SC Lawyer, Sept. 2003, #6. Seamon's picks A review of U.S. Supreme Court decisions from the latest Term.

AuthorBy Prof. Richard Seamon

South Carolina Lawyer

2003.

SC Lawyer, Sept. 2003, #6.

Seamon's picks A review of U.S. Supreme Court decisions from the latest Term

South Carolina Lawyer September 2003

Seamon's picks A review of U.S. Supreme Court decisions from the latest TermBy Prof. Richard SeamonIf you go only by the numbers, the most recent Term of the U.S. Supreme Court - which began in October 2002 and officially ends on October 5, 2003 (with the end of the Court's "summer" recess) - was not a blockbuster term. The Court issued opinions in just 84 cases, which is a slightly smaller output than that of the previous two terms. But of course numbers do not tell the whole story. The latest Term included pathbreaking decisions such as those upholding a Michigan affirmative action plan and striking down a Texas sodomy law. Such decisions get much media attention, and they deserve it.

The Court also decided many cases, including two from South Carolina, that did not get as much press attention but that may be more important for lawyers and courts throughout the country to know about than the cases that hit the front page. This article describes some of those cases as well as the headline-grabbing cases. The article gives thumbnail sketches of 28 cases decided by the Court last Term, which is about one-third of the Court's output.

  1. Civil cases

    1. First Amendment Freedom of Speech

      1. Illinois ex al. Madigan v. Telemarketing Assocs., Inc., 123 S. Ct. 1829 (2003).

        The Court held (9-0) that the First Amendment does not bar a state from bringing state-law fraud claims against the fundraisers for charities. In the underlying case, the attorney general of Illinois alleges that a fundraiser misled potential donors about what portion of their donations would go to the charity after the fundraiser's fees were deducted.

      2. Virginia v. Black, 123 S. Ct. 1536 (2003):

        In this case the Court held (5-4) that the First Amendment does not prohibit Virginia from making it a crime to burn a cross with the intent of intimidating a person or group of people. The Court relied on the principle that the First Amendment does not prevent a state from criminalizing "true threats" of physical violence. The Court also determined that a state may, consistently with the First Amendment, single out for punishment "the most virulent" forms of such threats.

        South Carolina has a cross-burning statute that the S.C. Supreme Court held unconstitutional in 1993. See State v. Ramsey, 311 S.C. 555, 430 S.E.2d 511 (1993). Unlike Virginia's cross-burning statute, South Carolina's does not on its face require proof that the defendant burned the cross with the intent of intimidating others.

      3. Virginia v. Hicks, 123 S. Ct. 2191 (2003):

        The Court held (9-0) that a state law did not violate the First Amendment doctrine of facial overbreadth by allowing only residents and those with a "legitimate business or social purpose" to enter the grounds of a public housing project. The state law did not target expressive conduct; it was, at bottom, a trespassing statute designed to reduce crime at a public housing project in Richmond.

      4. United States. v. American Library Ass'n, 123 S. Ct. 2297 (2003):

        The Court held (6-3) that it does not violate the First Amendment for Congress to prohibit public libraries from getting federal funds unless they filter out Internet pornography from their computers. At the center of the Court's reasoning was the notion that, just as libraries can keep pornography off their shelves, they can also keep pornography off their computers.

    2. Fifth and 14th Amendment - Equal Protection

      1. Grutter v. Bollinger, 123 S. Ct. 2325 (2003):

        The Court held (5-4) that the University of Michigan Law School did not violate the Equal Protection Clause by considering race in admissions to achieve a "critical mass" of minority students in each year's class of law students. In so holding, the Court adopted Justice Powell's reasoning in Regents of University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978).

      2. Gratz v. Bollinger, 123 S. Ct. 2411 (2003):

        The Court held (6-3) that the University of Michigan did violate the Equal Protection Clause by automatically awarding to every minority applicant one-fifth of the points needed to guarantee undergraduate admission. Applying strict scrutiny, the Court concluded that this approach was not "narrowly tailored" to achieving a diverse undergraduate student body.

    3. Fifth and 14th Amendment - Due Process

      1. substantive due process.

        1. Lawrence v. Texas, 123 S. Ct. 2472 (2003):

          The Court held (6-3) that the Texas sodomy law violates substantive due process by making it a crime for consenting adults to have sex in private. The Court determined that the Texas sodomy...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT