Download SUPREME COURT CASES

SUPREME COURT CASES













Marbury v. Madison (1803)
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)
Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)
Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857)
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)
Muller v. Oregon (1906)
Schenck v. United States
(1919)
Korematsu v. United States
(1944)
Brown v. Board of Education
(1954)
Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
Engel v. Vitale (1962)
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)
Escobedo v. Illinois (1964)











Reynolds v. Sims (1964)
Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)
NY Times v. United States
(1971)
Roe v. Wade (1973)
United States v. Nixon (1974)
Regents of the University of
California v. Bakke (1978)
New Jersey v. T.L.O (1985)
Hazelwood School District v.
Kuhlmeier (1988)
Texas v. Johnson (1989)
Webster v. Reproductive
Health Services (1989)
SUPREME COURT CASES
Marbury v. Madison (1803)
Issue: Separation of Power
Court Case: Marbury sued Madison because he did
not receive commission to be a justice of the
peace. Marbury asked the Supreme Court to
issue an order to force Madison to give him
his commission.
Court Ruling: Against Marbury –. Ruled a portion
of the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional.
1st act of Congress to be declared
unconstitutional.
Precedent: established judicial review – power of
the court to decide whether actions of
Congress are constitutional.
SUPREME COURT CASES
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)
Issue: Federalism (State v. Federal Government)
Court Case: McCulloch was a branch manager for the Bank of
the United States. Refused to pay a tax to the state of
Maryland and was arrested. He appealed conviction on the
grounds that a state could not tax the federal government.
Court Ruling: In favor of McCulloch.
Precedent: States cannot tax the federal government.
SUPREME COURT CASES
Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)
Issue: Federalism & Interstate Commerce
Court Case: Ogden was given an exclusive charter for a ferry
boat off the coast of New York state and New Jersey
by the NY state government. Gibbons was given a
charter by the US government to operate a ferry boat
in the same waters.
Court Ruling: In favor of Gibbons. Commerce Clause gives
Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce.
Federal government over state.
Precedent: Congress/Federal
Government regulates interstate
commerce
SUPREME COURT CASES
Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857)
Issue: 5th Amendment, Slavery, Missouri Compromise of 1820
Court Case: Dred Scott sued his owner Sanford because he
had been taken into free territory. Scott thought that
due to the Missouri Compromise Line which made slavery
illegal in certain areas of the country, he had become
free.
Court Ruling: Court ruled in favor of Sanford. 1) Slaves
were considered property, thus did not have the right to
sue in court. 2) Would deprive owner of 5th Amendment
due process rights if he were stripped of property.
Precedent: Missouri Compromise was ruled unconstitutional,
slaves could not sue for freedom.
SUPREME COURT CASES
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)
Issue: 14th Amendment (Equal Protection)
Court Case: Herman Plessy, 1/8 black,
challenged a Louisiana law that mandated
separate railroad cars for blacks and whites.
Plessy sat on a car designated to whites and
was arrested.
Court Decision: In favor of Louisiana law. Was
not ruled a violation of the 14th Amendment,
equal protection clause.
Precedent: Separate but equal constitutional.
Led to an increase of segregation particularly
in southern states.
SUPREME COURT CASES
Muller v. Oregon (1906)
Issue: 14th Amendment (Equal Protection)
Court Case: Muller was arrested for violating an Oregon law
that reduced women to a 10 hour work day. Muller was
contracting women to work in excess of 10 hours a day.
Muller felt that the law violated the 14th Amendment, the
freedom of contract.
Court Ruling: Due to medical information proving the need to
protect women, and the harmful effects labor can have on
child-bearing, the Court ruled in favor of the Oregon law.
Precedent: States may pass laws to protect certain groups if
they can prove benefit to society.
SUPREME COURT CASES
Schenck v. United States (1919)
Issue: 1st Amendment – Times of War
Court Case: Schenck circulated a flyer during World
War I urging people to dodge the draft. Citing
the draft as a violation of the 13th Amendment
(involuntary servitude). Schenck was arrested
under terms of the Espionage Act of 1917.
Schenck appealed conviction on grounds that his
1st Amendment right had been violated.
Court Ruling: In favor of the United States. Urging
citizens to break the law, and posed a threat to
security of the nation if successful (clear and
present danger).
Precedent: 1st Amendment rights, as well as others
can be limited during times of war.
SUPREME COURT CASES
Korematsu v. United States (1944)
Issue: 5th & 14th Amendment – Times of War
Court Case: During World War II, the US military
issued an order to place Japanese Americans in
internment camps. Korematsu sued the US
government on the grounds that it was a
violation of 5th Amendment due process, and the
14th Amendment.
Court Ruling: In favor of the United States
government.
Precedent: During times of war, certain group’s
rights can be limited. (Clear & Present Danger
Rule)
SUPREME COURT CASES
Brown v. Board of Education (1954)
Issue: 14th Amendment – Equal Protection
(Separate but Equal)
Court Case: Brown sued the Board of Education
of Topeka, Kansas because his daughter had to
walk seven blocks to catch a bus to a
segregated school when there was a school
within six blocks of her house. This was part
of a class action suit against the Board of
Education.
Court Ruling: The court ruled separate
educational facilities were inherently unequal.
The ruling in this case led to the beginning of
the Civil Rights Movement, and began the end
of segregation. Overturned the decision in
Plessy v. Ferguson.
Precedent: Separate but Equal is
unconstitutional.
SUPREME COURT CASES
Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
Issue: 4th Amendment (Search & Seizure)
Court Case: Police in Cleveland, Ohio believed a fugitive
was being kept by Mapp in her home. The police
came to her house demanding entrance, Mapp
refused because they did not have a warrant. Later
police came back, broke into her home, and produced
a fake warrant. They did not find the fugitive, but
did find pornographic materials. She was arrested
and convicted. Mapp appealed the decision as a
violation of the 4th Amendment.
Court Ruling: The court ruled in favor of Mapp.
Precedent: Illegal evidence cannot be used in court.
SUPREME COURT CASES
Engel v. Vitale (1962)
Issue: 1st Amendment – Freedom of
Religion/Separation of Church and State
Court Case: Students in New York State were
reciting a prayer to begin the school day. Even
though students were not required to recite the
prayer, parents felt this was a violation of the 1st
Amendment.
Court Ruling: The court ruled that this was a
violation of the establishment clause because it
was a prayer, and it was being recited in a public
school.
Precedent: School prayer is unconstitutional.
SUPREME COURT CASES
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)
Issue: 6th Amendment, 14th Amendment
Court Case: Gideon was arrested for burglary of a
Florida pool hall. He appeared in court and asked
that an attorney be appointed to him. The court
denied the request on the grounds that under
Florida law, only a person accused of a capital
crime received a court appointed attorney.
Court Decision: The court ruled in favor of Gideon,
stating that Florida had violated the 6th
Amendment and 14th Amendment, equal protection
clause.
Precedent: Indigent defendants (cannot afford an
attorney) must be provided counsel in all felony
cases.
SUPREME COURT CASES
Escobedo v. Illinois (1964)
Issue: 5th & 6th Amendment
Court Case: Escobedo and another man, Benedict
DiGerlando were interrogated by police in
connection with a murder. DiGerlando told police
that Escobedo committed the murder. During the
interrogation, Escobedo asked to have an
attorney, and his attorney asked to speak with
Escobedo, the police denied both claims.
Eventually Escobedo was able to confront
DiGerlando, and told police that it was DiGerlando
who committed the murder, by doing so he
admitted to being an accomplice and was
convicted. He appealed the conviction because he
was denied the right to speak with his attorney.
Court Ruling: In favor of Escobedo.
Precedent: Illegal confessions cannot be used in
court.
SUPREME COURT CASES
Reynolds v. Sims (1964)
Issue: 14th Amendment, Federalism, Representative
Democracy
Court Case: Reynolds was challenging the redistricting
lines drawn by the Alabama Legislature. The lines
ignored population, and were based on geographic
measures. Thus larger urban/suburban areas were
underrepresented.
Court Ruling: The Alabama Legislature had violated the
Constitutional Principle of a representative
democracy. Court stated that government
represents people, not land or trees, thus legislative
districts must be roughly equal in terms of
population.
Precedent: One person = One Vote. State
Legislative Districts must be based on population.
SUPREME COURT CASES
Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
Issue: 5th & 6th Amendment
Court Case: Ernesto Miranda was arrested for kidnapping
and rape. Miranda confessed to the crime, but was not
told of his Constitutional rights prior to the
interrogation. Miranda appealed the conviction on the
grounds that the police had violated his rights by not
informing him.
Court Ruling: In favor of Miranda. The police had violated
his rights. Police are required to read the “Miranda
Warnings”. Tell suspects of their right to remain silent,
to have an attorney, etc…
Precedent: Police must inform suspects of their 5th & 6th
Amendment rights prior to questioning.
SUPREME COURT CASES
Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)
Issue: 1st Amendment – Freedom of Speech/Expression
Court Case: Three students wore armbands with a
peace sign on them to school as a form of protest
against the escalating violence in Vietnam. The
students were told to remove the armbands, they
refused, and were suspended from school until they
returned without the armbands. The parents filed a
lawsuit against the school system for this action
stating that it violated the 1st Amendment.
Court Ruling: The court ruled in favor of the students.
The court stated that schools could establish dress
codes, but needed to show that a reasonable
disruption is being caused to the learning environment
to ban items. In this case, the school could not show
this.
Precedent: Schools must show a reasonable disruption to
learning environment. Upheld 1st Amendment rights
of students.
SUPREME COURT CASES
NY Times v. United States (1971)
Issue: 1st Amendment (Freedom of the Press)
Court Case: During US involvement in Vietnam, the
Pentagon put together a paper which outlined US
decision-making in Vietnam. This classified document
was leaked to the NY Times and the Washington Post.
The NY Times began publishing the findings, but the
government filed an injunction to stop the paper from
printing. The NY Times sued on the grounds that it
violated the 1st Amendment.
Court Ruling: The court ruled in favor of the NY Times.
The court stated that it was the right of the paper to
print this material because they had received the
information legally.
Precedent: Prior restraint is unconstitutional. Government
must be able to prove a “clear and present danger”.
SUPREME COURT CASES
Roe v. Wade (1973)
Issue: 9th & 14th Amendment
Court Case: Texas law did not allow women to have
abortion unless advised by a doctor because
woman’s life was in jeopardy. “Jane Roe” class
action lawsuit questioned the constitutionality of
the law.
Court Ruling: The court ruled in favor of Roe.
Stated that states cannot pass laws banning
abortion during the 1st trimester (3 months).
Precedent: States cannot ban abortion during the 1st
trimester.
SUPREME COURT CASES
United States v. Nixon (1974)
Issue: Separation of Power – Checks & Balances
Court Case: During the presidential election of 1972, a
group of members of C.R.E.E.P. broke into DNC
headquarters. During investigation, President Nixon
was linked to the group, and a court issued a subpoena
for Nixon to turn over audiotapes of White House
proceedings. Nixon refused citing executive privilege.
Court Ruling: Does executive privilege exist? Yes
What is its definition? President can keep information if
it is a matter of national security.
In this case, executive privilege did not apply. Nixon
eventually resigned from office.
Precedent: Executive Privilege exists, must show national
security.
SUPREME COURT CASES
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978)
Issue: 14th Amendment (Equal Protection)
Court Case: Bakke applied for admission to the University of
California at Davis Medical School. The school admitted
100 students per year. 84 spots were open to all people,
16 were for minorities, or economically disadvantaged
people. (Affirmative Action) Bakke (white) was denied
admission, but was more qualified than many of the 16
minority applicants. Bakee sued
because of the school’s admission
policy.
Court Ruling: In favor of Bakke.
Precedent: Affirmative Action cases
would be decided on a case by case
basis.
SUPREME COURT CASES
New Jersey v. T.L.O (1985)
Issue: 4th Amendment (Search & Seizure)
Court Case: T.L.O. was accused of smoking in the
bathroom at a high school. She denied and her
purse was searched. School officials found
cigarettes, rolling papers, marijuana, numerous $1
bills, and a list of students who owed her money.
T.L.O. appealed her expulsion on the grounds that
her 4th Amendment rights had been violated.
Court Decision: The court ruled in favor of the school.
The court stated that the need to keep guns and
drugs out of school created a situation that school
officials should be given greater lattitude in
searches.
Precedent: Reasonable Suspicion Rule for school
searches. Limited the 4th Amendment rights of
students.
SUPREME COURT CASES
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988)
Issue: 1st Amendment (Freedom of the Press)
Court Case: A group of former high school students
filed suit against a principal and school system
because the principal had deleted an article about
teenage pregnancy and divorce from the school
newspaper.
Court Decision: The court ruled in favor of the
principal. The principal has the right to edit the
newspaper, and delete materials that he/she is
inappropriate to maintain the educational
environment.
Precedent: 1st Amendment rights of students limited.
SUPREME COURT CASES
Texas v. Johnson (1989)
Issue: 1st Amendment & Flag Burning
Court Case: In 1984 the Republican Party held the
National Convention in Dallas, Texas. Many groups
staged protests. As a part of the protests, Johnson
set fire to an American Flag, and was arrested as
Texas had a law banning the burning of the Texas
State Flag, and the US Flag. Johnson appealed on the
grounds that the law violated his 1st Amendment
rights.
Court Ruling: In favor of Johnson. As a result, some
groups would like to add a Constitutional Amendment to
ban flag burning as a form of protest.
Precedent: Flag burning protected by the 1st Amendment.
SUPREME COURT CASES
Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989)
Issue: 9th & 14th Amendment
Court Case: A Missouri Law banned the use of public
funds, clinics, or government employed doctors from
counseling or performing abortions, unless the
mother’s life was in danger. The law was being
questioned as a violation of the terms under Roe v.
Wade.
Court Ruling: The court ruled in favor of the Missouri
Law, stating that states do not have to provide
money to perform abortions.
Precedent: States do not have to fund abortions.