Suprene Court Cases

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

-Judicial Review, Federalism At the end of President John Adams’ term, his Secretary of State failed to deliver documents commissioning William Marbury as Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia. Once President Thomas Jefferson was sworn in, in order to keep members of the opposing political party from taking office, he told James Madison, his Secretary of State, to not deliver the documents to Marbury. Marbury then sued James Madison asking the Supreme Court to issue a writ requiring him to deliver the documents necessary to officially make Marbury Justice of the Peace. The Marbury v. Madison decision resulted in establishment of the concept of judicial review.

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

-State Taxes, National Supremacy

The U.S. government created the first national bank for the country in 1791, a time during which a national bank was

controversial due to competition, corruption, and the perception that the federal government was becoming too powerful.

Maryland attempted to close the Baltimore branch of the national bank by passing a law that forced all banks that were

created outside of the state to pay a yearly tax. James McCulloch, a branch employee, refused to pay the tax. The State of

Maryland sued McCulloch saying that Maryland had the power to tax any business in its state and that the Constitution does

not give Congress the power to create a national bank. McCulloch was convicted and fined, but he appealed the decision. The

Supreme Court determined that Congress has implied powers that allow it to create a national bank, even though the

Constitution does not explicitly state that power, and that Maryland’s taxing of its branches was unconstitutional.

Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)

-State Rights, Commerce Clause

In 1808, the government of New York granted a steamboat company a monopoly to operate its boats on the state's waters,

which included bodies of water that stretched between states. Aaron Ogden held a license under this monopoly to operate

steamboats between New Jersey and New York. Thomas Gibbons, another steamboat operator, competed with Aaron Ogden

on this same route but held a federal coasting license issued by an act of Congress. Ogden filed a complaint in New York

court to stop Gibbons from operating his boats, claiming that the monopoly granted by New York was legal even though he

operated on shared, interstate waters. Gibbons disagreed arguing that the U.S. Constitution gave Congress the sole power

over interstate commerce. After losing twice in New York courts, Gibbons appealed the case to the Supreme Court. The

Supreme Court determined that the commerce clause of the Constitution grants the federal government the power to

determine how interstate commerce is conducted.

Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)

-Slavery, Due Process, Equal Protection

In 1834, slave Dred Scott was purchased in Missouri and then brought to Illinois, a free (non-slave) state. They later moved

to present-day Minnesota where slavery had been recently prohibited, and then back to Missouri. When his owner died, Scott

sued the widow to whom he was left, claiming he was no longer a slave because he had become free after living in a free

state. At a time when the country was in deep conflict over slavery, the Supreme Court decided that Dred Scott was not a

“citizen of the state” so they had no jurisdiction in the matter, but the majority opinion also stated that he was not a free man.

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

-“Separate but Equal”, Equal Protection

In 1890, Louisiana passed a statute called the Separate Car Act declaring that all rail companies carrying passengers in

Louisiana must provide separate but equal accommodations for white and non-white passengers. The penalty for sitting in the

wrong compartment was a fine of $25 or 20 days in jail. A group of black citizens joined forces with the East Louisiana

Railroad Company to fight the Act. In 1892, Homer Plessy, who was one-eighth black, purchased a first-class ticket and sat

in the white-designated railroad car. Plessy was arrested for violating the Separate Car Act and argued in court that the Act

violated the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. After losing twice in the lower courts, Plessy took

his case to the U.S. Supreme Court, which upheld the previous decisions that racial segregation is constitutional under the

separate but equal doctrine.Schenck v United States (1919)

Schenck v United States (1919)

-Freedom of Speech

Defendant mailed fliers to draftees during WWI urging them to protest the craft peacefully. Was convicted of violating a

federal law against encouraging the disobedience of military orders. Oliver Wendel Holmes wrote in the opinion that such

speech was not protected during wartime because it would create a clear and present danger, establishing a standard for

measuring what would and would not be protected speech. The question before the Court was the line between the effect of

freedom of speech and national draft orders.

Gitlow v. New York (1925)

-Freedom of the Press

Gitlow was another socialist who encouraged social revolution through strikes and class actions. He was convicted under a

NY state criminal anarchy law, and he appealed to the US Supreme Court. Gitlow lost. The Supreme Court again used the

“dangerous tendency” test and determined that states may decide that certain speech is prohibited and not protected under the

1

st Amendment.

Korematsu v. United States (1944)

-Japanese Internment, Equal Protection

After Pearl Harbor was bombed in December 1941, the military feared a Japanese attack on the U.S. mainland and the

American government was worried that Americans of Japanese descent might aid the enemy. In 1942, President Franklin D.

Roosevelt signed an executive order forcing many West Coast Japanese and Japanese Americans into internment

camps. Fred Korematsu, a Japanese American, relocated and claimed to be Mexican-American to avoid being interned,

but was later arrested and convicted of violating an executive order. Korematsu challenged his conviction in the courts saying

that Congress, the President, and the military authorities did not have the power to issue the relocation orders and that he was

being discriminated against based on his race. The Court agreed with government and stated that the need to protect the

country was a greater priority than the individual rights of the Japanese and Japanese Americans.

Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

-School Segregation, Equal Protection

In Topeka, Kansas in the 1950s, schools were segregated by race. Each day, Linda Brown and her sister had to walk through

a dangerous railroad switchyard to get to the bus stop for the ride to their all-black elementary school. There was a school

closer to the Brown's house, but it was only for white students. Linda Brown and her family believed that the segregated

school system violated the Fourteenth Amendment and took their case to court. Federal district court decided that segregation

in public education was harmful to black children, but because all-black schools and all-white schools had similar buildings,

transportation, curricula, and teachers, the segregation was legal. The Browns appealed their case to Supreme Court stating

that even if the facilities were similar, segregated schools could never be equal to one another. The Court decided that state

laws requiring separate but equal schools violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Baker v. Carr (1961)

-Reapportionment, equal representation

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. The result of this case opened the door to equal protection challenges to

redistricting and the development of the “one person, one vote” doctrine by ruling that challenges to redistricting

did not raise “political questions” that would keep federal courts from reviewing such challenges.

Mapp v. Ohio (1961)

-Warrantless Search, Due Process

Suspicious that Dollree Mapp might be hiding a person suspected in a bombing, the police went to her home in Cleveland,

Ohio. They knocked on her door and demanded entrance, but Mapp refused to let them in because they did not have a

warrant. After observing her house for several hours, the police forced their way into Mapp's house, holding up a piece of

paper when Mapp demanded to see their search warrant. As a result of their search, the police found a trunk containing

pornographic materials. They arrested Mapp and charged her with violating an Ohio law against the possession of obscene

materials. At the trial the police officers did not show Mapp and her attorney the alleged search warrant or explain why they

refused to do so. Nevertheless, the court found Mapp guilty and sentenced her to jail. After losing an appeal to the Ohio

Supreme Court, Mapp took her case to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court determined that evidence obtained through a

search that violates the Fourth Amendment is inadmissible in state courts.

Engel v. Vitale (1962)

-Freedom of Religion

The case was brought by the families of public school students in New Hyde Park, New York who complained that the voluntary

prayer to "Almighty God" contradicted their religious beliefs. The prayer in question was: Almighty God, we acknowledge our

dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our country. Amen. The plaintiffs argued

that opening the school day with such a prayer violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States

Constitution. In an opinion delivered by Justice Hugo Black, the Court ruled that government-written prayers were not to be recited

in public schools and were an unconstitutional violation of the Establishment Clause.

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

-Right to Counsel, Due Process

In June 1961, a burglary occurred at the Bay Harbor Pool Room in Panama City, FL. Police arrested Clarence Earl Gideon

after he was found nearby with a pint of wine and some change in his pockets. Gideon, who could not afford a lawyer, asked

a Florida Circuit Court judge to appoint one for him arguing that the Sixth Amendment entitles everyone to a lawyer. The

judge denied his request and Gideon was left to represent himself. He did a poor job of defending himself and was found

guilty of breaking and entering and petty larceny. While serving his sentence in a Florida state prison, Gideon began studying

law, which reaffirmed his belief his rights were violated when the Florida Circuit Court refused his request for counsel. From

his prison cell, he handwrote a petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear his case and it agreed. The Court unanimously

ruled in Gideon’s favor, stating that the Sixth Amendment requires state courts to provide attorneys for criminal defendants

who cannot otherwise afford counsel.

New York Times v. Sullivan (1963)

-1st Amendment: Speech, Press & Assembly

The New York Times printed an ad alleging that the arrest of Martin Luther King, Jr. for perjury in Alabama was part of a

campaign to discredit King’s efforts to integrate public facilities and encourage blacks to vote. L.B. Sullivan, the

Montgomery, Alabama city commissioner, filed a libel action against the New York Times and won a $500,000 judgment.

The Supreme Court overturned that judgment and determined that the publication of statements, even false ones, about the

conduct of public officials is protected under the 1st amendment, except when made with actual malice.

Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964)

-Civil Rights Act, Commerce Clause & the 14th Amendment

Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbade racial discrimination by places of public accommodation if their operations

affected commerce. The Heart of Atlanta Motel in Atlanta, Georgia, refused to accept Black Americans and was charged with

violating Title II. The Court held that the Commerce Clause allowed Congress to regulate local incidents of commerce, and

that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was constitutional.

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

-Self-Incrimination, Due Process

Ernesto Miranda was arrested after a crime victim identified him, but police officers questioning him did not inform him of

his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, or of his Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of an attorney. While

he confessed to the crime, his attorney later argued that his confession should have been excluded from trial. The Supreme

Court agreed, deciding that the police had not taken proper steps to inform Miranda of his rights.

Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)

-Student Speech, Symbolic Speech

John and Mary Beth Tinker of Des Moines, Iowa, wore black armbands to their public school as a symbol of protest against

American involvement in the Vietnam War. When school authorities asked that the Tinkers remove their armbands, they

refused and were subsequently suspended. The Supreme Court decided that the Tinkers had the right to wear the armbands,

with Justice Abe Fortas stating that no one expects students to “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or

expression at the schoolhouse gate.”

New York Times v. United States (1971)

-1st Amendment: Speech, Press and Assembly

The Nixon Administration attempted to prevent the New York Times and Washington Post from publishing materials

belonging to a classified Defense Department study regarding the United States activities in Vietnam. The President argued

that prior restraint was necessary to protect National Security. The Court ruled that the government violated the First

Amendment’s protection of freedom of the press when it attempted to stop newspaper publication of classified about the Vietnam War

Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)

-Free Exercise of Religion

Jonas Yoder, Wallace Miller and Adin Yutzy, members of the Amish religion, were prosecuted under a Wisconsin law that

required all children to attend public schools until age 16. The three parents refused to send their children to school after

eighth grade, arguing that high school attendance was contrary to their religious beliefs. The court determined that

individual’s interest in the free exercise of religion under the 1st amendment protected the parents right to not compel their

children to go to school beyond the eighth grade.

Furman v. Georgia (1971)

-Death Penalty, 8th Amendment: Cruel and Unusual Punishment

Furman was burglarizing a home when he tripped and fell and his gun went off killing a resident of the home. He was

convicted of murder and sentenced to death. The court determined that the death penalty, in this case, constituted cruel and

unusual punishment. The case focused on the arbitrary nature of how the death penalty was being imposed often indicating a

racial bias against black defendants.

Roe v. Wade (1973)

-Abortion, Right to Privacy

Jane Roe was an unmarried and pregnant Texas resident in 1970. Texas law made it a felony to abort a fetus unless “on

medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother.” Roe filed suit against Wade, the district attorney of Dallas

County, contesting the statue on the grounds that it violated the guarantee of personal liberty and the right to privacy

implicitly guaranteed in the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. In deciding for Roe, the Supreme Court

invalidated any state laws that prohibited first trimester abortions.

United States v. Nixon (1973)

-Watergate, Checks and Balances

A congressional hearing about President Nixon’s Watergate break-in scandal revealed that he had installed a tape-recording

device in the Oval Office. The special prosecutor in charge of the case wanted access to these taped discussions to help prove

that President Nixon and his aides had abused their power and broken the law. President Nixon’s incomplete compliance with

the special prosecutor's demands was challenged and eventually taken to the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court

decided that executive privilege is not limitless, and the tapes were released.

Buckley v. Valeo (1975)

-First Amendment and Article 2, Section 2: Appointments Clause

In an attempt to limit corruption in political campaigns, Congress put a limit on campaign contributions and created the

Federal Election Commission to enforce the statute. The court came to two decisions, first, limits on individual monetary

contributions to political candidates is constitutional and does not violate freedom of speech and association because of the

government’s interest in preventing corruption. On the other hand, limits on the amount of money the candidates themselves

could spend were unconstitutional violations of First Amendment rights.

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978)

-Affirmative Action, Equal Protection

In the early 1970s, the medical school of the University of California at Davis devised a dual admissions program to increase

representation of disadvantaged minority students. Allan Bakke was a white male who applied to and was rejected from the

regular admissions program, while minority applicants with lower grade point averages and testing scores were admitted

under the specialty admissions program. Bakke filed suit, alleging that this admissions system violated the Equal Protection

Clause and excluded him on the basis of race. The Supreme Court found for Bakke against the rigid use of racial quotas, but

also established that race was a permissible criteria among several others.

New Jersey v. TLO (1985)

-Student Search and Seizure

A New Jersey high school student was accused of violating school rules by smoking in the bathroom, leading an assistant

principal to search her purse for cigarettes. The vice principal discovered marijuana and other items that implicated the

student in dealing marijuana. The student tried to have the evidence from her purse suppressed, contending that mere

possession of cigarettes was not a violation of school rules; therefore, a desire for evidence of smoking in the restroom did

not justify the search. The Supreme Court decided that the search did not violate the Constitution and established more

lenient standards for reasonableness in school searches.

Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988)

-Censorship, Student Press Rights

Hazelwood East High School Principal Robert Reynolds procedurally reviewed the Spectrum, the school’s student-written

newspaper, before publication. In May 1983, he decided to have certain pages pulled because of the sensitive content in two

of the articles, and acted quickly to remove them in order to meet the paper’s publication deadline. The journalism students

felt that this censorship was a direct violation of their First Amendment rights. The Supreme Court decided that Principal

Reynolds had the right to such editorial decisions, as he had “legitimate pedagogical concerns.”

Texas v. Johnson (1989)

-Flag Burning, Freedom of Speech

In a political demonstration during the Republican National Convention in Texas, protesting the policies of the Reagan

Administration and of certain corporations based in Dallas, Gregory Lee Johnson doused an American flag with kerosene and

set it on fire. No one was hurt or threatened with injury, but some witnesses said they were seriously offended, and Johnson

was charged and convicted with the desecration of a venerated object, in violation of the Texas Penal Code. In a split

decision, the Supreme Court determined that Johnson’s actions were symbolic speech protected by his First Amendment

Rights.

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992)

-Abortion, Right to Privacy

The Pennsylvania legislature amended its abortion control law in 1988 and 1989. The new provisions included informed

consent, a 24 hour waiting period prior to the procedure and parental consent. A married woman seeking an abortion had to

indicate that she notified her husband of her intention to abort the fetus. These provisions were challenged by several abortion

clinics and physicians. A federal appeals court upheld all the provisions except for the husband notification requirement. In a

5-4 decision, the Court reaffirmed Roe but it upheld most of the Pennsylvania provisions. This decision established the new

standard of “undue burden.”

Shaw v. Reno (1993)

-Reapportionment, Majority Minority Districts

Majority minority districts, created under the Voting Rights Act of 1965, may be constitutionally challenged by voters if race

is the only factor used in creating the district

U.S. v. Lopez (1994)

-2nd Amendment, Right to Carry Gun Laws, Commerce Clause

Alfonzo Lopez, a 12th grade student, carried a concealed weapon to his high school. He was charged with illegal firearm

possession under Texas law. The next day federal agents charged Lopez with violating a federal criminal statute, the Gun-

Free School Zones Act of 1990. The Supreme Court ruled that Congress did not have the authority to create gun-free school

zones under the Commerce Clause.

Bush v. Gore (2000)

-Elections, Equal Protection

The case proved to be the climax of the contentious presidential race between Vice President Al Gore and Texas Governor

George W. Bush. The outcome of the election hinged on Florida, where Governor Bush led Vice President Gore by about

1,800 votes the morning after Election Day. A divided Supreme Court ruled that the state of Florida's court-ordered manual

recount of vote ballots in the 2000 presidential election was unconstitutional because it granted more protection to some

ballots than to others, violating the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.

Bouediene v. Bush (2008)

-Writ of habeas corpus

Individuals classified as enemy combatants in custody at Guantanamo Bay requested the court to determine whether they

have a right to file a writ of habeas corpus, which is a constitutional privilege not revoked except if the “Suspension Clause”

is in effect. In a 5-4 decision the court determined found that the prisoners had a right to the habeas corpus under the United

States Constitution and that the Military Commissions Act of 2006 was an unconstitutional suspension of that right.

District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)

-2nd Amendment, Gun Control

The District of Columbia placed a ban on handguns, and prohibited them from being in the home unless they were disabled.

Respondent Heller brought an action claiming that this complete ban violates the Second Amendment right to keep and bear

arms. In a 5-4 decision the court stated that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual’s

right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. It was the first Supreme

Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

McDonald v Chicago (2010)

-2nd Amendment, Gun Control, Incorporation

Several suits were filed against Chicago and Oak Park in Illinois challenging their gun bans after the Supreme Court issued

its opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller. Plaintiffs argued that the Second Amendment should also apply to the states.

The court ruled that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for self-defense is applicable to the states.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010)

-Campaign Finance

The Court struck down parts of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which put limits on corporate funding for campaigns

from corporations and labor unions. The Court held that free speech was essential in a free society, and that speech was not

less protected because the speaker was a corporation, labor union, or other organization. The Court upheld disclosure

requirements for political advertising sponsors, and also kept in place a ban on direct contributions to candidates from

corporations and unions.

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores (2014)

-Religious Freedom, 1st Amendment

Does the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 allow a for-profit company to deny its employees’ health coverage of

contraception to which the employees would otherwise be entitled based on the religious objections of the company's

owners? In a 5-4 decision the court ruled yes. The majority opinion contended the RFRA applies to corporations since they

are composed of individuals. Because the contraception requirement forces religious corporations to fund what goes against

their state religious principles, it creates a substantial burden.

Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)

-Same Sex Marriage, 14th Amendment

The Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees the right to marry as one of the

fundamental liberties it protects, and that analysis applies to same-sex couples in the same manner as it does to opposite-sex

couples. Judicial precedent has held that the right to marry is a fundamental liberty because it is inherent to the concept of

individual autonomy, it protects the most intimate association between two people, it safeguards children and families by

according legal recognition to building a home and raising children, and it has historically been recognized as the keystone of

social order. Because there are no differences between a same-sex union and an opposite-sex union with respect to these

principles, the exclusion of same-sex couples from the right to marry violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth

Amendment. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment also guarantees the rights of same-sex couples.