Court Cases 2.0

McCulloch vs. Maryland

Facts: The Second Bank of the US - a federal bank - established branches in several states. Maryland’s state legislators didn’t like that they est. one in their state so they passed a law to tax it.

Principle: Maryland said Congress didn’t have power to est. national bank in Article 1 Section 8. McCulloch argued that Article 1 Section 8 had NECESSARY AND PROPER CLAUSE

Decision/Conclusion: McCulloch won on account of necessary and proper clause. Whenever a state law is in conflict with federal law, federal law wins. Tipped power in favor of federal.

US vs. Lopez

Facts: In Texas, a highschooler brought a gun to school. He was arrested b/c it was forbidden in Texas law to carry a gun to school property. In addition to the state laws, there was also a federal law called the Gun Free School Zones Act. So the state charges were dropped b/c the federal charges were brought against Lopez.

Principle: Congress passed the gun free school zones based on its authority in the COMMERCE CLAUSE - but the relations b/w interstate commerce and bringing guns to school is weak; arguments: gun violence in schools → people travel there less → negatively affects commerce or gun violence in schools → learning environment worse → negatively affects commerce. Lopez argued that gun regulation on school property is specifically a power of the states, and that Congress had no business passing the law in the first place.

Decision/Conclusion: Lopez won. Federalism - tipped power in favor of states

Baker vs. Carr

Facts: Tennessee hadn’t redrawn its legislative districts in over 60 years, and in that time their urban populations had grown much faster than its rural populations, but rural voters had much more voting power b/c districts didn’t reflect these changes.

Principle: 14TH AMENDMENT EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE. By refusing to redraw the districts and reapportion representatives, all Tennessee citizens were not equally protected under the law

Decision/Conclusion: Issues of reapportionment were justiciable. Est. foundation for “one person, one vote” - states req. to apportion their reps in a way that equally represented all the people so that no votes counted more than any other vote

Shaw vs. Reno

Facts: Gerrymandering: drawing congressional districts to favor one group over another; partisan gerrymandering, racial gerrymandering. None of North Carolina’s representatives were Black even though 20% of the pop was Black. They apportioned the districts so that 2 of them were weirdly shaped and held the majority Black pop.

Principle: 14TH AMENDMENT EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE. Shaw argued that epc clause was violated b/c districts were drawn w/ only race in mind (favored COLORBLIND INTERPRETATION). Reno argued that epc clause not violated b/c districts were drawn to help Black resident who had been subject to discrimination. (against COLORBLIND - should favor the marginalized)

Decision/Conclusion: Shaw won. Court ruled that while these districts were drawn w/ noble intentions, districts drawn only based on race were unconst. and set a dangerous precedent.

Marbury vs. Madison

Facts: Adams (Federalist) packed the federal judiciary full of Federalist judges on his last days as president (midnight appointments) to make it harder for Thomas Jefferson (Democratic Republican) when he got elected. Some of Adams’ commissions were not delivered, including Marbury. He sued Madison (the Secretary of State for Jefferson) to get his commission by writ of mandamus: court order for an official to do what they’re legally required to do.

Principle: ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONST - says the Supreme Court only has original jurisdiction in issues concerning states or ambassadors. The Judiciary Act of 1789 said that the Supreme Court can issue writ of mandamus in original jurisdiction.

Decision/Conclusion: Marbury lost. Marshall ruled that the Judiciary Act was in conflict with the Const. b/c Marbury and Madison were neither states nor ambassadors. Gave Supreme Court power of JUDICIAL REVIEW. The judicial branch became the final interpreter of the Const. - could strike or uphold laws passed by Congress as unconst. or const.

Engel vs. Vitale

Facts: The NY Board of Regents created a non-denominational prayer that was to be recited by school children after the pledge of allegiance. Children could opt out if their parents gave permission. A group of parents led by Steven Engel challenged the practice

Principle: 1ST AMENDMENT ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE. The 14 Amend incorporated this 1st Amend right to the states.

Decision/Conclusion: Engel won. Court ruled in favor of individual liberties; in 1st amend cases, the court is always trying to balance social order and individual liberty. Upheld the separation of church and state.

Wisconsin vs. Yoder

Facts: Wisconsin had a law that children must be educated up to 16 years old at a minimum. Amish families took their kids out of school after 8th grade for religious reasons.

Principle: 1ST AMENDMENT FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE

Decision/Conclusion: Yoder won. State’s interest to educate children should not trump the ability of Amish families to exercise their religion freely. Individual liberties over social order.

Tinker vs. Des Moines

Facts: Students wore black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War. School administration said anyone wearing the arm band would be told to take it off or face suspension.

Principle: 1ST AMENDMENT FREE SPEECH.

Decision/Conclusion: Tinker won. The school violated the students’ right to free speech. This case did not meet standards for a school to limit free speech - no substantial disruption. Students don’t shed their rights at the gate.

Schenck vs. US

Facts: After the Espionage Act: part of the purpose was to outlaw any hindrances to military recruitment. During WW1, Schenk distributed thousands of pamphlets that encouraged young men to avoid the draft. He was arrested.

Principle: 1ST AMENDMENT FREE SPEECH. Even though he did violate the Espionage Act.

Decision/Conclusion: Schenk did not win. His 1st amend rights weren’t protected b/c he actively encouraged people to avoid the draft - CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER speech is NOT PROTECTED. This has been replaced by Brandenburg test - imminent lawless action; if it’s clear the speech did not intend to incite imminent lawless action even if its offensive, it’s protected (made it harder for courts to restrict free speech)

NYT vs. US

Facts: During Vietnam War where many people were discontent with how the US gov was conducting the affairs. Pentagon Papers got leaked and affirmed that the gov was lying to the people about how the war was not going well for the US; this was costing thousands of lives. Nixon tried to seize publication - prior restraint - not even allow it printed.

Principle: 1ST AMENDMENT FREEDOM OF THE PRESS. Nixon argued this was for national security

Decision/Conclusion: NYT won. There is a heavy presumption for prior restraint to be constitutional. The bar to clear for prior restraint if very high.

McDonald vs. Chicago

Facts: Begin with Heller vs. District of Columbia which ruled that the federal gov could not infringe on 2nd Amend right to bear arms. McDonald and others tried to get this decision to apply to the states. Chicago had the most restrictive handgun ownership laws.

Principle: 2ND AMENDMENT. McDonald argued that Chicago’s restrictive gun laws infringed on people’s right to own guns. Chicago argued that these laws were necessary to uphold public order and safety.

Decision/Conclusion: McDonald won. Individual liberties over social order. This incorporated the 2nd Amend to the states.

Gideon vs. Wainwright

Facts: Gideon robbed a store in Florida and arrested. When he was prosecuted in other states previously, the courts appointed him a lawyer b/c he was poor. In Florida he was not provided a lawyer, so he had to act as his own lawyer and was convicted.

Principle: 6TH AMENDMENT - accused has the right to counsel for their defense. This only applied to the fed gov. But selective incorporation from 14th Amend was basis for getting 6th Amend applied to states.

Decision/Conclusion: Gideon won. The 6th Amend for a lawyer does apply to the state via the 14th equal protection clause selective incorporation.

Brown vs. Board of Education

Facts: Segregated schools were const. under Plessy vs. Ferguson. A black family tried enrolling their daughter in the nearby white school, but were not allowed and she had to bus to the distant Black school.

Principle: 14TH AMENDMENT EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE. Separation was inherently unequal - did damage to psyche and feelings of inferiority.

Decision/Conclusion: Brown won. Court overturned precedent in Plessy and agreed that separate facilities violated epc clause. Ended segregation in public education.

Citizens United vs. FEC

Facts: Bipartisan Campaign Finance Act (BCRA) set limits for individuals contributing money to political candidates; also made it illegal for corps or non profits to engage in electioneering communications for a specific time frame before an election. A republican group called Citizens United made Hillary the Movie, containing unflattering rhetoric about Hillary who was in contest with Obama for the Democratic nominee for the 2008 election. By the time Citizens United were ready to release this, it was in the time period before the election which they were prohibited to express their opinion.

Principle: 1ST AMENDMENT FREE SPEECH. Citizens United argued that corps are people.

Decision/Conclusion: Citizens United won. Limitations upon corps to run political ads and communications were not materially different from gov censorship of speech toward individuals. That part of BCRA was struck down. Corps, unions, nonprofits, and other orgs can spend as much money as they want to endorse and support a campaign/candidate as long as they don’t directly cooperate with them.