Landmark US Supreme Court Cases

Question 1

Marbury v. Madison

Answer 1

5 U.S. 137 (1803) Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 is unconstitutional because it attempts to expand the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court beyond that permitted by the Constitution. Congress cannot pass laws that contradict the Constitution. This case featured the first example of judicial nullification of a federal law. ESTABLISHES JUDICIAL REVIEW.

Question 2

McCulloch v. Maryland

Answer 2

17 U.S. 316 (1819) The Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution grants to Congress implied powers for implementing the Constitution’s express powers, and state actions may not impede valid exercises of power by the federal government.

Question 3

Gibbons v. Ogden

Answer 3

22 U.S. 1 (1824) The power to regulate interstate navigation is granted to Congress by the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. ONLY CONG CAN DO INST COMM WHOAAA

Question 4

United States v. Lopez

Answer 4

514 U.S. 549 (1995) The Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 is unconstitutional. The Commerce Clause of the Constitution does not give Congress the power to prohibit the mere possession of a gun near a school because gun possession by itself is not an economic activity that affects interstate commerce even indirectly.

Question 5

United States v. Morrison

Answer 5

529 U.S. 598 (2000) The section of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 that gives victims of gender-motivated violence the right to sue their attackers in federal court is an unconstitutional intrusion on states’ rights, and it cannot be saved by the Commerce Clause or Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Question 6

Gitlow v. New York

Answer 6

268 U.S. 652 (1925) The provisions of the First Amendment that protect the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press apply to the governments of the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Question 7

Mapp v. Ohio

Answer 7

367 U.S. 643 (1961) Evidence that is obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment is inadmissible in state court.

Question 8

Gideon v. Wainwright

Answer 8

372 U.S. 335 (1963) All defendants have the right to an attorney and must be provided one by the state if they are unable to afford legal counsel.

Question 9

Miranda v. Arizona

Answer 9

384 U.S. 436 (1966) Police must advise criminal suspects of their rights under the Constitution to remain silent, to consult with a lawyer, and to have one appointed to them if they are indigent. A police interrogation must stop if the suspect states that he or she wishes to remain silent.

Question 10

Engel v. Vitale

Answer 10

370 U.S. 421 (1962) Government-directed prayer in public schools, even if it is denominationally neutral and non-mandatory, violates the Establishment Clause.

Question 11

Lemon v. Kurtzman

Answer 11

403 U.S. 602 (1971) For a law to be considered constitutional under the Establishment Clause, the law must have a legitimate secular purpose, must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion, and must not result in an excessive entanglement of government and religion.

Question 12

Cantwell v. Connecticut

Answer 12

310 U.S. 296 (1940) The states cannot interfere with the free exercise of religion.

Question 13

Schenk v. United States

Answer 13

249 U.S. 47 (1919) Expressions in which the circumstances are intended to result in crime that poses a clear and present danger of succeeding can be punished without violating the First Amendment.

Question 14

Miller v. California

Answer 14

413 U.S. 15 (1973) To be obscene, a work must fail the Miller test, which determines if it has any “serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.”

Question 15

Reno v. ACLU

Answer 15

521 U.S. 844 (1997) The Communications Decency Act, which regulates certain content on the Internet, is so overbroad that it is an unconstitutional restraint on the First Amendment.

Question 16

New York Times Co v. Sullivan

Answer 16

376 U.S. 254 (1964) Public officials, to prove they were libelled, must show not only that a statement is false, but also that it was published with malicious intent.

Question 17

Tinker v. Des Moines

Answer 17

393 U.S. 503 (1969) Public school students have free speech rights under the First Amendment. Therefore, wearing armbands as a form of protest on public school grounds qualifies as protected symbolic speech.

Question 18

Texas v. Johnson

Answer 18

491 U.S. 397 (1989) A Texas law that criminalizes the desecration of the American flag is unconstitutional because it violates the First Amendment’s protection of symbolic speech. This decision invalidates laws prohibiting flag desecration in 48 of the 50 states—Alaska and Wyoming are the two exceptions.

Question 19

Furman v. Georgia

Answer 19

408 U.S. 238 (1972) The arbitrary and inconsistent imposition of the death penalty violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments and constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. This decision initiates a nationwide de facto moratorium on executions that lasts until the Supreme Court’s decision in Gregg v. Georgia (1976).

Question 20

Gregg v. Georgia

Answer 20

428 U.S. 153 (1976) Georgia’s new death penalty statute is constitutional because it adequately narrows the class of defendants eligible for the death penalty. This case and the next four cases were consolidated and decided simultaneously. By evaluating the new death penalty statutes that had been passed by the states, the Supreme Court ended the moratorium on executions that began with its decision in Furman v. Georgia (1972).

Question 21

Griswold v. Connecticut

Answer 21

381 U.S. 479 (1965) A Connecticut law that criminalizes the use of contraception by married couples is unconstitutional because all Americans have a constitutionally protected right to privacy.

Question 22

Roe v. Wade

Answer 22

410 U.S. 113 (1973) Laws that restrict a woman’s ability to have an abortion prior to viability are unconstitutional. Most restrictions during the first trimester are prohibited, and only health-related restrictions are permitted during the second trimester.

Question 23

Planned Parenthood v. Casey

Answer 23

505 U.S. 833 (1992) A woman is still able to have an abortion before viability, but several restrictions are now permitted during the first trimester. The strict trimester framework of Roe is discarded and replaced with the more vague “undue burden” test.

Question 24

Lawrence v. Texas

Answer 24

539 U.S. 558 (2003) A Texas law that criminalizes consensual same-sex sexual conduct furthers no legitimate state interest and violates homosexuals’ right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This decision invalidates all of the remaining sodomy laws in the United States.

Question 25

Brown v. Board of Education

Answer 25

347 U.S. 483 (1954) Segregated schools in the states are unconstitutional because they violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court found that the separate but equal doctrine adopted in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) “has no place in the field of public education.”

Question 26

California Regents v. Bakke

Answer 26

438 U.S. 265 (1978) Race-based set-asides in educational opportunities violate the Equal Protection Clause. This decision leaves the door open for the possibility of some use of race in admission decisions.

Question 27

Adarand Contractors v. Pena

Answer 27

515 U.S. 200 (1995) Race-based discrimination, including discrimination in favor of minorities (affirmative action), must pass strict scrutiny.

Question 28

Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US

Answer 28

379 U.S. 241 (1964) The Civil Rights Act of 1964 applies to places of public accommodation patronized by interstate travelers by reason of the Commerce Clause.

Question 29

Buckley v. Valeo

Answer 29

424 U.S. 1 (1976) Spending money to influence elections is a form of constitutionally protected free speech; therefore, federal limits on campaign contributions are constitutional in only a limited number of circumstances.

Question 30

Bush v. Gore

Answer 30

The recount of ballots in Florida during the 2000 presidential election violated the Equal Protection Clause because different standards of counting were used in the counties that were subjected to the recount. This decision effectively resolved the election in favor of the Republican nominee, George W. Bush.

Question 31

United States v. Nixon

Answer 31

418 U.S. 683 (1974) The doctrine of executive privilege is legitimate; however, the President cannot invoke it in criminal cases to withhold evidence.

Question 32

Clinton v. City of New York

Answer 32

524 U.S. 417 (1998) The Line Item Veto Act of 1996 is unconstitutional because it allows the President to amend or repeal parts of statutes without the pre-approval of Congress. According to the Presentment Clause of the Constitution, Congress must initiate all changes to existing laws.

Question 33

Clinton v. Jones

Answer 33

520 U.S. 681 (1997) The President has no immunity that could require civil law litigation against him or her involving a dispute unrelated to the office of President to be stayed until the end of his or her term. Such a delay would deprive the parties to the suit of the right to a speedy trial that is guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment.

Question 34

Citizens United v. Federal Electoral Commission

Answer 34

558 U.S. 310 (2010) Limits on corporate and union political expenditures during election cycles violate the First Amendment. Corporations and labor unions can spend unlimited sums in support of or in opposition to candidates as long as the spending is independent of the candidates.