Fourteenth Amendment

Issues

This case asks the U.S. Supreme Court to reconsider its holding in Apodaca v. Oregon, where the Court held that states could permit non-unanimous jury verdicts to convict criminal defendants. In July 2016, Evangelisto Ramos was found guilty of second-degree murder by a ten to two jury verdict. Ramos contends that a non-unanimous jury conviction violates the Sixth Amendment right to a fair jury trial, and therefore, the Court should overrule Apodaca. Louisiana counters that, under Apodaca, states are not constitutionally required to mandate unanimous jury verdicts because the Sixth Amendment imposes that requirement only on the federal government. The outcome of this case has important implications for criminal procedure and the participation of minority citizens in jury deliberation.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

The Ninth Circuit recently granted criminal defendant Steven Martell Collins’ habeas corpus petition on the grounds that the prosecution unconstitutionally used a peremptory challenge to strike a potential juror on account of her race. Although the prosecutor convinced the trial judge that the dismissal was not racially motivated and was therefore acceptable, the Ninth Circuit found the trial judge’s decision to be unreasonable despite the fact that the decision was affirmed on numerous occasions throughout the state court system and at the Federal District Court. The Ninth Circuit held that, despite the statutory deference granted to the original fact-finder by 28 U.S.C. § 2254, such deference was inappropriate here. The Supreme Court will likely interpret § 2254 to determine whether the Ninth Circuit exceeded its authority when it held that the trial judge was unreasonable in accepting the prosecutor’s proffered reasons for dismissing the juror.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

This case concerns the effect of an erroneous denial of a criminal defendant's peremptory challenge to a prospective juror who was later seated. Defendant Rivera exercised a peremptory challenge to exclude Ms. Gomez, who worked administratively in a hospital known for treating gunshot victims. The trial judge denied the peremptory challenge, claiming a Batson violation. Ms. Gomez was seated on the jury, which then convicted Rivera of first degree murder in a gang related shooting. The Supreme Court of Illinois held that the judge committed harmless-error in denying this peremptory challenge. Upon appeal before the Supreme Court, Rivera argues that the erroneous denial of a peremptory challenge necessitates automatic reversal "because it undermines the trial structure for preserving the constitutional right to due process and an impartial jury." The State of Illinois, on the other hand, argues that there has been no constitutional violation, and that state law should determine the effect of an erroneous denial of a peremptory challenge on the verdict.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

Christopher Simmons was tried, convicted, and sentenced to death for first degree murder for a crime that he committed at age 17. He appealed as of right to the Missouri Supreme Court, which exercises exclusive jurisdiction in death penalty case. In 1997, the Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and the sentence. State v. Simmons, 944 S.W.2d 165, 169 (Mo. 1997). On his initial appeal, Simmons could not argue that his youth prohibited his execution because the United States Supreme Court held in 1989 that there was no national consensus against the execution of young adults who were sixteen or seventeen years old at the time of their crimes, and that, as a result, executing juveniles was not cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. See Simmons v. Roper, 112 S.W.3d 397, 399 (Mo. 2003) (en banc) (discussing Stanford v. Kentucky, 492 U.S. 361 (1989)). The Missouri Supreme Court thus affirmed the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Missouri on both the conviction and death sentence. See id.

In 2002, the United States Supreme Court reversed Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302 (1989), which held that a national consensus did not exist against execution of the mentally retarded. Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002). In Atkins, the Supreme Court concluded that such a consensus had developed in the thirteen years since Penry and that executing the mentally retarded violates the Eighth Amendment. Id. at 321. Hoping that the Supreme Court's ruling in Atkins might signal a parallel shift in the Court's view toward the execution of juvenile offenders, Simmons appeared before the Missouri Supreme Court again in 2003 on a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that a national consensus opposing the execution of sixteen- and seventeen-year-old offenders had emerged since Stanford v. Kentucky. Simmons, 112 S.W.3d at 399. The Missouri Supreme Court agreed, reasoning that "the Supreme Court would today hold such executions are prohibited by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments." Id. at 400.

The United States Supreme Court agreed to hear Simmons' case in order to address two specific issues. First, the Court will consider whether a lower court may contradict a previous ruling by the Supreme Court. Specifically, the Court will decide whether it was permissible for the Missouri Supreme Court to conclude that the execution of juvenile offenders is cruel and unusual punishment and violates the Eighth Amendment, in direct contradiction to the Supreme Court's ruling in Stanford v. Kentucky. Second, the Supreme Court will decide for itself whether a national consensus now opposes the execution of offenders younger than eighteen years and, therefore, whether the practice now violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Issues

In November 2006, 58% of Michigan voters approved Proposal 2, which created Section 26 of the Michigan Constitution, banning public universities and schools from using race as a factor in admissions decisions. On March 18, 2008, a Michigan District Court ruled the amendment constitutional. In 2011, an en banc panel of the Sixth Circuit reversed and ruled the amendment unconstitutional because it violated the political-restructuring doctrine. Petitioner Bill Schuette, the Attorney General of Michigan, argues that because Section 26 of the Michigan Constitution lacks discriminatory intent it is not a racial classification, and thus the Equal Protection Clause and political-restructuring doctrine do not apply. However, Respondent Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action contends that Section 26 contains racial classifications because it targets racially-conscious admissions plans in public schools. The Supreme Court will decide whether this prohibition of the use of race in university admissions violates the Equal Protection Clause or the political-restructuring doctrine. The Court's decision will have far-reaching implications for admissions policies and racial demographics in public universities and schools throughout the United States.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Issues

The University of North Carolina considers an applicant’s race in its undergraduate admissions decisions. The Supreme Court previously held in Grutter v. Bollinger that such consideration is constitutional so long as race is one of many factors in a holistic review process and is used to enhance racial diversity at the institution. Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. argues that the Supreme Court should overrule Grutter and hold that the Constitution does not permit racial discrimination of any kind. The University of North Carolina contends that the Supreme Court correctly decided Grutter and that the Constitution permits universities to consider race when doing so provides increased racial diversity and therefore a better academic experience. The Court’s decision in this case has heavy implications for racial diversity in universities, race discrimination, university policies, and the academic experience.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to clarify the ambit and enforceability of Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, also known as the Disqualification Clause, which states that “[n]o person shall. . . hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, who, having previously taken an oath. . . as an officer of the United States . . . to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same.” Former President Donald Trump contends that he is not subject to Section Three disqualification because he has not served as a qualifying oath–taking “officer of the United States”; because his actions on January 6th, 2021 were protected speech, not insurrection; and because the Colorado Supreme Court's interpretation of Section Three was legally incorrect. A group of Colorado electors and Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold respond that the President is an “officer of the United States” such that Section Three applies to Trump; that Trump engaged in insurrection on January 6th, 2021 and does not qualify for First Amendment protection in that regard; and that the Colorado Supreme Court properly applied Section Three. This case has significant implications for democratic norms and institutions, parties’ and voters’ interests in elections, and the bounds of political activity.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources