SUPREME COURT CASES Marbury v. Madison (1803) Marbury v. Madison
(1803) Marbury v. Madison (1803) Marbury v. Madison (1803)
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) McCulloch
v. Maryland (1819) McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) Gibbons v. Ogden
(1824) Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) Gibbons v.
Ogden (1824) Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857) Dred Scott v. Sanford
(1857) Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857) Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857)
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) Plessy v.
Ferguson (1896) Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) Schenck v. United States
(1919) Schenck v. United States (1919) Schenck v. United States
(1919) Schenck v. United States (1919) Korematsu v. United States
(1944) Korematsu v. United States (1944) Korematsu v. United States
(1944) Korematsu v. United States (1944) Brown v. Board of
Education (1954) Brown v. Board of Education (1954) Brown v. Board
of Education (1954) Brown v. Board of Education (1954) Mapp v. Ohio
(1961) Mapp v. Ohio (1961) Mapp v. Ohio (1961) Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
Engel v. Vitale (1962) Engel v. Vitale (1962) Engel v. Vitale
(1962) Engel v. Vitale (1962) Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) Gideon v.
Wainwright (1963) Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) Gideon v. Wainwright
(1963) Heart of Atlanta Motel v US (1964) Heart of Atlanta Motel v
US (1964) Heart of Atlanta Motel v US (1964) Heart of Atlanta Motel
v US (1964) Abbington v Schemp Abbington v Schemp Miranda v.
Arizona (1966) Miranda v. Arizona (1966) Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
Miranda v. Arizona (1966) Leandro v NC Leandro v NC State v Mann
State v Mann In re Gault (1967) In re Gault (1967) Tinker v. Des
Moines (1969) Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) NY Times v. United States
(1971) NY Times v. United States (1971) Swann v Charlotte
Mecklenburg (1971) Swann v Charlotte Mecklenburg (1971) Furman v
Georgia (1972) Furman v Georgia (1972) Roe v. Wade (1973) Roe v.
Wade (1973) United States v. Nixon (1974) United States v. Nixon
(1974) Gregg v Georgia (1976) Gregg v Georgia (1976) Regents of the
University of California v. Bakke (1978) Regents of the University
of California v. Bakke (1978) New Jersey v. T.L.O (1985) New Jersey
v. T.L.O (1985) Bethel School District v Fraser (1986) Bethel
School District v Fraser (1986) Hazelwood School District v.
Kuhlmeier (1988) Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988)
Texas v. Johnson (1989) Texas v. Johnson (1989) Slide 2 Marbury v
Madison Slide 3 Marbury v Madison (1803) Issue: Separation of Power
Court Case: Marbury sued Madison because he did not receive
commission to be a justice of the peace. Marbury asked the Supreme
Court to issue an order to force Madison to give him his
commission. Court Ruling: Against Marbury . Ruled a portion of the
Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional. 1 st act of Congress to be
declared unconstitutional. Precedent: established judicial review
power of the court to decide whether actions of Congress are
constitutional. Slide 4 McCulloch v Maryland (1819) McCulloch v.
Maryland (1819) Issue: Federalism (State v. Federal Government)
Court Case: McCulloch was a branch manager for the Bank of the
United States. Refused to pay a tax to the state of Maryland and
was arrested. He appealed conviction on the grounds that a state
could not tax the federal government. Court Ruling: In favor of
McCulloch. Precedent: States cannot tax the federal government.
Slide 5 McCullough v Maryland Slide 6 Gibbons v Ogden (1824) Issue:
Federalism & Interstate Commerce Court Case: Ogden was given an
exclusive charter for a ferry boat off the coast of New York state
and New Jersey by the NY state government. Gibbons was given a
charter by the US government to operate a ferry boat in the same
waters. Court Ruling: In favor of Gibbons. Commerce Clause gives
Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. Federal
government over state. Precedent: Congress/Federal Government
regulates interstate commerce Slide 7 Dred Scott v Sanford (1857)
Issue: 5 th Amendment, Slavery, Missouri Compromise of 1820 Court
Case: Dred Scott sued his owner Sanford because he had been taken
into free territory. Scott thought that due to the Missouri
Compromise Line which made slavery illegal in certain areas of the
country, he had become free. Court Ruling: Court ruled in favor of
Sanford. 1) Slaves were considered property, thus did not have the
right to sue in court. 2) Would deprive owner of 5 th Amendment due
process rights if he were stripped of property. Precedent: Missouri
Compromise was ruled unconstitutional, slaves could not sue for
freedom. Slide 8 Plessy v Ferguson Slide 9 Plessy v Ferguson (1896)
Issue: 14 th Amendment (Equal Protection) Court Case: Herman
Plessy, 1/8 black, challenged a Louisiana law that mandated
separate railroad cars for blacks and whites. Plessy sat on a car
designated to whites and was arrested. Court Decision: In favor of
Louisiana law. Was not ruled a violation of the 14 th Amendment,
equal protection clause. Precedent: Separate but equal
constitutional. Led to an increase of segregation particularly in
southern states. Slide 10 Schenck v US (1919) Issue: 1 st Amendment
Times of War Court Case: Schenck circulated a flyer during World
War I urging people to dodge the draft. Citing the draft as a
violation of the 13 th Amendment (involuntary servitude). Schenck
was arrested under terms of the Espionage Act of 1917. Schenck
appealed conviction on grounds that his 1 st Amendment right had
been violated. Court Ruling: In favor of the United States. Urging
citizens to break the law, and posed a threat to security of the
nation if successful (clear and present danger). Precedent: 1 st
Amendment rights, as well as others can be limited during times of
war. Slide 11 http://www.freeinfosociety.com/article.php? id=10
Korematsu v US Slide 12 Korematsu v US (1944) Issue: 5 th & 14
th Amendment Times of War Court Case: During World War II, the US
military issued an order to place Japanes Americans in internment
camps. Korematsu sued the US government on the grounds that it was
a violation of 5 th Amendment due process, and the 14 th Amendment.
Court Ruling: In favor of the United States government. Precedent:
During times of war, certain groups rights can be limited. (Clear
& Present Danger Rule) Slide 13 Brown v Topeka Board of Ed
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTGHLdr-iak Slide 14 Brown v Board
of Education (1954) Issue: 14 th Amendment Equal Protection
(Separate but Equal) Court Case: Brown sued the Board of Education
of Topeka, Kansas because his daughter had to walk seven blocks to
catch a bus to a segregated school when there was a school within
six blocks of her house. This was part of a class action suit
against the Board of Education. Court Ruling: The court ruled
separate educational facilities were inherently unequal. The ruling
in this case led to the beginning of the Civil Rights Movement, and
began the end of segregation. Overturned the decision in Plessy v.
Ferguson. Precedent: Separate but Equal is unconstitutional. Slide
15 Mapp v Ohio Slide 16 Mapp v Ohio (1961) Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
Issue: 4 th Amendment (Search & Seizure) Court Case: Police in
Cleveland, Ohio believed a fugitive was being kept by Mapp in her
home. The police came to her house demanding entrance, Mapp refused
because they did not have a warrant. Later police came back, broke
into her home, and produced a fake warrant. They did not find the
fugitive, but did find pornographic materials. She was arrested and
convicted. Mapp appealed the decision as a violation of the 4 th
Amendment. Court Ruling: The court ruled in favor of Mapp.
Precedent: Illegal evidence cannot be used in court. Slide 17 Engel
v Vitale (1962) Slide 18 Issue: 1 st Amendment Freedom of
Religion/Separation of Church and State Court Case: Students in New
York State were reciting a prayer to begin the school day. Even
though students were not required to recite the prayer, parents
felt this was a violation of the 1 st Amendment. Court Ruling: The
court ruled that this was a violation of the establishment clause
because it was a prayer, and it was being recited in a public
school. Precedent: School prayer is unconstitutional. Slide 19
Gideon v Wainwright (1963) Slide 20 Issue: 6 th Amendment, 14 th
Amendment Court Case: Gideon was arrested for burglary of a Florida
pool hall. He appeared in court and asked that an attorney be
appointed to him. The court denied the request on the grounds that
under Florida law, only a person accused of a capital crime
received a court appointed attorney. Court Decision: The court
ruled in favor of Gideon, stating that Florida had violated the 6
th Amendment and 14 th Amendment, equal protection clause.
Precedent: Indigent defendants (cannot afford an attorney) must be
provided counsel in all felony cases. Slide 21 Slide 22 Heart of
Atlanta Motel v US (1964) Issue: 5 th Amendment, Interstate
Commerce, & Segregation Court Case: The Heart of Atlanta Motel
sued the US government over the Constitutionality of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964. The Heart of Atlanta Motel wanted to continue
not allowing Blacks to stay at the Motel. Court Ruling: The court
ruled in favor of the US and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The
court ruled that the interstate commerce clause allowed the US to
ban the motels discriminatory practice due to the fact that more
than of the motels business came from out of state. Precedent:
Allowed the Federal Government to stop discrimination through use
of the interstate commerce clause. Slide 23 Miranda v Arizona Slide
24 Miranda v Arizona (1966) Issue: 5 th & 6 th Amendment Court
Case: Ernesto Miranda was arrested for kidnapping and rape. Miranda
confessed to the crime, but was not told of his Constitutional
rights prior to the interrogation. Miranda appealed the conviction
on the grounds that the police had violated his rights by not
informing him. Court Ruling: In favor of Miranda. The police had
violated his rights. Police are required to read the Miranda
Warnings. Tell suspects of their right to remain silent, to have an
attorney, etc Precedent: Police must inform suspects of their 5 th
& 6 th Amendment rights prior to questioning. Slide 25 In re
Gault Slide 26 In re Gault (1967) Issue: 5 th, 6 th, & 14 th
Amendments (Juvenile Rights) Court Case: Gerald Gault (15 yrs. old)
was taken into custody for prank calling neighbor. Taken to
juvenile detention center, eventually being sentenced to remain
there until he was 18 years old. Court Ruling: Ruled in favor of
Gault overturning the Arizona courts. Court ruled that Arizona had
violated his 14 th Amendment rights to equal protection by not
allowing him various 5 th & 6 th Amendment rights. Precedent:
Juveniles have many of the same due process rights as adults in
court. Slide 27 Tinker v Des Moines (1969) Issue: 1 st Amendment
Freedom of Speech/Expression Court Case: Three students wore
armbands with a peace sign on them to school as a form of protest
against the escalating violence in Vietnam. The students were told
to remove the armbands, they refused, and were suspended from
school until they returned without the armbands. The parents filed
a lawsuit against the school system for this action stating that it
violated the 1 st Amendment. Court Ruling: The court ruled in favor
of the students. The court stated that schools could establish
dress codes, but neede3d to show that a reasonable disruption is
being caused to the learning environment to ban items. In this
case, the school could not show this. Precedent: Schools must show
a reasonable disruption to learning environment. Upheld 1 st
Amendment rights of students. Slide 28 NY Times v US (1971) Issue:
1 st Amendment (Freedom of the Press) Court Case: During US
involvement in Vietnam, the Pentagon put together a paper which
outlined US decision-making in Vietnam. This classified document
was leaked to the NY Times and the Washington Post. The NY Times
began publishing the findings, but the government filed an
injunction to stop the paper from printing. The NY Times sued on
the grounds that it violated the 1 st Amendment. Court Ruling: The
court ruled in favor of the NY Times. The court state that it was
the right of the paper to print this material because they had
received the information legally. Precedent: Prior restraint is
unconstitutional. Government must be able to prove a clear and
present danger. Slide 29 Swann v Charlotte Mecklenburg (1971)
Issue: 14 th Amendment School Segregation & Busing Court Case:
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools were being sued over the plan to
desegregate schools. Court Ruling: The court set up a plan for
desegregating schools which could include busing. School systems
had to show an effort to desegregate schools. Precedent: Federal
government had the authority to mandate desegregation of public
schools under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Slide 30 Furman v
Georgia (1972) Issue: 8 th & 14 th Amendment (Death Penalty)
Court Case: William Furman was burglarizing a house when the victim
woke up. Furman shot the victim, but said it was an accident.
Because he was committing a felony and committed murder, the State
of Georgia sentenced him to death. Court Ruling: Furman appealed
his sentence because he thought it was a violation of the 8 th
Amendment against cruel & unusual punishment. Court ruled in
favor of Furman overturning the death penalty. Precedent: Death
penalty ruled cruel & unusual punishment. Capital punishment
must be specifically identified by the law. Slide 31 Roe v Wadw
Slide 32 Slide 33 Roe v Wade (1973) Issue: 9 th & 14 th
Amendment Court Case: Texas law did not allow women to have
abortion/CHOICE unless advised by a doctor because womans life was
in jeopardy. Jane Roe class action lawsuit questioned the
constitutionality of the law. Court Ruling: The court ruled in
favor of Roe. Stated that states cannot pass laws banning abortion
during the 1 st trimester (3 months). Precedent: States cannot ban
abortion during the 1 st trimester. Slide 34 US v Nixon Slide 35 US
v Nixon (1974) Issue: Separation of Power Checks & Balances
Court Case: During the presidential election of 1972, a group of
members of C.R.E.E.P. broke into DNC headquarters. During
investigation, President Nixon was linked to the group, and a court
issued a subpoena for Nixon to turn over audiotapes of White House
proceedings. Nixon refused citing executive privilege. Court
Ruling: Does executive privilege exist? Yes What is its definition?
President can keep information if it is a matter of national
security. In this case, executive privilege did not apply. Nixon
eventually resigned from office. Precedent: Executive Privilege
exists, must show national security. Slide 36 Gregg v GA Slide 37
Gregg v Georgia (1976) Issue: 8 th & 14 th Amendments (Cruel
& Unusual Punishment) Court Case: Troy Leon Gregg and another
hitchhiker committed murder and armed robbery. He was sentenced to
death in Georgia, and appealed the conviction on the grounds that
it violated the 8 th Amendment. Court Ruling: The court ruled
against Gregg, stating the Georgia law did not violate the 8 th
Amendment. Precedent: Capital punishment is upheld as a punishment
for certain types of crime. Slide 38 Regents of the University of
California v. Bakke (1978) Case Summary Allan Bakke filed suit
after learning that minority candidates with lower qualifications
had been admitted to medical school under a program that reserved
spaces for disadvantaged applicants. The California Supreme Court
ordered the school, the State-run University of California, to
admit Bakke. The university then appealed to the United States
Supreme Court. The Court's Decision A splintered Supreme Court
affirmed the judgment ordering Bakke's admission to the medical
school of the University of California at Davis and invalidating
the school's special admissions program. However, the Court did not
prohibit the school from considering race as a factor in future
admissions decisions. Justice Lewis Powell, Jr., announced the
Court's judgment. Four justices agreed with his conclusions as to
Bakke individually, and four other justices agreed with the ruling
as to use of race information in the future. Slide 39 Continued
Justice Powell wrote that the guarantee of Equal Protection cannot
mean one thing when applied to one individual and something else
when applied to a person of another color. He did not, however,
prohibit schools from considering race as one factor in the
admissions process. Justice Thurgood Marshall argued that race
could properly be considered in an affirmative action program, a
policy of taking positive steps to remedy the effects of past
discrimination. In light of the sorry history of discrimination and
its devastating impact on the lives of Negroes, bringing the Negro
into the mainstream of American life should be a state interest of
the highest order. To fail to do so is to ensure that America will
forever remain a divided society. I do not believe that the
Fourteenth Amendment requires us to accept that fate. Slide 40 NJ v
TLO Slide 41 New Jersey v T.L.O. (1985) Issue: 4 th Amendment
(Search & Seizure) Court Case: T.L.O. was accused of smoking in
the bathroom at a high school. She denied and her purse was
searched. School officials found cigarettes, rolling papers,
marijuana, numerous $1 bills, and a list of students who owed her
money. T.L.O. appealed her expulsion on the grounds that her 4 th
Amendment rights had been violated. Court Decision: The court ruled
in favor of the school. The court stated that the need to keep guns
and drugs out of school created a situation that school officials
should be given greater latitude in searches. Precedent: Reasonable
Suspicion Rule for school searches. Limited the 4 th Amendment
rights of students. Slide 42 Bethel School District v Fraser (1986)
Issue: 1 st Amendment (Freedom of Speech in School) Court Case:
Matthew Fraser gave a speech endorsing a fellow student for an
elected office. During the speech he made comments using an
explicit sexual metaphor. He was suspended for three days, and
denied the right to speak at graduation. Court Ruling: Fraser
appealed the ruling as a violation of his 1 st Amendment Rights.
The court ruled in favor of the school, and the right to ban
certain speech. Precedent: 1 st Amendment rights to freedom of
speech can be limited if school can show a reasonable disruption to
the learning environment. Slide 43 Hazelwood School District v
Kuhlmeier (1988) Issue: 1 st Amendment (Freedom of the Press) Court
Case: A group of former high school students filed suit against a
principal and school system because the principal had deleted an
article about teenage pregnancy and divorce from the school
newspaper. Court Decision: The court ruled in favor of the
principal. The principal has the right to edit the newspaper, and
delete materials that he/she is inappropriate to maintain the
educational environment. Precedent: 1 st Amendment rights of
students limited. Slide 44 Texas v Johnson Slide 45 Texas v Johnson
(1989) Issue: 1 st Amendment & Flag Burning Court Case: In 1984
the Republican Party held the National Convention in Dallas, Texas.
Many groups staged protests. As a part of the protests, Johnson set
fire to an American Flag, and was arrested s Texas had a law
banning the burning of the Texas State Flag, and the US Flag.
Johnson appealed on the grounds that the law violated his 1 st
Amendment rights. Court Ruling: In favor of Johnson. As a result,
some groups would like to add a Constitutional Amendment to ban
flag burning as a form of protest. Precedent: Flag burning
protected by the 1 st Amendment. Slide 46 Slide 47 Morse v.
Frederick (2006) Issue: 1 st Amendment (Student Free Expression)
Court Case: Students were excused from school by the principal to
watch the Olympic Torch relay go through their town. A group of
students, led by Joseph Frederick displayed a sign that read Bong
Hits for Jesus in order to gain attention.When the principal saw
the sign on the news she suspended for violating the schools
anti-drug policy. Frederick appealed saying his message didnt cause
a disruption. Court Ruling: In favor of Morse (the principal)
saying that schools can prohibit students from displaying messages
that promote drug use. Even though it wasnt on school grounds it
was a school sponsored event. Precedent: Schools right to protect
its students. Precedent: Schools right to protect its students.
Slide 48 Slide 49 State v Mann In 1829, Elizabeth Jones, who owned
a slave named Lydia, hired her out for a year to John Mann of
Chowan County.Chowan County Mann shot and wounded Lydia when she
struggled to escape a whipping. Mann was found guilty of battery by
a jury of twelve white men drawn from his community and the court
(Superior Court Judge Joseph J. Daniel) imposed a five dollar
fine.batteryJoseph J. Daniel The North Carolina Supreme Court
overruled the conviction on the grounds that slaves were the
absolute property of their owners who could not be punished at
common law unless the legislature authorized such punishment.common
law Slide 50 Leandro v NC Slide 51 Leandro v. North Carolina (1997)
(1997) Six urban school districts stated that the state funding
formula did not provide them with sufficient money to educate their
at- risk students and students for whom English is not their first
language. Six urban school districts stated that the state funding
formula did not provide them with sufficient money to educate their
at- risk students and students for whom English is not their first
language. NOT EQUAL!!! NOT EQUAL!!! North Carolina Supreme Court
cases requiring that public school North Carolina Supreme Court
cases requiring that public school FUNDING must be EQUAL &
FAIR! ...every child of this state shall have an opportunity to
receive a sound basic education in our public schools. ...every
child of this state shall have an opportunity to receive a sound
basic education in our public schools. Slide 52 Martin Luther King
I Have a Dream http://teachertube.com/viewVideo.php?vid eo_id=94828
http://teachertube.com/viewVideo.php?vid eo_id=94828
