15 Court Cases + Extra Info

Question 1

Baker v. Carr (1962)

Answer 1

In the late 1950s, Tennessee had not redrawn its electoral districts decided in the 1900 census, despite the state constitution requirement to redraw district lines every 10 years to account for changes in population.
Charles Baker sued the state for being denied “equal protection” under the 14th Amendment because his county’s population grew but did not benefit from increased representation in the state legislature. Carr was the secretary of the state.

Question 2

Principles of Baker v. Carr

Answer 2

Article III, section 2 of the U.S. Constitution → Judicial power of the Supreme Court
14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution → Equal Protection Clause

Question 3

Baker v. Carr Decision

Answer 3

In a 6–2 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in favor of Baker. Established the ability of the Supreme Court to decide cases that dealt with state district reapportionment, and established one man, one vote.

Question 4

Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

Answer 4

Families from Topeka, Kansas sued the city’s Board of Education for enforcing school segregation, depriving Linda Brown of the equal protection of the laws required under the 14th Amendment. School segregation was upheld by Plessy v. Ferguson that established “separate but equal.” The parents appealed the case to the Supreme Court.

Question 5

Principles of Brown v. Board of Education

Answer 5

14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution → Equal Protection Clause

Question 6

Decision of Brown v. Board of Education

Answer 6

Unanimous vote for Brown and other students. Separation based on race violated the Equal Protection Clause. Established that school segregation was unconstitutional nationwide.

Question 7

Citizens United v. FEC (2010)

Answer 7

In 2008, Citizens United, a non-profit organization funded partially by corporate donations, produced Hillary: The Movie, a film created to persuade voters not to vote for Hillary Clinton as the 2008 Democratic presidential nominee. Citizens United wanted to make the movie available to cable subscribers through video-on-demand services and wanted to broadcast TV advertisements for the movie in advance. The Federal Election Commission said that Hillary: The Movie was intended to influence voters, and, therefore, the BCRA applied. That meant that the organization was not allowed to advertise the film or pay to air it within 30 days of a primary election.
Citizens United sued the FEC in federal court, asking to be allowed to show the film. The district court heard the case and decided that even though it was a full length movie and not a traditional television ad, the film was definitely an appeal to vote against Hillary Clinton. This meant that the bans in the BCRA applied: corporations and organizations could not pay to air this sort of direct appeal to voters so close to an election.

Question 8

Principle of Citizens United v. FEC

Answer 8

First Amendment → Freedom of Speech

Question 9

Decision of Citizens United v. FEC

Answer 9

5-4 in favor Citizens United. Established the government’s rationale for the limits on corporate spending—to prevent corruption—was not persuasive enough to restrict political speech.

Question 10

Engel v. Vitale (1962)

Answer 10

Two Jewish families (including Stephen Engel), a member of the American Ethical Union, a Unitarian, and a non-religious person sued the local school board, which required public schools in the district to have the prayer recited. The plaintiffs argued that reciting the daily prayer at the opening of the school day in a public school violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. After the New York courts upheld the prayer, the objecting families asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case, and the Court agreed to hear it.

Question 11

Engel v. Vitale Principles

Answer 11

1st Amendment → Establishment Clause (Freedom of Religion)

Question 12

Engel v. Vitale Decision

Answer 12

6-1 in favor of the parents (Engel) and established that More precedent for the separation of church and state: expressed that the state cannot hold prayers in public schools, even if participation is not required and the prayer is not tied to a particular religion.

Question 13

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

Answer 13

A burglary occurred at the Bay Harbor Pool Room in Panama City, Florida. Police arrested Clarence Earl Gideon after he was found nearby with a pint of wine and some change in his pockets.
Gideon, who could not afford a lawyer, asked the Florida court to appoint one for him, arguing that the Sixth Amendment entitles everyone to a lawyer. The judge denied his request. Florida state law required appointment of counsel for indigent defendants only in capital (death penalty) cases.

Question 14

Gideon v. Wainwright Principles

Answer 14

6th Amendment –> right to an attorney
14th Amendment –> Due process

Question 15

Gideon v. Wainwright decison

Answer 15

Ruled in favor of Gideon (the guy charged) and overturned Betts v. Brady because that ruling said that counsel is not a fundamental right. Proof was that defendants and government hire the best lawyers for cases

Question 16

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

Answer 16

The new chief justice of the United States, who was being asked to decide this case, was John Marshall, the Federalist secretary of state, who had failed to deliver the commission. President Jefferson and Secretary of State Madison were Democratic-Republicans who were attempting to prevent the Federalist appointees from taking office. If Chief Justice Marshall and the Supreme Court ordered Madison to deliver the commission, it was likely that he and Jefferson would refuse to do so, which would make the Court look weak. However, if they didn’t require the commission delivered, it could look like they were backing down out of fear. Chief Justice Marshall instead framed the case as a question about whether the Supreme Court even had the power to order the writ of mandamus.

Question 17

Marbury v. Madison Decision

Answer 17

Unanimously in favor of Madison because according to the Constitution, the Supreme Court did not have the authority to exercise its original jurisdiction in this case. Thus the Judiciary Act of 1789 and the Constitution were in conflict with each other.

Question 18

Marbury v. Madison Principles

Answer 18

Article III Section 2 Clause 2 of US Constitution
Judiciary Act of 1789

Question 19

McCullough v. Maryland (1819)

Answer 19

Maryland attempted to close the Baltimore branch of the national bank by passing a law that forced all banks chartered outside of the state to pay a yearly tax
James McCulloch, the chief administrative officer of the Baltimore branch, refused to pay the tax. The state of Maryland sued McCulloch, saying that Maryland had the power to tax any business in its state and that the Constitution does not give Congress the power to create a national bank.

Question 20

McCullough v. Maryland Principles

Answer 20

U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 (Necessary and Proper Clause) → Congress
U.S. Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2 (Supremacy Clause) → makes federal laws supreme to state laws
U.S. Constitution, 10th Amendment → powers not enumerated to federal government are reserved to the States

Question 21

McCullough v. Maryland Decision

Answer 21

Unanimous in favor of McCullough

Ruled that states couldn’t tax the bank of the US because of the supremacy clause

Question 22

McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010)

Answer 22

In 2008, after the Court decided Heller and said that the Second Amendment includes an individual right to keep and bear arms, Otis McDonald and other Chicago residents sued the city for violating the Constitution. They claimed that Chicago’s handgun regulations violate their 14th Amendment rights. Specifically, the residents argued that the 14th Amendment makes the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms applicable to state and local governments.
The federal district court ruled for Chicago. McDonald appealed. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals decided for Chicago, as well. That court ruled that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms protects individuals only from regulation by the federal government. McDonald asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case, and it agreed to do so.

Question 23

McDonald v. City of Chicago Principles

Answer 23

2nd Amendment→ the right to bear arms
14th Amendment → incorporation

Question 24

McDonald v. City of Chicago Decision

Answer 24

5-4 in favor of McDonald

The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense is fully applicable to the states under the 14th Amendment. The Court considered whether the right to keep guns “is fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty and system of justice.”

Question 25

New York Times Co. v. US (1971)

Answer 25

Former military analyst Daniel Ellsburg illegally copied many classified documents, known as the “Pentagon Papers”, which were leaked to many large publications such as the New York Times and Washington Post. One reporter ran a story at the risk of violating the espionage act, which prompted President Nixon to order them to stop printing the story. The government also asked a federal court to stop the Post from publishing future stories about the papers, citing again the Espionage Act. Both newspapers argued that the First Amendment protected their right to publish.

Question 26

New York Times Co. v. U.S. Principles

Answer 26

1st Amendment –> Freedom of the press

Question 27

New York Times Co. v. U.S. Decision

Answer 27

6-3 in favor of New York Times Co. because the government had not met the burden of proof necessary to enact prior restraint. All 6 justices in the majority wrote a concurring opinion.

Question 28

Roe v. Wade (1973)

Answer 28

Jane Roe was an alias of Norma McCorvey, a young mother. She unsuccessfully tried to have an abortion in Texas, where it is a felony except in cases “saving the life of the mother”.
A lawsuit was filed against Henry Wade, the district attorney of Dallas County, Texas, claiming that the law violated the 9th Amendment. The case was appealed directly from the district courts to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Question 29

Roe v. Wade Principles

Answer 29

9th Amendment → rights cannot be denied
14th Amendment → incorporation

Question 30

Roe v. Wade Decision

Answer 30

7-2 in favor of Roe

The majority rooted a woman’s right to decide whether to have an abortion in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, which prohibits states from “depriv[ing] any person of … liberty … without due process of law.” According to the majority, the “liberty” protected by the 14th Amendment includes a fundamental right to privacy.

Question 31

Schenck v. U.S. (1919)

Answer 31

During World War I, Charles Schenck, the general secretary for the Socialist Party, was arrested in Philadelphia for handing out fliers urging men to resist the draft. He was arrested and convicted of violating the Espionage Act of 1917.
He appealed his trial court to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case.

Question 32

Schenck v. U.S. Principles

Answer 32

1st Amendment –> Freedom of speech
Espionage Act

Question 33

Schenck v. U.S. Decision

Answer 33

Unanimously in favor of U.S. citing that Schenck’s speech caused a “create a clear and present danger”, falling in the category of unprotected speech. The Constitution does not protect efforts to induce the criminal act of resisting the draft during a time of war.

Question 34

Shaw v. Reno (1993)

Answer 34

The General Assembly redrew the district lines to create a second majority-minority district, District 12. District 12 ran along Interstate 85 in snake-like fashion for 160 miles, breaking up several counties, towns, and districts to connect geographically separate areas densely populated by minority voters into a single district that, in some places, was only as wide as the highway. In 1992, Melvin Watt won the 12th district, becoming one of North Carolina’s first two black members of Congress in the 20th century.
Five white voters filed a lawsuit against both state and federal officials in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. They argued that District 12 violated the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause because it was motivated by racial discrimination and resulted in a district drawn almost entirely on racial lines, with the sole purpose of electing black Congressional representatives. The voters eventually appealed to the Supreme Court.

Question 35

Shaw v. Reno Principles

Answer 35

14th Amendment → equal protection clause
15th Amendment→ right to vote cannot be denied based on race

Question 36

Shaw v. Reno Decision

Answer 36

5-4 in favor of Shaw

The majority said that any redistricting plan that includes people in one district who are geographically disparate and share little in common with one another but their skin color, bears a strong resemblance to racial segregation.

Question 37

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969)

Answer 37

Mary Beth Tinker, an eighth-grader, and John Tinker and Christopher Eckardt, both high school students, wore black armbands to their respective schools. All three teens were sent home for violating the announced ban and told not to return until they agreed not to wear the armbands. Their parents filed suit against the school district for violating the students’ First Amendment right to free speech. The Tinkers asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the smaller courts’ decisions, and the Court agreed to hear the case.

Question 38

Tinker v. Des Moines Principles

Answer 38

1st Amendment –> Freedom of speech

Question 39

Tinker v. Des Moines Decision

Answer 39

7-2 in favor of Tinker

The justices said that students retain their constitutional right to freedom of speech while in public schools. They said that wearing the armbands was a form of speech, because they were intended to express the wearer’s views about the Vietnam War.

Question 40

U.S. v. Lopez (1995)

Answer 40

1990, Congress passed the Gun Free School Zones Act (GFSZA). In an effort to reduce gun violence in and around schools, the GFSZA prohibited people from knowingly carrying a gun in a school zone.
Alfonso Lopez Jr., was convicted of possessing a gun at a Texas school. Lopez appealed his conviction, arguing that Congress never had the authority to pass the GFSZA in the first place.

Question 41

U.S. v. Lopez Principles

Answer 41

Commerce Clause
Necessary and Proper Clause

Question 42

U.S. v. Lopez Decision

Answer 42

5-4 in favor of Lopez

The Supreme Court ruled that the law exceeded Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause because carrying a gun in a school zone is not an economic activity.

Question 43

Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)

Answer 43

The State of Wisconsin convicted three members of Old Order Amish and Mennonite communities for violating the state’s compulsory education law, which requires attendance at school until the age of 16.
The Amish claimed that their religious faith and their mode of life are inseparable and interdependent. They sincerely believe that exposure to competitive pressures of formal schooling, the content of higher learning, and removal from their religiously-infused practices of daily life will endanger children’s salvation, the parents’ own salvation, and the continuation of the Amish community itself.

Question 44

Wisconsin v. Yoder Principles

Answer 44

1st Amendment → freedom of religion, free exercise clause
14th Amendment→ due process clause

Question 45

Wisconsin v. Yoder Decision

Answer 45

Unanimously in favor of Yoder

The Supreme Court held that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, as incorporated by the 14th Amendment, prevented the state of Wisconsin from compelling the respondents to send their children to formal secondary school beyond the age of 14.