Supreme Court Cases

Marbury v. Madison (1803):

Background information: At the end of his presidency, Federalist John Adams appointed numerous individuals to positions within the government. The formalized appointments, known as commissions, were not delivered before the presidential turnover for four of these individuals, including William Marbury. When Democratic-Republican President Thomas Jefferson assumed office, his Secretary of State James Madison refused to deliver the commissions. Marbury and the other three individuals who were refused their commissions sued and asked the Supreme Court to deliver a writ of mandamus, or judicial command, to force James Madison to deliver the commissions. The plaintiffs argued that Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 gave the Court the authority to deliver a mandamus that would compel Madison to act.

Constitutional Question: Does the Supreme Court of the United States have the power, under Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution, to interpret the constitutionality of a law or statute passed by Congress?

Opinion: In a unanimous opinion, the Court ruled that the relevant provision within the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional, noting that issuing writs of mandate was outside of the “original jurisdiction” of the Supreme Court as established in Article III of the Constitution. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the Congress, in creating the Judiciary Act, had exceeded its authority. When an act of Congress is in conflict with the Constitution, Marshall wrote, the Court must uphold the Constitution as supreme.

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819):

Background information: The U.S had a problem with the amount of unregulated currency issued by the banks of the states. To fix this problem, Congress decided to establish the Second National Bank to help regulate the currency. This raised concern with many states about whether or not that was constitutional and led to Maryland responding by taxing the federal banks. James McCulloch, a Federal cashier of the U.S bank, refused to pay these taxes. In response to this, Maryland filed a suit against McCulloch.

Constitutional Question: Does the state of Maryland have the right to tax a federal agency which was properly set up by the United States Congress?

Opinion of the Court: John Marshall announced the opinion of the Supreme Court with a unanimous verdict which stated that Congress had the power to establish the Bank of the United States. The Supreme Court also ruled that congress could establish branches within the states without being subjected to taxes. Marshall used the Necessary and Proper Clause (Article 1, Section 8) of the constitution to argue that Congress possessed powers not explicitly mentioned in the U.S Constitution. Furthermore, the wording of “necessary” in the constitution meant that they could pass any order to help them reach their established enumerated powers.

Gibbons v. Ogden (1824): 

Background information: In New York, Aaron Ogden had a monopoly over steamboat operations in state waters. Thomas Gibbons was a steamboat owner who was allowed to work between New York and New Jersey under government approval. Gibbons operated a steamboat on a New York route belonging to Ogden. Due to this, Ogden went to the New York Court which granted Gibbons an injunction to stop operating there. Gibbons appealed this injunction up to the Supreme Court.

Constitutional Question: Is a New York statute that prohibits vessels licensed by the United States from navigating the waters of New York unconstitutional and, therefore, void. 

Opinion of the Court: Chief Justice John Marshall stated the unanimous opinion of the court that Congress is able to control interstate and some intrastate commerce, not the states. They used the Constitution’s commerce clause to defend this argument (Article 1, Section 8. Clause 3). Congress could only control intrastate commerce if it affects interstate commerce.

Chief Justice: Earl Warren

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954):

Background Information: Oliver Brown and his daughter were both African Americans during a time in the U.S where segregation was prevalent. Mr. Brown wanted to enroll his daughter into a public school district in Topeka, Kansas but was refused due to their skin color. They required her to enroll at a school much further away than their home. Irritated, the Brown family filed a class action lawsuit against the Topeka Board of Education in federal court. The court ruled against the Brown’s and justified their decision with Plessy V. Ferguson, citing it as a judicial precedent. The Brown’s appealed their case to the Supreme Court

Constitutional Question: Does segregation of children in public schools deny blacks their Fourteenth Amendment right of equal protection under the law? 

Opinion of the Court The opinion of the court was delivered by Chief Justice Earl Warren. In a unanimous decision by the SCOTUS, they acknowledged that the separated facilities were not equal and that they violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The segregation of the schools gave a sense of inferiority towards black children and was shown to affect their educational growth.

Mapp v. Ohio (1961):

Background Information: Dollree Mapp was an American woman who lived in Cleveland, Ohio. One day, police forcefully entered her home without a warrant after suspecting that she was harboring a bomber. Throughout this search, they found pornographic and lewd books in Ms. Mapp’s home. Due to this, Mapp was prosecuted for possessing lewd and lascivious material. Mapp appealed her conviction to the Supreme Court saying that her Fourth Amendment right had been violated due to the search.

Constitutional Question: Was Miss Mapp’s Fourth Amendment right to be secure from search and seizure violated during the search of her home?

Opinion of the Court: The opinion of the court decided that all evidence that was obtained from Mapp’s house was inadmissible in a state court due to the lack of a warrant. Due to the books being unlawfully seized, they cannot be used in state courts just how they’re not allowed in federal courts either. The search and seizure of these pieces of evidence violated Mapp’s Fourth Amendment right. 

Engel v. Vitale (1962):

Background Information: The state of New York passed a law which required its students to begin the day with the Pledge of Allegiance and an optional prayer to God. Once parents were made aware of this, many were concerned. A group of parents which Steven Engel was part of decided to sue the school board president, William Vitale, on behalf of their children. The parent group claimed that the morning prayer violated the Establishment clause of the First Amendment. After many losses, the parent group appealed to The Supreme Court.

Constitutional Question: Does a non-denominational prayer, recited in every classroom in a school district, violate the First Amendment’s provision for separation of church and state? 

Opinion of the Court: The court decided that the prayers commenced by the school districts in New York were unconstitutional and violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.  The government is unable to instate the law of morning prayer because they were endorsing a religion by praying to God. This opinion of the court reasserted the importance of separation of church and state.

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963):

Background Information: Clarence Earl Gideon was a man who ran away from home just as he was beginning middle school. His early adult life consisted of spending time in and out of prisons for petty crimes. One day, Gideon was charged with breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony. During his trial, Gideon was not represented by an attorney. He asked the judge to appoint counsel for him because he could not afford an attorney but the judge denied Gideon’s request. His reasoning was that Florida law only allowed appointed counsels for poor defendants who are charged with capital offenses. Gideon tried his best but the jury found him guilty and he was sentenced to five years of imprisonment. Gideon petitioned to the Florida Supreme Court but they denied him. Despite the rejection, Gideon filed a petition to the SCOTUS that his Sixth Amendment right was violated by the Florida state court.

Constitutional Question: Did the state of Florida violate Gideon’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel, made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, by not providing him with the assistance of counsel for his criminal defense?

Opinion of the Court: The Supreme Court unanimously decided in favor of Gideon. The Supreme Court overturned a previous ruling of Betts v. Brady that allowed states to not appoint counsel to defendants. They claimed that the Sixth Amendment, which guaranteed an attorney for all defendants, was a fundamental right to a fair trial and the refusal of appointment by the states would violate the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Miranda v. Arizona (1966):

Background Information: On March 13, 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested and brought to the police station. He was suspected to be linked with a kidnapping and rape. He was interrogated for two hours which led to Miranda writing a confession to the police. This confession was admitted into evidence at his trial which led to the jury finding him guilty. Miranda appealed to the SC of Arizona under the basis that Miranda’s constitutional rights were violated. He was found guilty again because he did not specifically request counsel. Miranda appealed to the Supreme Court

Constitutional Question: Did the state of Arizona violate the constitutional rights of Miranda under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments when they interrogated him without advising him of his constitutional right to remain silent.? 

Opinion of the Court: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Miranda stating that the interrogation violated the Fifth Amendment. The Supreme Court stated that a defendant must be warned about their right to remain silent, that anything they said can be used against them in a court of law, and the right to an attorney if one cannot be afforded. The confession of Miranda was inadmissible because he was not warned about his rights.

Tinker v. Des Moines (1969):

Background Information: A public school in Des Moines, Iowa faced a problem. Students organized a silent protest against the Vietnam War by wearing black armbands to school. The principal found out and warned students that they would be suspended if they continued. The students were suspended due to their defiance. The parents of the students then sued the school for violating their children’s right to free speech. The district court sided with the school so the parents appealed to the Supreme Court. 

Constitutional Question: Do Marybeth and John Tinker have a First Amendment right to free speech to wear black armbands as a symbol of protest in a public school?

Opinion of the Court: The court believed that the armbands represented pure speech and that the school had no right to suspend the students over it. The court held that the students did not lose their First Amendment rights when they entered school property. The school failed to prove that the armbands were disrupting the learning of the other students.

Chief Justice: Warren Burger

Roe v. Wade (1973):

Background Information: In Texas, abortions were only legal if it was necessary to save the life of the mother. When Jane Roe (real name Norma McCorvey) found out she was pregnant, she wanted an abortion. Due to the fact that her situation did not allow for an abortion, she sued the district attorney of Dallas County, Texas. She stated that the state laws violated her right of personal privacy protected by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendment. The district court favored Roe’s side but didn’t act to enforce the law so they appealed to the Supreme Court.

Constitutional Question: Does a state law which bans or regulates abortion violate a woman’s right to privacy or personal choice in matters of family decisions or marriage? 

Opinion of the Court: The court sided with Roe. They argued that the right to abortion fell under the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause. According to the Supreme Court, the states cannot interfere with abortion during the first trimester of pregnancy. States could regulate abortions if it concerned the mother’s health during the second trimester. Only in the third trimester could they interfere due to the baby being able to live independently from the mother. Texas law and other state laws became unconstitutional for violating Roe’s constitutional right. 

US v. Nixon (1974):

Background Information: Due to the controversial Watergate scandal, the Nixon administration was suspected of playing a part in the break-in. Amidst the public hearings, it was soon revealed that the Oval Office had a system that automatically records everything in the Oval Office and Cabinet Room. To find out if Nixon was a part of the break-in, the senate subpoenaed the White House recordings. Nixon stated that he was immune from the subpoena due to his “executive privilege”. As time passed, Nixon’s subpoena remained which led him to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Constitutional Question: Did the United States violate President Nixon’s constitutional right of executive power, his need for confidentiality, his need to maintain the separation of powers, and his executive privilege to immunity from any court demands for information and evidence?

Opinion of the Court: The court ruled against Richard Nixon. They acknowledged that executive privilege was a right the president had for diplomacy and areas of the military. This event did not allow for presidential immunity and privilege because it was interfering with the court’s duty to enact justice while maintaining due process.  Nixon must obey the subpoena and send the tape transcripts to the court. The court’s ruling made it clear that nobody was above the law, including the president. 

Regents of California v. Bakke (1978):

Background Information: Allan Bakke was a 35 year old white man who was trying to apply to the University of California Medical School at Davis. He applied two times but was rejected twice due to the university reserving sixteen spots only for “qualified” minorities. They did this as a part of their program to redress their unfair minority exclusions from their university. Bakke’s qualifications exceeded those of the minorities who were admitted during the two years he had been rejected. Due to this, he sued them in the California courts, then in the Supreme Court, on the basis of race. 

Constitutional Question: Did the University’s special admissions program, which accepted minority students with significantly lower scores than Bakke, violate Bakke’s Fourteenth Amendment equal protection rights; and is the University permitted to take race into account as a factor in its future admissions decisions?

Opinion of the Court: The Court had no single majority opinion. Some justices claimed that the racial quota instated by the university violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and that Bakke should be admitted. Others did not believe that the affirmative action program went against the Constitutions. Ultimately, racial quotas for affirmative action were banned by the Supreme Court.

Chief Justice: William Rhenquist

Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988):

Background Information: A group of students who were part of their school’s journalism class wrote stories about their classmate’s experiences with teen pregnancy and the impact of divorce. When these articles were published in the school newspaper, the principal deleted the pages that had the stories without telling the authors. The students brought this matter to court claiming that the school violated their FIrst Amendment rights. The U.S District Court sided with the school so the students appealed to the U.S Court of Appeals. This court agreed with the students which led the school to appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Constitutional Question: Did the Hazelwood School District violate the freedom of expression right of the First Amendment by regulating the content of its school newspaper?

Opinion of the Court: The court decided that the principal of Hazelwood had not violated the student’s First Amendment Right. The newspaper was owned and sponsored by the school so they were allowed to prevent the publication of articles if it is deemed inappropriate and until it's approved by the school. The court made sure to specify that the news journal was not a public newspaper but a limited forum for journalism students to write in to meet requirements for their class.

Texas v. Johnson (1989): 

Background Information: Gregory Lee Johnson was a man who burned an American flag outside a convention center where the Republican National Convention was being held. He did this to protest the policies of Ronald Reagan but was arrested. He was charged with violating a Texas statute that did not allow him to treat important objects with disrespect if it would cause others anger. The Texas Court convicted Johnson but he appealed to the Supreme Court claiming that his actions were “symbolic speech” protected by the First Amendment.

Constitutional Question: Does a law against desecration of the American flag violate an individual’s right to freedom of speech as found in the First Amendment?

Opinion of the Court: The court sided with Johnsons and claimed that flag burning was a form of symbolic speech protected by the First Amendment. They also stated that the justification of others being outraged is not enough to suppress freedom of speech. Finally, they also mentioned that state officials could not designate symbols to communicate messages like they did with the U.S flag.

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992): 

Background Information: Pennsylvania passed laws that limited the amount of abortions in Pennsylvania by adding many requirements before a woman was able to get the procedure. A group of abortion providers led by Planned Parenthood sued Governor Casey of Pennsylvania on the basis that their Fourteenth Amendment Rights were violated. The district court sided with Planned Parenthood which led to Casey appealing to the Court of Appeals. Casey won the case and Planned Parenthood appealed to the Supreme Court. 

Constitutional Question: Does a woman have the right to abort her fetus because it is “a liberty” protected by the Fourteenth Amendment against “substantial obstacle” established by a state?

Opinion of the Court: The Supreme Court ruled that most of Pennsylvania’s laws were constitutional. The problem was that the state of Pennsylvania was placing an “undue burden” on the women who were seeking abortions. The court found that the requirement to show proof of a husband’s acknowledgment to the abortion was an undue burden passed by the states, so they struck that portion down. The Supreme Court sided with Planned Parenthood and deemed the requirements that placed an undue burden unconstitutional.

Clinton v. New York (1998):

Background Information: President Clinton decided to strike down part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 that heavily injured organizations related to healthcare. Due to this, New York sued to the District Court and sided with New York which led to Clinton appealing to the Supreme Court. President Clinton was sued by the State of New York on the basis that he was violating the Presentment Clause of the Constitution.

Constitutional Question: Does the Line Item Veto Act violate the separation of powers outlined in Article I, II, and III of the Constitution of the United States?   

Opinion of the Court: The court stated that it was unconstitutional to use the Line Item Veto Act under the Presentment Clause of the Constitution. They decided this because it gave the president the power to amend a bill without allowing the houses of Congress to vote on the revised bill. Their ruling sided with the state of New York and struck down the Line Item Veto Act.

Chief Justice: John Roberts 

Citizens United v FEC (2010):

Background Information: The nonprofit organization, Citizens United, wanted to distribute and advertise a film they made criticizing Hillary Clinton and her presidential campaign. They wanted to use money out of their own treasury but were unable to due to the BCRA. The BCRA stated that corporations could not spend their own money to broadcast in the media that brought up candidates running for a political office. Citizens United decided to bring the FEC to the U.S District Court. Citizens United argued that BCRA did not apply to their movie and that certain parts of BCRA violated the First Amendment Right to freedom of speech. The court sided with the FEC which led Citizens United to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Constitutional Question: Does a law that limits the ability of corporations and labor unions to spend their own money to advocate the election or defeat of a candidate violate the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech?

Opinion of the Court: The court sided with Citizens United and argued that the Freedom of Speech Clause in the First Amendment prohibited the government from limiting what organizations could spend their money on. This allowed for many third party organizations to spend however much money in order to support or oppose political candidates. Furthermore, the court stated that the First Amendment protects not just an individual but groups of individuals too.

McDonald v. Chicago (2010):

Background Information: Otis McDonald is a man who was growing increasingly angrier at the amount of criminals who terrorized him and his neighbors. Due to this, he became determined to purchase a handgun as a means of self defense. The only problem was that Chicago had banned the new registration of handguns since 1982. McDonald refused to give up and eventually he learned of previous Supreme Court case, D.C v. Heller. McDonald teamed up with other Chicago residents to sue Chicago and brought them to the U.S District Court. They dismissed the case but McDonald appealed to the U.S Court of Appeals. They were dismissed once more because the Heller decision only applied to federal laws. McDonald appealed to the Supreme Court.

Constitutional Question: Does the 2^nd amendment right to bear arms also apply to the states?

Opinion of the Court: The Supreme Court sided with McDonald and agreed that his Second amendment right to own a gun was violated by the state of Chicago. They argued that the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause makes the Second Amendment’s right to own guns for self defense applicable to the state laws. Furthermore, all rights in the Bill of Rights are applicable to the states due to the 14th Amendment.

Griswold v. Connecticut

Background Information: