Court cases

Key Supreme Court Cases Summary

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

• Background: This case arose when the state of Maryland tried to impose a tax on the Second Bank of the United States. The bank's cashier, James McCulloch, refused to pay the tax.

• Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of McCulloch, asserting that Congress had the power to establish a bank under the Necessary and Proper Clause and that the state of Maryland could not tax the federal institution.

• Amendment Used: Primarily the Necessary and Proper Clause of Article I, Section 8.

• Future Impact: Established the principle of federal supremacy over states, confirming implied powers of Congress and leading to an expansion of federal authority.

U.S. v. Lopez (1995)

• Background: Alfonso Lopez was charged under a federal law for bringing a gun to school, which was part of the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990.

• Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that the federal government had exceeded its authority under the Commerce Clause, as possession of a gun in a school zone was not an economic activity that substantially affected interstate commerce.

• Amendment Used: The Commerce Clause of Article I, Section 8.

• Future Impact: Set limits on the federal government's power under the Commerce Clause, reinforcing states' rights and indicating a shift towards greater federalism.

Shaw v. Reno (1993)

• Background: This case involved a challenge to North Carolina's congressional redistricting plan, which created a bizarrely shaped majority-black district.

• Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that redistricting based on race must be held to a standard of strict scrutiny to ensure compliance with the Equal Protection Clause.

• Amendment Used: The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

• Future Impact: Influenced redistricting practices and court cases related to racial gerrymandering.

Baker v. Carr (1962)

• Background: Charles Baker sued the state of Tennessee over his voting rights, arguing that the state's legislative districts were poorly drawn and did not reflect population shifts.

• Ruling: The Supreme Court decided that federal courts had jurisdiction to hear cases regarding state redistricting, thus addressing legislative apportionment.

• Amendment Used: The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

• Future Impact: Established the one person, one vote standard, ensuring equal representation and allowing federal courts to evaluate redistricting cases.

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

• Background: William Marbury petitioned the Supreme Court to compel Secretary of State James Madison to deliver his commission as a justice of the peace.

• Ruling: The Court held that Marbury had a right to his commission, but it could not be enforced due to the unconstitutionality of the relevant part of the Judiciary Act of 1789.

• Amendment Used: Established the principle of judicial review, although not tied to a specific amendment.

• Future Impact: Set the foundation for the Supreme Court's power to overturn laws that conflict with the Constitution, establishing a critical check on legislative and executive power.

Engel v. Vitale (1962)

• Background: This case revolved around a New York State law that encouraged a short, voluntary prayer for recitation at the start of each school day.

• Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that the law violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

• Amendment Used: The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

• Future Impact: Established a significant precedent for the separation of church and state in public schools, impacting religious activities in government-funded institutions.

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

• Background: Clarence Earl Gideon was charged with a felony; he could not afford an attorney and requested one from the court, which was denied.

• Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that the right to counsel is a fundamental right essential to a fair trial under the Sixth Amendment, applicable to states through the Fourteenth Amendment.

• Amendment Used: The Sixth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment.

• Future Impact: Guaranteed the right to legal representation for all defendants, significantly affecting the criminal justice system and its accessibility.

Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)

• Background: Students planned a silent protest against the Vietnam War by wearing black armbands to school, which led to school suspension.

• Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that students do not lose their First Amendment rights at school, affirming their right to free speech.

• Amendment Used: The First Amendment.

• Future Impact: Set a precedent for students' rights, reinforcing that expressive speech is protected even in public schools.

Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)

• Background: Amish parents were convicted for refusing to send their children to school beyond elementary school, citing religious beliefs.

• Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that the state's interest in education was outweighed by the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion.

• Amendment Used: The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

• Future Impact: Protected the rights of religious groups to educate their children according to their beliefs, influencing future religious freedom cases.

New York Times Co. v. United States (1971)

• Background: The Nixon administration tried to prevent the New York Times from publishing the Pentagon Papers, citing national security concerns.

• Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that prior restraint was unjustified, asserting the importance of free press.

• Amendment Used: The First Amendment.

• Future Impact: Reinforced the freedom of the press and set a strong precedent against prior restraint, crucial for journalism.

Schenck v. United States (1919)

• Background: Charles Schenck was convicted under the Espionage Act for distributing leaflets opposing the draft during World War I.

• Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that speech presenting a "clear and present danger" to public safety could be limited.

• Amendment Used: The First Amendment.

• Future Impact: Established limitations on free speech in wartime, although later cases would refine the standards for these limitations, like in Brandenburg v. Ohio.

Citizens United v. FEC (2010)

• Background: Citizens United, a nonprofit corporation, challenged federal laws restricting independent expenditures for political communications.

• Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited under the First Amendment.

• Amendment Used: The First Amendment.

• Future Impact: Expanded the concept of free speech in relation to political spending, leading to increased campaign financing by corporations and unions.

McDonald v. Chicago (2010)

• Background: Otis McDonald challenged a Chicago ordinance that banned the possession of handguns, arguing that the Second Amendment should apply to the states.

• Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.

• Amendment Used: The Second Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment.

• Future Impact: Incorporated the Second Amendment at the state level, influencing gun control laws across the country.

Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

• Background: This case challenged the constitutionality of racial segregation in public schools, stemming from a combination of cases.

• Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that racial segregation in public schools was unconstitutional, effectively overturning Plessy v. Ferguson.

• Amendment Used: The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

• Future Impact: Paved the way for the civil rights movement and landmark legislation against segregation.

Roe v. Wade (1973)

• Background: Jane Roe challenged Texas laws that criminalized most abortions, arguing they violated her right to privacy.

• Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that the right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment extends to a woman's decision to have an abortion.

• Amendment Used: The Fourteenth Amendment.

• Future Impact: Established a legal framework for abortion rights, significantly impacting reproductive rights discussions and policies.

Mapp v. Ohio (1961)

• Background:

  • Dollree Mapp was convicted of possessing obscene materials after an illegal search of her home by police.

  • The evidence was obtained without a proper search warrant.

• Ruling:

  • The Supreme Court ruled that evidence obtained through illegal searches and seizures is inadmissible in state courts.

  • This decision applied the exclusionary rule to the states, which was previously only applicable at the federal level.

• Amendment Used:

  • The Fourth Amendment (protection against unreasonable searches and seizures) and the Fourteenth Amendment (due process).

• Future Impact:

  • Established the exclusionary rule as a national standard, significantly impacting criminal procedure and law enforcement practices.

  • Reinforced the protection of individual rights against state violations.

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

• Background:

  • Ernesto Miranda was arrested and confessed to a crime without being informed of his right to remain silent or his right to an attorney.

  • His confession was used against him in court, leading to his conviction.

• Ruling:

  • The Supreme Court ruled that suspects must be informed of their rights before interrogation, including the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney.

  • This led to the creation of the "Miranda warnings."

• Amendment Used:

  • The Fifth Amendment (protection against self-incrimination) and the Sixth Amendment (right to counsel).

• Future Impact:

  • Established the requirement for law enforcement to inform suspects of their rights, fundamentally changing police procedures.

  • Enhanced protections for individuals during police interrogations.

New York Times Co. v. United States (1971)

• Background:

  • The Nixon administration attempted to prevent the New York Times from publishing the Pentagon Papers, citing national security concerns.

  • The government sought a prior restraint to stop the publication.

• Ruling:

  • The Supreme Court ruled that prior restraint was unjustified, asserting the importance of a free press.

  • The Court emphasized the heavy presumption against the constitutional validity of prior restraint.

• Amendment Used:

  • The First Amendment (freedom of the press).

• Future Impact:

  • Reinforced the freedom of the press and set a strong precedent against prior restraint.

  • Crucial for journalism and the protection of press freedoms in the face of government opposition.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010)

• Background:

  • Citizens United, a nonprofit corporation, challenged federal laws restricting independent expenditures for political communications.

  • The laws prohibited corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds for electioneering communications.

• Ruling:

  • The Supreme Court ruled that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited under the First Amendment.

  • The Court held that political spending is a form of protected speech.

• Amendment Used:

  • The First Amendment (freedom of speech).

• Future Impact:

  • Expanded the concept of free speech in relation to political spending, leading to increased campaign financing by corporations and unions.

  • Significant impact on campaign finance laws and the role of money in politics.