Landmark Cases Flashcards
What was Marbury v. Madison (1803)?
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.
What was Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)?
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.
What was Worcester v. Georgia (1832)?
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.
What was Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge (1837)?
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.
What was Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)?
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.
What was Munn v. Illinois (1877)?
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.
What was Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)?
The Supreme Court held 7-1 that “separate but equal” accommodations for w
What was Lochner v. New York (1905)?
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.
What was Abrams v. United States (1919)?
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.
What was Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Mellon (1923)?
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.
What was Buck v. Bell (1927)?
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.
What was Near v. Minnesota (1931)?
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.
What was Wickard v. Filburn (1942)?
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.
What was Brown v. Board of Education (1954)?
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.”
What was Mapp v. Ohio (1961)?
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.
What was Engel v. Vitale (1962)?
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.
What was Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)?
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.
What was Reynold v. Sims (1964)?
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.
What was Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US (1964)?
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.
What was New York Times v. Sullivan (1964)
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.
