1. The Supreme Court Case, MATHEWS v. ELDRIDGE, dealt with the issue of Eldridge’s disability payment being discontinued after review and findings that he was no longer eligible. The judgement of the Court of Appeals stated that this was a violation of Due process.…
A deeper focus and analysis on the Fifth Circuit’s jurisprudence in this area was required. The analysis focused on the past history of how the Fifth Circuit approached sufficiency arguments, and how its approach had shifted to the present (with Rubio’s case as the newest example). See footnote 3 and 4, and the enormous research required (footnote 4 as roughly 36 or more cases firming up a consistent pattern of Jackson’s application in sufficiency cases). By extension, additional time was necessary to detail how and why the Fifth Circuit had shifted in its application of Jackson over time.…
HISTORY: At bench trial the District Court ruled for defendant, finding as a matter of law that…
In the case of Auto Workers V. Johnson Controls, the Plaintiffs brought a class action suit against Johnson Control in federal district courts over illegal sex discrimination under Title VII. The district court entered a summary judgment for Johnson Controls. The court of appeals affirmed the district court’s decision, leading the plaintiff to then appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. J. Blackmun delivered the opinion of the court in which Marshall, Stevens, O’Connor, and Souter joined. J. White filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in judgment, in which Rehnquist and Kennedy joined. J. Scalia filed an opinion concurring in judgment. Case was decided in March 20, 1991.…
cases in history. It was a case that was derived on federal power. During this case, the Supreme…
Gideon v. Wainwright, a case involving a indigent man by the name Clarence Gideon, who couldn’t afford an attorney to advocate for him when he was charged with breaking an entry, a felony in the state of Florida. This case not only changed America when the supreme court ruled the government must provide free counsel to accused criminals who cannot afford counsel for themselves, this case as also had a huge impact on my family life and in my decision making when it came to my career path.…
Dred Scott vs Sanford was a very important political case and was one of the first case towards equal rights for everybody. Dred Scott was a slave from Missouri and he sued the state of Missouri for his freedom. In this time Missouri was a free state and therefore he stated that he could be free from slavery. Although he was free, the state of Missouri considered him property and could not be taken away from his owner. Not to mention Minorities in this time we're not considered citizens and couldn't have freedom if they were a slave.…
The Dred Scott decision of 1857 is one of the most famous Supreme Court decisions because it declared that slaves could never become citizens of the United States. The Court’s 6-3 decision stated that the Constitution could not protect blacks and “blacks had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.” Since slaves could never become citizens they had no right to sue and Dred Scott remained a slave. The courts reputation following this decision plummeted to an all time low in the North and now Republicans of the time viewed the court as controlled by the Slave Power.…
Brennan states that one of the proposed majority decisions is changed into a dissent before the final ruling is announced, then the Justices will figure out the final form of the opinion. In “Separate but Equal”, a dissent never existed, the Supreme Court just skips it and goes right to writing the final form. This article shows how the Supreme Courts decisions can cause major issues and controversies among the country. “Separate but Equal” proved to be a great example of all the controversies and problems that can result from decisions made by the Supreme Court by dealing with the issue of Segregation in public…
The Scott vs. Sandford case was an extremely historical event in the United States because this was the first time a slave tried to sue his owner for his freedom. Like every other court case in the U.S. there was the Defendant, the Plaintiff, and the Judge. The issue was brought to court by the plaintiff, Dred Scott, a slave with a wife and two daughters, who argued that his service for his first owner, Dr. Emerson, in Illinois, a state from which slavery has been excluded by the Missouri Compromise, made him a free man with full rights as any other American citizen. But Dred didn’t stay in Illinois, he returned with his owner, Dr. Emerson, to Missouri where Plaintiff was sold to Sandford, the defendant in this case. Dred sued Sandford for his freedom, claiming to be a citizen of the United States.…
Gideon v. Wainwright- Back when legal counsel was available for murder, giving civil rights to people that cannot support counsel. He was accused of theft just for being there, and since he couldn't afford counsel the states gave it to him. he was later set free.…
Marbury v. Madison has been hailed as one of the most significant cases that the Supreme Court has ruled upon. In this paper, I will explain the origins and background in the case, discuss the major Constitutional issues it raised, and outline the major points of the courts decision. I will also explain the significance of this key decision.…
This was when Dred Scott, an African American slave who had been taken by his owners to free states and territories, attempted to sue for his freedom. This was an important decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court said that African Americans could not be American citizens and therefore had no standing to sue in federal court, and that the federal government had no power to regulate slavery in the territories acquired after the creation of the United States. The Supreme Court hoped this would set a precedent and end the slavery debate forever. This is an example of how even if the United States would have tried to just sign a bill to end slavery, the supreme court may have just said it was unconstitutional and vetoed it using the checks and balances…
Betts v. Brady in 1942 is a court case about an indigent white man named Betts who was charged with robbery. As soon as Betts got arrested he requested council and he was immediately denied. Betts was extremely poor, and he was very backwards to society. The reason why he was denied council was because his request for council was not handled as “special circumstances.” Justice Owen Roberts viewed Betts as an ordinary citizen, one with “ordinary intelligence and ability to take care of his own interests on the trial of a narrow issue.” When Betts went to trial he did not have a lawyer and he had to represent himself. Obviously, Betts lost his trial and he had to serve his time in jail. While Betts was in jail he appealed to the Supreme Court explaining that he was…
In the Minor v. Happersett case, Mrs. Virginia Minor stated she was a “… white citizen of the United States,” and should have the right to vote in the 1872 elections. However, Chief Justice C. J. Waite provided a detailed description of what is considered to be a “citizen,” but since the Fourteenth Amendment cites only “male” citizens have the right to vote it was up to the states to make changes to the definition of citizen, citing “If the law is wrong, it ought to be changed; but the power for that is not with us (the Court).” Also, the same can be said for the United States v Susan B. Anthony case, where she voted in 1872, but since she was declared a “woman” she did not have the right to vote. Besides preventing the vote for women, the Court decided cases on denying professional status and the right to divorce. In Bradwell v. Illinois, Bradwell believed that Fourteenth Amendment granted her, “as a citizen,” the right to practice law in the State of Illinois. The Court ruled that the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment did not include the right to practice a profession, declaring only the state had the right to grant professional status. In Waldron v. Waldron, the Court ruled against Mrs. Waldron claiming the reasons she presented to granting a divorce was “inadmissible, because of irrelevancy” ruling for the husband denying the…