APUSH US Supreme Court Cases Flashcards

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

[Established the Supreme Court's power of judicial review, the power to declare unconstitutional an act of Congress. By doing so, Marshall strengthened the judiciary in relation to the other branches of government.]

In March 1801, Secretary of State James Madison refused to give William Marbury a commission as a justice of the peace for Washington, D.C. after the John Adams administration had authorized the commission and numerous others as part of Adams' "midnight" judicial appointments. Marbury sued under a writ of mandamus to obtain his commission. The Court's decision, written by Chief Justice John Marshall, dismissed Marbury's suit because he had sued under a writ of mandamus, and the Constitution did not include such writs within its listing of the powers of the Supreme Court. The Judiciary Act of 1789 authorized the Supreme Court to issue a writ of mandamus, but, claimed Marshall, Congress could not enlarge the powers of the Supreme Court. Therefore, that section of the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional. This case is significant because it is the first time the Supreme Court declared an act of Congress unconstitutional. (The second time would not occur until the Dred Scott case in 1857.) It also established this power, known as judicial review, for the Supreme Court, and placed the judicial branch on par with the other two branches of the federal government.

Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)

[Established the basis for congressional regulation of interstate commerce, and reinforced the supremacy of federal law over state laws.]

At issue in this case was whether the New York statute that prohibited vessels licensed by the United States from navigating the waters of New York was unconstitutional and, therefore, void. In this case, the Court put forth the position that Congress can legislate and regulate all matters of interstate commerce as long as there is some commercial connection with another state. While interstate commerce is regulated by Congress, power to regulate "completely internal" commerce -- trade carried on in a state that does not affect other states -- is reserved to the states.

Dred Scot v. Sandford (1857)

[Declared that African-Americans were not citizens which could have dismissed the case at that point since it was brought by an African- American slave. Taney went further, however, by ruling that slaves were property and that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional because Congress has no power to exclude slavery from a territory. This furthered the sectional tension brewing in the years before the Civil War. Decision would later be overturned by the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments.]

Dred Scott was a slave owned by an army doctor who took him into Illinois and part of the Wisconsin Territory. Slavery had been outlawed in these two areas by the Northwest Ordinance and Illinois law and by the Missouri Compromise of 1820. Scott sued for his freedom based on the argument that residence on free soil made him a free man. The case quickly became a test case, with the doctor's widow selling Scott to her brother, Sanford (actual spelling; official records have the name misspelled, Sandford), in New York. The involvement of two different states forced the case into the federal courts. All the judges wrote separate opinions in the case, which caused the debate to go on long after the decisions. The majority held that Scott was not a citizen and that free blacks or slaves could not be citizens of the United States. The judges could have ended their explanation here. Two Northern judges, however, announced their intention to write long dissenting opinions against the majority, and the majority then felt forced to refute these dissents. But the majority itself was divided in its reasoning, so each of the majority justices wrote his own opinion. In answering the key questions of the case (Could Congress exclude slavery from the territories? If slaves are property, is a slaveowner not protected by the Fifth Amendment from being deprived of his property without compensation?), the Taney Court declared the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional because it prohibited a citizen from taking his property into the territories. The decision, which was encouraged by President Buchanan, was welcomed by the South and largely refuted by Northerners. Dred Scott's owner later freed him and his family.

Schenck v. The United States (1919)

During World War I, socialists Charles Schenck and Elizabeth Baer distributed leaflets declaring that the draft violated the Thirteenth Amendment prohibition against involuntary servitude. The leaflets urged the public to disobey the draft, but advised only peaceful action. Schenck was charged with conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act of 1917 by attempting to cause insubordination in the military and to obstruct recruitment. Schenck and Baer were convicted of violating this law and appealed on the grounds that the statute violated the First Amendment. Did Schenck's conviction under the Espionage Act for criticizing the draft violate his First Amendment right to freedom of speech? The Court held that the Espionage Act did not violate the First Amendment and was an appropriate exercise of Congress’ wartime authority. Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes concluded that courts owed greater deference to the government during wartime, even when constitutional rights were at stake. Articulating for the first time the “clear and present danger test,” Holmes concluded that the First Amendment does not protect speech that approaches creating a clear and present danger of a significant evil that Congress has power to prevent. Holmes reasoned that the widespread dissemination of the leaflets was sufficiently likely to disrupt the conscription process. Famously, he compared the leaflets to falsely shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theatre, which is not permitted under the First Amendment. 

Korematsu v. The United States (1944)

The court upheld the constitutionality of detention camps for Japanese-Americans during World War II as a wartime necessity despite clear violation of civil liberties.

Brown v. The Board of Education at Topeka Kansas (1954)

Unanimous decision declaring “separate but equal” unconstitutional. Overrules Plessy v. Fergusson.

Baker v. Carr (1962)

[The Supreme Court has jurisdiction over questions of legislative apportionment]

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. Did the Supreme Court have jurisdiction over questions of legislative apportionment? In an opinion which explored the nature of "political questions" and the appropriateness of Court action in them, the Court held that there were no such questions to be answered in this case and that legislative apportionment was a justiciable issue. In his majority opinion, Justice Brennan provided past examples in which the Court had intervened to correct constitutional violations in matters pertaining to state administration and the officers through whom state affairs are conducted. Brennan concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection issues which Baker and others raised in this case merited judicial evaluation.

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

[In state courts defendants who cannot afford private counsel must be appointed an attorney if requested]

Clarence Earl Gideon was charged in Florida state court with felony breaking and entering. When he appeared in court without a lawyer, Gideon requested that the court appoint one for him. According to Florida state law, however, an attorney may only be appointed to an indigent defendant in capital cases, so the trial court did not appoint one. Gideon represented himself in trial. He was found guilty and sentenced to five years in prison. Gideon filed a habeas corpus petition in the Florida Supreme Court, arguing that the trial court's decision violated his constitutional right to be represented by counsel. The Florida Supreme Court denied habeas corpus relief. Does the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel in criminal cases extend to felony defendants in state courts? In a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Hugo L. Black, the Court held that it was consistent with the Constitution to require state courts to appoint attorneys for defendants who could not afford to retain counsel on their own. The Court reasoned that the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of counsel is a fundamental and essential right made obligatory upon the states by the Fourteenth Amendment. The Sixth Amendment guarantees the accused the right to the assistance of counsel in all criminal prosecutions and requires courts to provide counsel for defendants unable to hire counsel unless the right was competently and intelligently waived. 

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

[All people arrested must be read their miranda rights]

This case represents the consolidation of four cases, in each of which the defendant confessed guilt after being subjected to a variety of interrogation techniques without being informed of his Fifth Amendment rights during an interrogation. On March 13, 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested in his house and brought to the police station where he was questioned by police officers in connection with a kidnapping and rape. After two hours of interrogation, the police obtained a written confession from Miranda. The written confession was admitted into evidence at trial despite the objection of the defense attorney and the fact that the police officers admitted that they had not advised Miranda of his right to have an attorney present during the interrogation. The jury found Miranda guilty. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Arizona affirmed and held that Miranda’s constitutional rights were not violated because he did not specifically request counsel. Chief Justice Earl Warren delivered the opinion of the 5-4 majority, concluding that defendant’s interrogation violated the Fifth Amendment. To protect the privilege, the Court reasoned, procedural safeguards were required. A defendant was required to be warned before questioning that he had the right to remain silent, and that anything he said can be used against him in a court of law. A defendant was required to be told that he had the right to an attorney, and if he could not afford an attorney, one was to be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desired. After these warnings were given, a defendant could knowingly and intelligently waive these rights and agree to answer questions or make a statement. Evidence obtained as a result of interrogation was not to be used against a defendant at trial unless the prosecution demonstrated the warnings were given, and knowingly and intelligently waived. 

Tinker v. De Moines (1969)

[students have access to their first amendment freedom of speech rights during school]

In December 1965, a group of students in Des Moines held a meeting in the home of 16-year-old Christopher Eckhardt to plan a public showing of their support for a truce in the Vietnam war. They decided to wear black armbands throughout the holiday season and to fast on December 16 and New Year's Eve. The principals of the Des Moines school learned of the plan and met on December 14 to create a policy that stated that any student wearing an armband would be asked to remove it, with refusal to do so resulting in suspension. On December 16, Mary Beth Tinker and Christopher Eckhardt wore their armbands to school and were sent home. The following day, John Tinker did the same with the same result. The students did not return to school until after New Year's Day, the planned end of the protest. Through their parents, the students sued the school district for violating the students' right of expression and sought an injunction to prevent the school district from disciplining the students. The district court dismissed the case and held that the school district's actions were reasonable to uphold school discipline. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the decision without opinion. Yes. Justice Abe Fortas delivered the opinion of the 7-2 majority. The Supreme Court held that the armbands represented pure speech that is entirely separate from the actions or conduct of those participating in it. The Court also held that the students did not lose their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech when they stepped onto school property. In order to justify the suppression of speech, the school officials must be able to prove that the conduct in question would "materially and substantially interfere" with the operation of the school. In this case, the school district's actions evidently stemmed from a fear of possible disruption rather than any actual interference.

Escobedo v. Illinois (1964)

[Evidence found when a defendant is unaware of their 6th amendment rights is inadmissible in a court of law]

Danny Escobedo was arrested and taken to a police station for questioning. Over several hours, the police refused his repeated requests to see his lawyer. Escobedo subsequently confessed to murder. Escobedo appealed the affirmation of his conviction of murder by the Supreme Court of Illinois, which held that petitioner's confession had been admissible even though it was obtained after he had requested and been denied the assistance of counsel. As soon as someone is in the custody of law enforcement, he or she has a Sixth Amendment right to speak to an attorney. In a 5-4 decision authored by Justice Goldberg, the Court ruled that Escobedo’s Sixth Amendment rights had been violated. The Court reasoned that the period between arrest and indictment was a critical stage at which an accused needed the advice of counsel perhaps more than at any other. A suspect who was being interrogated by police while in custody, who had not been warned of his right to remain silent, and who had requested and been denied an opportunity to consult with his lawyer, had been denied the assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment. Any statement elicited under such circumstances could not be used against him at a criminal trial. The Court therefore reversed Escobedo’s judgment and remanded for further proceedings. 

Schechter Poultry Corp v. the United States (1935)

[Announces that the NIRA (which had been a part of the New Deal) was unconstitutional because it overextended the rights of the executive branch]

Under the National Industrial Recovery Act, Congress allowed the President to regulate certain industries by distributing authority to develop codes of conduct among business groups and boards in those industries. The Act did not provide standards for the President or the business groups in implementing its objectives. When Schechter Poultry Corp. was indicted for violating a business code governing the poultry industry in New York City, it argued that the law was an unconstitutional violation of the non-delegation doctrine. In an opinion authored by Chief Justice Hughes, the unanimous Court held that the Act was "without precedent" and was an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority. The President cannot be allowed to have unbridled control to make whatever laws he believes to be necessary to achieve a certain goal. The law did not establish rules or standards to evaluate industrial activity, meaning Congress failed to provide the necessary guidelines for the implementation of this functionally legislative process. 

Insular Cases (1901)

The Insular Cases of 1901 were a series of U.S. Supreme Court decisions addressing the constitutional status of territories acquired after the Spanish-American War, including Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines. The central issue was whether the Constitution applied fully to these territories. The Court introduced the doctrine of territorial incorporation, distinguishing between "incorporated" territories, destined for statehood and entitled to full constitutional protections, and "unincorporated" territories, where only fundamental rights applied at Congress's discretion. Key rulings included Downes v. Bidwell, which determined Puerto Rico was an unincorporated territory, and De Lima v. Bidwell, which ruled Puerto Rico was not a foreign country for tariff purposes. These decisions allowed the U.S. to govern its new territories flexibly but resulted in limited constitutional protections for their residents, creating a status of "second-class" citizenship. The Insular Cases have had a lasting impact on the legal and political status of U.S. territories, sparking ongoing debates about the rights of territorial inhabitants and American imperialism.

Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S. (1964)

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. The government sought to enjoin the motel from discriminating on the basis of race under Title II. The Commerce Clause extends the anti-discrimination provisions in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to hotels that host travelers from outside the state. In a unanimous decision authored by Justice Clark, the Court held the government could enjoin the motel from discriminating on the basis of race under the Commerce Clause. Since the motel was positioned near Interstates 75 and 85 and received most of its business from outside Georgia, this showed that it had an impact on interstate commerce, which is all that is needed to justify Congress in exercising the Commerce Clause power. 

New Jersey v. TLO (1985)

The case originated when a high school student, referred to as T.L.O., was caught smoking in a school bathroom. A school administrator searched her purse, finding evidence of marijuana use and dealing. T.L.O. argued that the search violated her Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, ruled that while students have Fourth Amendment rights, these rights are balanced against the school's responsibility to maintain a safe and orderly environment. The Court established that school officials do not need a warrant or probable cause to search students; instead, they need "reasonable suspicion" that a law or school rule has been violated. This decision allows for more lenient search standards in schools, reflecting the unique context of the educational environment and the need to maintain discipline and safety.

Vernonia School District v. Acton (1995)

The case arose when James Acton, a seventh-grade student, was denied participation in his school's football program after he and his parents refused to consent to the district's mandatory drug testing policy for student-athletes. The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, upheld the constitutionality of the drug testing policy. The Court ruled that the policy did not violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures. The decision emphasized that students in public schools have a reduced expectation of privacy, particularly student-athletes who are subject to additional regulations and physical exams. The Court also reasoned that the school district's interest in preventing drug use among students and maintaining a safe and effective learning environment outweighed the minimal intrusion of the drug tests. The ruling allowed schools greater latitude in implementing policies aimed at deterring drug use among students and has been influential in subsequent cases involving student rights and school safety measures.

First Amendment (1791)

Protects freedoms of speech, religion, press, assembly, and petition. Created to ensure individual liberties and prevent government overreach.

Second Amendment (1791)

Protects the right to keep and bear arms. Established to allow citizens to defend themselves and ensure a well-regulated militia.

Third Amendment (1791)

Prohibits quartering of soldiers in private homes during peacetime. A response to British practices before the American Revolution.

Fourth Amendment (1791)

Protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Created to safeguard personal privacy and property from arbitrary government intrusion.

Fifth Amendment (1791)

Ensures due process, prohibits double jeopardy and self-incrimination, and mandates compensation for eminent domain. Aimed to protect legal rights of individuals.

Sixth Amendment (1791)

Guarantees a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury, the right to counsel, and the right to confront witnesses. Designed to ensure fair criminal prosecutions.

Seventh Amendment (1791)

Guarantees a jury trial in civil cases involving claims of more than $20. Established to preserve the right to trial by jury in common law suits.

Eighth Amendment (1791)

Prohibits excessive bail, fines, and cruel and unusual punishment. Intended to prevent inhumane treatment in the justice system.

Ninth Amendment (1791)

States that the enumeration of certain rights in the Constitution does not deny other rights retained by the people. Ensures protection of unenumerated rights.

Tenth Amendment (1791)

Affirms that powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states or the people. Emphasizes federalism and limits federal power.

Eleventh Amendment (1795)

Limits suits against states by individuals from other states or countries. Created to affirm state sovereignty and limit judicial power.

Twelfth Amendment (1804)

Revises the procedure for electing the President and Vice President. Established in response to electoral issues in the elections of 1796 and 1800.

Thirteenth Amendment (1865)

Abolishes slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime. Created to formally end slavery after the civil war.

Fourteenth Amendment (1868)

Grants citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the U.S., ensures equal protection under the law, and extends due process to state actions. Established to protect the rights of newly freed slaves and ensure equality.

Fifteenth Amendment (1870)

Prohibits denying the right to vote based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Created to enfranchise African American men after the Civil War.

Sixteenth Amendment (1913)

Authorizes the federal government to levy an income tax. Established to allow a federal income tax independent of state apportionment.

Seventeenth Amendment (1913)

Establishes the direct election of U.S. Senators by popular vote. Created to reduce corruption and increase democratic participation.

Eighteenth Amendment (1919)

Prohibits the manufacture, sale, and transportation of alcoholic beverages (Prohibition). A response to temperance movements advocating against alcohol.

Nineteenth Amendment (1920)

Grants women the right to vote. Established after decades of women’s suffrage activism.