Cases - 1946 term

United Public Workers v. Mitchell

Thu, 17 Oct 1946 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

United Public Workers

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mitchell

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Vinson Court (1946-1949)

Decided By

Vinson Court (1946-1949)

Opinion

330 U.S. 75 (1947)

Argued

Thursday, October 17, 1946

Decided

Monday, February 10, 1947

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

None

Adamson v. California

Wed, 15 Jan 1947 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Stella Blauvelt's apartment (murder victim)

"744 South Catalina Street**** Apartment 410" Los Angeles CA 90005

Los Angeles, CA 90005

United States

34° 3' 30.3696" N, 118° 17' 42.1332" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

102

Petitioner

Dewey Adamson

Respondent

California

Heard By

Vinson Court (1946-1949)

Decided By

Vinson Court (1946-1949)

Opinion

332 U.S. 46 (1947)

Argued

Wednesday, January 15, 1947

Decided

Thursday, January 23, 1947

Advocates

Walter L. Bowers (Argued the cause for the appellee)

Morris Lavine (Argued the cause for the appellant)

Facts of the Case

Adamson was convicted in California of murder in the first degree. During the trial, the prosecutor, in accordance with a California law, made comments to the jury which highlighted Adamson's decision not to testify on his own behalf.

Question

Is a defendant's Fifth Amendment right not to bear witness against himself applicable in state courts and protected by the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for California, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: US Const. Amend 14, Section 1; Amend 5

A divided Court found that the the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause did not extend to defendants a Fifth Amendment right not to bear witness against themselves in state courts. Citing past decisions such as Twining v. New Jersey (1908), which explicitly denied the application of the due process clause to the right against self-incrimination, and Palko v. Connecticut (1937), Justice Reed argued that the Fourteenth Amendment did not extend carte blanche all of the immunities and privileges of the first ten amendments to individuals at the state level. In a lengthy dissent which included a deep investigation of the Fourteenth Amendment's history, Justice Black argued for the absolute and complete application of the Bill of Rights to the states.

Louisiana v. Resweber

Mon, 18 Nov 1946 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

142

Petitioner

Louisiana

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Resweber

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Vinson Court (1946-1949)

Decided By

Vinson Court (1946-1949)

Opinion

329 U.S. 459 (1947)

Argued

Monday, November 18, 1946

Decided

Monday, January 13, 1947

Advocates

Michael E. Culligan (Argued the cause for the respondents)

L. O. Pecot (Argued the cause for the respondents)

James Skelly Wright (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

Willie Francis, a 16-year-old black youth, was convicted of murder in Louisiana and sentenced to death by electrocution. On the appointed day, Francis was strapped in the chair and the executioner threw the switch. Electric current passed through Francis's body but it was insufficient to kill him. The malfunction required a repair of the chair. In the meantime Francis sought to prevent the second execution attempt.

Question

Does the second attempted execution deny Francis due process of law because of double jeopardy guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment and because of cruel and unusual punishment of the Eighth Amendment?

Conclusion

No and no. The equipment failure does not bring due process into play. This was not the wanton infliction of unnecessary pain in the execution of the death sentence. And the cruelty of the Eighth Amendment refers to cruelty in method, not that cruelty which is part of the actual suffering accompanying a lawful sentence of death.

Everson v. Board of Education

Wed, 20 Nov 1946 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Residence of Everson

508 Maple Avenue Ewing NJ 08618

Ewing, NJ 08618

United States

40° 14' 39.2136" N, 74° 46' 46.2432" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Everson

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Board of Education

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Vinson Court (1946-1949)

Decided By

Vinson Court (1946-1949)

Opinion

330 U.S. 1 (1947)

Argued

Wednesday, November 20, 1946

Decided

Monday, February 10, 1947

Advocates

Edward R. Burke (Argued the cause for the appellant)

William H. Speer (Argued the cause for the appellees)

E. Hilton Jackson (Argued the cause for the appellant)

Facts of the Case

A New Jersey law allowed reimbursements of money to parents who sent their children to school on buses operated by the public transportation system. Children who attended Catholic schools also qualified for this transportation subsidy.

Question

Did the New Jersey statute violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment as made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion

No. A divided Court held that the law did not violate the Constitution. After detailing the history and importance of the Establishment Clause, Justice Black argued that services like bussing and police and fire protection for parochial schools are "separate and so indisputably marked off from the religious function" that for the state to provide them would not violate the First Amendment. The law did not pay money to parochial schools, nor did it support them directly in anyway. It was simply a law enacted as a "general program" to assist parents of all religions with getting their children to school.