Supreme Course Cases Flashcards
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)
Main Idea: Established supremacy of the U.S. Constitution and federal laws over state laws.
The manager of the Bank of the United States located in Baltimore. The Maryland state government had tried to impose a tax on the bank, but McCulloch argued that, as an agency of the federal government, the bank was not subject to state taxes. In a unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court sided with James McCulloch, stating that states could not tax federal agencies acting within their constitutional powers. In his written decision, Chief Justice Marshall wrote that “the Constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof are supreme . . . they control the Constitution and laws of the respective states, and cannot be controlled by them.”1
United States v. Lopez (1995)
Main Idea: Congress may not use the Commerce Clause to make possession of a gun in a school zone a federal crime.
Texas twelfth-grader named Alfonzo Lopez challenged the constitutionality of a federal law known as the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. The government argued that this law, prohibiting the possession of firearms in school zones, was permissible under the Commerce Clause because at some point in the sale or manufacture of the firearm, money would have crossed state lines. The Supreme Court ruled that this was an overextension of the Commerce Clause because possession of a gun in a school zone is not an economic activity and has no bearing on actual interstate commerce. Through this decision, the Supreme Court protected state power
Marbury v. Madison (1803)
William Marbury sued Secretary of State James Madison under the Judiciary Act of 1789. Madison had not delivered Marbury’s commission as a federal justice of the peace, and Marbury felt he was entitled to it. However, the Supreme Court found that the Judiciary Act of 1789 contradicted the Constitution and therefore did not apply. Thus, not only was the Court unable to help Marbury, it also established the precedent that the Supreme Court could strike down unconstitutional laws.
Gibbons V. Ogden (1824)
New York law governing licenses for riverboats on rivers connecting New York to other states conflicted with a federal law, the Supreme Court came down squarely on the side of the federal government once again. The court ruled that the Commerce Clause in the Constitution gave Congress the exclusive power to regulate interstate commerce, meaning that New York’s licensing requirement exceeded the state government’s authority.2
Baker v. Carr (1961)
Main Idea:
The impact of federal policies on campaigning and electoral rules continues to be contested by both sides of the political spectrum.
Court-enforced redistricting based on the principle of “one person, one vote” ensured that urban constituencies were represented proportionally equal to rural area constituents.
Shaw v. Reno (1993)
Main Idea:
The impact of federal policies on campaigning and electoral rules continues to be contested by both sides of the political spectrum.
Legislative redistricting must be conscious of race and ensure compliance with the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Clinton v. The City of New York
the Supreme Court struck down the line item-veto (allowed the president the option of rejecting specific parts of a spending bill), stating that it gave the president too much legislative power
Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Township
Plaintiffs challenged a New Jersey law that allowed state funds to be used to bus children to nonpublic schools—including schools owned and operated by the Roman Catholic Church. The plaintiffs argued that allowing public funds to go to a church-owned school amounted to establishing a religion. In a 5–4 decision, the Supreme Court sided with the State of New Jersey, ruling that the money was going to benefit individual students, and not the church itself. At the same time, the court reaffirmed the doctrine of a wall of separation between church and state.
Engel v. Vitale
1962 case, the court ruled that school-sponsored prayer in a New York school district was unconstitutional. The New York Board of Regents had written a short, nondenominational prayer that students and teachers were encouraged but not required to recite. Again writing for the court’s majority, Justice Black stated that the government has no business composing prayers for people to recite, and that “purely religious functions” ought to be left to the people.
Lemon v. Kurtzman
1971 case, citizens of both Pennsylvania and Rhode Island challenged state laws that allowed public funds to be used to reimburse religious schools for nonreligious activities, such as the purchasing of textbooks and a portion of teachers’ salaries. The Supreme Court ruled that these state laws were unconstitutional because they were in violation of the Establishment Clause
Minersville School District v. Gobitis
Walter Gobitis sued the local school district for expelling his children when they refused to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. A district policy required all students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance daily, but the Gobitis family, devout Jehovah’s Witnesses, refused to participate on religious grounds. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Minersville School District, stating that religious freedom does not make individuals exempt from general laws that apply equally to everyone
Wisconsin v. Yoder
court gave further clarity to the Free Exercise Clause. A Wisconsin law required all children to attend public schools until the age of 16. The Yoder family, members of the Amish faith, argued that public school attendance past the eighth grade violated their religious beliefs. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Yoder, stating that the individual’s right to free exercise of religion outweighed any benefit to the state in requiring high school attendance
Schenck v. United States
the court determined that speech may be punished if it creates a “clear and present danger” to public safety, such as speech that incites a riot
New York Times v. Sullivan
words to count as libel or slander, the victim must be able to prove actual malice on the part of the speaker. Instead of protecting all speech in all circumstances, the amendment is thought to primarily protect the expression of opinions and the free exchange of information and ideas
Tinker v. Des Moines 1969
group of students in Des Moines, Iowa, planned to wear black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War. School officials learned of the plan and forbade the students from wearing the armbands. Several students were suspended for wearing the armbands, and their parents sued the school district, claiming their First Amendment rights had been violated. The Supreme Court sided with the students, asserting that in order to suppress any kind of speech, the school must show that it would “materially and substantially interfere” with educational activities. In this case, the school seemed to be concerned about the possibility of disruption rather than any actual interference with the school’s activities
Near v. Minnesota
court struck down a Minnesota law allowing the state government to exercise prior restraint. While striking down the law, though, the court acknowledged some possible exceptions. It pointed out that “No one would question but that a government might prevent . . . the publication of sailing dates of [military] transports or the number and location of troops
New York Times Co. v. United States
New York Times had obtained a set of classified documents, soon to be known as the “Pentagon Papers,” that detailed the federal government’s decision-making process in the early years of the Vietnam War. The Times began publishing them in June 1971. The government sought an injunction to keep the newspaper from publishing any more of the documents
Miranda v. Arizona. Ernesto Miranda
had been arrested for kidnapping and rape. After being interrogated by two police officers—without an attorney present—Miranda wrote a confession that was used as a primary piece of evidence in his conviction. His attorney argued that he had been denied his right to an attorney, and that he had not been fully aware of his constitutional right against self-incrimination.
Gideon v. Wainwright
Clarence Gideon had been arrested and charged in Florida for breaking into a pool hall with the intent to commit a misdemeanor. Gideon could not afford an attorney and asked the court to appoint one. Florida law only required court-appointed attorneys to be provided in capital cases, so Gideon’s request was denied. He was convicted but appealed his conviction on the grounds that his Sixth Amendment right to an attorney had been denied.
Mapp v. Ohio
Supreme Court went so far as to say that evidence obtained without a proper warrant may not be used in a trial. This rule became known as the exclusionary rule. By this rule, individuals are protected from police simply looking until they find something that might be incriminating. Instead they must persuade a judge that there is probable cause that a specific search would yield evidence in a case.
Furman v. Georgia
declared the death penalty unconstitutional as it was then practiced in most states. Many states rewrote their laws as a result, hoping to retain capital punishment as an option.
Gregg v. Georgia
the court declared that the death penalty is not inherently cruel and unusual in murder cases, as long as the jury giving the sentence has adequate information about the specific case in question
Barron v. Baltimore
John Barron had sued the city of Baltimore when a city construction project made his wharf in the Baltimore Harbor essentially inaccessible, causing him to lose business. He claimed that his Fifth Amendment right to “just compensation” for property taken by the government had been violated. The Supreme Court ruled against John Barron, stating that the Fifth Amendment, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, only applied to the federal government. It was not binding on the state or local governments
Gitlow v. New York
Gitlow had been arrested for distributing socialist literature, and charged with violation of a state law. When his case arrived at the Supreme Court, the justices decided in favor of Gitlow, but they cited the Fourteenth Amendment rather than the First in their decision. The Court asserted that based on the due process clause in the Fourteenth Amendment, state governments may not deprive citizens of their First Amendment rights, including freedom of speech and freedom of the press
McDonald v. Chicago
Supreme Court determined that the Fourteenth Amendment also requires states to respect the individual right to bear arms for self-defense
