Ji-Won Park4th Period

Name of case Facts Constitutional Law/Principle established

Mapp v. Ohio Mapp was convicted of having illegal materials after an illegal search and seizure

Court ruled that any evidence obtained by search and seizure in violation of the Constitution cannot be used against the suspect in a court of law

McCullouch v. Maryland After the institution of the 2nd BUS, Maryland attempted to tax the bank, which is an extension of the federal government. The cashier at the BUS refused to appease Maryland’s demands

Court ruled that states cannot impose taxes on the federal government or its banks

Swan v. Charlotte Little progress was being made in desegregating schools

Racial quotas were starting points for solutions, and no rigid guidelines for busing specific students could be established

Smith v. Allwright A branch of the Dem. Party of Texas allowed only whites to participate in Dem. primary elections

Used 15th amendment to say it was unconstitutional to put voting restrictions against blacks

Baker v. Carr Citizens of TN thought a 1901 law that apportioned seats for the General Assembly was ignored

Legislative appointment was a justiciable issue, and the court intervened on the state level

Gitlow v. New York Gitlow was arrested for distributing papers that called for a socialistic government

Courts ruled that states can forbid speech or publication if said document can result in danger

Lemon v. Kurtzman Questioned the constitutionality of funding for church-related education

Court ruled that any legislation making public funds available for church-based education would not separate church and state

Texas v. Johnson Johnson burned an American flag as a means of protest and was fined

Court held that he was protected under 1st amendment rights of expression

Tinker v. DeMoines Students decided to wear black armbands in protest of the Vietnam War and were suspended for doing so

Court said that the armbands were a form of speech that invoked no further actions, and was a right of the students

Miranda v. Arizona Miranda was arrested for rape charges and signed a document admitting to it. Although he signed it, he was not informed of his right to counsel, silence, or that anything he said will be used against him.

Court ruled that the police had not told Miranda all his rights and his signing of the admittance paper was not entirely voluntary. Court ruled that in further arrests, suspects must be read all their rights from the very start.

Ji-Won Park4th Period

Gideon v. Wainwright Gideon was arrested and appeared in court, where he requested that the court appoint a lawyer for him, seeing he could not afford one. State court said it does not have to and sentenced Gideon.

Court ruled that it is the court’s duty to appoint a lawyer to the accused in the case he or she cannot afford to have one, because all people have the right to establish a defense for their case

Gibbons v. Ogden Dispute on right to monopolize interstate waterways

Court ruled that interstate commerce is regulated by the federal government

Roe v. Wade Roe attempted to go through an abortion. Texas had made abortions illegal, except pregnancies that would otherwise endanger the life of the mother

Court ruled that Roe had the right to privacy under the 14th amendment, and that abortion was a personal decision and right

Bakke v. California Board of Regents

Bakke was declined acceptance into med school because the school kept 16 spots open for minority. Bakke, a white man, was more qualified than all the minority applicants, but was still denied acceptance

Court ruled under the equal protection clause of the 14t5h amendment that Bakke was to be accepted into the University of California Medical School, regardless of the racial quotas.

Weber v. US Steel Workers US Steel Workers used a program to increase the number of black skilled workers in its workforce. Weber, a white man, was denied a job and took it as racial discrimination.

Court ruled that the US Steel Workers could use its training program to eliminate certain patterns of racial segregation (Civil Rights Act of 1964)

Brown v. Board of Education 1954

Black children were denied admission to a public school under laws of segregation and discrimination

Court ruled that separate but equal facilities is basically unequal in respect to public education (Equal Protection)

US v. Nixon Nixon, under investigation in the Watergate affair, attempted to use executive privilege to withhold information

Court ruled that Nixon could not do so under the US Constitution Article II. Although he had limited powers of executive privilege in the case of military or diplomats, he had none when it came to the due process of law

Brown v. Board of Education 1955

After its initial decision, the court found itself looking for the best ways to facilitate the end of racial discrimination in public education

The court ruled under Equal Protection that the school must implement the court’s original principles with all deliberate speed

Plessy v. Ferguson Plessy refused to give up his seat in a segregated train, arrested

Court ruled states could segregate as long as the facilities were equal

Ji-Won Park4th Period

Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier Hazelwood East High printed a school newspaper and the principal found two of the articles to be inappropriate and withheld the publication of the articles

Court ruled that the 1st Amendment did not require schools to promote inappropriate language or student speech

INS v. Chada Chada, US Attorney General, was in the US past his visa deadline. He conceded that he was deplorable, but an immigration judge suspended his deportation. The House of Rep voted to deport Chada.

Court ruled that a one-House veto of executive actions violated the separation of powers doctrine (Immigrant Responsibility Acts)

Buckley v. Valeo Congress tried to halt corruption in political campaigns with laws. Part of the laws set limits on the amount of money one could contribute to a single campaign

Court ruled that limits were not in violation of the 1st amendment because it promoted integrity. However, it also found that limits on personal spending in campaigns were unconstitutional

Zurcher v. Stanford Police obtained a warrant to search the main office of The Stanford Daily in search of pictures that could bring more clarification to a case dealing with a clash between violent protestors and the police. Nothing was taken.

Court ruled that this search was legal and did not violate either 1st or 4th Amendment rights.

Wong Kim Ark v. US Wong, born in the US, was denied entry into the country from a vacation in China on the grounds he was not a citizen.

Court ruled that the government could not deny citizenship to any people born within the US

Miller v. California Miller used mass mailing to advertise and promote the sale of “adult” materials and was arrested for the distribution of obscene materials

Court ruled that mailing obscene materials was not protected under the 1st Amendment

US v. VA (VMI) VMI was a male-only military institute. Virginia attempted to create a female-only military institute to cover for the Equal Protection Clause

Court ruled that a male-only military institute was a violation of the 14th Amendments equal protection clause and, therefore, unconstitutional

Brandenburg v. Ohio Brandenburg spoke on behalf of the KKK and was convicted of advocating crime, sabotage, or violence.

Court ruled that Brandenburg was protected under 1st Amendment rights and that Ohio’s criminal syndicalism law was unconstitutional

Reno v. ACLU The 1996 Communications The court ruled that the Act

Ji-Won Park4th Period

Decency Act was a filter of sorts for the Internet intended to protect minors. However, its constitutionality was challenged.

violated the 1st Amendment because it restricted a form of speech. It also ruled that its ideas of what is indecent were too vague.

Schenck v. US Schenck mailed notes to draftees during WWI encouraging them not to sign up. His suggestions on how to avoid the draft were peaceful suggestions, such as petitions. He was arrested with conspiracy charges.

Court ruled that Schenck was not protected under the 1st Amendment because of the situation. In a time a war, many things that would otherwise be tolerable in peacetime could be punished.