Consolidated Constitutional Law Case Notes

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

• Holding: Established judicial review; courts can strike down unconstitutional laws.
• Key concepts:
  • Judicial review as a check on the legislative branch.
  • Strengthened role of the Supreme Court in constitutional interpretation.
• Significance:
  • Foundation of modern constitutional law and checks and balances.
  • Reshaped the balance of power among the three branches.
• Explanations and implications:
  • Created a mechanism for ensuring laws and executive actions comply with the Constitution.
  • Paved the way for subsequent landmark rulings that define constitutional rights and federal powers.
• Connections to foundational principles:
  • Federalism and separation of powers.
  • Interplay between the judiciary and legislative branches.
• Real-world relevance:
  • Central to how constitutional questions are addressed in U.S. law and politics.
• Ethical/philosophical implications:
  • Addresses questions about judicial authority vs. democratic legitimacy.
• Notable terminology:
  • Judicial review, supremacy of the Constitution.

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

• Holding: Upheld federal power to create a national bank; states cannot tax federal instruments.
• Key concepts:
  • Implied powers of Congress via the Necessary and Proper Clause.
  • Supremacy of federal law over state action (Supremacy Clause).
• Significance:
  • Strengthened the federal government’s ability to carry out its constitutional powers beyond enumerated powers.
• Explanations and implications:
  • Declared that states cannot impede federal institutions, reinforcing a strong national government.
  • Established precedent for broad interpretation of federal powers.
• Connections to foundational principles:
  • Federalism, implied powers, and supremacy of federal law.
• Real-world relevance:
  • Used to justify later national programs and federal actions that rely on implied powers.
• Ethical/philosophical implications:
  • Tension between national unity and state sovereignty.

Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)

• Holding: Strengthened federal power over interstate commerce.
• Key concepts:
  • Commerce Clause grants Congress broad authority to regulate interstate commerce.
  • Broad interpretation beyond merely buying and selling to include navigation and related activities.
• Significance:
  • Expanded federal regulatory power over economic activity spanning multiple states.
• Explanations and implications:
  • Facilitated later regulatory frameworks affecting trade, transportation, and markets.
• Connections to foundational principles:
  • Commerce power as a central engine of federal supremacy in economic regulation.
• Real-world relevance:
  • Shaped regulatory approaches to interstate commerce and later federal interventions.
• Ethical/philosophical implications:
  • Balancing economic regulation with state experimentation in policy.

Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)

• Holding: African Americans were not U.S. citizens; Congress could not prohibit slavery in U.S. territories.
• Key concepts:
  • Citizenship and status of African Americans in the Union.
  • Slavery and territorial governance under the federal Constitution.
• Significance:
  • Intensified national debate over slavery and citizenship.
  • Helped precipitate the Civil War-era constitutional crises.
• Explanations and implications:
  • Reinforced sectional tensions and undermined Congress’s power to regulate slavery in territories (before the 13th/14th Amendments).
• Connections to foundational principles:
  • Civil rights, equal protection, and limits of federal power over slavery.
• Real-world relevance:
  • Landmark decision with lasting impact on constitutional interpretation and national unity.
• Ethical/philosophical implications:
  • Exposed deep moral failings in defining citizenship and rights by race.

The Slaughterhouse Cases (1873)

• Holding: Narrowly protected rights under the 14th Amendment, limiting its reach for civil rights protections.
• Key concepts:
  • Privileges or immunities vs. due process protections.
  • Early interpretation of the 14th Amendment’s scope.
• Significance:
  • Marked a narrowing of the 14th Amendment’s protections and limited federal protection of civil rights against state action.
• Explanations and implications:
  • Set a precedent for more limited incorporation of rights against the states.
• Connections to foundational principles:
  • Federalism and the evolving interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
• Real-world relevance:
  • Paved the way for later civil rights jurisprudence to gradually expand protections.
• Ethical/philosophical implications:
  • Highlights the evolving nature of constitutional guarantees and minority protections.

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

• Holding: Upheld racial segregation under the “separate but equal” doctrine.
• Key concepts:
  • State power to regulate social separation in public facilities.
• Significance:
  • Legitimized a system of Jim Crow segregation for decades.
• Explanations and implications:
  • Legalized racial hierarchy in public life and services until challenged in the Civil Rights era.
• Connections to foundational principles:
  • Interplay of equal protection, public policy, and state power.
• Real-world relevance:
  • Had widespread, lasting impacts on education, transportation, and public accommodations.
• Ethical/philosophical implications:
  • Raised fundamental questions about equality, dignity, and the meaning of justice in a plural society.

Lochner v. New York (1905)

• Holding: Struck down a state law limiting working hours, citing freedom of contract.
• Key concepts:
  • Due process clause used to protect economic liberties (freedom of contract).
• Significance:
  • Initiated the Lochner era, a period in which the Court often struck down economic regulations.
• Explanations and implications:
  • Emphasized individual economic rights over regulatory state interests in labor standards.
• Connections to foundational principles:
  • Tension between economic regulation and individual liberty.
• Real-world relevance:
  • Affected labor law and state regulation of working conditions for decades.
• Ethical/philosophical implications:
  • Debates over balancing liberty with social protections for workers.

Schenck v. United States (1919)

• Holding: Established the “clear and present danger” test for limiting free speech.
• Key concepts:
  • Speech limitations during wartime and public order concerns.
• Significance:
  • Set an early standard for when speech may be restricted by the government.
• Explanations and implications:
  • Allowed suppression of certain speech that presents a danger to national security or public safety.
• Connections to foundational principles:
  • Free speech vs. national security and order.
• Real-world relevance:
  • Guided later debates and tests for speech restrictions.
• Ethical/philosophical implications:
  • Balancing civil liberties with collective safety concerns.

West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (1937)

• Holding: Upheld minimum wage laws; signaling the end of the Lochner era.
• Key concepts:
  • Shift away from strict economic liberty to enable social welfare protections.
• Significance:
  • Marked a major change in constitutional interpretation toward regulatory scales.
• Explanations and implications:
  • Recognized government’s power to regulate wages and working conditions for public welfare.
• Connections to foundational principles:
  • Public policy vs. individual economic rights.
• Real-world relevance:
  • Expanded state power to pursue labor protections.
• Ethical/philosophical implications:
  • Debates about the role of government in ensuring living standards.

United States v. Carolene Products Co. (1938)

• Holding: Strengthened government’s ability to regulate economic matters; introduced considerations that would influence later scrutiny levels (Footnote Four).
• Key concepts:
  • Economic regulation preservation and heightened scrutiny for discrete minorities and fundamental rights in certain contexts.
• Significance:
  • Influenced later development of standard of review and civil rights protections.
• Explanations and implications:
  • Provided groundwork for more protective scrutiny in cases involving civil liberties and minority groups.
• Connections to foundational principles:
  • Balancing regulation with protections for minorities and fundamental rights.
• Real-world relevance:
  • Shaped later constitutional tests and standards of review.

Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

• Holding: Overturned Plessy v. Ferguson; segregation in schools unconstitutional.
• Key concepts:
  • Equal protection under the law applied to education; rejection of Separate but Equal in public schools.
• Significance:
  • Landmark ruling in the Civil Rights Movement; catalyzed desegregation efforts.
• Explanations and implications:
  • Forced rapid changes in public schooling and broader civil rights enforcement.
• Connections to foundational principles:
  • Equal protection, dignity, and desegregation of public institutions.
• Real-world relevance:
  • Triggered widespread policy changes and integration efforts.
• Ethical/philosophical implications:
  • Affirmed equality as a constitutional value beyond formal legal categories.

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

• Holding: Guaranteed the right to an attorney for criminal defendants.
• Key concepts:
  • Right to counsel under the 6th Amendment applied to the states via the 14th Amendment.
• Significance:
  • Strengthened procedural fairness and the right to a fair trial.
• Explanations and implications:
  • Ensured that indigent defendants receive legal representation.
• Connections to foundational principles:
  • Due process, equal protection, and fair trial rights.
• Real-world relevance:
  • Improved criminal justice outcomes for the economically disadvantaged.
• Ethical/philosophical implications:
  • Emphasized the state’s responsibility to provide essential legal safeguards.

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

• Holding: Established the “Miranda rights,” requiring police to inform suspects of their rights.
• Key concepts:
  • Right to remain silent, right to an attorney, and awareness of counsel during interrogations.
• Significance:
  • Standardized police procedural practices nationwide.
• Explanations and implications:
  • Aimed to prevent self-incrimination and ensure voluntary, informed confessions.
• Connections to foundational principles:
  • Protection against compulsion, due process, and self-incrimination safeguards.
• Real-world relevance:
  • Impacts on police investigations and courtroom evidence admissibility.
• Ethical/philosophical implications:
  • Balancing effective law enforcement with individual constitutional rights.

Loving v. Virginia (1967)

• Holding: Struck down laws banning interracial marriage.
• Key concepts:
  • Equal protection and fundamental rights in intimate personal relationships.
• Significance:
  • Expanded civil rights and anti-discrimination protections in marriage.
• Explanations and implications:
  • Invalidated marriage restrictions based on race, challenging systemic racism in law.
• Connections to foundational principles:
  • Equality, dignity, and the right to marry as a fundamental liberty.
• Real-world relevance:
  • Cemented nationwide access to interracial marriage.
• Ethical/philosophical implications:
  • Affirmed racial equality and individual autonomy in personal life.

Roe v. Wade (1973)

• Holding: Legalized abortion nationwide by recognizing a right to privacy.
• Key concepts:
  • Privacy rights and the state’s interest in protecting potential life across trimesters.
• Significance:
  • Created a constitutional framework for abortion access and regulation.
• Explanations and implications:
  • Balanced medical, ethical, and political considerations; allowed state regulation in certain circumstances.
• Connections to foundational principles:
  • Privacy, autonomy, and state interests in public health.
• Real-world relevance:
  • Central to ongoing political and legal battles over reproductive rights.
• Ethical/philosophical implications:
  • Debates over moral status of the fetus, maternal autonomy, and societal values.

Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)

• Holding: Reaffirmed Roe but allowed some state restrictions on abortion; replaced the strict trimester framework with an undue burden standard.
• Key concepts:
  • Undue burden standard for evaluating abortion restrictions.
• Significance:
  • Moderated the strong protections from Roe and gave states more leeway to regulate abortion.
• Explanations and implications:
  • Maintained a constitutional right to abortion while permitting certain state controls.
• Connections to foundational principles:
  • Balancing individual rights with state interests in potential life.
• Real-world relevance:
  • Affected access to abortion services through varying state laws.
• Ethical/philosophical implications:
  • Ongoing debate between autonomy and societal interests in reproductive choices.

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022)

• Holding: Overturned Roe v. Wade, returning abortion regulation to the states.
• Key concepts:
  • Reassessment of the constitutional right to abortion and the role of the federal judiciary in this area.
• Significance:
  • Major shift in abortion jurisprudence and state-level policy authority.
• Explanations and implications:
  • Eliminated a federal constitutional right to abortion and enabled a different landscape of state restrictions.
• Connections to foundational principles:
  • Federalism and the allocation of powers between states and the federal government.
• Real-world relevance:
  • Triggered diverse state responses and policy changes on abortion access.
• Ethical/philosophical implications:
  • Reignited debates over moral status, bodily autonomy, and public policy.

Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)

• Holding: Protected student free speech rights in schools.
• Key concepts:
  • First Amendment rights extend to students; speech rights persist in school settings.
• Significance:
  • Established that students do not lose constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate.
• Explanations and implications:
  • Recognized limits only when speech substantially disrupts school operations or infringes on others’ rights.
• Connections to foundational principles:
  • Free speech, expression, and educational environment balance.
• Real-world relevance:
  • Guided school policy on student expression.
• Ethical/philosophical implications:
  • Considers the tension between individual rights and school discipline/order.

Texas v. Johnson (1989)

• Holding: Flag burning is protected free speech.
• Key concepts:
  • Symbolic speech protected under the First Amendment.
• Significance:
  • Strengthened protections for political expression, even when it is controversial or offensive.
• Explanations and implications:
  • Limited the government’s ability to ban symbolic acts of protest.
• Connections to foundational principles:
  • Free speech and political expression as core democratic rights.
• Real-world relevance:
  • Influenced later debates on protest rights and national symbols.
• Ethical/philosophical implications:
  • Raises questions about the boundaries of acceptable political speech.

Engel v. Vitale (1962)

• Holding: Banned official school prayer in public schools.
• Key concepts:
  • Establishment Clause and government endorsement of religion.
• Significance:
  • Strengthened the separation of church and state in public education.
• Explanations and implications:
  • Restricted religious activities sponsored by public institutions.
• Connections to foundational principles:
  • Religion and state neutrality in public policy.
• Real-world relevance:
  • Affected school practices and ceremonial activities.
• Ethical/philosophical implications:
  • Debates over religious freedom, public devotion, and civic pluralism.

Bush v. Gore (2000)

• Holding: Resolved the disputed 2000 presidential election in favor of George W. Bush.
• Key concepts:
  • Equal Protection considerations in state-level election procedures.
• Significance:
  • Ended the contested Florida recount, effectively deciding the presidency.
• Explanations and implications:
  • Raised questions about electoral processes, standards, and judicial intervention in elections.
• Connections to foundational principles:
  • Democratic legitimacy, judiciary’s role in electoral matters.
• Real-world relevance:
  • Shaped public trust and discussion about election administration.
• Ethical/philosophical implications:
  • Highlights the power and limits of judicial remedy in electoral disputes.

Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)

• Holding: Legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.
• Key concepts:
  • Equal protection and due process in the marriage context.
• Significance:
  • Expanded civil rights and nationwide recognition of marriage equality.
• Explanations and implications:
  • Ensured marriage rights across all states, with implications for family law and social recognition.
• Connections to foundational principles:
  • Individual dignity, liberty, and equality under the law.
• Real-world relevance:
  • Affected legal protections, benefits, and recognition for same-sex couples.
• Ethical/philosophical implications:
  • Promoted inclusivity and challenged traditional norms about marriage.

Citizens United v. FEC (2010)

• Holding: Allowed unlimited corporate and union spending on political campaigns.
• Key concepts:
  • First Amendment protection for corporate political spending as a form of speech.
• Significance:
  • Transformed campaign finance, enabling large-scale political spending via corporations and unions.
• Explanations and implications:
  • Increased influence of money in politics and the emergence of super PACs.
• Connections to foundational principles:
  • Free speech vs. concerns about equal influence and democratic equality.
• Real-world relevance:
  • Altered fundraising dynamics, regulatory approaches, and public perceptions of political influence.
• Ethical/philosophical implications:
  • Debates about the integrity of elections and the balance between speech and access to political power.