SCOTUS Cases
Baker v. Carr (1962)
Facts
Each state is responsible for drawing legislative districts (for HoR), but in the 1950s/60s, people started to question the fairness of the case. Lots of people were moving, but the districts weren’t changing, and it was starting to become a problem. Because it was thought to be a political matter, federal courts wouldn’t hear the problem and deferred to state laws. Tennessee was one of those states, and one voter, Charles Baker, believed that he and other urban voters were denied equal value. Tennessee said that courts wouldn’t hear the case, so Baker fought all the way to the Supreme Court, who agreed to hear it.
Issue
Do federal courts have the right to decide cases about population apportionment in state legislative districts?
Articles, Amendments, and Precedent
Article III, Section 2: Judicial power shall extend to all cases under the constitution
14th Amendment: No state shall deny equal protection
Colegrove v. Green (1946): Illinois resident sued because of unequal jurisdiction, and court dismissed.
Decision:
The court sided 6-2 with Baker, saying that he had the right to have his vote be equal to everyone else’s.
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954)
Facts
In the early 1950s, Linda Brown tried to get enrolled into a white school closer to her house, but because she was black, she was rejected. At the time, Kansas law said segregation was allowed but not required, and the Board of Education decided to make elementary schools segregated. The Brown family sued the Board of Education under the 14th Equal Protection Clause. Lower courts said it was fine because the two schools were equal, so the brown family appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issue
Does segregating public schools violate the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause?
Amendments And Precedent
14th Amendment: No state can deny equal protection
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896): Separate but Equal
Sweatt v. Painter (1950): facilities MUST be equal to be separate
Arguments:
Brown:
1. 14th Amendment said no inequality w/o a good reason. There’s no good reason for segregation
2. Schools for black kids often have less funding and aren’t equal
3. Ruins mental health and develops superiority with white kids and inferiority with black kids
4. There are no negative effects of desegregation
5. It’s immoral
Board of Education
1. Equal does not mean same. The schools are equal, but they don’t have to be the same school.
2. People are more comfortable with kids the same color as them.
3. The government leaves education to states and local districts for a reason. They will make the better choice.
4. It will be harder to desegregate because of housing.
Decision
It was unanimously for Brown.
They said that instead of just looking at materialistic criteria, they should also focus on stuff like their minds (Doll Test).
Citizens United v. FEC
Facts
The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) said companies can’t spend money for an election 60 days before (or 30 days before a primary). Citizens United made a movie sh*t talking Hillary Clinton, but the release date was in those 30 days, so they chose to instead sue the Federal Elections Committee for not letting them release that movie. Lower courts said that the BCRA was valid, so Citizens United chose to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Issue
Does a law limiting the ability of corporations to spend money to advocate for or against a candidate violate the Right to Free Speech in the 1st Amendment?
Law and Precedent
Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce: problem was with a Michigan law saying corporations couldn’t directly pay for something influencing state elections. SCOTUS said the law was okay because there were alternate options for speech.
BCRA: This is pretty obvious
Wisconsin Right to Life v. FEC: Supreme Court said that Issue Advocacy (talking about a political viewpoint & mentioning a name) was okay because it didn’t really show “corruption”.
Arguments
Citizens United
1. Freedom of Political Speech
2. Companies are no different than people
3. Newspapers are also companies, are you going to take their rights away?
4. Too many far reaching implications
5. Sure companies have more money and can make their voice reach further, that doesn’t mean you can limit their rights to make things fair
6. Money isn’t corruption…?
7. Incumbents have the most to gain from this. We should be able to criticize
FEC
1. 1st Amendment applies to people, not businesses
2. The BCRA has other options, like PACs and stuff
3. Precedent
4. Money is most definitely corruption because it gives corporations power over the government
5. Even if it wasn’t corruption, it still looks like it, and the public could lose trust in the government
6. Corporations could drown out other people with this
Decision
They ruled 5-4 in support of Citizens United.
Majority:
Reversed precedent, and said that corporations are made up of people, who still have full rights. They kept up all other parts of BCRA, though.
Dissent:
Corporations have an unfair advantage and have had limitations for years. Getting rid of this is dooming the average citizen by creating a system where money affects elections, which is inherently undemocratic.
Engel v. Vitale (1962)
Facts
Students in a class would voluntarily recite an optional prayer in the presence of a teacher. Non-Christians sued and appealed to SCOTUS.
Issue
Does school prayer violate the 1st Amendment Establishment Clause?
Amendments and Precedent
1st Amendment: Establishment Clause
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette: Said that forcing students to salute a flag is unconstitutional if it went against their religion
McCollum v. Board of Education: Religious instruction can’t happen in public school during public school hours
Arguments
Engel
1. Prayer violates Establishment Clause
2. Forcing kids to do stuff, Free Exercise Clause
3. Teacher is doing it which means the government is enforcing religion
4. It would single the people who wouldn’t do it out
5. Public schools can’t promote religion. (Precedent)
Vitale
1. Religious heritage of the nation
2. It’s unspecific and doesn’t favor a specific religion
3. It helps build character
4. It’s voluntary
5. The pledge of allegiance had the word “God” in it and that’s perfectly fine
Decision
6-1 in favor of the parents. 2 Justices did not participate.
Majority
Establishment Clause. They said that this government religion is what caused colonialists to leave in the first place.
Dissent
Justice Stewart argued that a prayer didn’t establish an organized religion. There’s a chaplain in the House of Representatives, and that didn’t establish a religion. Neither does this.
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)
Facts
Gideon got arrested for burglary, and asked the Florida Court to provide him an attorney, which they refused. He studied law and decided he had the right to counsel, so he appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issue
Does the right to counsel (6th Amendment) extend to state court defendants, even when the death penalty isn’t the issue?
Amendments And Precedent
6th Amendment: Criminal prosecution means an attorney
14th Amendment: Due Process Clause
Powell v. Alabama: Courts must appoint counsel for capital charge (death row) & when the defendant is unable to defend him/her/them/self
Arguments
Gideon
1. It isn’t fair
2. It’s illogical for some cases to get counsel and some to not. They should overturn the precedent (Betts v. Brady) that says non-capital cases don’t need attorneys.
3. Most states already have this law, times have changed since Betts v. Brady
4. This option has more public support
Wainwright
1. Precedent & only under special circumstances that prove he wouldn’t get a fair trial
2. No arbitrary power over the states
3. They can still get a fair trial
4. Precedent
5. Imagine lawyers everywhere for everything. That’s a lot of money and a lot of taxes.
Decision
Unanimous for Gideon.
Right to counsel is a fundamental right. Also it’s the best way to keep the innocent out of jail.
Marbury v. Madison (1803)
Facts
At the end of John Adam’s term in office, he appointed a bunch of judges from his own party before the other party could take over, but he didn’t have time to send out seventeen of the commissions he made. He just assumed his successor would, but Thomas Jefferson told James Madison not to. William Marbury didn’t get his commission, so he sued and asked the Supreme Court to issue a writ of mandamus (command by superior court to public officer to get them to do something). It was a complicated case because Marshall, the old secretary of state, was stuck in between requiring the commission (and possibly getting rejected which would make them look weak) and look weak by not requiring the commission. Marshall chose to frame the case as whether or not the court had the right to issue a writ of mandamus anyways.
Issue
Does Marbury have a right to his commission, can he sue for it, and does SCOTUS have the authority to order the delivery of the commission?
Clauses and Laws
Article 3, Section 2, Clause 2: Explains SCOTUS jurisdiction
Judiciary Act of 1789: authorized writs of mandamus
Argument
Marbury
1. Valid commission because Adams already wrote it
2. The Judiciary Act gives them the power to order a commission
3. Madison had to obey President Adams’ official act
Madison
1. The commission was not delivered so it is invalid
2. This is a political issue, not a judicial one (prior to this case, courts were discouraged from certain cases because they weren’t the courts jurisdiction)
3. This should be tried in lower courts first
Decision
The decision wasn’t as important as the impact.
Unanimous for Madison. In the opinion, Justice Marshall said that Marbury had the right to his job, but the Supreme Court didn’t have the right to issue a writ of mandamus, and even though it was listed in the Judiciary Act of 1789, it went against the Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution was the “Superior, paramount law” and struck down that section of the Judiciary Act. The court said it was its job to interpret laws and determine if they (or executive actions) conflict with the constitution. This case established Supreme Court as final authority for any and all cases.
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)
Facts
The First Bank of America was created in 1791, and it worried many because the federal government wasn’t given a constitutional right to open banks, so the only reason it would be okay is through “implied powers”, which basically gave the federal government freedom to do whatever they want. It was intense debate which ended with Madison approving the Second Bank of America (even though he was against the First Bank). The states hated it because 1. It was competition 2. The managers were corrupt and 3. The federal government had too much power.
Maryland tried to force the Second Bank to pay taxes, but James McCulloch, the admin, said no. Then Maryland sued.
Issue
Did Congress have the right under the constitution to make a bank? And if yes, did Maryland have the right to tax it?
Amendments and The Constitution
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18: Necessary and Proper Clause
Article 6, Clause 2: Supremacy Clause
10th Amendment: Any power not given to the federal government belongs to the states
Argument
McCulloch
1. A bank is necessary to run a country
2. The constitution does not limit powers to only the expressed ones
3. National bank necessary for taxes, army, borrow money, etc.
4. States can’t screw with federal law, what if Maryland taxes too much
Maryland
1. Not stated in constitution
2. 10th amendment
3. Taxes are a concurrent power; we should be able to tax something in our state
4. A bank means states can’t control their own money
Decision
Unanimous for McCulloch. Marshall gave opinion.
Nowhere in the constitution did it say Congress was limited to only the enumerated powers, the Necessary and Proper Clause exists. Maryland can’t tax the bank because of the Supremacy Clause.
McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010)
Facts
Chicago had a handgun ban, and while it was supposed to be to avoid crime, it really just banned most residents from owning guns. After another case, people sued once they learned they had the right.
Issue
Does the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms apply to state and local governments through the 14th Amendment?
Amendments and Precedent
2nd Amendment: Right to bear arms
14th Amendment: states can’t get rid of rights
DC v. Heller: bans on handguns wasn’t legal (but DC was a district, so it was under federal law)
Argument
McDonald
1. 2nd Amendment
2. Most amendments are already applied, what makes this one any different
3. Anti-tyranny
4. Precedent (Heller)
5. Literally the same as Heller
6. It’s not that big of a crisis babe
Chicago
1. Constitution limits federal, not states
2. states
3. Times have changed since the creation of the bill of rights
4. Right to Bear arms isn’t absolute
5. There are permits to own a gun, it’s not impossible
6. Defer to the states. They know better
Decision
McDonald won, but the court didn’t really know how to go about this. 4.5-3…? IDK (somebody chose not to vote for this ig)
Majority
Reasonable gun restrictions are okay, but the 2nd Amendment means they can’t get rid of them entirely.
Dissents
The 2nd Amendment was built to fight federal tyranny on the states, so it didn’t make much sense to apply it to states, too.
Others said the 2nd Amendment was, in and of itself, not worthy of being incorporated, it was too dangerous.
New York Times Co. v. US (1971)
Facts
Daniel Ellsberg was a former military analyst who was so opposed to the Vietnam War that he illegally copied over 7,000 pages of classified document, which would later be known as the “Pentagon Papers”. These papers contained incriminating details about American military operations, and he sent some of them to major publications, like NYT. When somebody in NYT posted the stories, knowing they violated the Espionage Act, President Nixon tried to stop them, and ended up suing. While NYT was at court, Wash. Post also started publishing the stories, and when it got to the Supreme Court, their cases were combined.
Issue
Did the government’s efforts to prevent two newspapers from publishing classified government information given to them by a leaker violate the Freedom of the Press?
Amendments and Precedent
1st Amendment: Freedom of Press
Near v. Minnesota (1931): 1. Freedom of the Press to the states 2. censorship is almost always unconstitutional.
Dennis v. United States (1951): Advocating for a violent overthrow of the government or joining a group that supports it is a criminal offense
Argument
NYT
1. Press serves governed, not governor
2. Congress hasn’t made any laws that restrict press freedom. Courts shouldn’t just because the Executive branch wants them to.
3. The newspaper had no malicious intent; they simply wanted to inform the people.
4. Secrecy is anti-democratic.
US Gov.
1. There’s a war going on, the government should be able to restrict publication of sensitive info that could harm national security
2. The judicial branch shouldn’t be the one passing judgement on an executive problem.
3. The newspapers knew what they did was illegal.
4. A basic citizen duty is reporting thievery, and that applies to corporations too
Decision
6-3 in favor of the newspapers.
Every. Single. Justice. Wrote an opinion. There was also a short, overarching majority statement.
Per Curiam (By the Court)
Gov didn’t meet the criteria to validate prior restraint
Concurrences
1. Justice Black (joined by Justice Douglas) said the Freedom of the Press is absolute and the government had no right, even to prior restraint. There must be no laws that restrict them.
2. Justice Douglas (joined by Justice Black) said the Executive Branch had no right to limit the 1st Amendment (couldn’t they have just combined theirs into one…?)
3. Justice Brennan said that there was only a very small exception to the freedom of the press, and this was not it.
4. Justice Stewart (joined by Justice White) said that publishing these documents won’t result in “direct, immediate, and irreparable damage” to America.
5. Justice White (joined by Justice Stewart) said that they might be able to charge the newspapers with a crime, but they couldn’t limit their speech.
6. Justice Marshall said that the executive and judicial branch had no right. Only Congress could decide like this.
Dissents
1. Chief Justice Burger said the court had rushed its decision and didn’t fully understand the facts.
2. Justice John Harlan said the same but added that the Judiciary didn’t have the right to second guess the executive branch besides deciding whether or not it was a threat to security or not.
3. Justice Blackmun said that Article II gave the president power in terms of national security, and he could not use one provision of the constitution (the 1st Amendment) to undermine another.
Roe v. Wade (1973) (Not required but I’m adding it anyways)
Facts
Privacy isn’t part of the constitution, but the Supreme Court has broadened the rights of citizens in cases related to this (marriage, birth control). Some states banned abortions, which actually hurt more people (crazy how that works) because illegal abortions were widespread. Jane Roe (an alias) wanted to get an abortion but couldn’t because she lived in Texas, so she sued.
Issue
Does the Constitution protect the right to an abortion?
Amendments and Precedent
9th Amendment: no rights can be denied to citizens
14th Amendment: 9th Amendment applies to states now
Griswold v. Connecticut: Said you can’t restrict birth control
U.S. v. Vuitch: DC had a law saying no abortions unless women’s health was in danger, and a doctor got arrested for violating it. He said only a doctor could decide if someone’s health was in danger. SCOTUS didn’t overturn it but said health should include psychological issues, too.
Argument
Roe
1. Privacy is guaranteed via amendments and some things are private and therefore protected
2. Unwanted pregnancies could mean losing money which could threaten them physically or mentally
3. Illegal abortions make things worse for women, but that’s their only option now
4. The law makes a safe medical procedure illegal, and it’s vague and could land doctors in jail for choosing wrong
5. An unborn fetus isn’t a person
Wade
1. No right to an abortion in Constitution, and there’s no way to know if that’s what the framers meant in the 14th
2. A fetus is a person, we need to protect future citizens, the right to life is superior to the right to privacy, and an unborn child is more vulnerable
3. The right to privacy was never absolute
4. Contraceptive prevents creation of life, abortion destroys existing life
5. Abortion is best left to the states
Decision
7-2 with three concurring opinions and two dissenting ones
Majority
The liberty protected in the 14th amendment includes privacy. Unborn children are not real people. It’s only okay if there’s a compelling interest, so there should be rules. It can happen in the 1st trimester no matter what because there’s no risk, it can be regulated a little bit during the 2nd trimester so long as it’s to keep the woman safe, and it can be prohibited only in the final trimester.
Concurrences
Stewart: SCOTUS was basing case on “substantive” part of due process clause
Douglas: the right based on the word “liberty” in the due process clause
Burger: court rejects claim that constitution requires abortions on demand
Dissents
White: nothing in Constitution to support abortions, takes the decision away from the states
Rehnquist: this choice seems more like judicial legislation than an interpretation of the right to privacy
Schneck v. US (1919)
Facts
Schenck was a socialist who printed and mailed out 15,000 fliers to men encouraging them to not comply with the draft. On one side, he told them to talk to their representatives. On the other, he was very… emotionally charged with his words and told people to not “condone a most infamous and insidious conspiracy”. Then the Supreme Court decided to review his case when he got arrested.
Issue
Did Schenck’s conviction under the Espionage Act for criticizing the draft violate his right to free speech?
Amendments
1st Amendment: no law abridging speech
Argument
Schenck
1. Protection of punishment after speech
2. free discussion to hold government accountable
3. He told them to talk to their representatives… That’s good
4. He used words. He didn’t commit a crime, just told other people to
US
1. Congress has the right to limit speech at times of war
2. “Willfully… obstruct[ing] the recruitment or enlistment service...” (Espionage Act).
3. War time is very different from times of peace.
Decision
Unanimous opinion in favor of the United States.
The 1st Amendment prevented prior restraint, and some would say it prevented punishment after that speech as well. However, this all depends on the timing of the speech; Schenck’s fliers were passed out at a time of war, which makes them a threat to national security. This case created the clear and present danger test.
Shaw v. Reno (1993)
Facts
After the Civil War and slavery ended, state governments decided to be racist and try to keep people from voting using Jim Crow Laws, poll taxes, etc. Then the Voting Rights Act of 1965 happened, and certain states had to ask the federal government to clear any changes to voting, including districts. Precedent said majority-minority districts were required wherever possible.
In 1990 North Carolina, there were no black Representatives in the House (even though 20% of the population was black), and then they got another seat (their 12th) so they wanted to make sure there was a colored Representative chosen. Parts of NC required pre-clearance, so they sent the map, and the attorney general of the Department of Defense said they needed another majority-minority district. District 12, which was 160 miles long, sometimes only as wide as the highway it ran along, and generally stupid, was created. The attorney general approved, and everything was fine until five white voters sued because that district is objectively ridiculous (and also probably illegal).
Issue
Did the claim that the voters made (the redistricting plan was discriminatory) raise a valid concern under the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause?
Amendments, Laws, and Precedent
14th Amendment: Equal Protection Clause
15th Amendment: Right to vote regardless of race
Thornburg v. Gingles (1986): The precedent mentioned earlier
Gomillion v. Lightfoot (1960): said that you can’t draw districts to discriminate on the basis of race (regarding a strangely shaped district made for the purpose of excluding a majority of the black voters in the area)
United Jewish Organizations of Williamsburgh (UJO) v. Carey (1977): You can consider race, it just can’t be the only factor and nobody can be underrepresented
Argument
Shaw
1. Colorblind constitution
2. This district is neither compact nor contiguous, it’s obviously only about race
3. Gomillion v. Lightfoot, no race discrimination (that goes both ways)
4. You’re stereotyping, not all white people are going to vote white and not all black people are going to vote black
Reno
1. Sometimes weird shapes are necessary for the sake of representation
2. Voting Rights Act of 1965 encourages this, especially in the south
3. Gomillion only talked about discriminating against minorities, not for them
4. UJO said racial redistricting was okay sometimes to avoid racism
Decision
5-4 for Shaw.
Majority
Racism is racism, no matter who’s getting affected. If the court can’t see any other reason for a district besides race, it had to go.
Dissent
In varying dissents, the following ideas came to light:
· Racism is inevitable but doesn’t violate constitution unless somebody’s getting deprived of rights
· Sometimes it’s legitimate to consider race
· It isn’t racism if it’s only affecting the group in power
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969)
Facts
Five students chose to wear black armbands to school for two weeks to protest the Vietnam War, which the school found out about and made a policy that anyone wearing those armbands would be suspended. The Tinker kids wore them anyways, and their parents filed suit.
Issue
Does prohibiting students from wearing armbands as a form of protest violate the student’s right to free speech?
Amendments and Precedent
1st Amendment: no law abridging speech
West Virginia BOE v. Barnette: can’t force students to salute a flag
Argument
Tinker
1. Students are people and have the right to free speech
2. Public schools are part of the government, which can’t infringe on rights
3. The armbands were symbolic speech
4. They didn’t cause any disruption
5. They didn’t affect anybody else’s rights
6. Students have to learn how to express their own opinions
Des Moines
1. Free speech isn’t absolute
2. Schools have to teach, and armbands could be a distraction
3. The Vietnam War is controversial and could cause stuff
4. Controversy could lead to violence
5. Students can express opinions in other ways, just not… controversial ones
6. SCOTUS doesn’t have the right to make this decision
Decision
Tinkers won 7-2
Majority
The armbands were speech and therefore protected. Schools can only limit speech if it would cause a “material and substantial disruption” to the learning environment.
Dissent
It’s a myth that people have the right to say whatever they want, whenever they want. The armbands caused a disturbance by taking students’ minds off classwork.
United States v. Lopez (1995)
Facts
Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce. In 1990, they passed the Gun Free School Zones Act (GFSZA) that outlawed guns on school zones under that power. A senior named Alfonso Lopez was convicted of possessing a gun, but challenged a law on the grounds that Congress had no right to make it in the first place.
Issue
Did Congress have the power to pass the Gun Free School Zones Act?
Clauses and Precedent
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3: Commerce Clause
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18: Necessary and Proper Clause
Wickard v. Filburn: If intrastate activities affect interstate commerce, Congress can regulate it
Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US: Congress had the power to pass the Civil Rights Act (and use it to regulate a hotel) under the commerce clause because travel is also, technically, interstate commerce
Argument
US
1. Precedent says if intrastate commerce affects interstate commerce it can be affected
2. Violent crime affects the costs of things which affects people across the country
3. The presence of gun violence negatively affects students learning environments, which impacts their success and the economy as a result
4. Gun violence affects insurance and travel, which both count as interstate commerce
5. GFSZA doesn’t do anything the states haven’t done, so it’s not like it’s encroaching on state rights.
Lopez
1. GFSZA has nothing to do with commerce
2. Guns aren’t economic like selling crops and hotel rooms are
3. The mere possession of a gun has nothing to do with the economy
4. If having objects was considered commerce, that gives Congress too much power
5. Some things are better left to the states
6. Different communities have different standards
Decision
In favor of Lopez, 5-4.
Majority
If you can make a long, twisting path connecting guns to interstate commerce and get away with it, you can do that for everything, which goes against the constitution’s limited government.
Dissent
Breyer: Guns significantly impact interstate commerce, also, the courts job wasn’t to determine if guns were interstate commerce, but to determine if Congress had a reason to make the law (rational basis).
Stevens: The national interest in keeping schools safe was enough to make the law .
Souters: Courts should defer to Congress so long as they have enough reason to make the law (rational basis).
Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)
Facts
Wisconsin convicted Amish people for not going to school until 16. They said secondary schooling went against their religion and they had alternate schooling for their community. The case then made its way up to the Supreme Court.
Issue
Under what conditions does the state’s interest in mandatory education override the right to free exercise of religion?
Amendments and Precedent
1st amendment: free exercise & establishment clauses
14th Amendment: due process
Pierce v. Society of Sisters: Tried to get rid of private schools, and they said that went against free exercise clause
Prince v. Massachusetts: Child Labor was illegal even if it’s a girl distributing religious flyers
Argument
Wisconsin
1. Compelling government interest
2. Finals years prepare people for society
3. What if a kid leaves the Amish?
4. Mandatory school attendance applies equally to everyone
Yoder
1. They shouldn’t have to violate their own beliefs
2. They have other education for their children
3. Even if they choose to leave, additional school won’t help them much
4. They’re good citizens
5. It doesn’t hurt anybody else
Decision
7-0 for Yoder (Unanimous). 2 justices didn’t take part. Justice Douglas delivered a partial dissent.
Majority
Free exercise Clause & they didn’t get rid of the law, the Amish are just an exception.
Dissent, partially
Justice Douglas wanted to know how the kids felt about the situation. He thought it should’ve been their choice.