1. Supreme Court Activity: You Decide
Working in a group, examine the background information for each of the four landmark Supreme Court cases
Answer the questions provided
Give question #3 serious attention because you are asked to predict how the Supreme Court decided each case
Take notes on how the Supreme Court actually ruled when these decisions are revealed by the teacher

2. Gideon v Wainwright (1963)

3. Gideon v Wainwright (1963) Question:
Did the state court's failure to appoint counsel for Gideon violate his right to a fair trial as protected by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments?

4. Gideon v Wainwright (1963)

5. Gideon v Wainwright (1963) Conclusion:
In a 9-0 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that a fair trial for a poor defendant could not be guaranteed without an attorney. The Court stated that the 6th Amendment's guarantee of counsel was a fundamental right, essential to a fair trial, which should be made applicable to the states through the 14th Amendment’s due process clause.
Gideon had a right to a court-appointed attorney and that

6. Miranda v Arizona (1966)

7. Miranda v Arizona (1966) Question:
Does the police practice of interrogating individuals without notifying them of their right to counsel and their protection against self-incrimination violate the Fifth Amendment?

8. Miranda v Arizona (1966)
Conclusion:  In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that prosecutors could not use statements gained from interrogated defendants unless they demonstrated “procedural safeguards” to protect the accused against self-incrimination. The Court outlined the necessary aspects of police warnings to suspects, including their rights to remain silent and to have an attorney during interrogations.

9. Miranda v Arizona (1966)

10. Roe v Wade (1973)

11. Roe v Wade (1973)

12. Roe v Wade (1973)
Question: 
Should a woman’s decision to have an abortion be protected under the Constitution as a matter of privacy?

13. Roe v Wade (1973) Conclusion:
In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court held that a woman's right to an abortion was a matter of privacy that was protected by the 14th Amendment. The decision gave women total control over the pregnancy during the 1st trimester and defined different levels of state interest for later trimesters. As a result, the laws of 46 states were affected by the Court's ruling.

14. Regent of UC Davis v Bakke (1978)
Conclusion: 
No and yes. There was no single majority opinion. Four of the justices contended that any racial quota system supported by government violated the Civil Rights Act of Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr., agreed, casting the deciding vote ordering the medical school to admit Bakke. However, in his opinion, Powell argued that the rigid use of racial quotas as employed at the school violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The remaining four justices held that the use of race as a criterion in admissions decisions in higher education was constitutionally permissible. Powell joined that opinion as well, contending that the use of race was permissible as one of several admission criteria. So, the Court managed to minimize white opposition to the goal of equality (by finding for Bakke) while extending gains for racial minorities through affirmative action.

15. Regent of UC Davis v Bakke (1978)
Question:  Did the University of California violate the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, by practicing an affirmative action policy that resulted in the repeated rejection of Bakke's application for admission to its medical school?
Conclusion: 
No and yes. There was no single majority opinion. Four of the justices contended that any racial quota system supported by government violated the Civil Rights Act of Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr., agreed, casting the deciding vote ordering the medical school to admit Bakke. However, in his opinion, Powell argued that the rigid use of racial quotas as employed at the school violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The remaining four justices held that the use of race as a criterion in admissions decisions in higher education was constitutionally permissible. Powell joined that opinion as well, contending that the use of race was permissible as one of several admission criteria. So, the Court managed to minimize white opposition to the goal of equality (by finding for Bakke) while extending gains for racial minorities through affirmative action.

16. Regent of UC Davis v Bakke (1978)
Conclusion: 
No and yes. There was no single majority opinion. Four of the justices contended that any racial quota system supported by government violated the Civil Rights Act of Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr., agreed, casting the deciding vote ordering the medical school to admit Bakke. However, in his opinion, Powell argued that the rigid use of racial quotas as employed at the school violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The remaining four justices held that the use of race as a criterion in admissions decisions in higher education was constitutionally permissible. Powell joined that opinion as well, contending that the use of race was permissible as one of several admission criteria. So, the Court managed to minimize white opposition to the goal of equality (by finding for Bakke) while extending gains for racial minorities through affirmative action.

17. Regent of UC Davis v Bakke (1978)
Supreme Court Ruling: 
No and yes. In a 5-4 decision, the Court forced the university to accept Bakke. But, the majority opinion argued that the use of race as one of many sets of criterion in admissions decisions was constitutional. So, the Court managed to minimize white opposition to the goal of equality (by finding for Bakke) while extending gains for racial minorities through affirmative action.

18. Regent of UC Davis v Bakke (1978)
Conclusion: 
No and yes. There was no single majority opinion. Four of the justices contended that any racial quota system supported by government violated the Civil Rights Act of Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr., agreed, casting the deciding vote ordering the medical school to admit Bakke. However, in his opinion, Powell argued that the rigid use of racial quotas as employed at the school violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The remaining four justices held that the use of race as a criterion in admissions decisions in higher education was constitutionally permissible. Powell joined that opinion as well, contending that the use of race was permissible as one of several admission criteria. So, the Court managed to minimize white opposition to the goal of equality (by finding for Bakke) while extending gains for racial minorities through affirmative action.