SUPREME COURT CASES
1783-1800
RUTGERS V. WASHINGTON, 1784. (NY)
ISSUE: LEGISLATIVE LAW V. COMMON LAW—
RULING: UPHELD COMMON LAW HAS ITS PLACE AND LEGISLATIVE HAS ITS.
TREVETT V. WEEDEN, 1787 (RI)
ISSUE: CAN STATE LEGISLATURE PASS LAWS NOT ALLOWED BY STATE CONSTITUTION.
RULING: UPHELD ENGLISH TRADITION OF JUDICIAL REVIEW.
BAYARD V. SINGLETON, 1787. (NC)
ISSUE: JUDICIAL REVIEW
RULING: UPHELD JUDICIAL REVIEW
CHISHOLM V. GEORGIA, 1793. (S. CT.)
ISSUE: CAN INDIVIDUALS SUE STATES WITHOUT THE STATES PERMISSION.
RULING: STATES COULD BE SUED. BUT 11 TH AMENDMENT ENDED SUCH LAWSUITS.
WARE V. HYLTON, 1796. (S. CT.)
ISSUE: DO STATE LAWS SUPERCEDE TREATIES.
RULING: TREATIES OVERRULE STATE LAW.
1800-1840
MARBURY V. MADISON, 1803.
ISSUE: CAN S. CT. ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS IN ORIGINAL JURISDICTION, AS PER JUDICIARY
ACT OF 1789.
RULING: JUDICIARY ACT OF 1789 ALTERED THE CONSTITUTION THEREFORE IT WAS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
FLETCHER V. PECK, 1811.
ISSUE: CAN STATE LAWS ALTER CONTRACTS
RULING: CONTRACT CLAUSE OF CONSTITUTION OVEERIDES STATE LAW.
MARTIN V. HUNTER’S LESSEE, 1816.
ISSUE: DOES S. CT. HAVE APPELLATE JURISDICTION OVER STATE COURT DECISIONS.
RULING: TO ENSURE CONFORMITY OF CONSTITUTIONAL DECISIONS, THE S. CT. DOES HAVE
APPELLATE JURISDICTION.
DARTMOUTH COLLEGE V. WOODWARD, 1819.
ISSUE: WAS A CHARTER A CONTRACT ACCORDING TO THE CONTRACT CLAUSE OF THE
CONSTITUTION ?
RULING: THE CHARTER OF A PRIVATE CORPORATION WAS CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED
AND COULD NOT BE ALTERED BY STATE LAWS.
McCULLOCH V. MARYLAND, 1819.
ISSUE: WAS THE 1791 ACT THAT CREATED A “B.U.S.” CONSTITUTIONAL AND CAN A STATE TAX
A BRANCH OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT?
RULING: YES, ELASTIC CLAUSE. NO, “THE POWER TO TAX IS THE POWER TO DESTROY”
COHENS V. VIRGINIA, 1821.
ISSUE: DO THE FEDERAL COURTS HAVE JURISDICTION OVER STATE CASES INVOLVING
FEDERAL RIGHTS. SELLING OF LOTTERY TICKETS.
RULING: YES, CTS. HAVE THE RIGHT TO REVIEW STATE CT. DECISIONS.
GIBBONS V. OGDEN, 1824.
ISSUE: FEDERAL CONTROL OF INTERSTATE TRADE.
RULING: UPHELD AUTHORITY TO REGULATE INTERSTATE TRADE TO CONGRESS UNDER
COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION.
WORCESTER V. GEORGIA, 1832.
ISSUE: ARE LAWS OF CHEROKEE NATION “NULL AND VOID”, CAN GEORGIA STATE LAW BE
ENFORCED WITHIN BORDERS OF CHEROKEE NATION?
RULING: COURT RULED IN FAVOR OF CHEROKEE NATION BUT PRES. JACKSON REFUSED TO
HONOR IT. CLASH BETWEEN PRESIDENT AND COURT. JACKSON REMOVED THE INDIANS
ANYWAY.
CHARLES RIVER BRIDGE V. WARREN BRIDGE, 1837.
ISSUE: CAN STATE AUTHORIZE THE BUILDING OF A NEW BRIDGE AFTER IT HAD GRANTED
PERMISSION TO BUILD AN EARLIER BRIDGE.
RULING: NO, A CONTRACT TO A PRIVATE CORPORATION CAN EXIST IF IT HARMS THE PUBLIC
INTEREST.
COMMONWEALTH V. HUNT 1842. (MASS. ST. CT.)
ISSUE: UNION’S RIGHT TO ORGANIZE.
RULING: UNIONS DO VIOLATE ENGLISH COMMONLAW THAT UNIONS ARE ILLEGAL UNDER
CONSPIRACY LAWS.
1840-1877
PRIGG V. PENNSYLVANIA, 1842.
ISSUE: CAN STATE LAW PROHIBIT THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL LAW, (IE) FUGITIVE SLAVE
ACT OF 1793.
RULING: STATE LAW UNCONSTITUTIONAL—ARTICLE IV, SEC. 2
DRED SCOTT V. SAN(D)FORD, 1857.
ISSUE: CITIZENSHIP AND SLAVES—WAS DRED SCOTT A CITIZEN? CAN CONGRESS EXCLUDE
SLAVERY FROM THE TERRITORIES? ARE SLAVES PROPERTY PROTECTED BY THE 5 TH
AMENDMENT?
RULING: BLACKS, EITHER FREE OR SLAVES, COULD NOT BE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES.
MISSOURI COMPROMISE UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND SLAVE OWNERS RIGHT OF PROPERTY
UPHELD..
NOTE: ALL JUSTICES WROTE SEPARATE OPINIONS, DRED SCOTT’S OWNER FREED HIM AND HIS
FAMILY.
ABLEMAN V. BOOTH, 1859.
ISSUE: CAN A STATE COURT ISSUE A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN A FEDERAL COURT CASE?
RULING: A JUDGE THAT GOES BEYOND THE LIMITS OF ITS JURISDICTION EXERCISES
“NOTHING LESS THAN LAWLESS VIOLENCE”.
EX PARTE MERRYMAN, 1861.
ISSUE: PRESIDENT’S WAR POWERS, CAN THE PRESIDENTSUSPEND HABEAS CORPUS AND
DECLARE MARTIAL LAW?
RULING: (CIRCUIT JUDGE TANEY) HE ISSUED A WRIT, THE ARMY IGNORED IT AND LINCOLN
IGNORED TANEY’S ARTICLE COMPLAINING ABOUT LINCOLN’S USURPATION OF WAR POWERS.
PRIZE CASES, 1863.
ISSUE: WAR POWERS AND THE LEGALITY OF A BLOCKADE WITHOUT A DECLARATION OF WAR.
RULING: UNDER HIS POWERS AS COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF, LINCOLN HAD THE AUTHORITY TO
RESPOND TO AN INSURRECTION THAT HAD BECOME A “WAR” DESPITE NO CONGRESSIONAL
DECLARATION.
EX PARTE MILLIGAN, 1866.
ISSUE: CAN A CIVILIAN DURING WARTIME BE TRIED BEFORE A MILITARY COURT EVEN THOUGH
THE STATE COURTS WERE STILL FUNCTIONING. MILLIGAN HAD BEEN JUDGED GUILTY OF
SUBVERSION AND WAS SENTENCED TO DEATH BY A MILITARY COURT DURING THE CIVIL WAR.
RULING: WHILE THE CONSTITUTION PERMITTED THE SUSPENSION OF HABEAS CORPUS, IT
DOES NOT ALLOW THE SUSPENSION OF JUDICIAL POWERS OF FEDERAL COURTS. PEOPLE ARE
PROTECTED IN TIMES OF WAR AND PEACE.
NOTE: MILLIGAN LATER SUED FOR FALSE IMPRISONMENT, WON AND WAS AWARDED $5.
MISSISSIPPI V. JOHNSON, 1867.
ISSUE: CAN THE SUPREME COURT STOP THE PRESIDENT FROM CARRYING OUT AN ACT OF
CONGRESS? SPECIFICALLY THE RECONSTRUCTION ACT OF 1867.
RULING: THE COURT CAN REVIEW LAWS AND ACTIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT IF THEY COME IN
OPPOSITION TO THE CONSTITUTION BUT THE COURT CAN NOT RESTRAIN THE ACTIONS OF
EITHER IF CARRIED OUT PROPERLY. THIS ISSUE IS POLITICAL TO BE RESOLVED AT THE POLLS
NOT IN COURT.
1870-1900
LEGAL TENDER CASES, 1870, 1871.
ISSUE: FEDERAL MONETARY POWERS—WAS LEGAL TENDER ACTS OF 1862 AND 1863, WHICH
CREATED ‘GREENBACKS” CONSTITUTIONAL. COULD PAPER MONEY, WITHOUT SPECIE BACKING,
BE LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS PUBLIC AND PRIVATE? EARLIER CASE—HEPBURN V.
GRISWOLD DECLARED 1862 AND 1863 ACTS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
RULING: IN JEOPARDY WAS THE CIRCULATION OF $350 MILLION WORTH OF GREENBACKS AND
DEBTS. CT. RULED LEGAL TENDER ACTS CONSTITUTIONAL.
NOTE: GRANT HAD APPOINTED TWO NEW JUSTICES TO THE COURT JUST PRIOR TO THE
DECISION, HIS NOMINATIONS WERE BASED ON THEIR VIEW OF THIS CASE.
SLAUGHTERHOUSE CASES, 1873.
ISSUE: PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES AND THE INCORPORATION OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT TO
THE STATES. ARE RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY THE AMENDMENTS APPLICABLE TO THE STATES?
RULING: 5-4 DECISION, 14TH AMENDMENT ONLY PROTECTED FEDERAL RIGHTS AND
PRIVILEGES NOT STATE. INTENT OF 13,14 AND 15TH AMENDMENTS WAS TO PROTECT BLACK
RIGHTS.
NOTE: DISSENTING OPINIIONS EMPHASIZED THE DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION
CLAUSE OF 14TH , WHICH LATER BECAME THE COURT’S VIEW.
BRADWELL V. ILLINOIS, 1873.
ISSUE: ILLINOIS STATE BAR REFUSED ADMITTANCDE TO A WOMAN. SHE WAS MARRIED AND
THEREFORE COULD NOT SIGN A CONTRACT WITHOUT HUSBAND’S CONSENT. SHE CLAIMED IT
VIOLATED HER “PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES” AS PER THE 14TH AMENDMENT.
RULING: UPHELD THE ILL. BAR. THAT RIGHT TO PRACTICE LAW IS NOT A RIGHT OF
CITIZENSHIP.
MINOR V. HAPPERSETT, 1875.
ISSUE: WOMEN’S SUFFRAGE BASED ON CITIZENSHIP. 14TH AMENDMENT “PRIVILEGES AND
IMMUNITIES.
RULING: VOTING IS NOT A RIGHT OF CITIZENSHIP.
MUNN V. ILLINOIS, 1877.
ISSUE: (GRANGER LAWS) REGULATION BY THE STATE OF GRAIN ELEVATOR CHARGES.
PLAINTIFF DECALRED THE ILLINOIS LAW VIOLATED 14TH DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL
PROTECTION AND IT ALSO VIOLATED THE COMMERCE CLAUSE.
RULING: THE PUBLIC HAS THE RIGHT TO REGULATE BUSINESS OPERATIONS IN WHICH THE
PUBLIC HAS AN INTEREST.
CIVIL RIGHTS CASES, 1883.
ISSUE: THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1875, WHICH MADE IT A CRIME TO DISCRIMINATE IN THE
ENJOYMENT OF PUBLIC CONVEYANCES, AND PUBLIC PLACES—HOTELS, TRAINS, RRs, THEATERS,
AND RESTAURANTS.
RULING: 14TH AMENDMENT PROTECTS INDIVIDULAS FROM STATE ACTIONS, NOT PRIVATE
(INDIVIDUAL) ACTIONS.
WABASH, ST. LOUIS & PACIFIC RR CO. V. ILLINOIS, 1886.
ISSUE : STATES AND THE COMMERCE CLAUSE. (WABASH CASES), ILLINOIS OUTLAWED
PRACTICE OF DIFFERENT RATES FOR LONG AND SHORT HAUL TRAFFIC.
RULING: COURTS COULD ONLY REGULATE INTRASTATE NOT INTERSTATE COMMERCE. LED TO
THE PASSAGE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT OF 1887.
US V. EC KNIGHT CO., 1895.
ISSUE: MONOPOLIES, MANUFACTURING, AND COMMERCE. 1ST IMPORTANT CASE UNDER
SHERMAN ANTITRUST ACT. EC KNIGHT CO. CONTROLLED 98% OF NATION’S MANUFACTURE OF
SUGAR.
RULING: MANUFACTURE WAS NOT THE SAME AS A MONOPOLY IN THE CONTROL OF
COMMERCE. SHERMAN RESTRICTED COMMERCE NOT MANUFACTURE.