SCOTUS Cases Flashcards
Review/Test Facts and meanings of Supreme Court Cases that are significant.
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)
Supremacy Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause
Facts of the Case:
In 1816, the Second Bank of the United States was chartered; soon after, in 1818, however, Maryland decided to pass a law that imposed taxes on the bank. James McCulloch, who served as a cashier at the Baltimore branch of the Second Bank, decided not to pay the tax. The state court had ruled that the Bank was unconstitutional, to begin with, and that the federal government did not have the authority to charter a bank.
Issue:
Did Congress have the implied power to create a bank? And could states tax a federal entity/bank?
Holding and Rationale:
Congress concluded based on the Necessary & Proper Clause that Congress is not limited by its expressed powers. It was decided that, through Congress’s implied powers, they had the ability to create a bank. Congress also concluded, based on the Supremacy Clause, that because the national laws were superior to state laws, the states were not allowed to tax the federal government.
United States v. Lopez (1995)
Commerce Clause
Facts of the Case:
Alfonzo Lopez was a Texas high school senior who took a concealed weapon into his school. Federal charges were soon imposed because he violated the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. The act stated that individuals could not possess firearms within school zones based on the premise of the Commerce Clause.
Issue:
Did the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 exceed the power allowed by the clause?
Holding and Rationale:
In the ruling, the law was considered unconstitutional since having a gun in the school zone did not substantially affect interstate commerce, which is a clear provision in the commerce clause. This case also reaffirmed the Tenth Amendment, which protects states’ rights. It was clear through this case that the commerce clause did not grant Congress limitless power.
Engel v. Vitale (1962)
Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment
Facts of the Case:
The New York Board of Regents had authorized that at the beginning of each day, a short but voluntary prayer would be recited. Several organizations filed suit against the Board of Regents, claiming that the prayer violated the Constitution. The New York Court of Appeals dismissed their arguments.
Issue:
Did this voluntary and non-denominational prayer violate the Establishment Clause of the Constitution, which states that a law could not be made “respecting an establishment of religion”?
Holding and Rationale:
The court held that states could not hold prayers in public school EVEN IF it was voluntary and EVEN IF the prayer did not adhere to a specific religion. Because the act of prayer was considered a religious activity, having it occur in a public school (which is funded by the government) would go against the establishment clause of the first amendment.
School sponsorship of religious activities = violation of first amendment
Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)
Free Exercise Clause of the 1st Amendment
Facts of the Case:
Jonas Yoder, as well as other Amish parents, refused to send their children to school after the 8th grade. In accordance with their religion, they did not agree with high school attendance. They were later charged under a Wisconsin law that required students to attend school until age 16.
Issue:
By requiring Wisconsin parents to send their children to school, without a faith exception, did the state violate the parents’ rights to freely exercise their religion?
Holding and Rationale:
The court held that the requirement to send children to school beyond the eighth grade was unconstitutional. It stated that an individual’s interest in the free exercise of religion was more powerful than a federal interest in sending children to school beyond the eighth grade.
Tinker v. Des Moines Community School District (1969)
Freedom of (Symbolic) Speech Clause of the 1st Amendment
Facts of the Case:
A group of students decided to wear black armbands in order to protest the Vietnam War. Mary Beth Tinker and Christopher Eckhardt decided that they would wear their armbands to school despite warnings from school administration. After wearing the armbands to school, they were sent home. The students decided to sue their school district for violating the freedom of expression.
Issue:
Was the prohibition against wearing these armbands (and in general - symbolic protest) violated the freedom of speech clause of the First Amendment?
Holding and Rationale:
The Supreme Court held that students still have free speech rights at school, and in order to justify the suppression of speech, the speech must substantially interfere with school operations. This case relates directly to the First Amendment, and the ruling confirmed that students’ right of symbolic speech was more powerful than the potential disorder that it could cause.
New York Times Co v. United States (1971)
Freedom of the Press Clause of the 1st Amendment
Facts of the Case:
This case, also known as the Pentagon Papers case had to do with the First Amendment. The Nixon Administration tried to prevent the New York Times from publishing material that belonged to a Defense Department study about US intervention in Vietnam. President Nixon stated that it was necessary to national security to prohibit it before publication, also known as prior restraint.
Issue:
Was the Nixon administration’s prior restraint constitutional and is preventing the publication of “classified material” a violation of the First Amendment’s freedom of the press?
Holding and Rationale:
The Supreme Court, in this case, bolstered the freedom of the press guaranteed by the First Amendment. In a 6-3 vote, the Court established that there was a “heavy presumption against prior restraint” even for national security purposes. They resaoned that the release of the Pentagon Papers would not threaten National Security and Nixon was more concerned about his reputation.
Schenck v. United States (1919)
Freedom of Speech Clause of the 1st Amendment
Facts of the Case:
During World War I, a pair of socialists, including Charles Schenck distributed leaflets that stated the draft violated the 13th Amendment - which prohibits involuntary servitude. The leaflet wanted people to disobey the draft. Schenck was charged with violating the Espionage Act of 1917. They appealed on the grounds of the First Amendment.
Issue:
Did the Espionage Act violate the First Amendment and was it an appropriate way that Congress exercised its wartime authority?
Holding and Rationale:
The Supreme Court held that the Espionage Act did not violate the First Amendment and it was an appropriate exercise of Congress’ wartime authority. This was a key limitation on the First Amendment as the free speech clause does not allow for advocacy of unlawful behavior.
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)
Right to Counsel Clause of the 6th Amendment and Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment
Facts of the Case:
Clarence Earl Gideon was charged in Florida state court on a felony - breaking and entering charge. During his trial, Gideon requested that he receive a court-appointed lawyer; however, in accordance with Florida State law, an indigent defendant could only have an attorney be appointed in capital crimes/cases. Gideon then filed a habeas corpus suit, stating that the court’s decision violated his rights to be represented.
Issue:
Does the right to counsel guaranteed in this 6th amendment also apply to felony defendants in state court?
Holding and Rationale:
The holding was that the Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel applies to state court defendants via the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court stated that because the right of counsel is fundamental, it should be incorporated into the states.
McDonald v. Chicago (2010)
Right to Bear Arms Clause of the 2nd Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment
Facts of the Case:
Chicago passed a handgun ban law, and several suits were filed against the city challenging the ban after another case (District of Columbia v. Heller). In that case, the Court had held that a DC handgun ban violated the Second Amendment. There, since the law was enacted by the federal government, the Second Amendment was applicable.
Issue:
Does the 2nd Amendment’s right to bear arms (interpreted as an individual right) also applied to the states?
Holding and Rationale:
In its decision, the Court stated that the handgun ban was unconstitutional in a 5-4 decision. Because the right to self-defense was fundamental, the 2nd Amendment was incorporated to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause.
Brown v. Board of Education (1954)
Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment
Facts of the Case:
Relating to the racial segregation of schools, African American students had been denied admission into to public schools because segregation laws and many argued that this was in violation of the Constitution.
Issue:
This was an issue in terms of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. A previous case, Plessy v. Ferguson, held that segregated facilities were legal as long as the facilities were equal (called “separate but equal doctrine.”) In this case, racial segregation in public school education was argued against based on the Equal Protection Clause.
Holding and Rationale:
The Court held that “separate but equal is inherently unequal,” and therefore racial segregation of public schools is unconstitutional. The segregated schools allowed by the previous Plessy case were declared unconstitutional.
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010)
Free Speech of the 1st Amendment
Facts of the Case:
The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 had previously banned corporations from independent political spending and direct contributions to campaigns or political parties. In 2008, Citizens United was not allowed to show an anti-Hillary Clinton movie.
Issue:
Does the BCRA apply to nonprofits, or does the First Amendment’s free speech clause protect such political speech?
Holding and Rationale:
The holding in this case was that corporations should be considered people and therefore their funding of “independent political expenditures cannot be limited.” This is considered a form of political speech, which is protected by the free speech portion of the First Amendment.
Baker v. Carr (1962)
Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment
Facts of the Case:
Charles Baker stated that an old law (1901) that detailed the apportionment for Tennessee’s General Assembly had been ignored, and stated that reapportionment did not take into account the significant change that the state had gone through.
Issue:
Does the Supreme Court as a unit have the authority to hear cases that related to legislative apportionment?
Holding and Rationale:
The chief justice and the Court concluded that because of the Fourteenth Amendment issues (through equal protection) that the case seemed to address, the Supreme Court did have the authority to hear this case.
Shaw v. Reno (1993)
Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment
Facts of the Case:
Several North Carolina residents challenged a proposed, unusually shaped district. They believed that the only purpose of the district was that it would definitely elect African-American representatives.
Issue:
Did racial gerrymandering take place with this district (it was very narrow) and does the dirict raise an Equal Protection Clause question?
Holding and Rationale:
The Supreme Court held, in a majority opinion authored by Sandra Day O’Connor, that because the district was shaped in such a clearly odd way, it was enough to prove that there was a very apparent effort to separate voters racially. Majority-minority districts can be constitutionally challenged if race was the sole factor in their creation.
Marbury v. Madison (1803)
Judicial Review
Facts of the Case:
The 1800 election ended in a defeat for John Adams to Thomas Jefferson. Before Adams’ term ended, Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1801 (creating new courts, adding new judges). It was an effort by John Adams to keep his own influence in federal courts even though he was leaving office (still occurs today.) His appointments to these courts, however, were not valid until the appointed judges were delivered their commissions by Jefferson’s Secretary of State. Marbury was one of the judges appointed; however, his commission was not delivered.
Issue:
DId the Court have the authority to order the delivery of commission, and if a federal judge could even bring the case to court?
Holding and Rationale:
The Court held that although legally, the commission should have been delivered, the clause of the Judiciary Act of 1789 which enabled Marbury to bring the case to court was unconstitutional. By declaring a law made by Congress unconstitutional, the practice of judicial review was established.
