Adair v. U.S. and Coppage v. Kansas became two defining cases in the Lochner era, a period defined after the Supreme Court’s decision in Lochner v New York, where the court adopted a broad understanding of the due process clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment. In these cases the court used the substantive due process principle to determine whether a state statute or state’s policing power violated an individual’s freedom of contract. To gain a better understanding of the court’s reasoning it is essential to understand what they disregarded and how the rulings relate to the rulings in Plessy v. Ferguson, Lochner v. New York and Muller v. Oregon. In 1898, congress passed the Erdman Act, which prohibited employers from firing employees based on if they join a union. An employer for the Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company, William Adair, violated the statute by firing O.B. Coppage for his participation in a labor organization. The court, in a 6 to 2 vote, held that the statute not only violated the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, it also held that congress’s power over interstate commerce does not extend to memberships in unions. The court uses substantive due process to read into the Fifth Amendment the laborers and employers right to ‘liberty of contract,” which Justice Harlan points out by citing the similar ruling in Lochner. The court reads it as the right of individuals to enter into contracts to either purchase or sell labor, which the law violated by limiting the rights of both the employer and employee. The court also rejected the argument that the law was within congressional power under interstate commerce by stating no logical correlation between union memberships and how it would affect intersta... ... middle of paper ... ...where they are first seen in Lochner. Holmes’s dissent in Lochner, criticizes the majority for essentially creating a new right through their substantive reading of the Fourteenth. The Court, by deeming the New York Bakeshop Act unconstitutional, does not take into account the beneficial qualities of the act. For example, protecting public health and welfare and providing proper working regulations for an industry that has a substantial need for it. The Court also overlooks the fact that the Act passed with a unanimous vote in the New York legislature. The decision is also an example of the court playing the role of the legislature by basing their decision not on law but on their own personal or political beliefs. The courts judicial activism becomes the main issue with the court’s decision in Lochner which greatly influences future decisions the court makes.
In the Lexington, Kentucky a drug operation occurred at an apartment complex. Police officers of Lexington, Kentucky followed a suspected drug dealer into an apartment complex. The officers smelled marijuana outside the door of one of the apartments, as they knocked loudly the officers announced their presence. There were noises coming from the inside of the apartment; the officers believed that the noises were as the sound of destroying evidence. The officers stated that they were about to enter the apartment and kicked the apartment door in in order to save the save any evidence from being destroyed. Once the officer enters the apartment; there the respondent and others were found. The officers took the respondent and the other individuals that were in the apartment into custody. The King and the
Facts: Rex Marshall testified that the deceased came into his store intoxicated, and started whispering things to his wife. The defendant stated that he ordered the deceased out of the store immediately, however the deceased refused to leave and started acting in an aggressive manner; by slamming his hate down on the counter. He then reached for the hammer, the defendant states he had reason to believe the deceased was going to hit him with the hammer attempting to kill him. Once the deceased reached for the hammer the defendant shot him almost immediately.
In the controversial court case, McCulloch v. Maryland, Chief Justice John Marshall’s verdict gave Congress the implied powers to carry out any laws they deemed to be “necessary and proper” to the state of the Union. In this 1819 court case, the state of Maryland tried to sue James McCulloch, a cashier at the Second Bank of the United States, for opening a branch in Baltimore. McCulloch refused to pay the tax and therefore the issue was brought before the courts; the decision would therefore change the way Americans viewed the Constitution to this day.
.... Madison was applied to this decision because the actions committed were unconstitutional. According to the Supreme Court the 8th Amendment was broken because the District Court of Appeal was giving a cruel and unusual punishment to Graham. The 8th amendment claus does not allow a juvenile offender to be sentenced to life in jail without a parole for a non-homicidal crime. Therefore Terrance could not fall through with this punishment.
Procunier case is whether the California Department of Corrections’ restriction on media-inmate interviews is constitutional or unconstitutional. The Supreme Court held that the California Department of Corrections ban was constitutional and did not violate the inmates’ rights of free speech. Furthermore, the regulation did not violate the media’s right to access information within a correctional
Hall, Kermit L, eds. The Oxford guide to United States Supreme Court decisions New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
The evidence presented to myself and the other juror’s proves that Tyrone Washburn is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the murder of his wife, Elena Washburn. On March 12, 1979 Elena Washburn was strangled in the living room of her family’s home. Her body was then dragged to the garage, leaving a trail of blood from the living room to the place it was found. Her husband, Tyrone Washburn, found her in the family’s garage on March 13, 1979 at 1:45 A.M. When officer Dale Chambers arrived at the scene he found her lying face down in a pool of blood. The solid evidence in this case proves only one person, Tyrone Washburn, is guilty of murder.
Schultz, David, and John R. Vile. The Encyclopedia of Civil Liberties in America. 710-712. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Gale Virtual Reference Library, n.d. Web. 18 Mar. 2010. .
Remy, Richard C., Gary E. Clayton, and John J. Patrick. "Supreme Court Cases." Civics Today. Columbus, Ohio: Glencoe, 2008. 796. Print.
Kansas v. Hendricks was somewhat of a landmark case when it relates to individuals receiving treatment for a disorder after they have severed their respected prison sentence. Leroy Hendricks was nearing the end of his ten year prison sentence. He was convicted of violating or taking “indecent liberties” with two thirteen year old boys. Hendricks had an extensive history when it came to molesting children. He testified in court that he was diagnosed by a physician for suffering from pedophilia. He told the physician that he still has sexual desires for children and will not be able to control them once he is “stressed out”. It was then determined by a jury that Hendricks should be labeled as a violent sexual predator. Kansas authorities wanted
Beginning in the late 1700’s and growing rapidly even today, labor unions form the backbone for the American workforce and continue to fight for the common interests of workers around the country. As we look at the history of these unions, we see powerful individuals such as Terrence Powderly, Samuel Gompers, and Eugene Debs rise up as leaders in a newfound movement that protected the rights of the common worker and ensured better wages, more reasonable hours, and safer working conditions for those people (History). The rise of these labor unions also warranted new legislation that would protect against child labor in factories and give health benefits to workers who were either retired or injured, but everyone was not on board with the idea of foundations working to protect the interests of the common worker. Conflict with their industries lead to many strikes across the country in the coal, steel, and railroad industries, and several of these would ultimately end up leading to bloodshed. However, the existence of labor unions in the United States and their influence on their respective industries still resonates today, and many of our modern ideals that we have today carry over from what these labor unions fought for during through the Industrial Revolution.
Due Process laws that states enact must conform to the laws of the land like - fairness,
Throughout American history, labor unions have served to facilitate mediation between workers and employers. Workers seek to negotiate with employers for more control over their labor and its fruits. “A labor union can best be defined as an organization that exists for the purpose of representing its members to their employers regarding wages and terms and conditions of employment” (Hunter). Labor unions’ principal objectives are to increase wages, shorten work days, achieve greater benefits, and improve working conditions. Despite these goals, the early years of union formation were characterized by difficulties (Hunter).
By the second half of the 20th century, as more federal laws protected against gender discrimination and the national zeitgeist turned more towards gender equality in the public sphere, decisions in landmark Supreme Court cases began striking down more statutes that were discriminatory based on gender. However, for a while the Court refused to place a higher level of scrutiny on claims of gender discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause. In 1971, the Supreme Court examined a challenge to the Idaho Probate Code that preferred males over females in all probate battles in the case of Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71 (1971). After their adopted son passed away, Sally and Cecil Reed both sought to be named the administrator of their son’s estate. However, as previously stated, the
The Due Process Clause is a legal obligation that all states must follow. The clause requires all state entities to provide fair procedures and to obey all laws. According to US Legal the Due Process Clause states, “Thus the due process clause in the constitution prohibits the state and local government from depriving people of their life, liberty, or property without certain steps being taken.” The clause is also discussed under the fifth and fourteenth amendments. If someone’s rights before or after arrest or during due process were violated, they can file for an appeal. Some rights which could be appealed are unreasonable search and seizers which if located in the fourth amendment, the right to remain silent or Miranda rights which is the fifth amendment, right to a speedy trail