Supreme Court Landmarks
Marbury v. Madison (1803)
Holding: Established the doctrine of judicial review.
In the Judiciary Act of 1789, Congress gave the Supreme Court the authority to issue certain judicial writs. The Constitution did not give the Court this power. Because the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, the Court held that any contradictory congressional Act is without force. The ability of federal courts to declare legislative and executive actions unconstitutional is known as judicial review.
Teach students the significance of Marbury v. Madison which establishes the concept of judicial review.
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)
Holding: The Constitution gives the federal government certain implied powers.
Maryland imposed a tax on the Bank of the United States and questioned the federal government's ability to grant charters without explicit constitutional sanction. The Supreme Court held that the tax unconstitutionally interfered with federal supremacy and ruled that the Constitution gives the federal government certain implied powers.
Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)
Question: Was Dred Scott free or slave?
Holding: Scott had never been free and that Congress had in fact exceeded its authority.
In 1834, slave Dred Scott was purchased in Missouri and then brought to Illinois, a free (non-slave) state. His owner and he later moved to present-day Minnesota where slavery had been recently prohibited, and then back to Missouri. When his owner died, Scott sued the widow to whom he was left, claiming he was no longer a slave because he had become free after living in a free state. At a time when the country was in deep conflict over slavery, the Supreme Court decided that Dred Scott was not a “citizen of the state” so they had no jurisdiction in the matter, but the majority opinion also stated that he was not a free man.
Korematsu v. United States (1944)
Question: Was the military’s exclusion order justified?
Holding: Affirmed the lower courts. Conviction upheld.
In response to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor during World War II, the U.S. government decided to require Japanese-Americans to move into relocation camps as a matter of national security. President Franklin Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066 in February 1942, two months after Pearl Harbor. A Japanese-American man living in San Leandro, Fred Korematsu, chose to stay at his residence rather than obey the order to relocate. Korematsu was arrested and convicted of violating the order. He responded by arguing that Executive Order 9066 violated the Fifth Amendment. The Ninth Circuit affirmed Korematsu's conviction.
Brown v. Board of Education (1954)
Question: Does the segregation of public education based solely on race violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Holding: Separate schools are not equal.
In Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), the Supreme Court sanctioned segregation by upholding the doctrine of "separate but equal." The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People disagreed with this ruling, challenging the constitutionality of segregation in the Topeka, Kansas, school system. In 1954, the Court reversed its Plessy decision, declaring that "separate schools are inherently unequal."
Learn more about this case.
?Cooper v. Aaron (1958)
Holding: States cannot nullify decisions of the federal courts.
Several government officials in southern states, including the governor and legislature of Alabama, refused to follow the Supreme Court's Brown v. Board of Education decision. They argued that the states could nullify federal court decisions if they felt that the federal courts were violating the Constitution. The Court unanimously rejected this argument and held that only the federal courts can decide when the Constitution is violated.
Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
Holding: Illegally obtained material cannot be used in a criminal trial.
While searching Dollree Mapp's house, police officers discovered obscene materials and arrested her. Because the police officers never produced a search warrant, she argued that the materials should be suppressed as the fruits of an illegal search and seizure. The Supreme Court agreed and applied to the states the exclusionary rule from Weeks v. United States(1914).
Engel v. Vitale (1962)
Holding: School initiated-prayer in the public school system violates the First Amendment.
In the New York school system, each day began with a nondenominational prayer acknowledging dependence upon God. This action was challenged in Court as an unconstitutional state establishment of religion in violation of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court agreed, stating that the government could not sponsor such religious activities.
?Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)
Holding: Indigent defendants must be provided representation without charge.
Gideon was accused of committing a felony. Being indigent, he petitioned the judge to provide him with an attorney free of charge. The judge denied his request. The Supreme Court ruled for Gideon, saying that the Sixth Amendment requires indigent criminal defendants to be provided an attorney free of charge.
New York Times v. Sullivan (1964)
Holding: In order to prove libel, a public official must show that what was said against them was made with actual malice.
The New York Times was sued by the Montgomery, Alabama police commissioner, L.B. Sullivan, for printing an advertisement containing some false statements. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of the newspaper saying the right to publish all statements is protected under the First Amendment.
Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
Holding: Police must inform suspects of their rights before questioning.
After hours of police interrogations, Ernesto Miranda confessed to rape and kidnapping. At trial, he sought to suppress his confession, stating that he was not advised of his rights to counsel and to remain silent. The Supreme Court agreed, holding that police must inform suspects of their rights before questioning.
Loving v. Virginia, 1967
Question: Did Virginia's antimiscegenation law violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Holding: The Court ruled that state bans on interracial marriage were unconstitutional.
In 1958, two residents of Virginia, Mildred Jeter, a black woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, were married in the District of Columbia. The Lovings returned to Virginia shortly thereafter. The couple was then charged with violating the state's antimiscegenation statute, which banned inter-racial marriages. The Lovings were found guilty and sentenced to a year in jail (the trial judge agreed to suspend the sentence if the Lovings would leave Virginia and not return for 25 years).
Terry v. Ohio (1968)
Holding: Stop and frisks do not violate the Constitution under certain circumstances.
Observing Terry and others acting suspiciously in front of a store, a police officer concluded that they might rob it. The officer stopped and frisked the men. A weapon was found on Terry and he was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon. The Supreme Court ruled that this search was reasonable.Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)
Holding: Students do not leave their rights at the schoolhouse door.
To protest the Vietnam War, Mary Beth Tinker and her brother wore black armbands to school. Fearing a disruption, the administration prohibited wearing such armbands. The Tinkers were removed from school when they failed to comply, but the Supreme Court ruled that their actions were protected by the First Amendment.
Learn more about this case. Teach students the significance of Tinker v. Des Moineswhich examines student's First Amendment rights.
Roe v. Wade, 1973
Question: Does the Constitution embrace a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy by abortion?
Holding: The Court held that a woman's right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
Roe, a Texas resident, sought to terminate her pregnancy by abortion. Texas law prohibited abortions except to save the pregnant woman's life. 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.
U.S. v. Nixon (1974)
Holding: The President is not above the law.
The special prosecutor in the Watergate affair subpoenaed audio tapes of Oval Office conversations. President Nixon refused to turn over the tapes, asserting executive privilege. The Supreme Court ruled that the defendants' right to potentially exculpating evidence outweighed the President's right to executive privilege if national security was not compromised.
Goss v. Lopez (1975)
Holding: Students are entitled to certain due process rights.
Nine students at an Ohio public school received 10-day suspensions for disruptive behavior without due process protections. The Supreme Court ruled for the students, saying that once the state provides an education for all of its citizens, it cannot deprive them of it without ensuring due process protections.
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978)
Question: Did the University of California violate theequal protection clause by practicing an affirmative action policy that resulted in the rejection of Bakke's application for admission to its medical school?
Holding: A university's use of racial "quotas" in its admissions process was unconstitutional, but a school's use of "affirmative action" to accept more minority applicants was constitutional in some circumstances..
Allan Bakke, a thirty-five-year-old white man, had twice applied for admission to the University of California Medical School at Davis. He was rejected both times. The school reserved sixteen places in each entering class of one hundred for "qualified" minorities, as part of the university's affirmative action program, in an effort to redress longstanding, unfair minority exclusions from the medical profession. Bakke's qualifications (college GPA and test scores) exceeded those of any of the minority students admitted in the two years Bakke's applications were rejected. Bakke contended, first in the California courts, then in the Supreme Court, that he was excluded from admission solely on the basis of race.
New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985)
Holding: Students have a reduced expectation of privacy in school.
A teacher accused T.L.O. of smoking in the bathroom. When she denied the allegation, the principal searched her purse and found cigarettes and marijuana paraphernalia. A family court declared T.L.O. a delinquent. The Supreme Court ruled that her rights were not violated since students have reduced expectations of privacy in school.
Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser (1987)
Holding: Students do not have a First Amendment right to make obscene speeches in school.
Matthew N. Fraser, a student at Bethel High School, was suspended for three days for delivering an obscene and provocative speech to the student body. In this speech, he nominated his fellow classmate for an elected school office. The Supreme Court held that his free speech rights were not violated.
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988)
Holding: Administrators may edit the content of school newspapers.
The principal of Hazelwood East High School edited two articles in the school paper The Spectrum that he deemed inappropriate. The student authors argued that this violated their First Amendment right to freedom of speech. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that administrators can edit materials that reflect school values.
Texas v. Johnson (1989)
Holding: Even offensive speech such as flag burning is protected by the First Amendment.
To protest the policies of the Reagan administration, Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag outside of the Dallas City Hall. He was arrested for this act, but argued that it was symbolic speech. The Supreme Court agreed, ruling that symbolic speech is constitutionally protected even when it is offensive.
Learn more about this case.
Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe (2000)
Holding: Students may not use a school's loudspeaker system to offer student-led, student-initiated prayer.
Before football games, members of the student body of a Texas high school elected one of their classmates to address the players and spectators. These addresses were conducted over the school's loudspeakers and usually involved a prayer. Attendance at these events was voluntary. Three students sued the school arguing that the prayers violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. A majority of the Court rejected the school's argument that since the prayer was student initiated and student led, as opposed to officially sponsored by the school, it did not violate the First Amendment. The Court held that this action did constitute school-sponsored prayer because the loudspeakers that the students used for their invocations were owned by the school.
Board of Education of Independent School District #92 of Pottawatomie County v. Earls (2002)
Holding: Random drug tests of students involved in extracurricular activities do not violate the Fourth Amendment.
In Veronia School District v. Acton (1995), the Supreme Court held that random drug tests of student athletes do not violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures. Some schools then began to require drug tests of all students in extracurricular activities. The Supreme Court in Earls upheld this practice.
Zelma v. Simmons-Harris (2002)
Holding: Certain school voucher programs are constitutional.
The Ohio Pilot Scholarship Program allowed certain Ohio families to receive tuition aid from the state. This would help offset the cost of tuition at private, including parochial (religiously affiliated), schools. The Supreme Court rejected First Amendment challenges to the program and stated that such aid does not violate the Establishment Clause.
Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)
Holding: Colleges and universities have a legitimate interest in promoting diversity.
Barbara Grutter alleged that her Equal Protection rights were violated when the University of Michigan Law School's attempt to gain a diverse student body resulted in the denial of her admission's application. The Supreme Court disagreed and held that institutions of higher education have a legitimate interest in promoting diversity.
Roper v. Simmons (2005)
Holding: It is cruel and unusual punishment to execute persons for crimes they committed before age 18.
Matthew Simmons was sentenced to death for the murder of a woman when he was 17 years of age. In the 1988 caseThompson v. Oklahoma, the Supreme Court ruled that executing persons for crimes committed at age 15 or younger constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Roper argued that "evolving standards of decency" prevented the execution of an individual for crimes committed before the age of 18. A majority of the Supreme Court agreed with Roper, and held that to execute him for his crime would violate the Eighth Amendment.
District of Columbia v. Heller, 2008 (5-4 decision)
Citizens have a right to possess firearms at home for self-defense.
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 2010 (5-4 decision)
Corporations and unions can spend unlimited amounts in elections.
National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 2012 (5-4 decision)
Upheld the mandate that most Americans have health insurance.
Shelby County v. Holder, 2013 (5-4 decision)
States and localities do not need federal approval to change voting laws.
United States v. Windsor, 2013 (5-4 decision)
Federal government must provide benefits to legally married same-sex couples.
Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015 (5-4 decision)
Same-sex marriage is legalized across all 50 states.
