Supreme Court Cases
Marbury v. Madison
Date: 1803
Court: U.S. Supreme Court
Background:
Before Jefferson defeated Madison in the 1800 election, Adams appointed many new justices and courts through the Judiciary Act of 1789.
These justices were approved by Congress and would be made official through commissions.
Marbury was one of the justices who did not receive his commission before Jefferson was elected, so Madison withheld it, leading to Marbury suing him in 1803.
Constitutional Questions:
Are plaintiffs entitled to their commissions?
Can these plaintiffs sue for their commissions in court?
Can the Supreme Court order delivery of said commissions?
Constitutional Issues/Questions Addressed:
Writ of Mandamus
Is the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional?
Congress passing laws to alter the constitution
Plaintiff Argument:
The commission was a formality.
Defendant Argument:
The commissions are void if not delivered.
Decision:
In a 4-0 decision, the court decided that while withholding the commission was illegal, they did not order Madison to deliver it.
This made the case null and void.
The majority opinion was delivered by John Marshall.
Reasoning:
The court ruled that the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional, making Marbury's case unconstitutional as it went beyond the court’s jurisdiction outlined in Article III, Section 2.
Significance:
Established judicial review, which strengthened the judicial branch and allowed them to have more checks on the other branches.
Established that laws cannot change the constitution due to the Supremacy Clause.
Personal Reflection:
This case gave the Supreme Court the ability to declare a law unconstitutional, which gives the Court the power it uses throughout most other cases in American history.
Summary: Marbury v. Madison established the power of judicial review, which gives the Supreme Court the power of judicial review.
McCulloch v. Maryland
Date: 1819
Court: U.S. Supreme Court
Background:
In 1818, the Second Bank of the United States refused to comply with the Maryland Legislature, which taxed all banks chartered by Congress.
McCulloch, a cashier at the bank, refused to pay this tax, resulting in Maryland filing a suit against him to collect their taxes.
Constitutional Questions:
Did Congress have the authority to establish the Second Bank of the United States?
Did Maryland’s law unconstitutionally interfere with congressional powers?
Constitutional Issues/Questions Addressed:
Necessary and Proper Clause
Implied Powers
Federal v. State Governments
Plaintiff Argument:
Maryland argued that because it was a sovereign state, it had the authority to tax any businesses within its borders.
Defendant Argument:
McCulloch argued that a national bank fit under the idea of “necessary and proper” to carry out its enumerated powers.
Decision:
In a unanimous decision, the court declared that Congress had the power to incorporate a bank and that Maryland taxing said bank is considered unconstitutional.
The majority opinion was written by Chief Justice Marshall stating that Congress does have powers that are not specifically outlined in the Constitution
Significance:
Supreme Court affirms that Congress has implied powers not explicitly stated in the Constitution, which greatly expands the power of Congress.
Established that the federal government trumps state governments
Personal Reflection:
This case expands the power of Congress, allowing them to pass many more laws and setting a precedent for cases like Gibbons v Ogden and U.S. v Lopez.
Summary: McCullough v Maryland established that Congress has implied powers not listed in the Constitution.
Schenck v. United States
Date: 1919
Background:
During World War I, socialists Charles Schneck and Elizabeth Baer handed out leaflets that were anti-war.
These leaflets stated that the draft violated the Thirteenth Amendment because it required “involuntary servitude.”
Only peaceful action was encouraged, but it did encourage individuals to dodge the draft.
Schneck was charged with conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act of 1917 as it obstructed recruitment.
Schneck and Baer appealed on grounds of the First Amendment.
Constitutional Questions:
Did Schneck’s conviction for allegedly violating the Espionage Act of 1917 for criticizing the draft violate his first amendment right to freedom of speech?
Constitutional Issues/Questions Addressed:
Limits on freedom of speech
Limits on freedom of press
Plaintiff Argument:
Leaflets urged readers to resist the draft, causing insubordination and affecting recruitment.
Defendant Argument:
Schneck argued that his conviction violated the first amendment as it violated his rights to freedom of speech and press.
Decision:
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court decided that the Espionage Act of 1917 did not violate the first amendment as it fell under Congress’ wartime authority.
The majority opinion was offered by Oliver Wendell Holmes.
In this opinion, the phrase “clear and present danger test” was first listed.
He stated that the first amendment did not protect speech that incited clear and present danger.
He also compared issuing out leaflets to someone falsely yelling “fire!” in a crowded movie theatre.
Significance:
Establishes the concept of “clear and present danger” with regards to free speech, which limited free speech if it caused danger and influenced many freedom of speech cases during wartime.
Personal Reflection:
This case limits freedom of speech by prohibiting certain dangerous speech. It also set a precedent for free speech being limited during wartime
Summary: Free speech can be limited if it provides a clear and present danger.
Brown v. Board of Education
Date: 1952
Background:
Plessy v. Ferguson established separate but equal doctrine, resulting in racial segregation in public spaces nationwide.
Throughout many states, there were many cases that arose due to African Americans being denied admission to certain public schools due to segregation. Many were sponsored by NAACP to end segregation.
Class action lawsuit was filed against Topeka Board of Education by several African American parents, led by Oliver Brown, as chosen by the NAACP. The children of these parents were denied admission to a white school.
Brown v. Board of Education combined 5 separate NAACP sponsored cases under the case in Topeka
Constitutional Questions:
Does the segregation of public education based solely on race violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Constitutional Issues/Questions Addressed:
Equal Protection Clause of Fourteenth Amendment
Plaintiff Argument:
Having separate school systems for Whites and African Americans was inherently unequal, which violates the Fourteenth Amendment
School systems for African Americans were inferior when compared to White school systems
Defendant Argument:
Argued that the precedent set in Plessy v. Ferguson established that segregation was constitutional
Argued that the separate racial facilities were considered comparable
Argued that decisions regarding education should be left up to the states
Decision:
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court led by Earl Warren ruled in favor of the plaintiff in that racial segregation in public schools violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment
Majority opinion written by Chief Justice Earl Warren, which all other justices joined
Court ruled that racial segregation in public schools left a psychological impact on segregated children that makes them feel inferior, which is inherently unequal
Significance:
Led to Brown II, where the Court ordered the integration of all public schools in order to end racial segregation
Overturned the “separate but equal” doctrine established in Plessy v. Ferguson, which resulted in racial segregation being declared as unconstitutional
Personal Reflection:
This case is important because it overturns the “separate but equal” doctrine established in Plessy v. Ferguson, which finally brought a beginning to the end of racial segregation in America
Summary: Segregation based on race is inherently unequal, which means it violates the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment and is unconstitutional.
Baker v. Carr
Date: 1962
Background:
Charles Baker and many other citizen’s alleged that a 1901 law designed to appropriation of seats was basically ignored
Baker specifically argued that Tennessee's redistricting ignored large shifts in population and significant economic growth
The Supreme Court had already established in earlier cases that redistricting was not justiciable or the court had no business in that matter
Constitutional Questions:
Did the Supreme Court have oversight concerning legislative appointment?
Constitutional Issues/Questions Addressed:
Political questions
Courts and oversight of reappointments
the fourteenth amendment(Equal protection)
Plaintiff Argument:
The plaintiff claimed that Tennessee not redrawing these lines was unconstitutional under the fourteenth amendment because not every citizen was protected equally under the law because their votes did not count the same
Defendant Argument:
This has already been established as a non-justiciable matter due to previous cases
Decision:
The court decided that issues of reappointment were justiciable
Supreme Court has authority to rule over questions involving legislative appointment
It was a 6-2 decision with the majority opinion being presented by Justice Brennan
Two justices dissented with Justices Frankfurter and Harlan arguing that the Supreme Court was violating separation of power with this decision
There were also three concurring opinions with Justices Douglas, Clark and Stewart filing separate concurring opinion
Douglas stated in his opinion that if a voter’s rights were being restricted, they must bring in front of the court immediately
Significance:
Establishes the “one person one vote” doctrine
Altered political representation throughout the United States, and forced state legislatures to redistrict every 10 years in order to uphold the “one person one vote” doctrine
Personal Reflection:
This case allows for the Supreme Court to interfere in redistricting if it was not proportionate to the population. This greatly expands the Supreme Court’s power to hear gerrymandering cases.
Summary: The Supreme Court can hear cases involving gerrymandering, since that practice violated the Fourteenth Amendment of Equal Protection.
Engel v. Vitale
Date: 1962
Background:
The Board of Regents of New York authorized a voluntary, non-denominational prayer at the start of the school day. Herricks Union Free School District adopted the proposal, and students could opt out with a parent’s signature.
Five parents of students attending Herricks Union Free School District sued the school board president William J. Vitale Jr. These parents were of various religious backgrounds. The lead plaintiff was Steven I. Engel, a Jewish man.
The New York Court of Appeals agreed with the lower courts that the Regent’s prayer was constitutional as long as student participation was voluntary.
Constitutional Questions:
Does the reading of a nondenominational prayer at the beginning of the school day violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?
Constitutional Issues/Questions Addressed:
Establishment Clause of First Amendment
Incorporation to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment
Does the voluntary nature of the prayer violated the Establishment Clause
Plaintiff Argument:
Argued that the inclusion of a prayer in schools, whether it was optional or not, violates the Establishment Clause since the government is promoting a religion through public schools
Argued that Incorporation established in the Fourteenth Amendment meant that the Establishment Clause in the 1st Amendment applied to state governments
Defendant Argument:
Argued that the prayer was optional, so since students weren’t forced to participate in the prayer or didn’t suffer consequences if they didn’t, they argued that the prayer didn’t violate the Establishment Clause
Argued that the prayer was nondenominational, so it didn’t promote any particular religion
Decision:
The Court ruled in a 6-1 decision in favor of the plaintiff, stating that government-written prayers in public schools violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment (Justices Felix Frankfurter and Byron White did not participate).
Majority opinion written by Justice Hugo Black, where he wrote that the government-written prayer breached the wall of separation between church and state. The Court found that even though the prayer was nondenominational, there was an indirect coercion of religious minorities.
Concurring Opinion by Justice Douglas argued that Establishment Clause prevented the government from providing financial aid to religious schools, which was controversial
Dissenting Opinion from Justice Stewart, where he states the Establishment Clause was written to prevent state-sponsored churches, not prevent government-written prayers
Significance:
Reinforces the Establishment Clause and Separation of Church and States
Expands Establishment Clause to the states through incorporation via the 14th Amendment
Personal Reflection:
This decision strengthened the Establishment Clause and reinforced the idea that the government should not partake in promoting religion
Summary: The government cannot promote religion in public schools due to violations of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, and this applies to the states as well.
Gideon v. Wainwright
Date: 1963
Background:
Clarence Gideon was charged in Florida state court with felony breaking and entering
Gideon did not have a lawyer in court with him when he appeared in court and requested that the court appoint one for him
However, according to Florida state law, an attorney may only be appointed to indigent defendants in capital cases
Gideon represented himself at trial and was found guilty sentenced to five years
As a result, Gideon filed a habeas corpus petition to the Florida Supreme Court on the grounds that his constitutional right to counsel was violated, and the Florida Supreme Court denied
Constitutional Questions:
Does the sixth amendment’s right to counsel in criminal cases also apply to felony defendants within state courts?
Constitutional Issues/Questions Addressed:
the sixth amendment
the right to counsel
the fourteenth amendment applying federal rules to states
Plaintiff Argument:
Gideon argued that the judge’s refusal to appoint counsel for him was unconstitutional
Defendant Argument:
The judge ruled based on a state law and the sixth amendment was a part of the federal government making it non-applicable
Decision:
In a unanimous decision, the court ruled that Gideon did have the right to counsel
There was a concurring opinion written by Justice Harlan where he stated that the majority opinion was simply an extension of an earlier precedent that established that a “special circumstance” required counsel
Significance:
The Sixth Amendment was incorporated into the states via the Fourteenth Amendment
Established funding for public defense lawyers so that felony defendants in the states can have counsel
Personal Reflection:
This case was important for incorporating the Sixth Amendment into the states, allowing for felony defendants to have their constitutional right to counsel when being tried to have their rights taken away
Summary: The Sixth Amendment applies to the states, and felony defendants in states are required to have a public defender as counsel.
Tinker v. Des Moines
Date: 1968
Background:
In December 1965, a group of students in Des Moines planned to wear black armbands to school to show their support for a truce in the Vietnam War
The principals of the Des Moines school learned of this plan and created a policy that students who wear the armband would be asked to remove it, and if they didn’t, they would be suspended.
On December 16, Mary Beth Tinker and Christopher Eckhardt went to school wearing the armband and got suspended. The following day, John Tinker did the same and got suspended.
Through their parents, the students sued the school district for violating their right to expression.
Constitutional Questions:
Does the Des Moines school district’s policy for prohibiting the wearing of an armband as a symbolic protest violate the student’s freedom of speech rights given by the First Amendment?
Constitutional Issues/Questions Addressed:
Freedom of Speech in the First Amendment
Do public schools have the authority to limit a student’s speech if it does not cause a disruption?
Plaintiff Argument:
Wearing the black armbands was a form of symbolic speech protected by the 1st Amendment.
Argued that the armbands were a peaceful and non-disruptive form of protest and did not create a “clear and present danger” established in Schenck v United States
Defendant Argument:
Argued that wearing the black armbands could provoke a disruption in the educational process
Schools had the authority to regulate student conduct to create a safe learning environment
Decision:
The Court ruled in a 7-2 decision in favor of the plaintiff, holding that the First Amendment applied to public schools, so the school had to provide constitutionally sound reasons for regulation of speech in the classroom
Majority opinion written by Justice Abe Fortas, where he wrote that the school implemented this policy to avoid controversy, and that the school needed a constitutionally viable reason to limit speech other than to avoid controversy.
Concurring opinions written by Justices Stewart and White. Justice Stewart wrote that children are not guaranteed the full extent of First Amendment rights. Justice White noted in his opinion that the Court relied on a distinction between communication through words vs action.
Dissenting opinions written by Justices Black and Harlan. Justice Black argued that the First Amendment doesn’t provide the right to express at all times, and argued the armbands distracted students from their work. Justice Harlan argued that schools should be given wide authority.
Significance:
Clarifies the limits of student free speech in public schools, and reinforces that students do not lose their First Amendment rights when they enter a public school.
Laid foundation for Tinker test, which states that student expression can be limited if it is disruptive. Gives the schools authority to regulate this speech if it becomes disruptive.
Personal Reflection:
This case helps protect the freedom of expression of students while they are at school, but also does not make this freedom absolute since it still gives the schools authority to prohibit certain disruptive speech
Summary: Schools cannot prohibit student expression unless it is disruptive to the classroom.
New York Times v. U.S.
Date: 1971
Background:
The United States were involved in the Vietnam War which was wildly unpopular with citizens due to the vagueness of purpose
Nixon commissioned an inquiry into the U.S. involvement in the war with many unflattering details about public deception
However, one of the people who worked on said report leaked several key details to the New York Times and Washington Post
They started to post these details, announcing that the government had been lying to them
Immediately after publication, the Nixon administration order them to stop due to national security
Constitutional Questions:
Did Nixon’s attempt at blocking the publication of “classified information” violate the first amendment?
Constitutional Issues/Questions Addressed:
the first amendment right of freedom of press
prior restraint
Plaintiff Argument:
Nixon argued that he had executive authority to force the New York Times to suspend publication of the Pentagon Papers due to it being “classified information”
Defendant Argument:
This action violates the first amendment right of freedom of press and prior restraint is generally unconstitutional
Decision:
In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court concluded that Nixon had not met the high bar for prior restraint
The majority opinion written by Justice Black stated that “security” was too vague and should not be used in order to block a first amendment right
There were three concurring opinions in this case with Justice Brennan arguing that the government had failed to show proper justification for prior restraint, Justice Stewart stating that it should not be a blanket decision, and Justice Black stating it should be a case by case basis
There were also two dissenting opinions with Justice Blackmun arguing that these papers could potentially endanger national security and Justice Harlan stating that he believed the court was too quick in rejecting the government’s request
Significance:
Made government censorship of free speech much more difficult
Established that the government could not use prior restraint to prevent the publication of a newspaper unless they can prove that the publication would provide a clear and immediate danger to the United States
Personal Reflection:
This case was important for protecting the freedom of the press since it greatly expanded this freedom against prior restraint
Summary: The government cannot use prior restraint to prevent the publication of an article unless they can prove that the publication would provide a clear and immediate danger to the United States
Wisconsin v. Yoder
Date: 1971
Background:
Three Amish students stopped attending the New Glarus High School after eighth grade since it was contrary to their parent’s religious beliefs as Amish.
The parents, who were led by Joseph Yoder, were prosecuted under a Wisconsin law that required all children to attend public school until the age of 16.
The parents were convicted in Green County Court, but the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled in favor of Yoder, so the state of Wisconsin appealed that ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Constitutional Questions:
Did Wisconsin's law that all children attend school until age 16 violate the First Amendment by criminalizing parents who refused to send their children to school for religious reasons?
Constitutional Issues/Questions Addressed:
Free Exercise of Religion in the First Amendment
Plaintiff Argument:
The Wisconsin law interfered with their religious practices and the government cannot compel individuals to go against their religious beliefs.
The Amish’s free exercise of religion protects the parents’ right to direct the upbringing of their children. Additionally, they argued this didn’t provide any significant harm to the state.
Defendant Argument:
The compulsory education laws serve the state’s interests in ensuring all children get a proper education, and that means beyond the eight grade is necessary.
Religious exemptions from laws would be inconsistent and the law applied equally to all kids.
Decision:
The Court ruled in a unanimous 7-0 decision for Yoder (Justices Powell Jr and Rehnquist took no part in the case), stating that the Wisconsin law violated the Amish’s 1st Amendment rights.
Majority opinion written by Chief Justice Burger, and stated that states cannot force individuals to attend school when it infringes on their First Amendment rights to free religious expression. However, there needs to be evidence of true religious practices in order for this to apply.
Justice Douglas wrote a partial dissent while still joining the majority opinion. He did not agree with the reasoning that the ruling seemed too narrow to the Amish and was worried it would not be applicable to all. He believed the Court should have been more clear that state education laws could not limit religious freedom.
Significance:
Defined the scope of protections for religious practices in the First Amendment, in that there needs to be evidence of true religious practices in order for this ruling to apply
Ruling emphasized that there needs to be a compelling state interest in order to infringe on religious freedom
Personal Reflection:
This case was very important in pushing the burden of proof onto the states for passing laws that violated religious freedom. This case made sure there needed to be a compelling enough state interest to infringe upon this right. Additionally, this case made sure that people couldn’t abuse religious freedom by making up religions as an excuse, which would’ve caused lawlessness.
Summary: States cannot infringe upon religious freedom and expression without demonstrating a compelling enough state interest.
Roe v. Wade
Date: 1973
Background:
In 1930s, many women performed unsafe abortions so many states began trying to liberalize their abortion policies to insure that these women had safe abortions
There was some push back to these policies by a group of Catholic doctors
The women’s rights movement argued that there must be equality which meant full access to abortion
Jane Roe sought to get an abortion but could not unless on doctor’s order according to state law
Constitutional Questions:
Is a woman’s right to privacy for terminating her pregnancy recognized by the Constitution?
Constitutional Issues/Questions Addressed:
Right to privacy
While not explicitly stated in the constitution, it was implicitly mentioned in the first, fourth, fifth, ninth and fourteenth amendments
Right to privacy in equal protection clause
Plaintiff Argument:
Roe argued that Texas’ restrictive abortion laws were vague and violated her right to privacy outlined in the first, fourth, fifth, ninth and fourteenth amendments
Defendant Argument:
The right to privacy was not explicitly found within the Constitution so Roe had no constitutional right to an abortion
Decision:
In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court decided that the restrictive abortion laws in Texas violated Roe’s constitutional right to privacy
The majority opinion provided by Justice Blackmun stated that the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment protected the right to privacy
This right to privacy included a woman’s pregnancy
Furthermore, there can still be restrictions based on the state but only in the third trimester while the first trimester cannot be regulated
Significance:
Established that there is a right to privacy
Gives women the right to continue pregnancy
Personal Reflection Significance
Established the right to privacy, and that woman’s pregnancy was part of this privacy
Gives women the right to continue or end a pregnancy throughout the United States
Personal Reflection:
This established 50 years of precedent that the right to privacy a constitutional right that is protected throughout the nation
The overturning of Roe v Wade could result in the dismantling of this precedent and the ending of the right to privacy as a constitutional right
Summary: The right to privacy was a constitutional right protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, and a woman’s pregnancy falls under this category.
Shaw v. Reno
Date: 1993
Background:
After the 1990 census, North Carolina gained an additional congressional district. North Carolina redrew its districts to create an additional Black majority district.
The U.S. Attorney General Reno rejected the plan and told North Carolina to create a third Black majority district in order to comply with recent amendments to the Voting Rights Act. This new district snaked through North Carolina to create another Black majority district.
A group of white voters led by Ruth O. Shaw sued on the grounds that the new district was an unconstitutional gerrymander based on race.
A federal District Court ruled that North Carolina residents failed to provide a constitutional claim since they found the 14th and 15th Amendment do not prohibit the use of race in drawing districts. North Carolina residents appealed to the Supreme Court.
Constitutional Questions:
Did the North Carolina residents' claim that the State created a racially gerrymandered district raise a valid constitutional issue under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause?
Constitutional Issues/Questions Addressed:
Equal Protection in Fourteenth Amendment
Gerrymandering
Plaintiff Argument:
Argued that North Carolina had created an unconstitutional gerrymandering since it drew districts based on the race of its citizens, which violates the Equal Protection Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment since it is treating certain races differently.
Defendant Argument:
Argued the creation of a second district was necessary to follow the Voting Rights Act, which would increase the representation of minority voters and give them more political influence.
Decision:
Court ruled in a 5-4 decision in favor of Shaw, ruling that it was unconstitutional to gerrymander based on race since it violated Equal Protection in the Fourteenth Amendment.
Majority opinion written by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, which states the Court found the district's shape bizarre and the only way to explain it is on the basis of race. Court also found that while race can be used as a factor in redrawing districts, it cannot be the only factor.
Dissenting opinions by Justices White, Blackbum, Stevens, and Souter. These opinions stated that the voting interests of the plaintiff’s party had not been violated, and that redistricting based on race was beneficial to minority voters. Some also stated that equal protection was meant to protect those who were historically discriminated against, which doesn’t include Whites.
Significance:
This case established that racial redistricting must be held to a standard of strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
Reinforced that minority representation must be balanced with treating all individuals equally under the law.
Personal Reflection:
This case was important in establishing that equal protection works in both ways, not just in the way of those traditionally discriminated against. Equal protection applies equally to all races.
Summary: States redistricting based on race must be held to a level of strict scrutiny.
U.S. v. Lopez
Date: 1995
Background:
A high school senior named Alfonzo Lopez carried a concealed firearm to San Antonio High School
Lopez was arrested and sent to jail because carrying a weapon on your person at school is illegal
However, the state charges were subsequently dropped because Lopez was now being charged with violating the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990
Lopez was found guilty and sentenced for 6 months
Constitutional Questions:
Is the Gun-Free Zone Act of 1990 unconstitutional because it exceeds Congress’ power to legislate under the commerce clause?
Constitutional Issues/Questions Addressed:
Commerce Clause
Plaintiff Argument:
The plaintiff argued that guns in school caused a chain reaction where it negatively affects commerce because gun violence deters people from going through that state
Defendant Argument:
Lopez argued that gun regulation on school property was a state only power
Additionally, the connection between the commerce clause and gun violence is extremely week which is considered overreach
Congress had no authority to even pass this act
Decision:
In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Lopez
Justice Rehnquist delivered the majority opinion citing that Congress can regulate interstate commerce through 3 facets: channels, instrumentalities and substantially
Rehnquist stated that the Gun-Free Zone Act of 1990 did not meet any of these requirements and therefore, Congress could not regulate it
Justice Thomas filled a separate concurring opinion where he emphasized keeping the traditional meaning of commerce
Justice Breyer presented the dissenting opinion where he cited the growing importance of education in commerce and a rational conclusion can be made where interstate commerce is affected by this gun violence
Significance:
U.S. v Lopez was the first case where the Supreme Court that Congress had overstepped its implied powers established in McCullough v Maryland
Personal Reflection:
This case is important because it limited federal power and limited the implied powers of Congress established as a precedent in McCullough v Maryland
Summary: Gun possession in schools does not count as interstate commerce, so Congress could not regulate it via its implied powers.
McDonald v. Chicago
Date: 2010
Background:
Chicago passed a citywide handgun ban in 1982
76 year old Chicago resident Otis McDonald has lived in the Morgan Park neighborhood since 1971, and described how gangs, drug dealers, and robberies have led to a decline in his neighborhood. His house and garage had been robbed a total of 5 times.
McDonald owned shotguns, but didn’t want to use them for home defense and instead wanted a handgun, but was unable to purchase one due to Chicago’s firearm ban
McDonald joined with three other Chicago residents in 2008 to filing a lawsuit against Chicago
Constitutional Questions:
Does the Second Amendment apply to the states because it is incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment?
Constitutional Issues/Questions Addressed:
Second Amendment to Bear Arms
Fourteenth Amendment and Incorporation
Plaintiff Argument:
Argued the Second Amendment was applicable to the states via to Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Relied on precedent established in D.C. v Heller, where Second Amendment rights were upheld in federal jurisdictions like D.C.
Argued that the right to bear arms was a fundamental right and Chicago’s ban was unreasonable.
Defendant Argument:
Argued the Second Amendment only applies to the federal government and not the state or local governments, and based this on precedents established in U.S. v Cruikshank.
Argued that Public Safety justifies a local handgun ban to address gun violence issues.
Decision:
Court ruled 5-4 in favor of the plaintiff, ruling that the Second Amendment did apply to states and local governments via incorporation as a result of Due Process in the Fourteenth Amendment
Majority opinion written by Justice Alito, where he states that Due Process in the Fourteenth Amendment means that the Second Amendment can be incorporated to the states and local governments, making Chicago’s handgun ban unconstitutional.
Concurring opinion by Justice Thomas, where he says the Privileges and Immunities Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment is what incorporates the Second Amendment to the states.
Dissenting opinions by Justice Stevens and Justice Breyer. Justice Stevens writes that the incorporation issue was solved in the 19th century, and that the court’s methodology was a flaw. Justice Breyer disagrees that the Second Amendment is a fundamental right.
Significance:
Establishes the Second Amendment as a fundamental right and that using the Fourteenth Amendment, it is applicable to the states and local governments as well as the federal government.
Personal Reflection:
This case is significant for establishing the Second Amendment as a fundamental right, which has sparked a lot of debate over gun control in recent years. It is likely that this ruling will influence many future gun control Supreme Court cases in the future
Summary: The Second Amendment is a fundamental constitutional right, and it is incorporated to the federal, state, and local governments via Due Process in the Fourteenth Amendment.
Citizens United v. FEC
Date:2010
Background
-Citizens United brought an injunction against the Federal Election Commission(FEC) in District of Columbia
-This was done in order to prevent the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act affecting their movie Hillary: The Movie
-The BCRA lays down several restrictions on “electronic communications” with section 203 of the BCRA
preventing corporations/labor unions from “communicating electronically with their general treasuries”
-Sections 201 and 311 also restrict further with disclosure of donors for communications and a disclaimer if the
communications were not endorsed by the candidate
Constitutional Questions
1. Did the Supreme Court’s decision in McConnell solve all the problems with BRCA when the disclosure
requirements were upheld as constitutional?
2. Is there an unconstitutional burden imposed by BRCA disclosure requirements because the speech is considered
“campaign speech”?
3. Does BRCA still apply if the communication does not endorse a particular candidate?
4. Does a feature length documentary concerning a political candidate for political office be treated like
advertisements?
Constitutional Issues/Questions Addressed
-Violation of the first amendment
-Freedom of speech
Plaintiff Argument
-Citizens United argued that Section 203 violated the first amendment due to the restrictions applied to their movie
and its advertisements
-Furthermore, due to the circumstances, Sections 201 and 203 are unconstitutional due to the circumstances
Defendant Argument/Why the Plaintiff is Wrong
-The defendant argued that the reasoning of Citizens United was invalid due to the precedent set by McConnell v.
FEC where it was declared not unconstitutional
Decision
- In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that corporate funding of political broadcasts cannot be limited under
the first amendment
-Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion stating that political speech is extremely necessary in democracy
-Justice Stevens gave the dissenting opinion where he stated that corporations were undermining self government
Significance
-Established that corporations and PACs could donate unlimited amounts of money to a political campaign
Personal Reflection
-This case greatly expands the power and role that PACs have in political elections since they could donate
unlimited money to a candidate of their choosing, giving that candidate a lot more resources that they can use to
win.
-Summary: Funding for political campaigns cannot be limited, regardless of whether it is an individual or a
corporation