Cases

Question 1

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

Answer 1

Summary: Marbury was appointed to a Congressional government post in the last days of John Adam’s presidency, but the appointments were never finalized. He invoked an act of Congress, suing for their jobs in the Supreme Court; established power of judicial review
Decision/Why: Ruled 9-0 that although Marbury was entitled to the job, Congress was unable to grant it because the act Marbury invoked conflicted with the Constitution, and was therefore null and void.

Question 2

Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)

Answer 2

Summary: Dred Scott (a slave) tried to claim in Missouri courts that his residence in an area of the Louisiana Territory in which slavery was forbidden under the Missouri Compromise of 1821 made him a free man.
Decision/Why: Ruled 7-2 that portions of the Missouri Compromise were unconstitutional and in violation of the Fifth Amendment, treating Scott as property, not as a person

Question 3

UC Regents v. Bakke (1977)

Answer 3

Summary: Allan Bakke, a white man, argued that his repeated rejection by UC Davis was on the basis of race. This case concerned whether UC violated the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause and the Civil Rights Act of 1965 by practicing rigid affirmative action.
Decision/Why:
Ruled 8-1 Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides Bakke a cause of action and 5-4 that it does not prohibit the university’s race-based admissions program. Also ruled 5-4 that Equal Protection Clause permits race to be one factor, among many, in an admissions program and 5-4 that it prohibits the university’s specific race-based admissions program, and Bakke shall be admitted. This decision minimized white opposition to equality and extended gains for racial minorities through affirmative action.

Question 4

Schenck v. U.S. (1921)

Answer 4

Summary: Schenck mailed circulars to draftees. The circulars suggested that the draft was a monstrous wrong motivated by the capitalist system. The circulars urged “Do not submit to intimidation” but advised only peaceful action such as petitioning to repeal the Conscription Act. Schenck was charged with conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act by attempting to cause insubordination in the military and to obstruct recruitment.
Decision/Why: Ruled 9-0 that the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment does not shield advocacy urging conduct deemed unlawful under the Espionage Act because it causes a “clear and present danger”

Question 5

Gitlow v. New York (1925)

Answer 5

Summary: Gitlow called for establishment of socialism through strikes and class action. He was convicted by state officials for advocating the overthrow of government by force. He argued that his advocacy did not result in action so he shouldn’t get punished. Is this an unconstitutional violation of the free speech clause in the 1st Amendment?
Decision/Why: Ruled 7-2 that the free speech clause does not protect Gitlow from NY statue because states have the right to forbid speech and publication that pose danger to public security

Question 6

Roe v. Wade (1971)

Answer 6

Summary: Roe sought to terminate her pregnancy by abortion. Case concerned whether Constitution protects a woman’s right abortion.
Decision/Why: Ruled 7-2 that a woman’s right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy (recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut) protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Question 7

Texas v. Johnson (1988)

Answer 7

Summary: Johnson burned an American flag in protest to Reagan’s administrative policies. He was tried and convicted by TX for flag desecration and fined $2000 and sent to one year jail, but that was reversed and he went to SCOTUS.
Decision/Why: Ruled 5-4 that Johnson’s flag burning was protected under freedom of expression in the 1st Amendment even though society was against it.

Question 8

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1968)

Answer 8

Summary: Students sued the school district for violating the right of expression by creating a policy that stated that any student wearing an armband would be asked to remove it, with refusal to do so resulting in suspension.
Decision/Why: Ruled 7-2 that the armbands represented pure speech that is entirely separate from the actions or conduct of those participating in it and also that the students did not lose their 1st Amendment rights to freedom of speech by stepping onto school property.

Question 9

Engel v. Vitale (1962)

Answer 9

Summary: Board of Regents for the State of NY authorized a reading of a nondenominational prayer at the start of the school day to diffuse issues in local communities.
Decision/Why: Ruled 6-1 that Neither the prayer’s nondenominational character nor its voluntary character saves it from unconstitutionality; SCOTUS used the establishment clause to eliminate religious activities of all sorts.

Question 10

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)

Answer 10

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)
Summary: 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.
Decision/Why: Ruled 7-2 that 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.

Question 11

Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)

Answer 11

Summary: There were controversies about Rhode Island and Pennsylvania statutes that each made aid available to “church-related educational institutions.”
Decision/Why: Ruled 8-1 that Rhode Island statute and 9-0 that Pennsylvania statute are unconstitutional under the religion clause of 1st Amendment for excessive entanglement of state and church.

Question 12

Miranda v. Arizona (1965)

Answer 12

Summary: in several cases, police held and interrogated defendant without notifying him/her first of his/her right to counsel or protection against self-incrimination. Constitutionality concerns to 5th Amendment.
Decision/Why: Ruled 5-4 for Miranda; prosecutors may not use custodial statements from defendants unless they demonstrate procedural safeguards effective to secure the defendant’s privileges; police must specifically warn “right to remain silent” and right to have counsel available during interrogations

Question 13

Mapp v. Ohio (1960)

Answer 13

Summary: illegal police search for fugitive in Mapp’s home led to confiscated materials; Mapp appealed conviction on First Amendment, which was dismissed by court to evaluate 4th Amendement
Decision/Why: Ruled 6-3 for Dollree Mapp; “all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is, by [the Fourth Amendment], inadmissible in a state court.”

Question 14

Gideon v. Wainwright (1962)

Answer 14

Summary: Gideon filed a habeas corpus petition in the Florida Supreme Court [denied] arguing that trial court’s decision violated his constitutional right to be represented by counsel. Issue with 6th Amendment.
Decision/Why: Ruled unanimous for Gideon; Constitutional to require state courts to appoint attorneys for defendants who could not afford to retain counsel on their own; the accused should have the means to put up a proper defense, and the state as well as federal courts must respect that right

Question 15

Reynolds v. U.S. (1878)

Answer 15

Summary: Was Utah’s federal anti-bigamy statute violation of the 1st Amendment’s free exercise clause because plural marriage is part of religious practice?
Decision/Why: Unanimous for U.S.; statute can punish criminal activity w/o regard to religious belief. The 1st Amendment protected religious belief, but it doesn’t protect religious practices that were judged to be criminal such as bigamy

Question 16

Barron v. Baltimore (1833)

Answer 16

Summary: Barron sued the mayor of Baltimore for damages to his private property as a result of city expansion; he appealed to the Supreme Court for compensation under the 5th Amendment
Decision/Why: unanimous for the mayor of Baltimore; Supreme Court has no jurisdiction on this case because provisions of first 8 amendments are applied only to the national government, not to the states

Question 17

Wesberry v. Sanders (1964)

Answer 17

Summary: Wesberry protested Georgia’s apportionment scheme, claiming that it diluted his right to vote compared to other residents.
Decision/Why: 6-3 in favor of Wesberry; Georgia’s scheme grossly discriminated against the district Wesberry was in, so Court recognized that “no right is more precious” than that of having a voice in elections and held that “[t]o say that a vote is worth more in one district than in another would not only run counter to our fundamental ideas of democratic government, it would cast aside the principle of a House of Representatives elected ‘by the People. . .’”

Question 18

Wallace v. Jaffree (1985)

Answer 18

Summary: Alabama law authorized teachers to conduct regular religious prayer services in classrooms during the school day; Jaffree’s children attended public schools in Mobile
Decision/Why: 6-3 Court held that Alabama’s passage of the prayer and meditation statute was a deviation from the state’s duty to maintain absolute neutrality toward religion AND an endorsement of religion; violation of 1st Amendment’s Establishment Clause

Question 19

New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985)

Answer 19

Summary: School officials suspected that T.L.O had cigarettes and found some. She moved to suppress evidence but was denied until the NJ Supreme Court reversed. Does the exclusionary rule of the 4th Amendment apply to searches and seizures conducted by school officials in public schools?
Decision/Why: 6-3 for New Jersey; Yes, the search resulting in the discovery of the evidence of marijuana dealing by the student was reasonable

Question 20

Gregg v. Georgia (1976)

Answer 20

Summary: Gregg challenged his death sentence for murder, claiming that his capital sentence was a “cruel and unusual” punishment that violated the 8th and 14th Amendments.
Decision/Why: 7-2 for Georgia because in extreme criminal cases, such as conviction of deliberate murder, the careful and judicious use of the death penalty may be appropriate if carefully employed.