scotus cases for gov

Marbury v Madisom

Facts -

just judicial review

McCulloch v. Maryland***

Facts - In 1816, the second federal bank was created to help with the nations finances with branches of the bank in certain states and the states did not like that. So, Maryland put a tax on the bank and the chief administrative officer, James McCulloch refused to pay it. He sued Maryland and so it went to SCOTUS

Constitution - Necessary and Proper Clause and the Supremacy Clause

Decision - Unanimous in favor of McCulloch, held that Congress did have the power to create a federal bank under the N+P Clause and the state could not tax it because of the Supremacy Clause

Impact - Epanded the federal govs power under the N+P Clause

One thing to remember - Expansion of federal power

Shaw v. Reno***

Facts - North Carolina had to submit their 1990 redistricting plan to the judicial department because of a provision in the Voting Rights act of 1965 (majority-minority districts) When they did this, the department said that NC could get another majority-minority black district, so NC racially gerrymandered District 12 to have a majority of black voters in it. It looked like a snake, okay. Other NC residents sued and said with a district with a shape like that, there was only one purpose of it, which was to give black voters more power. They argued that their 14th Amendment Equal Protection rights were violated.

Constitution - 14th Amendment’s EPC

Decision - 5-4 in favor of Shaw, held that only drawing districts based on race was unconstitutional because after all we do have a “colorblind constitution” and that the EPC was violated by this district

Impact - Est that redrawing district lines can not be solely based on race, it can be a factor, but not the ONLY ONE

One thing to remember - racial gerrymandering is unconstitutional

Baker v. Carr***

Facts - Tennessee had not redrawn it’s congressional district lines since the 1900 census and it was now 1960. Since then, the urban population grew a lot faster than the rural population, so the districts with more urban areas were unequal in voting to the more rural districts. Charles Baker, who lived in an urban area, sued the state for violating the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause because his vote was not equal to other districts. BUT, court said this kind of redistricting case was not justiciable, meaning it was more of a “political question,” so Baker appealled and SCOTUS

Constitution - 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and Article III

Decision - 6-2 in favor of Baker, held that federal courts could hear these types of cases and be addressed under the 14th Amendment’s EPC because there is nowhere that says the court can’t. Also forced state courts to hear Baker’s case again.

Impact - Est. “one person, one vote” and the standards for redistricting means that districts should be roughly equal in population, also shifts SCOTUS and its approach to more “political questions”

One thing to remember - “one person, one vote”

Tinker v. Des Moines***

Facts - Mary Bell Tinker and other classmates planned to wear black armbands with a peace sign on them to school to protest the Vietnam War. But, see the war at this time was NOT a neutral subject so the school heard about this plan and made a policy that said wearing black armbands would get you suspended or expelled. But, the Tinkers did it anyway and they got suspended. The parents sued, and argued that their 1st Amendment rights to free speech were violated, the school and the school argued that the armbands disrupted the learning environment. The two lower courts sided with the school so yk the parents went to SCOTUS

Constitution - 1st Amendment’s right to free speech

Decision - 7-2 in favor of Tinker, held that the armbands count as symbolic speech and so the school can’t regulate it, but they said schools could limit speech like this but ONLY if it would cause substantial disruption (why we have a dress code)

Impact - Est Symbolic Speech as a form of speech, and that students do not shed their constitutional rights when they walk into school

One thing to remember - Symbolic Speech - aka speech doesn’t have to be verbal

Wisconsin v. Yoder

Facts - Frieda Yoder and some of her classmates were pulled out of school after 8th grade because they were a part of the Amish community and their parents wanted them to learn the tasks they would have to do for the rest of their life to work rather than stay in school. BUT, Wisconsin had an education law that said children had to stay in school until they were at least 16 years old. So the parents broke the law but refused to pay the fine that the state required. The parents argued under the 1st Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause that they could pull their kids out of school, but the state said they had a “compelling interest”, enough to sue them. The state sued and lower court sided with Wisco and state court sided with Yoder, so off to SCOTUS they went

Constitution - 1st Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause and 14th A to incorporate it to the states

Decision - Unanimous in favor of Yoder, held that the Free Exercise Clause and makes the Wisco law unconstitutional, and prevents Wisco from infringing on the students’ rights because (maj op.) said the interest was NOT absolute

Impact - Reinforces Free Exercise Clause and sets precedent for future cases involving the FEC and state interest

One thing to remember - Free Exercise Clause

Gideon v. Wainwright***

Facts - Clarence Earl Gideon was arrested and charged for breaking and entering into Bay Harbor Pool Room. He was too poor to afford an attorney for himself so he represented himself in court and that didn’t go very well. At the time, Florida law said attorneys could only be provided if it was a capital charge (death penalty). He was found guilty. So, Gideon appealed, arguing that his sixth amendment rights were denied. State argued that because it was a state crime and not a capital punishment the law didn't apply to him. And off to SCOTUS

Constitution - 6th Amendment’s right to counsel and the 14th Amendment apply BoR to states

Decision - Unanimous in favor of Gideon, held that the 6th amendment did apply to the state laws/crimes through the 14th amendment because, the legal system is too complicated for a “normal” person to navigate it, having a right to counsel ensures a fair trial which is a fundamental right.

Impact - 6th amendment applied to the states (Selective Incorporation) and set precedent for other cases involving the 6th amendment

One thing to remember - 6th Amendment applied to states (selective Incorporation)

New York Times v. United States

Facts - Daniel Ellsberg leaked what are now known as the “pentagon papers” from the Nixon administration and gave the papers to the NYT and Washington Post, and newspapers do what they normally do, and published them. The Nixon administration did not like this, so he tried to use prior restraint to stop the newspapers from publishing the papers arguing that it was a threat to national security. The NYT argued that their 1st Amendment freedom of the press rights were being denied so they sued and appealed to SCOTUS

Constitution - 1st Amendment’s Freedom of the Press

Decision - 6-3 in favor of NYT, held that Nixon’s use of prior restraint was unconstitutional because there was no real threat to the country from publishing the papers, “high bar” for prior restraint to be used.

Impact - Freedom of the Press expanded and is mostly absolute

One thing to remember - Freedom of the Press

Engel v. Vitale***

Facts - New York state regents wrote a non-denominational prayer for students in public school to say after the pledge. A teacher would lead it or pick a student to lead. This prayer was optional, but a parent, Stephen Engel, sued the school board and appealed all the way to SCOTUS arguing that it violated the 1st Amendment’s Establishment Clause.

Constitution - 1st Amendment’s Establishment Clause and the 14th Amendment applying the BoR to the states.

Decision - 6-1 in favor of Engel, held that the school prayer did violate the Est Clause, even if it was non-denominational because the school was endorsing any religion and it could coerce students into participating even if they don’t want to (FOMO).

Impact - Wall of Separation between church and state, reinforces the Est Clause, and applies Est Clause to the states

One thing to remember - School prayer violates Est Clause of the 1st Amendment

Schenck v. United States

Facts - Charles Schenck was a member of the socialist party, and he disaproved of the military draft of WW1. So, he wrote a pamphlet about how the draft is “involuntary servitude” and encouraged young men to resist the draft and sent it out. But, before that, Congress had passed the Espionage Act which criminalized actions that messed with the war effort. So Schenck was arrested under the espionage act. He then argued and appealed to SCOTUS that his 1st amendment free speech rights were being denied.

Constitution - 1st Amendment Freedom of Speech

Decision - Unanimous in favor of the US, held that the Espionage Act did not violate his 1st A rights because it created a “clear and present danger” to the country. Also said that free speech is not absolute and that the gov can limit it.

Impact - est the “clear and present danger test” to see if speech can be silenced, also set standard for silencing speech in times of war

One thing to remember - “clear and present danger” test to silence speech

United States v. Lopez (1995)

Facts - A Texas high school senior, Alfsono Lopez, brought a gun to his school and was arrested bc duh don’t bring a gun to school and state law prohibited it. But, the state charges were eventually dropped bc he was now facing federal charges. federal charges bc Congress had passed the Gun Free School Zones Act under the Commerce Clause. Lopez argued that Congress didn’t have the power to pass the GFSZA in the first place. Scotus then, Congress had weak arguments that gun violence affected commerce

Constitution - Commerce Clause, A1, S8

Decision - 5-4 in favor of Lopez, held that Congress did not have the authority to pass the GFSZA and that it was unconstitutional. A gun is also not classified as “commerce”, because if it was, then what isn’t classified as commerce? - that would lead Congress to have unlimited power and we don't want that

Impact - Balancing power from federal and state (federalism), tipped power to the states to make gun laws

One thing to remember - not about guns, its about Commerce and Congress’s power

McDonald v. Chicago***

Facts - DC v. Heller est that people could have the right to bear arms in the aspect of self defense, BUT that only applied to federal districts, not the STATES yet… So, In Chicago, crime rates were high and Otis McDonald wanted to buy a handgun to defend himself, but a Chicago law restricted that. So, he appealed to SCOTUS under the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms

Constitution - 2nd A right to bear and keep arms, also 14th A EPC (applying BoR to the states)

Decision - in favor of McDonald, held that the 2nd Amendment applies to the states through the 14th A EPC and DUE process because of self defense being a right to all

Impact - selective incorporation - applied 2nd A to the states

One thing to remember - selective incorporation of 2nd A - actually abt guns

Brown v. Board of Education

Facts - Linda Brown and her siblings had to walk across railroad tracks and across town to go to an all black school instead of the closer, all white school. Family sued on basis of 14th a EPC okay u know this oe just do it

Citizens United v. FEC

Facts - Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act , most important thing was that it limited the time frame people could put out political ads to 30 days before primary and 60 before presidential. 2008 Democratic primary it was Obama v Hillary Clinton and Citizens United decided to make a movie call Hillary: The Movie that shamed her and criticised her character. But, due to the limitations of BCRA, they technically couldn’t put the movie out, so they sued FEC, who made the law

Constitution - 1st Amendment Freedom of Speech

Decision - 5-4 in favor of Citizens United, held that the 1st A prohibited the censoring of political speech in the BCRA is unconstitutional because political speech is the most protected speech and it is just as similar to the gov censoring speech of citizens.

Impact - created Super PACs, political speech is protect, corporations have rights too

One thing to remember - corporations are people too