Key Takeaways
- Palko v. Connecticut (1937) established the doctrine of selective incorporation, determining that not all rights in the Bill of Rights automatically apply to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
- The Supreme Court ruled that double jeopardy protection was not a fundamental right required for due process under the Fourteenth Amendment, allowing states to retry individuals for the same offense at that time.
- Palko’s precedent was overturned by Benton v. Maryland (1969), which held that the Fifth Amendment’s double jeopardy clause does apply to the states, marking a significant expansion of civil liberties.
Introduction
Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 (1937), is a foundational case in American constitutional law, particularly concerning the application of the Bill of Rights to the states. At its core, the case addressed whether the Fifth Amendment’s protection against double jeopardy—being tried twice for the same crime—was enforceable against state governments via the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. The Supreme Court’s decision in Palko established the principle of selective incorporation, a doctrine that would shape the relationship between federal constitutional rights and state laws for decades.
Understanding Palko is essential for anyone studying constitutional law, civil liberties, or the evolution of Supreme Court jurisprudence. This guide will provide a comprehensive overview of the case, its historical context, the legal arguments presented, the Court’s reasoning, and its lasting impact on American law.
Historical Background
The Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment
The Bill of Rights, ratified in 1791, originally applied only to the federal government. The Fourteenth Amendment, adopted in 1868, introduced the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, raising questions about whether and how federal rights should be applied to the states. The Supreme Court gradually began to address these questions, leading to the doctrine of incorporation—the process by which certain protections in the Bill of Rights are made applicable to the states.
Early Incorporation Cases
Before Palko, the Supreme Court had selectively incorporated some rights. For example, in Gitlow v. New York (1925), the Court held that the First Amendment’s protection of free speech applied to the states. However, the Court had not yet provided a clear framework for which rights were fundamental enough to require incorporation.
The Facts of Palko v. Connecticut
The Crime and Initial Trial
Frank Palko was charged with first-degree murder in Connecticut after killing two police officers during a robbery. At his first trial, the jury convicted him of second-degree murder, and he was sentenced to life imprisonment. The state of Connecticut, dissatisfied with the verdict, appealed the conviction, citing errors in the trial judge’s instructions to the jury.
The Retrial and Conviction
The Connecticut Supreme Court agreed with the state and ordered a new trial. At the second trial, Palko was convicted of first-degree murder—the original charge—and sentenced to death. Palko appealed, arguing that his retrial and subsequent conviction for a more serious offense violated the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which states that no person shall "be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb."
Legal Arguments
Palko’s Argument
Palko’s counsel argued that the Double Jeopardy Clause is a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and therefore must be applied to the states. He contended that being retried and sentenced to death after an initial conviction for a lesser offense constituted double jeopardy, violating his constitutional rights.
The State’s Argument
Connecticut maintained that the Fifth Amendment’s double jeopardy protection did not apply to the states. The state argued that retrials were permissible under state law and that the Fourteenth Amendment did not require states to follow every aspect of the Bill of Rights.
The Supreme Court’s Decision
Majority Opinion
The Supreme Court, in an opinion delivered by Justice Benjamin N. Cardozo, held that the Double Jeopardy Clause is not a fundamental right that applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. The Court reasoned that only those rights that are "of the very essence of a scheme of ordered liberty" are incorporated and made applicable to the states.
Cardozo wrote:
"The right to trial by jury and the immunity from prosecution except as the result of an indictment may have value and importance. But they are not of the very essence of a scheme of ordered liberty."
The Court concluded that while double jeopardy is an important safeguard, it is not so fundamental that it must be applied to the states. Palko’s conviction and sentence were thus upheld.
Official text of the decision: Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 (1937)
Dissenting Opinion
Justice Butler dissented, arguing that the Double Jeopardy Clause should be applied to the states, as it is a fundamental protection against government overreach and arbitrary prosecution.
The Doctrine of Selective Incorporation
What Is Selective Incorporation?
Selective incorporation is the legal doctrine that determines which rights in the Bill of Rights are so fundamental that they must be applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Rather than applying all federal rights to the states, the Court evaluates each right individually to determine if it is "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty."
Palko’s Role in Shaping Incorporation
Palko is a cornerstone in the development of selective incorporation. The decision established that only some, not all, federal rights are fundamental enough to bind the states. Over the years, this doctrine has led the Court to incorporate most—but not all—protections in the Bill of Rights.
For a comprehensive overview of the doctrine, see the Legal Information Institute’s page on incorporation.
Aftermath and Overruling of Palko
Changing Views on Fundamental Rights
In the decades following Palko, the Supreme Court gradually expanded the list of incorporated rights. The Court recognized that many protections in the Bill of Rights are indeed fundamental to liberty and justice, including the rights to counsel, self-incrimination protection, and protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Benton v. Maryland (1969): The Overruling
Palko’s precedent did not last indefinitely. In Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 (1969), the Supreme Court explicitly overruled Palko, holding that the Double Jeopardy Clause is fundamental and does apply to the states. The Court reasoned that protection against double jeopardy is essential to due process and ordered liberty.
Full text of Benton v. Maryland: Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 (1969)
Significance of the Overruling
The overruling of Palko marked a significant expansion of individual rights and the reach of the Bill of Rights into state criminal proceedings. It reflected the Supreme Court’s evolving understanding of what constitutes fundamental fairness under the Constitution.
Broader Implications of Palko v. Connecticut
Impact on Constitutional Law
Palko shaped the methodology for determining which rights are incorporated against the states. The case is frequently cited in constitutional law courses, textbooks, and Supreme Court opinions discussing the incorporation doctrine.
Civil Liberties and State Power
By initially allowing states to ignore certain federal protections, Palko highlighted the tension between state sovereignty and individual rights. The case underscored the importance of the Supreme Court in balancing these interests and protecting civil liberties.
The Evolving Court
Palko also illustrates how the Supreme Court’s interpretation of fundamental rights can change over time. The decision’s eventual reversal in Benton v. Maryland demonstrates the dynamic nature of constitutional law and the Court’s willingness to revisit and revise its precedents.
Analysis and Commentary
Justice Cardozo’s Reasoning
Justice Cardozo’s opinion in Palko is a classic example of judicial restraint and pragmatism. He emphasized the need for a flexible approach to incorporation, arguing that not every procedural safeguard in the Bill of Rights is essential to liberty or justice. Cardozo’s test—whether a right is "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty"—has been influential but also controversial, as it leaves much discretion to the justices.
Criticisms of the Decision
Many legal scholars and civil libertarians have criticized Palko for failing to protect basic rights at the state level. Critics argue that the Double Jeopardy Clause is a fundamental safeguard against government abuse and that its exclusion from state law for more than three decades left individuals vulnerable to repeated prosecutions.
The Legacy of Palko
Despite being overruled, Palko’s legacy endures in the doctrine of selective incorporation. The case remains a touchstone for debates about judicial philosophy, federalism, and the scope of constitutional protections.
Related Cases and Further Reading
- Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925): Incorporated the First Amendment’s free speech protection to the states. Read more
- Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 (1969): Overruled Palko, holding that double jeopardy applies to the states. Read more
- Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968): Incorporated the right to a jury trial in criminal cases. Read more
- Oyez Project’s summary of Palko v. Connecticut: Oyez summary
- Wikipedia overview: Palko v. Connecticut
Conclusion
Palko v. Connecticut is a milestone in the history of American constitutional law. By establishing the doctrine of selective incorporation, the Supreme Court set the stage for a gradual extension of federal rights to state proceedings. Although Palko’s narrow view of fundamental rights was later rejected, the case’s influence persists in ongoing debates about the scope and application of constitutional protections.
For attorneys and legal professionals seeking authoritative research and analysis on cases like Palko, resources like Counsel Stack offer invaluable insights and up-to-date legal information.
Disclaimer:
This guide is intended as an overview of Palko v. Connecticut and related legal principles. It does not constitute legal advice. The law is complex and subject to change; for specific legal questions, consult a qualified attorney or conduct further research using official sources.
