Supreme Court Cases (Warren Court): How did the Warren Court use judicial review to protect the rights of citizens?
The Warren Court, presiding over the United States Supreme Court from 1953 to 1969, remains one of the most transformative and debated periods in American judicial history. Under the dynamic leadership of Chief Justice Earl Warren, this era witnessed the Court playing an assertive role in shaping societal values, often pushing against the grain of deeply entrenched norms and statutes. But what was the fundamental tool that empowered the Warren Court to champion and protect individual rights? The answer lies in the principle of judicial review.
Judicial review is the prerogative of the judiciary to interpret, and in some instances, invalidate governmental actions that are deemed inconsistent with the Constitution. This powerful check and balance mechanism has been wielded by various courts over the years, but few with the assertiveness and impact of the Warren Court. It was a period when the country was gripped with the Civil Rights Movement, the tensions of the Cold War, and sweeping cultural shifts. In this vortex of change, the Warren Court, through judicious application of judicial review, emerged as a beacon for civil rights and liberties.
This essay aims to delve deep into the landmark cases and decisions of the Warren Court. By examining these judicial landmarks, we will illuminate how the Court, under Warren’s stewardship, utilized its power of judicial review to assertively protect and expand individual rights, particularly emphasizing civil rights and liberties. Through this exploration, we will gain insight into the enduring significance of the Warren Court’s legacy and its profound influence on the trajectory of American history.
The mid-20th century in America was a time of immense turbulence and transformation. Society stood at the precipice of monumental shifts, spearheaded by movements and events like the Civil Rights Movement and the Cold War. As America grappled with its evolving identity and values, the judiciary emerged as a pivotal institution, playing an integral role in mediating the nation’s internal struggles.
Central to the American governance system is the principle of checks and balances. The U.S. Constitution ingeniously distributes power among three branches of government: the legislative, executive, and judicial. Of these, the Supreme Court, as the highest court in the judicial branch, holds the solemn responsibility of ensuring that the nation’s laws and actions align with the Constitution’s principles.
While the Supreme Court had always been a significant institution, its dynamics underwent a noticeable shift when Earl Warren was appointed as the Chief Justice in 1953. Born in Los Angeles, California, in 1891, Warren had a varied career as a district attorney, attorney general, and even the Governor of California. His political acumen, combined with his passion for justice, made him an unconventional yet impactful Chief Justice.
Warren’s leadership brought together an ideologically diverse set of justices. Despite their differences, the Court, under his guidance, often arrived at unanimous or near-unanimous decisions on contentious issues. Such unity was not merely coincidental but was a testament to Warren’s ability to foster collaboration and consensus. This cohesiveness was instrumental in reinforcing the Court’s rulings, especially when they challenged deep-seated prejudices and systemic inequalities.
As the nation stood at crossroads, with protests on the streets and ideological battles in the halls of power, the Warren Court was not just a passive observer. It took the reins of judicial review in its hands, ensuring that the Constitution’s ideals were not trampled upon and that the rights of every citizen, especially the marginalized, were upheld.
The Warren Court, during its tenure, handed down numerous decisions that reshaped American jurisprudence and society. While it would be exhaustive to cover all the pivotal cases, some stand out for their profound impact on individual rights and societal values. Here are a few of the most transformative decisions:
Brown v. Board of Education (1954)
Perhaps the most celebrated decision of the Warren Court, Brown v. Board of Education, signaled the beginning of the end for racial segregation in American public schools. Challenging the “separate but equal” doctrine established by Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896, the Brown case was a consolidation of several related lawsuits from different states.
The Court’s unanimous decision, penned by Chief Justice Warren himself, declared that racial segregation in public schools was inherently unequal and, therefore, violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This ruling was a monumental leap forward in the civil rights movement, setting the stage for the desegregation of other public institutions and facilities.
Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
In Mapp v. Ohio, the Warren Court tackled the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. The case centered around Dollree Mapp, whose residence was searched by police without a valid warrant, leading to the discovery of incriminating evidence.
The Court’s decision established the “exclusionary rule,” which dictates that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment cannot be used in state courts. This ruling was pivotal in ensuring that the rights of citizens were protected against arbitrary and intrusive actions by law enforcement.
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)
Gideon v. Wainwright underscored the fundamental right of an accused person to have legal counsel. Clarence Earl Gideon, charged with felony theft and unable to afford a lawyer, was denied representation and subsequently convicted. Challenging this, he scribbled a petition to the Supreme Court from his prison cell.
The Warren Court unanimously ruled that the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of counsel was a fundamental right and essential for a fair trial, applying to all criminal defendants in state courts, regardless of their ability to pay. This decision ensured that justice was not a privilege of the wealthy but a right for all.
Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
The name “Miranda” has become synonymous with the rights of the accused, thanks to the Warren Court’s decision in Miranda v. Arizona. Ernesto Miranda, arrested and interrogated without being informed of his rights, confessed to a crime. The Court held that detained criminal suspects, prior to police questioning, must be informed of their rights to an attorney and against self-incrimination.
This landmark ruling birthed the “Miranda warning,” now a standard protocol in arrests, ensuring that individuals are aware of their rights and protecting them from coercive police practices.
Loving v. Virginia (1967)
The fight for civil rights extended beyond classrooms and police stations, finding its way into the intimate spaces of people’s lives, specifically, whom they could marry. Loving v. Virginia brought this issue to the forefront. The case revolved around Mildred Loving, a woman of African American and Native American descent, and Richard Loving, a white man. Their marriage, which took place in Washington, D.C., was deemed illegal upon their return to their home state of Virginia due to the state’s anti-miscegenation laws.
The Warren Court’s unanimous decision invalidated such laws, asserting that banning interracial marriage was a violation of the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. This ruling not only legalized interracial marriage across the United States but also affirmed the fundamental right to marry irrespective of race.
Engel v. Vitale (1962)
The separation of church and state has been a cornerstone of American democracy, ensuring that government does not favor or inhibit any particular religion. Engel v. Vitale tested this principle when a public school in New York started its day with a voluntary prayer. Although the prayer was denominationally neutral, a group of parents saw this as an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion.
The Warren Court agreed, ruling that even voluntary school-led prayers in public schools violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The decision reinforced the wall of separation between church and state, emphasizing that public institutions must remain neutral in matters of religion.
Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)
Griswold v. Connecticut touched upon the deeply personal realm of marital privacy. At the heart of the case was a Connecticut law that prohibited the use of contraceptives and criminalized those who provided information or medical advice on their use. Estelle Griswold, the executive director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, and Dr. C. Lee Buxton, a physician, were arrested and fined for violating this law.
The Warren Court, in its ruling, recognized a “right to privacy” within the “penumbras” of several amendments in the Bill of Rights. While the right to privacy wasn’t explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, the Court held that it was a fundamental right implicitly present. The decision in Griswold laid the foundation for many subsequent rulings, most notably Roe v. Wade, which dealt with the right to abortion.
These cases, along with many others, illustrate the Warren Court’s dedication to expanding and protecting individual rights. Through its use of judicial review, the Court ventured into areas previously untouched or inadequately addressed, leaving a lasting legacy on American jurisprudence.
The Legacy and Impact of the Warren Court
The Warren Court’s decisions were more than just judicial interpretations; they were catalysts for profound societal transformation. The Court’s assertive use of judicial review during this era left an indelible mark on American society, jurisprudence, and the very fabric of constitutional interpretation. However, the legacy of the Warren Court is multifaceted, comprising both immediate effects and long-term reverberations.
First and foremost, the Warren Court’s rulings provided immediate relief and justice to countless individuals who had been marginalized by discriminatory laws and practices. Whether it was African American children gaining access to desegregated schools post-Brown v. Board of Education, or couples like the Lovings no longer living in fear of prosecution for their interracial marriage, the Court’s decisions directly bettered the lives of many.
Beyond the immediate beneficiaries, the decisions had ripple effects throughout American society. By emphasizing individual rights and liberties, the Warren Court bolstered the larger civil rights movement, giving legal credence to the social battles being fought on the streets. The Court’s rulings acted as a moral compass, guiding the nation towards a more just and equitable future.
Jurisprudentially, the Warren Court’s decisions reshaped the landscape of constitutional interpretation. The emphasis on the “living Constitution”—a view that the Constitution’s meaning can evolve and adapt over time—became more pronounced during this era. This dynamic interpretation allowed the Court to address modern challenges and societal changes, ensuring that the Constitution remained a relevant and protective document for all citizens.
However, the assertive nature of the Warren Court did not come without controversy. Critics argued that the Court was overstepping its boundaries, engaging in judicial activism rather than impartial interpretation. Some saw the Court’s decisions as an encroachment on states’ rights, while others believed the justices were imposing their own personal and political beliefs rather than adhering strictly to the Constitution’s text.
Regardless of the criticisms, there’s no denying the transformative nature of the Warren Court’s tenure. Its legacy persists today, not just in the legal precedents it set, but also in the continuing debates about the role of the Supreme Court in American society. As society evolves, so does the interpretation of its foundational document, and the Warren Court played an instrumental role in shaping this evolutionary process.
In the grand tapestry of American history, the Warren Court stands out as a period when the judiciary did not shy away from its responsibility, boldly using its power to uphold the Constitution’s promises and ensuring that liberty and justice were not mere words but lived realities.
The United States Supreme Court has witnessed various eras and interpretations, each leaving its unique imprint on the annals of American jurisprudence. Yet, the Warren Court stands out as a period of profound transformation and assertiveness. Under Chief Justice Earl Warren’s leadership, the Court ventured into contentious terrains, challenging societal norms and established doctrines to uphold and expand the rights of citizens.
Through landmark cases like Brown v. Board of Education, Mapp v. Ohio, and Loving v. Virginia, the Court showcased the power of judicial review, ensuring that the Constitution remained a vibrant, living document that adapted to the changing needs of society. The decisions from this era not only provided immediate redress to individuals and communities but also reshaped the very fabric of American society, pushing it closer to its ideals of equality, liberty, and justice for all.
While the Warren Court’s tenure was not without its critics, its legacy is undeniable. The era serves as a testament to the pivotal role the judiciary plays in a democracy, acting as a safeguard against injustices and ensuring that the nation’s foundational principles are not just words on paper but guiding stars in action.
As we reflect on the Warren Court’s impact, it reminds us of the enduring power and significance of the judiciary in shaping a nation’s destiny. It underscores the importance of upholding the Constitution’s promises and the continuous pursuit of a more just and equitable society.
Class Notes and Outline: How did the Warren Court use judicial review to protect the rights of citizens?
As we have previously discussed the sixties were a time of great turbulence. Protest became a part of American life as we sought to define ourselves in a new, modern era. Part of this process involved a movement away from the authority and infallibility of government and law enforcement. The ideas of individuals rights was became more important. As is often the case these battles were fought in the courts. The Supreme court led by Chief Justice Earl Warren made several controversial decisions that changed the nature of law
I. Rights as defined by the Warren Court
A. How does the constitution protect our rights?
1. The constitution allows citizens to vote and choose a government of their liking.
2. In the beginning voting rights were understood to be limited to white, male landowners.
3. Voting rights were eventually extended by constitutional amendment:
- Amendment 15 – Extend right to vote to Blacks.
- Amendment 19 – Extended right to vote to Women.
- Amendment 24 – Outlawed Poll Taxes
- Amendment 26 – Lowered voting age to 18.
B. What are some key Amendments that protect peoples rights.
- Amendment 1: freedom of religion, separation of church and state; freedoms of speech, press, assembly, petition the govt.
- Amendment 2: Right to bear arms
- Amendment 4: Protection against unreasonable search and seizure
- Amendment 5: Capital crimes charges must be leveled by a grand jury, no self incrimination.
- Amendment 6: Fair and speedy jury trial, right to have the assistance of counsel for defense.
- Amendment 7: Trial by jury in civil suits exceeding 20 dollars.
- Amendment 8: No excessive bail, no cruel and unusual punishment.
- Amendment 14: Equal protection under the law, due process of law.
C. What cases were tried during the Warren Court years (1960’s)and how did they impact on rights in America?
Brown V, Board of Education, Topeka Kansas – 1954 – Civil Rights
Linda Brown, a student in the segregated Topeka Kansas school district had to walk 5 miles to school each day. Across the train tracks from her house there was a white school she was unable to attend. Oliver Brown enlisted the help of the NAACP to ensure that his daughter was able to go to the best school possible. Thurgood Marshall, then head of the NAACP, challenged the segregation of the school claiming that the laws violated the 14th amendment to the Constitution that said that all citizens were to receive “equal protection under the law.” The state argued that Plessey v Ferguson had set the precedent and that the laws was clear on this point.
The court affirmed the position of Marshall and the Brown family and overturned the precedent set by the Plessey decision. Justice Earl Warren claimed that “in the eyes of the law, justice was color-blind.” In ruling in favor of Brown the court ordered the integration of America “with all deliberate speed.” The civil rights movement had begun!
Mapp v Ohio – 1961 – Search and Seizure
Dorlee Mapp was suspected of having information in her home that would implicate a suspected bomber. The police came to her home and asked if they might search the residence. Ms. Mapp called her lawyer and was advised to ask for a warrant. They police did not have a warrant and were asked to leave. Hours later the police returned and forcibly entered the residence. Mrs. Mapp demanded to see the warrant and a piece of paper was waved in her face. Mrs. Mapp grabbed the paper and tucked it in her blouse. A struggle ensued where Ms. Mapp was knocked to the ground as police retrieved the supposed warrant. Outside Ms. Mapp’s attorney arrived on the scene but was prevented from entering the residence. The police found pornographic materials in the house and Ms. Mapp was arrested for possession of lewd materials. Ms. Mapp was convicted of this crime. Ms.. Mapp appealed her conviction on the grounds that the search of her home was in violation of her rights.
The court ruled that the evidence obtained in the search was inadmissible because it was seized in an illegal search. In ruling this way the court created the “exclusionary rule” which makes illegally obtained evidence inadmissible in court. This ruling upheld the principles of the fourth amendment.
Betts v Brady
– 1942 – Right To Counsel
**Not a Warren Court case – this case is the precedent overturned by the following two cases; Escobedo and Gideon.
Betts was indicted for robbery and detained in a Maryland jail. Prior to his trial, he asked for counsel to represent him. This request was denied and he was soon convicted. While incarcerated, Betts filed a habeas corpus petition in the lower courts. After they rejected his petitions, he filed a certiorari petition with the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear his case. Bett argued that his 6th Amendment right to a fair trial was violated because of his lack of counsel. The State of Maryland held that most states did not require the appointment of counsel in non-capital cases and the circumstances of this particular case did not require it. Although the Court found in favor of Betts, it decided that the right to counsel must be decided on a case- by-case basis. This ruling was upheld for 20 years until it was overturned by Gideon v. Wainwright in 1963.
Gideon v. Wainright – 1963 – Right To Counsel
Gideon was accused of breaking into a poolroom. Gideon, an ex con, was too poor to pay for a lawyer and asked the court to appoint one for him. The court refused to grant his request stating that lawyers were only provided for those accused of committing capital crimes like murder, rape, etc. Gideon was tried and was forced to defend himself. While in Prison Gideon hand wrote a plea to the Supreme Court and was granted a hearing. At this point he received representation from lawyers who were attracted to his case. Gideon argued that his right to a fair trial was violated.
Gideon’s position was upheld. The Court ruled that all citizens must be provided a lawyer if they cannot afford one. This is regardless of the type of crime.
Escobedo v Illinois – 1964 – Right To Counsel
Escobedo was arrested in connection with a murder and brought to the police station. He repeatedly asked to see his lawyer, but was never allowed out of the interrogation room. His lawyer even went so far as to come to the police station in search of him, but was denied access. Escobedo then confessed while under interrogation to firing the shot that killed the victim. As a result, he was soon convicted. Escobedo appealed to the Supreme Court and it overturned the conviction. The Court extended the “exclusionary rule” to illegal confessions and ruled that Escobedo’s confession should not have been allowed in as evidence. The Court also defined the “Escobedo Rule” which holds that individuals have the right to an attorney when an “investigation is no longer a general inquiry…but has begun to focus on a particular suspect…” The ruling went on to detail that (Where) the suspect has been taken into custody…the suspect has requested…his lawyer, and the police have not…warned him of his right to remain silent, the accused has been denied…counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment.”
Miranda v Arizona – 1966 – Rights of the Accused
Ernesto Miranda was arrested for the kidnapping and rape of a young woman. Upon arrest Miranda was questioned for two hours. He never asked for a lawyer and eventually confessed to the crime. Later, however, a lawyer representing Miranda appealed the case to the Supreme Court claiming that Miranda’s rights had been violated. Miranda was acquitted. The Court ruled that citizens must be informed of their rights prior to questioning. Any evidence or statement obtained prior to a suspect being read his/her rights is
inadmissible. This has led to what is commonly referred to as one’s
“Miranda Rights” having to be read upon questioning or arrest. They
are: “You have the right to remain silent, anything you say can, and
will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford one, one will be appointed for you.” Note, Miranda was later killed in a barroom brawl, stabbed to death.
Engle v Vitale – 1962 – Separation of Church and State
In the late 1950’s the New York State Board of Regents wrote and adopted a prayer which was supposed to be nondenominational. The board recommended that the prayer be said by students in public schools on a voluntary basis every morning. In New Hyde Park Long Island a parent sued the school claiming that the prayer violated the first amendment of the constitution. The school argued that the prayer was nondenominational and did not attempt to “establish or endorse” a religion and thus that it did not violate the establishment clause.
The court ruled against the school district and upheld the establishment clause of the first amendment. Prayer in schools was to be considered unconstitutional.
Abbington v Schempp – 1963 – Separation of Church and State
This case involved a Pennsylvania law requiring that at least ten Bible verses be read in public schools at the beginning of each day. The Schempps, a family in Abington, sued the school district for violating the first amendment of the constitution. Just as in Engle v Vitale, religious instruction in school was deemed to violate the 1st amendment of the constitution.
Tinker v Des Moines – 1969 – Symbolic Speech
Several students and parents in Des Moines organized a protest of the Vietnam war. Students were to wear black arm bands to school in protest. When the school found out they warned all the students and parents that anyone wearing the armbands would be would be suspended. The Tinker children wore their armbands to school (they were the only ones of the group to do so) and were suspended. Mr and Mrs. Tinker filed suit claiming that the school violated the children’s right to freedom of speech and expression. The school claimed that the armbands were disruptive.
The court ruled against the school district saying that “students do not shed their constitutional rights at the school house gates. In doing so the court protected what has come to be known as “symbolic speech.”
Olmstead v United States – 1928 – Search and Seizure (Wiretaps) **This is not a Warren Court case. It is the precedent that was overturned by the next case, Katz v United States.
Roy Olmstead, a bootlegger, had a good business going during the prohibition years. He sold liquor illegally in violation of the 18th amendment and the Volstead Act. The government in searching for evidence used a new technology and tapped into Olmstead’s phone lines. They recorded evidence against Olmstead, arrested him and he was convicted using that evidence. Olmstead’s lawyer appealed arguing that the police had violated his right to privacy by listening in on his phone conversations. He further argued that the evidence used to convict him should be thrown out because it was obtained without a warrant.
Olmstead’s conviction was upheld as the court ruled that right to privacy and the need for a search warrant did not apply to telephone conversations. Attorney Louis D. Brandeis, later to become Supreme Court Justice argued in defense of Olmstead to no avail. Later, when Brandeis sat on the bench he helped to overrule that precedent in the case of Katz v United States.
Katz v. United States – 1961 – Search and Seizure (Wiretaps)
Katz was arrested for illegal gambling after using a public phone to transmit “gambling information.” The FBI had attached an electronic listening/recording device onto the outside of the public phone booth that Katz habitually used. They argued that this constituted a legal action since they never actually entered the phone booth. The Court, however, ruled in favor of Katz, stating the Fourth Amendment allowed for the protection of a person and not just a person’s property against illegal searches. Whatever a citizen “seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected.”
If one looks at the trend of the Warren Court it is clear that this was a liberal, activist court dedicated to extending and protecting rights.