Supreme Court Cases Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
1
Q

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

A

Background: on his last day of office, Adams nominated a number of Federalist judges (Midnight Judges). On Jefferson’s first day of office, he orders James Madison to go and refuse to deliver the appointments. However, one man, William Marbury, receives his appointment.

Ruling: Marshall rules that the Supreme Court has the authority of ‘judicial review’ (can interrupt the Constitution and decide on the constitutionality of laws and presidential orders).

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

A

Background: after the National Bank was established state legislatures attempted to enforce taxation. James McCulloch of Maryland refused to pay the tax.

Ruling: Marshall ruled that the Federal government has the right to regulate interstate trade and commerce (banking).

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)

A

Background: Aaron Ogden and Thomas Gibbons entered a
partnership in which both owned and operated a steamship that sailed throughout the U.S. carrying cargo filled with goods.
Gibbons breaks-off the partnership to work with another company.
Ogden was angry and convinced NYS to file a lawsuit against Gibbons for operating a steamship on New York State waters.

Ruling: states cannot regulate commerce on interstate trade (reinforces federal authority)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Worcester v. Georgia (1832)

A

Background: Samuel Worcester and Elias Boudinot published a newspaper ( the Cherokee Phoenix) that pushed for the rights of the Cherokee nation and other Native American groups in the U.S. Both were arrested for living on Native American land (state law).

Ruling: Native American Tribes/Nations are to be viewed as any other foreign nation, therefore, no state could negotiate their own terms.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Prigg v. Pennsylvania (1842)

A

Background: Margaret Morgan was sold to John Ashmore in the state of Maryland. He granted her some freedoms in where she worked and lived but never gave her legal freedom. He died, leaving Morgan to his wife who did not treat Morgan as kindly. Morgan fled to PA and the wife hired Edward Prigg to capture Morgan. Prigg is arrested in PA and sues the state for wrongful imprisonment.

Ruling: Supreme Court rules in favor of Prigg, saying that states cannot overrule Federal Authority (Fugitive Slave Law). However, they still allowed states to pass laws concerning the handling of slavery and fugitive slaves.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

The Dred Scott Decision (1857)

A

Background: Dred Scott was born into slavery. He and his owner moved all throughout the country to find better employment opportunities which included free states (like Illinois). After the death of his owner, he tried to buy the freedom of himself, wife and two daughters, but the wife of his owner refused to release him. He sued for freedom on the basis that since he was in a free territory (Illinois), he was free.

Ruling: The Supreme Court rules that slaves are property, therefore cannot sue their masters, and do not have the rights (denied legality of black citizenship).

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Munn v. Illinois (1877)

A

Background: Munn & Scott was a company that operated a grain elevator in Chicago. They were hiking-up the price of grain they had collected, but it was in violation of ‘Granger Laws.’ They argued that since they were a private business, they had the right to charge whatever they wanted; said that the Granger Laws violated their 14th amendment rights.

Ruling: the Federal government has the authority to rule over private businesses in regards to the public good.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Eugene V. Debs (1880)

A

Dear Madison,

This is not a court case <3.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Civil Rights Cases (1883)

A

Background: as cases began to come to the Supreme Court, in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1875, the Supreme Court began ruling against the Civil Rights Act of 1875.

Ruling: The Supreme Court found the Civil Rights Act of 1875 unconstitutional because it was infringing the rights of private businesses.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

A

Background: Homer Plessy (⅛ African American) sat in a “White’s Only” rail car until the conductor asked Plessy to move. He refused and was arrested on the grounds of an 1880 Louisiana Law. Plessy sued the judge of Louisiana John H. Ferguson (and the state) who found him guilty.

Ruling: the protections of 14th Amendment applied only to political and civil rights, not “social right.” This ruling upheld the constitutionality of “separate but equal.”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Northern Securities CO v. United States (1904)

A

Background: competing railroad companies joined forces under a holding company called Northern securities, creating a monopoly. Roosevelt sued, claiming that this was a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

Ruling: the Federal Government has the authority to dissolve a business for violating the Sherman Antitrust Act.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Muller v. Oregon (1908)

A

Background: Oregon, like in many other states, passed laws that restricted the amount of hours women could work. Women therefore could not negotiate with their employers for better working conditions. They sued the state of Oregon under violation of the 14th amendment.

Ruling: the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the state of Oregon, because it was to ‘protect’ the welfare of women.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Guinn v. United States (1915)

A

Background: Frank Guinn and J.J. Beal were Oklahoma election officers charged in court with violating federal election law by denying blacks the right to vote under the Grandfather clause.

Ruling: the “grandfather clause” was struck down in Oklahoma’s Voter Registration Act of 1910 because the clause discriminated against blacks and, therefore, violated the Fifteenth Amendment.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Schneck v. United States (1919)

A

Background: Charles Schenck and Elizabeth Baer, members of the Communist Party, handed-out and mailed thousands of fliers for people to protest the war and refuse entry. They were arrested under the Espionage Act 1917. Schenck sued, claiming he was protected under the First Amendment.

Ruling: the Supreme Court ruled that during times of war, first Amendment rights are not guaranteed.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Schechter Poultry v. United States (1935)

A

Background: the Schechter brothers, who ran ALA Schechter Poultry were brought up on 18 different charges, that violated the NIRA law in President Roosevelt’s New Deal.

Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that the NIRA law was in fact unconstitutional, because while the federal government could rule on interstate commerce, Schechter’s chickens were only being sold locally.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Murray v. Pearson (1936)

A

Background: Donald Gaines Murray, an African American student, applied to University of Maryland School of Law, but he was rejected because of the color of his skin. Despite meeting all of the requirements, the school followed a “separate but equal” policy.

Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Murray. The court did not outlaw segregation, but outlawed that places supported by public funding must be equal. Since there was only one law school in Maryland, he was allowed to attend.

17
Q

Chambers v. Florida (1940)

A

Background: Robert Darsey, and elderly white man, was found murdered. Within 24 hours, police officers arrested dozens of African American men with no evidence of their involvement. The men were denied their Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights through questioning without a lawyer, and 4 men made a confession.

Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that the arrest and interrogation were unconstitutional, ruling in favor of the four men. In addition, the Court declared that use of mental torture, accompanied by threats of violence made a confession unmissable.

18
Q

Korematsu v. United States (1944)

A

Background: Korematsu was put into an internment camp and he sued for freedom.

Ruling: The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the internment camps; Federal government has the authority to restrict the rights of individuals during wartime

19
Q

Smith v. Allright (1944)

A

Background: In 1923, Texas required primary voters to be white, despite African Americans gaining the right to vote under the 15th Amendment. Lonnie E. Smith, an African American, sued the election official in response.

Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Lonnie Smith. The law was ruled unconstitutional because it violated the 14th Amendment of equality and 15th Amendment of the right to vote.

20
Q

Shelley v. Kraemer (1948)

A

Background: The Shelleys, an African American family, bought a home in a neighborhood in which 30 out of 39 homeowners signed a restrictive covenant which stated that no home was to be sold to any African Americans. The neighborhood sued to undo the sale of the property to the Shelleys.

Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Shelleys. They said that courts could not enforce real estate covenants that restricted the sale of property based on race.

21
Q

McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents (1950)

A

Background: The University of Oklahoma denied George W. McLaurin admission to their graduate program in education. The University cited the segregation statute which made it a misdemeanor to operate a school in which both blacks and whites were taught.

Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that racial segregation within the facilities and institutions of colleges and universities is inconsistent with the 14th Amendment.

22
Q

Sweatt v. Painter (1950)

A

Background: Herman Sweatt sued after being refused admission to the University of Texas Law School. The state of Texas created a segregated law school for African Americans.

Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that the Equal Protection Clause required that Sweatt be admitted to the university. Also, it was ruled that the segregated law school (which would have opened in 1947) was grossly unequal.

23
Q

Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

A

Background: Linda Brown was denied admittance into an all white school. She sued claiming that it violated her 14th Amendment rights.

Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Brown and declared separate but equal was unconstitutional.

24
Q

Yates v. United States (1957)

A

Background: Oleta Yates and 13 other members of the Communist Party in the state of California were tried and convicted under the Smith Act which prohibited willfully and knowingly conspiring to teach and advocate the overthrow of the government by force.

Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment protected radical and reactionary speech, unless it posed a “clear and present danger.”

25
Q

Mapp v. Ohio (1961)

A

Background: Police officers forced their way into Dollree Mapp’s house without a proper search warrant.

Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that evidence seized unlawfully, without a search warrant, could not be used in criminal prosecutions in state courts.

26
Q

Engel v. Vitale (1962)

A

Background: NYS Board of Regents authorized a voluntary prayer that would be recited by students at the beginning of their day in school. A group of parents, including Steve Engel, objected to this prayer and sued William Vitale, the school board president.

Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Engel and declared that school-sponsored prayer in public schools violated the first amendment.

27
Q

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

A

Background: Clarence Earl Gideon was charged with breaking and entering into a pool hall and stealing money from the hall’s vending machines. At his trial, Gideon could not afford a lawyer and requested that an attorney be appointed to represent him.

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

28
Q

Escobedo v. Illinois (1964)

A

Background: Danny Escobedo was arrested and taken to a police station for questioning. While there, the police refused his requests to see his lawyer. Escobedo later confessed to murder. The Supreme Court of Illinois held that Escobedo’s confession had been admissible even though he was denied access to counsel. The police had also never informed him of his right to remain silent.

Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that because Escobedo’s request to consult with his attorney had been denied and because he had not been warned of his constitutional right to remain silent, his confession was inadmissible and his conviction was reversed; against 6th amendment.

29
Q

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

A

Background: Ernesto Miranda was charged with rape, kidnapping, and robbery. He was not informed of his rights prior to the police interrogation. During the two-hour interrogation, Miranda allegedly confessed to committing the crimes, which the police apparently recorded.

Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that an arrested individual is entitled to rights against self-discrimination and to an attorney under the 5th and 6th Amendments of the United States Constitution.

30
Q

Roe v. Wade (1973)

A

Background: Norma McCorvey (Jane Roe) became pregnant with her third child. She wanted an abortion but lived in Texas where abortion was illegal except when necessary to save the mother’s life. Her attorneys filed a lawsuit on her behalf in U.S. federal court against her local district attorney, Henry Wade, alleging that Texas’s abortion laws were unconstitutional.

Ruling: Supreme Court ruled that states cannot have laws that prohibiting abortions as a violation of a women’s right to privacy.

31
Q

Nixon vs. United States (1974)

A

Background: Nixon sent his political action committee (CREEP) to the Watergate Hotel in Washington D.C. to steal documents and set up wiretaps of the Democratic National Committee. He even had them tape the Oval Office.

Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled against Nixon and ordered him to turnover the tapes.