I found this case very interesting. It is thought provoking, because I realized how angry I'd feel if someone would try and kick me out of MY house because I wasn't allowed to own it The strength of Mr. Shelley is to be admired because though he didn't think anything when he bought his property, when faced with summons he decided to fight instead of back down, like many others, because he knew that what he was doing was important.
The third case is of Daisy Bates vs. Little Rock, where as head of the Arkansas NAACP she fought for integration of the public schools and refused to give out the membership lists of the NAACP. Daisy Bates fought hard against Bennett, the state's attorney general who time and time again used different measures to shut the NAACP down. One attempt to do this was Daisy Bates arrest for challenge of the Bennett Ordinance. At the trial the presiding judge, Judge Robinson held the Ordinance valid and found Daisy guilty with a $100 fine. At the next trial in front of the County Circuit Court Judge Kirby who also convicted Daisy Bates, and it was obvious he had his mind set throughout the trial. Carter, Daisy's lawyer knew this and called certain witnesses such as Franklin Loy because he was already building for a record of appeal. Unfortunately the Arkansas Supreme Court upheld the conviction, taking a stance against the precedent set by an Alabama case. The case had to wait a year to go to the Supreme Court, and in the mean time there was pure chaos in Arkansas, schools were closed for a year, Daisy's home was bombed and her newspaper had to be shut down because of a boycott for advertising. The Supreme Court Ruling was unanimous and it overruled the convictions on Daisy Bates. Justice Stewart used the same case of NAACP vs. Alabama that was ignored in the previous court's decision to right his opinion that stated that the Ordinance was a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth amendment.
This case was also very interesting, because it deals with the first amendment as well as the Due Process clause of the fourteenth amendment. In the lower courts you can see the heavy undertones of racism with each of the Judge's decisions, convicting Daisy even before hearing any of the arguments in the case. The Supreme Court however, was making many decisions promoting integration at this time and advancements were being made on the federal level. This issue, however, dealt more with privacy to take part in any organization, as the first amendment cites, and though the Court decided in favor for this case, a year before their decision went against this same type of protection in the case of Lloyd Barenblatt. It is interesting to see the different opinions, since the principals of each of the cases are the same.
The fourth case, which deals with racism, is that of Robert Mack Bell, a high school student who was arrested for a "sit-in" at a Maryland restaurant that refused to serve him and his other companions because he was black. Robert gathered a group of his fellow high school student who accompanied John R. Quarles who served as the leader of the group to Hooper's restaurant. They were very polite in asking to be seated and once the hostess refused to seat the each of the student spread out throughout the restaurant and sat at different tables. The manager was called, as well as the owner and while Quarles had a talk with the owner, the manager went and got the Maryland Trespass law which was kept handy for such occasions. Many of the protestors left and began a sidewalk vigil while eight of them remained in the restaurant, though none were arrested, their names were taken down and warrants were issued for their arrest. Since all except Quarles was underage they were allowed to leave and asked to show up at the station the next Monday. At the first trial the Judge was obviously sympathetic to the student's efforts yet he dismissed the motion made by Watts and the other lawyers representing the students to revoke the trespass charges. He convicted the students and charged them a $10 fine, which he suspended and acknowledged, "their protest was one of principle rather than an intentional attempt to violate the law". In January of 1962 Maryland's highest court upheld the convictions. The appeal went to the Supreme Court n 1963. After a long period of arguing the Court finally reversed the convictions and returned the case to the State Court.
Though I liked the subject of this case, I didn't like the way it was dragged out endlessly. Though we see sympathy from the first judge, we still see the same views of the society, and the same comes from the second judge. What is even more troubling to me is that when the case did reach the Supreme Court the Justices take so long and are so unsure of their stances on the case. Justice Black's decision seems to be influenced because of past family owned businesses, while other Justices such as Stewart change their opinions. The end result comes so late, and it was unsatisfactory.
The next controversial issue in this book is that of religion. The separation of Church and State is a battle that was stronger in previous generations, and the gap has become greater in recent years, though even now religion plays a role in the Judicial System.
The first case discussing religion is that of Lillian Gobitis vs. the Minersville School District. Lillian was suspended for refusing to salute the flag on religious grounds. Lillian was a Jehovah's Witness; they converted from Catholicism in 1931, when Lillian was eight. She first decided to refuse to salute the flag when she heard of Carleton Nicholls, a student who has done the same thing in Massachusetts. Though Walter Gobitis and his wife, Lillian's parents, tried to explain to the board their position on saluting the flag, the listeners were unsympathetic. The board made a unanimous decision to require all students to salute the flag as a daily activity in the classroom and expelled Lillian, and her brother who had also stopped saluting the flag, from school. Walter promised to sue the school board, and did sue a year and a half later. Judge Maris, the first judge to hear their case felt that Lillian and her brother were sincere with their reasons to not salute the flag and ordered the school district to readmit the students and to excuse them from the flag salute. The school district filed for an appeal, and another year and a half passed before the State Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision to uphold the lower courts verdict. Though the school district at first decided against filing for an appeal on the federal level they changed their mind when they were offered support from many enthusiastic patriots and patriotic groups. With only one dissenting vote, the Supreme Court issued an opinion in favor of the Minersville School District. This was followed by many attacks and atrocities against Witnesses throughout the country. Three years later a similar case came in front of the Supreme Court, where the decision was made in favor of the students, thus overruling the Gobitis' cases first decision.
This case depicts the evolution of society and politics over a very short period of time; this is why I found this case very interesting. The first two Courts both agreed that the children were sincere in their refusal and that they shouldn't be forced to salute the flag if it was against their beliefs. On the federal level however, the Justices felt that the religious views were not more important than showing patriotism. This is shown in the statement made by Justice Frankfurter where he said that a religious belief "doest not relieve the citizen from discharge of political responsibilities." Though the Supreme Court ruling was overruled three years later, I feel I agree with the view held by Justice Frankfurter. Religion is a very important part of my life, but so is my love for this country, and I don't think that saluting the flag in anyway goes against any religious beliefs.
The second case dealing with the tug of war between Church and State comes in the case of Barbara Elfbrandt vs. Imogene Russell. Barbara, along with her husband, refused to sign a loyalty oath that she felt violated her Quaker principles. The fear of communism spread throughout the country and infiltrated jobs and homes alike. When Barbara's school required her to sign a loyalty oath, she was the only teacher to take it home. She decided against signing it and went on to file a suit against the Pima County Superior Court against the Chair of the School District. Her lawyer, W. Edward Morgan filed for an injunction of the enforcement of the loyalty oath on the grounds that it violated the first and fifth amendment. The first court decision came about quickly, the judge ruled against her, and Morgan immediately asked for a review in the State Supreme Court. The second phase of this case was much longer, yet the final verdict was the same as the previous one. Morgan went on with a petition for review to the Supreme Court. The Justices, who had just struck down a loyalty oath in Washington, sent the case back for rehearing. The State Court came out with the same verdict, only this time they had one dissenting opinion. Morgan decided to try a second time for review in the Supreme Court, and this time the Justices agreed to hear it. After losing three rounds within Arizona Barbara slid through with a narrow victory one the Federal level and the loyalty oath was dismissed. Throughout the proceeding Barbara had continued teaching without pay, and had to fight to receive her missing checks.
Morgan did a very thorough job in this case, and his perseverance finally paid off. The Supreme Court made a smart decision in overruling the previous decisions on this case. As in the case of Daisy Bates, it is no one's business who belongs to what organization, it is a clear violation of the first amendment. Though the fear of the "Reds" taking over was justifiable, it didn't give the right for the government to take away rights that they themselves had given their citizens.
The next case dealing with the issue of religion consists of a protest to prayer in the classroom. In the case of Ishmael Jaffree vs. George Wallace Ishmael took the school district saying that reciting prayers in a classroom was unconstitutional. Chioke, Ishmael’s son, came home complaining about the prayers in the classroom and Ishmael responded by telling him to tell his teacher that what she was doing was illegal. When he found out that the praying hadn’t stopped he wrote a letter to the teacher who then took it to the principal. When the school board responded with a letter saying that prayers did not violate any Supreme Court rulings Ishmael filed a suit in federal court against the board. Though the Supreme Court had ruled to keep prayer out of schools, Judge Hand took it in his hand to “right” the ruling of the court by ruling in the school boards favor. The case then went to the Supreme Court where the Justices overruled Judge Hand’s decision stating that it was preposterous for Judge Hand to believe that Alabama was above any ruling of the Supreme court.
We live in a country which has come to be known as the melting pot of the world. Millions of people from different cultures throughout the world come to this country for a better chance at life, including a better education. The Supreme Court acted wisely in banning prayer from schools because if not then, it would have been done later. No one can be forced to pray in a certain manner, not everyone is Christian anymore. Church and State are for once clearly separated by this decision.
The bulk of the cases in the book, eight out of sixteen deal with citizens protesting against injustices committed by the government.
The first one is that of Lloyd Barenblatt vs. United States. Lloyd, a college teacher, and a former communist, avowed his first amendment rights against congressional inquisitors who wanted him to give up the names of other communists. Called in front of the committee because a friend had given them his name, Lloyd was put on the stand and was asked if he was affiliated with the Communist party, unlike all before him Lloyd refused to answer this question because it was a violation of his first amendment rights, something that had never been used before in this sense. The committee had a contempt citation approved for him and followed it with an indictment that consisted of five different counts. The first judge, Judge Holtzoff, immediately issued a guilty verdict. Barenblatt proceeded to the federal appellate court in Washington with a new lawyer, David Scribner to argue his case. The three judges issued a unanimous ruling in which they upheld the lower courts verdict. Scribner asked for a review by the Supreme Court and they returned the case to the Court of Appeals. The Court again upheld the conviction, ignoring the precedent of a case the Supreme Court had just decided. Two years later Barenblatt returned to the Supreme Court with two new lawyers in hopes of a reversal of his conviction. His hopes where shattered when the Supreme Court upheld the previous rulings, and he was sent to jail.
I disagree with all of the rulings in this case. Mcarthythism sent America on a hunt for the communist, branding anyone who came in their sight. Many of the convictions were false, and the lists that these convicted communists gave were absurd too. Many just wanted to get out and move on with their lives, while others used it to put down the names of enemies.
The next case is that of Daniel Seeger vs. United States. Daniel filed a suit challenging the draft law that required conscientious objectors to swear a belief in a supreme being. After writing letters to the draft board explaining why he couldn't partake in the war, he was offered the status of conscientious objector. When he read the Supreme Being question, he attached a long paper saying how belief in a supreme being had nothing to do with his objection. Daniel was required to go to hearing in front of Justice Lockwood, who was very sympathetic to Daniel and recommended Conscientious Objector status be given to him, this was not acceptable to the chef of the Justice departments CO section who overruled the opinion. Daniel appealed, and lost. When Dan showed up for his induction, but refused to take the final step, he was sent home by army officials, and waited two years before he was indicted by a federal grand jury. The District Judge Levet was unimpressed by Daniels claims and found him guilty of refusing the draft and the case went to the Court of Appeals of New York. The three-judge panel issued a unanimous decision reversing the previous verdict in 1964. The government asked the Supreme Court for a reversal in the case. The Supreme Court sided with the government and reversed the decision. They freed Daniel from a prison term by stating that he did not deny belief in a Supreme Being, but it also kept the Supreme Being question in place.
I feel that the Supreme Court took the cowards' way out in this decision by interpreting Daniel's reasons to free him, because they were sympathetic to his sincerity, yet at the same time upholding the stance of the government. I think that the Court should have decided in favor of Daniel and forced the government to take out the Supreme Being question from the Conscientious Objector form. If the request is sincere enough, no one should be forced to fight in the army.
The teaching of evolution was a hot topic in the south. In the case of Susan Epperson vs. Arkansas Susan challenges the "Scopes" law, which banned teachers from teaching evolution to their students. The first phase of this case took a mere two hours and the Judge issued his written opinion two months later. In it he rejected the law and said that there was nothing wrong with teaching advancements in society. The Attorney General's appeal went to the Arkansas Supreme Court. The opinion issued by three judges raised questions instead of answering them. It first said that the state had a right to make such a law, yet then it says that the law doesn't prohibit the teaching of evolution as a theory, it just can't be taught as being true. The case moved ahead to the Supreme Court where the Court struck down the Arkansas law. Justice Fortas felt that striking down this law would allow the Court to fix its mistake in deciding the Scopes trial.
This is an important case for education, because now evolution is the basis of science. It is one of the first things we learn about in school. The decision in this case is one of the more important ones where a teacher's protest draws another line for the interference of the Church in State matters.
Thirteen year old Mary Beth Tinker was suspended from school for wearing a black armband showing her protest of American bombing in Vietnam. Her protest led her to court in Mary Beth Tinker vs. Des Moines. After other students followed suite and were also suspended, the concerned parents held a meeting to discuss their concerns of depriving their children from an opportunity to express themselves. Mary and the five other students had to go in front of the school board, and after this hearing, the school board voted to keep their ban on armbands. The children returned to school without their armbands, but the Iowa Civil Liberties Union filed a suit against the district of Des Moines in the Federal Court which sought an injunction on the armband policy. The first hearing of the trial in front of Judge Stephenson heard both parties discuss the limits and coverage of the first amendment. In his opinion the Judge made it seem that the students no longer had all of their first amendment rights once they were in school. He admitted that the students were wearing the band in mourning of the lives lost, and that wearing the armband “ is a significant act and falls within the protection of the first amendment’s free speech clause” but then he countered this statement by saying that it couldn’t be held in this case since the band would cause “disruption”. The Federal appeals court heard the case and was split evenly so they sent the case onto the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held its arguments in November of 1968. Relying solely on the first amendment, Justice White convinced all but two of the Justices to reverse Stephenson’s ruling.
The extent of a schools authority in the life of a student is separated by fine lines. This is a tense issue with clothes with writing on them, context of newspapers, and random locker searches. Each school has its own policy, yet it is hard to decide which one is the best. As citizens students have the same rights as adults, but at the same time, since they are underage they are the responsibility of the school during school hours. In this case I feel that the Supreme Court’s ruling was a reasonable one because the wearing of the armband was not hurting anyone and it did not prevent the kids from concentrating in class. It was a peaceful way of stating one’s opinion.
In the next case of Dr. Jane Hodgson vs. Minnesota a doctor who decided to challenge a law on abortion because she couldn’t stand to make a child suffer ended up with a criminal conviction. When Jane learned that her patient, Nancy Kay Widmyer wanted an abortion because her family had suffered a bout of rubella and she didn’t want to have a baby who was deformed as a result, she couldn’t help but challenge the abortion law the state had. She could have easily performed the abortion without anyone knowing, but she chose to file suit in the federal district court which sought a declaration of its violation of the Constitution and an injunction against its enforcement. Both were denied, and Mrs. Hodgson continued with the abortion a few days later. Her lawyer, Stewart R. Perry, then went on to ask for federal protection against Dr. Hodgson being prosecuted by the County Attorney. The request was dismissed by the three judge panel. Perry asked for the panel to reconsider after Dr. Hodgson’s indictment. In the mean time the state judge dismissed Perry’s request for an injunction of the indictment followed by the federal panel issuing an opinion with the “hands off policy on state matters”. The lawyers then went on to the Supreme Court where the Justices voted without dissent to have the trial proceed in state court, freeing their hands of the mater of abortion. In the trial Dr. Hodgson was able to gain the respect of her judge but she was convicted and sentenced. She followed by appealing her conviction to the Minnesota Supreme Court and also asked for the US Supreme Court to review the first dismissal of her complaint. The Supreme Court again voted not to hear the case and the State Court let the case sit on appeal for more than two years. After two years a new case reached the Supreme Court that the Justices did hear and their ruling in that case reversed Dr. Hodgson’s indictment.
Abortion, the right to live vs. the right to choose is a very personal decision. Though it may sound cruel and heartless, at times it is better for a child not to be born into this world instead of coming into to a life of hardships and sorrow. In this case the decision of Dr. Hodgson to go through with the abortion was on the basis of medical reasons, which I think are legitimate. I think that if a woman cannot go through with a pregnancy because for situations beyond her control she has the right to choose what is to be done with the life inside of her.
Lack of integration in neighborhoods led to distinct differences between the rich Anglo areas and the poorer Hispanic areas of Texas. The difference in financing was show in the poor roads, and the low quality school system. Finally, one parent decided to fight for his children’s right to an equal education in the case of Demetrio Rodriguez vs. San Antonio. The suit filed charged the state for causing the children to suffer an inferior education because of the inequitable property-tax basis of the state’s school financing system. The Rodriguez case challenged a state law on federal grounds and went straight in front of a three judge panel. The lawyer, Arthur Gochman tactfully strengthened his arguments by comparing Edgewood, the poorest school district with Alamo Heights, the wealthiest. Before Christmas the three judge panel filed its opinion stating that the Texas-school financing system was a direct violation of the “equal protection” guarantee of the fourteenth amendment. The state was given six years to revise its financing policy, but the ruling caught them by surprise, and they went on to appeal before the US Supreme Court. After lengthy deliberation the Supreme Court voted to reverse the lower court’s ruling. Up until 1980 Demetrio Rodriguez was still in court fighting for an equal education for his children.
An opportunity at an equal education is the right of any child in this country. I completely disagree with the Supreme Court’s ruling in this case. Though I know it is impossible for the schools of a poorer area to be equal in quality to those of wealthy area I do feel it is the governments responsibility to somewhat stabilize the differences. Poor schools in inner cities are a situation we are still working on today, and it is an important one, because these children are being deprived of an education, and in turn a future because of their financial backgrounds.
The next argument is that of Jo Carol LaFleur vs. Cleveland Board of Education. Jo Carol challenged the Boards maternity-leave rule which required teachers in the fourth month of their pregnancy to stay home. When Jo Carol refused to sign the form for her leave she faced suspension, and after being suspended for five weeks she went against the school board in the federal court. Judge Connell, a conservative, ignored the claim that the mandatory leave violated the “equal protection” clause of the fourteenth amendment and claimed that the policy was to protect the women and their children. Jo Carol’s lawyers immediately filed for an appeal and the appellate court reversed the lower courts decision. The school board then brought the case to the Supreme Court. After review the Supreme Court upheld the appellate Judge’s ruling.
This was a very important case for the feminist movement. Like my feelings for abortion, I feel that it is up to the woman to decide whether or not she is capable of working while she is pregnant. I agree with the Supreme Courts decision and was amused by their tactics in involving the “Due process clause” into the case, ushering Jo Carol’s lawyers to the “right” direction.
Elmer Gertz. Vs. Robert Welch, Inc. is the case of an established Chicago lawyer who decided to take on the Birch Society over false charges of communist involvement. In an article written by Alan Stang Elmer was accused of being a “Leninist” and “Communist-Fronter”. Elmer’s reaction to these allegations was to go ahead and file a libel suit against the Birch Society in federal court. The conservative judge, Judge Bernard M. Decker voted in favor of Elmer and set the case for trial in front of a jury. Elmer won the trial and an award of $50,000 against the Birch Society; however the judge took the check away saying that Elmer was not a “public figure”. Elmer went on to the federal appellate court and asked them to return his award, and after a year and a half the court ruled against him. Elmer decided then to bring his case in front of the Supreme Court. The Justices were torn over their opinions of drawing the line between freedom of the press and a right to privacy and sent Elmer back to the district court. This time Elmer came out with an award of $400,000 in damages.
This was also an interesting case and I agree with the end result. Though it is very difficult to draw the line between privacy and the right to know, the false accusations made against Elmer were definitely a threat to his reputation. The Cold War and the fear of infiltration by the “Reds” was enough to harm the respect that Elmer had worked hard to gain.
The final case in this book deals with privacy. Michael Hardwick challenged the Georgia law against sodomy after being arrested for having sex with a male partner in his bedroom. Officer Torick of Atlanta, Georgia was clearly not a friend for the homosexual population. He has ticketed Michael outside the bar he worked for carrying an open beer bottle. One day Torick came to Michael’s resident with an arrest warrant, which was not valid, and saw Michael and his partner in Michael’s room. He then asked them to dress, searched the room and found marijuana. He took them to the prison and booked them, and made everyone in the jail aware of what he and his friends were there for. Once Michael decided to be a test case he first plead guilty for the charge of marijuana, however the prosecutor refused to go ahead with the case because he knew Michael and his lawyers were up to something. The first Judge to hear the case, Judge Hall had no interest in ruling on the case and relied on a case in Virginia for his ruling which stated that homosexuals did not have the same privacy rights as heterosexuals did. The case was then taken to the federal appellate court, and after two years the two judge majority rejected the Virginia decision and overruled the previous one made in Michael’s case. The state was appalled by this decision and asked the Supreme Court for review, after the argument the justices decided that Georgia could persecute both straight and gay people for sodomy.
I am not sure where I stand with the ruling of this case, because I myself have mixed feelings. However I do believe all citizens, gay and straight alike have the right to privacy on an issue so private, and it is not the governments place to instill “morals” in society. This is an individual decision.
Overall I think this has been the most interesting factual book I have ever read. Not once did I think that reading this book was a task, on the contrary I was very interested and completed it very quickly. It opened my eyes to many issues that I had not come across previously and increased my knowledge on issues that I knew little about. Not only did I get to learn the facts and outcomes of these cases, I also got to learn about the people that made it happen. If it wasn’t for these people’s strong convictions perhaps our country would be a very different place today. Everyone can relate to at least one or two of these cases and think how their life would have been different if the decision had been different.
