Supreme Court Supreme Court CasesCases

By: Tara PawlykBy: Tara Pawlyk

Marbury vs MadisonMarbury vs MadisonWhen:1803Case: Last minute appointments were never finalized, so was Marbury entitled to his appointment still?Ruling: Unanimous; Madison won on the ruling that when the Constitution conflicts with an act of legislature the act is invalid.

Engel vs VitaleEngel vs VitaleWhen: 1961Case: New York authorized prayer at the beginning of school. Engel felt this violated the establishment of religion in the first amendment.Ruling: 6 for Engel, 1 against. Engel won on the premise that the requirement was a violation of the constitution.

Wallace vs JaffreeWallace vs JaffreeWhen: 1984Case: Jaffree argued that the Alabama law permitting prayer in school violated the first amendment’s establishment clause.Ruling: 6 for Jaffree, 3 against. Jaffree won on the premise that the prayer law was unconstitutional. Very similar to Engel v. Vitale.

Tinker vs Des MoinesTinker vs Des MoinesWhen: 1968Case: John Tinker, Mary Beth Tinker, Christopher Echardt, and parents decided to protest Vietnam war by wearing black armbands. They were asked to remove them and refused and were suspended from school.Ruling: 7 for Tinker, 2 against. Tinker won on the premise that being unable to wear the armband is a violation of the first amendment concerning freedom of speech.

NY Times vs United StatesNY Times vs United StatesWhen: 1970Case: Nixon administration tried preventing New York times and Washington Post from publishing classified information from Vietnam. Nixon claimed this was a matter of national security.Ruling: 6 for NY Times, 3 against. NY Times won on the premise that the nixon administration was trying to violate the first amendment concerning freedom of speech.

New Jersey vs TLONew Jersey vs TLOWhen: 1983Case: TLO was a student accused of smoking in the girls bathroom at school. When searched; marijuana and drug paraphernalia was found.Ruling: 6 for New Jersey, 3 against. New Jersey won because having probable cause on school grounds mean the search was not in violation of the fourth or fourteenth amendments.

Mapp vs OhioMapp vs OhioWhen: 1960Case: Mapp convicted for ownership of obscene materials discovered during police search.Ruling: 6 for Mapp, 3 against. Mapp won not on the premise of freedom of speech but instead on the fourth amendment stating all search and seizure evidence unconstitutionally obtained is inadmissible in a court of law.

Betts vs BradyBetts vs BradyWhen: 1941Case: Betts was convicted for robbery and was unable to afford counsel. When he asked the court to provide him with one, the judge denied his request.Ruling: The ruling was that the denial of counsel was not a violation of fourteenth or sixth amendment.

Gideon vs WainwrightGideon vs WainwrightWhen: 1962Case: Gideon was convicted for breaking and entering and requested the court to provide him counsel and the court denied his request.Ruling: Unanimously Gideon; Due to the 14th amendment state courts are required to provide counsel for defendants unable to afford one.

Escobedo vs IllinoisEscobedo vs IllinoisWhen: 1963Case: Escobedo was arrested and questioned. The police questioning him refused his requested to see his lawyer and eventually incriminated himself.Ruling: 5 for Escobedo, 4 against. Escobedo won on the premise that his rights were denied and he wasn’t informed of his other constitutional rights to remain silent.

Miranda vs ArizonaMiranda vs ArizonaWhen: 1965Case: This was a joint case concerning whether people’s rights were being violated during police investigations due to not being notified of their rights.Ruling: 5 for Miranda, 4 against. Miranda won on the premise that the court cannot use statements from interrogations unless the person is notified of their rights prior.

Griswold vs ConnecticutGriswold vs ConnecticutWhen: 1964Case: Griswold provided counsel to married couples for birth control and was convicted for violating the Connecticut law that criminalized offering help to married people with preventing conception.Ruling: 7 for Griswold, 2 against. Griswold won due to a combination of first, third, fourth, and ninth amendments create the right to privacy in marriage.

Roe vs WadeRoe vs WadeWhen: 1971Case: Roe wished to have an abortion but Texas law prohibited abortions unless the mother is in jeopardy.Ruling: 7 for Roe, 2 against. Roe won by the same standards in Griswold v. Connecticut because the constitution protects the rights to privacy during the first trimester. This ruling affected 46 states.

Dred Scott vs SanfordDred Scott vs SanfordWhen: 1856Case: Dred Scott was a slave living in a free state and therefore tried to sue Missouri for his freedom when he returned to the slave state.Ruling: 7 for Sanford, 2 against. Sanford won because under articles III and IV only citizens of the USA can be citizens of a state. Also decided the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional.

Plessy vs FergusonPlessy vs FergusonWhen: 1895Case: Louisiana enacted a law requiring separate train cars for blacks and whites. Plessy who was 7/8 caucasian sat in the white section and pulled a Rosa Parks and was arrested.Ruling: 7 for Ferguson, 1 against. The state law was in constitutional boundaries based on the separate but equal doctrine.

Brown vs Board of Brown vs Board of EducationEducation

When: 1952Case: Public schools were segregated. Brown felt that the segregation based on race deprived minority children of the laws guaranteed by the 14th amendment.Ruling: Unanimously. Brown won on the idea that intangible factors supported inequality by causing the minorities to feel inferior.

US vs NixonUS vs NixonWhen: 1974Case: This was the case concerning the watergate affair based off of audio tapes. Nixon claimed it was his executive privilege to withhold information that was to secure national interest. Ruling: Unanimous. The United States won based on the fact that presidents are not immune from judicial review. The court ordered that Nixon must obey the subpoena.

Schenck vs USSchenck vs USWhen: 1918Case: Schenck was charged with conspiracy for spreading mail encouraging peaceful protests against the draft. He was accused of attempting to cause insubordination in the military and in military recruitment.Ruling: Unanimous. The United States won due to the circumstances. The freedom of speech argument was dismissed.

Bakke vs California Board of Bakke vs California Board of RegentsRegents

When: 1977Case: Bakke had applied to the University of California Medical School at Davis twice and got rejected twice. His scores exceeded those of the minorities who had been admitted so he argued he was rejected based on race not academics.Ruling: 5 for Bakke, 4 against. Bakke won however the court made progress in both affirmative action and minimizing white oppression.

Swann vs Charlotte Meck Swann vs Charlotte Meck SchoolsSchools

When:1970Case: This furthered Brown vs Board of Education with the issue of segregation in the school system. Charlotte-Mecklenburg schools had about 14,000 students that were all black attending all black schools.Ruling: Unanimous. Charlotte-Mecklenburg won and guidelines for segregated schools were put in place.

Korematsu vs USKorematsu vs USWhen: 1944Case: Japanese were excluded from areas during WWII where national security was in danger. Korematsu violated this order referred to as the Civilian Exclusion Order No. 34 by the army.Ruling: 6 for US, 3 against. The United States won on the premise that the need to prevent espionage was more important than his rights.

Abington Schools vs Abington Schools vs SchemppSchempp

When: 1962Case: Bible reading was a part of the school system where students were required to read ten Bible verses and recite the Lord’s Prayer unless excused with a parent note. Murray claimed this to be a violation of the 1st and 14th amendments concerning freedom of religion.Ruling: 8 for Schempp, 1 against. The court ruled that the school system was in fact in violation of these rights.

Minersville vs GobitisMinersville vs GobitisWhen: 1939Case: Two students were expelled from public school for refusing to salute the flag. They were refusing due to their religious beliefs as Jehovahs Witnesses.Ruling: 8 for Minersville, 1 against. Basically saluting the flag brings unity to the nation and was the basis of national security which is the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard of.

Hazelwood Schools vs Hazelwood Schools vs KuhlmeirKuhlmeir

When: 1987Case: Two articles in the school newspaper were said to be inappropriate by the principal. The students felt removing the articles violated their right of freedom of speech.Ruling: 5 for Hazelwood, 3 against. Schools are not required to promote certain student speech.

In re GaultIn re GaultWhen: 1967Case: A 15 year old was taken into custody without notifying the parents or providing any details on the hearings and convictions.Ruling: Juveniles being charged still have the same rights as adults and must be notified of these rights such as right to counsel and right to remain silent.

Baker vs CarrBaker vs Carr

When: 1960Case: The law to apportion the seats was ignored and restraining economic growth.Ruling: 6 for Baker, 2 against.

McCulloch vs MarylandMcCulloch vs Maryland

When: 1819Case: A cashier at the new bank refused to pay the taxes that were put into placeRuling: Unanimous. McCulloch won on the premise that Maryland can not tax instruments of the national government in the execution of constitutional powers.

Leandro vs NCLeandro vs NCWhen: 1994Case: The Leandro family wanted equal education for children and that a child’s education should not be based on the wealth of the community they live in.Ruling: Every child has the right to a basic education however it is not the State’s job to fund that education.

Texas vs JohnsonTexas vs JohnsonWhen: 1988Case: Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag as a means of protest against Reagan administration policies. Johnson was tried and convicted under a Texas law outlawing flag desecration.Ruling: 5 for Johnson, 4 against. His expression of burning the flag was protected by his 1st amendment rights.

West Virginia vs BarnetteWest Virginia vs Barnette

When: 1942Case: The West Virginia Board of Education ordered that the "flag salute" must occur at any activity in public schools. If a student did not participate, they could be expelled or charged with delinquency.Ruling: 6 for Barnette, 3 against. This was a violation of the 1st amendment rights.

Gratz vs BullingerGratz vs BullingerWhen: 2002Case: When Jennifer Gratz and Patrick Hamacher applied to the University of Michigan, they were both rejected even though they were qualified. The University then admitted to using race as a factor in the admission process. Ruling: 6 for Gratz, 3 against. The school was in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.

Katz vs USKatz vs USWhen: 1967Case: When federal agents found out that Katz may have been communicating gambling information to other states, they bugged the public telephone booth that Katz typically used. He was convicted based on his recordingsRuling: 7 for Katz, 1 against. The evidence had to be thrown out because it was a violation of the 4th amendment.

Reynolds vs SimsReynolds vs SimsWhen: 1963Case: Each country was allowed one senator. However, population ratios varied up to forty one to one. Ruling: 8 for Sims, 1 against. Many thought it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by not taking into account population variances but it wasn’t in violation.

Gibbons vs OgdenGibbons vs OgdenWhen: 1824Case: It caused states to charge large fees to operate steamboats for out-of-state individuals, and it created a monopoly. A steamboat owner challenged this monopoly and brought into question whether or not New York had overstepped its bounds and exercised powers of the Congress.Ruling: Unanimously Gibbons

Olmstead vs USOlmstead vs USWhen: 1927Case: Roy Olmstead had been suspected of bootlegging. Federal agents decided that to get proof they would wiretapped the basement of Olmstead's building and areas near his home. Green vs. United States and McInnis vs. United States were both decided along with this case. Olmstead argued that wiretapping his private conversations were in violation of his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights.Ruling: 4 for Olmstead, 5 against.

Gitlow vs NYGitlow vs NYWhen: 1922Case: Socialist Gitlow was arrested for anarchy for distributing his “left-wing manifesto.” Since no action came from it he felt he had no right to be charged.Ruling: New York won on the premise that it is the states right to prevent a disturbance in peace.