THE U.S.
SUPREME
COURT
(PP. 233 – 241)
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
3
1. DESCRIBE THE BACKGROUND, RULING, &
IMPACT OF MARBURY V. MADISON (1803) ON
THE EVOLUTION OF THE SUPREME COURT?
 Background –
 William Marbury received a last-minute appointment as Justice of the Peace
(Washington D.C.) from out-going President, John Adams (he had decided to
appoint as many Federalist judges as he could the last month in office –
Midnight Judges)
 Marbury’s appointment never got delivered because it was left on the desk
in the Oval Office. In-coming President Thomas Jefferson ordered his
Secretary of State, James Madison not to deliver the appointment
 Marbury sued Madison claiming that the U.S. Supreme Court could order
Madison to deliver it on the grounds of the Judiciary Act (1789) & it made
its way to the U.S. Supreme Court
 Ruling –
 Chief Justice John Marshall in a surprise ruling, declared that the Supreme
Court had no authority to ‘order’ judicial appointments, thus declaring part
of the Judiciary Act (1789) unconstitutional
 Impact –
 Established the concept of Judicial Review (the U.S. Supreme Court can
declare a law unconstitutional)
2. DESCRIBE THE BACKGROUND, RULING, &
IMPACT OF DRED SCOTT V. SANFORD (1857) ON
THE EVOLUTION OF THE SUPREME COURT?
 Background –
 Dred Scott was an African American slave whose slave owner moved
him & his wife to Illinois (Free State). Scott, felt that once he & his
wife moved to Illinois, they should be set free. His slave owner
disagreed (they were his property)
 Scott sued all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court
 Ruling –
 Chief Justice Roger Taney ruled that slaves were never intended to be
U.S. citizens and therefore Dred Scott & his wife were to remain
slaves (Taney & many of the justices on the Supreme Court were
Democrats who wanted to protect States’ Rights & Slavery )
 Impact –
 Set off violent protest that eventually led to the Civil War
 One scholar noted that this ruling was, ‘the greatest disaster the
Supreme Court has ever inflicted on the nation ’
3. DESCRIBE HOW THE SUPREME COURT DURING ‘RECONSTRUCTION’,
N E G AT I V E LY I M PAC T E D T H E C I V I L R T S . O F A F R I C A N A M E R I C A N S W I T H
I T S ‘ H A N D S - O F F ’ A P P R OAC H T O T H E 1 3 T H – 1 5 T H A M E N D M E N T S , A S
W E L L A S T H E 1 87 5 C I V I L R T S . AC T, & I T S R U L I N G I N ‘ P L E S SY V.
FERGUSON (1896)’
13 th – outlawed Slavery; 14 th – Granted Citizenship
to African Americans; 15 th – Granted Voting rights
to African Americans; 1875 Civil Rts. Act –
Granted federal protection from discrimination to
African Americans
Taney’s Democratic-controlled Supreme Court took
a narrow (strict) interpretation of the Constitution
& ruled that African Americans should look to the
state legislatures or state courts for redress (of
course, the state legislatures & state courts in the
South were the ones passing & ruling in favor of
discriminatory laws)
3. DESCRIBE HOW THE SUPREME COURT DURING ‘RECONSTRUCTION’,
N E G AT I V E LY I M PAC T E D T H E C I V I L R T S . O F A F R I C A N A M E R I C A N S W I T H
I T S ‘ H A N D S - O F F ’ A P P R OAC H T O T H E 1 3 T H – 1 5 T H A M E N D M E N T S , A S
W E L L A S T H E 1 87 5 C I V I L R T S . AC T, & I T S R U L I N G I N ‘ P L E S SY V.
FERGUSON (1896)’
 Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) –
 Background:
 Homer Plessy was 7/8 th white & was kicked off the ‘whiteonly’ railway car in New Orleans (Jim Crow Law)
 He sued that his 14 th Amendment rights were violated & it
went up to the U.S. Supreme Court
 Ruling:
 Taney’s Court ruled in favor of New Orleans’ Jim Crow Law
& created the ‘Separate But Equal Doctrine’ (States can
have separate facilities for blacks & whites as long as they
are equal)
 Impact:
 Huge blow 2 African American Civil Rts. (precedent until Brown)
4. DESCRIBE THE STRUGGLE BETWEEN THE
SUPREME COURT & PRES. FDR DURING
THE NEW DEAL ERA?
 In the 1930’s, the Court clashed with FDR over an
ambitious set of programs to help fight the Great
Depression (some of these New Deal programs
violated the Constitution)
 In response to these rulings, FDR proposed a law that
would allow him to add 6 new justices to the Court
(Court Packing) who would support his New Deal
programs
 FDR’s ‘Court Packing’ strategy sparked sharp
criticism, but it may have convinced the Court to defer
to Congress on economic regulation as they began to
reject challenges to the New Deal
 Because he was in office for 3 terms & the start of a
4 th , he was able to appoint several justices when
vacancies opened up, ushering in a new liberal era
5. DESCRIBE THE LIBERAL INTERPRETATION OF
THE ‘WARREN COURT’ FROM 1953-1969 WITH
RULINGS IN THE FOLLOWING CASES…
BROWN V. BD. OF ED. (1954)
 Background:
 Linda Brown (9 yr. old black girl that had to travel across town to an
all-black school when an all-white school was right around the corner
because of Topeka’s Jim Crow Laws)
 Her dad sued the Bd. of Ed. on the grounds that it violated her 14 th
Amendment rights
 Ruling:
 The liberal Warren Court ruled in favor of Brown because when it
came to education, the psychological damage done to the minds of
young black kids being segregated in schools was irreversible
(applied to education only)
 Overturned Plessy v. Ferguson
 Impact:
 This ruling served as a springboard for ending segregation in other
areas of public life (restaurants, sports venues, movie theaters,
restrooms, etc.)
5. DESCRIBE THE LIBERAL INTERPRETATION OF
THE ‘WARREN COURT’ FROM 1953-1969 WITH
RULINGS IN THE FOLLOWING CASES…
GIDEON V. WAINWRIGHT (1963)
 Background:
 Gideon broke into a pool hall and stole some $ & a pool stick
(he was arrested, denied the rt. to legal council, & later
convicted)
 While in prison, he read the Constitution & realized he was
denied his 6 th Amendment rt. to legal council (he wrote a handwritten appeal for his conviction to be overturned & it made its
way to the Supreme Court)
 Ruling:
 The liberal Warren Court ruled in favor of Gideon because the
accused have a right to legal council & any conviction won
without the accused’s right to legal council must be overturned
 Impact:
 Law enforcement must adhere to ‘procedural due process’
when it comes to the rights of the accused
5. DESCRIBE THE LIBERAL INTERPRETATION OF
THE ‘WARREN COURT’ FROM 1953-1969 WITH
RULINGS IN THE FOLLOWING CASES…
MIRANDA V. ARIZONA (1966)
Background:
Ernesto Miranda was arrested & convicted of a crime
w/out being read his 6 th Amendment rights.
Ruling:
The liberal Warren Court ruled in favor of Miranda
because the accused have the right to be read their
rights when arrested or questioned for a crime (these
rights later became known as the ‘Miranda Rights’)
Impact:
Law enforcement must adhere to ‘procedural due
process’ when it comes to the rights of the accused
5. DESCRIBE THE LIBERAL INTERPRETATION OF
THE ‘WARREN COURT’ FROM 1953-1969 WITH
RULINGS IN THE FOLLOWING CASES…
TINKER V. DES MOINES S.D. (1969)
 Background:
 A group of high school students in the Des Moines Independent
School District decided to wear black arm bands in symbolic
protest of the Vietnam War (this violated school dress code
policy prohibiting any clothing that distracted from the learning
process)
 They were sent home each day that they wore these arm bands
 Ruling:
 The liberal Warren Court ruled in favor of the students because
the school district can’t prohibit the 1 st Amendment right
(Symbolic Speech) of students to protest a war during the
school day (as long as it is peaceful)
 Impact:
 1 st Amendment (Free Speech) is a very important cornerstone
to our Constitutional rights
6. PRESIDENTS FROM WHICH POLITICAL PART Y
APPOINTED 16 OF THE LAST 22 SUPREME COURT
JUSTICES SINCE 1953, CREATING WHAT T YPE OF
COURT?
Republican Party
A Conservative
Supreme Court
7. DESCRIBE THE THOUGHT PROCESS OF A
PRESIDENT THAT GOES INTO APPOINTING A
SUPREME COURT JUSTICE?
Presidents use the same criteria
(legal expertise, party affiliation,
judicial philosophy, & a sense of the
nominee’s acceptability to the
Senate) he/she would use to
appoint any federal judge, but does
so even more cautiously (why?)
the intense public scrutiny
Sonia Sotomayor confirmed on Aug. 6th, 2009
Elena Kagan confirmed on Aug. 5th, 2010
8. DESCRIBE THE SENATE CONFIRMATION
HEARINGS FOR SUPREME COURT
JUSTICES?
It begins with hearings in front of the Senate
Judiciary Committee (usually televised)
The nominee faces intense direct questioning
& have their judicial beliefs/records
inspected in great detail
Once the Judiciary Committee is done, it
votes on the nominee (which almost always
serves as a guide for the Full Senate)
Most nominees are confirmed by the Senate,
but that’s not always the case (28
nominations to the S.C. have been rejected
since 1789)
Senate Judiciary Committee Confirmation Hearings for
John Roberts to be Chief Justice, 2005
9. HOW DO SUPREME COURT
DECISIONS GET MADE?
 1 st Step – Reading the Briefs
 Written arguments prepared/submitted by each side of the case (a
good brief identifies past cases/precedents that support their side of
the case)
 2 nd Step – Listen to Oral Arguments
 Chief Justice presides before the seated, robed 9 justices of the
Supreme Court (lawyers for each side have 30 minutes to present
their case, involving sharp questioning from the justices – very
dramatic/intense as justices are looking for weaknesses in the oral
argument)
 3 rd Step – Justices Meet in Private
 Chief Justice leads these private discussions between justices (all
have a chance to speak)
 4 th Step – Justices Produce a Formal Written Opinion
 A long, carefully worded exploration of the major issues, judicial
precedents, & legal reasoning behind a decision (explaining in detail
why the Court overturned or supported a lower court’s decision)
Liberal
Conservative
Conservative
Unproven –
Leans Liberal
Conservative
Conservative
Moderate
Conservative
Moderate
Liberal
10. HOW MANY CASES DOES THE SUPREME COURT GIVE
‘FULL PLENARY REVIEW ’ & HOW MANY ARE GIVEN
‘UNSIGNED COURT ORDERS ’ (WHY ARE THESE GIVEN )?
Full Plenary Review –
100 or so cases
Unsigned Court Orders –
50-60
Because it wants the lower courts to
reconsider certain case in light of a
specific Court decision