Required Court Cases Summaries

Marbury v Madison, 1803

• Facts of the case:
  • Federalists, under John Adams, lost the election of 1800 to Thomas Jefferson.
  • Outgoing Federalists tried to pack the D.C. court system with Federalist judges.
  • Some “commissions” got lost, including Marbury's.
  • Marbury sued Secretary of State James Madison to deliver his license.
  • President Jefferson directed Madison to refuse.
  • Marbury sued at the Supreme Court.
  • Chief Justice John Marshall knew Marbury should get his commission but the court was powerless to force Madison and Jefferson to comply.
  • If the court ruled for Marbury, it would destroy the court's power and reputation.
  • Marbury’s legal team wanted the court to use the Judiciary Act to send a Writ of Mandamus forcing the delivery of Marbury’s license.
  • Marshall realized Congress made an error in creating the Judicial Act because Congress gave the court too much power, possibly breaking the basic concept of the separations of powers.
• Decision:
  • In a unanimous vote of 5-0, the court struck down that portion of the Judiciary Act.
  • Congress could not give the court Writs of Mandamus powers because the court would essentially run the country with these Writs.
  • The Supreme Court now held the power of “Judicial Review,” even though this form of review was not expressly listed in Article III of the Constitution.
• Constitutional Connection:
  • This is a fundamental case in the debates over separations and checks.
  • How is power divided?
  • What range of decisions can a federal branch have?
  • What checks on powers exist?
  • Who holds “interpretation” powers?
• Paired Case:
  • US v Nixon, 1974: To what extent does a president have “executive privileges”?
  • Can a president be exempt from a congressional or federal court order concerning a possible criminal event?
  • Can the Supreme Court resolve a dispute between the legislative branch and the executive branch?
  • The Court required President Nixon to turn over evidence to a Congressional Committee.

McCulloch v Maryland, 1819

• Ruling: “Let the ends be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional.”
• Facts of the case:
  • Congress established the Second National Bank in 1818.
  • States felt the national bank had an unfair advantage.
  • Maryland set up a tax to be collected from the national bank in Baltimore.
  • McCulloch refused to pay the state tax.
  • McCulloch was sued for debt collection by Maryland officials.
  • Constitutional questions: Did Congress have the authority to create a national bank, and can states tax a federal act?
• Decision:
  • The unanimous ruling by the Marshall Court (6-0) held that Congress could create such a bank using the Necessary and Proper/Elastic Clause.
  • Even though the creation of banks was not specifically listed in Article 1, the act by Congress was constitutional as implied.
  • Maryland’s tax on the federal act was declared unconstitutional.
  • The ruling stated, “The power to tax is the power to destroy,” and therefore Maryland’s actions would destroy a legitimate action of the federal government.
• Constitutional Connection:
  • This case created a clear example of federalism in action and the federal supremacy of the Constitution when conflicts with states occur.
• Paired Case:
  • Gonzalez v Raich, 2005: California legalized marijuana use for medical conditions in 1996.
  • This action conflicted with federal laws concerning marijuana.
  • Do federal laws apply to intra-state actions, and can Congress act using interstate commerce powers?
  • The court sided with Congress and held that interstate controls belong to the federal government if a state action, inside its own boundaries, still affects national markets and interstate commerce.

Schenck v US, 1919

• Facts of the case:
  • During World War 1, Schenck was arrested for passing out leaflets opposing the military draft.
  • The leaflets criticized the war effort and encouraged men to protest and avoid the draft.
  • The leaflets did not call for any violent actions, but peaceful protests.
  • Schenck was arrested and convicted for endangering the war effort and breaking the Espionage Act of 1917.
  • He claimed free speech rights.
  • Did Congress have the right to create laws that restricted free speech rights during wartime?
• Decision:
  • In a unanimous decision of 9-0, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress had the authority to create the Espionage Act, thus limiting certain types of protests during war.
  • The protests could not endanger the war effort because they would endanger the security of the nation in a time of crisis.
  • Justice Holmes wrote the decision: “concluded that the First Amendment does not protect speech that approaches creating a clear and present danger of significant evil that Congress has the power to prevent.
  • Holmes reasoned that the widespread dissemination of the leaflets was sufficiently likely to disrupt the conscription process and compared the leaflets to shouting “Fire” in a crowded theater, which is not permitted under the First Amendment.
• Constitutional Connection:
  • The Bill of Rights (First Amendment): What is the balance of power between safety provided by governmental actions and the civil liberties of individuals?
• Paired Case:
  • Texas v Johnson, 1989: Johnson was arrested for protesting at a Republican convention by tearing down a US flag from a nearby pole and setting it on fire.
  • Texas arrested him for the theft and the desecration of the flag, which was illegal in Texas.
  • Johnson claimed political free speech rights, even though he burned an object and did not give a “speech”.
  • In a 5-4 decision by the Rehnquist court, Johnson won, as his actions were held to be political free speech in nature.

Brown v Board of Education, 1954

• Facts of the case:
  • For 58 years, civil rights groups like the NAACP had been fighting state laws that allowed for racial segregation in facilities like public schools.
  • Linda Brown was one of many African American students denied access to a local white public school.
  • In Linda’s case, it was an elementary school in Topeka, Kansas.
  • The NAACP legal team bundled together challenges from multiple state school systems and the Brown name was the first in the list.
  • Could states, which ran their own school systems under Reserved Powers, continue to claim that separate facilities were “equal” facilities?
  • Did “separation” not automatically mean that the group being segregated was inferior to another group?
• Decision:
  • After lengthy and heated debates, the court, as led by Chief Justice Warren, voted in a 9-0 ruling that segregation by states was never “equal”.
  • The “equal protection” clause of the 14th Amendment was not being enforced by the states.
  • The federal court stepped in and changed the way states would run this part of their intra-state school systems since a fundamental Constitutional right was being denied by the states.
• Constitutional Connection:
  • The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment
• Paired Case:
  • Plessy v Ferguson, 1896: Homer Plessy volunteered to test the new Louisiana law of segregating railroad passenger cars.
  • Even though he looked white, his birth certificate listed him as “negro” due to distant black ancestors.
  • Could Louisiana segregate him from the white cars?
  • Yes, since the court claimed, at the time, that states could create such “equal” facilities for whites and blacks.

Baker v Carr, 1962

• Facts of the case:
  • During and after the Jim Crow era of segregation, southern states used many strategies to avoid giving African Americans equal rights.
  • Tennessee refused to change statewide voting districts to avoid black voting blocs taking over city governments.
  • Urban citizens realized that they were part of heavily populated districts that had the same number of state representatives as much more lightly populated rural districts.
  • Baker sued the state, represented by Carr, in federal court, asking the Supreme Court to step in to the state’s powers of creating voting districts and creating racial injustices.
  • Should the federal court system correct this state abuse when the Constitution clearly gives states the authority to run elections?
• Decision:
  • The Warren Court, ruling 6-2, used the equal protection clause to rule that minorities were not being protected by the state actions.
  • States had to re-district so that voting rights were equal across the state.
  • A citizen could not be 1 out of a million votes in one district while another citizen was only 1 out of 10,000 in their district.
  • This has come to be known as the “one man—one vote” guideline.
• Constitutional Connection:
  • College Board lists this case under the concept of republican ideals manifested in how legislative bodies operate and what kinds of rules must be followed throughout the nation.
  • The court used the equal protection clause of the 14th as the foundation for allowing the federal court to intervene in Tennessee’s actions.
• Paired Case:
  • Gill v Whitford, 2017: Wisconsin Republicans in the legislature carefully gerrymandered the state voting boundaries to enhance Republican victories while maintaining population balances and minority protections.
  • Can a party group gerrymander specifically to help a party?
  • The court did not completely resolve the issue about party gerrymandering but did show that opposing party members must show that the gerrymandering they perceive as harmful is related to basic voting rights.
  • If they can’t show this loss of voting rights, and in this case they didn’t, they will lose the challenge.
  • Party gerrymandering continues and awaits further challenges.

Engel v Vitale, 1962

• Facts of the case:
  • Prayers led by teachers and administrators in public schools were challenged for decades.
  • In the late 1950’s a school district in New York created what they hoped would be a very generic prayer that would not favor any specific church group.
  • However, the Engel family challenged that prayer on the grounds that it still created a form of establishment by the government and imposed on the family’s children beliefs that they might not share.
  • The state also claimed that the voluntary nature of the prayer caused it to be exempt from the establishment rule.
• Decision:
  • The Warren Court, in a vote of 6-1, ruled that even this generic prayer was a form of governmental establishment of religious beliefs imposed on the public.
  • Schools could not lead students in this activity as part of the public school day.
  • The schools would also be subjecting students who asked to be exempt to unnecessary criticism from teachers and fellow students.
  • Debates continue: Can schools lead prayers at graduation? Can schools lead prayers at sporting events? and other related activities.
• Constitutional Connection:
  • First Amendment: Establishment versus Free-Exercise
• Paired Case:
  • Zelman v Simmons-Harris, 2002: The city of Cleveland set up voucher programs that gave public school money to some private schools with religious affiliations.
  • Since the public was allowed to select where the money was being sent, and the program itself did not sponsor any religious activities, the court allowed the voucher program.
  • The sample exam question released by College Board in 2018 also compared Engel v Vitale to the case of Greece v Galloway, 2014. In the Greece ruling, the court allowed a prayer to be used at a public town hall meeting since the prayer was part of the public traditions of the nation and was not mandated upon the public.

Gideon v Wainwright, 1963

• Facts of the case:
  • Clarence Gideon was arrested in Florida and charged with breaking into a pool hall and stealing beer, wine, sodas, and pockets full of change.
  • Since the charges were considered “minor” by the laws at the time, Clarence was not given an attorney for his defense.
  • Florida did not pay for such services at those kinds of charges.
  • However, since Clarence had been to jail before, the judge gave him a multi-year prison sentence after he was unable to successfully defend himself.
  • While in jail, Clarence submitted a Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court, challenging the Florida decision.
  • He claimed that his 6th Amendment rights to counsel should apply to his trial in Florida courts.
  • Should the due process clause of the 14th Amendment force states to provide attorneys to any and all defendants if the prosecution from the state had an attorney?
• Decision:
  • Even though Gideon’s petition was written from jail, and Gideon was not a lawyer, his Writ was accepted by the Supreme Court.
  • In a unanimous 9-0 decision, the Warren Court agreed with his argument and extended 6th Amendment rights to counsel to all state trials.
  • This became a fundamental part of all citizens' Due Process rights in US courts.
• Constitutional Connection:
  • Selective Incorporation of the 6th Amendment using the 14th .
• Paired Case:
  • College Board did not list a specific, new case to match with the logic of Gideon.
  • Most sources about the case describe the prior case of Betts v Brady, 1942 where the Supreme Court sided with states in not requiring defense attorneys except in capital cases.
  • The other case found in notes is the infamous Powell v Alabama, 1932 (also known as the Scottsboro Boys Case) decision by the Supreme Court. In a 7-2 ruling, the court agreed that the young, black defendants were not given proper legal assistance in capital cases. The Powell case is listed as a selective incorporation example.
• Final, Extra Note:
  • Despite his objections based on double jeopardy rights, Gideon had to face a retrial for the original Florida charges.
  • This time, the state required that he be defended by an attorney.
  • Several civil rights attorneys volunteered to defend Clarence, but he refused their help.
  • He finally agreed to a local attorney.
  • When this attorney did some research, he discovered enough evidence to show that Clarence did not commit the original crimes but had been set up as a scapegoat by several men who did commit the theft.

Tinker v Des Moines School District, 1969

• Facts of the case:
  • During the middle of the protest era against the Vietnam War, national groups announced plans to select fast days and armband days to signify support for a truce in Vietnam.
  • Christopher Eckhardt, Mary Beth Tinker, and John Tinker wore black armbands to school in protest of the war.
  • Principals at the schools had warned them that if they wore the armbands they would be suspended from school.
  • They wore them anyway and were suspended.
  • Representatives of the Tinker children claimed in court that free speech rights had been violated by the school administrators.
  • School officials claimed that they were protecting the schools from harmful and possibly violent actions that could be caused by the protests.
  • Was the wearing of armbands a form of protected free speech? Did such rights extend to students in public schools?
• Decision:
  • The Warren Court, in a 7-2 ruling, sided with the students.
  • “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.” (Oyez website)
  • Schools have the right to make rules about school safety, but certain free speech rights of students are protected.
• Constitutional Connection:
  • Free speech rights in the First Amendment
• Paired Case:
  • Morse v Frederick, 2007: At a school-sponsored rally in Juneau, Alaska, students from the high school were supporting the Olympic Torch Relay as it passed through town.
  • Students were brought to the rally by the school.
  • Senior Joseph Frederick held up a banner at this rally, “Bong Hits for Jesus” and was told to put it away by the principal.
  • He refused, the banner was seized and he was suspended from school for 10 days due to the message advocating an illegal activity (marijuana use).
  • In a 5-4 decision the court ruled for the school principal, Ms. Morse.
  • The rationale was that schools had a reason to control a message that called for using an illegal drug and that First Amendment rights of students did not fall into this area.
  • The student’s action was seen as a disruption of school discipline.
  • Bethel v Fraser, 1986: Students are not free to give obscene or provocative speeches at school.
  • Hazelwood v Kuhlmeier, 1988: Student articles in school newspapers can be edited by school administrators.

New York Times v US, 1971

• Facts of the case:
  • Daniel Ellsberg, a history researcher, found secret documents that gave detailed descriptions of how military and executive leaders lied about the war effort, lied about the infamous Gulf of Tonkin attack, lied about US expectations for victory, etc.
  • Ellsberg photocopied thousands of pages of documents, snuck them out of the Pentagon, and gave them to reporters at the New York Times and Washington Post.
  • The Times, and then the Post, announced their possession of the documents and summarized many of the charges against the government.
  • The Nixon administration immediately received a restraining order from a federal court stopping further publication.
  • The government claimed that the documents were labeled as “secret”, had been stolen, and might endanger soldiers and other government workers.
  • The press claimed prior restraint violations.
  • The Supreme Court stepped in immediately and held a hearing.
• Decision:
  • In a 6-3 ruling, the Burger Court supported the right of the papers to publish.
  • The government could not show that historic documents were a threat to national security, and therefore the press was free to publish.
• Constitutional Connection:
  • Freedom of the Press in the First Amendment, no Prior Restraint
• Paired Case:
  • College Board notes do not list a specific case sample.
  • Brandenburg v Ohio, 1969: Speech and printing of items calling for violence can be limited
  • Branzburg v Hayes, 1972: Sources that leak information to the press, and have broken federal laws to do so, might have to be revealed by the press
  • Miller v California, 1973: The publication of obscene materials can be limited by communities
• Follow up information:
  • Daniel Ellsberg still faced serious charges of having “stolen” the classified documents.
  • He could have received up to 100 years in prison as a sentence.
  • His trial was started in California.
  • During the trial, evidence was presented that his attorney’s office had been broken into by members of the Nixon White House, other phone conversations had been illegally recorded by the FBI, and a smear campaign against Ellsberg’s sanity was started by Nixon operatives.
  • The evidence of gross misconduct by the government, and growing revelations about the Watergate break-in led to a dismissal of charges against Ellsberg.

Wisconsin v Yoder, 1972

• Facts of the case:
  • Wisconsin had laws that required school attendance for children under the age of sixteen.
  • Amish leaders claimed that the teachings in high school classes were contrary to their religious belief systems.
  • Would criminalizing parents’ refusal to send their children to classes after the 8th grade violate their freedoms of religious expression?
• Decision:
  • In a 7-0 decision, the Burger Court sided with the parents.
  • “The court found that the values and programs of secondary school were ‘in sharp conflict with the fundamental mode of life mandated by the Amish religion,’ and that the additional one or two years of high school would not produce the benefits of public education cited by Wisconsin to justify the law.” (Oyez website)
• Constitutional Connection:
  • Freedom of Religion in the First Amendment: Free Exercise
• Paired Case:
  • Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v Smith, 1990: Two Native American workers were fired from state jobs and denied unemployment compensation because they used the illegal drug peyote during tribal ceremonies.
  • The court ruled for the state’s actions, stating that religious beliefs cannot be used as excuses for not complying with valid drug laws.
  • To give citizens such rights would be to open doors to challenges against all kinds of valid laws based on religious belief claims.

Shaw v Reno, 1993

• Facts of the case:
  • The state of North Carolina reestablished state voting boundaries in order to give minority voters a bigger chance of winning districts.
  • The gerrymandering plan was challenged by a federal judge when different voting groups found the boundaries objectionable.
  • A significant issue of the challenge was the question of federal authority over state voting boundaries.
  • How much additional power should the federal courts have after the ruling of “one man one vote” in the Baker v Carr case?
• Decision:
  • The Rehnquist Court voted 5-4 to give federal courts the power to rule over potentially bizarre or excessive gerrymandering plans from states.
  • The court specifically objected to racially imbalanced districts.
• Constitutional Connection:
  • Republican powers, legislative authority, federal authority versus reserved powers of states
• Paired Case:
  • Gill v Whitford, 2017: The same paired case as in the Baker v Carr case. Wisconsin Republicans in the legislature carefully gerrymandered the state voting boundaries to enhance Republican victories while maintaining population balances and minority protections.
  • Can a party group gerrymander specifically to help a party?
  • The court did not completely resolve the issue about party gerrymandering but did show that opposing party members must show that the gerrymandering they perceive as harmful is related to basic voting rights.
  • If they can’t show this loss of voting rights, and in this case they didn’t, they will lose the challenge.
  • Party gerrymandering continues and awaits further challenges.

US v Lopez, 1995

• Facts of the case:
  • Congress created and passed the “Gun Free Schools Zone Act of 1990”.
  • The act made it a federal offense to bring a gun to a school or move one through a school zone.
  • A San Antonio high school student, Alfonzo Lopez was charged under the federal act for bringing a gun to his high school after state charges for gun possession had been dropped.
  • The question brought to the Supreme Court was the status of the law itself.
  • Did Congress have the authority to create such a law?
  • They had based their authority on the powers of the Commerce Clause of Article 1. Guns are sold across state boundaries.
• Decision:
  • The Rehnquist Court, in another 5-4 decision, ruled against Congress.
  • The ruling held that Congress had gone too far in expanding the Commerce Clause powers.
  • The gun zone act did not have relevance to commerce, and Congress did not have the authority to create such a law.
• Constitutional Connection:
  • Federalism and the powers of the legislative branch, “devolution”
• Paired Case:
  • Heart of Atlanta Motel v US, 1964: A white motel owner who didn’t want to serve African American customers challenged federal desegregation requirements listed in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
  • He claimed that Congress had control over public places but not private businesses.
  • The court supported the law by declaring that businesses that benefit from interstate trade, and clearly motels do benefit, could be regulated by Congressional acts.

McDonald v Chicago, 2010

• Facts of the case:
  • The city of Chicago and the suburb community of Oak Park created gun ban laws in order to curb increasing amounts of violence.
  • After the Supreme Court ruled on a gun case from the District of Columbia, challenges to the Illinois bans arose.
  • Otis McDonald had possessed a legal gun license for many years and challenged the new ban in his town.
  • He claimed basic Second Amendment rights to possess the gun.
• Decision:
  • The Roberts Court voted 5-4 to support the claims of McDonald.
  • The Court declared that rights under the Second Amendment should be applied to state laws using the rights given under the Fourteenth Amendment.
  • Since the Court had interpreted the Second Amendment as applying to individual possession or arms, states like Illinois would have to follow those rights.
  • State laws could not remove basic federal rights.
• Constitutional Connection:
  • Second Amendment rights to bear arms as incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment
• Paired Case:
  • District of Columbia v Heller, 2008: The rights under the Second Amendment have always been separated into the ideas of regulated militias versus individual rights to bear arms.
  • The original wordings, and its early interpretations, were never resolved as to the true emphasis of the amendment.
  • Should access to arms be part of well regulated militias or full individual access?
  • After the District of Columbia government (a federal body) banned most access to handguns inside the district, the court ruled against the district.
  • The court emphasized individual rights to bear arms inside the federal lands.

Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, 2010

• Facts of the case:
  • The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 was an effort by Congress to continue decades of reform efforts to control slush funds, hidden funds, “dark money”, and other efforts to bypass various federal campaign controls.
  • The 2002 act was used by the FEC to stop the showing of a movie about Hillary Clinton.
  • The FEC claimed that the movie was a biased attempt to influence voters and therefore not allowed under the Reform Act.
  • Citizens United, a conservative group, challenged the FEC actions.
  • They claimed free speech rights.
  • The Reform Act limited the ways corporations or unions could fund activities like the movie and its influence on campaigns.
• Decision:
  • The Roberts Court voted 5-4 to side with Citizens United.
  • The questions of the case revolved around technical decisions about the role of “political speech” versus “campaign speech”, public disclosures of campaign funds, and the powers Congress gave to the FEC.
  • Corporation contributions to independent political broadcasts should not be regulated.
  • Political free speech applies to corporations.
  • The court did support the FEC requirements about disclosure of the sources of certain campaign funds.
• Constitutional Connection:
  • Free speech and its connections to campaigns and election rules
• Paired Case:
  • McCutcheon v FEC, 2014: The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act also included limits on the amounts of money individuals could give to candidates, political organizations, or groups supporting certain issues.
  • There were individual campaign limits and aggregate total limits for each election cycle (hard money rules).
  • Based on the ideas of giving individual rights to support elections, the court ruled against the contribution limits.