MUST KNOW
Supreme Court Cases
Federalism
Marbury v. Madison
• Midnight Judges; Marbury sues based on a
Congressional Law
• Court finds that law violates Constitution so is
VOID
• Establishes Judicial Review
McCulloch v. Maryland
• Maryland tries to tax Bank of US; Court finds
that they CANNOT do this
• Congress CAN make a National Bank (Elastic
Clause)
• National Government is supreme (Supremacy
Clause)
Barron v. Baltimore
• Man sues State citing the 5th Amendment;
Court refuses to hear the case.
• Bill of Rights ONLY apply to the Federal
Government, not states.
Overturned by:
Gitlow v. New York
South Dakota v. Dole
• States told to raise drinking age to 21 or lose
funding for Highways; Court Ruled that this
was OK
• Increased Federal Government power over
states
Fletcher v. Peck
• Court rules that States cannot pass laws that
impair contracts made in good faith
• 1st time the Court overturns a STATE law.
Commerce Clause
Gibbons v. Ogden
• Dispute over ferry licenses; Federal
Government wins
• National Government is Supreme (Supremacy
Clause)
• Court BROADLY defines INTERSTATE
Commerce (Commerce Clause) so Federal
Government can get involved in almost
anything
US v. Lopez
• US Law create “Gun-Free Zones” around
schools; Court says NO.
• Commerce Clause cannot be used for
ANYTHING, limits Commerce Clause
Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US
• Hotel refused to serve African-Americans;
Court ruled that Federal Government could
stop them
• Commerce Clause used to end segregation
Printz v. US
• “Brady Bill” required state cops to perform
background checks before guns could be
purchased, even though it was a federal law;
Court says NO.
• Federal Government cannot make states carry
out the functions of the Fed Gov’t
US v. Morrison
• Woman is raped at Virginia Tech. Rapist is not
punished. She sues under the Federal Violence
Against Women Act.; Court says that the law is
unconstitutional.
• Since the VAWA didn’t involve interstate
commerce, Congress doesn’t have that power.
Separation of Powers
US v. Nixon
• Nixon had recordings from Oval Office and
refused to give them up during Watergate
investigation; claimed “Executive Privilege”
• Court orders him to deliver tapes
• Executive Privilege DOES exist, but is not
GUARANTEED
INS v. Chadha
• Federal law gives Congress a “legislative veto”.
Court says NO.
• Legislative Vetoes give Congress too much
power and are unconstitutional.
st
1
Amendment - Religion
Engel v. Vitale
• Public school required non-denominational
prayer every morning. Court says NO
• Outlawed prayer of any kind in Public School
Abington SD v. Schempp
• Students forced to recite bible verses in public
school; Court says NO.
• Reading bible violates Establishment Clause.
Lemon v. Kurtzman
• State passes law that allows government to
pay for non-religion teacher at religious
school; Court says NO
• Lemon Test Created
– Can’t advance or inhibit religion
– Must be for secular purpose
– Must avoid entanglement b/w religion and gov’t
West Virginia v. Barnette
• Jehovah’s Witnesses refused to say the Pledge
of Allegiance in school and were punished;
Court says NO
• Students cannot be forced to say Pledge if it’s
against their religious beliefs.
Lee v. Weisman
• Public school opens graduation ceremony
with a prayer. Court says NO.
• Since ceremony is a gov’t event, prayer
violates the Establishment Clause.
Wallace v. Jaffree
• Kids in public school were forced to observe a
moment of silence for “meditation or
voluntary prayer”; Court says NO
• Violated Establishment Clause
Everson v. Board of Education
• State law reimburses parents for using school
bus, even at Catholic Schools; Court says OK.
• School Bus is a basic service (like fire dept), so
it does not violate Establishment Clause.
INCORPORATION CASE
st
1
Amendment - Religion
Reynolds v. US
• State law outlaws polygamy. Mormons sue.
Court upholds law.
• All religious beliefs are protected, but NOT all
religious practices. States can ban polygamy.
Wisconsin v. Yoder
• Amish parents sued to have their students
removed from school after 8th grade because
it is against their beliefs. Court said OK.
• This is protected under the Free-Exercise
Clause
Oregon v. Smith
• Native Americans were fired for using Peyote
as part of a religious ceremony. The Court
upheld the firing.
• States can limit the free-exercise of religion if
it involves illegal activities.
Jacobson v. Massachusetts
• State law required vaccinations of children.
Jacobson refused on religious grounds. The
Court upheld the law.
• Free-Exercise can be limited if it serves a
compelling government interest.
st
1
Amendment – Expression
Gitlow v. New York
• Gitlow arrested for advocating communism
and overthrow of Government. Court upholds
his conviction – BUT –
• Freedom of Speech is protected from States
too
• BEGINS INCORPORATION PROCESS
INCORPORATION CASE
Schenck v. US
• Schenck found guilty of violating Sedition Act
by distributing anti-war pamphlets during
WWI.; Court upholds conviction.
• Free Speech CAN be limited
• Creates “Clear-and-Present Danger” Test
Tinker v. Des Moines
• Students suspended for wearing arm-band in
protest of Vietnam War; Court says NO
• Symbolic Speech protected too
• Students don’t lose rights “at schoolhouse
gates”.
Texas v. Johnson
• Johnson arrested for burning US Flag in
protest. Court says NO
• Symbolic Speech Protected, even if we don’t
like it.
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire
• Man arrested for shouting insults and
“fighting words” at police officer. Court
upholds conviction.
• Certain types of speech not protected by 1st
Amendment.
Miller v. California
• State law bans sending obscene material
through the mail. The Court says OK.
• Creates Obscenity Test
– Avg person finds it elicits lust
– Avg person finds it offensive
– Lacks political, artistic, scientific value.
Dennis v. US
• Communist leaders convicted of trying to
overthrow the government. Court says OK.
• Speech that advocates the violent overthrow
of the US is not protected by the 1st
Amendment.
Overturned by:
Brandenburg v. Ohio
Near v. Minnesota
• State law stops newspapers from publishing
“lewd or lascivious” material. Court says NO.
• Limiting Free Press is rarely ok. Prior Restraint
is (almost) never OK.
INCORPORATION CASE
Hazelwood v. Kulheimer
• Principal at school removed 2 articles from
student newspaper. Court says it is OK.
• Prior Restraint is ok in schools to maintain
good learning environment.
New York Times v. Sullivan
• NY Times published ad in defense of MLK Jr,
that was unfavorable of city officials in
Alabama. The officials sued for Libel because
some of the facts were incorrect. Court says
NO.
• In order for libel to be true against public
officials, actual malice must be proven.
Roth v. US
• A man is arrested for selling obscene books.
The Court says OK.
• Obscenity is not protected by the 1st
Amendment.
New York Times v.US
• Pentagon Papers Case; NYT wants to publish
leaked, classified documents. Government
tries to stop them. Court says they can publish
the documents.
• The documents would not create a “clear-andpresent danger”, so prior restraint is not
allowed.
Brandenburg v. Ohio
• KKK leader gives a speech and was arrested
for promoting unlawful acts. Court overturns
the conviction.
• The speech must be likely to incite lawless acts
in order to be prohibited.
st
1
Amendment - Expression
NAACP v. Alabama
• Alabama wanted to stop NAACP, so they
passed a law that required them to make their
membership public; Court says NO.
• Freedom of Association is protected if there is
no “overriding valid state interest” to limit it.
Boy Scouts of America v. Dale
• Boy Scouts exclude Homosexuals from
organization; Court says it’s OK
• Freedom of Association allows private groups
to exclude people if they go against the groups
fundamental principles.
Due Process
Mapp v. Ohio
• Woman arrested after an illegal search finds
obscene material; Court throws out evidence.
• Creates Exclusionary Rule
– Evidence obtained illegally cannot be used in court
INCORPORATION CASE
Miranda v. Arizona
• Miranda confesses to crime after interrogation
because he didn’t know his rights; Court says
NO
• Not knowing rights doesn’t take them away.
• Creates Miranda Rights
– Police must inform suspects of rights before arrest
Gideon v. Wainwright
• Gideon found guilty because he couldn’t
afford a lawyer. Court overturns conviction.
• Right to an attorney, even for those who
cannot afford it.
• Creates Public Defenders Office.
INCORPORATION CASE
Escobedo v. Illinois
• Escobedo asks for lawyer, but cops say no and
continue to question him; he eventually
confesses; Court throws out conviction.
• Once a lawyer is requested, questioning must
stop. “Absolute Right” to remain silent.
California v. Acevedo
• Trunk of car is searched because cops have
probable cause that there are drugs inside.
Drugs are found and man is arrested. Court
says OK.
• Containers can be searched (without a
warrant) in cars if there is probable cause that
evidence is inside.
US v. Leon
• Cops search house with a search warrant that
was incorrectly given. Drugs are found and
man is arrested. Court says OK.
• Relaxes “exclusionary rule”
• Creates Good-Faith Exception
– If cops act in “good faith”, evidence can still be
used
New Jersey v. TLO
• Student is caught smoking in bathroom. Her
bag is searched and rolling papers are found.
She is suspended. Court upholds her
suspension.
• Students have 4th Amendment rights BUT,
probable cause isn’t needed, just reasonable
suspicion
Katz v. US
• Cops tap public phones without a warrant and
catch Katz gambling. Court overturns
conviction.
• 4th Amendment can’t intrude on “reasonable
expectation of privacy”, which include private
phone calls.
Furman v. Georgia
• Furman is sentenced to death for Murder;
Court says NO.
• Death penalty is given out too randomly
(usually along racial lines)
• 2-tier trial system put in place.
– 1st = guilt/innocence
– 2nd = death penalty/life in prison
Gregg v. Georgia
• Gregg is sentenced to death for Murder. Court
says OK.
• Death Penalty is NOT cruel and unusual
punishment if applied fairly.
Privacy and Abortion
Griswold v. Connecticut
• State law bans the sale and use of
contraception; Court says NO
• Creates Right to Privacy
Roe v. Wade
• Roe wants an Abortion but Texas law says they
are illegal; Court allows abortion.
• Right to Privacy includes abortion. States
cannot ban abortion in 1st or 2nd trimester.
Webster v. Reproductive Health Services
• Limits placed on Abortions; Court says OK
• Abortion STILL LEGAL, but states can limit it as
long as limits are reasonable.
Planned Parenthood v. Casey
• States further limit abortion; Court says OK
• Abortion STILL LEGAL, but states can further
limit it.
• Creates Undo Burden Standard
– Limits cannot place undo burden on mothers.
Equal Protection Clause
Scott v. Sanford
• Dred Scott, a slave, sues for his freedom
because his owner moved to a “free state”;
Court says NO
• Slaves are property and so can be moved
anywhere and also cannot sue in court
because property has no legal rights.
Overturned by:
14th Amendment
Plessy v. Ferguson
• Jim Crow Laws segregate blacks and whites;
Court says OK
• Creates Separate-but-Equal Doctrine
Overturned by:
Brown v. Board of
Education
Brown v. Board of Education
• Black girl wants to go to white school; Court
says OK
• Separate-but-equal is inherently unequal
• Outlaws school segregation.
Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg BOE
• After Brown, schools desegregated slowly.
Court orders “Busing” to achieve racial
balance.
• Busing legal; the existence of all-black schools
is considered an attempt to discriminate.
Korematsu v. US
• Japanese Internment during WWII; Court says
OK
• National Security more important than
individual liberties.
Regents of University of California v.
Bakke
• White man denied access to UC Davis because
of Affirmative Action; Court says NO
• Numerical Quotas illegal, but race can be a
factor in deciding in college admissions.
Gratz v. Bollinger
• White student denied access to University of
Michigan because of automatic point system
for minorities; Court says NO.
• Automatic points based on race is arbitrary
and unreasonable.
Grutter v. Bollinger
• White student denied access to University of
Michigan because race was used as a “plus
factor”.; Court says OK
• Race can be used as a “plus factor” because it
is “narrowly tailored”.
Adarand Constructors v. Pena
• State law gives preference to minority-owned
companies; Court says NO
• ALL racial discrimination must live up to the
“strict scrutiny” test and is considered
inherently suspect.
Equal Protection Clause
Reed v. Reed
• State law gives preference to men over
women in executing a will; Court says NO
• Laws differentiating men and women cannot
be arbitrary. Must be more than “reasonable”.
Rostker v. Goldberg
• Draft laws exclude women; Court says OK
• Congress can draft men, but exclude women
US v. Virginia
• VMI, a military school in Virginia, does not
allow women to enroll. Court says NO.
• Women are allowed to join military schools
Loving v. Virginia
• State law outlaws inter-racial marriage.; Court
says NO
• Government had no compelling reason to ban
inter-racial marriages. Marriage is a personal,
not government, matter.
Lawrence v. Texas
• Texas law bans homosexuality; Court says NO
• States cannot ban homosexuality.
Windsor v. US
• Defense of Marriage Act states that Federal
Government only recognizes marriage
between a man and a woman – even if
individual states recognize gay marriage; Court
says NO.
• Marriage is a State issue and Federal
Government cannot define it.
Incorporation
Palko v. Connecticut
• Palko argues that 5th Amendment applies to
states too. Court says NO – but some rights
DO apply to states.
• “Fundamental” liberties are protected from
states too.
• Begins SELECTIVE INCORPORATION
Voting and Elections
Baker v. Carr
• People challenge how state apportionment
took place. This had always been considered a
“political question” left to Congress. Court
rules on issue.
• Created the precedent that the Court can rule
on “political questions”, especially
apportionment.
Reynolds v. Sims
• In Alabama, states were apportioned
regardless of population. Some ratios were as
bad a 40:1. Court says NO.
• As much as is possible, state districts must be
of equal population
Wesberry v. Sanders
• Georgia districts were very uneven in terms of
population. Court says NO.
• By keeping districts uneven, one person’s vote
counted more than another’s. As much as is
possible, Congressional districts must be of
equal population so that everyone’s vote has
the same power.
Buckley v. Valeo
• FEC sets limits on campaign contributions.
Court says limits on money to candidates are
OK; but, limits on independent expenditures is
NOT.
• Money = Speech, so it’s protected.
Citizens United v. FEC
• BCRA bans Corporations or Unions from
funding campaigns; Court says NO.
• Corporations = people, people have freedom
of speech, money = speech, so…corporations
have freedom of speech, which includes
spending on political advertising, which
cannot be limited.
McConnell v. FEC
• BCRA regulates and limits “electioneering
communications”, even if no candidate is
expressly mentioned. Court says OK.
• FEC can limit some “electioneering
communications”.
Overturned by:
Citizens United v. FEC