Supreme Court Cases
Marbury v. Madison
Issue: Judiciary Act
enforcement
Court Ruling:
• In his last few hours in office, President John Adams made a series of
“midnight appointments” to fill as many government posts as
possible with Federalists.
• One of these appointments was William Marbury as a federal justice
of the peace.
• However, Thomas Jefferson took over as President before the
appointment was officially given to Marbury.
• Jefferson, a Republican, instructed Secretary of State James Madison
to not deliver the appointment.
• Marbury sued Madison to get the appointment. He asked the Court
to issue a writ of mandamus, requiring Madison to deliver the
appointment to Marbury.
• The Judiciary Act, passed by Congress in 1789, permitted the
Supreme Court of the United States to issue such a writ.
• The Court decided that Marbury’s request for
a writ of mandamus was based on a law
passed by Congress that the Court held to be
unconstitutional.
• The Court decided unanimously that the
federal law contradicted the Constitution,
and since the Constitution is the Supreme
Law of the Land, it must reign supreme.
*Established the power of judicial review: the
power of the Court not only to interpret the
constitutionality of a law but also to carry out
the process and enforce its decision.
MARBURY VS. MADISON
JUDICIAL REVIEW!!!!!!
Brown v Board of Education
Issue: Segregation and 14th
Amendment
Court Ruling:
Linda Brown she and her
sister, Terry Lynn, had to
walk through the Rock
Island Railroad Switchyard
Every day to get to the bus
stop for the ride to the allblack Monroe School.
Lydia Line Classroom Building, exterior, 1956
Rock Hill School, fifth through eighth grade classroom, 1956
The Williams school, inside and out, 1949
Jackson's Chapel School (Mississippi), 1949
Pope Chapel Elem. School (Miss.) , 1955
Black school in
the South
Linda Brown in
classroom, 1954
Separate But Equal is ruled Unconstitutional
Scott v. Sanford
Issue: Federal attempts to
control slavery
Court Ruling:
4
5
3
2
1
Dred Scott’s Movements
• Dred Scott, a slave, was taken by his owner,
Sanford, into northern federal territory.
• Scott felt that he was free because of the
Missouri Compromise of 1820, which
excluded slavery from specified portions of
United States territories.
• When he came back to Missouri, Scott sued
his owner for his freedom
Dred Scott
Tombstone
•SUPREME COURT RULES THAT
SLAVES ARE NOT CITIZENS AND
SLAVES HAVE NO LEGAL RIGHTS AT
ALL
Gibbons v. Ogden
Issue: Federal control over
Interstate Commerce
Court Ruling:
Aaron Ogden
Thomas Gibbons
• Aaron Ogden, the plaintiff, had
purchased an interest in the
monopoly to operate steamboats that
New York state had granted to Robert
Fulton and Robert Livingston.
• Ogden brought suit in New York
against Thomas Gibbons, the
defendant, for operating a rival
steamboat service between New York
City and the New Jersey ports.
• Gibbons lost his case and appealed
to the U.S. Supreme Court, which
reversed the decision.
•States cannot
interference with
interstate commerce.
Gideon v. Wainwright
Issue: Right to an Attorney
Court Ruling:
• Clarence Earl Gideon was arrested in 1961, and charged
with breaking and entering a pool hall with intent to
commit petty larceny (a felony).
• He did not have enough money for a lawyer and asked that
one be appointed to defend him.
• The judge denied the request, saying that under Florida
state law, counsel can be appointed only in a capital
offense. Gideon was sentenced to five years in prison.
• He then filed a writ of certiorari (petition of appeal) to the
Supreme Court of the United States, asking for a case
review.
Clarence
Earl
Gideon
GIDEON
VS
WAINWRIGHT
Guaranteed a Lawyer
by the 6TH
Amendment no
matter how poor you
are
Hazelwood Schools v.
Kuhlmeier
Issue: Free Speech of
Students
Court Ruling:
• The Spectrum, the school-sponsored newspaper of
Hazelwood East High School, was written and edited by
students.
• The school principal, received the pages proofs for the May
13 issue. Reynolds found two of the articles in the issue to
be inappropriate, and ordered that the pages on which the
articles appeared be withheld from publication. Kuhlmeier
and two other former Hazelwood East students brought
the case to court
• One of the stories described three Hazelwood East students'
experiences with pregnancy; the other discussed the impact of
divorce on students at the school.
• Reynolds was concerned that, although the pregnancy story used
false names "to keep the identity of these girls a secret," the
pregnant students still might be identifiable from the text.
• He also believed that the article's references to sexual activity and
birth control were inappropriate for some of the younger students at
the school.
• In addition, Reynolds was concerned that a student identified by
name in the divorce story had complained that her father "wasn't
spending enough time with my mom, my sister and I" prior to the
divorce, "was always out of town on business or out late playing
cards with the guys," and "always argued about everything" with her
mother.
• The Court held that the First Amendment did
not require schools to affirmatively promote
particular types of student speech.
• The Court held that schools must be able to
set high standards for student speech
disseminated under their auspices, and that
schools retained the right to refuse to
sponsor speech that was “inconsistent with
'the shared values of a civilized social order.‘”
Court rules
schools can
regulate what
is written in
school
newspapers!!
School Censorship
Student editor of Hazelwood's Spectrum
Korematsu v. US
Issue: Detainment of
Japanese citizens during
WW II
Court Ruling:
• Between 1941 and 1945, there were strong anti-Japanese
feelings in the United States due to the war with Japan.
• In May 1942, Fred Korematsu, an American citizen of
Japanese descent, was convicted in federal court of
“knowingly remaining in a designated military area in San
Leandro, California.” His actions violated Exclusion Order
#34 and Executive Order #9066 of 1942, which had been
issued to protect the West Coast from acts of espionage
and sabotage.
• The Acts required all Japanese-Americans living in
restricted areas to go to inland relocation centers.
Korematsu believed the order violated his constitutional
rights.
Warning to
alien Nationals
1942
Japanese relocation
center in Colorado
KOREMATSU CASE: Court ok’s Executive
Order to hold Japanese Americans
Mapp v. Ohio
Issue: Search Warrants
Court Ruling:
• On May 23, 1957, three Cleveland police officers
arrived at Dollree Mapp's residence
"a person [was] hiding out in the home, who was
wanted for questioning in connection with a recent
bombing, and that there was a large amount of
gambling material being hidden in the home."
• Miss Mapp and her daughter lived on the top floor of
the two-family dwelling. Upon their arrival at that
house, the officers knocked on the door and demanded
entrance but appellant, after telephoning her attorney,
refused to admit them without a search warrant. They
advised their headquarters of the situation and
undertook a surveillance of the house
• The officers sought entrance some three
hours later when four or more additional
officers arrived on the scene
• When Miss Mapp did not come to the door
immediately, at least one of the several
doors to the house was forcibly opened
and the policemen gained admittance
• Meanwhile Miss Mapp's attorney arrived,
but the officers, having secured their own
entry, and continuing in their defiance of
the law, would not let him in neither to see
Miss Mapp nor to enter the house
• She demanded to see the search warrant.
A paper, was held up by one of the officers.
She grabbed the "warrant"
• A struggle ensued in which the officers
recovered the piece of paper and they
handcuffed her
• Miss Mapp, in handcuffs, was then forcibly
taken upstairs to her bedroom where the
officers searched a dresser, a chest of
drawers, a closet and some suitcases.
They also looked into a photo album and
through personal papers belonging to miss
Mapp
• The search spread to the rest of the
second floor including the child's
bedroom, the living room, the kitchen
and a dinette. The basement of the
building and a trunk found therein
were also searched.
• The obscene materials, naked
pictures of men and women and
“lewd” books, was what she was
ultimately convicted of were
discovered in the course of that
widespread search.
MAPP VS OHIO: Police must have a search
warrant to enter and say what they are searching
for
McCulloch v. Maryland
Issue: Implied Powers of
National Government and
Supremacy Clause
Court Ruling:
• The state of Maryland brought an action against James
William McCulloch, a cashier in the Maryland branch of
the Bank of the United States, for not paying a tax the
state had imposed on the United States Bank.
• In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court of the United
States ruled that the “power to tax involves the power to
destroy,” and that the federal government’s national bank
was immune to state taxation.
• States cannot tax the Federal Government
William
McCulloch
Miranda v. Arizona
Issue: Rights of Suspected
Criminals
Court Ruling:
• Ernesto Miranda was convicted of rape
and kidnapping.
• His conviction was based in part on
incriminating statements he made to the
police.
• At no time during the questioning did the
police inform Miranda that he did not
have to talk to them or that he had the
right to a lawyer when being questioned.
• The Supreme Court decision
detailed the principles
governing police interrogation.
• In addition, they decided that
the police have to make certain
points clear for the accused
before questioning a suspect.
WARNING OF RIGHTS
1. You have the right to remain silent and refuse to answer
questions.
Do you understand?
2. Anything you do say may be used against you in a court of law. Do
you understand?
3. You have the right to consult an attorney before speaking to the
police and to have an attorney present during questioning now or in
the future.
Do you understand?
4. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you
before any questioning if you wish.
Do you understand?
5. If you decide to answer questions now without an attorney
present you will still have the right to stop answering at any time
until you talk to an attorney. Do you understand?
6. Knowing and understanding your rights as I have explained them
to you, are you willing to answer my questions without an attorney
present?
•YOU MUST BE READ YOUR
RIGHTS AT THE TIME OF YOUR
ARREST
New Jersey v. TLO
Issue: Students and
Searches
Court Ruling:
• On March 7, 1980, a teacher at Piscataway High School in
Middlesex County, N. J., discovered two girls smoking in a
lavatory
• Assistant Vice Principal Theodore Choplick Opened the
purse, he found a pack of cigarettes, Mr. Choplick also
noticed a package of cigarette rolling papers. In his
experience, possession of rolling papers by high school
students was associated with the use of marijuana.
Suspecting that a closer examination of the purse might
yield further evidence, a small amount of marijuana, a
pipe, a number of empty plastic bags, a substantial
quantity of money in one-dollar bills, an index card that
appeared to be a list of students who owed T. L. O. money,
and two letters that implicated T. L. O. in marijuana
dealing.
The decision of the
case serves as a
precedent in future
cases. During the
1990’s T.L.O’s case
was used in a number
of Supreme Court
cases to allow the use
of metal detectors and
protective searches in
school.
Plessy v. Ferguson
Issue: 14th Amendment and
Segregation
Court Ruling:
• On June 7, 1892, a 30-year-old colored man named Homer
Plessy was jailed for sitting in the "White" car of the East
Louisiana Railroad.
• Plessy was only 1/8 black and 7/8 white, but under
Louisiana law, he was considered black and made to sit in
the "Colored" car.
• The "separate but equal" ideal was quickly extended to
cover many areas of life, such as restaurants, theaters,
restrooms, and public schools.
PLESSY VS. FERGUSON
Set the precedent that
"separate" facilities
were constitutional as
long as they were
"equal"
California v. Bakke
Issue: Legality of
Affirmative Action
Court Ruling:
• Allan Bakke, a thirty-five-year-old white man, had twice
applied for admission to the University of California
Medical School at Davis
• He was rejected both times
• The school reserved sixteen places in each entering class of
one hundred for "qualified" minorities, as part of the
university's affirmative action program, in an effort to
redress longstanding, unfair minority exclusions from the
medical profession.
• Bakke's qualifications (college GPA and test scores)
exceeded those of any of the minority students admitted
in the two years Bakke's applications were rejected.
• Bakke argued that the requirements for special admissions
to the medical school were discriminatory because only
African-American, latino, and Asian students could
compete for these places.
• The Court ordered Bakke’s admission to Davis Medical
School and invalidated the University’s special admissions
program because the program barred people like Bakke
from applying for the special admissions seats in the
medical school.
• However, of much greater significance was the fact that
the Court allowed institutions of higher learning to take
race into account as a factor in their future admissions
decisions.
• Stated that Affirmative action, as used in
admissions, itself was not Illegal, but that the
use of Quotas in admissions were.
• Though the court outlawed Quota programs,
on the grounds that they violated the equalprotection clause of the Constitution of the
United States, it allowed colleges to use race
as a factor in making college admissions
decisions.
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION:
MAKING AN EFFORT TO
HIRE MINORITITES
BECAUSE OF PAST
DISCRIMINATION
Roe v. Wade
Issue: Right to have an
abortion
Court Ruling:
• A Texas woman sought to terminate her
pregnancy. However, a Texas law made it a
crime to procure or attempt an abortion
except when the mother’s life would be in
danger if she remained pregnant.
• Ms. Roe challenged the Texas law on the
grounds that the law violated her right of
personal liberty given in the Fourteenth
Amendment and her right to privacy
protected by the Bill of Rights.
• The Court held that a woman's right to an
abortion fell within the right to privacy
(recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut)
protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
• The decision gave a woman a right to abortion
during the entirety of the pregnancy and
defined different levels of state interest for
regulating abortion in the second and third
trimesters.
• As a result, the laws of 46 states were affected
by the Court's ruling.
Roe Framework
MONTH OF PREGNANCY
1 2 3
4 5 6
7 8 9
• No regulation permitted
• Can regulate abortions to protect the health of the mother
• States free to ban abortions to protect fetal life
Texas v. Johnson
Issue: Free Speech and Flag
Burning
Court Ruling:
• While the Republican National Convention was taking
place in Dallas in 1984, respondent Johnson participated in
a political demonstration dubbed the "Republican War
Chest Tour“.
• The demonstration ended in front of Dallas City Hall,
where Johnson unfurled the American flag, doused it with
kerosene, and set it on fire. While the flag burned, the
protestors chanted: "America, the red, white, and blue, we
spit on you.”
• Of the approximately 100 demonstrators, Johnson alone
was charged with a crime. The only criminal offense with
which he was charged was the desecration of a venerated
object in violation of Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 42.09(a)(3)
(1989)
Tinker v. Des Moines Schools
Issue: Students and Free
Speech
Court Ruling:
• Does a prohibition against the wearing of armbands in
public school, as a form of symbolic protest, violate the
First Amendment's freedom of speech protections?
• The wearing of armbands was "closely akin to 'pure
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.
Three public school pupils in Des Moines,
Iowa, were suspended from school for
wearing black armbands to protest the
Government's policy in Vietnam.
John and Mary Beth
Tinker, Christopher
Eckhardt
United States v. Nixon
Issue: Presidential
immunity/executive privilege
Court Ruling:
• Is the President's right to safeguard certain
information, using his "executive privilege"
confidentiality power, entirely immune from judicial
review?
• Nixon asserted that he was immune from the subpoena claiming
"executive privilege," which is the right to withhold information from
other government branches to preserve confidential
communications within the executive branch or to secure the
national interest. Decided together with Nixon v. United States.
• The Supreme Court does have the final voice in determining
constitutional questions; no person, not even the president of the
United States, is completely above the law; and the president
cannot use executive privilege as an excuse to withhold evidence
that is "demonstrably relevant in a criminal trial."
Schenck v. US
Issue: 1st Amendment rights
Court Ruling:
•FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS NOT
PERMITTED WHEN YOU POSE A CLEAR
AND PRESENT DANGER TO THE U.S.
GOVERNMENT
Abington Schools v. Schempp
Issue: Religion in schools
Court Ruling:
• There is no school led prayers or
moments of religious silence
Reynolds v. Sims
Issue: Equal Representation
in State Government
Court Ruling:
• The court ruled that state legislature districts had to be
roughly equal in population.
• The eight justices who struck down state senate
inequality based their decision on the principle of "one
man, one vote." In his majority decision, Chief Justice
Earl Warren said "Legislators represent people, not
trees or acres. Legislators are elected by voters, not
farms or cities or economic interests."
In re Gault
Issue: Rights of Juveniles
Court Ruling:
• Gerald Francis Gault, fifteen years
old, was taken into custody for
allegedly making an obscene
phone call.
• The police did not leave notice
with Gault's parents, who were at
work, when he was arrested.
• After a trial before a juvenile court
judge, Gault was committed to the
State Industrial School until he
reached the age of 21.
• The Court held that the proceedings for
juveniles had to comply with the
requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment.
• These requirements included adequate notice
of charges, notification of both the parents
and the child of the juvenile's right to
counsel, opportunity for confrontation and
cross-examination at the hearings, and
adequate safeguards against selfincrimination.
Furman v. Georgia
Issue: Legality of the Death
Penalty
Court Ruling:
• Furman was burglarizing a private home when a family
member discovered him.
• He attempted to flee, and in doing so tripped and fell. The
gun that he was carrying went off and killed a resident of
the home.
• He was convicted of murder and sentenced to death
• The Court's opinion held that the imposition of the death
penalty in these cases constituted “cruel and unusual
punishment” and violated the Constitution.
Gregg v. Georgia
Issue: Death Penalty
Court Ruling:
• A jury found Gregg guilty of armed robbery
and murder and sentenced him to death.
• On appeal, the Georgia Supreme Court
affirmed the death sentence except as to its
imposition for the robbery conviction.
• Gregg challenged his remaining death
sentence for murder, claiming that his capital
sentence was a "cruel and unusual"
punishment that violated the Eighth and
Fourteenth Amendments.
Punishment fits the crime
Cannot be cruel and unusual
Wallace v. Jaffree
Issue: Religion in schools
Court Ruling:
• The parents of three children attending
public school in Alabama challenged the
constitutionality of an Alabama law
which authorized a one minute period of
silence in all public schools for
meditation or voluntary prayer.
• State endorsement prohibited
Swann v. Charlotte Mecklenburg
Issue: Forced Busing of
Students
Court Ruling:
• Approximately 14,000 black students
attended schools that were either totally
black or more than 99 percent black.
• The use of mathematical ratios or quotas
were legitimate "starting points" for
solutions, including busing students to other
schools
• Busing students to promote integration is
constitutional.