Court
Cases
Daniel Caro
AP Government
First Period
November 18, 2011
1
Marbury v. Madison; 5 U.S. 137 (1803)
Facts:




President Adams gave Marbury the seat of the Justice of the Peace in Washington D.C.,
but it wasn’t approved by the incoming group in power.
Because the Constitution conflicted with this legislative action, Marbury’s new job was
controversial.
Marbury declared that he should be given the position, but Madison wanted to designate
the position to someone else.
The Supreme Court declared that Madison could give the job to whomever, because
Marbury’s appointment wasn’t officially approved of, and therefore unconstitutional.
Issues:
The Constitutional issues that arose were, most importantly, judicial review, along with
federalism, executive privilege, and jurisdiction for the branches of government.
Rulings:


Marbury lost the case by a 0-4 vote in favor of Madison (two judges didn’t vote).
The court ruled that the appointment of Marbury was void.
Effect/Significance:
The Supreme Court ruling set a precedent for how all judicial appointments in question
should be handled. Here, the Supreme Court was established as having the power of judicial
review. This means that all issues of Constitutionality willed be ruled upon by the Supreme
Court.
2
Dartmouth College v. Woodward; 17 U.S. 518 (1819)
Facts:




The president of the college attempted to change the school from a private to a public
institution, thus conflicting with the college’s original charter granted by the King of
England.
The board of trustees opposed this changed and wanted the courts to reverse the change
from a private to a public college.
The “old” trustees took up the case against one of the newly appointed trustees, William
H. Woodward, first in the New Hampshire Superior Court.
The “Contract Clause” of the Constitution was called into question.
Issues:
The Constitutional issues that arose were the regulations of charters, states’ rights to
interfere with charters, and federalism.
Rulings:



The trustees of Dartmouth College won the case with a 5-1 vote against Woodward.
Judge Duvall was the only judge to go against Chief Justice John Marshall.
The Supreme Court declared that the state of New Hampshire and the school’s president
could not interfere with a private charter, as this action was unconstitutional.
Effect/Significance:
The Supreme Court ruling set a precedent that private charters cannot be interfered with
by a state. In this case, the strict interpretation of the Constitution was upheld, thus promoting
federalism, in that private contracts could not be obstructed.
3
Fletcher v. Peck; 10 U.S. 87 (1810)
Facts:




John Peck purchased a piece of land, which had been already claimed by the State of
Georgia, and then sold it to Robert Fletcher.
Fletcher ended up filing a lawsuit against Peck because Peck had sold Fletcher land that
wasn’t really his.
Both men were really co-land speculators who wanted the Supreme Court to rule that
Native Americans didn’t own the land in the first place.
Again, the “Contract Clause” and property rights were at stake.
Issues:
The Constitutional issues that arose were states’ rights, individual property rights,
federalism, Native Americans’ rights, and the validity of private contracts.
Rulings:


Because both men were in on the case together, they won with a 5-0 decision, although
the ruling was technically in favor of Fletcher.
The Supreme Court ruled that, even if illegal, states cannot inhibit a private contract.
Effect/Significance:
The Supreme Court ruling set a precedent that the “Contract Clause” of the Constitution
is protected, and states cannot inhibit property contracts among individuals. The Court also
showed its authority to declare a state law unconstitutional, and intriguingly, Native Americans
were shown to not have their rights protected.
4
Ex parte McCardle; 74 U.S. 506 (1869)
Facts:




During Reconstruction after the Civil War, William McCardle published antiReconstruction articles, and was jailed for doing so.
In a Mississippi Circuit Court, he tried to plea for habeas corpus, but the judge sent him
back to jail, saying that his imprisonment was legal.
McCardle took his case to the Supreme Court, citing the Habeas Corpus Act of 1867.
Before a decision was made, Congress took away the Court’s authority over this case,
which had been brought up in a lower court.
Issues:
The Constitutional issues that arose were the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to rule on
McCardle’s particular case, checks and balances, and the Fifth Amendment.
Rulings:


Unanimously, the Supreme Court upheld Congress’ decision to suspend the Court’s
jurisdiction over the case.
Thus, McCardle never got a ruling, and the Supreme Court declared that Congress can, at
any occasion, suspend an appellate jurisdiction.
Effect/Significance:
Congress was upheld as having the authority to use the Constitution to suspend the
Supreme Court’s ruling of lower courts. Precedents were set regarding the handling of habeas
corpus cases even today, such as in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
5
McCulloch v. Maryland; 17 U.S. 316 (1819)
Facts:




The state government of Maryland tried to tax and regulate a branch of the Second Bank
of the U.S.
James McCulloch refused to pay the state tax, and thus, the tax collector, John James,
filed the lawsuit.
In the Baltimore County Court, and the Maryland Court of Appeals, the state of Maryland
was approved of for taxing the bank.
Thus, the case went to the Supreme Court for an appeal to the previous rulings.
Issues:
The Constitutional issues that arose were the necessary and proper clause, federalism, and
implied powers, and Congressional powers.
Rulings:


Unanimously (7-0), the Court declared that the Bank was legally established by
Congress, and that states couldn’t interfere by taxing a federal bank.
The two previous lower court rulings were reversed.
Effect/Significance:
The federal government was reiterated as having authority over state governments, thus
federalism was altogether upheld. Congress was also granted a precedent for having primary
responsibility in financial legislation, and its powers were expanded under the necessary and
proper clause.
6
Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States; 379 U.S. 241 (1964)
Facts:



The owner of the motel didn’t want to abide by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which
would force him to allow black patrons into his motel.
He filed suit, claiming that the Civil Rights Act violated his Constitutional rights.
After an unfavorable ruling in a Georgia state court, the owner appealed to the Supreme
Court.
Issues:
The Constitutional issues that arose were the 5th Amendment, the 13th Amendment, racial
equality, the “Commerce Clause,” and federalism.
Rulings:


The owner lost his case and was forced to abide by the Civil Rights Act by an 11-0
unanimous ruling in the Supreme Court.
The “Commerce Clause” of the Constitution was used to uphold the Civil Rights Act of
1964, as Congress could legally force U.S. citizens to follow the law.
Effect/Significance:
The federal government was upheld in having the authority to regulate “interstate
commerce.” Additionally, this case set a precedent for the use of the necessary and proper clause
to be used as much as possible to expand the power of the federal government. Also, the Court
ruled in favor of upholding anti-racial discrimination legislature.
7
Gibbons v. Ogden; 22 U.S. 1 (1824)
Facts:



New York granted a monopoly of the steamboat trade in its waters to a select few, of
which Aaron Ogden had a license to trade in the waters.
A competitor of Ogden’s, Thomas Gibbons, was sued by Ogden for unlawfully trading in
the waters where only those part of the state-granted monopoly could trade.
Two New York state courts ruled in favor of Ogden, so Gibbons appealed to the Supreme
Court.
Issues:
The Constitutional issues that arose were the federalism, and interstate commerce as
outlined in the Commerce Clause.
Rulings:


The Supreme Court ruled 6-0 in favor of Gibbons, reversing the two previous state court
decisions.
The Court stated that only the federal government could regulate interstate commerce,
and thus, the New York monopoly on steamboat commerce was unconstitutional.
Effect/Significance:
Yet again, the federal government’s powers were expanded under the premise of
interstate commerce. This case set a precedent for the Constitutional definition of commerce to
be expanded to include sea navigation.
8
Engel v. Vitale; 370 U.S. 421 (1962)
Facts:



In the state of New York, angered parents filed a lawsuit after their students were forced
to say a prayer each day at school.
They claimed that their 1st Amendment rights were being infringed upon.
After taking the case to a New York lower court, and the New York Court of Appeals,
the case was brought before the Supreme Court.
Issues:
The Constitutional issues that arose were personal rights outlined in the 1st Amendment,
and the legality of prayer in schools.
Rulings:


The Court ruled 6-1 in favor of the complaining families. Judge Stewart was the only
judge to dissent.
It was declared unconstitutional that state administrators had been requiring students to
recite prayers involuntarily.
Effect/Significance:
The 1st Amendment was upheld in protecting citizens of religious backgrounds which
contradicted the prayers. A precedent was set in this case for ruling against involuntary and
“discriminatory” prayer in schools, and this case was later cited in other lawsuits wishing to ban
prayer in various scenarios.
9
Abington School District v. Schempp; 374 U.S. 203 (1963)
Facts:



A Unitarian Universalist man, Edward Schempp, filed a lawsuit against his daughter’s
school district, because prayer and the Bible were mandatory as part of the curriculum in
the public school.
Specifically, several Biblical passages were to be read each and every morning.
Schempp won the case in a Pennsylvania state court, and so Abington School District
appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issues:
The Constitutional issues that arose were rights in the First and Fourteenth Amendments,
imposed prayer in schools, and the “Due Process” Clause.
Rulings:



The Abington School District lost the case 1-8 in favor of Schempp.
The reading of Bible passages sponsored by a public school was deemed
unconstitutional.
Judge Stewart had the only dissenting opinion, stating that the reading of Bible verses
was acceptable because of the nation’s foundations with Christian doctrine, and the
widespread use of other religious aspects in various parts of the government.
Effect/Significance:
The Supreme Court ruling set a precedent for ruling against religion “imposed” on
students in public schools, and this case was later cited in other lawsuits wishing to ban prayer in
various scenarios. There was a lot of criticism from the public against the courts’ decision, as
most of the nation was in favor of prayer in schools.
10
Lemon v. Kurtzman; 403 U.S. 602 (1971)
Facts:



Alton J. Lemon filed suit against the Superintendent of Public Schools in Pennsylvania,
over the 1968 Nonpublic Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
Under the act, the state government could pay private schools if they used non-Christian
(secular) teaching tools and subject material in the classroom.
The Constitutionality of the act was set to undergo review.
Issues:
The Constitutional issue that arose was the Establishment Clause in the First
Amendment.
Rulings:


Lemon won the case by an 8-0 vote, and the Act was declared unconstitutional for
violating the First Amendment.
The Act was found to impede upon the rights of private religious schools, mostly
Catholic, to teach religion.
Effect/Significance:
The Supreme Court ruling set a precedent by creating the “Lemon test,” which is the rule
the Supreme Court uses to rule on legislation involving religion. Basically, Congressional
legislation must have a secular purpose, it cannot impede upon religion, and it cannot excessively
promote religion. If any part of this “test” is violated by a specific piece of legislation, then,
according to the First Amendment, the act is unconstitutional.
11
Lynch v. Donnelly; 465 U.S. 668 (1984)
Facts:



Donnelly filed a suit against the mayor of Pawtucket, Rhode Island for having a nativity
scene as part of annual Christmas décor in a shopping district.
A Rhode Island District Court and Court of Appeals declared the nativity scene
unconstitutional.
The mayor of the city, Lynch, went to the Supreme Court for certiorari.
Issues:
Yet again, the Constitutional issue that arose was the Establishment Clause in the First
Amendment.
Rulings:



The two former rulings were reversed in favor of Lynch in a 5-4 vote.
The nativity scene was ruled to not violate the Establishment Clause, because it wasn’t
promoting a religious message, and it had a non-religious purpose of celebrating a
general holiday in Western society.
The four dissenting judges believed that the scene did have a religious purpose that
specifically celebrated only Christian doctrine.
Effect/Significance:
The Supreme Court ruling put the “Lemon test” into action, and upheld the public display
of religious holiday symbols. The public response was positive, and this case set a precedent for
Supreme Court decisions in later cases.
12
Lee v. Weisman; 505 U.S. 577 (1992)
Facts:



A middle school principal planned to have a Jewish rabbi lead a public prayer at the
school’s graduation ceremony.
An angered parent (Weisman) sought for the rabbi to not have the right to lead the prayer.
The Rhode Island District Court approved the prayer, and the ceremony went along as
planned, but later the R.I. Court of appeals reversed the District Court decision, so the
school’s principal went to the Supreme Court for review.
Issues:
The Constitutional issue that arose was the Establishment Clause in the First
Amendment, specifically concerning prayer at a public school graduation ceremony.
Rulings:


The Weisman family won the case with a 5-4 vote, and the public prayer at the ceremony
was ruled as violating the Establishment Clause.
The four dissenting judges believed the prayer did not violate the First Amendment,
because no one was forced to participate, and previously in American history, even the
most prominent leaders had led public prayers inconsequentially.
Effect/Significance:
Yet again, this Supreme Court ruling set a precedent by applying the “Lemon test” to an
action taken in a public school setting. This case would later be referred to in other cases where
there was an issue of the constitutionality of prayer in public schools.
13
West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette; 319 U.S. 624 (1943)
Facts:


A Jehovah’s Witness parent of a student filed a lawsuit against the school district for
requiring that students pledge allegiance to, and salute, the American flag.
The W.V. District Court ruled in favor of Barnette, the student’s father, so the school
district took the case to the Supreme Court.
Issues:
The Constitutional issues that arose were the First Amendment’s “Free Speech” and
“Free Exercise” Clauses.
Rulings:



The W.V. Board of Education lost the case by a 3-6 vote in favor of Barnette.
Forcing public school students to salute the flag was ruled unconstitutional, according to
clauses in the First Amendment.
The dissenting judges believed that ruling in favor of Barnette would cause numerous
cases of civil disobedience among citizens, so they stuck with the previous Supreme
Court ruling in Minersville School District v. Gobitis.
Effect/Significance:
This case reversed the previous legal precedent requiring students to pledge and salute
the American flag. Thus, the Bill of Rights would be used many times later by certain religious
groups and individuals to declare that they could not obey certain laws.
14
Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah; 508 U.S. 520 (1993)
Facts:



A Florida law was passed that banned the slaughter of animals in religious ceremonies.
An African religious group filed a lawsuit to uphold their rights to participate in the
slaughter of animals as part of their religious beliefs.
After a Florida District Court upheld the law, the case was taken to the Supreme Court.
Issues:
The Constitutional issue that arose was the “Free Exercise Clause” in the First
Amendment.
Rulings:


The church won the case with a 9-0 decision, and the Florida law was declared
unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court ruled that States weren’t allowed to create laws violating a group’s
right to slaughter animals, since it was a part of their religious doctrine.
Effect/Significance:
This ruling upheld religious groups’ right to practice a wide variety of rituals protected by
the First Amendment of the Constitution. Thus, a precedent was set in dealing with laws that
restricted religious activity.
15
New York Times v. United States; 403 U.S. 713 (1971)
Facts:


The New York Times was planning to release classified information (the Pentagon
Papers), but President Nixon made an executive order for the Papers not to be released.
The N.Y. Times filed a lawsuit to determine whether the information was allowed to be
withheld, based on the First Amendment’s freedom of the press.
Issues:
The Constitutional issue that arose was the “freedom of the press” in the First
Amendment to the Constitution.
Rulings:



The New York Times won the case with a 6-3 vote against President Nixon’s actions.
The Supreme Court declared that the executive branch could only withhold information if
they proved it would be a true matter of national security.
The three dissenting judges believed that the Pentagon Papers posed national security
issues, and that the President retained the right to prohibit the releasing of the documents.
Effect/Significance:
The constitutional right of the freedom of the press was strengthened, as the New York
Times was permitted to release very sensitive information. This case would later be cited in cases
dealing with the freedom of the press to release information in similar situations.
16
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier; 484 U.S. 260 (1988)
Facts:



A school newspaper, whose costs were paid by the school district, was published with
sensitive information about students’ personal lives, including issues of divorce and
pregnancies.
When the principal cancelled the articles before they were printed, Cathy Kuhlmeier, a
student, filed a lawsuit.
A District Court ruled in favor of the Hazelwood School District, only for the decision to
be reversed in a Court of Appeals, and so the School District brought the case to the
Supreme Court.
Issues:
The Constitutional issue that arose was the First Amendment’s protection of the freedom
of speech.
Rulings:


By a 5-3 vote in favor of the Hazelwood School District, the censoring of the newspaper
was said to not be in violation of the student’s rights to free speech.
The dissenting judges believed that the students had the right to print the information,
because the stories in the paper were written with anonymous characters, and they
believed that the students should have the right to print the material.
Effect/Significance:
This case set a precedent that public school newspapers are limited in the Constitutional
protection of free speech, because it may be necessary for censorship if the student’s writings are
deemed unacceptable for printing. Thus, in this case, it was established that this form of speech
was not protected by the First Amendment.
17
Schenck v. United States; 249 U.S. 47 (1919)
Facts:



Charles Schenck, a socialist, distributed propaganda in opposition to the military draft.
He was convicted of committing a crime and jailed, according to the Espionage Act of
1917.
He filed a lawsuit claiming that his First Amendment Rights were being infringed upon.
Issues:
The Constitutional issue that arose was the right of freedom of speech in the First
Amendment.
Rulings:


Schenck lost the case by a unanimous 9-0 decision.
The Supreme Court ruled that his conviction was Constitutional because his speech
wasn’t protected because it was “a clear and present danger.”
Effect/Significance:
This case set a precedent for another type of speech that wasn’t protected by the First
Amendment. Congress was ruled as having the right to make legislature preventing dangerous
actions by individuals. This court case is actually where the common phrase about the crime of
“shouting “fire” in a crowded theater” originated.
18
Gitlow v. New York; 268 U.S. 652 (1925)
Facts:



Gitlow, who was a communist, was imprisoned and convicted after publishing “radical”
literature
The State Supreme Court of New York convicted Gitlow of publishing “dangerous”
materials promoting the overthrow of the government.
His case was brought before the Supreme Court for review.
Issues:
The Constitutional issues that arose were individual and states’ rights as outlined in the
First and Fourteenth Amendments.
Rulings:



Gitlow lost the case in a 2-7 vote.
The Supreme Court ruled that because his actions were “a clear and present danger,” he
was constitutionally convicted, as outlined in the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
The dissenting judges believed that because Gitlow’s audience was small, and he only
indirectly called for a government overthrow, that his actions should be protected.
Effect/Significance:
This case reiterated the ruling in Schenck v. United States, in that speech “harmful” to the
nation is not protected by the Constitution. Not only did this case apply to non-protected speech
by the First Amendment, but “dangerous” speech and publications were also declared not
protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
19
Dennis v. United States; 314 U.S. 494 (1951)
Facts:


Dennis, a high ranking member of the Communist Party, and other party members were
convicted of conspiring to overthrow the government, according to the Smith Act.
In the trial court and Court of Appeals, he was found guilty, so the case was reviewed by
the Supreme Court.
Issues:
The Constitutional issues that arose were the First Amendment’s protection of the
freedoms of speech, press, and assembly.
Rulings:



Dennis, again, lost the case by a 2-6 Supreme Court vote.
His conviction was declared to be upheld because the First Amendment did not protect
their actions, which consisted of promoting anarchy.
The dissenting judges, Black and Douglas, declared that Dennis was falsely convicted of
only promoting Communism, but not, in reality, trying to overthrow the government.
Effect/Significance:
The idea of advocating a violent overthrow of the government was ruled not protected by
the First Amendment, although this decision would later be reversed in Yates v. United States.
Nonetheless, the power of the Constitution’s First Amendment was shown to not protect radical
“anti-American” propaganda.
20
Brandenburg v. Ohio; 395 U.S. 444 (1969)
Facts:



An Ohio leader of the KKK, Charles Brandenburg, got a news station to cover a KKK
rally, where a speech was televised that slandered blacks and Jews, and also called for a
violent march in Washington, D.C.
He was convicted in a Court of Common Pleas, and the ruling was upheld in a Court of
Appeals, and in the Ohio Supreme Court.
The case was brought before the Supreme Court to rule on the Constitutionality of the
case.
Issues:
The Constitutional issue that arose was the First Amendment’s protection of free speech.
Rulings:


Brandenburg’s conviction was ruled unconstitutional by a unanimous 8-0 vote.
The Supreme Court declared that it was unconstitutional to restrict free speech that only
indirectly advocated violence.
Effect/Significance:
The Supreme Court ruling set a precedent by reversing previous decisions about violent
speech not being protected by the First Amendment. Thus, this case broadened the protections of
individual speech in the Constitution.
21
Buckley v. Valeo; 424 U.S. 1 (1976)
Facts:



Congress passed changes to the Federal Election Campaign Act in 1974, which put
stricter regulations of financing for campaigns.
Senator Buckley filed a lawsuit against Valeo, a federal official, to try to overturn the
new legislative amendments.
After an unfavorable ruling in two lower District of Columbia courts, Buckley took the
case to the Supreme Court.
Issues:
The Constitutional issues that arose were the First and Fifth Amendments, and the
separation of powers.
Rulings:

Buckley won the case on a per curiam decision, where individual contributions to
campaigns remained limited, but in general, spending money to promote a candidate in
and election was declared a type of freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment.
Effect/Significance:
This case set precedents for how campaigns were to be constitutionally regulated in the
future. Perhaps most importantly, the Supreme Court expanded the types of protected speech to
include campaign contributions.
22
Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union; 521 U.S. 844 (1997)
Facts:


The Communications Decency Act made it illegal for people to knowingly give or print
obscene material to minors.
The Attorney General filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court against the ACLU for
reversing the CDA in a lower court.
Issues:
The Constitutional issue that arose was the First Amendment’s freedom of speech, as
well as the freedom of the press.
Rulings:

The ACLU won the case with a 9-0 ruling in their favor, as the CDA was declared
unconstitutional because it infringed upon individuals’ 1st Amendment rights.
Effect/Significance:
Internet censorship was found to contradict the First Amendment to the Constitution.
Publicly, many people disagreed with this Supreme Court action, as it promoted indecent internet
activities for minors. Overall, this case set a precedent for the unconstitutionality of regulating
internet free speech.
23
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District; 393 U.S. 503 (1969)
Facts:



Two siblings, John and Mary Beth Tinker, wore black armbands to school in order to
protest the Vietnam War. The school district had banned the use of these armbands.
The siblings’ father took the case against the school district but received unfavorable
decisions in a U.S. District Court and Court of Appeals.
The case was taken to the Supreme Court to determine if the no-armband policy violated
individual First Amendment Rights.
Issues:
The Constitutional issue that arose was the First Amendment’s freedom of speech in the
form of symbolic speech.
Rulings:



Tinker won the case with a 7-2 vote in his favor.
It was declared unconstitutional for a public school to declare, without a valid reason, that
student’s couldn’t utilize a certain form of symbolic speech.
The dissenting judges believed that the armbands were indeed disruptive at the school,
and they did not want to begin a trend of giving permission for rebellious behavior.
Effect/Significance:
This case set a precedent for the First Amendment’s protection of speech in other
symbolic forms. Here, the ACLU gained a large victory in the protection of individuals’ rights to
express themselves in numerous symbolic manners.
24
Texas v. Johnson; 491 U.S. 397 (1989)
Facts:



Gregory Johnson publicly burned an American Flag in protest of the Reagan
administration, at a Republican Party Convention.
He was convicted of desecrating a respected object publicly, and sentenced to prison and
fined.
A Texas Court of Appeals upheld the conviction, but the highest Texas Court of Appeals
overturned his decision, so the case was reviewed by the Supreme Court.
Issues:
The Constitutional issue that arose was an individual’s protections under the First
Amendment.
Rulings:



Johnson won the case with a 5-4 Supreme Court decision.
Criminal conviction for burning a flag was declared unconstitutional because it
contradicted the First Amendment’s freedom of speech.
The dissenting judges believed that the flag burning was an extreme measure of civil
disobedience and advocated anti-government hatred.
Effect/Significance:
This ruling allowed for the First Amendment to be extended to protect radical
demonstrations under the premise of symbolic speech. This case was highly controversial
because the public felt Johnson’s actions were extremely offensive and that he should be
punished.
25
United States v. Miller; 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
Facts:


Miller, who commercially transported unregistered shotguns, was convicted for violating
the National Firearms Act of 1934.
In an Arkansas District Court decision, Miller’s conviction was upheld, so the United
States government sought to reverse this decision and uphold the NFA.
Issues:
The Constitutional issue that arose was the Second Amendment – the right to bear arms.
Rulings:


Miller lost the case in a unanimous 8-0 Supreme Court decision.
The NFA was declared not unconstitutional because it didn’t contradict the Second
Amendment’s right for individuals to bear arms.
Effect/Significance:
Here the federal government was given authority to restrict the use of guns by placing
registering and taxing laws on firearms’ use. This decision led to a long debate in countless
Supreme Court cases over the government’s authority to control gun use and debate the
constitutionality of gun laws.
26
Printz v. United States; 521 U.S. 898 (1997)
Facts:



Law enforcement officer, Jay Printz, wanted to challenge the Brady Handgun Violence
Prevention Act, which set up a background check requirement to purchase a gun.
A District Court declared that the officers wouldn’t have to abide by the Brady Act, but
then a Court of Appeals repealed that decision.
Printz went to the Supreme Court for a ruling.
Issues:
The Constitutional issue that arose was the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms,
federalism, and the separation of powers.
Rulings:


Printz won the case with a 5-4 decision in his favor, that the Brady Act was
unconstitutional because it violates citizens’ 2nd Amendment rights.
Dissenting judges stood behind the “Necessary and Proper” Clause, believing that
Congress’ Brady Act was constitutional because it promoted public safety.
Effect/Significance:
This case had no real effects on gun-related crimes, but had large-scale effects in favor of
states’ rights, since the ruling favored limiting the power of the federal government. Individuals’
Second Amendment right to bear arms was strengthened.
27
Katz v. United States; 389 U.S. 347 (1967)
Facts:


The FBI used wiretapping to convict Charles Katz of sending illegal gambling wagers to
several cities.
In the Court of Appeals, Katz’s conviction was deemed lawful, so Katz took the case to
be reviewed by the Supreme Court.
Issues:
The Constitutional issues that arose were found in the Fourth Amendment, specifically an
individual’s rights to privacy, and against “search and seizure.”
Rulings:



Katz won the case with a 7-1 ruling in his favor.
The Supreme Court declared his conviction unconstitutional because the FBI violated his
right to privacy, as outlined in the Fourth Amendment.
The dissenting judge, Hugo Black, only interpreted the Constitution to protect personal
property, not privacy, to be protected.
Effect/Significance:
This Supreme Court case set a precedent for extending the 4th Amendment to protect
citizens from invasion of privacy. The federal government was weakened, especially for its
authority in criminal cases, because individual rights were further protected.
28
Mapp v. Ohio; 367 U.S. 643 (1961)
Facts:



Cleveland Police invaded the house of Dollree Mapp, who was thought to be housing a
fugitive, without a warrant, and the police uncovered obscene material.
An Ohio Court of Common Pleas, and Ohio Supreme Court, upheld her conviction.
Mapp appealed to the Supreme Court, stating that her conviction was unconstitutional
because the police didn’t have a search warrant.
Issues:
The Constitutional issue that arose was the Fourth Amendment.
Rulings:



Mapp won the case with a 6-3 vote in her favor.
The Supreme Court ruled that she couldn’t be convicted based on criminal information
found during an unwarranted search of her house.
The dissenting judges believed that the issue wasn’t properly examined far enough to
overturn Mapp’s conviction.
Effect/Significance:
This case set a precedent that individuals cannot be convicted by evidence found during
an unwarranted search. Thus, the Fourth Amendment was stretched to protect individual rights
further. This landmark case would be referenced in similar cases later on in history.
29
Chimel v. California; 395 U.S. 752 (1969)
Facts:



Chimel was arrested for committing a crime, and police searched his entire house without
a warrant.
Chimel believed the search was unconstitutional, but the conviction was upheld in a
California Court of Appeals and Supreme Court.
The Constitutionality of the act was set to undergo review in the Supreme Court.
Issues:
The Constitutional issues that arose were individual rights in the Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments, but most importantly the issue of unwarranted search and seizure.
Rulings:



Chimel won the case by a 7-2 Supreme Court vote in his favor.
The court ruled that the search of his house was unconstitutional, and that when arresting
criminals, only their immediate surroundings can be searched.
The dissenting judges believed that because of his criminal activity his Fourth
Amendment rights weren’t being infringed upon.
Effect/Significance:
This Supreme Court ruling set an important precedent for authorities when arresting
criminals. Without a warrant, officers can only search the person’s immediate surroundings, or
else their search is unconstitutional, because it violates the person’s Fourth Amendment rights.
30
United States v. Leon; 468 U.S. 897 (1984)
Facts:


Alberto Leon’s house was searched with an invalid warrant in a California drug case.
A California Court of Appeals upheld the conviction based on the unwarranted search, so
Leon took his case to the Supreme Court.
Issues:
The Constitutional issue that arose was the Fourth Amendment’s protection of rights
against unwarranted searches.
Rulings:



Leon lost the case in a 6-3 vote by the Supreme Court.
Because the house was searched by officers who believed the warrant was legitimate, the
court ruled that the evidence found in the search could be used against Leon.
The dissenting judges stuck with a strict interpretation of the Constitution in that because
the warrant was invalid, Leon should not be convicted.
Effect/Significance:
This case set up the precedent of the “good faith” exception to the Fourth Amendment.
This established the reasoning that if officers believed the warrant was fully authorized, then
evidence found in the search can be used against the criminal. Thus, the Fourth Amendment lost
some protection for individual in the event of an unwarranted search.
31
Pottawatomie Board of Education v. Earls; 536 U.S. 822 (2002)
Facts:


Two public school students, Lindsay Earls and Daniel James, failed a random drug test
given by the school.
They filed a lawsuit, and won the case, so the school board took the case to the Supreme
Court, in order to overturn the decision that the school was violating the Fourth
Amendment by administering the drug tests.
Issues:
The Constitutional issue that arose was the Fourth Amendment’s specific individual
protections.
Rulings:


Earls and James lost the case by a 5-4 Supreme Court ruling.
The Supreme Court ruled that the administration of a drug test in a public school for
athletics is not unconstitutional as outlined in the Fourth Amendment.
Effect/Significance:
This case set a specific limit on what types of actions are considered under “unwarranted
search” by a public institution. Thus, a precedent was set that drug tests don’t violate the Fourth
Amendment.
32
United States v. Ramirez; 523 U.S. 65 (1998)
Facts:



A prisoner escaped, and agents looking for the prisoner falsely believed Hernan Ramirez
was the escaped criminal, so they entered his house with a “no knock” warrant.
The agents found a stash of weapons, and Ramirez was convicted as a criminal, though
he wasn’t who the agents were looking for.
The District Court and Court of Appeals ruled that Ramirez’s rights were infringed upon
because the agents broke a window while entering the room. The case was brought before
the Supreme Court for review.
Issues:
The Constitutional issue that arose was the Fourth Amendment.
Rulings:


Ramirez lost the case by a unanimous 9-0 vote in the Supreme Court.
It was ruled that the warrant was legitimate because the agents had reason to believe that
Ramirez was dangerous. Thus, the warrant was acceptable and the stash of weapons
could be used against him in court.
Effect/Significance:
The Supreme Court ruling set a precedent for a scenario that is not protected by the
Fourth Amendment. As in United States v. Leon, this case reinforced the precedent of the “good
faith” exception to the Fourth Amendment. This established the reasoning that if officers
believed the warrant was fully authorized, then evidence found in the search can be used against
the criminal.
33
United States v. Ross; 456 U.S. 798 (1982)
Facts:



The police were received a tip about a drug dealer in Washington D.C., and after
identifying the man and his car, pulled the man, Albert Ross, over.
A gun in the front of the car led to Ross’ arrest, and the police searched the rest of the
vehicle, without a warrant, and found a stash of heroin.
A District Court declared that the unwarranted search was unconstitutional, so the case
was reviewed by the Supreme Court.
Issues:
The Constitutional issue that arose was the Fourth Amendment’s “search and seizure”
policies.
Rulings:



Ross lost the case by a 6-3 vote in the Supreme Court, reversing the previous ruling.
It was ruled that it is constitutional, and does not infringe upon Fourth Amendment rights,
for officers to search a car without a warrant, if there is any likelihood of finding illegal
items in the car.
The dissenting judges were in favor of upholding the District Court decision that the
officers didn’t have the right to search the car without a warrant.
Effect/Significance:
The Supreme Court ruling set a precedent known as the “automobile exception,” where
officers can search vehicles, without a warrant, as long as they have probable cause for doing so.
Closed containers were also ruled to be “searchable,” and altogether, this policy would greatly
shape many other legal scenarios.
34
California v. Acevedo; 500 U.S. 565 (1991)
Facts:



Charles S. Acevedo had his car searched after a police officer pulled him over, and was
found to be carrying contraband items.
A California State Court found that the search of the vehicle was unconstitutional, so the
case was taken to the Supreme Court.
The ruling would be taken in context with similar previous rulings, such as Carroll v.
United States, and United States v. Ross.
Issues:
The Constitutional issue that arose was the Fourth Amendment’s protection of individual
rights against unwarranted search and seizure.
Rulings:


Acevedo lost the case with a 6-3 vote by the Supreme Court, overturning the California
State Court decision.
It was ruled that if there is reasonable need to search a car, a warrant is not needed, and
there is no infringement on Fourth Amendment rights.
Effect/Significance:
The Supreme Court ruling reiterated the “automobile exception,” where officers can
search vehicles, without a warrant, as long as they have probable cause for doing so, such
searching for evidence or contraband. Closed containers were also ruled to be “searchable,” and
altogether, this policy would greatly shape many other legal scenarios.
35
Knowles v. Iowa; 525 U.S. 113 (1998)
Facts:



After being pulled over for speeding, Patricia Knowles’ car was searched, and the officer
found marijuana.
She was arrested for the possession of contraband drugs.
The Iowa Supreme Court upheld her conviction, so she took the case the Supreme Court,
declaring that her Fourth Amendment rights were infringed upon.
Issues:
The Constitutional issue that arose was the Fourth Amendment’s protection of individual
rights against unwarranted search and seizure.
Rulings:


Knowles won the case with a unanimous 9-0 decision by the Supreme Court, and the
Iowa Supreme Court ruling was overturned.
It was ruled that because there was reasonable need to search a car, there was an
infringement on Mrs. Knowles’ Fourth Amendment rights.
Effect/Significance:
The Supreme Court ruling modified the “automobile exception,” where officers can
search vehicles, without a warrant, as long as they have probable cause for doing so, because
there was no probable cause. The precedent was set that once a traffic ticket is cited to an
individual, it is unconstitutional to search the vehicle afterwards. Thus, citizens’ rights against
unreasonable warrantless searches were upheld and expanded.
36
Florida v. Bostick; 501 U.S. 429 (1991)
Facts:



A Florida County Sheriff’s Office began a new drug policy, where they boarded a bus
headed to Atlanta for a routine check-up and searched passengers for drugs.
Terrance Bostick was told he had the right to refuse the search, but gave the officers
permission for the search, and they found cocaine in his luggage.
After his arrest and conviction, a Florida appellate court found Bostick’s arrest
unconstitutional, so the state appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issues:
The Constitutional issue that arose was the Fourth Amendment’s protection of individual
rights against unwarranted search and seizure.
Rulings:



Bostick lost the case with a 6-3 vote against him in the Supreme Court.
The court ruled that what makes a search unreasonable, is if the person being searched is
aware that they can refuse the search.
The dissenting judges believed that the procedure taken by the officers on the bus was
improper and violated the Fourth Amendment.
Effect/Significance:
This important Supreme Court case reduced individuals’ rights that are protected under
the Fourth Amendment. The precedent was set that for an unwarranted search on a bus to be
constitutional, the individuals being searched should feel comfortable to refuse the search if they
preferred not to be searched. Thus, this case would be cited in numerous other cases dealing with
the Fourth Amendment later on.
37
Bond v. United States; 529 U.S. 334 (2000)
Facts:



A Border Patrol Agent, during a check of a passenger’s immigration status, felt Steven
Bond’s bag for anything contraband.
The officer found a block of methamphetamine, and Bond was arrested.
Bond was convicted, and a court of appeals upheld his conviction, so Bond took the case
to the Supreme Court, complaining that his Fourth amendment rights were infringed
upon.
Issues:
The Constitutional issue that arose was the Fourth Amendment’s protection of individual
rights against unwarranted search and seizure.
Rulings:



Bond won the case and had his conviction overturned with a 7-2 vote in his favor.
The Supreme Court ruled that when the officer felt Bond’s bag without permission,
Bond’s Fourth Amendment rights were contradicted.
The two dissenting judges agreed with the previous state ruling that simply feeling a bag
is not considered an unwarranted search.
Effect/Significance:
This case set a precedent that even the most subtle of “searching” actions, when
unwarranted, are unconstitutional in this particular scenario. Thus, the Supreme Court
established more cases where individuals are protected by the Fourth Amendment from
unwanted searches and seizures.
38
Escobedo v. Illinois; 378 U.S. 478 (1964)
Facts:



Danny Escobedo was convicted of murder in the Cook County, Illinois Criminal Court.
During the interrogation process, Escobedo was denied access to speaking with his
attorney, and admitted some important information, which led to his conviction.
The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed his conviction, so Escobedo took his case to the
Supreme Court, stating that his sixth amendment rights were violated.
Issues:
The Constitutional issue that arose was the Sixth Amendment “right to counsel.”
Rulings:



Escobedo’s conviction was overturned by a 5-4 vote in his favor.
The Supreme Court ruled that during an interrogation, if the defendant is denied legal
counsel, then his or her statements during that time cannot be used against them in court.
The dissenting judges feared that overturning Escobedo’s conviction would lead to
increased criminal activity and less convicted criminals.
Effect/Significance:
This case established that the Sixth Amendment protects an individual’s right to have
legal counsel during a criminal investigation. Additionally, information given by a defendant,
who was refused legal counsel, cannot be used to convict them of a crime. This set a precedent
for how criminal cases everywhere would be handled in the future.
39
Miranda v. Arizona; 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
Facts:



Ernest Miranda, who was being investigated for a rape charge, signed over his rights
when admitted to the rape.
However, he was never informed of, and didn’t understand, his right to legal counsel, or
his right to remain silent.
Miranda was convicted in a criminal court; the decision was upheld by a superior court;
and so Miranda sought a favorable ruling in the Supreme Court that his Fifth Amendment
rights were being infringed upon.
Issues:
The Constitutional issues that arose were the Fifth Amendment’s rights for an individual
to seek legal counsel and remain silent during an investigation.
Rulings:



Miranda won the case in a 5-4 decision by the Supreme Court, and his conviction was
overturned.
The Supreme Court ruled that in order for an individual to convict themselves, they must
be informed of their rights and formally give them up.
The dissenting judges believed that the Fifth Amendment did not protect against this
particular scenario, because Miranda signed over his rights.
Effect/Significance:
This landmark case set up a precedent that in order for an individual to incriminate
themselves, they must be read their Fifth Amendment rights. The Fifth Amendment was
stretched in this case to protect individual rights even further. Overall, this case set up the
“Miranda rights” reading to every criminal at the time of their arrest.
40
Davis v. United States; 512 U.S. 452 (1994)
Facts:



A Navy officer murdered a fellow officer by beating him to death over an unpaid bet for
a game of pool.
The officer was arrested and read his Miranda rights, but he subtly made a request for an
attorney that was not granted.
After conviction, Davis went to the Supreme Court to appeal his conviction, stating that
he had been denied his Fifth Amendment right to legal counsel.
Issues:
The Constitutional issues that arose were the Fifth Amendment’s rights for an individual
to seek legal counsel and remain silent during an investigation.
Rulings:


Davis lost the case with a 9-0 vote, and his conviction was upheld.
The Supreme Court ruled that the Fifth Amendment right is violated only if the defendant
has an unambiguous and straightforward request for legal counsel denied.
Effect/Significance:
The Supreme Court clarified the ruling in Miranda v. Arizona, in that the Fifth
Amendment right is violated only if the defendant has an unambiguous and straightforward
request for legal counsel denied. From this point on, if a person was denied the right to speak to
their attorney, it is unconstitutional only if that person specifically knew about their rights and
asked for an attorney, and then, their requests were denied.
41
Dickerson v. United States; 530 U.S. 428 (2000)
Facts:



After robbing a bank with a firearm, and therefore committing two federal crimes,
Dickerson was arrested, but was not read his Miranda rights.
The District Court did not use the statements made immediately after the crime was
committed in Dickerson’s conviction, so the state moved to convict him based on his
admission of guilt.
A Circuit Court reversed the District Court’s decision, so Dickerson went to the Supreme
Court to appeal his conviction, stating that he had been denied his right to be read the
Miranda warning.
Issues:
The Constitutional issues that arose were the Fifth Amendment’s rights for an individual
to be read their rights during an investigation.
Rulings:



Dickerson won the case by a 7-2 Supreme Court vote.
The Court ruled that the information Dickerson admitted could not be used against him in
court, because he wasn’t read his Fifth Amendment rights.
The dissenting judges believed that the case of Miranda v. Arizona should be overruled
because of issues in conflicting with their interpretation of the Constitution.
Effect/Significance:
The Supreme Court clarified the ruling in Miranda v. Arizona, in that the Fifth
Amendment right is violated and unconstitutional if a defendant isn’t read their rights, and
therefore admitted information cannot be used to incriminate the defendant. Thus, individuals’
rights were clarified and further protected by the Fifth Amendment.
42
Gideon v. Wainwright; 372 U.S. 335 (1962)
Facts:



Clarence Gideon committed a burglary and was arrested in Florida.
Because Gideon could not pay for an attorney, he had to defend himself in court.
After his conviction and no decision from a Florida Circuit Court, Gideon took his case to
the Supreme Court.
Issues:
The Constitutional issues that arose were found in the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Rulings:


Gideon won the case with a 9-0 decision in his favor, and was retried (and found
innocent) after he was appointed a lawyer.
The Supreme Court ruled that the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments require the state to
provide an attorney for any defendant who can’t afford a defense.
Effect/Significance:
This case was a landmark decision, because from this point on, all citizens would be
guaranteed a defense attorney if accused of a crime. Thus, the American legal system was
enhanced in that individuals were fairly guaranteed a defense. This set a precedent that lasts
throughout present day.
43
Korematsu v. United States; 323 U.S. 214 (1944)
Facts:



Executive Order 9066 was challenged by a Japanese-American man, because the order
allowed the government to put all Japanese-Americans into internment camps during
World War II.
Korematsu had dodged being put into an internment camp, and was arrested.
Korematsu was convicted, and a District Court upheld the conviction, so the case was
reviewed by the Supreme Court.
Issues:
The Constitutional issue that arose was the constitutionality of interning a specific ethnic
group, as outlined in the Fourteenth Amendment.
Rulings:



Korematsu lost the case by a 3-6 Supreme Court vote.
The Supreme Court ruled that the Executive Order was constitutional on the basis that it
wasn’t really a matter of racial stereotyping. The need to protect the nation from
dangerous acts was ruled more important than the rights of the Japanese-Americans.
The dissenting judges believed that it was an unconstitutional act of racism, and that the
Fourteenth Amendment was indeed violated by the act.
Effect/Significance:
This was a highly important ruling in that the Supreme Court ruled a racially
discriminatory act constitutional. The Fourteenth Amendment was reduced in power as it did not
protect the Japanese-Americans from having their rights infringed upon. Historically, this case is
seen as a poor decision by the Supreme Court, for violating human rights codes, and starkly
contradicting the Constitution.
44
Sheppard v. Maxwell; 384 U.S. 333 (1966)
Facts:



A Navy officer murdered a fellow officer by beating him to death over an unpaid bet for
a game of pool.
The officer was arrested and read his Miranda rights, but he subtly made a request for an
attorney that was not granted.
After conviction, Davis went to the Supreme Court to appeal his conviction, stating that
he had been denied his Fifth Amendment right to legal counse.
Issues:
The Constitutional issues that arose were the First Amendment’s freedom of the press
and the Sixth Amendment’s right to a fair trial.
Rulings:


Davis lost the case with a 9-0 vote, and his conviction was upheld.
The Supreme Court ruled that the Fifth Amendment right is violated only if the defendant
has an unambiguous and straightforward request for legal counsel denied.
Effect/Significance:
The Supreme Court clarified the ruling in Miranda v. Arizona, in that the Fifth
Amendment right is violated only if the defendant has an unambiguous and straightforward
request for legal counsel denied. From this point on, if a person was denied the right to speak to
their attorney, it is unconstitutional only if that person specifically knew about their rights and
asked for an attorney, and then, their requests were denied.
45