Blahism: Judicial Review/Judicial Precedence

Regarding:
WILSON et al. v. LAYNE, DEPUTY UNITED STATES MARSHAL, et al.
Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
No. 98-83. Argued March 24, 1999—Decided May 24, 1999

Identify which elements of this case fall under judicial review and judicial precedent.

In this case, in reference to the presence of the media in the execution of a warrant, I think the Court was trying to adhere to judicial precedent. But, at that time there were no similar cases that had been decided in the Supreme Court. The Court really had no reference to decide if the officers’ bringing in the media violated the plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment rights. In Wilson et al. v. Layne, Deputy United States Marshal, et al. it is stated that:

The Court of Appeals declined to decide whether the officers’ actions violated the Fourth Amendment, but concluded that because no court had held at the time of the search that media presence during a police entry into a residence constituted such a violation, the right allegedly violated was not “clearly established” and thus respondents were entitled to qualified immunity (1999).

As per judicial precedent, “under Bivens and the state officials under §1983” (Rehnquist, 1999), the plaintiffs were allowed to sue law enforcement for money. While law enforcement was entitled under a warrant to search the home, the reporters were not specifically mentioned in the warrant, and they did not help execute the warrant; therefore the plaintiff’s felt their Fourth Amendment rights were violated and sued the government.

As per judicial review, the officers were “granted a qualified immunity and are ‘shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights’ (Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 [1982])” (Rehnquist, 1999). Basically, if a right is not pre-established by the Constitution, the government officials may be granted a qualified immunity.

The Court used its discretionary power given to them under Marbury v. Madison (5 U.S. 137 [1803]), and exercised judicial review by acknowledging that having an agreement between law enforcement and the media for constructive purposes should not infringe on a person’s right to privacy in their own home.

Because there were no previous similar cases to refer to, the Court could not rely solely on judicial precedence; and so judicial review gives the power to the Court to define and decide the meaning of rights. The case of Wilson et al. v. Layne, Deputy United States Marshal, et al. is now a precedence of reference for similar cases. You cannot have one without the other; the Court needs judicial review in order to maintain judicial precedence.