Landmark Supreme court cases

14th Amendment Cases•State & federal citizenship for all persons

regardless of race both born or naturalized in the United States was reaffirmed.

•No state would be allowed to abridge the "privileges & immunities" of citizens.

•No person was allowed to be deprived of life, liberty or property without "due process of law."

•No person could be denied "equal protection of the laws."

State v. Mann(1829)

Issue: 14th Amendment Equal Protection

Court Case:

John Mann had beaten a slave & gravely wounded her over a trifle offense

Authorities charged him with battery because the offense did not match the punishment

Court Ruling: it was in favor of Mann, because the Master’s right was absolute. Justice Ruffin refused legal protection to slaves.

Precedent: This case declared the rights & protections of the slave in relation to their master - there were not any. Slaves were not people but property

3

Dred Scott v Sanford (1857)

Issue: 5th Amendment, Slavery, Missouri Compromise of 1820Court Case: Sanford lived in MO (a slave state) Took Scott to IL (a free state) Scott said he was now free due to the Missouri Compromise

Line (made slavery illegal in certain areas of the country)Is he a free citizen?

Court Ruling: States cannot deprive a person of his right to property

Precedent: Missouri Compromise was ruled unconstitutional, slaves could not sue for freedom.

Plessy v Ferguson (1896)

Issue: 14th Amendment (Equal Protection)

Court Case: Plessy, 1/8 black, challenged a Louisiana law that mandated separate railroad cars for blacks & whites. He sat on a car designated to whites & was arrested.

Court Decision: Supported Louisiana law. Did not violate of the 14th Amendment, equal protection clause.

Precedent: Established the concept of “separate but equal” in public facilities. Led to an increase of segregation particularly in southern states.

Brown v Board of Education (1954)

Issue: 14th 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: Schools were desegregated. Separate is unequal. Separate but equal has no placeOverturned Plessy v. Ferguson

Precedent: Separate but Equal is unconstitutional. Led to the beginning of the Civil Rights

In re Gault (1966)Issue: 14th Amendment – Due Process Court Case

Sent to juvenile detention for an alleged obscene phone call, no lawyer, no witnesses

Court RulingJuveniles are provide due process as well as

adults. Prior to this ruling juvenile crimes were handled in family law not criminal law

Precedent: Minors have the 14th Amendment rights as adults. This case provides council for minors.

Swann v. CMS Bd of Ed(1971)

Issue: 14th Amendment Court Case: (17 yrs after Brown)

CMS was not integrated even though Brown v. Board of Ed said that segregation is not okay

Court Ruling Court ordered busing to integrate schools This decision changed the landscape of CMS

schools by forcing the busing of students outside their neighborhood school

This lead to forced desegregation of schools Precedent:

All schools must desegregate even if it means bussing students

Furman v Georgia (1972)Issue: 8th & 14th Amendment (Death Penalty)

Court Case: Furman was burglarizing a house victim woke upHe accidently shot the victimBecause he was committing a felony & committed

murder, the State of Georgia sentenced him to death.

Court Ruling: Court ruled in favor of Furman overturning the death penalty.

Precedent: Death penalty ruled cruel &

unusual punishment

Roe v Wade (1973)Issue: 9th & 14th Amendment

Court Case: Texas law did not allow women to have abortion 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 1st trimester (3 months).

Precedent: States cannot ban abortion during the 1st trimester.

Regents of U Cal v Bakke (1978)

Issue: 14th Amendment (Equal Protection)

Court Case: Bakke applied for admission to the University of California at Davis Medical School(Affirmative Action) Bakke (white) was denied admission,

but was more qualified than many of the minority applicants.

Bakke sued because of the school’s admission policy.

Court Ruling: In favor of Bakke.

Precedent: Affirmative Action cases

would be decided on a case by case

basis.

Leandro v. NC1997

Issue:

Court Case:Poorer school districts thought they did not receive their fair share of the state money for education These districts could not provide the same salaries, services, or supplies as wealthier districts. Court Ruling: State SC decided that the money did not need to be divided up equal between the districts.Precedent: each student had a right to a proper education. The state was to decide where the funds went rather than the districts.

12

Supremacy ClauseU.S. Constitution, federal statutes & U.S.

treaties as "the supreme law of the land“It provides that these are the highest form

of law in the U.S. legal system, & mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law & either the state constitution or state law of any state.

McCulloch v Maryland (1819)

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)Issue: Federalism (State v. Federal Government)

Court Case: McCulloch was a branch manager for the Bank of the US. 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 McCulloch.

Precedent: States cannot tax the federal government.

Commerce ClauseCongress has the power to regulate

Commerce with foreign Nations & among the several States & with the Indian Tribes

This power is enumerated power of Congress & the Supreme Court

Congress can limit the rights of the states to regulate commerce within their own borders

Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) Issue: Supremacy ClauseCourt Case:

Ogden had NY state license to ferry people from NYC to NJ

Gibbons also ferried people but had no state license but did have a federal coasting license

Court Ruling:The Federal government has the power

over the state to regulate interstate commerce.

Precedent: Federal license prevails over a State License

Heart of Atlanta Motel v US (1964)

Issue: 5th 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 & 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.

Executive PowersPresident has broad powers to manage

national affairs & the workings of the federal government

President can issue rules, regulations & instructions called executive orders

These orders have the binding force of law upon federal agencies but do not require congressional approval

US v Nixon (1974)Issue: Separation of Power – Checks & Balances

Court Case: Presidential election of 1972Group of members of C.R.E.E.P. broke into DNC hqDuring investigation, Nixon was linked to the groupCourt issued a subpoena for Nixon to turn over

audiotapes

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.

1st Amendment: Establishment ClauseCongress shall make no law respecting an

establishment of religion. . .

Engel v Vitale (1962)Issue: 1st Amendment – Freedom of

Religion/Separation of Church & 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 1st Amendment.

Court Ruling: The court ruled that this was a violation of the establishment clause because it was a prayer, & it was being recited in a public school.

Precedent: School prayer is unconstitutional.

1st Amendment: Expression

Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech or press

political right to communicate one's opinions & ideas

Schenck v. US (1969)

Issue: 1st AmendmentCourt case:

Anti-Vietnam leader who urged men to resist the draft.

Charged with conspiracy & violating Espionage Act by attempting to cause insubordination in the military & to obstruct recruitment.

Court Ruling: Schenck is not protected in this situation

Precedent: Free speech is limited during times of war & 1st Amendment rights are not absolute

Tinker v Des Moines (1969)

Issue: 1st Amendment – Freedom of Speech/Expression

Court Case: 3 students wore armbands with a peace sign on them to school as a form of protest against the escalating violence in Vietnam.

Students were asked to remove the armbands

They refused, & were suspended from school until they returned without the armbands.

Court Ruling: The court ruled in favor of the students. The court stated that schools could establish dress codes & enforce that clothing caused a distraction to students

Precedent: Schools must show a reasonable disruption to learning environment. Upheld 1st Amendment rights of students.

Hazelwood School District v Kuhlmeier (1988)

Issue: 1st Amendment (Freedom of the Press)

Court Case: high school students filed suit against a principal & school system

The principal had deleted an article about teenage pregnancy & divorce from the school newspaper.

Court Decision: The court ruled in favor of the principal. The principal has the right to edit the newspaper & delete materials that he/she is inappropriate to maintain the educational environment.

Precedent: 1st Amendment rights of students limited.

Bethel School District v Fraser (1986)Issue: 1st Amendment (Freedom of Speech in School)Court Case: Fraser gave a speech endorsing a fellow

student for an elected officeDuring the speech he made comments using an

explicit sexual metaphorHe was suspended for three days & denied the right

to speak at graduation.Court Ruling: Fraser appealed the ruling as a

violation of his 1st Amendment Rights. The court ruled in favor of the school, & the right to ban certain speech.

Precedent: 1st Amendment rights to freedom of speech can be limited if school can show a reasonable disruption to the learning environment.

Texas v Johnson (1989)

Issue: 1st Amendment & Flag Burning

Court Case: Republican Party held the National Convention in Dallas, Texas.

Johnson protested by setting an American Flag on fire

He was arrested for violating the Texas had a law banning the burning of the Flags

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 speech by the 1st Amendment

U.S. v. Eichman (1989)

Issue: 1st Amendment & Flag Burning

Court Case: Flag Protection Act which made it a crime to destroy an American flag or any likeness of an American flag which may be "commonly displayed.”

The law did allow proper disposal of a worn or soiled flag.

Eichman set a flag ablaze on the steps of the U.S. Capitol while protesting the government's domestic & foreign policy.

Court Ruling: struck down the law because "its asserted interest is related to the suppression of free expression & concerned with the content of such expression.

Precedent: A flag can be burned in a disposal ceremony not during political protest

28

6th Amendmentaccused shall enjoy the right to a speedy &

public trial, by an impartial jury be informed of the nature & cause of the

chargesto confront witnessesto obtaining witnesses for your defenseto have the a lawyer for defense

Gideon v Wainwright (1963)

Issue: 6th Amendment, 14th Amendment

Court Case: Gideon was arrested for burglary

He appeared in court & asked that an attorney be appointed to him

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

Florida had violated the 6th Amendment & 14th Amendment, equal protection clause.

Precedent: Indigent defendants (cannot afford an attorney) must be provided counsel in all felony cases.

Judiciary Act of 1789

Judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court," & such inferior courts as Congress establishes

Issue: Separation of Power/Judicial Review

Court Case: Marbury was appointed as Justice of the peace under Adam’s presidency. He sued Madison (Secty of State for Jefferson) because he did not receive his appointment.

Marbury asked the Supreme Court to issue an order to force Madison to give him his commission.

Court Ruling: Against Madison. Ruled a portion of the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional. 1st act of Congress to be declared unconstitutional.

Precedent: established judicial review – power of the court to decide whether actions of Congress are constitutional.

Marbury v Madison (1803)

8th Amendment

prohibits cruel & unusual punishments

excessive fines & bail

Gregg v Georgia (1976)

Issue: 8th & 14th Amendments (Cruel & Unusual Punishment)

Court Case: Gregg & another hitchhiker committed murder & armed robbery

Sentenced to death in Georgia

Court Ruling: Court ruled against Gregg, stating the Georgia law did not violate the 8th Amendment.

Precedent: Capital punishment is upheld as a punishment for certain types of crime.

4th Amendment

Illegal searches & seizures

Olmstead v. US (1928)

Issue: 4th & 5th Amendments

Court Case: Two people for unlawfully possessing, transporting & selling alcohol Evidence was collected thru wiretapping their phone lines. The Feds were investigating them for conspiracy under the National Prohibition Act

Court Ruling: Use of 5th conversations as incriminating evidence did not violate their Fifth Amendment protection against self incrimination because they were not forcibly or illegally made to conduct those conversations

Precedent: “Reasonable expectation of privacy” did not include wiretapping. 4th amendment does not protect individuals form wiretapping. & this evidence may be used in court.

Mapp v Ohio (1961)

Issue: 4th Amendment (Search & Seizure)

Court Case: Police believed a fugitive was being kept by in her home.

Came to her house demanding entranceShe refused because they did not have a warrant.Later police came back, broke into her home &

produced a fake warrantDid not find the fugitiveDid find illegal pornographic materials She was arrested & convicted.

Court Ruling: The court ruled in favor of Mapp.

Precedent: Illegally obtained evidence cannot be used in court.

New Jersey v T.L.O. (1985)

Issue: 4th Amendment (Search & Seizure)

Court Case: T.L.O. was accused of smoking in the bathroom at a high school.

She denied & her purse was searched

School officials found cigarettes, rolling papers, marijuana, numerous $1 bills, & a list of students who owed her money

T.L.O. was expelled

Court Decision: Court ruled in favor of the school

Court stated that the need to keep guns & 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 4th Amendment rights of students.

5th AmendmentRight to a Grand JuryCannot be tried for the same offense to be

twice Right against self incriminationCannot be deprived of life, liberty, or

property, without due process of lawPrivate property cannot be taken for public

use, without just compensation

Korematsu v US (1944)

Issue: 5th & 14th Amendment – Times of War

Court Case: World War II: US military issued an order to place Japanese Americans in internment camps.

Korematsu sued the US government on the grounds that it was a violation of his due process

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)

Miranda v Arizona (1966)

Issue: 5th & 6th Amendment

Court Case: Miranda was arrested for kidnapping & rape. He confessed to the crime, but was not told of his Constitutional rights prior to the interrogation.

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 5th & 6th Amendment rights prior to questioning.

Extra cases

Escobedo v Illinois (1964)

Issue: 5th & 6th AmendmentCourt Case: Escobedo & another man,

Benedict DiGerlando were interrogated by police in connection with a murder. DiGerlando told police that Escobedo committed the murder. During the interrogation, Escobedo asked to have an attorney, & his attorney asked to speak with Escobedo, the police denied both claims. Eventually Escobedo was able to confront DiGerlando, & told police that it was DiGerlando who committed the murder, by doing so he admitted to being an accomplice & was convicted. He appealed the conviction because he was denied the right to speak with his attorney.

Court Ruling: In favor of Escobedo.Precedent: Illegal confessions cannot be used

in court.

NY Times v US (1971)

Issue: 1st 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 & 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 1st 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 & present danger”.