Background: There were four Defendants. Ernesto Miranda was the first Defendant who was an immigrant. Miranda was arrested for kidnapping and rape. The officers didn’t read him his rights, he then signed a paper stating he was read his rights.
Questions: Does the police practice of interrogating individuals without notifying them of their right to counsel and their protection against self-incrimination violate the Fifth Amendment?
Decisions: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the prosecution couldn’t introduce Miranda’s confession as evidence in a criminal trial because the police had failed to inform Miranda of his right of an attorney and against self-incrimination.
Significance: There was no evidence that any defendant was notified of their 5th Amendment constitutional right. The U.S Supreme Court consolidated four separate cases with issues regarding the admissibility of evidence obtained during police interrogation.
United States v Windsor – Autumn Elliott – Extra Credit
Background: In 1996 the Defense of Marriage Act, states that for the purposes of federal law, the words “marriage” and “spouse” refer to legal unions between one man and one woman. Some states have same-sex marriage. Windsor is a widow. In 2010 Windsor filed suit in district court seeking a declaration that the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional.
Questions: Does the executive branch’s agreement with the lower court that the act is unconstitutional deprive the Supreme Court of jurisdiction to decide the case?
Does the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the House of Representatives have standing in the case?
Does the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines the term “marriage” under federal law as a “legal union between one man and one woman” deprive same-sex couples who are legally married under state laws of their Fifth Amendment rights to equal protection under federal law?
Decisions: The Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment.
Significance: The Defense of Marriage Act denies same-sex couple the rights that come from federal recognition of marriage which is available to other couples with legal marriages
Korematsu vs. United States Background: After the bombing of Pearl Harbor, there was much fear and suspicion around Japanese-Americans which led FDR to create Executive Order 9066. This declared certain land military ground and detained all U.S. citizens of Japanese ancestry to internment camps "for the safety of the nation". Korematsu, a Japanese American, refused to leave his land, was arrested and convicted, and in 1944, filed an appeal on the grounds that his fourteenth and fifth amendment rights had been violated by the government. He also stated that Executive Order 9066 was unconstitutional. Questions: Can a person of certain ethnicity's civil rights be overrruled on the basis of national security? Also, is the Executive Order 9066 constitutional? Decision: The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of the government, stating that Exxecutive Order 9066 was unconstitutional and that the need to protect against espionage was greater than Korematsu's individual rights. Significance: The Executive Order 9066, which forced all individuals of Japanese descent into internment camps, was declared constitutional.
New Jersey vs. T.L.O. Background: Two girls were caught smoking in the bathroom of Picataway Township High School by a teacher and escorted to the Vice Principle's office. Both were given the chance to confess and only one did. The other (T.L.O) refused to own up to breaking the rules and so the Vice Principle demanded to see her purse. While he was searching it, he found cigarette rolling paper, which is commonly used to roll marijuana joints. The administrator now suspected T.L.O of selling drugs so he searched her bag and discovered drug paraphernalia including a pipe, a wad of money, and a piece of paper with the names of students who owed her money. There was also a letter linking her to marijuana sales. T.L.O was convicted and sent to jail but soon after filed an appeal, claiming that the schools had violated her 4th amendment . After a lengthy appeals, the Supreme Court agreed to hear her case. Questions: Exactly how far does the Fourth Amendment apply to minors suspect of committing a crime? Decision: The Court ruled, in a 6-3 decision, that in the case of a delinquent's privacy rights, the administrator needed only "reasonable suspicion" to search T.L.O's purse. The drug-related paraphernalia was in plain view and so the vice principle was legally allowed to continue searching her belongings. It ruled that the well-being of the school needed to be held in balance with the privacy rights of a juvenile, therefore it ruled in favor of the state of New Jersey. Significance: As is pertains to the Fourth Amendment rights of minors, the courts have ruled that employees of the state only need "reasonable suspicion" in order to search and seize belongings.
Background: A 12th grade student named Alfonzo Lopez was charged with possession of a firearm on school premises under Texas law after bringing a loaded gun to school. The next day, the state charges were dropped and he was instead charged under federal law for violating the 1990 Gun-Free School Zone Act. Lopez was sentenced guilty with a six-month prison sentence and a following two years of supervised release. Lopez appealed the charges on the basis that the 1990 Gun-Free School Zone Act surpassed Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause.
Questions: Is the 1990 Gun-Free School Zones Act unconstitutional because it exceeds the power of Congress to legislate under the Commerce Clause?
Decision: Lopez lost the case in a 5-4 decision. The Supreme Court’s decided that gun-related violence interferes with the quality of schools and education, which as a whole affects the entire country. They reasoned that gun-related violence was a commercial problem, which gave Congress the right to legislate using the 1990 Gun-Free School Zones.
Significance: The interpretation of the Commerce Clause drastically changed after United States v. Lopez, in which Congress gained the right to regulate all activities that could affect interstate commerce.
Background: Citizens United released a 90 minute film entitled Hillary: The Movie. The movie featured Democratic senator Hillary Clinton, who was at the time running in the presidential election, and whether or not she was worthy of the presidential position. The movie was distributed to theaters and sold on DVDs, which Citizens United paid for with their general treasury funds. However, according to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), corporations and unions are prohibited from spending their general treasury funds on “electioneering communications”. This means the law prohibits any broadcast or cable/satellite communication that does any of the following: refers to a clearly identified candidate for federal office; identified candidate for federal office; is publicly distributed.
Citizens United, fearing that they would be prosecuted, brought the FEC to federal court with the argument that the laws above under the BCRA was unconstitutional and violated their First Amendment Rights (even though a previous case, McConnell v. FEC, already dealt with a similar issue in which the FEC won).
Questions: Did the Supreme Court's decision in the McConnell case resolve all issues brought against the BCRA? And was the BCRA violate a corporation's First Amendment rights?
Decision: In a 5-4 ruling, Citizens United won the case. The Supreme Court rationalized that political spending is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment, and that the government cannot legally keep corporations and unions from spending money in support of a candidate.
Significance: After the case, the Supreme Court struck down certain sections of the BCRA, and even overrode rulings from previous cases (such as McConnell). Not only that, but the Supreme Court brought into question laws from 24 states (ex. Montana, Arizona, Maryland, etc.) that violated First Amendment rights, in which many laws were changed.
Baker V. Carr Background: Argued on Apr 19 - 20, 1961, Charles W. Baker and other Tennessee citizens alleged that a 1901 law designed to apportion the seats for the state's General Assembly was virtually ignored. Baker's suit detailed how Tennessee's reapportionment efforts ignored significant economic growth and population shifts within the state. Question: Did the Supreme Court have jurisdiction over questions of legislative apportionment? Decision: Decided on Mar 26, 1962, it was a 6-2 decision for Baker. In an opinion which explored the nature of "political questions" and the appropriateness of Court action in them, the Court held that there were no such questions to be answered in this case and that legislative apportionment was a justiciable issue. In his opinion, Justice Brennan provided past examples in which the Court had intervened to correct constitutional violations in matters pertaining to state administration and the officers through whom state affairs are conducted. Significance: Brennan concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection issues which Baker and others raised in this case merited judicial evaluation. I would agree with the decision in this case.
Bush V. Gore Background: Perhaps no event better illustrates the power of the United States Supreme Court than the resolution of the 2000 presidential election. Just when you thought the separation of powers issue had been settled once and for all, the Court stepped in to adjudicate who had won the biggest political contest of all. Following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, and concurrent with Vice President Al Gore's contest of the certification of Florida presidential election results, on December 8, 2000 the Florida Supreme Court ordered that the Circuit Court in Leon County tabulate by hand 9000 contested ballots from Miami-Dade County. It also ordered that every county in Florida must immediately begin manually recounting all "under-votes" (ballots which did not indicate a vote for president) because there were enough contested ballots to place the outcome of the election in doubt. Governor George Bush and his running mate, Richard Cheney, filed a request for review in the U.S. Supreme Court and sought an emergency petition for a stay of the Florida Supreme Court's decision. The U.S. Supreme Court granted review and issued the stay on December 9. It heard oral argument two days later. Questions: Did the Florida Supreme Court violate Article II Section 1 Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution by making new election law? Do standardless manual recounts violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Constitution? Decision: Noting that the Equal Protection clause guarantees individuals that their ballots cannot be devalued by "later arbitrary and disparate treatment," the per curiam opinion held 7-2 that the Florida Supreme Court's scheme for recounting ballots was unconstitutional. Even if the recount was fair in theory, it was unfair in practice. The record suggested that different standards were applied from ballot to ballot, precinct to precinct, and county to county. Breyer and Souter (writing separately) agreed with the per curiam holding that the Florida Court's recount scheme violated the Equal Protection Clause, but they dissented with respect to the remedy, believing that a constitutional recount could be fashioned. Time is insubstantial when constitutional rights are at stake. Ginsburg and Stevens (writing separately) argued that for reasons of federalism, the Florida Supreme Court's decision ought to be respected. Moreover, the Florida decision was fundamentally right; the Constitution requires that every vote be counted. Significance: Recounting ballots is unconstitutional. It may be fair in theory, but it is unfair in practice.
Background: In the case Roth v. United States argued on April 22, 1957, Roth was convicted of mailing and publishing obscene books, photographs, and magazines in New York. He was in violation of the federal obscenity statue and was convicted under a misdemeanor complaint. The Supreme Court decided on June 24, 1957 in favor of United States.
Questions: Does the federal obscenity statute violate the provision of the First Amendment? What is obscenity? -material which deals with sex in a manner appealing to prurient interest
Court Decision: The voting was 5-4 deciding the the obscene material was not protected under the First Amendment in the Constitution because freedom of speech and expression does not include absolute protection for every possible utterance of any sort. Also, obscenity does not support any social important to be included into freedom of speech or expression.
Background: Two native americans where fired from there jobs as counselors for a drug rehabilitation organization because they used an illeagal drug. They applied for unemployment compensation and where denied.
Question: Can unemployment benefits be denied to a worker fired for religous use of illegal drugs?
Ruling: 6-3 Yes,religious beliefs do not excuse someone from an otherwise valid law.
Roe, a pregnant single woman, brought a class action suit challenging the constitutionality of the Texas abortion laws. These laws made it a crime to obtain or attempt an abortion except on medical advice to save the life of the mother. Other plaintiffs in the lawsuit included Hallford, a doctor who faced criminal prosecution for violating the state abortion laws; and the Does, a married couple with no children, who sought an injunction against enforcement of the laws on the grounds that they were unconstitutional. The defendant was county District Attorney Wade.
Issue 1: Do abortion laws that criminalize all abortions, except those required on medical advice to save the life of the mother, violate the Constitution of the United States?
The ruling was a yes. State criminal abortion laws that except from criminality only life-saving procedures on the mother’s behalf, and that do not take into consideration the stage of pregnancy and other interests, are unconstitutional for violating the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
Issue 2: Does the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution protect the right to privacy, including the right to obtain an abortion?
Yes. The Due Process Clause protects the right to privacy, including a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy, against state action
Issue 3: Are there any circumstances where a state may enact laws prohibiting abortion?
Yes. Though a state cannot completely deny a woman the right to terminate her pregnancy, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman’s health and the potentiality of human life at various stages of pregnancy
Issue 4: Did the fact that Roe’s pregnancy had already terminated naturally, before this case was decided by the Supreme Court, render her lawsuit moot?
No. The natural termination of Roe’s pregnancy did not render her suit moot
Issue 5: Was the district court correct in denying injunctive relief?
Yes. The district court was correct in denying injunctive relief
Outcome: Roe wins. The Court held that, in regard to abortions during the first trimester, the decision must be left to the judgment of the pregnant woman’s doctor. In regard to second trimester pregnancies, states may promote their interests in the mother’s health by regulating abortion procedures related to the health of the mother. Regarding third trimester pregnancies, states may promote their interests in the potentiality of human life by regulating or even prohibiting abortion, except when necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.
Miranda v. Arizona – Autumn Elliott
ReplyDeleteBackground: There were four Defendants. Ernesto Miranda was the first Defendant who was an immigrant. Miranda was arrested for kidnapping and rape. The officers didn’t read him his rights, he then signed a paper stating he was read his rights.
Questions: Does the police practice of interrogating individuals without notifying them of their right to counsel and their protection against self-incrimination violate the Fifth Amendment?
Decisions: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the prosecution couldn’t introduce Miranda’s confession as evidence in a criminal trial because the police had failed to inform Miranda of his right of an attorney and against self-incrimination.
Significance: There was no evidence that any defendant was notified of their 5th Amendment constitutional right. The U.S Supreme Court consolidated four separate cases with issues regarding the admissibility of evidence obtained during police interrogation.
United States v Windsor – Autumn Elliott – Extra Credit
Background: In 1996 the Defense of Marriage Act, states that for the purposes of federal law, the words “marriage” and “spouse” refer to legal unions between one man and one woman. Some states have same-sex marriage. Windsor is a widow. In 2010 Windsor filed suit in district court seeking a declaration that the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional.
Questions: Does the executive branch’s agreement with the lower court that the act is unconstitutional deprive the Supreme Court of jurisdiction to decide the case?
Does the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the House of Representatives have standing in the case?
Does the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines the term “marriage” under federal law as a “legal union between one man and one woman” deprive same-sex couples who are legally married under state laws of their Fifth Amendment rights to equal protection under federal law?
Decisions: The Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment.
Significance: The Defense of Marriage Act denies same-sex couple the rights that come from federal recognition of marriage which is available to other couples with legal marriages
Korematsu vs. United States
ReplyDeleteBackground: After the bombing of Pearl Harbor, there was much fear and suspicion around Japanese-Americans which led FDR to create Executive Order 9066. This declared certain land military ground and detained all U.S. citizens of Japanese ancestry to internment camps "for the safety of the nation". Korematsu, a Japanese American, refused to leave his land, was arrested and convicted, and in 1944, filed an appeal on the grounds that his fourteenth and fifth amendment rights had been violated by the government. He also stated that Executive Order 9066 was unconstitutional.
Questions:
Can a person of certain ethnicity's civil rights be overrruled on the basis of national security? Also, is the Executive Order 9066 constitutional?
Decision:
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of the government, stating that Exxecutive Order 9066 was unconstitutional and that the need to protect against espionage was greater than Korematsu's individual rights.
Significance:
The Executive Order 9066, which forced all individuals of Japanese descent into internment camps, was declared constitutional.
New Jersey vs. T.L.O.
Background: Two girls were caught smoking in the bathroom of Picataway Township High School by a teacher and escorted to the Vice Principle's office. Both were given the chance to confess and only one did. The other (T.L.O) refused to own up to breaking the rules and so the Vice Principle demanded to see her purse. While he was searching it, he found cigarette rolling paper, which is commonly used to roll marijuana joints. The administrator now suspected T.L.O of selling drugs so he searched her bag and discovered drug paraphernalia including a pipe, a wad of money, and a piece of paper with the names of students who owed her money. There was also a letter linking her to marijuana sales. T.L.O was convicted and sent to jail but soon after filed an appeal, claiming that the schools had violated her 4th amendment . After a lengthy appeals, the Supreme Court agreed to hear her case.
Questions:
Exactly how far does the Fourth Amendment apply to minors suspect of committing a crime?
Decision:
The Court ruled, in a 6-3 decision, that in the case of a delinquent's privacy rights, the administrator needed only "reasonable suspicion" to search T.L.O's purse. The drug-related paraphernalia was in plain view and so the vice principle was legally allowed to continue searching her belongings. It ruled that the well-being of the school needed to be held in balance with the privacy rights of a juvenile, therefore it ruled in favor of the state of New Jersey.
Significance:
As is pertains to the Fourth Amendment rights of minors, the courts have ruled that employees of the state only need "reasonable suspicion" in order to search and seize belongings.
United States v. Lopez
ReplyDeleteBackground: A 12th grade student named Alfonzo Lopez was charged with possession of a firearm on school premises under Texas law after bringing a loaded gun to school. The next day, the state charges were dropped and he was instead charged under federal law for violating the 1990 Gun-Free School Zone Act. Lopez was sentenced guilty with a six-month prison sentence and a following two years of supervised release. Lopez appealed the charges on the basis that the 1990 Gun-Free School Zone Act surpassed Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause.
Questions: Is the 1990 Gun-Free School Zones Act unconstitutional because it exceeds the power of Congress to legislate under the Commerce Clause?
Decision: Lopez lost the case in a 5-4 decision. The Supreme Court’s decided that gun-related violence interferes with the quality of schools and education, which as a whole affects the entire country. They reasoned that gun-related violence was a commercial problem, which gave Congress the right to legislate using the 1990 Gun-Free School Zones.
Significance: The interpretation of the Commerce Clause drastically changed after United States v. Lopez, in which Congress gained the right to regulate all activities that could affect interstate commerce.
Citizens United v. REC (extra credit)
ReplyDeleteBackground: Citizens United released a 90 minute film entitled Hillary: The Movie. The movie featured Democratic senator Hillary Clinton, who was at the time running in the presidential election, and whether or not she was worthy of the presidential position. The movie was distributed to theaters and sold on DVDs, which Citizens United paid for with their general treasury funds. However, according to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), corporations and unions are prohibited from spending their general treasury funds on “electioneering communications”. This means the law prohibits any broadcast or cable/satellite communication that does any of the following: refers to a clearly identified candidate for federal office; identified candidate for federal office; is publicly distributed.
Citizens United, fearing that they would be prosecuted, brought the FEC to federal court with the argument that the laws above under the BCRA was unconstitutional and violated their First Amendment Rights (even though a previous case, McConnell v. FEC, already dealt with a similar issue in which the FEC won).
Questions: Did the Supreme Court's decision in the McConnell case resolve all issues brought against the BCRA? And was the BCRA violate a corporation's First Amendment rights?
Decision: In a 5-4 ruling, Citizens United won the case. The Supreme Court rationalized that political spending is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment, and that the government cannot legally keep corporations and unions from spending money in support of a candidate.
Significance: After the case, the Supreme Court struck down certain sections of the BCRA, and even overrode rulings from previous cases (such as McConnell). Not only that, but the Supreme Court brought into question laws from 24 states (ex. Montana, Arizona, Maryland, etc.) that violated First Amendment rights, in which many laws were changed.
Baker V. Carr
ReplyDeleteBackground: Argued on Apr 19 - 20, 1961, Charles W. Baker and other Tennessee citizens alleged that a 1901 law designed to apportion the seats for the state's General Assembly was virtually ignored. Baker's suit detailed how Tennessee's reapportionment efforts ignored significant economic growth and population shifts within the state.
Question: Did the Supreme Court have jurisdiction over questions of legislative apportionment?
Decision: Decided on Mar 26, 1962, it was a 6-2 decision for Baker. In an opinion which explored the nature of "political questions" and the appropriateness of Court action in them, the Court held that there were no such questions to be answered in this case and that legislative apportionment was a justiciable issue. In his opinion, Justice Brennan provided past examples in which the Court had intervened to correct constitutional violations in matters pertaining to state administration and the officers through whom state affairs are conducted.
Significance: Brennan concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection issues which Baker and others raised in this case merited judicial evaluation. I would agree with the decision in this case.
Bush V. Gore
ReplyDeleteBackground: Perhaps no event better illustrates the power of the United States Supreme Court than the resolution of the 2000 presidential election. Just when you thought the separation of powers issue had been settled once and for all, the Court stepped in to adjudicate who had won the biggest political contest of all. Following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, and concurrent with Vice President Al Gore's contest of the certification of Florida presidential election results, on December 8, 2000 the Florida Supreme Court ordered that the Circuit Court in Leon County tabulate by hand 9000 contested ballots from Miami-Dade County. It also ordered that every county in Florida must immediately begin manually recounting all "under-votes" (ballots which did not indicate a vote for president) because there were enough contested ballots to place the outcome of the election in doubt. Governor George Bush and his running mate, Richard Cheney, filed a request for review in the U.S. Supreme Court and sought an emergency petition for a stay of the Florida Supreme Court's decision. The U.S. Supreme Court granted review and issued the stay on December 9. It heard oral argument two days later.
Questions: Did the Florida Supreme Court violate Article II Section 1 Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution by making new election law? Do standardless manual recounts violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Constitution?
Decision: Noting that the Equal Protection clause guarantees individuals that their ballots cannot be devalued by "later arbitrary and disparate treatment," the per curiam opinion held 7-2 that the Florida Supreme Court's scheme for recounting ballots was unconstitutional. Even if the recount was fair in theory, it was unfair in practice. The record suggested that different standards were applied from ballot to ballot, precinct to precinct, and county to county. Breyer and Souter (writing separately) agreed with the per curiam holding that the Florida Court's recount scheme violated the Equal Protection Clause, but they dissented with respect to the remedy, believing that a constitutional recount could be fashioned. Time is insubstantial when constitutional rights are at stake. Ginsburg and Stevens (writing separately) argued that for reasons of federalism, the Florida Supreme Court's decision ought to be respected. Moreover, the Florida decision was fundamentally right; the Constitution requires that every vote be counted.
Significance: Recounting ballots is unconstitutional. It may be fair in theory, but it is unfair in practice.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBackground:
ReplyDeleteIn the case Roth v. United States argued on April 22, 1957, Roth was convicted of mailing and publishing obscene books, photographs, and magazines in New York. He was in violation of the federal obscenity statue and was convicted under a misdemeanor complaint. The Supreme Court decided on June 24, 1957 in favor of United States.
Questions:
Does the federal obscenity statute violate the provision of the First Amendment?
What is obscenity?
-material which deals with sex in a manner appealing to prurient interest
Court Decision:
The voting was 5-4 deciding the the obscene material was not protected under the First Amendment in the Constitution because freedom of speech and expression does not include absolute protection for every possible utterance of any sort. Also, obscenity does not support any social important to be included into freedom of speech or expression.
Oregon v. Smith
ReplyDeleteDates: Argued Nov 6 1989 Decided Apr 17 1990
Background: Two native americans where fired from there jobs as counselors for a drug rehabilitation organization because they used an illeagal drug. They applied for unemployment compensation and where denied.
Question: Can unemployment benefits be denied to a worker fired for religous use of illegal drugs?
Ruling: 6-3
Yes,religious beliefs do not excuse someone from an otherwise valid law.
Wes McGee, Roe v Wade
ReplyDeleteRoe, a pregnant single woman, brought a class action suit challenging the constitutionality of the Texas abortion laws. These laws made it a crime to obtain or attempt an abortion except on medical advice to save the life of the mother.
Other plaintiffs in the lawsuit included Hallford, a doctor who faced criminal prosecution for violating the state abortion laws; and the Does, a married couple with no children, who sought an injunction against enforcement of the laws on the grounds that they were unconstitutional.
The defendant was county District Attorney Wade.
Issue 1: Do abortion laws that criminalize all abortions, except those required on medical advice to save the life of the mother, violate the Constitution of the United States?
The ruling was a yes. State criminal abortion laws that except from criminality only life-saving procedures on the mother’s behalf, and that do not take into consideration the stage of pregnancy and other interests, are unconstitutional for violating the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
Issue 2: Does the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution protect the right to privacy, including the right to obtain an abortion?
Yes. The Due Process Clause protects the right to privacy, including a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy, against state action
Issue 3: Are there any circumstances where a state may enact laws prohibiting abortion?
Yes. Though a state cannot completely deny a woman the right to terminate her pregnancy, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman’s health and the potentiality of human life at various stages of pregnancy
Issue 4: Did the fact that Roe’s pregnancy had already terminated naturally, before this case was decided by the Supreme Court, render her lawsuit moot?
No. The natural termination of Roe’s pregnancy did not render her suit moot
Issue 5: Was the district court correct in denying injunctive relief?
Yes. The district court was correct in denying injunctive relief
Outcome: Roe wins. The Court held that, in regard to abortions during the first trimester, the decision must be left to the judgment of the pregnant woman’s doctor.
In regard to second trimester pregnancies, states may promote their interests in the mother’s health by regulating abortion procedures related to the health of the mother.
Regarding third trimester pregnancies, states may promote their interests in the potentiality of human life by regulating or even prohibiting abortion, except when necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.