Supreme Court Case

Experts
Belia Martinez

Briefly describe the facts of the case #1

New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme
Court on the First Amendment. The ruling made it possible for the New York Times and Washington Post
newspapers to publish the then-classified Pentagon Papers without risk of government censorship or punishment

Briefly describe the facts of the case#2:

Houston police were dispatched to Lawrences (D) apartment
in response to a reported weapons disturbance. The officers
found Lawrence and Garner (D) engaged in a sexual act.
Lawrence and Garner were charged and convicted under
Texas law of deviate sexual intercourse, namely anal sex,
with a member of the same sex (man).

Explain the key issues or constitutional questions that the justices had to answer,
including how the amendments applied in this case #1
The question before the court was whether the constitutional freedom of the press,
guaranteed by the First Amendment, was subordinate to a claimed need of the executive
branch of government to maintain the secrecy of information.

Explain the key issues or constitutional questions that the justices had to answer,
including how the amendments applied in this case #2

Lawrence and Garner challenged the statute as

a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment.

Paraphrase the highlights of the Majority Opinion and the holding of the Court [Include
the vote for each side #1

By a 6-3 decision, the Court ruled in favor of the New York

Times.The Court would not be favorably disposed to stifling
the press on the order of the government.

Paraphrase the highlights of the Majority Opinion and the holding of the Court [Include
the vote for each side #18
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion which Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter,
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer joined. The Court held that homosexuals had a protected
liberty interest to engage in private, sexual activity; that homosexuals' moral and sexual choices were
entitled to constitutional protection; and that moral disapproval did not provide a legitimate justification for
Texas's law criminalizing sodomy .voting was 6-3

Paraphrase the highlights of the dissenting opinion or concurring opinion if there was a
dissenting or concurring opinion #1
Concurring opinions
Justice Potter Stewart and Justice Byron R. White agreed that it is the responsibility of the Executive to ensure national
security through the protection of its information. However, in areas of national defense and international affairs, the
President of United States possesses great constitutional independence that is virtually unchecked by the Legislative and
Judicial branch. "In absence of governmental checks and balances", per Justice Stewart, "the only effective restraint upon
executive policy and power in [these two areas] may lie in an enlightened citizenry - in an informed and critical public
opinion which alone can here protect the values of democratic government".Justice Thurgood Marshall argued that the term
"national security" was too broad to legitimize prior restraint, and also argued that it is not the Courts job to create laws
where the Congress had not spoken
Dissenting opinions
Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, dissenting, argued that "the imperative of a free and unfettered press comes into collision
with another imperative, the effective functioning of a complex modern government", that there should be a detailed study
on the effects of these actions. He argued that in the haste of the proceedings, and given the size of the documents, the
Court was unable to gather enough information to make a decision. He also argued that the Times should have discussed
the possible societal repercussions with the Government prior to publication of the material. The Chief Justice did not argue

Paraphrase the highlights of the dissenting opinion or concurring opinion if there was a
dissenting or concurring opinion #2
Concurring (OConnor)-I do not join the Court in overruling Bowers but I agree that the Texas statute is an
unconstitutional violation of the Fourteenth Amendments Equal Protection Clause.
Dissent (Scalia)-Nowhere does the Courts opinion declare that homosexual sodomy is a fundamental
right under the Due Process Clause; nor does it subject the Texas law to the standard of review that
would be appropriate (strict scrutiny) if homosexual sodomy were a fundamental right. Thus, while
overruling the outcome of Bowers, the Court leaves strangely untouched its central legal conclusion: D
would have us announce . . . a fundamental right to engage in homosexual sodomy. This we are quite
unwilling to do. Instead the Court simply describes petitioners conduct as an exercise of their liberty and
proceeds to apply an unheard-of form of rational-basis review that will have far-reaching implications
beyond this case.