15 Landmark Supreme Court Cases

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

Facts: 

• The state of Maryland passed a law imposing taxes on the Second Bank of the United States.

• James McCulloch, the cashier of the Baltimore branch of the bank, refused to pay the tax.

• Maryland sued McCulloch, arguing that the Constitution did not explicitly allow Congress to create a bank.

Constitutional Issue/Provisions in Question:

• Necessary and Proper Clause

• Supremacy Clause

• Did the Maryland law unconstitutionally interfere with congressional powers?

Decision and Precedent: 

• Unanimous decision (7-0) in favor of McCulloch.

• The Court established that Congress has implied powers under the Necessary and Proper Clause.

  • States cannot tax federal institutions as it would undermine federal supremacy.

Opinion/Reasoning of the Court: 

• The Court reasoned that the creation of a national bank was within Congress's authority to execute its enumerated powers, emphasizing that a strict interpretation of the powers granted to Congress would hinder the effective governance of the nation.

• This case set a significant precedent for the expansion of federal power, affirming the principle that federal law takes precedence over state law.

U.S. v. Lopez (1995)

Facts:

• Alfonso Lopez, a high school senior, carried a concealed firearm to school.

• He was charged under the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, a federal law prohibiting guns in school zones.

• Lopez challenged the law, arguing Congress exceeded its authority under the Commerce Clause.

Constitutional Issue/Provisions in Question:

• Article I, Section 8 (Commerce Clause)

• Did Congress have the authority to regulate guns in school zones under the Commerce Clause?

Decision and Precedent:

• 5-4 decision in favor of Lopez.

• The Court ruled that the Gun-Free School Zones Act exceeded Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause.

• Limited Congress's use of the Commerce Clause to regulate non-economic activities.

Opinion/Reasoning of the Court:

• The majority argued that carrying a gun in a school zone is not an economic activity and does not substantially affect interstate commerce.

• Expanding the Commerce Clause to cover such cases would grant Congress unlimited power.

Engel v. Vitale (1962)

Facts:

• A New York school implemented a voluntary prayer at the start of each school day.

• A group of parents, led by Steven Engel, challenged the practice as unconstitutional.

Constitutional Issue/Provisions in Question:

• First Amendment (Establishment Clause)

• Does school-sponsored prayer violate the Establishment Clause?

Decision and Precedent:

• 6-1 decision in favor of Engel.

• School-sponsored prayer, even if voluntary, violates the Establishment Clause.

Opinion/Reasoning of the Court:

• The Court ruled that public schools cannot promote religious activities, as it represents government endorsement of religion.

• Justice Black emphasized the importance of maintaining the separation of church and state.

Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)

Facts:

• The state of Wisconsin fined three Amish families for refusing to send their children to school past the 8th grade, citing a state law requiring attendance until age 16.

• The families argued this violated their religious beliefs.

Constitutional Issue/Provisions in Question:

• First Amendment (Free Exercise Clause)

• Did the state law infringe on the Amish community’s religious freedoms?

Decision and Precedent:

• Unanimous decision (7-0) in favor of Yoder.

• Compulsory school attendance laws must yield to religious freedoms in specific cases.

Opinion/Reasoning of the Court:

• The Court held that the Amish lifestyle and religious practices would be severely disrupted by additional schooling.

• The state's interest in education did not outweigh the Free Exercise rights of the Amish families.

Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)

Facts:

• Students wore black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War.

• The school suspended the students, arguing the protest disrupted the learning environment.

Constitutional Issue/Provisions in Question:

• First Amendment (Freedom of Speech)

• Does symbolic speech by students in public schools receive First Amendment protection?

Decision and Precedent:

• 7-2 decision in favor of Tinker.

• Students do not lose their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate.

Opinion/Reasoning of the Court:

• The Court ruled that the armbands represented symbolic speech, which is protected under the First Amendment.

• The protest did not cause substantial disruption, so the school’s actions were unjustified.

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

Facts:

• The New York Times published the "Pentagon Papers," classified documents about U.S. involvement in Vietnam.

• The Nixon administration sought to prevent publication, citing national security concerns.

Constitutional Issue/Provisions in Question:

• First Amendment (Freedom of the Press)

• Can the government use prior restraint to prevent the publication of classified materials?

Decision and Precedent:

• 6-3 decision in favor of the New York Times.

• Prior restraint is unconstitutional in most cases.

Opinion/Reasoning of the Court:

• The government failed to prove that the publication posed a direct, immediate threat to national security.

• Justice Black argued that freedom of the press must be protected to expose government misdeeds.

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

Facts:

• Clarence Gideon was charged with burglary in Florida and denied a court-appointed lawyer.

• Representing himself, Gideon was convicted and sentenced to five years in prison.

Constitutional Issue/Provisions in Question:

• Sixth Amendment (Right to Counsel)

• Does the right to counsel extend to state courts?

Decision and Precedent:

• Unanimous decision (9-0) in favor of Gideon.

• States must provide legal counsel to defendants unable to afford one.

Opinion/Reasoning of the Court:

• Justice Black emphasized that fair trials require access to legal representation.

• The Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause incorporates the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of counsel.

Roe v. Wade (1973)

Facts:

• "Jane Roe" challenged a Texas law banning abortion except to save the mother’s life.

• She argued the law violated her constitutional rights.

Constitutional Issue/Provisions in Question:

• Fourteenth Amendment (Right to Privacy)

• Does the Constitution protect a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy?

Decision and Precedent:

• 7-2 decision in favor of Roe.

• Established a woman’s right to choose abortion during the first trimester.

Opinion/Reasoning of the Court:

• The Court ruled that the right to privacy, implied by the Fourteenth Amendment, includes a woman’s decision to have an abortion.

• States may regulate abortions after the first trimester to protect maternal health.

McDonald v. Chicago (2010)

Facts:

• Chicago’s handgun ban was challenged by Otis McDonald, who argued it infringed on his Second Amendment rights.

Constitutional Issue/Provisions in Question:

• Second Amendment

• Fourteenth Amendment (Incorporation Doctrine)

• Does the Second Amendment apply to state and local governments?

Decision and Precedent:

• 5-4 decision in favor of McDonald.

• The Second Amendment is fully incorporated to apply to states.

Opinion/Reasoning of the Court:

• The Court emphasized the fundamental nature of the right to bear arms for self-defense.

• Justice Alito argued that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies the Second Amendment to the states.

Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

Facts:

• Linda Brown, a Black student, was denied entry to a white school in Kansas due to segregation laws.

• Her family challenged the doctrine of "separate but equal" established in Plessy v. Ferguson.

Constitutional Issue/Provisions in Question:

• Fourteenth Amendment (Equal Protection Clause)

• Does racial segregation in public schools violate the Equal Protection Clause?

Decision and Precedent:

• Unanimous decision (9-0) in favor of Brown.

• Declared racial segregation in schools unconstitutional.

Opinion/Reasoning of the Court:

• The Court, led by Chief Justice Warren, ruled that separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.

• Segregation stigmatizes minority children, violating the Equal Protection Clause.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010)

Facts:

• Citizens United, a nonprofit corporation, sought to air a political documentary critical of Hillary Clinton during the 2008 Democratic primaries.

• The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) prohibited corporations and unions from funding election-related communications within 30 days of a primary election.

Constitutional Issue/Provisions in Question:

• First Amendment (Freedom of Speech)

• Do restrictions on corporate and union spending on election communications violate free speech rights?

Decision and Precedent:

• 5-4 decision in favor of Citizens United.

• The government cannot restrict independent expenditures for political communications by corporations or unions.

Opinion/Reasoning of the Court:

• The majority, led by Justice Kennedy, argued that political speech is essential to democracy and protected under the First Amendment, regardless of the speaker's corporate identity.

• The Court rejected the idea that corporate spending inherently creates corruption.

Baker v. Carr (1961)

Facts:

• Charles Baker, a Tennessee resident, argued that the state's failure to redraw legislative districts since 1901 diluted his vote, violating his equal protection rights.

• Tennessee claimed the issue was a political question outside judicial review.

Constitutional Issue/Provisions in Question:

• Fourteenth Amendment (Equal Protection Clause)

• Can courts review cases involving legislative apportionment?

Decision and Precedent:

• 6-2 decision in favor of Baker.

• Established that legislative apportionment cases are justiciable.

Opinion/Reasoning of the Court:

• The Court ruled that unequal representation violates the Equal Protection Clause.

• Justice Brennan stated that courts have the authority to address issues of malapportionment when constitutional rights are at stake.

Shaw v. Reno (1993)

Facts:

• North Carolina created a congressional district that was unusually shaped to include a majority of Black voters.

• White residents argued that the district was a racial gerrymander and unconstitutional.

Constitutional Issue/Provisions in Question:

• Fourteenth Amendment (Equal Protection Clause)

• Does racial gerrymandering violate the Equal Protection Clause?

Decision and Precedent:

• 5-4 decision in favor of Shaw.

• Race cannot be the predominant factor in creating electoral districts.

Opinion/Reasoning of the Court:

• The Court argued that districts drawn primarily based on race must face strict scrutiny.

• Justice O’Connor emphasized that racial gerrymandering perpetuates racial divisions and undermines democratic principles.

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

Facts:

• William Marbury, appointed as a federal judge by President Adams, did not receive his commission before Thomas Jefferson took office.

• Marbury petitioned the Supreme Court to compel Secretary of State James Madison to deliver his commission.

Constitutional Issue/Provisions in Question:

• Article III (Judicial Review)

• Does Marbury have a right to his commission, and can the Supreme Court compel its delivery?

Decision and Precedent:

• Unanimous decision (4-0) against Marbury.

• Established the principle of judicial review, empowering the Court to declare laws unconstitutional.

Opinion/Reasoning of the Court:

• Chief Justice John Marshall ruled that while Marbury had a right to his commission, the Court lacked the authority to issue a writ of mandamus under the Judiciary Act of 1789 because it conflicted with the Constitution.

• The decision reinforced the Constitution as the supreme law of the land.

Schenck v. United States (1919)

Facts:

• During World War I, Charles Schenck, a member of the Socialist Party, distributed leaflets urging men to resist the military draft, arguing it violated the Thirteenth Amendment’s prohibition of involuntary servitude.

• Schenck was charged with violating the Espionage Act of 1917, which prohibited interference with military recruitment.

Constitutional Issue/Provisions in Question:

• First Amendment (Freedom of Speech)

• Did Schenck’s conviction under the Espionage Act violate his First Amendment rights?

Decision and Precedent:

• Unanimous decision (9-0) in favor of the United States.

• The Court upheld Schenck’s conviction, establishing the “clear and present danger” test for speech limitations.

Opinion/Reasoning of the Court:

• Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes delivered the opinion, stating that speech creating a "clear and present danger" to significant government interests (e.g., military recruitment during wartime) is not protected under the First Amendment.

• Holmes famously compared Schenck’s actions to falsely shouting “fire” in a crowded theater, emphasizing that the context of speech determines its protection.