15 Supreme Court Cases

Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

Facts of Case: During the civil rights movement. Children had to attend colored or white schools that were far from their homes. Case sought to abolish separate but equal principals previously established. Question: Does the segregation of public education based solely on race violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? Court Ruling: Earl Warren wrote the majority decision. Separate but equal educational facilities for racial minorities is inherently unequal violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment Vote: Unanimous, 9-0 Impact: desegregation/integration of schools to advance towards a multicultural society, NAACP led more campaigns against racism

Schenck v. United States (1919)

Facts of the Case: Charles T. Schenck distributed leaflets in 1917 urging citizens to disobey the Espionage Acts by avoiding the military draft. Schenck believed he was exercising his first amendment right, and he believed the Espionage Act was unconstitutional. Question: Were Schenck's distribution of leaflets urging citizens to disobey the Espionage Acts during a time of war, constitutional, or did they violate the First Amendment? Trial Court Ruling: Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes stated Schenck violated the terms of the Espionage Acts, and the first amendment right could be restricted. The unanimous decision was Charles T. Schenck's actions were unconstitutional due to the United State's involvement in World War 1. The Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment does not shield advocacy urging conduct deemed unlawful under the Espionage Act Vote: 9-0, Unanimous Long term impact: Although this case remained relevant for about 50 years, cases such as Brandenburg v Ohio (1969) redefined the clause under the first amendment. Brandenburg v. Ohio, caused the Supreme Court to modify Justice Holmes's clause of "clear and present danger" to "imminent lawless action" under the first amendment.

Baker v. Carr (1962)

Facts of the Case: The Tennessee General Assembly had not reapportioned seats in Congress since 1901. The plaintiff wanted reapportionment done because of economic and population shifts that had occurred in the state. Question for the Court: Is this a political question? Can the Court rule on apportionment issues? Court Ruling: Justice Brennan; Not a political question. The Court can rule on apportionment issues. Constitutionally reapportionment must occur every ten years after the census is conducted. The 14th Amendment equal protections clause was violated because the reapportionment was not conducted to reflect the most up to date demographics. Dissenting: Justice Harlan; the ruling violates the separation of powers; not the jurisdiction of the Court because it is a legislative issue. 6-2 vote Long term impact: mandated reapportionment to take place every ten years in every state. The ruling forced many states to redraw their district lines because they had not been redrawn in several decades.

New York Times Company vs. the United States (1971)

Facts of the case: 1970: Daniel Ellsberg leaked top secret history of the US involvement in Vietnam to the New York Times ("Pentagon Papers"). Nixon administration issued ruling against New York Times posting the rest of the papers because of national security, which was known as prior restraint (government trying to stop the publication of something before it is even published). Question: The New York Times wanted to publish their new found information about American military involvement in Vietnam, but the government said it was against national security. Court ruling: per curiam opinion (all concurring judges wrote it and presented it as a group). They agreed that the government did not have the power to try to stop documents that had not been published yet. Dissenting: Mr. Justice Blackmun- Said that the publication of the next chapters were delayed which was a violation of the First Amendment and the public's right to immediately know. Vote: 6-3 for NYT Co, Per Curiam Long term impact: Outlined "heavy presumption against prior restraint" which means that the Supreme Court will most likely find prior restraint cases unconstitutional. Established meaning of the first amendment.

United States v. Lopez (1995)

Facts of the case: Alfonzo Lopez, a high school student, carried a concealed weapon into his San Antonio, Texas high school. He was charged under Texas law with firearm possession on school property. State charges were dismissed after federal agents charged Lopez with violating the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. Lopez was found guilty. Ruling: the district court convicted Lopez of violating the Gun Free School Zones Act. The 5th Court of Appeal said he shouldn't have been convicted under that act (so they repealed the district court's decision). Petition: Can Congress regulate gun possession near school campuses on the grounds of gun possession affecting interstate commerce? Court Ruling: Chief Justice Rehnquist. The SC said the Gun Free School Zones Act was unconstitutional. The act never mentions commerce. There must be a distinction between federal and state governments, and if Congress has all power over anything affecting commerce, they have the general policing power that's supposed to be left to the states. Dissenting Opinion: Justice Stevens. Future commerce depends on educating children, so anything that damages learning environment should fall under Congress's jurisdiction. Guns restrain commerce and are a part of commerce. Vote: 5-4 Long term impact: began to move toward President Reagan's new federalism in which the federal government has less power and the states governments have more power. RESTRAIN FEDERAL POWER by saying Congress does not have unlimited powers even under the ambiguity of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Committee (2010)

Facts of the case: Citizens United is a non-profit organization that produces documentaries on controversial topics like politics, immigration, war, etc. During the time period surrounding the 2008 Democratic primaries, CU tried to put their movie "Hillary: The Movie" on Comcast On-Demand. This was 30 days before the actual election and could interfere with the voter results. Question (petition) before the Court: Citizens United wanted their movie "Hillary: The Movie" to not be striked by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. They ultimately wanted to be able to spend their money and speak freely. Court Ruling: Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote the majority opinion. They were concerned that the government was taking things too far. "Political speech is indispensable to Democracy" . Ruling was to overturn the earlier cases and decide that Corporations, like individuals, have the 1st amendment rights to spend money independently. Dissenting: Stevens argued that corporations free speech would lead to corruption and oversaturation of certain views in society (concurring/ dissenting in part) Thomas argued that the idea of free speech is best protected by using it anonymously. Vote: 5-4 for Citizens United Long term impact: Corporations now can funnel seemingly unlimited amounts of funds into political campaigns. This drowns the citizens of the United States voices and leads to more distrust in our government. It also has lead to the plethora of slandering and "fake news" propaganda (PHIL SHREDESON).

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

Facts of the case: Clarence Gideon was accused of breaking and entering to steal quarters from a pool table. He was arrested for a state crime. He asked for an attorney because he was too poor to afford an attorney. According to Florida law it was not mandatory to provide him with a lawyer unless it was a capital case. He represented himself and he was found guilty. He appealed the verdict on the 6th amendment grounds that he should have had a court appointed attorney. Question for the Court: Does the 6th Amendment apply to the states? Court Ruling: Justice Hugo Black. The 6th Amendment applies to the states because of the 14th Amendment. Concurring: Justice Clark: No mention of application of only capital crimes needing an attorney. Vote: 9-0, Unanimous Long term impact: All rights in the Bill of Rights are applied to the states and state laws.

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969)

Facts of the case: In the middle of the Vietnam war, which was highly publicized and hated Question (petition) before the Court: The students wanted their punishment revoked and the ability to peacefully protest Court Ruling (including who wrote the majority opinion and the reasoning behind the opinion): In favor of Tinker, armbands represented pure speech and were not associated with violence, they did not create a tangible disruption so the school had no constitutional right to prevent them from exercising the first amendment. Written by Chief Justice Abe Fortas. Dissenting: Justice Black- Argued that the First Amendment does not provide the right to express any opinion at any time. The school district was well within its rights to discipline the students. Justice Harlan- Argued that school officials should be afforded wide authority to maintain order unless their actions can be proven to stem from a motivation other than a legitimate school interest. Vote: 7-2 for Tinker Long term impact: students do not lose the first amendment right because they are in school as long as they do not create a physical issue

Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)

Facts of the case: Jonas Yoder and Wallace Miller, members of the Old Order Amish religion, and Adin Yutzy, a member of the Conservative Amish Church, were prosecuted under a Wisconsin law that required all children to attend public schools until age 16. The three parents refused to send their children to schools after the eighth grade, arguing that high school attendance was contrary to their religious beliefs. Question (petition) before the Court: Did Wisconsin's requirement that all parents send their children to school at least until age 16 violate the First Amendment by criminalizing the conduct of parents who refused to send their children to school for religious reasons? Court Ruling: Chief Justice Warren E. Burger wrote majority opinion. held 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. ***Students still had to attend K-8 but were exempt from 9-12*** Dissenting: None; Justice William O. Douglas filed a partial dissent but joined with the majority regarding Yoder. Vote: Unanimous

McCulloch vs. Maryland (1816)

Facts of the case: Maryland placed a tax on the notes of the new Second Bank of the US (located in Baltimore). McCulloch (branch cashier) sues the state; Maryland Courts upheld this law (no textual support for a bank); so, the Bank takes case to the Supreme Court. Question: Does the Constitution give the federal government more power than what is directly (enumerated) stated by the Framers? [remove the tax placed on their notes in Maryland.] Court Ruling: Congress has the the implied powers, under Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution [Necessary and Proper Clause], to establish a Second Bank of the United States and that the state of Maryland lacks the right to tax the Bank. Maryland may not impose a tax on the bank. Written by John Marshall Vote: 9-0, Unanimous Long term impact: Established that the central government has abilities past what is directly stated. Because of the "Necessary and Proper" Clause, giving the gov whatever abilities it needs to accomplish its enumerated powers, the central government was strengthened.

Engel v. Vitale (1962)

Facts of the case: New York board of regents allowed for daily prayer that would be read aloud at the beginning of every school day. Various groups believed that the daily prayer violated the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment. New York Court of appeals ruled that it did not after an initial injunction to stop the prayer. Question for the Court: Does the school prayer violate the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment? Court Ruling: Justice Hugo Black; Yes, the daily prayer does violate the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment. The promotion of the prayer signified an endorsement of a religion and thus violated the separation of church and state. Dissenting: Justice Stewart; No official religion established so the prayer did not violate the 1st Amendment Vote: 6-1 Long term impact: The clear separation of church and state regarding religious activities in school. There can be no endorsement of a religious organization by a school.

Roe v. Wade (1973)

Facts of the case: Roe sought to terminate her pregnancy by abortion. Texas law prohibited abortions except to save the pregnant woman's life. After granting certiorari, the Court heard arguments twice. The first time, Roe's attorney -- Sarah Weddington -- could not locate the constitutional hook of her argument for Justice Potter Stewart. Her opponent -- Jay Floyd -- misfired from the start. Weddington sharpened her constitutional argument in the second round. Her new opponent -- Robert Flowers -- came under strong questioning from Justices Potter Stewart and Thurgood Marshall. Question (petition) before the Court: Does the Constitution embrace a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy by abortion? Court Ruling: The Court held that a woman's right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy (recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut) protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision gave a woman total autonomy over the pregnancy during the first trimester and defined different levels of state interest for the second and third trimesters. As a result, the laws of 46 states were affected by the Court's ruling. Vote: 7-2 DECISION FOR JANE ROE

McDonald v. Chicago (2010)

Facts of the case: The City of Chicago had banned handguns within the city limits. McDonald challenged the legality of the ordinance based off of the decision in D.C v. Heller where the Court had found that the Districts ban violated the 2nd Amendment rights of the Heller. In this case McDonald wanted the ban overturned due to the 14th Amendment and the application of the Bill of Rights to the states. 7th Court of appeals upheld the ban and sent it to the Supreme Court Question before the Court: Does the 2nd Amendment apply to the states via the 14th Amendment? Court Ruling: Justice Alito; Yes, the 2nd Amendment applies to the states via the 14th Amendment. The right to self-defense is a fundamental right and the 14th Amendment ensures that the Bill of Rights applies to the states. Dissenting: Justice Stevens: The 14th Amendment does not make the 2nd Amendment enforceable upon the states. Owning a firearm is not a personal liberty. 5-4 vote Impact: Finalized the notion that neither the state nor the federal government can enact bans on the possession of handguns in a person's home.

Shaw v. Reno (1993)

Facts of the case: The U.S. Attorney General rejected a North Carolina congressional reapportionment plan because the plan created only one black-majority district. North Carolina submitted a second plan creating two black-majority districts. One of these districts was, in parts, no wider than the interstate road along which it stretched. 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. After a three-judge District Court ruled that they failed to state a constitutional claim, the residents appealed and the Supreme Court granted certiorari. ***Gerrymandering: manipulate boundaries to favor a party or class Question (petition) before the Court: Did the North Carolina residents' claim, that the State created a racially gerrymandered district, raise a valid constitutional issue under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause? Court Ruling (including who wrote the majority opinion and the reasoning behind the opinion): NC's reapportionment plan was racially neutral but the result was bizarre shaped districts, possibly to separate voters based on race causing an imbalance. Vote: 5-4 for Shaw

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

Facts of the case: Thomas Jefferson defeated John Adams in the 1800 presidential election. Adams and Congress passed the Judiciary Act 1801, which created new courts, added judges, and gave the president more control. The appointees were approved by the Senate, but they were not valid until their commissions were delivered by Secretary of State James Madison. William Marbury had been appointed Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia, but his commission was not delivered. Marbury petitioned the Supreme Court to compel the new Secretary of State, James Madison, to deliver the documents. Marbury, petitioned for a writ of mandamus compelling the delivery of the commissions. Question (petition) before the Court: Do the plaintiffs have a right to receive their commissions? Can they sue for their commissions in court? Does the Supreme Court have the authority to order the delivery of their commissions? Court Ruling: The Court found that Madison's refusal to deliver the commission was illegal, but they did not order Madison to hand over Marbury's commission via writ of mandamus. Instead, the Court held that the provision of the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional, since it purported to extend the Court's original jurisdiction beyond that which Article III, Section 2, established. Marshall established Judicial Review (the power to declare a law unconstitutional) Vote: Unanimous for Marbury