1963

Wesberry v. Sanders
Constitutional Question
 Did Georgia's congressional districts violate the Fourteenth Amendment or
deprive citizens of the full benefit of their right to vote?
Facts
 A case involving congressional districts in the state of Georgia
 James Wesberry filed a suit against the Governor of Georgia, Carl E.
Sanders, protesting the state's apportionment scheme.
 The Fifth Congressional District, of which Wesberry was a member, had
a population two to three times larger than some of the other districts in
the state.
 Wesberry claimed this system diluted his right to vote compared to other
Georgia residents.
Ruling and Reason
 The Court issued a ruling on February 17, 1964 that districts have to be
approximately equal in population.
 Georgia's apportionment scheme grossly discriminated against voters in
the Fifth Congressional District.
 Because a single congressman had to represent two to three times as many
people as were represented by congressmen in other districts, the Georgia
statute contracted the value of some votes and expanded the value of
others.
 the Supreme Court noted that Article I, Section 2 of the United States
Constitution declares that representatives shall be chosen
"by the People of the several States" and shall be "apportioned among
the several States...according to their respective Numbers...."
 Decision: 6 votes for Wesberry, 3 votes against
Significance/ Famous Quote
SIGNIFICANCE
 This is the second of the
“reapportionment decisions”
of the 1960s, which
established that federal courts
have jurisdiction to enforce
the constitutional requirement
that representation in
governmental bodies be based
on equal‐population districts.
QUOTE
 The Court recognized that "no
right is more precious" than that
of having a voice in elections
and held that "[t]o say that a
vote is worth more in one
district than in another would
not only run counter to our
fundamental ideas of democratic
government, it would cast aside
the principle of a House of
Representatives elected 'by the
People. . .'"
1989

Texas v. Johnson
Constitutional Question
 Is the desecration of an American flag, by burning or otherwise, a form of
speech that is protected under the First Amendment?
Facts
 Gregory Lee Johnson participated in a political demonstration in
Dallas, Texas. The demonstrators were protesting the policies of the
Reagan Administration and of certain companies based in Dallas.
 At one point, another demonstrator handed Johnson an American
flag stolen from a flagpole outside one of the targeted buildings.
Then the demonstrators reached Dallas City Hall, Johnson poured
kerosene on the flag and set it on fire.
 During the burning of the flag, demonstrators shouted such phrases
as, "America, the red, white, and blue, we spit on you, you stand for
plunder, you will go under,"
 Johnson was charged with violating the Texas law that prohibits
vandalizing respected objects (desecration of a venerated object). He
was convicted, sentenced to one year in prison, and fined $2,000
Ruling and Reason
 Justice William Brennan declared that the defendant's act of flag burning
was protected speech under the First Amendment to the United States
Constitution.
 the First Amendment protects such activity as symbolic speech.

 Decision: 5 votes for Johnson, 4 votes against

Significance

  This case was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United
States that invalidated prohibitions on desecrating the American
flag enforced in 48 of the 50 states. 
 The First Amendment specifically disallows the abridgment of "speech,"
but the court reiterated its long recognition that its protection does not
end at the spoken or written word.
 Stromberg v. California (display of a red flag as speech)
 Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (wearing of a black
armband as speech).
2006

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld
Constitutional Question
 May the rights protected by the Geneva Convention be enforced in federal
court through habeas corpus petitions?
 Was the military commission established to try Hamdan and others for
alleged war crimes in the War on Terror authorized by the Congress or the
inherent powers of the President?
Facts
 Salim Ahmed Hamdan, Osama bin Laden's former chauffeur, was
captured by Afghani forces and imprisoned by the U.S. military in
Guantanamo Bay. He filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in
federal district court to challenge his detention. Before the district court
ruled on the petition, he received a hearing from a military tribunal,
which designated him an enemy combatant.
 A few months later, the district court granted Hamdan's habeas petition,
ruling that he must first be given a hearing to determine whether he was a
prisoner of war under the Geneva Convention before he could be tried by
a military commission. The Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia reversed the decision, however, finding that the Geneva
Convention could not be enforced in federal court and that the
establishment of military tribunals had been authorized by Congress and
was therefore not unconstitutional.
Ruling and Reason
Justice John Paul Stevens held that neither an act of Congress nor the inherent
powers of the Executive laid out in the Constitution expressly authorized the
sort of military commission at issue in this case. Absent that express
authorization, the commission had to comply with the ordinary laws of the
United States and the laws of war. The Geneva Convention, as a part of the
ordinary laws of war, could therefore be enforced by the Supreme Court, along
with the statutory Uniform Code of Military Justice. Hamdan's exclusion from
certain parts of his trial deemed classified by the military commission violated
both of these, and the trial was therefore illegal. Justices Scalia, Thomas, and
Alito dissented. Chief Justice John Roberts, who participated in the case while
serving on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, did not take part in the decision.

Decision: 5 votes for Hamdan, 3 votes against

Significance
 The impact of the decision on the petitioner (Hamdan) was that he can still
be tried; however, his trial must be in a court, such as a military court-
martial, or possibly a commission that has court-like protections.
1927

Fiske v. Kansas
Constitutional Question
 1. A decision of a state court applying and enforcing a state statute of general scope against a particular transaction as to which there was a
distinct and timely insistence that, if so applied, the statute was void under the federal Constitution necessarily affirms the validity of the
statute as so applied, and the judgment is therefore reviewable by writ of error under § 237 of the Judicial Code. P. 274 U. S. 385.
 2. The inquiry then is whether the statute is constitutional as applied and enforced in respect to the situation presented. P. 274 U. S. 385.
 3. This Court will review the finding of facts by a state court where a federal right has been denied as the result of a finding shown by the
record to be without evidence to support it; or where a conclusion of law as to a federal right, and a finding of fact, are so intermingled as to
make it necessary, in order to pass upon the federal question, to analyze the facts. P. 274 U. S. 385.
 4. A Kansas statute defining "criminal syndicalism" as
 "the doctrine which advocates crime, physical violence, arson, destruction of property, sabotage, or other unlawful acts or methods as a means
of accomplishing or effecting industrial or political ends, or as a
 Page 274 U. S. 381
 means of effecting industrial or political revolution, or for profit . . ."
 and punishing any person who "advocates, affirmatively suggests, or teaches the duty, necessity, propriety or expediency of crime, criminal
syndicalism, or sabotage" was applied by the state court as covering a case where it was charged and proved merely that the defendant secured
members in an organzation whose constitution proclaimed
 "[t]hat the working class and the employing class have nothing in common, and that there can be no peace so long as hunger and want are
found among millions of working people and the few who make up the employing class have all the good things of life. Between these two
classes, a struggle must go on until the workers of the world organize as a class, take possession of the earth and the machinery of production,
and abolish the wage system. Instead of the conservative motto, 'A fair day's wage for a fair day's work,' we must inscribe on our banner the
revolutionary watchword, 'Abolition of the wage system.' By organizing industrially, we are forming the structure of the new society within
the shell of the old."
 Held: that there being no charge or evidence that the organization advocated any crime, violence, or other unlawful acts or methods as a
means of effecting industrial or political changes or revolution, thus applied, the statute is a violation of the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment. P. 274 U. S. 386.
 117 Kan. 69 reversed.
 Error to a judgment of the Supreme Court of Kansas which affirmed a conviction of Fiske under the Kansas Criminal Syndicalism Act.
Facts
Ruling and Reason
Significance/ Famous Quote