Supreme Court Cases Court Case Baseball Cards Front

  • Slides: 29
Download presentation
Supreme Court Cases

Supreme Court Cases

Court Case Baseball Cards • • • Front 1 pt Case Name 1 pt

Court Case Baseball Cards • • • Front 1 pt Case Name 1 pt Case Date (year) 1 pt Illustration 1 pt Color Back • 2 pts Court Decision • 2 pts Impact of the decision • Total= 8 pts X 25 Cases = 200 pts

Marbury v. Madison (1803) • - The Supreme Court ruled that it has the

Marbury v. Madison (1803) • - The Supreme Court ruled that it has the power to decide the Constitutionality of all actions of Congress, Presidency and the States. • - This leads to JUDICIAL REVIEW- determines if a law is unconstitutional

Gibbons v. Ogden(1824) • The Case: Ogden was a licensed ferry operator between NY

Gibbons v. Ogden(1824) • The Case: Ogden was a licensed ferry operator between NY and NJ. He sues Gibbons, who has no license because it is hurting his business. • The Decision: The Supreme Court ruled that on the Federal government could regulate interstate trade.

Mc. Culloch v. Maryland(1819) • • Case? – State of MD wanted to tax

Mc. Culloch v. Maryland(1819) • • Case? – State of MD wanted to tax Federal bank – Federal gov’t said they couldn’t • • Decision? – Federal gov’t is supreme over state gov’t. • Impact? • - Reinforced the Supremacy Clause. Fed > State

Schenck v. The United States (1919) • During WWI he wrote pamphlets telling men

Schenck v. The United States (1919) • During WWI he wrote pamphlets telling men to resist the draft (refuse to fight). • – Was arrested Espionage Act. • • Decision? – Court said: free speech is more limited during wartime. • – Pamphlets presented “clear and present danger. ” – If men didn’t fight during war, country would • be in danger. • LIMITED YOUR RIGHTS

Schenck Cont. • Lasting result? – “Clear and present danger” test was applied to

Schenck Cont. • Lasting result? – “Clear and present danger” test was applied to see if speech could be LEGALLY restricted. • – Later changed to “imminent lawless action” test. • – If speech intends to cause or encourage a violation of the law, it CAN be limited.

Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) • • Case? • –Students wore black arm bands

Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) • • Case? • –Students wore black arm bands protesting Vietnam war. • –School told them they couldn’t. • –They sued. • • Decision? • - Court ruled in their favor. • - Symbolic speech is protected in schools if it isn’t disruptive. • EXTENDED YOUR RIGHTS

Bethel School District v. Frasier (1986) • • Case? • –Student made a speech

Bethel School District v. Frasier (1986) • • Case? • –Student made a speech with sexual innuendos • –Was suspended, not allowed to speak at graduation. • –He sued. • • Decision? • - Court sided with the school. • - Vulgar speech is not protected • LIMITED YOUR RIGHTS

Texas v. Johnson (1989) • • Case? • –Man burned an American flag in

Texas v. Johnson (1989) • • Case? • –Man burned an American flag in protest. • –There were laws against doing that, so he was arrested. • –He appealed • • Decision? • - Court upheld his free speech rights • - Burning a flag is protected free speech. • EXTENDED YOUR RIGHTS

Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988) • The Case: • - Students print a newspaper with

Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988) • The Case: • - Students print a newspaper with a sexually explicit story. • -The principal refuses to allow the story to be printed. • The Decision: • The Court rules that freedom of speech does not apply equally in school. • Limits your Rights

Engle v. Vitale (1962) • The Case: • A school in New York required

Engle v. Vitale (1962) • The Case: • A school in New York required students to say a prayer at the beginning of each school day thanking “Almighty God. ” • Jewish families objected saying it violated their freedom of religion. • The Decision: • Schools cannot force you to pray. There can be no official endorsement of religion. • EXTENDED YOUR RIGHTS

Miranda v. Arizona(1956) • • Ernesto Miranda, convicted of rape. • • He confessed,

Miranda v. Arizona(1956) • • Ernesto Miranda, convicted of rape. • • He confessed, but wasn’t told his rights • • 5 th Amendment (no self-incrimination) • • 6 th Amendment (right to attorney) • • Police read you “Miranda Rights” • EXTENDED YOUR RIGHTS

Gideon v. Wainright(1963) • • Clarence Gideon was arrested for robbing a pool hall.

Gideon v. Wainright(1963) • • Clarence Gideon was arrested for robbing a pool hall. • • He wasn’t given a lawyer because it wasn’t a major crime. He defended himself, and lost. • • 6 th Amendment (right to an attorney) • • You have the right to a court appointed attorney even in lesser crimes. • EXTENDED YOUR RIGHTS

TLO v. New Jersey(1985) • TLO (No name because she was under age) is

TLO v. New Jersey(1985) • TLO (No name because she was under age) is caught smoking in the bathroom. • The principal searches her purse and finds a bag of marijuana. She is arrested. • The Supreme Court upholds the arrest because “evidence in plain sight” is probable cause. • LIMITED YOUR RIGHTS- if there is probable cause the police have the right to search you.

Mapp v. Ohio (1961) • • Dollree Mapp. Police thought she was hiding a

Mapp v. Ohio (1961) • • Dollree Mapp. Police thought she was hiding a fugitive. • • They searched Mapp’s home without a warrant, found illegal documents, and charged her. She claimed it was illegal because they had no warrant. • • 4 th Amendment protects you from unreasonable searches or seizures • • Exclusionary rule. Evidence is excluded from court if it was found illegally. • EXTENDS YOUR RIGHTS

In re Gault (1967) • • Gerald Gault, age 15. • • Arrested for

In re Gault (1967) • • Gerald Gault, age 15. • • Arrested for juvenile delinquency. Wasn’t told his rights, or formally charged. • • The police violated his 5 th Amendment (due process, right to confront accuser) and 6 th Amendment (attorney) rights. • • Juveniles have same due process rights as adults. • EXTENDED YOUR RIGHTS

Furman v. Georgia(1972) • • Furman shot and killed a man that he was

Furman v. Georgia(1972) • • Furman shot and killed a man that he was robbing • Georgia was not using the death penalty consistently • –Temporarily stopped the death penalty. • –Ruled it was being applied unfairly, and so was unconstitutional. • EXTENDS YOUR RIGHTS

Gregg v. Georgia • –Death penalty okay again. • –Set up guidelines for states

Gregg v. Georgia • –Death penalty okay again. • –Set up guidelines for states to follow to make it consistent. • LIMITS YOUR RIGHTS

Dred Scot Vs Sanford(1857) • Case: Slave’s Master dies while they are visiting a

Dred Scot Vs Sanford(1857) • Case: Slave’s Master dies while they are visiting a free state. Slave sues for freedom • Decision: Slaves are considered property and therefore do not have the right to sue. • Limits Rights

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) • The Case • Homer Plessy refused to leave the

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) • The Case • Homer Plessy refused to leave the “whites- only” train car, and was arrested. He appealed to Supreme Court. • The Decision: • Whites-only = okay. Established “separate but equal” doctrine. • Impact: • Jim Crow laws and segregation. Separate schools, bathrooms, hotels, etc.

Brown v. The Board of Education (1954) • The Case: • Black parents sued

Brown v. The Board of Education (1954) • The Case: • Black parents sued because the black schools were inferior. Wanted integration. • Ruling: • Overturned Plessy v. Ferguson. Separate but equal can never be really equal. Schools had to integrate.

Swann v. CMS (1971) • The Case: • Court ruled that busing could be

Swann v. CMS (1971) • The Case: • Court ruled that busing could be used to integrate schools. • The Decision: • CMS forced to begin busing, schools were successfully integrated. Lasted until 2002.

The Leandro Case (1997) • The Case: sound basic education • A student in

The Leandro Case (1997) • The Case: sound basic education • A student in a poor rural community sues because his school does not offer the same classes as wealthy schools. • The Decision: (By the NC Supreme Court) • All students are entitled to an EQUAL education. State must spend same amount on all students.

Definition of a Sound Basic Education • (1) Sufficient ability to read, write and

Definition of a Sound Basic Education • (1) Sufficient ability to read, write and speak the English language and sufficient knowledge of fundamental mathematics and physical science to enable the student to function in a complex and rapidly changing society; • (2) sufficient fundamental knowledge of geography, history and basic economic and political systems to enable the student to make informed choices with regard to issues that affect the student personally or affect the student’s community, state, and nation; • (3) sufficient academic and vocational skills to enable the student to successfully engage in post-secondary education or vocational training; • (4) sufficient academic and vocational skills to enable the student to compete on an equal basis with others in further formal education or gainful employment in contemporary society.

The Regents of U of Cal. v. Bakke (1978) • Case: • A white

The Regents of U of Cal. v. Bakke (1978) • Case: • A white student sues UCAL over Affirmative action. Affirmative Action = All else equal, accept minority students. • Ruling: To get diversity? Yes. Quotas? No. • EXTENDED YOUR RIGHTS

Korematsu v. The United States (1944) • The Case: • Asian Americans are put

Korematsu v. The United States (1944) • The Case: • Asian Americans are put into internment camps during WWII on suspicion they are spies for the Japanese. • The Decision: • Your civil liberties may be limited during times of war. • LIMITED YOUR RIGHTS

Heart of Atlanta Hotel v. US (1964) • The Case: The Heart of Atlanta

Heart of Atlanta Hotel v. US (1964) • The Case: The Heart of Atlanta hotel refused to serve minority customers. It argued that because it was a private establishment it could choose who to serve. • The Decision: The Supreme Court ruled that businesses CAN NOT descriminate against customers based on protected status. • EXTENDED YOUR RIGHTS

Roe v. Wade (1973) • The Case: • A woman seeks an early term

Roe v. Wade (1973) • The Case: • A woman seeks an early term abortion. Is arrested for manslaughter. • The Decision: • Women can make medical decisions about their own body, including the termination of pregnancy, under certain circumstances.