Key Constitutional Question: What Was The Core Issue?

The US Supreme Court plays a critical role in the constitutional system of government. It is the court of last resort for those seeking justice and has the final say on whether a right is protected by the Constitution or when a Constitutional right has been violated. The Court's power of judicial review is its most well-known power, allowing it to declare a Legislative or Executive act in violation of the Constitution. This power is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, but it was established in the Marbury v. Madison case of 1803. The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over certain cases, such as suits between states or cases involving ambassadors, and appellate jurisdiction over almost any other case involving constitutional or federal law. The Court's decisions have had a profound impact on society, with landmark cases such as those involving students' First Amendment rights, abortion rights, same-sex marriage, and racial considerations in university admissions.

Explore related products

Constitutional Law: Cases, Comments, and Questions (American Casebook Series)

$300

Constitutional Law: Cases, Comments, and Questions (American Casebook Series)

$305

Modern Constitutional Law: Cases, Notes, and Questions (American Casebook Series)

$305

Constitutional Law: Cases, Comments, and Questions, 13th, 2022 Supplement (American Casebook Series)

$17.32

American Constitutional Law: Introductory Essays and Selected Cases

$140

Constitutional Law: Cases, Comments, and Questions, 14th, 2024 Supplement (American Casebook Series)

$17

Does the First Amendment prohibit school officials from barring students' anti-war protests?

The First Amendment to the US Constitution protects the freedom of speech and the right to assemble and petition the government. These rights have been interpreted by the Supreme Court to apply to public schools and universities, which means that students cannot be barred from engaging in peaceful protests, including anti-war protests. However, this right is not absolute, and school officials can place some restrictions on the time, place, and manner of student speech and protests to maintain order and discipline on school grounds.

In the landmark case of *Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District* (1969), the US Supreme Court ruled that students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." The case involved students who wore black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War and were subsequently suspended. The Court held that the students' conduct was protected by the First Amendment and that school officials could not punish them for silently expressing their political views unless it actually and substantially interfered with the operation of the school.

The Tinker standard has been applied in numerous subsequent cases involving student speech and protests, including anti-war protests. However, it is important to note that schools have been given more leeway in regulating certain types of student speech, such as speech that is vulgar, lewd, or school-sponsored. Additionally, schools may have valid concerns about maintaining a safe and orderly learning environment, preventing substantial disruptions to the educational process, and protecting the rights of other students who may disagree with the protest.

When barring students from participating in anti-war protests, school officials must navigate these competing interests and consider the specific circumstances of each case. They must ensure that any restrictions on student speech are content-neutral, viewpoint-neutral, and narrowly tailored to achieve a legitimate educational purpose. If school officials overstep their bounds and violate students' First Amendment rights, they may be subject to legal challenges and court orders requiring them to lift the restrictions.

In conclusion, while school officials cannot prohibit students from engaging in peaceful anti-war protests outright, they retain the authority to regulate the time, place, and manner of such expressions to maintain a safe and orderly educational environment. The First Amendment requires a delicate balance between protecting students' constitutional rights and preserving the educational mission of the school.

Does the Constitution prohibit laws that restrict abortion access?

The question of whether the Constitution prohibits laws that restrict abortion access has been a highly contested issue in the United States for decades. The Supreme Court's ruling in Roe v. Wade established the legal right to abortion, holding that the Constitution protects a person's right to make their own private medical decisions, including the decision to have an abortion prior to fetal viability. This ruling was based on the principle of a constitutional right to privacy, which extends to a woman's reproductive choices.

However, despite this precedent, many states passed laws that made accessing abortion extremely difficult, and the Supreme Court's makeup gradually shifted towards justices hostile to abortion rights. This culminated in the 2022 ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade and ended the federal constitutional right to abortion. The Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson held that the Constitution does not prohibit laws restricting abortion access, allowing states to implement their own abortion bans and restrictions.

The impact of this decision has been significant, with one in three women now living in states where abortion is not accessible. Abortion rights advocates argue that these restrictions infringe on a person's right to control their own body and make their own medical decisions. They further contend that abortion bans disproportionately harm marginalized communities, exacerbating systemic racism and health disparities.

While the Supreme Court's ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson has shifted the legal landscape surrounding abortion access, it has not resolved the underlying constitutional question. Abortion rights supporters continue to argue that the Constitution protects abortion access under the right to privacy, and legal challenges to abortion restrictions are ongoing. The debate surrounding this issue remains highly contentious, reflecting the deep divisions in American society over the morality and legality of abortion.

Can universities consider race in admissions?

The use of race as a factor in university admissions has been a highly debated topic in the United States for decades. In June 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the deliberate use of race in college admissions, effectively banning affirmative action in the admissions process. This decision was the result of two cases, SFFA v. Harvard and SFFA v. University of North Carolina, which argued that the colleges' use of race as a factor in admissions violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

While the Supreme Court's decision prohibits universities from actively considering race when making admissions decisions, it does not prevent students from including information about their race or ethnicity in their applications. The Departments of Education and Justice have issued guidance stating that universities can use a "holistic application-review process" and consider an applicant's experiences, including those related to their race or racial discrimination. This means that students can still discuss how their race has impacted their life, and universities can consider these experiences as part of the admissions process.

The Supreme Court's ruling has significant implications for diversity on college campuses. Critics argue that the ban on race-conscious admissions will lead to a decrease in enrollment among underrepresented communities of color, particularly Black, Hispanic, and Latino/a students. Universities that value diversity are now exploring alternative policies to achieve their diversity goals. Some colleges are reevaluating legacy admissions policies, athletic recruiting, and outreach strategies to attract a diverse range of applicants.

While the Supreme Court's decision sets a high bar for considering race in admissions, it does not entirely eliminate the possibility. The ruling included a footnote specifying that military academies are exempt from the decision due to their "distinct interests" in racial diversity for national security. This implies that there may be other compelling interests that could justify the consideration of race in admissions in certain circumstances.

Overall, while universities cannot actively use race as a factor in admissions, they can still consider an applicant's experiences and discussions of race as part of a holistic review process. The Supreme Court's decision has sparked ongoing discussions about the importance of diversity on college campuses and the need to find alternative ways to achieve it.

Explore related products

Constitutional Law: Cases, Comments, and Questions (American Casebook Series)

$265

Constitutional Law: Cases in Context [Connected eBook with Study Center] (Aspen Casebook Series)

$75 $359

Race Law: Cases, Commentary, and Questions

$147.49 $150

American Constitutional Law: Introductory Essays and Selected Cases

$143.42 $180

Processes of Constitutional Decisionmaking: Cases and Materials (Aspen Casebook)

$265

Processes of Constitutional Decisionmaking: Cases and Materials [Connected eBook with Study Center] (Aspen Casebook)

$199 $359

Can states pass laws that challenge Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce?

The Commerce Clause grants Congress the power to "regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes". The Commerce Clause is one of Congress's most important enumerated powers, and it has been used to justify a wide range of laws.

The Commerce Clause prevents states from creating laws that affect interstate commerce. This is known as the "dormant Commerce Clause" or "negative Commerce Clause". The Supreme Court has held that any impact on economic activity between the states can be challenged under the dormant Commerce Clause, even if it is minimal. This means that states cannot pass laws that challenge Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce.

However, there have been some exceptions to this. In Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), the Supreme Court held that intrastate activity could be regulated under the Commerce Clause, provided that it was part of a larger interstate commercial scheme. In Swift and Company v. United States (1905), the Supreme Court ruled that Congress had the authority to regulate local commerce as long as it could become part of a continuous "current" of commerce involving the interstate movement of goods and services.

In United States v. Lopez (1995), the Supreme Court attempted to curtail Congress's broad legislative mandate under the Commerce Clause by returning to a more conservative interpretation of the clause. The Court held that Congress could only regulate the channels of commerce, the instrumentalities of commerce, and actions that substantially affect interstate commerce.

In conclusion, while states cannot generally pass laws that challenge Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce, there have been some exceptions to this, and the interpretation of the Commerce Clause has evolved over time.

Can Congress prohibit slavery in free territories?

The question of whether Congress could prohibit slavery in free territories was a highly contested issue in the United States during the 19th century, with several key constitutional debates and amendments addressing this question.

The US Constitution, adopted in 1787, did not explicitly mention slavery, but included provisions related to it, such as the Fugitive Slave Clause and the Three-Fifths Compromise. The Three-Fifths Compromise, mentioned in Article I, Section 2, Clause 3, was the only reference in the Constitution to how enslaved persons were to be regarded by the federal government, counting them as "three-fifths" of a fully free citizen. The Constitution also included a compromise that prohibited Congress from abolishing the importation of slaves for 20 years, with the possibility of lifting the prohibition after that period. This reflected the balance of interests between Southern states, where slavery was pivotal to the economy, and states contemplating or having accomplished abolition.

In 1807, Congress passed the Slave Trade Act, which prohibited the importation of slaves into the United States, effective January 1, 1808. This marked a significant step towards abolishing the international slave trade, though it did not affect the domestic slave trade within the United States. The Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves of 1807 was promoted by President Thomas Jefferson and reflected the growing trend towards abolishing the slave trade.

The Missouri Compromise of 1820 was another important moment in the debate over slavery in free territories. With the purchase of the Louisiana Territory and Missouri's application for statehood, Congress faced a controversy over maintaining the balance between slave and free states. The Missouri Compromise admitted Missouri as a slave state and Maine as a non-slave state simultaneously. It also proposed prohibiting slavery above the 36° 30' latitude line in the remainder of the Louisiana Territory. This compromise held until it was repealed by the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854.

The Dred Scott v. Sandford case in 1857 further highlighted the question of congressional power over slavery in free territories. Dred Scott, a slave, resided in the free territory of the Northwest under the Missouri Compromise. The Supreme Court ruled that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional, arguing that Congress did not have the authority to ban slavery in the Louisiana Territory as it was not part of the United States at the time of the Constitution's ratification. This decision de facto nationalized slavery and played a crucial role in the events leading up to the American Civil War.

Finally, the Thirteenth Amendment, ratified in 1865, provided the final answer to the question of slavery in the United States and its territories. It forbade chattel slavery and granted Congress the power to enforce this prohibition through legislation. This amendment marked the legal end of slavery in the United States, eight years after the Emancipation Proclamation issued by President Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War.

Frequently asked questions