APUSH Supreme Court Cases

Commonwealth v Hunt (1842)

1. Chief Justice: Lemuel Shaw 2. Nature of dispute: Jeremiah Home, a member of the Boston Society of Journeymen Bootmakers, refused to pay a fine for violating the group's rules in 1839. The society persuaded Home's employer to fire him because of his violation. Consequently, Home accused the society of criminal conspiracy. 3. Ruling and Reasoning: After the society's leaders of were found guilty of criminal conspiracy, they appealed to the Massachusetts Supreme Court. Lemuel Shaw decided that as long as their methods were legal, the formation of labor unions was not criminal conspiracy. 4. Precedent set: After the ruling of Commonwealth v Hunt, individuals were given the right to organize trade unions. The decision overturned the ruling in the Commonwealth v Pulli case (1806), which established the labor conspiracy doctrine. Unions were given the right to negotiate labor contracts with employers. By the 1840s and 1850s, state legislatures passed laws establishing a 10-hour work day for employees and other workplace improvements. Additionally, Commonwealth v Hunt ruled that employee strikes were legal, if they were conducted in a peaceful manner.

Johnson vs M'Intosh (1823)

Chief Justice: John Marshall Nature of the dispute: This court case was a controversy over land title. The issue was whether the Illinois and Piankeshaw leaders could grant a more valid title than the federal government. In the 1770s, Illinois and Piankeshaw Indians, in what is now Illinois State, sold some land to Thomas Johnson. After American independence, the Indians sold the same land to the U.S. government, which then sold it to William M'Intosh. The plaintiff in the case, a descendant of Johnson, traced his title to a direct cession that the local leaders of the Illinois and Piankeshaw tribes had made to a private citizen. The defendant, M'Intosh contended that his title, traced through a later Indian cession to the federal government, was the one that was valid. Ruling and Reasoning: The Supreme Court held, by unanimous decision, that Johnson's title was not valid. That decision rested on the Court's definition of Indian land rights as limited by the doctrine of Indian sovereignty. According to this idea, tribes did not have the ability to cede "absolute title" (apparently with the exception of the federal government in treaties). Marshall reasoned that Indians' "rights to complete sovereignty, as independent nations, were necessarily diminished." As a result of the European discovery and conquest of America, the U.S. government had "extinguished" absolute Indian title in land. Marshall asserted this conclusion reluctantly, but the way he saw it, to decide otherwise was to invalidate U.S. title to all lands in America and indeed question the legitimacy of the very government: "these claims have been maintained and established as far west as the river Mississippi, by the sword ... it is not for the courts of this country to question the validity of this title." The final court ruling is that Native Americans do not have the right to sell land to private citizens, for they do not have ownership of the land but only the "right of occupancy". Implications for the future: The significance of this case was far-reaching. For the first time, there were explicit limitations on Indian sovereignty in the law of the land. Marshall did not recognize Indian subsistence activities as valid interactions with the land, much less as permanent enough to give Indians absolute title. He also considered Indians to be "fierce savages" while on the other he hoped they could peacefully assimilate into the larger society. Marshall's views toward both proper land use and Indian assimilation foreshadowed late-nineteenth-century efforts, such as the Dawes Act of 1887, to assimilate Indians into white society by turning them into farmers.

Ex Parte Milligan

Lambdin P. Milligan was arrested in 1864 for aiding the Confederacy. Milligan lived in Indiana, a state which was in support of the Union, and he was arrested at his home. He was guilty of freeing prisoners of the Confederacy and instigating a revolt. Abraham Lincoln had set up an impromptu trial in Indiana that found Milligan to be guilty and he was to be hung. However, Milligan's lawyers requested a court order of Habeas Corpus because Milligan was being deprived of his Constitutional rights. The trial made its way to the Supreme Court under presiding chief judge, Salmon P. Chase, and it was decided that the President and Congress did not have the authority to conduct military board where there are functioning civil courts available. Due to Milligan being deprived of his Constitutional rights he was freed after 18 months in jail. This trial was important because it defended the right of Habeas Corpus (and its importance as a Constitutional right), as well as not allowing the President/Congress to have the power to set up informal court hearings. Radical Republicans denounced their decision, and they feared it impacting their plans for military ruling of the South.

Civil Rights Cases (1883)

Morrison Waite was the presiding chief justice of the Civil Rights Cases of 1883. The Civil Rights Cases were a group of five cases, involving discrimination of African Americans mainly in the southern states. This case illustrated that the Civil RIghts Act of 1875 was unconstitutional, as they did not support the thirteenth and fourteenth amendment. The Civil Rights Act of 1875 attempted "to protect all citizens in their civil and legal rights." After the withdrawal of federal troops in the South at the end of the Reconstruction Era, this act became ineffective in the defense of the Southerners that the act was unconstitutional, as the 13 and 14th amendment does not give grant power to prohibit individual discrimination. In this case, Bradley, Miller, Field, Woods, Matthews, Gray, and Blatchford stood for the termination of the Civil Rights Act, against the dissent, John Marshall Harlan, in support of the Civil Rights.

McCullough vs. Maryland (1819)

Nature of the Dispute: Maryland attempted to establish a tax on all notes not chartered in the state. This included the second national Bank which had a branch in Baltimore. James W. McCullough, the cashier at the Baltimore National Bank Branch, refused to pay the tax to the state of Maryland. The conflict that ensued was centered around the question of whether Congress had the authority to establish the National Bank in the first place, or whether it was constitutional for Maryland to interfere with a National program. Ruling and Reasoning: Chief justice Marshall, being the firm Federalist that he was, ruled in favor of McCullough. Marshall justified his choice by arguing the legality of the National bank even though it was not allowed as an explicit right in the constitution. Unlike the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution had not given all rights not expressed within it to the States. A liberal interpretation, he claimed, gave power to congress to create the National Bank. This in turn should prohibit the states from taking measures against it. Future Effects and Implication: This was a loss for States rights as it further established the idea that anything not outlined in the Constitution was not automatically given to the States. The example here was the National Bank, but the power of the federal government to create things based on non-constitutional laws would carry into the future.

Fletcher v Peck

Presiding Chief Justice: John Marshall 2. Nature of the Dispute: In the Yazoo land purchase in Georgia, a corrupted state legislature sold land at a very cheap price to land purchasing companies who then sold it to third parties. A year after the initial sale the Georgia legislature ruled the sale fraudulent and the land claims illegitimate. Years later, a man named Peck sold land to Fletcher claiming that the rights to the land were completely legitimate. Fletcher sued Peck for damages. 3. Ruling: The court ruled that the government didn't have the ability to repeal a contract made with a private company according to Article 1 Section 10 of the constitution. Thus, the land claims were deemed legitimate. Importance: This was the first time that the Supreme Court ruled a state's law unconstitutional. It also set the precedent for contracts between the government and people that lasted for nearly a century.

Gibbons v Ogden (1821)

Presiding Chief Justice: Marshall Nature of dispute: Originally there was a partnership between the two about navigating the waters of New York. Then Gibbons started using a different trade route but Ogden wanted complete control over the New York waters. Ruling: In favor of Gibbons because the monopoly was unconstitutional- the government was given control over regulating interstate commerce. Implications for the future: This case strengthened Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce, which gave more power to the central government, which aligns with Marshall's Federalist views.

Worcester v Georgia (1832)

Presiding Chief Justice: Marshall Nature of dispute: Two missionaries, Worcester and Butler, were welcomed into a Cherokee tribe in Georgia but they had not been licensed by the state to live with them. He disobeyed Georgia's order that one had to take an oath of allegiance to Georgia or leave the tribe. Ruling: The Cherokee nation was its own sovereign state, which implies that the state of Georgia had no right enforcing laws on their territory, and only the federal government had the power to do that. Implications for the future: This rendered the Indian Removal Act illegal and unconstitutional. Andrew Jackson ignored this ruling, leading to the Trail of Tears.

Cherokee Nation v Georgia (1831)

Presiding Chief Justice: Marshall Nature of dispute: initially Georgia passes laws requiring the migration of Cherokees west. The Cherokees brought this to court against Georgia. Ruling: Supreme Court ruled that the Cherokee nation was not a foreign entity, rather domestic, and it could be regulated by the federal government and so the US government had a responsibility for the welfare of the tribes. Implications for the future: There is a divide created from the people of the states and the different people that were originally in the land, such as Indians. The people of the states treated natives poorly which set the precedent for the bad treatment, even today.

Charles River Bridge Case (1837)

Presiding Chief Justice: Roger B. Taney Nature of dispute: Two Massachusetts bridge companies were disputing over who had the right to construct a bridge between Cambridge and Boston. One company had its charter from the state and one had its charter from the legislature, which would ensure that the bridge was toll-free. Ruling: The Judges ruled in favor of the Warren Bridge. A third bridge was not built. Taney argued that the case was about the interpretation of the contract and that those contracts should be interpreted as loosely as possible. Therefore, the Charles Bridge did not have exclusive rights. Other public projects should also be interpreted very loosely and any other disputes should be settled in favor of the public. Economic development was better than protecting monopolies. Implications for the future: This demonstrated that a contract could be broken to benefit the welfare of people alone and that a state could potentially take away grant money if it is not important or pertinent to a community (not unconstitutional) also, public project contracts would be interpreted loosely.

Dred Scott Decision (1857)

The Dred Scott decision was a Supreme Court case which ruled that no person of African descent is considered a United States citizen. In 1846, Dred Scott, an African American slave, attempted to purchase his and his family's freedom, and was unsuccessful, causing him to take legal action. Dred Scott made an attempt to sue for his freedom, claiming that he and his family should be free considering their residence in Illinois and Wisconsin during the last four years, locations in which slavery was illegal. Chief Justice Roger B Taney delivered the decision that any African descendants are not American citizens, and that the ordinance of 1787 could not confirm the freedom or citizenship of a non-white individual within the northwest territory. Since African descendants were not citizens, they had no legal standing and court, and since slaves were viewed as property, the court had no right to revoke ownership no matter where they resided. The Dred Scott decision created tension between the north and south, as many in the north resented the decision, pushing the country closer to civil war. The Scott decision is also known by scholars to be one of the worst Supreme Court decisions in history.

Dartmouth v. Woodward (1819)

The presiding Chief Justice during the Dartmouth v. Woodward case was John Marshall. The conflict arose in 1816 due to the New Hampshire state legislature disapproving of the Dartmouth College trustees' decision to dispose of the school's president. The legislature passed laws that made Dartmouth College a public college when it had previously been a private one, giving the state the power to restore the president and alter the role that the trustees played in the college. However, Dartmouth college was created from a charter by the king of England in 1769, which was considered a private contract between the college and the king. Article 1, Section 10 of the constitution prevents the state from impairing a contract, so the trustees filed suit. The decision was made by a 5-1 margin in favor of Dartmouth and the Court struck down the New Hampshire laws. Marshall reasoned that even though New Hampshire was no longer a royal colony, the contract between the college and the king was still valid and protected by Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution. This decision encouraged the businesses of the future to invest and grow because private charters included those of commercial enterprises. Businesses could be secure in the fact that the state could not damage them, and this led to the rise of the free market system in America.