Cases - 1947 term

Bute v. Illinois

Thu, 12 Feb 1948 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

398

Petitioner

Bute

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Illinois

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Vinson Court (1946-1949)

Decided By

Vinson Court (1946-1949)

Opinion

333 U.S. 640 (1948)

Argued

Thursday, February 12, 1948

Decided

Monday, April 19, 1948

Facts of the Case

Bute was charged with taking indecent liberties with children. He did not have an attorney and the trial court did not appoint one for him. Bute pleaded guilty and was sentenced to twenty years in prison.

Question

Does the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment require an attorney for Bute's defense?

Conclusion

No, an attorney is not required. Due process does not require states to provide counsel or to determine whether the defendant wants counsel. State courts are not bound by the procedures that federal courts are bound to follow. State court procedures are permissible unless they violate "the very essence of a scheme of ordered liberty." This case was reversed by Gideon v. Wainwright (1963).

Funk Bros. Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co.

Tue, 13 Jan 1948 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

280

Petitioner

Funk Bros. Seed Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Kalo Inoculant Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Vinson Court (1946-1949)

Decided By

Vinson Court (1946-1949)

Opinion

333 U.S. 127

Argued

Tuesday, January 13, 1948

Decided

Monday, February 16, 1948

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

None

Shelley v. Kraemer

Thu, 15 Jan 1948 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Shelley and Kraemer's Neighborhood

Labadie Avenue St. Louis MO

St. Louis, MO

United States

38° 39' 56.4012" N, 90° 14' 38.7312" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Shelley

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Kraemer

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

McGhee v. Sipes, No. 87

Heard By

Vinson Court (1946-1949)

Decided By

Vinson Court (1946-1949)

Opinion

334 U.S. 1 (1948)

Argued

January 15-16, 1948

Decided

Monday, May 3, 1948

Facts of the Case

The Kraemers were a white couple who owned a residence in a Missouri neighborhood governed by a restrictive covenant. This was a private agreement that prevented blacks from owning property in the Kraemers' subdivision. The Shelleys were a black couple who moved into the Kraemers neighborhood. The Kraemers went to court to enforce the restrictive covenant against the Shelleys.

Question

Does the enforcement of a racially restrictive covenant violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment?

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Shelley, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: US Const Amend 14

State courts could not constitutionally prevent the sale of real property to blacks even if that property is covered by a racially restrictive covenant. Standing alone, racially restrictive covenants violate no rights. However, their enforcement by state court injunctions constitute state action in violation of the 14th Amendment.

McCollum v. Board of Education Dist. 71

Mon, 08 Dec 1947 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Public School Champaign, IL

United States

40° 6' 59.112" N, 88° 14' 36.1788" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

McCollum

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Board of Education Dist. 71

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Vinson Court (1946-1949)

Decided By

Vinson Court (1946-1949)

Opinion

333 U.S. 203 (1948)

Argued

Monday, December 8, 1947

Decided

Monday, March 8, 1948

Facts of the Case

In 1940, members of the Jewish, Roman Catholic, and some Protestant faiths formed a voluntary association called the Champaign (Illinois) Council on Religious Education. Cooperating with the Champaign Board of Education, the Council offered voluntary classes in religious instruction to public school pupils. The courses were conducted in the regular classrooms of the school building. Students who did not attend the religious instruction were required to go to some other place in the building to pursue secular studies.

Question

Did the use of the public school system for religious classes violate the First Amendment's Establishment Clause?

Conclusion

Yes. The Court held that the use of tax-supported property for religious instruction and the close cooperation between the school authorities and the religious council violated the Establishment clause. Because pupils were required to attend school and were released in part from this legal duty if they attended the religious classes, the Court found that the Champaign system was "beyond question a utilization of the tax-established and tax-supported public school system to aid religious groups and to spread the faith."