(society at large)
(society at large)
Civil Rights
Site Links
Justice for All
The legal system of the United States reflects the fundamental principle that the law is the creation of the people and designed to shield citizens from both tyranny and lawlessness, to protect freedom, and to enable society to conduct its affairs for the welfare of all.
The legal system rests, first and foremost, on the Constitution of the United States as the supreme law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is a single document, but it is also the basis for a vast body of law, precedent, and practice that makes up the American legal system.
A chief purpose of government, enshrined in the Bill of Rights and other amendments to the Constitution, is the protection of rights and freedoms of individuals. Among them: freedom of speech and of the press; freedom of religion; freedom of association; right to equal protection of the law; and right to due process and a fair trial.
The rule of law in the United States is founded on these principles which are enshrined in the Constitution, implemented by the laws of Congress and interpreted by the rulings of judges.
In a civil case, one party (the plaintiff) makes a complaint against another (the defendant) alleging a violation of law or of a legal standard of care.
The defendant must be served with a formal statement of the “complaint” along with an order, or subpoena, to appear in court. The defendant files an "answer" to the complaint; he or she can also "counterclaim" against the plaintiff.
Depending on the circumstances, the government — federal, state, or local — may be either the plaintiff or the defendant in a civil case.
Before trial, each side has an opportunity to explore all the evidence in the possession of the other side through a process called "discovery." Frequently, lawyers conduct depositions in which they question witnesses and parties to the suit under oath.
In most civil cases, the judge will hold a pretrial conference with the attorneys from both sides to explore the possibility of settling the case without a formal trial.
The Seventh Amendment to the Constitution guarantees that parties in most civil suits are entitled to a jury trial; however, both parties can agree to waive that right and have the case heard solely before a judge. Certain types of civil cases are almost always presented before judges without juries: family matters, such as divorce and child custody, for example, and matters dealing with probate (legal provisions of a will). This is called a “bench trial.” Courts are often called upon by parties to issue injunctions that will prevent or halt imminent harm or damages. Such requests, such as an injunction to halt pollution by a factory, also would be heard by a judge without a jury.
The burden of proof in a civil case is lower than in a criminal trial. Instead of "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" — the criminal standard — jurors or judges render a verdict on the basis of the "preponderance of the evidence."
Still, the burden of proof rests with the plaintiff. Although most civil defendants present evidence, a defendant has the option of simply arguing that the plaintiff did not meet the required burden of proof.
As in criminal cases, the loser in a civil suit has the option of appealing the decision to a higher court, which will determine only if errors of law occurred but which will not reexamine the facts of the case.
Class action suits are a special type of civil lawsuit in which one or more parties bring a claim on behalf of a much larger group of people in the same situation or allegedly suffering from the same problem. Examples of class actions are those brought against the manufacturers of allegedly defective or hazardous products, such as asbestos, certain vaccines, or tobacco.
Stockholders may complain as a class that a company engaged in deceptive or illegal practices that damaged the value of their holdings.
Verdicts in civil cases often involve monetary damages, which can be either compensatory or punitive. Compensatory damages reimburse the plaintiff for actual losses from, for instance, an automobile accident or other circumstances found to be the responsibility of the defendant.
Punitive damages, which are allowed in only certain types of cases, are monetary awards designed to punish the defendant for unlawful behavior that is considered to be particularly egregious, and to deter such actions or behavior in the future.
Courts in civil cases can be asked by the defendant to set aside or change the verdict on the grounds that it contradicts or is inconsistent with the law and evidence. Judges will rarely agree, but they do have the power to set aside a verdict on the grounds that it is unreasonable given the circumstances or evidence of the case.
To avoid the cost and time involved with court cases, many people with civil cases turn to options outside the formal legal procedures, and costs, of lawyers and courtrooms. These methods are commonly referred to as alternative dispute resolution.
The federal and state court systems of the United States hear an estimated 100 million cases a year before approximately 2,200 federal justices and 31,00 state and local judges. Ensuring equal access and due process of law for all citizens thus remains a continuing challenge for the U.S. legal system. The Sixth Amendment guarantees citizens the right to a speedy public trial as well as the right to legal counsel in criminal proceedings. In 1963, the Supreme Court ruled that anyone who cannot afford an attorney in a criminal proceeding must be provided with one at public expense.
Courts have since expanded the right to legal counsel to apply to juveniles and to all phases of criminal legal proceedings, including arraignment, preliminary hearings, and plea bargaining.
Federal, state, and local governments have developed different approaches to providing "public defenders" to poor criminal defendants. Courts can assign legal counsel from local law firms on a rotating basis, or enter into contracts with law firms to provide attorneys. In other instances, states or localities have established nonprofit public-defender offices that provide legal services to the poor on a full-time basis.
Defendants in civil cases are not entitled to legal counsel at public expense. However, the United States has developed a variety of mechanisms to help ensure that those who cannot afford a lawyer still have access to the legal system.
Since the late 19th century, private organizations in many large cities such as Boston, Chicago, and New York have offered legal representation to the poor through legal aid bureaus.
In 1974, Congress established the Legal Services Corporation (LSC), a private, nonprofit organization, to provide legal assistance in civil cases to those who could not afford it. LSC does not provide attorneys directly, but gives grants to local legal groups to enable such groups to provide legal services to the needy. In recent years, LSC has funded more than 170 programs across the United States, including special programs for Native Americans and migrant farm workers.
The Legal Services Corporation operates only in civil, not criminal cases, and does not take cases for monetary damages that private attorneys are willing to take on a "fee contingency" basis (meaning that the lawyers only collect a percentage of the monetary award, and only if their client wins). The LSC also cannot file class action suits.
National and state associations of lawyers encourage law firms to donate a certain percentage of their lawyers' time to assisting poor clients on a free or pro bono basis.
The largest of these associations, the American Bar Association, has created a voluntary guideline that private attorneys contribute at least 50 hours of free or pro bono legal work each year.
Equal access also means equal justice for all. Just as the poor and underprivileged deserve adequate legal representation, so, too, the rich and powerful must never be above the law. In court decisions from the earliest days of the republic to the Watergate controversy of the 1970s, the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that everyone, including the President, is subject to the laws and justice of the United States.
Civil Rights Law – or civil liberties – derive themselves in the original Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution, and have been expanded since with the several amendments to the Constitution, most notably the 13th through 15th Amendments, though many might argue that for the first time in American history, our civil liberties are no longer expanding, but might, in fact, be narrowing with the Patriot Act. Civil liberties deals primarily with those constitutional amendment that give Americans the right to freedom of religion, speech, to peaceably assemble, to carry arms, to be free of discrimination, and the rights to be free of search or seizures without probable cause. Each of these will be discussed in further detail in other sections.
Undeniably, the Patriot Act – for good or bad – has been the focus of a large amount of controversy since it was passed following the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.
The law – as initially designed – was meant to make it difficult for terrorist to continue harmful activities against the United States. Basically, the law gives extra powers to the intelligence officers and other law enforcement personnel – both foreign and domestic.
The provisions of the Patriot Act permit monitoring and interception of email, warrant less searches where time is of the essence, increased surveillance, the ability to conduct phone and Internet taps with less judicial scrutiny, and the ability for the Secretary of State (currently John Ashcroft) to designate foreign groups as terrorist organizations and deport suspected terrorist. The Patriot Act also allows law enforcement to detain suspected terrorist – who are not U.S. citizens – for longer periods of time without a lawyer.
The Patriot Act was designed to facilitate easier communication among law enforcement groups and less insight into searches and seizures where terrorism is involved, or even suspected of being involved. Unfortunately, the FBI and law enforcement agencies can – and occasionally do – use the Patriot Act on non-terrorist related activities. For instance, in 2003, the Patriot Act was used against a strip club in Las Vegas.
There is no question that the Patriot Act erodes some of America’s civil liberties. The question, however, is whether the American community is willing to give up certain civil liberties for the added security benefits of it. Certainly, the Patriot Act helps law enforcement crack down on terrorist activities, but often in lieu of American Civil Liberties. Is it worth it? That’s a question that you and the rest of the country may be debating for years to come. In the meantime, the U.S.A. Patriot Act comes up for renewal in 2005; whoever we vote in as President may ultimately determine the fate of the Patriot Act.
Rights to Privacy
There is no actual language in the Constitution that gives Americans the right to privacy; indeed, there is no Amendment purporting to give Americans such a right. However, in the 1960 case, Griswold v. Connecticut, the Supreme Court of the United States read into the Bill of Rights what was always implicitly there – a right to privacy, existing under natural law, or in the “shadows” and “penumbras” of the Constitution. The case, about the right to use contraceptives, was a landmark decision that more or less set the stage for privacy rights in America, culminating, finally, in the Roe v. Wade decision granting the right to abortion. Nevertheless, the right to privacy is not absolute – and shouldn't be in certain cases. The rights and limitations of privacy will be discussed in other sections.
The Child Online Protection Act
The Big Question: Does the U.S. government have the authority to impose criminal penalties against anyone who posts information on the Internet deemed "harmful to minors"?
Communications Decency Act: The Communications Decency Act of 1996 was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in ACLU v. Reno (1997). The bill would have imposed a potential two-year prison sentence, and up to $200,000 in fines, against anyone posting "indecent" material online.
What is Indecency?: Indecency is anything that can't be broadcast on public TV airwaves during hours when children might be watching--including strong profanity, explicit description of sexual acts, and nudity. Indecency does not include any exceptions for material of a redeeming nature, so literary profanity, or medical nudity, would be just as indecent as any other kind of profanity or nudity.
The Child Online Protection Act (COPA): In ACLU v. Reno (1997), the Supreme Court found that the "indecency" standard was too broad. Legislative moralists turned to new legislation in 1998, the Child Online Protection Act (COPA), which President Bill Clinton promptly signed. The newer bill, if enforced, would ban content deemed "harmful to minors," with a $50,000 fine and up to a six-month prison sentence attached.
What is "Harmful to Minors"?: Content deemed "harmful to minors" is indecent content that, "taken as a whole, (lack) serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors." But because the content must be seen as possessing redeeming value for minors, there is probably little difference in practice between the indecency standard and the "harmful to minors" standard. Both standards, for example, would ban George Carlin's Seven Dirty Words routine and Janet Jackson's nipple.
Where Does the Bill Stand Now?: It was subject to an injunction almost immediately in 1998 (meaning that it cannot be enforced), and has bouncing around in the federal court system for eight years as justices and attorneys have debated fine points of Internet filtering technology. Before addressing the question of whether the "harmful to minors" standard is overly broad, the Supreme Court wishes to resolve the issue of whether there are less restrictive means of protecting minors from content deemed harmful.
So What Happens Next?: The case, ACLU v. Gonzales, is now under review by a federal district judge in Philadelphia. It is highly likely that this judge will deem the "harmful to minors" standard overly broad. If the federal government appeals the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, a final ruling could potentially come as early as next year--but 2008 is more likely.
Will the Bill Survive?: Almost certainly not. ACLU v. Reno (1997) was, in effect, a 9-0 ruling against the Communications Decency Act's anti-indecency provision, and seven of the nine justices specifically declared the "indecency" standard to be overly broad (the other two reserved judgment on that question, claiming that the new law could be deemed unconstitutional for other reasons).
Separated at Birth?: Make sure not to confuse the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) of 1998 with the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) of 2000. COPA is a genuinely frightening and blatantly unconstitutional bill, but CIPA, which merely allows the government to mandate Internet filters in public libraries, was found constitutional by the Supreme Court in 2003.
he guarantee of freedom of speech in America is established in the very first amendment to the American Constitution: "Congress shall pass no law ... abridging the freedom of speech." Free speech is often regarded by many, if not most, Americans as one of their most important rights. At the same time, there are regular government efforts to regulate, restrict, or even prohibit a great many types of speech - and often with popular support from the public.
Free Speech
It seems as though people approve of free speech, but only when they approve of the content of that speech. As soon as the speech turns to political views they dislike or sexual material that offends them, the principle of freedom of speech disappears. Below is an index of important court cases where government attempts to abridge the freedom of speech have been challenged.
The Supreme Court rules that that 'obscene' material has no protection under the First Amendment
FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas (1990)
The Supreme Court lays down rules for cities' ability to create licensing, inspection, and zoning requirements for sexually oriented businesses. In the process, they rule as unconstitutional such requirements created by the city of Dallas.
The Supreme Court rules that Ku Klux Klan should be permitted to join an Adopt-A-Highway program, just like any other organization.
Free Speech Coalition v. Reno (1999)
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals finds that the Child Pornography Prevention Act (CPPA) violated the First Amendment, particularly with regards to the attempt to ban 'virtual child pornography'.
STATEMENT OF ATTORNEY GENERAL ALBERTO R. GONZALES ON THE PASSAGE OF THE USA PATRIOT ACT
“Since the terrible attacks of September 11, 2001, the Department of Justice’s highest priority has been to protect Americans by preventing acts of terrorism. I applaud Congress for preauthorizing each and every expiring provision of the USA PATRIOT Act and providing additional tools to fight terrorism and other serious crimes."
“This reauthorization is the product of nearly a year of serious debate and congressional oversight -- an important process that demonstrated that the USA PATRIOT Act is critical to our ongoing efforts to protect Americans. This review also confirmed that the Department of Justice has used the investigative tools provided by the Act in a responsible manner. The reauthorization bill makes permanent vital provisions -- including those that helped dismantle the ‘wall’ between intelligence and law enforcement -- and also adds dozens of civil liberties safeguards. Importantly, the legislation provides additional tools for protecting our mass transportation systems and seaports from attack; takes steps to combat the methamphetamine epidemic that is sweeping our country; and closes dangerous loopholes in our ability to prevent terrorist financing. Finally, the reauthorization bill provides for the creation of a National Security Division at the Department of Justice, enabling us to more effectively fulfill our vital national security mission. We all can be proud of this legislation.”
Civil Right Stories of Interest
Civil Trial SpecialistOver 20 Years of Legal Assistance Aggressive Personal Representation
Related Links
http://www.state.gov.- Department of State
http://www.usinfo.state.gov/media/misinformation.html - Identifying Misinformation
http://www.usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa - Information USA
®
Copyright
©
HOME PAGE
Top of Page