Supreme Court Cases Quiz

Plessy v Ferguson (1896)

14th amendment: equal protection clause

holding —> Ferguson wins, “separate but equal” doctrine did not violate the equal protection clause, upholding state-imposed racial segregation.

reasoning —> separate treatment did not imply inferiority of African Americans; segregation did not in itself constitute unlawful discrimination.

impact —> fueled the growth of Jim Crow laws in the south, overturned in Brown v Board of Education (1954)

Shenck v US (1919)

1st amendment: freedom of speech

holding —> US wins, espionage act did not violate the 1st amendment’s freedom of speech

reasoning —> “clear and present danger test”/shouting fire danger, speech can be restricted in circumstances when it poses a clear and present danger, like Shenck’s anti-war leaflets.

Gitlow v New York (1925)

1st amendment: freedom of speech, 14th amendment: due process clause

holding/reasoning → While NY wins, the due process clause does apply the bill of rights to the states in this case (gitlow still convicted under the NY anarchy law under “clear and present danger” test).

impact —> begins selective incorporation of the bill of rights on a case-by-case basis.

Brown v Board of Education (1954)

14th amendment: equal protection clause

holding —> Brown wins, the “separate but equal” doctrine from Plessy v Ferguson was unconstitutional.

reasoning —> the doctrine was inherently unequal and violated the 14th amendment’s equal protection clause. Segregation of public education, for example, instilled a sense of inferiority and harmed African American children.

impact —> big win for civil rights, overturning precedent.

Mapp v Ohio (1961)

4th amendment: protection against unreasonable search

holding —> Mapp wins, obscene material found illegally can not be used against you in court.

reasoning —> establishes the “exclusionary rule” for seizures, where the courts determine if the evidence would have been found regardless of the illegal search, application of the 4th amendment.

Engel v Vitale (1962)

1st amendment: establishment clause

holding —> Engel wins, states cannot hold prayers in public schools, even if they are voluntary and not tied to a particular religion.

reasoning —> breached the constitutional wall between church and state, the state is financing a religious exercise which violates the constitution.

Sherbert v Verner (1963)

1st amendment: free exercise clause, 14th amendment: due process clause

holding —> sherbert wins, prohibits the government from setting unemployment benefit eligibility requirements such that a person cannot observe key religious principles.

reasoning —> Shebert did not have free exercise of her religion on the day of Sabbath because she was fired and deemed ineligible for unemployment benefits after she had to miss work. Created the “sherbert test” which stated that a state must have compelling interest to justify a substantial burden of 1st amendment rights.

Gideon v Wainwright (1963)

6th amendment: right to counsel in criminal cases, 14th amendment: due process clause

holding —> gideon wins, the right to counsel for felony defendants in state courts is applied under the 14th amendment.

reasoning —> selective incorporation, 6th amendment’s right to counsel is a fundamental right that applies to the states.

Heart of Atlanta Motel v US (1964)

Article 1: Commerce Clause

Holding —> US wins, anti-discrimination provisions in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 apply to hotels that host out-of-state travelers.

Reasoning —> Since the hotel was between two large highways and affected interstate commerce, Congress was justified in exercising the commerce clause for Title II of the Civil Rights Act, and the hotel could not discriminate against African Americans.

New York Times Co. v Sullivan (1964)

1st amendment: freedom of speech & freedom of press

holding —> NYT co wins, public officials must prove the publisher had “actual malice” to win a libel suit.

reasoning —> “actual malice” test to determine if the libel was intentional.

Griswold v Connecticut (1965)

constitutional right to marital privacy (contraceptives)

holding —> griswold wins, a right to privacy can be inferred from many parts of the Bill of Rights

reasoning —> the 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 9th amendments create penumbras that establish a right to privacy, including use of contraceptives at home.

impact —> precedent for the right to privacy, used in decisions involving abortion, sodomy, and same-sex marriage.

Miranda v Arizona (1966)

5th amendment: protection against self-incrimination

holding —> miranda wins, police must advise suspects of their right to remain silent and to obtain an attorney during custodial interrogations.

reasoning —> the 5th amendment provides protection from self-incrimination (including if the suspect didn’t know they had a right to remain silent). Thus, police must tell suspects of their rights during interrogation, which they can waive. Evidence obtained in interrogations where suspects were not told their rights is unconstitutional.

Loving v Virginia (1967)

14th amendment: equal protection clause

holding —> Loving wins, Virginia’s antimiscegentation law was unconstitutional.

reasoning —> Virginia did not have compelling state interest to warrant such a statute that prevented interracial marrage.

Terry v Ohio (1968)

4th amendment: protection against unreasonable search

holding —> Ohio wins, the search was reasonable in this situation.

reasoning —> looking at the facts of the case, the police officer had more than a hunch to search Terry because he was acting suspicious. The searches were limited in scope and designed to protect the officer’s safety.

impact —> determining unreasonable search on a case-by-case basis.

Brandenburg v Ohio (1969)

1st amendment: freedom of speech, 14th amendment: due process clause

holding —> brandenburg wins, Ohio law violated Brandenburg’s right to free speech.

reasoning —> 2 pronged test: speech can be prohibited when 1) directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action, 2) likely to incite or produce such action. the KKK member’s actions were not deemed to incite violent action.

impact —> 2 pronged brandenburg test to be used in free speech cases.

Tinker v Des Moines (1969)

1st amendment: freedom of speech at school

holding —> Tinker wins, peaceful protest of wearing black armbands could not be suppressed by the school.

reasoning —> in order to justify the suppression of speech, school’s must prove the conduct in question would substantially burden the school’s mission and operation. student’s free speech rights are not significantly diminished when they enter school.

impact —> foundation for student speech cases, “substantial burden” standard.

Lemon v Kurtzman (1971)

1st amendment: establishment clause

holding —> lemon wins, Pennsylvania and RI statutes are unconstitutional.

reasoning —> 3 pronged “lemon test”: statutes are only allowed if 1) they have a secular legislative purpose, 2) it’s primary effect does not promote or prohibit a religion, 3) it must not foster “excessive entanglement with religion”. In this case, the 3rd rule is broken.

impact —> lemon test used as a precedent in establishment clause cases for schools.

New York Times Co. v US (1971)

1st amendment: freedom of press, prior restraint

holding —> NYT co wins, the nixon administration did not have reason to prevent the release of the pentagon papers.

reasoning —> prior restraint is presumptively unconstitutional. the release of the publication from NYT co would not cause an inevitable, direct, and immediate event imperiling the safety of American forces.

Wisconsin v Yoder (1972)

1st amendment: free exercise clause

holding —> yoder wins, individual’s interest in the free exercise of Amish religion under the 1st amendment outweighed state interests.

reasoning —> states cannot force families to follow compulsory schooling past 8th grade if it substantially burdens religious practice without sufficient justification. (Amish religion in this case).

impact —> precedent for school’s prohibiting religious practice and forcing schooling.

Roe v Wade (1973)

14th amendment: due process clause (right to privacy)
holding —> roe wins, abortion decisions are up to the women for the 1st trimester.

reasoning —> inherent in the due process clause of the 14th amendment is a fundamental right to privacy, which protects the right to abortion. state statutes preventing abortion are unconstitutional.

impact —> court enforcing a new policy on all the states, forcing them to do something. precedent for 50 years involving right to abortion.

Regents of the University of California v Bakke (1978)

14th amendment: equal protection clause, Civil Rights Act of 1964

holding —> bakke wins

reasoning —> specific quotas involved with affirmative action treat people as members of groups instead of individuals, which violates the 14th amendment’s equal protection clause. however, universities can still consider race as a factor, as long as it is done to create a diverse student body

impact —> 50 years of precedent, recently overturned.

New Jersey v TLO (1985)

4th amendment: protection against unreasonable search, exclusionary rule

holding —> NY wins, the warrant to search TLO at school for marijuana was reasonable.

reasoning —> while the 4th amendment applies to public school officials, their exclusionary rules are more lenient and can do more warrantless searches than the police.

Hazelwood Schools v Kuhlmeier (1988)

1st amendment: freedom of speech in schools

holding —> Hazelwood schools wins, schools have the right to refuse to sponsor speech in certain circumstances.

reasoning —> educators can control the content of student speech so long as there is “legitimate pedagogical concerns”. The actions of the official met this test.

impacts —> limits the broad speech protected in schools in Tinker v. Des Moines.

Texas v Johnson (1989)

1st amendment: freedom of speech (symbolic speech)

holding —> burning of the flag was protected under the 1st amendment.

reasoning —> The fact that an audience takes offense of certain ideas or expression, that does not justify prohibitions on speech, which is the bedrock principle of the 1st amendment.

Employment Division of Oregon v Smith (1990)

1st amendment: free exercise clause

holding —> employment division wins, states can deny unemployment benefits to a worker fired for using illegal drugs for religious purposes.

reasoning —> an individuals religious beliefs do not excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law. allowing smith to win would open constitutionally required exemptions from civic obligations like military service, payment of taxes, and child-neglect laws.

Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v Hialeah (1993)

1st amendment: free exercise clause

holding —> church of lukumi wins, the city of Hialeah cannot pass ordinances that prohibiting the practices of the church.

reasoning —> under the strict scrutiny test, the ordinance was neither neutral nor generally applicable, and was specifically targeted at the church.

Morse v Frederick (2007)

1st amendment: freedom of speech

holding —> morse wins, the school has a right to censor speech that promotes illegal activities that interfere with the schools message.

reasoning —> since the school’s message was to not promote drug use, student’s freedom of speech did not apply when it came to promoting drug use. This was a specific exemption from the precedent set in Tinker v. Des Moines which set a high bar for restricting student speech.

Citizens United v Federal Election Commission (2010)

1st amendment: freedom of speech (political speech)

holding —> citizens united wins, government can’t ban independent political expenditures by corporations/unions; spending is protected political speech.

reasoning —> Hillary: The Movie proves the electorate with information, and the government cannot censor political speech.

impact —> overturned McConnell v FEC, allows for super PACs and dark money.

McDonald v Chicago (2010)

2nd amendment: right to bear arms, 14th amendment: privileges and immunities clause, due process clause

holding —> McDonald wins, individuals are allowed to own a handgun for self defense in the home.

reasoning —> following its ruling in Heller v DC, the 2nd amendment and the right to guns for self defense can be applied to the states. the right is deep-rooted in american tradition and fundamental to the nation’s liberty.

Obergefell v Hodges (2015)

14th amendment: equal protection clause & due process clause

holding —> Obergefell wins, states must give a marriage license to same-sex couples, and recognize same-sex marriages in other states.

reasoning —> the due process clause guarauntees the right to marry as a fundamental liberty, because it is important to individual autonomy and expression. this is also backed by the equal protection clause.

NY State Rifle Association v Bruen (2022)

2nd amendment: right to bear arms, 14th amendment

holding —> NY State Rifle Association wins, people have the right to purchase a gun for self defense without reason.

reasoning —> New York’s proper clause violates the 14th amendment, no other constitutional right has a “special need” to exercise it. Gun rights are deeply rooted in American history. Gun restrictions are only constitutional only if there is a tradition of such regulation in American history.

Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health (2022)

14th amendment: due process clause (right to privacy)

holding —> Dobbs wins, the constitution does not confer a right to abortion.

reasoning —> The right to abortion is not deeply rooted in history, Roe should be overturned because it "short circuited the democratic process” and lacked constitutional grounding.

impact —> overturned Roe v Wade.

Kennedy v Bremerton Schools (2022)

1st amendment: establishment clause & free exercise clause

holding —> Kennedy wins, the coach is able to engage in prayer with students after football games.

reasoning —> the school district tried to restrict his actions because of his religious character, violating the free exercise clause. Also, since the prayer offered after the games and not during his duties as coach, it cannot be considered a violation of the establishment clause. The new test is to determine the “historical practices and understandings” of certain situations.

impact —> replaces the Lemon test.

Marbury v Madison (1803)

Article III: separation of powers

holding —> the judiciary act of 1789 was unconstitutional, extending the jurisdiction of the court beyond what was held in the constitution.

reasoning —> while Madison’s refusal to deliver the commission to Marbury illegal, it was outside of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court according to the constitution in Article III section 2.

impact —> established the power judicial review.

McCulloch v Maryland (1819)

Article I: necessary and proper clause, Article VI: Supremacy clause

holding —> McCulloch wins, congress has the power to create a national bank and Maryland cannot tax instruments of the national government in the execution of constitutional powers.

reasoning —> the necessary and proper clause means “appropriate and legitimate” ways to further objectives covered by their enumerated powers. While states maintain the power of taxation, the constitution and laws are supreme and can’t be controlled by the states.

Baker v Carr (1962)

14th amendment: equal protection clause

holding —> baker wins, the supreme court has jurisdiction over redistricting and legislative apportionment.

reasoning —> reapportionment is not a political question, and the courts must step in to apply the 14th amendment’s equal protection clause. Baker wins, Tennessee must follow orders to reapportion.

impact —> “one person, one vote” groundwork, ending rural overrepresentation.

Shaw v Reno (1993)

14th amendment: equal protection

holding —> racial gerrymandering is unconstitutional, and was up to interpretation of the district court.

reasoning —> the bizarre shape of the NC districts was enough to suggest that they were designed based on race. this was an equal protection challenge that the courts can rule on.

US v Lopez (1995)

Article I: Commerce Clause, 10th amendment (federalism)

holding —> Lopez wins, the 1990 Gun Free School Zones Act was unconstitutional.

reasoning —> possession of a gun in a local school zone is not economic activity that would have an effect on interstate commerce, therefore the congress cannot justify the gun free school zones act under the commerce clause.