supreme court case study

Whitney v. California (1927)

1. Whitney was convicted of criminal syndicalism for being a member of the Communist Labor Party; the party was found to have been organized to advocate, teach, and abet criminal syndicalism. 2. The Court ruled that the Communist Labor Party to which Whitney belonged endangered the government of California and the public peace and security. 3. Brandeis, unlike Sanford, held that merely holding opinions that were offensive to the government, even though they may result in some violence or the destruction of property, is no reason for prohibiting freedom of speech. 4. Students' opinions will vary. Some will say that membership in such an organization may lead to acts that threaten the government and should therefore be banned. Others may say that membership should not be punished because it involves only agreement with the aims of the organization and is therefore a belief, which is protected by the First Amendment. 5. The justices may have held that if the defendant performed no criminal act, the defendant should not be punished for his or her beliefs. (This is what the Court held in the 1969 case of Brandenburg v. Ohio.)

Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)

1. A trucking company operating between San Francisco and Portland would be regulated by both federal and state governments. Each state, for example, could impose taxes on the company's purely instate business, but the federal government could set safety standards for vehicles using the interstate highway system. 2. Unless he defined navigation as a part of commerce, he would not have been able to deal with the question of interstate commerce in the United States. 3. Jackson said Marshall expanded federal power over commerce to a breadth never exceeded, because the Gibbons decision opened the way for Congress to regulate interstate commerce, which now constitutes the great bulk of commerce in this country. Marshall also laid the groundwork for regulating activities that are indirectly, as well as directly, involved in interstate commerce. 4. Both cases gave the federal government powers than are not spelled out literally in the Constitution; thus both decisions diminished states' powers and increased those of the federal government. 5. Students agreeing with the Gibbons decision may say that the federal government is needed as a power greater than the states to make decisions about issues involving more than one state. Students opposed to the Gibbons decision may say a state has the right to regulate business within its boundaries, so the federal government should not have interfered with New York's right to assign an exclusive ferryboat license for a New York port.

Reynolds v. United States (1879)

1. Chief Justice Waite supported Congress's right to legislate against religious practices that might have a harmful effect on the social order. In the Reynolds case, polygamy was so viewed. Congress, therefore, had the right to prohibit such a practice. 2. Polygamy was one aspect of the Mormon religion, as ritual murder might be in another religion, contrary to the mores of Western society. The Court did not believe the religious protections of the First Amendment should include behaviors offensive to civilized society. 3. The Court recognized that there are sometimes circumstances when the freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment must be curtailed to avoid anarchy or other social chaos. 4. The Court could justify regulating marriage because in addition to being "a sacred obligation," marriage also involves a civil contract that needs to be regulated by law. 5. Students might justify the actions of government authorities in singling out one person to prosecute because society wanted polygamy stopped, and the authorities probably felt that prosecuting one person would do so. Students who feel the action is unjust might say that choosing only one person for prosecution left others who had committed the same crime unpunished.

Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819)

1. Dartmouth College remained a private institution and was protected under Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution from interference by the state. The trustees were reinstated to administer the college, and the college records, the corporate seal, and other corporate property were returned to the trustees by the state treasurer. 2. Chief Justice Marshall explained that if a state or other sovereign—here the British crown—granted a charter of incorporation, the charter has "every ingredient of a complete and legitimate contract." 3. The Dartmouth case established that a corporate charter granted by the state comes under the protection of the contract clause that prohibits states from making any laws which impair the obligation of a contract. Therefore, businesses could flourish without being subjected to interference by the state. 4. If states wanted to provide higher education, they had to provide publicly funded institutions because the Dartmouth decision prohibited the states from taking over private institutions. 5. The Dartmouth decision weakened the power of the states by ruling that even though states have the power to charter corporations, corporations are protected from interference by the states because they are protected under the contract clause in Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution, which prohibits states from making any laws that impair the obligations of a contract.

Lochner v. New York (1905)

1. Lochner argued that his rights to due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment had been violated. He felt that his right to make labor contracts with his employees was restricted by the passage of the Bakeshop Act. 2. The state of New York passed the Bakeshop Act to protect the working conditions of bakery employees. The law was one of a number of state laws passed that were designed to protect workers. 3. The Court agreed with Lochner that the Bakeshop Act interfered with his Fourteenth Amendment rights. They argued that the baking industry was not so unhealthy that the state needed to step in and protect its workers. 4. Justice Harlan believed that the Bakeshop Act was within the police powers of the State of New York to protect the health and safety of workers in this field. 5. Any worker protection law could limit an employer's ability to hire someone who would otherwise be willing to do the work. The law could also prevent an employee from doing work that would otherwise be available. As a result, the due process clause gives both employers and employees the right to challenge the limitations imposed by laws of this nature

Muller v. Oregon (1908)

1. Muller argued the Oregon labor law was unconstitutional because it violated his right to make contracts with his employees under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. He also argued that women had the same rights to make contracts as men. 2. The justices were convinced by the data amassed by attorney Louis Brandeis in the brief he filed with the Court. It contained statistics to support the need for special laws concerning the working conditions of women. 3. In Lochner, the Court held that the New York law arbitrarily interfered with the freedom of businessmen and workers to make legal contracts. In Muller, Justice Brewer stated these rights are not absolute. The state may legitimately limit a woman's contractual rights, without also conflicting with the Fourteenth Amendment. 4. The Muller case is important because it provided a constitutional test of Progressive Era legislation. It gave states police powers to control working conditions. 5. Some students may state that the Court interfered with women's Fourteenth Amendment rights by deciding that they needed protection, while men did not. Others may feel that the Court's decision was correct, based on evidence contained in the "Brandeis brief."

Near v. Minnisota (1931)

1. No. Censorship may be permitted in times of war or against obscene publications. 2. The Fourteenth Amendment applies the freedoms of the First Amendment to the states. 3. The lawyer should claim that, according to the Near decision, prior censorship of the press is not legal. The press can only be held responsible for the truth of their information after publication, not before. 4. The mayor could sue the paper for libel if he/she could prove that the paper published information it knew to be false. 5. The Near decision is important because it bans prior censorship of the press.

Ex parte Milligan (1866)

1. The Court concluded that neither Congress nor the president could grant the military authority to try civilians, so long as civilian courts were still functioning. 2. General Hovey probably thought a military court would declare Milligan guilty, whereas a civilian court might find him not guilty. 3. According to the Court's ruling, military rule would take precedence over civilian authority when civilian courts were not operating. 4. Four Justices thought Congress should be responsible for deciding in special circumstances whether a military court could try civilians. 5. Habeas corpus is an important part of the Constitution because it prevents authorities from legally holding a prisoner as long as they wish without filing formal charges against that individual. This was in keeping with the spirit of the Bill of Rights, which restricted governments from denying personal freedoms.

Gitlow v. New York (1925)

1. The Court did not explain why it applied the First Amendment protections to the states; rather it assumed the application of these rights to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause. 2. No. The Court held that a state could constitutionally prohibit an entire class of subversive speech, and it was not necessary to prove that such speech would produce a specific result. 3. The Court did not prohibit the reading of any so-called subversive literature. 4. Answers will vary. Students who agree with the majority opinion may say that states have a right to make and enforce laws against those individuals who advocate the overthrow of an elected government by force, violence, or anarchy. Students who agree with Holmes's dissent may say that although Gitlow's radical ideas were unpopular, there was no evidence they were effective in influencing others to bring about a violent uprising, so Gitlow presented no clear and present danger to the government and should not have been prosecuted. 5. Students who agree with unlimited freedom of speech and press may draw a distinction between speech and actions, saying that individuals should only be prosecuted for violent or unlawful actions, not unpopular ideas or speech. Students who think there should be some limitations on speech and the press may cite examples in which what is said or written may incite hatred of a specific group or be dangerous to the public, such as providing instructions for bomb making.

Civil Rights Cases (1883)

1. The Court made its decision on the grounds that the Civil Rights Act tried to legislate the acts of individuals—a power Congress does not have. 2. The Court conceded that the Fourteenth Amendment granted Congress the power to prohibit states from passing or enforcing laws that inhibited the rights of its citizens. However, it did not give Congress the right to make its own laws against discrimination. 3. Justice Harlan believed the Civil Rights Act was in the same spirit as the Fourteenth Amendment because it expanded and protected individual rights. He believed the Court was interpreting the act too narrowly because of its wording. 4. Some states began to pass laws which segregated public venues according to race. These laws were known as Jim Crow laws, and they remained in effect well into the 20th Century. 5. Students agreeing with the Court's decision may say that the Civil Rights Act went too far in legislating personal behavior. Students agreeing with Justice Harlan's dissent may say that the Civil Rights Act was passed for the same purpose as the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments: to enhance individual rights and prevent racial discrimination.

Slaughterhouse Cases (1873)

1. The Court ruled that the protections of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments did not apply to the butchers in the Slaughterhouse Cases. The Court stated that the amendments were designed only for the protection of formerly enslaved people. 2. The ruling in the Slaughterhouse cases nullified the Dred Scott decision. 3. The Court's decision meant that as a butcher, you would not have been able to supply meat in New Orleans unless you did business as part of the licensed monopoly. 4. State governments gained more than the federal government from the Court's decision in the Slaughterhouse cases, since the Court ruled that the protections of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments did not curb Louisiana's power to grant a monopoly. 5. Students who agree with the Court's majority opinion might say that the Fourteenth Amendment makes the states responsible for enforcing laws that protect the rights of citizens, and that since the state granted the monopoly, it was legal. Students who oppose the decision might point out that if the butchers were denied work because of the monopoly, they would be forced to work for the monopoly, which could be considered forced servitude, illegal under the Thirteenth Amendment.

Northern Securities v. United States (1904)

1. The Court's decision extended the meaning of the word commerce to apply to companies not directly engaged in interstate commerce but which nevertheless controlled such commerce. 2. Justices Brewer and Harlan agreed that Northern Securities Company was guilty of unlawful restraint of trade and had thus violated the Sherman Antitrust Act. Justice Brewer did not agree with the rest of Justice Harlan's reasoning, including the idea that a combination need not be directly involved in commerce in order to restrain it or to have the potential to restrain it. 3. The fact that the railroads operated in several states brought them into the category of interstate commerce, which the Constitution gave Congress the power to regulate. 4. Members of the majority differed on several points: whether the word commerce should have a broad or narrow interpretation and what constituted restraint of trade. 5. The Court's decision clearly established the principle that the ownership of an interstate business as well as its direct operation fell within the definition of commerce and thus within the power of Congress to regulate it.

United States v. E.C. Knight Co. (1895)

1. The Court's distinction was that while "commerce" could be regulated by the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, "manufacturing" could not be. 2. Trusts such as American Sugar Refining tend to reduce competition, which then results in price increases for consumers. 3. The Court's interpretation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act narrowly defined what represented interstate commerce. Enforcement would be more limited, as other trusts would claim that they, too, were engaged in manufacturing rather than commerce. 4. Justice Harlan argued in favor of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act because it would protect consumers from the negative effects of the trusts. 5. A student who disagrees with the Court's ruling might say: I think that the sugar companies negatively affected consumers across many states, and should have been bound by the antitrust legislation. However, a student who agrees with the decision might say that the sugar refineries were simply engaged in manufacturing, but not commerce, and the Court was right to make a clear distinction between the two terms

Schenk v. United States (1919)

1. The Espionage Act was passed to discourage people from interfering with the government's efforts to build an army to fight World War I. 2. The clear and present danger principle meant that under dangerous circumstances, such as falsely calling "fire" in a crowded theater or trying to undermine the nation's efforts to raise an army during a war, free speech may be curtailed. 3. Holmes accepted the limitations on Schenck's freedom of speech only because the nation was at war. 4. Some may say that the government has a right to take action against anyone or anything that might interfere with the war effort. Others will argue that First Amendment rights have to be upheld in all circumstances because not to do so would seriously diminish the protections guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. 5. Holmes's subsequent dissent reveals that he greatly respected the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech and that he was willing to limit those guarantees only in times of crisis when a real and definite danger threatened the nation and the clear and present danger principle could be applied.

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

1. The Marbury v. Madison case established the right of the Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionality of laws. 2. It provided a way to check the powers of Congress and the president, and thus more effectively balanced the powers of all three branches of the federal government. 3. On the one hand, Marshall declared the Judiciary Act unconstitutional because the power for Congress to pass such an act was not mentioned in the Constitution. Yet at the same time he believed the Supreme Court had the power to declare a law unconstitutional, even though this power was not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. 4. Students who favor the Court's power may say that it provides a check on Congress and more equally balances the power of the three branches of government. Students who oppose the Court's power may say that since Congressional representatives are elected, they represent the will of the people, so the laws passed by Congress should stand and not be subjected to a review by a Court of appointed judges. 5. Students who think the influence of personal politics on Court rulings is improper may say that legal opinions should be based on a legal interpretation of the Constitution law and not on politics. Students who accept political influence on Court rulings as proper may say that it often reflects the will of the majority.

McColloch v. Maryland (1819)

1. The McCulloch case established the principle that Congress has implied powers not specifically stated in the Constitution. 2. The "necessary and proper" clause gives Congress the authority to make any laws that are required to carry out its enumerated tasks. 3. The Court ruled that the United States Bank was immune to the Maryland tax because as an arm of the federal government it is not required to pay state taxes. 4. Federalists believed in a strong national government, and the McCulloch decision reflects that point of view in that it limited the power of the states to tax any part of the federal government. 5. The McCulloch decision greatly enlarged the powers of the federal government by stating that it is "supreme within its sphere of action," and has powers that are not specifically set forth in the Constitution

Weeks v. United States (1914)

1. The Supreme Court ordered that Weeks's papers be returned to him because they had been illegally seized and could not be used as evidence against Weeks in court. 2. The exclusionary rule bars evidence that is obtained illegally from being used in a trial. 3. The Court's ruling in the Weeks case increased the likelihood that police officers would obtain a warrant prior to searching for and seizing evidence that could be relevant to the case they were investigating. 4. Common law held that relevant evidence could be submitted in court no matter how it had been obtained. The Weeks ruling overturned this common practice and established that illegally obtained evidence, no matter how relevant, could be excluded at a trial. 5. Students who agree with the Court's ruling might say that a trial would not be fair if illegally seized evidence was admitted and that it is just as necessary in a civilized society for law enforcement officers to obey the law as it is for other citizens. Students taking the opposite position may say that the exclusionary rule allows guilty persons to go free and that all relevant evidence should be allowed at trial, no matter how it was obtained.

In re Debs (1895)

1. The case was important for labor unions because the Supreme Court sided with the railroad companies. The Court's ruling gave the federal government a great deal of power to end strikes, and decreased some of the power and influence that labor unions had over companies. 2. The Court upheld the convictions of Debs and the others because the federal government was allowed to take action to protect interstate commerce and delivery of the U.S. mail. The Court ruled that Debs should have obeyed the circuit court's order. Since he did not, he was rightly convicted of contempt. 3. Some students who agree with the verdict may cite the federal government's authority over commerce and the mail system, and argue that the government had to do something about the disruption caused by the Pullman strike. Other students may say that the unions had the right to protest for better working conditions, and that the federal government should not have used force in order to end the strike. 4. Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce has positive effects because it allows businesses to operate more smoothly than if each state had its own regulations. It also allows the government to step in when an event like the Pullman strike disrupts business. A drawback is that it gives people and organizations, such as unions, less power to use the disruption of business as a tool of protest. 5. The Court's position in Debs could have allowed for the use of force by the federal government in similar situations.

Powell v. Alabama (1932)

1. The defendants' guilt was not an issue for the Court to decide. Whether a defendant is guilty or innocent is a matter for a jury or a trial court, sitting as the fact finder, to decide. As a general rule, the Supreme Court rules only on whether the trial met constitutional standards. 2. The Fourteenth Amendment's requirement of due process of the law was at the heart of the Court's examination of the Powell case. 3. One possibility is that the trial court behaved as though it believed that Powell and his friends, as African Americans, were not entitled to anything more than a brief, routine hearing in court, and that the defendants were probably guilty anyway. 4. The trials were so speedy that they took only one day each, a very short time for capital cases. The defendants had little time to prepare their defense and no attorney to help them conduct their case. 5. Without a lawyer, it is assumed that a defendant does not have the ability to defend himself, even if the defendant is otherwise well educated; hence the saying that any person, even a lawyer, who attempts to defend himself or herself has a fool for a client.

Wabash, St. Louis, and Pacific Railway Co. v. Illinois (1886)

1. The law was declared unconstitutional because it violated the Constitution's commerce clause. 2. The Wabash decision led to the creation of the Interstate Commerce Commission. 3. If individual states were to regulate railroads, it would cause inconvenience for the railroad companies. 4. Munn and Peik gave states a great deal of power when it came to regulating commerce unless Congress had already acted in this regard. 5. Students who agree with Justice Miller may say that state regulation would be an undue burden to railroads. They may also address the constitutional issue of the commerce clause. Students who agree with Justice Bradley may say that states have the right to protect their citizens from corporations. They may also say that Illinois was not wrong to act in this area, since Congress had failed to do so.

Olmstead v. United States (1928)

1. The majority of justices on the Court felt that the Fourth Amendment applied only to things, not to hearing or sight, so the amendment did not apply to telephone wiretaps, which involve hearing. 2. The Court said that the means by which evidence is obtained is unimportant as long as the evidence is pertinent. 3. Under the Olmstead ruling, the evidence would be admissible since the Court indicated that it did not matter how evidence was secured as long as the evidence was pertinent. 4. Brandeis was commenting on the fact that the majority of justices were willing to accept an illegal seizure of evidence to achieve a socially desired end, the conviction of Olmstead. 5. Students who agree with the Court's decision may say that telephone speech is not the same as a person's house, papers, or effects and is therefore not protected by the Fourth Amendment. Students who disagree with the decision may say that telephone speech is just as personal as letters, property, and other effects and should, therefore, be protected by the Fourth Amendment and, in turn, by the Fifth Amendment which protects a citizen from incriminating oneself. In addition, they may support the requirement of government prosecutors to follow the law scrupulously when building cases against defendants.

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

1. The majority opinion of the Supreme Court claimed that the Fourteenth Amendment aimed to establish the equality of the races, but was not intended to abolish distinctions based on color or to enforce social equality. Furthermore, they stated the Louisiana law was reasonable because states could legally segregate the races in the exercise of their police powers. 2. The separate-but-equal principle means segregation is legal as long as equal facilities are provided for each race. 3. Justice Harlan dissented from the majority opinion on the grounds that segregation based on race was inconsistent with the freedoms and equality established by the Constitution. 4. Plessy based his appeal in part on the Thirteenth Amendment because it banned "involuntary servitude," and segregation of railroad cars was a form of such servitude. 5. The Plessy decision affirmed the legality of segregation practices in the southern states. Although the Court's decision required equality of public facilities, the southern states made no effort to carry out this requirement.

Worcester v. Georgia (1832)

1. Treaties between the U.S. government and the Cherokee Nation suggested the Nation was a separate nation with the right to its own courts and laws. Worcester and the other missionaries believed Georgia had no authority over the Cherokee Nation, with no right to force whites to obtain state permits to be on Cherokee land. 2. In Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, the Supreme Court declined to rule on Georgia laws that sought to dissolve Cherokee government. Justice Marshall said Native Americans, as "dependent nations," did not have the right to appeal in federal courts. In Worcester, however, Justice Marshall ruled that the laws of Georgia did not apply to the Cherokee Nation, as the Nation was a "distinct community occupying its own territory." The Court ruled Georgia's act violated both the United States Constitution and treaty obligations toward the Cherokee. 3. Some students may agree with Chief Justice Marshall's opinion that Native American groups such as the Cherokee are sovereign nations. Others may agree with Justice Baldwin's position that by accepting the Hopewell Treaty, the Cherokee Nation gave up their right to claim sovereignty. 4. Students may describe the injustice of removing the Cherokee from their traditional lands. The Court's decision might have encouraged Cherokee resistance to forced relocation. However, Andrew Jackson's refusal to enforce the Court's decision meant that the Cherokee were forced to leave anyway. 5. The Worcester decision failed to prevent the removal of the Cherokee from their lands. However, it is important because it spelled out the relationship between Native Americans, the federal government, and individual states. Later, Court decisions used arguments presented during the Worcester case to argue cases regarding Native American land ownership and jurisdiction over natural resources. The Worcester case eventually provided Native Americans with a powerful legal weapon to protect their rights against further encroachment.

Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857)

1. When the Supreme Court ruled that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional, it held that Congress had no power to ban slavery in the territories. Thus Scott's claim that he had been in free territory where slavery was not permitted was invalid. 2. The Dred Scott decision severely hampered legal efforts to end slavery through court procedures. 3. Slave holders were obviously pleased with the decision because it foreclosed legal efforts by abolitionists to end slavery. 4. The Court said that since African Americans were not citizens of the United States, they did not have the legal right to sue in a federal court. 5. The Dred Scott decision is important because although it was intended to settle the question of slavery, it adopted an extreme view and unleashed a storm of protest against the Court, which ultimately became a factor in the coming of the Civil War.