Supreme Court Cases for Level 1 WTP Unit Questions
1
Unit 1
1. Cases protecting a person’s right to life
a. United States v. Salerno (1987) preventative retention—denying a person accused of a
crime bail based on predictions of their “future dangerousness”—is allowable as stated
in the 1984 Bail Reform Act passed by Congress
b. Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health (1990) a person has the right to refuse
medical treatment even if it will result in his/her own death provided they have made it
clear that is their intent; lacking a will, the state is obligated to preserve that person’s life
2. Cases protecting a person’s right to liberty
a. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) fighting words not protected
b. Wisconsin v. Mitchell (1993) penalties for hate crimes allowable; assault is not
“expressive conduct” under the 1st Amendment
3. Cases protecting a person’s right to property
a. Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857) a slave could not sue for freedom in court because he was
property and not a citizen; freeing Dred Scott would have violated his master’s right to
due process and violated his 5th Amendment rights
b. Barron v. Baltimore (1833) John Barron’s wharf was damaged by the City of Baltimore
during street construction; he sued the city to repair it and lost; the Court determined the
“just compensation” clause applied only to the federal government; changed with the
adoption of the 14th Amendment
c. Chicago, Burlington, & Quincy Railroad v. Chicago (1897) City of Chicago took private
property from the CB&Q Railroad and paid them $1; Court said 14th Amendment due
process rights and 5th Amendment “just compensation” clause were violated; Chicago
had to pay an equitable payment
4. Cases promoting individual rights
a.
b.
c.
d.
R.A.V. v. St Paul (1992) cannot punish person for content of speech
Thornhill v. Alabama (1940) nonviolent picketing is protected form of speech
Texas v. Johnson (1989) burning U.S. flag is protected form of speech
Kyllo v. United States (2001) right to privacy upheld when police used thermal imaging
to scan Kyllo’s home for evidence of high-intensity lamps to cultivate marijuana; used
info to obtain warrant to search Kyllo’s home where they discovered marijuana; Court
held Kyllo had a “reasonable expectation” of privacy from police surveillance of his
home
5. Cases promoting the common good
a. Ex Parte Milligan (1866) neither Congress nor the President have the power to authorize
military commissions to try civilians in areas outside actual war zones. The decision
established that martial law must be confined to theaters of active military operations
b. In Re Debs (1895) federal gov’t has the authority to stop a strike if it interferes with a
railroad company’s ability to carry commerce and mail which benefits the needs and
“general welfare” of all Americans
c. Munn v. Illinois (1877) a state can set maximum rates that railroads and grain elevator
companies could charge because the movement and storage of grain is closely related to
the public interest; “laws affecting public interest could be made or changed by state
legislatures without interference from the courts.”
Supreme Court Cases for Level 1 WTP Unit Questions
2
6. Cases where government failed to serve the purposes the framers
intendend
a. Civil Right Cases (1883) Five separate cases merged together to form the Civil Rights
Cases; 8-1 ruling Congress had overstepped its authority to enforce the Fourteenth
Amendment with the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1875, and therefore, the act was
invalid; Fourteenth Amendment only applied to discriminatory action taken by states,
not discriminatory actions taken by individuals in the private sector; also reasoned
private discrimination does not violate the Thirteenth Amendment’s prohibition against
slavery and involuntary servitude
b. Korematsu v. United States (1944) Japanese relocation was constitutional because it
wasn’t based on “racial animosity” but on the fact that Japan was an enemy
c. Bradwell v. Illinois (1873) Supreme Court upheld a law forbidding women to become
lawyers; Justice Joseph P. Bradley said being a wife and mother was “the paramount
destiny and mission of women”
Supreme Court Cases for Level 1 WTP Unit Questions
3
Unit 2
7. Cases concerning slavery
a. Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857) a slave could not sue for freedom in court because he was
property and not a citizen; freeing Dred Scott would have violated his master’s right to
due process by taking away his “property” and violated his 5th Amendment rights
8. Cases concerning representation
a. Baker v. Carr (1962) as populations shift, Congressional districts must be redrawn to
insure representation is equal; Charles Baker, mayor of Millington, TN, frustrated
cities/suburbs were underrepresented and rural areas overrepresented; 11% of state’s
pop. In 1962 lived in rural areas yet more than 60% of state representatives were elected
by people living in rural areas
b.
9. Cases protecting a person’s individual rights
a. New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985) a student’s Fourth Amendment rights protecting against
unreasonable search and seizure can be modified; searches can be conducted w/out
warrant if there is reason to suspect evidence will be found and school rules have been
broken; 4th Amendment rights at school are not equivalent to those on the streets outside
school
b.
10. Cases concerning secrecy
a. United States v. Nixon (1974) Federal court “subpoenas” requiring a president to hand
over evidence in a criminal investigation must be followed and cannot be ignored on the
basis of “executive privilege;” the branches of government are separate and the president
cannot define the scope of “executive privilege” only the Supreme Court can;
president’s can make documents secret, but must make them available in “criminal and
other judicial proceedings.”
11. Cases involving the Bill of Rights
a. Chicago v. Morales (1999)
b. Engle v. Vitale (1962) prayer in public schools violates a person’s freedom of religion
c. Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857) a slave could not sue for freedom in court because he was
property and not a citizen; freeing Dred Scott would have violated his master’s right to
due process by taking away his “property” and violated his 5th Amendment rights
Supreme Court Cases for Level 1 WTP Unit Questions
4
Unit 3
12. Cases which have limited the power of government
a. United States v. Nixon (1974) Federal court “subpoenas” requiring a president to hand
over evidence in a criminal investigation must be followed and cannot be ignored on the
basis of “executive privilege;” the branches of government are separate and the president
cannot define the scope of “executive privilege” only the Supreme Court can;
president’s can make documents secret, but must make them available in “criminal and
other judicial proceedings.”
b.
13. Cases involving checks and balances
a. Clinton v. Jones (1997) a U.S. president does not have a constitutionally based immunity
from civil litigation; a president can be sued in court by a private individual for a civil
matter; president’s actions can be checked in civil court
b. Cooper v. Aaron (1958) Arkansas legislature passed measures to postpone desegregation
as ordered in Brown v. School Board; Supreme Court ruled a state gov’t cannot ignore
or oppose a Supreme Court decision and asserted their “primacy” as the final interpreter
of the Constitution; national government checked a state government’s refusal to comply
14. Cases involving conflicts in federalism
a.
15. Cases involving the veto
a. Clinton v. New York City (1998) 6-3 decision—line Item Veto Law was
unconstitutional; granting President ability to cancel provisions of a law would alter the
very process by which a bill becomes law under the Constitution according to Article 1,
Section 7, Clause 2 and change the very nature of the separation of powers designed by
the founding fathers
16. Cases involving judicial review
a. Marbury v. Madison (1803) judicial review established by nullifying Judiciary Act of
1789
Supreme Court Cases for Level 1 WTP Unit Questions
5
Unit 4
17. Cases involving expression
a. Defamation
i.
b. Fighting Words
i. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) speech intended to “have a direct tendency to
cause acts of violence” is not protected by 1st Amendment
c. Hate Speech
i. R.A.V. v. St Paul (1992) cannot penalize a person based on the content of their
speech; overturned by Wisconsin v. Mitchell
ii. Wisconsin v. Mitchell (1993) penalties for hate crimes allowable; assault is not
“expressive conduct” under 1st Amendment; hateful speech that promotes assault or
other “bias motivated crimes” is not protected by the 1st Amendment
d. Speech that incites illegal action
i. Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) speech that incites illegal action is not allowed IF “such
action is imminent;” as an abstract idea, it’s allowable
ii. Schenck v. United States (1919) speech that creates a “clear and present danger” is
not protected by 1st Amendment
iii. Yates v. United States (1957) people can discuss and promote violent revolution “as
an abstract idea, rather than a specific action
e. Speech in School
i. Tinker v. Des Moines School District (1969) students’ symbolic speech protected as
long as it does not “materially and substantially disrupt” the classroom
ii.
18. Cases involving religion
i. Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) Louisiana state law requiring science teachers to teach
creationism ruled unconstitutional violation of the 1st Amendment’s establishment
clause; it indirectly supports a Christian belief in a public school
b.
19. Cases involving “equal protection” clause
a.
20. Cases involving “due process” clause
a. Frontiero v. Richardson (1973) Sharon Frontiero, a married femail officer in the U.S. Air
Force challenged the U.S.A.F. when they failed to give her same medical benefits and
housing allowances provided to married men; Court ruled her 5th Amendment due
process had been been violated
Supreme Court Cases for Level 1 WTP Unit Questions
Unit 5
21. Cases involving the common good
a. Brown v. School Board
b. Feiner v. New York
22. Cases involving voting
a.
23. Cases protecting a person’s right to property
a.
24. Cases promoting individual rights
a.
25. Cases promoting the common good
a.
26. Cases where government failed to serve the purposes the
framers intendend
a.
6