Chapter 5. Civil Liberties

Skillbuilder: Reading Court Cases

In this Skillbuilder, you will learn how to read and (hopefully) understand the structure of a Supreme Court case. As we saw in chapter 5, the Supreme Court has played a key role in securing our civil liberties but it also changes them over time. While Court cases aren't in a foreign language (well, not counting those Latin bits), they can be somewhat confusing and intimidating. Hey, sometimes even the justices can't agree on what they said!

Below, we attempt to help you understand (or perhaps help you understand how to understand) a civil liberties Court case: Zelman v. Simmons-Harris. Note: If you'd like to download the full text of this decision (ninety-eight thrill-a-minute pages) or other decisions, you can visit the Court's Web site at http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/opinions.aspx

First Off...

This decision comes with a syllabus. A syllabus in a court case is a quick and dirty summary or abstract of what follows. It's not written by a judge and isn't legally binding. It's like Cliffs

Notes for lawyers. This syllabus lays out:

the title of the case (the "et al." is Latin for "and others"),

the path through which the case arrived at the Court (granted certiorari from the Sixth Circuit),

the case number and the dates of argument and decision, and

important background for the case.

"Decisions, Decisions............ Oh, Payday!"

The end of the syllabus tells the decision (which reverses the previous decision) and lists where the justices stand on the decision. As you'll see later in Chapter 9, Supreme Court voting can be confusing.

In this case, Rehnquist writes the majority decision, which O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas sign onto (note: "C.J." stands for "chief justice"; "J." stands for "justice"; and "JJ." stands for "justices"). However, O'Connor and Thomas write their own concurring opinions (more on this later), and Stevens, Souter, and Breyer all write dissents. More on this below.

Here Comes the Judgment ... Which Tells Us What the Judge Meant

So here's the real decision (or at least the first of twenty-two pages of the real decision, most of which we'll just be skipping, if you don't mind). Suddenly there are a lot more "v."s floating around ... notice all of the ink that "et al." saved us from in the syllabus? See, Latin can be your friend.

Right below the date, we see that this opinion was written by Chief Justice Rehnquist and that it is the official opinion (binding decision) of the Court.

Rehnquist then shows poor form by actually telling you what the Court's decision is.

Normally judges will keep you in some form of suspense to increase the dramatic tension. Here he just ruins it for everyone.

Like We Said Before...

Skipping a few pages down (again, if you'd like to go through every page, just let us know. No? Just checking), a large portion of this and every other decision of the judiciary consists of situating the current decision in precedent. In other words, judges spend a lot of time explaining how prior court decisions help justify the current decision (which is a product of the notion of stare decisis, or "let the precedent stand").

The intimidating numbers and phrases throughout ["530 U.S.793," "810-814

(2000) (plurality opinion)," and such] are just citations that allow other lawyers to find the material being cited. They're

scary looking, but just imagine how intimidated John Paul Stevens probably is by a long Web URL. Same deal.

By the way, id. is short for idem, which means "same as above," and supra just means "above."

Take That, Souter!

Reading court cases gets be to a lot more fun when you realize the judges are often talking trash about one another. Here,

Rehnquist is attacking one of Justice Souter's arguments from his dissent (see graphic). In the footnote here, he implies Souter is inconsistent about the preferred level of voucher funding. Judges love footnotes.

The Decision

Here's the Official Word. Rehnquist sums up and tells the decision of the Court (that the prior ruling by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals is reversed). "It is so ordered" is non-Star Trek-speak for "Make it so."

Note that Court decisions can also "affirm" (agree with) decisions or "remand" them. A remand sends the decision back to the lower court and tells it to do something. Bush v.

Gore reversed and remanded the Florida Supreme Court's decision, which initially gave news commentators all sorts of confusion.

Note the tail end of a smack at Justice Breyer in the footnote continued from the previous page.

Me, Too

Here's a concurring opinion by Justice O'Connor. Concurring opinions agree with

the decision or ruling of the case but do not agree with all of the reasons for reaching that decision.

Dissenting opinions disagree with the reasoning or the result of the decision and set out an argument for why they disagree. Note that a judge can vote against the decision without necessarily having to write an opinion explaining why.

In this case, we have ample information about why the justices voted the way they did. In addition to the opinions written by Rehnquist and O'Connor, we've got:

Justice Thomas writing a solo concurring opinion;

Justice Stevens writing a solo dissent;

Justice Souter writing a dissent (see graphic), which justices Stevens, Ginsburg, and Breyer joined; AND

Justice Breyer writing a dissent (see graphic), which justices Stevens and Souter joined.

Souter's Dissent

You've heard what Rehnquist said about Souter's dissent. Now see it with your own eyes.

Say what you will about Souter, but the man clearly loves his footnotes.

And Then There Was Breyer

Here's Breyer's dissent, primarily so you can see his reasoning for writing his own separate dissent despite having already joined another dissenting opinion.

Now that you've completed this skill builder, you're way ahead of the game with some vocabulary in Chapter 9. (You can thank me later). You should also be able to look up and decipher the basics of any Supreme Court decision you want.

Comprehension Questions

1. Who wrote the majority decision in this case?

a.Souter

b.Breyer

c.O'Connor

d.Rehnquist

2. What was the action ordered by the Court in their decision?

a.The prior decision was reversed.

b.The prior decision was remanded to the Sixth Circuit for retrial under a new evidentiary standard.

c.The prior decision was affirmed.

d.The Court decided against granting certiorari.

3. Summarize the main freedom of religion issue at state in the Zelman v. Simmons-Harris case.

Below, we attempt to help you understand (or perhaps help you understand how to understand) a civil liberties Court case: Zelman v. Simmons-Harris. Note: If you'd like to download the full text of this decision (ninety-eight thrill-a-minute pages) or other decisions, you can visit the Court's Web site at http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/opinions.aspx

First Off...

This decision comes with a syllabus. A syllabus in a court case is a quick and dirty summary or abstract of what follows. It's not written by a judge and isn't legally binding. It's like Cliffs

Notes for lawyers. This syllabus lays out:

the title of the case (the "et al." is Latin for "and others"),

the path through which the case arrived at the Court (granted certiorari from the Sixth Circuit),

the case number and the dates of argument and decision, and

important background for the case.

"Decisions, Decisions............ Oh, Payday!"

The end of the syllabus tells the decision (which reverses the previous decision) and lists where the justices stand on the decision. As you'll see later in Chapter 9, Supreme Court voting can be confusing.

In this case, Rehnquist writes the majority decision, which O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas sign onto (note: "C.J." stands for "chief justice"; "J." stands for "justice"; and "JJ." stands for "justices"). However, O'Connor and Thomas write their own concurring opinions (more on this later), and Stevens, Souter, and Breyer all write dissents. More on this below.

Here Comes the Judgment ... Which Tells Us What the Judge Meant

So here's the real decision (or at least the first of twenty-two pages of the real decision, most of which we'll just be skipping, if you don't mind). Suddenly there are a lot more "v."s floating around ... notice all of the ink that "et al." saved us from in the syllabus? See, Latin can be your friend.

Right below the date, we see that this opinion was written by Chief Justice Rehnquist and that it is the official opinion (binding decision) of the Court.

Rehnquist then shows poor form by actually telling you what the Court's decision is.

Normally judges will keep you in some form of suspense to increase the dramatic tension. Here he just ruins it for everyone.

Like We Said Before...

Skipping a few pages down (again, if you'd like to go through every page, just let us know. No? Just checking), a large portion of this and every other decision of the judiciary consists of situating the current decision in precedent. In other words, judges spend a lot of time explaining how prior court decisions help justify the current decision (which is a product of the notion of stare decisis, or "let the precedent stand").

The intimidating numbers and phrases throughout ["530 U.S.793," "810-814

(2000) (plurality opinion)," and such] are just citations that allow other lawyers to find the material being cited. They're

scary looking, but just imagine how intimidated John Paul Stevens probably is by a long Web URL. Same deal.

By the way, id. is short for idem, which means "same as above," and supra just means "above."

Take That, Souter!

Reading court cases gets be to a lot more fun when you realize the judges are often talking trash about one another. Here,

Rehnquist is attacking one of Justice Souter's arguments from his dissent (see graphic). In the footnote here, he implies Souter is inconsistent about the preferred level of voucher funding. Judges love footnotes.

The Decision

Here's the Official Word. Rehnquist sums up and tells the decision of the Court (that the prior ruling by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals is reversed). "It is so ordered" is non-Star Trek-speak for "Make it so."

Note that Court decisions can also "affirm" (agree with) decisions or "remand" them. A remand sends the decision back to the lower court and tells it to do something. Bush v.

Gore reversed and remanded the Florida Supreme Court's decision, which initially gave news commentators all sorts of confusion.

Note the tail end of a smack at Justice Breyer in the footnote continued from the previous page.

Me, Too

Here's a concurring opinion by Justice O'Connor. Concurring opinions agree with

the decision or ruling of the case but do not agree with all of the reasons for reaching that decision.

Dissenting opinions disagree with the reasoning or the result of the decision and set out an argument for why they disagree. Note that a judge can vote against the decision without necessarily having to write an opinion explaining why.

In this case, we have ample information about why the justices voted the way they did. In addition to the opinions written by Rehnquist and O'Connor, we've got:

Justice Thomas writing a solo concurring opinion;

Justice Stevens writing a solo dissent;

Justice Souter writing a dissent (see graphic), which justices Stevens, Ginsburg, and Breyer joined; AND

Justice Breyer writing a dissent (see graphic), which justices Stevens and Souter joined.

Souter's Dissent

You've heard what Rehnquist said about Souter's dissent. Now see it with your own eyes.

Say what you will about Souter, but the man clearly loves his footnotes.

And Then There Was Breyer

Here's Breyer's dissent, primarily so you can see his reasoning for writing his own separate dissent despite having already joined another dissenting opinion.

Now that you've completed this skill builder, you're way ahead of the game with some vocabulary in Chapter 9. (You can thank me later). You should also be able to look up and decipher the basics of any Supreme Court decision you want.

Comprehension Questions

1. Who wrote the majority decision in this case?

a.Souter

b.Breyer

c.O'Connor

d.Rehnquist

2. What was the action ordered by the Court in their decision?

a.The prior decision was reversed.

b.The prior decision was remanded to the Sixth Circuit for retrial under a new evidentiary standard.

c.The prior decision was affirmed.

d.The Court decided against granting certiorari.

3. Summarize the main freedom of religion issue at state in the Zelman v. Simmons-Harris case.