Unit3: Civil Liberties & Civil Rights

Provisions of the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights are continually being interpreted to balance the power of government and the civil liberties of individuals.

• • 3.1A - Explain how the U.S. Constitution protects individual liberties and rights.

    • The U.S. Constitution includes a Bill of Rights specifically designed to protect individual liberties and rights.

      • Civil liberties are constitutionally established guarantees and freedoms that protect citizens, opinions, and property against arbitrary government interference. 

      • The application of the Bill of Rights is continuously interpreted by the courts.

• 3.1B - Describe the rights protected in the Bill of Rights.

  • The Bill of Rights consists of the first ten Amendments to the Constitution, which enumerate the liberties and rights of individuals.

• 3.2- Explain the extent to which the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the First Amendment reflects a commitment to religious liberty.

  • The interpretation and application of the First Amendment’s establishment clause and free exercise clause, creating the "wall of separation", reflect an ongoing tension between governmental power to make a law and an individual’s right to religious freedom, as reflected in: 

    • Engel v. Vitale (1962), which declared school sponsorship of religious activities violates the establishment clause

      • the Lemon Test

    • Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972), which held that compelling Amish students to attend school past the eighth grade violates the free exercise clause

Provisions of the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights are continually being interpreted to balance the power of government and the civil liberties of individuals.

• 3.3 - Explain the extent to which the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the First Amendment reflects a commitment to free speech.

  • The Supreme Court has held that symbolic speech (nonverbal action that communicates an idea or belief) is protected by the First Amendment, as demonstrated by Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969), in which the court ruled that public school students could wear black armbands in school to protest the Vietnam War.

  • Efforts to balance social order and individual freedom are reflected in interpretations of the First Amendment that limit speech, including:

    • Time, place, and manner regulations  that impose restrictions such as limits on the time of day an event can be held, limits on where an event can be held, and limits on the noise levels at an event 

    • Limitations on some obscene and offensive communication.

    • That which creates a “clear and present danger” based on the ruling in Schenck v. United States (1919), and subsequent interpretations which have refined those restrictions

    • Protections against defamation (language that harms the reputation of another) including libel (written communication) and slander (oral communication). [note: libel is found in 3.4 of AMSCO]

• 3.4 -Explain the extent to which the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the First Amendment reflects a commitment to individual liberty.

  •  In New York Times Co. v. United States (1971), the Supreme Court bolstered the freedom of the press, establishing a “heavy presumption against prior restraint” even in cases involving national security.

• 3.5 - Explain the extent to which the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment reflects a commitment to individual liberty.

  • The Supreme Court’s decisions on the Second Amendment rest upon its constitutional interpretation of the right to bear arms, establishing new precedent in D.C. v. Heller.

• 3.6 - Explain how the Supreme Court has attempted to balance claims of individual freedom with laws and enforcement procedures that promote public order and safety.

  • Court decisions defining cruel and unusual punishment involve interpretation of the Eighth Amendment and its application to state death penalty statutes.

  • The debate about the Second and Fourth Amendments involves concerns about public safety and whether or not the government regulation of firearms or collection of digital metadata promotes or interferes with public safety and individual rights.

Protections of the Bill of Rights have been selectively incorporated by way of the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause to prevent state infringement of basic liberties.

• 3.7 - Explain the implications of the doctrine of selective incorporation.

  • The doctrine of selective incorporation has imposed limitations on state regulation of civil liberties by extending select protections of the Bill of Rights to the states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,  as represented by McDonald v. Chicago (2010), which ruled the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms for self-defense in one’s home is applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.

• 3.8 - Explain the extent to which the government is limited by procedural due process from infringing upon individual rights.

  • The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments include due process clauses which state that the government may not infringe on a person’s right to life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The due process clause in the Fifth Amendment applies to the national government and the due process clause in the Fourteenth Amendment applies to states. 

    • Some government interests may justify the restriction of individual rights; for example, speech can be limited when it is shown to present a danger to public safety. 

    • Procedural due process requires that government officials use methods that are not arbitrary when making and carrying out decisions affecting constitutionally protected rights. These procedural due process protections are reinforced by key protections enshrined in other provisions of the Bill of Rights and key legal doctrines established by the Supreme Court. 

      • For example, the Miranda rule requires accused persons to be informed of some procedural protections found in the Fifth and Sixth Amendments prior to interrogation. 

        • However, these procedural protections are not absolute. A public safety exception has been sanctioned by the Court that allows unwarned interrogation to stand as direct evidence in court.

      • Procedural rights of the accused and the prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures are intended to ensure that individual liberties are not eclipsed by the need for social order and security, including:

        • The right to legal counsel, speedy and public trial, and an impartial jury

        • Protection against warrantless searches of cell phone data under the Fourth Amendment

        • Limitations placed on bulk collection of telecommunication metadata (Patriot and USA Freedom Acts)

      • Procedural due process also protects the rights of the accused during a trial. The Bill of Rights guarantees the right to an attorney and protection from unreasonable searches and seizures, as represented by:

        • Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), which guaranteed the right to an attorney for the poor or indigent

        • The exclusionary rule, as decided by the Supreme Court, stipulates that evidence illegally seized by law enforcement officers in violation of the suspect’s Fourth Amendment rights (including the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures) cannot be used against that suspect in criminal prosecution.

  • 3.9 - Explain the extent to which the government is limited by substantive due process from infringing upon individual rights.

  • Over time, the Supreme Court has recognized constitutionally protected rights that are not explicitly listed in the Bill of Rights. These unenumerated rights include the right to privacy. 

    • Justices and scholars have drawn on several arguments to defend the existence of unenumerated rights. Some argue that an unenumerated right is implied by certain amendments that assume the existence of such rights. Others argue that the Ninth Amendment, which states that individuals have protected rights beyond those listed in the first eight amendments, provides support for the existence of unenumerated rights. 

    • In a range of cases, the Supreme Court has used substantive due process to examine whether government laws and actions are arbitrary infringements of individual rights.

      • While a right to privacy is not explicitly named in the Constitution, the Supreme Court has interpreted the due process clause to protect the right to privacy. 

        • In Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), interpreted the due process clause to protect the right of privacy from government infringement. 

        • In Roe v. Wade (1973), the Supreme Court held that the application of substantive due process further extended the privacy right to abortion. 

        • The Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization(2022) overturned Roe v. Wade, holding that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion, leaving decisions about the regulation of abortion to legislatures. 

        • The actions that are protected by the right to privacy and substantive due process continue to be debated.

The Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause as well as other constitutional provisions have often been used to support the advancement of equality.

• 3.10 - Explain how constitutional provisions have supported and motivated social movements.

  • Civil rights protect individuals from discrimination based on characteristics such as race, national origin, religion, and sex; these rights are guaranteed to all citizens under the due process and equal protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution, as well as acts of Congress.

    • The civil rights movement, the women’s rights movement, and advocacy for LGBTQ rights are evidence of how the equal protection clause can support and motivate social movements, as represented by:

      • Dr. Martin Luther King’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” and the civil rights movement of the 1960s 

      • The National Organization for Women and the women’s rights movement

      • The pro-life and pro-choice movements

Public policy promoting civil rights is influenced by citizen-state interactions and constitutional interpretation over time.

• 3.11 - Explain how the government has responded to social movements.

  • The government can respond to social movements through court rulings and/or policies.

    • Brown v. Board of Education (1954), which declared that race-based school segregation violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause

    • The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in public places, provides for the integration of schools and other public facilities, and makes employment discrimination illegal.

    • Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 prohibits sex discrimination in any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.

    • The Voting Rights Act of 1965 prohibits racial discrimination in voting.

The Court’s interpretation of the U.S. Constitution is influenced by the composition of the Court and citizen-state interactions. At times, it has restricted minority rights and, at others, protected them.

• 3.12 - Explain how the Court has at times allowed the restriction of the civil rights of minority groups and at other times has protected those rights.

  • Decisions demonstrating that minority rights have been restricted at times and protected at other times include:

    • State laws and Supreme Court holdings based on the “separate but equal” doctrine restricting African American access to the same restaurants, hotels, schools, etc., as the majority white population 

    • Brown v. Board of Education (1954), which declared that race-based school segregation violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause

    • The Supreme Court upholding the rights of the majority in cases that limit and prohibit majority-minority districting, such as in Shaw v. Reno (1993)

• 3.13 - Describe Supreme Court debates about affirmative action policies.

  • Affirmative action refers to policies intended to address workplace and educational disparities related to race, ethnic origin, gender, disability, and age. 

  • Supreme Court debate has focused on whether affirmative action is protected by the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.