Digging Deeper - Civil Case vs. Criminal Case

Well today we awoke and there were no anticipated Supreme Court rulings, no hot-button legal opinions and no breaking news from the courtroom, but that doesn't mean the judicial world stopped spinning.  In fact, we now have a little more time to look more closely at what the Supreme Court ruled, how they formed their opinions and other basics of law.  As you turn on the news or pick up a paper, there will be no shortage of analysis on the major Supreme Court rulings announced the past week, especially pertaining to the Voting Rights Act and same-sex marriage.  However, to have a more comprehensive understanding of the cases it is important to be familiar with basic terms and attributes casually thrown around in discussions.  I am constantly looking up legal jargon and theories just to get through a day at work, let alone understand complex cases.  One important aspect of law often overlooked is the difference between Civil Cases and Criminal Cases.  Personally I always assumed I understood the differences between a civil suit and a criminal suit, however I realized if I was put on the spot I would struggle to provide legitimate details of their differences.  So I wanted to simply break down each in a simple and straightforward manner.

Civil Cases: United States v. Windsor (one of the same-sex marriage cases announced yesterday)

• Involves a private dispute between two or more parties, or more simply, a person who feels he/she has been wronged and brings action against the wrongdoer.
• A person or entity (like a corporation) claim to be wronged and are called the Plaintiff.
• The accused wrongdoer (person or entity being sued) is called the Defendant.
• It is up to the Plaintiff to prove they have been wronged.
• The plaintiff can ask the court for compensation or that their denied rights be protected.
• Can be brought in state AND federal court.
• An example of a state civil case would be a person suing another person
• An example of a federal civil case would be a person suing because a federal statute was denied - The plaintiff in United States v. Windsor felt her constitutional right was being infringed and she won.
• Usually, the defendant cannot go to jail if they lose.  Compensation, cease and desist, and other forms of damages are usually ordered.

Criminal Cases: State of Florida vs. George Zimmerman (the current case pertaining to the death of Trayvon Martin)

• Based on an offense to society's rules with a suit brought by the local, state, or federal government.
• Police are involved in the investigation of a crime.
• The local, state, or federal government is acting on behalf of the people and are the plaintiff.  A state or U.S. attorney represents the people in the court and serve as the Prosecution.
• The accused are also called the Defendant, but are presumed innocent until proven guilty and it is up to the Prosecution to prove their guilt.
• It is not the victim's responsibility to bring about a criminal case (although there is not always a victim e.g. someone arrested for DUI).
• A defendant receives a sentence if found guilty, which can range from monetary penalty, imprisonment, supervision within the community or a combination of all three.

These are just some of the basic differences between a civil case and a criminal case that I found helpful in quickly differentiating between the two!

Final Day Fireworks

Today marked the final day of the current Supreme Court term, and the court delivered their opinions on two of the most anticipated cases concerning same-sex marriage.  So what exactly did the Supreme Court rule and what are the fundamental implications?  The court today released their rulings in the two hotly anticipated cases of: United States v. Windsor, which pertains to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and Hollingsworth v. Perry, which pertains to California's Prop 8.  Overall, the court's ruling in the two cases provided the single greatest step forward for the gay rights movement. 

 

I think it is important to differentiate between what the rulings did and did not do as it pertains to DOMA and Prop 8.  The Supreme Court did NOT establish gay marriage to be a Constitutional right protected under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.  This would have been the most sweeping possible ruling, essentially establishing same-sex marriage across the entire country.  However, the court ruling DID establish that the federal government cannot prohibit the recognition of lawfully married same-sex couples in states where gay marriage is allowed.  Legally married gay couples will now have access to over 1,000 federal benefits, be able to file joint tax returns, and enjoy all the privileges heterosexual couples enjoy.  However, this only applies to same-sex marriages from states like New York, where gay marriage is legal.  The Court ruling on California's Proposition 8 case was actually a dismissal on the grounds that the supporters of the gay marriage ban, aka Prop 8, did not have the standing, or right, to appeal the lower court's ruling.  The dismissal of Hollingsworth v. Perry means the ruling from a lower court stands and gay marriage is officially legal in California again.  So lets' dig into each case a little further to gain a more comprehensive understanding.

 

United States v. Windsor

 

The case of United States v. Windsor was a challenge to the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton.  The law prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages, even in the 12 states and District of Columbia that allow them.  The case involves 83 year old Edith Windsor who brought suit after she was forced to pay $363,000 in estate taxes following the death of her same-sex spouse.  Although the two were legally married in Canada, Mrs. Windsor was required to pay the estate taxes in full, as the federal government did not recognize same-sex marriages under DOMA.  In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act as unconstitutional.  Justice Kennedy writing for the majority explained:

The avowed purpose and practical effect of the law here in question are to impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the States

Kennedy and the majority held that the individual states must be allowed by the federal government to grant "dignity" on same-sex couples if they choose to legalize them.  One of the most powerful lines from the opinion was penned by Justice Kennedy as he claims "DOMA’s principal effect is to identify a subset of state-sanctioned marriages and make them unequal" seeming to strike at the heart of the anti-gay supporters of DOMA.  By ruling DOMA as identifying a subset of marriages and making them unequal, the Court held the law a clear violation of the 5th Amendment of the Constitution.

Hollingsworth v. Perry

The case of Hollingsworth v. Perry confronts the constitutionality of Proposition 8, the California referendum passed by the state's voters in 2008 that banned same-sex marriage in the state.  Prop 8 was a ballot initiative with major backing from churches and religious organizations as a response to the California Supreme Court legalizing gay marriage.  The Supreme Court held 5-4 that the supporters for the ban did not have the standing, or legal right, to appeal the lower court ruling.  By not issuing a ruling on the constitutionality of Prop 8, the lower court rulings which overturned the ban will stand and gay marriage can once again resume in California. 

These rulings by the Supreme Court have significantly altered the landscape of same-sex marriage across the United States, and extended equal rights to hundreds of thousands of legally married gay couples.  The Court saved the fireworks for the final day of their current term.  Below is an updated map of gay marriage in the U.S.

 

Laws regarding same-sex partnerships in the United States

Same-sex marriages granted^＊

Unions granting rights similar to marriage>

Legislation granting limited/enumerated rights

No specific prohibition or recognition of same-sex marriages or unions

State statute bans same-sex marriage

State constitution bans same-sex marriage

State constitution bans same-sex marriage and some or all other kinds of same-sex unions

This map reflects the current state for same-sex marriage across the United States.  While the ruling today established over 50% of the U.S. population resides in states where same-sex marriage is legal, 34 states still have an a Constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.

 

 

 

What actually is the Voting Rights Act?

One of the major cases before the Supreme Court that could be decided today pertains to the Voting Rights Act of 1965.  In 2006, the U.S. Senate renewed the Voting Rights Act by a vote of 98-0 and the House of Representatives followed with similar large margins.  Then President Bush signed the bill into law, ensuring the Voting Rights Act would stand for another 25 years.  However, Shelby County Alabama filed suit in Shelby County v. Holder claiming Section 4(b) and 5 of the Voting Rights Act, the portions of the bill that determined the specific geographic areas of the country with stricter voting oversight, was unconstitutional.  Most people have at least heard of the Voting Rights Act, but if asked to explain what the law is or does, many would likely draw a blank.  When I posed this question to  myself, I knew the Act had to do with ensuring equal voting rights for minorities with specific focus on the South, yet I was unable to go into much detail.  So what exactly is the Voting Rights Act of 1965?

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was a landmark piece of legislation signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson, which outlawed discriminatory voting practices that had led to widespread voter disenfranchisement by African-Americans throughout the United States.  The Act prohibits states and local governments from implementing voting qualifications or any form of prerequisites, with the specific aim at outlawing the literacy tests which were prevalent in the South and sought to disenfranchise otherwise qualified voters.  The legislation was heralded as a significant milestone for the Civil Rights movement, with the signing ceremony attended by Martin Luther King, Jr. and Rosa Parks as seen in the picture above.  The legislation gained momentum with the race-motivated murders of voting activists in Philadelphia and Mississippi, along with the relentless degradation of African American voters and citizens across the country.

 

The Act as a whole provided the most sweeping legislation aimed at protecting the constitutional voting rights for African Americans and all minority groups, and for the first time gave law enforcement and the federal government authority and the tools to ensure these rights.  The teeth of the law is Section 5, which prohibits predetermined districts from changing their election laws and procedures without gaining authorization from the U.S. Justice Department, and Section 4(b), which defines the said districts as those which had voting tests in place in November 1964 and less than 50% turnout in the Presidential election.  If the districts outlined in Section 4(b) want to alter their voting laws or procedures they must first prove to the Attorney General or the Washington, D.C. District Court that the changes they seek "neither has the purpose nor will have the effect” of negatively impacting an individual's right to vote based on their race or minority status. 

This map indicates the districts and states that had voting tests in place in 1964, and are therefore required to get approval before changing their voting laws or procedures.  The Shelby County v. Holder will determine if the districts outline in Section 5 and 4(b) will still require oversight.  This final week of the Supreme Court's term is proving to be the busiest and most important few days!

UPDATE: The Supreme Court just ruled that Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional, with 4 of the Justices dissenting.

The Home Stretch of 2013

The Supreme Court is in the final week of their current term that began in October of 2012, and this final week will see the Court issue their rulings on the most anticipated cases.  It was a year ago this week the court issued their ruling on The Affordable Care Act aka "Obamacare", and the Justices often wait until the final days before their summer recess to issue their opinions on the most hot-button cases.  This week I'm going to break down the cases and what the final rulings mean, because there are numerous directions each case can go.  This morning, the Supreme Court issued their ruling in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, a case that had major implications for affirmative action.  First, we should probably define affirmative action and understand what it means in the U.S.  Growing up in the South, the idea of affirmative action taught in school from an early age and is an important topic in the overall discussion of race and the history of race in the South.  Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines affirmative action as:

an active effort to improve the employment or educational opportunities of members of minority groups and women; also: a similar effort to promote the rights or progress of other disadvantaged persons

I always thought I understood what affirmative action meant, but as I began contemplating today's case more I realized if someone asked me to define and provide the details of affirmative action in the United States, all I would be able to provide them is a watered down assumption. 

The Backstory:
The term "affirmative action" was first used in the 1960s in Executive Orders issued by JFK and Lyndon Johnson, which were used to promote actions to achieve non-discrimination.  In President Johnson's Executive Order 11246, required government employer's to take "affirmative action" to hire individuals without regard to race, religion and national origin (gender was added a few years later).  So the initial idea of affirmative action was for employers to take action to hire individuals WITHOUT regarding race and other attributes often associated with discrimination.  Following the Civil Rights Act of 1964, efforts were undertaken to improve employment and educational opportunities for women and minorities through various forms of preferential treatment in job hiring, higher-education admissions, and other forms of social benefit allocation.  Affirmative action was designed to counteract the lingering effects and realities of generational discrimination. 

Affirmative Action Today:  
Affirmative action today generally has come to include, but is not limited to, race, gender, religion, ethnic origin, age, and disability.  The Supreme Court has ruled in several cases concerning the constitutionality of affirmative action, and has placed limitations and guidelines on the manner in which it is applied. In 2003, the court rejected the use of "racial quotas" in the admissions process but reaffirmed that the Equal Protection Clause does not prohibit the use of race as a variable among many examined in an individual's application.

Today's Case Ruling:
The Supreme Court held 7-1 (Justice Elena Kagan recused herself) to remand the Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin back to the lower courts to rehear the two arguments.  The Fisher case concerned a student who was denied admission from UT and filed suit against the school claiming she was denied admission because she was white.  The school argued that, while race is a factor among many examined on an individual's application, most students admitted to the university are from the "Top 10" program which admits most of the top 10 percent from each Texas high school regardless of race, a program in which Fisher did not qualify.  The Supreme Court remanded the case, which means sent back down to the lower courts without making a decision, in order for the appeals court to rehear the arguments.  Essentially, the Justices punted on making a sweeping decision one way or the other and for now, the use of affirmative action stands. 

Coming Up This Week:
The Supreme Court has yet to rule on two cases concerning the Voting Rights Act of 1964 and the legality of Gay Marriage, but opinions can be expected any day!

Student Loan Debt - A New Hope?

One ominous aspect of law school preparation that currently confronts myself and thousands of others, pertains to understanding what options are available to pay for three years of tuition.  Last year the average private law school student was saddled with an average of $125,000 of debt, while public law students finished with around $75,000 in student loan debt according to the ABA Journal.  In fact, total outstanding student loan debt has doubled in just the past five years from $550 billion to slightly below $1 trillion in the first quarter of 2013!

As this graph illustrates, student loan debt has exploded in the past decade, and now tops total outstanding American credit card debt.  However, the truly frightening aspect of student loan debt is the inability to discharge the debt through declaring bankruptcy and filing bankruptcy proceedings in court.  Essentially, even if an individual cannot afford the monthly payments and files for bankruptcy, student loan debt cannot be wiped clean and you will be forced to continue making payments regardless of your ability to pay or not.  As someone who already has some student loans and is looking at my options for taking on more to help pay for law school tuition, I try to stay updated on news and developments surrounding student loans. 

 

Last week, there was a significant ruling by the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that wade into uncharted waters with regard to discharging student loans through bankruptcy.  Under current bankruptcy law passed by Congress in 2005, student debt cannot be discharged solely through a bankruptcy proceeding, rather an adversary proceeding, a separate lawsuit within the bankruptcy case, must be filed where the borrower is required to prove an "undue hardship".  Most students either are unaware of their options, or simply cannot afford the attorney and other costs related to discharging student debt. Complicating the issue further is the fact that the "undue hardship" aspect of the law is not standardized and varies from court district to court district across the country.  In the Court of Appeals case  Michael Hedlund borrowed around $85,000 to pay for his undergraduate and law school degrees, however he was unable to afford his monthly payments and filed for bankruptcy.  The Court of Appeals reversed a lower court and allowed Mr. Hedlund to discharge some of his loans and rejected claims that the husband and father should find additional part-time work on top of his full-time position.  The ruling also established that something like leasing a car cannot be considered an "excess expense" by a court and gave hope to thousands of other students drowning in debt. 

 

Before I read the case brief I wanted to brush up on the basic facts of student loan debt in the U.S., so one of the first sources I turned to was Wikipedia.  Since this case was not heard before the Supreme Court it was not on Oyez.org, and I really was simply looking to gain basic facts.  While the Wikipedia page on student debt is helpful, I noticed it was slightly outdated with regard to ways the loans can be discharged as decided in the Hedlund case.  I have never attempted to edit Wikipedia, but I figured now would be as good as any to try!  Here is the original paragraph:

U.S. Federal student loans and some private student loans can be discharged in bankruptcy only with a showing of "undue hardship." In contrast to credit card debt, which often can be discharged through bankruptcy proceedings,^{[27][28][29][30]} this option is not generally available for educational loan debt.^[31][32][33] The undue hardship standard varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but is generally difficult to meet, making student loans practically non-dischargeable through bankruptcy. In most circuits discharge depends on meeting three prongs in the Brunner test:^[

And here is the paragraph after I made some basic revisions:

U.S. Federal student loans and some private student loans can be discharged in bankruptcy only with a showing of "undue hardship." In contrast to credit card debt, which often can be discharged through bankruptcy proceedings,^{[27][28][29][30]} this option is not generally available for educational loan debt.^[31][32][33] Additionally, those seeking to discharge their student loan debt must initiate an adversary proceeding, a separate lawsuit within the bankruptcy case where they illustrate the required undue hardship^[34]. Many borrowers cannot afford to retain an attorney or the additional litigation costs associated with an adversary proceeding, let alone a bankruptcy case. Further complicating matters, the undue hardship standard varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but is generally difficult to meet, making student loans practically non-dischargeable through bankruptcy. In most circuits discharge depends on meeting three prongs in the Brunner test:^[35]

I found the Appeals Court case to be relevant to myself, as well as the thousands of other Millennials with similar situations.  Editing Wikipedia was a first for me, but I hope it helps others out there with some basic facts about the complex web of student loans in the U.S.

The Supreme Court and Angelina Jolie

The United States Supreme Court, Actress Angelina Jolie, and human gene patents are three topics not usually mentioned in the same discussion, however, today's unanimous 9-0 ruling by the Supreme Court links all three in one of the most interesting and significant cases of this year.  The Court's ruling today in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics establishes that isolated natural human genes may not be patented, and will significantly shape medical research and procedures surrounding breast and ovarian cancer.

To help better explain the decision handed down by the Supreme Court Justices today, I turn to Angelina Jolie and her inspiring revelation last month that she underwent double mastectomy surgery in a valiant effort to prevent breast cancer.  In a remarkable New York Times Op-Ed Jolie reveals she carries the gene BRCA1, while her doctors gave her an 87% chance of developing breast cancer and 50% chance of ovarian cancer.  After making the decision to have a double-mastectomy, Jolie explains, "My chances of developing breast cancer have dropped from 87 percent to under 5 percent."  Angelina Jolie took a remarkably courageous stance, one however, not all women are afforded.  The medical test which ONLY identifies the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes costs patients and insurers between $3000 - $4000, a procedure that should cost around $100 if the two genes were not patented by Myriad Genetics.  So what exactly happened from today's ruling and what are the ramifications?! 

The Background:  The Association for Molecular Pathology and numerous other medical doctors, patients and associations sued the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and Myriad Genetics to challenge the exclusively held patents of Myriad Genetics that covered the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes and particular mutations indicating "high risk" of breast cancer.  Not only did Myriad Genetics have exclusive control over the BRCA gene patents, but they also had singular control over patents pertaining to the screening process in patients, which ultimately determines an individuals risk of developing cancer.  Myriad argued, once a gene has been "isolated", it becomes distinguishable from other genes in a person's DNA and therefore can be patented.  By patenting the genes, Myriad had sole control over the entire diagnostic testing and ALL scientific research pertaining to the genes.  The parties suing argued Myriad Genetics could not have a patent on the BRCA1 and BRCA1 genes and related genetic material because they were direct products of nature, while also arguing the exclusivity of the patents directly limits scientific progress and advances.

The Ruling:  The Supreme Court ruled 9-0 against Myriad Genetics with Justice Clarence Thomas writing the opinion and explaining, "A naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated."  The Court held that the discovery of natural products is not patentable, while "It is undisputed that Myriad did not create or alter any of the genetic information encoded in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes."  The Court found that Myriad Genetics in no way created either of the genes and therefore could not patent them nor the medical procedures involved with isolating them.  While the Supreme Court struck down the patents held by Myriad Genetics, the Justices did leave the door open for future patents on synthetic DNA, which would be patent eligible because synthetic genes are uniquely developed by humans in a lab and cannot be found naturally occurring in nature.     

My Take:  The manner in which this case relates to everyday families affected by cancer illustrates the immense power and influence of the Supreme Court.  The ruling today will affect every American seeking routine medical procedures surrounding the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes and cancer prevention methods.  I believe the Supreme Court ruled correctly in striking down patents on human genes and their reasoning was founded in U.S. patent laws and the constitution.  Pharmaceutical companies cannot patent aspects of human DNA when they had no role in its creation or implication.  A corporation is not able to patent molecular structures found in nature, like H2O or elemental compounds, so basic components of a persons DNA is no exception.

So Much Info, So Little...Attention Span?!

In today's tech-driven world of twitter, blogs, Facebook, etc., the amount of time people commit toward reading and in-depth analysis continues to shrink. The other day I had an extra half-hour of down time while at work and decided to brush up on the latest news articles, only to find myself struggling to read the article in its entirety. At first, I didn't even notice that I had gone from skimming articles, to skimming the opening few paragraphs, to finally only glancing at certain headlines. It wasn't that the subject matter lost my interest, rather I simply wanted to finish and move to the next article. That got me wondering, how many times during a day do Millennials cut short reading an article online or elsewhere? Then I began to wonder, if more and more people skim or cut short readings about topics that interest them, how does one capture the "online" attention of someone for a topic that they normally would not find interesting, like a Supreme Court case ruling for example? News articles about case rulings only offer the most basic implications of the Court's opinion, but I'll admit, even those can be difficult to wade through to the end for individuals not interested in the Judicial System. Fear not! There is one resource I found that truly stands out in simplifying court cases, the constitutional question, and what the ruling means: Oyez.org

So why do I find this website to be a "go-to" resource when I want to look up a case, read more in depth, or simply find the basic facts about a Supreme Court case? The answer is in the simplicity and the breadth of available information. Court cases like Brown v. Board of Education are important for everyone to have some understanding of, but the details and constitutional implications are extensive. Sure Wikipedia can be a simple few clicks away, but they often do not have articles about the hundreds of lesser-known Supreme Court cases heard each year and the constitutional questions raised by each case likely will not be found on Wikipedia in any substantive depth. If you wanted the basic question posed in the Brown v. Board case or the simple legal provision, finding those in the full length Wikipedia page or a textbook case brief could prove to be a daunting task. Oyez.org covers essentially every Supreme Court case ever argued, breaks down each case in simple structure while maintaining the importance of constitutional question and equips readers with interactive tools vastly beyond most other resources. 

Lets take a look at a screen shot from the Brown v. Board of Education on Oyez.org:

As you can see by clicking on the link or from this screen shot, Oyez breaks down the essential facts, the constitutional question before the court, the ruling (9-0), the legal provision, and a basic conclusion. Oyez provides the most critical and essential takeaways from the Supreme Court case and provides it in a simple, yet remarkably informative manner. However, it is the extra tools provided that truly sets Oyez apart as a resource. At the bottom, you see the list of Justices (which can be viewed in different settings), how they voted, and who delivered the majority opinion (outlined in red). But, click on any of the justices and you get a full bio, time on the court, analysis of rulings and more! If you want to cite something for a paper or class, the links at the very bottom organize your citation seamlessly. On the left (not shown in the screen shot) you see the dates the case was argued, who the attorney's were, when the opinion was handed down and you can click on other links to view alternative cases decided under whoever the Chief Justice was. BUT arguably the greatest tool offered by Oyez is an audio of every oral argument heard before the Court since the 1960s! While there are nearly limitless resources pertaining to U.S. court cases, Oyez.org has set the bar for Supreme Court analysis, case by case breakdown, and the presentation of key constitutional questions raised.     

Maryland v. King: What is a reasonable search?

The Supreme Court on Monday, in a 5-4 ruling, upheld the police practice of taking DNA samples from individuals who have been arrested but not yet convicted of a felony crime. The Court essentially claimed that a DNA swab from the inside of an individual's cheek amounts to the 21st century form of finger printing. The primary issue at play in the Maryland v. King is the Fourth Amendment and person's Constitutional protection "against unreasonable searches and seizures". Although the ruling was split 5-4, Justice Antonin Scalia, a staunch conservative, joined three of the court's liberal justice's in the dissent. The Court ruling tackles the complex issue of a person's expectation of privacy, the Fourth Amendment, and legitimate interests of the government and law enforcement.

The Background: Alonzo King, Jr. was arrested in the State of Maryland on April 10, 2009, and charged with first and second degree assault in state court for menacing a group of people with a shotgun. While King was being processed for detention in custody, booking personnel took a cheek swab of his DNA pursuant to the Maryland DNA Collection Act.

In July 2009, King's DNA was submitted to the Maryland DNA Database, and three weeks later, his DNA profile matched a DNA sample from an unsolved 2003 rape case. Following his DNA match, authorities submitted the evidence to a grand jury, which indicted him in the 2003 rape. Law enforcement then received a search warrant to take a second DNA sample, which again linked him to the unsolved 2003 rape case. King moved to have the DNA matches "suppressed" (fancy word for not allowed to be used in court) because he argued taking the original DNA sample violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. King pleaded not guilty to the rape, but with clear DNA connection, was convicted and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

The Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 against King, upholding Maryland's DNA collection law. The Court found that the Maryland DNA Collection Act serves a legitimate government interest in verifying the identity of those it has probable cause to take into custody on suspicion of certain serious crimes. The majority ruling explains that an individual's "identity" is more than just their name; rather, it also covers past criminal history. "The only difference between DNA analysis and fingerprint databases is the unparalleled accuracy DNA provides," Justice Kennedy wrote. This is critical because DNA, not only can connect arrestee's with a previously unsolved crime, as in the case with Alonzo King, but the samples can also exonerate and free those who have been falsely convicted of a crime they never committed. In making their decision the Court also found the DNA sample will assist Judges with determining bail by clarifying what type of flight risk or potential danger the individual might be.

My Take: Personally, I believe there must be a true and legitimate government interest that serves the people in order to restrict any of the rights laid forth in the Constitution. Shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater would be a perfect scenario where I believe restricting the freedom of speech is justified, and subsequently has been upheld by the Supreme Court. I fully understand why many would have issue with the Court's ruling in the Maryland v. King case; in fact, my initial reaction was to oppose the ruling. However, as I read the full Opinion and the facts of the case, I have come to agree with the Court's decision. There were three primary points that I believe justify the right of authorities to take a DNA sample from someone who has been arrested for a felony crime, prior to conviction:

1) The government has proved they have a "legitimate interest" in taking a DNA sample from someone who has been arrested for a serious crime (not just a traffic stop) because determining their full identity, past criminal record and possible connection to unsolved crime, is critical to a safer and more just society. Authorities already fingerprint EVERY person who is arrested and already attempt to cross reference those fingerprints and mug shots for any possible connection to unsolved cases. The ability to exonerate someone who has been falsely convicted, or prevent men like Mr. King (a now convicted rapist with DNA from the victim matching his) from roaming the streets, is a critical tool unavailable to law enforcement in the past, while still upholding a person's Fourth Amendment right.

2) Taking someone's DNA by a cotton swab does not qualify as an unreasonable search or seizure, with the key word being "unreasonable". If you are arrested on suspicion of committing a felony crime and are being processed for booking, a small cotton swab from your cheek is surely difficult to qualify as an unreasonable search. You are already fingerprinted and your mug shot will be taken, and taking a cotton swab is hard to imagine as being an unreasonable invasion of your body.

3) What about the government holding your DNA in a secret data base where they can discover the most basic building blocks of your biological identity? An understandable fear, however not possible because the DNA that is analyzed and submitted to the data base is ONLY the "un-coded" portion of an individual's DNA - that is, the portions of the genetic code that serves no function in any capacity but still remains unique to each person. The "un-coded" part of someone's DNA has absolutely no impact on your development, physical traits, or any other aspect of your being. Furthermore, the Maryland DNA Collection Act (which is similar to laws used by the Fed and 29 other States) still imposes significant limitations on when that "un-coded" DNA can be used.

No doubt this is a complex and highly charged case, and I understand the merit of both arguments. Ultimately, I believe the Supreme Court ruled correctly while maintaining our guaranteed protections set forth in the Constitution.

If you have any thoughts, opinions, want to respectfully disagree, or offer any other insight on the Maryland v. King case I would love to hear from you!

The Basics: Understanding the U.S. Court System

Each day, the Federal and State Courts issue rulings that have the potential to affect millions of people, and in rulings from the Supreme Court, the entire country.  Understanding the U.S. Court system will play a fundamental role in understanding the ramifications of a court's opinion.  Discerning the differences and similarities between State Municipal Courts, Federal District Courts, State District Courts, Federal Court of Appeals, State Court of Appeals, etc. can prove to be no simple task.  When most millennials are required to interact with the judicial system, the vast majority will deal with lower-level State Courts like a Municipal or Probate Court.  However, the organization and structure of a State's court system is left entirely up to the individual State or U.S. territory resulting in different court names, structure, and legal authority depending on which state you reside. 

As a starting point, there are two court systems in the United States: The Federal Court System and The State Court System

The Federal Court System	The State Court System
Court System Structure
●     Article III of the Constitution grants the judicial authority of the U.S. to a federal court system, specifically establishes the U.S. Supreme Court, and gives Congress authority to create the lower federal courts.	●     Each individual State Constitution and laws establish its own state court system, which often follow the federal court system structure.  A court of last resort, sometimes called the State Supreme Court, is typically the court for that state.
●     Congress has established 13 U.S. Courts of Appeals, 94 U.S. District Courts, and other courts with a specific jurisdiction (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, U.S. Court of International Trade, and the U.S. Court of Claims)	●     Following the court of last resort, often designated the State Supreme Court, many states have an intermediate level Court of Appeals, with the lowest level being State Trial Courts (sometimes called Circuit or District Courts depending on the state)
●        Parties dissatisfied with a U.S. District Court may appeal to a U.S. Court of Appeals.  The party may then ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review a decision by the Court of Appeals (although the Supreme Court is generally under no obligation to hear)	●        Parties dissatisfied with a decision from a trial court (or alternately named lower court) may appeal to the intermediate court, usually the State Court of Appeals.  The party may then chose to appeal to the state’s highest court, usually the State Supreme Court.
Judge Selection
●        The Constitution prescribes that federal court judges be nominated by the President and confirmed by the U.S. Senate.	●        State court judges can be selected by election, appointment for a set number of years, appointment for life, or a combination of appointment with elections.
Types of Cases Heard
Cases dealing with the constitutionality of a law Cases dealing with federal law violation and U.S. treaties Bankruptcy Disputes between two states Ambassadors and public ministers	A majority of criminal cases Wills and Estates Contract cases Tort law Family law

Understanding the scope and breadth of influence from court decisions can begin by simply hearing which Court the ruling was from.  While the rulings issued by SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) are of the utmost importance, decisions handed down by the U.S. Court of Appeals can affect millions of Americans instantly.  I found just being able to discern which types of cases are heard by federal or state courts immediately made understanding the characteristics of a Court’s opinion more straightforward.

Welcome to Judicial Review

Hello Blogosphere!

Welcome to Judicial Review, a blog that will attempt to breakdown the U.S. judicial system and important court rulings in a manner that illustrates the implications and relevance for the Millennial Generation.  The goal of this blog is not to provide a partisan interpretation of court rulings, for that one can simply turn on MSNBC or Fox News.  Rather, the goal of this blog is to inform, especially the Millenial Generation (Gen Y to some), about the relevance of court rulings to their lives and journey into the workings of our judicial system.  Understanding the judicial process and the ramifications of a court's opinion can often be difficult to follow and comprehend, especially for younger individuals who may not see the correlation to their daily lives.  In reality however, rulings from U.S. Court's have a profound impact on everyone's lives, and the Millennial Generation is no exception.

I am writing this blog because I have a passion for law and view our courts as a beacon of hope for justice.  However, a more basic reason for writing this blog is because I myself am of the Millennial Generation and pursuing a path in law.  Originally from Atlanta, Georgia I currently live in New York City and work for a law firm as I prepare for the LSAT's this winter.  Growing up, I came from a diverse background that allowed me opportunities to experience a variety opinions, ideologies, and cultures.  I enjoy the city but also love any chance I can get to go skiing in the Rockies or head down to the white beaches of the Gulf Coast.  I look forward to sharing my experiences, hearing from anyone who is interested, and providing informative analysis of major court rulings for the Millennial Generation!