Grace Nelson
PSC 2302- Case Analysis Project
The case that I studied is Obergefell v. Hodges, which took place earlier this year (2015). This case, and the other ones surrounding it, asked whether the Constitution requires states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. In this particular case, James Obergefell was the plaintiff, suing against the state of Ohio. Obergefell met his partner, John Arthur two decades ago. After Arthur was diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) in 2011, the men decided to marry and fully commit to each other before Arthur’s death from the fatal disease. They were married in Maryland, where same-sex marriage was legal, just three months before Arthur’s death. Because Ohio does not recognize same-sex marriages, Obergefell was not able to be named on Arthur’s death certificate as surviving spouse. The suit was filed in an attempt for Obergefell to be listed in this way.
…show more content…
The case looks to the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause to determine whether same-sex couples have the right to marry, and whether the right to same-sex marriage is a fundamental right. The case was decided and the judges ruled in a 5-4 majority that it is Unconstitutional for states to deny same-sex couples the right to marry, or to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages that were performed out-of-state. Justices that voted in favor of the decision are Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. The dissenting Justices are Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and
Lawrence v. Texas 539 US 558 (2003) Case Facts: In September 1998, a same-sex couple in Houston, Texas were arrested in their own apartment after police found them engaging in a consensual, intimate, sexual act. The two men, John Lawrence and Tyron Garner, were convicted of violating the Texas “Homosexual Conduct” Law, which made it a Class-C misdemeanor for same-sex adults to engage in sexual intercourse and considered it illegal sodonomy. The statute was created in 1973 after the state changed its criminal code to end the banning of heterosexual anal or oral sex. The sheriff deputies arrested and charged the couple for performing “deviate sexual intercourse” as listed in the mentioned in the Texas statute.
Brady v. United States 397 U.S. 742 (1970) Intro: The Petitioner plead guilty to kidnapping after his co-defendant decided to confess and testify against him. Whether Brady’s (the petitioner) plea was made voluntarily was the issue. Relevant Law: “Just because a defendant discovers that the State would have had a weaker case or that they were not going to impose the maximum punishment does not mean that the defendant is allowed by law to disown his statements made in open court.” Facts: The Petitioner, in 1959, was charged with kidnapping.
Karina Dyal PHIL 340: Ethics and Law Legal Brief Assignment—Lawrence v. Texas 04/01/17 Case: Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) Facts: Oral and anal sex between two individuals from the same gender was deemed illegal—implemented through a Georgia statute. Hardwick who was an adult male, was charged in 1982 for violating the statute by engaging in sexual activities with another male in his home. The case was not pursued by the District Attorney, who also decided to not have the case presented before a grand jury. Hardwick went to the federal district court where he questioned the statute’s constitutionality. Issue: Does the U.S. Constitution give homosexual individuals the fundamental right to have sexual intercourse, and therefore renders the laws
Business Law Case Study Essay: Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S (2014) Facts: The Green family runs and owns Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., a national arts and skills chain that has over 500 stores and they have over 13,000 employees. Other facts of the case are that the Green family has been able to organize the business around the values of the Christian faith and has explicitly expressed the desire to run the company as told by Biblical principles, one of which is the belief that the utilization of contraception is wicked. Also, the facts show that under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), occupation -founded group health care plans must offer certain sorts of preventative care, for example, FDA-accepted contraceptive approaches.
1. The Lawrence v. Texas Supreme court case of 2003 was a landmark event for the LGBT community and gave them their constitutional right to pursue same gender consensual sexual activity without the fear of state intrusion. Before the decision of the court, sodomy laws were applicable in Texas which criminalized sexual activities between people of same gender. With the passing of this judgment, there was renewed vigour of exuberance among the lgbt community and for a very good reason. The case was brought to the notice of the police who raided a residence on gun related charges and found two males engaged in consensual sex.
Obergefell v. Hodges is one of the most important Supreme Court rulings to date. This case, by a 5-4 decision, legalized same-sex marriage and established that the 14th amendment, by both the Due Process Clause and Equal Protections Clause, guarantees this right. The Supreme Court for a long time exercised judicial modesty in terms of cases involving same sex marriage by allowing the decisions to be made by the states. However, with some states recognizing same-sex marriages and others not, things began to get complicated when couples would move to other states and not get the same benefits as married couples and other similar situations that caused issues. However, when the Supreme Court took this case and ruled that same-sex marriage was legal in all 50 states, it was a prime example of the court using judicial activism.
: Per KENNEDY. In a 5-4 opinion the court held that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Justice Kennedy stated “DOMA seeks to injure the very class New York seeks to protect. DOMA violates basic due process and equal protection principles applicable to the Federal Government. The Constitution’s guarantee of equality must at the very least mean that a bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot justify disparate treatment of that group.”
The Supreme Court ruled that the Homosexual Conduct law was unconstitutional and overturned the conviction of Lawrence and his male companion. The Court ruled that the law violated the Fourteenth Amendment 's Due Process Clause because it protects the right to personal liberty in intimate decisions(Lawrence vs Texas, Case Briefs). The Court argued that its decision in Bowers v. Hardwick was misguided. The issue was not the right to commit sodomy but “the right to privacy in the home" and "the right to freely engage in consensual, adult sex. "(Lawrence v Texas).
Hodges (2015) the Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees the right to marry as one of the fundamental liberties it protects, applying to same-sex couples the same as opposite-sex couples. This case was brought forward by numerous groups of same-sex couples who were suing their relevant state agencies to challenge the constitutionality of those states’ same-sex marriage laws. The Supreme Court found that there is no difference between same-sex marriages and opposite-sex marriages, therefore, the exclusion of same-sex couples from the right to marry violates the Due Process Clause. This is policy making because the Supreme Court forced states to change their laws by deciding that it was against the constitution to not only ban the recognition of same-sex marriages that occurred in states that allowed it, but also making same-sex marriage legal in all states. Government officials even those who do not believe in the law change must abide by it, by allowing same-sex couples their now legal right to be married and receive the benefits that opposite-sex married couples receive; changing the way that citizens and the government interact in societal ways but also financial
Of the nine judges, all except Clarence Thomas made remarks and made inquiries, giving signs as to their positions on the Constitution and the fate of same-sex marriage. In ringing dialect, Justice Anthony Kennedy said same-sex couples regard marriage and "request rise to respect in the eye of the law." That right, he said, is granted by the Constitution. They came to the conclusion that the majority held that state same-sex marriage bans are a violation of both the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause and Equal Protection
“There comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but he must take it because conscience tells him it is right. ”(Martin Luther King, Jr.) Most people were racist but now since the civil rights have been established most have stopped being racist and moved on. Three supreme court case decisions influenced the civil rights movements by letting more and more poeple know what the Supreme Court was doing to African Americans,and of the unfair him crow laws:(Dred Scott v. Sanford,Plessy v. Ferguson,Brown v. Board of Education). Dred Scott v. Sanford Is a case that most people felt that Dred Scott had an unfair charge against him.
In the case Roe v. Wade the involved parties were Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington on behalf of Norma L. McCorvey (“Jane Roe”). The second party was Henry Wade. The issue upon this case was that “Jane Roe” wanted to have an abortion but the court thought that this breaks the constitution. “Jane Roe” thought that this was an invasion of her privacy that is assured in the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The decision grants women the right to have an abortion in the first trimester of their pregnancy.
After they noticed and recognized that citizens were not getting treated equally by the law, they actively changed it by making sodomy legal. Justice Kennedy correctly wrote the opinion, and he made the most sense. Personally, I strongly disagree with Scalia. Written in his dissent, he stated that he did not believe homosexual sodomy to be a fundamental right. For the way I see it, love is love.
At the time this case was decided, a cultural redefinition of marriage was beginning to take place. More and more people were becoming open to the idea of interracial marriage as they began accepting it. This court case served as further reassurance that interracial marriage wasn’t a bad thing at all. People began to understand that marriage should be between two people that love each other, no matter what their race is. Most people also realized that it was the basic, fundamental rights that established America that should allow citizens to follow their dreams and do whatever makes them happy.
Liberals support same-sex marriage and argue that love is grounds enough for marriage, regardless of sexual orientation. Conservatives are usually opposed and often cite religious viewpoints and concerns about the reading of children as the main reasons for their opposition. In the 1970s the court case Baker v. Nelson occurred. It was a case in which the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that a state law limiting marriage to persons of the opposite sex did not violate the U.S. Constitution. On June 26, 2015 the United States Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage in all 50 states.