Supreme Court Cases

Question 1

United States Supreme Court

Answer 1

The United States Supreme Court serves as the judicial branch and was created through Article III of the US Constitution.

Question 2

Supremacy Clause

Answer 2

The Supremacy Clause prohibits state governments from passing laws that conflict with federal laws, and it prohibits any entity from enforcing laws that are in conflict with the Constitution. Article VI of the Constitution states that the ‘Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof…shall be the Supreme Law of the Land.’

Question 3

Judicial Review

Answer 3

Judicial Review is a core tenant of the US government. Judicial Review is the idea that the Judicial Branch can review actions taken by the Legislative and Executive Branch. This review process can result in laws and actions being struck down as unconstitutional, which means that the laws and actions are not in line with the US constitution. The Supreme Court established the duty of judicial review in 1803 through the case of Marbury v. Madison.

Question 4

John Marshall (Chief Justice)

Answer 4

John James Marshall (1755-1835) was an American politician, Founding Father, and the fourth Chief Justice of the United States from 1801 to 1835. See McCulloch v. Maryland (1819).

Question 5

Marbury v. Madison

Answer 5

The Supreme Court established the duty of judicial review in 1803 through the case of Marbury v. Madison. In the Marbury case, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote that ‘A law repugnant to the Constitution is void.’ This is simply a description of the Supremacy Clause. But this famous case went on to establish the power of federal courts to void acts of Congress that are determined to be in conflict with the Constitution. In effect, the Supreme Court declared itself the final arbitrator in determining what can, and can’t, be law.

Question 6

Subpoena

Answer 6

A subpoena is a legal document that orders a person to do something.

Question 7

Levels of Scrutiny

Answer 7

Courts determine if the government is violating the Constitution by first choosing a ‘Level of Scrutiny’ depending on the situation. They determine a level of scrutiny by evaluating various factors that are likely to raise suspicion to determine the level of scrutiny. The court always considers the government’s interest and the law’s design; however, the courts’s concern for these factors differs by level of scrutiny. You can consider the levels of scrutiny as existing on a spectrum: where Rational-Basis Review is at one end and Strict Scrutiny is at the other, with Intermediate Scrutiny in the middle. Rational-Basis Review has a low level of suspicion and low likelihood of being overturned, Intermediate Scrutiny has a medium level of suspicion and medium likelihood of being overturned, and Strict Scrutiny has a high level of suspicion and very high likelihood of being overturned.

Question 8

Levels of Scrutiny: Rational-Basis Review

Answer 8

The level of scrutiny often determines whether the law will be struck down. The court always considers the government’s interest and the law’s design. However, the court’s concern for these factors differs by level of scrutiny. Rational-basis review has a low level of suspicion and low likelihood of being overturned. The government must have a legitimate interest and the laws design must be ‘rationally related’ to the interest.

Question 9

Levels of Scrutiny: Intermediate Scrutiny

Answer 9

The level of scrutiny often determines whether the law will be struck down. The court always considers the government’s interest and the law’s design. However, the court’s concern for these factors differs by level of scrutiny. Intermediate scrutiny has a medium level of suspicion and medium likelihood of being overturned. The government must have an important interest and the laws design must be ’substantially related’ to the interest.

Question 10

Levels of Scrutiny: Strict Scrutiny

Answer 10

The level of scrutiny often determines whether the law will be struck down. The court always considers the government’s interest and the law’s design. However, the court’s concern for these factors differs by level of scrutiny. Strict scrutiny has a high level of suspicion and high likelihood of being overturned. The government must have a compelling interest and the laws design must be ‘narrowly tailored’ to the interest.

Question 11

Judicial Restraint

Answer 11

Judicial restraint limits the powers of judges to strike down a law, opines that the court should uphold all acts and laws of Congress and legislatures unless they oppose the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court will generally defer to prior interpretations of the Constitution to lower courts or Congress.

Question 12

Stare Decisis

Answer 12

Stare decisis is the doctrine the courts follow to stick with the prior decisions and rulings of a court.

Question 13

Precedent

Answer 13

A precedent means the court’s decision is intended to provide an example for similar issues in the future.

Question 14

Judicial Activism

Answer 14

Judicial activism interprets the Constitution to be in favor of contemporary values. Judges are able to use their powers as judges in order to correct a constitutional legal injustice. Judges have a great role in creating social policies in many different areas, especially the protection of civil rights and rights of the individual and public morality.

Question 15

Commerce Clause

Answer 15

This clause gives Congress the exclusive power to regulate commerce, or business, between the states. Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) was the first case dealing with the Commerce Clause to reach the Supreme Court . (US Constitution: Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3.)

Question 16

Gibbons v. Ogden

Answer 16

One example of judicial restraint is Gibbons v. Ogden. In this case, the United States Supreme Court held that the right to regulate interstate navigation, related to commerce (steamboat operators), was granted to the U.S. Congress via the U.S. Constitution (Commerce Clause). This upheld previous decisions that Congress had exclusive power over interstate commerce, according to the U.S. Constitution. This case is an example of judicial restraint because it balanced power amongst the branches via the U.S. Constitution and applied stare decisis rather than changing the existing law and interpretations. The court determined that to rule differently than it had in the past would create confusion and contradictory policies. (1824)

Question 17

Civil Liberty

Answer 17

Any right that is protected by law and prevents government interference is called a civil liberty. For example, freedom of speech allows people to express their opinions openly without fear of persecution.

Question 18

Reconstruction Amendments

Answer 18

After the Civil War, the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments - sometimes called the Reconstruction Amendments - were written to clarify citizenship and equal protection of laws to the now freed slaves.

Question 19

Civil Rights Act of 1866

Answer 19

The Civil Rights Act (1866) was passed by Congress on 9th April 1866 over the veto of President Andrew Johnson. The act declared that all persons born in the United States were now citizens, without regard to race, color, or previous condition. The Act was passed in direct response to the ‘Black Codes’ put in place in many Southern states that were aimed at undermining the newly found freedom of former slaves.

Question 20

Charles Sumner and Thaddeus Stevens

Answer 20

Radical post Civil War Republicans who sought to eradicate old Southern plantation culture and its oppression of newly freed black slaves.

Question 21

Equal Protection Clause

Answer 21

The equal protection clause is part of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. It specifically requires each state to treat its citizens the same as others that are in comparable situations. The equal protection clause isn’t so much about making sure that all individuals are treated equitable as it is that all individuals receive equal protection of the laws of that state. It does not apply to the federal government, but usually is related to due process, which the federal government falls under.

Question 22

Separate but Equal

Answer 22

Separate but equal is what led to the common practice of states or municipal agencies discriminating on the basis of race by providing the same services to different races, but allocating different resources for those services. It was also a factor in determining the status of same sex marriage. See Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), Brown vs. The Board of Education (1954), and Obergefell vs. Hodges (2015).

Question 23

Due Process Clause

Answer 23

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution each contain a due process clause. Due process deals with the administration of justice and thus the due process clause acts as a safeguard from arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by the government outside the sanction of law. The Supreme Court of the United States interprets the clauses more broadly, concluding that these clauses provide four protections: procedural due process (in civil and criminal proceedings), substantive due process, a prohibition against vague laws, and as the vehicle for the incorporation of the Bill of Rights.

Question 24

Dred Scott v. Sandford

Answer 24

The Supreme Court ruled that Americans of African descent, whether free or slave, were not American citizens and could not sue in federal court. The Court also ruled that Congress lacked power to ban slavery in the U.S. territories. This decision, along with the Kansas–Nebraska Act of 1854, increased tensions over slavery and eventually led to the Civil War. (1857)

Question 25

Plessy V. Ferguson

Answer 25

A landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that upheld the constitutionality of racial segregation laws for public facilities, as long as the segregated facilities were equal in quality – a doctrine that came to be known as ‘separate but equal’. (1896)

Question 26

Jim Crow Laws

Answer 26

Plessy v. Ferguson allowed ‘separate but equal,’ also known as segregation, to become law in the United States. After this, Jim Crow laws, which were a system of laws meant to discriminate against African Americans, spread across the U.S. For decades, any type of public facility could be legally separated into ‘whites only’ and ‘blacks only’. That meant that buses, water fountains, lunch counters, restrooms, movie theaters, schools, courtrooms, and even the United States Army could all be segregated.

Question 27

Brown v. Board of Education

Answer 27

One example of judicial activism is Brown v. Board of Education. This 1954 United States Supreme Court ruling ordered the desegregation of public schools. This was an example of judicial activism because it ignored the doctrine of stare decisis, which is the doctrine the courts follow to stick with the prior decisions and rulings of a court. The U.S. Supreme Court in this case overturned the long-accepted separate-but-equal standard and reinterpreted the 13th and 14th Constitutional Amendments regarding African Americans’ civil rights. (1954)

Question 28

Earl Warren (Chief Justice)

Answer 28

Earl Warren (1891-1974) was an American jurist and politician who served as the 30th Governor of California (1943–1953) and later the 14th Chief Justice of the United States (1953–1969). He was involved in landmark decisions Supreme Court decisions, such as Brown v. Board of Education (1954), Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), Reynolds v. Sims (1964), and Miranda v. Arizona (1966).

Question 29

Thurgood Marshall (Supreme Court Justice)

Answer 29

Thurgood Marshall (1908-1993) is most noted for representing plaintiffs in the Brown v. Board of Education case as a civil rights lawyer and serving as United States’ first African-American justice.

Question 30

Civil Rights Act of 1964

Answer 30

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88–352, 78 Stat. 241, enacted July 2, 1964) is a landmark civil rights and US labor law in the United States that outlaws discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

Question 31

Affirmative Action

Answer 31

Affirmative action is any policy or program that gives advantages to minority groups in an attempt to correct a continual history of inequality that minority groups historically faced.

Question 32

University of California v. Bakke

Answer 32

Policies of affirmative action are legal for school admissions, but only in terms of promoting campus diversity and not strictly defined quotas. (1978)

Question 33

Necessary and Proper Clause

Answer 33

The Necessary and Proper Clause, also known as the elastic clause, is a clause in Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution. It means that Congress can enact any law it deems necessary and proper to carry out the duties given to it under the Constitution. See McCulloch v. Maryland (1819).

Question 34

McCulloch v. Maryland

Answer 34

McCullogh v. Maryland was ruled on by the Supreme Court in the nation’s infancy. The case discussed the implied powers granted to the U.S. government by the Constitution. The ‘necessary and proper’ clause led to the victory of the federal government over Maryland. McCullogh v. Maryland allowed the federal government to greatly expand its power and supremacy over state governments. (1819)

The state of Maryland had attempted to impede operation of a branch of the Second Bank of the United States by imposing a tax on all notes of banks not chartered in Maryland. Though the law, by its language, was generally applicable to all banks not chartered in Maryland, the Second Bank of the United States was the only out-of-state bank then existing in Maryland, and the law was thus recognized in the court’s opinion as having specifically targeted the Bank of the United States.

Question 35

Miranda Rights

Answer 35

Miranda Rights are a right to silence warning given by police in the United States to criminal suspects in police custody (or in a custodial interrogation) before they are interrogated to preserve the admissibility of their statements against them in criminal proceedings. It falls under the 5th and 6th Amendments. Law enforcement officials can decline to offer a Miranda warning to an individual, but may not use information obtained as evidence against him or her in a criminal trial. See Miranda v. Arizona (1966) and Dickerson v. the United States (2000).

Question 36

Implied Powers

Answer 36

Implied powers, in the United States, are powers authorized by the Constitution that, while not stated, seem implied by powers that are expressly stated. See McCulloch v. Maryland (1819).

Question 37

Miranda v. Arizona

Answer 37

Miranda v. Arizona was a Supreme Court case that overturned Ernesto Miranda’s conviction for kidnapping and rape because he had not been informed of his legal rights under the 5th Amendment prior to confessing. For example, Miranda did not know that he could ask for an attorney or remain silent during questioning. Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren wrote the majority opinion. (1966)

Question 38

Dickerson v. the United States

Answer 38

Although the Court overturned Miranda v. Arizona’s initial conviction, the state of Arizona retried and convicted him. The decision to read Miranda rights was reaffirmed. In a 7-2 opinion delivered by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the Court held that Miranda governs the admissibility of statements made during custodial interrogation in both state and federal courts. (2000)

Question 39

Adarand Construction vs. Pena

Answer 39

A landmark United States Supreme Court case which held that racial classifications, imposed by the federal government, must be analyzed under a standard of ‘strict scrutiny’, the most stringent level of review which requires that racial classifications be narrowly tailored to further compelling governmental interests. It decided that the presumption of disadvantage based on race alone, and consequent allocation of favored treatment, is a discriminatory practice that violates the equal protection principle embodied in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. (1995)

Question 40

Cases interpreting the Equal Protection Clause under the 14th Amendment.

Answer 40

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), Brown vs. The Board of Education (1954), Adarand Construction vs. Pena (1995), U.S. vs. Virginia/VMI (1996), and Obergefell vs. Hodges (2015).

Question 41

U.S. vs. Virginia/VMI

Answer 41

Virginia’s creation of a women’s-only academy, as a comparable program to a male-only academy, does not satisfy the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. (1996)

Question 42

Obergefell vs. Hodges

Answer 42

(1) The Fourteenth Amendment requires a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex. (2) The Fourteenth Amendment requires a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex that was legally licensed and performed in another state. (2015)

Question 43

Roe v. Wade

Answer 43

The case of Roe v. Wade was heard in 1972, and on January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court ruled that the right to an abortion was legal under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees privacy in personal decision-making. The Court did, however, rule that the state had the right to intervene if the abortion caused harm to the mother or if the child had passed a specific pregnancy trimester threshold. The timing of the abortion was later reversed and replaced with a clause which maintained that the mother could abort until the child reached ‘viability’; that is, the ability to live on its own outside of the mother’s womb. Advocates for and against abortion have contested the issue for decades.

Question 44

Bush v. Palm Beach Canvassing Board

Answer 44

The court’s decision landed in favor of Bush, and the result of that decision continued a wave of litigation and legal action that eventually ended the election and began the presidency of George W. Bush. First, there was the issue of post-election limitations on the ability to certify elections and whether that violated the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment and U.S. election law. Second, there was a question of whether the decision by the Florida Supreme Court actually changed the way electoral votes were allocated, which would be a violation of the Constitution. (2000)

Question 45

Furman v. Georgia

Answer 45

In this famous case, the Court ruled all states’ death penalty statutes to be unconstitutional. The death penalty statutes were declared unconstitutional because juries were allowed too much leeway in determining who was, or wasn’t, sentenced to death. This was a violation of the Constitution’s Eighth Amendment and its provision against cruel and unusual punishment. The states could use the death penalty, but they had to rewrite their statutes to ensure stricter guidelines. (1972)

Question 46

United States v. Lopez

Answer 46

Lopez was charged with carrying a handgun to school in violation of the federal Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990. The Court ruled that the federal government had no authority to regulate firearms near local schools and the Act was unconstitutional because the local possession of a firearm didn’t affect interstate commerce. Here, you can see the Court shifted toward states’ rights. (1995)

Question 47

Reno v. Condon

Answer 47

This case involved the U.S. Attorney General, Reno, against South Carolina Attorney General, Condon. Congress enacted the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act of 1994 (DPPA), which establishes a regulatory scheme that restricts the States’ ability to disclose a driver’s personal information without the driver’s consent, after finding that many States sell such information. Condon refused to enforce a provision of the federal Driver’s Privacy Protection Act that prohibits the selling of drivers’ personal information, alleging the DPPA violated the Tenth and Eleventh Amendments. However, the Court held that the DPPA is a proper exercise of Congress’ regulation of interstate commerce under the Commerce Clause and doesn’t run afoul of federalism principles. Through this case, you can see the Court shifted back toward favoring federal powers. (2000)

Question 48

Commercial Speech

Answer 48

Whereas citizens are able to express themselves freely, business communication is considered commercial speech and is therefore regulated more because it reaches a wider audience and includes advertisements which are printed, online, or over the air.

Question 49

False Advertising

Answer 49

A business cannot deliberately provide false or inaccurate information to consumers. In contrast with puffery.

Question 50

Puffery

Answer 50

Businesses are allowed to practice puffery, an over-exaggeration of a product’s performance or usefulness. Usually with puffery, businesses will have to provide a disclaimer explaining that the results may be exaggerated or unlikely. This protects them from making claims that are not true. In contrast with false advertising.

Question 51

Content-Neutral Restrictions

Answer 51

Content-neutral regulations are also called “time, place, and manner restrictions,” as the regulation seeks not to limit any particular type of speech, but merely to regulate the circumstances under which the speech may take place. They might, however, be facially valid, but unconstitutional in their application. If a content-neutral restriction is valid on its face, but is applied in a manner which tends to regulate only certain topics or certain viewpoints, it might well be found unconstitutional despite its innocent appearance.

Question 52

Bad Frog Brewery v. NY State Liquor Authority

Answer 52

Government weighed in on this form of labeling because it was believed that it was offensive and can impact the morals of minors who come in contact with the product. After appeals, it was finally determined that the labeling or the frog’s image and symbolism were not enough to be considered a strong influence on children when compared to the many images children are already exposed to. Simply stated, the claims of inappropriateness did not pass the strict scrutiny test. Bad Frog Brewery won the case and was able to distribute and sell their brand of beer in New York State. (1998)

Question 53

Schenck v. United States

Answer 53

While Americans have the freedom of speech, it does not extend to times that may cause a clear and present danger to others: ‘Clear and present danger test’ (1919). It was later replaced by ‘Imminent lawless action’ in 1969 with Brandenburg v. Ohio. It means advocacy of force or criminal activity does not receive First Amendment protections if (1) the advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and (2) is likely to incite or produce such action.

Question 54

Sedition Act of 1918

Answer 54

The Sedition Act specifically made it illegal to speak, write, or publish anything that may interfere with the war effort or make a person seem disloyal to the United States. The law was repealed on December 13, 1920. Though the legislation enacted in 1918 is commonly called the Sedition Act, it was actually a set of amendments to the Espionage Act. Therefore, many studies of the Espionage Act and the Sedition Act find it difficult to report on the two ‘acts’ separately. See clear and present danger test.

Question 55

Clear and Present Danger Test

Answer 55

This test was used to determine if the words a person uses in such circumstances create a clear and present danger to others and thus are subject to limitations by Congress. Following Schenck v. United States (1919), ‘clear and present danger’ became both a public metaphor for First Amendment speech and a standard test in cases before the Court where a United States law limits a citizen’s First Amendment rights; the law is deemed to be constitutional if it can be shown that the language it prohibits poses a ‘clear and present danger’. It was replaced in 1969 with Brandenburg v. Ohio’s ‘imminent lawless action’ test. See also Sedition Act of 1918.

Question 56

Imminent Lawless Action/Brandenburg v. Ohio

Answer 56

The ‘Clear and Present Danger Test’ was later replaced by ‘Imminent Lawless Action’ in 1969 with Brandenburg v. Ohio. It means advocacy of force or criminal activity does not receive First Amendment protections if (1) The advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and (2) Is likely to incite or produce such action.

Question 57

Johnson v. State

Answer 57

In Johnson v. State, two men, one of whom was Harvey Johnson, were arrested for vagrancy. At the time, vagrancy was considered a crime. To roam without a destination within Dade County, Florida, was considered vagrancy. In the end, the appellate court judges determined that the language of the statute was vague and difficult to apply based on the evidence and testimony of both the plaintiff and the officer. It was in violation of the Rule of Law (1967).

Question 58

Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause

Answer 58

In United States law, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, together with that Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause, form the constitutional right of freedom of religion. The relevant constitutional text is: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”.

Question 59

Everson v. Board of Education

Answer 59

Everson v. Board of Education (1947): Upheld right of states to provide public services for private, religious organizations, like buses to school. Establishment Claus Case.

Question 60

Reynolds v. United States

Answer 60

The Court upheld Reynolds’s conviction and Congress’s power to prohibit polygamy. The Court held that while Congress could not outlaw a belief in the correctness of polygamy, it could outlaw the practice thereof. The majority reasoned that while marriage is a “sacred obligation”, it is nevertheless “usually regulated by law” in “most civilized nations.” Finally, the Court held that people cannot avoid a law due to their religion. Free Exercise Claus Case. (1879)

Question 61

Sherbert v. Verner and Wisconsin v. Yoder

Answer 61

Sherbert v. Verner (1963) and Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972): Religious exemptions from work and school, respectively, were upheld as constitutional. Free Exercise Claus Case.

Question 62

Lemon v. Kurtzman

Answer 62

Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971): Set standard for establishment - law must have secular legislative purpose, with principal or primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion, and that does not foster excessive government entanglement with religion. Establishment Claus Case.

Question 63

Employment Division v. Smith

Answer 63

Employment Division v. Smith (1990): Your right to practice your religious beliefs does not permit you to break the law without punishment. Free Exercise Claus Case.

Question 64

Van Orden v. Perry

Answer 64

Thomas Van Orden argued that the display of the Ten Commandments at the Texas statehouse promoted Christianity over other religions. Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled that this display was constitutional because promoting a message consistent with a religious doctrine does not run afoul of the establishment clause, as Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote in the plurality opinion. (2005)

Question 65

Commonwealth v. Pullis

Answer 65

Commonwealth v. Pullis (1806), known as the Cordwainer’s case, was a US labor law case, and the first reported case arising from a labor strike in the United States. It decided that striking workers were illegal conspirators. It involved an indictment against boot makers and shoemakers for conspiring to raise their wages. The jury found the union was illegal, and the defendants were found guilty. A doctrine known as the labor conspiracy theory was developed that stated that collective bargaining would interfere with the market and destroy competition.

Question 66

Escola v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co.

Answer 66

Escola v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. was a decision of the Supreme Court of California involving an injury caused by an exploding bottle of Coca-Cola. It was an important case in the development of the common law of product liability in the United States. Chief Justice Phil S. Gibson held that even though the instrument causing the injury was not under the exclusive control of the defendant (Coca-Cola) at the time of the accident, the defendant had control at the time the alleged negligent act took place - the filling of the defective bottle. (1944)

Question 67

Executive Privilege

Answer 67

The concept of executive privilege, rooted in the U.S. Constitution, gives the president the power to keep any communications secret that relate to national security or the functions of the president. See United States v. Nixon (1974).

Question 68

United States v. Nixon

Answer 68

The courts could hear debates over executive privilege and resolve them. Nixon was to release the tapes in their entirety. Executive privilege was important and a special benefit for the president. Executive privilege did not apply in this case, because it prohibited law and justice from being served. (1974)