25 court cases

Question 1

Marbury v Madison 1803
(judiciary)

Answer 1

summary: Marbury v Madison 1803
(judiciary)

ruling: : Established ability of court to strike down federal law that is unconstitutional, i.e. judicial review

Question 2

McCulloch v Maryland 1819
(federalism)

Answer 2

summary: Does the federal gov’t have the power to establish a national bank? Can the state tax said bank?

ruling: Federal gov’t can establish a bank bc it is necessary and proper for coining $; state can’t tax bc federal entities are supreme

Question 3

US v Lopez
1995
(federalism)

Answer 3

summary: Federal government created Gun Free School Zone law using commerce clause

ruling:
Possession of gun NOT an economic activity governed by commerce clause

Question 4

Baker v Carr
1961
(legislature)

Answer 4

summary: Do legislative districts represent land or numbers of people? TN no redistricting in 50 years

ruling: Legislative districts should be equal in population, TN must redistrict

Question 5

Shaw v Reno

Answer 5

summary: Can a district be gerrymandered primarily based on race to ENSURE minority representation in NC

ruling: 5-4:
race CANNOT be the only factor used to draw districts

Question 6

Engel v Vitale

Answer 6

summary: Public schools used a non-denominational prayer. Does it violate the establishment clause

ruling: 6-1: ,the Supreme Court ruled that school-sponsored prayer in public schools violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

Question 7

Wisconsin v Yoder

Answer 7

summary: Can the state force Amish students to school until age 16, when Amish religious belief is until 14?

ruling: there was no overriding state compelling interest to violate Amish religious beliefs. If no threat to public safety, then there can be no infringement on religious beliefs

Question 8

Tinker v Des Moines ISD 1969

Answer 8

summary: Do students in a public school have the right to symbolic free speech?

ruling: wearing armband does NOT disrupt school so CANNOT be prohibited

Question 9

NY Times v US
1971

Answer 9

summary: Can President use executive privilege to stop newspapers from printing top secret information?

ruling : no threat to national security means no prior restraint

Question 10

Schenck v US
1919

Answer 10

summary: Can private citizens hand out fliers urging men to avoid the draft?

ruling: during times of war, civil liberties can be restricted; such fliers put others at risk, danger to national security

Question 11

Gideon v Wainwright
1963

Answer 11

summary: Does the state have to provide an attorney as per the 6th amendment?

ruling: Unanimous: 6th amendment right to an attorney applies even if not capital case

Question 12

Roe v Wade
1973

Answer 12

summary: Does a woman have the right to privacy for medical decisions, i.e. a first trimester abortion

ruling: right to privacy is implied in Constitution, applies to states (TX)

Question 13

McDonald v Chicago

Answer 13

summary: Can IL or Chicago ban hand gun ownership?

ruling: states cannot limit or ban handguns, follow DC example

Question 14

Brown v Board of Education of Topeka, KS
1954

Answer 14

summary: Are segregated schools equal?
Can the federal government force the stated to desegregate when education is a reserved right of states?

ruling: Unanimous: Separate is inherently equal; states must give equal protection under the law

Question 15

Citizens United v FEC
2010

Answer 15

summary: Can private group (not part of campaign) spend unlimited $ on campaign ads as free speech?

ruling : private group can spend unlimited $ as free speech, campaign finance law cannot limit

Question 16

Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)

Answer 16

summary: Dred Scott was a slave in Missouri. From 1833 to 1843, he resided in Illinois (a free state) and in the Louisiana Territory, where slavery was forbidden by the Missouri Compromise of 1820. After returning to Missouri, Scott filed suit in Missouri court for his freedom, claiming that his residence in free territory made him a free man.

ruling: The majority held that “a negro, whose ancestors were imported into [the U.S.], and sold as slaves,” whether enslaved or free, could not be an American citizen and therefore did not have standing to sue in federal court.

Question 17

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

Answer 17

summary: They asked Plessy, who was technically black under Louisiana law, to sit in a “whites only” car of a Louisiana train.
The railroad cooperated because it thought the Act imposed unnecessary costs via the purchase of additional railroad cars. When Plessy was told to vacate the whites-only car, he refused and was arrested.

ruling: The Court held that the state law was constitutional. In an opinion authored by Justice Henry Billings Brown, the majority upheld state-imposed racial segregation. Justice Brown conceded that the 14th Amendment intended to establish absolute equality for the races before the law, but held that separate treatment did not imply the inferiority of African Americans.

Question 18

West Virginia v Barnette (1943)

Answer 18

summary: the West Virginia Board of Education required public schools to include salutes to the flag by teachers and students as a mandatory part of school activities. The children in a family of Jehovah’s Witnesses refused to perform the salute and were sent home from school for non-compliance.

ruling: the Court overruled its decision in Minersville School District v. Gobitis and held that compelling public school children to salute the flag was unconstitutional. In an opinion written by Robert Houghwout Jackson, the Court found that the First Amendment cannot enforce a unanimity of opinion on any topic

Question 19

Korematsu v. United States (1944)

Answer 19

summary: In response to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor during World War II, the U.S. government decided to require Japanese-Americans to move into relocation camps as a matter of national security.

ruling: In an opinion written by Justice Black, the Court ruled that the evacuation order violated by Korematsu was valid. The majority found that the Executive Order did not show racial prejudice but rather responded to the strategic imperative of keeping the U.S. and particularly the West Coast (the region nearest Japan) secure from invasion.

Question 20

Mapp v. Ohio

Answer 20

summary: 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.

ruling: The high court said evidence seized unlawfully, without a search warrant, could not be used in criminal prosecutions in state courts.

Question 21

Miranda v. Arizona

Answer 21

summary: Miranda was arrested in his house and brought to the police station where he was questioned by police officers in connection with a kidnapping and rape. After two hours of interrogation, the police obtained a written confession from Miranda. The written confession was admitted into evidence at trial despite the objection of the defense attorney

ruling: The Fifth Amendment requires that law enforcement officials advise suspects of their right to remain silent and to obtain an attorney during interrogations while in police custody.

Question 22

United States v. Nixon (1974)

Answer 22

summary: Is the President’s right to safeguard certain information, using his “executive privilege” confidentiality power, entirely immune from judicial review?

ruling: Chief Justice Warren Burger said that the President didn’t have an absolute, unqualified privilege to withhold information.

Question 23

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978)

Answer 23

summary: Did the University of California violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, by practicing an affirmative action policy that resulted in the repeated rejection of Bakke’s application for admission to its medical school?

ruling: held that a university’s admissions criteria which used race as a definite and exclusive basis for an admission decision violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

Question 24

20. Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988)

Answer 24

summary: 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. Cathy Kuhlmeier and two other former Hazelwood East students brought the case to court.

Did the principal’s deletion of the articles violate the students’ rights under the First Amendment?

ruling: The Court reversed the appellate court, and said that public schools do not have to allow student speech if it is inconsistent with the schools’ educational mission.

Question 25

Texas v. Johnson (1989)

Answer 25

summary: 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.

ruling: Flag burning constitutes symbolic speech that is protected by the First Amendment.

Question 26

Bush v. Gore (2000

Answer 26

summary: ecember 8, 2000 the Florida Supreme Court ordered that the Circuit Court in Leon County tabulate by hand 9000 contested ballots from Miami-Dade County. It also ordered that every county in Florida must immediately begin manually recounting all “under-votes” (ballots which did not indicate a vote for president) because there were enough contested ballots to place the outcome of the election in doubt.

ruling: The Supreme Court decision allowed the previous vote certification made by Florida Secretary of State, Katherine Harris, to stand for Bush, who thereby won Florida’s 25 electoral votes.

Question 27

District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)

Answer 27

summary: special police officer who was authorized to carry a handgun while on duty. He applied for a one-year license for a handgun he wished to keep at home, but his application was denied. Heller sued the District of Columbia. He sought an injunction against the enforcement of the relevant parts of the Code and argued that they violated his Second Amendment right to keep a functional firearm in his home without a license. The district court dismissed the complaint.

ruling: e Court struck down the laws, definitively finding that that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense in the home.