Equalizing the Ballot
The gerrymandering of electoral districts to favor particular political parties or candidates was a practice dating back to the English origins of American government. But the Supreme Court was reluctant to become involved in challenges to districting schemes. Most notably, the Court declined to hear a redistricting case in Colegrove v. Green (1946) on the ground that the issues involved were essentially political and therefore nonjusticiable. But the Warren Court created an exception to Colegrove in Gomillion v. Lightfoot (1960), where racial gerrymandering was involved.
Colegrove v. Green (1946) http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/328/549/case.html
Gomillion v. Lightfoot (1960) http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1960/1960_32
“Baffling Boundaries: The Politics of Gerrymandering” http://sshl.ucsd.edu/gerrymander/
Baker v. Carr
Two years later, the Court overturned Colegrove completely in Baker v. Carr (1962), a case involving demands for reapportionment of electoral districts in Tennessee to reflect population changes. Speaking for the majority, Justice Brennan wrote: “The mere fact that the suit seeks protection of a political right does not mean it presents a political question.” The case triggered a series of challenges to state apportionment schemes and involved the Court directly in reshaping the political landscape of the nation.
Baker v. Carr (1962) http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1960/1960_6
Wesberry v. Sanders (1964) http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1963/1963_22
Gray v. Sanders (1963) http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1962/1962_112
Reynolds v. Sims (1964) http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1963/1963_23
Twenty-Fifth Amendment
Ratified in 1967, the Twenty-Fifth Amendment provides for the appointment of an acting president in the event that the sitting president cannot perform his official functions. It also provides for filling vacancies in the vice presidency.
Twenty-Fifth Amendment (Annotated) http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt25toc_user.html
School Prayer and the Court
The Warren Court took up the issue of religion in public education in a series of Establishment Clause cases. The Court ruled that Bible reading and voluntary prayer programs in public schools violate the separation of church and state. It also struck down a state law prohibiting the teaching of evolution in public schools as an indirect endorsement of religious beliefs.
Engel v. Vitale (1962) http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1961/1961_468/
Abington School District v. Schempp (1963) &Murray v. Curlett (1963) http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1962/1962_142
Epperson v. Arkansas (1968) http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1968/1968_7
Public Funding of Church-Related Schools
The Court did not preclude all relationships between the government and religious institutions. In Board of Education v. Allen (1968), the Court upheld a New York law requiring local school boards to provide free textbooks to children attending private and parochial schools on the ground that the law benefited the children and not the schools.
Board of Education v. Allen (1968) http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1967/1967_660
Sunday Closing Laws
The Court took a pragmatic approach to church-state relations in the Sunday Closing Cases (1961). At issue was the constitutionality of state laws requiring businesses to close on Sunday. Although such legislation had religious origins, the Court ruled that setting aside Sunday as a day of rest had acquired a secular significance that supported the constitutionality of the laws.
Sunday Closing Cases (1961) http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1960/1960_67
Libel and the First Amendment
The Warren Court expanded press freedom under the First Amendment by ruling that the legal protections against libel enjoyed by private persons does not extend to public figures. With respect to the latter, the publication must not only be false but published with knowledge that it is false or with reckless disregard for the truth. In a series of cases, the Court provided guidelines for distinguishing public from private persons.
New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1963/1963_39
Garrison v. Louisiana (1964) http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1963/1963_4
Rosenblatt v. Baer (1966) http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_38
Curtis Publishing Company v. Butts (1967) http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/388/130
Beauharnais v. Illinois(1952) http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1951/1951_118
Obscenity and the First Amendment
For all the focus and clarity it brought to other First Amendment issues, the Warren Court seemed confounded by obscenity cases. In formulating guidelines to distinguish obscene materials from protected speech, the Court became entangled in a web of subjective issues involving prurience, community standards, and socially redeeming value. In Roth v. United States (1957) Justice Douglas, who believed that the First Amendment protected all forms of speech, criticized the Court’s approach as capricious and destructive of free expression.
Butler v. Michigan (1957) http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1956/1956_16
Roth v. United States (1957) http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1956/1956_582
Alberts v. California (1957) http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1956/1956_61
Regina v. Hicklin (1868) http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Regina_v._Hicklin
Manual Enterprises v. Day (1962) http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1961/1961_123
“John Cleland’s Memoirs” v. Massachusetts (1966) http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/383/413
Ginzburg v. United States (1966) http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_42
Mishkin v. New York (1966) http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_49
Ginsberg v. New York (1968) http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1967/1967_47
Stanley v. Georgia (1969) http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1968/1968_293
Interstate Circuit v. Dallas (1968) http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/390/676
Privacy and the Constitution
In Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) the Court struck down a nineteenth-century Connecticut law banning contraception on the ground that it violated the individual’s constitutional right to privacy. No such right existed at common law, nor is it mentioned in the Constitution or Bill of Rights. However, Justice Douglas, speaking for the majority, held that the right to privacy can be inferred from the “zones of privacy” protected by the First, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments.
Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1964/1964_496