U.S. Landmark Supreme Court Cases
Bethel School District V. Frasier (1986)
Miranda V. Arizona (1966)
Brown V. Board of Ed (1954)
Plessy V. Ferguson (1896)
Engel V. Vitale (1962)
State V Mann (1829)
Gibbons V. Ogden (1824)
Swann V. Charlotte-Meck Board of
Gideon V. Wainwright (1963)
Education (1969)
Gregg V. Georgia (1976)
Hazelwood V. Kuhlmeier (1988)
Texas V. Johnson (1989)
Heart of Atlanta Motel V. U.S. (1964)
New Jersey V. T.L.O. (1985)
Korematsu V. U.S. (1944)
Tinker V. Des Moines School District (1969)
Leandro V. North Carolina (1997)
Furman V. Georgia (1972)
Mapp V. Ohio. (1961)
Marbury V. Madison (1803)
McCulloch V Maryland (1819)
Tinker V. Des Moines School
District
• Strengthened the rights of free speech
guaranteed in the First Amendment (as the
apply to high school students)
• The Court ruled that students wearing black
armbands to school into protest of the
Vietnam War had the right to freely express
their opinions
Tinker V Des Moines School
District
Bethel School District V Frasier (1986)
• Supreme Court Case
that upheld restrictions
of obscene speech at
high schools
Brown V. Board Of Education, Topeka, Kansas
• overturned earlier ruling going back to Plessy v.
Ferguson in 1896, by declaring that state laws that
established separate public schools for black and
white students denied black children equal
educational opportunities
• unanimous (9-0) decision stated that "separate
educational facilities are inherently unequal."
• ruled a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States
Constitution
Engel V. Vitale (1962)
• “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon
Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents,
our teachers and our country. Amen”
• determined that it is unconstitutional for state
officials to compose an official school prayer and
require its recitation in public schools.
• The court decided that government-directed prayer
in public schools was an unconstitutional violation
of the Establishment Clause. This was decided in a
vote of 6-1
Gibbons V. Ogden (1824)
• power to regulate interstate commerce was
granted to Congress by the Commerce
Clause of the Constitution.
• the law at issue was the commerce clause
• The Court said that Congressional power
over commerce should override state laws
to the contrary:
Gideon V. Wainwright (1963)
A burglary occurred at the Bay Harbor Pool Room in
Panama City, Florida. A witness reported that he
had seen Clarence Earl Gideon in the poolroom at
around 5:30 that morning. Gideon was found
nearby with a pint of wine and some change in his
pockets.
He appeared in court and was too poor to afford
counsel,
Gideon V. Wainwright (1963)
Gideon was forced, therefore, to act as his
own counsel and conduct a defense of
himself in court
From his prison cell at Florida State Prison,
making use of the prison library and writing
in pencil on prison stationery, Gideon
appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court
Gideon V. Wainwright (1963)
• The decision was announced on March 18,
1963
• the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that
state courts are required under the Sixth
Amendment of the Constitution to provide
counsel in criminal cases for defendants
unable to afford their own attorneys
Gideon V. Wainwright (1963)
• Robert F. Kennedy remarked about the case, "If an obscure
Florida convict named Clarence Earl Gideon had not sat down
in prison with a pencil and paper to write a letter to the Supreme
Court; and if the Supreme Court had not taken the trouble to
look at the merits in that one crude petition among all the
bundles of mail it must receive every day, the vast machinery of
American law would have gone on functioning undisturbed. But
Gideon did write that letter; the court did look into his case; he
was re-tried with the help of competent defense counsel; found
not guilty and released from prison after two years of
punishment for a crime he did not commit. And the whole
course of legal history has been changed"
Furman V. Georgia (1972)
• Furman was burglarizing a private home when a family
member discovered him. He attempted to flee, and in doing
so he tripped and fell. The gun that he was carrying went
off and killed a resident of the home. He was convicted of
murder and sentenced to death
• Does the death penalty in these cases constitute cruel and
unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and
Fourteenth Amendments?
FURMAN V GEORGIA (1972)
• The Court decided, in a 5-4
decision, that it does. The Court's
opinion held that the imposition of
the death penalty in this case
constituted cruel and unusual
punishment and violated the
Constitution.
+
=
Gregg V. Georgia (1976)
• Reaffirmed the Supreme Court's acceptance
of the use of the death penalty in the United
States, upholding, in particular, the death
sentence imposed on Troy Leon Gregg.
Gregg V. Georgia
• The Court also found that the death penalty fits
“with the basic concept of human dignity at the
core of the [Eighth] Amendment."
• The death penalty serves two principal social
purposes—retribution and deterrence
Hazelwood V. Kuhlmeier
• The U.S. Supreme Court held for the first time
that public school officials may impose some
limits on what appears in school-sponsored
student publications
• The First Amendment's freedom of speech
protections were not violated by the school district
because the First Amendment protection for
student expression described in (1969), does not
compel a public school to sponsor speech that
conflicts with its "legitimate goals”
Korematsu V. United States
• A landmark United States Supreme Court case
concerning the constitutionality of Executive
Order 9066, which required Japanese-Americans
in the western United States to be excluded to a
described West Coast military area.
• In a 6-3 decision, the Court sided with the
government, ruling that the exclusion order was
constitutional
Korematsu V. United States
• the need to protect against
espionage outweighed
individual rights, and the rights
of Americans of Japanese
descent
Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. V. United States
• race relations in the United States had been dominated by
segregation, a system of racial separation, while in name
providing for "separate but equal" treatment of both white
and black Americans, in truth inferior accommodation,
services, and treatment for black Americans.
• Passed on July 2, 1964, the Civil Rights Act of 1964
banned racial discrimination in public places, particularly
in public accommodations, largely based on Congress'
control of interstate commerce
Heart of Atlanta Motel V. United States
• The Heart of Atlanta Motel refused to rent
rooms to black patrons, in direct violation
of the terms of the act.
• The Court held that Congress acted well
within its jurisdiction of the Interstate
Commerce clause in passing the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, thereby upholding the
act
Mapp V. Ohio
• a landmark case in criminal procedure, in
which the United States Supreme Court
decided that evidence obtained in violation
of the Fourth Amendment, which protects
against "unreasonable searches and
seizures", may not be used in criminal
prosecutions in state courts, as well as
federal courts.
Mapp V. Ohio
• the court had determined that the federal
government may not use such evidence due
to the exclusionary rule which forbids
evidence gathered illegally to be admissible
in court
Marbury V Madison
• formed the basis for the exercise of judicial
review in the United States under Article III
of the Constitution.
• This case resulted from a petition to the
Supreme Court by William Marbury, who
had been appointed as Justice of the Peace
in the District of Columbia by President
John Adams shortly before leaving office
Marbury V. Madison
• The Supreme Court denied Marbury's
petition, holding that the statute upon which
he based his claim was unconstitutional.
• Acts of Congress that conflict with the
Constitution are not law and the Courts are
bound instead to follow the Constitution,
affirming the principle of judicial review
Marbury V. Madison
• there would be no point of having a
written Constitution if the courts
could just ignore it
• courts have to be able to decide
what law applies to each case
Marbury V. Madison
• If two laws conflict with each other, a court
must decide which law applies. Finally,
Marshall pointed to the judge's oath
requiring them to uphold the Constitution,
and to the Supremacy Clause of the
Constitution, which lists the "Constitution"
before the "laws of the United States
McCulloch V. Maryland
• Strengthened the power of the Federal
Government
– The state (Maryland) taxed banks that issued
money without its consent.
– The Supreme Court ruled that states could not
tax the federal government
– Case was most important b/c the affirmed the
authority of federal powers over state powers
John Marshall
Miranda V.
Arizona
• Supreme Court upheld the Fifth
Amendment’s protection against selfincrimination.
• The law also ruled that arresting law
enforcement officers have to inform
suspects of their legal rights, such as an
attorney
Plessy V. Ferguson
• Established the
principle of “Separate,
but equal”
• Homer Plessy, a black
man, sat in the “white
only” section of the
train in New Orleans
and was arrested.
• The Supreme Court
ruled that if public
accommodations were
equal for blacks and
whites, the races could
be separated.
State V.
Mann
• One of the most important decision of the
North Carolina State Supreme Court
– John Mann, a slave owner, was convicted of
killing one of his slaves by a lower court.
– The NC Supreme Court overruled the
conviction, slave owners could not be guilty of
murder for killing their slaves because slaves
were property.
Swann V. Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Board of Education
• Extended the principles of the Brown
decision and Civil Rights Act.
– The Court ruled that NC school districts had a
duty to dismantle, by law, school segregation.
– It also upheld the policy of forced busing of
students to combat segregation
Texas V. Johnson
• Gregory Johnson,
burned a U.S. flag as a
sign of protest.
• Supreme Court said
that is action fell under
freedom of speech,
guaranteed by the 1st
Amendment.
New Jersey V. T.L.O.
• Search and seizure involving a high school student.
– Fourteen-year-old caught smoking in the bathroom.
– Principle searched purse and found Marijuana.
• Supreme Court ruled that this search did not violate the Fourth
Amendment protection against illegal search and seizures
because the state interest in educating minors permitted such
searches.