Supreme Court Cases (Burger and Rehnquist Courts): How has the Burger/Rehnquist Court effected the issue of rights in America?
Introduction
The United States Supreme Court stands as a bulwark of the American democratic system, arbitrating on the Constitution’s interpretation and thus guiding the nation’s legal trajectory. Its judgements often resonate through history, influencing not just legal norms, but also deeply affecting societal values and political structures.
Among the various eras of the Supreme Court, the terms under Chief Justices Warren E. Burger and William H. Rehnquist stand out for their considerable impact on American rights. Spanning from 1969 to 2005, these Courts presided over times of considerable social, political, and cultural change. Under their gavels, numerous landmark decisions were passed that have indelibly shaped the American understanding and practice of rights.
This essay delves into the significant cases of the Burger and Rehnquist Courts, examining their verdicts, the broader implications of these decisions, and the lasting legacies of these two distinctive eras of the Supreme Court. By doing so, it provides insights into how two successive Courts adapted, resisted, and molded the legal landscapes in response to the evolving nature of American society and its challenges.
The Burger Court (1969-1986)
Context and Background
Upon the resignation of Chief Justice Earl Warren in 1969, President Richard Nixon appointed Warren E. Burger as the 15th Chief Justice of the United States. This ushered in an era known for its moderation in comparison to the liberal-leaning Warren Court. Nevertheless, the Burger Court witnessed an America in flux, grappling with issues arising from the Civil Rights Movement, the Vietnam War, and significant cultural shifts of the 1970s.
The Burger Court, while seen by some as a corrective measure to the perceived ‘judicial activism’ of the Warren era, was not uniformly conservative. Instead, it navigated a middle path, balancing the tenets of federalism with the rights of individuals, and setting critical precedents in the process.
Significant Cases Regarding Rights
Roe v. Wade (1973)
Perhaps the most well-known and contentious decision of the Burger Court, Roe v. Wade, tackled the highly sensitive issue of abortion. In a 7-2 decision, the Court ruled that a woman’s right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. This landmark decision catalyzed a fervent national debate on the issue that persists to this day. While ensuring women’s reproductive rights, it also became a focal point for conservative backlash and challenges.
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978)
Addressing the subject of affirmative action, this case marked a significant turning point. Allan Bakke, a white applicant, was denied admission to the University of California Medical School at Davis, alleging racial discrimination. In a split decision, the Court ruled that while race could be one of the factors considered in college admissions (validating the principle of affirmative action), the use of racial quotas was deemed unconstitutional. This decision has had lasting implications for educational institutions and their admission policies.
New York Times Co. v. United States (1971)
Fundamental to the freedom of the press, this case arose when the Nixon administration attempted to prevent the New York Times and Washington Post from publishing the Pentagon Papers, a classified government report detailing U.S. political-military involvement in Vietnam from 1945 to 1967. The Court, in a 6-3 ruling, favored the newspapers, stating that the government failed to justify a prior restraint on publication. This case underscored the essential role of a free press in a democratic society and its protection against executive overreach.
Legacy and Influence
While the Burger Court was often seen as a departure from the liberal activism of the Warren Court, its rulings reflected a nuanced and balanced approach to constitutional interpretation. The Court reaffirmed the right to privacy, bolstered the freedom of the press, and provided critical guidance on affirmative action. However, it also laid the groundwork for future conservative challenges to its landmark decisions, especially concerning abortion rights.
The legacy of the Burger Court is one of moderation and centrality, walking a tightrope between liberal and conservative jurisprudence. Its decisions have shaped the legal contours of America, influencing both public policy and the nation’s broader conversation on rights and freedoms.
The Rehnquist Court (1986-2005)
Context and Background
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist’s ascendancy to the Supreme Court’s helm in 1986 marked a new era in American jurisprudence. Having served as an Associate Justice since 1972, Rehnquist’s conservative leanings were well-known. However, under his leadership, the Court was anything but predictable. Amidst the backdrop of the end of the Cold War, the rise of the internet, and a rapidly changing global order, the Rehnquist Court was characterized by its nuanced decisions, often reflecting a conservative ethos but with notable exceptions.
One key theme of the Rehnquist era was federalism, with the Court often siding with states in matters of rights and jurisdiction. Nevertheless, the Rehnquist Court was not rigidly conservative; it often delivered decisions that surprised its critics and reaffirmed the judiciary’s independent role in American governance.
Significant Cases Regarding Rights
United States v. Lopez (1995)
In a pivotal decision regarding the scope of Congressional power under the Commerce Clause, the Court tackled the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. Alfonzo Lopez, a high school student, was charged under the act for carrying a handgun to school. In a 5-4 ruling, the Court held that Congress had overstepped its bounds, as the act did not have a significant effect on interstate commerce. This case signaled the Court’s intention to place limits on the expanding reach of federal authority under the Commerce Clause.
Bush v. Gore (2000)
Undoubtedly one of the most controversial decisions in American legal history, Bush v. Gore decided the outcome of the 2000 presidential election. With Florida’s electoral votes in contention and recounts underway, the Court, in a 5-4 decision, effectively halted the recounts, citing equal protection concerns. This decision handed the presidency to George W. Bush and generated vast amounts of debate regarding the judiciary’s role in political matters.
Lawrence v. Texas (2003)
Advancing LGBTQ rights, Lawrence v. Texas addressed a Texas statute criminalizing homosexual conduct. The Court, in a 6-3 decision, struck down the law, ruling that it violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Beyond the immediate ramifications for LGBTQ individuals, this decision signposted the Court’s evolving stance on issues of personal liberty and privacy.
Legacy and Influence
The Rehnquist Court, while often perceived as having a conservative inclination, showcased a complex and multifaceted judicial philosophy. From reinforcing states’ rights to breaking ground in LGBTQ freedoms, the Court’s decisions left a profound imprint on the American legal landscape.
Its enduring legacy lies in its recalibration of the balance between state and federal powers, its reaffirmation of personal liberties, and its willingness to wade into contentious societal debates. The Rehnquist Court, through its landmark decisions, has indelibly shaped the contours of rights, freedoms, and federalism in contemporary America.
Comparing the Burger and Rehnquist Courts
While both the Burger and Rehnquist Courts marked distinct eras in American jurisprudence, comparing their approaches, decisions, and legacies offers intriguing insights into the evolving landscape of rights in the U.S. during the late 20th century.
General Approaches
The Burger Court, taking the reins from the liberal Warren Court, was expected to roll back on judicial activism. While it did showcase conservative tendencies, particularly on criminal justice issues, it largely navigated a middle path. Landmark decisions like Roe v. Wade exemplified its unpredictable and centralist inclinations.
The Rehnquist Court, meanwhile, firmly endorsed federalism, often curtailing the scope of federal power in favor of states. Yet, it was not uniformly conservative. While decisions like United States v. Lopez reflected its commitment to limited federal intervention, rulings like Lawrence v. Texas underlined a progressive take on personal rights and freedoms.
Evolving Nature of Rights
Under the Burger Court, the focus was on expanding and crystallizing individual rights, often drawing from the Fourteenth Amendment. Cases centered on reproductive rights, affirmative action, and freedom of the press showcased its commitment to civil liberties, even amidst societal divisions.
Conversely, the Rehnquist Court, while also championing personal rights in certain areas, especially emphasized states’ rights and limited federal oversight. This balance between individual rights and federalism became a hallmark of its tenure.
Notable Shifts in Legal Interpretations
The Burger Court, while seen as a departure from the Warren era, often surprised observers with its decisions. For instance, the ruling on affirmative action in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke nuanced the debate, neither fully endorsing nor rejecting racial considerations in admissions.
The Rehnquist Court, on the other hand, redefined the Commerce Clause’s interpretation, most notably with United States v. Lopez. Its intervention in the 2000 presidential election with Bush v. Gore was also a significant departure from traditional judicial restraint in political matters.
Conclusion of Comparison
In comparing the Burger and Rehnquist Courts, one discerns the judiciary’s adaptive nature, responding to the times, societal needs, and broader constitutional visions. While the Burger Court often expanded individual rights amidst a turbulent era, the Rehnquist Court sought a balance between these rights and the age-old American tension between state and federal powers. Together, these Courts crafted a rich tapestry of decisions, reflecting the multifaceted nature of American rights and liberties.
Conclusion
The United States Supreme Court, as the final arbiter of constitutional interpretation, has played an instrumental role in shaping the nation’s understanding and exercise of rights. Through its decisions, it not only adjudicates on specific cases but also navigates the intricate web of societal values, political considerations, and foundational principles.
The eras of the Burger and Rehnquist Courts, spanning from 1969 to 2005, represent dynamic and transformative periods in American history. Amidst societal upheavals, political realignments, and global shifts, these Courts wrestled with defining and redefining the contours of rights in the U.S. From the hotly contested right to abortion established in Roe v. Wade to the pivotal federalism debates under Rehnquist’s tenure, the decisions from these eras continue to resonate in contemporary legal discourse.
In examining these Courts, one appreciates the judiciary’s complex role in balancing continuity with change. While they bore the names of their respective Chief Justices, the Courts were more than just the reflections of Burger or Rehnquist. They were the collective outcomes of nine justices, each bringing their own legal philosophies, interpretations, and understandings of America’s evolving ethos.
As we look back on these transformative decades, it becomes evident that the judiciary, while grounded in the text of a centuries-old Constitution, is intrinsically linked to the ever-changing tapestry of American society. The decisions of the Burger and Rehnquist Courts, their nuances, disagreements, and legacies, stand as testament to the Court’s enduring and evolving role in the American democratic experiment.
Class Notes and Outline: How has the Burger / Rehnquist Court effected the issue of rights in America?
Just as the Warren court had sought to define the protections of fundamental rights, so did the two Chief Justices after him; Warren Berger and William Rehnquist. The Berger and Rehnquist courts have also issued landmark decisions that have shaped our democracy.
NY Times v United States – 1971 – Freedom of the Press
The New York Times received secret info about the US involvement in the Vietnam War, specifically what had “really” happened at the Gulf of Tonkin. It turned out that the President had exaggerated the incident and used that exaggeration to gain increased war powers form congress (the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution). The New York Times sought to publish the information and the government attempted to get an injunction barring them from going to press with it. The Times sued claiming that the government was infringing upon their first amendment right of freedom of speech. The government claimed that a limitation of that right was in order because it was dangerous to the security of the nation.
The court affirmed the position of the New York Times. The court ruled that the information did not represent a clear and present danger to national security and that the governments attempt to suppress the information was an attempt at censorship and a violation of first amendment rights to freedom of the press.
United States v. Nixon – 1972 – Presidential Privaledge
In the late 1970’s, the Democratic National Headquarters at the Watergate Office Building in Washington, D.C., was broken into. The investigation that followed centered on staff members of then Republican President Richard M. Nixon. The Special Prosecutor subpoenaed certain tapes and documents of specific meetings held in the White House. The President’s lawyer sought to deny the subpoena. The Special Prosecutor asked the Supreme Court of the United States to hear the case before the lower appeals court ruled on the President’s appeal to deny the subpoena.
By an 80 vote, the Court decided that President Nixon must hand over the specific tapes and documents to the Special Prosecutor. Presidential power is not above the law. It cannot protect evidence that may be used in a criminal trial.
Bakke v University of California Bored of Regents – 1976 – Civil Rights
Alan Bakke, an engineer with high grades, applied to several medical schools in the hopes of one day becoming a doctor. Bakke was rejected by all of the schools he applied to but the University of California at Davis encouraged him to apply again. The next year Bakke again applied and was again rejected. Bakke then found out that the University’s affirmative action program reserved 17 places for minority candidates regardless of qualifications. Bakke sued the University claiming that he was the victim of “reverse discrimination.” The university argued that the creation of quotas was needed to ensure minority admission to college under their affirmative action program.
In a two part ruling the court ordered Bakke to be admitted to medical school. The court ruled that Bakke had, in fact, been discriminated against. The court did, however, uphold the legality of affirmative action programs. The court cited Harvard Universities affirmative action program that created guidelines for admission rather than strict quotas.
Island Trees School District v. Pico – 1982 – Freedom of Speech
The Board of Education of the Island Trees School District in New York directed the removal of nine books from the libraries of the Island Trees senior and junior high schools because in the Board’s opinion the books were “antiAmerican, antiChristian, antiSemitic, and just plain filthy.” Some books included were: The Fixer, Soulon Ice, Slaughterhouse Five, Go
AskAlice, The Best Stories by Negro Writers, and others. Four students from the high school and one from the junior high school sued the school district, claiming that the removal of the books was a violation of the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech.
The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in favor of the students, saying that the books were not required reading. According to Justice Brennan, who cited West Virginia Board of Education v. Bamette, 319 U.S.624 (1943), “Local school boards may not remove books from school library shelves simply because they dislike the ideas contained in these books and seek by their removal to prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion.” He also cited Tinker v. Des Moines School District, 393 U.S.503 (1969), saying that high school students have First Amendment rights in the classroom. Although the schools have a right to determine the content of their libraries, they may not interfere with a student’s right to learn. Therefore, the schools may not control their libraries in a manner that results in a narrow, partisan view of certain matters of opinion. The Court stood against the removal or suppression of ideas in schools.
New Jersey v T.L.O – 1985 – Search and Seizure / Students Rights
Two students were found smoking in the girls bathroom. One student confessed but the other, T.L.O. (her initials), denied smoking. In fact, T.L.O. claimed she did not smoke at all. The school Assistant Principal then proceeded to search T.L.O.’s purse. In the purse he found Marijuana in small bags, rolling paper, a large amount of cash and a list of names who owed T.L.O. money. The police were summoned and T.L.O. was arrested. T.L.O. was convicted and through the appeals process the case eventually went to the Supreme Court. T.L.O. claimed that the search of her purse violated her Constitutional rights.
The Court ruled against T.L.O. setting new standards for school officials. The Court ruled that school officials may search a student under “reasonable suspicion.” The standard is less than that required of police therefore giving school officials much broader search powers under the fourth amendment.
Bethel School District v Fraser – 1986 -Free Speech / Students Rights
Matthew Fraser, a high school student in Bethel, Washington, delivered a speech nominating a fellow student for a student elective office. The speech was made during school hours as a part of a school-sponsored educational program in self-government. The voluntary assembly was attended by about 600 students, many of whom were 14-year-olds. Throughout the speech, the student deliberately referred to his candidate in terms of an elaborate and explicit sexual metaphor. The reactions of the students varied from enthusiastic hooting and yelling to embarrassment and bewilderment. Before the speech, the student had discussed it with several teachers, and two teachers told him they thought it was not appropriate. The student was suspended for three days for having violated the school’s “disruptive conduct” rule, which prohibited conduct that substantially interfered with the educational process, including the use of obscene, profane language or gestures.
The U.S. Supreme Court held that the school board acted entirely within its permissible authority in punishing Fraser for “his offensively lewd and indecent speech.” This was not a situation where Fraser was sanctioned for expressing a political viewpoint as in the Tinker “armband” case; the sexual innuendo was incidental to the merits of the candidate who was being nominated. “It is a highly appropriate function of public school education to prohibit the use of vulgar and offensive terms in public discourse .. . Schools must teach by example the shared values of a civilized social order.”
The Court repeated its recognition of an interest in protecting minors from exposure to vulgar and offensive spoken language. Even in a heated political discourse among adults, the Court emphasized the need for consideration for the personal sensibilities of the audience. “A high school assembly or classroom is no place for a sexually explicit monologue directed towards an unsuspecting audience of teenage students.” The Court also stated that the school regulation and the negative reactions of two teachers gave Fraser sufficient notice that his speech might result in his suspension.
Roe v Wade – 1973 – Right To Privacy
Norma McCorvey, a citizen of Texas, was pregnant and wanted to have an abortion. Texas state laws (and most other states) made abortion illegal in that state. Suing under the name Jane Roe she claimed that the state of Texas violated her right to privacy by prohibiting the abortion and telling her what to do with her own body. The state argued that abortion was murder and that there was a compelling state interest in protecting the life of the unborn child.
In this landmark decision the Court declared that laws prohibiting abortion represented a violation of a women’s right to privacy. While the right to privacy does to exist as such in the Constitution it has long been interpreted to exist as an umbrella created by the first 5 amendments in the Bill of Rights. By creating this precedent abortion became legal in all 50 states.
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier – 1988 – Censorship/State Rights v. Students’ Free Press Rights
Kathy Kuhimeier and two other journalism students wrote articles on pregnancy and divorce for their school newspaper. Their teacher submitted page proofs to the principal for approval. The principal objected to the articles because he felt that the students described in the article on pregnancy, although not named, could be identified, and the father discussed in the article on divorce was not allowed to respond to the derogatory article. The principal also said that the language used was not appropriate for younger students. When the newspaper was printed, two pages containing the articles in question as well as four other articles approved by the principal were deleted.
The Supreme Court of the United States held that the Hazelwood School District did not violate the First Amendment right of the students. The Court ruled that School officials need not tolerate speech which is inconsistent with the school’s basic educational mission. The Court distinguished this case from the Tinker decision (school officials could not punish students for wearing armbands in protest of the Vietnam war “students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate”) because the Tinker case involved a student’s personal expression. This was, instead, a school newspaper, and as such could reasonably be perceived to bear the “imprimatur” of the school. They justified this because the publication of Spectrum was a part of the curriculum, i.e., it was in the curriculum guide as a part of the Journalism course, it was taught during school hours by a faculty member, the students received grades and academic credit, the faculty advisor exercised control over the publication, and the principal had to review it. The school’s policies did not reflect an intent to expand the students’ rights by converting a curricular newspaper into a public forum. The court further added that the principal’s fears were reasonable: he was concerned that the students’ identities could not be assured, that the privacy interests of boyfriends and parents were not adequately protected, and that parents mentioned in the divorce article were not given an opportunity to defend themselves.
Texas v. Johnson – 1989 – Freedom of Speech
Outside the Republican National Convention in Dallas, a protest of Ronald Reagan’s policies had been organized, during which a United States flag was burned. Johnson, the man responsible for the flag burning, was arrested under Texas law, which made the desecration of the United States or Texas flags crimes. Johnson was convicted and sentenced to one year in jail and a two thousand dollar fine. Texas reasoned that the police were preventing the breach of peace that would be erupt due to the flag burning, and preserving the integrity of the flag as a symbol of national unity. Johnson’s conviction was overturned by theSupreme Court of Texas, which ruled that this mode of self-expression was protected under the First Amendment to theConstitution. The Supreme Court upheld this ruling, stating the flag burning was “expressive conduct” because it was an attempt to “convey a particularized message.”