50% Off Premium Books and Cards or 40% Off Code: YAYOCT Ends: 10/22 Details

  1. Help
50% Off Premium Books and Cards or 40% Off Code: YAYOCT Ends: 10/22 Details

2nd 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.

2nd Block's landmark Supreme Court Cases - Page Text Content

FC: Landmark US Supreme Court Cases

1: Contributors:

2: Ruling: The court ruled in favor of Marbury. By doing this they eventually added an power to the judicial branch. The case gave them the power of judicial review. | Facts of Marbury v. Madison: - The plaintiff was William Marbury . - John Marshall was the one to actually express the first concept of judicial review. - Thomas Jefferson was the president at the time.

3: Lasting Issues: The addition of judiciary review was welcomed and most believe it was a great addition to the checks and balances system. At the time though it was hated because some believe it gave to much power the the judicial branch. There was one incident where The Missouri Compromise was invalidated which inflamed the slavery issue beyond repair. Besides that there have not been any major issues. | Historical Background: Marbury v. Madison was a case decided in 1803 by the U.S. Supreme Court. William Marbury had been commissioned justice of the peace in the District of Columbia by President John Adams in the “midnight appointments” at the very end of his administration. When the new administration did not deliver the commission, Marbury sued James Madison, Jefferson's Secretary of State. Chief Justice John Marshall held that, although Marbury was entitled to the commission, the statute that was the basis of the particular remedy sought was unconstitutional because it gave the Supreme Court authority that was completely denied by Article 3 of the U.S. Constitution. The decision was the first by the Supreme Court to declare unconstitutional and void an act passed by Congress that the Court considered in violation of the Constitution. The decision established the doctrine of judicial review, which recognizes the authority of courts to declare statutes unconstitutional. Marbury v. Madison By: Jonathan A. Mr. Lachance 2nd Period

4: Bianca McCulloch v Maryland Citations: McCulloch v Maryland decision March 6,1819. Minute of the Supreme Court of the US Record Group 267

5: This Supreme Court Case addressd the issue of Federal Power and Commerce. In the landmark Supreme Court Case McCulloch v Maryland Chief Justice John Marshall handed down one of his most important decisions regarding the expansions of Federal power. James W. McCulloch a federal cashier at the Baltimore branch of the U.S. bank, refused to pay the taxes imposed by the state. Maryland field a suit against McCulloch in a n effort to collect the taxes. Marshall ruled in favor of the Federal Govt. and concluded "the power to tax involves the power to destroy".

6: http://www.mixbook.com/create/tool?bid=343109 By: Patrick A. | Roe v. Wade

7: Facts of the Case and historical background: Roe, a Texas resident wanted to terminate her pregnacy by abortion. Texas law only permits abortion in the pregnant women is in danger of dying.After granting certiorari, the Court heard arguments twice. The first time, Roe's attorney -- Sarah Weddington -- could not locate the constitutional hook of her argument for Justice Potter Stewart. Her opponent -- Jay Floyd -- misfired from the start. Weddington sharpened her constitutional argument in the second round. Her new opponent -- Robert Flowers -- came under strong questioning from Justices Potter Stewart and Thurgood Marshall. http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1971/1971_70_18/ | Issue/Question before the court: Does the Constitution embrace a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy by abortion? Ruling: The Supreme Court decided that a womans right to an abortion was protected by the fourteenth amendment. This gave women total power to have an abortion during the first trimester of pregnancy. Lasting Issues: Now abortion is legal in the United States, but there are some who still disagree with abortion. There are lots of protests and some states want to make abortion illegal but have failed in doing so. http://www.mixbook.com/create/tool?bid=343109

9: Lisa B. Miranda vs. Arizona In several cases, suspects are questioned by police officers, detectives, or prosecuting attorneys in rooms that cut them off from the outside world. In none of the cases were suspects given warnings of their rights at the outset of their interrogation. | 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? Prosecutors could not use statements stemming from custodial interrogation of defendants unless they demonstrated the use of procedural safeguards "effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination." The Oyez Project, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), available at: http://www.east-buc.k12.ia.us/02_03/AG/mir/miranda_arrest.jpg http://img.slate.com/media/1/123125/123087/2111940/2118216/2119121/2119723/mutt_and_jeff.gif

10: Historical Background Mary Beth Tinker, John Tinker and, Christopher Echardt decied they was going to wear black arm bands along with there parents to school to protest the Vietnam War. The principals feared these would cause disturbances so they told then to take them off or they would get suspened. When they didnt they was suspened. | Tiffany Tinker v. Des Moines http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1968/1968_21/ photos:yahoo.com

11: The ruling of the court. The court rules that wearing arm bands was protected by the first amendment. | Any Lasting issues. Somepeople feel the same way on other issues that go on in school like dress code in schools.

12: Eugene & Justin Plessy v Ferguson citedThe Oyez Project, Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), available at: (last visited Wednesday, April 2, 2008). pictures provided by YAHOO.com

13: Facts of the Case FACT 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 | Question 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? | Conclusion incorrect, the state law is within constitutional boundaries. The majority, in an opinion authored by Justice Henry Billings Brown, upheld state-imposed racial segregation. 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. (The phrase, "separate but equal" was not part of the opinion.) Justice Brown conceded that the 14th amendment intended to establish absolute equality for the races before the law. But Brown noted that "in the nature of things it could not have been intended to abolish distinctions based upon color, or to enforce social, as distinguished from political equality, or a commingling of the two races unsatisfactory to either." In short, segregation does not in itself constitute unlawful discrimination.

14: Brown v. Board of Education | Meggie D. The Oyez Project, Brown v. Board of Education (I), 347 U.S. 483 (1954), available at:

15: Facts of the Case Black kids were not allowed to attend public schools that were attended by white kids by laws that required segregation according to race. However, both white and black schools were equal in the buildings, curriculum, teacher salaries and qualifications. | Question Does the segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race deprive the minority children of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the 14th Amendment? http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images;_ylt=A0geu9I1P_VHhbkAU8ZXNyoA?ei=UTF-8&p=brown%20v.%20board%20of%20education&fr2=tab-web&fr=yfp-t-501 | Conclusion Yes. Even though both schools objective factors were equal, issues are still there. Segregation on race in public school has effect on minority children because it makes them feel inferior. The doctine that separate facilities were acceptable providing that they were equal was rejected. This contradicts itself because no matter what it is not equal. The vote was unanimous and racial separation was done away with.

16: Texas v. Johnson By: Kristin F Pictures From: http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images?p=texas+v.+johnson&fr=yfp-t-113&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8

17: Historical Background &The Facts: In 1984 Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag in front of the Dallas City Hall as a means of protest of administration policies. He was showing the flexibility of the First Amendment by using Protest Demonstrations. Under a Texas law, which outlawed flag desecration, Johnson was tried and convicted. He was sentenced to one year in jail and a $2,000 fine. The courts had to decide if the desecration of an American flag, by burning or otherwise, was in fact a form of speech that was protected under the First Amendment. Finally, the case went to the Supreme Court after the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the conviction. The Court's Ruling: With a 5-4 vote, the Court said that Johnson's burning of a flag was protected expression under the First Amendment, concluding that the act of flag burning was indeed legal. Lasting Effects: In our present society, there are little disturbances by those who wish to burn American Flags. Some people see the act as a freedom of their speech while others see it as a protest of what America is about. However one sees it, the Supreme Court has set the precedent that flag burning is a protected act under the First Amendment. The Oyez Project, Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), available at: (last visited Thursday, March 20, 2008).

18: Gideon v. Wainwright by Austin G

19: Historical background In the year 1963, president J.F.K was assassinated, three civil rights workers, Schwerner, Goodman, and Cheney were murdered in Mississippi in June, and Jack Ruby killed Lee Harvey Oswald, J.F.K’s killer. Facts of the Case 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. | Ruling of the Court In a unanimous opinion, the Court held that Gideon had a right to be represented by a court-appointed attorney and, in doing so, overruled its 1942 decision of Betts v. Brady. In this case the Court found that the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of counsel was a fundamental right, essential to a fair trial, which should be made applicable to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Lasting issues The court ruled that no matter the case or the person everyone is in titled to representation in court. This allows for a more just court system in the US. Sources, www.infoplease.com and www.oyez.org

20: Korematsu vs. United States By Chad H | http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/korematsu1.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Japanese_American_Internment_Center.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korematsu_v._United_States

21: Background Information: During World War II, Japanese-Americans were put into relocation camps. This was mainly due to the bombing of Pearl Harbor. | The Question: Could the containment of Japanese-Americans be considered racism or descrimination? The Ruling: No. This remained on the principle to protect the country and military. None of the Japanese-Americans were contained for their race, but because the United States wanted to take specific safety precautions.

22: Engle V. Vitale Taylor H. Question: Does the voluntary use of a government-composed, non- denominational, voluntary prayer in the public schools violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution?

23: Historical Background After World War II, the United States experienced another period of intense concern about the spread of communism abroad and fear of subversion at home. The Federal Government enacted a program requiring all employees to take loyalty oaths, while U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy claimed there were communist agents in government. Alleged “communist spies” were called forth to give testimony before a Senate subcommittee chaired by McCarthy. These hearings had the impact of sensational court dramas that filled the media, while the deployment of U.S. soldiers to fight communist aggression in Korea made the threat of communism at home all the more palpable. In this context, some States enacted a variety of programs to encourage patriotism, moral character, and other values of good citizenship. . Circumstances of the Case In 1951 the New York State Board of Regents (the State board of education) approved a 22-word “nondenominational prayer” for recitation each morning in the public schools of New York. It read: “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country.” The Regents believed that the prayer could be a useful tool for the development of character and good citizenship among the students of the State of New York. The prayer was offered to the school boards in the State for their use, and participation in the “prayer-exercise” was voluntary. In New Hyde Park, New York, the Union Free School District No. 9 directed the local principal to have the prayer “said aloud by each class in the presence of a teacher at each school day.” | Courts Decision The Court's decision was not, Black pointed out, antireligious. It sought, rather, only to affirm the separation between church and state. “It is neither sacrilegious nor antireligious to say that each separate government in this country should stay out of the business of writing or sanctioning official prayers…” Thereafter, State governments could not “prescribe by law any particular form of prayer which is to be used as an official prayer in carrying on any program of governmentally sponsored religious activity.” Lasting Issues This case was one of the first in a series of cases in which a variety of religious activities were found to violate the Establishment Clause. Neither the voluntary nature of school prayers nor their nondenominational character protected them from violating the Establishment Clause. Sources: www.Infoplease.com www.pbs.org Picture Sources: www.pbs.org

24: Nikki Mapp v Ohio Background Facts Ms. Dollree Mapp lived in Cleveland, Ohio. After receiving information that an individual wanted in connection with a recent bombing was hiding in Mapp's house, the Cleveland police knocked on her door and demanded entrance. They showed her a blank piece of paper as they search warrant. Instead of just searching her room, they searched her whole house. They found lewd photographs, books, and books. She was then arrested for possesion of obscene materials. Question May evidence that is obtained through an illegal search be used in trials? Ruling This case applied the exclusionary rule to teh states. Evidence that is seized illegally may not be used against a person in court. The opinion held a 6-3 that all evidence obtained by searches in violation of the Constitution is, by inadmissible in a state court.

25: Lastin Issues The decision launched the Court on a troubled course of determining how and when to apply the exclusionary rule. Today evidence that is taken from an illegal search is excluded from all trials and is not used against the person being charged. http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1960/1960_236/

26: Brooks H. New Jersey v TLO Historical Background The Supreme Court has a long history of upholding citizens' protections against unreasonable searches and seizures—a right guaranteed by the 4th Amendment. In Weeks v. United States, 1914, the Court ruled that evidence obtained by police illegally is not admissible in federal court—a practice known as the exclusionary rule. The Court decided that such evidence is also inadmissible in State courts in Mapp v. Ohio, 1961. The Supreme Court extended 4th Amendment protections to include not only tangible property, but also intangible items obtained without a warrant, such as phone conversations (Katz v. United States, 1967). However, the 4th Amendment does not apply to such items as garbage placed on a curb (California v. Greenwood, 1988).

27: But does the 4th Amendment clause apply to students? In 1985, a New Jersey high school student was arrested as a result of a search and seizure conducted by her assistant vice-principal. The constitutionality of the search was questioned and ultimately the Supreme Court faced the task of establishing parameters for searches and seizures in schools. The Facts In 1980, T.L.O. and another female student | were caught smoking in the girls' bathroom of their school, Piscataway High School, in Middlesex, NJ. They were taken to the princile's office where T.L.O. denied smoking or having ever smoked. Her purse was then searched and marijuana, a rolled wad of money, a pack of cigarettes, and rolled paper were found. She was then taken to the police station where she confessed to selling marijuana in the school. In this case, the court had to answer whether or not students are protected | under the fourh amendment. Ruling The Court ruled by a 6-3 margin in favor of New Jersey. The court said that all searches and seizures within a school setting must be backed by a reasonable suspicion or reasonable cause. Lasting Issues This case allowed the Supreme Court to install metal detectors and perform protected searches in schools. Later it was used to do the same thing in air ports and to set up check points for drunk drivers.

28: Gibbons Ogden | Photos from Yahoo.com

30: The case of In Re Gault By: Quintin | In Re Gault On December 6, 1966 in Washinton DC, Gerald Gault, a 15 year old citizen of Arizona made several lewd phone calls to a neigbor. After complaint by that neigbor, Gault was arrested by the police but the police didn't leave a notice with Gault's parents who were at work. The judge sentenced Gault to be committed to the state industrial school for 6 years until he is 21. His lawyer filed a writ of habeas corpus which is latin for "produce the body." It means an official who has arrested someone to bring that person to court and explain why he is being heid.The lawyer was denied by the Superior Court of Arizona and the Supreme Court. The case was then taken to the U.S. Supreme Court and there Gerald's counsel argued that the juvenile code of Arizona under which Gerald was a delinquent and invalid because it was contrary to the due process rights. The courts opinion said that "neither the Fourteeth Amendment nor the Bill of Rights is for adults alone." Sources: www.oyez .org www.yria.alcade.net

31: 1)notice of the changes with regard to their timeliness and specifieity 2)right to council 3)right to cofrontation and cross-examination 4)privilega against seif-incrimination 5)right to a transcript of the trial record 6)right to appellate review

32: -Historical background & Facts Argued October 13, 1987 Decided January 13, 1988 Respondents, 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 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

34: Amanda N. State v Mann facts and historical background Mann was convicted in 1982 of kidnapping and first-degree murder in the death of ten-year-old Elisa Nelson and was sentenced to death. The facts of the case are further set forth in our opinion on Mann’s first direct appeal.This Court affirmed the conviction but remanded for resentencing. On remand, the circuit court again sentenced Mann to death, and this Court affirmed.Mann received a stay of execution in the federal system, and the circuit court of appeal eventually decided that his jury had been misinformed as to its role in sentencing and directed that he be resentenced. (http://www.wfsu.org/gavel2gavel/opinions/sc94885.pdf)

35: issue/question before the court Q. Was the decision to put on mental mitigation a tactical or strategic decision that you made? A. Sure, it was. We spent a lot of time discussing whether or not that was a good idea or a bad idea. What were the pros and what were the cons. You know, was that stuff [pedophilia] going to come out or not come out, so yeah, we discussed it. We went over it and when we made the decision to do it. I could be questioned either way with regard to whether or not it was right or wrong to do it, but we did discussed [sic] it and we made the decision that we thought that it was necessary and that we felt that in some way it would be helpful to put in the mental mitigation that was there that we had to offer to the jury. Q. You didn’t have the option of picking another diagnosis other than the pedophilia so that was pretty much– A. I’m not aware of any other diagnosis other than, of course, Dr. Wayland, who had the opinion that it was a personality disorder as opposed to anything that ever rose to the level of mental mitigation, (http://www.wfsu.org/gavel2gavel/opinions/sc94885.pdf) | ruling Mann’s final argument is that cumulative error resulted in an unfair trial. All of Mann’s claims were either meritless or procedurally barred; therefore, there was no cumulative effect to consider. lasting issues based on this case people think of north carolina's constitutionas the supreme court of law.

36: Leandro Vs. North Carolina | Every child is entitled to a sound and basic education...

37: Leandro vs. North Carolina is a landmark supreme court case which had a drastic effect on the North Carolina educational system. Originally filed in 1995, this case brought into question the quality of education in North Carolina. Three imperative questions were to be the center of the case: Is there a baseline level of education to which all children in North Carolina are constitutionally entitled, and if so, what is it? Who is responsible for providing this baseline level of education? and Upon answering the former two questions, what are the parameters that the constitutionally responsible party must respect in providing the baseline level of education? "In 1997, the Supreme Court found that every child in North Carolina is constitutionally entitled to “a sound, basic education,” which is defined as 1) sufficient ability to read, write, and speak English, and practice mathematics and the physical sciences to allow the student to operate in a complex and rapidly changing society; 2) sufficient knowledge of geography, history, economics and politics to enable the student to competently participate in the community and nation; 3) sufficient academic and vocational skills to enable the student to successfully engage in post-secondary education or vocational training; and 4) sufficient academic and vocational skills to enable the student to compete on an equal basis with others in further formal education and gainful employment in contemporary society." Leandro vs. North Carolina was a relatively recent supreme court case that directly effects the schools in North Carolina today. EOC's and benchmarks being required is a direct result of this case, they were established in order to make sure that schools were meeting the standards set forth by the case. Another "test" created as a result of this is the senior project, created to ensure students have proper vocational skills. So next time you take a benchmark or an EOC or do a senior project thank the North Carolina Superior Court. http://www.teachingquality.org/tqresources/leandro.htm

38: Case: Brown vs. Board of Education By: Chris P. Facts and Historical Background: The Charlotte-Mecklenburg school system, which includes the city of Charlotte, North Carolina, had more than 84,000 students in 107 schools in the 1968-1969 school year. About 24,000 of the pupils were Black, and about 14,000 of whom attended 21 schools that were at least 99% Negro. This resulted from a desegregation plan approved by the District Court in 1965, at the commencement of this litigation. In 1968, petitioner Swann moved for further relief based on Green v. County School Board, which required school boards to come forward with a plan that promises realistically to work . . . now . . . until it is clear that state-imposed segregation has been completely removed. The Question: Does the segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race deprive the minority children of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the 14th Amendment?

39: Conclusion: In the field of public education, the saying of "separate but equal" has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. This disposition makes unnecessary any discussion whether such segregation also violates the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. Source: Oyez.com; Yahoo.com

40: Lateassia Dred Scott v Sanford In March of 1857, the United States Supreme Court, declared that all blacks slaves as well as free were not and could never become citizens of the United States.

41: For more than fifty years the question of slavery had been more or less a subject of discord and contention; and, more recently, in some shape or other, it has been continually coming up in the councils of the nation. The election of the Judges of the Supreme Court by the people, is henceforth to be one of the aims of the Abolitionists, for acquiring the means of having the Constitution construed according to their own fanatical ideas of law. i"f they would let us alone and leave slavery to the states, the agitation of the question would come to an end on the instant. But, as long as they empty their vials of wrath upon our heads, ours must be emptied on theirs."

42: Chandler Wallace v Jaffree On this date in 1985, Wallace v. Jaffree was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, forbidding school officials to direct "silent prayer" and meditation for the purpose of prayer in public schools. http://ffrf.org/day/?day=4&month=6

43: -The supreme court justices found that a moment of silence in schools was considered unconstitutional be default for having put pressure on other students to feel left out. -the court still to this day is sticking to the decision of forcing a moment of silence upon students unconstitutional for the reason that some of the students maybe athiest, or any other religion, thus ignoring tolerance among US society. -The court ruled in favor of Jaffree

44: Regents of the University of California vs. Bakke Allan Bakke applied to California medical school. He was rejected because 16 seats were saved for minorities as part of the universities affirmative action. Even Though Allan Bakkes test scores were better than the minorities who applied in the last two years. http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1977/1977_76_811/

45: Questions before the court case : Did the university of California violate the !4th Amendment 's equal protection clause, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, of having an affirmative action policy which resulted in the repeated rejection of Bakke's application for admission to its medical school medical school http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1977/1977_76_811/ | Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr agreed, made the deciding vote ordering the medical school to admit Bakke http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1977/1977_76_811/

46: Backround: 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 carry went off and killed one of the residents at the home. 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?

47: Yes. The Court's opinion held that the imposition of the death penalty in these cases constituted cruel and unusual punishment and violated the Constitution.

48: Gini New York Times v US | (google.com)

49: (google.com) Facts of the case This case became known as the "Pentagon Papers Case." The Nixon Administration tried to prevent the New York Times and Washington Post from publishing materials belonging to a classified Defense Department.(www.oyez.com) Issue/Question before the Court "Did the Nixon administration's efforts to prevent the publication of what it termed "classified information" violate the First Amendment?"(www.oyez.com) Ruling "Yes. In its per curiam opinion the Court held that the government did not overcome the "heavy presumption against" prior restraint of the press in this case. Justices Black and Douglas argued that the vague word "security" should not be used "to abrogate the fundamental law embodied in the First Amendment." Justice Brennan reasoned that since publication would not cause an inevitable, direct, and immediate event imperiling the safety of American forces, prior restraint was unjustified." (www.oyez.com) Yes, this is still affecting us today. I think that they are still fighting over on what should be put on and what they are puttin on the newspapers.

Sizes: mini|medium|large|jumbo
Default User
  • By: Jon L.
  • Joined: over 10 years ago
  • Published Mixbooks: 0

About This Mixbook

  • Title: 2nd Block's landmark Supreme Court Cases
  • Tags: None
  • Started: over 10 years ago
  • Updated: over 10 years ago