gov scotus cases

give the background info, ruling, dissent, related clause

Tinker v. Des Moines

background info: some students were suspended for wearing armbands in protest of the Vietnam War. Their parents sued the school as they believed their kids had the Constitutional right under the First Amendment.

ruling: court ruled that freedom of speech + expression still holds in school if they do so without substantially disrupting the educational environment.

dissent argument: the armbands were a distraction in school and schools have to maintain order

related clause: Free Speech Clause of the first amendment

Schenck v U.S.

background info: Charles Schenck printed and mailed fliers arguing that the WWI draft is unconstitutional and told people to resist. He was charged with violating the Espionage Act of 1917, which prevents espionage and ensures national security during war by criminalizing actions that interfere with military operations or aid the enemy.

ruling: some speech does not merit constitutional protection

dissent: Schenck believed his actions were protected by Free Speech Clause of the first amendment

related clause: Free Speech Clause of first amendment

NYT v. US

background info: NYT published the famous Pentagon Papers. These papers revealed that the government had often misled the public about the scope and progress of the Vietnam War. The Nixon administration asked a federal court to stop the NYT from publishing future stories about the papers, citing the Espionage Act, arguing it would hurt national security.

ruling: in favor of NYT allowing them to continue publishing the Pentagon Papers

dissent: NYT argued that the First Amendment protected their rights to publish

related clause: Freedom of the Press Clause of the 1st Amend

Wisconsin v. Yoder

background info: The Amish people did not see a reason for going to school past eight grade, but in Wisconsin there’s a law for school till 16. State of Wisconsin sued Yoder for not bringing their kids.

ruling: court ruled that Amish people could stop going to school after eight grade

clause: Free Exercise Clause of 1st Amend

Engel v. Vitale

background: NYS classrooms had students participate in voluntary school prayer, Engel sues school for violating Establishment Clause.

ruling: even though prayer was voluntary, it advances religious beliefs and is in violation of the Establishment clause

dissent: one justice argued that the voluntary nature of the prayer did not misinterpret the Establishment Clause

clause: Establishment Clause of the First Amendment

Citizens United v. FEC

background: Citizens United felt like their free speech rights as a group were being violated when they couldn’t spend as much as they wanted on political ads or other political tools

ruling: their rights were being violated and groups can spend as much as they want on political ads or other political tools without giving to a specific candidate (super PACs)

dissent: corporations can’t be treated as individuals and cannot be protected by the First Amendment political speech rules

clause: the Free Speech Clause of the 1st Amendment

McDonald v. Chicago

background info: 2nd amendment right to bear arms; SC struck down handgun ban in Chicago

ruling: 2nd amendment right to bear arms is fully applicable to the states under the 14th amend.

clause: due process clause of the 14th Amend

Gideon v. Wainwright

background info: Clarence Gideon committed a crime but couldn’t afford a lawyer, State of Florida didn’t allow him one

ruling: SC ruled that having counsel/lawyer is a fundamental right for a fair trial

clause: Due process clause of 14th amend, 6th amend

Brown v. Board of Education

background info: Linda Brown was an African American student who wanted to go to a school that was close to her house but the school denied her application as she was black, Brown family sued BoE arguing that segregation in public schools violated the Equal Protection Clause of 14th Amend

ruling: in favor of Brown, declaring that state-sponsored segregation in public schools was unconstitutional, overturning the “separate but equal” doctrine established in Plessy v. Ferguson

clause: equal protection clause of the 14th Amend

U.S. v. Lopez

background info: Congress passed the Gun Free School Zones Act (1990) which prohibited people from carrying a gun on school grounds, Lopez gets convicted

ruling: Congress had exceeded its power with the Gun Free Zones Act (1990) as it had nothing to do with interstate commerce.

clauses: commerce clause, necessary and proper clause

Baker v. Carr

background info: When TN was not upgrading their congressional districts, Baker sued, because districts should be proportionately represented for everyone’s vote to be equal. The issue of whether federal courts could take this case as it seemed to be political rather than legal question.

ruling: Federal courts could take redistricting cases and that districts must be reapportioned so that districts are roughly the same pop.

clause: Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment

McCulloch v. Maryland

background info: 2nd National Bank of the U.S. was made in 1816. In 1819 Maryland passed legislation to impose taxes on the bank, with the chief of the bank refusing to pay the tax

ruling: SC ruled that the national government had the power to create a national bank, and that MD did not have the power to tax it.

dissent: Maryland said that they had the power to tax any business in its state

clause: Supremacy clause, necessary and proper clause

Marbury v. Madison

background info: John Adams appointed several people from his party (including Marbury) before Jefferson took office. Madison was supposed to give all the commissions of the new appointments but failed to do so~ Jefferson told Madison not to deliver the rest of the commissions. Marbury could not start his job without his commission and asked the Supreme Court to give it to him.

ruling: Court said Marbury was entitled to his commission but the court couldn’t give it to him. The Court claimed judicial review.

Shaw v. Reno

background info: NC was sued due to racial gerrymandering, when they created a very weird shaped majority-minority district to increase back representation in congress.

ruling: racial redistricting must be held to a standard of strict scrutiny, districts can’t be drawn based only on the factor of race

clause: equal protection clause of the 14th amendment