SUPREME COURT CASES n n n n Marbury

SUPREME COURT CASES n n n n Marbury v. Madison (1803) Mc. Culloch v. Maryland (1819) Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857) Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) Schenck v. United States (1919) Korematsu v. United States (1944) Brown v. Board of Education (1954) Mapp v. Ohio (1961) Engel v. Vitale (1962) Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) Heart of Atlanta Motel v US (1964) Abbington v Schemp Miranda v. Arizona (1966) Leandro v NC State v Mann n n n In re Gault (1967) Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) NY Times v. United States (1971) Swann v Charlotte Mecklenburg (1971) Furman v Georgia (1972) Roe v. Wade (1973) United States v. Nixon (1974) Gregg v Georgia (1976) Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) New Jersey v. T. L. O (1985) Bethel School District v Fraser (1986) Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988) Texas v. Johnson (1989)

Marbury v Madison

Marbury v Madison (1803) Issue: Separation of Power Court Case: Marbury sued Madison because he did not receive commission to be a justice of the peace. Marbury asked the Supreme Court to issue an order to force Madison to give him his commission. Court Ruling: Against Marbury –. Ruled a portion of the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional. 1 st act of Congress to be declared unconstitutional. Precedent: established judicial review – power of the court to decide whether actions of Congress are constitutional.

Mc. Culloch v Maryland (1819) Mc. Culloch v. Maryland (1819) Issue: Federalism (State v. Federal Government) Court Case: Mc. Culloch was a branch manager for the Bank of the United States. Refused to pay a tax to the state of Maryland was arrested. He appealed conviction on the grounds that a state could not tax the federal government. Court Ruling: In favor of Mc. Culloch. Precedent: States cannot tax the federal government.

Mc. Cullough v Maryland

Gibbons v Ogden (1824) Issue: Federalism & Interstate Commerce Court Case: Ogden was given an exclusive charter for a ferry boat off the coast of New York state and New Jersey by the NY state government. Gibbons was given a charter by the US government to operate a ferry boat in the same waters. Court Ruling: In favor of Gibbons. Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. Federal government over state. Precedent: Congress/Federal Government regulates interstate commerce

Dred Scott v Sanford (1857) Issue: 5 th Amendment, Slavery, Missouri Compromise of 1820 Court Case: Dred Scott sued his owner Sanford because he had been taken into free territory. Scott thought that due to the Missouri Compromise Line which made slavery illegal in certain areas of the country, he had become free. Court Ruling: Court ruled in favor of Sanford. 1) Slaves were considered property, thus did not have the right to sue in court. 2) Would deprive owner of 5 th Amendment due process rights if he were stripped of property. Precedent: Missouri Compromise was ruled unconstitutional, slaves could not sue for freedom.

Plessy v Ferguson

Plessy v Ferguson (1896) Issue: 14 th Amendment (Equal Protection) Court Case: Herman Plessy, 1/8 black, challenged a Louisiana law that mandated separate railroad cars for blacks and whites. Plessy sat on a car designated to whites and was arrested. Court Decision: In favor of Louisiana law. Was not ruled a violation of the 14 th Amendment, equal protection clause. Precedent: Separate but equal constitutional. Led to an increase of segregation particularly in southern states.

Schenck v US (1919) Issue: 1 st Amendment – Times of War Court Case: Schenck circulated a flyer during World War I urging people to dodge the draft. Citing the draft as a violation of the 13 th Amendment (involuntary servitude). Schenck was arrested under terms of the Espionage Act of 1917. Schenck appealed conviction on grounds that his 1 st Amendment right had been violated. Court Ruling: In favor of the United States. Urging citizens to break the law, and posed a threat to security of the nation if successful (clear and present danger). Precedent: 1 st Amendment rights, as well as others can be limited during times of war.

Korematsu v US http: //www. freeinfosociety. com/article. php? id=10

Korematsu v US (1944) Issue: 5 th & 14 th Amendment – Times of War Court Case: During World War II, the US military issued an order to place Japanes Americans in internment camps. Korematsu sued the US government on the grounds that it was a violation of 5 th Amendment due process, and the 14 th Amendment. Court Ruling: In favor of the United States government. Precedent: During times of war, certain group’s rights can be limited. (Clear & Present Danger Rule)

Brown v Topeka Board of Ed http: //www. youtube. com/watch? v=TTGHLdr-iak

Brown v Board of Education (1954) Issue: 14 th Amendment – Equal Protection (Separate but Equal) Court Case: Brown sued the Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas because his daughter had to walk seven blocks to catch a bus to a segregated school when there was a school within six blocks of her house. This was part of a class action suit against the Board of Education. Court Ruling: The court ruled separate educational facilities were inherently unequal. The ruling in this case led to the beginning of the Civil Rights Movement, and began the end of segregation. Overturned the decision in Plessy v. Ferguson. Precedent: Separate but Equal is unconstitutional.

Mapp v Ohio

Mapp v Ohio (1961) Mapp v. Ohio (1961) Issue: 4 th Amendment (Search & Seizure) Court Case: Police in Cleveland, Ohio believed a fugitive was being kept by Mapp in her home. The police came to her house demanding entrance, Mapp refused because they did not have a warrant. Later police came back, broke into her home, and produced a fake warrant. They did not find the fugitive, but did find pornographic materials. She was arrested and convicted. Mapp appealed the decision as a violation of the 4 th Amendment. Court Ruling: The court ruled in favor of Mapp. Precedent: Illegal evidence cannot be used in court.

Engel v Vitale (1962)

Engel v Vitale (1962) Issue: 1 st Amendment – Freedom of Religion/Separation of Church and State Court Case: Students in New York State were reciting a prayer to begin the school day. Even though students were not required to recite the prayer, parents felt this was a violation of the 1 st Amendment. Court Ruling: The court ruled that this was a violation of the establishment clause because it was a prayer, and it was being recited in a public school. Precedent: School prayer is unconstitutional.

Gideon v Wainwright (1963)

Gideon v Wainwright (1963) Issue: 6 th Amendment, 14 th Amendment Court Case: Gideon was arrested for burglary of a Florida pool hall. He appeared in court and asked that an attorney be appointed to him. The court denied the request on the grounds that under Florida law, only a person accused of a capital crime received a court appointed attorney. Court Decision: The court ruled in favor of Gideon, stating that Florida had violated the 6 th Amendment and 14 th Amendment, equal protection clause. Precedent: Indigent defendants (cannot afford an attorney) must be provided counsel in all felony cases.

Heart of Atlanta Motel v US (1964) Issue: 5 th Amendment, Interstate Commerce, & Segregation Court Case: The Heart of Atlanta Motel sued the US government over the Constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Heart of Atlanta Motel wanted to continue not allowing Blacks to stay at the Motel. Court Ruling: The court ruled in favor of the US and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The court ruled that the interstate commerce clause allowed the US to ban the motel’s discriminatory practice due to the fact that more than ½ of the motel’s business came from out of state. Precedent: Allowed the Federal Government to stop discrimination through use of the interstate commerce clause.

Miranda v Arizona

Miranda v Arizona (1966) Issue: 5 th & 6 th Amendment Court Case: Ernesto Miranda was arrested for kidnapping and rape. Miranda confessed to the crime, but was not told of his Constitutional rights prior to the interrogation. Miranda appealed the conviction on the grounds that the police had violated his rights by not informing him. Court Ruling: In favor of Miranda. The police had violated his rights. Police are required to read the “Miranda Warnings”. Tell suspects of their right to remain silent, to have an attorney, etc… Precedent: Police must inform suspects of their 5 th & 6 th Amendment rights prior to questioning.

In re Gault

In re Gault (1967) Issue: 5 th, 6 th, & 14 th Amendments (Juvenile Rights) Court Case: Gerald Gault (15 yrs. old) was taken into custody for prank calling neighbor. Taken to juvenile detention center, eventually being sentenced to remain there until he was 18 years old. Court Ruling: Ruled in favor of Gault overturning the Arizona courts. Court ruled that Arizona had violated his 14 th Amendment rights to equal protection by not allowing him various 5 th & 6 th Amendment rights. Precedent: Juveniles have many of the same due process rights as adults in court.

Tinker v Des Moines (1969) Issue: 1 st Amendment – Freedom of Speech/Expression Court Case: Three students wore armbands with a peace sign on them to school as a form of protest against the escalating violence in Vietnam. The students were told to remove the armbands, they refused, and were suspended from school until they returned without the armbands. The parents filed a lawsuit against the school system for this action stating that it violated the 1 st Amendment. Court Ruling: The court ruled in favor of the students. The court stated that schools could establish dress codes, but neede 3 d to show that a reasonable disruption is being caused to the learning environment to ban items. In this case, the school could not show this. Precedent: Schools must show a reasonable disruption to learning environment. Upheld 1 st Amendment rights of students.

NY Times v US (1971) Issue: 1 st Amendment (Freedom of the Press) Court Case: During US involvement in Vietnam, the Pentagon put together a paper which outlined US decision-making in Vietnam. This classified document was leaked to the NY Times and the Washington Post. The NY Times began publishing the findings, but the government filed an injunction to stop the paper from printing. The NY Times sued on the grounds that it violated the 1 st Amendment. Court Ruling: The court ruled in favor of the NY Times. The court state that it was the right of the paper to print this material because they had received the information legally. Precedent: Prior restraint is unconstitutional. Government must be able to prove a “clear and present danger”.

Swann v Charlotte Mecklenburg (1971) Issue: 14 th Amendment – School Segregation & Busing Court Case: Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools were being sued over the plan to desegregate schools. Court Ruling: The court set up a plan for desegregating schools which could include busing. School systems had to show an effort to desegregate schools. Precedent: Federal government had the authority to mandate desegregation of public schools under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Furman v Georgia (1972) Issue: 8 th & 14 th Amendment (Death Penalty) Court Case: William Furman was burglarizing a house when the victim woke up. Furman shot the victim, but said it was an accident. Because he was committing a felony and committed murder, the State of Georgia sentenced him to death. Court Ruling: Furman appealed his sentence because he thought it was a violation of the 8 th Amendment against cruel & unusual punishment. Court ruled in favor of Furman overturning the death penalty. Precedent: Death penalty ruled cruel & unusual punishment. Capital punishment must be specifically identified by the law.

Roe v Wadw

Roe v Wade (1973) Issue: 9 th & 14 th Amendment Court Case: Texas law did not allow women to have abortion/CHOICE unless advised by a doctor because woman’s life was in jeopardy. “Jane Roe” class action lawsuit questioned the constitutionality of the law. Court Ruling: The court ruled in favor of Roe. Stated that states cannot pass laws banning abortion during the 1 st trimester (3 months). Precedent: States cannot ban abortion during the 1 st trimester.

US v Nixon

US v Nixon (1974) Issue: Separation of Power – Checks & Balances Court Case: During the presidential election of 1972, a group of members of C. R. E. E. P. broke into DNC headquarters. During investigation, President Nixon was linked to the group, and a court issued a subpoena for Nixon to turn over audiotapes of White House proceedings. Nixon refused citing executive privilege. Court Ruling: Does executive privilege exist? Yes What is its definition? President can keep information if it is a matter of national security. In this case, executive privilege did not apply. Nixon eventually resigned from office. Precedent: Executive Privilege exists, must show national security.

Gregg v GA

Gregg v Georgia (1976) Issue: 8 th & 14 th Amendments (Cruel & Unusual Punishment) Court Case: Troy Leon Gregg and another hitchhiker committed murder and armed robbery. He was sentenced to death in Georgia, and appealed the conviction on the grounds that it violated the 8 th Amendment. Court Ruling: The court ruled against Gregg, stating the Georgia law did not violate the 8 th Amendment. Precedent: Capital punishment is upheld as a punishment for certain types of crime.

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) Case Summary Allan Bakke filed suit after learning that minority candidates with lower qualifications had been admitted to medical school under a program that reserved spaces for “disadvantaged” applicants. The California Supreme Court ordered the school, the State-run University of California, to admit Bakke. The university then appealed to the United States Supreme Court. The Court's Decision A splintered Supreme Court affirmed the judgment ordering Bakke's admission to the medical school of the University of California at Davis and invalidating the school's special admissions program. However, the Court did not prohibit the school from considering race as a factor in future admissions decisions. Justice Lewis Powell, Jr. , announced the Court's judgment. Four justices agreed with his conclusions as to Bakke individually, and four other justices agreed with the ruling as to use of race information in the future.

Continued Justice Powell wrote that “the guarantee of Equal Protection cannot mean one thing when applied to one individual and something else when applied to a person of another color. ” He did not, however, prohibit schools from considering race as one factor in the admissions process. Justice Thurgood Marshall argued that race could properly be considered in an affirmative action program, a policy of taking positive steps to remedy the effects of past discrimination. “In light of the sorry history of discrimination and its devastating impact on the lives of Negroes, bringing the Negro into the mainstream of American life should be a state interest of the highest order. To fail to do so is to ensure that America will forever remain a divided society. I do not believe that the Fourteenth Amendment requires us to accept that fate. ”

NJ v TLO

New Jersey v T. L. O. (1985) Issue: 4 th Amendment (Search & Seizure) Court Case: T. L. O. was accused of smoking in the bathroom at a high school. She denied and her purse was searched. School officials found cigarettes, rolling papers, marijuana, numerous $1 bills, and a list of students who owed her money. T. L. O. appealed her expulsion on the grounds that her 4 th Amendment rights had been violated. Court Decision: The court ruled in favor of the school. The court stated that the need to keep guns and drugs out of school created a situation that school officials should be given greater latitude in searches. Precedent: Reasonable Suspicion Rule for school searches. Limited the 4 th Amendment rights of students.

Bethel School District v Fraser (1986) Issue: 1 st Amendment (Freedom of Speech in School) Court Case: Matthew Fraser gave a speech endorsing a fellow student for an elected office. During the speech he made comments using an explicit sexual metaphor. He was suspended for three days, and denied the right to speak at graduation. Court Ruling: Fraser appealed the ruling as a violation of his 1 st Amendment Rights. The court ruled in favor of the school, and the right to ban certain speech. Precedent: 1 st Amendment rights to freedom of speech can be limited if school can show a reasonable disruption to the learning environment.

Hazelwood School District v Kuhlmeier (1988) Issue: 1 st Amendment (Freedom of the Press) Court Case: A group of former high school students filed suit against a principal and school system because the principal had deleted an article about teenage pregnancy and divorce from the school newspaper. Court Decision: The court ruled in favor of the principal. The principal has the right to edit the newspaper, and delete materials that he/she is inappropriate to maintain the educational environment. Precedent: 1 st Amendment rights of students limited.

Texas v Johnson

Texas v Johnson (1989) Issue: 1 st Amendment & Flag Burning Court Case: In 1984 the Republican Party held the National Convention in Dallas, Texas. Many groups staged protests. As a part of the protests, Johnson set fire to an American Flag, and was arrested s Texas had a law banning the burning of the Texas State Flag, and the US Flag. Johnson appealed on the grounds that the law violated his 1 st Amendment rights. Court Ruling: In favor of Johnson. As a result, some groups would like to add a Constitutional Amendment to ban flag burning as a form of protest. Precedent: Flag burning protected by the 1 st Amendment.

Morse v. Frederick (2006) Issue: 1 st Amendment (Student Free Expression) Court Case: Students were excused from school by the principal to watch the Olympic Torch relay go through their town. A group of students, led by Joseph Frederick displayed a sign that read “Bong Hits for Jesus” in order to gain attention. When the principal saw the sign on the news she suspended for violating the school’s anti-drug policy. Frederick appealed saying his message didn’t cause a disruption. Court Ruling: In favor of Morse (the principal) saying that schools can prohibit students from displaying messages that promote drug use. Even though it wasn’t on school grounds it was a school sponsored event. Precedent: Schools right to protect its students.

State v Mann n n In 1829, Elizabeth Jones, who owned a slave named Lydia, hired her out for a year to John Mann of Chowan County. Mann shot and wounded Lydia when she struggled to escape a whipping. Mann was found guilty of battery by a jury of twelve white men drawn from his community and the court (Superior Court Judge Joseph J. Daniel) imposed a five dollar fine. The North Carolina Supreme Court overruled the conviction on the grounds that slaves were the absolute property of their owners who could not be punished at common law unless the legislature authorized such punishment.

Leandro v NC

n n n (1997) Leandro v. North Carolina Six urban school districts stated that the state funding formula did not provide them with sufficient money to educate their atrisk students and students for whom English is not their first language. NOT EQUAL!!! North Carolina Supreme Court cases requiring that public school FUNDING must be EQUAL & FAIR! “. . . every child of this state shall have an opportunity to receive a sound basic education in our public schools. ”

Martin Luther King I Have a Dream n http: //teachertube. com/view. Video. php? vid eo_id=94828