The Supreme Court ruled on several cases involving civil liberties this term. The ACLU runs through a few.
Establishment Clause - Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn: "State residents do not have a right to challenge a state tax credit – arguing that the credit unconstitutionally subsidizes religious schools in violation of the Establishment Clause – simply because they pay taxes."
Free Exercise - Sossamon v. Texas: "The plaintiff in this case is a Texas state prisoner who was denied the opportunity to participate in Christian worship services. He sued, seeking injunctive relief and damages. Texas changed its policy mid-litigation, mooting the claim for injunctive relief, and successfully argued in the lower courts that it was immune from damages. The ACLU amicus brief argues that the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA) authorizes the federal courts to order "appropriate relief" when the religious rights of prisoners are violated, that "appropriate relief" includes damages, that Texas waived its immunity when it accepted federal funds to help operate its prisons, and that damages are essential to ensure judicial review, as this case demonstrates."
Exculpatory Evidence - Connick v. Thompson: "A district attorney's office cannot be held liable for failing to train its prosecutors when the plaintiff proves only a single violation that has allegedly arisen from the inadequate training."
Free Speech - Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association: "California has enacted a law banning the sale of "violent video games" to minors. Like every other similar law around the nation, it was struck down as unconstitutional by a federal appeals court. In an amicus brief supporting that decision, the ACLU argues that the statute is pointless if it does not reach on-line sales and game playing, and overbroad if it does since the statutory prohibition would then effectively apply to adults as well as children. In addition, the ACLU brief argues that the statute's attempt to define "violent video games" by analogy to obscenity is vague, unenforceable, and unconstitutional."
Free Speech - Snyder v. Phelps: "The jury in this case awarded $10 million in damages on the theory that defendants had engaged in the intentional infliction of emotional distress by staging a funeral protest on the public streets and in conformity with local law that was meant to express their opposition to homosexuality. While disagreeing vehemently with defendants' stated views — and, indeed, having been the subject of their condemnation on other occasions — the ACLU amicus brief supports the judgment of the Fourth Circuit below, holding that the jury verdict was inconsistent with the First Amendment."
Right to Counsel / Habeas Corpus - Cullen v. Pinholster: "When an inmate challenges his state death sentence on the grounds that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to present adequate mitigating evidence, a federal habeas court may only consider the evidence the inmate presented in support of that claim in the state courts. The Ninth Circuit erred in concluding that, on the basis of the state record alone, the inmate was entitled to habeas relief on his ineffective assistance of counsel claim."
Miranda Warning - J.D.B. v. North Carolina: "A suspect in custody must be given Miranda warnings prior to any police interrogation. Whether a suspect is in custody for Miranda purposes depends on the totality of circumstances. The ultimate question is whether a reasonable person in similar circumstances would feel free to leave and terminate the questioning. The suspect in this case was a 13 year old boy who was interrogated in school by police officers. In our amicus brief, the ACLU argues that the suspect’s age is an appropriate factor to consider in deciding whether Miranda warnings were required. We also argue that the school context is relevant, since students in school are not normally free leave a room whenever they choose. Finally, our amicus brief highlights for the court the increasing prevalence of police in school, and the increasing criminalization of school disciplinary infractions."
The Right to Petition - Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri: "The right to petition the government for redress of grievances is one of the central guarantees of the First Amendment and has long been understood to include the right to seek a resolution of disputes with the government by invoking the government's formal adjudicatory processes, including litigation. The ACLU's amicus brief argues that public employees do not forfeit this right when they accept a job with the government and that the right to sue the government does not depend on whether the underlying grievance involves a matter of public concern or private concern. Finally, we argue that the existence of the right necessarily means that the government may not retaliate against public employees who sue their public employer or pursue statutorily recognized arbitration."
2301: These cases highlight the current state of civil liberties and the meaning of the Constitution, at least as applied to these specific disputes.
2302: here is the latest indication of the state of the Supreme Court.
