The Oyez Project: 1970 Term Decisions

Abate v. Mundt (No. 71)

No details yet.

Apodaca v. Oregon (No. 69-5046)

Is a defendant's right to a trial by jury in a criminal case in a state court (as protected by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments) violated if the accused is convicted by a less-than-unanimous jury?

No. In a close decision the Court found that the accused's right to a jury trial does not require that juries return unanimous decisions in order to convict. After reviewing the history and function of juries in American society, the Court held that the most important function of the jury is to provide "commonsense judgment" in evaluating the respective arguments of accused and accuser. Requiring unanimity would not necessarily contribute to this function. A distinction was drawn, however, between capital and non-capital crimes.

Askew v. Hargrave (No. 573)

No details yet.

Astrup v. Immigration Service (No. 840)

No details yet.

Atlantic City Electric Co. v. United States (No. 78)

No details yet.

Bell v. Burson (No. 5586)

No details yet.

Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents (No. 301)

No details yet.

Blonder-Tongue v. University Foundation (No. 338)

No details yet.

Blount v. Rizzi (No. 55)

No details yet.

Board Of Education v. Swann (No. 498)

No details yet.

Boilermakers v. Hardeman (No. 123)

No details yet.

Bostic v. United States (No. 5250)

No details yet.

Bruno v. Pennsylvania (No. 205)

No details yet.

California Human Resources Dept. v. Java (No. 507)

No details yet.

California v. Byers (No. 75)

No details yet.

Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. Transportation Union (No. 189)

No details yet.

Citizens To Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe (No. 1066)

No details yet.

Clay v. United States (No. 783)

Was Cassius Clay's induction notice invalid because it was grounded upon an erroneous denial of his claim to be classified as a conscientious objector?

Yes. In a per curiam opinion, the Court held that since the Appeal Board gave no reason for the denial of a conscientious objector exemption to Clay, and that it was impossible to determine on which of the three grounds offered in the Justice Department's letter that board relied, Clay's conviction must be reversed. The Court reasoned that Clay satisfied the first two tests of conscientious objection. Regarding the third test, the Court concluded that whether or not Clay met the test of conscientious objection to war in any form, it was not clear that the Appeal Board relied on some legitimate ground in denying the claim, and therefore the conviction could not stand. In separate opinions, Justices William O. Douglas and John M. Harlan concurred. Justice Thurgood Marshall did not participate.

Coates v. City Of Cincinnati (No. 117)

No details yet.

Cohen v. California (No. 299)

Did California's statute, prohibiting the display of offensive messages such as "Fuck the Draft," violate freedom of expression as protected by the First Amendment?

Yes. In an opinion by Justice John Marshall Harlan, the Court reasoned that the expletive, while provocative, was not directed toward anyone; besides, there was no evidence that people in substantial numbers would be provoked into some kind of physical action by the words on his jacket. Harlan recognized that "one man's vulgarity is another's lyric." In doing so, the Court protected two elements of speech: the emotive (the expression of emotion) and the cognitive (the expression of ideas).

Commissioner v. Lincoln Savings & Loan Assn. (No. 544)

No details yet.

Connell v. Higginbotham (No. 79)

No details yet.

Coolidge v. New Hampshire (No. 323)

Did the searches of Coolidge's home and automobile violate the Fourth Amendment?

In a decision in which a number of justices chose to concur in part and dissent in part, the Court held that the searches and seizures of Coolidge's property were unconstitutional. Justice Stewart's opinion held that the warrant authorizing the seizure of Coolidge's automobile was invalid because it was not issued by a "neutral and detatched magistrate." Stewart also rejected New Hampshire's arguments in favor of making an exception to the warrant requirement. Stewart held that neither the "incident to arrest" doctrine nor the "plain view" doctrine justified the search, and that an "automobile exception" was inapplicable.

Davis v. School Comm'rs Of Mobile County (No. 436)

No details yet.

Decker v. Harper & Row Publishers (No. 113)

No details yet.

Dewey v. Reynolds Metals Co. (No. 835)

No details yet.

Donaldson v. United States (No. 65)

No details yet.

Ehlert v. United States. (No. 120)

No details yet.

Ely v. Klahr (No. 548)

No details yet.

Gainesville Utilities v. Florida Power Corp. (No. 464)

No details yet.

Gillette v. United States (No. 85)

No details yet.

Gordon v. Lance (No. 96)

No details yet.

Graham v. Richardson (No. 609)

No details yet.

Griffin v. Breckenridge (No. 144)

No details yet.

Griggs v. Duke Power Company (No. 124)

Did Duke Power Company's intradepartmental transfer policy, requiring a high school education and the achievement of minimum scores on two separate aptitude tests, violate Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act?

Yes. After noting that Title VII of the Act intended to achieve equality of employment opportunities, the Court held that Duke's standardized testing requirement prevented a disproportionate number of African-American employees from being hired by, and advancing to higher-paying departments within, the company. Neither the high school graduation requirement nor the two aptitude tests was directed or intended to measure an employee's ability to learn or perform a particular job or category of jobs within the company. The Court concluded that the subtle, illegal, purpose of these requirements was to safeguard Duke's long-standing policy of giving job preferences to its white employees.

Groppi v. Wisconsin (No. 26)

No details yet.

Grove Press, v. Maryland State Board Of Censors (No. 63)

No details yet.

Harris v. New York (No. 206)

Did the use of Harris' post-arrest statement violate his Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights guaranteed by the Miranda decision?

No. In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that the Miranda decision did not mandate that evidence inadmissible against an accused in the prosecution's case must be barred for all purposes from the trial. The Court reasoned that the shield provided by Miranda could not be "perverted into a license to use perjury by way of a defense, free from the risk of confrontation with prior inconsistent utterances." The Court found that the speculative possibility that police misconduct could be encouraged was outweighed by the value of admitting the statement into the impeachment process.

Hickel v. Oil Shale Corp. (No. 25)

No details yet.

Hodgson v. Steelworkers (No. 655)

No details yet.

Hunter v. Tennessee (No. 5085)

No details yet.

Investment Co. Institute v. Camp (No. 61)

No details yet.

James v. Valtierra (No. 154)

No details yet.

Jenness v. Fortson (No. 5714)

No details yet.

Johnson v. Louisiana (No. 69-5035)

Do less-than-unanimous jury verdicts in certain cases violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment?

The Court held that less-than-unanimous convictions did not violate the reasonable doubt standard embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. Justice White argued that a minority opposing conviction does not prevent the other jurors from reaching their decisions beyond a reasonable doubt. Furthermore, the presence of dissenting jurors does not indicate that the state failed to uphold this standard. Finally, allowing less-than-unanimous decisions in certain cases serves a rational state purpose, not offensive to the Constitution.

Johnson v. Mississippi (No. 5485)

No details yet.

Johnson v. United States (No. 5247)

No details yet.

Labine v. Vincent (No. 5257)

No details yet.

Law Students Research Council v. Wadmond (No. 49)

No details yet.

Lemon v. Kurtzman (No. 89)

Did the Rhode Island and Pennsylvania statutes violate the First Amendment's Establishment Clause by making state financial aid available to "church-related educational institutions"?

Yes. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Burger articulated a three-part test for laws dealing with religious establishment. To be constitutional, a statute must have "a secular legislative purpose," it must have principal effects which neither advance nor inhibit religion, and it must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion." The Court found that the subsidization of parochial schools furthered a process of religious inculcation, and that the "continuing state surveillance" necessary to enforce the specific provisions of the laws would inevitably entangle the state in religious affairs. The Court also noted the presence of an unhealthy "divisive political potential" concerning legislation which appropriates support to religious schools.

Mackey v. United States (No. 36)

No details yet.

Magnesium Casting Co. v. NLRB (No. 370)

No details yet.

Marine Terminal v. Rederi. Transatlantic (No. 99)

No details yet.

Mayberry v. Pennsylvania (No. 121)

No details yet.

Mcdaniel v. Barresi (No. 420)

No details yet.

Mcgautha v. California (No. 203)

No details yet.

Mcgee v. United States (No. 362)

No details yet.

Mckeiver v. Pennsylvania (No. 322)

No details yet.

Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy (No. 62)

No details yet.

Moore v. Board Of Education (No. 444)

No details yet.

Motor Coach Employees v. Lockridge (No. 76)

No details yet.

Nelson v. O'neil (No. 336)

No details yet.

New York Times v. United States (No. 1873)

Did the Nixon administration's efforts to prevent the publication of what it termed "classified information" violate the First Amendment?

Yes. In its per curiam opinion the Court held that the government did not overcome the "heavy presumption against" prior restraint of the press in this case. Justices Black and Douglas argued that the vague word "security" should not be used "to abrogate the fundamental law embodied in the First Amendment." Justice Brennan reasoned that since publication would not cause an inevitable, direct, and immediate event imperiling the safety of American forces, prior restraint was unjustified.

NLRB v. Natural Gas Utility District (No. 785)

No details yet.

NLRB v. Operating Engineers (No. 40)

No details yet.

Ocala Star-Banner Co. v. Damron (No. 118)

No details yet.

Ohio v. Wyandotte Chemicals Corp. (No. 41 ORIG)

No details yet.

Oregon v. Mitchell (No. 43 ORIG)

No details yet.

Organization For A Better Austin v. Keefe (No. 135)

No details yet.

Palmer v. City Of Euclid (No. 143)

No details yet.

Palmer v. Thompson (No. 107)

No details yet.

Perez v. Campbell (No. 5175)

No details yet.

Perez v. Ledesma (No. 60)

No details yet.

Perez v. United States (No. 600)

No details yet.

Perkins v. Matthews (No. 46)

No details yet.

Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp. (No. 73)

No details yet.

Piccirillo v. New York (No. 97)

No details yet.

Procunier v. Atchley (No. 44)

No details yet.

Radich v. New York (No. 169)

No details yet.

Ramsey v. Mine Workers (No. 88)

No details yet.

Relford v. U.S. Disciplinary Commandant (No. 98)

No details yet.

Rewis v. United States (No. 5342)

No details yet.

Richardson v. Perales (No. 108)

No details yet.

Rosenberg v. Yee Chien Woo (No. 156)

No details yet.

Rosenbloom v. Metromedia (No. 66)

No details yet.

Schlanger v. Seamans (No. 5481)

No details yet.

Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Ed. (No. 281)

Were federal courts constitutionally authorized to oversee and produce remedies for state-imposed segregation?

In a unanimous decision, the Court held that once violations of previous mandates directed at desegregating schools had occurred, the scope of district courts' equitable powers to remedy past wrongs were broad and flexible. The Court ruled that 1) remedial plans were to be judged by their effectiveness, and the use of mathematical ratios or quotas were legitimate "starting points" for solutions; 2) predominantly or exclusively black schools required close scrutiny by courts; 3) non-contiguous attendance zones, as interim corrective measures, were within the courts' remedial powers; and 4) no rigid guidelines could be established concerning busing of students to particular schools.

Tate v. Short (No. 324)

No details yet.

Tilton v. Richardson (No. 153)

Did the Act violate the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment?

In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that only the 20-year limitation portion of the Act violated the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment. The Court invalidated the 20-year clause, arguing that subsidizing the construction of facilities used for non-secular purposes would have the effect of advancing religion. The Court held that the church-related institutions in question had not used their federally-funded facilities for religious activities, and that the facilities were "indistinguishable from a typical state university facility." The Court also held that the Act did not excessively entangle the government with religion, noting that college students were less susceptible to religious indoctrination, that the aid was of "nonideological character," and that one-time grants did not require constant state surveillance.

Time, Inc. v. Pape (No. 109)

No details yet.

Triangle Improvement Council v. Ritchie (No. 712)

No details yet.

U.S. Bulk Carriers v. Arguelles (No. 29)

No details yet.

U.S. v. District Court For Eagle County (No. 87)

No details yet.

U.S. v. District Court For Water Di v. No. 5 (No. 812)

No details yet.

United States v. Armour & Co. (No. 759)

No details yet.

United States v. Freed (No. 345)

No details yet.

United States v. Greater Buffalo Press (No. 821)

No details yet.

United States v. Harris (No. 30)

No details yet.

United States v. International Min'ls Corp. (No. 557)

No details yet.

United States v. Mitchell (No. 798)

No details yet.

United States v. Randall (No. 125)

No details yet.

United States v. Reidel (No. 534)

No details yet.

United States v. Ryan (No. 758)

No details yet.

United States v. Southern Ute Indians (No. 515)

No details yet.

United States v. Thirty-Seven Photographs (No. 133)

No details yet.

United States v. Vuitch (No. 84)

No details yet.

United States v. Weller (No. 77)

No details yet.

United Transportation Union v. Michigan Bar (No. 434)

No details yet.

Usner v. Luckenbach Overseas Corp. (No. 47)

No details yet.

Utah v. United States (No. 31 ORIG)

No details yet.

Whitcomb v. Chavis (No. 92)

No details yet.

Whiteley v. Warden (No. 136)

No details yet.

Williams v. United States (No. 81)

No details yet.

Wisconsin v. Constantineau (No. 95)

No details yet.

Wyman v. James (No. 69)

No details yet.

Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research (No. 80)

No details yet.