For one out of the following four hypothetical scenarios, explain how, if you were a justice on the Supreme Court, you would rule.
Your ruling should take the form of an essay and set forth the following points in order:
- A brief synopsis of the relevant facts;
- A citation or reference to the specific portion of the Constitution that is relevant, if there is one, ideally with a direct quote from the Constitution;
- A summary of the arguments for each side in this case; and
- Your opinion in the matter; be sure to include citations or references to previous Supreme Court cases that support your decision, if anym and if you are aware of any cases that are contrary to your position, explain how and why they do not apply here.
Scenario 1
In West Sussex Alabama district judge Robert Favre runs a very formal courtroom where justice is handed out quietly but swiftly. The formality of Favre’s courtroom is demonstrated by the fact that he runs all proceedings with an iron fist. Additionally, the judge begins every day with a prayer that asks God to allow him to act judiciously and fairly when dealing with defendants. These prayers, while non-denominational, are read by different members of the clergy each week. The pool of clergy includes several Presbyterian ministers; a few Catholic priests, but is mostly comprised of Southern Baptist ministers from the surrounding counties. These ministers are not paid, but on those days that they read the Court’s prayer, they are provided with breakfast at a local coffee shop across from the courthouse.
To also help him serve justice, and to “show his place under God,” judge Favre carved a replica of the stone tablets upon which the Ten Commandments were written. He took it upon himself to hang these tablets behind his bench for all to see. When asked why he put them in his courtroom, the judge said simply “we must all realize that no matter what our laws may be, we all live under God’s law and must follow it without question.” While protesters said he should remove them, Favre refused to do so.
On January 5, 1999 Roger Vinatonka was brought into judge Favre’s courtroom to defend an accusation that he had robbed 5 gas stations in the past month. As this was the first case of the day judge Favre asked Southern Baptist minister Mordecai Brown to read the invocation. After he read the prayer, Vinatonka’s attorney objected that this prayer was a violation of the Establishment clause of the First Amendment. Additionally, he objected to the Ten Commandments in the courtroom, as these also violate the wall of separation between church and state. His argument was that it was a violation of his client’s rights to be subjected to such prayers when he was not Christian, and his beliefs did not include praying to God or following the Ten Commandments. He also argued that for justice to be conducted fairly in this courtroom the prayers must be stopped and the Ten Commandments must be taken down. Favre overruled the objection and noted that even though Vinatonka was not a Christian these were ideals by which all “red blooded” Americans should live. Because Vinatonka waived his right to a jury trial the judge decided the case and found the defendant guilty. After telling him that “thou shall not steal” Vinatonka was sentenced to 3 years in a state prison. On appeal Vinatonka’s attorney argued that the trial was unfair and biased because it was conducted under the auspices of Christian tenets which Vinatonka did not recognize which was a direct violation of the Constitution. The appeals court in Alabama affirmed the conviction and said there was no constitutional problem. The case was appealed to the United States Supreme Court.
Scenario 2
In January 2012 a new exhibit came to the St. Louis Art Museum. The exhibit contained, among other things, photos of nude men and women depicted in a variety of poses, photos of adults engaged in various sexual activities, and pictures of several nude men standing very close to one another. Finally, there were several pictures that resembled recent advertisements by a famous clothes designer. This last set of photos portrayed teenage children dressed in very little clothing, who were also posed in allegedly “erotic” poses.
The City Commission on Decency reviewed the exhibit as it was being constructed in the museum. This commission was set up in the early 1980s as a response to the growing use of “sex in art.” It is the duty of the commission to review any potentially obscene or indecent art exhibits that may be shown before the exhibits can be open to the public. While the commission only has the power to review and recommend to the Mayor about what it believes to be obscene or indecent material, the Mayor has always followed its rulings. The decisions of the commission are based on the Public Standards of Decency found in St. Louis statute 4.5.7.
After a public hearing where the new exhibit was described in detail to a group of interested citizens, the decency commission made two recommendations. First, the photographs of the adult males and the teenage children could not be a part of the exhibit. In short, they would have to be taken down before the exhibit could open to the public. Second, the commission recommended that the exhibit only be open to citizens over the age of 18 and, even with the consent of an adult, children under 18 could not enter the special exhibit area. A 17-year-old senior at a local high school sued along with the artist who created the exhibit. Both claimed their First Amendment rights had been violated. The case comes to the Supreme Court with a variety of issues, but with one main question. Does St. Louis statute 4.5.7 violate the First Amendment rights of the artists as well as of the children who want to see the exhibit?
Scenario 3
In early 2006 the South Dakota legislature passed a law which affected the rights of doctors to perform abortions within the state. Sections 1–4 of the law read as follows:
Section 1. The Legislature accepts and concurs with the conclusion of the South Dakota Task Force to Study Abortion, based upon written materials, scientific studies, and testimony of witnesses presented to the task force, that life begins at the time of conception, a conclusion confirmed by scientific advances since the 1973 decision of Roe v. Wade, including the fact that each human being is totally unique immediately at fertilization. Moreover, the Legislature finds, based upon the conclusions of the South Dakota Task Force to Study Abortion, and in recognition of the technological advances and medical experience and body of knowledge about abortions produced and made available since the 1973 decision of Roe v. Wade, that to fully protect the rights, interests, and health of the pregnant mother, the rights, interest, and life of her unborn child, and the mother’s fundamental natural intrinsic right to a relationship with her child, abortions in South Dakota should be prohibited. Moreover, the Legislature finds that the guarantee of due process of law under the Constitution of South Dakota applies equally to born and unborn human beings, and that under the Constitution of South Dakota, a pregnant mother and her unborn child, each possess a natural and inalienable right to life.
Section 2. No person may knowingly administer to, prescribe for, or procure for, or sell to any pregnant woman any medicine, drug, or other substance with the specific intent of causing or abetting the termination of the life of an unborn human being. No person may knowingly use or employ any instrument or procedure upon a pregnant woman with the specific intent of causing or abetting the termination of the life of an unborn human being.
Any violation of this section is a Class 5 felony.
Section 3. Nothing in section 2 of this Act may be construed to prohibit the sale, use, prescription, or administration of a contraceptive measure, drug or chemical, if it is administered prior to the time when a pregnancy could be determined through conventional medical testing and if the contraceptive measure is sold, used, prescribed, or administered in accordance with manufacturer instructions.
Section 4. No licensed physician who performs a medical procedure designed or intended to prevent the death of a pregnant mother is guilty of violating section 2 of this Act. However, the physician shall make reasonable medical efforts under the circumstances to preserve both the life of the mother and the life of her unborn child in a manner consistent with conventional medical practice.
Medical treatment provided to the mother by a licensed physician which results in the accidental or unintentional injury or death to the unborn child is not a violation of this statute.
Nothing in this Act may be construed to subject the pregnant mother upon whom any abortion is performed or attempted to any criminal conviction and penalty.
A group of doctors and women have sued the state, claiming that this law violates the fundamental right to obtain an abortion without government regulation (at least in the first trimester) set out in Roe v. Wade (1973). If you were a justice on the U.S. Supreme Court and this case came before you, how would you rule?
Scenario 4
On the night of October 4, 1995 Brett Freeman was found stumbling along the side of the road in the city of Sleepy Eye Minnesota. A police officer, Paul Tagliabue, saw Freeman, stopped, and offered to drive him home. Later, Tagliabue was quoted as saying he believed that “Freeman was drunk and just needed to get home to sleep off his binge.” Freeman accepted the ride, and after driving for some time Tagliabue found the proper house. He had to assist Freeman out of the car and into the living room. As they were walking into the house the officer asked Freeman where Freeman had been drinking that night. To this Freeman replied, “At the Pig’s Eye Bar on 3rd Street. I took my girlfriend’s car there, but could not find my keys when I left. That is why I am walking home.”
Upon entering the house, specifically the living room, Tagliabue spotted a white residue, a pot pipe, and other drug paraphernalia lying on and around the coffee table. As a result, he asked Freeman if the paraphernalia were his. In response, Freeman said “Yeah, some of it.” During the entire conversation Tagliabue noted that Freeman slurred all of his words, could not stand without support, and seemed to be nodding off. However, he did say that he was able to answer both of the questions with little trouble. After Freeman fell asleep on the couch Tagliabue called a backup squad, and sat down to wait for them to arrive. Based on the drug paraphernalia in the living room, Tagliabue and the backup squad began to search the house.
By this time Freeman’s roommates, Raymont Sapp and Robert Alstott arrived home. They were incensed that the police were searching the house, and immediately called their attorney. In the time that it took for the lawyer to arrive, the police searched the living room where Freeman was sleeping, his bedroom, the kitchen, the basement, and the attic. In the course of the search the police found several marijuana plants under a hot light in Freeman’s bedroom, and a load of marijuana leaves drying in the basement. Additionally, they found several other unidentified illicit drugs in the refrigerator, about $10,000 in a cookie jar, and three handguns taped under the kitchen table. The officers also searched the entire backyard. Beside the garbage cans, which were sitting about 75 yards from the house, the investigating officer found empty bags lined with a white powdery residue.
All three roommates were placed under arrest, and Sapp and Alstott’s bedrooms were searched. These searches turned up more marijuana plants growing in each bedroom. Subsequently all three roommates were taken to the police station. Freeman was put in a holding cell to sleep off his night of drinking, while Sapp and Alstott were booked. During the booking each was told that they would have to submit to urine and blood tests administered by a local doctor. Additionally, the police had the doctor draw a vial of blood from Freeman while he slept in his cell.
At the same time that the search of the house was going on, two other police officers were dispatched to “The Pig’s Eye” to look for the car Freeman drove that night. They found the car unlocked, with the keys in the ignition. A thorough search of the car turned up more marijuana, another handgun, five boxes of ammunition for the gun, and another $10,000. The car was impounded and taken directly to the police station.
Using the evidence obtained in and behind the house, as well as the drug tests performed at the police station, Freeman, Sapp, and Alstott were arrested for drug possession with intent to sell, for illegally using illicit drugs, and for possessing handguns without a permit. Freeman and his girlfriend, Jennifer Ryskoski, were separately charged with possession of drugs and illegally possessing an unregistered concealed handgun in the car.
Ryskoski was acquitted because the prosecution could not prove that
she knew the drugs or gun were in her car on the night in question. However,
Freeman, Sapp, and Alstott were subsequently convicted of drug possession with
the intent to sell, of using illegal substances, and of possessing handguns
without proper permits.
As a Supreme Court justice, how do you resolve the following intricate legal questions in this case revolving around the 4th amendment:
- Was the officer justified in calling for backup and then searching the house without obtaining a warrant?
- Should the police have been able to search the house while Freeman passed out based on the paraphernalia that was in the living room?
- Should the officers have searched Sapp and Alstott’s rooms after they were arrested?
- Was the backyard search justified?
- Should the police have been able to go and search the car that Freeman drove that night based on what they found at the house? What if they had not found anything at the house?
- Were the blood and urine tests in this case legitimate, or did they violate the suspect’s 4th Amendment rights?
- What, if any, of the evidence would you admit at trial? Should any of it be excluded, or is the evidence admissible? Justify your opinion.
