Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)
"Separate but Equal," Equal Protection
In 1890, Louisiana passed a law called the Separate Car Act. This law said that railroad companies must
provide separate but equal train cars for whites and blacks. Blacks had to sit with blacks and whites had to
sit with whites. This is called segregation. Anyone who broke this law would have to pay $25 or go to jail
for 20 days.
Two parties wanted to challenge the constitutionality of the Separate Car Act. A group of black citizens
who raised money to overturn the law worked together with the East Louisiana Railroad Company, which
sought to terminate the Act largely for monetary reasons. They chose a 30-year-old shoemaker named
Homer Plessy, a citizen of the United States who was one-eighth black and a resident of the state of
Louisiana. On June 7, 1892, Plessy purchased a first-class passage from New Orleans to Covington,
Louisiana and sat in the railroad car for "White" passengers. The railroad officials knew Plessy was coming
and arrested him for violating the Separate Car Act. Well known advocate for black rights Albion Tourgee,
a white lawyer, agreed to argue the case for free.
Plessy argued in court that the Separate Car Act violated the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
Constitution. The Thirteenth Amendment banned slavery and the Fourteenth Amendment requires that the
government treat people equally. John Howard Ferguson, the judge hearing the case, had stated in a
previous court decision that the Separate Car Act was unconstitutional if applied to trains running outside
of Louisiana. In this case, however, he declared that the law was constitutional for trains running within the
state and found Plessy guilty.
Plessy appealed the case to the Louisiana State Supreme Court, which affirmed the decision that the
Louisiana law was constitutional. Plessy then took his case, Plessy v. Ferguson, to the Supreme Court of
the United States, the highest court in the country. Judge John Howard Ferguson was named in the case
because he had been named in the petition to the Louisiana State Supreme Court, not because he was a
party to the initial lawsuit.
Questions to Consider
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
What law did Homer Plessy violate? How did Plessy violate this law?
What rights do the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments provide? Why did Plessy believe that
the Separate Car Act violated these rights?
Judge Ferguson decided that the state could make laws for railroad companies that traveled within
the state but not for those that traveled between states. On what basis can Judge Ferguson treat
these two situations differently?
What claim did Plessy make to the Louisiana State Supreme Court? How did his claim reflect on
his argument that his Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated?
Do you think it is possible for blacks and whites to be separate and equal? Why or why not? If so,
describe a situation where people can be separate, but equal.
In a 7-1 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Ferguson. The majority rejected Plessy’s Thirteenth
and Fourteenth Amendment arguments, instead putting its stamp of approval on the doctrine of “separate
but equal.” The dissent, written by Justice John Marshall Harlan, disagreed, arguing that segregationist
laws indoctrinate society with the belief that the two races are not equal.
Justice Henry Brown wrote the majority opinion, which rejected Plessy’s argument that the Louisiana law
conflicted with the Thirteenth Amendment, deeming the point “too clear for argument.” The justices then
considered whether the law conflicted with the Fourteenth Amendment. They identified the purpose of the
Fourteenth Amendment as “enforce[ing] the absolute equality of the two races before the law,” but then
asserted that “it could not have been intended to abolish distinctions based upon color, or to enforce
social…equality.” According to the Court, the Fourteenth Amendment was only concerned with legal, not
social, equality.
In addition, the justices denied the argument that separation of the races by law “stamps the colored race
with a badge of inferiority.” They argued instead that racial prejudice could not be overcome by “an
enforced commingling of the two races.” According to this argument, outlawing segregation would not
eliminate racial prejudice, because such societal beliefs could not be changed simply by changing the law.
The Court concluded that “if one race be inferior to the other socially, the Constitution … cannot put them
upon the same plane.”
The justices explained that because the Louisiana law did not conflict with the purpose of the Fourteenth
Amendment, the only remaining question was whether it was “reasonable, and … enacted in good faith for
the promotion for the public good.” Giving much deference to the state legislature of Louisiana, they
determined that the law met this requirement because it furthered “the preservation of the public peace and
good order.” Thus, so long as separate facilities were actually qualitatively equal, the Constitution did not
prohibit segregation in the view of the majority of the Court.
Justice John Marshall Harlan dissented from the majority opinion. In an opinion that later became pivotal
in the Brown v. Board of Education cases (1954), he argued that segregationist legislation, like the
Louisiana law in this case, was based on the assumption that “colored citizens are so inferior and degraded
that they cannot be allowed to sit in public coaches occupied by white citizens.” These laws promoted and
perpetuated the belief that African Americans were inferior to whites, according to Justice Harlan. They
must be struck down, he argued, because the government could not “permit the seeds of race hate to be
planted under the sanction of law.” Justice Harlan believed that the constitution must be “color-blind,” and
that it could allow “no superior, dominant ruling class of citizens.” Because segregation had the effect of
creating such classes, he judged, it was unconstitutional.
•
•
•
•
•
segregation (to segregate)
Definition: The policy or practice of separating people of different races, classes, or ethnic
groups, as in schools, housing, and public or commercial facilities, especially as a form of
discrimination
How would you express this in your own words or in a drawing?
arrested (to arrest)
Definition: To seize and hold under the authority of law
How would you express this in your own words or in a drawing?
unconstitutional (constitutional)
Definition: Not in agreement with the principles set forth in the constitution of a nation or state
How would you express this in your own words or in a drawing?
guilty
Definition: Legally found to have committed a crime
How would you express this in your own words or in a drawing?
petition (to petition)
Definition: to formally request something, like a right, favor or benefit, from persons in authority
or power
How would you express this in your own words or in a drawing?
Brown v. Board of Education (1954)
School Segregation, Equal Protection
In the early 1950s, many students went to different schools because of their race. White children went to
one school and black children went to a different school. This system was called segregation. During this
time, segregation was legal. Many other public facilities were also segregated.
Segregation was legal because of past court decisions. In 1896, the Supreme Court of the United States
decided a case called Plessy v. Ferguson. In this case, the Court said that segregation was legal when the
facilities for both races (trains, bathrooms, restaurants, etc.) were similar in quality.
Under segregation, all-white and all-black schools sometimes had similar buildings, busses, and teachers.
Sometimes, the buildings, busses, and teachers for the all-black schools were lower in quality. Often, black
children had to travel far to get to their school. In Topeka, Kansas, a black student named Linda Brown had
to walk through a dangerous railroad to get to her all-black school. Her family believed that segregated
schools should be illegal.
The Brown family sued the school system (Board of Education of Topeka). The district court said that
segregation hurt black children. However, the district court also said the schools were equal. Therefore, the
segregation was legal.
The Browns disagreed with the decision. They believed that the segregated school system did violate the
Constitution. They thought that the system violated the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteeing that people
will be treated equally under the law.
No State shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
—Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
The Browns appealed the case to a higher court. The Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear the
case.
Questions to Consider
1.
2.
3.
4.
What does it mean to have segregated schools?
What right does the Fourteenth Amendment give citizens?
How did the case of Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) affect segregation?
It is important for this case to determine what "equal" means. What do you think equality means to
the Browns? What do you think equality means to the Board of Education of Topeka?
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Brown. The Court found the practice of
segregation unconstitutional and refused to apply its decision in Plessy v. Ferguson to “the field of public
education.” Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote the opinion for the Court.
The Court noted that public education was central to American life. Calling it “the very foundation of good
citizenship,” they acknowledged that public education was not only necessary to prepare children for their
future professions and to enable them to actively participate in the democratic process, but that it was also
“a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values” present in their communities. The justices
found it very unlikely that a child would be able to succeed in life without a good education. Access to
such an education was thus “a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.”
The justices then assessed the equality of the facilities that the Board of Education of Topeka provided for
the education of African American children against those provided for white children. Ruling that they
were substantially equal in “tangible factors” that could be measured easily, (such as “buildings, curricula,
and qualifications and salaries of teachers), they concluded that the Court must instead examine the more
subtle, intangible effect of segregation on the system of public education.
Departing from the Court’s earlier reasoning in Plessy, the justices here argued that separating children
solely on the basis of race created a feeling of inferiority in the “hearts and minds” of African American
children. Segregating children in public education created and perpetuated the idea that African American
children held a lower status in the community than white children, even if their separate educational
facilities were substantially equal in “tangible” factors. This feeling of inferiority reduced the desire to
learn and achieve in African American children, and had “a tendency to retard their educational and mental
development and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racially integrated school
system.” Concluding that “separate education facilities are inherently unequal”, the Supreme Court ruled
that segregation in public education denied African American children the equal protection of the laws
guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.
One year later, the Court addressed the implementation of its decision in a case known as Brown v. Board
of Education II. Chief Justice Warren once again wrote an opinion for the unanimous court. The Court
acknowledged that desegregating public schools would take place in various ways, depending on the
unique problems faced by individual school districts. After charging local school authorities with the
responsibility for solving these problems, the Court instructed federal trial courts to oversee the process and
determine whether local authorities were desegregating schools in good faith, mandating that desegregation
take place with “with all deliberate speed.”
Texas v. Johnson (1989)
Flag Burning, Freedom of Speech
In 1984, the Republican National Convention was held in Dallas, Texas. Gregory Lee Johnson took part in
a demonstration there. He and his group were protesting against nuclear weapons among other things.
They marched through the streets shouting.
Johnson was carrying an American flag. When he reached Dallas City Hall, Johnson poured kerosene on
the flag. Then he set it on fire. While the flag burned, people shouted, "America, the red, white, and blue,
we spit on you." No one was hurt, but some people who were there said they were very upset.
Johnson was arrested. He was charged with violating a Texas law that said people couldn't vandalize a
respected object. He was convicted, sentenced to one year in prison, and fined $2,000.
Johnson appealed his case to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, which agreed with him. The court said
that the First Amendment protection of free speech included "symbolic speech," which is an action that
expresses an idea. It said that flag burning was a form of symbolic speech so Johnson could not be
punished.
The State wanted to maintain order and to preserve the flag as a symbol of national unity. The State had
argued its interests were more important than Johnson's symbolic speech rights. The court did not agree
with the State's arguments.
The court said the government cannot "carve out a symbol of unity and prescribe a set of approved
messages to be associated with that symbol . . . " The court also said that the flag burning did not cause or
threaten to cause a breach of the peace.
The State of Texas asked the Supreme Court of the United States to hear the case. In 1989, the Court made
a decision.
Questions to Consider
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
What did Gregory Johnson do? What happened to him as a result?
What does the First Amendment say about freedom of speech? Why did Johnson say his First
Amendment rights had been violated?
What argument could you make that flag burning is likely to cause violence and therefore should
be against the law?
What argument could you make that flag burning is symbolic speech protected by the First
Amendment?
The Texas Court of Appeals said the government cannot "carve out a symbol of unity and
prescribe a set of approved messages to be associated with that symbol . . . " What does this mean?
Do you agree that the government should not be able to do this? List your reasons.
How should the Supreme Court of the United States decide this case? Why?
In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled for Johnson. Justice Brenan wrote the opinion for the majority,
ruling that Johnson’s act of burning the American flag was protected by the First Amendment because it
was expressive conduct. Justices Rehnquist, Stevens, White and O’Connor dissented.
The justices in the majority first considered whether expressive conduct was protected by the First
Amendment, which only explicitly guarantees “freedom of speech.” Noting that the Court has “long
recognized that [First Amendment] protection does not end at the spoken or written word,” they added that
conduct may be “sufficiently imbued with elements of communication to fall within the scope of the First
and Fourteenth Amendments.” Conduct is sufficiently expressive when “an intent to convey a
particularized message was present, and the likelihood was great that the message would be understood by
those who viewed it.” Given the context of political protest in which Johnson’s conduct occurred, the
justices concluded that it was sufficiently expressive to invoke First Amendment protection.
The Court acknowledged that while “the government generally has a freer hand in restricting expressive
conduct than it has in restricting the written or spoken word,” it still cannot prohibit certain conduct just
because it disapproves of the ideas expressed. The justices declared that “if there is a bedrock principle
underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea
simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.” The government must have reasons
for regulating the conduct that are unrelated to the popularity of the ideas it expresses.
The Court considered two central arguments asserted by Texas. The first was that the government can
prevent expressive speech to prevent breaches of the peace. According to Supreme Court precedent,
speech can be prohibited when it would incite “imminent lawless action.” The justices decided that the
Texas law prohibiting flag burning did not limit its prohibition to situations in which it would incite
“imminent lawless action,” and no such violent disturbance of the peace occurred when Johnson burned the
flag. This reason was therefore not sufficient.
Second, Texas argued that the reason for prohibiting flag burning was to preserve the flag as a symbol of
national unity. The Court decided, however, that the Court had never “recognized an exception to [the First
Amendment] even where our flag has been involved.” They acknowledged that while the government does
have an interest in encouraging its citizens to treat the flag with respect, this interest did not justify the
criminal prosecution of a man who burned the flag as part of a political protest.
A better way to encourage respect for the American flag would be to persuade people to recognize its
unique symbolic value. The justices urged that there is “no more appropriate response to burning a flag
than waving one’s own, no better way to counter a flag burner’s message than by saluting the flag that
burns, no surer means of preserving the dignity even of the flag that burned than by ... according its remains
a respectful burial.” The Court concluded that “we do not consecrate the flag by punishing its desecration,
for in doing so we dilute the freedom that this cherished emblem represents.”
In his dissenting opinion, Justice Rehnquist acknowledged the special place the flag holds as the “visible
symbol embodying our nation,” noting that “millions and millions of Americans regard it with an almost
mystical reverence.” Because of its unique position, Rehnquist concluded that it was constitutionally
permissible to prohibit burning the flag as a means of symbolic expression. He argued that Texas’s
prohibition on flag burning did not regulate the content of Johnson’s message, but only removed one of the
ways in which this message could be expressed. Johnson was left with “a full panoply of other symbols
and every conceivable form of verbal expression” to convey his message. A ban on flag burning is thus
consistent with the First Amendment, Justice Rehnquist concluded, because it is not directed at suppressing
particular ideas, but rather seeks only to protect the special significance of the flag as the symbol of the
United States.
Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
Self-Incrimination, Due Process
Ernesto Miranda was a poor Mexican immigrant who lived in Arizona in 1963. A woman accused Miranda
of committing a crime against her. The police arrested Miranda and asked him questions about the crime
for two hours.
In the United States, people who are accused of crimes have certain rights granted by the Constitution. The
Fifth Amendment of the Constitution says that they have the right to be silent. The Sixth Amendment of the
Constitution says that they have the right to have a lawyer to help defend themselves.
The police did not tell Miranda that he had these rights when they arrested him. After the police were
finished asking Miranda questions, he signed a confession. The police used his confession in the trial and
Miranda was convicted of the crime. The judge decided he should serve 20 to 30 years in prison for each
crime.
Miranda appealed his case to the highest court in Arizona, called the Supreme Court of Arizona. His
attorney argued that his confession should not have been used as evidence in his trial because Miranda had
not been informed of his rights, and no attorney had been present to assist him during his interrogation.
The Arizona Supreme Court denied his appeal and upheld Miranda's conviction.
The Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear Miranda's case. The decision in Miranda v. Arizona
was handed down in 1966.
Questions to Consider
1.
2.
3.
4.
What rights of the accused does the Fifth Amendment protect? The Sixth Amendment?
If the police had informed Ernesto Miranda of these rights, do you think he would have done
anything differently?
This case involves balancing the rights of the accused against society's need to to fight crime.
Could informing accused persons of their rights hurt the ability of the police to fight crime? Why
or why not?
Do you think that informing people of their rights when they are accused of crimes helps protect
innocent citizens? Why or why not?
In a 5-4 opinion, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Miranda. The majority opinion, written by Chief
Justice Earl Warren, concluded that defendants arrested under state law must be informed of their
constitutional rights against self-incrimination and to representation by an attorney before being
interrogated when in police custody. Justices Clark, Harlan, Stewart and White dissented.
In their majority opinion, the justices explained that the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination is
fundamental to our system of justice, and is “one of our Nation’s most cherished principles.” This
guarantee requires that only statements freely made by a defendant may be used in court. The justices
described some of the techniques used by police officers in interrogations. They observed that “the modern
practice of in-custody interrogation is psychologically rather than physically oriented,” and cited the
advantage police officers hold in custodial interrogations (interrogations that take place while the subject is
in police custody). Because of these advantages, they concluded that “the very fact of custodial
interrogation exacts a heavy toll on individual liberty, and trades on the weakness of individuals.”
The Court ruled that in order to reconcile the necessary practice of custodial interrogations with the
guarantees of the Fifth Amendment, police must ensure that defendants are aware of their rights before they
are interrogated in custody. Because the right against self-incrimination is so important to our system of
justice, a case by case determination made by police officers of whether each defendant understands his or
her rights is not sufficient. Before interrogating defendants in police custody, they must be warned 1) that
they have the right to remain silent 2) that anything they say may be used against them in court, 3) that they
have the right to an attorney, either retained by them or appointed by the court, and 4) that they may waive
these rights, but they retain the right to ask for an attorney any time during the interrogation, at which point
the interrogation can only continue in the presence of a lawyer.
The Supreme Court reasoned that because the right against self-incrimination is so fundamental, and
because it is so simple to inform defendants of their rights, any statements made by defendants during a
custodial interrogation in which the defendant has not been read his “Miranda rights” are inadmissible in
both state and federal courts.
Justice Harlan wrote the main dissent. He argued that the newly created rules did not protect against police
brutality, coercion or other abuses of authority during custodial interrogations because officers willing to
use such illegal tactics and deny their use in court were “equally able and destined to lie as skillfully about
warnings and waivers.” Instead, he predicted that the new requirements would impair and substantially
frustrate police officers in the use of techniques that had long been considered appropriate and even
necessary, thus reducing the number of confessions police would be able to obtain. He concluded that the
harmful effects of crime on society were “too great to call the new rules anything but a hazardous
experimentation.”
Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)
Student Speech, Symbolic Speech
John and Mary Beth Tinker attended public school in Des Moines, Iowa in 1965. Their school did not
allow students to wear armbands to protest the Vietnam War. However, the Tinkers decided to wear
armbands to school anyway. The school officials asked the Tinkers to remove their armbands, but the
Tinkers refused. John and Mary Beth Tinker were suspended from school until they agreed to remove the
armbands.
The Tinkers sued the school district in the U.S. District Court. The Tinkers believed that the Des Moines
school district violated their right to free speech under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Even
though the students were not speaking with their voices, they believed that wearing armbands was like
speaking. This is called symbolic speech.
The District Court sided with the school officials. The Court said that wearing the armbands could disrupt
learning at the school. Learning without disruption was more important than the free speech of the students.
The Tinkers appealed their case to the next level of courts, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit:
But the Circuit Court agreed with the District Court. The Tinkers then appealed their case to the Supreme
Court of the United States. The Court had to answer this basic question: Does the constitutional right of
free speech protect the symbolic speech of public school students?
In 1968, the Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear the case of Tinker v. Des Moines. They
issued their decision in 1969.
Questions to Consider
1.
2.
3.
4.
Do you think that the school policy banning armbands was fair? Why or why not?
The Tinkers knew they would be suspended if they wore armbands to school. They decided to
wear the armbands anyway. Why did they do this?
The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech." Do
you think that actions, like wearing an armband to protest, are the same as speech? Why or why
not?
Imagine that students in your school wanted to protest the smoking rule. Do you think they should
be allowed to wear T-shirts that read "Up with 'Butts'!"? Why or why not?
In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Tinkers. Justice Fortas wrote the majority
opinion, ruling that students retain their constitutional right of freedom of speech while in public school.
Justices Black and Harlan dissented.
The Court ruled that students are entitled to exercise their constitutional rights, even while in school. The
justices reasoned that neither “students (n)or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech
or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” Because student expression is protected by the First Amendment
even while in school, school officials must provide constitutionally valid reasons for regulating student
expression.
The justification for the regulation must be more than “a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and
unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint.” School officials must show that the
expression would cause a “material and substantial disruption” with the discipline and educational function
of the school. The Court decided that allowing the Tinkers to wear their armbands protesting the Vietnam
conflict would not “substantially interfere with the work of the school or impinge upon the rights of other
students.” Wearing the armbands was a “silent, passive expression of opinion” that did not involve any
“disorder or disturbance,” and was unlikely to cause a “material and substantial disruption” in the school.
In addition, the justices noted that the school officials specifically targeted anti-war armbands, but did not
prohibit the wearing of any other symbols conveying a political message. Reasoning that “the prohibition
of expression of one particular opinion … is not constitutionally permissible,” they concluded that “school
officials do not poses absolute authority over their students.”
In his dissenting opinion, Justice Black acknowledged that while the content of speech generally cannot be
regulated or censored, “it is a myth to say that any person has a constitutional right to say what he pleases,
where he pleases, and when he pleases.” According to Justice Black, the Tinkers’ armbands did indeed
cause a disturbance by taking students’ minds off their class work “and divert[ing] them to thoughts about
the highly emotional subject of the Vietnam War.” This was exactly what school officials were trying to
prevent. Justice Black believed that the majority’s ruling was too restrictive on school officials, overly
limiting their control over their schools, and subjecting public schools to “the whims and caprices of their
loudest-mouthed … students.”
Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
Warantless Search, Due Process
Dollree Mapp lived in Cleveland, Ohio. One day, the police broke into Mapp's house to look for a
suspected bomber. Mapp had refused to let the police into her house earlier because they did not have a
search warrant. When the police broke in, they showed Mapp a piece of paper. They said the paper was a
search warrant, but they did not let her see it.
The police searched Mapp's house without her permission. They looked in her room, her daughter's
bedroom, the kitchen, the living room, and the basement. In the basement they found a trunk. Inside the
trunk were obscene pictures, photographs, and books. The police did not find the bomber, but they arrested
Mapp anyway. They said she broke the law by having obscene pictures.
The court found her guilty. Mapp then appealed her case to the Supreme Court of Ohio. She said that her
rights were violated in the search. The Supreme Court of Ohio said that the actions of the police were
probably illegal. However, they also said that the evidence (the illegal pictures) the police found could be
used against Mapp, even though the search itself may have been illegal. Mapp then appealed her case to the
Supreme Court of the United States.
The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects people from unreasonable searches by the
government. In Mapp's case, the Supreme Court of the United States had to decide when a search is legal
and whether evidence from an illegal search could be used in a criminal case. In 1961 the Supreme Court of
the United States ruled in the case of Mapp v. Ohio.
Questions to Consider
1.
2.
3.
Was Mapp right to not let the police enter her house? Why or why not?
Was there anything unreasonable about the police search of Mapp's house? Explain.
The Supreme Court of the United States has to protect both humans and society. In this case,
whom do you think they should protect first? Mapp? Society? Explain your answer.
In a 5-3 decision,* the Court ruled in favor of Mapp. The majority opinion, written by Justice Clark,
applied the exclusionary rule to the states. That rule requires courts to exclude from criminal trials
evidence that was obtained in violation of the constitution’s ban on unreasonable searches and arrests.
Justice Harlan wrote a dissenting opinion. The majority opinion was based on several earlier decisions that
had begun the process of applying federal constitutional protections to state criminal justice systems.
In one of those earlier decisions, the Supreme Court had ruled that the states must be bound by the Fourth
Amendment because its guarantees were part of the “due process of law” required of states by the
Fourteenth Amendment. That decision essentially required the Fourth Amendment’s provisions, which
previously had only applied to the federal government, to apply to the states as well. The justices ruled that
since the guarantees of the Fourth Amendment applied to both the federal and state governments, they
should be enforced the same way in both federal and state courts. Evidence obtained unlawfully is not
admissible in federal court, so it should not be admissible in state courts either.
The justices reasoned that requiring states to obey to the exclusionary rule created “no war between the
Constitution and common sense.” They responded to the argument that the exclusionary rule would make
it possible for criminals to go free due to police error by pointing out that “the criminal goes free, if he
must, but it is the law that sets him free.” The justices stated that the exclusionary rule was necessary to
make state authorities abide by the requirements of the Fourth Amendment, for “nothing can destroy a
government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws.” Thus, the Court decided that “the
exclusionary rule is an essential part of both the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.”
In his dissent, Justice Harlan argued that the majority had confronted the wrong issue in its decision.
Because Ms. Mapp was convicted under an Ohio statute criminalizing the possession of obscene material,
Justice Harlan believed that the “new and pivotal issue” was whether this statute “is consistent with the
rights of free thought and expression assured against state action by the Fourteenth Amendment.” Thus, he
concluded that the majority had ignored the principles of judicial restraint and stare decisis, and had
“’reached out’” to consider the exclusionary rule issue. According to Justice Harlan, this was a First
Amendment case and not an appropriate case for extending the Fourth Amendment’s exclusionary rule to
the states. He also concluded that it was wrong to impose the exclusionary rule, designed for the federal
criminal process, on the states which, in his view, bore quite different responsibilities in this area of law.
*Justice Stewart wrote a separate opinion that did not address the issue of the exclusionary rule. He voted
to reverse Mapp’s conviction solely on First Amendment grounds.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms
Amendment 3 - Quartering of Soldiers
Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure
Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings
Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses
Amendment 7 - Trial by Jury in Civil Cases
Amendment 8 - Cruel and Unusual Punishment
Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution
Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People
Amendment 11 - Judicial Limits
Amendment 12 - Choosing the President, Vice President
Amendment 13 - Slavery Abolished
Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights
Amendment 15 - Race No Bar to Vote
Amendment 16 - Status of Income Tax Clarified
Amendment 17 - Senators Elected by Popular Vote
Amendment 18 - Liquor Abolished
Amendment 19 - Women's Suffrage
Amendment 20 - Presidential, Congressional Terms
Amendment 21 - Amendment 18 Repealed
Amendment 22 - Presidential Term Limits
Amendment 23 - Presidential Vote for District of Columbia
Amendment 24 - Poll Taxes Barred
Amendment 25 - Presidential Disability and Succession
Amendment 26 - Voting Age Set to 18 Years
Amendment 27 - Limiting Changes to Congressional Pay
The Constitution is the highest law in the United States. All other laws come from the Constitution. It says
how the government works. It creates the Presidency. It creates the Congress. It creates the Supreme Court.
Each state also has a constitution. The constitutions of the states are their highest law for that state — but
the United States Constitution is higher.
The Constitution can be changed. The Constitution is changed by an "amendment." Among the
amendments is a list of the rights of the people. By listing these rights, they are made special. It is illegal
for the government to violate those rights. As of 2006, there are 27 amendments. Not all of them involve
rights, but many do. The first ten amendments are special. They are called the Bill of Rights.
Slavery
In 1787, most of the black people in America were slaves. A slave is someone who is owned by someone
else. Today, there are no legal slaves in America. It was common in 1787. As time went by, more people
thought that slavery was wrong. Most of the people who wanted to end slavery were from the states in the
north. They were called abolitionists. Most of the people who wanted to keep slavery were from the states
in the south. Slavery was important in the South. A lot of how the people in the south made money
involved slaves. Slaves were worth money. Slaves picked their crops, like cotton and tobacco.
The people in the North wanted to end slavery. They said it was an important step for America. The people
of the South were afraid of losing slavery. They were afraid of losing business. They thought that having
slavery was important for each state choose on its own. When President Lincoln was elected, the South got
very angry. Lincoln had said he didn't like slavery. Most of the Southern states decided to break away from
the United States. They created their own country. It was called the Confederate States of America. The
USA did not agree that the states of the CSA could break away. The Civil War followed. The USA won
that war. It was a terrible war. Many people died. Many buildings were destroyed.
Something good did happen, though. Slavery ended. With the 13th Amendment, slavery was made illegal.
The 14th Amendment said that every person born in the United States was a full citizen. Even former
slaves were full citizens. The 15th Amendment made sure that black people could vote.
These changes protected many freedoms. But it took a long time to change peoples' minds. Many people
still did not like black people. They thought that white people were better. For 100 years, some laws
reflected this feeling. Today, these laws are also gone. Most people do not think that anyone is better than
someone else just because of their color.
Women
At the beginning, we talked
about the men who were the
Framers. For a long time,
most of the people who
shaped the country were
men. This is not because
women could not help. It is
not because women did not
want to help. Instead, men
held all the positions of
power. Men were the
Presidents. Men were the
members of Congress. Men
were the mayors. Men were
the owners of companies.
Women had very little
chance to advance in life.
Today, many women like
taking care of the home.
Today, though, this is a
choice. Before, this was the
only option for a woman.
Women had no role in
government. They had no
role in politics. They were
A portrait of Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony. Stanton and
homemakers. They took
Anthony were leaders in the "suffragette" movement, the movement to
care of their husbands or
give the vote to women.
fathers. They took care of
kids. Most men did not feel
that women should vote. There were actually laws that said women could not vote. Many people decided
this was wrong and many women and some men fought against it. Finally, in 1920, the 19th Amendment
was passed. It says that women can vote in all elections.
Today, women are active in government and politics. Being able to vote is a big part of that. Without the
ability to vote, women had no voice. Without a voice, there was no reason for politicians to care what
women think. They did not care about issues that are important to women. Once women could vote, some
got very interested in politics. Some women ran for office. There have not yet been any women as
President. However, it is only a matter of time before the first woman President is elected.
The Bill of Rights
We already talked about the
Bill of Rights. It was passed
because some people were
afraid that the government
would have too much
power. They were afraid
that some important things
could be made illegal. They
wanted to be sure to keep
those things legal.
For example, you can say
whatever you want about
the President. You can say
that you don't like his hair.
You can say you don't like
his voice. You can say you
don't like the war in Iraq.
You can say you don't like
The Bill of Rights protects the freedom of, and from, religion.
his tax ideas. It seems
normal to us to be able to
say these things. We can criticize the President. We can criticize a member of Congress. We can criticize a
mayor. We can say what things they do that we don't like. This is only possible because of the Right of Free
Speech. The Bill of Rights
protects Free Speech.
Imagine if there was no
right to free speech. A law
could be passed that says
that if you criticize the
President's hair, you can
spend a day in jail. Or
worse, criticizing the
President's taxes can get
you a year in jail. These are
the kinds of laws that the
Framers were afraid of. The
Bill of Rights protects us
from such laws. We cannot
be put in jail because of our
opinions.
The Bill of Rights protects a
lot of other freedoms. For
example, you can believe in
The freedom to express yourself, in speech, in writing, and in protest, is
any religion you want. The
also protected by the Bill of Rights.
government cannot force
you to believe in something.
You cannot be forced to
house soldiers in your home. The police cannot come into your home without a good reason. The police
may not take your papers without reason. The police cannot force you testify against yourself in court. In
fact, the police cannot force you to tell them anything at all. This is called the "right to remain silent". And
you cannot be given unusual punishments. You cannot be given twenty years in jail for speeding.
An interior view of the House of Representatives, the "lower" house of the
United States Congress. The House is known as the "peoples' house"
because since the beginning, the members were elected by the people.