15 key court cases

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

Established judicial review; “midnight judges;” John Marshall; power of the Supreme Court.

• Marburry v. Madison (1803) happened after President John Adams appointed judges right before leaving office. When Thomas Jefferson became president, he refused to deliver one commission to William Marbury, so Marbury sued.

Chief Justice John Marshall ruled that although Marbury deserved the job, the law he used to sue was unconstitutional. This decision established the judicial review, giving the Supreme Court the power to declare wars unconstitutional and strengthened the constitution as the final authority in US law

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

Established national supremacy; established implied powers; use of elastic clause; state unable to tax fed. institution; John Marshall; “the power to tax involves the power to destroy.”

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) decided whether a state could tax the national bank. Maryland tried to tax the Second Bank of the United States, but the Supreme Court ruled that Congress had the power to create the bank under the Necessary and Proper Clause. The Court also said Maryland could not tax it because of the Supremacy Clause, which makes the federal law superior to state law.

U.S. v. Lopez (1995)

Gun Free School Zones Act exceeded Congress’ authority to regulate interstate commerce.

• Context: Lopez carried a concealed weapon to school and was charged with firearm possession on school premises. Charges were then dismissed after federal agents charged Lopez with violating the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. Lopez was found guilty, but he argued that the federal government did not have power to make this law since congress could not justify using the commerce clause because carrying a gun to school is not an economic activity connected to interstate commerce. Government argued that guns in schools could affect education and then affect the economy

• Congress had used the Commerce Clause to justify regulating almost anything with even a loose connection to the economy, and the Supreme Court had let it happen every single time. Lopez was the Court saying "enough" — it drew a real line and said Congress cannot use commerce as an excuse to regulate things that are fundamentally local

  • First major limit on commerce clause + also strengthened federalism reinforcing that states have authority over education setting a boundary on federal power that congress cannot regulate using commerce clause

Baker v. Carr (1962)

“One man, one vote.” Ordered state legislative districts to be as near equal as possible in population; Warren Court’s judicial activism.

• Context: Tennessee hadn't redrawn its legislative district maps in over 60 years, even though the population had shifted massively from rural to urban areas. This meant a rural vote was worth far more than an urban vote — some rural districts had way fewer people but the same number of representatives. Baker (an urban voter) sued Carr (Tennessee's Secretary of State) arguing this was unconstitutional. Tennessee said it was a “political question” and that courts should not get involved. 

  • Baker v. Carr forced courts to stop looking away from unfair district maps, laying the groundwork for equal voting power across America

  • Said that federal courts do have the power to hear cases about legislative district apportionment AND if a case involves constitutional rights like equal protection, courts can decide on it

    • Opened the door for redistricting cases allowing courts to review and fix unfair district maps, which helped expanded judicial power 

Schenck v. US (1919)

Oliver Wendell Holmes; clear and present danger test; shouting “fire” in a crowded theater; limits on speech, esp. in wartime (urging men to resist the draft, war warrants abridgement of speech).

• Gov can limit speech if it provokes a clear and present danger

  • Schenck urged ppl not to join the draft for WWI which put the nation in danger bc there could be a possibility of too little people enlisting

The Court said speech can be limited if it creates a “clear and present danger” of serious harm

Engel v. Vitale (1962)

Prohibited state-sponsored recitation of prayer in public schools by virtue of 1^st Amendment’s establishment clause (violation against government-established religion) and the 14^th Amendment’s due process clause; Warren Court’s judicial activism.

• Context: New York Board of Regents authorized a short, voluntary prayer for recitation at the start of each school day. The prayer was non-denomination (not tied to a specific religion). A group of parents, one being Engle, argued that the prayer violated the establishment clause. The New York court of appeal rejected their arguments. 

  • Supreme Court ruled that it still violates the establishment clause even though the prayer was not tied to a specific religion since it was created and promoted by a government, which makes it unconstitutional since government can not promote or sponsor religion in any form through the establishment clause 

• Strengthened the separation of church and state, reinforcing the fact that public schools must stay religiously neutral

Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)

Amish families can pull children from school for religious reasons due to the Free Exercise Clause.

• Context: The Amish community argued high school attendance was contrary to their religious beliefs, Wisconsin then fined them for violating the law. The parents argued this violated their first amendment right to free exercise of religion 

• Supreme court reasoned the first amendment protects people’s rights to practice their religion freely forcing Amish kids to attend high school conflicted their ability to freely practice their religion 

  • Strengthened the free exercise clause establishing the balancing test, that courts must balance government interests as well as religious freedom

Brown v. Board, 1^st (1954)

School segregation unconstitutional; segregation psychologically damaging to blacks; overturned separate but equal; use of 14^th Amendment; judicial activism of Warren Court; unanimous decision.

• Declared segregation in public schools unconstitutional, violating Equal Protection Clause (14th Amendment)

Segregation denies African American children equal educational opportunities.

Tinker v. Des Moines  (1969)

Guaranteed a student’s right to protest (wearing armbands).

• Context: In 1965, Mary Beth Tinker, her brother John, and a friend wore black armbands to school in Des Moines to protest the Vietnam War. School officials, anticipating disruption, preemptively banned armbands. The students were suspended for refusing to remove them.

• Schools can only limit speech if it disrupts classwork + invades the rights of others

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

Ordered states to provide lawyers for those unable to afford them in criminal proceedings. Warren Court’s judicial activism in criminal rights.

• The 1963 Supreme Court decision held that anyone accused of a felony where imprisonment may be imposed has a right to a lawyer. The decision requires the government to provide a lawyer to anyone so accused who is too poor to afford one 

• Who: Clarence Gideon

• Holding: States must provide an attorney to defendants who cannot afford one in criminal cases

Constitutional Basis:6th Amendment (right to counsel) applied to states via 14th Amendment incorporation

New York Times v. US (1971)

The government cannot censor the publication of classified documents because prior restraint violates freedom of the press.

• Context: Defense analyst Daniel Ellsberg leaked the "Pentagon Papers" — a classified 7,000-page Defense Department study revealing the government had systematically misled the public about the Vietnam War. The New York Times and Washington Post began publishing excerpts. The Nixon administration went to court to stop publication, claiming it would endanger national security.

  • The press has the right to publish, and any government attempt to suppress publication before it happens carries a strong presumption against constitutionality.

Roe v. Wade (1973)

Established national abortion guidelines; trimester guidelines; no state interference in 1^st, state may regulate to protect health of mother in 2^nd, state may regulate to protect health of unborn child in 3^rd. Inferred from right of privacy established in Griswold v. Connecticut. 

• In 1973, the Supreme Court ruled that Texas could not ban abortions

  • The Court said:

    • During the first trimester, the state cannot restrict abortions

    • During the second trimester, the state can regulate abortions to protect the mother’s health

    • During the third trimester, the state can ban abortions except when necessary to protect the mother

• Roe v. Wade (1973) – Established a woman’s right to choose abortion under the right to privacy (14th Amendment). Trimester framework established

  • Why it lasted ~50 years: The Supreme Court kept following the Roe decision for a long time because it was already a well-established rule, and courts usually respect earlier rulings instead of overturning them.

  • Constitutional Argument: Right to privacy under the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause.

State Powers: States can still regulate abortions after fetal viability or impose restrictions without creating an undue burden (Planned Parenthood v. Casey).

Shaw v. Reno (1993)

NO racial gerrymandering; race cannot be the sole or predominant factor in redrawing legislative boundaries; majority-minority districts.

• Context: North Carolina had to redraw congressional districts. The states created a district with unusual shape and designed to give African American voters a majority. A group of white voters, including Shaw, challenged the map and argued that the district was drawn based on race and therefore unconstitutional. Case went to decide whether using race so heavily in drawing districts violates the constitution. 

• Cannot draw district law lines based on race. Only time you can excuse that is strict scrutiny (used by courts to evaluate laws that may violate constitutional rights, especially civil liberties and civil rights)

• Minority group not being represented due to gerrymandering 

  • Sometimes pack the minority together so they can vote on someone to represent them on government 

• High level of scrutiny 

  • Packed together so their voices can be heard

Citizens United v. FEC (2010)

Corporations can fund political campaigns because political spending is free speech.

• Context: Citizens United, a conservative nonprofit, wanted to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton and run ads for it within 30 days of the 2008 primary. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA / McCain-Feingold, 2002) banned corporations and unions from using general treasury funds for "electioneering communications" close to an election. The FEC blocked the ads.

• Supreme court reasoned that political spending is a form of speech and that spending money to express political ideas if free speech and that government cannot restrict speech just because it comes from a corporation because the spending is independent and not being given to a candidate, therefore there are no limits or restrictions

• Led to a rise of super PACs after case groups were allowed to spend unlimited money independently to support/oppose candidates. The case lead a huge increase in money in politics and expanded the first amendment protection

McDonald v. Chicago(2010)

That the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms," as protected under the 2nd  Amendment, is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the 14th.

• Context: Chicago had banned most handgun possession by private citizens. McDonald argued that this law prevented them from legally owning a gun for self defense in their homes. They claimed the ban violated their second amendment right to bear arms. 

• Supreme court reasoned that the right to self defense is fundamental

• Reinforced the idea of due process clause, and limited state gun regulations