Historic Historic Supreme Supreme

Court Court DecisionsDecisions

LESSON 11C Shaping a New Nation

LESSON 11C Shaping a New Nation

Marbury v. Madison Marbury v. Madison (1803)(1803)

ISSUE Marbury, a “midnight judge”, is denied his Marbury, a “midnight judge”, is denied his appointment because Madison refuses to appointment because Madison refuses to deliver the commissiondeliver the commission

DECISION

Declares a section of the Declares a section of the Judiciary Act of Judiciary Act of 17891789 unconstitutional unconstitutional

SIGNIFICANCE

Constitution is supreme law of the landConstitution is supreme law of the land Supreme Court is the final interpreter of Supreme Court is the final interpreter of

the Constitutionthe Constitution Supreme Court may declare laws Supreme Court may declare laws

unconstitutional unconstitutional power of power of judicial judicial reviewreview

Dartmouth College v. Woodward Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819)(1819)

ISSUE New Hampshire law revises the charter of New Hampshire law revises the charter of the college and puts it under state controlthe college and puts it under state control

DECISION

Declares New Hampshire law Declares New Hampshire law unconstitutional: “No state may pass a law unconstitutional: “No state may pass a law impairing the obligation of contracts”impairing the obligation of contracts”

SIGNIFICANCE

Charters once fixed were not changeableCharters once fixed were not changeable Expanded judicial review to invalidate Expanded judicial review to invalidate

state lawsstate laws

McCulloch v. Maryland McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)(1819)

ISSUE Maryland places a heavy tax upon the Maryland places a heavy tax upon the Bank of the United States in Baltimore.Bank of the United States in Baltimore.

Bank refuses to pay the taxBank refuses to pay the tax

DECISION

Maryland bank tax unconstitutionalMaryland bank tax unconstitutional““Power to tax is the power to destroy”Power to tax is the power to destroy”

SIGNIFICANCE

Denied the state the power to tax a Denied the state the power to tax a federal agencyfederal agency

Upheld the constitutionality of the US Upheld the constitutionality of the US Bank. Bank.

Supports a loose interpretation of the Supports a loose interpretation of the ConstitutionConstitution

Gibbons v. Ogden Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)(1824)

ISSUE Aaron Ogden had a New York State-approved Aaron Ogden had a New York State-approved monopoly to operate a ferry service between NY monopoly to operate a ferry service between NY and NJ.and NJ.

Thomas Gibbons ran a competing service under Thomas Gibbons ran a competing service under a federal licensea federal license

DECISION

NYS grant of a monopoly was invalid.NYS grant of a monopoly was invalid. Violated Constitution’s delegation of interstate Violated Constitution’s delegation of interstate

commercecommerce

SIGNIFICANCE

Commerce is defined in broad termsCommerce is defined in broad terms Paves the way for the federal government to Paves the way for the federal government to

regulate railroads, buses, TV, labor unions, regulate railroads, buses, TV, labor unions, business organizations, internetbusiness organizations, internet

Expands power of the Federal governmentExpands power of the Federal government

Worcester v. Georgia Worcester v. Georgia (1832)(1832)

ISSUE Are the Georgia statutes relating to the Cherokee Are the Georgia statutes relating to the Cherokee Nation in violation of the Constitution?Nation in violation of the Constitution?

DECISION

Court upheld validity of Cherokee’s treaty rightsCourt upheld validity of Cherokee’s treaty rights Georgia’s laws not valid in Cherokee territoryGeorgia’s laws not valid in Cherokee territory

SIGNIFICANCE

Only national government had authority to deal Only national government had authority to deal with Indianswith Indians

Federal treaties and Constitution took Federal treaties and Constitution took precedence over state lawsprecedence over state laws

However, President Andrew Jackson refused to However, President Andrew Jackson refused to enforce and ignored decision enforce and ignored decision

The Marshall CourtThe Marshall CourtJOHN MARSHALL (1801-JOHN MARSHALL (1801-

1835)1835) FederalistFederalist Dominated court for 34 yearsDominated court for 34 years Made court into a co-equal branchMade court into a co-equal branch

1.1. Strengthened the Supreme Court at the Strengthened the Supreme Court at the expense of the other branches (Marbury v. expense of the other branches (Marbury v. Madison)Madison)

2.2. Expanded Federal power at the expense of Expanded Federal power at the expense of states (Dartmouth College, McCulloch v. states (Dartmouth College, McCulloch v. Maryland)Maryland)

3.3. Supported loose interpretation of Constitution Supported loose interpretation of Constitution (Gibbons v. Ogden, McCulloch v. Maryland)(Gibbons v. Ogden, McCulloch v. Maryland)

4.4. Protected the terms of business contracts Protected the terms of business contracts against state lawagainst state law

Dred Scott v. Sandford Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)(1857)

ISSUE Dred Scott a slave is brought to free Dred Scott a slave is brought to free territory. Abolitionists had him sue for his territory. Abolitionists had him sue for his freedomfreedom

DECISION

Slaves are property and not citizensSlaves are property and not citizens

SIGNIFICANCE

Highly controversial: Chief Justice Taney Highly controversial: Chief Justice Taney thought he was preventing a civil warthought he was preventing a civil war

Congress can not deprive anyone of their Congress can not deprive anyone of their propertyproperty

Missouri Compromise was Missouri Compromise was technicallytechnically unconstitutionalunconstitutional

Plessy v. Ferguson Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)(1896)

ISSUE Plessy was a US citizen of mixed Plessy was a US citizen of mixed blood. Sits in a white only section of blood. Sits in a white only section of a train. a train.

Is separate but equal a violation of Is separate but equal a violation of rights of blacks rights of blacks

DECISION

Separate but equal is equal Separate but equal is equal

SIGNIFICANCE

Allows the South to continue to Allows the South to continue to strengthen segregationstrengthen segregation

Schenck v. United States Schenck v. United States (1919)(1919)

ISSUE Schenck passed out pamphlets to cause Schenck passed out pamphlets to cause insubordination in militaryinsubordination in military

Violated Espionage Act of 1917Violated Espionage Act of 1917 Was Schenck’s 1Was Schenck’s 1stst Amendment rights violated? Amendment rights violated?

DECISION

Upheld Schenck’s convictionUpheld Schenck’s conviction 11stst Amendment did not apply in this case Amendment did not apply in this case

SIGNIFICANCE

Speech that possesses a “clear and present Speech that possesses a “clear and present danger “is not protected by 1danger “is not protected by 1stst Amendment Amendment

Example: “Yelling fire in a crowded movie Example: “Yelling fire in a crowded movie theater”theater”

Rights are not absoluteRights are not absolute

Schechter Poultry v. United States Schechter Poultry v. United States (1935)(1935)

ISSUE Can Congress delegate its legislative power to allow the Can Congress delegate its legislative power to allow the

President power over industry codes (National Industrial President power over industry codes (National Industrial Recovery Act)?Recovery Act)?

Can Congress regulate this poultry company as part of its Can Congress regulate this poultry company as part of its power over interstate commerce?power over interstate commerce?

DECISION

Unanimous decision: Court ruled codes were an Unanimous decision: Court ruled codes were an unwarranted delegation of lawmaking power to Presidentunwarranted delegation of lawmaking power to President

Congress had no constitutional authority to regulate Congress had no constitutional authority to regulate Schechter Poultry because it was no longer interstate Schechter Poultry because it was no longer interstate commercecommerce

SIGNIFICANCE

Ruled the Ruled the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA)National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), , along with other New Deal programs,along with other New Deal programs, unconstitutionalunconstitutional

Worsened relationship between President and Supreme Worsened relationship between President and Supreme CourtCourt

Korematsu v. United States Korematsu v. United States (1944)(1944)

ISSUE Korematsu violated executive order by not relocating Korematsu violated executive order by not relocating to an inland relocation centerto an inland relocation center

Did the executive orders violate the 14Did the executive orders violate the 14thth Amendment Amendment and 5and 5thth Amendment? Amendment?

Did the War give the President a special Did the War give the President a special circumstance?circumstance?

DECISION

6-3 Decision; ruled that an entire race could be 6-3 Decision; ruled that an entire race could be labeled “suspect classification”labeled “suspect classification”

President was not acting beyond his war powersPresident was not acting beyond his war powers

SIGNIFICANCE

In times of war rights of individuals can be lessenedIn times of war rights of individuals can be lessened In certain times the rights of an entire group could be In certain times the rights of an entire group could be

violatedviolated Implications for today? Cuba detaineesImplications for today? Cuba detainees

Dennis v. United States Dennis v. United States (1951)(1951)

ISSUE Eugene DennisEugene Dennis: Leader of the Communist : Leader of the Communist Party in USParty in US

Advocated the overthrow of the US Advocated the overthrow of the US government in speechesgovernment in speeches

Was Dennis entitled to 1Was Dennis entitled to 1stst Amendment Amendment rights?rights?

DECISION

Dennis’ speech was not protectedDennis’ speech was not protected

SIGNIFICANCE

Rights are not unlimitedRights are not unlimited Schenck precedent: If you present a “clear Schenck precedent: If you present a “clear

and present danger” you are not protectedand present danger” you are not protected Red Scare of 1950s similar to terrorism fear Red Scare of 1950s similar to terrorism fear

todaytoday

Brown v. Board of Ed. Of Topeka, KS Brown v. Board of Ed. Of Topeka, KS (1954)(1954)

ISSUE Four Black children sought the aid of the Four Black children sought the aid of the courts to gain access to an all white schoolcourts to gain access to an all white school

Whether segregation of children in public Whether segregation of children in public schools denies blacks their 14schools denies blacks their 14 thth Amendment Amendment right to equal protectionright to equal protection

DECISION

Separate but equal is Separate but equal is notnot equalequal

SIGNIFICANCE

Education is vital to citizenshipEducation is vital to citizenship Separating children makes them feel inferiorSeparating children makes them feel inferior Empowered the Federal courts to supervise Empowered the Federal courts to supervise

plans for desegregationplans for desegregation

`̀

Engel v. Vitale Engel v. Vitale (1962)(1962)

ISSUE New Hyde Park BOE had students recite a NYS New Hyde Park BOE had students recite a NYS Regents composed prayerRegents composed prayer

Does a non denominational prayer recited in Does a non denominational prayer recited in school violate 1school violate 1stst Amendment’s Amendment’s establishment establishment clause clause (separation of church and state)(separation of church and state)

DECISION

NYS Regents did violate 1NYS Regents did violate 1stst Amendment Amendment

SIGNIFICANCE

Even though you do not have to recite a prayer, it Even though you do not have to recite a prayer, it still is a violation of 1still is a violation of 1stst Amendment Amendment

States can not mandate (force) non-States can not mandate (force) non-denominational prayerdenominational prayer

Influenced future casesInfluenced future cases

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

ISSUE Clarence Gideon is charged with a felonyClarence Gideon is charged with a felony Does not have money for a lawyerDoes not have money for a lawyer Asked the court to appoint one for himAsked the court to appoint one for him Were Gideon’s 6Were Gideon’s 6thth Amendment & 14 Amendment & 14thth

Amendment rights violated?Amendment rights violated?

DECISION

Ruled in favor of Gideon Ruled in favor of Gideon 14 14thth Amendment right was violatedAmendment right was violated

SIGNIFICANCE

66thth Amendment applies to the states as Amendment applies to the states as well federal gov’twell federal gov’t

States must provide a lawyer in all States must provide a lawyer in all criminal casescriminal cases

Miranda v. Arizona Miranda v. Arizona (1966)(1966)

ISSUE Miranda was convicted of rape and kidnappingMiranda was convicted of rape and kidnapping Conviction based on incriminating evidence Conviction based on incriminating evidence

during interrogationduring interrogation Miranda Miranda notnot informed of his rights informed of his rights Were his 5Were his 5thth, 6, 6thth, 14, 14th th Amendment rights violated? Amendment rights violated?

DECISION

5-4 Decision that police violated Miranda’s 5-4 Decision that police violated Miranda’s rightsrights

SIGNIFICANCE

Police must inform suspects of their rightsPolice must inform suspects of their rights Miranda Warning establishedMiranda Warning established

Tinker v. Des Moines Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)(1969)

ISSUE Marybeth and John Tinker wear black armbands Marybeth and John Tinker wear black armbands to school protesting Vietnam War to school protesting Vietnam War

School threatened suspension for actSchool threatened suspension for act Tinkers suspended and claimed First Tinkers suspended and claimed First

Amendment right violatedAmendment right violated Do Marybeth and John Tinker have First Do Marybeth and John Tinker have First

Amendment right to freedom of speech to wear Amendment right to freedom of speech to wear black armbands as symbol of protest in a public black armbands as symbol of protest in a public schoolschool

DECISION

Ruled in favor of students’ right to wear armbandsRuled in favor of students’ right to wear armbands

SIGNIFICANCE

Symbolic speech:Symbolic speech: Students have right to free, Students have right to free, silent speech and do not lose right in schoolsilent speech and do not lose right in school

The Warren CourtThe Warren CourtEARL WARREN (1953-1969)EARL WARREN (1953-1969)

Appointed by Dwight EisenhowerAppointed by Dwight Eisenhower Expected to be Expected to be conservativeconservative

Direction and DecisionsDirection and Decisions1.1. Served during an era of democratic progressServed during an era of democratic progress2.2. Pursued a Pursued a liberal and activistliberal and activist course course3.3. Civil RightsCivil Rights

Brown v. Board of EdBrown v. Board of Ed

4.4. Rights of the AccusedRights of the Accused Right to counsel (Gideon v. Wainwright)Right to counsel (Gideon v. Wainwright) Right to be informed of your rights (Miranda v. Arizona)Right to be informed of your rights (Miranda v. Arizona)

Condemned by opponents for violating precedentsCondemned by opponents for violating precedents Dwight Eisenhower: “The biggest damn fool mistake I ever made!”Dwight Eisenhower: “The biggest damn fool mistake I ever made!” Lyndon Johnson: “The greatest chief justice of all”Lyndon Johnson: “The greatest chief justice of all”

New York Times New York Times v. United States v. United States (1971)(1971)

ISSUE NY Times writer “obtained” (stole) secret government NY Times writer “obtained” (stole) secret government report on Vietnam strategy report on Vietnam strategy Pentagon PapersPentagon Papers

Prior restraint:Prior restraint: President Nixon attempted to restrain NY President Nixon attempted to restrain NY Times and Washington Post from publishing report Times and Washington Post from publishing report they cited national security concernsthey cited national security concerns

Did the president have the right to deny news media Did the president have the right to deny news media First Amendment rights due to impact on war?First Amendment rights due to impact on war?

DECISION

Court rules 6-3 in favor of news media’s right to print and Court rules 6-3 in favor of news media’s right to print and stated that court process was unwisestated that court process was unwise

SIGNIFICANCE

Case led to even greater distrust of American government Case led to even greater distrust of American government during Vietnam Warduring Vietnam War

Prior restraint argument could not be used by government Prior restraint argument could not be used by government unless there was overriding needunless there was overriding need

Roe v. Wade (1973)Roe v. Wade (1973)ISSUE A Texas woman sought to terminate her A Texas woman sought to terminate her

pregnancypregnancy Texas has a law outlawing abortion in most Texas has a law outlawing abortion in most

casescases Did the Texas law violate a woman’s right to Did the Texas law violate a woman’s right to

privacy or personal choice in matters of family privacy or personal choice in matters of family and marriageand marriage

DECISION

Court ruled that states could regulate abortion only Court ruled that states could regulate abortion only in certain circumstancesin certain circumstances

SIGNIFICANCE

Broke a women’s pregnancy into trimestersBroke a women’s pregnancy into trimesters 11stst trimester: a mother has freedom of choice trimester: a mother has freedom of choice

United States v. Nixon United States v. Nixon (1974)(1974)

ISSUE President Nixon had taped conversations regarding President Nixon had taped conversations regarding

Watergate break-in that US District Court issued subpoena Watergate break-in that US District Court issued subpoena forfor

Nixon turned over edited tapesNixon turned over edited tapes Executive privilege: Nixon refused to turn over unedited Executive privilege: Nixon refused to turn over unedited

tapes because president did not need totapes because president did not need to Can a district court order the president to turn over Can a district court order the president to turn over

information he considers privileged?information he considers privileged?

DECISION

Court rejected Nixon’s argument and required him to supply Court rejected Nixon’s argument and required him to supply tapes tapes tapes did not relate to national securitytapes did not relate to national security

SIGNIFICANCE

Tapes showed Nixon was involved in criminal activityTapes showed Nixon was involved in criminal activity Case demonstrated that even the president is not above Case demonstrated that even the president is not above

the lawthe law Decision hastened (forced) his resignation from officeDecision hastened (forced) his resignation from office

Univ. of California v. Bakke Univ. of California v. Bakke (1978)(1978)

ISSUE Bakke (white male) is denied admission to Bakke (white male) is denied admission to medical schoolmedical school

School had a special admissions program for School had a special admissions program for minoritiesminorities

Is Bakke’s 14Is Bakke’s 14thth Amendment right violated? Amendment right violated?

DECISION

No majority opinionNo majority opinion Univ. of Calif. Is ordered to admit BakkeUniv. of Calif. Is ordered to admit Bakke

SIGNIFICANCE

Paved the way for Paved the way for affirmative actionaffirmative action ““Government may take race into account when it Government may take race into account when it

acts not to insult any racial group but to remedy acts not to insult any racial group but to remedy disadvantages cast on minorities by past racial disadvantages cast on minorities by past racial prejudice prejudice

Board of Ed., Island Trees UFSD v. Pico Board of Ed., Island Trees UFSD v. Pico (1982)(1982)

ISSUE ITBOE removes nine books from ITHS and ITJHS libraries ITBOE removes nine books from ITHS and ITJHS libraries

because of “anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, and because of “anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, and just plain filthy” naturesjust plain filthy” natures

Four high school students and one junior-high student sue Four high school students and one junior-high student sue for violation of First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of for violation of First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speechspeech

Does First Amendment limit school boards from removing Does First Amendment limit school boards from removing books?books?

DECISION

Ruled in favor of students Ruled in favor of students books not required reading; books not required reading; Tinker decision also served as precedentTinker decision also served as precedent

SIGNIFICANCE

High school students have First Amendment rights in High school students have First Amendment rights in classroomclassroom

School boards cannot remove books based on opinionSchool boards cannot remove books based on opinion School boards cannot infringe on students’ right to learnSchool boards cannot infringe on students’ right to learn

New Jersey v. TLO New Jersey v. TLO (1985)(1985)

ISSUE Teacher in NJ high school caught two girls Teacher in NJ high school caught two girls smoking in bathroom smoking in bathroom

Principal demanded to look inside girl’s purse Principal demanded to look inside girl’s purse Search of purse found drugs and drug Search of purse found drugs and drug

paraphernaliaparaphernalia Was the girl’s Fourth Amendment rights to Was the girl’s Fourth Amendment rights to

unreasonable search and seizure violated? What unreasonable search and seizure violated? What about Fourteenth Amendment rights?about Fourteenth Amendment rights?

DECISION

Court held for school and right to search purse if Court held for school and right to search purse if there is reasonable suspicion there is reasonable suspicion role of parentrole of parent

SIGNIFICANCE

Gives school right to search personal property and Gives school right to search personal property and lockers lockers

The Burger CourtThe Burger CourtWARREN BURGER (1969-WARREN BURGER (1969-

1986)1986) Appointed by Richard Nixon to become the Appointed by Richard Nixon to become the 15th 15th

Chief JusticeChief Justice in American history in American history Retired in 1986Retired in 1986 Direction and decisions: Tended to side with the Direction and decisions: Tended to side with the

justice systemjustice system more than with the rights of the more than with the rights of the accused and criminal suspectsaccused and criminal suspects

1.1. The Burger Court did not overturn the The Burger Court did not overturn the Miranda rulingMiranda ruling, , which gave suspects the right to have an attorney which gave suspects the right to have an attorney present during police questioningpresent during police questioning

2.2. Roe v. Wade (1973):Roe v. Wade (1973): Chief Justice Burger joined the Chief Justice Burger joined the majority (7-to-2) in supporting a woman’s right to have an majority (7-to-2) in supporting a woman’s right to have an abortion. The Court held that this right is part of the abortion. The Court held that this right is part of the constitutional right to privacy.constitutional right to privacy.