Supreme Court Cases Flashcards
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)-Facts
Maryland imposed a tax on the Baltimore branch of the Second National Bank of the United States. Chief cashier James McCulloch refused to pay the tax, Maryland state courts ruled in the state’s favor, and the United States government appealed to the Supreme Court;
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)-Issue
The Supreme Court deals with the issues of the Necessary and Proper Clause and the Supremacy Clause
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)-Holding
The Marshall Court ruled that although no provision of the Constitution grants the national government the expressed power to create a national bank, the authority to do so can be implied by the Necessary and Proper Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 18). The ruling established the implied powers of the national government and national supremacy, the basis used to strengthen the power of the national government
United States v. Lopez (1995)-Facts
In 1992, high school senior Alfonso Lopez was arrested for taking a gun to school. he was tried and convicted for violating the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. he appealed the decision to the Supreme Court
United States v. Lopez (1995)-Issue
Lopez argued that the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 violated the Constitution, as the federal government did not have the power to regulate public schools. The federal government argued that the law was constitutional based on the commerce clause-firearms were interstate commerce
United States v. Lopez (1995)-Holding
In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court struck down the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. The majority argued that merely carrying a gun did not qualify as commerce. The Court’s holding affirmed the broad lawmaking power of Congress under the commerce clause, but ruled that the commerce clause, but ruled that the commerce clause does not grant Congress the power of firearm regulation. The dissenting justices argued that school shootings violently disrupt children’s education, education being a crucial component for financial success later in life. In this way, they believed that guns in schools interrupted interstate commerce
Baker v. Carr (1962) - Facts
In 1960, Tennessee had not redrawn its state legislative districts since the turn of the century. Charles Baker sued the state as his county’s population had grown considerably in that time without benefiting from increased representation in the state legislature. The defendant in the case was Tennessee’s secretary of state.
Baker v. Carr (1962)-Issue
Did Tennessee’s refusal to redistrict violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of “equal protection of the law”? Lawyers representing Tennessee argued that redistricting was a state issue.
Baker v. Carr (1962)-Holding
After nearly a year of deliberations, the Supreme Court ruled in a 6-2 decision that the federal government can forced states to restrict every 10 years after the national census. The ruling in this case facilitated the development of the “one person, one vote” doctrine and afforded federal courts the right to weigh in on legislative redistricting. Dissenting justices claimed that the ruling imperiled the separation of powers between legislative and judicial branches.
Shaw v. Reno (1993) - Facts
After the 1990 national census, the federal government reapportioned seats in the House of Representatives to reflect changes in the population. The North Carolina legislature began to redraw its congressional map.
Shaw v. Reno (1993)-Issue
The proposal the North Carolina legislature submitted to the Department of Justice suggested that the state legislature was attempting to use gerrymandering to isolate African American voters into the 12th Congressional District
Shaw v. Reno (1993)-Holding
In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that North Carolina’s 12th Congressional District was a clear case of the state using racial bias in its congressional map. The court ruling held that claims of racial redistricting must be “held to a strict standard of scrutiny under the equal protection clause.” Dissenting justices noted that it was not the court’s place to make this determination, as the plaintiffs were not African American. North Carolina was forced to redraw its congressional map
Marbury v. Madison (1803)-Facts
In the closing hours of his presidency, John Adams commissioned William Marbury as a Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia. Although the commission was approved by the Senate, President Thomas Jefferson, upon taking office, ordered Secretary of State James Madison not to deliver the commission.
Marbury v. Madison (1803)-Issue
What was the extent of the Supreme Court’s power regarding judicial review as outline in Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution? Although Marbury filed his suit with the Supreme Court, did it have original jurisdiction over the case?
Marbury v. Madison (1803)-Holding
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled that although Marbury was entitled to his position as Justice of the Peace, the provision of the Judiciary Act allowing the Supreme Court to grant this position was unconstitutional. This ruling, therefore, set a precedent that future courts have followed: when a law comes into conflict with the Constitution, the Supreme Court considers that law unconstitutional. This practice is the foundation of judicial review, the power of the court to rule on the constitutionality of laws, acts, statutes, and executive orders.;
