The Oyez Project: Rehnquist on iTunes U Arguments

Adarand Constructors v. Pena (Oral Argument), Part 1 of 3

Tue, 17 Jan 1995 12:00:00 -0500

Adarand, a contractor specializing in highway guardrail work, submitted the lowest bid as a subcontractor for part of a project funded by the United States Department of Transportation. Under the terms of the federal contract, the prime contractor would receive additional compensation if it hired small businesses controlled by "socially and economically disadvantaged individuals." [The clause declared that "the contractor shall presume that socially and economically disadvantaged individuals include Black Americans, Hispanic Americans, Native Americans, Asian Pacific Americans, and other minorities...." Federal law requires such a subcontracting clause in most federal agency contracts]. Another subcontractor, Gonzales Construction Company, was awarded the work. It was certified as a minority business; Adarand was not. The prime contractor would have accepted Adarand's bid had it not been for the additional payment for hiring Gonzales.

Adarand Constructors v. Pena (Oral Argument), Part 2 of 3

Tue, 17 Jan 1995 12:00:00 -0500

Oral Argument, continued.

Adarand Constructors v. Pena (Oral Argument), Part 3 of 3

Tue, 17 Jan 1995 12:00:00 -0500

Oral Argument, continued.

Agostini v. Felton (Oral Argument), Part 1 of 4

Tue, 15 Apr 1997 12:00:00 -0500

This suit was brought by a New York parochial school board, and some of its student's parents, as a challenge to a District Court ruling upholding the twelve-year-old decision set out in Aguilar v. Felton (473 US 402). The decision in Aguilar prohibited public school teachers from teaching in parochial schools as a violation of the Establishment Clause. On appeal from the Second Circuit's affirmance of a District Court's denial of the parent's challenge, the Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Agostini v. Felton (Oral Argument), Part 2 of 4

Tue, 15 Apr 1997 12:00:00 -0500

Oral Argument, continued.

Agostini v. Felton (Oral Argument), Part 3 of 4

Tue, 15 Apr 1997 12:00:00 -0500

Oral Argument, continued.

Agostini v. Felton (Oral Argument), Part 4 of 4

Tue, 15 Apr 1997 12:00:00 -0500

Oral Argument, continued.

Airport Commissioners v. Jews for Jesus (Oral Argument), Part 1 of 3

Tue, 03 Mar 1987 12:00:00 -0500

The Board of Airport Commissioners of Los Angeles adopted an ordinance which prohibited all "First Amendment activities" in the Los Angeles International Airport (LAX). Alan Snyder, a minister with Jews for Jesus, was instructed by an airport officer to refrain from distributing free religious literature on a walkway in the central terminal of LAX.

Airport Commissioners v. Jews for Jesus (Oral Argument), Part 2 of 3

Tue, 03 Mar 1987 12:00:00 -0500

Oral Argument, continued.

Airport Commissioners v. Jews for Jesus (Oral Argument), Part 3 of 3

Tue, 03 Mar 1987 12:00:00 -0500

Oral Argument, continued.

Alden v. Maine (Oral Argument), Part 1 of 4

Wed, 31 Mar 1999 12:00:00 -0500

A group of probation officers sued their employer, the State of Maine, in 1992 alleging that the state had violated the overtime provisions of the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act. Following the Court's decision in Seminole Tribe v. Florida (1996)_which held that States are immune from private suits in federal court and that Congress lacks the authority to abrogate that immunity_the probation officers' suit was dismissed in Federal district court. Alden and the other probation officers then sued Maine again for violating the Fair Labor Standards Act, this time in state court. The state trial court and the state supreme court both held that Maine had sovereign immunity and could not be sued by private parties in their own court.

Alden v. Maine (Oral Argument), Part 2 of 4

Wed, 31 Mar 1999 12:00:00 -0500

Oral Argument, continued.

Alden v. Maine (Oral Argument), Part 3 of 4

Wed, 31 Mar 1999 12:00:00 -0500

Oral Argument, continued.

Alden v. Maine (Oral Argument), Part 4 of 4

Wed, 31 Mar 1999 12:00:00 -0500

Oral Argument, continued.

Arkansas Ed. Television Comm. v. Forbes - Oral Argument

Wed, 08 Oct 1997 12:00:00 -0500

During the 1992 race for Arkansas' Third Congressional District, the Arkansas Educational Television Commission (AETC) -- a state-owned public television broadcaster -- sponsored a debate between the major party candidates. Running as an independent candidate with little popular support, Ralph Forbes sought to participate in the debate but was denied permission. After unsuccessfully challenging AETC's refusal in district court, Forbes appealed and won a reversal. AETC then appealed and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (Oral Argument), Part 1 of 3

Tue, 30 Oct 2001 12:00:00 -0500

The Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 (CPPA) prohibits "any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture" that "is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct," and any sexually explicit image that is "advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression" it depicts "a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct." The Free Speech Coalition, an adult-entertainment trade association, and others filed suit, alleging that the "appears to be" and "conveys the impression" provisions are overbroad and vague and, thus, restrain works otherwise protected by the First Amendment. Reversing the District Court, the Court of Appeals held the CPPA invalid on its face, finding it to be substantially overbroad because it bans materials that are neither obscene under Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, nor produced by the exploitation of real children as in New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747.

Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (Oral Argument), Part 2 of 3

Tue, 30 Oct 2001 12:00:00 -0500

Oral Argument, continued.

Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (Oral Argument), Part 3 of 3

Tue, 30 Oct 2001 12:00:00 -0500

Oral Argument, continued.

Atkins v. Virginia - Oral Argument

Wed, 20 Feb 2002 12:00:00 -0500

Daryl Renard Atkins was convicted of abduction, armed robbery, and capital murder. In the penalty phase of Atkins' trial, the defense relied on one witness, a forensic psychologist, who testified that Atkins was mildly mentally retarded. The jury sentenced Atkins to death, but the Virginia Supreme Court ordered a second sentencing hearing because the trial court had used a misleading verdict form. During resentencing the same forensic psychologist testified, but this time the State rebutted Atkins' intelligence. The jury again sentenced Atkins to death. In affirming, the Virginia Supreme Court relied on Penry v. Lynaugh, in rejecting Atkins' contention that he could not be sentenced to death because he is mentally retarded.

Atwater v. City of Lago Vista (Oral Argument), Part 1 of 4

Mon, 04 Dec 2000 12:00:00 -0500

Under Texas law, it is a misdemeanor, punishable only by a fine, either for a front-seat passenger in a car equipped with safety belts not to wear one or for the driver to fail to secure any small child riding in front. In 1997, Gail Atwater was driving her truck in Lago Vista. Neither of Atwater's children, who were sitting in the front seat, was wearing seatbelts. Lago Vista policeman Bart Turek observed the violations and pulled Atwater over. Ultimately, Atwater was handcuffed, placed in jail, and released on bond. Atwater then filed suit alleging that Turek's actions had violated her Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizure. In granting the city summary judgment, the District Court ruled the claim meritless. In affirming, the en banc Court of Appeals held that the arrest was not unreasonable for Fourth Amendment purposes because no one disputed that Turek had probable cause to arrest Atwater, and there was no evidence the arrest was conducted in an extraordinary manner, unusually harmful to Atwater's privacy interests.

Atwater v. City of Lago Vista (Oral Argument), Part 2 of 4

Mon, 04 Dec 2000 12:00:00 -0500

Oral Argument, continued.

Atwater v. City of Lago Vista (Oral Argument), Part 3 of 4

Mon, 04 Dec 2000 12:00:00 -0500

Oral Argument, continued.

Atwater v. City of Lago Vista (Oral Argument), Part 4 of 4

Mon, 04 Dec 2000 12:00:00 -0500

Oral Argument, continued.

BMW v. Gore (Oral Argument), Part 1 of 3

Wed, 11 Oct 1995 12:00:00 -0500

After purchasing a new vehicle from an authorized Alabama BMW dealership, Ira Gore, Jr. discovered that his new vehicle had been repainted. He sued BMW's American distributor (BMW), alleging that it committed fraud by failing to inform him that his car had been repainted. The Alabama Circuit Court entered judgment, following a jury verdict, awarding Gore $4,000 in compensatory damages and $4 million in punitive damages. On appeal from the trial judge's denial of BMW's post-trial petition to set aside the punitive damages as 'grossly excessive,' the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that the punitive damages were not so excessive as to violate BMW's Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. Due to a jury calculation error, however, the Alabama Supreme Court reduced Gore's punitive damage award to $2 million. BMW appealed to the Supreme Court.

BMW v. Gore (Oral Argument), Part 2 of 3

Wed, 11 Oct 1995 12:00:00 -0500

Oral Argument, continued.

BMW v. Gore (Oral Argument), Part 3 of 3

Wed, 11 Oct 1995 12:00:00 -0500

Oral Argument, continued.

BOE of Westside Community Schools v. Mergens (Oral Argument), Part 1 of 4

Tue, 09 Jan 1990 12:00:00 -0500

The school administration at Westside High School denied permission to a group of students to form a Christian club with the same privileges and meeting terms as other Westside after-school student clubs. In addition to citing the Establishment Clause, Westside refused the club's formation because it lacked a faculty sponsor. When the school board upheld the administration's denial, Mergens and several other students sued. The students alleged that Westside's refusal violated the Equal Access Act, which requiremes that schools in receipt of federal funds provide "equal access" to student groups seeking to express "religious, political, philosophical, or other content" messages. On appeal from an adverse District Court ruling, the Court of Appeals found in favor of the students. The Supreme Court granted Westside certiorari.

BOE of Westside Community Schools v. Mergens (Oral Argument), Part 2 of 4

Tue, 09 Jan 1990 12:00:00 -0500

Oral Argument, continued.

BOE of Westside Community Schools v. Mergens (Oral Argument), Part 3 of 4

Tue, 09 Jan 1990 12:00:00 -0500

Oral Argument, continued.

BOE of Westside Community Schools v. Mergens (Oral Argument), Part 4 of 4

Tue, 09 Jan 1990 12:00:00 -0500

Oral Argument, continued.

Barnes v. Glen Theatre Inc. (Oral Argument), Part 1 of 3

Tue, 08 Jan 1991 12:00:00 -0500

Glen Theatre and the Kitty Kat Lounge in South Bend, Indiana, operated entertainment establishments with totally nude dancers. An Indiana law regulating public nudity required dancers to wear "pasties" and a "G-string" when they perform. The Theatre and Lounge sued to stop enforcement of the statute.

Barnes v. Glen Theatre Inc. (Oral Argument), Part 2 of 3

Tue, 08 Jan 1991 12:00:00 -0500

Oral Argument, continued.

Barnes v. Glen Theatre Inc. (Oral Argument), Part 3 of 3

Tue, 08 Jan 1991 12:00:00 -0500

Oral Argument, continued.

Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (Oral Argument), Part 1 of 3

Wed, 26 Apr 2000 12:00:00 -0500

The Boy Scouts of America revoked former Eagle Scout and assistant scoutmaster James Dale's adult membership when the organization discovered that Dale was a homosexual and a gay rights activist. In 1992, Dale filed suit against the Boy Scouts, alleging that the Boy Scouts had violated the New Jersey statute prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in places of public accommodation. The Boy Scouts, a private, not-for-profit organization, asserted that homosexual conduct was inconsistent with the values it was attempting to instill in young people. The New Jersey Superior Court held that New Jersey's public accommodations law was inapplicable because the Boy Scouts was not a place of public accommodation. The court also concluded that the Boy Scouts' First Amendment freedom of expressive association prevented the government from forcing the Boy Scouts to accept Dale as an adult leader. The court's Appellate Division held that New Jersey's public accommodations law applied to the Boy Scouts because of its broad-based membership solicitation and its connections with various public entities, and that the Boy Scouts violated it by revoking Dale's membership based on his homosexuality. The court rejected the Boy Scouts' federal constitutional claims. The New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that application of New Jersey's public accommodations law did not violate the Boy Scouts' First Amendment right of expressive association because Dale's inclusion would not significantly affect members' abilities to carry out their purpose. Furthermore, the court concluded that reinstating Dale did not compel the Boy Scouts to express any message.

Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (Oral Argument), Part 2 of 3

Wed, 26 Apr 2000 12:00:00 -0500

Oral Argument, continued.

Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (Oral Argument), Part 3 of 3

Wed, 26 Apr 2000 12:00:00 -0500

Oral Argument, continued.

Bush v. Gore (Oral Argument), Part 1 of 4

Mon, 11 Dec 2000 12:00:00 -0500

Following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, and concurrent with Vice President Al Gore's contest of the certification of Florida presidential election results, on December 8, 2000 the Florida Supreme Court ordered that the Circuit Court in Leon County tabulate by hand 9000 contested ballots from Miami-Dade County. It also ordered that every county in Florida must immediately begin manually recounting all "under-votes" (ballots which did not indicate a vote for president) because there were enough contested ballots to place the outcome of the election in doubt. Governor George Bush and his running mate, Richard Cheney, filed a request for review in the U.S. Supreme Court and sought an emergency petition for a stay of the Florida Supreme Court's decision. The U.S. Supreme Court granted review and issued the stay on December 9. It heard oral argument two days later.

Bush v. Gore (Oral Argument), Part 2 of 4

Mon, 11 Dec 2000 12:00:00 -0500

Oral Argument, continued.

Bush v. Gore (Oral Argument), Part 3 of 4

Mon, 11 Dec 2000 12:00:00 -0500

Oral Argument, continued.

Bush v. Gore (Oral Argument), Part 4 of 4

Mon, 11 Dec 2000 12:00:00 -0500

Oral Argument, continued.

Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board (Oral Argument), Part 1 of 5