SCOTUS Cases

World-Wide Volkswagen Corp v Woodson

Context: A Volkswagen was bought in New York and driven all the way to Oklahoma where it got into an accident and the car set on fire, severely burning the mother and daughter. The family tried to sue Volkswagen for liability and personal injuries.

Ruling: The court said that the family could not use long-arm statue because Volkswagen did not meet minimum contacts, since they were a purely New York based company. The family tried to argue that it was foreseeable that the car could have ended up in Oklahoma, but the courts said mere foreseeability was not the test for personal jurisdiction.

Spokeo v Robins

Context: Robins sued the website Spokeo, which had incorrect information about his wealth, job status, marriage status, etc. which he claimed was harming his ability to get employed, and also violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Ruling: In order for a plaintiff to have standing to sue, the injury must be particularized and concrete, which was not the reality of Robins case. The court said a plaintiff could not point to a violation of law unless it has done imminent harm to them.

Ramos v Louisiana

Context: Ramos received a heavy criminal charge and a serve sentence after a 10-2 verdict by a petit jury.

Ruling: Court said this was not allowed, as in serious criminal charges, the decision for a guilty verdict must be unanimous, even though everywhere else it differs

Batson v Kentucky

Context: Batson was an African American man who was removed from a jury using a preemptory strike, along with the other 3 black possible jurors, leading to an all-white jury.

Ruling: Court deemed it unconstitutional to strike jurors based solely on race, as it violates the fourteenth amendment.

Edmonson v Leesville

Context: Does racial preemptory striking also apply to civil cases?

Ruling: Yes, you are still not allowed to strike soley for race even in private, civil cases.

JEB v Alabama

Context: Lawyers were striking all of the male jurors in a paternity and child support case, leading to an all female jury.

Ruling: It is unconstitutional to strike jurors based solely off gender.

Marbury v Madison

Context: Madison refused to ratify Marbury’s position in government, which he was appointed to by the previous president. He brought it to court under a writ of mandamus from a law passed by congress called Section 13 of the Judiciary act of 1789.

Ruling: Marbury has a right to his position and withholding it is illegal. They also deemed that the law by congress was unconstitutional, because it expanded the power of the supreme court by allowing them to hear more types of cases than the constitution allowed them to. This led to the indirect creation of judicial review, as it was confirmed that the constitution was the law of the land and could strike down acts of congress.

Wickard v Filburn

Context: During the great depression, the government was controlling the amount of wheat that farmers could produce/sell in order to stabilize the economy. Filburn ended up producing more wheat than he was allotted, but he kept the extra for himself on his private property.

Ruling: The court ruled that he was in violation of the federal statue and that the congressional law extended to private wheat growing as well. This hugely expanded the power of the commerce clause (article 1, section 8, clause 3) because if the activity, when aggregated across lots of people, substantially effects interstate commerce, they can create a law about it.

Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia v Comer

Context: State funds being given to preschools/daycares to make their playgrounds safer. Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia happened to run a completely secular preschool/daycare and applied to receive the funds. The Missouri Department of Natural Resources denied them the funding because of their strong ties to the church, claiming it violated the establishment clause.

Ruling: The court ruled that the funds could be granted to the preschool/daycare because it violated the free exercise clause to reject the institution just because of its relations to a religious body (would they not send the firefighters if the playground where on fire?)

Carson v Makin

Context: State funds in Maine being given to rural families, some of which wanted to send their children to private religious schools. The state said the funds could not be appropriated this way because it violated the establishment clause.

Ruling: Court said that withholding the funds from these families just because they wanted to use them to send their children to religious schools violated the free exercise clause.

Kennedy v Bremerton School District

Context: Kennedy was a coach who would perform a private prayer on the 50-yard line after his football games. The requested he stop praying while on duty, since some students began joining him, and they feared an establishment clause violation.

Ruling: The court concluded that the school was not allowed to limit his personal practice of his religion, and that attempting to do so would be a violation of free exercise.

Note: Before this case, he was conducting voluntary prayers in the locker room, but he had already agreed to stop doing this before the case got to the courts.

Tinker v Des Moines

Context: Students were wearing arm/head bands in protest of the Vietnam War, so the school intentionally changed their dress code to ban arm/head bands because they didn’t appreciate the message that the students were trying to push.

Ruling: Students do not lose their freedom of speech/symbolic speech once they enter school premises, and the schools oppression of the students violated the first amendment.

Snyder v Phelps

Context: Members of the Westboro Baptist Church were protesting outside of a veteran’s funeral, waving signs which had writings such as “Thank God for dead soldiers,” and shouting about how God hates veterans. The members of the Snyder family sued them for intentional emotional damages.

Ruling: The court found that the protestors were following all the laws of protest (peaceful, on public property, time and place) and the content of their words covered broad public issues. Since they were not attacking the family directly, their speech was protected.

Brown v Board of Education

Context: Racial segregation in schools were allowed, under the precedent set by Plessy v Ferguson

Ruling: Court ruled unanimously that separate educational facilities were inherently unequal, and that segregation was unconstitutional.

District of Columbia v Heller

Context: DC passed laws banning hand firearms and requiring them to be disassembled in the house. Heller, a veteran, sued after he was denied a handgun license

Ruling: Court found that the second amendment protects individual citizens rights to own a gun, regardless of whether or not they are part of a ‘well-regulated militia’

USA v Rahimi

Context: Rahimi was a serial domestic abuser who ended up pulling out his gun on some people in public during a fight with his partner.

Ruling: Since Rahimi was a danger due to his prior violent convictions, his second amendment rights could be infringed upon

NY State Rifle and Pistole Association Inc. v Bruen

Context: NY passed a law limiting where you can carry a handgun

Ruling: This law violated the second amendment by restricting gun access

Kelo v City of New London

Context: City of New London had an economic development plan which involved taking peoples houses and handing the land over to a private company to build a factory (increase jobs, economy, etc.)

Ruling: The court said that this was allowed under the takings clause since, even though it isnt for public use, it is a specific plan to help the people of the city.

Miranda v Arizona

Riley v California

Context: Riley arrested and cops searched through his phone

Ruling: Court said a personal phone is a different level of privacy than the back of someone’s trunk or their pockets, and that police need a warrant to search it even if they are arresting someone

California v Texas

context: Texas fought California over the ACA, because it claimed that the stripping of state funding if they did not provide their own funding for healthcare was unconstitutional

Ruling: Court said that Texas did not have standing to sue because they failed to show past or future injury based off the law they were trying to fight

Gibbons v Ogden

Context: Ogden was given a steamboat monopoly by NY State

Ruling: Giving this monopoly was illegal because it conflicted with federal law (Supremacy clause)

Brown v Entertainment Merchants Association

context: California attempted to pass a law restricting the advertisement/sale of violent video games to minors

Ruling: It is within the right of the company to advertise and sell their game to whoever they want as long as it doesn’t fall into the restricted speech categories. Plus, video game companies already rate their own games.

Schenk v US

Clear and present danger (yelling fire in a movie theater)

Engel v Vitale

Context: New York State authorized a short, nondenominational prayer before the school day began.

Ruling: This violates the establishment clause by carving out time for prayer in public school

United States v O’Brien

Context: O’Brien was protesting the draft by burning his draft card, and claimed that it was protected under symbolic speech.

Ruling: The Court said that the government could oppress speech if it passed the O’Brien test; most importantly that there was some substantial government interest, and that the interest was unrelated to suppressing free expression.