SUPREME COURT CASES

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

• Jefferson ordered that the papers not be delivered and gave the job to someone else.

• Marbury sued asking for a writ of mandamus (a court order) to get his job.

• Jefferson ordered that the papers not be delivered and gave the job to someone else.

• Marbury sued asking for a writ of mandamus (a court order) to get his job.

Marbury v. Madison (1803) Constitutional

Issue

Marbury v. Madison (1803) Constitutional

Issue• Did Marbury have a right to the job?

• If so, was he entitled to some remedy under USA law?

• Was the remedy a writ of mandamus from the Supreme Court?

• Did Marbury have a right to the job?

• If so, was he entitled to some remedy under USA law?

• Was the remedy a writ of mandamus from the Supreme Court?

Marbury v. Madison (1803) Supreme Court

Decision

Marbury v. Madison (1803) Supreme Court

Decision• Marshall first ruled that the commission became effective once the official seal was on the paper, which is what was the case here.

• Marshall then ruled that Marbury was entitled to some remedy under USA law as the job should have been his.

• However, as for the writ that Marbury wanted, this was a power that the court received from the judiciary act of 1789 which was passed by congress.

• Marshall first ruled that the commission became effective once the official seal was on the paper, which is what was the case here.

• Marshall then ruled that Marbury was entitled to some remedy under USA law as the job should have been his.

• However, as for the writ that Marbury wanted, this was a power that the court received from the judiciary act of 1789 which was passed by congress.

Marbury v. Madison (1803) Supreme Court

Decision

Marbury v. Madison (1803) Supreme Court

Decision• Marshall ruled that the constitution did not give congress the power to create such a law so therefore the act was “null and void”

• Although Marbury did not get his job, from this point on S.C. established the power of judicial review, the right to declare a law unconstitutional.

• Marshall ruled that the constitution did not give congress the power to create such a law so therefore the act was “null and void”

• Although Marbury did not get his job, from this point on S.C. established the power of judicial review, the right to declare a law unconstitutional.

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

• On his last day of office John Adams appointed William Marbury to the justice of the peace for D.C.

• Job did not become official until the secretary of state John Marshall delivers the necessary papers

• These were not delivered before Thomas Jefferson took office.

• On his last day of office John Adams appointed William Marbury to the justice of the peace for D.C.

• Job did not become official until the secretary of state John Marshall delivers the necessary papers

• These were not delivered before Thomas Jefferson took office.

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

Maryland passed a law taxing the federal bank.

James McCulloch ran the bank without paying the tax.

McCulloch was arrested.

Maryland passed a law taxing the federal bank.

James McCulloch ran the bank without paying the tax.

McCulloch was arrested.

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) Constitutional

Issue

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) Constitutional

Issue How to divide the power between

state and federal governments? How far can congress push its

implied powers?

How to divide the power between state and federal governments?

How far can congress push its implied powers?

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) Supreme Court

Decision

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) Supreme Court

Decision Ruled in favor of McCulloch Supremacy clause must be

followed USA is a creation of the people, not

the states. States can’t tell federal gov’t what

to do Upheld the use of implied powers

Ruled in favor of McCulloch Supremacy clause must be

followed USA is a creation of the people, not

the states. States can’t tell federal gov’t what

to do Upheld the use of implied powers

Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)

• NY state gave a monopoly for a ferry business which was to be run by Aaron Ogden.

• Thomas Gibbons was given a license to also run a ferry by the federal gov’t.

• Ogden sued to keep his monopoly.

• NY state gave a monopoly for a ferry business which was to be run by Aaron Ogden.

• Thomas Gibbons was given a license to also run a ferry by the federal gov’t.

• Ogden sued to keep his monopoly.

Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) Constitutional IssueGibbons v. Ogden (1824) Constitutional Issue

• What exactly was meant by commerce in the Constitution?

• How much control does the gov’t have over commerce?

• Is control of commerce an enumerated or concurrent power?

• What exactly was meant by commerce in the Constitution?

• How much control does the gov’t have over commerce?

• Is control of commerce an enumerated or concurrent power?

Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) Supreme Court DecisionGibbons v. Ogden (1824) Supreme Court Decision

• Ruled in favor of Gibbons

• Expanded the definition of commerce which led the way to growth of a modern economy.

• Ruled in favor of Gibbons

• Expanded the definition of commerce which led the way to growth of a modern economy.

Engle v. Vitale (1962) 1951 NY state approved the following prayer

to be read at school “ Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon thee, and we beg thy blessings upon us, our parents, and our country.”

The schools said this was a non-denominational prayer and no student was required to say it.

Steven Engle, a parent objected to this and said it violated his children’s right to freedom of religion.

Engle v. Vitale (1962) Constitutional Issue Was this a violation of the student’s right to

freedom of religion? Did the daily use of the prayer although

noncompulsory, violate the establishment clause of the 14th amendment which separated church and state?

Engle v. Vitale (1962) Supreme Court Decision Court ruled that being non-denominational

and noncompulsory was not enough. Any prayer approved by the school was in

essence the school promoting religion. Court said that this nation was created for

religious freedom and any union between the church and state has to be prevented.

Korematsu v. USA (1944)Korematsu v. USA (1944)

After pearl harbor, all the Japanese Americans on the west coast were sent to concentration camps to prevent spying.

Korematsu refused to leave his home. He was arrested.

After pearl harbor, all the Japanese Americans on the west coast were sent to concentration camps to prevent spying.

Korematsu refused to leave his home. He was arrested.

Korematsu v. USA (1944) Constitutional Issue

Korematsu v. USA (1944) Constitutional Issue

Was the executive order by the president a violation of Korematsu’s rights?

How much power should be given to the president in times of war?

Was the executive order by the president a violation of Korematsu’s rights?

How much power should be given to the president in times of war?

Korematsu v. USA (1944) Supreme Court Decision

Korematsu v. USA (1944) Supreme Court Decision

Ruled in favor of the gov’t President has the power in wartime to

protect the whole nation. Being in a camp was judged to be a

responsibility of citizenship.

Ruled in favor of the gov’t President has the power in wartime to

protect the whole nation. Being in a camp was judged to be a

responsibility of citizenship.

Mapp v. Ohio (1961)Mapp v. Ohio (1961)

• Police went to a house on a tip that a fugitive was hiding out.

• They were refused entry.• They went to get a warrant and

forced way into the house.• Found only pornographic material• No warrant was shown at trial.

• Police went to a house on a tip that a fugitive was hiding out.

• They were refused entry.• They went to get a warrant and

forced way into the house.• Found only pornographic material• No warrant was shown at trial.

Mapp v. Ohio (1961) Constitutional IssueMapp v. Ohio (1961) Constitutional Issue

• Was the evidence found illegally?• Can illegally found evidence be

used in a court of law?

• Was the evidence found illegally?• Can illegally found evidence be

used in a court of law?

Mapp v. Ohio (1961) Supreme Court Decision

Mapp v. Ohio (1961) Supreme Court Decision

• Court ruled in favor of Mapp• At both the state and the national

level, any evidence that is gathered illegally is prohibited from being used.

• Court ruled in favor of Mapp• At both the state and the national

level, any evidence that is gathered illegally is prohibited from being used.

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978)

• Cal U put into place affirmative action programs for minorities.

• Bakke challenged the programs because minority students with lower scores were accepted before him

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978)

Constitutional Issue• Did the affirmative action programs

violate white students equal protection of the laws in the 14th Amendment?

• Are racial preferences always unconstitutional?

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) Supreme Court Decision

• The court ruled that this was a case of reverse discrimination.

• However, it did say that affirmative action programs can be used as long as race is not the only criteria.

• Also said schools do have the right to try to promote ethnic diversity.

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

Louisiana had a law that segregated races into different cars of railroad trains.

Plessy who was 1/8th African American decided to challenge the law by sitting in a white section of a train.

He was arrested and thrown in jail for 20 days.

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) Constitutional

IssueWere segregation laws a violation

of the 14th amendment’s “equal protection of the law”?

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) Supreme Court

DecisionCourt ruled that the 14th amendment only said

that states had to create an equal playing field and that it could not abolish distinct characteristics of race.

Segregation doesn’t imply inferiorityThe law was reasonable and that it creates the

ability for all races to protect their individuality and identity.

Said the “separate but equal” was legal.

Brown v. Board of education of Topeka, KS (1954)

Linda Brown an African American student was denied entry into an all white school.

This was challenged on the grounds that the white and black schools were not equal and that segregation was being used to prevent the advancement of African American race

Brown v. Board of education of Topeka, KS (1954) Constitutional Issue

Were segregation laws a violation of the 14th amendment’s “equal protection of the law”?

Brown v. Board of education of Topeka, KS (1954)

Supreme Court DecisionCourt ruled unanimously to overturn Plessy

Ruled that segregated schools did promote the idea of inferiority of the African American race

This affects the students ability to learn and denies them the right to advancement through education

Separate facilities are unequal

“separate but equal” is now illegal

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

Clarence Gideon, a small time thief, was arrested for stealing a pint of wine and change from a cigarette machine.

He was refused a lawyer. He was too poor to afford one, so he

defended himself and lost.

Clarence Gideon, a small time thief, was arrested for stealing a pint of wine and change from a cigarette machine.

He was refused a lawyer. He was too poor to afford one, so he

defended himself and lost.

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) Constitutional Issue

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) Constitutional Issue

Does the gov’t have to appoint a lawyer to a person who is too poor to afford one?

Does this apply to the state or federal levels? Felonies? Misdemeanors?

Does the gov’t have to appoint a lawyer to a person who is too poor to afford one?

Does this apply to the state or federal levels? Felonies? Misdemeanors?

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) Supreme Court Decision

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) Supreme Court Decision

Court overturned Gideon’s sentence said that the common person does not have the skills to defend themselves in court.

Therefore people are entitled to a court appointed lawyer at any level.

Court overturned Gideon’s sentence said that the common person does not have the skills to defend themselves in court.

Therefore people are entitled to a court appointed lawyer at any level.

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

Ernesto Miranda was arrested for kidnapping and rape.

He was not read his rights.He wrote a confession and was

sentenced based on that confession to 20-30 years.

Ernesto Miranda was arrested for kidnapping and rape.

He was not read his rights.He wrote a confession and was

sentenced based on that confession to 20-30 years.

Miranda v. Arizona (1966) Constitutional Issue

Miranda v. Arizona (1966) Constitutional Issue

Under what conditions is a confession admissible in a court of law?

How far can the police go in getting a confession?

Under what conditions is a confession admissible in a court of law?

How far can the police go in getting a confession?

Miranda v. Arizona (1966) Supreme Court Decision

Miranda v. Arizona (1966) Supreme Court Decision

Overturned Miranda’s convictionA person must have their rights

read to them at the time of the arrest.

Once rights are read, a confession is admissible in court.

Overturned Miranda’s convictionA person must have their rights

read to them at the time of the arrest.

Once rights are read, a confession is admissible in court.

New Jersey v. T.L.O (1985)

T.L.O was a high school freshmen who was caught by a teacher smoking in the girl’s bathroom.

The Assistant VP then searched her purse to look for cigarettes.

The asst. VP found the cigarettes and also rolling papers.

New Jersey v. T.L.O (1985)

This made them search more and they found a pipe, plastic bags, a large amount of money, card listing all the people who owed her money for marijuana, and a letter implicating her in drug dealing.

The evidence was turned over to the police and she was arrested

Her parents were notified and she was suspended from school

New Jersey v. T.L.O (1985) Constitutional Issue

Was this a violation of her rights? Was this an illegal search and seizure? Must the school be held to the same

standards as the police when searching a student?

New Jersey v. T.L.O (1985) Supreme Court Decision

Ruled that the search was reasonable? Schools do not need to meet the same standards as

the police Said that while the students do have rights to privacy,

the rights of all students to be in safe environment is more important

Said the search warrant requirement was unreasonable in a school setting

Schools only need a reasonable reason to search a student or their property as opposed to the probable cause that a police officer would need.

Tinker v. Des Moines School Districts (1969)

Tinker v. Des Moines School Districts (1969)

John and Mary Beth Tinker wanted to protest the Vietnam War at school.

Decided to wear black arm bands to school as a protest.

School board heard of this and warned that anyone wearing arm bands will be suspended.

The Tinkers wore the arm bands anyway and were suspended

John and Mary Beth Tinker wanted to protest the Vietnam War at school.

Decided to wear black arm bands to school as a protest.

School board heard of this and warned that anyone wearing arm bands will be suspended.

The Tinkers wore the arm bands anyway and were suspended

Tinker v. Des Moines School Districts (1969)

Constitutional Issue

Tinker v. Des Moines School Districts (1969)

Constitutional Issue Was the wearing of the arm band a

protected example of free expression which would be protected under the first amendment?

Do schools have the right to prevent the use of arm bands since it would create a disruptive learning environment?

Was the wearing of the arm band a protected example of free expression which would be protected under the first amendment?

Do schools have the right to prevent the use of arm bands since it would create a disruptive learning environment?

Tinker v. Des Moines School Districts (1969) Supreme

Court Decision

Tinker v. Des Moines School Districts (1969) Supreme

Court Decision The court ruled that the arm bands were

a protected form of speech. Students have the same rights to free

speech as adults. Court did agree that schools have the

right to protect the learning environment, but in this case the wearing of the arm bands did not create a disruptive situation.

The court ruled that the arm bands were a protected form of speech.

Students have the same rights to free speech as adults.

Court did agree that schools have the right to protect the learning environment, but in this case the wearing of the arm bands did not create a disruptive situation.

Roe v. Wade (1973)Roe v. Wade (1973)

An unmarried pregnant women called Jane Roe challenged Texas law that made abortions illegal except when a doctor’s judgment said it was needed to save the life of the mother.

Since her life was not in danger, Jane Roe was denied an abortion.

An unmarried pregnant women called Jane Roe challenged Texas law that made abortions illegal except when a doctor’s judgment said it was needed to save the life of the mother.

Since her life was not in danger, Jane Roe was denied an abortion.

Roe v. Wade (1973) Constitutional IssueRoe v. Wade (1973) Constitutional Issue

Does a women have a right to privacy in regards to her own body as protected by the Bill of Rights and the 14th amendment?

Does the state have the obligation to protect the right to the life of the unborn fetus?

Does a women have a right to privacy in regards to her own body as protected by the Bill of Rights and the 14th amendment?

Does the state have the obligation to protect the right to the life of the unborn fetus?

Roe v. Wade (1973) Supreme Court Decision

Roe v. Wade (1973) Supreme Court Decision

Court agreed that a women does have the right to privacy, however, it also must protect the right of “person” to life. To solve the issue the court had to determine when the fetus was a “human”

Said in the 1st 3 months a fetus was not a “human” so abortion was legal.

Last 3 month a fetus was human and so abortion is illegal

Middle 3 months left to the states to decide.

Court agreed that a women does have the right to privacy, however, it also must protect the right of “person” to life. To solve the issue the court had to determine when the fetus was a “human”

Said in the 1st 3 months a fetus was not a “human” so abortion was legal.

Last 3 month a fetus was human and so abortion is illegal

Middle 3 months left to the states to decide.