Court Case Marbury v. Madison Date 1803 Gibbons v. Ogden 1824 Worcester v. Georgia 1832 Dred Scott v. Sandford 1857 Plessy v. Ferguson 1896 Korematsu v. US 1944 ISSUE Did Marbury have the right to his judicial appointment? Can they sue for their commissions in court? Does the Supreme Court have the authority to order the delivery of their commissions? Does the Commerce Clause give Congress authority over interstate navigation? RULING Though Marbury was entitled to it, the Court was unable to grant it because Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 conflicted with Article III Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution and was therefore null and void. Regulation of navigation by steamboat operators and others for purposes of conducting interstate commerce was a power reserved to and exercised by the Congress under the Commerce Clause Does the state of No. In an opinion delivered by Chief Justice Georgia have the John Marshall, the Court held that the authority to regulate the Georgia act, under which Worcester was intercourse between prosecuted, violated the Constitution, citizens of its state and treaties, and laws of the United States. members of the Cherokee Nation? Was Dred Scott free or The majority held that “a negro, whose slave? ancestors were imported into [the U.S.], and sold as slaves,” whether enslaved or free, could not be an American citizen and therefore did not have standing to sue in federal court. Taney further held that the Missouri Compromise of 1820 was unconstitutional and foreclose Congress from freeing slaves within Federal territories. Finally, Taney ruled that slaves were property under the Fifth Amendment, and that any law that would deprive a slave owner of that property was unconstitutional. Does the Separate Car the majority upheld state-imposed racial Act violate the segregation. Justice Brown conceded that Fourteenth the 14th Amendment intended to establish Amendment? absolute equality for the races before the law, but held that separate treatment did not imply the inferiority of African Americans. Did the President and Congress go beyond their war powers by implementing exclusion The majority found that the Executive Order did not show racial prejudice but rather responded to the strategic imperative of keeping the U.S. and SIGNIFICANCE Established the principle of judicial review- the power to declare a law unconstitutional. the national government had exclusive power over interstate commerce The Constitution acknowledges Indian tribes as separate political entities subject only to federal law Held portions of the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional in violation of the Fifth Amendment, treating Scott as property, not as a person. Equal but separate accommodations for whites and blacks imposed by Louisiana do not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment – upheld “Jim Crow” laws The exclusion order applying to Americans of Japanese descent and restricting the rights of Americans of Japanese descent? Does the segregation of public education based solely on race violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? Brown v. Board of Education 1954 Gideon v. Wainwright 1963 Does the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel in criminal cases extend to felony defendants in state courts? Miranda v. Arizona 1966 Does the Fifth Amendment’s protection against selfincrimination extend to the police interrogation of a suspect? Roe v. Wade 1973 Does the Constitution embrace a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy by abortion? US v. Richard Nixon 1976 Is the President's right to safeguard certain information, using his "executive privilege" confidentiality power, entirely immune from judicial review? particularly the West Coast (the region nearest Japan) secure from invasion. The Supreme Court held that “separate but equal” facilities are inherently unequal and violate the protections of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court reasoned that the segregation of public education based on race instilled a sense of inferiority that had a hugely detrimental effect on the education and personal growth of African American children. The Court held that it was consistent with the Constitution to require state courts to appoint attorneys for defendants who could not afford to retain counsel on their own. A defendant was required to be warned before questioning that he had the right to remain silent, and that anything he said can be used against him in a court of law. A defendant was required to be told that he had the right to an attorney, and if he could not afford an attorney, one was to be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desired. After these warnings were given, a defendant could knowingly and intelligently waive these rights and agree to answer questions or make a statement. The Court held that a woman's right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy (recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut) protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision gave a woman total autonomy over the pregnancy during the first trimester and defined different levels of state interest for the second and third trimesters. No. The Court held that neither the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the generalized need for confidentiality of highlevel communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified, presidential privilege. was lawfulinternment camps legal Separate but equal educational facilities for racial minorities is inherently unequal violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment The Sixth Amendment's guarantee of a right to assistance of counsel applies to criminal defendants in state court by way of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fifth Amendment requires that law enforcement officials advise suspects of their right to remain silent and to obtain an attorney during interrogations while in police custody. Women had the right to obtain an abortion within the first trimester of pregnancy The president is not above the law and must obey legal subpoenas and the administration of justice.
