AP American Government
Historic Landmark Cases
Marbury v. Madison (1803)
- Article III, judicial powers
- Chief Justice Marshall established “judicial review” as a power of the SC. After the defeat of the 1800 election, President Adams appt.
many Federalists to the federal courts, but the commissions were not delivered because new Sec. of State James Madison refused to deliver
them & Marbury sued in SC. The Court declared a portion of the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional, thereby declaring the Court’s
power to find acts of Congress unconstitutional
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)
- Article I, section 8, Necessary and Proper Clause & National Supremacy
-A Maryland law required federally chartered banks to is only a special paper to print $, which amounted to a tax. William McCulloch, the
cashier of a Baltimore branch of the bank, refused to use the paper, claiming that the states could not tax the Federal Government. The
Court declared the Maryland law unconstitutional, commenting “...the power to tax implies the
power to destroy.”
Barron v. Baltimore (1833)
-5th amendment (eminent domain) did not apply to states but only to the federal gov’t (BOR does NOT apply to STATES).
-the Supreme Court does not apply the Bill of Rights to states until the14th amendment is incorp.
FIRST AMENDMENT (Freedom of Speech/Religion (No Establishment & Free Exercise)/Assembly/Petition/Press)
Freedom of Speech
Schenck v. US (1919)
- Freedom of speech
-Charles Schenck was an officer of an antiwar political group who was arrested for alleged violations of the Espionage Act of 1917, which
made active opposition to the war a crime. He had urged thousands of young men called to service by the draft act to resist & avoid
induction, The Court limited free speech in time of war, stating that Shenck’s words, under the circumstances created a “clear and
present” danger... Although later decisions modified the decision, this case created the PRECEDENT that 1st amendment guarantees
weren’t absolute
Gitlow v. New York (1925)
- for the first time the Court decided whether the 1st & 14th amendments had influence on State Laws. The case, involving “criminal
anarchy”, under New York law, was the first consideration of what came to be known as the selective “incorporation” doctrine, under
which the provisions of the 1st amendment were “incorporated” by the 14th amendment, indicating that the Supreme Court could
invalidate State Laws.
Bradenburg v. Ohio (1969)
-held that laws that punish people for advocating social change through violence violate the first amendment, the advocacy of an idea even
an idea of violence is protected by the 1st amendment. What is not protected is inciting people to engage in violence, a change from the
“clear and present danger” test. The court reversed the conviction of a KKK member that held a rally and made strong derogatory remarks
against Africans Americans and Jews.
Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)
-Freedom of Speech and Expression (1st Amendment)
-Ruling- allowed to wear the black arm bands
-Precedent- “Student’s right to expression would be protected except in cases where that expression materially disrupts class work or
involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others...
Bethel v. Fraser (1986)
-Freedom of Speech (1st amendment)
-Ruling- The school’s discipline was constitutional
-Precedent- school may limit student’s speech if it interferes with the educational process
*LIBEL VS. SLANDER* MUST BE PROVEN TO BE KNOWN AS DEFAMATORY AND FALSE AND WAS
REPEATED IN A MALICIOUS MANNER (known as actual malice)
Texas v. Johnson (1989)
-Freedom of Speech (1st amendment)
-Ruling- Texas statute prohibiting the burning of the flag is unconstitutional
-Precedent- You may burn the flag
Reno v. ACLU (1997)
-tested the Communications Decency Act that made it a crime to distribute “indecent” material over the web. The Court said that protecting
children from pornography did not supersede the right to freedom of expression, adding that the act was unenforceable with the current
technology.
-example of how Congress can rewrite laws to work around Supreme Court decisions
Campaign Finance Reform as it relates to free speech
Buckley v. Valeo (1976)
- Court struck down a few parts of this 1974 law
- struck down personal monies (you can spend as much of your own $ on a campaign because the courts said that it is political speech)
-upheld-public financing part (agreed to limits in order to get funds matched) because it is voluntary
-Congress was trying to limit spending on primary funds but Bush Jr. didn’t accept $ on primary funds of public $ so he could spend as
much as he wanted
McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003)
- Upheld most aspects of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Law
-upheld soft and hard money limits and the ban of electioneering not subject to the cap within the 90 day window before a federal election
F.E.C. v. Wisconsin Right to Life & McCain v. Wisconsin Right to Life (2006)
- The Supreme Court loosened restrictions on corporate and union-funded television ads that air close to elections, weakening a key
provision of a landmark campaign finance law.
-The court heard the same case a year ago, shortly before Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. took his seat last January. Faced with the prospect of a
4-to-4 deadlock in the absence of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who was days away from retirement and would not have been able to
participate in a decision, the court then sent the case back to the lower court. While that move postponed the court's encounter with the
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, as the McCain-Feingold law is formally known, an eventual encounter was inevitable because Congress,
in passing the law, made Supreme Court review mandatory.
Press
Near v. Minnesota (1931)
-established the prior restraint doctrine. The doctrine protects the press from gov’t attempts to block publication. Except in extraordinary
circumstances, the press must be allowed to publish. If what is published turns out to be unprotected by the 1st amendment, the gov’t can
take action. However, to act before publication is to engage in censorship that violates the 1st amendment.
-Selective Incorporation of the 1st amendment freedom of press
New York Times v. US (1971)
-reaffirmed the prior restraint doctrine established in Near v. Minnesota
-the Court refused the halt publication of the Pentagon Papers (detailed critical account of US involvement in Vietnam).
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988)
-Freedom of Speech (1st amendment)
-Ruling- SC sided with the school district curtailing the freedom previously stated in Tinker
-Precedent- schools could censor student speech when schools had a reasonable educational justification for their
censorship esp. when the speech was part of an educational activity
-as long as student produced material not affiliated with classroom activity & didn’t directly disrupt classroom activities, the
rights to produce would be protected
Freedom of Religion
-Free Exercise Clause- right to practice your own religion
-Establishment Clause- separation between Church and State, No official state religion
Reynolds v. US (1878) – Free Exercise
- SC held that religious duty was not a suitable defense to a criminal indictment. George Reynolds was a member of The
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, charged with bigamy in the Utah Territory. Reynolds had argued that as a
Mormon, it was his religious duty as a male member of the church to practice polygamy if possible.
The Supreme Court recognized that under the First Amendment, the Congress cannot pass a law that prohibits the free
exercise of religion. However it argued that the law prohibiting bigamy did not fall under this. The fact that a person could
only be married to one person had existed since the times of King James I of England in English law on which United States
law was based. Restricted/banned polygamy.
Everson v. Board of Education (1947)- No establishment
- the Court considered the use of public funds for the operation of school buses in NJ, including buses carrying students to
parochial school. The Court permitted New Jersey to continue payments, saying that the aid to children was not gov’t support
for religion. The decision stated that the wall separating Church & state must be kept “high and impregnable.” This was a
clear incorporation of 1st amendment limits on States.
Engel v. Vitale (1962)- No establishment
-Precedent- US S.C. outlawed the use, even on a voluntary basis, of state- sponsored prayer in schools
Lemon v. Kurzman (1971)- No establishment
- In overturning State laws regarding aid to church-supported schools (Struck down state funding for private religious
schools), the Court created the LEMON test limiting, “the excessive gov’t entanglement” with religion. The Court noted that
any State law about aid to religion must meet 3 criteria
1. Purpose of aid must be secular
2. Its primary effect must neither advance nor inhibit religion
3. It must avoid “excessive entanglement of government with religion”
Wallace v. Jaffree (1985)- No establishment
-Precedent- US S.C. decided that moments of silence were unconstitutional b/c the government is promoting religion
Oregon v. Smith (1990)- Free exercise
- Two gentlemen were fired by a private drug rehabilitation organization because they ingested peyote, a hallucinogenic drug,
for sacramental purposes at a ceremony of their Native American Church. Their applications for unemployment
compensation were denied by the State of Oregon under a state law disqualifying employees discharged for work-related
"misconduct.” Sacramental peyote use is prohibited by the State's controlled substance law, which makes it a felony to
knowingly or intentionally possess the drug.
- SC argued the Free Exercise Clause permits the State to prohibit sacramental peyote use and thus to deny unemployment
benefits to persons discharged for such use. Restricted drug use in religious ceremonies.
Obscenity- Not Protected by the First Amendment
Roth v. US (1957)
- A NY man named Roth operated a business that used the mail to invite people to buy materials, considered obscene by
postal inspectors. The Court, in its first consideration of censorship of obscenity, created the “prevailing community
standards” rule, which required a consideration of the work as a whole. In its decision, the Court defined obscene that which
offended “the average person, applying contemporary community standards.”
Miller v. California (1973)
- The Court upheld a stringent application of California obscenity law by Newport Beach, CA, and attempted to define what
is obscene. The “Miller Rule” included three criteria
1. That the average person would, applying contemporary community standards find that the work
appealed to the prurient interest
2. That the work depicts or describes , in an offensive way, sexual conduct defined by State Law
3. That “the work” taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value
SECOND AMENDMENT- RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS
Miller v. US (1939)
- 2nd amendment deals with state militia & has nothing to do with individual rights & gives states’ the right to regulate guns
(dealt with sawed off shotguns)
McDonald vs. Chicago (2010)- 2nd and 14 amendment (due process clause)
-2nd amendment is selectively incorporated when the SC rules that "the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep
and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home… And it is clear that the Framers . . .
counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty." The
Second Amendment provides Americans a fundamental right to bear arms that cannot be violated by state and local
governments. Reasonable restrictinos (i.e. waiting periods, no handguns for felons or mentally ill, no guns in schools etc)
would be permitted.
FOURTH AMENDMENT (Unreasonable Search and Seizures)
The Right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable search and
seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or
Affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Weeks v. US (1914)—Only applies to fed’l gov’t – no selective incorporation
- A search without proper warrant was made in San Francisco & evidence was used by a postal inspector to prosecute Mr.
Weeks. Weeks claimed that the evidence was gained by an illegal search, & thus was inadmissible. The Court agreed,
applying for the first time an “exclusionary rule” for illegally gained evidence in federal courts. The decision stated “... if
letters & private documents can thus be seized & used as evidence... his right to be secure against such searches... is of no
value, and... might as well be stricken from the Constitution”
Mapp v. Ohio- 1961-Selective Incorporation of the 4th amendment
-involving the 4th and 14 amendments (illegal evidence and the due process clause)
-prior to this court case it was permitted by some state constitutions to use illegally obtained evidence in court
-set precedent for exclusionary rule-protection to citizens in state courts where illegally obtained materials could not be
presented in court-exclusionary rule applies to states
Types of Police Searches1. Plain view Search and Plainfeel search
2. Consent
3. Hot Pursuit
4. Exigent Circumstances (i.e. emergencies)
5. Terry Stop and Frisk (Terry vs. Ohio- 1968)
6. Vehicle Searches (No warrants but probable cause)
7. Search Incident to a Lawful Arrest
8. Airports and Borders (High Security Areas)
9. Good Faith Exception Clause
10. Special Needs Administrative Searches (i.e. School metal detectors)
NJ v. TLO- 1985
- The Court set a new standard for searches in schools in this case, stating that the school had a “legitimate need to maintain
an environment in which learning can take place,” and that to do this “requires some easing of the restrictions to which
searches by public authorities are ordinarily subject...” The Court this created a “reasonable suspicion” rule for school
searches, a change from the “probable cause” requirement in the wider society.
FIFTH AMENDMENT- CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS (No self incrimination
SIXTH AMENDMENT- RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)
-6th and 14th amendments
-Precedent- guarantee of counsel (attorney) for all person facing a felony charge in federal and state trials
Escobedo v. Illinois (1964)
- A murder suspect in Chicago was not afforded council while under interrogation, the Court extended the “exclusionary
rule” to illegal confessions in State court proceedings. Carefully, defining an Escobedo rule, the Court said, “where the
investigation is no longer a general inquiry...but has begun to focus on a particular suspect... and where the suspect has been
taken into custody... the suspect has requested... his lawyer, and the police have not warned him right to remain silent, the
accused has been denied counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment.
Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
-5, 6, and 14th amendments
-Precedent- Miranda rights “have a right to remain silent, that anything said can be used in Court, right to an attorney, if he
can’t afford one, one will be appointed for him” etc.
In Re Gault (1967)
- Prior to the Gault case, proceedings against juvenile offenders were generally handled as “family law,” not “criminal law”
& provided few due process guarantees. Gault was assigned to 6 yrs. in State juvenile detention facility for an alleged
obscene phone call. He was not provided council & not permitted to confront or cross examine the principal witness. The
Court overturned the juvenile proceedings & required that States provide juveniles “some of the due process guarantees of
adults,” including the right to a phone call, to counsel, to cross- examine, to confront their accuser, & to be advised of their
right to silence.
SEVENTH AMENDMENT- CIVIL LAW PROCEEDINGS (Right to Jury in all civil cases over $20)
EIGHT AMENDMENT- BAIL AND CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT
Gregg v. Georgia (1976)
- The Court upheld the Georgia death sentence, finding that it did NOT violate the cruel and unusual punishment clause of
the 8th Amendment. The Court stated for the first time that “punishment of death does NOT invariably violate the
Constitution.”
Roper v. Simmons (2005)
-The Court struck down a former precedent allowing the death penalty to apply to 16-18 year olds.
-The Court stated for the first time that execution of those under 18 years violated the 8th amendment
NINTH AND TENTH AMENDMENTS- RIGHTS RESERVED FOR THE PEOPLE AND THE STATES
Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)- 9th Amendment (Unenumerated Rights)
- A Connecticut law forbade the use of “any drugs, medicinal article, or instrument, for the purpose of preventing
contraception.” Griswold, director of Planned Parenthood in New Haven, was arrested for counseling married persons & after
conviction, appealed. The Court overturned the Connecticut law, saying that “various guarantees create zones of privacy..”
and questioning “...would we allow the police to search the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms?”
Roe. v. Wade (1973)
-9th amendment (right to privacy) & 14th amendment
-Precedent- “women have a fundamental right to privacy and a right to choose to terminate her pregnancy within the first
trimester”
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS- RIGHT OF CITIZENS (CIVIL RIGHTS)
--No State shall deprive any person of due process or equal protection under the law
-Selective Incorporation--1897 first example of incorporation in Chicago w/ eminent domain however slow arduous
process as late as 1937 SC refused to incorporate double jeapardy
Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857)
-the Court upheld property rights over human rights by saying that Dred Scott, a slave, could not become a free man just
because he traveled in “free soil” States with his master. A badly divided nation was further fragmented by the decision.
“Free soil” federal laws & the Missouri Compromise Line of 1820 were held unconstitutional because they deprive a slave
owner of of the right to his “property” without just compensation. This narrow reading of the Constitution was an example of
States’ Rights advocacy.
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)
- Separate but equal facilities were allowed and did not violate the “equal protection clause” in the Constitution
Brown v. Board of Ed (1954)- Equal Protection Clause
-14th amendment (equal protection clause)
-Precedent- Overturned Plessy v. Ferguson and the “separate but equal”doctrine & that separate schooling of the races was
unconstitutional and demanded that schools desegregate with “all deliberate speed”
Regents of University of California v. Bakke (1970)- Equal Protection Clause
-Bakke, a white male applied for admission to Medical School and was rejected
-Medical School’s policy set aside 16 of 100 places for disadvantaged students to attract ethnic minorities & he went to Court
when he found that several applicants had been accepted with lower scores, grades etc. in the set aside policy. Bakke sued the
school for violation of the equal protection clause
-the Court ruled narrowly, providing an admission for Bakke, but not overturning “affirmative action” preferring to take
discrimination cases on case-by-case.
Gratz v. Bollinger (2003)-Equal Protection Clause
The Supreme Court struck down the University of Michigan’s undergraduate affirmative action admissions process for being
too mechanical and therefore unconstitutional. The total point system at University of Michigan consisted of 150 points. 100
points granted admission and minorities (African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans) were given a bonus
automatic 20 points. Justices argued that because the policy was not narrowly tailored it violated the equal protection clause
of the 14th amendment. Many argue that Gratz did not have standing to sue because she applied in 1995, three years before
Michigan adopted its point system. An example of a class action law suit.
Gerrymandering and the 14th Amendment (Equal Protection Clause)
Baker v. Carr (1962)
-Malapportionment violated the 14th amendment
-All districts must be contiguous and touching, precursor to Westberry
Westberry v. Sanders (1964)
-One person one vote, all districts must be equal in POPULATION not AREA or SIZE
Powers of the President and Separation of Powers
Clinton v. City of New York (1998)
-Line Item Veto violates Article II of the Constitution
-Only Governors retain the right to line-item veto