Required Supreme Court Cases

Question 1

Facts: Marbury v. Madison

Answer 1

Established Judicial Review. Adams lost the election, but before that he nominated a bunch of federalist justices. Some didn’t recieve their commission including Marshall who sued.

Question 2

Decision: Marbury v. Madison

Answer 2

Does Marbury have the legal right to his commission? Yes
If yes, is the court-ordered writ of mandamus the proper legal means to get the commission? Yes
If yes, does the Court have the authority to grant the writ of mandamus? No

Question 3

Arguments: Marbury v. Madison

Answer 3

Does Marbury have the legal right to his commission?
is the court-ordered writ of mandamus the proper legal means to get the commission?
does the Court have the authority to grant the writ of mandamus?

Question 4

Facts: McCulloch v. Maryland

Answer 4

Congress established a National Bank, however McCulloch the cashier of the Baltimore branch of the bank refused to pay the tax.

Question 5

Arguments: McCulloch v. Maryland

Answer 5

Does the Constitution give Congress power to create a bank? And could individual states ban or tax the bank?

Question 6

Decision: McCulloch v. Maryland

Answer 6

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. (Supremacy Clause)

Question 7

Facts: Schenck v. US

Answer 7

Schenck was charged with conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act of 1917 by attempting to cause insubordination in the military and to obstruct recruitment. Schenck was convicted of violating this law and appealed on the grounds that the statute violated the First Amendment.

Question 8

Arguments: Schenck v. US

Answer 8

the Act violated the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

Question 9

Decision: Schenck v. US

Answer 9

If speech is intended to result in a crime, and there is a clear and present danger that it actually will result in a crime, the First Amendment does not protect the speaker from government action.

Question 10

Facts: Brown v. Board of Ed

Answer 10

African American students had been denied admittance to certain public schools based on laws allowing public education to be segregated by race.

Question 11

Arguments: Brown v. Board of Ed

Answer 11

argued that such segregation violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Question 12

Decision: Brown v. Board of Ed

Answer 12

separating children in public schools on the 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 forth in the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson case.

Question 13

Facts: Baker v. Carr

Answer 13

Charles W. Baker and other Tennessee citizens alleged that a 1901 law designed to apportion the seats for the state’s General Assembly was virtually ignored. Baker’s suit detailed how Tennessee’s reapportionment efforts ignored significant economic growth and population shifts within the state.

Question 14

Arguments: Baker v. Carr

Answer 14

The votes of rural citizens were overrepresented compared to those of urban citizens. Baker’s argument was that this discrepancy was causing him to fail to receive the “equal protection of the laws” required by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Question 15

Decision: Baker v. Carr

Answer 15

federal courts could hear cases alleging that a state’s drawing of electoral boundaries, i.e. redistricting, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.

Question 16

Facts: Engel v. Vitale

Answer 16

A New York State law required public schools to open each day with the Pledge of Allegiance and a nondenominational prayer in which the students recognized their dependence upon God.

Question 17

Arguments: Engel v. Vitale

Answer 17

A parent sued on behalf of his child, arguing that the law violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, as made applicable to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Question 18

Decision: Engel v. Vitale

Answer 18

held that school-sponsored prayer violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Question 19

Facts: Gideon v. Wainwright

Answer 19

Gideon appeared in court without an attorney. In open court, he asked the judge to appoint counsel for him because he could not afford an attorney. The trial judge denied Gideon’s request because Florida law only permitted appointment of counsel for poor defendants charged with capital offenses.

Question 20

Arguments: Gideon v. Wainwright

Answer 20

the Sixth Amendment requires indigent criminal defendants to be provided an attorney free of charge.

Question 21

Decision: Gideon v. Wainwright

Answer 21

the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of Gideon, guaranteeing the right to legal counsel for criminal defendants in federal and state courts.

Question 22

Facts: Tinker v. Des Moines

Answer 22

Students decided to wear black armbands at school to protest the Vietnam war. They were punished because of this and one of the parents sued.

Question 23

Arguments: Tinker v. Des Moines

Answer 23

public school officials cannot censor student expression unless they can reasonably forecast that the speech will substantially disrupt school activities or invade the rights of others.

Question 24

Decision: Tinker v. Des Moines

Answer 24

7-2 decision in favor of the students.

Question 25

Facts: NY Times Co. v. US

Answer 25

New York Times and Washington Post printed illegally leaked classified documents about American involvement in the Vietnam War.

Question 26

Arguments: NY Times Co. v. US

Answer 26

the publication was not to put the U.S. in danger but to educate the American people about the Vietnam War. By preventing the New York Times from publishing the material, the reporters’ 1st Amendment rights were being violated.

Question 27

Decision: NY Times Co. v. US

Answer 27

The Court ruled 6-3 in New York Times v. United States that the prior restraint was unconstitutional.

Question 28

Facts: Wisconsin v. Yoder

Answer 28

The case involved three Amish fathers—Jonas Yoder, Wallace Miller, and Adin Yutzy—who, in accordance with their religion, refused to enroll their children, aged 14 and 15, in public or private schools after they had completed the eighth grade.

Question 29

Arguments: Wisconsin v. Yoder

Answer 29

individual’s interests in the free exercise of religion under the First Amendment outweighed the State’s interests in compelling school attendance beyond the eighth grade.

Question 30

Decision: Wisconsin v. Yoder

Answer 30

Wisconsin’s compulsory school attendance law was unconstitutional as applied to the Amish

Question 31

Facts: Shaw v. Reno

Answer 31

North Carolina drew a very questionable looking district that had clearly been drawn under the basis of racial gerrymandering.

Question 32

Arguments: Shaw v. Reno

Answer 32

state had created an unconstitutional racial gerrymandering violating the Fourteenth Amendment.

Question 33

Decision: Shaw v. Reno

Answer 33

using racial reasons for redistricting is unconstitutional.

Question 34

Facts: US. v. Lopez

Answer 34

Congress passed in act banning guns in school districts under the commerce clause. Many people debated whether or not the commerce clause could be used as a reason.

Question 35

Arguments: US. v. Lopez

Answer 35

the Gun Free School Zones Act was an unconstitutional exercise of Congress’s power.

Question 36

Decision: US. v. Lopez

Answer 36

Congress had exceeded its constitutional authority under the Commerce Clause when it passed a law prohibiting gun possession in local school zones.

Question 37

Facts: McDonald v. Chicago

Answer 37

McDonald wanted to purchase a hand gun for fear of robberies, however he wasn’t allowed to. McDonald sued.

Question 38

Arguments: McDonald v. Chicago

Answer 38

the right to bear arms is a fundamental right that states should not be able to infringe.

Question 39

Decision: McDonald v. Chicago

Answer 39

the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” applies to state and local governments as well as to the federal government.

Question 40

Decision: Citizens United v. FEC

Answer 40

The Court held that the First Amendment “prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.”