Early Supreme Court CasesWho do these judges think they are interpreting the constitution?

Marbury vs. Madison

Judicial Review is established.

After the 1800 election, Adams appoints new judges… John Adams (Federalist) signs

appointments on his last night in office.

Thomas Jefferson (Democratic Republican) is to take over as President.

What political party do you think the judges Adams appointed belonged to? Why did he did this?

“midnight judges”- what these new judges were referred to.

William Marbury was one of these “midnight judges.”

Why is Madison involved? James Madison, TJs new Secretary of

State, was supposed to officially present Marbury with his new position…But he didn’t!

So… Marbury sued and appealed to the Supreme Court to get Madison to award him the position…

The Verdict.Supreme Court refuses to grant Marbury

his position!!Why?A section of the Judiciary Act of 1789

(which set up the federal court system in the first place) was unconstitutional and void.

Lasting ImpactThis is the first time the Supreme

Court overturns an act of Congress. Checks & balances in action!Judicial Review- Supreme Court’s

ability to declare a law or act unconstitutional

McCulloch v. Maryland

More major cases…

Federalism and the Issue Federalism: Coexistence of Federal, state, and

local POWERS Second Bank of the United States created Maryland tried to impede operation of the BUS imposed a tax on all notes of banks not

chartered in Maryland BUS was the only out-of-state bank in Maryland

Fundamental Issues Does the Constitution grants Congress implied powers for implementing the Constitution's express powers?

Can a state’s action impede valid constitutional exercises of power by the Federal government?

The Verdict On the first question, Marshall argued that the

necessary and proper clause of the Constitution implied that Congress could charter a national bank

Congress was exercising its explicit power to regulate interstate commerce and coin and regulate money.

On the second question, Marshall wrote that "the power to tax is the power to destroy”

Allowing the state to tax the national bank violated the supremacy clause (Article VI) of the Constitution.

The Bank therefore is legal

“Necessary & proper” clause Article I (Legislative duh!)

Section 8.18 “To make all laws which shall be

necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.”

U. S. Constitution Article I: “The Congress shall have

power . . . to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.”

Article VI: “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof . . . shall be the supreme law of the land.”

Gibbons v. Ogden

The commerce clause…

Ogden’s Steamboat MonopolyUnder a New York law adopted in 1798,

Robert Livingston obtained a monopoly, or exclusive right, for steamboat navigation within the state of New York.

Any boats that competed with this monopoly would be forfeited by the owner.

More facts… In 1815, after the deaths of Livingston and

Fulton, Aaron Ogden obtained a right under the monopoly and began to run a steamboat between New Jersey and New York City.

In 1818 Thomas Gibbons, one of Ogden’s former partners, began a competing operation between Elizabethtown, New Jersey, and New York City.

Ogden sued Gibbons for violation of his monopoly and in 1820 New York's highest court found in Ogden’s favor.

In the US Supreme Court The Supreme Court unanimously concluded that

the New York law granting the monopoly was invalid. Chief Justice John Marshall wrote the Court’s opinion.

Marshall: “Commerce, undoubtedly, is traffic, but it is something more…” Marshall concluded that commerce included all navigation that is “in any manner connected with commerce.”

Intra- versus Inter-State Commerce Marshall stated that the power of

Congress to regulate commerce did not include commerce that was “completely internal” and that did not “extend to or affect other States.” The states had the power to regulate such completely internal commerce. However, the issue before the Court concerned commerce between two states and therefore involved federal authority over commerce.

Reconstruction Amendments Reconstruction = period after Civil War

when US needed to “put itself back together”

13th Amendment – abolished slavery 13 B Abolish

14th Amendment – citizenship, rights & immunities, equal protection

15th Amendment – guarantees vote for all men, regardless of race

14th Amendment Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

14th Amendment Section 5.

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

14th Amendment Establishes citizenship for freed-slaves &

African Americans “all those born or naturalized” in United States

Applies the Bill of Rights to the states Before it had mostly been left to state Bill of

Rights “Privileges and immunities” clause

Due process Equal protection of laws Congress has power to enforce

Gitlow v. New York 14th Amendment sort of ignored until Gitlow Gitlow – a socialist – is arrested for

distributing copies of “propaganda” calling for socialism & overthrow of the government

Arrested under state anarchy law Gitlow argues that since no actions took

place, the state was in violation of his free speech

Cross out second Swann v. CMS case

Decision Did New York’s law violate the personal freedoms

guaranteed by First Amendment? Decision:

YA SORT OF, First Amendment is subject to state protections too

BUT, Gitlow’s conviction was still upheld given the nature of his free speech

“dangerous tendency” Significance: first major case to explicitly

confirm 14th amendment to the protect individuals from states

Limits on Free Speech “Clear and present danger”

Cannot advocate violent overthrow “Fire in a crowded theater” Slander - the action or crime of making a false

spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation

Libel - a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation.

Obscenity – child pornography, vulgar materials, etc.

Dred Scott v. Sandford (1856) Dred Scott was a slave in Missouri. From 1833 to 1843, he resided in Illinois (a free

state) and part of Louisiana Territory where slavery was prohibited

After returning to Missouri, Scott sued unsuccessfully in the Missouri courts for his freedom, claiming that his residence in free territory made him a free man.

Scott then brought a new suit in federal court. Scott's master maintained that no pure-blooded Negro of African descent and the descendant of slaves could be a citizen

Decision Court agrees that no slave or

descendant of a slave was ever a citizen under the intent of the Constitution

Overturned by 14th Amendment

Plessy v. Ferguson (1895) The state of Louisiana enacted a law that required

separate railway cars for blacks and whites. In 1892, Homer Adolph Plessy--who was seven-

eighths Caucasian--took a seat in a "whites only" car of a Louisiana train. He refused to move to the car reserved for blacks and was arrested.

Is Louisiana's law mandating racial segregation on its trains an unconstitutional infringement on both the privileges and immunities and the equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Decision No, the state law is within constitutional

boundaries The justices based their decision on the

separate-but-equal doctrine, that separate facilities for blacks and whites satisfied the Fourteenth Amendment so long as they were equal

Segregation does not in itself constitute unlawful discrimination

Overturned by what Supreme Court case?

State of NC v. Mann (1830) John Mann is a slave-owner were was

charged with a crime for shooting a female slave who tried to escape during a beating

He sued stating that he could not be charged since his slaves were his property.

NC judge will side with Mann States his uneasiness with the case But says that legally, there is no crime being

committed

RECAP: In case you missed it…Highlights of some important cases

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) Gideon was charged in a Florida state court with a

felony for breaking and entering. He lacked funds and was unable to hire a lawyer to prepare his defense. When he requested the court to appoint an attorney for him, the court refused, stating that it was only obligated to appoint counsel to indigent defendants in capital cases. Gideon defended himself in the trial; he was convicted by a jury and the court sentenced him to five years in a state prison

Quit school after 8th grade Wrote his petition to re-hear the case in PENCIL while

he was in jail!

Decision 9 – 0 Sixth Amendment “right to

counsel” is fundamental to all Right to a lawyer

Justice Black: the “noble ideal” that “every defendant stands equal before the law”

Miranda v. Arizona (1966) Key Question:

Does the police practice of interrogating individuals without notifiying them of their right to counsel and their protection against self-incrimination violate the Fifth Amendment?

Decision: 5 – 4, Yes Establishes Miranda Rights

Must be made aware of your rights Can refuse to answer questioning without lawyer

present

DC v. Heller (2007) First Supreme Court case regarding 2nd

amendment in more than 70 years DC gun bans

Ban on handguns bought after 1976 Ban on carrying guns bought before 1976

without permit Shotguns and rifles in the home must be

unloaded

Decision Court rules ALL three gun bans /

provisions to be unconstitutional Argue that 2nd amendment allows for

right to own guns, unconnected to “militia purposes” (militia language is in original amendment)

5 – 4 decision Debates are ongoing about what exactly

the 2nd Amendment protects

McDonald v. Chicago (2010) More challenges after DC v. Heller Claim that Chicago handgun ban is

unconstitutional Decision: 5 – 4 again

Majority opinion: 14th Amendment protects 2nd Amendment rights from the State

Chicago’s ban is unconstitutional

Mapp v. Ohio (1960) 4th and 14th Amendments Can evidence obtained in violation of

the Fourth Amendment be used? 4th Amendment protections exist in ALL

courts, not just federal courts Court says NO

“exclusionary rule” Courts since the 1980s have frequently

limited when this can be used

Furman v. Georgia Does the imposition and carrying out of the death

penalty in these cases constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments? Court says YES Forces states to rethink and rewrite their DEATH

PENALTY laws What crimes should it include? Must make the decision less arbitrary

Led to “moratorium” on the death penalty until after Gregg v. Georgia Temporary stop of executions

Gregg v. Georgia Is the imposition of the death sentence

prohibited under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments as "cruel and unusual" punishment? Decided w/ several other cases including

one from North Carolina Court AFFIRMS use of capital

punishment in the United States

Roe v. Wade (1973) Is a women’s right to an abortion protected

by the United States constitution? The Court held that a woman's right to an

abortion fell within the right to privacy (recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut) protected by the Fourteenth Amendment Limits this to FIRST TRIMESTER (3 months) State’s can put limits on abortions after that

Texas v. Johnson (1988) Is the desecration of an American flag,

by burning or otherwise, a form of speech that is protected under the First Amendment? 5 – 4 decision stated that Johnson’s

actions were protected under 1st Amend.

Texas v. Johnson (1988) “if there is a bedrock principle underlying

the First Amendment, it is that the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable”

“We do not consecrate the flag by punishing its desecration, for in doing so we dilute the freedom that this cherished emblem represents”