US Supreme court cases

Question 1

D.C. v. Heller

Answer 1

2008
- The first SCOTUS case to rule whether the 2nd amendment protects an individuals right to keep and bear arms for self-defence (in your home).
- 5-4 vote in favour of Heller and the second amendment, ruling that D.C.’s handgun ban was unconstitutional. It affirms rights stated in the constitution, striking down provisions of the Firearms and Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, determining that handguns are “arms” for the purposes of the second amendment.

Question 2

McDonald v. City of Chicago

Answer 2

2010
- SCOTUS held that the Second Amendment was incorporated under the Fourteenth Amendment, thus protecting those rights from infringement by state and local governments.
- Affirmed that the 2nd amendment applies to state and local government as well as the federal government (as outlined in D.C. v. Heller).
- 5-4 decision that the Due process clause (which prohibits the states from denying life, liberty or property without due process of law) of the 14th amendment incorporates the 2nd amendment recognized in Heller. The Chicago state law was struck down as unconstitutional.

Question 3

NYSRPA v. Bruen

Answer 3

2022
- The case concerned the constitutionality of a New York state law, which required applicants for a license to carry a concealed pistol to demonstrate a “proper cause”, or a special need distinguishable from the general public, in their application.
- 6–3 decision, ruling that New York’s law was unconstitutional, and ruled that the ability to carry a pistol in public was a constitutional right under the Second Amendment.

Question 4

Snyder v. Phelps

Answer 4

2011
- A group of picketers gathered at the funeral of a gay U.S. marine, holding up signs saying “fag troops” and “Thank God for the dead soldiers” etc.
- The U.S. District court awarded the family $5 million in damages. This was overturned by the U.S. Court of Appeals ruling that the judgement of the lower court violated the First amendments right to freedom of religious expression.
- 8-1 SCOTUS decision affirmed the decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals as those who staged a protest were protected under the first amendment.

Question 5

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission

Answer 5

2018
- The masterpiece cakeshop refused to provide a wedding cake for a gay couple as the owner said it would displease god to create the cake.
- 7-2 decision in favour of the first amendment right to freedom of religious expression displayed by the cakeshop owner. The court ruled that the commission had acted unlawfully when it decided that the cakeshop had violated the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act by refusing a customer based on sexual orientation.

Question 6

Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L.

Answer 6

2021
- A student at Mahanoy Area High School was suspended from the junior varsity team for a year after she posted on snapchat, “Fuck school fuck softball fuck cheer fuck everything” after she didn’t make it onto the high school cheerleading team.
- 8-1 decision affirmed the lower courts rulings, that B.L.’s first amendment right had been violated. Justice Breyer wrote in the majority opinion that students do not “shed their right to constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression” when they enter school grounds.

Question 7

Roe v. Wade

Answer 7

1973
- Roe filed a lawsuit against the district attorney of Dallas County, Texas (Henry Wade), challenging a Texas law making abortion illegal except by a doctor’s orders to save a woman’s life.
- 7-2 ruling on the basis that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects against state action regarding the right to privacy.

Question 8

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization

Answer 8

2022
- In 2018, Mississippi passed a law called the “Gestational Age Act,” which prohibits all abortions, with few exceptions, after 15 weeks’ gestational age.
- 6-3 decision to overturn Roe and Casey. The Constitution does not mention abortion. The right is neither deeply rooted in the nation’s history nor an essential component of “ordered liberty.”
- The case overturned Roe and Casey ( judicial activism).
- 13 states had trigger laws in place for when Roe was overturned, making abortion illegal.

Question 9

Planned Parenthood v. Casey

Answer 9

1992
- The Pennsylvania legislature amended its abortion control law in 1988 and 1989 including new provisions requiring informed consent and a 24 hour waiting period prior to the procedure. A minor seeking an abortion required the consent of one parent (the law allows for a judicial bypass procedure). A married woman seeking an abortion had to indicate that she notified her husband of her intention to abort the foetus.
- 5-4 decision of the court affirmed Roe but upheld most of the Pennsylvania provisions. A new standard was imposed to determine the validity of abortion restriction laws - the “undue burden” standard over the strict scrutiny standard. The only provision to fail under the new standard was the husband notification requirement.

Question 10

Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt

Answer 10

2016
- The case was brought by Whole women’s health, based around the Texas law H.B.2 which required abortion clinics to have admitting privileges to a hospital within 30 miles. They argued that H.B.2 denied equal protection, unlawfully delegated law-making authority, and constituted arbitrary and unreasonable state action.
- 5-3 ruling held that the provisions of H.B.2 at issue do not confer medical benefits that are sufficient to justify the burdens they impose on women seeking to exercise their constitutional right to abortion (imposed the “undue burden” principle outlined in Casey). The admitting privileges had forced about half of the state’s abortion clinics to close.
- June Medical Services v. Russo (2020) followed the precedent set in Whole Woman’s Health presenting a “nearly identical” case relating to imposing an “undue burden”.

Question 11

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores

Answer 11

2014
- The Green family has organized the business around the principles of the Christian faith including the belief that the use of contraception is immoral. Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), employment-based group health care plans must provide certain types of preventative care, such as FDA-approved contraceptive methods. While there are exemptions available for religious employers and non-profit religious institutions, there are no exemptions available for for-profit institutions such as Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.
- 5-4 ruling decided that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act allows for-profit companies to deny contraception coverage to employees based on a religious objection. The Court held that Congress intended for the RFRA to be read as applying to corporations since they are composed of individuals who use them to achieve desired ends.

Question 12

Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania

Answer 12

2020
- The federal agencies had the authority under the ACA to promulgate the religious and moral exemptions and did so in a manner free of procedural defects under the APA.
- In 2017, the Department of Health and Human Services under the Trump administration promulgated regulations that greatly expanded the entities eligible to claim an exemption to the requirement that group health insurance plans cover contraceptive services by expanding the scope of the religious exemption and adding a “moral” exemption.
- 7-2 decision ruling that the federal agencies had the authority under the ACA to promulgate the religious and moral exemptions and did so in a manner free of procedural defects under the APA. The case followed Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores.

Question 13

Boumediene v. Bush

Answer 13

2008
- In 2006, the Military Commissions Act was passed by Congress (signed by Bush) which essentially gave the president absolute power to decide who was an enemy of the US and to imprison people indefinitely without charging them with a crime. In 2002 six Algerians were arrested in Bosnia on suspicion of plotting to attack the US embassy in Sarajevo.
- 5-4 decision, disagreeing with Executive and Congress, ruling that the 2006 Military Commissions Act - which included a provision banning foreign detainees labelled “enemy combatants” from challenging their detention in court - was illegal because it unconstitutionally suspended the detainees’ writ of habeus corpus.

Question 14

NFIB v. Sebelius

Answer 14

2012
- Shortly after the ACA passed Congress, Florida and 12 other states went to the courts seeking a declaration that the ACA was unconstitutional on several grounds.
- The Supreme court ruled that it was constitutional for Congress to enact most of the elements of the ACA. 5-4 vote upheld the requirement that all Americans have health insurance by 2014.
- 5-4 decision ruled against the withdrawal of Medicaid support and that the Medicaid expansion remains permissible. (John Roberts swapped to side with the majority - institutionalism).
- 7-2 vote ruled that the ACA’s threat to withdraw all Medicaid support to the states is unconstitutionally coercive.
- 5-4 decision concluding that the individual mandate of the ACA was upheld against a constitutional challenge by characterising the penalty for not buying health insurance as a tax. The Taxing and Spending Clause empowers Congress to legislate the individual mandate.

Question 15

King v. Burwell

Answer 15

2015
- Petitioners had argued that the plain language of the statue provided eligibility for tax credits only to those persons in states with state-operated exchanges.
- 6-3 decision as when the plain language of the section in question is considered in the context of the statute as a whole, it is evident that the federally-created exchanges are not meaningfully different from those the states created, and therefore federally-created exchanges are not excluded from the language referring to exchanges created by the states. Upheld provisions in the ACA.

Question 16

California v. Texas

Answer 16

2021
- In 2017, the Republican controlled Congress amended the ACA setting the tax penalty for not having health insurance to zero. Texas and other states then challenged the individual mandate, claiming that if the penalty was now zero it could no longer be characterized as a tax and therefore is unconstitutional.
- 7-2 decision ruled that Texas and others who had initially challenged the individual mandate had no standing as they have not shown past or future injury.

Question 17

Arizona v. USA

Answer 17

2012
- The Arizona legislature passed the “Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighbourhoods Act” into state law, making it a misdemeanour crime for an undocumented migrant to be in Arizona without legal documentation as well as penalizing anyone hiding or transporting an immigrant without documentation. It allowed the state police to stop and detain anyone they suspected of being an undocumented immigrant and prevented immigrants from applying for a job or working in the US.
- 5-3 decision ruled that the state government had exceeded its power, reaffirming the constitutional power of the federal government over immigration law and preventing the states from interfering with the enforcement of federal law. 3 of the 4 provisions were nullified but provision 3 was upheld and merely allows state law enforcement officials to communicate with the federal Immigrations and Customs Enforcement office during otherwise lawful arrests.

Question 18

US v. Texas

Answer 18

2016
- After DAPA was implemented, 25 states led by Texas brought a lawsuit against the administration, on the basis that DAPA was in violation of the APA and the take care clause of the constitution.
- The district court ruled that DAPA was in violation of the APA and was temporarily blocked - “the states had established a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their procedural and substantive APA claims”.
- The Supreme Court affirmed the decision and DAPA was blocked.
- Shows the significance of the APA, example of a check on the executive with large proportion of the states against the executive.
- Ruled unconstitutional due to the cost to the states.

Question 19

Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of University of California

Answer 19

2020
- In 2020 under Trump, the DHS ended the DACA program through an executive order. This was then challenged and brought to the Supreme Court on the basis that it didn’t satisfy the APA.
- 5-4 decision ruling that the DHS’s decision to rescind the DACA program was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act. The majority opinion authored by Chief Justice Roberts clearly stated that the DHS are entitled to rescind DACA and all justices agree, but the procedure they followed when doing so was unconstitutional.
- Examples of a check on the executive. Shows the significance of the APA.

Question 20

Trump v. Hawaii

Answer 20

2018
- This case is based on Trump’s ‘Muslim ban’ which he implemented through an executive order in 2017 which he amended twice adding North Korea, Chad and Venezuela to the third order to limit the idea that it was a religion-based ban. It was viewed as a violation of the first amendment (religion based-discrimination) and the 5th amendment’s equal protection clause.
- 5-4 decision ruled that President had not exceeded his power over immigration.
- The decision overturned the lower courts ruling and showed the political leaning within the court.

Question 21

Gonzales v. Carhart

Answer 21

2007
- The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act was passed by Congress in 2003. This limited late-term abortions so Dr Leroy Carhart and other physicians challenged the act on the basis that it imposed an “undue burden” and the lack of an exception in the Act for abortions necessary to protect the health of the mother.
- 5-4 decision ruled that Congress’s ban on partial-birth abortion was not unconstitutionally vague and did not impose an undue burden on the right to an abortion.
- The replacement of more liberal Sandra O’Connor with the conservative Samuel Alito produced this result which signalled a shift on the court towards more restrictive abortion rights related rulings.

Question 22

Bush v. Gore

Answer 22

2000
- 5-4 decision reversed an order by the Florida Supreme Court for a selective manual recount of that state’s US presidential election ballots. It ruled that it violated the equal protection clause of the constitution as the ballots were treated differently state by state and county by county.
- The ruling handed the presidential election win the Bush over Gore, raising questions of this being a purely political court ruling.

Question 23

Shelby County v. Holder

Answer 23

2013
- This case questioned the constitutionality of the provisions in the Voting Rights Act 1965. Section 4(b) of the VRA claimed that states with a history of voting discrimination against minority groups had to go through federal preclearance before they were able to change their state voting laws.
- 5-4 decision struck down Section 4(b) of the VRA as unconstitutional, stating that it contradicts federalism and equal sovereignty of the states, as the preclearance requirement applied to some states but not others.

Question 24

Rucho v. Common Cause

Answer 24

2019
- This case related to partisan gerrymandering in North Carolina’s 2016 congressional district which was struck down by a district court as a product of partisan gerrymandering.
- 5-4 decision ruled that partisan gerrymandering claims are not justiciable because they present a political question beyond the reach of the federal courts. Gerrymandering is not addressed at any point in the constitutional so therefore the congressional map cannot by called unconstitutional.

Question 25

Citizens United v. FEC

Answer 25

2010
- In 2008, Citizens United released a movie as well as TV ads, highly critical of Hilary Clinton, just before the democratic presidential primary. It conflicted with the BCRA which outlined bans on corporate and union contributions and expenditures in connection with political elections.
- 5-4 decision ruled the First Amendment protects the right to free speech, despite the speaker’s corporate identity. Ruled along ideological lines, deciding that the BCRA’s restrictions on advertisements regarding Citizens United’s film “Hillary” do not violate the First Amendment.
- This overturned SCOTUS precedent, presenting a key example of judicial activism.

Question 26

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke

Answer 26

1978
- Bakke was a white man who applied to medical school and was rejected due to the school’s racial quota which reserved 16 places out of every 100 for racial minorities.
- 8-1 decision ruled in favour of Bakke and that the quota violated the Equal Protection Clause and the Civil Rights Act 1964 as the quota system excludes candidates due to their race alone and is therefore racial discrimination.
- The court also ruled that the Equal Protection Clause permits race to be one factor, among many, in an admissions program.

Question 27

Gratz v. Bollinger

Answer 27

2003
- Two white students applied to the University of Michigan in 1995 and were rejected despite being qualified. They argued that the admission procedure discriminated against certain racial and ethnic groups, violating the Equal Protection Clause and title VI of the Civil Rights Act 1964.
- 6-3 decision ruled that racial prejudice was used in the admissions process. The policy did not provide individual consideration, but rather resulted in the admission of nearly every applicant of “underrepresented minority” status, showing that the policy was not sufficiently narrowly tailored to meet the strict scrutiny standard.

Question 28

Grutter v. Bollinger

Answer 28

2003
- Grutter, a white woman, was denied admission to the University of Michigan Law school in 1997. The law school admitted considering race as a factor in admissions as it serves a “compelling interest in achieving diversity among its student body.”
- 5-4 decision ruled that the University’s admission process did not violate the Equal Protection Clause as it was a soft factor considered among many others.
- O’Connor suggested that racial affirmative action wouldn’t be necessary in the future to promote diversity.

Question 29

Fisher v. University of Texas

Answer 29

2016
- Fisher, a white female, wasn’t accepted to the University of Texas and wasn’t in the top 10% of applicants which guaranteed admission to this top bracket. For remaining spots, race is considered as a factor which she argued violated the Equal Protection Clause.
- 4-3 decision ruled that the admissions process, using race as a consideration, did not violate the equal protection clause.

Question 30

Parents v. Seattle schools

Answer 30

2007
- Found that opinions of Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger didn’t apply to public high schools.
- 5-4 decision split on ideological lines set that previous rulings for higher education did not set precedent for public high schools.

Question 31

Zivotofsky v. Kerry

Answer 31

2015
- 6-3 decision holding that the federal statute unconstitutionally usurped the President’s power to recognize foreign nations as it relates to passports. The Court held that, although the Constitution does not explicitly address the issue of recognition of foreign nations, the Reception Clause in Article II of the Constitution—which states that the President will receive foreign ambassadors—grants the President the power to recognize foreign states.
- Judicial activism - the court expanded the powers of the executive and set precedent for executive powers relating to this issue that had not existed before - struck down the Foreign Relations Authorization Act 2002 as unconstitutional.

Question 32

NRLB v. Canning

Answer 32

2014
- Unanimous decision ruled in favour of Canning, as due to the pro forma sessions taking place every three days, the Recess Appointments Clause shouldn’t have been triggered as Obama did, making his actions unconstitutional.
- This is not an example of judicial activism as the court reaffirmed the scope of presidential power and did not legislate from the bench.