SUPREME COURT CASES:

1734-1999Megan Abendroth and Katrina Moore

ZENGER FREE-PRESS TRAIL: 1734Presiding Judge: N/APlaintiff: John Peter Zenger-newspaper printer, New York-defended by Andrew Hamilton

Defendant: William Cosby-Royal Governor of New York

~Zenger’s newspaper assailed the governor

~Zenger charged with “seditious libel”-“bringing into contempt the government in writing”

Verdict: Not Guilty

SIGNIFICANCE

~First court case that dealt with the issue of free-press, eventually led to the adoption of the first amendment to the constitution.

CHISHOLM VS. GEORGIA: 1793Presiding Judge: John Jay Plaintiff: Heirs of Alexander ChisholmDefendant: State of Georgia

~Georgia wouldn’t give Alexander Chisholm’s heirs their property because they lived in South Carolina

~That Georgia allow all the heirs of Chisholm claim their property even though in residence in South Carolina.

Verdict: In favor of Chisholm heirs. Could sue Georgia for property.

SIGNIFICANCE

Decision upheld Article III of the Constitution; would later be overturned by the Eleventh Amendment.

MARBURY VS. MADISON1803Presiding Judge: Chief Justice John MarshallPlaintiff: William Marbury, appointee to the Justice of Peace in the District of ColumbiaDefendant: James Madison, Secretary of State

~17 appointed under Adams did not receive their commissionsJefferson told Madison not to issue the commissions because he didn’t want opposing members to serve

~Marbury sued Madison claiming the right to his commision, wanted writ of madamus

Verdict: Marbury entitled to commision, ruled Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional therefore the court cannot issue the writ, instituted judicial review

Madison

Marbury

SIGNIFICANCE

Established Judicial Review and declared Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional. One of the most significant court cases in United States History.

FLETCHER VS. PECK: 1810Presiding Judge: John Marshall Plaintiff: Robert FletcherDefendant: John Peck

~Peck bought land from Georgia and sold it to Fletcher. Georgia legislature rescinded the sale.

~Fletcher claimed that Peck was guilty of breach of contract.

Verdict: Legislature can repeal the acts of a preceding legislature, but can not invalidate a previously made contract.

SIGNIFICANCE

State law was found invalid because it conflicted with the Constitution. “From one of the most scandalous episodes in Georgia state history came a major legal decision that ratified the importance both of contracts and of the federal government.”

DARTMOUTH VS. WOODWARD: 1818Presiding Judge: Chief Justice John Marshall Plaintiff: Dartmouth College-counseled by Daniel WebsterDefendant: State of New Hampshire

~Dartmouth received charter by King George III in 1769; New Hampshire attempted to alter it.

~college claimed that state could not alter previous contracts

Verdict: In favor of Dartmouth

SIGNIFICANCE

States do not have the right to alter contracts made previous with other persons or corporations. Corporations are protected by the government.

MCCULLOCH VS. MARYLAND: 1819Presiding Judge: Chief Justice John MarshallPlaintiff: MarylandDefendant: James McCulloch, worked for the Bank but didn’t pay taxes for operating the bank

~McCulloch was part of the Bank which Maryland wanted to shut down, McCulloch refused to pay his taxes and Maryland took him to court

~Appealed to the Supreme Court on writ of error, charged with not complying to state laws

Verdict: settled the meaning of the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution, determined the distribution of powers between the federal government and the states. The specific issues involved were Congress's power to incorporate the Second Bank of the United States and the right of a state to tax an instrument of the federal government

McCulloch

SIGNIFICANCE

Accepted loose interpretation of the Constitution. Trial between state and federal rights regarding a bank.

COHENS VS. VIRGINIA: 1821

Presiding Judge: Chief Justice John MarshallPlaintiff: VirginiaDefendants: Phillip and Mendes Cohens

~sold lottery tickets against Virginia law

~appealed for being found guilty

Verdict: in favor of Virginia

SIGNIFICANCE

Asserted power of Supreme Court and federal law over state laws.

GIBBONS VS. OGDEN: 1824Presiding Judge: Chief Justice John Marshall Plaintiff: Thomas Gibbons-owned steamboat service between New Jersey and New York-defended by Daniel WebsterDefendant: Aaron Ogden-steamboat operator under legal monopoly

~Ogden’s right to commerce was issued by the state, and Gibbons’ was issued by Congress. Ogden believed that his monopoly should stand and Gibbons’ should be forced to stop traveling there.

~Ogden’s monopoly should stand, and he should receive control

Verdict: In favor of Gibbons

SIGNIFICANCE

~Congress controls interstate commerce

CHARLES RIVER BRIDGE VS. WARREN BRIDGE: 1837Presiding Judge: Chief Justice Roger B. TaneyPlaintiff: Charles River BridgeDefendant: Warren Bridge

~Charles River Bridge held an exclusive charter to operate a toll bridge, Massachusetts gave a charter to Warren Bridge as well

~Charles River charged that Massachusetts violated the Contract Clause of the Constitution

Verdict: Sided with Warren Bridge

SIGNIFICANCE~“In the past, the Court had usually defined the Contract Clause broadly, defending the interests of corporations. In Charles River Bridge, however, the Court ruled that a state charter did not grant a company any implicit rights; the exact terms of the contract had to be stated. In a larger sense, the Court also recognized that at times a state's power to promote the public welfare outweighed the rights of a corporation.”

DRED SCOTT VS. SANFORD: 1857Presiding Judge: Chief Justice Roger B. Taney Plaintiff: Dred Scott-slave moved into the NorthDefendant: Irene Emerson/John Sanford-owner of Scott and brother who took over her affairs

~Scott asked to be allowed to work for money in order to buy his freedom when the family moved to Illinois. Emerson refused.

~Scott sued Emerson for “false imprisonment”

Verdict: In favor of Emerson/Sanford

SIGNIFICANCE

Taney ruled that blacks are not considered citizens and do not have the rights and privileges allotted to United States citizens. This was a devastating blow to all abolitionists.

EX PARTE MILLIGAN: 1866Presiding Judge: Salmon Portland ChasePlaintiff: Lambdin MilliganDefendant: United States

~Military charged Milligan with treason and conspiracy.

~Said military court couldn’t charge Milligan.

Verdict: The trial of Milligan on charges of treason and conspiracy, was found to be illegal because it was conducted by a military court.

SIGNIFICANCE

Ruling upheld trial by jury.

MINOR VS. HAPPERSETT: 1874Presiding Judge: Joseph P. Bradley Plaintiff: Virginia Minor (with husband)Defendant: Reese Happersett

~right to vote, women’s right to vote

~constitutional rights were violated when Happersett wouldn’t register her to vote

Verdict: 14th amendment did not give Virginia the right to vote even though she was a citizen

SIGNIFICANCE

Declined to grant woman’s right to protection under the 14th amendment.

WABASH CASE: 1886Presiding Judge: N/A Plaintiff: Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railroad CompanyDefendant: Illinois

~an Illinois law prohibited long- and short-haul clauses in transportation contracts

~Wabash claimed this law was unconstitutional

Verdict: In favor of Wabash

SIGNIFICANCE

Denied states the right to regulate interstate commerce, power only given to Congress

US VS. EC KNIGHT COMPANY: 1895Presiding Judge: N/APlaintiff: United StatesDefendant: E.C. Knight Company

~E.C. Knight Company was a sugar company that had a trust with other sugar companies

~United States claimed the E.C. Knight was in violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act

Verdict: in favor of E.C. Knight – Sherman Act did not apply to manufacturing

SIGNIFICANCE

~The decision severely weakened the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890, the federal government's first attempt to limit the power of industrial monopolies

PLESSY VS. FERGUSON:1896Presiding Judge: Henry Billings BrownPlaintiff: Homer A. PlessyDefendant: J. H. Ferguson, New Orleans Criminal District Court Judge

~about black rights

~Louisiana’s law violated Plessy’s rights to equal protection under the law

Verdict: in favor of Ferguson, “separate but equal”

SIGNIFICANCE

Sanctioned discriminatory state legislature. Wouldn’t be overruled until Brown vs. Board.

US VS. WONG KIM ARK: 1898

Presiding Judge: David Josiah BrewerPlaintiff: United StatesDefendant: Wong Kim Ark

~about citizenship

~that US court was wrong in affirming the citizenship of Wong Kim Ark

Verdict: in favor of Wong Kim Ark

SIGNIFICANCE

This was the first case in which the Court interpreted Section I of the Fourteenth Amendment, in which all persons born in the United States are defined as citizens.

NORTHERN SECURITIES CASE: 1904Presiding Judge: Edward D. White Plaintiff: Northern Securities Company-railroad companyDefendant: United States

~United states thought Northern Securities was a conspiracy in restraint of trade under the Sherman Anti-Trust Law

~United States was wrong

Verdict: in favor of U.S. – Northern securities violated Sherman Anti-Trust Law

SIGNIFICANCE

Ended further railroad trusts

LOCHNER VS. NEW YORK:1905Presiding Judge: David Joseph BrewerPlaintiff: Joseph LochnerDefendant: People of the State of New York

~about labor

~Lochner said he did not violate the New York Bakeshop Act because it was an unreasonable exercise of police power

Verdict: overruled the New York Bakeshop Act

SIGNIFICANCE

Was one of the most controversial decisions in Supreme Court history. Postponed protective legislation for women.

LOEWE VS. LAWLER: 1908Presiding Judge: Chief Justice Fuller Plaintiff: Deitrich Loewe Defendant: Martin Lawler

~labor boycott of the D, E. Loewe & Company

~claimed it to be a conspiracy

Verdict: in favor of Loewe

SIGNIFICANCE

Stuck to the Sherman Antitrust Act.

MULLER VS. OREGON: 1908Presiding Judge: Edward D. White Plaintiff: Curt MullerDefendant: State of Oregon

~In 1903, Oregon made a law stated the maximum hours women were allowed to work

~Maximum hour law is unconstitutional

Verdict: In favor of Oregon – law is constitutional

SIGNIFICANCE

By stating that women were special and had different minimum wage and working hours furthered segregation in the workplace based on sex.

DEBBS VS. US:1919Presiding Judge: N/APlaintiff: Eugene DebbsDefendant: United States

~The U.S. passed the Espionage Act of 1917. Debbs was arrested for conspiring against the enlistment of soldiers in the army and navy

~Debbs claimed the Espionage Act denied his free speech as granted by the first amendment

Verdict: in favor of U.S.

SIGNIFICANCE

Gave the United States the right to suspend its own constitutional amendments in a time of war

SCHENCK VS US:1919Presiding Judge: N/A Plaintiff: Charles SchenckDefendant: United States

~The U.S. passed the Espionage Act of 1917. Schenck was arrested for conspiring to print leaflets hampering the enlistment of soldiers

~Schenck claimed the Espionage Act denied his free speech

Verdict: in favor of U.S.

SIGNIFICANCE

Gave the United States the right to suspend its own constitutional amendments in a time of war

SACCO-VANZETTI: 1921Presiding Judge: Webster Thayer Plaintiff: Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti

~during the Red Scare, arrested for murder and robbery

~guilty of robbery and murder

Verdict: guilty

SIGNIFICANCE

Sacco and Vanzetti were arrested and found guilty even though they might not have been guilty, but because they were immigrants.

ADKINS VS. CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL: 1923Presiding Judge: Pierce ButlerPlaintiff: Jesse C. Adkins, et al; Minimum Wage Board of District of ColumbiaDefendant: Children’s Hospital of District of Columbia

~about minimum wage for women and children

~ Adkins said that US Congress did not have the power to set minimum wage for women and/or children

Verdict: Minimum wage laws unconstitutional for women because they interfered with liberty granted in the 5th and 14th amendments

SIGNIFICANCE

Ruled that Congress did not have the power to set a minimum wage for women as a special group. Stopped efforts to equalize pay between men and women.

JOHN SCOPES/”MONKEY TRIAL”: 1925

Presiding Judge: John T. Raulston Plaintiff: State of TennesseeDefendant: John Scopes

~whether or not evolution should be taught in the school system

~Charged Scopes because he taught evolution

Verdict: Guilty, but neither side won

SIGNIFICANCE

Replaced religion with scientific in American thought. Brought fundamentalism into public education. Stripped William Jennings Bryan of his dignity as a key American figure.

SCHECHTER “SICK-CHICKEN” CASE: 1935Presiding Judge: N/A Plaintiff: Schechter Poultry CorporationDefendant: United States

~Passed in 1933, the National Industrial Recovery Act held a code of fair business

~Schechter claimed that the Act did not affect his business because it did not have the force of law

Verdict: in favor of Schechter – National Industrial Recovery Act is unconstitutional

SIGNIFICANCE

The decision overturned the major effort of the first administration of Franklin Roosevelt to regulate and control the economy during the Great Depression

US VS. BUTLER:1936Presiding Judge: N/APlaintiff: ButlerDefendant: United States

~Congress enacted the Agricultural Adjustment Act in the New Deal era to stabilize farm prices. 

~AAA was unconstitutional

Verdict: in favor of Butler

SIGNIFICANCE

Congress does not have the ability to use tax dollars to pay in a field reserved for states.

KOREMATSU VS. US:1944Presiding Judge: Hugo BlackPlaintiff: Toyosaburo KorematsuDefendant: United States

~about Japanese American internment camps

~military orders that sent Japanese Americans to internment camps during WW2 were not justified by military necessity

Verdict: Military orders were upheld as valid exercise of war powers

SIGNIFICANCE

Korematsu is the only case in Supreme Court history in which the Court, using a strict test for possible racial discrimination, upheld a restriction on civil liberties.

BROWN VS. BOARD OF EDUCATION: 1954Presiding Judge: Earl Warren Plaintiff: Linda Brown-black studentDefendant: Board of Education at Sumner School in Topeka-all-white school

~Brown applied to the Sumner School and was rejected

~Brown sued Board claiming that they violated the Fourteenth amendment

Verdict: In favor of Brown

SIGNIFICANCE

~Reversed Plessy Vs. Ferguson. Claimed that “separate but equal” facilities were unconstitutional. Major step towards integration.

GIDEON VS. WAINWRIGHT: 1963Presiding Judge: Earl WarrenPlaintiff: Clarence Earl GideonDefendant: Louie L. Wainwright

~Gideon had been tried without a lawyer

~he had a sixth amendment right to legal counsel

Verdict: in favor of Gideon – given a court-appointed lawyer

SIGNIFICANCE

Because of the ruling in this case, all indigent felony defendants--like many others charged with misdemeanors--have a right to court-appointed attorneys.

GRISWOLD VS. CONNECTICUT: 1964

Presiding Judge: Earl Warren Plaintiff: Charles Lee Buxton and Estelle T. GriswoldDefendant: State of Connecticut

~Connecticut had a law banning contraceptives with married couples

~Connecticut’s birth-control laws were unconstitutional

Verdict: in favor of Griswold – struck down contraceptive laws

SIGNIFICANCE

Articulated the constitutions “right to privacy” clause – led to abortion debate in Roe vs. Wade

MIRANDA VS. ARIZONA: 1966Presiding Judge: Earl Warren Plaintiff: Ernesto Miranda-Mexican immigrant, charged with rape and kidnappingDefendant: the state of Arizona

~when Miranda was charged with the rape and kidnapping, he was not informed of his fifth and sixth amendment rights and incriminated himself.

~the police did not do their job by not reading Miranda his rights when he was arrested

Verdict: in favor of Miranda

SIGNIFICANCE

All felons or suspected felons have the right to be read their fifth and sixth amendment rights (the right to be silent and use an attorney) when they are arrested.

FRONTIERO VS. RICHARDSON: 1973Presiding Judge: Warren E. BurgerPlaintiff: Sharron A. Frontiero, Joseph FrontieroDefendant: Elliot L. Richardson, Secretary of Defense, et al.

~military criteria and liberties

~said that different requirements for having a male spouse is a violation to the 5th amendment

Verdict:The federal statutes violated the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause and were overturned.

SIGNIFICANCE

Broke down male dominance barriers.

ROE VS. WADE:1973Presiding Judge: Warren Burger Plaintiff: Norma McCorvey - “Jane Roe”-pregnant women, wanted an abortionDefendant: Henry B. Wade-District Attorney of Dallas Texas

~ Roe wanted to have an abortion, but Texas abortion law made it a felony to abort a fetus

~Texas abortion law is unconstitutional by violating the 14th amendment right to equal protection and personal liberty

Verdict: In favor of Roe-Texas abortion law is unconstitutional

SIGNIFICANCE

Major step towards women’s abortion rights. Very controversial decision that is still debated today.

MILLIKEN VS. BRADLEY: 1974Presiding Judge: Chief Justice BurgerPlaintiff: Milliken, Governor of MichiganDefendant: Bradley

~desegregation of busing

~against segregation of busing

Verdict: segregation is unconstitutional in schools

SIGNIFICANCE

Was a continuation of Brown vs. Board of Education. Reversed “separate but equal”. Declared segregation in schools was unconstitutional.

US VS. NIXON: 1974Presiding Judge: Warren Burger Plaintiff: Richard NixonDefendant: The United States of America

~After the Watergate break-in in the democratic convention center, Nixon denied any knowledge of the situation. During the hearings, it was discovered that Nixon had tape recordings of his conversations in the Oval Office concerning the Watergate break-in. Nixon denied releasing these tapes during the prosecution.

~Nixon must release the tapes as was claimed by the subpoena

Verdict: Nixon must release the tapes

SIGNIFICANCE

“The President is not immune from judicial process, and must turn over evidence subpoenaed by the courts. The doctrine of executive privilege entitles the president to a high degree of confidentiality if the evidence involves matters of national security or other sensitive information, but the President cannot withhold evidence.”

BAKKE CASE: 1978Presiding Judge: Warren E. BurgerPlaintiff: The Medical School of the University of CaliforniaDefendant: Allan Bakke

~about differentiating treatment between minorities and others

~ special admissions program for minorities was an error

Verdict: said that school’s special admissions program was unconstitutional

SIGNIFICANCE

First time Supreme Court said there could be reverse discrimination.

WEBSTER VS. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES: 1989Presiding Judge: Thurgood Marshall Plaintiff: William L. Webster, Attorney General of Missouri, et al.Defendant :Reproductive Health Services, et al.

~about women’s rights, abortion

~that they were wrong in overturning restrictions on abortion

Verdict: upheld right to access abortion

SIGNIFICANCE

Would later be brought up again in Roe vs. Wade.

PLANNED PARENTHOOD VS. CASEY: 1992Presiding Judge: William Rehnquist Plaintiff: Planned Parenthood Defendant: Robert P. Casey-governor of Pennsylvania

~in 1988 and 1989, Pennsylvania added amendments to the abortion law

~amendments were unconstitutional

Verdict: in favor of both – law was constitutional in part and unconstitutional in part

SIGNIFICANCE

“It resolved a national dispute over abortion by upholding the essentials of Roe v. Wade while permitting Pennsylvania to regulate abortions as long as the state did not place an undue burden on women.”

CLINTON IMPEACHMENT: 1999Presiding Judge: Rehnquist Plaintiff: Bill ClintonDefendant: United States

~Clinton was accused of committing adultery with a young intern, Monica Lewinsky, but denied it under oath. It was later released that he did, indeed, have an affair with her.

~perjury

Verdict: not guilty

SIGNIFICANCE

Led the Senate to discuss the constitutionality of the impeachment rules and voted.