Aim: Landmark Supreme Court Cases. Marbury vs Madison 1803 Constitutional Principle Separation of Powers Checks and Balances The Judiciary Why the decision.

Aim: Landmark Supreme Court Cases

Marbury vs Madison 1803

Constitutional Principle• Separation of Powers• Checks and Balances• The Judiciary

Why the decision is important• Established the Supreme Court’s right of Judicial

Review which is the right to determine the constitutionality of laws• Strengthened the judiciary in relation to other

branches of government

McCulloch vs Maryland 1819 Constitutional Principle

• Federalism – Federal Supremacy• National Power – Necessary and Proper Clause• The Judiciary

Why Decision is Important• Said no state could tax a federally chartered bank because the

power to tax involves the power to destroy• Ruling established the principle of national supremacy that the

constitution and federal laws overrule state laws when the two conflict

• Expanded national power by supporting use of necessary and proper clause to carry out constitutional powers

Gibbons vs Ogden 1824 Constitutional Principle

• Federalism – Federal Supremacy• Property Rights/Economic Policy – Interstate Commerce• The Judiciary

Why Decision is Important• States may regulate only what is solely intrastate

commerce (within a state)• Congress has power to regulate interstate commerce,

including commerce that involved intrastate-interstate activity

• Ruling established the basis of congressional regulation of interstate commerce

Worchester vs Georgia 1832 Constitutional Principle

• Federalism• National Power• Separation of Powers• Equality• Rights of Ethnic/Racial Groups

Why Decision if Important• The Constitution give the federal, not state governments

exclusive jurisdiction over Native American Tribes• Treaties between the US government and Native American tribes

are the Supreme Law of the land• Therefore, Georgia laws taking jurisdiction of Cherokee people

and land are void• President Andrew Jackson defied the ruling and the national

policy of Indian Removal followed

Dred Scott vs Sanford 1857 Constitutional Principle

• The Judiciary• Equality• Civil Liberties• Rights of Ethnic /Racial Groups

Why Decision is Important• Ruled that African Americans were not citizens (overturned

by 14th Amendment)• Declared that enslaved people were property of owners• As property, protected by 5th amendment, enslaved people

could be taken anywhere; therefore, Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional

Civil Rights Cases 1883 Constitutional Principle

• Equality• National Power – Congress• Rights of Ethnic/Racial Groups – 13th & 14th

Amendments Why Decision is Important

• Declared 1875 Civil Rights Act unconstitutional • 14th Amendment prohibited states from

discrimination, not individual actions in the private sector such as in theaters, hotels, and restaurants.• Private discrimination was not a violation of the 13th

Amendment, prohibition against slavery and involuntary servitude

Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific RR vs Illinois 1886

Constitutional Principle• Property Rights/Economic Policy – Interstate Commerce• National Power• Federalism

Why Decision is Important• Invalidated state law setting railroad rates on the part of an

interstate trip within borders• By declaring it a federal power to regulate rates and by

limiting state regulations, Court strengthened Constitution’s Interstate Commerce Clause

• Ruling paved way for creation in 1887 of Interstate Commerce Commission

United States vs E.C. Knight Co. 1895 Constitutional Principle

• National Power – Anti-trust • The Judiciary• Federalism • Proper Rights/Economic Policy – Interstate Commerce

Why Decision is Important• While federal government did have the right to regulate

some parts of economy, states under the 10th Amendment, could regulate intrastate economic activities such as manufacturing

• Refineries were manufacturing operations, not commerce; therefore, the Sherman Anti-Trust Act could not be applied to American Sugar Refining Co. although company controlled 90% of sugar processing in the nation

In Re Debs 1895

Constitutional Principle• National Power – Commerce Clause• Property Rights/Economic Policy – Commerce Clause

& LaborWhy Decision is Important

• Ruled that federal government under commerce clause of Constitution had right to halt 1894 Pullman strike• Said strike hurt general welfare of nation by disrupting

commerce and mail delivery

Plessy vs Ferguson 1896 Constitutional Principle

• Equality• Rights of Ethnic/Racial Groups 14th Amendment Equal Protection

Clause• The Judiciary

Why Decision is Important• Upheld Louisiana law providing for equal but separate

accommodations for white and colored races• Said law did not conflict with 13th or 14th Amendments, nor with

commerce clause• 14th amendment was not intended to enforce what court called

social equality• Provided legal justification for Separate but Equal Segregation

policy until overturned in 1954 Brown vs Board of Education

Northern Securities Co. vs United States 1904

Constitutional Principle• National Power – Anti-trust, Commerce Clause• Property Rights/Economic Policy

Why Decision is Important• Federal Suit (part of T. Roosevelt’s trust busting) using

Sherman Antitrust Act• Court ruled that the Northern Securities Company

was formed only to eliminate competition and ordered it to be dissolved• Congress under Commerce Clause had authority to

regulate any conspiracy to eliminate competition

Lochner vs New York 1905 Constitutional Principle

• Property Rights/Economic Policy – Contracts• Civil Liberties – 14th Amendment

Why Decision is Important• Ruled that a New York law limiting bakers to 10 hour

days and a 60 hour weeks in order to protect public health was unconstitutional because it violated the right and liberty of an individual to contract• New York law went beyond legitimate police powers

of a state

Muller vs Oregon 1908 Constitutional Principle

• Civil Liberties – 14th Amendment• Federalism – 10th vs 14th Amendments• Equality• Rights of Women

Why Decision is Important• Upheld an Oregon law that limited women to a 10 hour

work day in laundries or factories in order to protect women’s health

• Cited the physical differences between men and women when ruling that the need to protect women’s health outweighed the liberty to make a contract that was upheld in Lochner vs New York.

Schenk vs United States 1919 Constitutional Principle

• Civil Liberties – Limited in Wartime• The Judiciary

Why Decision is Important• Established limits on free speech; right is not absolute

but dependent on circumstances, example; a person is not protected if falsely shouts fire in a crowded theatre• In this case, Court saw defendant’s actions as a Clear

and Present Danger to security of the nation in wartime

Schechter Poultry Corp. vs United States 1935

Constitutional Principle• Separation of Powers• Property Rights/Economic Police – Commerce Clause

Why Decision if Important• Placed limits on the ability of Congress to delegate

legislative power to President• By narrowly defining interstate commerce also

restricted congressional powers to regulate commerce• Declared the New Deal’s National Industrial Act

Unconstitutional

Korematsu vs United States 1944 Constitutional Principle

• Civil Liberties – Equal Protection• Presidential Power in Wartime• Rights of Ethnic/Racial Groups

Why Decision is Important• Upheld the power of the President in Wartime to limit

a group’s civil liberties• Ruled that forcible relocation of Japanese Americans

to wartime relocation agency camps during World War II was legal

Brown vs Board of Education, Topeka Kansas 1954

Constitutional Principle• Equality – Equal Protection• Federalism• Rights of Ethnic/Racial Groups

Why Decision is Important• In this school segregation case, the Court overturned

Plessy vs Ferguson’s Separate but Equal Doctrine• Ruled that Separate educational facilities are

inherently unequal and violate the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause

Watkins vs United States 1957 Constitutional Principle

• Criminal Procedure – Due Process• National Power – Congressional Investigations• Civil Liberties

Why Decision is Important• Congressional investigations must spell out their

legislative purpose and jurisdiction• The Bill of Rights is applicable to Congressional

investigations• Watkins was within his rights to refuse to testify to

matters beyond scope of House Committee on Un-American Activities

Mapp vs Ohio 1961 Constitutional Principle

• Criminal Procedure – 4th Amendment• Civil Liberties – 14th Amendment

Why Decision is Important• Ruled that the 4th and 14th Amendments protected

citizens from illegal searches• Applied the Exclusionary Rule to state courts which

means evidence obtained unconstitutionally without a search warrant could not be used in federal or state courts

Baker vs Carr 1962 Constitutional Principle

• Avenues of Representation – Voting Rights & Equal Protection• Federalism

Why Decision is Important• Court has jurisdiction over apportionment of seats in

state legislatures• Overrepresentation of rural voters and under

representation of urban voters was a violation of 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause• Ruling led to other court cases that established one

person-one vote concept

Engel vs Vitale 1962 Constitutional Principle

• Civil Liberties – Establishment Clause 1st and 14th Amendments

Why Decision is Important• Reciting of an official prayer in the schools violated

the 1st Amendment’s Establishment Clause (Establishment of Religion) which was applied to the states by the 14th Amendment• Although students were not required to say the non-

denominational prayer, its recitation in class put them under pressure

Gideon vs Wainwright 1963 Constitutional Principle

• Civil Liberties• Criminal Procedure – 6th and 14th Amendments

Why Decision is Important• Ruled unanimously that the 6th Amendment right

to an attorney, which was applied to the states by the 14th Amendment, required that a state provide lawyers for poor people accused of felony crimes not just capital (death penalty) crimes.

Heart of Atlanta Motel vs United States 1964

Constitution Principle• National Power – Commerce Clause• Civil Liberties – Equal Protection Clause

Why Decision is Important• Upheld the Constitutionality of 1964 Civil Rights

Act’s use of Congressional interstate commerce powers to prohibit discrimination in private facilities whose operations affect interstate commerce

Miranda vs Arizona 1966 Constitutional Principle

• Criminal Procedures – Due Process; Self Incrimination • Civil Liberties - Equal Protection

Why Decision is Important• Established the requirement prior to questioning to

inform those accused of crimes that they have the right to remain silent, the right to a lawyer, and that what they say can be used against them in court• Evidence obtained without this warning may not be

used in court under the Exclusionary Rule

Tinker vs Des Moines Independent Community School District 1969

Constitutional Principle• Civil Liberties – 1st Amendment, Student rights/Safe

School Environment Why Decision is Important

• While recognizing the authority of schools to prescribe and control conduct in the schools, the court ruled that neither students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate• Symbolic, silent expression of opinion in absence of

any disorder (wearing black armbands to protest Vietnam War) is protected under the 1st Amendment

New York Times Co. vs United States 1971

Constitutional Principle• Civil Liberties – Freedom of the Press• National Power

Why Decision is Important• Court narrowly upheld 1st Amendment right to

Freedom of the Press• Ruled that government had not met the heavy burden

of prior restraint; the government had not made a strong enough case to stop publication of the Pentagon Papers on the grounds that National Security would be hurt

Roe vs Wade 1973

Constitutional Principle• Civil Liberties – Right to Privacy• Rights of Women

Why Decision is Important• Declared state laws making abortions illegal to be

unconstitutional while stating certain limits and conditions• Basis of decision was right to privacy, citing the

Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment

United States vs Nixon 1974 Constitutional Principle

• Separation of Powers – Due Process• Executive Power

Why Decision is Important• By 8 – 0 vote, the Court ruled that Nixon had to turn

over the Watergate Tapes to the Special Prosecutor• No President was above the law; Executive

Privilege (Confidentiality) was not absolute• Separation of powers does not protect a President

from Judicial Review of Executive Privilege, nor from the needs of the Judicial process

New Jersey vs T.L.O. 1985

Constitutional Principle• Civil Liberties – 4th Amendment, Student Rights, Safe

School Environment Why Decision is Important

• Affirmed the 4th Amendment prohibition on Unreasonable Searches and Seizures applied to school officials• But, necessity of maintaining discipline allowed for

searches when there are Reasonable Grounds that the law or school rules have been broken comparted to police requirement of Probable Cause

Cruzan vs Director Missouri Department of Health 1990

Constitutional Principle• Civil Liberties

Why Decision is Important• Ruled that under Due Process Clause, a competent

person has the right to refuse life sustaining treatment• Evidence of the wishes of an incompetent person

must be clear and convincing; evidence not presented in this case• Cruzan’s parents then gathered what Missouri Court

agreed was Clear and Convincing evidence and the life support system was removed

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania et al. vs Casey 1992

Constitutional Principle• Civil Liberties – 4th Amendment, Student

Rights/Safe School Environment Why Decision is Important

• Upheld Roe vs Wade decision• Determined that Pennsylvania law with provisions

such as 24 hour waiting period and parental consent to a minor’s abortion did not create undue burden or substantial obstacles to abortion• Struck down requirement of husband notification

Veronia School District vs Acton 1995

Constitutional Principle • Civil Liberties – 4th Amendment, Students Rights,

Safe School Environment Why Decision is Important

• Ruled that a school’s practice of testing athletes randomly for drug use did NOT violate their rights under 4th and 14th Amendments• Cited schools need to maintain student safety and

fulfill its educational mission