us supreme court cases + federalist documents

engel v vitale

in new york, one school gave students the choice to say a school-provided prayer after pledge. 2 jewish families sued the local school board arguing that the daily prayer violated the first amendment’s establishment clause

the supreme court ruled 6-1, in favor of the objecting parents. they said that the prayer was unconstitutional because it violated the establishment ckause. the prayer was a religious activity composed by government officials in order to advance religious beliefs.

gideon v wainwright

clarence gideon robbed a place in florida. he could not afford a lawyer and asked that the court provided him one, arguing under the 6th amendment

the judge denied his request because florida state law required appointment of counsel for defendants only in capital. so gideon has to unsuccessfully defend himself. while serving his sentence he filed a habeas corpus petition, arguing that he was improperly imprisoned.

the supreme court ruled unanimously for gideon and overturned a previous case which concluded that the 6th amendment’s guarantee of counsel is not a fundamental right

mcdonald v chicago

Facts: Otis McDonald, who lived in Chicago, wanted to purchase a firearm, specifically a handgun, but was unable to do so because of a citywide handgun ban. Residents, including McDonald, filed a lawsuit.

Issue: Does the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms apply to states local governments under the fourteenth amendment’s due process clause? 

Decision: Judges agreed that the right to own a firearm was fundamental and necessary to an individual's liberty. The judges argued that firearms were essential for self-defense

wisconsin v yoder

Facts: The state of Wisconsin required that all students attend public school until the age of 16. The Old Order Amish and other conservative communities refused to send their children to public school after 8th grade. This case ended up in court because the communities believed this violated their religious beliefs. 

Issue:  Does the requirement of Amish children attending school until the age of 16 violate their first amendment right under the free exercise clause? 

Decision: The court decided this case by examining the first amendment. The law of children being required to attend public school until the age of 16 violated the Amish’s religious beliefs and their way of life. 

schenck v us

facts:

• Schenck, a general secretary for the Philadelphia Socialist Party, was convicted of violating the Espionage Act.

• He distributed fliers arguing that the conscription was unconstitutional.

• He was convicted because of his “fiery language” 

• After his conviction for violating

Issue: Did Schenck's conviction violate the first amendment under the Espionage Act?

Decision: The court reached its decision because judges agreed that the first Amendments right of free speech did not apply to speech that creates immediate danger 

New York Times v US

Facts: In 1971, the New York Times published the Pentagon papers which were classified. This case ended up at the supreme court due to conflicting rulings at lower courts

Issue: Did the government attempting to halt the releasing of the Pentagon Papers violate the first amendment under the free press clause? 

Decision: The majority reasoned that the government did not have enough evidence to justify prior restraint. This is because the first amendment protects the freedom of press and right to publish information that the public is interested in. Not only that, but the government failed to provide sufficient evidence that the Pentagon Papers were a national security threat. 

Tinker v Des Moines

Facts: A group of students decided to wear black armbands to protest the Vietnam war. When the school learned about this, they banned black armbands. The Tinkers wore their armbands anyway and were suspended. Their parents then sued the school district. 

Issue: Does not allowing students to wear armbands in protest of the Vietnam war violate the first amendment's freedom of speech?

Decision: The court reached its decision because the students were nondisruptive. The court also decided that schools can only regulate freedom of speech unless it disrupts the educational environment. 

baker v carr

Facts: Charles W. Baker and other Tennessee citizens alleged that a 1901 law designed to apportion the seats for the state's General Assembly was virtually ignored. Baker's suit detailed how Tennessee's reapportionment efforts ignored significant economic growth and population shifts within the state.

Issue: Did the Supreme Court have jurisdiction over questions of legislative apportionment?

Decision: Brennan concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection issues which Baker and others raised in this case merited judicial evaluation.

shaw v reno

Facts: The U.S. Attorney General rejected a North Carolina congressional reapportionment plan because the plan created only one black-majority district. North Carolina submitted a second plan creating two black-majority districts. One of these districts was, in parts, no wider than the interstate road along which it stretched. Five North Carolina residents challenged the constitutionality of this unusually shaped district, alleging that its only purpose was to secure the election of additional black representatives. After a three-judge District Court ruled that they failed to state a constitutional claim, the residents appealed and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Issue: Did the North Carolina residents' claim, that the State created a racially gerrymandered district, raise a valid constitutional issue under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause?

Decision: Yes. The Court held that although North Carolina's reapportionment plan was racially neutral on its face, the resulting district shape was bizarre enough to suggest that it constituted an effort to separate voters into different districts based on race.

mcculloch v maryland

Facts: In 1816, Congress chartered The Second Bank of the United States. In 1818, the state of Maryland passed legislation to impose taxes on the bank. James W. McCulloch, the cashier of the Baltimore branch of the bank, refused to pay the tax. The state appeals court held that the Second Bank was unconstitutional because the Constitution did not provide a textual commitment for the federal government to charter a bank. 

Issue:

1. Did Congress have the authority to establish the bank?

2. Did the Maryland law unconstitutionally interfere with congressional powers?

Decision: In a unanimous decision, the Court held that Congress had the power to incorporate the bank and that Maryland could not tax instruments of the national government employed in the execution of constitutional powers. 

brown v board of education

Facts: African American students had been denied admittance to certain public schools based on laws allowing public education to be segregated by race. They argued that such segregation violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

Issue: Does the segregation of public education based solely on race violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Decision: Separate but equal educational facilities for racial minorities is inherently unequal, violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Chief Justice Earl Warren delivered the opinion of the unanimous Court. The Supreme Court held that “separate but equal” facilities are inherently unequal and violate the protections of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

federalist 10

Madison was wary of faction groups and considered them to be a group who is united by common goals and motivated by self-interest. To diminish the negative effects of faction groups, he considered either removing the cause of factions or controlling its effects. He believed that removing the cause of factions would suppress liberty so Madison proposed to have a large constitutional republic.

federalist 51

Madison states that the government will be separated into different departments in order to make sure that the government doesn’t become too powerful. He also states how each department will check each other: “The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.”

counters Brutus I

federalist 70

Hamilton argues for the importance of having a strong executive leader rather than splitting the power between the states. He was against having a weak, decentralized government and believed a single executive can better lead the country and enforce authority.

federalist 78

Hamilton says that the Judiciary Branch should be independent from the other branches in order to prevent any political influence from affecting the rulings. He places an emphasis on this branch being the strictest followers of the constitution as it was the document by which all laws are based upon.