Court Cases Flashcards
Marbury V. Madison
Court establishes “judicial review”. Concept affirms the court’s position as a coequal branch of government having considerable influence on the politics of government and direction of public policy.
McCulloch V. Maryland
Marshall Court defines what is meant by “necessary and proper” and established the primacy of federal government power over state government
Gibbons V. Ogden
Marshall Court says only national government can regulate interstate commerce, not individual states per Article I Sec 8 of the commerce clause
United States V. Lopez
Rehnquist Court decision in what some call the devolution federalism era. For years Congress had used the interstate commerce clause to encroach into a number of areas normally reserved to the states under the 10th amendment. The commerce clause does not give Congress unlimited powers more appropriately reserved to the state. Begins a policy of the reigning in of creeping federalism. In this case, the majority opinion presents an overview of the various interpretations and phases of federalism.
Gitlow V. New York
Court nationalizes the Bill of Rights for the first time (incorporation doctrine). By the 1960s, the Court will apply almost all of the provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states through the 14th amendment’s due process clause.
Wolf V. Colorado; Mapp V. Ohio
Establishment and development of the exclusionary rule-illegally obtained evidence cannot be used against a defendant at trial.
Gideon V. Wainwright; Miranda V. Arizona
Landmark rulings dealing with the rights of the accused, government interrogations, and the right to counsel
Engle V. Vitale; Lemon V. Kurtzman
Establishment clause and school prayer- public school policy that permits, endorses, or encourages prayer violates the first amendment. Prayer in school allowed if it is student initiated, student led, and voluntary
Schenck V. United States
Free speech- Court establishes the clear and present danger doctrine with respect to subversive and unpopular speech. This is the case in which Justice Holmes uses the famous “falsely shout fire in a theater and cause a panic” analogy in drawing the line on the limits of free speech
New York Times Co. V. United States
Censorship cases (prior restraint)- speech that addresses matters of public concern may not be censored
Tinker V. DesMoines; Texas V. Johnson
Landmark symbolic speech cases. In Tinker, student expression (wearing of armbands) is protected so long as it does not cause a material disruption or substantial interference. In Texas V. Johnson, the burning of a flag (which the court determined to be only a symbol) in public is protected by the first amendment.
Furman V. Georgia; Gregg V. Georgia
In Furman, the Court ruled that the death penalty violated the 8th amendment because of the indiscriminate and inconsistent manner in which it was imposed. Four years later in Gregg, the Court upheld a state law that “contained sufficient standards to pass constiutional muster” to eliminate excessive jury discretion in imposing the death penalty
Griswold V. Connecticut
Landmark ruling in which the courth establishes that there is a penumbra of rights. These are civil liberties closely attached to the Bill of Rights. In this case, the right of consenting adults to use birth control is a privacy right protected under the 4, 9, 14 amendments.
Roe V. Wade; Planned Parenthood v. Casey
Right to privacy and the abortion issue. These 3 cases show how the court established the absolute right to choice (Roe V. Wade) through the present interpretation which says that the right exists but states may pass restrictions so long as it does no impose an “undue hardship or burden on the mother” (planned parenthood).
Lawrence V. Texas
Court strikes down Texas statue criminalizing private consensual gay behavior as unconstitutional invasion of privacy
Brown V. Board of Education
State laws that allow for separate but equal public educational facilities based on race violate the Equal Protection Clause. This landmark case overturned Plessey V. Ferguson 1896. It is also important because it is the case that sparked the civil rights movement of the 50s and 60s, culminating in the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
California Regents V. Bakke
Landmark case that paved the way for issues involving affirmative action. The court held that a state university could not admit less qualified applicants solely because of their race (quotas). However, a university could adopt and admissions program where race or ethnic background is simply one element- to be weighed against other elements- in the selection process
Adarand Contractors V. Pena
Congress and the states must demonstrate a compelling governmental interest (strict scrutiny test) to sustain any affirmative action programs it engages in. In this case, the court struck down the Department of Transportation’s awarding of a highway construction contract to a minority bidder.
Baker V. Carr
Baker paves way for federal courts to adjudicate legislative apportionment
Buckley V. Valeo
Campaign spending is a form of political expression the 1st amendment protects. The constitution forbids Congress from limiting individual political campaign expenditures. However, Congress can regulate contributions to candidates and parties. The decision opened the door for PACs to spend unlimited amounts of money for campaigning activities so long as they’re not directly coordinated with a particular campaign.
McConnell V. FEC
Court upholds provisions strictly regulating soft money in bipartisan campaign finance reform act of 2002. Provision forbidding people of 17 years or younger from contributing to federal campaign struck down as violation of 1st amendment.
Bush V. Gore
A narrow 5-4 majority ruled that Florida’s practice of allowing local election jurisdictions to establish their own procedures for counting ballots and determining voter intent is inconsistent with the constitution’s equal protection and due process clauses. It ruled that Fl’s procedures for manually recounting presidential voters were not specific enough when presidential candidate Al Gore demanded a recount of the ballots in the FL presidential election. The case handed Bush the presidency in 2000
Immigration and Naturalization Service V. Chada
The requirement that an executive decision must lie before Congress for a specified period before it takes effect (legislative veto) is unconstitutional. Congress cannot take any action that has the force of law unless the president concurs in that action. Despite this ruling, Congress has passed a number of laws containing legislative vetoes, most notably the War Powers Act 1973
United States V. Nixon
The Court held that neither the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the generalized need for confientiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified, presidential privilege. The court granted that there was a limited executive privilege in areas of military or diplomatic affairs, but gave preferene to the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of justice.
