Supreme Court Cases Flashcards
Marbury v. Madison (1803)
Background: on his last day of office, Adams nominated a number of Federalist judges (Midnight Judges). On Jefferson’s first day of office, he orders James Madison to go and refuse to deliver the appointments. However, one man, William Marbury, receives his appointment.
Ruling: Marshall rules that the Supreme Court has the authority of ‘judicial review’ (can interrupt the Constitution and decide on the constitutionality of laws and presidential orders).
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)
Background: after the National Bank was established state legislatures attempted to enforce taxation. James McCulloch of Maryland refused to pay the tax.
Ruling: Marshall ruled that the Federal government has the right to regulate interstate trade and commerce (banking).
Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)
Background: Aaron Ogden and Thomas Gibbons entered a
partnership in which both owned and operated a steamship that sailed throughout the U.S. carrying cargo filled with goods.
Gibbons breaks-off the partnership to work with another company.
Ogden was angry and convinced NYS to file a lawsuit against Gibbons for operating a steamship on New York State waters.
Ruling: states cannot regulate commerce on interstate trade (reinforces federal authority)
Worcester v. Georgia (1832)
Background: Samuel Worcester and Elias Boudinot published a newspaper ( the Cherokee Phoenix) that pushed for the rights of the Cherokee nation and other Native American groups in the U.S. Both were arrested for living on Native American land (state law).
Ruling: Native American Tribes/Nations are to be viewed as any other foreign nation, therefore, no state could negotiate their own terms.
Prigg v. Pennsylvania (1842)
Background: Margaret Morgan was sold to John Ashmore in the state of Maryland. He granted her some freedoms in where she worked and lived but never gave her legal freedom. He died, leaving Morgan to his wife who did not treat Morgan as kindly. Morgan fled to PA and the wife hired Edward Prigg to capture Morgan. Prigg is arrested in PA and sues the state for wrongful imprisonment.
Ruling: Supreme Court rules in favor of Prigg, saying that states cannot overrule Federal Authority (Fugitive Slave Law). However, they still allowed states to pass laws concerning the handling of slavery and fugitive slaves.
The Dred Scott Decision (1857)
Background: Dred Scott was born into slavery. He and his owner moved all throughout the country to find better employment opportunities which included free states (like Illinois). After the death of his owner, he tried to buy the freedom of himself, wife and two daughters, but the wife of his owner refused to release him. He sued for freedom on the basis that since he was in a free territory (Illinois), he was free.
Ruling: The Supreme Court rules that slaves are property, therefore cannot sue their masters, and do not have the rights (denied legality of black citizenship).
Munn v. Illinois (1877)
Background: Munn & Scott was a company that operated a grain elevator in Chicago. They were hiking-up the price of grain they had collected, but it was in violation of ‘Granger Laws.’ They argued that since they were a private business, they had the right to charge whatever they wanted; said that the Granger Laws violated their 14th amendment rights.
Ruling: the Federal government has the authority to rule over private businesses in regards to the public good.
Eugene V. Debs (1880)
Dear Madison,
This is not a court case <3.
Civil Rights Cases (1883)
Background: as cases began to come to the Supreme Court, in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1875, the Supreme Court began ruling against the Civil Rights Act of 1875.
Ruling: The Supreme Court found the Civil Rights Act of 1875 unconstitutional because it was infringing the rights of private businesses.
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)
Background: Homer Plessy (⅛ African American) sat in a “White’s Only” rail car until the conductor asked Plessy to move. He refused and was arrested on the grounds of an 1880 Louisiana Law. Plessy sued the judge of Louisiana John H. Ferguson (and the state) who found him guilty.
Ruling: the protections of 14th Amendment applied only to political and civil rights, not “social right.” This ruling upheld the constitutionality of “separate but equal.”
Northern Securities CO v. United States (1904)
Background: competing railroad companies joined forces under a holding company called Northern securities, creating a monopoly. Roosevelt sued, claiming that this was a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.
Ruling: the Federal Government has the authority to dissolve a business for violating the Sherman Antitrust Act.
Muller v. Oregon (1908)
Background: Oregon, like in many other states, passed laws that restricted the amount of hours women could work. Women therefore could not negotiate with their employers for better working conditions. They sued the state of Oregon under violation of the 14th amendment.
Ruling: the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the state of Oregon, because it was to ‘protect’ the welfare of women.
Guinn v. United States (1915)
Background: Frank Guinn and J.J. Beal were Oklahoma election officers charged in court with violating federal election law by denying blacks the right to vote under the Grandfather clause.
Ruling: the “grandfather clause” was struck down in Oklahoma’s Voter Registration Act of 1910 because the clause discriminated against blacks and, therefore, violated the Fifteenth Amendment.
Schneck v. United States (1919)
Background: Charles Schenck and Elizabeth Baer, members of the Communist Party, handed-out and mailed thousands of fliers for people to protest the war and refuse entry. They were arrested under the Espionage Act 1917. Schenck sued, claiming he was protected under the First Amendment.
Ruling: the Supreme Court ruled that during times of war, first Amendment rights are not guaranteed.
Schechter Poultry v. United States (1935)
Background: the Schechter brothers, who ran ALA Schechter Poultry were brought up on 18 different charges, that violated the NIRA law in President Roosevelt’s New Deal.
Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that the NIRA law was in fact unconstitutional, because while the federal government could rule on interstate commerce, Schechter’s chickens were only being sold locally.
