Supreme Court Cases
Marbury v. Madison- 1803
Historical/Landmark Cases

Marbury v. Madison- 1803
◦ Establishment of Judicial Review
◦ Court declared a portion of the Judiciary Act of
1789 unconstitutional thereby declaring the
Court’s power to find acts of Congress
unconstitutional
 CJ Marshall had 3 questions:
 Was Marbury entitled to the commission? Yes
 Does he have redemption? Yes
 Can the S.C. help him? No because section 13 of the Judiciary
Act of 1789 is unconstitutional because it adds power to the
Court through legislation and not an amendment
Historical/Landmark Cases

McCullough v. Maryland (1819)
◦ Article 1, section 8, Necessary & Proper Clause *
National Supremacy- * use of implied powers
◦ Declared the Maryland law unconstitutional
because “the power to tax implies the power to
destroy”

Gibbons v Ogden (1824)
◦ Deals with establishment of the supremacy of the
National government. Broadly interpret Article 1
Section 8 to permit the national government to
regulation trade, travel, and navigation between
the states
Historical/Landmark Cases

Barron v. Baltimore (1833)
◦ 5th amendment (eminent domain) did not
apply to states but only to the Federal
Government
◦ BoR’s won’t be incorporated until the 14th
Amendment is incorporated
First Amendment Cases- Speech

Schenck v. US (1919)
◦ Freedom of Speech
◦ Court limits free speech in time of war
establishes the “clear and present danger” test
◦ There are limits on liberties and rights
First Amendment Cases- Speech

Gitlow v. New York (1925)
◦ Landmark case but not the first to
incorporate
◦ For the first time the Court decided whether
the 1st and 14th amendments had influence on
state laws
◦ Used what came to be known as selective
“incorporation” doctrine in which 1st
Amendment rights could be incorporated
through the 14th Amendment

Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)
◦ “armband” case
◦ Freedom of speech extends to students
◦ Protects symbolic speech

U.S. v. Eichman (1990)
◦ Flag Protection Act violates the 1st
Amendment.
◦ Even though flag burning may be disagreeable
and offensive it is a freedom of speech
First Amendment Cases- Speech

NYT v. Sullivan (1963)
◦ Freedom of speech
◦ Have to prove there is intent of malice

NYT 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)
Truth is an absolute defense against the charge of libel

Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier
(1988)
◦ Freedom of speech
◦ SC sided with the school district curtailing the
freedom previously stated in Tinker precedent
◦ Schools can censor speech when the speech is
part of an educational activity under reasonable
educational justification
◦ As long as student produced material not
affiliated with classroom activities, the rights to
produce would be protected

Reno v. ACLU (1997)
◦ Court repeals parts of the Communications
Decency Act of 1996
◦ Precedent: extends 1st Amendment rights to
the internet
First Amendment Cases- Religion


*Not in packet
West Virginia Board of Ed. V. Barnette (1943)
◦ Court ruled that compulsory flag salute violated
the 1st Amendment’s exercise of religion clausetherefore is unconstitutional

Wallace v. Jaffree (1985)
◦ Precedent- Court decided that moments of
silence were unconstitutional because the
government is promoting religion.
◦ Why can we have moments of silence at CHS?
First Amendment Cases- Religion

Engel v.Vitale (1962)
◦ Freedom of religion
◦ Precedent: Court outlawed even on a
voluntary basis the use of prayer in public
schools
First Amendment Cases- Religion

Lemon v. Kurzman (1971)
◦ Created the LEMON test which involves the
constitutionality of state laws providing aid to
church-supported schools
 State law about aid to education must meet 3
criteria
 Purpose of aid must be secular
 Its primary effect must neither advance nor inhibit religion
 It must avoid “excessive entanglement of government with
religion” (purposely vague)
First Amendment CasesAssociation

Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000)
◦ Court upheld the right of the Boy Scouts to
exclude homosexuals based on freedom of
association and speech
First Amendment - Obscenity

Roth v. US (1957)
◦ Roth encouraged people to buy his materials through the use of
mailings and is arrested
◦ Court rules that obscenity is not protected by the 1st
Amendment and disregard the “Hicklin standard” (Hicklin is derived
from English common law which stated: the tendency of the matter charged as obscenity is to
deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences, and into whose
hands a publication of this sort may fall… problem is this is a child standard)
◦ Creates Roth standard: Whether to the average person, applying
contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the
material taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest” – very vague
 1953 Jacob Ellis v. Ott- it’s a national standard
 Miller v. CA (1973)- similar to Roth except includes videos, revises Roth to
what it is today
 Average person applying community standards would find it of prurient
interest
 Whether it offends the senses of the normal person
 Lacks SALP: scientific, literary, artistic, or political value
First Amendment - Obscenity

Other notable cases:
◦ Jenkins v. GA (1974)- showed the movie “Carnal
Knowledge” in movie theater… got in trouble…
SC ruled that 1st and 14th Amendment rights
were violated… GA misapplied the Miller
standard… something can have sex included and
not be obscene
◦ NY v. Ferber (1982)- Ferber owns a “book store”
sells two movies to underage police officers
acting as minor boys… Ferber argues his 1st
Amendment rights are violated… SC disagrees
arguing that states have an overwhelming (not
just compelling) interest to protect children

Feb. 1996 Communications Decency Act
◦ Ruled unconstitutional in Reno v. ACLU
 Adults shouldn’t be restricted on internet to what’s
appropriate for children

2001 Children’s Protection Act
◦ Libraries to have anti-pornography filters (can be
turned off at patrons request)
◦ Upheld in 2003

2000: First Amendment Protection in US v.
Playboy Ent. Group
◦ Struck down portion of 1996 law that banned
sexually explicit programming to late-night hours
First Amendment - Obscenity

CPPA (Child Pornography and Prevention
Act) prohibits any image that is or appears
to have a minor… leads to Ashcroft v FSC
(2002) saying that CPPA is so broad that it
limits all sorts of speech… Court rules
against Ashcroft in two areas “the appears to
be a minor” and “use of computer generated
images” similar cases were in your packet
on page 2 Reno and Ashcroft v ACLU in
which some more are struck down
First Amendment - Obscenity

“SEXTING”

The latest regarding legislation in Indiana- “Proposed legislation
making some teens’ practice of sending racy photos by cell phone a
juvenile offense in Indiana appears headed for a summer legislative
study committee to iron out policy problems.
Indiana House Judiciary Chairwoman Linda Lawson said Tuesday
that sponsoring lawmakers agree the bill on so-called sexting that
cleared the state Senate has problems that need further study. The
Hammond Democrat says the bill likely to clear her panel next
week would send the issue to study committee.
Indiana Prosecuting Attorneys Council director Steve Johnson said
that teens of legal age can have sex but the bill would make it a
crime for them to exchange nude photos in certain cases.
He says it was clear some policy issues had not been thought
through.”



 http://chestertontribune.com/Indiana%20News/sexting_bill_kicked_to_indiana_s.ht
m
PRIVACY RIGHTS

Note: Privacy is not mentioned in the
Constitution but has been accepted as a
penumbra (shadow) right
PRIVACY RIGHTS

Griswold v. CT (1965)- Contraceptive case- can be punished if you use it or if you
provide it
◦ Griswold (PP) provides contraceptives to a married couple and gets into trouble
and challenges with the 14th Amendment due process clause

The foregoing cases suggest that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have
penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life
and substance. Various guarantees create zones of privacy. The right of association
contained in the penumbra of the First Amendment is one, as we have seen. The
Third Amendment in its prohibition against the quartering of soldiers "in any house"
in time of peace without the consent of the owner is another facet of that privacy.
The Fourth Amendment explicitly affirms the "right of the people to be secure in
their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and
seizures." The Fifth Amendment in its Self-Incrimination Clause enables the citizen
to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender tohis
detriment. The Ninth Amendment provides: "The enumeration in the Constitution,
of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the
people.“…… We have had many controversies over these penumbral rights of
"privacy and repose." These cases bear witness that the right of privacy which
presses for recognition here is a legitimate one. The present case, then, concerns a
relationship lying within the zone of privacy created by several fundamental
constitutional guarantees.”
PRIVACY RIGHTS
debate now is over what is included
PRIVACY RIGHTS

Roe v. Wade (1973)
◦ Roe lawyer argued that is was a violation of the
privacy created in Griswold
◦ Wade lawyer argued against the right to privacy and
said that protected marital privacy does not include
the right to choose an abortion
◦ Limits when a state can intervene

Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)
◦ Informed consent- only spousal notification was
found unconstitutional- the court view is essentially
that it has more to do with the woman than with the
man
◦ Undue burden- state can’t just put up substantial
obstacles before viability for the woman
Incorporation Doctrine


Barron v. Baltimore (1833)- CJ Marshall said
that 4th, 6th, and 8th Amendments only applied
to the national government
Once 14th Amendment was passed suits
started coming through and challenged using
the due process clause
◦ Gitlow v. NY (1925) starts Selective
Incorporation where the Court uses the 14th
Amendment’s Due Process Clause to protect &
incorporate the Bill of Rights

Total incorporation of Bill of Rights
especially after Miranda v. AZ (1966)
14th Amendment and the Equal
Protection Clause
Baker v. Carr
 Reynolds v. Sims
 Wesberry v. Sanders

◦ Can be summed up as
“one man, one vote”
Expansion of Rights?

Gideon v. Wainright (1963)
◦ Incorporation case (apply 6th-14th Due Process Clause). State has to
provide lawyer if accused is too poor

Mapp v Ohio (1961)
◦ Exclusionary Rule: Evidence obtained in violation of 4th Amendment’s
ban on unreasonable search & seizure would be excluded from trial

Escobedo v. Illinois (1964)
◦ 6th Amendment – right to counsel. Can’t use evidence obtained from a
suspect who has been denied opportunity to consult with counsel and
has not been warned of constitutional rights to keep silent

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
◦ Must be made verbally aware of your right to remain silent and the right
to counsel

Massachusetts v. Sheppard (1984)
◦ Good faith exception to the exclusionary rule
Brown & efforts to create equality

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)
◦ “separate but equal” does not violate equal
protection clause of 14th Amendment

Brown v. Board (1954)
◦ Ct. overturns precedent “separate but equal”
established in Plessy case
◦ Also eliminates state power to use race as a
criterion of discrimination in law and provided
national gov. with the power to intervene by
exercising strict regulatory policies against
discriminatory actions
 EX: Voting Rights Act, Eisenhower sending in the Paratroopers, etc.
Brown & efforts to create equality

Swann v. Charlotte- Mecklenburg BofE (1971)
◦ Important extension of civil rights in education. State imposed
desegregation could be brought around by busing & under some
circumstances, even racial quotas

Craig v Boren (1976)
◦ 1st case to apply medium scrutiny test to gender based
discrimination

Regents of the University of CA v. Bakke (1978)
◦ Universities can take minority status into consideration because
a “diverse student body” contributing to a “robust exchange of
ideas” is a “constitutionally permissible goal” can’t set quotas but
can consider race

Reno v. Shaw (1993)
◦ Deals with majority-minority districts & 14th Am. Race can’t be
the predominant reason for placement of boundaries.
Motivations can be political, but not racial
Brown & efforts to create equality

Adarand Const. v Pena (1995)
◦ Federal programs that classify people on the basis of race are subject to
strict scrutiny, even if they are for benign purposes

Grutter v. Bolinger (2003) – law school case
◦ Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was the eventual deciding vote in Grutter,
saying that affirmative action is still needed in America -- but hoped that
its days are numbered. "We expect that 25 years from now, the use of
racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest
approved today.“

Gratz v. Bolinger (2003)- undergraduate
◦ ruled the points system violated equal protection provisions of the
Constitution. Chief Justice William Rehnquist said the use of race was
not "narrowly tailored" to achieve the university's diversity goals.

Ricci v. DeStefano (2009)- “firefighter case”- deemed that the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 had been violated when a test was thrown out
after no minorities scored high enough to be promoted.
Student Rights at School

Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) “armbands case”
◦ Protection of symbolic freedom of speech for students at school

NJ v TLO (1985)
◦ Replaces “probable cause” giving schools more freedom to conduct
searches using “reasonable suspicion” (rolling papers, etc.)

Bethel v. Fraser (1986)
◦ Students do not enjoy the same freedoms and protections as adults

Santa Fe v. Doe (2000)
◦ Student led prayer violates the Establishment Clause

Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988)
◦ Freedom of school press at issue. Schools can regulate schoolsponsored activities. “Schools need not tolerate student speech that is
inconsistent with its basic educational mission”

Stafford v. Redding (2009)- “strip search case”
◦ Court limited the rights of a school to search students