Marbury v. Madison (1803)

• Constitutional Principle: the jurisdiction clauses in Article III of the Constitution

• Facts:

  • Adams packed the judiciary full of federalist judges in his last day in office before Jefferson took over

  • Some of the commissions for the judges were left undelivered when Adams left, Jefferson told his secretary of state, James Madison, to leave them undelivered

  • William Marbury: one of the appointed judges that had not received commission —> sued Madison

  • Write of Mandamus: a court order for an official to do what they’re legally required to do

• Decision:

  • Marbury had legal right to his commission

  • The Write of Mandamus is the proper legal means to get the commission

  • The Court does not have authority to grant the Writ of Mandamus

  • Decision declared Article 13 of the Judiciary Act unconstitutional —> null and void (stated the Supreme Court has authority to issue Writs of Mandamus in original jurisdiction cases)

    • established JUDICIAL REVIEW

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

• Constitutional Principle: Necessary and Proper Clause, Supremacy Clause

• Facts:

  • Congress charted the Second Bank of the United States, created branches in different areas, one in Maryland

  • Maryland did not like this —> legislature passed a law saying any bank in Maryland that was not charted by Maryland would have a $15,000 a year tax

  • McCulloch refused to pay it

• Decision:

  • The bank was constitutional because it was an implied power

  • Federalism —> this case tipped in favor of the federal government

Schenck v. United States (1919)

• Constitutional Principle: First Amendment right to Free Speech

• Facts:

  • Congress passed the law called the Espionage Act: outlaw any hindrance to military recruitment

  • Schenck wrote a pamphlet to resist the draft and arrested for violating the Espionage Act

• Decision:

  • Schenck’s First Amendment rights were not violated

  • His words were actively encouraging men to avoid the draft which was not protected

  • Clear and Present Danger Test: what speech is protected —> if it harms others, it is not protected

    • No longer used - replaced by Brandenburg Test

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954)

• Constitutional Principle: Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

• Facts:

  • serious of cases involving racial segregation in schools

  • A Black family tried to enroll their daughter in a White school, but was denied and had to send her to a farther school

• Decision:

  • Separate facilities violates the Equal Protection Clause

  • Overturned Plessy v. Ferguson’s "separate but equal”

Baker v. Carr (1962)

• Constitutional Principle: Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

• Facts:

  • Tennessee’s urban populations had changed faster than the rural populations, but districts had not been redrawn, so rural districts had much more voting power than urban voters

  • Argued that refusing to redraw the districts, all citizens were not equal under Tennessee law

  • Supreme Court had already decided that questions of redistricting were not justiciable (Court could not rule on it)

• Decision:

  • Supreme Court did have authority to rule on questions of reapportionment

Engel v. Vitale (1962)

• Constitutional Principle: First Amendment Establishment Clause

• Facts:

  • New York Board of Regions had composed a non-denominational prayer to be recited, can opt out

  • Engel and other parents challenged the practice

• Decision:

  • The prayer violated the Establishment Clause

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

• Constitutional Principle: Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel, Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

• Facts:

  • Gideon got arrested and sent to trial

  • Florida law said the state will only appoint a lawyer to a defendant in capital cases, so Gideon did not get representation in the state

  • He acted as his own lawyer and was convicted, but he appealed

  • Sixth Amendment only applied to federal government, so technically it wasn’t violated, but the fourteenth amendment questioned if it can be applied

• Decision:

  • The Sixth Amendment’s provision for a lawyer did apply to the states because of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause

Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)

• Constitutional Principle: First Amendment right to Free Speech

• Facts:

  • Children from the Tinker family wanted to wear black armbands to protest

  • School wrote a policy saying anyone wearing an armband had to remove it or be suspended, and they were suspended

• Decision:

  • It was a violation of their Freedom of Speech

  • Create Substantial Disruption Test: decide the criteria for how school administrators could limit student speech —> the school must be able to demonstrate how the speech could severely interfere with the operations of the school

New York Times v. United States (1971)

• Constitutional Principle: First Amendment right to Freedom of the Press

• Facts:

  • Nixon commissioned top secret inquiry into the history of the US involvement in the war

  • One of the guys leaked portions of it to the newspapers

  • Nixon tried to keep the paper from publishing the documents before they were printed —> Prior Restraint

• Decision:

  • Nixon’s restraining order was unconstitutional

  • Prior Restraint can be used if it is really necessary

Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)

• Constitutional Principle: First Amendment right to Free Exercise of Religion

• Facts:

  • Amish families removed them from public schools after 8th grade due to their religion

  • Wisconsin had a law that they had to be educated up to 16 years old

• Decision:

  • Ruled in favor of Yoder, the law violated the Free Exercise Clause

Roe v. Wade (1973)

• Constitutional Principle: Fourteenth Amendment’s Right to Privacy and Due Process Clause

• Facts:

  • “Jane Roe” wanted an abortion in Texas, but it was illegal except in cases where the mother’s life was in danger

• Decision:

  • A woman’s right to an abortion is protected by the right to privacy in the Fourteenth Amendment

Shaw v. Reno (1993)

• Constitutional Principle: Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

• Facts:

  • None of North Carolina’s representatives were Black. but when redrawing districts, one district was majority Black, and another district was majority Black, but clearly Gerrymandered: drawing congressional districts to favor one group over the other

  • Racial Gerrymandering

• Decision:

  • Districts drawn only based on race were unconstitutional

United States v. Lopez (1995)

• Constitutional Principle: Interstate Commerce Act

• Facts:

  • In Texas, a teenager, Lopez, carries a pistol to school and sent to school because it was illegal to carry guns on school property

  • Got released the next day because of a federal law: Guns Free Zone School Zone —> state charges dropped because he got federal charges

  • Government passed the law based on the interstate commerce act

• Decision:

  • Sided with Lopez

  • Federalism —> this case tipped in favor of state power

McDonald v. Chicago (2010)

• Constitutional Principle: Second Amendment right to Bear Arms, Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause

• Facts:

  • Heller v. The District of Columbia: ruled restrictive gun ownership laws in Washington D.C. were unconstitutional, but since Washington D.C. is a federal district, this ruling only applied to federal territory

  • McDonald tried to apply this to the states

• Decision:

  • Chicago’s gun laws did violate the right to bear arms

  • Fourteenth Amendment allowed the Bill of Rights to apply to state governments as well

• Selective Incorporation: means by which the court applies the civil liberties found in the Bill of Rights to the states

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010)

• Constitutional Principle: First Amendment right to Free Speech

• Facts:

  • Campaign Finance laws

  • Bipartisan Campaign Finance Act (BCRA): made it illegal for corporations or non-profits to engage in electioneering communications for 60 days before an election or 30 days before a primary

  • A conservative group created a movie about Hillary to try to stop her from winning the Democratoic party nomination and presidency

  • When it was released, it was already in the silent time period

• Decision:

  • The limitations put on corporations were similar to censorship of speech toward individuals