Landmark Supreme Court Cases

Vocabulary flashcards summarizing key details of landmark Supreme Court cases.

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

Issue: Whether the Supreme Court had the authority to review and strike down laws passed by Congress.

Vote: 4-0 in favor of Marbury.

Dissent: There was no formal dissent in this case.

Rational: Established the principle of judicial review, asserting the Court's power to declare laws unconstitutional.

Summary: This case established judicial review, which allows the Supreme Court to declare laws unconstitutional.

Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

Issue: Whether state-sponsored segregation in public schools violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Vote: Unanimous 9-0 in favor of Brown.

Dissent: There was no formal dissent in this case.

Rational: Declared that separate educational facilities are inherently unequal, violating the Equal Protection Clause.

Summary: This case declared school segregation unconstitutional, overturning Plessy v. Ferguson and advancing civil rights.

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

Issue: Whether the police practice of interrogating individuals without informing them of their constitutional rights violates the Fifth Amendment.

Vote: 5-4 in favor of Miranda.

Dissent: Justices Harlan, Stewart, White, and Clark dissented, arguing the decision would hinder law enforcement.

Rational: Established that criminal suspects must be informed of their constitutional rights, including the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney, before interrogation.

Summary: This case gave rise to Miranda Rights, fundamentally shaping police procedure.

Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)

Issue: Whether the prohibition against students wearing armbands in public school as a form of symbolic protest violates the students' freedom of speech protections guaranteed by the First Amendment.

Vote: 7-2 in favor of Tinker.

Dissent: Justices Black and Harlan dissented, arguing the armbands disrupted school discipline.

Rational: Held that students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate, protecting students' free expression as long as it does not disrupt the educational environment.

Summary: This case upheld students' right to wear black armbands in protest of the Vietnam War, protecting free expression in schools.

Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)

Issue: Whether the Fourteenth Amendment requires a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and whether it requires a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state.

Vote: 5-4 in favor of Obergefell.

Dissent: Chief Justice Roberts, Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito dissented, arguing the decision was an overreach of judicial power.

Rational: Legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, holding that the right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of a person.

Summary: This case legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.

Roe v. Wade (1973)

Issue: Whether the Constitution recognizes a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy by abortion.

Vote: 7-2 in favor of Roe.

Dissent: Justices White and Rehnquist dissented, arguing the decision was an unwarranted extension of privacy rights.

Rational: Legalized abortion nationwide, recognizing a woman's right to privacy under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Summary: This case legalized abortion nationwide (later limited by Dobbs v. Jackson in 2022).

New York Times v. United States (1971)

Issue: Whether the Nixon administration's attempt to prevent the New York Times and Washington Post from publishing classified materials violated the First Amendment.

Vote: 6-3 in favor of the New York Times.

Dissent: Justices Harlan, Blackmun, and Burger dissented, arguing the Court should have deferred to the executive branch's judgment on national security.

Rational: Allowed publication of the Pentagon Papers, reinforcing freedom of the press by establishing a high bar for prior restraint.

Summary: This case allowed publication of the Pentagon Papers, strengthening freedom of the press.

District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)

Issue: Whether a District of Columbia prohibition on the possession of usable handguns in the home violates the Second Amendment.

Vote: 5-4 in favor of Heller.

Dissent: Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer dissented, arguing the Second Amendment applies only to militias.

Rational: Recognized an individual's constitutional right to gun ownership for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense in the home.

Summary: This case recognized an individual's constitutional right to gun ownership.

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

Issue: Whether the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel in criminal cases extends to felony defendants in state courts.

Vote: Unanimous 9-0 in favor of Gideon.

Dissent: There was no formal dissent in this case.

Rational: Guaranteed the right to a free court-appointed lawyer in criminal cases, ensuring fair trials for indigent defendants.

Summary: This case guaranteed the right to a free court-appointed lawyer in criminal cases.

Citizens United v. FEC (2010)

Issue: Whether the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act's (BCRA) restrictions on corporations' and unions' independent political spending violate the First Amendment.

Vote: 5-4 in favor of Citizens United.

Dissent: Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor dissented, arguing the decision would allow corporations to exert undue influence in elections.

Rational: Ruled that corporations and unions have the same free speech rights as individuals, opening the door to unlimited political spending by these entities in elections.

Summary: This case opened the door to unlimited political spending by corporations and unions in elections.

Lawrence V Texas (2003)

Issue: Does a Texas law criminalizing same-sex intimate conduct violate the Fourteenth Amendment?
Vote: 6-3; Lawrence
Dissent: Argued the Constitution does not confer a right to engage in homosexual sodomy.
Rationale: The law violated the Due Process Clause by intruding into private consensual adult conduct.
Brief Summary: Struck down sodomy laws, decriminalizing same-sex relationships and expanding privacy rights.

Dred Scott V Sanford

Issue: Can a Black person, whose ancestors were slaves, be a U.S. citizen and sue in federal court?
Vote: 7-2; Sandford
Dissent: Argued that free Black people could be citizens and criticized invalidating the Missouri Compromise.
Rationale: The Court ruled that African Americans were not citizens and Congress couldn't ban slavery in the territories.
Brief Summary: Declared Black people could not be citizens; intensified tensions leading to the Civil War.

Boy Scouts of America V Dale (2000)

Issue: Can a private organization exclude a person based on sexual orientation under the First Amendment?
Vote: 5-4; Boy Scouts of America
Dissent: The organization’s expressive association claim was too weak to override anti-discrimination law.
Rationale: Forcing Boy Scouts to accept a gay leader violated their freedom of expressive association.
Brief Summary: Allowed the Boy Scouts to exclude gay leaders based on First Amendment rights.

Virginia v Black (2003)

Issue: Is cross burning protected speech under the First Amendment?
Vote: 7-2; Black (partially)
Dissent: Warned of limits on protected symbolic expression.
Rationale: Cross burning with intent to intimidate is not protected, but laws can't presume intent.
Brief Summary: Allowed punishment for intimidating cross burning, but required proof of intent.

Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow (2004)

Issue: Can a noncustodial parent challenge "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance?
Vote: 8-0; Elk Grove
Dissent: Some disagreed with the standing ruling but not the result.
Rationale: The plaintiff lacked standing to sue on behalf of his daughter.
Brief Summary: Avoided ruling on "under God" by dismissing on standing grounds.

Griswold v Connecticut

Issue: Can a state ban contraceptive use by married couples?
Vote: 7-2; Griswold
Dissent: No general right to privacy in the Constitution.
Rationale: The law violated marital privacy, implied by several constitutional amendments.
Brief Summary: Established a constitutional right to privacy in marital relations.

Mapp v. Ohio (1961)

Issue: Can evidence obtained through illegal searches be used in state courts?
Vote: 6-3; Mapp
Dissent: Opposed applying the exclusionary rule to the states.
Rationale: Illegally obtained evidence is inadmissible in state courts under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Brief Summary: Incorporated the exclusionary rule to the states via the Fourth Amendment.

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

Issue: Is racial segregation legal under the Equal Protection Clause?
Vote: 7-1; Ferguson
Dissent: Justice Harlan said the Constitution is color-blind.
Rationale: Upheld "separate but equal" segregation laws as constitutional.
Brief Summary: Legalized racial segregation; overturned by Brown v. Board.

Kyllo v. United States (2001)

Issue: Does using thermal imaging to detect heat from a home require a warrant?
Vote: 5-4; Kyllo
Dissent: Thermal imaging did not violate a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Rationale: Warrantless thermal scans of a home violate the Fourth Amendment.
Brief Summary: Protected home privacy from high-tech surveillance.Atkins v. Virginia (2002)

Atkins v. Virginia (2002)

Issue: Is executing intellectually disabled individuals constitutional?
Vote: 6-3; Atkins
Dissent: Vague standards could undermine capital punishment laws.
Rationale: Execution of the intellectually disabled violates the Eighth Amendment.
Brief Summary: Prohibited death penalty for people with intellectual disabilities.

Chavez v. Martinez (2003)

Issue: Does coercive police questioning without use in trial violate the Fifth Amendment?
Vote: 6-3; Chavez
Dissent: Coercive questioning violated constitutional rights.
Rationale: Fifth Amendment only applies if statements are used in trial.
Brief Summary: Coercive questioning alone doesn't violate the Fifth unless statements are used in court.