Important Supreme Court Cases

Question 1

Describe:

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

Answer 1

Marbury v. Madison established the principle of judicial review; the federal courts could review legislation to determine whether or not it is constitutional.

Marbury had been appointed a justice of the peace by President John Adams, but his commission had not been delivered. He petitioned the Court to force the new Secretary of State, James Madison, to deliver the documents. The Court held that the provision of the Judiciary Act of 1789 giving it jurisdiction was unconstitutional, since it extended the Court’s original jurisdiction beyond that which Article III established

Question 2

Describe:

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

Answer 2

In McCulloch v. Maryland, the Court held that the Constitution granted Congress implied powers to implement its expressed powers under the Necessary and Proper Clause and that a state could not impede constitutionally valid exercises of federal power.

The case arose when Maryland attempted to tax the federal bank of the United States. Chief Justice Marshall held that the “power to tax is the power to destroy,” and deemed Maryland’s actions impermissible.

Question 3

Describe:

Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)

Answer 3

In Gibbons v. Ogden, the Court held that Congress had the power to regulate interstate commerce under the Constitution’s Commerce Clause. The Court held that commerce is more than merely trade, it is also intercourse between the states.

At issue in Gibbons was a state law regarding steamboat navigation that conflicted with a federal law. The Court found that Congress had exclusive national power over interstate commerce under the Commerce Clause.

Question 4

Describe:

Engel v. Vitale (1962)

Answer 4

In Engel v. Vitale, the Court held that it was unconstitutional for state officials to encourage the recitation of an official school prayer in public schools. The Court ruled that government composed prayers recited in public schools were a violation of the Constitution’s Establishment Clause.

The Establishment Clause states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”

Question 5

Describe:

Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)

Answer 5

In Lemon v. Kurtzman the Supreme Court held that awarding state funds to Catholic schools for teaching secular subjects violated the Establishment Clause. The Court established the “Lemon Test,” which details the requirements of religious legislation. It consists of three prongs:

• the government’s action must have a secular legislative purpose
• the government’s action must neither advance nor inhibit religion
• the government’s action must not result in an “excessive government entanglement” with religion

If any prong is violated, the government’s action is deemed unconstitutional.

Question 6

Describe:

Reynolds v. United States (1878)

Answer 6

In Reynolds, the Court upheld federal legislation making polygamy a crime. Mormon leader George Reynolds had been charged with bigamy and contended that the law was a violation of his First Amendment rights.

Question 7

Define:

Oregon v. Smith (1990)

Answer 7

In Oregon v. Smith, the Court held that states are not required to accomodate illegal acts done in pursuit of religious beliefs, although they have the power to do so if they desire.

The two plaintiffs had been fired after using peyote (an illegal drug) in a religious ceremony. They filed for unemployment benefits, which were denied because the reason for their dismissal was deemed work-related “misconduct.” They then filed suit.

Question 8

Describe:

Schenck v. United States (1919)

Answer 8

In Schenck v. United States (1919) the Court held that Congress could restrict constitutional free speech protections in times of “clear and present danger.” Schenck, a Socialist Party leader, had mailed anti-draft circulars during World War One and had been jailed.

Question 9

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964)

Answer 9

In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the Court held that the First Amendment (as applied through the 14th), protected a newspaper from being sued for libel in state court for making false statements about the official conduct of a public official.

For public officials, the Court required that a plaintiff demonstrate “actual malice,” i.e. that the statements were made with knowing, or reckless disregard for the truth.

Question 10

Describe:

Roth v. United States (1957)

Answer 10

In Roth v. United States (1957), the Supreme Court upheld two defendants’ convictions for sending obscene materials through the U.S. mails. The Court found that material whose “dominant theme taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest” to the “average person, applying contemporary community standards,” was not entitled to First Amendment protections.

Question 11

Describe:

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969)

Answer 11

In Tinker v. Des Moines, the Court established the “tinker” test to determine when a school’s disciplinary actions violated students’ First Amendment rights. The Court determined that a school could only restrict speech, where necessary, to avoid substantial interference with school discipline or the rights of others.

Tinker arose out of a school ban on black armbands, which the students wore in opposition to the Vietnam War.

Question 12

Describe:

Texas v. Johnson (1989)

Answer 12

In Texas v. Johnson, the Court struck down a Texas state law that prohibited burning the U.S. flag. The Court held that the defendant’s burning of the flag constituted “speech” and was protected under the First Amendment.

Question 13

Describe:

Barron v. Baltimore (1833)

Answer 13

In Barron v. Baltimore, the Court held that the Bill of Rights did not apply to state governments. Much of Barron has been overruled in the 20th century, as the Court has held that the due process clause of the 14th Amendment selectively incorporated the Bill of Rights and applied them to state governments.

Question 14

Describe:

Gitlow v. New York (1925)

Answer 14

In Gitlow, the Court held that the First Amendment’s Free Speech clause had been “incorporated” into the liberties covered by the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.

Gitlow marked a reversal of Barron v. Baltimore (1833), and the first case in which the Court incorporated the Bill of Rights and applied it to state legislation.

Gitlow, a Socialist Party leader, had been convicted of publishing The Left Wing Manifesto, which advocated overthrowing the government by violent means.

Question 15

Describe:

Weeks v. United States (1914)

Answer 15

In Weeks, a defendant was convicted of mailing lottery tickets (a crime) based upon evidence seized from his residence without a warrant. The Court held that the warantless seizure violated the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures and that the evidence obtained could not be used in federal criminal prosecutions.

In Mapp v. Ohio (1961), the Court would extend Weeks to state criminal prosecutions.

Question 16

Describe:

Mapp v. Ohio (1961)

Answer 16

In Mapp v. Ohio, the Court held that the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures applied to the states, incorporated in the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.

Previously, the Court had held that the unreasonable search and seizure clause applied to evidence seized without a warrant in Weeks v. United States (1914).

Question 17

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

Answer 17

In Gideon v. Wainwright, the Court held that the Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel applies to the states in all cases, due to incorporation under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. The Court held that states must provide indigent defendants with counsel.

Question 18

Describe:

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

Answer 18

In Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court held that the Fifth Amendment’s privilege against self-incrimination requires arresting officers to advise suspects of their rights to remain silent and to have an attorney present for any questioning.

Advising suspects of their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimation is termed “Mirandizing.”

Question 19

Describe:

Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)

Answer 19

In Dred Scott v. Sandford, a slave sued his master claiming that he’d been taken into a non-slaveholding federal territory and was thus free. The Supreme Court dismissed the case, holding that persons of African descent were not citizens under the Constitution and thus had no standing to sue

As a corollary, Scott v. Sandford struck down the Missouri Compromise as unconstitutional.

Question 20

Describe:

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

Answer 20

*Plessy v. Ferguson *arose because a railroad provided separate passenger cars for black and white passengers, pursuant to Louisiana law. The Court held that providing “separate but equal” facilities was constitutional under the Equal Protection Clause.

Beginning with Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Court would later overturn the separate but equal doctrine.

Question 21

Describe:

Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

Answer 21

In Brown v. Board of Education, the Court held that “separate but equal” facilities were inherently unequal, overturning Plessy v. Ferguson (1896). The Court ruled that racial segregation enacted pursuant to state law was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Question 22

Describe:

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

Answer 22

In Regents v. Bakke, the University of California had reserved 16 out of 100 places for incoming minority medical students and accepted lower admissions standards for those students. The Court held that while affirmative action systems were constitutionally permissable, race-based quota systems were not.

Question 23

Describe:

Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)

Answer 23

In Grutter, the Court reviewed the University of Michigan’s law school admissions policy, which considered race as one of a number of factors in the admissions process. The Court held that the race-concious admissions process did not equate to a quota system and was thus constitutionally permissable.

Question 24

Describe:

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)

Answer 24

In Griswold, the Court was faced with a Connecticut law outlawing contraceptives. The Court held that this law was unconstitutional because it violated the right to marital privacy.

The right to privacy is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, but the Court held that the right was to be found in the “penumbras” and “emanations” of other constitutional provisions.

Question 25

Describe:

Roe v. Wade (1973)

Answer 25

In Roe v. Wade, the Court held that the right to privacy, first established in Griswold extended to a woman’s right to have an abortion.

In overturning the Texas law criminalizing abortion, the Court placed the right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.

Question 26

Describe:

Baker v. Carr (1962)

Answer 26

In Baker v. Carr, the plaintiff sued the state of Tennessee, claiming that the state’s drawing of district boundary lines violated the Equal Protection Doctrine, because the votes of rural citizens were worth more than the votes of urban citizens.

Typically, the Court refuses involvement in “political questions,” but the Court held that the political question doctrine did not apply to redistricting of state legislative districts.

Question 27

Describe:

Wesberry v. Sanders (1964)

Answer 27

In Wesberry v. Sanders, the Court required each state to draw congressional districts so that they are roughly equal in population under the Equal Protection Clause. This, and later cases, established the principle of “one person, one vote.”

Prior to Wesberry and its progeny, many congressional districts had varied widely in population, effectively giving rural voters more voting power than urban voters.

Question 28

Describe:

Korematsu v. United States (1944)

Answer 28

During World War Two, President Roosevelt interned Japanese Americans on the West Coast. Fred Korematsu, an American citizen of Japanese descent, challenged the practice. The Court ruled against him, holding that the need to protect against espionage outweighed the plaintiff’s individual rights and those of Japanese Americans.

Question 29

Describe:

United States v. Nixon (1974)

Answer 29

During the Watergate investigation, President Richard Nixon sought to invoke executive privledge to protect certain voice recordings from a subpoena. The Court held that no person, not even the president, is completely above the law. The president cannot use executive privilege as an excuse to withhold evidence that is “demonstrably relevant in a criminal trial.”

Question 30

Describe:

Buckley v. Valeo (1976)

Answer 30

In Buckley, the Court held that spending money to influence elections is a form of free speech and upheld some federal limits on campaign contributions, while striking down others.

Question 31

Describe:

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010)

Answer 31

In Citizens United, the Court held that federal restrictions on independent political expenditures by corporations and unions were impermissable. As corporations and unions are “people” under the law, their First Amendment, free speech rights could not be restricted.

Question 32

National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012)

Answer 32

In N.F.I.B. v. Sebelius, several states sued Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, in her official capacity, claiming that the provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act were unconstitutional. The Court upheld the portion of the act containing an individual mandate to buy health insurance as a constitutional exercise of Congress’ taxing power.