The Supreme Court: "the judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish". (USA).

Most Americans take their freedom for granted. And why not? The Declaration of Independence states that everyone has the right to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." But who protects these rights and ensures that we enjoy them?

Often, the task falls to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court's power to interpret and defend the rights of American citizens is based on Article III of the U.S. Constitution.

As head of the judicial branch of the federal government, the Supreme Court was designed to balance the powers of the President (the executive branch) and Congress (the legislative branch). This system of "checks and balances" ensures that no individual or group in our nation becomes too powerful.

In its early years, the Court was the weakest of the three government branches. It rarely offered opinions on controversial issues.

But under Chief Justice John Marshall, who was appointed in 1801, the Court began to assert its authority. In Marbury v. Madison--a famous case from 1803--the Court claimed its power to declare laws passed by Congress unconstitutional.

Today, the Court is the ultimate authority on the Constitution and the rights granted to U.S. citizens. The Court makes sure that all U.S. laws are in agreement with the Constitution and that local, state, and federal actions do not limit our constitutional rights.

How does the Supreme Court do this important job? In a courtroom, of course! The nine Justices of the Court hear about 150 cases each year, from roughly 7,000 submitted to them. These cases, many of them controversial, typically begin as lawsuits in state courts.

If an individual is dissatisfied with the verdict in a state trial, he or she can appeal. The case may then go to a higher court--such as a state superior court or a state supreme court. Judges review the case and uphold or overturn the original decision. If the two sides still disagree and one side appeals, the case may eventually go all the way to the top: to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Differing Opinions

When a case is before the Supreme Court, all nine Justices listen to the arguments by both sides. Then the Justices study the laws involved and decide which side has acted correctly, according to the Constitution and previous Supreme Court cases--or precedents.

Because the Justices often have differing opinions, a case may be decided by a narrow margin. In recent years, many cases have been decided by a 5-4 vote.

Imagine that you are a Supreme Court Justice. You and your fellow Justices are about to hear three cases that could affect the lives of people across the nation (see pages 10-11). Read each case and carefully consider the arguments of both sides. Then decide how you would rule. (Your Teacher's Edition has the actual Supreme Court decision for each case).

Remember: The American people are counting on you! Their life and liberty are in your hands.

USA: THE SUPREME COURT

Next to each name, word, or phrase in the first column, write
the letter of the associated words from the second column.

__11. judicial            A. law of the land
__12. W. H. Rehnquist     B. a branch of U.S.
                             government
__13. Justice O'Connor    C. created by Article
                             III of the U.S.
                             Constitution
__14. U.S. Constitution   D. current Chief Justice
__15. U.S. supreme Court  E. first woman on the
                             Supreme Court

Answers

11. B
12. D
13. E
14. A
15. C

RELATED ARTICLE: You Be the Judge!

Drug Testing Should a school be allowed to test students for drugs?

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated."

--Amendment IV, U.S. Constitution

The case: The Tecumseh, Oklahoma, public school district was worried about drug use among its students. So it required all high school students who wanted to participate in extracurricular activities to take a drug test. Students who refused to take the test would be barred from their chosen activity.

Lindsay Earls, a member of the Tecumseh High School choir, marching band, and academic team, thought that the drug-testing policy was unfair. She didn't want to take a drug test, and she didn't want to be banned from her after-school groups. So Lindsay (and other high school students) sued the school district and the school board. Two years later, the case ended up in the Supreme Court.

The arguments: In court, Lindsay's lawyers argued that the Fourth Amendment protects all U.S. citizens from "unreasonable searches and seizures." They claimed that testing students who wanted to participate in nonathletic activities for drugs was unreasonable because it did not protect them from any real harm. (The Supreme Court had previously ruled that students who wanted to participate in organized sports could be tested for drugs, to prevent them from being hurt while competing.)

The school district claimed that students involved in nonathletic activities risked physical harm from drug abuse. The testing, officials said, was necessary to protect them. They also argued that, according to previous Supreme Court cases, school authorities are permitted to relax the Fourth Amendment in order to better supervise and control students.

Your Turn: Should a school be allowed to test its students for drugs? Or does drug testing violate a student's Fourth Amendment rights?

Freedom of Speech Can students say what they want in school?

"Congress shall make no law abridging [limiting] -- Amendment I the freedom of speech."

The case: Matthew Eraser, a student at Bethel High School in Pierce County, Washington, was asked to give a speech during a school assembly to nominate a classmate for student government. In his speech, Matthew wanted to use racy language to get his point across in a memorable way.

Matthew and his father sued the school district. The case reached the Supreme Court.

Before the assembly, Matthew read his speech to a number of Bethel High teachers. Two of the teachers said that the speech was "inappropriate," and warned Matthew that giving it could have "severe consequences." Matthew gave the speech anyway. Some of the students at the assembly yelled and hooted. Others were embarrassed and confused.

The next day, Bethel High's assistant principal told Matthew that his speech violated a school rule against using obscene language. Matthew was suspended for two days, and his name was removed from a list of candidates for graduation speaker.

The arguments:

Matthew's lawyers claimed that his First Amendment rights had been violated, and that he was punished for exercising free speech. They also cited previous Supreme Court cases that said students do not give up their First Amendment rights at the "schoolhouse gate."

Bethel school officials argued that Matthew's speech had a disruptive effect on the learning process. They said that maintaining an appropriate educational environment was more important than free speech in school. They also claimed that they had to protect students--minors--from lewd (vulgar) and indecent language while they were in school.

Your Turn: Can a school discipline a student for using vulgar language? Or is all student speech protected by the First Amendment?

Parents' Rights

Do grandparents have the right to visit their grandchildren?

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."--Amendment XIV

Gary and Jennifer Troxel went to court went to court for the right to see their grandchildren.

The case: Jennifer and Gary Troxel wanted to see their granddaughters. The two girls lived with their mother, Tommie Granville. (Their father--the Troxels' son--was dead.)

The Washington State Superior Court ordered Granville to allow the Troxels see their grandchildren. The court ruling also let the Troxels see the children more often than Granville wanted. So Granville appealed the decision. The case eventually reached the Supreme Court.

Granville wanted her daughters to see their grandparents. But she didn't agree with the Troxels on how often they should see the girls.

In Washington State, where the families lived, a state law allowed "any person" to ask the court for visitation rights "at any time." So the Troxels took Tommie Granville to court.

The arguments:

Lawyers for Granville argued that the Washington visitation law was unconstitutional because it infringed on (interfered with) a parent's right to raise her children as she sees fit. They claimed that this law was too broad and that, according to the Fourteenth Amendment, the state could not interfere with the constitutional privilege of rearing children.

The Troxels' lawyers argued that the visits were "in the best interest" of their grandchildren. They said that the state law should be allowed to stand, and that the Troxels had a right to see their grandchildren under it.

Your Turn: Does the Fourteenth Amendment give parents the right to raise their children as they see fit? Or should a state be able to grant visitation rights even if a parent objects?

USA

1. True or false? Juveniles accused of serious crimes are now being tried as adults in many states. (true)

2. Name the three branches of the U.S. federal government. (legislative, executive, and judicial)

3. Which branch is headed by the U.S. Supreme Court? (judicial)

4. In the U.S. juvenile-justice system, what is the traditional emphasis? (rehabilitation: helping young offenders turn themselves around)

5. Who currently heads the third branch of the federal government? (Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist)

6. Who was Chief Justice when the Supreme Court first asserted it is the ultimate authority on the Constitution? (John Marshall)