Turner v Rogers, 131 S Ct 2507 - Research Proposal Example

?Case Brief By Table of Contents Turner v. Rogers, 131 S.Ct. 2507 3 Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders, 566U.S. ___ (2012). 5 Arizona et al v. United States, No. 11-182 567 U.S. _____ [2012] 7 Miller v. Alabama, No. 10-9646 567 U.S. _____ [2012] 9 National Federation of Independent Business et al v. Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al. No. 11-393, 567 U.S. _____ [2012] 11 United States v. Alvarez, No. 11-210, 567 U. S. _____ [2012] 13 Bibliography 16 Turner v. Rogers, 131 S.Ct. 2507 Vote: 5-4 I. Facts of the Case A family court in South Carolina order that the appellant pay a weekly sum of $51-73 in child support. The appellant was held in contempt on five separate occasions. Upon release the family court submitted a show cause process since the appellant was in arrears. At the civil contempt hearing the appellant was not represented by legal counsel and was found to be in wilful contempt and received a 1 year custodial sentence although the court did not rule on the appellant’s means or capacity to make the child support payments. After completing the sentence the appellant filed a complaint which was rejected by South Carolina’s Supreme Court on the grounds that the matter was civil. II. The Law Article III of the US Constitution only permits the US Supreme Court to hear cases and controversies so that an issue deemed moot does not fall within the US Supreme Court’s Article III jurisdiction. The 14th Amendment’s due process clause requires that no person shall be deprived of his or her liberty or property without due process. III. Legal Issues/Questions Is the appellant’s claim moot since he had already completed his sentence? Is the appellant entitled to legal counsel pursuant to the due process clause in a civil contempt hearing? IV. Holding/Decision and Action The decision of the lower court was reversed and remanded. V. Opinion The majority opinion was delivered by Breyer J. who ruled that the appellant’s claim was not moot since it could be repeated. Breyer J. also reasoned that the due process clause does not require the provision of legal counsel in civil contempt hearings for failure to pay child support if the state makes provisions for “alternative procedural safeguards. The safeguards would include notice that capacity to pay was a crucial issue; financial means and ability was elicited; the defendant has an opportunity to argue his financial means; and the court makes a ruling relative to the defendant’s ability to pay. Since the appellant was denied these alternative safeguards he was entitled to legal counsel pursuant to the due process clause. VI. Separate Opinion Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion in which he agreed with the lower court and found that the majority opinion was based on issues not raised by the appellant. VII. The Decision as Legal Precedent The decision is not a legal precedent it merely applied a ruling in a similar civil case to the facts of this case. VIII. Summary of Legal Principle A case is alive if it involves an issue that could be repeated for the claimant. Due process cannot be denied in a civil contempt hearing where the defendant faces incarceration. Failure to provide due process would impose upon the government a duty to provide legal counsel for the defendant. IX. Evaluation Due process inevitably means that a defendant in any proceedings, civil or criminal, confronting the deprivation of freedom or property is entitled to safeguards that protect his/her right to be heard and to defend a claim against him/her warranting such deprivation. X. Free Space Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders, 566 U.S. ___ (2012). Vote: 5-3 I. Facts of the Case The appellant was a passenger in a car driven by his wife who was pulled over for a traffic offence. A computer check erroneously revealed that the appellant had an outstanding warrant. The appellant was subsequently arrested, detained and strip searched, although he was subsequently released by the court. The appellant filed suit against the jail on the grounds that he had been subjected to unreasonable searches and denied due process. A federal court agreed but the matter was reversed by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. The matter was appealed to the US Supreme Court. II. The Law The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution which safeguards against unreasonable searches and the Fourteenth Amendment requiring due process in the deprivation of liberty and property. III. Legal Questions/Issues Are strip searches of defendants arrested for minor offences unreasonable where there are no grounds for reasonably suspecting that that the defendant is carrying illicit drugs or weapons? IV. Holding/Decision and Action The judgment of the lower court was affirmed. V. Opinion Kennedy J. delivered the majority opinion of the Court. It was reasoned that the need to ensure security and safety within the jails and for the public superseded any rights to privacy claimed by the appellant. It has already been held in Turner v Safley 482 US 78 that any regulatory framework that contravenes the constitutional rights of a prisoner is valid if “it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests” (Turner v Safley). Courts must recognize that prison and jail officials have a duty to ensure safety and security and in doing so must make reasonable decisions for detecting and preventing incidents where contraband is distributed among the inmate population. VI. Separate Opinion Breyer J dissented and was joined by Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan JJ. The dissenting opinion indicated that the search in question was not permitted by the Fourth Amendment since the defendant was not arrested in connection with an offence of violence or possession of dangerous drugs or weapons. Moreover, the search was excessively invasive. VII. The Decision as Legal Precedent The case was not a legal precedent since it cited previous decisions that had essentially ruled similarly. Prison and jail security entitled jail staff to conduct strip searches. VIII. Summary of Legal Principles In detention centers where security is an issue, a reasonable search on the part of prison or jail officials did not contravene the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches. Therefore it could not be argued that by conducting such searches was tantamount to denying the prisoner due process pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment. IX. Evaluation It is a fundamental principle of constitutional protection laws, that constitutional rights are quite often waived in favour of legitimate goals and ends. In this case public safety and the safety and security of prisons and jails was found to be a legitimate goal and thus justified waiving the constitutional protection against unreasonable searches. X. Free Space Arizona et al v. United States, No. 11-182 567 U.S. _____ [2012] Vote: 5-3 I. Facts of the Case The US Justice Department filed a suit in the US District Court for the District of Arizona in 2010 which challenged Arizona’s Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act on the grounds that it was pre-empted by the Federal law and Federal powers to regulate and enforce immigration laws. The Court essentially upheld the challenge and blocked the main provisions of the law including the provision allowing law enforcement to make immigration status checks on detainees and suspects. Arizona appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit and the lower court’s ruling was upheld. Arizona subsequently appealed to the US Supreme Court. II. The Law Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution lists the enumerated powers of Congress which is interpreted to include immigration regulation and enforcement. The 10th Amendment provides that any power “not delegated to the United States” under the Constitution will be “reserved to the States”. III. Legal Questions/Issues Are the provisions of the Arizona’s Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act that attempt to prevent and discourage illegal immigration pre-empted by Federal law? IV. Holding/Decision and Action The decision of the lower courts was affirmed and partly reversed in that Arizona’s law enforcement could check a suspect’s immigration status but could not craft immigration rules of its own. V. Opinion Kennedy J. delivered the majority opinion and ruled that immigration provisions of Arizona’s statute were pre-empted by Federal law as they fell within the enumerated powers of the Federal government. Three provisions were therefore removed: requiring immigrants to have proof of status on them at all times; arrest powers where an individual was suspected of being an illegal alien; and making it an offence for an illegal alien to look for employment or to work. It was also ruled that law enforcement could ask for proof of immigration status where a suspect was under arrest and there were reasonable grounds to suspect that the individual was an illegal alien. Otherwise, the lack of documentation would not suffice by itself to justify continued detention. VI. Separate Opinion Scalia and Thomas JJ dissented and argued that since the Federal government has a history of failing to enforce immigration laws, Arizona’s law was not pre-empted by federal law. VII. The Decision as Legal Precedent Although the decision does not establish new law, but merely clarifies the existing law it does so in a new and unique situation. The ruling will therefore guide the decisions of other states wishing to enact similar laws for deterring and preventing illegal immigration. VIII. Summary of Legal Principle Where regulatory and enforcement powers are reserved to the Federal government, States are not permitted to exercise that power pursuant to Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution. States may only exercise power not delegated to the Federal government as provided for under the 10th Amendment. IX. Evaluation Under the federal system, there must be a clear division of power over the people. A federal constitution is required to ensure that those powers are clearly defined and delegated so as to avoid duplicity and conflicts. X. Free Space Miller v. Alabama, No. 10-9646 567 U.S. _____ [2012] Vote: 5-4 I. Facts of the Case The case involved two consolidated cases: Jackson v Hobbs and Miller v Alabama. Both appellants were 14 year olds who had been tried as adults for and convicted of murder. Both were subsequently sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The appeals process involved a challenge to the constitutionality of their respective sentences. Essentially it was argued that the 8th Amendment to the US Constitution against cruel and inhumane treatment and punishment forbid excessive sentences and sentencing 14 year olds to actual life sentences were excessive and thus unconstitutional. II. The Law The 8th Amendment to the US Constitution which protects against cruel and unusual treatment and punishment guarantees individuals that they would not be subjected to excessive punishment and sanctions. III. Legal Questions/Issues Is sentencing a 14 year old to life in prison without the possibility of parole excessive punishment under the 8th Amendment of the US Constitution? IV. Holding/Decision and Action Sentencing a 14 year old to life in prison without the possibility of parole was excessive and is therefore a violation of the 8th Amendment to the US Constitution. V. Opinion In delivering the majority opinion of the court, Kagan ruled that a compulsory life sentence for anyone under the age of 18 was a contravention of the 8th Amendment’s guarantee that individuals will not be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment and treatment. When a compulsory life sentence is handed down on a juvenile there is no room for taking into consideration the important facts relevant to a young person: immaturity, the inability to assess risks and consequences and impetuousness. VI. Separate Opinion In a dissenting opinion, Roberts CJ argued that a compulsory life sentence for juveniles could not possible be considered unusual punishment since it was a common practice in several states. Roberts CJ acknowledged that sentencing a juvenile involved moral and social questions and policies. Nevertheless, it was the courts duty to apply the law and not to sort through moral and social issues and policies. VII. The Decision as Legal Precedent The decision establishes a new precedent as it departs from a previous decision in which it was determined that a compulsory life sentence for juveniles was unconstitutional with respect to all offences except for murder (Graham v Florida, 560 US____[2010]). VIII. Summary of Legal Principle The 8th Amendment to the US Constitution forbids cruel and unusual treatment and punishment. Where a child is convicted of an offence, the 8th Amendment arises to safeguard against the treatment of that child in a way that an adult offender would be treated. IX. Evaluation Although it may not be unusual for juveniles to be subjected to mandatory life sentences, it is certainly cruel since arguably a child of tender years will not always have the emotional maturity to appreciate the gravity of his acts and the consequences of his acts. X. Free Space National Federation of Independent Business et al v. Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al. No. 11-393, 567 U.S. _____ [2012] Vote: 5-4 I. Facts of the Case The state of Florida initiated proceedings against the US Department of Health and Human Service in which it challenged the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). The main concern was the penalty imposed under the ACA with respect to Americans who failed to purchase health insurance. The District Court ruled that such a penalty was outside of Congress’s enumerated powers and did not think that the mandatory insurance provision could be segregated from the entire and ACA and struck down the entire Act. On appeal to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal the lower court’s ruling was partly affirmed. In particular, the appellate court felt that the unconstitutional portion of the ACA could be segregated from the remaining parts of the Act. II. The Law Congress has the authority to levy and collect taxes pursuant to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1of the US Constitution. III. Legal Questions/Issues Is the assessment and enforcement of a penal file within the taxing powers of Congress under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 of the US Constitution? IV. Holding/Decision and Action The assessment of a penal fine is within the taxing authority of Congress under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 of the US Constitution. V. Opinion Roberts J. delivered the majority opinion of the court and simply stated that the ACA’s mandatory insurance purchase and its default fine “may be reasonably characterized as a tax.” Since taxes of this kind are permitted by the Constitution, it is not for the Court to “forbid it” or to “pass upon its wisdom or fairness”. VI. Separate Opinion Roberts J. in his dissenting opinion argued that the Commerce Clause within the scope and range of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 did not confer upon Congress the authority to regulate inactive economics within the US. VII. The Decision as Legal Precedent The decision sets a new precedent in that it interprets the Constitutional taxing powers of Congress more broadly than it has been interpreted in the past. VIII. Summary of Legal Principle Congress’s taxing powers as articulated under the US Constitution includes a right to levy fines for failure to comply with federal mandate relative to American citizen’s health insurance purchases. IX. Evaluation The decision raises a significant constitutional issue: the authority of congress to force citizens to purchases goods or services that they either cannot afford or do not want. X. Free Space United States v. Alvarez, No. 11-210, 567 U. S. _____ [2012] Vote: 6-3 I. Facts of the Case Alvarez at a meeting of the Three Valleys Municipal Water District Board to which he was elected falsely stated that he had been a marine for 25 years and that he had been awarded a Congressional Medal of Honor. Alvarez was subsequently charged with an offence under the Stolen Valor act 2005 which made it an offence to misrepresent one’s affiliation with the military. Alvarez accepted a plea bargain without prejudice to challenge the offences on constitutional grounds. Alvarez appealed on the grounds that the Stolen Valor Act violated freedom of speech as protected under the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution. The 9th Circuit agreed and the government subsequently appealed. II. The Law The 1st Amendment to the US Constitution forbids interference with the freedom of speech and freedom of expression and conscience. III. Legal Questions/Issues Is the Stolen Valor Act which makes it an offence to make false statements of affiliation with the military a violation of the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution? IV. Holding/Decision and Action The Stolen Valor Act is unconstitutional in that it infringes upon the 1st Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech. V. Opinion Kennedy J. in delivering the majority opinion of the Court ruled that just because a statement is false does not remove the maker of the statement out of the protection accorded by the 1st Amendment. Moreover, Alvarez’s lies did not injure anyone. It was therefore necessary to examine an act restricting free speech to determine whether or not it was necessary for achieving a legitimate goal and appropriately tempered for achieving that goal. The Stolen Valor Act did not past the test because there was no evidence that members of the public looked down upon members of the military when others falsely claimed to be members of the military. Moreover, there were more appropriate measures for addressing false statements: countering with the truth. VI. Separate Opinion In a dissenting opinion, Alito J. joined by Scalia and Thomas, J. argued that lies do not fall within the protection contemplated by the 1st Amendment. Moreover, lying about military honors injures those who have legitimately received military honors. Thus the Stolen Valor Act served a legitimate goal. VII. The Decision as Legal Precedent The decision is an important legal precedent because it was the first time the US Supreme Court decided on the constitutionality of the Stolen Valor Act. Previously lower courts were virtually evenly split as to the constitutionality of the Stolen Valor Act 2005 (Han, 2012). VIII. Summary of Legal Principle Free speech protected by the 1st Amendment cannot be restricted unless the government can demonstrate that it has a legitimate goal to serve and that the legislation restricting free speech is appropriately adopted to that goal. The legislation is adopted appropriately where there are no other reasonable alternatives for achieving that goal and the action is proportionate to the harm caused. IX. Evaluation Although telling lies about oneself may be immoral, it is not for the government under a constitutional system to dictate the morals of its citizens. It therefore follows that the First Amendment’s free speech is appropriately extended to protect individuals who wish to publish lies about who they are and what they have achieved. There are other appropriate ways of dealing with those lies and it is therefore unnecessary to infringe upon free speech in dealing with lies that might bring harm to others. X. Free Space Bibliography Arizona et al v. United States, No. 11-182 567 U.S. _____ [2012] Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders, 566 U.S. ___ (2012) Graham v Florida, 560 US____[2010]. Han, D. S. “Autobiographical Lies and the First Amendment’s Protection of Self-Defining Speech.” New York University Law Review, April 2012, Vol. 87: 70-131. Miller v. Alabama, No. 10-9646 567 U.S. _____ [2012] National Federation of Independent Business et al v. Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al. No. 11-393, 567 U.S. _____ [2012]. Turner v. Rogers, 131 S.Ct. 2507. United States v. Alvarez, No. 11-210, 567 U. S. _____ [2012]. US Constitution Read More