The following are just some of the Landmark Supreme Court decisions in American
History. Each case is supplied with the essential information you will need to know.
1. What was the constitutional question?
2. What were both sides contesting?
3. What was the Supreme Courts decision?
You will be expected to know each case and the key terminology. We will spend at least
two days in reviewing these cases using creative and fun strategies. I encourage you to
look up additional background on any cases in which you are confused about. At the end
of the document is a work cited page that will assist you.
I also suggest grouping the cases by categories. This will help you when trying to recall
the cases and their content. Fill out the Classifications worksheet.
1. Adarand Construction v. Pena
Constitutional Question: if the concept of ‘disadvantaged persons’ is based on
race alone, and therefore given favored treatment, a violation of the equal
protection of the 14th amendment and Due Process of the 5th amendment.
Plaintiff Contesting: Mountain Gravel was under contract with the US depratment
of Transportation. They looked for bids from a subcontractor. The lowest bidder
was not awarded the subcontract because they were not labeled as
‘disadvantaged.’ There was a greater monetary advantage for Mountain Gravel to
subcontract with a higher bidder that was labeled disadvantaged and Adarand
Construction felt the bous incentive, that caused him to lose the contact, was
unconstutional.
Defendant Contesting: Adhered to the laws and provision of the Small Business
Association and the federal government.
Supreme Court Decision: Ruled in favor of the US department of transportation,
that when race- based issues are involved, the best way to analyze them is ‘strict
scrutiny.’
2. Boy Scouts of America (2000)
Constitutional Question: Does the New Jersey public accommodation law
interfere with the Boy Scouts 1st amendment right of expressive association and
thus allow them to bar homosexual adult members.
Plaintiff Contesting: The Boys Scouts of America acted against New Jersey State
law that prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation in places of public
accommodation.
Defendant Contesting: The Boys Scouts is a private non-profit organization and
the plaintiff’s actions work against the morals and values the Boy Scouts exhibit.
Supreme Court Decision: 5-4 decision in favor of the Boy Scouts. The public
accommodations law did violate the Boy Scouts 1st amendment right. The Boy
Scouts were able to prove that homosexuality worked against its ethics so they
had the constitutional right to bar it.
3. Brown v. Board of Education
Constitutional Question: Between white and black schools equal curricula,
buildings, qualifications, and teacher salaries had already been determined. So did
it act against the 14th amendment to segregate schools solely based on race.
Plaintiff Contesting: segregating school children based solely on race was
unconstitutional.
Defendant Contesting: Legally, public schools could segregate based on race,
like many other public places.
Supreme Court Decision: 9-0 decision in favor of Brown. It was in violation of
the 14th amendment when schools segregate solely on race.
4. Buckley v. Valeo Cases
Constitutional Question: Did the disclosure and limitations placed on campaign
donations by the Federal Elections Campaign Act of 1971 violate the First
Amendment protection of freedom of speech and freedom of expression?
Plaintiff Contesting: Buckley wanted the key provision found in the Federal
Elections Campaign Act of 1971 over turned because he felt they violated 1st
amendment rights.
Defendant Contesting: Valeo was a former member of the FEC and represented
the government in this case. He believed the Federal Elections Campaign Act of
1971 did not violate the constitution and enhanced democracy by making
elections fairer.
Supreme Court Decision: the cases established to main parts of financing
elections. First, limitations and restrictions on individuals to candidates and
campaigns did not violate the first amendment. They acted as a safe guard against
corrupt practices. Second, candidates can give an unlimited amount of their own
money to their campaign because this did not enhance or promote, in any
significant manner, unethical practices.
6. Engle v. Vitale
Constitutional Question: does the voluntary reading of a non-denominational
prayer each morning in a public school violate the 1st amendment freedom of
religion clause?
Plaintiff Contesting: The prayer violated certain families’ beliefs concerning
religion.
Defendant Contesting: the prayer is non-denominational and voluntary.
Supreme Court Decision: prayer in school is in violation of the 1st amendment
regardless of how it is presented because of the separation of church and state.
7. Escobedo v. Illinois
Constitutional Question: Danny Escobedo was held and interrogated by police for
hours. He asked several times to meet with his lawyer. His requests were denied
and he, subsequently, confessed to murder. Did the tactics of the police violate the
6th amendment provision of a right to counsel?
Plaintiff Contesting: Escobedo was treated in a manner that violated his
constitutional right to counsel
Defendant Contesting: Police complied with laws and protocol.
Supreme Court Decision: in a 5 -4 decision the Supreme court concluded that
Escobedo’s right to counsel under the 6th amendment was impeded on because he
was not fully aware of his right to remain silent rather than incriminate himself.
8. Furman v. Georgia
Constitutional Question: Furman was burglarizing a home when a resident of the
home discovered him. He tried to run, but he tripped, fell and the gun he was
carrying fired and killed a resident of the home. Was the implementation of the
death penalty in this case and two others (concerning rape and murder) cruel and
unusual punishment and therefore in violation of the 8th and 14th amendments.
Plaintiff Contesting: The sentencing given by the lower courts in these cases were
cruel and unusual.
Defendant Contesting: The disposition given in these cases were in compliance
and to the caliber of the crime.
Supreme Court Decision: the Supreme Court determined that in these cases the
death penalty was cruel and unusual. This decision forced state and local
governments to rethink their laws concerning capital crimes.
9. Gideon v. Wainwright
Constitutional Question: Gideon was charged with a felony for breaking and
entering. He could not afford and attorney and when he asked for the court to
provide him with one, it refused. Was the court’s refusal to provide Gideon with
an attorney a violation of due process and the right to a fair trial found in the 5th
and 6th amendments?
Plaintiff Contesting: The way which Gideon was treated by the court violated his
constitutional rights.
Defendant Contesting: The court is only obligated to appoint counsel to indigent
defendants in capital cases.
Supreme Court Decision: 9-0 decision found that Gideon’s constitutional rights
were violated. The provision in the 6th amendment, that guarantees legal counsel, is
fundamental to a fair trial.
11. Griswold v. Connecticut
Constitutional Question: Did the US constitution protect the couple’s right to
marital privacy over Connecticut state law?
Plaintiff Contesting: The couple’s right to counseling was protected by marital
privacy in issues concerning conception.
Defendant Contesting: it was against Connecticut state law to provide counseling
or other provide other provisions to married couples for the purpose of preventing
conception.
Supreme Court Decision: The constitution does not specifically provide a right to
privacy, but through a combination of 1st ,3rd ,4th ,and 9th amendments, the
Supreme Court voted in favor of the plaintiff
12. Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier
Constitutional Question: Did the principal’s requiring of the articles he found
inappropriate to be cut from the paper infringe upon the student’s right to free
speech?
Plaintiff Contesting: The principal’s censoring of the school newspaper violated
the students’ freedom of speech.
Defendant Contesting: the school had the right to censor what was put out in its
newspaper.
Supreme Court Decision: Voted for the plaintiff. The 1st amendment did not
require schools to sponsor certain types of student speech. As long as the editing
by the school complied with a few basic standards, it was fine. In this particular
case, the principal met the criteria.
13. Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States
Constitutional Question: Congress’s passage of title II of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 violated the commerce clause of the constitution.
Plaintiff Contesting: The law that required a business not to turn away customers
based on race violated a business’s right to choose its own customers.
Defendant Contesting: Racial discrimination was illegal in a place of public
accommodation.
Supreme Court Decision: 9 votes for US. The court concluded that even without
the government regulation, places of public accommodation did not have the ‘right’ to
choose its customers.
14. Hustler v. Falwell
Constitutional Question: In the first Amendment, does freedom of speech extend
to statement about public figures that could possibly be offensive and cause
emotional stress.
Plaintiff Contesting: The actions of Hustler magazine infringed upon Falwell’s
personal rights, causing emotional distress and other harms.
Defendant Contesting: The press was within its right when exposing Falwell.
Supreme Court Decision: 8 votes for, zero against Hustler Magazine. It decided
that public figures, like Falwell, could not recover from emotional distress unless
he could prove the publication contained false facts or information that proved
“actual malice.”
16. Katz v. United States
Constitutional Question: does the protection from unreasonable search and seizure
of the Fourth Amendment require police to get a search warrant to wiretap a pay
telephone.
Plaintiff Contesting: The tapes used against him were not useable as evidence
because they infringed upon his 4th amendment rights.
Defendant Contesting: The phone booth was a public place and the police did not
need a warrant to monitor it.
Supreme Court Decision: The fourth amendment protects people not places.
Therefore the police needed a warrant to keep record of Katz’s phone
conversations regardless of where they took place at.
17. Kelo v. City of London 2005
Constitutional Question: if a government takes private land for private use, to
stimulate the economy, is the 5th amendment violated?
Plaintiff Contesting: The city taking land from individuals without compensation
violated the 5th amendment.
Defendant Contesting: the 5th amendment talks about private lands taken for
public use the city took the land and kept it private.
Supreme Court Decision: 5/4 decision that the 5th amendment was not violated.
18. Korematsu v. United States
Constitutional Question: Did the president with executive order 9066 and
congress go beyond war powers by excluding the rights of Americans of Japanese
descent.
Plaintiff Contesting: His rights as an American were taken away under the executive
order and he should not be made to follow it.
Defendant Contesting: in a time of war the situation is different
Supreme Court Decision: sided with the American government. The actions taken against
the Japanese Americans was just and even trumped rights under times of “emergency and
peril”
19. Lawrence v. Texas
Constitutional Question: was equal protection of the 14th amendment violated and
the due process clause of the 14th amendment? Should Bowers v. Hardwick be
overruled?
Plaintiff Contesting: Their privacy was invaded as well as their equality that other
couples are granted
Defendant Contesting: using Bowers v. Hardwick as precedent the actions of the
plaintiff’s was illegal and they could be charged for it.
Supreme Court Decision: concerning the constitutionality question, no, yes, yes.
There was not legitimate reason as to why their private acts harm the government,
so the government could not intervene.
21. Mapp v. Ohio
Constitutional Question: May evidence be used that was taken in violation of the
4th amendment and is it protected by the 1st amendment in freedom of expression.
Plaintiff Contesting: The materials taken from her home in an illegal search were
her freedom of expression
Defendant Contesting: the exposure of the obscene material were incriminating
Supreme Court Decision: The court looked past the 1st amendment issue and
determined that all evidence obtained against the 4th amendment could not be
used in court.
22. Miranda v. Arizona
Constitutional Question: does interrogation by the police without notifying people
of their right to protect against self incrimination and their right to an attorney
violate the 5th amendment?
Plaintiff Contesting: suspects were held with absolutely not contact to the outside
world and were not aware of their rights, this is not constitutional.
Defendant Contesting: suspects were treated lawfully but interrogated into a
confession.
Supreme Court Decision: Prosecutors had to make suspects aware of their right to
remain silent and the right to counsel.
23. New York Times v. Sullivan
Constitutional Question: did not making Sullivan prove that the ad in the NYT
personally harmed him or proving factuality infringe upon the 1st amendment
freedom of speech and press?
Plaintiff Contesting: statements made by the paper should be factually correct and
not target and individual.
Defendant Contesting: The NYT ad complied with freedom of the press.
Supreme Court Decision: The 1st amendment protects all statements even false
ones. The paper could not be prosecuted unless intentional malice could be
proven.
24. New York Times v. United States
Constitutional Question: did the Nixon administration’s attempt to keep material
‘classified’ act against the 1st amendment?
Plaintiff Contesting: The United States government could not prevent the
publication of stories even if they are labeled as classified information.
Defendant Contesting: The information kept out of publication had a
classification ranking that kept it from being circulated for the mass public to see.
Supreme Court Decision: the court sided with the New York Times. It found that
the publication of the story would not cause and inevitable or immediate threat to
the security of the nation. Also, the was already high suspicion that the
government was trying to withhold information from the press on a similar issue
previously that was not overlooked in the decision of this case.
26. Printz v. United States
Constitutional Question: Under the necessary and proper clause of article one of
the constitution, could state CLEO’s be forced to perform background checks on
prospective gun holders as the Brady Act called for.
Plaintiff Contesting: it was unconstitutional for state officials to carry out a
federal task, even temporarily
Defendant Contesting: the background checks and the Brady Bill were in attempt
to decrease handgun related violence and state CLEO’s were only to perform the
background checks until the federal system was established.
Supreme Court Decision: the necessary and proper clause was not applicable in
this situation. It was not constitutional, temporarily or permanently, for a state
official to carry out a federal task.
27. Regents of the University of California v. Bakke
Constitutional Question: Did Bakke’s rejection because of his race violate the
equal protection clause of the 14th amendment and the civil rights act of 1864?
Plaintiff Contesting: Bakke was excluded from the University of California
medical program solely on the basis of race
Defendant Contesting: 16 spots of every 100 in the medical program were
awarded to individuals of minorities as a part of the University’s affirmative
action program
Supreme Court Decision: 5/4 decision for Bakke, but there was not one majority
opinion.
28. Roe v. Wade
Constitutional Question: Does the constitution allow a woman the right to
terminate a pregnancy by and abortion
Plaintiff Contesting: Ms. Roe felt she could terminate her pregnancy at her will.
Defendant Contesting: it was against Texas law to have an abortion except in a
case where the mother’s was threatened
Supreme Court Decision: a woman’s right to an abortion fell within the privacy
clause of the 14th amendment. This ruling gave women complete authority over
the 1st trimester of pregnancy and other provisions during the 2nd and 3rd.
29. Schenck v. United States
Constitutional Question: Are Schenck’s actions of rejecting the draft and urging
peaceful protest protected by the 1st amendment?
Plaintiff Contesting: It was legal to disagree with the government
Defendant Contesting: Schenck was conspiring to violate the espionage act and
create insubordination within the military.
Supreme Court Decision: 9-0 decision found Schenck was not protected in this
situation. His action presented a “clear and present danger” and that some actions that are
tolerable in a time of peace are not acceptable in times of war.
30. Texas v. Johnson
Constitutional Question: Is the destruction of the American flag, by any means, an
action that is protected by freedom of speech found in the 1st amendment?
Plaintiff Contesting: Johnson’s actions were against Texas law that prohibited his
actions and those like it
Defendant Contesting: Johnson’s actions were protected by the first amendment.
Supreme Court Decision: 5/4 decision in favor of Johnson. An audience that takes
offence to an action does not mean that the first amendment does not protect it.
31. Tinker v. Des Moines
Constitutional Question: as a symbol of protest, is the wearing of armbands in a
public school protected as freedom of expression under the 1st amendment.
Plaintiff Contesting: it was the students choice to protest the war by wearing
armbands. This action is protected by their freedom of expression.
Defendant Contesting: The school has a rule against the armbands and the
students refusing to take them off were against school rules.
Supreme Court Decision: Freedom of expression is limited in school but in this
situation the principal failed to show the armbands would limit discipline or
education in the school.
32. United States v.Nixon
Constitutional Question: Is the president’s right to safeguard information with
executive privilege completely immune to judicial review.
Plaintiff Contesting: Nixon and the others involved in the Watergate affair were
not immune to judicial review.
Defendant Contesting: By using executive privilege, he and those indicted
because of the Watergate scandal were immune to judicial review.
Supreme Court Decision: The claims of separation of powers nor the need to keep
certain information private were able to sway the supreme court in favor of the
president. Instead the Supreme Court ruled that, in order for there to be a “fair
administration of justice” executive privilege did not trump the subpoena of the
Supreme Court.
33. Van Orden v. Perry
Constitutional Question: Does a display of the Ten Commandments violate the 1st
amendment provision that barred the government from passing laws that involved
and establishment of religion?
Plaintiff Contesting: Found that the display of the Ten Commandments was a
government endorsement of religion.
Defendant Contesting: The display served a legitimate secular purpose and to any
“reasonable observer” the display would not seem to be a government
endorsement of religion.
Supreme Court Decision: in a 5/4 decision the supreme court found the display
was protected under the establishment clause. Although the Ten Commandments
has religious meaning, their historical meaning made them a legal display.
34. Wallace v. Jaffree
Constitutional Question: Did the authorization of the prayer in school violate the
1st amendment establishment of religion clause?
Plaintiff Contesting: Alabama teachers had the option of praying during the
school day.
Defendant Contesting: Three of Jaffree’s children attend public school and the
permitted prayer was against his children’s freedom of religion.
Supreme Court Decision: after a secular purpose test, the Supreme Court found
that the true intent of the prayer during the school day had a religious purpose and
was, thus, unconstitutional.
35. Citizen United vs FEC
Constitutional Questions: 1) Do the BCRA's disclosure requirements impose an
unconstitutional burden when applied to electioneering requirements because they are
protected "political speech" and not subject to regulation as "campaign speech"? 2) If a
communication lacks a clear plea to vote for or against a particular candidate, is it subject
to regulation under the BCRA? 3) Should a feature length documentary about a candidate
for political office be treated like the advertisements at issue in McConnell and therefore
be subject to regulation under the BCRA?
No. Yes. Yes. By a 5-to-4 vote along ideological lines, the majority held that under the First Amendment
corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited. Justice
Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justices Antonin
G. Scalia, Samuel A. Alito, and Clarence Thomas. Justice John Paul Stevens dissented, joined by Justices
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, and Sonia Sotamayor.
The majority maintained that political speech is indispensable to a democracy, which is no less true because
the speech comes from a corporation. The majority also held that the BCRA's disclosure requirements as
applied toThe Movie were constitutional, reasoning that disclosure is justified by a "governmental interest"
in providing the "electorate with information" about election-related spending resources.
The Court also upheld the disclosure requirements for political advertising sponsors and it upheld the ban
on direct contributions to candidates from corporations and unions.
In a separate concurring opinion, Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Justice Alito, emphasized the care with
which the Court handles constitutional issues and its attempts to avoid constitutional issues when at all
possible. Here, the Court had no narrower grounds upon which to rule, except to handle the First
Amendment issues embodied within the case. Justice Scalia also wrote a separate concurring opinion,
joined by Justices Alito and Thomas in part, criticizing Justice Stevens' understanding of the Framer's view
towards corporations. Justice Stevens argued that corporations are not members of society and that there
are compelling governmental interests to curb corporations' ability to spend money during local and
national elections.
Key Terminology:
Judicial restraint: This doctrine holds that justices should interpret the Constitution and not use cases to establish
new rights or new law.
Judicial activism is a political term used to describe judicial rulings that are suspected to be based upon personal and
political considerations other than existing law.
Stare decicis: The legal principle of abiding by established court decisions. Senators frown on nominees who appear
eager to overturn Supreme Court precedents. But nominees also must show they have an open mind on each case
that comes before them.
Writ of habeas corpus (habeas petition): Latin for "you have the body," the writ of habeas corpus dates back to
medieval England. It gives prisoners the right to challenge their detentions in court. It's a key ingredient in death
penalty cases, as well as the basis for U.S.-held terror suspects in Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere gaining access to
U.S. courts.
Writ of Certiorari: Latin (to be certified); a petition seeking appeal of a case or ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court or a
state court of final authority. It is permissive and not a matter of right.
Rule of Four: Four justices must agree to a Writ of Certiorari for the case to be scheduled.
Amicus Curiae – Latin for "friend of the court." It is advice formally offered to the court in a brief filed by an entity
interested in, but not a party to, the case
Appellate – About appeals; an appellate court has the power to review the judgment of a lower court (trial court) or
tribunal. For example, the U.S. circuit courts of appeals review the decisions of the U.S. district courts.
De Facto – Latin, meaning "in fact" or "actually." Something that exists in fact but not as a matter of law.
De Jure – Latin, meaning "in law." Something that exists by operation of law.
per curiam decision (or opinion) is a ruling issued by an appellate court of multiple judges in which the decision
rendered is made by the court (or at least, a majority of the court) acting collectively and anonymously
Majority opinion --is a judicial opinion agreed to by a majority of the members of a court. A majority opinion sets forth
the decision of the court and an explanation of the rationale behind the court's decision.
Minority
Dissenting opinion (or dissent) is an opinion in a legal case written by one or more judges expressing disagreement
with the majority opinion of the court which gives rise to its judgment.
Concurring opinion is a written opinion by one or more judges of a court which agrees with the decision made by the
majority of the court, but states different reasons as the basis for his or her decision.
Selective incorporation- is the process by which American courts have applied portions of the U.S. Bill of Rights to
the states. In the past the Bill of Rights was held only to apply to the federal government. Under the incorporation
doctrine certain provisions of the Bill of Rights now also apply to the states, by virtue of the due process clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.
Litigation: the act or process of bringing or contesting a legal action in court. A lawsuit.
Class-Action suit: A case brought into court by a person on behalf not only of himself or herself but of all
other persons in a similar circumstance
Works Cited
http://www.audiocasefiles.com/acf_cases/8504-adarand-constructors-inc-v-pena accessed
29 march 2009
www.oyez.org accessed 1-10 April 2009.