American History: Supreme Court Cases
The Supreme Court is significant in the American constitutional system and serves as a neutral arbitrator in implementing the constitution’s basic guarantees. The court must have the citizen’s confidence to fulfil this critical role. This paper explores three different cases that the court handled in the past two decades. These cases include the 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC) case, the Obergefell v. Hodges case of 2015, and the 2007 Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency case. It provides the names and details of these cases, the final vote, and my opinion regarding the court’s decision.
Citizens United v. FEC
The 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is about money in political campaigns. The case was about the move by a non-profit organization, Citizens United, to run an advert with a film about a politician, Hillary Clinton. The organization made a critical movie that expressed views on whether politician Hillary Clinton would make a good president. Citizen United sought an injunction against FEC to prevent the commission from applying the Bipartisan Campaign Act (BCRA) to its film. BCRA seeks to regulate campaign contributions by restricting various electioneering communications, including films about certain politicians. Section 203 of this Act prohibits labor unions or organizations, such as Citizen United, from financing these electioneering communications through their treasuries (“Citizens United v. FEC” 1). Moreover, other sections of the Act, including sections 201 and 311, necessitate full disclosures of the donors of electioneering communications and disclaimers in case the mentioned politician or candidate has not authorized such communications (Spencer and Wood 320). During this case, Citizens United claimed that various sections of the BCRA Act, including sections 201 and 203, violated the First Amendment and that these sections were unconstitutional based on this matter.
In this case, the final vote was a 5-4 decision in which the Supreme Court held that labor unions and organizations could spend whatever amount they want to campaign for or against specific political candidates (“Citizens United v. FEC” 46). However, the court maintained that such spending should be independent of these candidates or politicians. This decision implied that the governing laws prohibiting unions and organizations from using their funds for electioneering communications violated the First Amendment that guarantees freedom of speech. Consequently, it invalidated certain sections, such as Section 203, of the BCRA Act. Nevertheless, the court overturned part or whole of its previous rulings, including in the McConnell v. Federal Election Commission case of 2003 and Austin v. Michigan State Chamber of Commerce case.
I oppose the Supreme Court decision in the 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case because it allows the few wealthy citizens and organizations, including foreign corporations, to influence and determine the outcome of elections. This move will also enable social welfare organizations, with tax-exempt status, to spend limitlessly on political campaigns without revealing their donors’ identities. Although the majority opinion argued that the court reached this decision to protect the First Amendment and the freedom of speech, the court failed to consider that organizations and unions are not individuals. Moreover, in my opinion, this ruling may also challenge the integrity of various institutions within the country.
Obergefell v. Hodges
The 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges was about sexual orientation and the authority of states to deny same-sex couples protections and privileges allowed through civil marriage and equality granted by the constitution. This case was about a couple, James Obergefell and John Arthur, who wanted one of them, Obergefell, to be on the others, Arthur’s, death certificate. Together with other individuals from Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Michigan, the couple sued these states that previously described marriage as a union between a man and a woman. This description of marriage forms the basis of Obergerfell v. Hodges cases. The petitioners claimed that the state denied them the right to get married (“Obergefell et al. v. Hodges” 1). They also argued that the states violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This case exhibits two scenarios, including the marriage aspect and the recognition factor.
For the Obergefell v. Hodges case, the final vote was a 5-4 decision invalidating Ohio’s same-sex marriage bans. In this case, the court applied the constitution’s equality and protection principles and the due process to arrive at this decision. The protection principles used in this case include prohibiting states from discriminating individuals based on sex absent. The other principle is that the court will not sustain stereotypical sex-based categorizations unless the states come with persuasive justification. The third principle is that the law will not be the exclusive motivating factor against a specific group. The court issued a directive to the states to recognize same-sex couples and issue them with marriage licenses. The court’s decision also resulted in the legalization of same-sex marriage in the US (Spindleman 1040). The ruling ended the previous agitations for equality regarding marriage and sexual orientation. In this case, the equal protection clause guarantees the marriage right forbidding states from denying individuals equal protection of laws.
I oppose this decision by the Supreme Court because it considers marriage a union without differentiating the two. Although the country is interested in eliminating discrimination based on sexual orientation, courts need to understand the impossibility of marriage between specific individuals. The courts need to recognize the misconception surrounding the legalization of all unions as marriages. In my opinion, in the future, the Fourteenth Amendment may be stretched to accommodate the right to marry between biological siblings or between children and their biological parents. Moreover, I believe that the decision may result in inequalities in the marriage institution instead of promoting equality.
Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency
The 2007 Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is about environmental protection and changes. The case is about the decision by Massachusetts, other states, and various environmental organizations to challenge the refusal by the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate the emission of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, emanating from new vehicles. This case is based on the rising global temperatures and environmental changes attributed to air pollutants from new cars and high concentrations of these gases (“Massachusetts v.EPA” 1). These changes resulted in numerous calls for regulation of these gases. The Clean Air Act gives EPA the responsibility of regulating the emission of pollutants from various classes of new motor vehicles. According to this Act, pollutants include any chemical or physical substances that may endanger public welfare or health. Although the Act gives EPA the mandate to regulate the spread of these pollutants, EPA denied this petition. EPA argued that the Act failed to issue compulsory protocols in handling climate change at the global level and that it would be unwise to regulate greenhouse gas emissions due to the absence of an unpremeditated association between the gases and the increasing global temperatures.
In the 2007 Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) case, the final vote was 5-4 reversing EPA’s denial of this petition. Although the case was first filed in 1999, the Supreme Court made the ruling in 2007, where the court ruled that the EPA had the responsibility to control air pollutants(“Massachusetts v.EPA” 6). Moreover, it ruled that the states and these organizations have the right to sue EPA for failure to control these emissions. The court held that the EPA failed to give a reasonable explanation for its decision to deny the petition. The court also ruled that EPA’s arguments violated the agency’s statutory responsibilities (Payne, Jr, and Rosenbaum). In this case, the agency failed to provide and justify its opinion regarding the contribution of greenhouse gases to climate change.
I support the Supreme Court decision because of the impact of this ruling at the global level. Various scientific findings seem to associate greenhouse gas emissions with climatic changes. Moreover, greenhouse gas emissions have adverse environmental effects risking the physical health and welfare of humans and other living creatures globally. I believe that EPA has the responsibility of controlling the discharge of such gases from new vehicles since regulation of the gases is part of its authority. In my view, the agency is responsible for protecting both humans and the environment by proposing and ensuring the implementation of various standards that limit harmful pollutants from new vehicles. The refusal by the agency to regulate the emission of these pollutants results in significant harm prompting the need for such regulations.