10 Legal Briefs - Case Study Example

Case briefs Grade (17th, Nov. Case briefs Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942) 2. Procedural History: The case was first heard in a New Hampshire trial court, followed by a petition raised in the Supreme Court, which affirmed the ruling of the first court. 3. Facts: Chaplinsky applied abusive words towards a city marshal; calling him a God damned racketeer and fascist. These abusive words were used in a public place. 4. Issue(s): The issue is whether the application of the statute in Chaplinsky case violated his rights for free speech as provided under the first amendment of the US constitution. 5. Reasoning: The reasoning applied under this case is that insulting and fighting words are damaging to the personality of the victim. Such words breach peace and injure the reputation of the victim. Using insulting and fighting words is not within the constitutional rights of an individual. This is because; it can cause a breach of peace. 6. Rule: The court ruled that it is not within the constitutional rights of an individual to use insulting or fighting words against another in public. Therefore, the court ruled that Chaplinsky had injured the personality of the city marshal, thus was to pay a fine. 7. Holding: The court held that certain category of words, which include abusive, insulting and fighting words are not protected under the first amendment of the US constitution. 8. Dissent: There was no dissent 9. Concurrence: The judges of the Supreme Court agreed with the ruling of the court but ignored the substance of provocation and falsification of utterances. Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949) 2. Procedural History: The case was first heard in a Chicago court, before being appealed in the Illinois appellate court and later the Illinois Supreme Court. The case was passed further to US Supreme Court for a final determination. 3. Facts: Terminiello, a suspended catholic priest made a speech that was injurious to the personality of certain racial groups in an auditorium if the state of Chicago. this caused a public disturbance which forced the police to arrest him and present him to court. 4. Issue(s): The issue under this case is whether the statute against use of fight words, as applied to charge Terminiello was unconstitutional. 5. Reasoning: The reasoning applied under this case is that inflammatory speeches and fight words are against the provisions of the first amendment of the US constitution. Therefore, the law does not protect the right of speech which creates anger and dispute. Additionally, the provisions of the amendment are against any speech or words that cause public unrests and disputes. 6. Rule: The trial court ruled that Terminiello was guilty of a breach of peace, because his conduct entailed a breach of public peace and decorum. The both the Appellate and the Supreme courts of Illinois affirmed the ruling. The US Supreme Court ruled that the statute used to charge him was unconstitutional. 7. Holding: the Supreme Court held that the speech made by Terminiello was protected under the first amendment of the US constitution. It also held that the statute applied to convict him by the Chicago trial court was unconstitutional. 8. Dissent: Chief justice Vinson opposed the opinion, observing that the statute applied was suitable for punishing fight words. The same sentiments was echoed by justices Frankfurter and Jackson, who observed that reversing the ruling granted by the trial court and affirmed by both the appellate and the supreme courts of Illinois was a breach of balance of power of the state and the federal courts. 9. Concurrence: There was no concurrence. Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971) 2. Procedural History: The case was first held in a California trial court. The appeal was presented to the carliforni8a appellate court which affirmed the trial court’s ruling. The case was later presented to the US Supreme Court, which reversed the ruling. 3. Facts: Cohen wore a jacket displaying abusive words in a court room. He was arrested and charged with willfully and maliciously disturbing the peace of the public, against the California penal code 145. He was sentenced to a 30 days jail term. 4. Issue(s): The issue in this case is whether the expression made by Cohen through his clothing was protected by the constitution or was within the fight and abusive words that were not protected by the constitution. 5. Reasoning: The reasoning applied by the US Supreme Court is that it is against the provisions of the constitution for any state to criminalize emotional expressions, which were found offensive by some people. It is essential for the state to prove the existence and use of fight words before declaring such expressions criminal. The use of fight words is punishable if expressed in the form of direct personal insult, which can cause peace disturbance. 6. Rule: The Supreme Court ruled that the case concerned speech and not conduct, thus it was unconstitutional to criminalize the expression. The court overruled the trial court’s ruling. 7. Holding: Cohen’s expression did not amount to fighting words, since it did not stir public anger or cause a breach of peace. 8. Dissent: Justice Blackmun dissent was that the sentence needed to be upheld since the expression of the defendant amounted to conduct, involving fight words. 9. Concurrence: there was no concurrence. Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U.S. 518 (1972) 2. Procedural History: the case was first heard on a Georgia state trial court and then the Georgia Supreme Court. It was then appealed before the US Supreme Court for further determination. 3. Facts: in the Vietnam War, Wilson used abusive language against other policemen and threatened to kill them. He applied such words as son of a bitch. His use of such language was provoked by a forceful removal from the army induction, where he was protesting the war. 4. Issue(s): The issue in this case is whether the law applied by Georgia against use of abusive language, which amounted to breach of peace was overly overboard. 5. Reasoning: The reasoning applied is that the state of Georgia’s law was vague and overboard. The state of Georgia application of the law was unconstitutional, since it had not put the right tools in place, which could differentiate between legitimate and illegitimate speech. The use of the term ‘abusive language’ by the state law was vague, since it could entail words that are not fight words. 6. Rule: The US Supreme Court ruled in favor of Wilson, by overturning the trial court ruling, since the law applied by the state curt was broad and vague. The court found banning of words just because of their offensive or vulgar nature unconstitutional. 7. Holding: Abusive language does not constitute of fight words only. The statute applied is unconstitutional and overboard. 8. Dissent: Justice Warren Burger observed that the statute is constitutional, since it should be interpreted on the face of it, not based on the previous applications. 9. Concurrence: There was no concurrence. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) 2. Procedural History: the case was first heard in a trial court of Connecticut. It was then appealed before the Connecticut Supreme court which dismissed the case. The case was presented again to the Supreme Court which dismissed it for the second time. It was then passed to the US Supreme Court. 3. Facts: Griswold, who was a medical director of a league of parenthood that gave advisory services to couples, was convicted for giving counseling services and treatment to married couple with the intention of hindering conception. Such service provisions had been criminalized by the Connecticut laws. 4. Issue(s): The issue under this case is whether the prevention and interference of the state to counseling services for couples infringed the privacy of the couples. Therefore, the issue was such interference unconstitutional according to the US constitution. 5. Reasoning: couples have the right to privacy in marital relations. Such privacy is guaranteed by the US constitution under the Bill of rights for individuals. Preventing the couples from accessing counseling or medical attention amounted to a breach of privacy rights for couples. 6. Rule: The ruling was that the prevention of access to counseling and medical treatment, and the consequent criminalization of such services, is unconstitutional. The ruling of the trial court was overturned. 7. Holding: the Connecticut law prevents couples from enjoying their right of privacy, making it invalid. 8. Dissent: Justice Stewart observed that the law does not violate the constitution, even though it was outdated. 9. Concurrence: Justices Goldberg, Warren, Brennan observed that the ruling was valid, but the application of the ninth amendment was not warranted. Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972) 2. Procedural History: the case was first heard in a Massachusetts trial court. It was then presented to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and later to the court of appeal in the Massachusetts. It was later presented before the US Supreme Court by the initial case prosecutor. 3. Facts: Baird, a lecturer at Boston University had given contraceptives to a 19 year old female student. This was against the Massachusetts law of chastity. It was illegal to distribute contraceptives to unmarried men or women. Contraceptives could only be distributed to married couples, and by authorized agencies. 4. Issue(s): The issue in this case is whether the Massachusetts law interfered with individual’s rights to privacy. It is an issue of whether the law breached the provisions of the US constitution regarding right to privacy. 5. Reasoning: The reasoning applied under this case is that: the state formulated the law with the intention of protecting the purity and restraint of unmarried people. The distribution of contraceptives to married people is allowed. Thus, such a law was invalid and unconstitutional, since it intruded into the privacy of individuals. It is within the constitutional rights of individuals to be protected against state intrusion into their privacy. 6. Rule: The unmarried people also have a fundamental right to be issued and receive contraceptives, since the decision to have or not to have children is a fundamental personal choice. 7. Holding: The Massachusetts law was unconstitutional, since it violated individual rights to privacy. 8. Dissent: Justice Burger observed that nothing in the law supported the availability of such medication or contraceptives in an open market. He observed that the issuance of contraceptives openly was wrong, so the initial ruling should hold. 9. Concurrence: There was no concurrence Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) 2. Procedural History: The case was first heard in a Texas district court, before it was appealed and found its way to the US Supreme Court. 3. Facts: Roe, who was a single woman, got pregnant. She wanted to undertake an abortion but the Texas state laws prohibited the act of abortion. The laws made any act to attempt or undertake abortion illegal, unless it was under the medical advisory. Roe challenged the constitutionality of the Texas law. 4. Issue(s): the issues under this case is whether the laws criminalizing abortion, unless under medical ground sis unconstitutional. Another issue was whether preventing abortion amounted to intrusion of personal privacy. Additionally, there was the issue of whether a state is lawfully mandated to enact laws prohibiting abortion. 5. Reasoning: any provision by state criminalizing aborting without due consideration to the stage of pregnancy and any other motherly interests is unconstitutional. The due process clause protects right to privacy, which is inclusive of the right to terminate pregnancy by a woman. The state has the duty to protect the health of a pregnant woman and the life potentiality at various stages. 6. Rule: The state law criminalizing abortion was unconstitutional, thus, the districts court ruling was valid. 7. Holding: The right to personal property is inclusive of abortion decisions. 8. Dissent: Justice Rehnquist observed that the right to abortion is not universally acceptable. Therefore, the case does not inherently involve the right to personal privacy. 9. Concurrence: there was no concurrence. Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) 2. Procedural History: the case was first heard in a Texas trial court, then passed on to Texas Criminal Court in form of an appeal and later to the Texas Fourteenth Court of Appeals, for further determination of the appeal. 3. Facts: Police responded to a call involving criminal and fire arm disturbance in the apartment of one, Lawrence. Instead, the police found him and another man engage in consensual sex. The state of Texas had criminalized the engagement of same sex individuals in deviate sex. The two were charged with engaging in deviate sexual intercourse, contrary to the state laws. 4. Issue(s): The issue under this case is whether the constitution provided for the right of engagement of homosexuals in sexual activity within the inviolability of their homes. 5. Reasoning: The Texas laws criminalized deviate sexual engagement for the same sex individuals. The implications of the law are not well defined in relation to the sexual activity of same sex individuals in their homes. Adults have the free will to opt to engage in such activities and retain the dignity of their persons. The constitutional provisions allowed gay people to make such choices. 6. Rule: The US supreme court ruled that Texas same sex laws violated the due procedure as provided by the constitution. Therefore, the court overruled the anti-sodomy laws, which criminalized same sex consensual sex indulgence. 7. Holding: Individuals are entitled to personal rights of sexual privacy. 8. Dissent: Justice Scalia and Thomas observed that the ruling of the court was against moral choices, which jeopardized the spirit of laws criminalizing sexual offences. 9. Concurrence: Justice O’Connor concurs with the ruling not on the basis of the due process but on the basis of equal protection clause. Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S. 474 (1988) 2. Procedural History: the case was first heard and an injunction granted in a Wisconsin district court. The injunction was later appealed to the court of appeal was upheld, this saw another appeal move to the US Supreme court. 3. Facts: Sandra Schultz and Robert Braun were protesting outside the residence of a doctor for abortion issues. The Town Board of Brookfield issued an ordinance to stop the protests. Schultz and Braun challenged the ordinance in a district court arguing that it violated their freedom of expression. 4. Issue(s): The issue in this case is whether the issuance of the ordinance by the Town Board of Brookfield against picketing violated individual rights and freedoms. 5. Reasoning: The protest involved a traditional public forum, but the street they were demonstrating in was residential. The state can enforce laws of place, time and manner to serve government interests, but accord the people a substantial channel of communication. Therefore, the ordinance sought to serve substantial government interest of maintaining law and order, while protecting private property intrusion. The ordinance left substantial channels of communication for the people. 6. Rule: The ordinance is valid, since it does not limit other options the individuals had, except picketing at a single residence. 7. Holding: the ordinance passed the strict standard criteria of leaving ample options, serving government interests and is content neutral. Therefore it should remain. 8. Dissent: Justice Brennan observed that the criteria did not apply the tailored option, since the crowd was of up to 40 people. 9. Concurrence: There was no concurrence. Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703 (2000) 2. Procedural History: The case was first heard in a Colorado trial court. The case was passed to the Colorado Court of Appeals and later to the Supreme Court as a further appeal. Finally, the case was presented before the US Supreme Court for further determination. 3. Facts: Leila Hill sought to challenge the Colorado state statute that illegalizes the protests of people within 100 feet of a medical facility. The statute was observed to violate the rights to free speech and press. The statute illegalized any move by a person to move and hand a leaflet of bill to another person without their consent within 8 feet for the purpose of causing a protest 4. Issue(s): The issue in this case is whether the Colorado statute violated the First amendment provision of the constitution, by limiting the rights of the speaker with 100 feet of a medical facility. 5. Reasoning: The statute control on speech conduct within a health facility is constitutional. The statute does not regulate speech, but the conduct of where the speech itself can occur. The statute sought to strike a balance between people’s right to expression and protest, and their right to attain medical treatment. 6. Rule: The Colorado statute is not unconstitutional. 7. Holding: The court held that the statute sought to regulate the conduct of people within a health facility, which would not deny others an opportunity to get medical attention and treatment. 8. Dissent: Justices Scalia and Thomas observed that the law was not content neutral, since it only applied to abortion clinics and was structured in reference to anti-abortion messages. 9. Concurrence: Justices Souter, O’Connor, Ginsburg and Breyer concurred that the statute was in reference to protecting close encounter to unwilling parties, not speech. Reference Ducat, C. R. (2009). Constitutional interpretation. Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Read More