laws lsit

Marbury vs Madison (1803)

\*Before Adams left the presidency he appointed judges, who were approved by the senate, but they needed their commissions delivered

\*Marbury was not delivered a commission

\*Marbury sued Madison (who was the secretary of state) for his commission

\*Court deemed judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional

\*Remember: Judicial review (1st time federal law deemed unconstitutional)

\*Involved land fraud in Georgia

\*Conclusion: A state couldn’t pass legislation invalidating a contract

\*Remember: 1st time Supreme Court deemed a state law unconstitutional

Fletcher vs Peck (1810)

Dartmouth vs Woodward (1819)

\*A New Hampshire law changed Dartmouth from a privately chartered school into public one

\*Conclusion: This law is unconstitutional b/c a contract for a private cooperation can’t be changed by the state

McCulloch vs Maryland (1819)

\*Maryland tried to tax the second bank of the US

\*Conclusion: a state can’t tax a federal institution b/c “the power to tax is the power to destroy” and federal laws take precedence over state laws

\*Remember: Marshall used the elastic clause for this

Gibbons vs Ogden (1824)

Issue: Could NY grant a monopoly to a steamboat company if it would conflict with a charter authorized by congress

\*Conclusion: NY monopoly was unconstitutional

Remember: Established federal government broad control of interstate commerce

Cherokee Nation vs US (1831)

\*Andrew Jackson signed Indian Removal Act into law

\*Conclusion: Cherokees weren’t a foreign nation with right to sue federal court

Worcester vs Georgia (1832)

\*Jackson signed Indian Removal act into law

\*Conclusion: Georgia had no force within Cherokee territory

Dred Scott vs Sanford (1857)

\*Dred Scott was a slave from Missouri who lived in a free state for a little while, but then was forced back to Missouri

Issue: was he free or slave?

\*Conclusion: Scott doesn’t have the right to sue and is still a considered slave

Remember: This was a big blow to the abolitionist movement

Plyler vs Doe (1982)

\*Conclusion: A state cannot prevent kids of undocumented immigrants from attending public school unless a substantial state interest is involved

\*Remember: This connects current debate about immigration laws

Plessy vs Ferguson (1896)

\*Homer Plessy decided to challenge the Separate Car Act by sitting in a White only train car

\*Conclusion: Separate Car Act was constitutional

Remember: Separate, but equal

Schenck vs US (1919)

\*Schenck delivered leaflets declaring draft violated 13th amendment; was charged for violating the Espionage Act

Issue: Does Espionage Act violate 1st amendment?

Conclusion: Espionage Act was proper usage of wartime authority

Remember Clear and present danger

Lochner vs New York (1905)

• NY Bakeshop Act forbid bakers from working 60hrs per week/10hrs per day

• Issue: Does the Bakeshop Act violate the 14th amendment b/c of the Due Process clause

• *Conclusion: Law interfered with freedom of contract

Muller vs Oregon (1908)

\*Oregon enacted a law mandating women to be only allowed to work 10hrs; Curt Muller broke this law

Issue: Does an Oregon law limiting the hours women are allowed to work violate the 14th amendment

\*Conclusion: The Oregon law is constitutional and that it was in the interests of women

Schechter vs US (1935)

\*NIRA gave president the power to regulate certain industries but didn’t provide guiding standards

\*Conclusion: NIRA was deemed unconstitutional

Remember: Led to FDR court packing

Korematsu vs US (1944)

\*Korematsu was charged for violating order of Japanese internment

Issue: Did FDR go beyond war powers with Japanese internment ?

\*Conclusion: Proper usage of wartime authority; validated Japanese internment

Remember: Clear and present danger

Dennis vs US (1951)

\*Conclusion: Upheld convictions of citizens who’d been convicted of the first peacetime sedition act since 1798 (1940 smith Act)

Brown vs Board of Education

\*Conclusion: “Separate but equal” violated 14th amendment

Remember: Overturned Plessy vs Ferguson

Watkins vs US (1957)

\*Conclusion: Weakened the Smith Act

Remember: Witnesses that are brought to testify before congress are entitled to legal counsel, like an American courtroom

Engel vs Vitale (1962)

\*The court ruled against required prayers and having the Bible in public schools, basing the judgement on the 1st amendment which separated church and state (sort of)

Gideon vs Wainwright (1963)

\*Clarence Gideon was arrested and convicted for theft

\*He wrote the supreme court from jail

\*He argued the right to a trial and the right to an attorney entitled him to have a lawyer paid by state

\*Conclusion: Court said that all criminals were entitled to legal counsel, even if they were too poor to afford it

Heart of Atlanta Motel vs US (1964)

\*Atlanta hotel owner restricted his hotel to white clients only

\*Conclusion: Court said the commerce clause extends the anti discrimination provisions in the civil rights act of 1964 to hotels that host travelers from outside the state

Griswold vs Connecticut (1965)

\*In 1879, Connecticut passed a law that banned the use of any drug, medical device or other instrument in furthering contraception

\*Conclusion: A right to privacy can be inferred in several amendments in the Bill of Rights, and this right prevents states from making the use of contraception by married couples illegal

Remember: This decision will be used 8 years later as precedent for the infamous decision in Roe vs Wade

Esobendo vs Illinois (1964) and Miranda vs Arizona (1966)

\*Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Phoenix due to circumstantial evidence that he had been involved in a kidnapping and rape

\*He confessed to the charged following an lengthy interrogation and signed a statment that said the confession was made knowingly and voluntarily

\*Miranda never was told his right to remain silent, of his right to a lawyer or of the fact that any his statements during the interrogation could be used against him in court

\*Conclusion: Under the 5th amendment any statements that a defendant in custody makes are only admissible in court if law enforcement has read them their constitutional rights

Tinker vs Des Moines (1969)

\*Mary Beth and John Tinker were suspended for wearing black armbands in school to protests Vietnam war

\*Conclusion: The court ruled “symbolic speech”was protected by 1st amendment as long as it does not interfere with education

Roe vs Wade (1973)

Roe wanted an abortion, but Texas law prevented this except when saving a women’s life

Issue: Are abortions considered constitutional

\*Conclusion: Women’s right to abortion is protected by right to privacy. No state may restrict abortion in the first trimester, but states can do what they wish thereafter

Remember: The right to privacy was not in the constitution, but was created by the precedent set in Griswold vs Connecticut

\*The court did not define what was means by a “women”s life” being in jeopardy

Doe vs Bolton (1973)

\*Doe wanted an abortion, but Georgia law prevented this

\*This case was decided hours after Roe vs Wade

\*Conclusion: Women’s right to abortion is protected by right to privacy. No state may restrict abortion in the first trimester, but states can do what they wish thereafter

Remember: The right to privacy was not in the constitution, but was created by the precedent set in Griswold vs Connecticut

Remember: Unlike the decision in Roe vs Wade, the court defined what qualified as a “women’s health”. The court said that the states could not ban abortion after the first trimester if the women’s physical, mental, social or economic health was in jeopardy

New York Times vs US (1971) and US vs Nixon (1974)

\*President tried to block the publication of information in the newspaper regarding the Vietnam war

\*Years later Nixon claimed Executive Privilege when refusing to cooperate with congressional demands for information regarding Watergate

\*Conclusion: 1. The 1st amendment guarantees the right to print the information


2. The president cannot shield himself from producing evidence in a criminal prosecution based on the doctrine of executive privilege, although it is valid in other situations

University of California vs Bakke (1978)

\*Alan Bakke, a white man, was denied entry into a medical school

\*Bakke sued based on reverse discrimination because minority students got in with lower scores

\*The schools’s line of reasoning was based on Affirmative action and trying to correct past discrimination

\*Conclusion: The court ruled that Affrimative action quotas are legal if they are used so that others rights are not violated

Planned parenthood vs Casey (1993)

\*PA amended it’s abortion control law in which abortion required consent and a 24 hour waiting period

\*Issue: Does this violate abortion rights provided through Roe v Wade

\*Conclusion: Court reaffirmed Roe vs Wade

Remember: No “undue burden” may be placed on a women who wants an abortion

Bush vs Gore (2000)

\*Florida created a new election law and ordered that every country manually recount all “under-votes”

\*Issue: Did Florida violate the constitution by creating a new election law and do those recounts violate the Equal protection and Due Process Clause?

Remember: The conclusion of this case stopped the recounts and essentially declared George W. Bush winner of the 2000 election because he was ahead at last count (after 6 recounts)

\*Conclusion: Florida violated the 14th amendment by enacting a recount procedure

Citizens united vs Federal Election commission (2010)

\*Many believe that corporations have to much political power due to their large financial resources

\*Issue is if corporations are exercising free speech when they donate to a campaign or acting corruptly

\*Conclusion: Court ruled that corporations are “legal citizens” and have the same rights as people to buy ads that influence political election

Obergefell vs Hodges (2010)

\*Two men wanted to engage in a same same marriage

\*Ohio had banned same sex marriage

\*Conclusion: The 14th amendment requires a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state

Health Care- National Federation of Independent Business vs Sebelius (2012)

\*2010 Affordable Health Care Act was passed

\*The issue regarded the “individual mandate” for each American to purchase healthcare coverage or be penalized by the federal government

\*Conclusion: Court ruled the requirement in Obamacare that individuals must purchase health insurance or pay a penalty was constitutional under the congressional authority to levy taxes

Remember: In this case it was the court that defined the demand to purchase insurance or face a fine as a tax, not the law itself

National Federation of Independent Business vs OSHA (2022) and Biden vs Missouri (2022)

\*President Joe Biden signed 2 executive orders during the covid 19 pandemic. One required all business or over 100 employees to make each employee vaccinate against covid19 . The other required all healthcare workers to vaccinate against it

\*OSHA, a federal agency would be the enforcement arm that regulated the mandate

\*Conclusion: Supreme Court struck down the Biden administration’s vaccine-or-test rule employees of business. However, the same day the court upheld a regulation issue by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services that mandated vaccines for almost all employees at hospitals, nursing homes and other health care providers that receive federal funds.

Elastic Clause

\
Allows Congress to make laws it needs to carry out its powers

A.k.a Necessary and Proper clause

Due process clause

No person is to be deprived of life, liberty or property without -------

NIRA (National Industry Recovery Act)

Regulated industry for fair wages and prices that would stimulate economic recovery (this was during Great Depression)

Judiciary Act

Allowed Congress to create as many federal courts as needed