Get up to 50% Off! Code: GIFTS Ends: 12/7 Details
Apply
  1. Help

3rd Block's Landmark Supreme Court Cases

Hello, you either have JavaScript turned off or an old version of Adobe's Flash Player. Get the latest Flash player.

3rd Block's Landmark Supreme Court Cases - Page Text Content

FC: Landmark US Supreme Court Cases

1: Contributors:

2: Dred Scott v Sanford By: Dominick (Images courtesy of Yahoo! Images)

3: This case, also called the Dred Scott Case, was alawuit decided by the US Supreme Court in 1857 that ruled people of African American descent could not be citizens of the US and that Congress has no right to prohibit slavery in Federal Terriroties. It also ruled that slaves were private property and thus they can not be taken away without due process. The decision, known as the Dred Scott Decision, was written by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, The parts of this decision pertaining to the citizenship and rights of African Americans were explicitly nullified by the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. Scott traveled with his master Dr. John Emerson, who was in the army and often transferred. Scott's extended stay with his master in Illinois, a free state, gave him the legal standing to make a claim for freedom, as did his extended stay at Fort Snelling in the Wisconsin Territory, where slavery was also not allowed. In October 1837, Emerson was moved to St. Louis, Missouri but left Scott and Scott's wife behind for several months, hiring them out. Hiring out Scott constituted slavery, and was clearly illegal under the Missouri Compromise, the Wisconsin Enabling Act, and the Northwest Ordinance. Emerson's wife soon filed the suit and later employed her brother, John F. A. Sanford of New York, who acted on her behalf after the court decided Scott was not a slave. The Missouri Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision, holding that Scott was still a slave. This decision was inconsistent with the Court's own precedents. Missouri courts had consistently ruled that slaves taken into free states were automatically free. Missouri Chief Justice Hamilton Rowan Gamble, who owned slaves, wrote a dissenting opinion. The final verdict was Tarney's original decision.

4: Furman v. Georgia By: Scott B

5: Facts of the Case Furman was burglarizing a private home when a family member discovered him. He attempted to flee, and in doing so tripped and fell. The gun that he was carrying went off and killed a resident of the home. He was convicted of murder and sentenced to death (Two other death penalty cases were decided along with Furman: Jackson v. Georgia and Branch v. Texas. These cases concern the constitutionality of the death sentence for rape and murder convictions, respectively). Question 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? Yes. The Court's one-page per curiam opinion held that the imposition of the death penalty in these cases constituted cruel and unusual punishment and violated the Constitution. In over two hundred pages of concurrence and dissents, the justices articulated their views on this controversial subject. Only Justices Brennan and Marshall believed the death penalty to be unconstitutional in all instances. Other concurrences focused on the arbitrary nature with which death sentences have been imposed, often indicating a racial bias against black defendants. The Court's decision forced states and the national legislature to rethink their statutes for capital offenses to assure that the death penalty would not be administered in a capricious or discriminatory manner. | Constitution. In over two hundred pages of concurrence and dissents, the justices articulated their views on this controversial subject. Only Justices Brennan and Marshall believed the death penalty to be unconstitutional in all instances. Other concurrences focused on the arbitrary nature with which death sentences have been imposed, often indicating a racial bias against black defendants. The Court's decision forced states and the national legislature to rethink their statutes for capital offenses to assure that the death penalty would not be administered in a capricious or discriminatory manner. http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1971/1971_69_5003/ http://www.mixbook.com/create/tool?bid=343110

6: Chelsea Miranda v Arizona

7: These Miranda rights have revolutionized the way police handle suspects. Most judges hold these rights as critical to the due process of Americans. Simply confusing one word, for example saying "anything you say may be used against you", as opposed to "can and will be used against you", | when got arrestsed she asked to be read her rights she got refused and then she took it to the suprme court to sue them. In the end she esablished that you have to be read your rights every time you are arrested. A kidnapping and sexual assaued against me,” and that he had knowingly waived those rights. pictures from Photobucket.com

8: By: Jesse Tinker v Des Moines School District

9: Facts an Case: John Tinker who was 15 years old at the time, with his sister Mary Beth Tinker who was 13 and Christopher Echardt who was 16 wore black armbands to Des Moines school to protest the Vietnam War. Principals thought that the armbands would cause a disturbance in the school and asked the Tinker siblings and Christopher to remove the armbands or be suspended. They refused an were suspended for an extended amount of time. Question: Does the wearing of armbands in public school, as a form of symbolic protest, violate the First Amendment's freedom of speech protections? | The Decision: Wearing of armbands was a freedom of speech and is protected by the First Amendment. School districts have limitations on free expression, but here the principals didn't care for imposing any such limits.The principals had failed to show that the forbidden conduct would substantially interfere with appropriate school discipline. This case still affects us today but only to a certain limtit. We have the right to wear what we want but only to a certain extent. The ceartian extent is we have to obey the dress code. http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1968/1968_21/ http://www.mixbook.com/create/tool?bid=343110

10: Kristin C. Brown v Board of Education: In 1896, this case declared that state laws that established separate public schools for black and white students denied black children equal educational opportunities. Therefore Black children were denied admission to public schools attended by white children under laws requiring or permitting segregation according to the races.

11: The white and black schools approached equality in terms of buildings, curricula, qualifications, and teacher salaries. | This case was decided together with Briggs v. Elliott and Davis v. County School Board of Prince Edward County.

12: Texas vs. Johnson | .http://www.theodora.com/flags/burning/flag_burning_46.html .http://www.theodora.com/flags/burning_2/flag_burning_58.html .http://www.theodora.com/flags/burning/flag_burning_36.html

13: Backround of Case:A man by the name of Gregory Lee Johnson protested the politics of former president Ronald Reagan. He and others marched and protseted on the streets of Dallas, Texas. Johnson then took the American flag, covered it with kerosene, and set it on fire. While the flag burned, the protestors chanted: "America, the red, white, and blue, we spit on you." The Issue: Is the right to burn the American Flag protected under the first amendment? Decision of Court: The Supreme Court stated that is is a person's first amendment right to burn an American Flag. It is protected speech. Lasting Effects: The decision made by the Supreme still causes problems today. Many people feel that it is wrong to burn a symbol of the people who died for this nation. Still others believe that our civil rights are more important than a symbol. This fight will rage on for years to come.

14: ROE V WADE | "Mommy -When was I viable?" pictures from yahoo.com

15: ROE V WADE Roe v. Wade was that abortions are permissible for any reason a woman chooses, up until the point at which the fetus becomes viable, that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid. Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks. The Court also held that abortion after viability must be available when needed to protect a woman's health, which the Court defined broadly in the companion case of Doe v. Bolton. These court rulings affected laws in 46 states. these photos came from yahoo.com and my own personal computer

16: McCulloch Vs. Maryland | By: Kevin.H All pictures from google.com

17: In 1816, Congress chartered The Second Bank of the United States. In 1818, the state of Maryland passed a law to impose taxes on the bank. James W. McCulloch, the cashier of the Baltimore branch of the bank, wouldn't pay the taxes. This case established national supremacy, along with the supremacy clause with regards to a national bank. The result is a conviction that the States have no power, by taxation or otherwise, to retard, impede, burden, or in any manner control the operations of the constitutional laws enacted by Congress to carry into execution the powers vested in the General Government.

18: Korematsu v. US | Mason H.

19: The lasting effects of this case is that the President and Congress can put anyone in jail when ever they feel is neccesary. Korematsu stayed in San Leandro, California and violated Civilian Exclusion Order No. 34 of the US Army. citations: http://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1949/1944/1944_22/ and | This case concerned the constitutionality of the Executive Order 9066, which required Japanese-Americans from the western US to be excluded from the West Coast military area. The Court decided to exclude the Japanese-Americans.The question was asked if the President and Congress went beyond their war powers by the exclusion and the restricting of rights of Japanese-Americans.

20: Gideon v. Wainwright Erica S. | Tuesday, January 15, 1963, Gideon was charged with the felony of breaking and entering. He was not able to afford his own attorney. The court stated that they were only required to provide representation in capital cases. He ended up defending himself and was convicted.

21: Gidon appealed his case and it was found that every person has the right to an attorney according to the 6th amendment. With this the court overruled its 1942 decision of Betts v. Brady. | From this case, every person has the right to an attorney through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1962/1962_155/

22: Kyle Regents of the University of California v Bakke | "Did the University of California violate the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, by practicing an affirmative action policy that resulted in the repeated rejection of Bakke's application for admission to its medical school?"

23: “Race can be taken into account when it does not act to insult any group but to remedy disadvantages cast on minorities by past racial prejudice.” [While to some observers Bakke won a place in the school and the particular special admissions program at Davis was invalidated, the case really stands as a landmark civil rights-affirmative action decision. Race may hereafter be taken into account as a factor in college admissions.] | The Issue A white male, Allan Bakke, was denied admissions from the University of California at Davis Medical School because he did not meet standard entrance requirements. existed. Bakke argued the requirements the special program was discriminatory because only minorities were allowed to compete for these places. The University of California argued their program solved the wrong of racial discrimination. Was the University’s special program to allow students with lower scores than Bakke violate his equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment?

24: Judy Plessy v Ferguson | pic. resources: {1st page} 1.ww.georgetownbookshop.com 2.www.ferris.edu/news/jimcrow/links/misclink/plessy 3.www.maxwell.syr.edu {2nd page} 4.www.pbs.org/beyondbrown/history/plessyvferg.html 5.memory.loc.gov/ammem/today/may18.html

25: In the late 1800s railroad companies in Louisiana were required by state law to provide separate-but-equal vehicles for white and black passengers. In 1892, Homer Plessy challenged the law and boarded a whites-only car; he refused to move and got arrested. He appealed to the Supreme Court and argued that the Louisiana separate-but-equal law violated his right to equal protection under the 14th amendment. He lost the case. 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. However, the decision was over-ruled in 1954 by Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas.

26: Sedgwick M. Engel v. Vitale http://images.google.com/images?um=1&hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=prayer+in+school&btnG=Search+Images&safe=active

27: BACKGROUND The case was brought by the parents of public school students in New Hyde Park, New York who complained the prayer to "Almighty God" contradicted their religious beliefs. ISSUE The plaintiffs argued that opening the school day with such a prayer (even if students are not required to recite it) violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. | DECISION OF THE COURT The court decided that government-directed prayer in public schools was an unconstitutional violation of the Establishment Clause. LASTING EFFECTS After this case schools everywhere are not allowed to let students pray in public schools. this decision is still in effect today and subdues children from praying in public schools.

28: State v. Mann | Candra M. Candra M.

29: Facts of Case: This all began in 1829 when Elizabeth Jones the owner of Lydia, a black female slave, hired her out to John Mann for 1 year. Mann whipped her as punishment and Lydia slipped away. When Mann ordered her to stop she continued, and he shot and wounded her. Seeing that the circumstances were so | odd, the local grand jury indicted Mann for assault and battery against a slave.They saw it as a cruel, unwarrantable, and disproportionate action taken against a slave that he didn't even own, and found him guilty. Question: Were slaves the absolute property of their owners? Could they punished on Common Law unless legislature approved such punishment? Decision: Supreme Court of North Carolina ruled that slave owners could not be convicted for killing their slaves. By the U.S. Supreme Court, Mann was aquitted. "The Master's power over slave property is absolute, while the state's interference violates the master's rights." This was stated by Chief Justice Thomas Ruffin. Sites: a href="http://law.jrank.org/pages/2446/State-v-Mann-1829.html">State v. Mann: 1829 - In Defense Of Slavery

30: Mapp v. Ohio | By: Brittney M.

31: Background Information A woman by the name of Dolree Mapp's house was illegally searched by police for a fugitive. During the illegal search the fugitive was not found, however illegal material was found | The Issue Itself Were the items seized protected by the first amendment? This was the first question posed by the case. The search was illegal, however the material obtained during the search was illegal, as well. In addition to the first question, the fourth amendment was questioned as well. It was because of this that Mrs. Mapp felt she needed to appeal. Decision of the Court The court's ruling made it illegal to use iillegally gathered information in court as evidence. They deemed this act unconstitutional saying it violates a person's fourth amendment right. The Effects of Mapp v. Ohio This case brought about exclusionary rule, which is a rule stating any evidence collected during an illegal search may not be used as evidence in a court of law. Source of pictures: (Pictures from: http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/lonmap.html, http://www.tjhsst.edu/~sgoswami/cases.htm,http://store.vitalsource.com/product/show/L99972751

32: Marbury v Madison | Robby N.

33: Fact The case began on March 2, 1801, when an obscure Federalist, William Marbury, was designated as a justice of the peace in the District of Columbia. Marbury and several others were appointed to government posts created by Congress in the last days of John Adams's presidency. The disgruntled appointees invoked an act of Congress and sued for their jobs in the Supreme Court.Is Marbury entitled to his appointment? Is his lawsuit the correct way to get it? And, is the Supreme Court the place for Marbury to get the relief he requests?

34: New Jersey v. TLO -By Anthony Citations: -yahoosearch.com(all pics) -wikipedia.com

35: New Jersey v. TLO was a case appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1984, dealing with the search of a high school student for contraband after she was caught smoking. She fought | the search, claiming it violated her Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the search was reasonable under the amendment. The result of this case was a common decision that school officials are State agents when enforcing disciplinary rules mandated by law. Also stating that officials may search without a warrant using reasonable suspicion of a violation of the law or school rules.

36: Gibbons v Ogden was a case in which the Supreme Court Case Of The United States held that the power to regulate interstate navigation was granted to Congress by the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. DJ R. http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/D/1801-1825/marshallcases/mar04.htm http://www.landmarkcases.org/gibbons/background2.html

37: The case started from an attempt by the State of New York to grant a Monopoly of steamboat operation between New York and neighboring New Jersey .Robert Fluton and Robert Livingston were granted such exclusive rights. They licensed the New Jersey operator Aaron Ogden, formerly a U.S. Senator and Governor , to operate the ferry between New York City and Elizabeth Point in New Jersey. Gibbons Ran a competing Ferry service and Ogden wanted him to stay out of New York waters Gibbons then sued for entry into the state,The Court found in favor of Gibbons, | stating that "The mind can scarcely conceive a system for regulating commerce between nations which shall exclude all laws concerning navigation." The ruling determined that "a Congressional power to regulate navigation is as expressly granted as if that term had been added to the word 'commerce'."Gibbons v. Ogden survived until 1895, when the court began to limit Congressional power in the case of United States v. E. C. Knight Co.,the 1930s and until the 1990s, the Supreme Court returned to its broad view of the originally established in Gibbons.

38: Leandro v. NC Akysia

39: Historical Background: This case was originally filed in January of 1985. In 1997 the Supreme Court found that every child in North Carolina is entitled to a "basic education." A basic education is defined as a education that provides the following things: 1) the ability to read, write, and speak English; 2) a knowledge of history, economics, geography, and politics; 3) academic and vocational skills. The Supreme Court remanded this | case and instructed the Superior Court to ragainst the State. All Superior Courts agreed that both E-O-Gs and E-O-Cs should be issued in order to see if these requirements are being met. Issues/Questions: "Is there a baseline level of education to which all children in NC are constitutionally entitled, and if so, what is it?" "Who is responsible for providing the baseline level of education?" "...what are the parameters that the constitutionally responsible party must respect in providing the baseline of education?" Ruling of the Court: Schools do not have to be equal, only adequate and offer a basic education. Decision of the Court: "The Supreme Court remanded the case and instructed the Superior Court to rule against the State." Lasting Effects: This issue is still dealt with on a state level. Student must complete EOGS among other exit exams to determine if an adequate education is being provided. http://www.teachingquality.org/tqresources/leandro.htm pro.corbis.com/images/42-16578685.jpg?size=57... education.nmsu.edu/sped/images/students.jpg cache.viewimages.com/xc/1166492.jpg?v=1&c=Vie...

40: amy In Re Gault

41: Previously placed on probation, 15 year old Gerald Francis Gault was taken into custody for ostensibly making an obscene phone call. Without notifying Gault’s parents, who were at | work, police arrested the young man. Gault was committed to the State Industrial School until he reached the age of 21 after proceedings before a juvenile court judge. Were the protocols used to institutionalize Gault constitutionally conceivable under the Fourteenth Amendments Due Process Clause? The decision of the court was No. The dealings of the Juvenile Court failed to accede with the Constitution. The Court held that the proceedings for juveniles had to accord with the requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment. These requirements included sufficient apprehension of charges, advisory of both the parents and the child of the juvenile's right to counsel, opportunity for confrontation and cross-examination at the hearings, and competent safeguards opposing self-incrimination. The Court found that the diplomatic code used in Gault's predicament met no part of these requirements. Now you are required to include notice of charges, notification of both the parents and the child of the juvenile's right to counsel, opportunity for confrontation and cross-examination at the hearings, and adequate safeguards against self-incrimination. all picz from yahoo.com

42: Enna Swann v Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools

43: *During this Swann v. Mecklenburg schools the conflict was that schools were very segregated. after the Brown case that had ended segregation in schools.The Warren court thought that segregation was unconstitutionalBut there still was some type of segregation going on in schools.There were 84,000 students going to schools and out of that 24,000 were African-Americans. Due to Doctor Joen Finger he came up with a plan it was called the Finger plan and this plan said for 300 blacks to go to each school.Dr. This segregation was a plan and apporve by District court. | * The question of the court was should we be aloud to bus students from one school to another to create racial equality. * The U.S Supreme Court said that yes we are aloud to bus students from different schools to another. *The lasting effects that we have from that court case is that the bussing systems are gerrymandered * The School Board closed 7 out of 10 schools that were open so that they could relocate different races so that there would be a balance between different races so that there was 17% to 36% of African-Americans. * This case affects us today because we have many different races in each and students are able to be bused to different schools. * To end this segregation Charlotte schools now do not go by busing but by attendance zones. * http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Swann/ *http://images.search.yahoo.com/images/view?back=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.search.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%2Fimages%3Fp%3Dcharlotte%2Bschools%26fr%3Dyfp-t-501%26ei%3Dutf-8%26js%3D1%26x%3Dwrt&w=264&h=170&imgurl=www.cms.k12.nc.us%2Fresources%2Fimages%2FcharlotteWithLabel.jpg&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cms.k12.nc.us%2Fresources%2FCommunity%2Findex.asp&size=21.6kB&name=charlotteWithLabel.jpg&p=charlotte%20schools&type=JPG&oid=e98f0a6d1fe73bf0&no=6&tt=12159 *http://pages.cms.k12.nc.us/ardreykell/ * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swann_v._Charlotte-Mecklenburg_Board_of_Education

44: In Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988), the plaintiffs argued that educators do not offend the first amendment by exercising editorial control over the style and content of student speech in school-sponsored expressive activities so long as their actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns. | Work Cited http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/hazelwood.html http://www.hazelwood.k12.mo.us/~cdavis01/cs/cons.htm | The students, on the other hand, asserted that their rights were violated by the deletion from a certain issue of the paper of two pages that included an article describing school students’ experiences with pregnancy and another article discussing the impact of divorce on students at the school.

45: Former high school students who were staff members of the school's newspaper, filed suit in Federal District Court against petitioners, the school district and school officials, alleging that respondents' First Amendment | Students of Hazelwood high school were protested against for publicly addressing the schools overall | rights were violated by the deletion from a certain issue of the paper of two pages that included an article describing school students, | sexual activity and the amount of pregnancies that were present at the school at this time. | divorce on experiences with pregnancy and another article discussing the impact of students at the school. The newspaper was written and edited by a journalism . | Tai-Tai W. Lachance Period 3

46: Wallace v Jaffree Brian Y Brian Y Brian Y

47: This all started when Alabama's law authorized teachers to conduct regular religious prayer services and activities in school classrooms during the school day. Three of Jaffree's children attended public schools in Mobile. This was also in violation of the state's duty to maintain absolute neutrality toward religion, but was an affirmative endorsement of religion. (www.oyez.com) | Supreme Court Justice Opinions and Votes (by Seniority) Jeffree-6 Wallace-3 FINAL- GUILTY Now what is in place is a moment of silence not a moment of prayer and meditation. This can also be seen here in Noth Carolina if you recall last year in CCHS we had a moment of silence every morning. 1st pic www.visionsofhope.biz 2nd pic. www.flickr.com 3rd www.haaretz.com 4th www.we-introduce-you.co.uk

48: Daniel New York Times v US

Sizes: mini|medium|large|colossal
Default User
  • By: Jon L.
  • Joined: over 8 years ago
  • Published Mixbooks: 0
  • Kirbi King
    • By: Kirbi K.
    • Contributions: 5 photos , 0 pages
  • Default User
    • By: Jesse C.
    • Contributions: 4 photos , 0 pages
  • Default User
    • By: Enna T.
    • Contributions: 6 photos , 0 pages
  • Default User
  • Default User
    • By: Chelsea B.
    • Contributions: 4 photos , 0 pages
  • Candra Mathis
    • By: Candra M.
    • Contributions: 2 photos , 0 pages
  • Default User
  • Default User
  • Default User
    • By: Brian Y.
    • Contributions: 0 photos , 0 pages
  • Default User
    • By: Anthony R.
    • Contributions: 4 photos , 0 pages
  • Tai-Tai White
  • Default User
    • By: robby n.
    • Contributions: 0 photos , 0 pages
  • Default User
    • By: judy l.
    • Contributions: 1 photo , 0 pages
  • Default User
    • By: erica s.
    • Contributions: 5 photos , 0 pages
  • Default User
    • By: daniel h.
    • Contributions: 0 photos , 0 pages
  • Default User
    • By: amelia r.
    • Contributions: 3 photos , 0 pages
  • Default User
    • By: Akysia R.
    • Contributions: 1 photo , 0 pages
  • Default User
    • By: Scott B.
    • Contributions: 1 photo , 0 pages
  • Default User
    • By: Dj R.
    • Contributions: 5 photos , 0 pages
  • Default User
    • By: kyle s.
    • Contributions: 4 photos , 0 pages
  • Default User
    • By: Charles D.
    • Contributions: 2 photos , 3 pages
  • Default User
    • By: kristin c.
    • Contributions: 4 photos , 0 pages
  • Default User
    • By: Kevin H.
    • Contributions: 6 photos , 0 pages
  • Default User
    • By: Mason H.
    • Contributions: 4 photos , 0 pages
  • Default User
    • By: Denise Y.
    • Contributions: 0 photos , 0 pages

About This Mixbook

  • Title: 3rd Block's Landmark Supreme Court Cases
  • Tags: None
  • Started: over 8 years ago
  • Updated: over 8 years ago

Get up to 50% off
Your first order

Get up to 50% off
Your first order