Supreme Court Cases Flashcards
Brown v. Board of Education
In each of the cases, African American students had been denied admittance to certain public schools based on laws allowing public education to be segregated by race. Brown argued that such segregation violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment which used to be based on Plessy v. Ferguson, which held that racially segregated public facilities were legal so long as the facilities for blacks and whites were equal. Ruled in favor of Brown
Baker v Carr
Southern states used many strategies to avoid giving African Americans equal rights. Specifically Tennessee had experienced population growth and the cities experienced an influx of minorities. State legislature realized that black voting could soon take over city governments and affect state legislatures. To avoid this population shift, Tennessee refused to change statewide voting districts. Baker sued Carr represented by the state. The court ruled in favor of Baker using the equal protection clause, claiming that minorities were not being protected by the state actions. States had to re-district so that voting rights were equal across the state. “One man, one vote.”
Schenck v US
Schenck distributed leaflets declaring that the draft violated the Thirteenth Amendment these leaflets urged the public to disobey the draft. The US charged charged Schenck with conspiracy of violating the Espionage Act of 1917 by attempting to obstruct military recruitment. Schenck appealed by stating that his First Amendment rights of free speech was being violated. Courts ruled in favor of the US stating that the First Amendment does not protect speech that creates a “clear and present danger” to the people.
Engel v Vitale
The New York State Board of Regents voluntary prayer for recitation at the start of each school day. A group of parents led by Engel joined forces in challenging the prayer against school board president William Vitale, claiming that it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The court ruled in favor of Engel that even this generic prayer was a form of governmental establishment of religious beliefs imposed on the public. Schools could not lead students in this activity as part of the public school day. The schools would also be subjecting students who asked to be exempt to unnecessary criticism from teachers and fellow students.
Gideon v Wainwright
Gideon was charged in the state of Florida with felony for breaking and entering. When he appeared in court without a lawyer, Gideon requested that the court appoint one for him. According to Florida state law, however, an attorney may only be appointed to an indigent defendant in capital cases, so the trial court did not appoint one. Gideon represented himself in trial. He was found guilty and sentenced to five years in prison. Gideon later argued that the the trial court’s decision violated his constitutional right to be represented by counsel. The courts ruled in favor of Gideon and required state courts to appoint attorneys for defendants who could not afford to retain counsel on their own. The Court reasoned that the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of counsel is a fundamental and is an essential right in the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause.
Tinker v Des Moines School District
During the middle of the protest era against the Vietnam War, national groups wore armbands in support. Mary and John Tinker both wore black armbands to school in protest of the war. Principals at the schools had warned them that if they wore the armbands they would be suspended from school. They wore them anyway and were suspended. Representatives of the Tinker children claimed in court that free speech rights had been violated by the school administers. School officials claimed that they were protecting the schools from harmful and possibly violent actions that could be caused by the protests. The courts ruled in favor of the students hat the armbands represented pure speech that is entirely separate from the actions or conduct of those participating in it. The Court also held that the students did not lose their First Amendment rights to freedom of symbolic speech when they stepped onto school property. However, schools do have the right to make rules about school safety, but certain free speech rights of students are protected.
New York Times v US
The Nixon Administration attempted to prevent the New York Times and Washington Post from publishing materials belonging to a classified Defense Department study regarding the history of United States activities in Vietnam. The President argued that prior restraint was necessary to protect national security. The courts sided with the publishing companies and supported the right of the papers to be published. The government could not use “prior restraint” and that historic documents were not a threat to national security and therefore the press was free to publish under the freedom of speech: press.
Wisconsin v Yonder
Jonas Yoder one of the member out of the three parents of the Amish religion refused to send their children to schools and was prosecuted under a Wisconsin law that required all children to attend public schools until age 16. However they argued that after the eighth grade, high school attendance was contrary to their religious beliefs. The Court sided with Yonder which declared that individual’s interests in the free exercise of religion under the First Amendment outweighed the State’s interests in compelling school attendance beyond the eighth grade.
Shaw v Reno
The state of North Carolina reestablished state voting boundaries in order to give minority voters a bigger chance of winning districts. The gerrymandering plan was challenged by Shaw who opposed the odd districting by arguing it was unconstitutional and a violation of the Fourteenth amendment under the clause of equal protection. Five North Carolina residents challenged the constitutionality of this unusually shaped district, alleging that its only purpose was to secure the election of additional black representatives argued by Reno. Court voted to give federal courts the power to rule over potentially bizarre or excessive gerrymandering plans from states. The Court held that North Carolina’s districting shape was bizarre enough to suggest the effort of attempting to separate voters into different districts based on race.
US v Lopez
Congress created and passed the “Gun Free Schools Zone Act of 1990”. The act made it a federal offense to bring a gun to a school or move one through a school zone. Alfonzo Lopez, a 12th grade high school student, carried a concealed weapon into his San Antonio, Texas high school and was charged under the federal act for bringing a gun to school. The court ruled that Congress had exceeded its constitutional authority under the Commerce Clause when it passed a law prohibiting gun possession in local school zones. because it was not an economic activity that might have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. The law is a criminal statute that has nothing to do with “commerce” or any sort of economic activity.
Mc Donald v Chicago
The city of Chicago created gun ban laws in order to stop the increasing amounts of violence. After the Supreme Court ruled on a gun case from the District of Columbia, challenges to the Illinois bans arose. Otis McDonald had possessed a legal gun license for many years and challenged the new ban in his town. He claimed basic Second Amendment rights to possess the gun. The courts ruled in support of Mc Donald declaring that the second amendment right under the Second Amendment should be applied to state laws using the rights given under the Fourteenth Amendment and be selectively incorporated. Since the Court had interpreted the Second Amendment as applying to individual possession or arms, states like Illinois would have to follow those rights. State laws could not remove basic federal rights.
Citizens United v Federal Election Commission
The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002 was an effort by Congress to continue decades of reform efforts to control slush funds, hidden funds, “dark money”, and other efforts to bypass various federal campaign controls. The BCRA also limited the ways corporations or unions could fund activities such as only addressing campaign issues, instead of candidates themselves. The Federal Elections Commission (FEC) used the BCRA to stop the showing of a negative movie directly attacking potential presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. The FEC claimed that the movie was a biased attempt to influence voters directly against a candidate and therefore not allowed under the BCRA. Citizens United, a conservative group, challenged the FEC actions. They claimed free speech rights for the organization. The courts sided with Citizens United declaring that political free speech is unlimited effectively making the rights of corporations, unions, and interest groups equal to the rights of people. Therefore these organizations contributions to independent political broadcasts should not be regulated, as money equals symbolic speech under the First Amendment.
Marbury v Madison
Federalists, under John Adams, lost the election of 1800 to hated rival Thomas Jefferson. At the last minute before the transfer of power, outgoing Federalists tried to pack the court system with numerous Federalist judges who would be tenured for life. In the chaos of the transfer, some of these “commissions” or licenses got lost. Marbury was one of these potential judges and he sued the new Secretary of State, James Madison, to deliver his license. At President Jefferson’s direction, Madison refused to deliver the lost commissions. Marbury sued at the Supreme Court. The new Chief Justice, John Marshall, knew that Marbury should get his commission. But, he also knew that the court was powerless to force Madison and Jefferson to deliver the commissions, short of a possible impeachment and removal. The new Congress absolutely would not impeach and remove Jefferson over this. If the court ruled for Marbury, they would destroy the power and reputation of the court, since it was clear that the president could successfully ignore the order. Marbury’s legal team wanted the court to use the newly created Judiciary Act to send an official order, called a Writ of Mandamus, to the executive branch, forcing the delivery of Marbury’s license. Marshall realized that Congress had made an error in creating the Judicial Act itself. Congress gave the court too much power, and possibly broke the basic concept of the separations of powers. Therefore, the court, in a unanimous vote of 5-0, struck down that portion of the Judiciary Act. Congress could not give the court Writs of Mandamus powers. The court would essentially run the country with these Writs. Even though this form of “review” of the meaning of the laws and the Constitution was not expressly listed in Article III of the Constitution, the Supreme Court now held the power of “Judicial Review”.
McCulloch v Maryland
Congress chartered The Second Bank of the United States. In 1818, the state of Maryland passed legislation to impose taxes on the bank. James W. McCulloch, the cashier of the Baltimore branch of the bank, refused to pay the tax. The state appeals court held that the Second Bank was unconstitutional because the Constitution did not provide a textual commitment for the federal government to charter a bank. Also, Maryland’s tax on the federal act was declared unconstitutional. The ruling stated, “The power to tax is the power to destroy” and therefore Maryland’s actions would destroy a legitimate action of the federal government. Necessary and proper clause which gave Congress the power to make “all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution” other federal powers. Supremacy Clause established that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws.
