Supreme Court Cases

Marbury v. Madison

Marbury v. Madison

Marbury sued President Madison for a Writ of Mandamus that would allow him to collect his paycheck. The Supreme Court WAS allowed to do this under Section 13 of the Judicial Act of 1789. However, the court found that this power was against the Constitution, and they struck down Section 13. This established the power of judicial review.

McCulloch v. Maryland

The US Government set up a federal bank in Maryland, and they refused to pay taxes. Maryland sued the teller at the bank, claiming that the government had no right to establish a bank at all. The Court ruled against Maryland, stating that the bank could be established under the Necessary and Proper Clause, as it was an appropriate measure taken to carry out enumerated powers. This ruling expanded the power of the Federal government and legitimized the Necessary and Proper clause.

United States v. Lopez

Lopez carried a firearm onto a Texas high school campus, and was arrested and charged under Texas law. The state then dropped their charges when the federal government charge and convicted Lopez under the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. This act was initiated by the Commerce Clause. The Court ruled that Lopez’s conviction under this act was unconstitutional, as the Act was in no way necessary and proper under the Commerce Clause.

Engle v. Vitale

A public school in New York began reciting a prayer at the beginning of the school day. Students could opt out if they wished, and the prayer was nondenominational. However, the Court decided in favor of the group suing the schools, citing that the prayer was equal to the government promoting a religion, which was illegal under the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment.

Wisconsin v. Yoder

A group of Amish parents sued Wisconsin under the claim that their compulsory education law violated their 1st Amendment Free Exercise rights. The parents wanted to pull their children out of school after 8th grade, so as to protect them from values/norms that were against their religion. The Court ruled in their favor, stating that the Free Exercise rights of the families outweighed the state’s interest in education.

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District

A group of students planned to protest the Vietnam war by wearing black armbands to school and fasting. School admin then prematurely established rules against black armbands in school. Several students were suspended due to their refusal to comply with this rule. These students sued the school. The Court decided in their favor, stating that as long as the symbolic speech didn’t encroach on others’ rights, it was protected. Students do not shed their rights at the schoolhouse gate.

New York Times Company v. United States

The New York Times received copies of “The Pentagon Papers” and began the process to publish them. President Nixon attempted to stop the publication (Prior Restraint) on the grounds that it affected national security. The Court ruled that it did not, and the papers were allowed to be published. This case established a “heavy presumption against prior restraint,” even in cases of national security.

Schenck v. United States

After being arrested for violating the Espionage Act of 1917 for distributing leaflets condemning the draft and encouraging people to dodge the draft and take nonviolent action against it, two socialists appealed their sentence. They argued that the conviction, and the Espionage Act itself, violated their 1st Amendment right to speech. The court ruled against them, stating that speech could be limited if it presented a “clear and present danger,” and the Espionage Act was an appropriate measure to be taken during wartime.

Gideon v. Wainwright

A petty criminal was arrested in Florida and brought to court. When he requested a lawyer, the request was denied. He was then convicted of the breaking and entering charges. The Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to deny a person representation in court. This case used the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment to incorporate the 6th Amendment to the states.

McDonald v. Chicago

Following the DC v. Heller case, multiple lawsuits were brought against Chicago and Oak Park for their strict gun laws. The Court ruled that the laws violated the 2nd Amendment rights of citizens. This case applied the 2nd Amendment to the states through the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. It also supported the results of the DC v. Heller case.

Brown v. Board of Education, I

The Brown case was a combination of several cases, all arguing that the segregation of schools under the “separate but equal” precedent established in Plessy v. Ferguson was unconstitutional. The Court ruled that the “separate but equal” doctrine was unconstitutional, as it violated the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. This overturned the previous precedent, and set into motion the Civil Right Movement.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

Citizens United was attempting to shoot a movie that dealt with Hillary Clinton, and included the opinions of people as to whether she would be a good President or not. They argued that restrictions against using money from their general treasury to fund the movie, and requirements that they disclose to donors what the message of their film was, and add a disclaimer at the beginning stating that the political candidate had not endorsed their message were unconstitutional. These provisions were all part of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. The Court agreed with Citizen United, citing Freedom of Speech in the 1st Amendment. This established money as speech.

Baker v. Carr

Tennessee’s voting districts had not been redrawn in several years, causing some citizen’s votes to have a higher weight than others, due to the development that had taken place since the last redrawing. The plaintiff argued that this was unconstitutional, and the Court agreed that it had violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. This established the “one man, one vote” principle, as well as established redistricting questions as “justiciable,” meaning that the court could now rule on them.

Shaw v. Reno

North Carolina was required to have two majority African American voting districts. In order to fulfil this requirement, two highly unusual districts were drawn. Several citizens sued North Carolina, claiming that the districts were unconstitutional. The Court agreed, stating that they violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. This case outlawed racial gerrymandering. Furthermore, they stated that any district that used race as a defining factor would be held under strict scrutiny.