SUPREME COURT CASE FLASHCARDS
LANDMARK CASES- You don’t necessarily need to know the details surrounding the case
but rather the IMPACT and SIGNIFICANCE on U.S. Government and Politics
POWERS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
MARBURY V.
MADISON(1803)
MCCULLOCH V.
MARYLAND(1819)
BARRON V.
BALTIMORE (1833)
IMPACT:
Marbury v. Madison (1803)
- Article III, judicial powers
- Chief Justice Marshall established “judicial review” as a
power of the SC. After the defeat of the 1800 election,
President Adams appt. many Federalists to the federal
courts, but the commissions were not delivered because
new Sec. of State James Madison refused to deliver them &
Marbury sued in SC. The Court declared a portion of the
Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional, thereby declaring
the Court’s power to find acts of Congress unconstitutional
IMPACT:
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)
- Article I, section 8, Necessary and Proper Clause &
National Supremacy
-A Maryland law required federally chartered banks to is
only a special paper to print $, which amounted to a tax.
William McCulloch, the cashier of a Baltimore branch of
the bank, refused to use the paper, claiming that the states
could not tax the Federal Government. The Court declared
the Maryland law unconstitutional, commenting “...the
power to tax implies the power to destroy.”
IMPACT:
Barron v. Baltimore (1833)
-5th amendment (eminent domain) did not apply to states
but only to the federal gov’t
-the Supreme Court does not apply the Bill of Rights to
states until the14th amendment is incorp.
GIBBONS V.
OGDEN(1824)
U.S. V. LOPEZ(1993)
IMPACT:
Congress had the right to tax interstate commerce.
IMPACT:
SC struck down a handgun ban in school zones. Court
ruled that is a state matter. Congress had overstepped
its powers under the Commerce Clause.
FIRST AMENDMENT
SCHENCK V. U.S.
(1919)
GITLOW V. NEW
YORK(1925)
IMPACT:
Schenck v. US (1919)
- Freedom of speech
-Charles Schenck was an officer of an antiwar political
group who was arrested for alleged violations of the
Espionage Act of 1917, which made active opposition to
the war a crime. He had urged thousands of young men
called to service by the draft act to resist & avoid induction,
The Court limited free speech in time of war, stating that
Shenck’s words, under the circumstances created a “clear
and present” danger... Although later decisions modified
the decision, this case created the PRECEDENT that 1st
amendment guarantees weren’t absolute
IMPACT:
Gitlow v. New York (1925)
- for the first time the Court decided whether the 1st & 14th
amendments had influence on State Laws. The case,
involving “criminal anarchy”, under New York law, was
the first consideration of what came to be known as the
selective “incorporation” doctrine, under which the
provisions of the 1st amendment were “incorporated” by
the 14th amendment, indicating that the Supreme
Court
could invalidate State Laws.
TEXAS V. JOHNSON
(1989)
TINKER V. DES
MOINES (1969)
BRANDENBURG V.
OHIO (1969)
BETHEL V. FRASER
(1986)
IMPACT:
Texas v. Johnson (1989)
-Freedom of Speech (1st amendment)
-Ruling- Texas statute prohibiting the burning of the flag is
unconstitutional
-Precedent- You may burn the flag
IMPACT:
-Freedom of Speech and Expression (1st Amendment)
-Ruling- allowed to wear the black arm bands
-Precedent- “Student’s right to expression would be
protected except in cases where that expression materially
disrupts class work or involves substantial disorder or
invasion of the rights of others...students rights in school
are reaffirmed
IMPACT:
Bradenburg v. Ohio (1969)
-held that laws that punish people for advocating social
change through violence violate the first amendment, the
advocacy of an idea even an idea of violence is protected by
the 1st amendment. What is not protected is inciting people
to engage in violence, a change from the “clear and present
danger” test. The court reversed the conviction of a KKK
member that held a rally and made strong derogatory
remarks against Africans Americans and Jews.
IMPACT:
Bethel v. Fraser (1986)
-Freedom of Speech (1st amendment)
-Ruling- The school’s discipline was constitutional
-Precedent- school may limit student’s speech if it interferes
with the educational process
*LIBEL VS. SLANDER* MUST BE PROVEN TO BE
KNOWN AS DEFAMATORY AND FALSE AND WAS
REPEATED IN A MALICIOUS MANNER (known as
actual malice)
Rollback of student free speech
BUCKLEY V. VALEO
(1976)
MCCONNELL V. FEC
(2003)
NEAR V. MINNESOTA
(1931)
NEW YORK TIMES V.
U.S. (1971)
IMPACT:
Buckley v. Valeo (1976)
- Court struck down a few parts of this 1974 law
- struck down personal monies (you can spend as much of
your own $ on a campaign because the courts said that it is
political speech)
-upheld-public financing part (agreed to limits in order to
get funds matched) because it is voluntary
-Congress was trying to limit spending on primary funds
but Bush Jr. didn’t accept $ on primary funds of public $ so
he could spend as much as he wanted
IMPACT:
McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003)
- Upheld most aspects of the Bipartisan Campaign
Reform Law
-upheld soft and hard money limits and the ban of
electioneering not subject to the cap within the 90 day
window before a federal election
IMPACT:
Near v. Minnesota (1931)
-established the prior restraint doctrine. The doctrine
protects the press from gov’t attempts to block publication.
Except in extraordinary circumstances, the press must be
allowed to publish. If what is published turns out to be
unprotected by the 1st amendment, the gov’t can take
action. However, to act before publication is to engage in
censorship that violates the 1st amendment.
-Selective Incorporation of the 1st amendment freedom
of press
IMPACT:
New York Times v. US (1971)
-reaffirmed the prior restraint doctrine established in Near
v. Minnesota
-the Court refused the halt publication of the Pentagon
Papers (detailed critical account of US involvement in
Vietnam).
HAZELWOOD
SCHOOL DISTRICT V.
KUHLMEIER (1988)
MILLER V.
CALIFORNIA (1973)
ENGEL V. VITALE
(1962)
IMPACT:
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988)
-Freedom of Speech (1st amendment)
-Ruling- SC sided with the school district curtailing the
freedom previously stated in Tinker
-Precedent- schools could censor student speech when
schools had a reasonable educational justification for
their censorship esp. when the speech was part of an
educational activity
-as long as student produced material not affiliated with
classroom activity & didn’t directly disrupt classroom
activities, the rights to produce would be protected
IMPACT:
Miller v. California (1973)
- The Court upheld a stringent application of California
obscenity law by Newport Beach, CA, and attempted to
define what is obscene. The “Miller Rule” included three
criteria
1. That the average person would,
applying contemporary community standards
find that the work
appealed to the prurient interest
2. That the work depicts or describes , in
an offensive way, sexual conduct defined
by State Law
3. That “the work” taken as a whole,
lacks serious literary, artistic, political or
scientific value
IMPACT:
Engel v. Vitale (1962)- No establishment
-Precedent- US S.C. outlawed the use, even on a voluntary
basis, of state- sponsored prayer in schools
LEMON V. KURZMAN
(1971)
OREGON V. U.S. (1990)
IMPACT:
Lemon v. Kurzman (1971)- No establishment
- In overturning State laws regarding aid to churchsupported schools (Struck down state funding for private
religious schools), the Court created the LEMON test
limiting, “the excessive gov’t entanglement” with religion.
The Court noted that any State law about aid to religion
must meet 3 criteria
1. Purpose of aid must be secular
2. Its primary effect must neither advance
nor inhibit religion
3. It must avoid “excessive entanglement
of government with religion”
IMPACT:
Oregon v. Smith (1990)- Free exercise
- Two gentlemen were fired by a private drug
rehabilitation organization because they ingested peyote,
a hallucinogenic drug, for sacramental purposes at a
ceremony of their Native American Church. Their
applications for unemployment compensation were
denied by the State of Oregon under a state law
disqualifying employees discharged for work-related
"misconduct.” Sacramental peyote use is prohibited by
the State's controlled substance law, which makes it a
felony to knowingly or intentionally possess the drug.
- SC argued the Free Exercise Clause permits the State to
prohibit sacramental peyote use and thus to deny
unemployment benefits to persons discharged for such use.
Restricted drug use in religious ceremonies.
FOURTH AMENDMENT
MAPP V. OHIO (1961)
IMPACT:
Mapp v. Ohio- 1961-Selective Incorporation of the 4th
amendment
-involving the 4th and 14 amendments (illegal evidence and
the due process clause)
-prior to this court case it was permitted by some state
constitutions to use illegally obtained evidence in court
-set precedent for exclusionary rule-protection to citizens in
state courts where illegally obtained materials could not be
presented in court-exclusionary rule applies to states
Types of Police Searches1. Plain view Search and Plainfeel search
2. Consent
3. Hot Pursuit
4. Exigent Circumstances (i.e. emergencies)
5. Terry Stop and Frisk (Terry vs. Ohio- 1968)
6. Vehicle Searches (No warrants but probable cause)
7. Search Incident to a Lawful Arrest
8. Airports and Borders (High Security Areas)
9. Good Faith Exception Clause
10. Special Needs Administrative Searches (i.e. School
metal detectors)
NEW JERSEY V. TLO
(1985)
IMPACT:
NJ v. TLO- 1985- Move to reasonable suspicison for
schools, deviates from probable cause
- The Court set a new standard for searches in schools in
this case, stating that the school had a “legitimate need to
maintain an environment in which learning can take place,”
and that to do this “requires some easing of the restrictions
to which searches by public authorities are ordinarily
subject...” The Court this created a “reasonable suspicion”
rule for school searches, a change from the “probable
cause” requirement in the wider society.
5TH AMENDMENT
MIRANDA V.
ARIZONA (1966)
IMPACT:
Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
-5, 6, and 14th amendments
-Precedent- Miranda rights “have a right to remain silent,
that anything said can be used in Court, right to an attorney,
if he can’t afford one, one will be appointed for him” etc.
Only created to prevent coercive confessions, NOT
evidence is thrown out
6TH AMENDMENT\
GIDEON V.
WAINWRIGHT (1963)
ESCEBEDO V.
ILLINOIS (1964)
IMPACT:
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)- Gideon’s Trumpet (film)
-6th and 14th amendments
-Precedent- guarantee of counsel (attorney) for all person
facing a felony charge in federal and state trials
IMPACT:
A murder suspect in Chicago was not afforded
council while under interrogation, the Court extended
the “exclusionary rule” to illegal confessions in State
court proceedings. Carefully, defining an Escobedo
rule, the Court said, “where the investigation is no
longer a general inquiry...but has begun to focus on a
particular suspect... and where the suspect has been
taken into custody... the suspect has requested... his
lawyer, and the police have not warned him right to
remain silent, the accused has been denied counsel in
violation of the Sixth Amendment.
8TH AMENDMENT
GREGG V. GEORGIA
(1976)
IMPACT:
Gregg v. Georgia (1976)
- The Court upheld the Georgia death sentence, finding that
it did NOT violate the cruel and unusual punishment clause
of the 8th Amendment. The Court stated for the first time
that “punishment of death does NOT invariably violate the
Constitution.”
9TH AMENDMENT
GRISWOLD V.
CONNECTICUT (1965)
IMPACT:
Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)- 9th Amendment
(Unenumerated Rights)
- A Connecticut law forbade the use of “any drugs,
medicinal article, or instrument, for the purpose of
preventing contraception.” Griswold, director of Planned
Parenthood in New Haven, was arrested for counseling
married persons & after conviction, appealed. The Court
overturned the Connecticut law, saying that “various
guarantees create zones of privacy..” and questioning
“...would we allow the police to search the sacred precincts
of marital bedrooms?”
Zones of privacy
9TH AND 14TH EQUAL PROTECTION
ROE V. WADE (1973)
IMPACT:
Roe. v. Wade (1973)
-9th amendment (right to privacy) & 14th amendment
-Precedent- “women have a fundamental right to privacy
and a right to choose to terminate her pregnancy within the
first trimester”
14TH AMENDMENT
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS- RIGHT OF CITIZENS (CIVIL RIGHTS)
--No State shall deprive any person of due process or equal protection under the law
-Selective Incorporation--1897 first example of incorporation in Chicago w/ eminent domain however
slow arduous process as late as 1937 SC refused to incorporate double jeapardy
DRED SCOTT V.
SANFORD (1857)
BROWN V. BOARD OF
EDUCATION (1954)
UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA V.
BAKKE (1970)
IMPACT:
Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857)
-the Court upheld property rights over human rights by
saying that Dred Scott, a slave, could not become a free
man just because he traveled in “free soil” States with his
master. A badly divided nation was further fragmented by
the decision. “Free soil” federal laws & the Missouri
Compromise Line of 1820 were held unconstitutional
because they deprive a slave owner of of the right to his
“property” without just compensation. This narrow reading
of the Constitution was an example of States’ Rights
advocacy.
IMPACT:
Brown v. Board of Ed (1954)- Equal Protection Clause
-14th amendment (equal protection clause)
-Precedent- Overturned Plessy v. Ferguson and the
“separate but equal”doctrine & that separate schooling of
the races was unconstitutional and demanded that schools
desegregate with “all deliberate speed”
IMPACT:
Regents of University of California v. Bakke (1970)Equal Protection Clause
-Bakke, a white male applied for admission to Medical
School and was rejected
-Medical School’s policy set aside 16 of 100 places for
disadvantaged students to attract ethnic minorities & he
went to Court when he found that several applicants had
been accepted with lower scores, grades etc. in the set aside
policy. Bakke sued the school for violation of the equal
protection clause
-the Court ruled narrowly, providing an admission for
Bakke, but not overturning “affirmative action” preferring
to take discrimination cases on case-by-case.
Reasonable standardness
NO STRICT RACIAL QUOTAS
GRATZ V.
BOLLINGER (2003)
BAKER V. CARR (1962)
WESTBERRY V.
SANDERS (1964)
IMPACT:
Gratz v. Bollinger (2003)-Equal Protection Clause
The Supreme Court struck down the University of
Michigan’s undergraduate affirmative action admissions
process for being too mechanical and therefore
unconstitutional. The total point system at University of
Michigan consisted of 150 points. 100 points granted
admission and minorities (African Americans, Hispanics,
and Native Americans) were given a bonus automatic 20
points. Justices argued that because the policy was not
narrowly tailored it violated the equal protection clause of
the 14th amendment. Many argue that Gratz did not have
standing to sue because she applied in 1995, three years
before Michigan adopted its point system. An example of a
class action law suit.
-Strict numbers are unconstitutional
IMPACT:
Baker v. Carr (1962)
-Malapportionment violated the 14th amendment
-All districts must be contiguous and touching, precursor to
Westberry
IMPACT:
Westberry v. Sanders (1964)
-One person one vote, all districts must be equal in
POPULATION not AREA or SIZE
Gerrymandering
KOREMATSU V.
U.S.(1944)
IMPACT:
Internment of Japanese prisoners during WWII was
NOT unconstitutional
WOLF V. COLORADO
(1949)
IMPACT:
Question:
Were the states required to exclude illegally seized evidence from
trial under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments?
Conclusion:
No exclusion of illegally obtained evidence
SHAW V. RENO (1993)
IMPACT:
Question:
Did the North Carolina residents' claim, that the State created a
racially gerrymandered district, raise a valid constitutional issue
under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause?
Conclusion:
Yes. The Court held that although North Carolina's
reapportionment plan was racially neutral on its face, the resulting
district shape was bizarre enough to suggest that it constituted an
effort to separate voters into different districts based on race. The
unusual district, while perhaps created by noble intentions, seemed
to exceed what was reasonably necessary to avoid racial
imbalances. After concluding that the residents' claim did give rise
to an equal protection challenge, the Court remanded - adding that
in the absence of contradictory evidence, the District Court would
have to decide whether or not some compelling governmental
interest justified North Carolina's plan.
PLESSY V.
FERGUSON (1896)
IMPACT:
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)
- Separate but equal facilities were allowed and did not
violate the “equal protection clause” in the Constitution