Supreme Court Cases
Marbury v Madison
1. Marbury was commissioned by
John Adams as a Justice of the
Peace
2. Madison was Jefferson’s
Secretary of State
3. Madison was ordered not to
deliver the commission to Marbury
4. Court rule in favor of Marbury
5. IMPORTANT BECAUSE: 1st time a
congressional act was found
unconstitutional. The case
established JUDICIAL REVIEW.
Plessy v Ferguson
1. Plessy was 1/8 African American
(one great-grandparent was black)
was kicked off a train for sitting in the
white section.
2. Ferguson was the local judge who
ordered him imprisoned.
3. Plessy appealed arguing that his
14th amendment (equal protection
under the law) was violated.
4. Court ruled in favor of Ferguson.
5. IMPORTANT BECAUSE: The case
upheld SEPARATE BUT EQUAL.
Weeks v US
1. Weeks was arrested for
sending lottery tickets through
the mail.
2. A US marshall searched Weeks
office and took some papers
(seized evidence).
3. No warrants were issued for
the search or the arrest.
4. Court ruled in favor of Weeks.
5. IMPORTANT BECAUSE: His 4th
amendment had been violated.
This established the
EXCLUSIONARY RULE – if police
obtain evidence illegally, it
cannot be used against you.
Gitlow v New York
1. Ben Gitlow was convicted of violating the
New York criminal anarchy act
2. New York officials arrested him
3. He advocated mass revolts, political strikes,
and taking revolutionary action (govt. should
be overthrown by force, violence, and
assassination)
4. “Is subversive speech protected by the 1st
amendment?”
5. Court rule in favor of New York
6. IMPORTANT BECAUSE: Subversive speech
was found unprotected by the constitution
because it presents a clear and present
danger.
Miranda v Arizona
1. Miranda was arrested for rape. He
was not informed of his right to remain
silent or his right to an attorney.
2. Arizona officials arrested him.
3. He confessed after 2 hours of
questioning.
4. Court ruled in favor of Miranda.
5. IMPORTANT BECAUSE: The 5th
amendment says that you don’t have to
testify against yourself. Established that
PRIOR to custodial interrogation, YOU
MUST BE INFORMED OF YOUR RIGHTS.
Sheppard v Maxwell (1966)
1. Dr. Samuel Sheppard was
accused/convicted of murdering his
pregnant wife.
2. E. L. Maxwell was the prison warden
(Sheppard had exhausted all his
appeals and filed against the warden
under habeus corpus to see if he was
denied due process.
3. There was major media coverage:
jurors’ names were published & they
were not sequestered.
4. Was Sheppard denied a fair trial in
violation of due process – 14th
amendment?
5. Court ruled in favor of Sheppard.
6. IMPORTANT BECAUSE: It is
necessary to balance the importance
of free press with the interest of
justice.
Gregg v Georgia (1976)
1. Troy Leon Gregg was hitchhiking to
Florida.
2. Georgia is where the murder took
place
3. Gregg was convicted of killing 2 men
who gave him a ride.
4. Does the death penalty constitute
“cruel and unusual” punishment which
citizens are protected from in the 8th
amendment?
5. The court ruled in favor of Georgia.
6. IMPORTANT BECAUSE: The death
penalty is constitutional. The
punishment must be proportional to the
seriousness of the crime and must not
involve unnecessary and wanton infliction
of pain.
New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985)
1. Initials are used when a minor is
involved. TLO was a fourteen year old
caught smoking in the bathroom at school.
2. The Vice Principal searched her purse and
found cigarettes, marijuana, lots of money, a
list of names and two letters implying intent
to sell drugs.
She was convicted on drug charges. She
appealed her conviction claiming the search
was illegal.
3. Does the 4th amendment (ban of illegal
search & seizure) apply to schools?
4. The court ruled in favor of TLO.
5. The 4th amendment does apply to
schools, however, school officials
(reasonable suspicion) do not have to meet
the same standards as police officers
(probable cause/warrant).
Rostker v Goldberg (1981)
1. Rostker was one of several military
men (1st name listed becomes the
name of the case).
2. Goldberg was a Selective Service
officer.
3. Several men who had to register for
the draft claimed that women should
have to register also.
4. Is due process of the 5th
amendment violated by gender
discrimination?
5. Court ruled in favor of Goldberg.
6. IMPORTANT BECAUSE: Gender
discrimination is not a violation of due
process in the 5th amendment –
women are not eligible for combat.
Bethel School District v Fraser (1966)
1. Matthew Fraser used explicit,
graphic, sexual metaphors in a high
school assembly speech. (Class
officer elections – warned by
teachers to change it)
2. He was suspended for 2 days.
3. He claimed Freedom of Speech
under the 1st Amendment had been
violated.
4.Can school officials limit obscene
and vulgar language?
5. The court found school officials
can discipline students for indecent
speech.
South Dakota v Dole (1987)
• Elizabeth Dole was the Secretary of Transportation
• Dept. of Transportation gives federal money to state to
improve and build roads
• Dept. of Transportation said they would withhold a
percentage of the money if the state did not raise the
drinking age to 21.
• South Dakota had a drinking age of 19 and sued
• Is the 21st amendment violated? (Deals with states
setting liquor laws)
• Court found for Dole – Congress could decided where
and how to spend money (just as states have the right
to set their drinking age)
Hazelwood School District v.
Kuhlmeier (1988)
1. Kuhlmeier edited the high school
newspaper.
2. The principal ordered 2 pages to be
deleted from the high school newspaper –
the articles dealt with pregnancy ( girls
could be identified even if names were
withheld and too sexually graphic) and
divorce (talked about parents without
parents right to respond)
3. Three student editors sued saying their
Freedom of Speech was denied.
4. Can school officials regulate speech (1st
amendment) in school sponsored
newspapers and yearbooks?
5. The courts found that schools can set
higher standards for student speech. (The
newspaper differs from a normal
newspaper because it is a teaching tool.)
Cruzan v. Director Missouri Dept. of
Health (1990)
1. Nancy Cruzan was in a terrible car
accident and was left brain dead.
2. Her parents wanted her taken off
life support systems. The hospital
refused.
3. Does the Constitution protect the
liberty of seriously ill patients to be
free from life sustaining equipment?
Can her parent (or family members)
have her removed from life support?
LIVING WILL
4. The court found that judgment of
family members was not sufficient to
end life sustaining treatment.
Wallace v Jaffree (1985)
• Ishmael Jaffree had three children in Alabama
schools
• He did not like the daily “moment of silence” at
school (a minute of quiet time when kids could
meditate or pray if they wanted)
• He said is violated the 1st amendment by
establishing religion
• Did the state law allowing a moment of silence
violate the 1st amendment – freedom of religion?
• Court found for Jaffree – moment of silence is
unconstitutional and violates the 1st amendment.
Michigan Dept. of State Police v Sitz
(1990)
•
• Michigan police set up a field sobriety check point program
• They detained drivers for about 25 seconds to look for signs
of intoxication.
• It lasted for 1 hour 15 minutes and they caught 3 drunk
drivers
• 25 drivers filed a lawsuit saying it was “unreasonable search
and seizure” of the 4th amendment
• Is seizure actually occurring at the checkpoints, and if so, is
it reasonable or does it violate the 4th amendment?
• Court found for Michigan State Police – No violation,
checkpoints are reasonable and allowable.
International Union of UAW v
Johnson Controls (1991)
•
• Johnson Controls is a company that makes batteries
• Batteries have lead in them. Lead is an element known
to pose health risks to fetuses and small children
• The company said: no woman of child bearing age can
work in the department that handles lead
• Women sued International Union
• Did the policy discriminate against women?
• Found in favor of the employees – You can’t exclude
women just because they might have children.
•
Lau v Nichols (1974)
• Lau was the parent of a Chinese child enrolled in the San
Francisco
• Schools.
• In the 1970’s 2,856 chinese decent, non English speaking
children were enrolled in the schools.
• Majority were not given assistance for their language
barrier.
• Question: Were their 14 amendments rights ( equal
protection inder the law) violated?
• Answer: Yes, they had been violated and were entitled to a
better education
•
US v Alvarez Manchin (1992)
•
• Enrique Camareno was a US drug enforcement agent. He
was killed.
• The suspect in the killing was Alvarez Manchin who was in
Mexico.
• The US hired a bounty hunter to kidnap and bring him to
America to stand trial.
• Mexico was outraged.
• QUESTION: Can the US constitution establish sovereignty
over other countries?
• Answer: 6-3 Yes we can! Nowhere does it say we can’t
kidnap. Supreme court says this ruling can establish good
implications for other criminals who have fled the country
Wisconsin v Mitchell (1992)
•
• Todd Mitchell was a black youth who was convicted of attacking a
white youth from Wisconsin.
• prior to the attack, Mitchell said, “there goes a white boy, get him”
• This statement indicated the crime to be a biased crime. (hate
crime)
• He was sentenced to 4 years rather than 2 years.
• He appealed---- Freedom of speech--• Question: Is a comment or thought freedom of speech & can you
get extra punishment for saying your beliefs?
• Answer: Yes, a heavier penalty is acceptable for a hate crime
because it inflicts greater harm on the community.
Korematsu v. United States 1944
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
1. The port of Pearl Harbor, Hawaii was attacked by the Japanese in December 1941
2. Many Americans blamed Japanese Americans who were living in the United States. People
thought that Japanese Americans who lived there would help the Japanese military.
3. But at the time, there was no known case of espionage from any person of Japanese descent.
4. In February, 1942, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066. This order
allowed the military to use curfews and to move Japanese and Japanese Americans to special
camps.
5. Fred Korematsu was born in America and had Japanese parents.
6. He moved away and changed the way he looked to avoid the camps.
7. But he was arrested later and sent to a camp.
8. Korematsu took his case to the courts. He said that authorities didn’t have the power to send
people to internment camps. He also said that the government was discriminating against him
because of his race.
9. Korematsu appealed this decision and the case came before the U.S. Supreme Court. His case
eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court and, in 1944, the court upheld the order.
10. In 1988, the decision was overturned and Korematsu along with many other detainees each got
$20,000
Brown v. Board of Education (1954)
• 1. In Topeka, Kansas, a black student named Linda Brown
had to walk through a dangerous railroad to get to her allblack school.
• 2. Her family believed that segregated schools should be
illegal. The Brown family sued the school system. They
thought that the system violated the Fourteenth
Amendment guaranteeing that people will be treated
equally under the law.
• 3. The Court concluded that in the field of public education
the idea of "separate but equal" has no place. Separate
educational facilities are inherently unequal.
• 4. Plessy V. Ferguson was now overturned.
Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
1. John and Mary Beth Tinker attended public school in Des Moines, Iowa in 1965.
2. Tinkers decided to wear armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War. The
school officials asked the Tinkers to remove their armbands saying the bands were
disruptive, the Tinkers refused. They were suspended from school.
3. The Tinkers sued the school district in the U.S. District Court. Saying the Des
Moines school district violated their right to free speech under the First
Amendment. They were not speaking with their voices; they believed that wearing
armbands was like speaking. This is called symbolic speech.
4. Decision: The wearing of armbands was "closely akin to 'pure speech'" and
protected by the First Amendment.
5. Schools can put limits on free expression, but here, the principals failed to show
that the arm bands would substantially interfere with the school environment.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•