Case law project

"How Case Law Has Shaped Our Rights."

By Joshua Finkelstein Mr. Como

Business Law

Marbury v. MadisonU.S. Supreme Court

MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)

5 U.S. 137 (Cranch)• William Marbury was appointed to a federal

judgeship by John Adams, a Federalist President.

• He was nominated and appointed properly, his commission was signed, but not delivered. It was one of the last "Midnight appointments" of John Adams.

• After the commission was signed, but before it was delivered, Thomas Jefferson, a Republican, was elected.

• Jefferson ordered his Secretary of State, James Madison, not to deliver the commission.

• The case was a unanimous 4-0 decision, issued by Chief Justice John Marshall and signed by William Patterson, Samuel Chase and Bushrod Washington. These four people unilaterally changed the Constitution of the United States.

Landmark DecisionEstablished

Judicial Review

Plaintiff's Argument• Marbury argued his appointment was

valid.

• The President had nominated him.

• The Senate had confirmed his position as justice of the peace.

• Marbury's attorney, Charles Lee, asked the Supreme Court to issue a writ of mandamus to force Madison to deliver the document Marbury needed to take office.

Defendant's Argument• The Defendant was James Madison.

• Madison was appointed Secretary of State under Thomas Jefferson.

• Madison and Jefferson were republicans.

• They argued that they did not have to deliver Marbury's commission because the commission was signed during John Adam's term.

• John Adams was a Federalist.

• Madison believes that Jefferson had the right to choose whether to enforce a law because of his position as head of the executive branch.

• Madison argues that if Jefferson did not want it, then Madison did not have to do it.

Summary of Marbury v. MadisonEstablishment of Judicial Review

• The court ruled that Marbury WAS entitled to his commission.

• The court did not have the power to order Madison to deliver the commission to Marbury

• The Judiciary Act of 1798 conflicts with the Constitution.

• Article III section 2 of the Constitution allows the Supreme to exercise original jurisdiction in certain cases.

• Original jurisdiction means the Supreme Court is the first to decide the case.

• Appellate jurisdiction means the plaintiff has to try his case in lower courts and only then can he appeal it to the Supreme Court.

• Marbury brought his case under original jurisdiction. The court decided this was improper. He should have had it tried at the lower courts first.

• Marbury brought his case under original jurisdiction because the Judiciary Act of 1789 gave him the right to do so.

• The Supreme Court declared that the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional.

Importance of the Case

• There was a conflict between the Constitution and a federal law.

• The Supreme Court decided that it has the right to determine which laws are unconstitutional.

• This case redefined Article III Section 2 of the Constitution. It clarified what original jurisdiction means.

• It created the right of Judicial Review.

• The Tenth Amendment states that powers not delegated to the US by the Constitution are reserved to the states or to the people.

• Marbury v Madison changed the Tenth Amendment. This case took the power of judicial review. This power was not delegate by the Constitution so it should have been reserved by the states or by the people, but here the court took it for itself.

MAPP v. OHIO. APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT

OF OHIO. No. 236.

Argued March 29, 1961. Decided June 19, 1961.

• It was a 6-3 decision.

• Justice Clark wrote the majority opinion with Justices Warren, Brennan, Douglas, Black, and Stewart.

• Justices Frankfuter, Harlan and Whittacker dissented.

Mapp's Argument

• Dorlee Mapp was a defendant in an Ohio state prosecution.

• Police entered her home without a proper warrant. Police found evidence of a crime.

• Mapp was convicted of the crime in the Ohio courts.

• Mapp argued that illegally found evidence can not be used in court.

Ohio's Argument• They argued that even

though the police did not have a proper warrant, they did find evidence of a crime.

• The Ohio State Prosecutor argued the case and got a proper conviction.

• The representatives of Ohio argued that the conviction should be upheld.

Summary of the Case

• Mapp v Ohio extended the Fourth Amendment to state procedures.

• Evidence found without a proper search warrant must be excluded from evidence.

• This case created the Exclusionary Rule.

• Mapp's conviction was overturned and the case was sent back to the state courts for a retrial with the evidence excluded.

New Jersey v. TLO

• The Supreme Court decided that the Exclsionary Rule should not apply to public school officials.

• It was a 6-3 decision.

• The Majority opinion was written by Justice White, joined by Burger, Powell, Rehnquist, O'Connor, and Blackmun

• Justices Brennan, Marshall and Stevens dissented.

T.L.O.'s Argument• T.L.O was a defendant in a criminal case

in New Jersey.

• T.L.O was a 14 year old student who was searched by school officials.

• The officials found Marijuana in her purse.

• This evidence was introduced at trial and T.L.O was convicted.

• T.L.O argued that the evidence was illegally obtained since school officials had no search warrant.

• T.L.O argued that the school violated her Fourth Amendment rights.

New Jersey's Argument

• School officials suspected T.L.O. of violating school rules.

• School officials believed they had reasonable grounds to search T.L.O.

• School officials argued that they have a duty to provide a safe environment for students.

• New Jersey tried T.L.O and convicted her.

• The Appeals Court overturned her conviction.

• Representatives of the state of New Jersey asked the Supreme Court to settle this dispute.

Summary of the Case

• The Court did not view the rights of students in a public school as equal to the rights of adults in a non-school setting.

• The standard for adults is that Police need to demonstrate “probable cause” that individuals they search have violated or are violating a law.

• However, in schools, officials, only have to have a “reasonable suspicion” of unlawful conduct to justify a search of students in school.

• This case limits the exclusionary rule.

• School authorities can take away the rights of students for the benefit the school's compelling educational purpose.

• The search was legal. The Fourth Amendment was not violated. The conviction was upheld.

Marbury v.Madison• Judicial review taken from Tenth

Amendment, changed Artcle III Section 2.

Mapp v Ohio• Created the Exclusionary Rule

from the Fourth Amendment .

New Jersey v TLO• A more lenient standard exists for Fourth

Amendment Searches and Seizure cases in school settings.