Important Cases

Question 1

Dr. Bonham v. College of Physicians (1610) - Background

Answer 1

Background: Bonham a graduate of Cambridge practiced medicine in London. London College of Physicians had jurisdiction over medical practice in London by charter. LCOP found him insufficient and inexpert in practice. Bonham practiced anyway and was arrested. Brought suit in Court of Common Pleas for false imprisonment claiming they had no jurisdiction over him. Coke also went to Cambridge.

Question 2

Dr. Bonham v. College of Physicians (1610) - Issues & Holdings

Answer 2

Issue: Was Bonham falsely imprisoned?

Holding: Yes, cannot imprison him without bail until College President commands it. Coke: violation of common law. “one cannot be judge and attorney for any of the parties.” Violation of separation of powers and ideas of justice. Money involved with the case.

Issue: Was the LCOP statute of incorporation void under the common law? Or did Parliament go beyond power?

Holding: Yes, common law controls Parliament’s statutes. Parliament didn’t like the ruling cause it went against their ability to gain power over the king.

Question: can the judiciary override the Parliament?

Coke: When acts of Parliament go against common right and reason the common law will control it and void it. It was repugnant that the LCOP was making themselves judge, jury and attorney. Dr. Bonham states and qualifies these principles.

Question 3

Dr. Bonham v. College of Physicians (1610) - Overall Results

Answer 3

• Judicial Review sticks in England
• Blackstone stated that: “power of Parliament is absolute and without control.”
• Coke’s precedent lived on in America
 TJ to JMAD 1826: Coke influenced the views and ideas of American Constitution, lawyers, whig ideology, 5th & 14th, Due Process of Law, Just Compensation.

Question 4

U.S. v. Hudson & Goodman (1812) - Background

Answer 4

Hudson and George were charged for secretly voting to give Napoleon Bonaparte $2 million to make a treaty with France. The district court was split on whether they could exercise common law jurisdiction over such a case.

Question 5

U.S. v. Hudson & Goodman (1812) - Issues & Holdings

Answer 5

Who has jurisdiction to hear this case?

Only the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is specifically outlined in the Constitution. All other courts are dependent upon Congress. “The legislative body must first make an act a crime, affix a punishment to it, and declare the Court that shall have jurisdiction of the offense.” This case effectively closed the door on the lower federal courts’ power to try and convict defendants for common law crimes and mandated that congress specifically define their criminal jurisdiction through legislation.

Question 6

Stuart v. Laird (1803) - Background

Answer 6

The case regards a circuit judge’s judgment, after the judge’s job had been abolished by the repeal of the Judiciary Act of 1801. Stuart’s lawyer was Charles Lee, who also represented William Marbury. John Laird asked the Supreme Court to uphold the judge’s ruling, while Stuart’s team argued that (a) only the court that renders a judgment can enforce it and (b) the 1802 repeal of 1801’s Judiciary Act was unconstitutional.

Question 7

Stuart v. Laird (1803) - Issues & Holdings

Answer 7

SCRT upheld 1802 Judiciary Act, choosing to ignore Life Tenure conflict and concentrated on Congress power to create new inferior Fed. Courts.

Question 8

Marbury v. Madison (1803) - Background

Answer 8

Jefferson ordered Madison to not deliver judicial appointments. Marbury appealed for a writ of mandamus ordering Madison to execute his duty and deliver the commissions.

Question 9

Marbury v. Madison (1803) - Issues & Holdings

Answer 9

Were Marbury’s right violated? If so, do the laws of the country to afford him a remedy?

Yes the rights of Marbury were violated and yes he is entitled to a remedy, however, it was decided that the case would be dismissed due to the unconstitutionality of Congress’ Judiciary Act of 1789 altering the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction without amendment.

Question 10

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) - Background

Answer 10

The U.S. bank was rechartered. Maryland taxed the U.S. bank branch within their state and the branch president refused to pay the tax.

Question 11

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) - Issues & Holdings

Answer 11

Does Congress have the power to incorporate a national bank? Can Maryland tax an entity of the Nation?

Yes Congress can incorporate a bank under the necessary and proper clause. Maryland is subordinate to the nation and cannot tax the people as a whole under Article VI. “The power to tax is the power to destroy.”

Question 12

Debs v. U.S. (1919) - Background

Answer 12

Eugene V. Debs was an American labor and political leader and five-time Socialist Party of America candidate for the American Presidency. On June 16, 1918 Debs made an anti-war speech in Canton, Ohio, protesting US involvement in World War I, and he was subsequently arrested under the Espionage Act of 1917. He was convicted and sentenced to serve ten years in prison and disenfranchised for life.

Question 13

Debs v. U.S. (1919) - Issues & Holdings

Answer 13

Did Deb’s conviction violate 1st Amendment?

Justice Homes (unanimous) SCRT, held: No, affirmed

Question 14

Abrams v. U.S. (1919) - Background

Answer 14

The defendants were convicted on the basis of two leaflets they printed and threw from windows of a building in New York City. One leaflet, signed “revolutionists”, denounced the sending of American troops to Russia. The second leaflet, written in Yiddish, denounced the war and US efforts to impede the Russian Revolution and advocated the cessation of the production of weapons to be used against Soviet Russia.

Question 15

Abrams v. U.S. (1919) - Issues & Holdings

Answer 15

Does the Act violate the 1st Amendment?

No, Justice Clarke: if you want to overthrow the US government that is not protected under Constitution.

Question 16

Writs of Assistance (1761) - Background

Answer 16

o Smuggling was common in colonies, why?
o Because of British trade laws:
• Navigation Acts (1650)
• Molasses Act (1733)
• Sugar Act (1764)
o Writs of Assistance – ordered sheriffs, others to assist custom officers in searching for smugglers.
o They were arbitrary search warrants, transferable, w/ immunity from damages.
o James Otis, Advocate Gen. of Vice Admiralty Court in Boston ordered to argue for the writs.
o Quits and represented those accused in Superior Court of MA.
• Wants to fight “instruments of slavery”
• “A man’s house is his castle;…”
• “An act against the constitution is void.”
• “sacred calls of his country.”
• Rights associated with your property.
• Could destroy property in search with immunity.

Question 17

Writs of Assistance (1761) - Issues & Holdings

Answer 17

Was the writ unconstitutional, and thus void?

o No, writs renewed.
o But it was a politically important precedent for the revolution.
o Sparked the Revolution and led to state and federal protections (e.g., 4th amendment)

Question 18

Chisholm v. Georgia (1793) - Background

Answer 18

Background: Farquhar of South Carolina had supplied the State of Georgia goods during the Revolutionary War. Chisholm was the executor for Farquhar and took Georgia to court over the payment in return now that the war was over. Georgia refused to appear in court stating that they were a sovereign state and could not be sued without consent.

Question 19

Chisholm v. Georgia (1793) - Issues & Holdings

Answer 19

Holding: The court held that Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution abrogated Georgia’s sovereign immunity to be sued without consent and granted federal courts the affirmative power to hear cases between private citizens and States.

(Reason behind the 11th Amendment which superseded the court’s decision)

Question 20

Barron v. Baltimore (1833) - Background

Answer 20

Background: John Barron, who co-owned a profitable wharf in the Baltimore harbor, sued the mayor of Baltimore for damages, claiming that when the city had diverted the flow of streams while engaging in street construction, it had created mounds of sand and earth near his wharf making the water too shallow for most vessels. The trial court awarded Barron damages of $4,500, but the appellate court reversed the ruling.

Question 21

Barron v. baltimore (1833) - Issues & Holdings

Answer 21

Issues: Does the U.S. Bill of Rights apply to the States as well?

Holding: The court ruled that the U.S. Bill of RIghts do not apply to the States. They argued that the 9th and 10th Amendments do not explicitly state that it should thus be applied.

(Decision superseded by the 14th Amendment which made the U.S. Bill of Rights applicable to the States.

Question 22

Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) - Background

Answer 22

Background: Two men had claim to the Hudson River waterway under different charters. One with the State of New York and the other under a federal coastline act.

Question 23

Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) - Issues & Holdings

Answer 23

Issues: What is the scope of Congress’ Commerce Clause? Can the state and national government regulate the same thing?

Holding: When conflict exists between state and federal law, federal law is supreme according to Article VI. Never to a degree that the federal acts but with complete supremacy (plenary).

Question 24

Texas v. Johnson (1989) - Background

Answer 24

Background: Defendant burned a flag with kerosene, and chanted “America, the red, white, and blue, we spit on you” at the Republican National Convention to protest Reagan’s policies. Defendant was charged with “the desecration of a venerated object” under Texas Penal Code. Defendant was sentenced to 1 year in prison and a $2,000 fine. Texas Court of Appeals affirmed, but Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed, holding his actions were symbolic speech protected by the 1st Amendment Texas appeals to U.S. Supreme Court

Question 25

Texas v. Johnson (1989) - Issues & Holdings

Answer 25

Issues: Did the Texas law violate the first Amendment?

Holdings: (5-4 decision) The burning was symbolic, expressive political speech protected by the 1st Amendment. “We do not consecrate the flag by punishing its desecration, for in doing so we dilute the freedom that this cherished emblem represents.” Conduct is more likely to be considered speech if expresses an idea and is “sufficiently imbued with elements of communication” covered by the 1st and 14th Amendments.

Question 26

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community (1969) - Background

Answer 26

Background: John Tinker and others wore black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War. School policy stated that they had to remove them or be suspended. Tinker sought an injunction. Federal District Court held it was a “reasonable” policy to avoid disturbances. Court of Appeals affirmed. Tinker appealed to the Supreme Court.

Question 27

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community (1969) - Issues & Holdings

Answer 27

Issues: Does a school policy prohibiting armband violate 1st Amendment freedom of speech (as applied by the 14th Amendment)?

Holdings: Yes, decision reversed.
“…at least if it could not be justified by a showing that the students’ activities would materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school”

Question 28

Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) - Background

Answer 28

Brandenburg leader of KKK stated that revenge could happen against the government. Convicted

Question 29

Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) - Issues & Holding

Answer 29

Issue: Did Ohio statue prohibit the advocacy of violent and unlawful overthrow of the govt. violate the 1st & 14th Amendment?

Holding: Reversed Brandenburg’s conviction, holding that government cannot constitutionally punish abstract advocacy of force or law violation.

Question 30

United States v. O’Brien (1968) - Background

Answer 30

Background: David Paul O’Brien burned his draft card on the steps of the Boston Courthouse to protest the Vietnam War. Defendant admitted that he knew he was violating federal law, but argued his conduct was “symbolic speech” protected by the 1st Amendment. District Court found him guilty of willfully and knowingly burning the card in violation of 1965 Amendment of Universal Military Training. First Circuit reversed.

Question 31

United States v. O’Brien (1968) - Issues & Holdings

Answer 31

Issue: Is burning a draft card speech protected speech under the 1st Amendment?

Holding: (7-1) No. The Defendant’s action violated a sufficient government interest. Regulation is sufficiently justified if it…

1) Furthers an important or substantial governmental interest
2) The governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression
3) The incidental restriction on alleged 1st Amendment freedoms is not greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest.

(Power catch for the Supreme Court)

Question 32

Stromberg v. California (1931) - Background

Answer 32

Background: Appellate, part of the Young Communist league (an international communist party organization) supervised children at a camp raising and saluting the communist party red flag, and reciting a pledge of allegiance “to the worker’s red flag, and to the cause for which it stands; one aim throughout our lives, freedom for the working class.” Books and pamphlets inciting violence and “armed uprisings,” and “the indispensability of a desperate, bloody, destructive war as the immediate task of the coming action,” were also found. Brought suit under strict California Penal Code against anarchist and communistic propaganda of seditious character.

Question 33

Stromberg v. California (1931) - Issues & Holdings

Answer 33

Issues: Whether an Act which prohibits the display of a flag, symbol, or emblem of opposition to organized government, on its face violates the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause incorporation of free speech?

Holdings: States have a right to resist violent revolution and keep the peace of our society; however, a government restriction cannot be overly broad or vague. Over broad restraints tear up the good along with the bad.

Question 34

Gitlow v. People of the State of New York (1925) - Background

Answer 34

Background: Socialist Benjamin Gitlow published and circulated copies of a left-wing manifesto, which advocated strikes and the violent overthrow of the government. Defendant was convicted of criminal anarchy under a New York Criminal Anarchy Act that prohibited the overthrow of the government by force or violence.

Question 35

Gitlow v. People of the State of New York (1925) - Issues & Holdings

Answer 35

Issues: Is the 1st Amendment Incorporated in the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause?
Did the New York Act violate the Defendant’s liberty of expression incorporated in the 14th Amendment?

Holding: Yes, it’s “among the fundamental personal rights and liberties protected by the due process clause.” (Bridge made to get to the States)
No, affirmed, there was still a “dangerous [bad] tendency,” if not an immediate danger.

Dissenting: Clear and Present Danger test not met.

Question 36

Calder v. Bull (1798) - Background

Answer 36

Background: The Connecticut legislature ordered a new trial in a court case about the contents of a will, overruling an earlier court ruling.

Question 37

Calder v. Bull (1798) - Issues & Holdings

Answer 37

Issue: Does the Supreme Court have authority to review legislation of the States?

Holding: Yes, but not to determine the law’s inherent justice, only to determine whether or not it is a delegated power within the scope of the Constitution.

Issue: Dis the State of Connecticut violate the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Constitution by retrying a case after having passed legislation to overturn the ruling?

Holding: No, ex post facto restrictions only apply to criminal cases, not civil.

Question 38

Schenck v. United States (1919) - Background

Answer 38

Background: (Defendant) General Secretary of the Socialist Party, sent antiwar leaflets to draftees to recruit them to oppose the draft. Socialism meshed well with Progressivism in order to solve the ills and injustices of society towards the working class (The Poor Man’s War they believed). Defendant convicted of violating the Espionage Act of 1917 for attempting to cause insubordination in the military and obstruct recruiting of armed forces. Defendant appealed to U.S. Supreme Court.

Question 39

Schenck v. United States (1919) - Issues & Holdings

Answer 39

Issues: Does the Act’s prohibition of speech that attempts to incite insubordination in the military and obstruct the recruitment of military forces violate the 1st Amendment?

Holding: No it hasn’t, circumstances matter. Introduces clear and present danger test though argued for bad tendency in the end.

Question 40

Fletcher v. Peck (1810) - Background

Answer 40

Background: After the Revolutionary War, Georgia seised indian lands and resold them for a small price. When news broke of a deal struck between the land speculators and the legislature, the public changed out the legislature and the new representatives voted to repeal the sale of lands. John Peck had purchased land that had previously been sold under the 1795 act and later sold this land to Robert Fletcher who then brought this suit against Peck in 1803, claiming that he did not have clear title to the land when he sold it. Interestingly, this was a case of collusion. Both Fletcher and Peck were land speculators whose holdings would be secured if the Supreme Court decided that Indians did not hold original title–and so Fletcher set out to lose the case.

Question 41

Fletcher v. Peck (1810) - Issues & Holdings

Answer 41

Issue: Is the legislature’s repeal of the contract of sale constitutional?

Holding: No, the contract was binding though it had been secured illegally. *The Court struck down the State’s new statute.

Question 42

Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee (1816) - Background

Answer 42

Background: The state of Virginia enacted legislation during the Revolutionary War that gave the State the power to confiscate the property of British Loyalists. Hunter was given a grant of land by the State. Denny Martin held the land under devise from Lord Thomas Fairfax. In an action in ejectment, the trial court found in favor of Martin and the court of appeals (the highest Virginia state court) reversed.

Question 43

Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee (1816) - Issues & Holdings

Answer 43

Issue: Does the U.S. Supreme Court have appellate jurisdiction over state court decisions involving federal law?

Holding: Reversed in favor of Martin, holding that the treaty with England superseded the state statute, and remanded the case to the Virginia court of appeals to enter judgment for Martin.