New York Times Co, v. United States

     During of crisis in the Vietnam war, many strongly opposed going to war in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Daniel Ellsberg, a political scientist working for the Pentagon, was one of the many who opposed going to war with Vietnam. Ellsberg managed to steal and copy a large portion of the classified paper entitled, "History of United States Decision-Making Process of Vietnam Policy", mostly known as "The Pentagon Papers". After confiscating them, he turned them in to The New York Times, which published in the first page paper on June 13, 1971. The Court then stepped into action, issuing a per curiam, meaning it is issued by the entire Court. The release of these papers stirred the public greatly, and much disput arised. In this video below, Daniel Ellesberg confesses the secrets behind Vietnam and The Pentagon Papers.

     After watching this video, i've come to realize that Ellsberg had no intention of harming anyone. He simply wanted the people of United States to know the real truth behind the government and their actions. However, because of this case, many innocent lives were put in harms way. National Security and the government was put in danger and had to be reevaluateed after this case.

Gitlow v. New York

      Benjamin Gitlow was convicted for violating the New York Criminal Anarchy Act of 1902. He was convicted for publishing the “Left Wing Manifesto” under state law that prohibited advocating the overturn of the government by force and violence. With a 7 to 2 vote, Gitlow's case continued to be defended. However, this case raised the First Amendment's rights to be questioned. The right to free speech and press, Gitlow felt he was protected by this Amendment. However the Court said otherwise. 

     I believe Gitlow's actions were not entirely all that bad. Its alright to believe in something such as communism, however to take it to the extremes and start preaching it, creating plans that use violent measures and defying the law is wrong. I understand that he has the freedom of speech, but there is potential that he could inflict harm upon others. That's where I draw the line. The difficult part about this case is where the limitations stand before violating the Criminal Anarchy Act.

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas

     Collection of cases combined as one, shares a significant feature; African American children had been denied admission to segregated white public schools. In the Plessy v. Ferguson Case, it sparked what will become the African American movement to gain equality among the whites and to abolish segregation. -Brown questioned whether “race-based” segregation of children is considered under the “separate but equal” right in public schools. PBS takes a closer look into this case, and argues whether segregation should be incorporated in young children public schools. 

    Among all the cases Supreme Court resolved, this is the most significant mainly because it’s dealing with a larger impact: racial barriers. This particular case resolves the issue of equality within school grounds. Even though both cases argued implications in the Fourteenth Amendment, Brown v. Board of Education demonstrates that “separate but equal” is unjust because it doesn’t promote equality.

Gideon v. Wainwright

     Clarence Earl Gideon, arrested for breaking into Florida pool hall with the intention of burglarizing it. He lacked the funds required for hiring a lawyer to prepare his defense, so I had to face the Court himself. He requested the Court to appoint an attorney for him, however the Court refused, stating it was only permitted to appoint a counsel to the destitute defendants in capital cases. Left without the resources needed to give a successful argument; Gideon defended himself in trail and was convicted by jury and sentenced to five years in state prison. However the Court overruled Gideon’s case because of the Sixth Amendment, guaranteeing the right for a fair trial. Gideon successfully won the case because of the Courts unanimous decision. This video demonstrates Gideon’s defense in Court, for a better understanding of the case. 

     I believe every person that has to face prosecution should have the right for a fair trial. After this case, many states provided the right for an attorney for accused felons through statues. It demonstrates how the case would be without any equality. Gideon fought till the end with his case, making sure his voice and opinion was heard.

Miranda v. Arizona

     After a reporting of a kidnapping and sexual assault, in Phoenix Arizona, Ernesto Miranda was arrested. Two weeks later, Miranda was held at prosecution  and was convicted of kidnapping and rape, receiving a twenty year life sentence. Miranda argued the Fifth and Sixth Amendments were violated by the police. However, the state of Arizona countered his argument by stating Miranda was fully aware of police procedures because he’s continually encountered them before.  They also argued the prosecution was valid, his conviction was based on Arizona law and his imprisonment was just. However with a 5 to 4 vote, the Court overturned Miranda’s conviction. 

     I believe it was a significant part of American History because it changed the process of police interrogation. It also showed the public the importance of our law and when it should be used. Miranda was withheld of the Fifth Amendment rights, because he was forced to confess. Even though he won this battle, he was later put in jail for another crime.

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke

      Thirty-five year old Allan Bakke applied to University of California Medical School at Davis twice and was rejected both times.The school reserved sixteen places for each incoming freshmen class of a hundred for the qualified minorities. Bakke’s qualifications exceeded many of the minority students that applied in both the years. Bakk concluded that he was excluded from admission just based on race. Winning by a 5 to 4 vote, Bakke won his case on equal protection.

     However after reviewing this case, the University of California did violate the Fourteenth Amendment and the Civil Rights, however, in some ways, they also didn’t violate it. Any racial quota system that is supported by the government does violate the Civil Rights Act. I think it was fair to have the Medical School accept Bakke’s applications, especially after what they did. Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr, argued that the ridge use of racial quotas as employed at the school violated the Fourteenth Amendment as well. However, that being said, Powell also argues the use of race was acceptable as one of several admission criteria. Given this situation, the Court decided to minimize white opposition for equality while extending gains for racial minorities through the admissions process. I believe this was a fair enough way to handle this case’s predicament.   

Miller v. California

     Marvin Miller conducted and advertisement campaign containing "adult" book titles and film brochures which had sexually explicit photographs and drawings. This caused a public uproar, questioning how much freedom the First Amendment should grant. Miller was put on trial under California's obscenity laws and was proven guilty.The states should be able to decide how much freedom is given to the press and the people.
     The Court proposed on three new guidelines for regulating offensive material. Chief Justice Warren Burger suggested the guidelines should evaluate any offensive material that depicts "hard core" sexual behavior that is defined by the state law. I believe Miller's actions also question a sense of mortality. By having these brochures exposed for the public eye, anyone of any age group can access them. Adult material, such as this, should not be exposed to young children, which is also a concerned for many parents and guardians.

Plessy v. Ferguson

      Homer Plessy, a man who was one-eighth black, took a risk to sit in the "white section" of the train in Louisiana during 1890. Being only one-eight black, he strongly felt it was okay to sit in the front, however the conductor would say otherwise. He was immediately arrested for refusing to move out of the seat, and was declared imprisonment by Ferguson, a local judge in the Louisiana Supreme Court. Plessy argued that Louisiana's statue violated the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments. However Ferguson ended up winning the case.
    Justice Brown brought attention to "fallacy" during Plessy's case and declared African-American controlled legislature may enact similar laws to the law that Louisiana has. Justice Brown's believed Louisiana's argument was unreasonable because the United States Constitution could not put them in the same area. African Americans are the ones that were ordered to move, not the whites. This was an "underlying fallacy" in Plessy's case, which led to his loss.
     Regardless that Ferguson won, I believe this was an extremely significant court case because it gave a legal standing to the idea of separate but equal. It informed the public how segregation didn't have that much equality. Since segregation was continuously growing in the south, this case triggered the spark of Americans relating.

United States v. Nixon

    In 1974, a disturbance took place in the oval office regarding President Richard M. Nixon and confidential tapes of all the conversations held in the office. His task was to return the tapes, however he strongly refused. The issue escalated, forcing Nixon to return the tapes through a vote. He did as he was told, however it appeared a portion of the tapes were erased. Known as the "Watergate Scandal", this alarmed the public simply because a president should not commit these actions.
     After reviewing the case, I believe the executive branch shouldn't have more privileges especially since the investigation wasn't constitutionally authorized. Also, President Nixon should have a limited amount of power on what he can or cannot do. Refusing to hand over the tapes in unacceptable, however his resignation was probably a wise choice to make. If he was taken into the trail, the case would escalate even further and become incredibly devastating to the pubic. Overall, this entire case was a rude awakening for the entire public to see. Having faith and trust in President Nixon was questionable after this event.  

Roe v. Wade

     With a 7 to 2 vote, Jane Roe, an unmarried pregnant women, fought  for the right to have an abortion under her decision. She argued that abortion should also be protected by the right of privacy because it protects the decisions of a woman. The court, reviewing her delicate situation, granted the right for women to have an abortion with or without the doctors recommendation. PBS goes further in depth on the Roe v Wade situation, considering both sides of Harry A. Blackmun and Jane Roe.

    After viewing this video, it significantly highlights one very important factor in this case. The state should not have the right to tell doctors how to regulate pregnancy. Having the right of privacy is also a large part of this case. The right of privacy originated from an article by Warren and Brandeis, called The Right to Privacy (1890) states an individual having the right "to be let alone". With or without technology, a person is entitled to having privacy without inflicting harm on others.
     I also feel that abortion should only be used when desperately needed. Its great that technology has advanced significantly over the years, providing women with this sort of opportunity, however its still taking away the life of a new born. A woman who goes through an abortion takes away the every opportunity for that child to exist in our world. Many would agree that taking a life, is morally unacceptable, which is why abortion should be taken seriously.