NAME OF COURT
CASE
YEAR
DECIDED
DETAILS AND SIGNIFICANCE OF MAJORITY OPINION
(names, dates, places)
1. Baker v.
Carr
1962
Charles W. Baker and other Tennessee citizens alleged
that a 1901 law designed to apportion the seats for
the state's General Assembly was virtually ignored.
Baker's suit detailed how Tennessee's
reapportionment efforts ignored significant economic
growth and population shifts within the state.
6 votes for Baker, 2 vote(s) against
The Court held that legislative apportionment was a
justifiable issue. Past examples where the Court had
intervened to correct constitutional violations in
matters pertaining to state administration and the
officers were provided. The Fourteenth Amendment
equal protection issues which Baker and others raised
in this case merited judicial evaluation.
2. Barron v.
Baltimore
1833
3. Betts v.
Brady
1942
John Barron was co-owner of a profitable wharf in the
harbor of Baltimore. As the city developed and
expanded, large amounts of sand accumulated in the
harbor, depriving Barron of the deep waters which
had been the key to his successful business. He sued
the city to recover a portion of his financial losses.
7 votes for City Council of Baltimore, 0 vote(s) against
Court announced its decision in this case without even
hearing the arguments of the City of Baltimore.
Writing for the unanimous Court, Chief Justice
Marshall found that the limitations on government in
the Fifth Amendment were specifically intended to
limit the powers of the national government. Citing
the intent of the framers and the development of the
Bill of Rights as an exclusive check on the government
in Washington D.C., the Supreme Court had no
jurisdiction in this case since the Fifth Amendment was
not applicable to the states.
Betts was accused for robbery in Maryland. He was
unable to afford a lawyer and requested one be
provided. The judge in the case denied the request,
and Betts pled not guilty while maintaining he had a
right to counsel and arguing his own defense.
(voting not provided)
The Court ruled that the right to counsel provided by
the Fourteenth amendment does not compel states to
provide counsel to any defendant. The right to counsel
prevents the state from interfering in a defendant’s
request for representation rather than requiring a
state to offer counsel.
OTHER
INFORMATION
(if applicable)
4. Brown v.
Board of
Education
(I)
1954
5. Brown v.
Board of
Education
(II)
1955
6. Engel v.
Vitale
1962
Black children were denied admission to public schools
attended by white children under laws requiring or
permitting segregation according to race. The white
and black schools approached equality in terms of
buildings, curricula, qualifications, and teacher
salaries. This case was decided together with Briggs v.
Elliott and Davis v. County School Board of Prince
Edward County.
9 votes for Brown, 0 vote(s) against
Despite the equalization of the schools by "objective"
factors, intangible issues foster and maintain
inequality. Racial segregation in public education has a
detrimental effect on minority children because it is
interpreted as a sign of inferiority. Separate but equal
is inherently unequal in the context of public
education. The opinion started the end of all forms of
state-maintained racial separation.
After its decision in Brown (I), the Court convened to
issue the directives which would help to implement its
newly announced Constitutional principle. Given the
embedded nature of racial discrimination in public
schools and the diverse circumstances under which it
had been practiced, the Court requested further
argument on the issue of relief.
9 votes for Brown, 0 vote(s) against
The Court held that the problems identified in Brown
(I) required varied local solutions. Much responsibility
was placed on local school authorities and the courts
which originally heard school segregation cases. They
were to implement the principles which the Supreme
Court embraced in the Brown (I) decision.
The Board of Regents for the State of New York
authorized a short, voluntary prayer at the start of
each school day. This was an attempt to defuse the
politically potent issue by taking it out of the hands of
local communities. The blandest of invocations read as
follows: "Almighty God, we acknowledge our
dependence upon Thee, and beg Thy blessings upon
us, our teachers, and our country."
6 votes for Engel, 1 vote(s) against
Neither the prayer's nondenominational character nor
its voluntary character saves it from
unconstitutionality. By providing the prayer, New York
officially approved religion. This was the first in a
series of cases in which the Court used the
establishment clause to eliminate religious activities of
all sorts, which had traditionally been a part of public
ceremonies.
7. Everson v.
Board of
Education
1947
8. Gideon v.
Wainright
1963
9. Gitlow v.
New York
1925
A New Jersey law allowed reimbursements of money
to parents who sent their children to school on buses
operated by the public transportation system. Children
who attended Catholic schools also qualified for this
transportation subsidy.
(voting not provided)
A divided Court held that the law did not violate the
Constitution. After detailing the history and
importance of the Establishment Clause, services like
bussing and police and fire protection for parochial
schools are separated from religion, so for the state to
provide them would not violate the First Amendment.
The law did not pay money to parochial schools, nor
did it support them directly in anyway. It was simply a
law enacted as a "general program" to assist parents
of all religions with getting their children to school.
Gideon was charged in a Florida state court with a
felony for breaking and entering. He could not afford a
lawyer. The court refused to provide one, stating that
it was only obligated to appoint counsel to indigent
defendants in capital cases. Gideon defended himself
in the trial; he was convicted by a jury and the court
sentenced him to five years in a state prison.
9 votes for Gideon, 0 vote(s) against
The Court held that Gideon had a right to be
represented by a court-appointed attorney. The Court
found that the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of
counsel was a fundamental right, essential to a fair
trial, which should be made applicable to the states
through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment. A fair trial for a poor defendant could
not be guaranteed without the assistance of counsel.
Gitlow was arrested for distributing copies of a "leftwing manifesto" that called for the establishment of
socialism through strikes and class action. He was
convicted for advocating the overthrow of the
government by force. At trial, Gitlow argued that since
there was no resulting action from the publication, he
should not be punished. The New York courts decided
that anyone advocating violent revolution violated the
law.
(voting not provided)
A state may forbid both speech and publication if they
have a tendency to result in action dangerous to public
security, even though such utterances create no clear
and present danger. Those legislative decisions will be
upheld if not unreasonable, and the defendant will be
punished even if speech created no danger at all.
Establishment
Clause- clause
in the First
Amendment
that prohibits
the
establishment
of religion by
Congress
Court
overruled its
1942 decision
of Betts v.
Brady
The rationale
of the majority
has sometimes
been called the
"dangerous
tendency" test.
10. Griswold v.
Connecticut
1965
11. Heart of
Atlanta
Motel v.
United
States
1964
12. Lemon v.
Kurtzman
1971
Griswold was the Executive Director of the Planned
Parenthood League of Connecticut. Both she and the
Medical Director for the League gave information,
instruction, and other medical advice to married
couples concerning birth control. Griswold and her
colleague were convicted under a Connecticut law
which criminalized the provision of counseling, and
other medical treatment, to married persons for
purposes of preventing conception.
7 votes for Griswold, 2 vote(s) against
The various guarantees within the Bill of Rights
establish a right to privacy. Together, the First, Third,
Fourth, and Ninth Amendments create a new
constitutional right, the right to privacy in marital
relations. The Connecticut statute conflicts with the
exercise of this right and is therefore null and void.
Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbade racial
discrimination by places of public accommodation if
their operations affected commerce. The Heart of
Atlanta Motel in Atlanta, Georgia, refused to accept
Blacks and was charged with violation.
9 votes for U.S., 0 vote(s) against
The Court held that the Commerce Clause allowed
Congress to regulate local incidents of commerce, and
that the Civil Right Act of 1964 passed constitutional
muster. The Court concluded that places of public
accommodation had no "right" to select guests.
In Pennsylvania, a statute provided financial support
for teacher salaries, textbooks, and instructional
materials for secular subjects to non-public schools.
The Rhode Island statute provided direct supplemental
salary payments to teachers in non-public elementary
schools. Each statute made aid available to "churchrelated educational institutions."
8 votes for Lemon, 0 vote(s) against
To be constitutional, a statute must have "a secular
legislative purpose," it must have principal effects
which neither advance nor inhibit religion, and it must
not foster "an excessive government entanglement
with religion." The Court found that the subsidization
of parochial schools furthered a process of religious
inculcation, and that the "continuing state
surveillance" necessary to enforce the specific
provisions of the laws would inevitably entangle the
state in religious affairs. The Court also noted the
presence of an unhealthy "divisive political potential"
concerning legislation which appropriates support to
religious schools.
This case was
heard
concurrently
with two
others, Earley
v. DiCenso
(1971) and
Robinson v.
DiCenso
(1971).
13. Mapp v.
Ohio
1961
14. Marbury v.
Madison
1803
15. McCulloch
v.
Maryland
1819
Dollree Mapp was convicted of possessing obscene
materials after an admittedly illegal police search of
her home for a fugitive. She appealed her conviction
on the basis of freedom of expression.
6 votes for Mapp, 3 vote(s) against
The Court brushed aside the First Amendment issue
and declared that "all evidence obtained by searches
and seizures in violation of the Constitution is, by [the
Fourth Amendment], inadmissible in a state
court."This was an historic -- and controversial -decision. It placed the requirement of excluding
illegally obtained evidence from court at all levels of
the government. The decision launched the Court on a
troubled course of determining how and when to
apply the exclusionary rule.
The case began on March 2, 1801, when an obscure
Federalist, William Marbury, was designated as a
justice of the peace in the District of Columbia.
Marbury and several others were appointed to
government posts created by Congress in the last days
of John Adams's presidency, but these last-minute
appointments were never fully finalized. The
disgruntled appointees invoked an act of Congress and
sued for their jobs in the Supreme Court.
6 votes for Madison, 0 vote(s) against
The justices held, through Marshall's forceful
argument, that on the last issue the Constitution was
"the fundamental and paramount law of the nation"
and that "an act of the legislature repugnant to the
constitution is void." In other words, when the
Constitution--the nation's highest law--conflicts with
an act of the legislature, that act is invalid. This case
establishes the Supreme Court's power of judicial
review.
In 1816, Congress chartered The Second Bank of the
United States. In 1818, the state of Maryland passed
legislation to impose taxes on the bank. James W.
McCulloch, the cashier of the Baltimore branch of the
bank, refused to pay the tax.
7 votes for McCulloch, 0 vote(s) against
The Court held that Congress had the power to
incorporate the bank and that Maryland could not tax
instruments of the national government employed in
the execution of constitutional powers. Congress
possessed unenumerated powers not explicitly
outlined in the Constitution. While the states retained
the power of taxation, "the constitution and the laws
made in pursuance thereof are supreme”
16. Miller v.
California
1973
17. Miranda v.
Arizona
1966
18. Planned
Parenthood
v. Casey
1992
Miller, after conducting a mass mailing campaign to
advertise the sale of "adult" material, was convicted of
violating a California statute prohibiting the
distribution of obscene material. Some unwilling
recipients of Miller's brochures complained to the
police, initiating the legal proceedings.
5 votes for Miller, 4 vote(s) against
The Court held that obscene materials did not have
First Amendment protection. The basic guidelines for
must be: (a) whether 'the average person, applying
contemporary community standards' would find that
the work appeals to the prurient interest (b) whether
the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive
way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the
applicable state law (c) whether the work lacks serious
literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
Suspects were questioned by police officers,
detectives, or prosecuting attorneys in rooms that cut
them off from the outside world, and were not given
warnings of their rights at the outset of their
interrogation.
5 votes for Miranda, 4 vote(s) against
The Court held that prosecutors could not use
statements stemming from custodial interrogation of
defendants unless they demonstrated the use of
procedural safeguards. The Court specifically outlined
the necessary aspects of police warnings to suspects,
including warnings of the right to remain silent and
the right to have counsel present during
interrogations.
The Pennsylvania law required informed consent and a
24 hour waiting period prior to the abortion
procedure. A minor seeking an abortion required the
consent of one parent. A married woman seeking an
abortion had to indicate that she notified her husband.
These provisions were challenged by several abortion
clinics and physicians.
5 votes for Planned Parenthood, 4 vote(s) against
The Court upheld most of the Pennsylvania provisions.
For the first time, the justices imposed a new standard
to determine the validity of laws restricting abortions.
The new standard asks whether a state abortion
regulation has the purpose or effect of imposing an
"undue burden," which is defined as a "substantial
obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion
before the fetus attains viability." Under this standard,
the only provision to fail the undue-burden test was
the husband notification requirement.
The Court
modified the
test for
obscenity
established in
Roth v. United
States and
Memoirs v.
Massachusetts
19. Plessy v.
Fergenson
1896
20. Roe v.
Wade
1973
21. Schenck v.
United
States
1919
22. Swann v.
CharlotteMecklenberg
Board of
Education
1971
The state of Louisiana enacted a law that required
separate railway cars for blacks and whites. In 1892,
Homer Adolph Plessy (who was 7/8 Caucasian) took a
seat in a "whites only" car of a Louisiana train. He
refused to move to the black car and was arrested.
7 votes for Ferguson, 1 vote(s) against
The state law is within constitutional boundaries. The
majority upheld state-imposed racial segregation. The
justices based their decision on the separate-but-equal
doctrine that satisfied the Fourteenth Amendment.
The 14th amendment intended to establish absolute
equality for the races before the law. Segregation does
not in itself constitute unlawful discrimination.
Roe, a Texas resident, sought to terminate her
pregnancy by abortion. Texas law prohibited abortions
except to save the pregnant woman's life.
7 votes for Roe, 2 vote(s) against
The Court held that a woman's right to an abortion fell
within the right to privacy protected by the Fourteenth
Amendment. The decision gave a woman total
autonomy over the pregnancy during the first
trimester and defined different levels of state interest
for the second and third trimesters.
During World War I, Schenck mailed circulars to
draftees, suggesting that the draft was a monstrous
wrong motivated by the capitalist system. Schenck
was charged with conspiracy to violate the Espionage
Act by attempting to cause insubordination and
obstruct recruitment.
9 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
The Court concluded that Schenck is not protected in
this situation. The character of every act depends on
the circumstances. During wartime, utterances
tolerable in peacetime can be punished.
In North Carolina, black students attended schools
that were totally more than 99 percent black.
9 votes for Charlotte-Mecklenburg, 0 vote(s) against
The Court ruled that 1) remedial plans were to be
judged by their effectiveness, and the use of
mathematical ratios or quotas were legitimate
"starting points" for solutions; 2) predominantly or
exclusively black schools required close scrutiny by
courts 3) non-contiguous attendance zones, as interim
corrective measures, were within the courts' remedial
powers 4) no rigid guidelines could be established
concerning busing of students to particular schools.
The scope of district courts' equitable powers to
remedy past wrongs were broad and flexible.
Right to
privacy
recognized in
Griswold v.
Connecticut.
The laws of 46
states were
affected by the
Court's ruling.
After the
Supreme
Court's
decision in
1954 in Brown
v. Board of
Education,
little progress
had been
made in
desegregating
public schools.
23. Regents of
the
University
of
California
v. Bakke
1978
Allan Bakke, a thirty-five-year-old white man, had
twice applied for admission to the University of
California Medical School at Davis, and was rejected
both times. The school reserved 16 places in each
entering class of 100 for qualified minorities, as part of
the university's affirmative action program. Bakke's
qualifications (his college GPA and test scores)
exceeded those of any minority students admitted the
2 years that Bakke was rejected. Bakke said he was
excluded from admittance based solely on his race.
5 votes for Bakke, 4 vote(s) against
Four of the justices contended that any racial quota
system supported by government violated the Civil
Rights Act of 1964. Justice Powell, agreed, casting the
deciding vote ordering the medical school to admit
Bakke. However, Powell argued that the rigid use of
racial quotas as employed at the school violated the
equal protection clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment. The remaining four justices held that the
use of race as a criterion in admissions decisions in
higher education was constitutionally permissible.
Powell also agreed, contending that the use of race
was permissible as one of several admission criteria.
So, the Court managed to minimize white opposition
to the goal of equality while extending gains for racial
minorities through affirmative action.
24. Texas v.
Johnson
1989
In 1984, in front of the Dallas City Hall, Gregory Lee
Johnson burned an American flag as a means of
protest against Reagan administration policies.
Johnson was tried and convicted under a Texas law
outlawing flag desecration. He was sentenced to one
year in jail and assessed a $2,000 fine.
5 votes for Johnson, 4 vote(s) against
The Court held that Johnson's burning of a flag was
protected expression under the First Amendment. The
Court found that Johnson's actions fell into the
category of expressive conduct and had a distinctively
political nature. The fact that an audience takes
offense to certain ideas or expression, the Court
found, does not justify prohibitions of speech. The
Court also held that state officials did not have the
authority to designate symbols to be used to
communicate only limited sets of messages, noting
that "if there is a bedrock principle underlying the First
Amendment, it is that the Government may not
prohibit the expression of an idea simply because
society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable."
25. Tinker v.
DeMoines
1969
26. United
States v.
Nixon
1974
27. Wallace v.
Jaffree
John Tinker (15 years old), his sister Mary Beth Tinker
(13), and Christopher Echardt (16), decided with their
parents to protest the Vietnam War by wearing black
armbands to their Des Moines schools during the
Christmas season. Fearing that the armbands would
provoke disturbances, the principals of the school
district resolved that all students wearing armbands
be asked to remove them or face suspension. When
the Tinker siblings and Christopher refused, they were
suspended until after New Year's Day.
7 votes for Tinker, 2 vote(s) against
The wearing of armbands was close to speech and
protected by the First Amendment. School
environments imply limitations on free expression, but
here the principals lacked justification for imposing
any such limits. The principals had failed to show that
the forbidden conduct would substantially interfere
with appropriate school discipline.
A grand jury returned indictments against 7 of
President Richard Nixon's closest aides in the
Watergate affair. The special prosecutor appointed by
Nixon and the defendants sought audio tapes of
conversations recorded by Nixon in the Oval Office.
Nixon asserted that he was immune from the
subpoena claiming executive privilege.
8 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
The Court held that neither the doctrine of separation
of powers, nor the generalized need for confidentiality
of high-level communications can sustain an absolute,
unqualified, presidential privilege. The Court granted
that there was a limited executive privilege in areas of
military or diplomatic affairs. The president must obey
the subpoena and produce the tapes and documents.
Nixon resigned shortly after the release of the tapes.
An Alabama law authorized teachers to conduct
regular religious prayer services and activities in school
classrooms during the school day.
6 votes for Jaffree, 3 vote(s) against
The Court determined the constitutionality of
Alabama's prayer and meditation statute by asking if
the state's purpose was to endorse or disapprove
religion. The Court held that Alabama's passage of the
statute was not only a deviation from the state's duty
to maintain absolute neutrality toward religion, but
was an affirmative endorsement of religion. The
statute clearly lacked any secular purpose as it sought
to establish religion in public schools, thereby violating
the First Amendment's Establishment Clause.
Executive
privilege: the
right to
withhold
information to
preserve
confidential
information
within the
executive
branch or to
secure the
national
interest.
28. Webster v.
Reproductive
Health
Services
1989
29. West
Virginia
Board of
Education
v. Barnette
1943
30. Weberry v.
Sanders
1964
In 1986, the state of Missouri enacted legislation that
placed a number of restrictions on abortions. The law
codified the following restrictions: public employees
and public facilities were not to be used in performing
or assisting abortions unnecessary to save the
mother's life; encouragement and counseling to have
abortions was prohibited; and physicians were to
perform viability tests upon women in their 20th (or
more) week of pregnancy.
5 votes for Webster, 4 vote(s) against
The Court held that none of the challenged provisions
of the Missouri legislation were unconstitutional. The
preamble had not been applied in any concrete
manner for the purposes of restricting. The Due
Process Clause did not require states to enter into the
business of abortion. The Court found that no case or
controversy existed in relation to the counseling
provisions of the law. Finally, the Court upheld the
viability testing requirements, arguing that the State's
interest in protecting potential life could come into
existence before the point of viability.
The West Virginia Board of Education required that
the flag salute be part of the program of activities in all
public schools. All teachers and pupils were required
to honor the Flag; refusal to salute was punishable by
expulsion and charges of delinquency.
6 votes for Barnette, 3 vote(s) against
The Court held that compelling public schoolchildren
to salute the flag was unconstitutional due to the First
Amendment. The Court found that the salute was a
form of utterance and a means of communicating
ideas.
James P. Wesberry, Jr. filed a suit against the Governor
of Georgia, Carl E. Sanders, protesting the state's
apportionment scheme. The 5th Congressional District,
where Wesberry was a member, had a population 2 to
3 times larger than some of the other districts in the
state. Wesberry claimed this system diluted his right
to vote compared to other Georgia residents.
6 votes for Wesberry, 3 vote(s) against
The Court held that Georgia's apportionment scheme
grossly discriminated against voters in the 5th
Congressional District. Because a single congressman
had to represent 2 to 3 times as many people, the
Georgia statute contracted the value of some votes
and expanded the value of others.
The Court
overruled its
decision in
Minersville
School District
v. Gobitis.