Important Supreme Court Cases

Question 1

Barron v. Baltimore, 1833

Answer 1

Claims that the Bill of Rights protections DO NOT apply to intrusions by state governments.

Question 2

Gitlow v. New York, 1925

Answer 2

By incorporating the Bill of Rights into the 14th Amendment, it overturns precedent (Barron v. Baltimore, 1833) in claiming the Bill of Rights DOES apply to state governments.

Question 3

Marbury v. Madison, 1803

Answer 3

Court case that established the principle of judicial review, i.e., the power to declare a law unconstitutional.

Question 4

McCulloch v. Maryland, 1819

Answer 4

Based on the Necessary and Proper Clause (Art. I, Section 8), Chief Justice Marshall noted that Congress possessed powers not explicitly outlined in the U.S. Constitution … aka Implied Powers.

Question 5

School Dist. Of Abington v. Schempp, 1963

Answer 5

Strikes down practice of school-sponsored Bible reading as a violation of the establishment clause.

Question 6

Engle v. Vitale, 1962

Answer 6

Strikes down an involuntary, non-denominational prayer at the beginning of the school day as a violation of the establishment clause.

Question 7

Lemon v. Kurtzman, 1971

Answer 7

Establishes a test to determine whether federal funding to parochial schools violates the establishment clause.

Question 8

Wallace v. Jaffree, 1985

Answer 8

Strikes down an Alabama law that allowed teachers to conduct religious prayer services and activities during the school day.

Question 9

Elk Grove School Dist v. Newdow, 2003

Answer 9

Dismisses a case challenging the constitutionality of the phrase “One Nation Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Question 10

Everson v. Board of Education, 1947

Answer 10

Landmark case affirming that the Constitution requires a sharp separation between government and religion.

Question 11

Reynolds v. U.S., 1878

Answer 11

Rules that religious duty is not sufficient defense against criminal charges of polygamy (First Amendment does not protect polygamy as a religious practice).

Question 12

Wisconsin v. Yoder, 1972

Answer 12

The Court ruled that Amish adolescents could be exempt from a state law compelling school attendance.

Question 13

Church of the Lukumi Babalu v. Hialeah, 1993

Answer 13

The Court found laws passed by four Florida cities banning animal sacrifice were targeted at the Santeria religion, which employs animal sacrifice in prayer, and as such the laws were unconstitutional.

Question 14

Van Orden v. Perry, 2005

Answer 14

A Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of a state capitol building does not violate the First Amendment’s establishment clause because “simply having religious content or promoting a message consistent with a religious doctrine does not run afoul of the establishment clause.”

Question 15

Miller v. California, 1973

Answer 15

Establishes a test for local authorities to define the nature of “obscenity.”

Question 16

Virginia v. Black, 2003

Answer 16

Declares cross burning is protected by the First Amendment as long as the act does not have the intent to intimidate.

Question 17

Schenck v. US, 1919

Answer 17

Declares speech will NOT be protected if it creates a “clear and present danger.”

Question 18

Bethel v. Fraser, 1988

Answer 18

Declares student speech is NOT protected by the First Amendment if it lacks value and is “disruptive of learning.”

Question 19

Tinker v. Des Moines, 1968

Answer 19

Protects “symbolic speech” of students protesting with armbands.

Question 20

Texas v. Johnson, 1989

Answer 20

Protects flag burning as “symbolic speech”

Question 21

Near v. Minnesota, 1931

Answer 21

Declares “prior restraint” unconstitutional; that is, governments cannot suppress or regulate speech before it is given.

Question 22

Morse v. Frederick, 2007

Answer 22

Upholds the authority of public school administrators to suspend students for promoting illegal drugs at a school event (“Bong Hits for Jesus”).

Question 23

NY Times Co. v. United States, 1971

Answer 23

Establishes a standard for the use of prior restraint in the press … in this case over the publication of the Pentagon Papers.

Question 24

NY Times Co. v. Sullivan, 1964

Answer 24

Requires proof of “malicious intent to harm” in order to prove libel against news organizations.

Question 25

Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, 1987

Answer 25

Upholds the authority of public school administrators to censor student newspapers since they are tools for learning – not forums of free expression.

Question 26

Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 2000

Answer 26

Upholds the Boy Scouts authority as a private institution to exclude Dale on the basis of his homosexuality (ignoring New Jersey public accommodation law).

Question 27

Village of Skokie v. National Socialist Party, 1978

Answer 27

The Supreme Court ruled that the National Socialist (Nazi) Party could not be prohibited from marching peacefully, simply because of the content of their message.

Question 28

Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York, 1997

Answer 28

The Supreme Court overturned a fifteen-foot “floating buffer” around patients leaving or entering an abortion clinic; though, “fixed buffers” were permitted since they protected the government’s interest in public safety.

Question 29

New Jersey v. TLO, 1984

Answer 29

Permits school officials to search student property with standard of “reasonable suspicion.”

Question 30

Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965

Answer 30

“Though the Constitution does not explicitly protect a general right to privacy…together, the First, Third, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, create a new constitutional right, the right to privacy in marital relations.”

Question 31

Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 1992

Answer 31

Upholds mandatory waiting period and parental consent for abortion, but strikes down spousal notification.

Question 32

Roe v. Wade, 1973

Answer 32

Establishes a woman’s right to choose an abortion and creates guidelines for the states according to trimesters.

Question 33

Mapp v. Ohio, 1961

Answer 33

Establishes the “exclusionary rule,” stating that illegally obtained evidence is inadmissible in court.

Question 34

Veronia School Dist. V. Acton, 1995

Answer 34

Upholds right of public school administrators to conduct random drug tests (urinalysis) to student athletes.

Question 35

Gregg v. Georgia, 1976

Answer 35

Upholds the constitutionality of capital punishment.

Question 36

Stanford v. Kentucky, 1989

Answer 36

Upholds the constitutionality of capital punishment for minors.

Question 37

Roper v. Simmons, 2005

Answer 37

The Courts determined the execution of a minor violates the “cruel and unusual punishment” provision of the 8th Amendment. Overturns Stanford v. Kentucky, 1989.

Question 38

Gideon v. Wainwright, 1963

Answer 38

Protects the right of the accused person to have an attorney provided free of charge.

Question 39

Miranda v. Arizona, 1966

Answer 39

Requires authorities to notify people of their rights to silence and counsel upon arrest.

Question 40

Rasul v. Bush, 2002

Answer 40

Declares U.S. court system has jurisdiction to consider legal appeals by foreign nationals (non-citizens) imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base.

Question 41

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 2006

Answer 41

Declares that enemy combatants have habeas corpus rights, and international rules of war (Geneva Convention) may be enforced in U.S. federal court.

Question 42

Kelo v. City of New London, 2005

Answer 42

“The Fifth Amendment did not require "literal" public use, the majority said, but the "broader and more natural interpretation of public use as 'public purpose.'" Therefore, the city's taking of private property to sell for private development” is constitutional.

Question 43

Escobedo v Illinois, 1964

Answer 43

Establishes for the first time the absolute right to remain silent and have counsel present during questioning (based on 6th Amendment)

Question 44

Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896

Answer 44

Upholds the doctrine of “separate but equal” in public facilities.

Question 45

Brown v. Board of Education, 1954

Answer 45

Strikes down the doctrine of “separate but equal” in public schools, claiming that separate is inherently unequal.

Question 46

University of Cal. Regents v. Bakke, 1978

Answer 46

Upholds the use of race as a determining factor in graduate school admissions, but strikes down the notion of minimum racial “quotas.”

Question 47

Gratz v. Bollinger, 2003

Answer 47

Struck down the University of Michigan’s heavy use of racial preferences in undergraduate admissions.

Question 48

Shaw v Reno, 1993

Answer 48

Prohibits using race as a factor when redistricting (gerrymandering).

Question 49

United States v. Virginia, 1996

Answer 49

Under the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause the Court held that Virginia Military Institute’s male-only admissions policy was unconstitutional.

Question 50

Baker v. Carr, 1962

Answer 50

Establishes the principle of “one man, one vote,” by declaring that legislative districts must be as near as possible in population (protects against aggressive gerrymandering).

Question 51

Lawrence v. Texas, 2003

Answer 51

Strikes down state laws banning homosexual activity as unconstitutional violations of the right to privacy. Overturns Bowers v. Hardwick, 1986.

Question 52

Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015

Answer 52

Landmark case institutionalizing the right of same-sex couples to marry.

Question 53

United States v. Miller, 1938

Answer 53

The Supreme Court stated that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual the right to keep and bear a sawed- off double barrel shotgun because its possession does not have a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia.

Question 54

District of Columbia v. Heller, 2007

Answer 54

The Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self- defense within the home.

Question 55

McDonald v. City of Chicago, 2010

Answer 55

Strikes down gun bans by arguing that the Second Amendment applies to the states because it is incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment's Privileges and Immunities or Due Process clauses.

Question 56

United States v. Lopez, 1995

Answer 56

Overturns a 1990 “Gun-free School Zone” law on the basis that Congress erroneously used the Commerce Clause to justify the limitation of 2nd Amendment rights.