laws in the Fourteenth Amendment.
This time the Court unanimously decided that the separate but equal schools do go against the equal protection clause. Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote that, “Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore we hold that the plaintiffs…are, by reason of the segregation complained of deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.” I am glad that the Court came to this conclusion, as it should have back in 1896 with the Plessy v. Ferguson case. I suppose that that was a different situation since it wasn’t dealing with education, but I still feel that it was of similar principle. No matter how equal the schools are or seats on a train, there should be no segregation at all.

This video discusses the involvement of young people in the fight for racial equality.

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

Clarence Earl Gideon planned to rob a Florida pool hall but was caught while breaking in. He could not afford his own attorney for his trial and the court refused his request for a court-appointed official. Florida would only provide free counsel for capital cases. Gideon pleaded not guilty and tried to defend himself. He was unsuccessful and was found guilty and sentenced to 5 years in prison. Gideon submitted a petition to the US Supreme Court to accept his appeal. The Court accepted the appeal and appointed Abe Fortas as Gideon’s attorney.
The Court examined the decision that was made for the Betts v. Brady case in 1942. For this case the Court had decided that the due process clause in the Fourteenth Amendment did not require the guarantee of counsel in criminal cases, which is stated in the Sixth Amendment.
The Court came to a unanimous decision in favor of Gideon, which overturns the decision that was made in 1942 for Betts. Chief Justice Black explained that a person can’t be given a fair trial without some sort of counsel present for them. I agree with the decision the Court came to. Everyone deserves to have some sort of defense no matter what their financial situation is. If only those who could afford lawyers had them in court, our country would be ruled by the rich. The framers of the constitution aimed for everyone to have equal opportunity in this country. Because of this case, everyone is appointed an attorney if they are unable to afford their own. Without counsel and both sides of a case, the trial couldn’t be fair.

Here is an informational video about the details of Clarence Earl Gideon.

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

The decision for the Miranda case was actually for four different cases that were dealing with extremely similar constitutional issues. Each of them involved people who were convicted based on the confessions they made after long periods of interrogation and without being informed of their right to remain silent and counsel. Ernesto Miranda was arrested by the Phoenix, Arizona police and was accused of kidnapping and rape. He was never informed of his right to remain silent or have an attorney. After much interrogation, he signed a written confession. Miranda appealed to the US Supreme Court based on the Fifth Amendment, that nobody shall have to be a witness against themselves for any criminal case. The main question was: Under what conditions can an interrogation take place that will produce a confession suitable for the Court?
With a 5 to 4 vote the Court decided to set Miranda free. Chief Justice Earl Warren explained that Miranda was put in an unfair situation. When someone is taken into custody they must be informed of their rights. Warren also expressed concern for the interrogation process. He felt that many defendants are put into such an emotional and pressuring situation that they are unable to practice rational judgement. Warren wrote that the Court's decision is also an effort to get rid of the pressures that defendants face when interrogated and limit self-incrimination. Although Miranda was probably guilty, I feel that the Court made the right decision. The interrogation process is quite brutal and it is important that it is addressed by the court.

Here is a silly cartoon that explains how the Miranda rights were recognized and what happened to Ernesto Miranda after the case.

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978)

The Medical School at UC Davis had a separate admissions process for minority students. In 1973, 84 "regular" students and 16 minority or disadvantaged students were admitted. The group of minority students had much lower science grade-point averages and Medical College Aptitude Test scores. Alan Bakke, who was white, was not given admission to the UC Davis Medical School that year. His science grade-point average was slightly lower than the regular students, but his aptitude test scores were much higher. Bakke attempted to sue the Regents for a place at the school. California's Superior Court ruled that the admissions program violated the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The court still didn't order that Bakke be admitted into the school though. Bakke appealed to the California Supreme Court, who ordered him admitted to the school by citing the Fourteenth Amendment. The Regents then appealed to the US Supreme Court arguing that the special admissions process did not violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. There was also a question of whether or not racial preference considerations are always unconstitutional.

With a 5 to 4 vote, the Court decided that the University's minority admissions program did violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. I agree with this ruling. I can see why the University felt that this admissions process was more fair though. There are a lot of people who have no choice but to grow up in a poor environment and not have the same opportunities as others. Many feel that these people deserve the same chance as everyone else who had the privileges of a comfortable home and good education. At the same time though, it isn't fair to those who may be more fortunate but also worked just as hard. It is nice that the University considers that one person had a tougher time in school given the environment they had to grow up in, but I feel the school should give admission to those who are most qualified.
This kind of evaluating is still done by colleges today. There isn't a completely separate admissions program for minorities but there is a lot of room to explain one's struggles while growing up. It is important that schools recognize those who worked extra hard to overcome the rough schools and living conditions.

Miller v. California (1973)

Miller sent out unrequested mailings containing advertisements for "adult" books and films. These brochures showed sexually explicit photos and drawings. Miller was prosecuted for violating California's obscenity laws and was found guilty. His appeal addresses whether or not the state is violating the First Amendment when prosecuting publishers for "obscene" materials.
The Court ended up voting 5 to 4 in favor of California. I agree with this decision. Although I feel that the rights granted to citizens in the First Amendment are important, the state should also have some control over the things people publish. This kind of material can be offensive to some people. It is difficult to have a concrete definition of what exactly is crossing the line when it comes to obscene material. Because of this dilemma, the Court proposed three guidelines that should be followed.
This topic will always remain an issue in society today because it is so difficult to determine what is and is not obscene. It is important to keep offensive materials from being published but at the same time the First Amendment is supposed to protect our right to free speech and free press.

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

An 1890 Louisiana law ordered that railroads must have separate but equal accommodations for whites and colored races. Anyone who violated this law was either fined $20 or put in jail for 25 days. Plessy, who was 1/8 black sat in the white people section. When the conductor asked him to move, he refused to give up his seat. He was arrested and a local judge, Ferguson, ordered him to be imprisoned. Plessy appealed to the United States Supreme Court with the argument that the law in Louisiana violates both the Thirteenth Amendment (forbids slavery) and the Fourteenth Amendment (prohibits the denial of equal protection to any person).
The Court quickly ignored the issue of the Thirteenth Amendment. They felt that just because there is a legal distinction between the two races, it doesn't mean they are being treated unequally. I am disappointed that segregation was not addressed. Although the whites and colored are essentially being treated equal, why does there still have to be separation? Justice Henry Brown explained that the Fourteenth Amendment enforces "absolute equality of the two races" and that, "it could not have been intended to abolish distinctions based on color." Even though there is fair treatment, I feel that it is racist just to simply make a distinction. I guess that means that we're all a little racist, but it's the truth. The law should simply address the citizens, there is no reason to distinguish between whites and colored people.

Here is a video with Gary Orfield, who co-founded the Harvard Civil Right Project. In this video he talks about the case of Plessy v. Ferguson and how we have evolved since then.


It will be a long time before racism completely goes away in this country, but we have come a long way. Segregation will unfortunately always be a part of human nature. It's not just colored races dealing with it, but homosexuals as well. Plessy's case is a landmark in history because it is part of what jump started society's struggle for equality across the counrty.

United States v. Nixon (1974)

While President Richard M. Nixon was campaigning for reelection, burglars broke into the Watergate office and apartment complex. There were alleged ties between these burglars and the President's reelection committee. Many conversations were taped in the White House Oval office and when Leon Jaworski attempted to subpoena the tapes, the President refused to hand them over to the court. Nixon felt that he didn't have to surrender the tapes because he had executive power.
The main question was: Can the president claim executive privileges to avoid surrendering material to the federal court? The court unanimously voted that the President must hand over the tapes. This is obviously the correct decision. This case is proof that our system of checks and balances are working. It is nice to see that once a president's action has been questioned it is then tried in court for its constitutionality. Without this system our country would be run by corrupt leaders.
The 18 minutes of tape that was erased was originally thought gone for good but historians today are trying to recover the missing information with new technology. This video discusses the various methods being used.


This court case is significant today because it ensures that our constitution and system of checks and balances are working. Nixon resigned before actually being impeached. This case acts as a reminder to present and future presidents, that their executive power does not give them the privilege to act unconstitutionally.

Roe v. Wade (1973)

 Back in 1973, Jane Roe (a pseudonym) challenged the Texas law that prohibited abortions except for when the life of the child's mother was in danger. Roe was a a young woman who wished to have an abortion although her life was not being put in danger. Roe fought that the Fourteenth Amendment could not protect the life of her baby because a fetus is not considered a person according to the law. She also argued that her abortion should be kept private which is protected by the Bill of Rights.
The Court easily voted, 7 to 2, in favor of both of Roe's arguments. Being rather conservative, people were surprised to see Justice Harry A. Blackmun's response. He explained that the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments address that a woman has "the right to activities relating to marriage..., procreation..., and contraception..." This confirms that Roe has the right to do what she wants with anything that relates to these situations. Pregnancy and abortion are both linked to all of these situations. Justice Blackmun also adds that the right to privacy of course includes a woman's decision on whether or not to have an abortion.
It is interesting to consider what does and does not qualify as a person. How can one say that a fetus isn't a person if we know that it is destined to become one in just a short period of time? The court draws a line at the second trimester, which is the first 3 months of pregnancy. After the second trimester is up, the woman must give birth to her baby. It gets to a stage where the baby is developed enough to be considered an actual human being and to have an abortion at that point is considered murder. I agree that there should be a limit on how late an abortion can be done. I feel that if a woman truly feels unprepared to properly raise a baby, it is better off that the baby is not brought into the world in the first place. There is still much controversy considering this topic but many women today are getting abortions who feel unprepared or not ready to have a child.

Here is a video presenting the stories of three young women dealing with abortion and how the court decision in favor Roe has positively effected them as it has for many women across America.