Court Cases Flashcards
(14 cards)
McCulloch v. Maryland 1819
Maryland attempted to tax the bank, arguing that Congress did not have the constitutional authority to create it.
James McCulloch, a cashier at the Baltimore branch, refused to pay the tax.
Maryland’s courts ruled against McCulloch, leading to an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Court, led by Chief Justice John Marshall, ruled unanimously in favor of McCulloch.
It held that Congress had the power to establish the bank under the Necessary and Proper Clause (Article I, Section 8).
This case strengthened federal authority and set a precedent for broad interpretation of congressional powers.
It reinforced the Supremacy Clause, ensuring that federal laws take precedence over conflicting state laws
U.S. v. Lopez 1995
In 1992, Alfonzo Lopez, a high school senior in Texas, carried a concealed handgun into his school.
He was charged under Texas law for firearm possession on school premises.
The next day, federal agents dismissed the state charges and charged Lopez under the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, a federal law that prohibited firearm possession in school zones.
Lopez was convicted and sentenced to six months in prison and two years of supervised release.
The Court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled that the Gun-Free School Zones Act was unconstitutional because it exceeded Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause2.
Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote the majority opinion, stating that gun possession in a school zone is not an economic activity that substantially affects interstate commerce.
The Court identified three broad categories of activities Congress can regulate under the Commerce Clause
Limited federal power
Baker v. Carr 1962
Tennessee had not redrawn its legislative districts since 1901, despite significant population shifts.
Charles W. Baker, a resident of Shelby County, sued Joe C. Carr, the Tennessee Secretary of State, arguing that the outdated districts disproportionately favored rural areas over urban populations.
Tennessee argued that redistricting was a political question and therefore not subject to judicial review.
The Court, in a 6-2 decision, ruled that redistricting is a justiciable issue under the Equal Protection Clause.
Justice William J. Brennan Jr. wrote the majority opinion, stating that malapportionment could violate citizens’ rights and was therefore subject to judicial scrutiny.
Opened the door for “one person, one vote”: This case paved the way for later rulings, such as Reynolds v. Sims (1964), which required legislative districts to be roughly equal in population.
Expanded judicial power: It established that courts could intervene in state governance issues when constitutional rights were at stake.
Shifted political representation: The ruling led to fairer representation for urban areas, reducing the disproportionate influence of rural districts.
Shaw v. Reno 1993
After the 1990 Census, North Carolina was entitled to 12 congressional seats.
The state initially created one majority-black district, but the U.S. Attorney General objected, arguing that a second majority-black district could be drawn.
North Carolina then created a second majority-black district, which was extremely irregular in shape, stretching 160 miles along Interstate 85.
Five white voters challenged the district, arguing that it was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander designed solely to group voters by race.
In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that race-based redistricting must be subject to strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause2.
Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote the majority opinion, stating that while race-conscious districting can be permissible in some cases, districts drawn predominantly based on race are constitutionally suspect.
Established strict scrutiny for racial gerrymandering: States must provide strong justification for race-based districting.
Marbury v. Madison 1803
In the final days of his presidency, John Adams appointed several judges under the Judiciary Act of 1801, including William Marbury as Justice of the Peace for the District of Columbia.
The commissions for these appointments were not delivered before Adams left office.
When Thomas Jefferson became president, his Secretary of State, James Madison, refused to deliver Marbury’s commission.
Marbury petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus, asking the Court to compel Madison to deliver the commission.
The Court, led by Chief Justice John Marshall, ruled unanimously that Marbury had a right to his commission but that the Supreme Court could not issue a writ of mandamus because the law granting that power—Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789—was unconstitutional.
The ruling established that Congress cannot expand the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction beyond what is outlined in the Constitution.
This case marked the first time the Supreme Court struck down a law as unconstitutional, solidifying its role as the final interpreter of the Constitution.
Established judicial review, allowing courts to invalidate laws that conflict with the Constitution.
Strengthened the judiciary, ensuring it could check the powers of the legislative and executive branches.
Engle v. Vitale 1962
The New York State Board of Regents authorized a voluntary, non-denominational prayer to be recited at the start of each school day.
The prayer read: “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our Country.”
A group of parents, led by Steven Engel, challenged the prayer, arguing that it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
The New York Court of Appeals upheld the prayer, leading to an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
In a 6-1 decision, the Court ruled that state-sponsored prayer in public schools is unconstitutional.
Justice Hugo Black wrote the majority opinion, stating that government-written prayers, even if voluntary and non-denominational, violate the Establishment Clause.
Strengthened the separation of church and state, reinforcing that public schools cannot endorse religious practices.
Wisconsin v. Yoder 1972
Wisconsin had a compulsory school attendance law requiring children to attend school until age 16.
Jonas Yoder, along with two other Amish parents, refused to send their children to school beyond the eighth grade, arguing that high school attendance conflicted with their religious beliefs.
The state prosecuted them for violating the law, leading to an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
In a unanimous decision, the Court ruled that Wisconsin’s law violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote the majority opinion, stating that the Amish way of life was deeply tied to their religious beliefs, and forcing their children to attend high school would threaten their religious practices.
Strengthened religious freedom, affirming that states cannot enforce laws that significantly burden religious practices without a compelling interest.
Limited state power in education, recognizing that alternative forms of education (such as Amish vocational training) could satisfy educational goals.
Tinker v. Des Moines 1969
In December 1965, a group of students in Des Moines, Iowa, planned to wear black armbands to protest the Vietnam War.
The school district learned of the plan and quickly adopted a policy banning armbands, stating that students who wore them would be asked to remove them or face suspension.
Mary Beth Tinker, John Tinker, and Christopher Eckhardt wore their armbands to school and were suspended.
Their parents sued the school district, arguing that the ban violated their children’s First Amendment rights.
In a 7-2 decision, the Court ruled in favor of the students, holding that the school’s ban violated the First Amendment.
Justice Abe Fortas wrote the majority opinion, stating that students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate.
Expanded student free speech rights, affirming that symbolic speech (such as wearing armbands) is protected under the First Amendment.
Limited school authority, ensuring that administrators cannot restrict speech based on fear of disruption alone.
Schenk v. United States 1919
Charles Schenck, a socialist and general secretary of the U.S. Socialist Party, distributed anti-draft leaflets during World War I.
The leaflets urged men to resist the military draft, arguing that conscription violated the Thirteenth Amendment’s prohibition against involuntary servitude.
Although the pamphlet encouraged peaceful opposition, it criticized the government’s war policies.
Schenck was charged with violating the Espionage Act of 1917, which criminalized actions that interfered with military recruitment or operations.
He argued that his conviction violated his First Amendment right to free speech.
In a unanimous decision, the Court ruled that Schenck’s conviction was constitutional.
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. wrote the majority opinion, asserting that speech can be restricted if it presents a “clear and present danger” to national security.
Holmes famously compared Schenck’s actions to “shouting fire in a crowded theater”, explaining that some speech can be limited if it incites harm.
Limited free speech protections, reinforcing that expressions encouraging illegal activity can be restricted.
Introduced the “clear and present danger” test, which courts used for decades to evaluate speech-related regulations.
New York Times Co. v. United States 1971
The New York Times and Washington Post obtained and began publishing excerpts from the Pentagon Papers, a classified Defense Department study detailing U.S. involvement in Vietnam.
The Nixon Administration sought an injunction to prevent further publication, arguing that the documents posed a national security risk.
The newspapers challenged the injunction, arguing that prior restraint violated the First Amendment.
In a 6-3 decision, the Court ruled that the government had not met the heavy burden required to justify prior restraint.
The per curiam opinion emphasized that any system of prior restraints comes with a strong presumption against its constitutional validity.
Justice Hugo Black and Justice William O. Douglas argued that national security concerns should not override First Amendment protections.
Strengthened press freedom, affirming that the government cannot censor publications without compelling justification.
Limited executive power, preventing the government from using vague claims of national security to suppress information.
McDonald v. Chicago 2010
Chicago and Oak Park, Illinois, had laws that effectively banned handgun possession by private citizens.
Otis McDonald, a Chicago resident, challenged the ban, arguing that it violated his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.
The case built on the Court’s earlier ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), which recognized an individual’s right to own firearms but only applied to federal jurisdictions.
McDonald and other plaintiffs sought to extend the Second Amendment’s protections to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause or Due Process Clause.
In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause2.
Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion, stating that the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense is fundamental to the Nation’s scheme of ordered liberty and is deeply rooted in American history and tradition.
The Court reversed the Seventh Circuit’s ruling, which had upheld Chicago’s handgun ban.
Expanded Second Amendment protections, ensuring that state and local governments cannot impose total handgun bans.
Limited state authority, reinforcing that fundamental rights must be protected at all levels of government.
Gideon v. Wainwright 1963
Clarence Earl Gideon was charged in Florida state court with felony breaking and entering.
When he appeared in court without a lawyer, he requested that the court appoint one for him.
Florida law at the time only provided court-appointed attorneys for indigent defendants in capital cases, so Gideon was forced to represent himself.
He was convicted and sentenced to five years in prison.
Gideon filed a habeas corpus petition in the Florida Supreme Court, arguing that his conviction violated his constitutional right to counsel.
The Florida Supreme Court denied his petition, leading to an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
In a unanimous decision, the Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of legal counsel applies to state courts through the Fourteenth Amendment.
Justice Hugo Black wrote the majority opinion, stating that the right to counsel is fundamental to a fair trial and must be provided to defendants who cannot afford an attorney.
The Court overturned Betts v. Brady (1942), which had previously allowed states to deny counsel to indigent defendants in non-capital cases.
Expanded the right to counsel, ensuring that indigent defendants in state courts receive legal representation.
Strengthened due process protections, reinforcing that fair trials require access to legal counsel.
Set a precedent for later cases involving criminal defense rights.
Brown v. Board 1954
The case was brought by Oliver Brown, along with other parents, against the Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas.
Brown’s daughter, Linda Brown, was forced to attend a segregated school far from her home, despite a closer school being available for white students.
The NAACP helped organize the lawsuit, arguing that segregated schools harmed Black children and violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The case was consolidated with similar cases from South Carolina, Virginia, Delaware, and Washington, D.C.
In a unanimous decision, the Court ruled that racial segregation in public schools is unconstitutional.
Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote the opinion, stating that “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.”
The Court overturned Plessy v. Ferguson, rejecting the idea that separate but equal schools provided equal educational opportunities.
Ended legal school segregation, paving the way for desegregation efforts across the U.S..
Strengthened civil rights protections, influencing later cases and legislation, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Citizens United v. FEC 2010
Citizens United, a nonprofit organization, produced a documentary critical of Hillary Clinton during the 2008 presidential primaries.
The organization sought to air the film and related advertisements within 30 days of the primary election.
The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) prohibited corporations and unions from funding electioneering communications within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election.
Citizens United challenged the law, arguing that the restrictions violated the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause.
In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that corporations and unions have the same First Amendment rights as individuals when it comes to independent political expenditures.
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, stating that political speech is indispensable to democracy, regardless of whether the speaker is an individual or a corporation.
The Court did not strike down disclosure and disclaimer requirements, meaning corporations and unions must still report their spending.
Allowed unlimited independent political spending by corporations, unions, and nonprofit organizations.
Led to the rise of Super PACs, which can raise and spend unlimited amounts on political campaigns.
