Supplemental Reading Material

Court Cases

Schenck v. United States (1919): Charles Schenck and Elizabeth Baer handed out leaflets in front of an enlistment and recruiting office. The leaflets were attempting to persuade people from disobeying the draft and claiming it was illegal under the 13th Amendment. They were convicted of violating the Espionage Act of 1917, as they were attempting to obstruct recruitment. They appealed their case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

• Main Ideas

  • CHIEF JUSTICE -

    • Edward White

  • ISSUES -

    • freedom of speech limitations during wartime

  • ARTICLES/AMENDMENT INVOLVED -

    • First Amendment

  • QUESTION -

    • Does Schenck's conviction under the Espionage Act for criticizing the draft during WWI violate his First Amendment right to freedom of speech?

  • DECISION -

    • 9-0 for the United States

  • OPINION WRITTEN BY -

    • Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

  • CONCLUSION -

    • The Court ruled that the Espionage Age did not violate the First Amendment right to speech. Going further, they clarified that the Espionage Act was necessary during the war. Justice Holmes stated that courts granted more authority to the government during wartime. He clarified the "clear and present danger test," which determined the limitation to the First Amendment.

  • KEY QUOTES -

    • "Words which, ordinarily and in many places, would be within the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment may become subject to prohibition when of such a nature and used in such circumstances a to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils which Congress has a right to prevent. The character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done."

    • “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man from falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. It does not even protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect of force."

United States v. Wheeler (1920): Members of the local IWW were striking against the Phelps Dodge Corporation in Bisbee, Arizona. The corporate executives and sheriff coordinated a plan to capture, kidnap, and relocate the strikers to Tres Hermanas, New Mexico. After being kidnapped, the men appealed to President Wilson for assistance to return home to Bisbee. Wilson's commission to investigate the matter found the kidnapping and relocation illegal. The company executives and law enforcement involved were arrested but their case was thrown out as the Constitution did not grant the federal government the authority to punish these acts. The Justice Department appealed the case to the Supreme Court.

• Main Ideas

  • CHIEF JUSTICE -

    • Edward White

  • ISSUES -

    • federal criminal law

  • ARTICLES/AMENDMENT INVOLVED -

    • Article IV

  • QUESTION -

    • Does the Constitution grant the federal government the authority to prosecute kidnappers?

  • DECISION -

    • 8-1 for Wheeler

  • OPINION WRITTEN BY -

    • Edward White

  • CONCLUSION -

    • The federal government does not have the power to enforce these laws as they are under the privileges and immunities clause as described in Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution. The right to travel and principle of comity was granted to the states; therefore, only the states could enforce these rights.

  • KEY QUOTES -

    • "Uniformity of this right was secured by the Articles of Confederation, not by lodging power in Congress to deal with the subject, but by subjecting the continued state power to the limitation that it should not be used to discriminate, Art. IV providing that the free inhabitants of each state, with certain exceptions, should be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states, and that the people of each state should have free ingress and regress to and from any other state."

    • "The Constitution does not guarantee this right against wrongful interference by individuals, but only against discriminatory action by states."

Ozawa v. United States (1922): Takao Ozawa was a Japanese immigrant who had lived in the U.S. for over 20 years. In 1914, he applied for citizenship under the Naturalization Act of 1906. He was denied and challenged the ruling that under the law, Japanese should be considered "free white persons" and granted citizenship.

• Main Ideas

  • CHIEF JUSTICE:

    • William H. Taft

  • ISSUES:

    • naturalization and citizenship

  • ARTICLES/AMENDMENT INVOLVED:

    • 14th Amendment

  • QUESTION:

    • Under the Naturalization Act of 1906, should Japanese immigrants be granted citizenship as a "free white person"?

  • DECISION:

    • 9-0 for United States

  • OPINION WRITTEN BY:

    • George Sutherland

  • CONCLUSION:

    • The court ruled that the term was only for the Caucasian race. The Japanese race was not considered protected under the law.

  • KEY QUOTES:

    • "The appellant, in the case now under consideration, however, is clearly of a race which is not Caucasian and therefore belongs entirely outside the zone on the negative side. A large number of the federal and state courts have so decided, and we find no reported case definitely to the contrary. These decisions are sustained by numerous scientific authorities, which we do not deem it necessary to review. We think these decisions are right and so hold."

Moore v. Dempsey (1923): The Elaine Race Riot occurred on September 30, 1919, in Phillips County, Arkansas. Twelve Black men were found guilty by a grand jury on murder charges. In each trial, the men's lawyers did not call witnesses or produce evidence. Each jury returned a verdict in under 10 minutes. During the trial, the courthouse was surrounded by white mobs who could be heard from the courtroom. The men appealed their case with the help of the NAACP.

• Main Ideas

  • CHIEF JUSTICE:

    • William H. Taft

  • ISSUES:

    • trials with unbiased jury of their peers

  • ARTICLES/AMENDMENT INVOLVED:

    • 14th Amendment

  • QUESTION:

    • Did the defendants of the Elaine Race Riot face prejudice that violated their rights under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment in their trial with the jury, limited counsel, and mob's influence?

  • DECISION:

    • 6-2

  • OPINION WRITTEN BY:

    • Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

  • CONCLUSION:

    • The Supreme Court ruling reversed the district court's decision and stated that the federal government has a duty to review habeas corpus petitions that have discrimination claims in state courts. The rulings of guilty were sent back to lower courts, which decided to change their plea and sentences. The case was significant because it established a precedent that federal courts could oversee state court convictions if constitutional rights had been violated.

  • KEY QUOTES:

    • “It was recognized of course that if in fact a trial is dominated by a mob so that there is an actual interference with the course of justice, there is a departure from due process of law; and that if the State, supplying no corrective process, carries into execution a judgment of death or imprisonment based upon a verdict thus produced by mob domination, the State deprives the accused of his life or liberty without due process of law."

    • "We have confined the statement to facts admitted by the demurrer. We will not say that they cannot be met, but it appears to us unavoidable that the District Judge should find whether the facts alleged are true and whether they can be explained so far as to leave the state proceedings undisturbed."

Gitlow v. New York (1925):  Benjamin Gitlow was arrested for publishing the "Left Wing Manifesto" in 1919 which analyzed capitalism and socialism from a historical perspective. Clarence Darrow was his lawyer, and he claimed the publication of the manifesto did not incite any actual violence. Gitlow was found guilty, and the verdict was affirmed by the New York Court of Appeals.

• Main Ideas

  • CHIEF JUSTICE:

    • William H. Taft

  • ISSUES:

    • freedom of speech in connection with violent action

  • ARTICLES/AMENDMENT INVOLVED:

    • First Amendment

  • QUESTION:

    • Does the First Amendment prevent a state from punishing political speech that directly advocates the governments violent overthrow?

  • DECISION:

    • 7-2 for New York

  • OPINION WRITTEN BY:

    • Edward T. Sanford

  • CONCLUSION:

    • The court ruled that states could prohibit speech that advocates violent efforts to overthrow the government because it would affect national security. The conviction was upheld by the "bad tendency" test in which the government can punish speech that directly advocates the overthrow of the government.

  • KEY QUOTES:

    • "Freedom of speech and of the press, as secured by the Constitution, is not an absolute right to speak or publish without responsibility whatever one may choose or an immunity for every possible use of language."

    • "That a State, in the exercise of its police power, may punish those who abuse this freedom by utterances inimical to the public welfare, tending to corrupt public morals, incite to crime or disturb the public peace, is not open to question."

Pierce vs. Society of Sisters (1925): The Compulsory Education Act of 1922 in Oregon required parents to send their children to public school from the ages of eight to 16. The Society of Sisters sued the states, as their organization maintained private schools which would have lost its student population.

• Main Ideas

  • CHIEF JUSTICE:

    • William H. Taft

  • ISSUES:

    • religious freedom and education

  • ARTICLES/AMENDMENT INVOLVED:

    • 14th Amendment

  • QUESTION:

    • Can a state's law violate the liberty of parents on how they educate their children

  • DECISION:

    • 9-0 for Society of Sisters

  • OPINION WRITTEN BY:

    • James McReynolds

  • CONCLUSION:

    • The Court ruled that all parents have the freedom to choose their children's method of education and the state cannot force children to be educated by public teachers only.

  • KEY QUOTES:

    • "The Oregon Compulsory Education Act which, with certain exemptions, requires every parent, guardian or other person having control of a child between the ages of eig tan sixteen years to send im tot e public school in the district where he resides, for the period during which the school is held for the current year, is an unreasonable interference with the liberty of the parents and guardians to direct the upbringing of the children, and in that respect violates the Fourteenth Amendment."

Whitney v. California (1927):  Charlotte Anita Whitney was a founding member of the Communist Labor Party of California and prosecuted under the Criminal Syndicalism Act. Her guilty verdict was based on the belief that the organization was planning for violence and overthrowing the government.

• Main Ideas

  • CHIEF JUSTICE:

    • William H. Taft

  • ISSUES:

    • freedom of speech of organization with violent rhetoric

  • ARTICLES/AMENDMENT INVOLVED:

    • 1st Amendment

    • 14th Amendment

  • QUESTION:

    • Did the California law violate Whitney's First Amendment freedom of speech and her 14th Amendment rights of equal protection?

  • DECISION:

    • 9-0 for California

  • OPINION WRITTEN BY:

    • Edward Sanford

  • CONCLUSION:

    • The Court ruled in favor of California that Whitney's organization violated the "clear and present danger test." The decision also stated that California was exercising its police power to punish those who incite violence or use words with a "bad tendency."

  • KEY QUOTES:

    • "The determination of the legislature that the acts defined involve such danger to the public peace and security of the State that they should be penalized in the exercise of the police power must be given great weight, and every presumption be indulged in favor of the validity of the statute, which could be declared unconstitutional only if an attempt to exercise arbitrarily and unreasonably the authority vested in the State in the public interest."

Buck v Bell (1927):     Carrie Buck was a woman who was institutionalized in a mental hospital. A Virginia law allowed sexual sterilization of patients in the institution in order to protect the health of the state.

• Main Ideas

  • CHIEF JUSTICE:

    • William H. Taft

  • ISSUES:

    • compulsory sterilization

  • ARTICLES/AMENDMENT INVOLVED:

    • 14th Amendment

  • QUESTION:

    • Can a state authorize sterilization under the 14th Amendment?

  • DECISION:

    • 8-1 for Bell

  • OPINION WRITTEN BY:

    • Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

  • CONCLUSION:

    • The Court ruled in favor of Bell; the Virginia statute did not violate Buck's 14th Amendment rights. Holmes stated that it was in the best interest of public welfare which outweighed the interest of the individual. The procedure could not take place until after months of observation to confirm the intelligence level.

  • KEY QUOTES:

    • "The Virginia statute providing for the sexual sterilization of inmates of institutions supported by the State who shall be found to be afflicted with an hereditary form of insanity or imbecility, is within the power of the State under the Fourteenth Amendment."

    • "It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world if, instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind."

Nixon v. Herndon (1927):     A 1923 law in Texas made it illegal for any Blacks to vote in the Democratic Party primary. Dr. Lawrence Nixon attempted to vote the next year in El Paso. With the support of the NAACP, he sought to challenge the law and sued the Judges of Election that kept him from casting a ballot. The defendants tried to have the case dismissed claiming it was a purely private political matter and not subject to a court's jurisdiction.

• Main Ideas

  • CHIEF JUSTICE:

    • William H. Taft

  • ISSUES:

    • voting rights

  • ARTICLES/AMENDMENT INVOLVED:

    • 14th Amendment

    • 15th Amendment

  • QUESTION:

    • Was a Texas law legal that kept Blacks from voting in the Democratic Primary

  • DECISION:

    • Unanimous to reject lower court opinion and finding instead for the plaintiff

  • OPINION WRITTEN BY:

    • Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

  • CONCLUSION:

    • The courts did have jurisdiction over the case and the law. The damage to Lawrence was suitable for a legal action. The law in question violated the 14th Amendment so directly that the court did not consider any violations of the 15th Amendment as claimed by Nixon.

  • KEY QUOTES:

    • "The objection that the subject matter of the suit is political is little more than a play upon words. Of course, the petition concerns political action, but it alleges and seeks to recover for private damage. That private damage may be caused by such political action and may be recovered for In a suit at law hardly has been doubted for over two hundred years ... "

Olmstead v. United States (1928): Roy Olmstead was a suspected bootlegger; federal agents wiretapped his building's phone lines. They recorded evidence that proved he violated the National Prohibition Act. The wiretapping was not judicially approved but the evidence was used in the court against Olmstead.

• Main Ideas

  • CHIEF JUSTICE:

    • William H. Taft

  • ISSUES:

    • evidence used in conviction without judicial approval

  • ARTICLES/AMENDMENT INVOLVED:

    • Fourth Amendment

    • Fifth Amendment

  • QUESTION:

    • Did the use of evidence obtained from wiretapping violate the recorded party's rights?

  • DECISION:

    • 5-4 for United States

  • OPINION WRITTEN BY:

    • William H. Taft

  • CONCLUSION:

    • The Court ruled in favor of the United States as the wiretapped conversations did not violate the defendant's Fourth or Fifth Amendment rights. The conversations recorded and used as evidence were voluntarily made. The wiretapping is not a violation of search and seizure as they relate to tangible items not conversations.

  • KEY QUOTES:

    • ‘Use in evidence in a criminal trial in a federal court of an incriminating telephone conversation voluntarily conducted by the accused and secretly overheard from a tapped wire by a government officer does not compel the accused to be a witness against himself in violation of the Fifth Amendment."

    • "The principle of liberal construction applied to the Amendment to effect its purpose in the interest of liberty will not justify enlarging it beyond the possible practical meaning of "persons, houses, papers, and effects," or so applying "searches and seizures" as to forbid hearing or sight."

Legislation

18th Amendment : Adopted in December 1917, it prohibits the manufacturing, sale, and transportation of alcohol and ushered in the Prohibition era

• PEOPLE/ISSUES: temperance and alcohol use

  • Text:

    • Section 1 - After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

    • Section 2 - The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

    • Section 3 - This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

19th Amendment: Adopted in August 1920, it grants voting rights to female citizens.

• People/Issues: women's suffrage

  • Text:

    • The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

    • Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

21st Amendment: Adopted December 1933, it repealed federal prohibition of alcohol and granted the power to limit alcohol to the states.

• People/Issues: ending prohibition

  • Text:

    • Section 1 - The 18th article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

    • Section 2 - The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

    • Section 3 - This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

Immigration Act (1917): Adopted in 1917, it created a "barred zone" extending from the Middle East to Southeast Asia in which no persons were allowed to enter the U.S. The law also added a literacy test which reduced immigration from Europe.

• People/Issues: limiting immigration following the Bolshevik Revolution and World War I

  • Key Quotes:

    • "Not likely to become a public charge and are otherwise eligible; unless otherwise provided for by existing treaties, persons who are natives of islands not possessed by the United States adjacent to the continent of Asia...."

    • "That after three months from the passage of this Act, in addition to the aliens who are by law now excluded from admission into the United States, the following persons shall also be excluded from admission thereto, to wit: All aliens over sixteen years of age, physically capable of reading, who can not read the English language, or some other language or dialect, including Hebrew or Yiddish ..."

Volstead Act (1920): Passed in 1919, the law enforced the 18th Amendment which prohibited the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors. The law set a strict limit on alcohol content but did not make it illegal for some types to be made in your home or for medicinal or religious use.

• People/lssues: Prohibition

  • Key Quotes:

    • “prohibiting the sale and manufacture of intoxicating liquors until the conclusion of the present war and thereafter until the termination of demobilization …”

    • “beverages which contain one-half of 1 per centum or more of alcohol by volume ... "

    • "No one shall manufacture, sell, purchase, transport, or prescribe any liquor without first obtaining a permit from the commissioner so to do, except that a person may, without a permit, purchase and use liquor for medicinal purposes when prescribed by a physician as herein provided”

    • "Nothing in this title shall be held to apply to the manufacture, sale, transportation, importation, possession, or distribution of wine for sacramental purposes, or like religious rites."

Emergency Quota Act (1921): Passed as an emergency measure to impose quantitative caps on immigration, it was based on the 1910 census. Annual quotas for each country of origin were calculated at 3% of the total number of foreign-born persons from that country.

• People/lssues: limiting immigration

  • Key Quotes:

    • "That the number of aliens of any nationality who may be admitted under the immigration laws to the United States in any fiscal year shall be limited to 3 per centum of the number of foreign-born persons of such nationality resident in the United States as determined by the United States census of 1910... (b) For the purposes of this Act nationality shall be determined by country of birth, treating as separate countries the colonies or dependencies for which separate enumeration was made in the United States census of 1910 ..”

Kellogg-Briand Pact (1928):  It was signed in Paris, France, to renounce the use of war as an instrument of national policy. It was a measure of peacekeeping efforts after World War l.

• People/lssues: reject the use of war

  • Key Quotes:

    • "Deeply sensible of their solemn duty to promote the welfare of mankind; ... Persuaded that the time has, come when a frank renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy should be made to the end that the peaceful and friendly relations now existing between their peoples may be perpetuated;"

Boulder Canyon Project Act (1928): The law authorized the construction of the Boulder Dam, later to be renamed the Hoover Dam along the Colorado River.

• People/lssues: construct a dam

  • Key Quotes:

    • "That for the purpose of controlling the floods, improving navigation and regulating the flow of the Colorado River, providing for storage and for the delivery of stored waters thereof for reclassation of public lands and other beneficial uses ... and for the generation of electrical energy as a means of making the project herein authorized a self-supporting and financially solvent undertaking."

Undesirable Aliens Act/Blease's Law (1929): The law criminalized crossing the border outside an official port of entry, mainly designed to restrict Mexican immigration. The law made unlawfully entering the country a misdemeanor and unlawfully returning after deportation a felony.

• People/lssues: limiting immigration

  • Key Quotes:

    • "That (a) if any alien has been arrested and deported-in pursuance of law, he shall be excluded from admission to the United States whether such deportation took place before or after the enactment of this act, and if he enters or attempts to enter the United States after the expiration of sixty days after the enactment of this act, he shall be guilty of a felony and upon conviction thereof shall, unless a different penalty is otherwise expressly provided by law, be punished-by imprisonment for not more than two years or by a fine of not more than $1,000 or by both such fine and imprisonment."