Supreme Court Case: Shelby County V. Holder

In the Case of Missouri v. Seibert, a mother named Patrice Seibert was convicted of second degree murder. Patrice Seibert had a son named Jonathan who was twelve years old and had cerebral palsy. Jonathan Seibert suddenly died in his sleep, and his mother thought that she would be held responsible for his sudden death. Ms. Seibert then devised a plan with her two older sons and their friends. She wanted to cover up the death of Jonathan, so she conspired with her sons and their friends to cover up the death by burning down their mobile home. Donald Rector was a mentally ill individual who stayed with the Seibert’s and later died as the home went up in flames. Several days later, Seibert was taken into the police station and questioned about the mysterious mobile home fire. While being interrogated, the officer waved Ms. Seibert’s Miranda rights. She was questioned for thirty to forty minutes before she was given a break. While being questioned, the officer hoped that Ms. Seibert would voluntarily confess to the crimes that had taken place. After her break, she was then questioned a second time. This time, the officer turned on a recorder and then read Ms. Seibert her Miranda Warnings, and the officer also obtained a signed waiver of rights from Seibert.

The supreme court case Dred Scott v. Sanford had two issues standing before it. First, Was Dred Scott a citizen of the US and thereby entitled to sue in federal court for the protection of his rights? Second, Did Scott’s residence in free territory make him free? Dred Scott was an African American man born into slavery in Missouri who was the property of Dr. Emerson. Although, Emerson died which gave Scott the chance to sue Emerson’s widow in a Missouri court to declare him free. After the court’s debate, the decision was made that, Dred Scott, was still property and he had no right to be in the supreme court. The south was delighted from this choice in the supreme court. On the other hand, the north was very angry with this decision. The decision

The United States’ attention was captivated on the Supreme Court Case of Powell vs Alabama during the 1930s. During the time period, this case revealed the brutal treatment towards African Americans more than any other event. The case began on March 25, 1931, when a group of young white and African American youths were traveling on a train to find a job. A physical encounter broke out between them and the white youths were thrown out of the train. Then they reported the incident to a stationmaster, who stopped the train. The police arrived to gather the nine African Americans and brought them to jail. Nine young African Americans were recognized as the “Scottsboro boys”. They were accused of rape of two white women on that train. The white jury convicted eight of them, all except one, the youngest at 12-years-old, and were sentenced to death. These youths were falsely charged with raping two white women in Alabama. Although there was no evidence that linked the African Americans to the white women, they were still charged with sexual assault. The two women -- fearing prosecution for their sexual relationship with the white men agreed to testify against the black youths. The Supreme Court Case of Powell vs Alabama is crucial in both Civil Rights history and in the evolution of the Constitution.

2) Case Facts- Homer Plessy, a self described half black man decided to sit in a coach reserved for white citizens only on a Louisiana railcar. He was jailed, subsequently however during his trial he appealed to the court on the grounds that the Louisiana statute that forbade him to sit in this section of the coach was in clear violation of the both the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. An 1883 case found that “as long as a clear distinction of race existed, the statute had no tendency to destroy the legal equality of the two races, or establish a state of involuntary servitude. This is relevant as the Thirteenth Amendment references “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.” Other cases such as Roberts v. City of Boston in 1849 supported Justice Browns argument, citing that the Boston school committee had power to make provision for the instruction of colored children in separate schools established exclusively for them, and to prohibit their attendance upon the other schools. Other cases include the same provisional powers for interracial marriage and political equality amongst blacks and whites.

In the infamous Dred Scott V. Sandford case, in 1857, the Supreme Court upheld that no one of the African American race has the ability to sue any United States federal court. Chief Justice Taney ruled that African Americans were "chattel" and had no rights under a "white man's government". Furthermore, the Missouri Compromise was affirmed unconstitutional, because the Congress does not have the power to ban slavery in the Western Territories. Sandford was favored by the Supreme Court, which gave slave owners the right of property, in the Fifth Amendment, including slaves who were bought and sold like property.

As children, we have all stepped that “boundary” between right and wrong. From stealing money to shoplifting to fighting, we have all made our parents frustrated, made poor decisions, and perhaps, even made a egregious mistake. However, when does stepping that “boundary” become irremediable? Can the government punish minors under the same criteria they do with adults? And most importantly, what does the United States Constitution say? These are all questions that both the Missouri Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court had to consider when they dived into the case of Roper v. Simmons. To provide a little historical

Gobitis and Barnette are two very important cases whose rulings had a big significance on a specific minority and the State. In the Gobitis case the Gobitis kids were expelled from public schools in Minersville School district for refusing to salute the flag. Saluting the flag involved standing and placing your right hand over your heart as you say the pledge of allegiance. It was not done in disrespect but due to their religious belief. The Gobitis’ religion looks down upon saluting the flag or symbols like that. Saluting the flag is a daily exercise that is done by students and teachers. Whoever refuses is expelled and the parents are prosecuted also. When the kids were kicked out of all public schools they had to go to private school where their dad could barely afford it but had no choice. Later on the Barnette case reversed the ruling of the court. It focused more on the constitution and what was legal. It was unconstitutional to punish a student for exercising their freedom of religion and speech. Citizens have rights and it had to be acknowledged, not just kick students out of school for their belief. As stated in the Bill of Rights in the first amendment people have freedom to religion and speech and can freely exercise that. The Barnette case made that obvious and gave the people back their rights. The justices from each case had their own opinion on what they thought was best and what wasn’t. Some were all for giving citizens their freedom of speech

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 prohibits voting discrimination. With the condition to receive preclearance stated in section 5 of the Act from the Department of Justice before making any changes affecting the voting process, also came four other prohibitions. The prohibition of literacy test or other similar test or devices as a prerequisite to voter registration is one prevention. The requirement of jurisdictions with significant language minority populations to provide non-English ballots and oral voting instructions is another. Third is the prohibition of vote dilution, which is the remapping of districts to suppress the minority vote. The final provision was one of the most controversial of the Act. It established the federal oversight

The case “Plessy v. Ferguson” was a test of a Louisiana law’s constitutionality. It took 50 years to realize it, but the constitutionally and morally right way was to end segregation. This case was never about Plessy not being able to ride on a white only car on a train headed to Covington, Louisiana. It was about a group of black citizens trying to stop segregation from ever

As technology advances, the world is forced to adapt as an increasingly quick pace. Specifically, our justice system must consider the constitutionality of surveillance and other information gathering techniques and how they coincide with current interpretations of the Fourth Amendment which protects citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Supreme Court addressed this issue in the 2013 case of Maryland v King explicitly related to the legality of DNA collection of individuals early in the booking process for serious crimes. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that pre-conviction DNA collection of those arrested for serious crimes is constitutional and does not violate the Fourth Amendment; a decision that will

The United States Supreme Court consists of eight associate justices and one chief justice who are petitioned more than 5,000 times a year to hear various cases (Before the Court in Miller V. Alabama, 2012). At its discretion, the Supreme Court selects which cases they choose to review. Some of the selected cases began in the state court system and others began in the federal court system. On June 25, 2012 the justices of the Supreme Court weighed in on the constitutionality of life without parole for juvenile offenders. The case was Miller v. Alabama and actually included another case, Jackson v Hobbs, as well (2012). Both were criminal cases involving 14 year old boys who were

Although the majority correctly avoided the constitutional question, Justice Scalia authored a concurring opinion addressing the issue. Justice Scalia’s opinion poses the question: “[w]hether or to what extent, are the disparate-impact provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 consistent with the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection?” Id. at 2682, 174 L. Ed. 2d 490, 515. Justice Scalia’s assertion that “Title VII’s disparate-impact provisions place a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes” mischaracterizes the Act. Id. The disparate-impact provision of Title VII simply allows for and encourages employers to be cognizant of the racial impact of their business practices so that they can craft fair assessment procedures that gives everyone equal opportunity. Justice Scalia callously classified the City’s action as racial decision-making. This contention disregards the fact that race consciousness was deemed

Associate Justice John Marshall Harlan, the lone vote against the ruling, gave the dissenting opinion of the court. Harlan “insisted that the court had ignored the obvious purpose of the Separate Car Act, which was, under the guise of giving equal accommodation for whites and blacks, to compel the latter to keep to themselves while traveling in railroad passenger coaches. Because it presupposed—and was universally understood to presuppose—the inferiority of African Americans, the act imposed a badge of servitude upon them in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment.” (Duignan). He also stated, “The sure guaranty of the peace and security of each race is the clear, distinct, unconditional recognition by our governments, national and state, of every right that inheres in civil freedom, and of the equality before the law of all citizens of the United States, without regard to race. State enactments regulating the enjoyment of civil rights upon the basis of race, and cunningly devised to defeat legitimate results of the war, under the pretense of recognizing equality of rights, can have no other result than to render permanent peace impossible, and to keep alive a conflict of races, the continuance of which must do harm to all concerned” (Quotes from Plessy v. Fergusun). Harlan further explained what the constitution says by stating “Our Constitution is colorblind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In

One of these cases was Smith v. Allwright. The outcome of this case declared that Texas' exclusion of black voters from primary elections, known as the "White Primary", unconstitutional. By winning this case Marshall not only paved the way for the removal of black voting laws, but he also made it public that the Supreme Court was no longer going to ignore the constitutional rights of African Americans, that had been discounted by state legislatures since the Civil War. In yet another governmental policy altering case Shelley v. Kraemer in 1948 the Supreme Court agreed with Marshall that courts could not enforce "restrictive covenants," private agreements not to sell land to blacks. (3) This time Marshall directed a blow at the state level courts, forcing them to become aware of the nation's new found view of civil liberties. In Sweat v. Painter in 1950 and in Sipuel v. University of Oklahoma in 1948, Marshall won unanimous decisions declaring "separate but equal" facilities for black professionals as well as graduate students in state universities unconstitutional. (3) First the state

The landmark Supreme Court cases of Dred Scott v. Sandford, Plessy v. Ferguson, and Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas have had a tremendous effect on the struggle for equal rights in America. These marker cases have set the precedent for cases dealing with the issue of civil equality for the last 150 years.