The Oyez Project: 1971 Term Decisions

Adams v. Illinois (No. 70-5038)

No details yet.

Adams v. Williams (No. 70-283)

No details yet.

Affiliated Ute Citizens v. United States (No. 70-78)

No details yet.

Aikens v. California (No. 68-5027)

No details yet.

Aikens v. California (none) (No. None)

No details yet.

Alexander v. Louisiana (No. 70-5026)

No details yet.

Andrews v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co. (No. 71-300)

No details yet.

Argersinger v. Hamlin (No. 70-5015)

Do the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee a right to counsel to defendants who are accused of committing misdemeanors?

In Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) the Court found that the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments required states to provide an attorney to indigent defendants in cases involving serious crimes. In this case, a unanimous Court extended that right to cover defendants charged with misdemeanors who faced the possibility of a jail sentence. Justice Douglas's plurality opinion described the intricacies involved in misdemeanor charges and the danger that unrepresented defendants may fall victim to "assembly-line justice." Thus, in order to guarantee fairness in trials involving potential jail time, no matter how petty the charge, the Court found that the state was obligated to provide the accused with counsel.

Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Erie Lackawanna R. Co. (No. 71-107)

No details yet.

Barker v. Wingo (No. 71-5255)

No details yet.

Bd. Of Regents v. New Left Education Project (No. 70-55)

No details yet.

Board of Regents v. Roth (No. 71-162)

Does the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment require that a state university provide a one-year contract employee a hearing and reasons when he is not retained after the termination of his contract?

In an opinion by Justice Potter Stewart, the court held 5-3 that Roth had no protected interest in continued employment, as he had completed his contracted term, and therefore was no Fourteenth Amendment protection.

Boyd v. Dutton (No. 70-5075)

No details yet.

Branzburg v. Hayes (No. 70-85)

Is the requirement that news reporters appear and testify before state or federal grand juries an abridgement of the freedoms of speech and press as guaranteed by the First Amendment?

No. The Court found that requiring reporters to disclose confidential information to grand juries served a "compelling" and "paramount" state interest and did not violate the First Amendment. Justice White argued that since the case involved no government intervention to impose prior restraint, and no command to publish sources or to disclose them indiscriminately, there was no Constitutional violation. The fact that reporters receive information from sources in confidence does not privilege them to withhold that information during a government investigation; the average citizen is often forced to disclose information received in confidence when summoned to testify in court.

Britt v. North Carolina (No. 70-5041)

No details yet.

Brooks v. Tennessee (No. 71-5313)

No details yet.

Brunette Machine Wks. v. Kockum Industries (No. 70-314)

No details yet.

Bullock v. Carter (No. 70-128)

No details yet.

California Transport v. Trucking Unlimited (No. 70-92)

No details yet.

Caplin v. Marine Midland Grace Trust Co. (No. 70-220)

No details yet.

Carleson v. Remillard (No. 70-250)

No details yet.

Carter v. Stanton (No. 70-5082)

No details yet.

Central Hardware Co. v. NLRB (No. 70-223)

No details yet.

Chemical Workers v. Pittsburgh Glass (No. 70-32)

No details yet.

Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson (No. 70-11)

No details yet.

Cole v. Richardson (No. 70-14)

No details yet.

Colten v. Kentucky (No. 71-404)

No details yet.

Combs v. United States (No. 71-517)

No details yet.

Commissioner v. First Security Bank Of Utah (No. 70-305)

No details yet.

D. H. Overmyer Co. v. Frick Co. (No. 69-5)

No details yet.

Deepsouth Packing Co. v. Laitram Corp. (No. 71-315)

No details yet.

Diffenderfer v. Central Baptist Church (No. 70-47)

No details yet.

Doe v. Bolton (No. 70-40)

No details yet.

Dukes v. Warden (No. 71-5172)

No details yet.

Duncan v. Tennessee (No. 70-5122)

No details yet.

Dunn v. Blumstein (No. 70-13)

Did Tennessee's durational residency requirements violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

In a 6-to-1 decision, the Court held that the law was an unconstitutional infringement upon the right to vote and the right to travel. Applying a strict equal protection test, the Court found that the law did not necessarily promote a compelling state interest. Justice Marshall argued in the majority opinion that the durational residency requirements were neither the least restrictive means available to prevent electoral fraud nor an appropriate method of guaranteeing the existence of "knowledgeable voters" within the state.

Eisenstadt v. Baird (No. 70-17)

Did the Massachusetts law violate the right to privacy acknowledged in Griswold v. Connecticut and protected from state instrusion by the Fourteenth Amendment?

In a 6-to-1 decision, the Court struck down the Massachusetts law but not on privacy grounds. The Court held that the law's distinction between single and married individuals failed to satisfy the "rational basis test" of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Married couples were entitled to contraception under the Court's Griswold decision. Withholding that right to single persons without a rational basis proved the fatal flaw. Thus, the Court did not have to rely on Griswold to invalidate the Massachusetts statute. "If the right of privacy means anything, wrote Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. for the majority, "it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion tino matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision to whether to bear or beget a child."

Evansville Airport v. Delta Airlines (No. 70-99)

No details yet.

Fein v. Selective Service System (No. 70-58)

No details yet.

First Nat. City Bk. v. Banco Nacional De Cuba (No. 70-295)

No details yet.

Flood v. Kuhn (No. 71-32)

No details yet.

Flower v. United States (No. 71-1180)

No details yet.

Ford Motor Co. v. United States (No. 70-113)

No details yet.

FPC v. Florida Power & Light Co. (No. 70-38)

No details yet.

FPC v. Louisiana Power & Light Co. (No. 71-1016)

No details yet.

Ftc v. Sperry & Hutchinson Co. (No. 70-70)

No details yet.

Fuentes v. Shevin (No. 70-5039)

No details yet.

Furman v. Georgia (No. 69-5003)

Does the imposition and carrying out of the death penalty in these cases constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments?

Yes. The Court's one-page per curiam opinion held that the imposition of the death penalty in these cases constituted cruel and unusual punishment and violated the Constitution. In over two hundred pages of concurrence and dissents, the justices articulated their views on this controversial subject. Only Justices Brennan and Marshall believed the death penalty to be unconstitutional in all instances. Other concurrences focused on the arbitrary nature with which death sentences have been imposed, often indicating a racial bias against black defendants. The Court's decision forced states and the national legislature to rethink their statutes for capital offenses to assure that the death penalty would not be administered in a capricious or discriminatory manner.

Gelbard v. United States (No. 71-110)

Can grand jury witnesses invoke the federal statute prohibiting illegal wiretapping as a defense to civil contempt charges based on their refusal to testify regarding information revealed by those illegal taps?

No, they cannot. In a 5-4 majority opinion written by Justice William Brennan, the Court held that the federal statute barring the use of evidence obtained through illegally intercepted communications also serves as a valid defense to civil contempt charges. Justice William O. Douglas concurred, expressing his belief that the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against illegal searches and seizures provided enough protection in and of itself to suppress the illegally obtained communications even without the federal wiretapping statute. In a separate concurrence, Justice Byron White suggested that courts should look for a way other than suppression hearings, which are time consuming and can interrupt the flow of grand jury hearings, to resolve such conflicts. Justice William Rehnquist, joined by Chief Justice Warren Burger and Justices Harry Blackmun and Lewis Powell, dissented. Rehnquist argued that the clear language of the statute in question, combined with its legislative history, prohibited its use as a defense to civil contempt charges arising from grand jury proceedings. To apply it in that situation would represented a "sharp break" with the "historical modus operandi of the grand jury."

Giglio v. United States (No. 70-29)

No details yet.

Gooding v. Wilson (No. 70-26)

No details yet.

Gravel v. United States (No. 71-1017)

Did the subpoena of Senator Gravel's aide violate the Speech and Debate Clause of Article I of the Constitution?

Yes. The Court held that because the work of aides was critical to the performance of legislative tasks and duties, they were nothing less than legislators' "alter egos" and thus immune from subpoenas by the Speech and Debate Clause. Aides were exempted from grand jury questioning so long as Senators invoked the privilege on their behalf. Moreover, the Court held that the protections of the Speech and Debate Clause did not extend beyond the legislative sphere, ruling that Senator Gravel's arrangements with the Beacon Press were not constitutionally protected.

Grayned v. City Of Rockford (No. 70-5106)

No details yet.

Groppi v. Leslie (No. 70-112)

No details yet.

Grubbs v. General Electric Credit Corp. (No. 71-257)

No details yet.

Haines v. Kerner (No. 70-5025)

No details yet.

Hawaii v. Standard Oil Co. (No. 70-49)

No details yet.

Healy v. James (No. 71-452)

No details yet.

Huffman v. Boersen (No. 71-5097)

No details yet.

Humphrey v. Cady (No. 70-5004)

No details yet.

Illinois v. City Of Milwaukee (No. 49 ORIG)

No details yet.

In re Pappas (No. 70-94)

Did the First Amendment's freedom of the press protect Pappas from appearing and testifying before the grand jury?

No. The Court found that requiring reporters to disclose confidential information to grand juries served a "compelling" and "paramount" state interest and did not violate the First Amendment. Justice White argued that since the cases involved no government intervention to impose prior restraint, and no command to publish sources or to disclose them indiscriminately, there was no constitutional violation. Because reporters receive information from sources in confidence does not privilege them to withhold that information during a government investigation; the average citizen is often forced to disclose information received in confidence when summoned to testify in court. Pappas must appear and give testimony.

Iowa Beef Packers, Inc. v. Thompson (No. 70-286)

No details yet.

Jackson v. Indiana (No. 70-5009)

No details yet.

James v. Strange (No. 71-11)

No details yet.

Jefferson v. Hackney (No. 70-5064)

No details yet.

Kastigar v. United States (No. 70-117)

Can the government, by granting immunity from the use of compelled testimony in future prosecutions, force a witness who invokes the Fifth Amendment to testify?

The Court found that compelled testimony is legitimate given the grant of immunity. Justice Powell found that the protections of immunity that a congressional statute provided were "coextensive with the scope of the privilege against self-incrimination" and "sufficient to compel testimony over a claim of the privilege."

Kirby v. Illinois (No. 70-5061)

No details yet.

Kleindienst v. Mandel (No. 71-16)

No details yet.

Laird v. Nelms (No. 71-573)

No details yet.

Laird v. Tatum (No. 71-288)

No details yet.

Lake Carriers' Assn. v. Macmullan (No. 71-422)

No details yet.

Lego v. Twomey (No. 70-5037)

No details yet.

Lindsey v. Normet (No. 70-5045)

No details yet.

Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner (No. 71-492)

No details yet.

Loper v. Beto (No. 70-5388)

No details yet.

Love v. Pullman Co. (No. 70-5033)

No details yet.

Lynch v. Household Finance Corp. (No. 70-5058)

No details yet.

Mancusi v. Stubbs (No. 71-237)

No details yet.

Mayer v. City Of Chicago (No. 70-5040)

No details yet.

Mcclanahan v. Morauer & Hartzell, Inc. (No. 70-5097)

No details yet.

Mcneil v. Director, Patuxent Institution (No. 71-5144)

No details yet.

Miller v. California (No. 70-73)

Is the sale and distribution of obscene materials by mail protected under the First Amendment's freedom of speech guarantee?

In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that obscene materials did not enjoy First Amendment protection. The Court modified the test for obscenity established in Roth v. United States and Memoirs v. Massachusetts, holding that "[t]he basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be: (a) whether 'the average person, applying contemporary community standards' would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest. . . (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." The Court rejected the "utterly without redeeming social value" test of the Memoirs decision.

Milton v. Wainwright (No. 70-5012)

No details yet.

Mitchum v. Foster (No. 70-27)

No details yet.

Moore v. Illinois (No. 69-5001)

No details yet.

Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Irvis (No. 70-75)

Did the discriminatory practices violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

No. In a 6-to-3 decision, the Court held that the Moose Lodge's refusal to serve food and beverages to Irvis because he was black did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court noted that the state action doctrine did not necessarily apply to all private entities that received benefits or services from the government; otherwise, the Court reasoned, all private associations that received electricity, water, and fire protection would be subject to state regulation. The Court found that the Moose Lodge "a private social club in a private building," and thus not subject to the Equal Protection Clause.

Morrissey v. Brewer (No. 71-5103)

No details yet.

Murel v. Baltimore City Criminal Court (No. 70-5276)

No details yet.

Nebraska v. Iowa (No. 17 ORIG)

No details yet.

NLRB v. Burns Security Services (No. 71-123)

No details yet.

NLRB v. Nash-Finch Co. (No. 70-93)

No details yet.

NLRB v. Plasterers' Union (No. 70-63)

No details yet.

NLRB v. Scrivener (No. 70-267)

No details yet.

Norfolk & Western R. Co. v. Nemitz (No. 70-97)

No details yet.

North Carolina v. Rice (No. 70-77)

No details yet.

Operating Engineers v. Flair Builders, Inc. (No. 71-41)

No details yet.

Papachristou v. City Of Jacksonville (No. 70-5030)

No details yet.

Parisi v. Davidson (No. 70-91)

No details yet.

Pennsylvania v. New York (No. 40 ORIG)

No details yet.

Perry v. Sindermann (No. 70-36)

No details yet.

Peters v. Kiff (No. 71-5078)

No details yet.

Picard v. Connor (No. 70-96)

No details yet.

Pipefitters v. United States (No. 70-74)

No details yet.

Police Dept. of Chicago v. Mosley (No. 70-87)

Does the Chicago ordinance violate the freedom of speech Clause of the First Amendment?

The exemption for labor picketing violated the equal protection clause. Government regulation of message content is presumed unconstitutional unless there are compelling justifications. And regulations that selectively exclude speakers from a public forum must undergo careful judicial examination to ensure the minimal degree of furthering an important government interest. Mosley fashions an important principle from the values of freedom and equality: equal freedom of expression.

Port Of Portland v. United States (No. 70-31)

No details yet.

Rabe v. Washington (No. 71-247)

No details yet.

Reed v. Reed (No. 70-4)

Did the Idaho Probate Code violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

In a unanimous decision, the Court held that the law's dissimilar treatment of men and women was unconstitutional. The Court argued that "[t]o give a mandatory preference to members of either sex over members of the other, merely to accomplish the elimination of hearings on the merits, is to make the very kind of arbitrary legislative choice forbidden by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. . .[T]he choice in this context may not lawfully be mandated solely on the basis of sex."

Reliance Electric Co. v. Emerson Electric Co. (No. 70-79)

No details yet.

Richardson v. Belcher (No. 70-53)

No details yet.

Richardson v. Wright (No. 70-161)

No details yet.

Roe v. Wade (No. 70-18)

Does the Constitution embrace a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy by abortion?

The Court held that a woman's right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy (recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut) protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision gave a woman total autonomy over the pregnancy during the first trimester and defined different levels of state interest for the second and third trimesters. As a result, the laws of 46 states were affected by the Court's ruling.

Roudebush v. Hartke (No. 70-66)

No details yet.

S & E Contractors, Inc. v. United States (No. 70-88)

No details yet.

Santobello v. New York (No. 70-98)

No details yet.

Sarno v. Illinois Crime Comm'n (No. 70-7)

No details yet.

Schilb v. Kuebel (No. 70-90)

No details yet.

Schneble v. Florida (No. 68-5009)

No details yet.

Schneble v. Florida (none) (No. None)

No details yet.

SEC v. Medical Committee For Human Rights (No. 70-61)

No details yet.

Shadwick v. City Of Tampa (No. 71-5445)

No details yet.

Sierra Club v. Morton (No. 70-34)

No details yet.

Smith v. Florida (No. 70-5055)

No details yet.

Socialist Labor Party v. Gilligan (No. 70-21)

No details yet.

Stanley v. Illinois (No. 70-5014)

No details yet.

Strait v. Laird (No. 71-83)

No details yet.

Supt. Of Insurance v. Bankers Life & Cas. Co. (No. 70-60)

No details yet.

Swarb v. Lennox (No. 70-6)

No details yet.

The Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co. (No. 71-322)

No details yet.

Townsend v. Swank (No. 70-5021)

No details yet.

Trbovich v. Mine Workers (No. 71-119)

No details yet.

United States v. 12 200-Ft. Reels Of Film (No. 70-2)

No details yet.

United States v. Allegheny-Ludlum Steel (No. 71-227)

No details yet.

United States v. Bass (No. 70-71)

No details yet.

United States v. Biswell (No. 71-81)

No details yet.

United States v. Brewster (No. 70-45)

No details yet.

United States v. Byrum (No. 71-308)

No details yet.

United States v. Campos-Serrano (No. 70-46)

No details yet.

United States v. Chas. Pfizer & Co., Inc. (No. 70-72)

No details yet.

United States v. Generes (No. 70-28)

No details yet.

United States v. Louisiana (No. 9 ORIG)

No details yet.

United States v. Marion (No. 70-19)

No details yet.

United States v. Midwest Video Corp. (No. 71-506)

No details yet.

United States v. Mississippi Chemical Corp. (No. 70-52)

No details yet.

United States v. Orito (No. 70-69)

No details yet.

United States v. Scotland Neck Bd. Of Educ. (No. 70-130)

No details yet.

United States v. Topco Associates (No. 70-82)

No details yet.

United States v. Tucker (No. 70-86)

No details yet.

United States v. U.S. District Court (No. 70-153)

Did the wiretapping violate the Fourth Amendment?

The Court held government officials were obligated to obtain a warrant before beginning electronic surveillance even if domestic security issues were involved. The "inherent vagueness of the domestic security concept" and the potential for abusing it to quell political dissent made the Fourth Amendment protections especially important when the government engaged in spying on its own citizens.

Vermont v. New York (No. 50 ORIG)

No details yet.

Victory Carriers, Inc. v. Law (No. 70-54)

No details yet.

Washington v. General Motors Corp. (No. 45 ORIG)

No details yet.

Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. (No. 70-5112)

No details yet.

Willis v. Prudential Insurance Company Of America (No. 70-5344)

No details yet.

Wilwording v. Swenson (No. 70-5308)

No details yet.

Wisconsin v. Yoder (No. 70-110)

Did Wisconsin's requirement that all parents send their children to school at least until age 16 violate the First Amendment by criminalizing the conduct of parents who refused to send their children to school for religious reasons?

In a unamimous decision, the Court held that individual's interests in the free exercise of religion under the First Amendment outweighed the State's interests in compelling school attendance beyond the eighth grade. In the majority opinion by Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, the Court found that the values and programs of secondary school were "in sharp conflict with the fundamental mode of life mandated by the Amish religion," and that an additional one or two years of high school would not produce the benefits of public education cited by Wisconsin to justify the law.Justice William O. Douglas filed a partial dissent but joined with the majority regarding Yoder.

Wright v. Council Of City Of Emporia (No. 70-188)

No details yet.

Younger v. Gilmore (No. 70-9)

No details yet.

Zicarelli v. New Jersey Investigation Comm'n (No. 69-4)

No details yet.