http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1961/ U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments, presented by The Oyez Project (www.oyez.org) en-us http://www.oyez.org/images/oyezfeed.jpg U.S. Supreme Court Audio Recordings, presented by The Oyez Project (www.oyez.org) Tue, 03 Apr 1962 12:00:00 -0500 <p>The Board of Regents for the State of New York authorized a short, voluntary prayer for recitation at the start of each school day. This was an attempt to defuse the politically potent issue by taking it out of the hands of local communities. The blandest of invocations read as follows: "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and beg Thy blessings upon us, our teachers, and our country."</p> <p>Does the reading of a nondenominational prayer at the start of the school day violate the "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment?</p> 468_19620403-lq-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1961/1961_468/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Wed, 18 Oct 1961 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet. 26_19611018-argument-1 http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1961/1961_26/argument-1/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Wed, 18 Oct 1961 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet. 26_19611019-argument-2 http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1961/1961_26/argument-2/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Wed, 18 Oct 1961 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet. 26_19611019-argument-3 http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1961/1961_26/argument-3/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Tue, 05 Dec 1961 12:00:00 -0500 <p>In the wake of the Supreme Court's ruling in Brown v. Board of Education, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) received much criticism from state legislators as it pushed ahead with litigation to combat segregation. The State of Florida, in 1959, established a Legislative Investigation Committee to study what were called "subversive organizations." Gibson, president of the Miami branch of the NAACP, was subpoenaed before the committee and asked to produce a membership list of his organization. He refused and was found in contempt.</p> <p>Did the Florida Committee, in attempting to inform itself about activities of subversive organizations, violate Gibson's right to free speech and association as protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments?</p> 6_19611205-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1961/1961_6/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Thu, 19 Oct 1961 12:00:00 -0500 <p>A Florida statute automatically exempted women from jury duty and did not place women on jury lists. Women could, however, volunteer and register for jury duty. After an all-male jury convicted Mrs. Hoyt for murdering her husband, she appealed the decision to the Florida Supreme Court. The Florida Court upheld the conviction.</p> <p>Did the Florida statute violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?</p> 31_19611019-lq-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1961/1961_31/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Tue, 10 Oct 1961 12:00:00 -0500 <p>Francisco Mendoza-Martinez (Martinez) was an American by birth with dual Mexican citizenship. Martinez admitted that to avoid the draft, in 1942, he left the United States for Mexico and did not return until November, 1946. As a result of his deliberate absence, Martinez entered a guilty plea in 1947 to violating Section 11 of the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940 (the "Act") and served 366 days in prison. Five years after his release, Martinez was issued an arrest and deportation warrant premised on a violation of Section 401(j) of the Act which divested draft dodgers of their U.S. citizenship. Following a dismissal of his appeal from the Attorney General's special inquiry decision stripping him of his U.S. citizenship, Martinez challenged the constitutionality of Section 401(j) in District Court but was defeated. On appeal from the Ninth Circuit's opinion upholding the district court decision, the Supreme Court granted certiorari. This case was decided together with Rusk v. Cort.</p> <p>Did Section 401(j) of the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, divesting U.S. citizens of their citizenship for remaining outside the United States during a time of war or national emergency in order to avoid the draft, violate the procedural safeguard of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments?</p> 2_19611010-argument-1 http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1961/1961_2/argument-1/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Tue, 10 Oct 1961 12:00:00 -0500 <p>Francisco Mendoza-Martinez (Martinez) was an American by birth with dual Mexican citizenship. Martinez admitted that to avoid the draft, in 1942, he left the United States for Mexico and did not return until November, 1946. As a result of his deliberate absence, Martinez entered a guilty plea in 1947 to violating Section 11 of the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940 (the "Act") and served 366 days in prison. Five years after his release, Martinez was issued an arrest and deportation warrant premised on a violation of Section 401(j) of the Act which divested draft dodgers of their U.S. citizenship. Following a dismissal of his appeal from the Attorney General's special inquiry decision stripping him of his U.S. citizenship, Martinez challenged the constitutionality of Section 401(j) in District Court but was defeated. On appeal from the Ninth Circuit's opinion upholding the district court decision, the Supreme Court granted certiorari. This case was decided together with Rusk v. Cort.</p> <p>Did Section 401(j) of the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, divesting U.S. citizens of their citizenship for remaining outside the United States during a time of war or national emergency in order to avoid the draft, violate the procedural safeguard of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments?</p> 2_19611011-argument-2 http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1961/1961_2/argument-2/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Tue, 04 Dec 1962 12:00:00 -0500 <p>Francisco Mendoza-Martinez (Martinez) was an American by birth with dual Mexican citizenship. Martinez admitted that to avoid the draft, in 1942, he left the United States for Mexico and did not return until November, 1946. As a result of his deliberate absence, Martinez entered a guilty plea in 1947 to violating Section 11 of the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940 (the "Act") and served 366 days in prison. Five years after his release, Martinez was issued an arrest and deportation warrant premised on a violation of Section 401(j) of the Act which divested draft dodgers of their U.S. citizenship. Following a dismissal of his appeal from the Attorney General's special inquiry decision stripping him of his U.S. citizenship, Martinez challenged the constitutionality of Section 401(j) in District Court but was defeated. On appeal from the Ninth Circuit's opinion upholding the district court decision, the Supreme Court granted certiorari. This case was decided together with Rusk v. Cort.</p> <p>Did Section 401(j) of the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, divesting U.S. citizens of their citizenship for remaining outside the United States during a time of war or national emergency in order to avoid the draft, violate the procedural safeguard of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments?</p> 2_19621204-reargument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1961/1961_2/reargument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Wed, 08 Nov 1961 12:00:00 -0500 <p>The NAACP was prosecuted for violating a Virginia statute which banned "the improper solicitation of any legal or professional business."</p> <p>Did the law, as applied to the NAACP's activities, violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments?</p> 5_19611108-lq-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1961/1961_5/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Tue, 09 Oct 1962 12:00:00 -0500 <p>The NAACP was prosecuted for violating a Virginia statute which banned "the improper solicitation of any legal or professional business."</p> <p>Did the law, as applied to the NAACP's activities, violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments?</p> 5_19621009-lq-reargument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1961/1961_5/reargument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Tue, 17 Apr 1962 12:00:00 -0500 <p>A California statute made it a criminal offense for a person to "be addicted to the use of narcotics." Lawrence Robinson was convicted under the law, which required a sentence of at least ninety days in jail. A state appellate court affirmed Robinson's conviction on appeal.</p> <p>Was the California law an infliction of cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth Amendment?</p> 554_19620417-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1961/1961_554/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist