http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1978/ 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, 27 Feb 1979 12:00:00 -0500 <p>Local police in Little Rock, Arkansas received a tip that an individual would be arriving at the airport with a suitcase containing a significant quantity of marijuana. Upon arriving, the suspect retrieved his suitcase and left in a taxi. The police officers pursued and stopped the taxi, and ordered the driver to open the trunk which revealed the suitcase in question. The police opened the suitcase without obtaining permission from its owner and found nearly ten pounds of marijuana.</p> <p>Local police in Little Rock, Arkansas received a tip that an individual would be arriving at the airport with a suitcase containing a significant quantity of marijuana. Upon arriving, the suspect retrieved his suitcase and left in a taxi. The police officers pursued and stopped the taxi, and ordered the driver to open the trunk which revealed the suitcase in question. The police opened the suitcase without obtaining permission from its owner and found nearly ten pounds of marijuana.</p><br/><br/><p>Did the warrantless search of the suitcase by the police violate the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments which prohibit unreasonable searches?</p> 77-1497_19790227-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1978/1978_77_1497/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Tue, 16 Jan 1979 12:00:00 -0500 <p>A class action lawsuit challenged the legality of conditions facing pretrial detainees in a New York City correctional facility. Petitioners claimed that double-bunking, restrictions on reading materials that inmates were allowed to receive, and required cavity searches and shakedowns amounted to punishment before conviction.</p> <p>A class action lawsuit challenged the legality of conditions facing pretrial detainees in a New York City correctional facility. Petitioners claimed that double-bunking, restrictions on reading materials that inmates were allowed to receive, and required cavity searches and shakedowns amounted to punishment before conviction.</p><br/><br/><p>Do certain conditions of confinement violate the individual liberty, due process, and privacy of pretrial detainees as protected by the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments through the Fourteenth Amendment?</p> 77-1829_19790116-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1978/1978_77_1829/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Tue, 27 Feb 1979 12:00:00 -0500 <p>A Massachusetts law required minors to gain parental consent before having an abortion. However, if either or both of the parents refused, a judge of the superior court could allow a minor to have the procedure "for good cause shown."</p> <p>A Massachusetts law required minors to gain parental consent before having an abortion. However, if either or both of the parents refused, a judge of the superior court could allow a minor to have the procedure "for good cause shown."</p><br/><br/><p>Did the law unconstitutionally restrict the right of a minor to have an abortion?</p> 78-329_19790227-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1978/1978_78_329/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Thu, 22 Feb 1979 12:00:00 -0500 <p>Burch was found guilty by a nonunanimous six-member jury of showing obscene films. The court imposed a suspended prison sentence of two consecutive seven-month terms and fined him $1,000.</p> <p>Burch was found guilty by a nonunanimous six-member jury of showing obscene films. The court imposed a suspended prison sentence of two consecutive seven-month terms and fined him $1,000.</p><br/><br/><p>Does a conviction by a nonunanimous six-member jury in a state criminal trial for a nonpetty offense violate the accused's right to a trial by jury as protected by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments?</p> 78-90_19790222-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1978/1978_78_90/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Tue, 27 Feb 1979 12:00:00 -0500 <p>Davis, a former employee of Louisiana Congressman Otto Passman, charged Passman with violating her Fifth Amendment right to due process. Prior to the time of her firing Passman wrote a note explaining that, even though he knew Davis as an "able, energetic, and a hard, hard worker", he preferred a man to work in her position. The Court of Appeals ruled that Davis had no civil remedies under the Fifth Amendment due process requirement.</p> <p>Davis, a former employee of Louisiana Congressman Otto Passman, charged Passman with violating her Fifth Amendment right to due process. Prior to the time of her firing Passman wrote a note explaining that, even though he knew Davis as an "able, energetic, and a hard, hard worker", he preferred a man to work in her position. The Court of Appeals ruled that Davis had no civil remedies under the Fifth Amendment due process requirement.</p><br/><br/><p>Did the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause afford Davis a right to a civil remedy against Passman?</p> 78-5072_19790227-lq-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1978/1978_78_5072/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Wed, 17 Jan 1979 12:00:00 -0500 <p>A Delaware patrolman stopped William Prouse's car to make a routine check of his driver's license and vehicle registration. The officer had not observed any traffic violation or suspicious conduct on the part of Prouse. After stopping the car, the officer uncovered marijuana. The marijuana was later used to indict Prouse.</p> <p>A Delaware patrolman stopped William Prouse's car to make a routine check of his driver's license and vehicle registration. The officer had not observed any traffic violation or suspicious conduct on the part of Prouse. After stopping the car, the officer uncovered marijuana. The marijuana was later used to indict Prouse.</p><br/><br/><p>Did the officer's search of Prouse's automobile constitute an unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment?</p> 77-1571_19790117-lq-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1978/1978_77_1571/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Tue, 07 Nov 1978 12:00:00 -0500 <p>Two suspects charged with murder, robbery, and grand larceny requested that the public be excluded from a pre-trial hearing concerning the admissibility of evidence. They argued that an "unabated buildup" of adverse publicity had jeopardized their ability to receive a fair trial. The request was granted by the judge, and no objections were made at the time. The judge then denied press access to the pre-trial hearing and refused to immediately release the transcript of the proceedings. The case was argued and decided with Marshall, Secretary of Labor v. American Petroleum Institute et al.</p> <p>Two suspects charged with murder, robbery, and grand larceny requested that the public be excluded from a pre-trial hearing concerning the admissibility of evidence. They argued that an "unabated buildup" of adverse publicity had jeopardized their ability to receive a fair trial. The request was granted by the judge, and no objections were made at the time. The judge then denied press access to the pre-trial hearing and refused to immediately release the transcript of the proceedings. The case was argued and decided with Marshall, Secretary of Labor v. American Petroleum Institute et al.</p><br/><br/><p>Did the press and members of the public have a constitutional right under the Sixth Amendment to attend the trial?</p> 77-1301_19781107-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1978/1978_77_1301/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Tue, 31 Oct 1978 12:00:00 -0500 <p>Anthony Herbert was a retired Army officer who served in Vietnam. While in Vietnam, he accused superior officers of covering up atrocities that American troops had committed. The Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS) produced and broadcast a documentary of the petitioner's story. Herbert sued for libel arguing that the program falsely and maliciously portrayed his character, causing him financial loss. In order to prove libel under the "actual malice" standard, Herbert's attorneys deposed Lando as well as the producer and the editor of the documentary, attempting to deduce the editorial decisions that were made during the production of the program.</p> <p>Anthony Herbert was a retired Army officer who served in Vietnam. While in Vietnam, he accused superior officers of covering up atrocities that American troops had committed. The Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS) produced and broadcast a documentary of the petitioner's story. Herbert sued for libel arguing that the program falsely and maliciously portrayed his character, causing him financial loss. In order to prove libel under the "actual malice" standard, Herbert's attorneys deposed Lando as well as the producer and the editor of the documentary, attempting to deduce the editorial decisions that were made during the production of the program.</p><br/><br/><p>In an accusation of libel, do the First and Fourteenth Amendments protect members of the press from inquiries into their thoughts, opinions, and conclusions that go into the editorial process?</p> 77-1105_19781031-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1978/1978_77_1105/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Tue, 17 Apr 1979 12:00:00 -0500 <p>In early 1975, Senator William Proxmire implemented what he called the "Golden Fleece Award of the Month." The award was given out to governmental agencies which sponsored programs and research that Proxmire found to be a waste of tax dollars. One Golden Fleece went to federal agencies sponsoring the research of Ronald Hutchinson, a behavioral scientist. Proxmire detailed the "nonsense" of Hutchinson's research on the floor of the Senate, in conferences with his staff, and in a newsletter sent to over 100,000 of his constituents. Hutchinson sued for libel, arguing that Proxmire's statements defamed his character and caused him to endure financial loss.</p> <p>In early 1975, Senator William Proxmire implemented what he called the "Golden Fleece Award of the Month." The award was given out to governmental agencies which sponsored programs and research that Proxmire found to be a waste of tax dollars. One Golden Fleece went to federal agencies sponsoring the research of Ronald Hutchinson, a behavioral scientist. Proxmire detailed the "nonsense" of Hutchinson's research on the floor of the Senate, in conferences with his staff, and in a newsletter sent to over 100,000 of his constituents. Hutchinson sued for libel, arguing that Proxmire's statements defamed his character and caused him to endure financial loss.</p><br/><br/><p>Were Proxmire's activities and statements against Hutchinson's research protected by the Speech and Debate Clause of Article I, Section 6 of the Constitution?</p> 78-680_19790417-lq-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1978/1978_78_680/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Mon, 19 Mar 1979 12:00:00 -0500 <p>Wiley L. Bolden and other residents of Mobile, Alabama brought a class action on behalf of all black citizens in Mobile. They argued that the practice of electing the City Commissioners at-large unfairly diluted the voting strength of black citizens. A district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled in favor of Bolden.</p> <p>Wiley L. Bolden and other residents of Mobile, Alabama brought a class action on behalf of all black citizens in Mobile. They argued that the practice of electing the City Commissioners at-large unfairly diluted the voting strength of black citizens. A district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled in favor of Bolden.</p><br/><br/><p>Did the at-large system violate the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments?</p> 77-1844_19790319-lq-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1978/1978_77_1844/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Mon, 29 Oct 1979 12:00:00 -0500 <p>Wiley L. Bolden and other residents of Mobile, Alabama brought a class action on behalf of all black citizens in Mobile. They argued that the practice of electing the City Commissioners at-large unfairly diluted the voting strength of black citizens. A district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled in favor of Bolden.</p> <p>Wiley L. Bolden and other residents of Mobile, Alabama brought a class action on behalf of all black citizens in Mobile. They argued that the practice of electing the City Commissioners at-large unfairly diluted the voting strength of black citizens. A district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled in favor of Bolden.</p><br/><br/><p>Did the at-large system violate the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments?</p> 77-1844_19791029-lq-reargument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1978/1978_77_1844/reargument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Mon, 26 Feb 1979 12:00:00 -0500 <p>A Massachusetts law gave hiring preference to honorably discharged veterans applying for state civil service positions. Feeney, a woman who scored high on certain competitive civil service examinations, was ranked below male veterans who had lower scores.</p> <p>A Massachusetts law gave hiring preference to honorably discharged veterans applying for state civil service positions. Feeney, a woman who scored high on certain competitive civil service examinations, was ranked below male veterans who had lower scores.</p><br/><br/><p>Did the law discriminate against women and violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?</p> 78-233_19790226-lq-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1978/1978_78_233/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Mon, 04 Dec 1978 12:00:00 -0500 <p>Scott was convicted in a bench trial of shoplifting and fined $50. The statute applicable to his case set the maximum penalty at a $500 fine and/or one year in jail.</p> <p>Scott was convicted in a bench trial of shoplifting and fined $50. The statute applicable to his case set the maximum penalty at a $500 fine and/or one year in jail.</p><br/><br/><p>Did the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments require Illinois to provide Scott with trial counsel?</p> 77-1177_19781204-lq-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1978/1978_77_1177/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Tue, 20 Mar 1979 12:00:00 -0500 <p>A West Virginia statute made it a crime for a newspaper to publish, without approval of juvenile court, the name of any youth charged as a juvenile offender.</p> <p>A West Virginia statute made it a crime for a newspaper to publish, without approval of juvenile court, the name of any youth charged as a juvenile offender.</p><br/><br/><p>Did the law violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments?</p> 78-482_19790320-lq-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1978/1978_78_482/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Wed, 28 Mar 1979 12:00:00 -0500 <p>The United Steelworkers of America and the Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation implemented an affirmative action-based training program to increase the number of the company's black skilled craft workers. Half of the eligible positions in the training program were reserved for blacks. Weber, who was white, was passed over for the program. Weber claimed that he was the victim of reverse discrimination. These cases (United Steelworkers v. Weber and Kaiser Aluminum v. Weber) were also decided together with United States v. Weber.</p> <p>The United Steelworkers of America and the Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation implemented an affirmative action-based training program to increase the number of the company's black skilled craft workers. Half of the eligible positions in the training program were reserved for blacks. Weber, who was white, was passed over for the program. Weber claimed that he was the victim of reverse discrimination. These cases (United Steelworkers v. Weber and Kaiser Aluminum v. Weber) were also decided together with United States v. Weber.</p><br/><br/><p>Did United and Kaiser Aluminum's training scheme violate Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race?</p> 78-432_19790328-lq-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1978/1978_78_432/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist