Supreme Court Cases to Know

Federalism

\n }}Mcculloch v. Maryland}}

Year Decided________:

1819

Facts (who did what and how the case ended up in court):

\n \n

Issue________:

\n \n

Decision (who won):

\n \n

Majority Decision Reasoning:

\n \n

Dissenting Opinion Reasoning:

\n \n

Impact of the case:

Established supremacy of the U.S. Constitution and federal laws over state laws

}}United States v. Lopez}}

Year Decided:

1995

Facts (who did what and how the case ended up in court):

\n \n

Issue:

\n \n

Decision (who won):

\n \n

Majority Decision Reasoning:

\n \n

Dissenting Opinion Reasoning:

\n \n

Impact of the case:

Congress may not use the commerce clause to make possession of a gun in a school zone a federal crime

Religion

}}Engel v. Vitale}}

Year Decided:

1962

Facts (who did what and how the case ended up in court):

\n \n

Issue:

\n \n

Decision (who won):

\n \n

Majority Decision Reasoning:

\n \n

Dissenting Opinion Reasoning:

\n \n

Impact of the case:

School sponsorship of religious activites violates the establishment clause

}}Wisconsin v. Yoder}}

Year Decided:

1972

Facts (who did what and how the case ended up in court):

\n \n

Issue:

\n \n

Decision (who won):

\n \n

Majority Decision Reasoning:

\n \n

Dissenting Opinion Reasoning:

\n \n

Impact of the case:

Compelling Amish students to attend school past the eighth grade violates the free exercise clause

Speech

}}Tinker v. Des Moines Independent}}

Year Decided: \n 1969

Facts (who did what and how the case ended up in court):

\n \n

Issue:

\n \n

Decision (who won):

\n \n

Majority Decision Reasoning:

\n \n

Dissenting Opinion Reasoning:

\n \n

Impact of the case:

}}New York Times Co. v. United states}}

Year Decided: \n 1971

Facts (who did what and how the case ended up in court):

Issue:

Decision (who won):

Majority Decision Reasoning:

Dissenting Opinion Reasoning:

Impact of the case:

\n }}Schenck v. United States}}

Year Decided: \n 1919

Facts (who did what and how the case ended up in court):

Issue:

Decision (who won):

Majority Decision Reasoning:

Dissenting Opinion Reasoning:

Impact of the case:

Selective Incorporation Cases

}}Gideon v. Wainwright}}

Year Decided: \n 1963

Facts (who did what and how the case ended up in court):

Issue:

Decision (who won):

Majority Decision Reasoning:

Dissenting Opinion Reasoning:

Impact of the case:

}}Roe v. Wade}}

Year Decided: \n 1973

Facts (who did what and how the case ended up in court):

Issue:

Decision (who won):

Majority Decision Reasoning:

Dissenting Opinion Reasoning:

Impact of the case:

}}Mcdonald v. Chicago}}

Year Decided: \n 2010

Facts (who did what and how the case ended up in court):

Issue:

Decision (who won):

Majority Decision Reasoning:

Dissenting Opinion Reasoning:

Impact of the case:

}}Brown v. Board of Education}}

Year Decided: \n 1954

Facts (who did what and how the case ended up in court):

Issue:

Decision (who won):

Majority Decision Reasoning:

Dissenting Opinion Reasoning:

Impact of the case:

}}Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission}}

Year Decided: \n 2010

Facts (who did what and how the case ended up in court):

Issue:

Decision (who won):

Majority Decision Reasoning:

Dissenting Opinion Reasoning:

Impact of the case:

}}Baker v. Carr}}

Year Decided: \n 1962

Facts (who did what and how the case ended up in court):

Issue:

Decision (who won):

Majority Decision Reasoning:

Dissenting Opinion Reasoning:

Impact of the case:

}}Shaw v. Reno}}

Year Decided: \n 1993

Facts (who did what and how the case ended up in court):

Issue:

Decision (who won):

Majority Decision Reasoning:

Dissenting Opinion Reasoning:

Impact of the case:

}}Marbury v. Madison}}

Year Decided: \n 1803

Facts (who did what and how the case ended up in court):

Issue:

Decision (who won):

Majority Decision Reasoning:

Dissenting Opinion Reasoning:

Impact of the case:

Notes

Federalism reflects the dynamics distribution of power between national and state governments.
Provisions of the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights are continually being interpreted to balance power of government and civil liberties of individuals.
* Civil Liberties: Freedoms guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution
Protection of the Bill of Rights have been selectively incorporated by way of Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause to prevent state infringement of basic liberties.
* Due Process Clause states “no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”
The Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause as well as other constitutional provisions have often been used to support the advancement of equality.
* Equal Protection Clause states “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
* There is a lot of cases based off of this clause.
The impact of federal policies on campaigning and electoral rules continues to be contested by both sides of the political spectrum.
The republican ideal of the U.S. is manifested in the structure and operation of the legislative branch.
The design of the judicial branch protects the Supreme court’s independence as a branch of government, and the emergence and use of judicial review remains a powerful judicial practice.
* Judicial Review: Review by the US Supreme Court of the constitutional validity of a legislative act