tutela

In 1901 the Tennessee General Assembly enacted a statute apportioning the Senate with thirty-three members and the House of Representatives with ninety-nine members among the state's ninety-five counties. The Tennessee Constitution required a decennial enumeration of qualified voters and reapportionment of both houses on that basis. The General Assembly performed reapportionments after the enumerations of 1871, 1881, and 1891. After 1901 every proposal for reapportionment failed to pass. Between 1901 and 1960 the state's population grew from 2,020,616 to 3,567,089. The number of persons eligible to vote rose from 487,380 to 2,092,891. Substantial redistribution occurred from rural to urban counties. Appellants were residents and qualified voters of the urban counties of Davidson, Hamilton, Knox, Montgomery, and Shelby. They brought a civil action in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee against the Secretary of State, Attorney General, Coordinator of Elections, and members of the State Board of Elections. The complaint was filed under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988. It alleged that continued application of the 1901 statute debased their votes and denied equal protection of the laws. The complaint sought a declaratory judgment that the statute was unconstitutional. It also sought an injunction against conducting further elections under the statute. Alternative relief included at-large elections or a court-ordered reapportionment. A three-judge district court convened under 28 U.S.C. § 2281 dismissed the complaint. The court held that it lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter and that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The court characterized the controversy as a nonjusticiable political question. The Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction. The case was argued in April 1961, set for reargument, reargued in October 1961, and decided on March 26, 1962.

Vernonia School District 47J operates one high school and three grade schools in the logging community of Vernonia, Oregon. In the mid-to-late 1980s, teachers and administrators observed a sharp increase in drug use among students. Between 1988 and 1989 the number of disciplinary referrals in Vernonia schools rose to more than twice the number reported in the early 1980's. A Vernonia high school football coach had observed suspicious steroid use by his athletes. The District's wrestling coach had witnessed students sharing steroids and had discovered steroids in a school locker. The District had a drug testing policy for student athletes since before 1989, but it had not been enforced for lack of funding. In the fall of 1989, the District received funds for a drug testing program and approved a Student Athlete Drug Policy. The Policy authorized random urinalysis drug testing of students who participated in the District's athletic programs. The Policy applied to all students participating in interscholastic athletics. It required students and their parents to sign a consent form agreeing to drug testing as a condition of participation. Athletes were tested at the beginning of the season and then randomly throughout the season. The testing procedure required students to provide a urine sample in a bathroom stall with an adult monitor of the same sex standing outside the stall. The monitor listened for normal sounds of urination. The samples were sent to a laboratory for analysis. A positive test result led to a meeting with the student and his or her parents. The student was given the option of participating in a drug assistance program or being suspended from athletics for the remainder of the season and the next season. In the fall of 1991, respondent James Acton, who was then a seventh grader, signed up to play football at the District's middle school. He was denied participation because he and his parents refused to sign the consent form for drug testing. They then filed this suit in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief from enforcement of the Policy on the grounds that it violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, § 9, of the Oregon Constitution. After a bench trial, the District Court dismissed the suit on the merits. A panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that the Policy violated both the Federal and the State Constitutions. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Erik Brunetti is an artist and entrepreneur who founded a clothing line that uses the trademark FUCT. According to Brunetti, the mark is pronounced as four letters, one after the other. Brunetti applied to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for federal registration of the mark under the Lanham Act. A PTO examining attorney denied the application, determining that FUCT was a total vulgar and therefore unregistrable. On review, the Board stated that the mark was highly offensive and vulgar and had decidedly negative sexual connotations. It found that Brunetti’s website and products contained imagery, near the mark, of “extreme nihilism” and “anti-social” behavior. In that context, the Board thought, the mark communicated “misogyny, depravity, [and] violence.” Brunetti brought a facial challenge to the “immoral or scandalous” bar in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. That court held that the prohibition violates the First Amendment. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. The PTO rejected marks conveying approval of drug use (YOU CAN’T SPELL HEALTHCARE WITHOUT THC for pain-relief medication, MARIJUANA COLA and KO KANE for beverages) because it is scandalous to “inappropriately glamoriz[e] drug abuse.” But at the same time, the PTO registered marks with such sayings as D.A.R.E. TO RESIST DRUGS AND VIOLENCE and SAY NO TO DRUGS—REALITY IS THE BEST TRIP IN LIFE.