Landmark Cases Flashcards

1
Q

What was Marbury v. Madison (1803)?

A

This ruling held that the Supreme Court had the power of “judicial review” to decide whether a law or executive action is constitutional. This essentially gave the high court the legal authority for every decision it would make in the future.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What was Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)?

A

The Supreme Court unanimously held states cannot interfere with Congress’s ability to regulate commerce. State laws had to yield to constitutional acts by Congress. It was an important early decision finding that federal governments had the ability to determine interstate commerce.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What was Worcester v. Georgia (1832)?

A

The Supreme Court held, 5-1, that the Cherokee Nation was a sovereign “distinct community.” It struck down the Georgia law prohibiting white people living on Native American land. The case was important because it set out the relationship between tribes, states, and the federal government. It meant that interaction with Native American states became a federal process, and provided some sovereignty when interacting with the US government.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What was Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge (1837)?

A

The Supreme Court held 5-2 that the authority given to Charles River never granted them a monopoly, and that general welfare would be enhanced with a second bridge. The court said the responsibility of government was to promote the happiness and prosperity of the community.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What was Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)?

A

The Supreme Court held 7-2 that since Scott’s ancestors were imported into the US and sold as slaves, he could not be an American citizen. Since he wasn’t a citizen, he had no jurisdiction to sue, which also meant that black people living free in the north were barred from federal courts. The court also held that under the Fifth Amendment, slaves were property, and any law that deprived a slave-owner of their property was unconstitutional.

The decision is thought to be one of the factors that led to the Civil War.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What was Munn v. Illinois (1877)?

A

The Supreme Court held 7-2 that the law was constitutional, and that the state can regulate private industries when it affects the public. Since storage facilities were devoted to the public, they could be regulated. This case allowed states to regulate businesses within their borders. It was important because it showed how private enterprises could be publicly regulated.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What was Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)?

A

The Supreme Court held 7-1 that “separate but equal” accommodations for w

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

What was Lochner v. New York (1905)?

A

In 1897, New York passed a labor law limiting the working week for bakers to 60 hours. Joseph Lochner, a Bavarian baker, was fined twice, because his employees worked more than 60 hours. Lochner appealed, arguing the law was unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court held 5-4 that the New York law was unconstitutional. The court said the law interfered with the contract between an employer and and his employees.

This decision was widely condemned. For the next three decades, the court struck down minimum wage laws, rights to organize, and child safety laws using Lochner as precedent, before reversing course and allowing such laws.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

What was Abrams v. United States (1919)?

A

The Supreme Court held 7-2 that the Espionage Act was valid, and that it was a crime to willfully publish “disloyal” language about US politics, arguing that such speech was not protected by the First Amendment.

One of the most important things to come out of this case is Justice Holmes’ dissenting opinion. He argued that the government should only regulate people’s expression when it was required to save the country.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

What was Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Mellon (1923)?

A

The issue was whether a taxpayer had standing to sue, when the only injury was going to be an increase in taxes.

The Supreme Court unanimously held she did not have standing because the injury was too small and indeterminable. It led to the legal concept of a “particularized” injury, which needs to be traced to a legal violation. Without this decision, it would be a lot easier to take a suit to court.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

What was Buck v. Bell (1927)?

A

A young woman named Carrie Buck was diagnosed with “feeble mindedness,” and committed to a state institution after she was raped by her foster parent’s nephew, and had his child. Her mother had also been diagnosed as feeble minded. Under the 1924 Virginia Eugenical Sterilization Act, she was to be sterilized against her will, since she was seen as unfit to procreate. Buck’s appointed guardian sued, hoping to have the Supreme Court find sterilization constitutional.

The Supreme Court held 8-1 that there was nothing in the Eighth or 14th Amendments that said Carrie Buck could not be sterilized.

After this case, sterilizations did not cease until the 1960s, and more than 60,000 people were sterilized without their consent. The case has never been overturned.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

What was Near v. Minnesota (1931)?

A

The Supreme Court held 5-4 that the Public Nuisance law was unconstitutional. Chief Justice Hughes wrote, “This statute … raises questions of grave importance transcending the local interests involved in the particular action. It is no longer open to doubt that the liberty of the press and of speech is within the liberty safeguarded by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from invasion of state action.”

The case stopped journalists from being censored, and enabled the press to fulfill its role as watchdog, including the printing of the Pentagon Papers in 1971.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What was Wickard v. Filburn (1942)?

A

The Supreme Court unanimously held that Congress had the power to regulate activities in the industry, and within states, when the activities had substantial effects on interstate commerce. So, even though Filburn’s wheat wasn’t all going to make it into the market, growing it still altered supply and demand in a national market.

This case led to the federal government having more power to regulate the economy, and also enabled federal regulation of things like workplace safety and civil rights.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

What was Brown v. Board of Education (1954)?

A

The Supreme Court unanimously held that separate educational facilities were inherently unequal. A second decision called for lower courts and school boards to proceed with desegregation. This decision knocked down the doctrine of “separate but equal” from Plessy v. Ferguson, which had allowed mixed race schools, transportation, and facilities to exist as long as they were “equal.”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

What was Mapp v. Ohio (1961)?

A

The Supreme Court held 6-3 that any violation of the Fourth Amendment’s right against unlawful searches and seizures made evidence inadmissible in court. Justice Clark wrote in his majority opinion that “the exclusionary rule,” which prohibits the use of illegally obtained evidence in criminal trials, was essential.

This case has led to the redefining of the rights of people being accused and limits how police can obtain evidence.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

What was Engel v. Vitale (1962)?

A

The Supreme Court held 6-1 that reading an official prayer at school violated the constitution, because it was an “establishment of religion.”

The case meant any state-enforced prayer, or reading of the bible in a public school would be suspected. It also was a key case showing the enforcement of separation between church and state.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

What was Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)?

A

The Supreme Court held unanimously that state courts were required to appoint attorneys for those who could not afford their own counsel.

The US justice system would not be what it is today without this decision. The decision affirms that “lawyers in criminals courts are necessities, not luxuries.” However, the quality of criminal defense services varies across the country.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

What was Reynold v. Sims (1964)?

A

The Supreme Court held 8-1 that Alabama’s apportionment scheme had breached the 14th Amendment. The justices ruled that the right to vote is a fundamental right, and equal participation is crucial.
This decision made the government more democratic.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

What was Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US (1964)?

A

This was the first case to challenge the Civil Rights Act, and by upholding it, the act was legitimatized and strengthened. The law would go on to be used to dismantle many other forms of racist discrimination.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

What was New York Times v. Sullivan (1964)

A

The Supreme Court held unanimously that while regular defamation requires that a defendant knows a statement is false or reckless, when it’s a public figure, the defendant must act with “actual malice” — meaning they must know it was false or have a “reckless disregard” for the truth.

This decision strengthens the freedom of the American press, which has the strongest protections in the world, ensuring debate on public issues is robust and open.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

What was Miranda v. Arizona (1966)?

A

he Supreme Court held 5-4 that law enforcement must advise suspects of their right to remain silent, their right to an attorney, and that anything they say can and will be used against them in a court of law. Evidence could not be used in a trial unless the warnings had been given and knowingly waived.

22
Q

What was Loving v. Virginia (1967)?

A

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court held that the law was unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment.

In a watershed moment for civil rights, the case found that people of any race, anywhere in the US, can get married, striking down laws banning inter-racial marriage in 16 states. The case was later cited in same-sex marriage cases.

23
Q

What was Terry v. Ohio (1968)?

A

The Supreme Court held 8-1 that the search was reasonable since the men were acting suspiciously, warranting inquiry. If circumstances justify a belief that an individual is armed and dangerous, the justices ruled, the officer may pat down the outside of an individual’s clothing.

This case opened up the police’s ability to investigate activity they deem suspicious.

24
Q

What was Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)?

A

The Supreme Court held per curiam, which means in the name of the court rather than the judges, that his freedom of speech had been violated. It found that speech may only be outlawed when it is directly inciting “imminent lawless action.” It also found that abstract discussions are not the same as actual preparation to engage in violence. This case broadened protections for political dissent.

25
Q

What was Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp. (1971)?

A

The Supreme Court unanimously held that it was discriminatory, since it was based on the sex of the applicant, even if it was about motherhood.

26
Q

What was Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)?

A

The Supreme Court held unanimously that the Amish families’ right to religious freedom was not overridden by the state’s interest in education. It held that sending the children to high school would threaten the Amish way of life. Freedom of religion was seen as more important than the state’s interest in education, and this case created an exception for Amish people, and others in similar situations.

27
Q

What was Roe v. Wade (1973)?

A

The Supreme Court held 7-2 that overly restrictive legislation around abortion was unconstitutional. Based on a right to privacy in the 14th Amendment, the state was not allowed to regulate a woman’s decision.

This case overruled any laws that made abortion illegal before a fetus was viable, giving women more power when it comes to their bodies and having children. It made access to abortion a constitutional right.

28
Q

What was San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez (1973)?

A

The Supreme Court held 5-4 that there is no constitutional right to an equal education. The opinion said it should not be unconstitutional, because “burdens or benefits” fall unevenly, depending on the wealth of the areas in which citizens live.

In Time Magazine’s list of the worst Supreme Court cases since 1960, the editors concluded this case enforced the idea that discrimination against the poor did not violate the Constitution, and education wasn’t a fundamental right.

29
Q

What was United States v. Nixon (1974)?

A

The Supreme Court held unanimously that while there was limited executive privilege for military or diplomacy reasons, it wasn’t enough in this case. Nixon had to hand over the tapes. The case led to Nixon’s resignation, and also ensures that the president does not have unlimited privilege to withhold information from other branches of government.

30
Q

What was O’Conner v. Donaldson (1975)?

A

The Supreme Court held unanimously that mental patients could not be confined in institutions against their will, if they weren’t dangerous and were capable of surviving in society.

The decision established the legal threshold for people posing a danger to themselves or others.

31
Q

What was Buckley v. Valeo (1976)

A

The court held per curiam that independent spending was a form of political speech protected by the First Amendment. However, it also concluded that contributions could be capped. This is an important decision for campaign spending. It helped lead the way to the rising of political action committees, or PACs. It also led to the enforcement of reporting campaign spending.

32
Q

What was First National Bank of Boston v. Belloti (1978)?

A

The court concluded that the First Amendment protected corporations, since they were made up of shareholders who decided their corporation should engage on public issues. This case opened the door to Citizens United.

33
Q

What was Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978)?

A

The Supreme Court held 5-4 that Bakke should be admitted. However, it also said race could be taken into account to promote diversity on campuses.

34
Q

What was Strickland v. Washington (1984)?

A

The Supreme Court held 8-1 that ineffective counsel only violated the Sixth Amendment when the performance was deficient. For this, counsel assistance had to fall below an objective reasonableness standard, and there needed to be a “reasonable probability” the result would have been different had counsel not failed.

This case makes it difficult for defendants to prove ineffective assistance claims, since they need to show that it’s outside the range of professional competence and that the client was prejudiced by it.

35
Q

What was Chevron USA Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council (1984)?

A

The Supreme Court held unanimously that the bubble policy was valid. It found that if the law is clear then agencies must follow it, and when a a law does not have a clear meaning, the courts should defer to the federal agency’s interpretation of the law.

This is one of the most cited Supreme Court decisions of all time, and this standard became known as the “Chevron Defense.”

36
Q

What was Texas v. Johnson (1989)?

A

The Supreme Court held 5-4 that burning the flag was protected under the First Amendment.

37
Q

What was Michael H. v Gerald D. (1989)?

A

The Supreme Court held 5-4 that a biological father does not have a fundamental right to obtain parental rights, after the presumed father had acted in a responsible way for the child. A woman’s husband is to be presumed father of her children, regardless of anyone else’s claim.

38
Q

What was Cruzan v. Director of the Missouri Department of Health (1990)?

A

The Supreme Court held 5-4 that there was a right to die, but the state had the right to stop the family, unless there was “clear and convincing” evidence that it was her wish to die.

This was the first time the court had ruled on a right-to-die case. It didn’t set national guidelines, and left it to be decided on a state-by-state basis.

39
Q

What was Lawrence v. Texas (2003)?

A

The Supreme Court held 6-3 that the Texas law violated their right to liberty, under the “Due Process Clause,” which allowed them to engage in their conduct without government intervention.

This was seen as a victory for LGBT rights, removing what one law professor called “the reflexive assumption of gay people’s inferiority,” and overturning 14 state laws across the US.

40
Q

What was Georgia v. Randolph (2006)?

A

The Supreme Court held 5-3 that in at least a few circumstances the right to search and enter is not valid if one of the occupants says they can’t, ruling in the husband’s favor.

This case narrows the scope for when police can enter and search homes without warrants. They can still enter to protect someone from harm or to chase a fleeing suspect, for example.

41
Q

What was Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (2007)?

A

The Supreme Court held 5-4 that the EPA had the right to regulate heat-trapping gases coming from automobiles, and that the Clean Air Act’s definition of air pollutant had been written with sweeping language so that it would not become obsolete.

According to James Salzman, a professor of law and environmental policy at Duke University, the majority’s acknowledgement of climate change science put this case on the legal map.

42
Q

What was District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)?

A

The Supreme Court held 5-4 that the Second Amendment guaranteed an individual’s right to possess a firearm at home for self-defense. It was the first time in 70 years the Supreme Court ruled on the Second Amendment.

43
Q

What was Citizens United v. FEC (2010)?

A

he Supreme Court held 5-4 that corporations and unions can spend as much as they like to convince people to vote for or against political candidates, as long as the spending is independent of the candidates. The ruling gave corporations protections under the First Amendment’s right to free speech.

The decision changed how politics works in the US. In the 2014 senate elections, outside spending had more than doubled to $486 million since 2010.

44
Q

What was National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012)?

A

The Supreme Court held 5-4 that the individual mandate was legitimate, because it was in essence a tax, and struck down the provision that would withhold funds for states which did not expand the program.

45
Q

What was Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)?

A

The Supreme Court held 5-4 that the 14th Amendment guarantees the right to marry, including same-sex marriages. Every state in the US now legally recognizes same-sex marriage. Before this case, 13 states still had a ban on gay marriage.

46
Q

What was McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)?

A

Established the right of Congress to pass laws that are “necessary and proper” to conduct the business of the U.S. government. Here, the court upheld Congress’ power to create a national bank.

47
Q

What was Schenck v. United States (1919)?

A

Speech that presents a “clear and present danger” to the security of the United States is in violation of the principle of free speech as protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution.

48
Q

What was West Coast Hotel v. Parrish (1937)?

A

In a 5-to-4 decision written by Justice Charles Evans Hughes, the Court held that the establishment of minimum wages for women was constitutional. Echoing Muller v. Oregon (1908), the majority ruled that the state may use its police power to restrict the individual freedom to contract. The decision overruled Adkins and marked the Court’s departure from the expansive view of the freedom to contract. The decision is generally regarded as having ended the Lochner era, a period in American legal history in which the Supreme Court tended to invalidate legislation aimed at regulating business.

49
Q

What was Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)?

A

Estelle Griswold, the director of a Planned Parenthood clinic, broke an 1879 Connecticut law banning contraception. The Court struck down the law, making it a landmark case in which the Court read the Constitution to protect individual privacy. This was to be the foundation of further privacy rulings, including the right to privacy in matters of abortion.

50
Q

What was Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)?

A

The Supreme Court held that the armbands represented pure speech that is entirely separate from the actions or conduct of those participating in it. The Court also held that the students did not lose their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech when they stepped onto school property.

51
Q

What was Korematsu v. United States (1944)?

A

The majority found that the Executive Order did not show racial prejudice but rather responded to the strategic imperative of keeping the U.S. and particularly the West Coast (the region nearest Japan) secure from invasion. The Court relied heavily on a 1943 decision, Hirabayashi v. U.S., which addressed similar issues.