SCOTUS cases

Question 1

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

Answer 1

Established judicial review - allowed the SC to strike down laws which violated the Constitution

Question 2

Fletcher v. Peck (1810)

Answer 2

Case which established the principle of state judicial review, allowing it to deem state laws unconstitutional

Question 3

DC vs. Heller (2008)

Answer 3

Supreme Court case which ruled that the 2nd Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms, unconnnected with the service of the militia, and use it for lawful purposes, such as self defence within the home. The ruling struck down a DC law requiring a handgun ban, and for all rifles and shotguns to be kept disassembled, or with a trigger lock.

Question 4

judicial philosophy of DC vs Heller and size of majority

Answer 4

• strict constructionist - not adapting to modern day realities
• 5-4 ruling

Question 5

McDonald v. Chicago (2010)

Answer 5

Ruled that the 2nd Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms applies to the state and local government. This overturned Chicago’s 1982 gun control law which banned ownership of handguns

Question 6

NYSRPA v. Bruen (2022)

Answer 6

Ruled that the 1911 Sullivan Act was unconstitutional, because it violated the right under the 2nd Amendment to carry a pistol. The Sullivan Act required people applying for a license to carry a concealed firearm to show “proper cause”.

Question 7

judicial philosophy and size of majority of NYSRPA vs Bruen

Answer 7

• strict constructionist
• 6-3 (dissent - Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan)

Question 8

Grizwold v. Connecticut (1965)

Answer 8

Ruled that a Connecticut law prohibiting any person from using any contraceptive for the purpose of preventing conception to be unconstitutional, on the basis that it violates the right to privacy

Question 9

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022)

Answer 9

Overturned Roe vs Wade and Planned Parenthood vs Casey, ruling that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion. Gives individual states the right to regulate any aspect of abortion not protected by federal law

Question 10

Judicial philosophy and size of majority of Dobbs vs Jackson

Answer 10

6-3 ruling

Question 11

Roe v. Wade (1973)

Answer 11

Abortion rights fall within the right to privacy implied in the 14th amendment. This was a 7-2 decision

Question 12

Casey v. Planned Parenthood (1992)

Answer 12

The Court affirmed the central holding of Roe v. Wade, but instituted a new standard for testing whether state restrictions infringe on the abortion right: the “undue burden” test. An “undue burden” exists when a regulation places substantial obstacles in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus is viable.

Question 13

Citizens United vs FEC (2010)

Answer 13

Ruled that the free speech clause of the 1st Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures

Overturned the Bipartisan Campaign Act, as it prevented Citizens United from releasing a film critical of Hillary Clinton

Question 14

Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)

Answer 14

guaranteed the right to same-sex marriage, which is constitutional because of the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment

Question 15

Bush v Gore (2000)

Answer 15

Ruled that Florida’s Supreme Court order to recount the presidential election votes was unconstitutional, because the different standards of counting in different counties violated the Equal Protection Clause.

All SC justices that were conservative voted in favour of Bush. Shows the SC acting in a political way.

Question 16

NFIB v Sebelius (2012)

Answer 16

This case upheld most of the provisions of the Affordable Care Act. It upheld the individual mandate to buy health insurance as a constitutional exercise of Congress’ Taxing and Spending powers

A majority of justices also agreed that the expansion of Medicaid, a joint federal and state program to help cover medical costs for those on lower incomes, was not a valid exercise of Congress’ spending power, as it would coerce states into accepting expansion or lose all existing funding.

Question 17

US v Nixon (1974)

Answer 17

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that President Nixon hand over tape recordings and other subpoened materials to the federal district court

Important in the late stages of the Watergate Scandal, where Nixon was in the process of being impeached.

This ruling is useful for showing how the Supreme Court has constrained the President’s powers because Nixon tried to avoid sending evidence citing executive privilege

Question 18

Texas v Johnson (1989)

Answer 18

Activist Johnson had been convicted under Texas law for burning the American flag during a protest of the Reagan administration in 1984. The Supreme Court overruled this decision, ruling that burning the US flag is protected speech under the first Amendment, as doing so counts as political speech and symbolic speech.

Question 19

Shelby County v Holder (2013)

Answer 19

Under the VRA 1965, Section 5 prohibits eligible districts from enacting or changing voting laws without seeking federal preclearance. Section 4 (b) determined the coverage formula for those states that should be subject to federal preclearance. The act aimed to prevent voter discrimination. The coverage formula included any districts that had a voting test as of Nov 1st, 1964, and less than 50% turnout in the 1964 presidential election.

The Supreme Court ruled that Section 4(b) was unconstitutional, thus nullifying Section 5. They judged that the coverage formula was no longer responsive to current needs and therefore burdened the constitutional principles of federalism
- 10th Amendment - reserves all rights not given to the federal government, to the state
- Article 4 of Constitution - guarantees right of self govt of each state

Question 20

Bostock v Clayton County (2020)

Answer 20

Bostock was a gay man working for Clayton County, who alleged that he had been fired based off his sexual orientation

The Supreme Court ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prevents discrimnation based off “…sex”, also encompasses discrimination based off sexual orientation.

The case is an example of textualism - looking at the exact wording of the law, but defining it using modern dictionaries

Neil Gorsuch authored the majority opinion. “ if the employer fires the male worker for no reason other than the fact that he is attracted to men, the employer discriminates against him for traits or actions it tolerates in his female colleague.”

Question 21

Clinton v City of New York (1998)

Answer 21

This act is both an example of constraining the powers of the President, and an originalist ruling.

Background of the case: Bill Clinton had twice cancelled provisions within two bills, the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, and the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997.

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the the Presentment Clause only allowed the President to entirely approve or reject a proposed bill. The Line Item Veto Act had allowed Presidents to cancel portions of bills, effectively only ‘amending’ them. Due to the wording of the Presentment Clause, this violated the “finely wrought” legislative procedures as envisioned by the Framers.

Question 22

Rucho v Common Cause (2019)

Answer 22

A district court struck down the North Carolina 2016 Congressional map, judging it was the product of partisan gerrymandering. NC Republicans, led by Rucho, appealed this decision.

The Supreme Court ruled that the partisan gerrymandering claims are not judiciable because they present a political question beyond the means of federal courts.

Suggests that the Court doesn’t act in a political way, and shows judicial restraint, as the deemed an issue not judiciable

Question 23

Baker v Carr (1962)

Answer 23

• non-political decision - established the ‘political question doctrine’
• said that the court shouldn’t rule on political questions
• e.g., careful about making decisions on foreign policy cases

Question 24

Hamdan v Rumsfeld (2006)

Answer 24

The SC ruled that the military commissions set up by the Bush administration to try detainees in Guantanamo Bay violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Convention

5-3 decision (Roberts recused himself)
Constrained the powers of the President - Bush tried to pursue the war on terror, by giving terrorists fewer rights and an unfair trial

Question 25

Boumediene v Bush (2008)

Answer 25

Prisoners have the right to a writ of habeas corpus. The Military commisson act of 2006 was an unconstitutional suspension of that right.

Question 26

Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company v. Sawyer (1952)

Answer 26

Truman had attempted to seize most steel mills, for the fear that mill workers would strike, via an executive order.

The Supreme Court found no congressional statute enabling Truman to take possession of private property. 6-3 decision. Helped set a precendent for executive order and constraining the presidency.