Required Supreme Court Cases Flashcards
1
Q
Marbury v Madison (1803): Background
A
- Before John Adams’ presidential term ended, Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1801 (creating new courts, adding new judges)
- It was an effort by John Adams to keep his own influence in federal courts even though he was leaving office
- His appointments to these courts, however, were not valid until the appointed judges were delivered their commissions by Jefferson’s Secretary of State, James Madison, who refused to deliver the commissions
- William Marbury was one of the judges appointed, and sued over his failed commission
2
Q
Marbury v Madison (1803): Constitutional issue
A
- Whether the Court had the authority to order the delivery of commission
- If a federal judge could even bring the case to court
3
Q
Marbury v Madison (1803): Holding
A
- The Court held that although legally, the commission should have been delivered, the clause of the Judiciary Act of 1789 which enabled Marbury to bring the case to court was unconstitutional
- By declaring a law made by Congress unconstitutional, the practice of judicial review was established
4
Q
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819): Background
A
- In 1816, the Second Bank of the United States was chartered; soon after, in 1818, however, Maryland decided to pass a law that imposed taxes on the bank
- James McCulloch, who served as a cashier at the Baltimore branch of the Second Bank, decided not to pay the tax
- The state court had ruled that the Bank was unconstitutional, to begin with, and that the federal government did not have the authority to charter a bank
5
Q
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819): Constitutional principle
A
- The supremacy clause
- The necessary and proper clause
6
Q
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819): Holding
A
- The Court concluded based on the Necessary & Proper Clause that Congress is not limited by its expressed powers
- It was decided that through Congress’ implied powers, they had the ability to create a bank
- Congress is allowed to borrow money, coin money, and tax expressly by the Constitution. The implied power of creating a national bank allows for the federal government to implement this expressed power
- Based on the Supremacy Clause, the national laws were superior to state laws, so the states were not allowed to tax the federal government
7
Q
Schenck v United States (1919): Background
A
- During World War I, a pair of socialists, including Charles Schenck distributed leaflets that stated the draft violated the 13th Amendment - which prohibits involuntary servitude
- The leaflet wanted people to disobey the draft. Schenck was charged with violating the Espionage Act of 1917
- They appealed on the grounds of the First Amendment
8
Q
Schenck v. United States (1919): Constitutional principle
A
The 1st Amendment’s free speech clause
9
Q
Schenck v. United States (1919): Holding
A
- The Supreme Court held that the Espionage Act did not violate the First Amendment and it was an appropriate exercise of Congress’ wartime authority
- Schenck’s speech represented a “clear and present danger” as it encourage people to boycott a draft during a time of war
- This was a key limitation on the First Amendment as the free speech clause does not allow for advocacy of unlawful behavior
10
Q
Brown v. Board of Education (1954): Background
A
- In 1951, Oliver Brown had attempted to enroll his daughter in an all-white school close to the family’s home. However, the school refused to accept her enrollment and she was forced to attend a segregated school much farther away
- The Browns, along with other families, sued the Topeka Board of Education, arguing that racial segregation in public schools violated the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause
11
Q
Brown v. Board of Education (1954): Constitutional principle
A
The 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause
12
Q
Brown v. Board of Education (1954): Holding
A
- The Court held that “separate but equal is inherently unequal,” and therefore racial segregation of public schools is unconstitutional
- The segregated schools allowed by the previous Plessy case were declared unconstitutional
13
Q
Engel v. Vitale (1962): Background
A
- The New York Board of Regents had authorized that at the beginning of each day, a short but voluntary prayer would be recited
- Several organizations filed suit against the Board of Regents, claiming that the prayer violated the Constitution
- The New York Court of Appeals dismissed their arguments
14
Q
Engel v. Vitale (1962): Constitutional principle
A
The 1st Amendment’s establishment clause
15
Q
Engel v. Vitale (1962): Holding
A
- The court held that states could not hold prayers in public school EVEN IF it was voluntary and EVEN IF the prayer did not adhere to a specific religion
- Because the act of prayer was considered a religious activity, having it occur in a public school (which is funded by the government) would go against the establishment clause of the first amendment
16
Q
Baker v. Carr (1962): Background
A
- A Tennessee law stated that every 10 years, legislative districts must be redrawn. However, in 1962, the districts had not been redrawn since 1901
- Due to rapid changes in population areas (meaning people began moving to urban areas rapidly, causing them to be heavily populated), rural areas with lower populations were more represented versus populated urban areas
17
Q
Baker v. Carr (1962): Constitutional principle
A
The 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause
18
Q
Baker v Carr (1962): Holding
A
- Legislative redistricting was a matter that the Court could weigh in on as it did not contain any political questions
- The 14th Amendment warranted judicial intervention in Tennessee’s case
19
Q
Gideon v Wainwright (1963): Background
A
- Clarence Earl Gideon was charged in Florida state court on a felony - breaking and entering charge
- During his trial, Gideon requested that he receive a court-appointed lawyer; however, in accordance with Florida State law, an indigent defendant could only have an attorney be appointed in capital crimes/cases
- Gideon then filed a habeas corpus suit, stating that the court’s decision violated his rights to be represented, or his 6th Amendment right
20
Q
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963): Constitutional principle
A
6th Amendment
21
Q
Gideon v Wainwright (1963): Holding
A
The 6th Amendment’s right to counsel applies to state court defendants via the 14th Amendment
22
Q
Tinker v. Des Moines (1969): Background
A
- A group of students decided to wear black armbands in order to protest the Vietnam War
- Mary Beth Tinker and Christopher Eckhardt decided that they would wear their armbands to school despite warnings from school administration
- After wearing the armbands to school, they were sent home. The students decided to sue their school district for violating their freedom of expression/free speech
23
Q
Tinker v. Des Moines (1969): Constitutional principle
A
1st Amendment’s free speech clause
24
Q
Tinker v. Des Moines (1969): Holding
A
- The armbands did not create a disruption within the learning environment and therefore represented protected symbolic speech
- Students still have free speech rights at school, and in order to justify the suppression of speech, the speech must substantially interfere with school operations
25
Q
New York Times Co. v. United States (1971): Background
A
- During the Vietnam War, an extensive report was written entailing the USA’s involvement in the war. Daniel Ellsberg leaked this classified document to both the New York Times and the Washington Post after becoming disillusioned with the war
- The Nixon Administration issued a cease and desist order to the New York Times, arguing that it could jeopardize national security
26
Q
New York Times Co v. United States (1971): Constitutional principle
A
1st Amendment’s free press clause
27
Q
New York Times Co v. United States (1971): Holding
A
- New York Times could continue with the publication as the government had not met the burden of proving prior restraint was justified
28
Q
Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972): Background
A
- Amish families in Wisconsin refused to enroll their children in public school past 8th grade, believing it would seriously hinder their salvation and ability to enter into Amish life
- They were convicted under the Wisconsin Compulsory School Attendance Law, which required all children to attend public school until they turned 16
29
Q
Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972): Constitutional principle
A
The 1st Amendment’s free exercise clause
30
Q
Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972): Holding
A
- Wisconsin’s law requiring children to attend public school until age 16 violated the free exercise clause of the 1st Amendment in relation to the Amish family
- Since public school education was in contrast to Amish beliefs, the children and families could not be compelled to continue their education
- An individual’s interest in the free exercise of religion was more powerful than a federal interest in sending children to school beyond the eighth grade
31
Q
Shaw v. Reno (1993): Background
A
- After the 1990 census, North Carolina submitted their newly redrawn legislative districts, containing one majority-minority black district. However, they were instructed to add another majority-minority black district to comply with the 1982 amendments of the 1965 Voting Rights Act
- The 2nd proposed district was oddly drawn and weirdly shaped in an attempt to connect the black population
- A group of white voters challenged the proposed district, claiming the district violated the equal protection clause and amounted to legislative gerrymandering
32
Q
Shaw v. Reno (1993): Constitutional principle
A
The 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause
33
Q
Shaw v. Reno (1993): Holding
A
- The proposed district’s shape was bizarre enough that it could not be explained as anything other than an attempt to separate voters based along racial lines
- Race can be considered when redistricting to comply with the 1965 Voting Rights Act, but it cannot be the primary factor
34
Q
United States v. Lopez (1995): Background
A
- In 1990, Congress passed the Guns Free School Zones Act, making it a crime to carry a firearm on school grounds
- Alfonso Lopez, a high school senior, brought a concealed handgun to his school and was then tried and convicted under the law
- The govt argued that the possession of firearms in school environments would lead to crime and then weaken the national economy, therefore allowing Congress to govern the issue under the Commerce Clause
35
Q
United States v. Lopez (1995): Constitutional principle
A
Commerce clause
36
Q
United States v. Lopez (1995): Holding
A
- Having a gun in a school zone did not constitute economic activity and did not substantially affect interstate commerce and therefore could not be regulated by Congress under the Commerce clause
- Reaffirmed states’ rights under the 10th Amendment
37
Q
McDonald v. Chicago (2010): Background
A
- Otis McDonald, a Chicago resident, attempted to legally purchase a handgun in order to protect himself against increased gang activity and increased drug dealers in his area
- A city-wide handgun ban passed in 1982 prevented him from purchasing a handgun
- McDonald sued the city, claiming his 2nd Amendment rights had been violated
38
Q
McDonald v. Chicago (2010): Constitutional principle
A
2nd Amendment
39
Q
McDonald v. Chicago (2010): Holding
A
- States could not impede on their citizens’ right to keep and bear arms under the 2nd Amendment through application of the 14th Amendment
40
Q
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010): Background
A
- In 2008, a conservative non-profit organization called Citizens United made a film called Hillary: The Movie, which portrayed Hillary Clinton in a bad light and was a clear attempt to influence voters
- The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 banned corporations from political spending or direct contributions to campaigns or political parties. A lower court ruled that Citizens United’s film violated the law
41
Q
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010): Constitutional principle
A
1st Amendment’s free speech clause
42
Q
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010): Holding
A
- In this case, corporations were held as “people” and therefore could not be limited from political spending or campaign/political party contributions
- Considered a form of political speech, which is protected under the 1st Amendment
