Fourteenth Amendment

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to revisit its decision in Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank, which established a requirement that property owners must first exhaust state‑court remedies before their federal takings claims are ripe for litigation in federal court. The Township of Scott’s zoning ordinance requires that property owners whose property contains a cemetery must leave that property open to the public during daylight hours and allow state agents access to determine the existence and location of any property or to ensure compliance with the ordinance. Rose Mary Knick, a resident of the Township, sued the Township after receiving violation notices, arguing that the ordinance is a taking without just compensation. Knick further argues that Williamson County’s ripeness requirement is an unworkable standard that prevents plaintiffs from reasonably accessing such courts. The Township of Scott counters that Knick does not have a valid federal statutory claim because none of Knick’s federal rights were violated. That is, the Township argues, a state‑court remedy for just compensation existed, which Knick did not avail herself of. Further, it contends that Williamson County does not prevent litigants from accessing federal court because courts have flexibility in deciding if it is fair to hear a plaintiff’s claim. Homeowners, takings litigation, and access to federal forums are some of the considerations implicated in this case. This is because overruling Williamson County may allow future plaintiffs to bring their claims in the court of their choosing without insurmountable procedural obstacles barring their path.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

John Tesmer was convicted of a home invasion charge after pleading guilty in Michigan state court. A Michigan statute prohibited the appointment of appellate counsel for defendants who pleaded guilty. Citing that particular statute, the trial judge John F. Kowalski denied Tesmer's request for an appointed appellate counsel. Tesmer, along with two other indigent criminal defendants and two attorneys who routinely represented indigent criminal defendants, filed a complaint stating that the Michigan statute violated the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court had previously recognized a litigant's standing to sue when the litigant suffered an actual injury, bears a close relation to the third party, and the third party in question has limited ability to protect his or her own interests. In this case, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine two issues: (1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee an automatic right to appointed appellate counsel for indigent criminal defendants convicted by a guilty plea? (2) Do attorneys who derive part of their income from representing indigent criminal defendants convicted by a guilty plea have third-party standing to challenge the constitutionality of a state statute which purportedly violates the due process rights of such defendants?

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Issues

To dissuade women from having abortions, pro-life activists in Massachusetts sometimes attempt to communicate with women as they enter and exit reproductive healthcare facilities. To promote public safety, the Massachusetts legislature passed a law that imposes a thirty-five foot buffer zone around the access points to those clinics, and prohibits people from remaining in the buffer zone with a few exceptions. McCullen represents a group of Massachusetts residents who engage in pro-life counseling and who claim that the buffer zones put them at a disadvantage in their mission. McCullen also argues that the statute violates the First Amendment because it prevents patients who are contemplating having an abortion from obtaining information about alternatives. Coakley, the Massachusetts Attorney General, counters that the purpose of the statute is to prevent violence and facilitate access in and out of those healthcare facilities. The Supreme Court will have the opportunity to consider whether these buffer zones surrounding reproductive healthcare facilities are constitutional. The Court’s ruling will implicate the rights of pro-life and pro-choice activists in promoting their views near these facilities, as well as the rights of individuals seeking services there.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Issues

The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides, in relevant part, that a person standing criminal trial has the right to the assistance of an attorney for his defense. In Ake v. Oklahoma, the Supreme Court interpreted that portion of the Sixth Amendment to mean that a defendant also has the right to an expert “to assist in evaluation, preparation, and presentation of the defense.” It is not clear, however, whether a defendant’s right to such an expert entitles him to an independent expert, devoted to advocating specifically for the defense’s case. McWilliams argues that the Sixth Amendment does guarantee an independent expert for the defense of the accused. The State of Alabama, on the other hand, argues that a defendant need only have access to an expert, which may be satisfied through the assistance of an expert neutral to all parties. The outcome of this case will help to further define the scope of protection afforded by the Sixth Amendment regarding a defendant’s right to counsel. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Written by

Edited by

Issues

This case asked whether disparate impact claims are cognizable under Section 804(a) of the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”). That section makes it unlawful “to refuse to sell or rent after the making of a bona fide offer, or to refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.” The Township of Mount Holly argued that the plain language of the statute does not permit disparate treatment claims, whereas residents of Mount Holly Gardens argued the opposite. Further, the Township asserted that permitting disparate-impact claims raises constitutional concerns—including Equal Protection Clause and Tenth Amendment violations, but the Residents countered that no such violations result from acknowledging disparate-impact liability under the statute. This case presented the Supreme Court with the opportunity to definitively rule on whether the FHA allows for disparate-impact claims. On November 13, 2013, the parties settled, and on November 15, 2013, the Supreme Court dismissed the case.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Issues

The Supreme Court will rule on whether the Fourteenth Amendment requires states to recognize same-sex marriages lawfully performed out-of-state and to grant same-sex marriage licenses. Regarding the first issue, Petitioner James Obergefell argues that the Court’s 2013 ruling in United States v. Windsor invalidates Ohio’s marriage-recognition laws, which Obergefell claims disadvantage and overburden same-sex couples and their families. Obergefell’s arguments regarding this issue are generally representative of those brought forth by the Petitioners in consolidated cases Tanco v. Haslam and Bourge v. Beshear. However, Respondent Richard Hodges—whose position generally aligns with the various Respondents in the consolidated cases Tanco v. Haslam and Bourge v. Beshear—counters that the Windsor Court did not interpret the Fourteenth Amendment to contemplate a “freestanding marriage-recognition right” and argues that a recognition right would undermine the democratic processes that led to the current legislation. On the second issue, Petitioner Deboer—from the consolidated case Deboer v. Snyder—argues that Due Process and the Equal Protection Clauses of the Constitution require that states license same-sex marriage, and compels the Court to rule on this issue. The Respondent in Deboer, Governor Snyder, argues that nothing in the Fourteenth Amendment’s history or plain text meaning requires states to license same-sex marriage, nor does it compel the Court to rule on the issue. The Court’s ruling in these cases may affect the legal rights of children of same-sex couples, the rights of people who identify as gay, and the states’ sovereign right to enact legislation that defines the status of same-sex marriages within their borders.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

Randy Lee Guzek, along with his friends Mark Wilson and Ross Cathey, murdered an Oregon couple in the summer of 1987. After eighteen years of litigation, involving three different appeals, the Oregon Supreme Court held that the alibi testimony Guzek attempted to introduce during the sentencing phase of his trial—statements from his grandfather and his mother placing him at home during the time of the crime—could be introduced as “mitigating evidence” tending to show that Guzek should not receive the death penalty. The State of Oregon took issue with this ruling, and appealed to the Supreme Court. It argues that such evidence cannot be admitted because the so-called “residual doubt” evidence is no longer relevant at the sentencing phase of a defendant’s capital trial. Guzek, on the other hand, argues that the Constitution requires admittance of such evidence at his sentencing phase—he claims that the jury will not improperly use this evidence and that in order to meet the state’s case and refute the state’s evidence, he must be able to introduce the so-called “residual doubt” evidence. The Supreme Court will decide whether Guzek is correct, and whether the trial court is Constitutionally required to admit this “residual doubt” evidence, despite the fact that it might introduce doubt about Guzek’s previously determined and settled guilt.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

The Court must consider whether the proposed redistricting plans to North Carolina’s Congressional District 1 and Congressional District 12 constitute unconstitutional gerrymandering. Appellants Patrick McCrory, Governor of North Carolina, and A. Grant Whitney, Jr., Chairman of the North Carolina State Board of Elections, contend that the redistricting plans were not drawn based on race but rather were politically motivated. Appellees David Harris and Christine Bowser claim that direct and circumstantial evidence demonstrates that race was the predominant factor in the redrawing of district lines. The case is significant because it will address whether complying with the Voting Rights Act satisfies a compelling government interest and whether gerrymandering challengers must provide an alternative map when they present direct and circumstantial evidence of race-based redistricting. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

Barion Perry was convicted of theft for attempting to take amplifiers from a car. A nearby woman, Nubia Blandon, identified Perry as the perpetrator. Perry filed a pretrial motion to suppress Blandon’s identification. Perry argues that eyewitness testimony should not be admitted into evidence at trial when it was obtained under suggestive circumstances. The State of New Hampshire contends that improper state action should be required before eyewitness testimony is barred and that due process does not require preliminary judgments on the reliability of evidence before it is admitted at trial. The Supreme Court of New Hampshire upheld the trial court's denial of the motion because there was no evidence of improper state action. The Supreme Court’s decision could affect the conditions under which parties can use eyewitness testimony at trial.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources