USAP Supreme Court Review 1- – Fill in the Correct Information
Case
Marbury
V. Madison
Date
1803
Issue - Details
Should the Supreme Court grant
William Marbury’s appointment as
a Justice of the Peace?
In the closing days of the Adams
administration Adams appointed
many Federalist judges in an
attempt to blunt the influence of the
Jefferson. John Marshall (Sec. of
State) was given the task of
delivering the appointments. He
delivered only his own.
McCulloch
V.
Maryland
1819
As a result of the Panic of 1819 the
Bank of Maryland was short on
funds. In an attempt to help fund
that bank, Maryland adopted a tax
on the branch of the 2nd Bank of the
US located in Maryland.
McCulloch was the principle
official of the Bank.
Outcome - Precedent
To rule for either Marbury or Madison would mean to rule for one
President over another.
Avoiding a ruling for or against a president – Adams or Jefferson,
John Marshall Ruled
1. The Judiciary Act of 1789 did not allow Federal Courts to
have Original Jurisdiction.
2. Elements of The Judiciary Act of 1789 are unconstitutional.
3. The use of Judicial Review by the Supreme Court became a
precedent for future cases.
4. Marbury does not get his appointment
Precedent – Judicial Review
John Marshall is still Chief Justice
1. “The power to tax is the power to destroy” (Marshall 1819).
2. The power of the Federal government is supreme over state
governments.
3. Affirms the supremacy of the US government over the
subordinate state governments under the Federalist system.
4. The tax is overruled
Precedent – Federal Government is supreme.
Gibbons V.
Ogden
Dred Scott
V. Sanford
1824
1857
A dispute arose over the ability to
conduct trade on NY waterways.
Ogden had been granted an
exclusive license by the State of
NY. Gibbons – his former partnerhad obtained Federal permission to
engage in trade on the same
waterways. Ogden sued in the
lower court and won on the idea
that his license was issued first and
that the states can regulate
commerce within their borders.
Gibbons appealed to the Supreme
Court.
Yes – John Marshall is still around. This is almost a revisit of the
McCulloch case. The question remains - which authority is supreme,
Federal or State?
Many complicated details here.
Scott originally belonged to John
Emerson of Missouri. Emerson had
taken Scott to the Free Territory of
Illinois for a number of years. Upon
his death Scott was transferred to
Irene Sanford – his wife. A federal
court later ruled that Scott should
have been transferred to John
Sanford – her brother because
women could not own property.
Scott claimed that living in “Free
Territory” made him a free man.
John Sanford agreed and wanted to
set a national precedent rather than
just freeing Scott himself.
John Sanford was a resident of
NY, and an abolitionist. He assisted
Scott in taking his case to the
Supreme Court.
Chief Justice Roger Taney –
Marshall ruled that NYS Waterways could be used to conduct
commerce with other states.
The Constitution grants power to the Federal government to regulate
interstate trade. The decision is for Gibbons citing the supremacy of
the Federal government in regulating interstate trade.
Precedent – Federal Government regulated interstate trade,
Previous decisions can be used as precedent for current cases
(Gibbons)
Seeking to avoid a national conflict during this “decade of crisis”
ending in Civil War Taney took a cue from John Marshall and issued
a procedural decision.
1. Dred Scott had a valid argument.
2. The Constitution protects the people of the US.
3. The Constitution states that slaves are 3/5 of a person –
thereby they are not people and cannot bring suit.
4. The case is dismissed.
Addl: The case was actually decided in the fall of 1856 but James
Buchannan asked Taney not to announce the decision until after the
election. VERY ILLEGAL!
Plessey V.
Ferguson
1896
Homer Plessey was known as a
Mulatto. He was 7/8 white.
In 1892 Plessey sat in a white’s
only train car in Louisiana.
Separate train cars were allocated
for Whites and Blacks. Plessey
argued that the separate cars
violated the 13th and 14th
Amendments.
Schenck V.
The United
States
1819
The US entered WW I when the
Russians withdrew in 1917
following the Fall Revolution.
There were strong anti-socialist
feelings in the US – partly because
the Russians withdrew. Schenck
was a declared Socialist and was
also part of an Anti-War movement
in the US.
Chief Justice Melville Fuller
1. The 13th and 14th amendments do not guarantee mixing of the
races.
2. The 13th and 14th amendments do require equal treatment of
the races.
3. As long as equal accommodations are present for both races
then separation is legal.
4. “Separate but Equal” is established. Plessey paid a $25.00
fine.
Precedent – Separate but equal is established.
Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes
1. Holmes affirmed the lower court ruling against Schenck.
2. It came to be known as the “Clear and Present Danger” ruling.
3. Free speech is not absolute and the government can limit
speech that is harmful to national security.
Precedent – In times of national emergency the government can
take steps to put safety above freedom. Free speech can be
curtailed for national security reasons. Think of Korematsu and
the Patriot Act
The US had passed two laws to
silence anti-war protests – The
Alien and Espionage Acts (should
sound familiar). When Schenck
distributed anti-war propaganda he
was arrested for violating those
acts,
.
1954
Brown V.
The Board
of
Education
Miranda v.
Arizona
1966
Following Plessey in 1896 several
attempts were made to overturn the
ruling.
Known as an omnibus case – there
were several similar cases across
the US with similar background and
circumstance. The NAACP
decided to combine the action using
the sympathetic circumstance of
little Linda Brown being denied
access to an all-white school near
her house and being forced to walk
a great distance to the “colored”
school. The NAACP sought to
overturn “Separate but Equal” on
the grounds that separate cannot be
equal.
March 1963 – Ernersto Miranda
was arrested for kidnapping and
raping an 18 year old woman.
After a 2 hour interrogation he
signed a confession.
He was never informed of his right
to counsel. The confession was
written in English and Ernesto did
not speak English.
After his conviction Miranda’s
court appointed attorney appealed
to the Arizona Supreme court. The
court upheld the conviction. An
appeal was then granted to the
Supreme Court.
Chief Justice Earl Warren
This case faced extensive litigation including the changing of the
Chief Justice mid-stream. Fred. M. Vinson died in 1953 and Pres.
Eisenhower appointed Earl Warren as Chief Justice. He instructed
Warren that he wanted a unanimous opinion – either way.
The NAACP and Thurgood Marshall used the “doll demonstration” to
establish that Black children were being raised to feel inadequate
when compared to White children.
Precedent - “Separate can never be Equal” – Plessey is
overturned. The modern Civil Rights movement gains traction.
Chief Justice Earl Warren
1. Miranda did not have to ask for counsel; he should have been
made aware of his right.
2. The confession was inadmissible.
3. His conviction was nullified
4. Miranda was retried and convicted in 1967 and paroled in
1972
5. He died in a barroom brawl in 1976
Precedent: No Defendant can be questioned or tried without being
informed of his rights and voluntarily waving them. The policy of
reading the “Miranda Rights” became common policy.