SCOTUS Cases Flashcards
McCulloch v Maryland
Summary–> Congress chartered 2nd national bank and had a branch in other states. Maryland’s branch didn’t like it so they tried to tax the federal bank with laws. Federal bank said that was unconstitutional.
Constitutional Issue –> Can the necessary and proper clause allow the federal govt. to charter banks and if they can, can states tax them?
Majority Opinion –> yes, the necessary and proper clause of article 1 section 8 says banks can be chartered by the federal government. Also states cannot tax a federal institution.
Dissenting Opinion –> Congress can’t establish banks bc it isn’t specifically written in the Constitution. As a sovereign state, it can tax any businesses within it’s borders.
Impact –> Gave more power to the federal government, supremacy of national laws over federal laws
United States v Lopez
Summary –> Lopez brought a gun to school and was arrested under Texas law but the next day his charges were dropped by federal law because the federal act of the Gun Free School Zone Safety Act made it so a gun can’t be in 1000 yards of a school.
Constitutional Issue –> Did the federal government overstep the commerce clause of article 1 section 8 by using it to establish laws about firearms?
Majority Opinion –> The federal government does not have the authority to pass legislation on firearms, that is state territory.
Dissenting Opinion –> The necessary and Proper Clause of article 1 section 2 allows for the federal govt. to make gun regulation laws because if guns are present on school property, ppl will be less educated via distraction and then buy less, impacting interstate commerce. And if guns are present, less people will want to come to the state and then negatively impacts interstate commerce.
Impact –> gave the states more power in the battle of federalism
Baker v Carr
Summary –> baker challenges Tennessee’s apportionment law bc he stated that they didn’t take population shifts/weight that favored rural areas into consideration when apportionment was done.
Constitutional Issue –> Can federal courts decide the issue of state apportionment procedures?
Majority Opinion –> Yes, the Supreme Court has the power to rule on issues of state reapportionment due to the 14th amendment’s equal protections clause. The people of Tennessee were not equally protected by having weird voting and population weight.
Dissenting Opinion –> The case of state reapportionment is a political issue not a justiciable issue. They violated the separation of powers and judicial restraint
Impact –> established the foundation of the one person one vote doctrine in which everyone has to be equally represented. Fundamentally altered the nature of political representation across US. Got the supreme court involved in political questions.
Shaw v Reno
Summary –> North Carolina redistricted an oddly shaped majority minority district through gerrymandering (redistricting to favor one group over another). Opposers stated that this was an attempt to dilute black votes and a deliberate act of segregation.
Constitutional Issue –> Did North Carolina violate the equal protections clause of the 14th amendment and the voting rights act of 1965? Are majority minority districts diminishing voices of minorities?
Majority Opinion –> Due to the oddly shaped districts and racial gerrymandering, the 14th Amendment was violated because separating by race can set a dangerous precedent for majority races to do the same.
Dissenting Opinion –> Race based apportionment does not violate or take away the rights of minorities. The court has allowed unrepresented minority groups to benefit from redistricting in the past so why not now?
Impact –> Set a precedent for future cases to say racial gerrymandering is unconstitutional.
Marbury v Madison
Summary –> When John Adams lost to Thomas Jefferson in the election, he decided to appoint a bunch of new federal judges right before he left in order to dilute Jefferson’s influence on the govt. Most of the commissions were delivered before he left office but some were not and Jefferson ordered the ones not delivered to never be delivered. Marbury sued Madison because he didn’t get his commission and ordered a of writ of mandamus (a court order for an official to do what they’re legally required to do).
Constitutional Issue –> Do plaintiffs have the legal right to petition for their commissions in court? Does the writ of mandamus through the Supreme Court have the authority to deliver the commissions? Can the Supreme Court overturn congressional acts that violate the constitution?
Majority Opinion –> Marbury does not have the rights to his commission because his basis of using the Judiciary Act of 1789 section 13 is wrong, that act is unconstitutional. It is in conflict with article III of the constitution because it misdefines the grounds of original jurisdiction compared to that of Article III. Marbury and Madison are not states or ambassadors like article III requires original jurisdiction cases to be about. Therefore the Judiciary Act of 1789 is unconstitutional and null and void.
Dissenting Opinion –> none bc it was unanimous
Impact –> Invested the Supreme Court with the power of judicial review. The Supreme Court became the final interpreters of the Constitution and allows them to strike down laws passed by congress based on their constitutionality.
Engel v Vitale
Summary –> New York State imposed a rule that all students must recite a nondenominational prayer at the end of the pledge of allegiance. Some students and parents opposed of this idea and decided to take legal action, stating that it violated the establishment clause of the first amendment.
Constitutional Issue –> Did New York State violate the establishment clause of the 1st amendment because they required students to recite a prayer?
Majority Opinion –> Yes, because the First Amendment makes it so that the federal government cannot influence the kinds of prayers Americans say. (The establishment clause of the 1st amendment is applicable to this case even though it is technically not a federal govt. issue because the 14th Amendment says states can enforce a law that violates the privileges and immunities of citizens.)
Dissenting Opinion –> It is constitutional because it gave children the opportunity of sharing in the spiritual heritage of our nation. He states that they were not establishing a prayer for offering one to those who want to pray.
Impact –> Demonstration of how the court ruled in favor of individual liberties. (first amendment cases usually strike a balance between individual liberties and social order). Also this established groundwork for future cases regarding schools and religion.
Wisconsin v Yoder
Summary –> 3 Amish families removed their children from public school after 8th grade due to their amish lifestyle. Wisconsin had a compulsory education law that required children to be educated up to 16 years old at least. The families were then taxed 5 bucks for breaking this law. (at first the lower courts agreed with the state but then it was eventually brought up to the Supreme Court)
Constitutional Issue –> Did Wisconsin state law violate the first amendment’s free exercise clause by limiting their right to exercise their Amish religion?
Majority Opinion –> The state’s interest in the education of children should not trump the ability of Amish families to exercise their religion freely.
Dissenting Opinion –> They should hear more from the children, it is wrong to think this case is only between parents and Wisconsin.
Impact –> Set the tone for future cases involving the clash between state interest and the free exercise of religion (individual liberties vs social order).
Tinker v Des Moines
Summary –> Kennedy called for a Christmas truce in the war in Vietnam. To support this, the family Tinkers planned to send their children and children’s friend to school with arm bands in symbolic protest. (context: Vietnam war was very controversial and many violent protests were happening, it was not a neutral issue) When the school board heard of Tinker’s plan, they set a policy saying any student wearing a protest armband to school will be asked to remove it or be suspended until they took it off at school. Tinkers still decided to wear the armbands and got suspended so the parents sued.
Constitutional Issue –> Was the First Amendment rights free speech violated by the school suppressing their right to symbolic protest? Should this protest be allowed?
Majority Opinion –> Yes, it was a violation of free speech because it did not cause a substantial disruption in learning (they created a substantial disruption test for how school administrators can limit student speech).
Dissenting Opinion –> The first amendment does not guarantee the right to express any opinion at any time, our civil liberties have limits. Students and teachers do not have freedom of speech or expression in schools.
Impact –> Set the parameters for free speech on school campuses
Schenck v United States
Summary –> Congress passed the Espionage Act to outlaw any hinderances to military recruitment. Schenck did not like this so he wrote up a pamphlet encouraging young men to resist the draft and continued distributing it during US efforts in WWI. He was then tried and convicted for the violation of the Espionage Act.
Constitutional Issue –> Did the government have the right to censor material in a time of national emergency even if it violated free speech? Was the Espionage Act unconstitutional?
Majority Opinion –> Schenck’s first amendment rights were not violated because he wasn’t just protesting the draft but actively encouraging men to avoid the draft, which is not protected. The words used provided a clear and present danger that congress has a right to prevent. (clear and present danger test was made to measure what
was protected and unprotected)
Dissenting Opinion –> His words did not amount to a clear and present danger.
Impact –> Created a clear standard for the silencing of speech. Government has more right to infringe upon free speech if it is a time of war because it could p[ose more danger. (clear and present danger test was replaced by Brandenburg test which makes it so that speech is protected if the words did not have the intent of inciting lawless behavior even if it is offensive, which made a even higher bar to clear before infringing on free speech)
New York Times Co v United States
Summary –> Nixon administration commissioned a secret study called the Pentagon Papers outlining the history of US involvement in the war and how presidents and agencies had systematically deceived the public concerning the war. One of the guys working on it leaked huge portions of it to the New York Times and Washington Post. These papers were published and exposed the government. The Nixon Administration sent an order for the papers to cease publication because it can threaten national security (prior restraint –> nixon administration tried to keep the document from being published before they were printed)
Constitutional Issue –> Does the efforts of the Nixon Administration to prevent the release of the Pentagon Papers, which it deems to be “classified information”, violate the First Amendment protecting freedom of press?
Majority Opinion –> The Nixon Administration’s restraining order was unconstitutional for violating first amendment. The bar of prior restraint to silence speech is very high and Nixon did not meet the standards.
Dissenting Opinion –> The case was done with too much haste and resolved too quickly to deeper analyze the important legal issues at stake given the size of the documents.
Impact –> A victory for the free press against censorship and it made it very hard to censor the free press ever since.
McDonald v Chicago
Summary –> in Heller v District of Columbia, it was ruled that the restrictive gun ownership laws in DC were unconstitutional but that only applied to federal territory. McDonald wanted to apply this ruling to the states. He wanted to buy a handgun but Chicago has one of the most restrictive handgun laws so the constitutionality of those laws were brought before the supreme court.
Constitutional Issue –> Did Chicago violate the second amendment which is applied to states by the 14th amendment’s due process clause?
Majority Opinion –> Ruled in favor of McDonald, saying they were a violation of the second amendment’s rights which were applicable to states due to the 14th amendment’s due process clause. The framers of the constitution saw the right to bear arms as a fundamental right.
Dissenting Opinion –> The 14th amendment does not incorporate the second amendment tot he states. Nothing in history shows that owning a gun was a fundamental right.
Impact –> Applied the Heller ruling to the states through selective incorporation (court applied civil liberties found in bill of rights to the states). Other states with restrictive gun laws had to change their laws to fit the ruling.
Gideon v Wainwright
Summary –> Gideon was arrested for committing robbery in Florida and sent to trial. However Florida law said they would only appoint a lawyer to a defendant in capital cases so he stood trial without representation. He stood as his own lawyer and was convicted. He appealed and it was brought before the Supreme Court.
Constitutional Issue –> Was Gideon denied his 6th Amendment right to have an attorney represent him? (technically not applicable bc 6th amendment applied to federal courts and this was a state court but the 14th amendment made it apply to states as well)
Majority Opinion –> The 6th amendment’s provision for a lawyer does apply to the states via the 14th amendment’s equal protection clause so Gideon was entitled to a lawyer. Our country values the right to assure fair trials and a lack of representation would violate this.
Impact –> The 6th amendment was incorporated through the states (selective incorporation). States were required to fund and train thousands of public defense lawyers who could be called upon to represent people who cannot afford a lawyer.
Brown v Board of Education
Summary –> Many schools were segregated as a result of the Plessy v Ferguson ruling in which segregated public areas were deemed constitutional if “separate but equal”. A Black family tried to enroll their daughter into a white school that was closer to their house but was denied. Lower courts upheld Plessy’s ruling and it was brought to the supreme court.
Constitutional Issue –> Did the state violate Brown’s equal protection as established in the 14th Amendment?
Majority Opinion –> Plessy’s ruling was overturned and agreed segregated schools violated the 14th amendment. By separating black children just because of their race instills a feeling of inferiority that is unlikely to be undone.
Dissenting Opinion –> The constitution is colorblind and this ruling will cause a further divide and agitation
Impact –> Massive win for the civil rights movement at the time
Citizens United vs FEC
Summary –> Bipartisan Campaign Finance Act (BCRA) made it illegal for corporations and nonprofits to engage in electioneering communications 60 days before an election and 30 days before a primary. Citizen United decided to make a movie called Hillary the Movie in which it was full of damning accusations against Clinton. When it was ready to be released it fell into the time in which the BCRA forbade it to air.Citizens United challenged this.
Constitutional Issue –> The BCRA’s prohibition against electioneering communications was a violation of the first amendment’s freedom of speech.
Majority Decision –> Ruled in favor of Citizens United because these limitations were no different from government censorship of speech toward individuals. (applies for corporations too bc SC has a history of ruling a corporation as a person)
Dissenting Opinion –> A corporation is not a person, they do not have the guaranteed rights
Impact –> People with the most money have the loudest voices so now organizations can spend as much money as they want as long as they don’t collaborate directly with the candidate for political communication right up to election day.
