Omar Bennett
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has been involved in several cases that have raised questions about potential violations of the state's constitution. One notable example is Kelly v. Commonwealth (2020), where the court dismissed a petition seeking to invalidate millions of mail-in ballots, citing the doctrine of laches. In another case, Nixon v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (2003), the court held that an amendment to the Older Adults Protective Service Act violated the state constitution's due process right to pursue a particular occupation. Additionally, in Jones v. City of Philadelphia (2006), the court ruled that the Pennsylvania Constitution provided no greater protection than the federal Fourth Amendment regarding excessive force claims. These cases and others have sparked debates about the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's interpretation and application of the state's constitution, raising the question of whether the court has, at times, overstepped its bounds and violated the constitution.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Pennsylvania statute | No statute establishes a private cause of action for damages under the Pennsylvania Constitution |
| Pennsylvania court recognition | No recognition of a private cause of action for damages under the Pennsylvania Constitution |
| Federal courts view | Pennsylvania does not follow the federal rule of Article III case or controversy doctrine in defining standing |
| Petitioners | Wanted to invalidate ballots of millions of Pennsylvania voters who used mail-in voting procedures |
| Petitioners' alternative | All 6.9 million Pennsylvanians who voted in the General Election should be disqualified and the General Assembly should choose Pennsylvania’s electors |
| Court decision | Dismissed the petition for review with prejudice based on failure to file a facial constitutional challenge within a timely manner |
| Court explanation | Petitioners' challenge violated the doctrine of laches |
| Older Adults Protective Service Act | Amendment disqualifying certain persons with criminal records from employment in facilities catering to older adults violated the Pennsylvania Constitution’s due process right to pursue a particular occupation |
| Amortization of a non-conforming use | A per se taking of private property for which just compensation must be paid |
| State constitution’s free and equal elections clause | Claims of violation are subject to entirely separate jurisprudential considerations, and the court is not required to utilize the same standard to adjudicate |
| Federal equal protection clause | Claims of violation are subject to entirely separate jurisprudential considerations, and the court is not required to utilize the same standard to adjudicate |
| Government use of excessive force | The Pennsylvania Constitution provides no greater protection than the federal Fourth Amendment |
| Canine drug sniffs | Permitted on the exterior of an automobile based on reasonable suspicion and of the interior of a car based on probable cause |
| Police interrogation | Police must inform suspects of their rights before questioning |
| Student privacy | Students have a reduced expectation of privacy in school |
| Random drug tests of student athletes | Do not violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures |
| School voucher programs | Certain programs are constitutional and do not violate the Establishment Clause |
Explore related products
$4.99 $19
What You'll Learn
The right to pursue a particular occupation
In the case of Nixon v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Public Welfare, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that an amendment to the Older Adults Protective Service Act violated the state constitution's due process right to pursue a particular occupation. The amendment in question disqualified certain individuals with criminal records from working in facilities catering to older adults. The Court found that this disqualification infringed on the right of these individuals to pursue their chosen occupation.
Another example of a court striking down occupational regulations is seen in the Texas Supreme Court case, Patel v. Texas Department of Licensing & Regulation. In this case, the court invalidated a law that required individuals who thread eyebrows for a living to obtain a cosmetology license. The license entailed costly and time-consuming training that was largely irrelevant to eyebrow threading. The court concluded that under the Texas Constitution, such a regulation could not be justified by the state.
While the right to pursue an occupation is important, it is not absolute. For instance, the Supreme Court has upheld the authority of states to regulate businesses and professions to protect public health and safety. Furthermore, the due process right to pursue an occupation must be balanced with other interests, such as the state's interest in regulating certain industries.
In conclusion, while the right to pursue a particular occupation is a fundamental liberty interest, it is subject to certain limitations imposed by the state. Courts play a crucial role in balancing the rights of individuals to pursue their chosen occupations with the state's interest in regulating professions for the public good.
The Supremacy Clause: Understanding the US Constitution's Power Dynamic
You may want to see also
The right to be free from excessive force
The Fourth Amendment guarantees citizens the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. While there is no explicit mention of "excessive force" in the Fourth Amendment, the United States Supreme Court has clarified that it protects all individuals in the United States from the use of excessive force by law enforcement officials. This includes police officers, sheriff's deputies, highway patrol officers, federal agents, and other law enforcement officials.
The Supreme Court's interpretation of the Fourth Amendment in this context is based on the notion of objective reasonableness. This means that the use of force by law enforcement must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, taking into account the totality of the facts and circumstances. The subjective beliefs of the actual officer are not relevant to this assessment. The Supreme Court has also held that all claims of excessive force by law enforcement, whether deadly or not, should be analysed under the Fourth Amendment's objective reasonableness standard.
In Graham v. Connor (1989), the Supreme Court considered a claim of excessive force during an investigatory stop. The Court applied the Fourth Amendment's objective reasonableness test, evaluating the reasonableness of the officer's use of force based on the facts and circumstances of the case. This decision established a precedent for assessing claims of excessive force by law enforcement.
In Scott v. Harris (2007), the Supreme Court again addressed the issue of excessive force. The case involved a high-speed chase during which Deputy Scott used his vehicle's bumper to strike the rear of Harris's car. The Court found that Deputy Scott's use of force was not excessive and did not violate the Fourth Amendment. This decision reaffirmed the importance of evaluating the totality of the circumstances in determining whether the use of force was reasonable.
In addition to the Fourth Amendment, the Eighth Amendment has also been invoked in excessive force cases involving convicted prisoners. For example, in Whitley v. Albers (1986), the Supreme Court analysed a claim of excessive force to subdue a convicted prisoner under an Eighth Amendment standard.
Swalwell's Take on "Woman" in the Constitution
You may want to see also
The right to equal protection under the law
The Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause also requires the federal government to practice equal protection. The broad wording of the Fourteenth Amendment has allowed for this interpretation, ensuring that the federal government is held to the same standard as the states. This interpretation was solidified in the late nineteenth century when the Court considered whether racial segregation by the government violated the Constitution.
The right to equal protection has been the subject of numerous court cases over the years, both at the state and federal levels. For example, in the case of Nixon v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Public Welfare (2003), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that an amendment to the Older Adults Protective Service Act, which disqualified certain individuals with criminal records from working in facilities catering to older adults, violated the Pennsylvania Constitution's due process right to pursue a particular occupation.
In another case, League of Women Voters v. Commonwealth (2018), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that claims of violation of the state constitution's free and equal elections clause and the federal equal protection clause are subject to separate jurisprudential considerations. This means that the court is not required to utilize the same standard when adjudicating cases involving these two clauses.
Founding Fathers: Signers of the US Constitution
You may want to see also
Explore related products
![Reports of Cases Adjudged in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania [1799-1814]: 3](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51x1KwaOB8L._AC_UY218_.jpg)
The right to vote by mail
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has upheld the state's 2019 mail-in voting expansion, preserving a popular voting method that was passed with bipartisan support but later challenged by Republican elected officials. The ruling means that expanded vote-by-mail will be in place for marquee races in November for governor and U.S. Senate.
The 5-2 decision saw the justices reject the GOP argument that the legislature did not have the power under the state constitution to allow Pennsylvanians to vote by mail without an excuse. The 2019 law, known as Act 77, was first employed during the 2020 presidential election and brought about the most sweeping expansion of voting access in Pennsylvania in decades.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court's ruling upholds that the legislature's 2019 expansion of vote-by-mail is constitutional, secure, and convenient for 21st-century voters. The changes allowed millions of Pennsylvania voters to vote by mail in the last five elections. The American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania (ACLU-PA) has stated that the ruling is a victory for democracy, and that for decades, the state legislature expanded access to absentee voting without legal challenge.
However, the ruling has been met with criticism from some Republican lawmakers, who have argued that the majority overruled 160 years of court precedent. They have also pointed to the potential for increased voter fraud and the difficulty in verifying the integrity of electoral actions when they are undertaken at a distance and outside of public scrutiny.
Despite the criticism, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's ruling on the right to vote by mail stands, and it is expected that this will remain in place for the upcoming midterm elections.
Lincoln's Civil War Constitution Conundrum
You may want to see also
The right to a timely trial
The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. This right ensures that individuals accused of a crime are brought to trial without unnecessary delay, protecting them from undue pretrial incarceration, minimizing anxiety, and ensuring a fair opportunity to defend themselves.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has played a significant role in interpreting and enforcing the right to a timely trial. In the case of Commonwealth v. Mills, the Court strengthened speedy trial protections under the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure. These rules mandate that prosecutors must bring a criminal defendant to trial within 365 days of the filing of the criminal complaint, or the case may be dismissed.
However, in 2012, amendments to the Rules of Criminal Procedure weakened these protections by excluding significant portions of time from the 365-day calculation. Appellate courts interpreted this amendment leniently towards the prosecution, often excluding delays caused by scheduling backlogs or other administrative issues from the computation of the deadline. This interpretation effectively extended the time allowed for trials to commence, going against the spirit of the right to a speedy trial.
In response, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court intervened once more in Commonwealth v. Mills, re-interpreting the amendment to include ordinary periods of time between court dates for speedy trial calculations. This decision restored the original intent of the 365-day deadline and demonstrated the Court's commitment to upholding the right to a timely trial.
The Court's actions in Commonwealth v. Mills showcase its crucial role in safeguarding the rights of criminal defendants. By ensuring that prosecutors adhere to timely trial procedures, the Court helps prevent undue delays, reducing the potential for prejudice and unfairness in the criminal justice system. This case sets a precedent for interpreting and enforcing speedy trial rights, not only in Pennsylvania but also influencing how other states and federal courts interpret similar constitutional guarantees.
Stephen Douglas: Constitutional Union Party Member?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
No, the PA Supreme Court did not violate the Constitution in this case. The Court held that the Pennsylvania Constitution provides no greater protection than the federal Fourth Amendment when it comes to the use of excessive force by the government during a seizure.
No, the PA Supreme Court did not violate the Constitution in this case. The Court dismissed the petition for review with prejudice based on the Petitioners' failure to file their facial constitutional challenge in a timely manner, applying the doctrine of laches.
No, there is no Pennsylvania statute or court decision that has established a private cause of action for damages under the Pennsylvania Constitution.
