Landmark Supreme Court Cases Notes

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

  • People: McCulloch (bank manager) v. State of MD
  • Question/Crux:
    • Is it lawful for the government to create/tax a national bank?
    • Can a state tax a federal bank?
  • Factors Considered:
    • McCulloch refused to pay taxes to MD because he said that federal institutions are superior to state institutions.
    • It was “necessary and proper” for the government to establish a bank.
  • Decision/Ruling:
    • Sided with McCulloch.
    • States CANNOT tax a federal bank because of:
      • Supremacy Clause
      • Necessary and Proper Clause

Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)

  • People: Aaron Ogden, Thomas Gibbons (rival steamboat operators)
  • Question/Crux: Who has the authority to regulate interstate commerce?
  • Factors Considered:
    • NY granted Ogden a monopoly to operate his boats on a stretch of water between NY and NJ.
    • Gibbons began to work the same stretch of water, so Ogden sued Gibbons to force him to stop working that stretch.
    • Ogden won, and Gibbons appealed to SCOTUS.
  • Holding/Ruling:
    • Gibbons won.
    • Gibbons was allowed to work the same stretch of water because the federal government regulates interstate commerce, not states.
  • Side Note:
    • Interstate commerce = Trade between states
    • Intrastate Commerce = Trade within a state

Mapp v. Ohio (1961)

  • People: Dollree Mapp
  • Question/Crux: Should evidence gained without a search warrant be permissible in a trial?
  • Factors Considered:
    • The police found illegal ‘obscene materials’ in Mapp’s home while they were there searching for a suspected bomber (4th amendment - Must have a search warrant).
  • Holding/Ruling:
    • The SCOTUS found that evidence obtained without a search warrant is NOT permissible in court.

Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)

  • People: Brandenburg (KKK)
  • Question/Crux: Can the KKK promote hate speech (legally)?
  • Factors Considered: 1st amendment protects free speech.
  • Holding/Ruling:
    • YES.
    • The KKK can rally and meet in public; they just cannot act upon their hate speech (attack anyone).

Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)

  • People: John and Marybeth Tinker
  • Question/Crux: Can students wear armbands protesting the Vietnam war if the school dress code prohibits it?
  • Factors Considered:
    • 1st amendment protects free speech; is clothing free speech?
    • Do students have the right to this freedom in school?
  • Holding/Ruling:
    • YES.
    • The students can legally wear their armbands; clothing is freedom of speech.