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

In 1971, Daniel Ellsberg stole classified information concerning Vietnam, known as the "The Pentagon Papers". He gave them to The New York Times to publish, but the government stopped the printing of the papers and the case was sent to the Supreme Court, under the challenge of the First Amendment right to free speech and press. The government's point was that it could endanger national security. The court issued per curiam, meaning the court gave the verdict as a whole, with separate opinions written (6 concurred, 3 dissented). The per curiam stated that the government had not not carried a "heavy presumption against its constitutional validity". Several justices agreed in their opinions that the press should not be tampered with and that by releasing these papers, that they could not directly cause any imminent danger or harm. Opposing views by other justices provided a good point that the papers could cause increase danger on the battlefield and that there is a question about the limits of the separation of powers. My opinion is leaning more toward a freedom of the press, unless it can be proven with enough evidence that the released information will cause harm to Americans.



The story of Daniel Ellsberg was made into the movie called "The Most Dangerous Man In The World". This provides several opinions and a glimpse of the societal pressures concerning free press and national security

Gitlow v. New York (1925)

Benjamin Gitlow

A man named Benjamin Gitlow was convicted for violating the New york Criminal Anarchy Act. Criminal anarchy is defined as "the doctrine that organized government should be overthrown by force of violence, or by assassination of the executive head or any of the executive officials of government, or by any unlawful means". His publishings of overthrowing the government, based on the Communist Manifesto, violated this act according to the state of New York. The case was sent to the Supreme Court because First Amendment rights of free speech and press were called into question. The Court ruled 7 to 2 that Gitlow should stay convicted because his work had the potential to create "a clear and present danger...that Congress has a right to prevent". Justice Holmes argued against this, saying that citizens should be given the right to state their opinion, an idea was not being forced upon others, and the minority that accepted the belief was too minor to be taken seriously. My decision in this case would be more split down the middle than the Court had decided. I feel that individuals have the ability to accept an idea and are not so easily persuaded, and if the "clear and present danger" rule applies to society now, that some members of the Tea Party should be reprimanded for causing social damage. I believe that this is more circumstantial than anything, because if a hostile and violent takeover was imminent, then the convictions should stand.
The link provided is an expansion of the views of the Court and the dissenting opinion

Brown v. Board of Education Topeka, Kansas (1954)

The Brown case helped decide multiple cases that focused around the subject of African-American children not being able to attend segregated, white schools. The case of Sweatt v. Painter (1950) was different from Brown because it involved a singular Texas Law School, that had no alternatives for blacks. Each previous attempt was to overthrow the Plessy v. Ferguson  ruling of "separate, but equal". In a unanimous decision, the court ruled that the plaintiffs are deprived of their rights, given by the Fourteenth Amendment and that segregation in education is unconstitutional. This decision I completely agree with and there is no reason why Plessy's ruling should carry forward in society. Viewing the facts, Brown is a prime example of the Constitution's ability to adapt.



PBS does a great job of highlighting the key characters and the importance of societal viewpoints in the 1950's.

Gideon v Wainwright (1963)

Clarence Gideon. 

A man named Clarence Gideon was arrested for attempted burglary of a pool hall. Free counsel was only afforded to capital crimes so he represented himself. He was found guilty, but he wrote a petition from from jail, saying that the verdict violated his right to a fair trial, based on the fact that he did not have the funding (forma pauperis). It was a unanimous decision from the Supreme Court that anyone convicted of a crime should be afforded a lawyer. Although I think that Gideon deserved his time, it is obvious that counsel is needed in every case, based upon a US citizen's rights.




This video is footage of Clarence Gideon's initial court case. I apologize for the quality




The audio from the Supreme Court case of Gideon v. Wainwright. The justice sums up the importance of their decision and the background of the preceding case.

Miranda v. Arizona (1996)

Ernesto Miranda

Ernesto Miranda was arrested and questioned for kidnap and rape. He was not made aware of his Fifth Amendment right to an attorney or the right to remain silent. After being interrogated, he signed a written confession and was found guilty. The Constitutional argument was that the Fifth Amendment states that no person can be a witness against themselves. Viewing the case, the Supreme Court, in a 5 to 4 decision, decided that Miranda could not be guilty without a doubt because of interrogation methods. Personally, I feel that the system worked correctly in terms of future cases and helped prevent inhumane interrogation methods, but for this case, Miranda should not have been let free from a moral point of view. The important idea to accept is that the Supreme Court is there to uphold the Constitution for all individuals, despite personal views.




An American government teacher breaks down the history of the Miranda case and goes into detail about the Fifth Amendment. The question he presents is whether or not the results of the case hindered or benefited police enforcement.

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

Allan Bakke

In 1973, UC Davis had a kind of 'quota' system for minorities or disadvantage students which held a certain GPA and minimum MCAT score. A white applicant named Alan Bakke was refused submission even though his  MCATs were substantially higher, so he sued. The CA Superior Court ruled that the program was a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and for his eventual admission, but the Regents of UC Davis took it to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled in a 5 to 4 vote that the program was unconstitutional because it did not give INDIVIDUALS equal protection under the law. If the quota aspect and racial specificity was done away with, the court would find this constitutional and equally competitive. Having scene the evidence, I feel that this particular case was blown out of proportion, but the outcome was satisfactory for equal opportunity for individuals.
This link allows further information on the effects of Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978)

Miller v. California (1973)

Chief Justice Warren Burger

In 1973, Miller wanted to advertise 'adult' books and films, but under California's obscenity law, he was prosecuted and found guilty. Miller appealed that it was his First Amendment right to free speech and press, but the Supreme Court ruled in a 5 to 4 decision in favor of California. Since the previous standards for 'obscene' material were outdated, Chief Justice Burger put into place three statutes. First, the community standards are to be applied. Second, is the sexual material presented in an offensive way. Lastly, the work must have some literary, artistic, political, or scientific value in order to be presented to the general public. My view is that the court ruled correctly for this particular case. The new precedence allows a good balance between federal and state control.
This link describes the entirety of the case with all the technical clauses and facts.

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

The case of Plessy v. Ferguson ended with the result of separate but equal accommodations for blacks and whites. Justice Brown felt that the underlying fallacy of segregation laws were that they implied that one race is inferior to the other. Votes tallied at 7 to 1 in favor of separate but equal, placing Justice John Harlan as the hero against the odds. Seeing the decision, I believe that this was a case where the decision was completely backward. There is only so much that can be blamed on societal expectations, so the need for a conservation of Constitutional rights trumps party affiliation or personal agendas.



Gary Orfield discusses Plessy v Ferguson, separate but equal rights, all deliberate speed, and that 'equality' is subjective.

United States v. Nixon (1974)

In the Supreme Court case United States v. Nixon, the court ruled that President Nixon must deliver the tapes he had recorded in the oval office as evidence. The constitutional issue was whether or not Nixon had the right, under the duty of President, to deny the court. The ruling was that he could not deny the court and that he must agree to the subpoena. Instead of delivering the tapes, Nixon decided to step down as president. My opinion is that the president is not above the law, especially if he/she is under investigation for something unlawful.An instance where executive privilege might be used would be if the information that would be revealed, would jeopardize the lives of Americans, domestic or foreign.



This is a video of Nixon's speech before his resignation. Ultimately, Nixon's last act was one of rebellion against the court and the political process.

Roe v. Wade breakdown (1973)

The background for the Roe v. Wade entailed the woman by the name Jane Roe, who wanted an abortion because she would not be able to support the child to her best ability. The state of Texas would not allow the abortion, so the case went to the Supreme Court because it was a violation of privacy. Privacy, in this case, entails her personal beliefs, not the state's, and her enumerated rights that are given by the 9th amendmentThe state's argument was that the fetus was protected under the 14th amendment. My personal belief is that the Supreme Court ruled correctly in this case. Growing up in a Christian home, I would have previously said that there are some religious obligations, but every individual woman's beliefs are not the same. Therefore, there can be no blanket response concerning morals. The Supreme Court ruled in interest of the mother, child, and birthing doctors. It is not only if the baby or mother's life is in jeopardy, but if the environment in which the child is raised is psychologically, economically, or physically unacceptable, than the reasons are substantial.


This video is an extreme example of why women should have the right to choose and how separation of religious views are important. I'm not condoning the sentiments expressed by the father, but I can see where he's coming from.