Landmark Cases and Impact

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

Established judicial review, meaning the Supreme Court has the power to declare laws or government actions unconstitutional.

Marbury v. Madison issue

Whether the Supreme Court could order Secretary of State James Madison to deliver William Marbury’s commission.

Marbury v. Madison ruling

The Court ruled that part of the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional and that the Supreme Court could not issue the order.

Marbury v. Madison impact

Strengthened the judicial branch by giving federal courts the power of judicial review.

Judicial review

The power of courts to decide whether laws or government actions violate the Constitution.

Barron v. Baltimore (1833)

Ruled that the Bill of Rights originally limited only the federal government, not state governments.

Barron v. Baltimore issue

Whether the Fifth Amendment required the city of Baltimore to compensate John Barron for damaging his property.

Barron v. Baltimore ruling

The Supreme Court ruled that the Bill of Rights did not apply to state or local governments at that time.

Barron v. Baltimore impact

Limited the reach of the Bill of Rights until later incorporation through the Fourteenth Amendment.

Incorporation

The process of applying the Bill of Rights to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.

Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)

Ruled that enslaved people and their descendants were not U.S. citizens and that Congress could not ban slavery in federal territories.

Dred Scott v. Sandford issue

Whether Dred Scott became free after living in free territory and whether he could sue in federal court.

Dred Scott v. Sandford ruling

The Court ruled against Dred Scott and said African Americans were not citizens under the Constitution.

Dred Scott v. Sandford impact

Expanded protection for slavery, weakened congressional power over territories, and increased tensions before the Civil War.

Ex parte Milligan (1866)

Ruled that civilians cannot be tried by military courts when civilian courts are open.

Ex parte Milligan issue

Whether the government could use military trials for civilians during wartime when regular courts were functioning.

Ex parte Milligan ruling

The Court ruled that military trials of civilians were unconstitutional when civilian courts were available.

Ex parte Milligan impact

Protected civilian due process rights and limited military power.

United States v. Nixon (1974)

Ruled that executive privilege is not absolute and the President must obey court orders for evidence in criminal cases.

United States v. Nixon issue

Whether President Nixon could use executive privilege to refuse to release White House tapes.

United States v. Nixon ruling

The Court ruled unanimously that Nixon had to turn over the tapes.

United States v. Nixon impact

Reinforced rule of law and showed that the President is not above the law.

Executive privilege

The President’s power to keep certain executive branch communications confidential.

Bush v. Gore (2000)

Stopped the Florida presidential election recount in 2000 because the recount violated equal protection.

Bush v. Gore issue

Whether Florida’s recount procedures treated voters equally under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Bush v. Gore ruling

The Court ruled that the recount lacked consistent standards and violated equal protection.

Bush v. Gore impact

Effectively resolved the 2000 presidential election in favor of George W. Bush.

District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)

Ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm for lawful purposes such as self

District of Columbia v. Heller issue

Whether Washington, D.C.’s handgun ban violated the Second Amendment.

District of Columbia v. Heller ruling

The Court ruled that the handgun ban violated the Second Amendment.

District of Columbia v. Heller impact

Strengthened individual gun rights under the Second Amendment.

Schenck v. United States (1919)

Ruled that speech can be limited if it creates a clear and present danger.

Schenck v. United States issue

Whether anti

Schenck v. United States ruling

The Court ruled that Schenck’s speech was not protected because it created a danger during wartime.

Schenck v. United States impact

Created the clear and present danger test for free speech limits.

Clear and present danger test

A standard allowing government to restrict speech that creates a serious and immediate threat.

Near v. Minnesota (1931)

Ruled that prior restraint on publication usually violates freedom of the press.

Near v. Minnesota issue

Whether the government could stop a newspaper from publishing because it was considered harmful or scandalous.

Near v. Minnesota ruling

The Court ruled that Minnesota’s law allowing prior restraint violated the First Amendment.

Near v. Minnesota impact

Strengthened freedom of the press and limited government censorship.

Prior restraint

Government action that prevents speech or publication before it happens.

West Virginia v. Barnette (1943)

Ruled that students cannot be forced to salute the flag or say the Pledge of Allegiance.

West Virginia v. Barnette issue

Whether public schools could require students to salute the flag against their religious beliefs.

West Virginia v. Barnette ruling

The Court ruled that forced flag salutes violated the First Amendment.

West Virginia v. Barnette impact

Protected freedom of speech and freedom of conscience.

Compelled speech

Speech the government forces a person to say or express.

Engel v. Vitale (1962)

Ruled that school

Engel v. Vitale issue

Whether public schools could lead students in an official prayer.

Engel v. Vitale ruling

The Court ruled that government

Engel v. Vitale impact

Strengthened separation of church and state in public schools.

Establishment Clause

The First Amendment rule that government cannot establish or promote religion.

New York Times v. Sullivan (1964)

Ruled that public officials must prove actual malice to win defamation cases involving public issues.

New York Times v. Sullivan issue

Whether a public official could win a libel case without proving the false statement was made knowingly or recklessly.

New York Times v. Sullivan ruling

The Court ruled that public officials must prove actual malice.

New York Times v. Sullivan impact

Strengthened freedom of the press and political speech.

Actual malice

Publishing false information with knowledge that it is false or with reckless disregard for the truth.

Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)

Ruled that students do not lose their First Amendment rights at school.

Tinker v. Des Moines issue

Whether students could wear black armbands to protest the Vietnam War.

Tinker v. Des Moines ruling

The Court ruled that the armbands were symbolic speech protected by the First Amendment.

Tinker v. Des Moines impact

Protected student speech unless it causes a substantial disruption.

Symbolic speech

Nonverbal expression protected by the First Amendment.

Substantial disruption test

A rule allowing schools to limit student speech if it seriously disrupts school operations.

Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988)

Ruled that schools may regulate school

Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier issue

Whether a principal could remove articles from a school newspaper.

Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier ruling

The Court ruled that school officials could censor school

Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier impact

Limited student press rights in school

Texas v. Johnson (1989)

Ruled that burning the American flag as political protest is protected symbolic speech.

Texas v. Johnson issue

Whether flag burning could be punished as a crime.

Texas v. Johnson ruling

The Court ruled that flag burning is protected by the First Amendment.

Texas v. Johnson impact

Strengthened protection for unpopular political expression.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010)

Ruled that corporations and unions have First Amendment rights to spend money independently on political speech.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission issue

Whether the government could limit independent political spending by corporations and unions.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling

The Court ruled that restrictions on independent political expenditures violated the First Amendment.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission impact

Expanded political spending rights and affected campaign finance law.

Independent expenditure

Political spending not coordinated with a candidate’s campaign.

Campaign finance

Laws and rules about money used in elections.

Mapp v. Ohio (1961)

Ruled that illegally obtained evidence cannot be used in state criminal trials.

Mapp v. Ohio issue

Whether evidence found during an illegal search could be used in state court.

Mapp v. Ohio ruling

The Court ruled that illegally obtained evidence must be excluded.

Mapp v. Ohio impact

Applied the exclusionary rule to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.

Exclusionary rule

A rule that prevents illegally obtained evidence from being used in court.

Fourth Amendment

Protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

Ruled that states must provide attorneys to poor defendants charged with serious crimes.

Gideon v. Wainwright issue

Whether the Sixth Amendment right to counsel applies to state criminal cases.

Gideon v. Wainwright ruling

The Court ruled that defendants have the right to a lawyer even if they cannot afford one.

Gideon v. Wainwright impact

Expanded due process and fair trial rights for criminal defendants.

Right to counsel

The right of a criminal defendant to have a lawyer.

Sixth Amendment

Protects rights of criminal defendants, including the right to counsel and a fair trial.

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

Ruled that police must inform suspects of their rights before custodial interrogation.

Miranda v. Arizona issue

Whether statements made during police questioning are valid if suspects were not informed of their rights.

Miranda v. Arizona ruling

The Court ruled that suspects must be told their rights before interrogation.

Miranda v. Arizona impact

Created Miranda warnings to protect against self

Miranda warning

A warning that suspects have the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney.

Self

incrimination

Fifth Amendment

Protects against self

In re Gault (1967)

Ruled that juveniles in delinquency proceedings have many of the same due process rights as adults.

In re Gault issue

Whether juveniles have due process rights in court proceedings that could lead to confinement.

In re Gault ruling

The Court ruled that juveniles have rights such as notice of charges, counsel, confrontation of witnesses, and protection against self

In re Gault impact

Expanded due process protections for minors.

Juvenile justice

The legal system dealing with minors accused of wrongdoing.