Supreme Court Interpretations of other Amendments

The Supreme Court’s interpretations of various constitutional amendments shape the application of fundamental rights and government powers in the United States. Beyond the First and Second Amendments, the Court has addressed crucial issues through rulings on the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches, the Fifth Amendment’s safeguards against self-incrimination, and the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. These decisions define how constitutional principles are applied, influencing legal standards and individual liberties across the nation.

Learning Objectives

For the topic “Supreme Court Interpretations of Other Amendments” in AP United States Government and Politics, you should learn to identify key Supreme Court cases and understand their impact on constitutional amendments beyond the First and Second. Focus on how these interpretations shape legal standards and individual rights related to searches and seizures (Fourth Amendment), self-incrimination (Fifth Amendment), the right to counsel (Sixth Amendment), cruel and unusual punishment (Eighth Amendment), and state powers (Tenth Amendment). Analyze the broader implications of these decisions and their influence on government authority and personal freedoms.

First Amendment: Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, and Freedom of the Press

Freedom of Speech

• Key Cases:
  • Schenck v. United States (1919): Introduced the “clear and present danger” test, ruling that speech could be restricted if it presents a clear and present danger to national security or public order.
  • Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969): Refined the test for speech inciting violence, ruling that speech advocating illegal conduct is protected unless it incites imminent lawless action and is likely to produce such action.

Freedom of Religion

• Establishment Clause:
  • Engel v. Vitale (1962): Ruled that government-sponsored prayer in public schools is unconstitutional as it violates the Establishment Clause.
  • Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971): Established the Lemon Test to determine whether a law violates the Establishment Clause, requiring that it has a secular purpose, does not advance or inhibit religion, and avoids excessive government entanglement with religion.

Free Exercise Clause:

• Employment Division v. Smith (1990): Ruled that the government can enforce laws even if they incidentally burden religious practices, as long as the laws are neutral and generally applicable.
• Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. (2014): Held that closely held corporations can be exempt from providing contraceptive coverage under the Affordable Care Act due to religious objections.

Freedom of the Press

• Key Cases:
  • New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964): Established the standard of “actual malice” for defamation cases involving public figures, requiring proof that statements were made with knowledge of their falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth.
  • New York Times Co. v. United States (1971): Known as the Pentagon Papers case, the Court upheld the right of the press to publish classified documents, reinforcing the principle of prior restraint is not permissible unless it poses a direct threat to national security.

Second Amendment: The Right to Bear Arms

• Key Cases:
  • District of Columbia v. Heller (2008): Held that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense within the home.
  • McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010): Incorporated the Second Amendment’s individual right to bear arms against state and local governments, ruling that the right to self-defense is a fundamental liberty applicable to the states.

Third Amendment: Protection from Quartering of Troops

• Historical Context: The Third Amendment prohibits the quartering of soldiers in private homes during peacetime without the owner’s consent, a reaction to British practices before the American Revolution.
• Supreme Court Interpretations:
  • The Third Amendment is rarely the subject of Supreme Court cases. It is generally seen as a protection that has not been heavily litigated or interpreted in modern times. The Court has not found a substantial need to address it extensively since its principles are rarely at issue in contemporary disputes.

Fourth Amendment: Protection Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures

• Key Cases:
  • Mapp v. Ohio (1961): Established the exclusionary rule, which prevents evidence obtained through illegal searches and seizures from being used in court.
  • Terry v. Ohio (1968): Allowed “stop and frisk” procedures, giving police the ability to stop and search individuals based on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
  • Katz v. United States (1967): Expanded Fourth Amendment protections to include expectations of privacy in public communications, establishing that wiretaps require a warrant.
  • Riley v. California (2014): Held that police must obtain a warrant before searching the digital contents of a cell phone seized during an arrest.

Fifth Amendment: Rights in Criminal Cases and Protection Against Self-Incrimination

• Key Cases:
  • Miranda v. Arizona (1966): Established the Miranda rights, requiring that individuals in police custody be informed of their rights to an attorney and against self-incrimination before being interrogated.
  • Kelo v. City of New London (2005): Addressed the “eminent domain” clause, upholding the use of eminent domain for economic development, even if it involves transferring property from one private owner to another.
  • Double Jeopardy: The Fifth Amendment also protects against being tried twice for the same offense. The Court has upheld this principle in various contexts, including in North Carolina v. Pearce (1969), which prohibits increased sentences on retrial.

Sixth Amendment: Rights to a Fair Trial

• Key Cases:
  • Gideon v. Wainwright (1963): Guaranteed the right to an attorney for defendants in criminal cases who cannot afford one.
  • Strickland v. Washington (1984): Established the standard for determining whether a criminal defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated due to ineffective assistance of counsel.
  • Blakely v. Washington (2004): Held that any fact that increases a sentence beyond the statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Seventh Amendment: Right to a Jury Trial in Civil Cases

• Key Cases:
  • The Seventh Amendment guarantees a right to a jury trial in civil cases where the value in controversy exceeds twenty dollars. The Supreme Court has generally upheld this right, although the application in specific cases can be complex. For instance, Granfinanciera, S.A. v. Nordberg (1989) addressed the right to a jury trial in bankruptcy proceedings.

Eighth Amendment: Protection Against Cruel and Unusual Punishment

• Key Cases:
  • Furman v. Georgia (1972): Temporarily halted the death penalty due to its arbitrary application. The ruling led to a reformation in death penalty statutes.
  • Gregg v. Georgia (1976): Reinstated the death penalty under reformed statutes, holding that it does not violate the Eighth Amendment if applied with certain safeguards.
  • Atkins v. Virginia (2002): Prohibited the execution of individuals with intellectual disabilities, arguing that such executions are unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment.

Ninth Amendment: Rights Retained by the People

• Interpretation:
  • The Ninth Amendment suggests that the enumeration of certain rights in the Constitution does not mean that other rights do not exist. The Supreme Court has used it to support a broader understanding of individual rights, though it is less frequently cited directly.

Tenth Amendment: Powers Reserved to the States

• Key Cases:
  • United States v. Lopez (1995): Marked a limit on Congress’s powers under the Commerce Clause, reinforcing that powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved for the states or the people.
  • Printz v. United States (1997): Invalidated parts of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, ruling that the federal government cannot compel state officials to enforce federal regulations.

Examples

Example 1 : Fourth Amendment: Terry v. Ohio (1968)

In Terry v. Ohio, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of “stop and frisk” procedures. The Court ruled that police officers could stop and briefly detain individuals if they have a reasonable suspicion that the person is involved in criminal activity. This decision established that the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures does not require a warrant or probable cause for these brief investigative stops, provided there is reasonable suspicion.

Example 2 : Fifth Amendment: Kelo v. City of New London (2005)

In Kelo v. City of New London, the Supreme Court interpreted the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause, which allows the government to seize private property for public use with just compensation. The Court ruled that economic development can constitute a public use, allowing the city to use eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another for the purpose of boosting the local economy. This controversial decision expanded the scope of “public use” under the Takings Clause.

Example 3 : Sixth Amendment: Strickland v. Washington (1984)

In Strickland v. Washington, the Supreme Court established a two-pronged test to determine whether a criminal defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to effective counsel has been violated. The Court ruled that a defendant must show that their lawyer’s performance was deficient and that the deficient performance prejudiced the outcome of the trial. This decision provided a framework for evaluating claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and ensuring fair trials.

Example 4 : Eighth Amendment: Roper v. Simmons (2005)

In Roper v. Simmons, the Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional to impose the death penalty on individuals who were under the age of 18 at the time of their offense. This decision interpreted the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment by recognizing that juvenile offenders have a diminished culpability and capacity for change, thus excluding them from the death penalty.

Example 5 : Tenth Amendment: Printz v. United States (1997)

In Printz v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government cannot compel state officials to enforce federal regulations under the Tenth Amendment. The case involved the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, which required state law enforcement officers to conduct background checks on handgun purchasers. The Court found that this requirement violated the Constitution by infringing on states’ sovereignty and imposing federal mandates on state officials.

Multiple Choice Questions

Question 1:

Which Supreme Court case established the principle that evidence obtained through illegal searches and seizures cannot be used in court?

A) Mapp v. Ohio
B) Terry v. Ohio
C) Miranda v. Arizona
D) Gideon v. Wainwright

Answer: A) Mapp v. Ohio

Explanation: Mapp v. Ohio (1961) established the exclusionary rule, which mandates that evidence obtained through illegal searches and seizures cannot be used in court. This case extended the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches and seizures to state courts. The ruling was pivotal in ensuring that law enforcement practices respect constitutional standards, thereby reinforcing individual privacy rights.

Question 2:

In which case did the Supreme Court rule that it is unconstitutional to impose the death penalty on individuals who were under 18 years old at the time of their offense?

A) Atkins v. Virginia
B) Roper v. Simmons
C) Furman v. Georgia
D) Gregg v. Georgia

Answer: B) Roper v. Simmons

Explanation: Roper v. Simmons (2005) held that it is unconstitutional to execute individuals who were under the age of 18 at the time they committed their crimes. This decision interpreted the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, acknowledging that juvenile offenders have less culpability and a greater potential for rehabilitation, which makes the death penalty an inappropriate punishment for them.

Question 3:

Which Supreme Court case ruled that the federal government cannot compel state officials to enforce federal regulations under the Tenth Amendment?

A) Printz v. United States
B) United States v. Lopez
C) Kelo v. City of New London
D) Granfinanciera, S.A. v. Nordberg

Answer: A) Printz v. United States

Explanation: Printz v. United States (1997) ruled that the federal government cannot require state officials to enforce federal regulations, as this would violate the Tenth Amendment’s principle of federalism. The case involved the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, which mandated that state officials perform background checks on gun purchasers. The Supreme Court found this requirement unconstitutional because it infringed upon states’ sovereignty by forcing them to execute federal laws.