SCOTUS cases

Question 1

McCulloch v Maryland

facts of the case

Answer 1

facts: US Government wanted to create a national bank, but there was a fear that this was a sign the government was becoming too powerful. Maryland imposed high taxes on the national bank so it would fail.

Question 2

McCulloch v. Maryland

legal question

Answer 2

Does congress have the authority to establish a national bank, and does the state have the power to tax said bank?

Question 3

McCulloch v. Maryland

legal holdings and reasoning

Answer 3

SCOTUS ruled that it was constitutional for the federal government to establish a national bank under the implied powers, and that Maryland did have the power to tax, but not when it obstructed the lawful operations of the federal government

Question 4

Hammer v Dagenhart

facts of the case

Answer 4

There was a law imposed that said goods made with child labor couldn’t be sold across states, and a man wanted his son to work, so he sued, saying that this law was an unjust use of police power.

Question 5

Hammer v Dagenhart

legal question

Answer 5

Does the congressional act violate the Commerce Clause, the Tenth Amendment, or the Fifth Amendment?

Question 6

Hammer v Dagenhart

legal holdings and reasoning

Answer 6

Production was not commerce, and thus outside the power of Congress to regulate. And the regulation of production was reserved by the Tenth Amendment to the states.

Question 7

Champion vs Ames

facts of the case

Answer 7

congress passed a law that restricts the taking of lottery tickets across state lines, someone gets charged for violating this law, agrued that it was an exercise of police powers, and congress didn’t have that power

Question 8

Champion v. Ames

legal question

Answer 8

Can the federal government regulate and prohibit the interstate transportation of lottery tickets?

Question 9

Champion v. Ames

legal holdings and reasoning

Answer 9

SCOTUS ruled that the federal government did have the power to prohibit interstate transportation of lottery tickets. The Commerce Clause gives the federal government the ability to regulate interstate commerce, so they had the power to regulate the lottery tickets.

Question 10

Lochner v New York

facts of the case

Answer 10

bakers petitioned for a state law that regulated how many hours they could work, wanted 10 hours a day and no more than 60 hours a week. NY imposed this law via their health and safety power. NY bakery owners went to the supreme court to protest, and said that it infringed on their freedom of contract.

Question 11

Lochner v. New York

legal question

Answer 11

Does the Bakeshop Act violate the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Question 12

Lochner v. New York

legal holdings and reasoning

Answer 12

The Court invalidated the New York law. The majority maintained that the statute interfered with the freedom of contract, and thus the Fourteenth Amendment’s right to liberty afforded to employer and employee. The law infringed on the freedom of contract, and said that no one is able to regulate this.

Question 13

Katzenback v McClung

facts of the case

Answer 13

Ollie McClung argued that his restaurant could not be prohibited from discriminating against African Americans because Congress did not have power under the Commerce Clause to enact the Civil Rights Act of 1964. .

Question 14

Katzenback v. McClung

legal question

Answer 14

Can the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibit discrimination against African Americans by a restaurant?

Question 15

Katzenback v. McClung

legal holding and reasoning

Answer 15

Supreme Court held McClung could be barred from discriminating against African Americans under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Court upheld the fact that the Act fell under the enumerarted power of interstate commerce with the Necessary and Proper clause.

Question 16

Roth v. US

legal question

Answer 16

Did either the federal or California’s obscenity restrictions, prohibiting the sale or transfer of obscene materials through the mail, impinge upon the freedom of expression as guaranteed by the First Amendment?

Question 17

Roth v. US

legal holdings and reasoning

Answer 17

The Court ruled in favor of the US, saying that regulating obscenity wasn’t in the area of speech protected in the first amendment. Made the Roth Test, which is “whether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to prurient interest.”

Question 18

Miller v California

legal question

Answer 18

Is the sale and distribution of obscene materials by mail protected under the First Amendment’s freedom of speech guarantee?

Question 19

Miller v. California

legal holdings and reasoning

Answer 19

SCOTUS held that obscene materials did not enjoy First Amendment protection. Established the Miller Test, which was the same as the Roth test but it added, “(b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.” The Court rejected the “utterly without redeeming social value” test of the Memoirs decision.

Question 20

Near v Minnesota

legal question

Answer 20

Does the Minnesota “gag law” violate the free press provision of the First Amendment?

Question 21

Near v. Minnesota

legal holdings and reasoning

Answer 21

Court held that the statute authorizing the injunction was facially unconstitutional, meaning the decision was based on an analysis of the law’s general applications, not the specific context of this case. SCOTUS ruled that the government could stop publication on 3 conditions:
1. threatens national security
2. includes fighting words
3. obscene material

Question 22

Mapp v. Ohio

legal question

Answer 22

Were the confiscated materials protected from seizure by the Fourth Amendment?

Question 23

Mapp v. Ohio

legal holdings and reasoning

Answer 23

SCOTUS declared that all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Fourth Amendment is inadmissible in a state court due to the Exclusionary clause.

Question 24

Miranda v. Arizona

legal question

Answer 24

Does the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination extend to the police interrogation of a suspect?

Question 25

Miranda v. Arizona | legal holdings and reasoning

Answer 25

SCOTUS ruled that the defendant’s interrogation violated the Fifth Amendment. To protect the privilege, the Court reasoned, procedural safeguards were required. A defendant was required to be warned before questioning that he had the right to remain silent, and that anything he said can be used against him in a court of law. A defendant was required to be told that he had the right to an attorney, and if he could not afford an attorney, one was to be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desired.

Question 26

Griswold v. Connecticut | legal question

Answer 26

Does the Constitution protect the right of marital privacy against state restrictions on a couple's ability to be counseled in the use of contraceptives?

Question 27

Griswold v. Connecticut | legal holdings and reasoning

Answer 27

Court ruled that the Constitution did in fact protect the right of marital privacy against state restrictions on contraception. While the Court explained that the Constitution does not explicitly protect a general right to privacy, the various guarantees within the Bill of Rights create penumbras, or zones, that establish a right to privacy. Together, the First, Third, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments create the right to privacy in marital relations. The Connecticut statute conflicted with the exercise of this right and was therefore held null and void.

Question 28

Plessy v. Ferguson | facts of the case

Answer 28

Louisiana enacted the Separate Car Act, which required separate railway cars for blacks and whites. In 1892, Homer Plessy – who was seven-eighths Caucasian – agreed to participate in a test to challenge the Act. When Plessy was told to vacate the whites-only car, he refused and was arrested.

Question 29

Plessy v. Ferguson | legal question

Answer 29

Does the Separate Car Act violate the Fourteenth Amendment?

Question 30

Plessy v. Ferguson | legal holdings and reasoning

Answer 30

The Court held that the state law was constitutional. In an opinion authored by Justice Henry Billings Brown, the majority upheld state-imposed racial segregation. Created the "separate but equal." doctrine.

Question 31

Brown v. Board of Education | facts of the case

Answer 31

African Americans were denied access to white schools, and the black schools were significantly worse than the white schools. Brown sued the board on the basis that the segregation violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The plaintiffs were denied relief in the lower courts based on the "separate but equal" doctrine.

Question 32

Brown v. Board of Education | legal question

Answer 32

Does the segregation of public education based solely on race violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Question 33

Brown v. Board of Education | legal holdings and reasoning

Answer 33

The Supreme Court held that “separate but equal” facilities are inherently unequal and violate the protections of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court reasoned that the segregation of public education based on race instilled a sense of inferiority that had a hugely detrimental effect on the education and personal growth of African American children.

Question 34

Barron v. Baltimore | facts of the case

Answer 34

Baltimore wharf owner John Barron alleged that construction by the city had diverted water flow in the harbor area. He argued that sand accumulations in the harbor deprived Barron of deep waters, which reduced his profits. He sued the city to recover a portion of his financial losses.

Question 35

Barron v. Baltimore | legal question

Answer 35

Does the Fifth Amendment deny the states as well as the national government the right to take private property for public use without justly compensating the property's owner?

Question 36

Barron v. Baltimore | legal holdings and reasoning

Answer 36

Writing for the unanimous Court, Chief Justice Marshall found that the limitations on government articulated in the Fifth Amendment were specifically intended to limit the powers of the national government. Started the process of incorporation

Question 37

What did Schneck v. US do?

Answer 37

Established the "clear and present danger test"

Question 38

Tinker v. Des Moines | facts of the case

Answer 38

Students wore black armbands to school in protest to the Vietnam war. The students did not return to school until after New Year's Day, the planned end of the protest. Through their parents, the students sued the school district for violating the students' right of expression and sought an injunction to prevent the school district from disciplining the students.

Question 39

Tinker v. Des Moines | legal question

Answer 39

Does a prohibition against the wearing of armbands in public school, as a form of symbolic protest, violate the students' freedom of speech protections guaranteed by the First Amendment?

Question 40

Tinker v. Des Moines | legal holdings and reasoning

Answer 40

SCOTUS ruled that while students did not lose their first amendment rights when they entered the school building, if a protest caused a disruption to learning, the school could end it. They also ruled that students shouldn't get punished since it was the administration that caused the disruption.