Supreme Court Cases Notes

Marbury v. Madison (1803)• 1800 election, Jefferson won presidency and Adams was leaving office– Just before leaving office, Adams created new jobs and began appointing his fellow Federalists

to those offices– William Marbury was one of those people. He was appointed as Justice of the Peace of D.C.– Adams’ secretary of state, John Marshall, was supposed to deliver the papers so Marbury

would get the job. But Marshall never delivered them– Jefferson told his secretary of state not to deliver the papers. This meant that Marbury would

not have the job after all.– Marbury appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, asking it to issue a writ of mandamus (an order

from a court that some action be performed). Such writs had been authorized by the Judiciary Act of 1789.

• Contitutional Issues of the Case:– 1. Did Marbury have the right to the commission (job)?– 2. Is so, was he entitled to some remedy under U.S. law?– 3. Was the remedy to be a writ of mandamus from the Supreme Court?

• Decision:– 1. Yes, Marbury got the job once the appointment was signed by the president and the U.S.

seal was put onto the envelope.– 2. Yes, Marbury was entitled to a legal remedy.– 3. The remedy could not be a writ of mandamus thought, because such an order (given to the

Supreme Court by the Congress) was unconstitutional.• The constitution gives the Supr. Ct. original jurisdiction in only very limited circumstances. Issuing a writ

of mandamus would be an instance of the Supr. Ct. having original jurisdiction in a new type of case. The Constitution does not give Congress the power to add new instances of original jurisdiction for the judicial branch, therefore the Judiciary Act of 1789

• Established principle of judicial review

Marbury v. Madison Cont’d.

– Supreme Court has authority to review/rule on actions of other 2 govt. branches

– Can say if a law is unconstitutional

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

• Police must inform suspects of legal rights

• Strengthened 5th Amdt. right against self-incrimination

• LT Effect: Anyone being arrested must be read the “Miranda Warning”

– You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney present during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you. Do you understand these rights?

Miranda was retried and convicted based on other evidence (besides his confession). He served six years, moved back to his old neighborhood, and sold autograph signatures for police officers’ Miranda Cards. He died later in a bar fight in 1976

Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)• Strengthened 1st

Amdt. rights of students– High school students

wearing armbands to protest Vietnam War

• Schools can only limit student expression for valid reasons

Texas v. Johnson (1989)

• Flag-burning falls under protection of 1st Amdt. right to free speech

Engel v. Vitale (1962)

• Banned prayer in nation’s public schools

– 1st Amdt. prohibits govt. from establishing a religion

Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country.

Regents of the Univ. of Calif. v. Bakke (1978)

• Supr. Court upheld affirmative action

– Based on 14th Amdt. equal protection clause

– Race can be used as criterion for college admission, but not racial quotas

Furman v. Georgia (1972)Furman v. Georgia (1972)• Strengthened the 8Strengthened the 8thth Amdt. Amdt.

(no cruel and unusual (no cruel and unusual punishment)punishment)

– States were applying d.p. States were applying d.p. inconsistently based on raceinconsistently based on race

– LT Effects:LT Effects:• Required states to write guidelines Required states to write guidelines

for when d.p. should applyfor when d.p. should apply

• Also, no death penalty for rapeAlso, no death penalty for rape

Greg v. Georgia (1974)• Supr. Ct. d.p. was being

applied constitutionally

– Georgia had rewritten d.p. laws to be applied consistently

• The night before his set date for execution, together with three other condemned murderers, Gregg escaped from Georgia State Prison in Reidsville in the first death row breakout in Georgia history. Dressed in home-made prison guard uniforms, complete with fake badges, the four had sawed through their cells' bars and then left in a car parked in the visitors' parking lot by an aunt of one of them. Gregg was beaten to death later that night in a bar fight in North Carolina. The other escapees were captured three days later.[1]

Gideon v. Wainwright Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)(1963)

• 66thth Amendment Amendment

• All accused persons are All accused persons are entitled to a lawyerentitled to a lawyer– States must provide States must provide

lawyers if conviction may lawyers if conviction may result in prison timeresult in prison time

Mapp v. Ohio (1961)Mapp v. Ohio (1961)• Evidence that is Evidence that is

obtained illegally obtained illegally cannot be used in cannot be used in court court

• Strengthened 4Strengthened 4thth Amdt. protection (no Amdt. protection (no unreasonable unreasonable search & seizuresearch & seizure

Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988)(1988)

• School officials School officials can censor can censor school school newspapers, newspapers, etc.etc.

• Weakened 1Weakened 1stst Amdt. rights of Amdt. rights of studentsstudents

School officials censored teen pregnancy articles in the school newspaper

Bethel School District v. Fraser Bethel School District v. Fraser (1986)(1986)• Fraser Fraser

punished for punished for giving sexually giving sexually explicit speech explicit speech at school at school

– School officials School officials can censor can censor student speechstudent speech

– Weakened Weakened students’ 1students’ 1stst Amdt. rights Amdt. rights

State of N.C. v. State of N.C. v. Mann (1829)Mann (1829)

• NC Supreme Court NC Supreme Court decided slaves were decided slaves were property of their ownersproperty of their owners

• Slave owners could not Slave owners could not be convicted for be convicted for assaulting slavesassaulting slaves

• Court based decision on Court based decision on state const., not whether state const., not whether it was moralit was moral

Plessy v. Plessy v. Ferguson Ferguson

(1896)(1896)• Established Established

principle of principle of “separate but “separate but equal”equal”

• Made Made segregation segregation legallegal

Segregated school, Arkansas, 1949

High school for white kids in Prince Edward County, VA (1963)

High school for African American kids in Prince Edward County 1963

• 117 African-American high school students chose to strike rather than attend all black Morton High, which was in need of physical repair. The students initially wanted a new building with indoor plumbing to replace the old school. Strike leader, Barbara Johns, enlisted the assistance of NAACP attorneys. A suit was filed in 1951 on behalf of the students. The U.S. District Court ordered equal facilities be provided for the black students but "denied the plaintiffs admission to the white schools during the equalization program." Attorneys for the NAACP filed an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court.

Brown v. Board of Education of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas (1954)Topeka, Kansas (1954)

• Overturned Plessy Overturned Plessy v. Fergusonv. Ferguson

• Supreme Court Supreme Court ordered ordered desegregation of desegregation of public schoolspublic schools

Leandro Case (1997)Leandro Case (1997)• N.C. Supr. Ct. caseN.C. Supr. Ct. case

• All N.C. children have All N.C. children have a right to “equal a right to “equal opportunity to receive opportunity to receive a sound, basic a sound, basic education”education”

• Suit was filed by Suit was filed by poorer, mostly African poorer, mostly African American countiesAmerican counties

Judge Manning continues to fight for equal education for all N.C. students

Swann v. Charlotte-Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenberg (1971)Mecklenberg (1971)• U.S. Supr. Ct. U.S. Supr. Ct.

• Extended Brown v. Board Extended Brown v. Board of Education decisionof Education decision

• NC was forced to NC was forced to dismantle “de jure” (by dismantle “de jure” (by law) segregation in law) segregation in schoolschool

• Upheld forced busing of Upheld forced busing of minority students to minority students to ensure schools were ensure schools were integratedintegrated

Korematsu v. U.S. (1944)

• Japanese-Americans held in interment camps during WWII

• Ct. said need to protect U.S. from spies outweighed rights of Japanese-Amer’s.

• Citizens’ rights may be taken away in times of nat’l. crisis

• Mr. Korematsu’s conviction was overturned in 1983

• Since then, money has been paid to Japanese Americans who were affected by the imprisonment

Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S. (1964)• Heart of Atlanta Motel in Atlanta

refused to accept Black Americans in violation of Civil Rights Act of 1964

– Did Congress, in passing Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, exceed its Commerce Clause powers by depriving motels, such as the Heart of Atlanta, of the right to choose their own customers?

• Decision– Supr. Ct. said Commerce Clause of

Art. I of Const. allows Congress to pass such laws

– Places that serve the public have no "right" to select guests as they saw fit

McCulloch v Maryland (1819)• Issue: Did the state of Md. have

the right to tax a fed. institution (the U.S. Bank) located in its state?

• Verdict– The states could not tax the fed.

govt.

– Upheld the idea of implied powers of the Constitution

– State actions may not impede Congress from anything that’s “necessary and proper” to carrying out duties listed in the Constitution (like managing federal funds). 

Chief Justice John Marshall wrote the majority opinion

in this case

Gibbons v Ogden (1824)• Issue

– Gibbons had a license to run a ferry service from U.S. govt. Ogden got an injunction from state of N.Y. to make Gibbon stop.

– Does federal control over interstate commerce? Can a state law interfere with this power of Congress?

• Verdict– Injunction against Gibbons was

unconstitutional

• Impact– The Commerce Clause of U.S. Const.

gives Congress power to regulate interstate commerce

N.J. v. TLO (1985)• Facts: – T.L.O. was accused of smoking in

the girls' bathroom of her high school. A principal at the school questioned her and searched her purse, yielding a bag of marijuana and other drug paraphernalia.

• Question– Did the principal’s search of

student’s belongings at school violate the 4th & 14th Amdts?

• Decision:– Probable cause is not

needed in school searches. Principal must only have “reasonable suspicion” and doesn’t need a search warrant.

Schenk v. U.S. (1919)•Schenk was arrested for protesting military draft during WWI•Decision:•Speech that presents “clear and present danger” to society is not protected by the 1st Amdt.

Above, an anarchists rally in Union Square, N.Y. Mr. Schenk was an outspoken socialist.

Escobedo v. Illinois (1964)• Facts:

– Escobedo arrested for murder

– Asked for attorney, but was denied

– Confessed to crime & was convicted

• Decision: – Conviction overturned.

– Suspects have right to attorney when arrested

Chief Justice Earl Warren• During his time as C.J., Supr.

Ct. was called “activist court” b/c of expansion of rights of accused

• Served from 1953 - 1969– Mapp v. Ohio– Esobedo v. Illinois– Miranda v. Arizona– Gideon v. Wainwright– All cases during Warren’s

tenure as C.J.

Gitlow v. New York (1925)• Gitlow, a socialist, was arrested

with violating N.Y. law against advocating overthrow of the govt. – Published a Socialist pamphlet

• Decision:– Supr. Ct. overturned the

conviction– States cannot violate 1st Amdt.

right of free speech b/c of the 14th Amdt. due process clause

DeJonge v. Oregon (1937)• Facts:

– DeJonge arrested for organizing Communist Party & speaking against U.S. govt. at their meetings

• Decision:

– Supr. Ct. said 14th Amdt. due process clause applied to 1st Amdt. right to freedom of assembly

Brandenberg v. Ohio (1969)• Facts:

– Brandenberg was in KKK & made a speech promising “vengeance” against blacks & Jews

– Arrested for violating Ohio law against advocating violence

• Decision:– State cannot punish free

speech unless it presents imminent danger of violence

Roe v. Wade (1973)• Issue: Can states

make laws banning abortion

• Decision: Right to abortion is protected by constitutional right to privacy (9th Amdt.)