Supreme Court Decisions

Marbury v. Madison. 1803

Reason: William Marbury, a Judicial appointee of John Adams was refused his appointment by T. Jefferson’s Secretary of State James Madison

Judgment: Marbury, Madison’s refusal was illegal, the appointment had been made legally by Adams.

Significance: It also ruled that it’s own power to issue legal writs of mandamus was unconstitutional. Established the precedent of Judicial review

McCulloch v. Maryland, 1819

Reason: When the U.S. branch bank in Baltimore refused to pay taxes, Maryland brought suit for collection from the bank

Judgment: McCulloch - The chartering of a bank, was a power implied from the power over federal fiscal operations. The state cannot impede federal laws, the tax was voted unconstitutional

Significance- It set the precedent for a broad interpretation of the powers of the federal government

Dred Scott v. Sanford, 1857

Reason: Dred Scott sued his master for freedom, after his family had traveled into a free section of Louisiana.

Judgment: Sanford As an African-American Scott could not sue because he was not a citizen.

Significance: Declared the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional- it violated the 5th Amendment by depriving slave owners of their property

Bradwell v. Illinois, 1873

Reason Myra Bradwell asserted her right to a license to practice law in Illinois by virtue of her status as a United States citizen. The judges of the Illinois Supreme Court denied her application.

Judgment- Illinois

Significance- The right to practice law is not a constitutionally protected right. Justice Bradley went beyond the constitutional explanations of the case to describe the reasons why it was natural and proper for women to be excluded from the legal profession.

Reynolds v. United States, 1879

Reason: George Reynolds was a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, charged with bigamy after marrying two women at the same time in the Utah Territory.

Judgment- The United States

Significance: The Supreme Court recognized that under the First Amendment, the Congress cannot pass a law that prohibits the free exercise of religion. However it argued that the law prohibiting bigamy did not fall under this.

Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896

Reason: Homer Plessy was arrested after he refused to move to a “colored” train car after purchasing a first class ticket.

Judgment: Ferguson,The 14th Amendment did not protect African

Americans from private citizens.

Significance- Established the “separate but equal” clause that allowed segregation in the U.S.

Weeks v. United States, 1914

Reason- Police entered the home of Fremont Weeks and seized papers which were used to convict him of transporting lottery tickets through the mail. This was done without a search warrant.

Judgment- Weeks

Significance- The Court held that the seizure of items from Weeks' residence directly violated his constitutional rights. The Court also held that the government's refusal to return Weeks' possessions violated the Fourth Amendment.

Schenck v. United States, 1919

Reason: Charles Schenck was arrested for mailing materials urging draftees to avoid military service, under the Espionage Act created during WWI.

Judgment: United States

Significance; Schenck’s actions were a “clear and present danger” in a time of war. Defined the parameters of speech during a time of war.

Gitlow v. New York, 1925

Reason: Gitlow was arrested for distributing Communist pamphlets advocating the overthrow of the government.

Judgment: New York, Gitlow did not have 14th amendment protection, because

he broke a state law that made invoking violence against the government a crime.

Significance: Set the precedent for the future expansion of the freedom of speech

Near v. Minnesota, 1931

Reason- Jay Near published a scandal sheet in Minneapolis, in which he attacked local officials, charging that they were implicated with gangsters. Minnesota officials obtained an injunction to prevent Near from publishing his newspaper under a state law that allowed such action against periodicals.

Judgment- Near

Significance The Court held that the statute authorizing the injunction was unconstitutional as applied. The Court established the doctrine that, with some narrow exceptions, the government could not censor or otherwise prohibit a publication in advance.

Scottsboro Boys v. Alabama, 1932

Reason: Nine black teenagers, none older than nineteen, were accused of raping two white women on a train. The defendants were sentenced to death, despite the fact that one of the women later denied being raped

Judgment: Scottsburo Boys

Significance- In two separate cases, the Court ruled that the defendants were denied the right to counsel, which violated their right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment, and that the exclusion of blacks from the grand jury which issued the indictment violated the Boys' Fourteenth Amendment rights.

Hirabayashi v. United States, 1943

Reason: Gordon Kiyoshi Hirabayashi, a student at the University of Washington, was convicted of violating a curfew and relocation order.

Judgment- For the US. The Court found the President's orders and the implementation of the curfew to be constitutional.

Significance- racial discrimination was justified since "in time of war residents having ethnic affiliations with an invading enemy may be a greater source of danger than those of a different ancestry."

Kunz v. New York, 1951

Reason: Kunz was was convicted for holding a religious meeting on the city streets without a permit in violation of N.Y city code.

Judgment: Kunz

Significance: this Court, interpreted the restrictive action of the state authorities as violating the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment in that such action disadvantaged Kunz because of his religious beliefs

Brown v. Board of Education, 1954

Reason: 5 African American families sued the Topeka School board for unequal facilities

Judgment: For Brown, segregated schools were not equal, and discriminated against people of color.

Significance: Overturned Plessy v. Ferguson, segregation was declared unconstitutional

Mapp v. Ohio, 1961

Reason: Mapp was arrested by police for obscene photos taken from his house in a search without a warrant

Judgment: For Mapp, the search was unconstitutional

Significance: Evidence found in an illegal search and seizure cannot be used.

Baker v. Carr, 1962

Reason-Charles W. Baker and other Tennessee citizens alleged that a 1901 law designed to apportion the seats for the state's General Assembly was virtually ignored.

Judgment- Baker

Significance the Court held that the Supreme Court did have jurisdiction over questions of legislative apportionment

Engel v. Vitale, 1962

The Board of Regents for the State of New York authorized a short, nondenominational voluntary prayer for recitation at the start of each school day.

Judgment Engel

Conclusion Neither the prayer's nondenominational character nor its voluntary

character saves it from unconstitutionality. By providing the prayer, New York officially approved religion. This was the first case in which the Court used the establishment clause to eliminate religious activities as part of public ceremonies.

Gideon v. Wainwright, 1963

Reason: Clarence Gideon was arrested for burglary, asked for attorney because he was poor, the court refused his request.

Judgment: For Gideon - all defendants must have access to counsel.

Significance: Overturned an earlier decision the precedent that only death penalty cases required automatic counsel.

Escobedo v. Illinois, 1964

New York Times v. Sullivan, 1964

Reason: Alabama police commissioner L.B. Sullivan sued the N.Y. times for libel for ads placed by two civil rights organizations.

Judgment: Against Sullivan- the major role of the press is a watchdog of public officials.

Significance- Public officials who were the target of false statements could not sue unless they could prove that the statement was made with knowledge it was false or disregard whether it was false or not.

Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965

Reason Griswold was the Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut. Griswold and her colleague were convicted under a Connecticut law which criminalized the provision of counseling, and other medical treatment, to married persons for purposes of preventing conception.

Judgment: Griswold

Significance Through the Court, the various guarantees within the Bill of Rights create penumbras (zones) that establish a right to privacy. Together, the First, Third, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, create a new constitutional right, the right to privacy in marital relations. The Connecticut law conflicted with the exercise of this right.

Miranda v. Arizona. l966

Reason: Ernesto Miranda was arrested on rape and kidnapping charges, he signed a confession without being informed of his right to counsel or right to remain silent

Judgment- Miranda- Police had failed to follow the 5th Amendment

Significance- Police officials must inform suspects of their constitutional rights when arresting them.

Sheppard v. Maxwell, 1966

Reason- Convicted of second-degree murder for the bludgeoning death of his pregnant wife, Samuel Sheppard challenged the verdict as the product of an unfair trial. Sheppard, who maintained his innocence of the crime, alleged that the trial judge failed to protect him from the massive, widespread, and prejudicial publicity that attended his prosecution.

Judgment: Shepard

Significance- the Court found that Sheppard did not receive a fair trial. Although freedom of expression should be given great latitude, the Court held that it must not be so broad as to divert the trial away from adjudicating both criminal and civil matters in an objective, calm, and solemn courtroom setting.

Loving v. Virginia, 1967

Reason: Two residents of Virginia, Mildred Jeter, a black woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, were married in the District of Columbia. The couple was then charged with violating the state's antimiscegenation statute

Judgment: Loving

Significance: the Court held that distinctions drawn according to race were generally "odious to a free people" and were subject to "the most rigid scrutiny" under the Equal Protection Clause

Epperson v. Arkansas, 1968

Reason: The Arkansas legislature passed a law prohibiting teachers in public or state-supported schools from teaching, or using textbooks that teach, human evolution, because it violated the beliefs of Fundamentalist Christians. Epperson, a public school teacher, sued, claiming the law violated her First Amendment right to free speech as well as the Establishment Clause.

Judgment Epperson Significance: This use of state power to prohibit the

teaching of material objectionable to a particular sect amounted to an unconstitutional Establishment of religion.

United States v. O’Brien, 1968

Reason:David O'Brien burned his draft card at a Boston courthouse. He said he was expressing his opposition to war. He was convicted under a federal law that made the destruction or mutilation of drafts card a crime.

Judgment: The United States

Significance- The Court established a test to determine whether governmental regulation involving symbolic speech was justified.

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 1969

Reason: Three students decided to protest the Vietnam War by wearing black armbands to their Des Moines schools during the Christmas holiday season.. Fearing that the armbands would provoke disturbances, the principals of Des Moines' school districts resolved that all students wearing armbands be asked to remove them or face suspension. When they wore their armbands to school, they were asked to remove them. When they refused, they were suspended until after New Year's Day.

Judgment: Tinker

Significance: The wearing of armbands was "closely akin to 'pure speech'" and protected by the First Amendment. School environments imply limitations on free expression, but here the principals lacked justification for imposing any such limits.

Lemon v. Kurtzman, 1971

In Pennsylvania, a statute provided financial support for teacher salaries, textbooks, and instructional materials for secular subjects to non-public schools. The Rhode Island statute provided direct supplemental salary payments to teachers in non-public elementary schools. Each statute made aid available to "church-related educational institutions.

Judgment: Lemon

Significance: The Court found that the subsidization of parochial schools furthered a process of religious inculcation, and that the "continuing state surveillance" necessary to enforce the specific provisions of the laws would inevitably entangle the state in religious affairs.

New York Times Company v. United States, 1971

Reason The Pentagon Papers Case," the Nixon Administration attempted to prevent the New York Times and Washington Post from publishing materials belonging to a classified Defense Department study regarding the history of United States activities in Vietnam. The President argued that prior restraint was necessary to protect national security.

Judgment: New York Times

Significance: the Court held that the government did not overcome the "heavy presumption against" prior restraint of the press in this case

Muhammad Ali v. United States, 1971

Reason When Cassius Clay refused to report for induction, he was tried and convicted of willful refusal to submit to induction, even though he had previously claimed and been refused contentious objector status.

Judgment- For Clay- the Court held that since the

Appeal Board gave no reason for the denial of a conscientious objector exemption to Clay, Clay's conviction must be reversed

Significance- Helped clarify the status of contentious objector status under the 1st Amendment

Eisenstadt v. Baird, 1972

Reason: William Baird gave away contraceptives to an unmarried woman. Massachusetts charged Baird with a felony, to distribute contraceptives to unmarried men or women. Under the law, only married couples could obtain contraceptives; only registered doctors or pharmacists could provide them. Baird was not an authorized distributor of contraceptives.

Judgment: Eisenstadt

Significance: The Court held that the law's distinction between single and married individuals failed to satisfy the "rational basis test" of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.

Wisconsin v. Yoder, 1972

Reason: Jonas Yoder and Wallace Miller, both members of the Old Order Amish religion, were prosecuted under a Wisconsin law that required all children to attend public schools until age 16. The parents refused to send their children after the eighth grade, arguing that high school attendance was contrary to their religious beliefs.

Judgment For Yoder

Significance- individual's interests in the free exercise of religion under the First Amendment outweighed the State's interests in compelling school attendance beyond the eighth grade.

Roe et al v. Wade, 1973

• Reason: The arrest of Roe, an unmarried woman from Texas, where abortion was illegal

• Judgment For Roe- The Court ruled that a woman has the right to an abortion without interference from the government in the first trimester of pregnancy, contending that it is part of her “right to privacy.” The Court granted states the right to intervene in the second and third trimesters of pregnancy

• Significance- Legalized abortion and is at the center of the current controversy between “pro-life” and “pro-choice” advocates..

Miller v. California, 1973

Reason- Miller, after conducting a mass mailing campaign to advertise the sale of "adult" material, was convicted of violating a California statute prohibiting the distribution of obscene material.

Judgment- California

Significance the Court held that obscene materials did not enjoy First Amendment protection. The Court modified the test for obscenity. Obscene materials cannot be openly mailed without prior agreement.

Nixon v. United States, 1974

Reason- The special prosecutor for the Watergate Investigation subpoenaed tapes from President Nixon. Nixon asserted that he was immune from the subpoena claiming "executive privilege,“

Judgment- For United States The Court held that neither the separation of powers, nor the generalized need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified, presidential privilege

Significance- The release of the tapes forced Nixon to resign from office,

Lau v. Nichols, 1974

Corning v. Brennan, 1974

Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 1975

Califano v. Goldfarb, 1977

Regents of the University of California v. Allan Bakke, 1978

• Reason: The University of Calif., Davis, Medical School vs. Allan Bakke, a white applicant who was rejected twice even though there were minority applicants admitted with significantly lower scores than his

• Judgment- For Bakke- affirmative action was unfair if it lead to reverse discrimination..

• Significance- The Court ruled that while race was a legitimate factor in school admissions, the use of rigid quotas was not permissible.

Board of Education v. Pico, 1982

Reason: The Island Trees Union Free School District's Board of Education acting contrary to the recommendations of a committee of parents and school staff, ordered that certain books be removed from its district's junior high and high school libraries. In support of its actions, the Board said such books were: "anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, and just plain filthy." Steven Pico brought suit in federal district court challenging the Board's decision to remove the books.

Judgment: Pico

Significance: The Court held that as centers for inquiry and the spread of information and ideas, school libraries enjoy a special affinity with the rights of free speech and press. The Board could not restrict the availability of books in its libraries simply because its members disagreed with their idea content.

New Jersey v. T.L.O.1984 Reason- T.L.O. was a fourteen-year-old; she 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.

Judgment- New Jersey,

Significance- Citing the peculiarities associated with searches on school grounds, the Court abandoned its requirement that searches be conducted only when a "probable cause" exists that an individual has violated the law. the principal had found rolling paper in the girl’s purse, which gave him reasonable suspicion to continue the search.

Johnson v. Santa Clara County, California, 1987

Reason: The Transportation Agency, Santa Clara, California promoted Diane Joyce to road dispatcher over Paul Johnson. Both candidates were qualified for the job. As an affirmative action employer, the Agency took into account the sex of the applicants in making the promotion decision.

Judgment: Santa Clara County

Significance: The Court affirmed the promotion procedures of the Agency. Justice Brennan argued that it was not unreasonable to consider sex as one factor among many in making promotion decisions, and that the Agency's actions did not create an absolute barrier to the advancement of men

Cipollone v. Liggett Group, 1988

DeShaney v. Winnebago, 1989

Eichman v. United States, 1990

Reason- In 1989, Congress passed the Flag Protection Act which made it a crime to destroy an American flag or any likeness of an American flag which may be "commonly displayed." The law did, however, allow proper disposal of a worn or soiled flag. Eichman set a flag ablaze on the steps of the U.S. Capitol while protesting the government's domestic and foreign policy

Judgment- Eichman

Significance- the Court struck down the law because "its asserted interest is related to the suppression of free expression and concerned with the content of such expression.

Cruzan v. Missouri, 1990

Reason: In 1983, Nancy Beth Cruzan was involved in an automobile accident which left her in a "persistent vegetative state." When Cruzan's parents attempted to terminate the life-support system, state hospital officials refused to do so without court approval.

Judgment- Missouri

Significance- the Court held that while individuals enjoyed the right to refuse medical treatment under the Due Process Clause, incompetent persons were not able to exercise such rights. The Court found the State of Missouri's actions designed to preserve human life to be constitutional.

Simon & Schuster v. New York Crime Victims Board, 1991

To keep criminals from profiting from crimes by selling their stories, New York State's 1977 "Son of Sam" law ordered that proceeds from such deals be turned over to the New York State Crime Victims Board. In 1987 the Board ordered Henry Hill, a former gangster who sold his story to Simon & Schuster, to turn over his payments from a book deal.

Judgment- Simon & Schuster Significance- The Court concluded that "New York has

singled out speech on a particular subject for a financial burden that it places on no other speech and no other income."

Bush v. Gore, 2000

Reason- The Florida Supreme Court ordered that that every county in Florida must immediately begin manually recounting all "under-votes" because there were enough contested ballots to place the the election outcome in doubt. Bush and Cheney sought an emergency petition for a stay of the Florida Supreme Court's decision.

Judgment- Bush,

Significance- the Equal Protection clause guarantees individuals that their ballots cannot be devalued by "later arbitrary and disparate treatment," the opinion held that the Florida Supreme Court's scheme for recounting ballots was unconstitutional. The 2000 Presidential race was decided in George W. Bush’s favor.

United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Coop

Reason- Under a 1996 CA law, the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative was organized to distribute marijuana to qualified patients for medical purposes. The government charged them with violating the Controlled Substances Act's prohibitions on distributing, manufacturing, and possessing with the intent to distribute or manufacture a controlled substance.

Judgment- The United States

Significance- the Court held that there is no medical necessity exception to the Controlled Substances Act's prohibitions on manufacturing and distributing marijuana. The distribution, manufacturing and possession with the intent to distribute is still illegal under Federal law.