SUPREME COURT CASES
















Marbury v. Madison (1803)
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)
Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)
Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857)
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)
Schenck v. United States (1919)
Korematsu v. United States (1944)
Brown v. Board of Education (1954)
Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
Engel v. Vitale (1962)
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)
Heart of Atlanta Motel v US
(1964)
Abbington v Schemp
Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
Leandro v NC
State v Mann













In re Gault (1967)
Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)
NY Times v. United States (1971)
Swann v Charlotte Mecklenburg
(1971)
Furman v Georgia (1972)
Roe v. Wade (1973)
United States v. Nixon (1974)
Gregg v Georgia (1976)
Regents of the University of
California v. Bakke (1978)
New Jersey v. T.L.O (1985)
Bethel School District v Fraser
(1986)
Hazelwood School District v.
Kuhlmeier (1988)
Texas v. Johnson (1989)
Marbury v Madison
Marbury v Madison (1803)
Issue: Separation of Power
Court Case: Marbury sued Madison because he
did not receive commission to be a justice of
the peace. Marbury asked the Supreme Court
to issue an order to force Madison to give him
his commission.
Court Ruling: Against Marbury –. Ruled a portion
of the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional.
1st act of Congress to be declared
unconstitutional.
Precedent: established judicial review – power of
the court to decide whether actions of
Congress are constitutional.
McCulloch v Maryland (1819)
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)
Issue: Federalism (State v. Federal
Government)
Court Case: McCulloch was a branch manager
for the Bank of the United States. Refused
to pay a tax to the state of Maryland and
was arrested. He appealed conviction on the
grounds that a state could not tax the
federal government.
Court Ruling: In favor of McCulloch.
Precedent: States cannot tax the federal
government.
McCullough v Maryland
Gibbons v Ogden (1824)
Issue: Federalism & Interstate Commerce
Court Case: Ogden was given an exclusive charter for a
ferry boat off the coast of New York state and
New Jersey by the NY state government. Gibbons
was given a charter by the US government to
operate a ferry boat in the same waters.
Court Ruling: In favor of Gibbons. Commerce Clause
gives Congress the power to regulate interstate
commerce. Federal government over state.
Precedent: Congress/Federal
Government regulates
interstate
commerce
Dred Scott v Sanford (1857)
Issue: 5th Amendment, Slavery, Missouri Compromise
of 1820
Court Case: Dred Scott sued his owner Sanford
because he had been taken into free territory.
Scott thought that due to the Missouri
Compromise Line which made slavery illegal in
certain areas of the country, he had become
free.
Court Ruling: Court ruled in favor of Sanford. 1)
Slaves were considered property, thus did not
have the right to sue in court. 2) Would
deprive owner of 5th Amendment due process
rights if he were stripped of property.
Precedent: Missouri Compromise was ruled
unconstitutional, slaves could not sue for
freedom.
Plessy v Ferguson
Plessy v Ferguson (1896)
Issue: 14th Amendment (Equal Protection)
Court Case: Herman Plessy, 1/8 black, challenged a
Louisiana law that mandated separate railroad cars
for blacks and whites. Plessy sat on a car designated
to whites and was arrested.
Court Decision: In favor of Louisiana law. Was not
ruled a violation of the 14th Amendment, equal
protection clause.
Precedent: Separate but equal constitutional. Led to
an increase of segregation particularly in southern
states.
Schenck v US (1919)
Issue: 1st Amendment – Times of War
Court Case: Schenck circulated a flyer during World
War I urging people to dodge the draft. Citing
the draft as a violation of the 13th Amendment
(involuntary servitude). Schenck was arrested
under terms of the Espionage Act of 1917.
Schenck appealed conviction on grounds that his
1st Amendment right had been violated.
Court Ruling: In favor of the United States. Urging
citizens to break the law, and posed a threat to
security of the nation if successful (clear and
present danger).
Precedent: 1st Amendment rights, as well as others
can be limited during times of war.
Korematsu v US
http://www.freeinfosociety.com/article.php?
id=10
Korematsu v US (1944)
Issue: 5th & 14th Amendment – Times of War
Court Case: During World War II, the US military
issued an order to place Japanes Americans in
internment camps. Korematsu sued the US
government on the grounds that it was a violation of
5th Amendment due process, and the 14th
Amendment.
Court Ruling: In favor of the United States
government.
Precedent: During times of war, certain group’s
rights can be limited. (Clear & Present Danger Rule)
Brown v Topeka Board of Ed
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTGHLdr-iak
Brown v Board of Education (1954)
Issue: 14th Amendment – Equal Protection (Separate but Equal)
Court Case: Brown sued the Board of Education of Topeka,
Kansas because his daughter had to walk seven blocks to catch
a bus to a segregated school when there was a school within
six blocks of her house. This was part of a class action suit
against the Board of Education.
Court Ruling: The court ruled separate educational facilities were
inherently unequal. The ruling in this case led to the beginning
of the Civil Rights Movement, and began the end of
segregation. Overturned the decision in Plessy v. Ferguson.
Precedent: Separate but Equal is unconstitutional.
Mapp v Ohio
Mapp v Ohio (1961)
Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
Issue: 4th Amendment (Search & Seizure)
Court Case: Police in Cleveland, Ohio believed a
fugitive was being kept by Mapp in her home. The
police came to her house demanding entrance, Mapp
refused because they did not have a warrant.
Later police came back, broke into her home, and
produced a fake warrant. They did not find the
fugitive, but did find pornographic materials. She
was arrested and convicted. Mapp appealed the
decision as a violation of the 4th Amendment.
Court Ruling: The court ruled in favor of Mapp.
Precedent: Illegal evidence cannot be used in court.
Engel v Vitale (1962)
Engel v Vitale (1962)
Issue: 1st Amendment – Freedom of Religion/Separation
of Church and State
Court Case: Students in New York State were reciting
a prayer to begin the school day. Even though
students were not required to recite the prayer,
parents felt this was a violation of the 1st
Amendment.
Court Ruling: The court ruled that this was a violation
of the establishment clause because it was a prayer,
and it was being recited in a public school.
Precedent: School prayer is unconstitutional.
Gideon v Wainwright (1963)
Gideon v Wainwright (1963)
Issue: 6th Amendment, 14th Amendment
Court Case: Gideon was arrested for burglary of a
Florida pool hall. He appeared in court and asked
that an attorney be appointed to him. The court
denied the request on the grounds that under
Florida law, only a person accused of a capital
crime received a court appointed attorney.
Court Decision: The court ruled in favor of Gideon,
stating that Florida had violated the 6th
Amendment and 14th Amendment, equal protection
clause.
Precedent: Indigent defendants (cannot afford an
attorney) must be provided counsel in all felony
cases.
Heart of Atlanta Motel v US (1964)
Issue: 5th Amendment, Interstate Commerce, & Segregation
Court Case: The Heart of Atlanta Motel sued the US government over
the Constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Heart of
Atlanta Motel wanted to continue not allowing Blacks to stay at the
Motel.
Court Ruling: The court ruled in favor of the US and the Civil Rights
Act of 1964. The court ruled that the interstate commerce clause
allowed the US to ban the motel’s discriminatory practice due to the
fact that more than ½ of the motel’s business came from out of
state.
Precedent: Allowed the Federal Government
to stop discrimination through use of the
interstate commerce clause.
Miranda v Arizona
Miranda v Arizona (1966)
Issue: 5th & 6th Amendment
Court Case: Ernesto Miranda was arrested for
kidnapping and rape. Miranda confessed to the crime,
but was not told of his Constitutional rights prior to
the interrogation. Miranda appealed the conviction on
the grounds that the police had violated his rights by
not informing him.
Court Ruling: In favor of Miranda. The police had
violated his rights. Police are required to read the
“Miranda Warnings”. Tell suspects of their right to
remain silent, to have an attorney, etc…
Precedent: Police must inform suspects of their 5th &
6th Amendment rights prior to questioning.
In re Gault
In re Gault (1967)
Issue: 5th, 6th, & 14th Amendments (Juvenile Rights)
Court Case: Gerald Gault (15 yrs. old) was taken into custody for
prank calling neighbor. Taken to juvenile detention center,
eventually being sentenced to remain there until he was 18 years
old.
Court Ruling: Ruled in favor of Gault overturning the Arizona courts.
Court ruled that Arizona had violated his 14th Amendment rights to
equal protection by not allowing him various 5th & 6th Amendment
rights.
Precedent: Juveniles have many of the same due process rights as
adults in court.
Tinker v Des Moines (1969)
Issue: 1st Amendment – Freedom of Speech/Expression
Court Case: Three students wore armbands with a
peace sign on them to school as a form of protest
against the escalating violence in Vietnam. The
students were told to remove the armbands, they
refused, and were suspended from school until they
returned without the armbands. The parents filed a
lawsuit against the school system for this action
stating that it violated the 1st Amendment.
Court Ruling: The court ruled in favor of the students.
The court stated that schools could establish dress
codes, but neede3d to show that a reasonable
disruption is being caused to the learning environment
to ban items. In this case, the school could not show
this.
Precedent: Schools must show a reasonable disruption to
learning environment. Upheld 1st Amendment rights
of students.
NY Times v US (1971)
Issue: 1st Amendment (Freedom of the Press)
Court Case: During US involvement in Vietnam, the
Pentagon put together a paper which outlined US
decision-making in Vietnam. This classified document
was leaked to the NY Times and the Washington Post.
The NY Times began publishing the findings, but the
government filed an injunction to stop the paper from
printing. The NY Times sued on the grounds that it
violated the 1st Amendment.
Court Ruling: The court ruled in favor of the NY Times.
The court state that it was the right of the paper to
print this material because they had received the
information legally.
Precedent: Prior restraint is unconstitutional. Government
must be able to prove a “clear and present danger”.
Swann v Charlotte Mecklenburg (1971)
Issue: 14th Amendment – School Segregation & Busing
Court Case: Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools were being sued
over the plan to desegregate schools.
Court Ruling: The court set up a plan for desegregating schools
which could include busing. School systems had to show an
effort to desegregate schools.
Precedent: Federal government had the authority to mandate
desegregation of public schools under the Civil Rights Act of
1964.
Furman v Georgia (1972)
Issue: 8th & 14th Amendment (Death Penalty)
Court Case: William Furman was burglarizing a house when the
victim woke up. Furman shot the victim, but said it was an
accident. Because he was committing a felony and committed
murder, the State of Georgia sentenced him to death.
Court Ruling: Furman appealed his sentence because he thought
it was a violation of the 8th Amendment against cruel &
unusual punishment. Court ruled in favor of Furman
overturning the death penalty.
Precedent: Death penalty ruled cruel &
unusual punishment. Capital punishment must
be specifically identified by the law.
Roe v Wadw
Roe v Wade (1973)
Issue: 9th & 14th Amendment
Court Case: Texas law did not allow women to have
abortion/CHOICE unless advised by a doctor because
woman’s life was in jeopardy. “Jane Roe” class action
lawsuit questioned the constitutionality of the law.
Court Ruling: The court ruled in favor of Roe. Stated
that states cannot pass laws banning abortion during the
1st trimester (3 months).
Precedent: States cannot ban abortion during the 1st
trimester.
US v Nixon
US v Nixon (1974)
Issue: Separation of Power – Checks & Balances
Court Case: During the presidential election of 1972, a
group of members of C.R.E.E.P. broke into DNC
headquarters. During investigation, President Nixon
was linked to the group, and a court issued a subpoena
for Nixon to turn over audiotapes of White House
proceedings. Nixon refused citing executive privilege.
Court Ruling: Does executive privilege exist? Yes
What is its definition? President can keep information if
it is a matter of national security.
In this case, executive privilege did not apply. Nixon
eventually resigned from office.
Precedent: Executive Privilege exists, must show national
security.
Gregg v GA
Gregg v Georgia (1976)
Issue: 8th & 14th Amendments (Cruel & Unusual Punishment)
Court Case: Troy Leon Gregg and another hitchhiker committed
murder and armed robbery. He was sentenced to death in
Georgia, and appealed the conviction on the grounds that it
violated the 8th Amendment.
Court Ruling: The court ruled against Gregg, stating the Georgia
law did not violate the 8th Amendment.
Precedent: Capital punishment is upheld as a punishment for
certain types of crime.
Regents of the University of California v.
Bakke (1978)
Case Summary
Allan Bakke filed suit after learning that minority candidates with lower
qualifications had been admitted to medical school under a program that
reserved spaces for “disadvantaged” applicants. The California Supreme
Court ordered the school, the State-run University of California, to admit
Bakke. The university then appealed to the United States Supreme Court.
The Court's Decision
A splintered Supreme Court affirmed the judgment ordering Bakke's
admission to the medical school of the University of California at Davis and
invalidating the school's special admissions program. However, the Court did
not prohibit the school from considering race as a factor in future
admissions decisions. Justice Lewis Powell, Jr., announced the Court's
judgment. Four justices agreed with his conclusions as to Bakke individually,
and four other justices agreed with the ruling as to use of race information
in the future.
Continued
Justice Powell wrote that “the guarantee of Equal Protection
cannot mean one thing when applied to one individual and
something else when applied to a person of another color.” He
did not, however, prohibit schools from considering race as one
factor in the admissions process.
Justice Thurgood Marshall argued that race could properly be
considered in an affirmative action program, a policy of taking
positive steps to remedy the effects of past discrimination. “In
light of the sorry history of discrimination and its devastating
impact on the lives of Negroes, bringing the Negro into the
mainstream of American life should be a state interest of the
highest order. To fail to do so is to ensure that America will
forever remain a divided society. I do not believe that the
Fourteenth Amendment requires us to accept that fate.”
NJ v TLO
New Jersey v T.L.O. (1985)
Issue: 4th Amendment (Search & Seizure)
Court Case: T.L.O. was accused of smoking in the bathroom at a
high school. She denied and her purse was searched. School
officials found cigarettes, rolling papers, marijuana, numerous
$1 bills, and a list of students who owed her money. T.L.O.
appealed her expulsion on the grounds that her 4th Amendment
rights had been violated.
Court Decision: The court ruled in favor of the school. The court
stated that the need to keep guns and drugs out of school
created a situation that school officials should be given greater
latitude in searches.
Precedent: Reasonable Suspicion Rule for school searches.
Limited the 4th Amendment rights of students.
Bethel School District v Fraser (1986)
Issue: 1st Amendment (Freedom of Speech in School)
Court Case: Matthew Fraser gave a speech endorsing a fellow
student for an elected office. During the speech he made
comments using an explicit sexual metaphor. He was
suspended for three days, and denied the right to speak at
graduation.
Court Ruling: Fraser appealed the ruling as a violation of his 1st
Amendment Rights. The court ruled in favor of the school,
and the right to ban certain speech.
Precedent: 1st Amendment rights to freedom of
speech can be limited if school can show a
reasonable disruption to the learning environment.
Hazelwood School District v Kuhlmeier (1988)
Issue: 1st Amendment (Freedom of the
Press)
Court Case: A group of former high
school students filed suit against a
principal and school system because
the principal had deleted an article
about teenage pregnancy and divorce
from the school newspaper.
Court Decision: The court ruled in favor
of the principal. The principal has the
right to edit the newspaper, and
delete materials that he/she is
inappropriate to maintain the
educational environment.
Precedent: 1st Amendment rights of
students limited.
Texas v Johnson
Texas v Johnson (1989)
Issue: 1st Amendment & Flag Burning
Court Case: In 1984 the Republican Party held the
National Convention in Dallas, Texas. Many groups
staged protests. As a part of the protests, Johnson
set fire to an American Flag, and was arrested s
Texas had a law banning the burning of the Texas
State Flag, and the US Flag. Johnson appealed on the
grounds that the law violated his 1st Amendment
rights.
Court Ruling: In favor of Johnson. As a result, some
groups would like to add a Constitutional Amendment to
ban flag burning as a form of protest.
Precedent: Flag burning protected by the 1st
Amendment.
Morse v. Frederick (2006)
Issue: 1st Amendment (Student Free Expression)
Court Case: Students were excused from school by the
principal to watch the Olympic Torch relay go through their
town. A group of students, led by Joseph Frederick displayed
a sign that read “Bong Hits for Jesus” in order to gain
attention.When the principal saw the sign on the news she
suspended for violating the school’s anti-drug policy.
Frederick appealed saying his message didn’t cause a
disruption.
Court Ruling: In favor of Morse (the principal) saying that
schools can prohibit students from displaying messages that
promote drug use. Even though it wasn’t on school grounds it
was a school sponsored event.
Precedent: Schools right to protect its students.
State v Mann




In 1829, Elizabeth Jones, who owned a slave named Lydia, hired
her out for a year to John Mann of Chowan County.
Mann shot and wounded Lydia when she struggled to escape a
whipping.
Mann was found guilty of battery by a jury of twelve white men
drawn from his community and the court (Superior Court
Judge Joseph J. Daniel) imposed a five dollar fine.
The North Carolina Supreme Court overruled the conviction on the
grounds that slaves were the absolute property of their owners who
could not be punished at common law unless the legislature
authorized such punishment.
Leandro v NC


(1997)
Leandro v. North Carolina
Six urban school districts stated that the state funding formula
did not provide them with sufficient money to educate their atrisk students and students for whom English is not their first
language.



NOT EQUAL!!!
North Carolina Supreme Court cases requiring
that public school FUNDING must be EQUAL &
FAIR!
“...every child of this state shall have an
opportunity to receive a sound basic education
in our public schools.”
Martin Luther King
I Have a Dream

http://teachertube.com/viewVideo.php?vid
eo_id=94828