SCOTUS Cases Test

Marbury v. Madison (Year)

1803

Marbury v. Madison (Main idea)

Established judicial review

Marbury v. Madison Facts

Thomas Jefferson defeated John Adams in the 1800 presidential election. Before Jefferson took office on March 4, 1801, Adams and Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1801, which created new courts, added judges, and gave the president more control over the appointment of judges. This Act was essentially an attempt by Adams and his party to frustrate his successor, as he used the Act to appoint 16 new circuit judges and 42 new justices of the peace. The appointees were approved by the Senate, but they would not be valid until their commissions were delivered by the Secretary of State.

William Marbury had been appointed Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia, but his commission was not delivered. Marbury petitioned the Supreme Court to compel the new Secretary of State, James Madison, to deliver the documents. Marbury, joined by three other similarly situated appointees, petitioned for a writ of mandamus compelling the delivery of the commissions.

Marbury v. Madison Issue

1. Do the plaintiffs have a right to receive their commissions?

2. Can they sue for their commissions in court?

3. Does the Supreme Court have the authority to order the delivery of its commissions? ( Could federal courts invalidate laws that violate the Constitution?)

Marbury v. Madison Holding

1. Yes. The Court held that once the President had signed the commission and the Secretary of State had affixed the Seal of the United Sates, the appointment was legally complete.

2. Yes. Because Marbury had a legal right to the office, the law must provide him a remedy and suing for a writ of mandamus was deemed the correct legal path.

3. No. The Court could not issue the order because the law Marbury used to argue his case (Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789) was unconstitutional. Congress had tried to expand SCOTUS’s original jurisdiction cases to include writs of mandamus, but Marshall ruled that Congress cannot change the Constituion through a regular law.

Marbury v. Madison Decision

Unanimous 4-0 for Marbury

Marbury v. Madison Reasoning

The Court found that Madisons refusal to deliver the commission was illegal, but it didn’t order Madison to hand over Marbury’s commission via writ of mandamus because the Court held that the provision of the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional as it extended the powers given by the Constitution. Congress also did not have the power to modify the Constitution through regular legislation because of the Supremacy Clause. In this holding, Marshall estbalished judicial review.

Marbury v. Madison Petitioner

William Marbury, who sued James Madison, then Secretary of Sate, to compel the delivery of his judicial commission as a Justice of Peace, a commission signed by outgoing President John Adams but withheld by the new Jefferson administration.

Marbury v. Madison Respondent

James Madison, who failed to deliver commissions to Adam’s Judiciary Act of 1801, which created 16 new circuit and 42 justices of peace including Marbury.

McCulloch v. Maryland Year

1819

McCulloch v. Maryland Main Idea

Confirmed federal supremacy and implied powers (Necessary and Proper Clause)

McCulloch v. Maryland Petitioner

James McCulloch, the cashier of the bank

McCulloch v. Maryland Respondnent

State of Maryland

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 McCulloch 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.

McCulloch v. Maryland Issue

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

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

McCulloch v. Maryland Holding

1. Yes, Congress had the power to incorporate the bank.

2. Yes, Maryland could not tax instruments of the national government employed in the execution of constituional powers.

McCulloch v. Maryland Decision

Unanimous (6-0) for McCulloch

McCulloch v. Maryland Reasoning

Necessary and Proper Clause (Art 1. Sec 8), Congress possesed powers not explicably mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. Marshall claimed this covered all methods for furthering objectives covered by the enumerated powers. Marshall also held that while states retained the power of taxation, the Constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof are supreme and can not be controlled by the states.

Schenck v. United States Year

1919

Schenck v. United States Main Idea

Established limitations on free speech "(“clear and present danger”)

Schenck v. United States Petitioner

Schenck, the secretary of the Socialist Party

Schenck v. United States Respondent

United States

Schenck v. United States Facts

As the US entered WWI, the 1917 Sedation and Epionage Acts prevented publications that critized the government, that advocated treason or insurrection, or that incited disloyal behvaior in the military. A U.S. district court tried and convicted Charles Schenck when he printed 15,000 anti-draft leafets intended to dissuade people from complying with the draft, arguing it was involuntary servitude which is denied by the 13th Amendment. The government was concerned at the time about the Socialist party, German Americas, and those who questioned the draft.

Schenck v. United States Issue

Does the government’s prosecution and punishment for expressing opposition to the military draft during wartime violate the First Amendment’s free speech clause.

Schenck v. United States Holding

No

Schenck v. United States Decision

9-0 for the United States

Schenck v. United States Reasoning

Distinction drawn between speech that communicated honest opinion and speech that incited unlawful action and thereby represented a “clear and present” danger, the government’s right to convict citizens for certain speech was upheld. The context of an expression needs to be considered to determine its constitutionality. At other times and under other circumstances, the pamphlet might have been permitted. Still, during wartime and because of the immediate actions the pamphlet could have led to, the harm from the pamphlet overrode Schneck’s right to publish and distribute it.

Brown v. Board of Education Year

1954

Brown v. Board of Education Main idea

Ruled school segregation violated the Equal Protection Clause

Brown v. Board of Education Petitioner

Oliver Brown, parent of Linda Bornw, who was denied admission to school

Brown v. Board of Education Respondent

Board of Education of Topeka

Brown v. Board of Education Facts

This case was the consoldiation of cases in Kansas, South Carolina, Virgina, Delaware, and Washington D.C. relating to the segregation of public schools of the basis of race. In Ecah of these cases, 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. The plaintiffs were denied relief in the lower courts based on Plessy v. Ferguson, which held that racially segregated public faciliaties were legal so long as the facilities for blacks and whites were equal (known as the “seperate but equal” doctrine)

Brown v. Board of Education Issue

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

Brown v. Board of Education Holding

Yes, “seperate but equal” edcuational facilities were inherently unqueal and violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Brown v. Board of Education Decision

Unanimous (9-0) for Brown et. Al

Brown v. Board of Education Reasoning

Chief Justice Earl Warren delievered the opinoon of the unanimous Court. The Supreme Court held that “seperate but equal” facilities and inherently unequal and violate the protections of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The Court reasoned that the segreagation of public educated based on race instilled a sense of inferiority that had a hugely detrimental effect on the education and personal growth of African American children. Warren based much of his opinon on information from social science studies rather than court precedent. The decision also used language that was relatively accessible to non-lawyers becasue Warren felt it was necessary for all Americans to understand its logic.

Baker v. Carr Year

1962

Baker v. Carr Main idea

Established “one man, one vote” and alloed courts to hear redistrciting cases

Baker v. Carr Petitioner

Charles Baker, an eligible voter who lived in an urban area of SHelby County (Memphis)

Baker v. Carr Respondent

Joseph Carr, Tennesse’s Secreatary of State

Baker v. Carr Facts

Many people moved to cities in the 50s and 60s, but many states had no changed their district lines to reflect this, creating a significant number of legislative districts to be uneven. In the late 1950s, Tennesee was still using the boundaries determined by 1900 census, and even though state constituion required revising the lines every 10 year, state lawmakers refused to redraw the districts. Baker argued that he was being denied “equal protection of the laws” under the 14th Amendment because their votes were devalued. Tennesse argued the courts were unable to provide a solution for this issue becasue it was a “political issue” that the courts could not decide, and the District Court dismissed Baker’s complaint on the grounds that they lacked authority.

Baker v. Carr Issue

Do federal courts have the power to decide cases about the apportionment of population into state legislative districts?

Baker v. Carr Holding

Yes, the majority concluded that federal courts have the authority to enforce the requirment of equal protection of the law against state officials and state legislature.

Baker v. Carr Decision

6-2 for Baker

Baker v. Carr Reasoning

The majority concluded that there is no inherent reason why courts cannot determine whether state districts are intentionally draw in ways taht result in substantially differing populations. Even though politics may enter into the drawing of districts, the constituional guarantee of equal protection is judicially enforceable. A challenge to the differing populations of legislative districts does not present a “political question” that courts are unable to decide. The Court did not decide whether Tennessee districts actually were unconstituional, but instructed the district court to allow a hearing on the mertis of baker’s claim that the states legislative districts violated his 14th Amendment rights.

Engel v. Vitale Year

1962

Engel v. Vitale Main idea

Ruled school-sponsored prayer violated the Establishment Clause

Engel v. Vitale Petitioner

Stephen Engel, parent

Engel v. Vitale Respondent

William vitale, chairman of the local Hyde Park NY school board

Engel v. Vitale Facts

In the 1950s, New York tried to standardize prayer in its public schools by coming up with a common, nondemotional prayer that would satisfy most relgions. Each day, classes recited the Pledge of Allegance follwoed by this prayer that reachers were required to recite. Studentw ere allowed to stand mute or depart from the room during prayer. In 1959, the parents of 10 pupils filed suit against the local school baord because this official prayer was contrary to their beliefs. They argued the prayer created by a state actor and recited at a statefunded institution, where attendence was required by state law, violated the Establishment clause.

Engel v. Vitale Issue

Does allowing a state created, nondemotional prayer voluntarily recited in public schools violate the First Amendment’s establishment clause?

Engel v. Vitale Holding

Yes, the Court held that the respondents decision to use its school system to facilate recitation of the official prayer violated the Establishment Clause.

Engel v. Vitale Decision

6-1 for Engel

Engel v. Vitale Reasoning

The majority reasoned that since a public instituiton developed the prayer and since it was to be used in a public school setting with mandatory attendence, the board had made relgion its buissness, a violation of the establishment clause. Because of the 14th Amendment and its incorportation, states as well as the federal government are forbidden from officially, backing any relgious activity. They also noted that saying “God” was not nondemotional all not all relgions believed in God. They explained students would be reluctant to not particpate in a teacher led actitivy.

Gideon v. Wainwright Year

1963

Gideon v. Wainwright Main Idea

Guaranteed the right to counsel for the indigent (6th Amendment)

Gideon v. Wainwright Petitioner

Clarence Earl Gideon

Gideon v. Wainwright Respondent

Louie L. Wainwright, Director, Divion of COrrections

Gideon v. Wainwright Facts

Clarence Earl Gideon was charged in Florida state ocurt with felony breaking and entering. When he appeard in COurt wihtout a lawyer, Gideon requested that the court appointed one for him. According to Florida state law, however, an attorney may only be appinted to an indigent defendent in capital cases, so the trail court did not appiint one. Gideon represented himself in trail, and he was found guilty and sentenced to 5 years in prison. Gideon filed a habeas corpus petiion in the Florida Supreme Court, arguing that the trails courts decision violated his consittutional right to be represented by counsel. The Florida Supreme Court denied habeaas corpus relief.

Gideon v. Wainwright Issue

Does the Sixth Amendment right to counsel in criminal cases extend to felony defendants in state courts?

Gideon v. Wainwright Holding

Yes, the 6th Amendment’s guarantee of a right of assistance of counsel applies to criminal defendents in state court by way of the 14th Amendment.

Gideon v. Wainwright Decison

Unanimous (9-0) for Gideon

Gideon v. Wainwright Reasoning

In an unanimous opinon authored by Justice Hugo L. Black, the Court held that it was consistent with the Constituion to require state courts to appoint attorneys for defendents who could not afford to retain council on their own. The Court reasoned the the 6th Amendment’s guarantee of counsel is a fundamental and essential right made obligatory upon the State by the 14th Amendment. The 6th Amendment guarantees the accused the right to the aisstance of counsel in all criminal prosections and requires courts to provide counsel for defendants unable to hire counsel unless the right was competnlty and intelligently waived.

Tinker v. Des Moines Year

1969

Tinker v. Des Moines Main idea

Upheld studnt free speech (symbolic speech) in schools

Tinker v. Des Moines Petitioner

Mary Beth Tinker and John F Tinker

Tinker v. Des Moines Respondnent

Des Moines INdependent Community School District

Tinker v. Des Moines Facts

The Tinkers along with other developed a plan to wear black armbands and fast for 2 days to protest the U.S. inolvement in Vietnam. School administrators leanred of the organized protest and predicted it owuld be a distrction. When the protestores arrived at the school, they were instructured to remove them and the students refused. The school suspendednt he students until they were willing to return without wearing the abnds. The Tinkers and other sued on free speech grounds.

Tinker v. Des Moines Issue

Does a public school ban on students wearing armbands in symbolic, political portest violate a students 1st Amendment freedom of speech?

Tinker v. Des Moines Holding

Yes

Tinker v. Des Moines Decison

7-2 for Tinker

Tinker v. Des Moines Reasoning

The Court held that no disruption took place. The students right to political, symbolic speech based on the 1st Amendment overrode the school adminstrators’ concerns for political disorder. The suspension failed the content-nuetral criterian of time, place, manner test and was intendent to quiet the studnts’ anti-war message to avoid possible disruptions.

New York Times Co. v. United States Year

1971

New York Times Co. v. United States Main idea

Restricted prior restraint on the press (pentagon papers)

New York Times Co. v. United States Petitioner

New York Times Co

New York Times Co. v. United States Respondnet

United States

New York Times Co. v. United States Facts

Daniel Ellsberg, a high-level pentagon analyst, became disillusioned with the war in Vietnam and in June of 1971 handed photocpies of a 7,000 page top-secret document known as the Pentagon Papers to NYT and the Washington Post. The report told the backstory of America’s entry into the Vietnam conflict and revealed government deception. Presdient Nixon claimed the leak hampered the governments ability to manage the war, and his lawyers petitioned a U.S. district court to order the Times to refrain from printing in the name of national security. The lower court issued the injunction and armed guards arrived at the NYT office to enforce it.

New York Times Co. v. United States Issue

Can the executive branch block the printing of a reporter-obtained classified government infomration in an effort to protect national secrets without violating the First Amendments free press clause?

New York Times Co. v. United States Holding

No

New York Times Co. v. United States Decision

6-3 for New York Times

New York Times Co. v. United States Reasoning

In a rare instance, the Court did not fully explain its rulling with a typical majority opinion. Instead, it issued a percuram opinon, which is a judgement issued on behalf of an unanimous court or the courts majority without attirbution to a specific jsutice. it relied heavy on its reasoning in previous cases. National security does not justify censorship in advance and the government does not have the power of prior restraint of publications. The judge overruled the lower court’s injudction and prevented the executive branch from stopping the printing.

Wisconsin v. Yoder Year

1972

Wisconsin v. Yoder Main idea

Upheld free exercise of relgion over state compulsory education laws

Wisconsin v. Yoder Petitioner

State of Wisconsin

Wisconsin v. Yoder Respondnet

Yoder

Wisconsin v. Yoder Facts

Jonas Yoder and Wallace Miller, both members of the Old Order Amish religion, and Adn Yutzy, a member of the Conservative Amish Menunite Church, were prosecuted under a Wisconsin law that required all children to attend public school until age 16. The 3 paretns refused to send their children to schoolafter the eight grade, aruging high school attendence was contrary to thier reglious beliefs.

Wisconsin v. Yoder Issue

Did Wisconsin’s requirment that all parents send their children to school until age 16 violate the First Amendmetn by criminalizing the conduct of parents who refused to send thier children to school for relgious reasons?

Wisconsin v. Yoder Holding

Yes, The Court held that indivudal sinterest rights in the free exercise of reglion under the 1st Amendment outweighted the State’s interests in compelling school attendence beyond 8th grade.

Wisconsin v. Yoder Decision

7-0 for Yoder

Wisconsin v. Yoder Reasoning

In the majority opinon by Cheif Justice Burger, the COurt found taht the values and programs of secondary schools were “in sharp conflict with the fundamental mode of life mandated by Amish relgin” and that an additonal 1 or 2 years of high school would not provide the benefits of public educated cited by Wisconsin to justify the law.

Roe v. Wade Year

1973

Roe v. Wade Main idea

Established a right to privacy regarding abortion under the 14th Amendment

Roe v. Wade Petitoner

Jane Roe

Roe v. Wade Respondentb

Henry Wade

Roe v. Wade Facts

In 1970, Jane Roe (a fictional name used in court documents to protect the plaintiff’s indenity) filed a lawsuit against Henry Wade, the district attorney of Dallas County, Texas, where she resdiend, challenging a Texas law making abortion illegal except by a doctor’s orders to save a woman’s life. IN her lawsuit, Roe alleged that the stae laws were unconsitutional vague and abridged her right of personal privacy, protected by the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 14th Amendments.

Roe v. Wade Issue

Does the Constitution recognize a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy by abortion?

Roe v. Wade Holding

Yes, the Texas law challenge in this case violate the “right to privacy” inherent in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment that protects a pregnant woman’s choice wherhter to have an abortion.

Roe v. Wade Decicion

7-2 decision for Jane Roe

Roe v. Wade Reasoning

The Court first detemrined if the case still matters because this specific pregnancy had endent, but pregnacy is short, so cases about it might end before courts finish reviewing them, and the issue can keep happening again. The Court said the 14th Amendment protects a general right to privacy. That privacy includes a woman's deicison about wherther or not to have an bortion. The Court didn't say states have zero power, yet 2 interest, protecting the mothers health and protecting potential life(the fetus), those interests both get stronger later in pregnancy. So, they created the trimester system. In the first trimester, state cannot interfere and the decison is between the woman and her docotr. In the 2nd trimester, state can regulate abortion, but only to protect the mother's health. Third timester, stae can restrict or even ban abortion BUT must allow it if needed to save the mother's life or health.

Shaw v. Reno Year

1993