Landmark Cases

Question 1

describe Marbury v. Madison (1803)

Answer 1

established the principle of judicial review, an important addition to the system of “checks and balances” created to prevent any one branch of the Federal Government from becoming too powerful

Question 2

describe the case of McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

Answer 2

the court decided that the Federal Government had the right and power to set up a Federal Bank and that states did not have the power to tax the Federal Government

Question 3

describe the case of Dred Scott vs. Sanford (1857)

Answer 3

The U.S Supreme Court states that enslaved people were not citizens of the United States, and therefore, could not expect any protection from the federal governments or the courts.

Question 4

describe the case of Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

Answer 4

Racial segregation laws did not violate the U.S. Constitution as long as the facilities for each race were equal in quality

Question 5

describe the case of Schneck v. U.S. (1919)

Answer 5

Charles Schneck was charged under the Espionage Act for mailing printed circulars critical of the military draft.

Question 6

describe the case of Korematsu v. US (1944)

Answer 6

The supreme Court held that the wartime internment of American citizens of Japanese descent was unconstitutional

Question 7

describe the case of Brown v. Board of Topeka (1954)

Answer 7

The Supeeme Court ruled that separating children in public schools
on a basis of race was unconstitutional. It signaled the end of legalized racial segregation in the schools of the United States, overruling the “separate but equal” principle set in Plessy v. Ferguson

Question 8

describe the case of Mapp v. Ohio (1961)

Answer 8

Evidence obtained in an unwarranted search and seizure was inadmissible in state courts because it violated the right to privacy

Question 9

describe the case of Baker v. Carr (1962)

Answer 9

The Supreme Court decided the case, finding that it had the power to review the redistricting odds state legislative districts under the 14th amendment

Question 10

describe the case of Engel v. Vitale (1962)

Answer 10

The Court struck down a NYS rule that allows public schools to hold a short, nondenominational prayer at the beginning of the school day. These prayers were said to be amount to an “official stamp of approval” upon one particular kind of prayer and religious service, and said that, since teachers are agents of the federal government, the scheme violates the Establishment Clause.

Question 11

describe the case of Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

Answer 11

Criminal defendants have a right to an attorney even if they cannot afford one

Question 12

describe the case of Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

Answer 12

Ruled that an arrested individual is entitled to rights against self-incrimination and to an attorney under the 5th and 6th Amendments of the Constitution

Question 13

describe the case of Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)

Answer 13

The court found that the 1st Amendment applied to public schools, and school officials could not censor student speech unless it disrupted the educational process.

Question 14

describe the case of NY Times v. US. (1971)

Answer 14

Defended the 1st Amendment, right of free press, against prior restraint by the government

Question 15

describe the case of Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)

Answer 15

The Court held that individuals interests in the free exercise of religion under the 1st Amendment outweighed the State’s interests in compelling school attendance beyond the 8th grade

Question 16

describe the case of Roe v. Wade (1973)

Answer 16

The Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment protects against state action the right to privacy, and a woman’s rights to choose to have an abortion falls within that right to privacy

Question 17

describe the case of US v. Nixon (1974)

Answer 17

The Court unanimously ordered President Richard Nixon to deliver tape recordings and other subpoenaed materials related to the Watergate scandal to a federal district court.

Question 18

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

Answer 18

The Court ruled that a university’s use of racial “quotas” in its admissions process was unconstitutional, but a schools use of “affirmative action” to accept more minority applicants was constitutional in some circumstances

Question 19

describe the case of Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988)

Answer 19

Public schools do not have to allow students speech if it is inconsistent with the schools educational mission

Question 20

describe the case of Texas v. Johnson (1989)

Answer 20

Burning the American Flag was symbolic speech and protected by the 1st amendment. The Texas appeals court agreed and overturned the conviction.

Question 21

describe the case of Shaw v. Reno (1993)

Answer 21

The justices decided that using racial reasons for redistricting is unconstitutional.

Question 22

describe the case of Lopez v. US (1995)

Answer 22

The federal Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 was unconstitutional because the U.S. Congress, in enacting the legislation, had exceeded its authority under the commerce clause of the Constitution

Question 23

describe the case of Bush v. Gore (2000)

Answer 23

There was an Equal Protection Clause violation in using differing standards of determining a valid vote in different counties, causing an “unequal evaluation of ballots in various respects.”

Question 24

describe the case of District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)

Answer 24

The 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess fire arms independent of service in a state militia and to use firearms for traditionally lawful purposes, including self-defense within the home.

Question 25

describe the case of McDonald v. Chicago (2010)

Answer 25

The Court ruled that the 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms for self-defense applies to state and local governments through the 14th amendment’s due process clause

Question 26

describe the case of Citizens United v. FEC (2010)

Answer 26

The Court held that corporations and unions have a 1st Amendment right to spend unlimited amounts of money on political campaigns, as long as the spending is independent and not coordinated with candidates.