Landmark Supreme Court Cases:

Landmark Landmark Supreme Court Supreme Court

Cases:Cases:

Marbury v. Madison (1803):

William Marbury William Marbury was appointed justice of the was appointed justice of the peace by peace by John AdamsJohn Adams the day before he left the day before he left office. office. Thomas JeffersonThomas Jefferson (the new president), (the new president), cancelled Marburycancelled Marbury’’s appointments appointment. . Marbury Marbury asked the Supreme Court rule on the case asked the Supreme Court rule on the case based on the Judiciary Actbased on the Judiciary Act, , which enabled which enabled him to take his case directly to the Supreme him to take his case directly to the Supreme Court.Court.

The Supreme Court ruled that the Judiciary The Supreme Court ruled that the Judiciary

Act itself was unconstitutional and Marbury Act itself was unconstitutional and Marbury

lost his case.lost his case.

The decision established The decision established ““judicial judicial reviewreview””: : the evaluation of federal the evaluation of federal lawslaws’’ constitutionality as a power of constitutionality as a power of the Supreme Courtthe Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has the ability to The Supreme Court has the ability to review laws, cases, decisions, etc. review laws, cases, decisions, etc. and judge their constitutionality.and judge their constitutionality.

Plessy v. Fergusson Plessy v. Fergusson (1896):(1896):

A Louisiana law required separate seating A Louisiana law required separate seating for white and African Americans on public for white and African Americans on public railroads railroads ((segregationsegregation))..

----Herman PlessyHerman Plessy said his said his 14th 14th AmendmentAmendment rights rights (Equal Protection (Equal Protection Clause)Clause) had been violated. had been violated.

----The Supreme Court ruled that his The Supreme Court ruled that his rights were not violatedrights were not violated, and , and segregated public facilities were segregated public facilities were permitted until 1954.permitted until 1954.

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954)

10-year-old, 10-year-old, Linda BrownLinda Brown, was not allowed to , was not allowed to attend her neighborhood school because she attend her neighborhood school because she was African American.was African American.

--Linda Brown said her --Linda Brown said her 14th Amendment 14th Amendment rightsrights ( (Equal Protection ClauseEqual Protection Clause) had been ) had been violated.violated.

----The Supreme Court ruled that The Supreme Court ruled that ““separate separate but equalbut equal”” segregation was a violation of segregation was a violation of the Equal Protection Clausethe Equal Protection Clause.. This decision This decision overturned the precedent established by overturned the precedent established by Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896.Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896.

Mapp v. Ohio Mapp v. Ohio (1962):(1962):

Dollree MappDollree Mapp was was convicted of having obscene convicted of having obscene materials in her home.materials in her home.

Mapp appealed the conviction, saying that Mapp appealed the conviction, saying that the police the police had violated her rights by had violated her rights by entering her house entering her house without a warrantwithout a warrant..

The Supreme Court overturned the lower courtThe Supreme Court overturned the lower court’’s s decisiondecision, saying that the police had acted , saying that the police had acted improperly, this excluding the evidence that they improperly, this excluding the evidence that they had found.had found.

““Exclusionary RuleExclusionary Rule””:: excludes all evidence that is excludes all evidence that is found in illegal police searched.found in illegal police searched.

Miranda v. Miranda v. Arizona (1966):Arizona (1966):

Ernesto MirandaErnesto Miranda was arrested for kidnapping and was arrested for kidnapping and sexual assault – sexual assault – he signed a full confession including he signed a full confession including a statement that he a statement that he ““had full knowledge of his legal had full knowledge of his legal rights.rights.””

Miranda appealed claiming that he Miranda appealed claiming that he had not received had not received warning or legal council to guide his decision to warning or legal council to guide his decision to confess.confess.

The Supreme Court agreed with MirandaThe Supreme Court agreed with Miranda, saying , saying that all suspects must be forewarned that they have that all suspects must be forewarned that they have the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney.the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney.

““Miranda RuleMiranda Rule””:: before a suspect is questioned by before a suspect is questioned by police, he/she must be:police, he/she must be:

The Miranda Rights:The Miranda Rights:

1. Told of their 1. Told of their right to remain silent.right to remain silent.

2. Warned that 2. Warned that whatever they say may be whatever they say may be usedused in court.in court.

3. Informed of their 3. Informed of their right to an attorney.right to an attorney.

4. Informed that an 4. Informed that an attorney will be attorney will be provided if they cannot afford one.provided if they cannot afford one.

5. Told that they can 5. Told that they can stop police stop police questioning at any time.questioning at any time.

Gregg v. Georgia Gregg v. Georgia (1976):(1976):

Troy GreggTroy Gregg was was sentenced to death after being sentenced to death after being found guilty of 2 counts of armed robbery and 2 found guilty of 2 counts of armed robbery and 2 counts of murder.counts of murder.

Gregg appealed claiming that Gregg appealed claiming that the sentence violated the sentence violated the the ““cruel and unusual punishmentcruel and unusual punishment”” clause of clause of the 8th Amendment.the 8th Amendment.

The Supreme Court denied the appealThe Supreme Court denied the appeal, stating , stating for the first time that for the first time that ““the death penalty does not the death penalty does not invariably violate the Constitutioninvariably violate the Constitution””..

New Jersey v. T.L.O. New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985):(1985):

T.L.O.T.L.O. (a New Jersey high school student) was (a New Jersey high school student) was sentenced to probation by juvenile court after a sentenced to probation by juvenile court after a vice-vice-principal searched her purse and found principal searched her purse and found cigarettes and marijuana.cigarettes and marijuana.

T.L.O. appealed the ruling saying T.L.O. appealed the ruling saying the principalthe principal’’s s search search was unreasonable.was unreasonable.

The Supreme Court denied the appealThe Supreme Court denied the appeal, saying that , saying that schools are allowed more leeway when conducting schools are allowed more leeway when conducting searches.searches.

The Court created a The Court created a ““reasonable suspicionreasonable suspicion”” rulerule for for schools conducting searches, instead of the schools conducting searches, instead of the ““probable probable causecause”” rulerule that exists for the rest of society. that exists for the rest of society.

Roe vs. Wade Roe vs. Wade (1973) (1973)

Jane Row (Norma McCorvey) was Jane Row (Norma McCorvey) was asking courts to asking courts to have her abortionhave her abortion in the state of Texas, where it was in the state of Texas, where it was illegal to have an abortion, since she couldnillegal to have an abortion, since she couldn’’t afford t afford to travel to another state where it was legal.to travel to another state where it was legal.

The big question that the Supreme court tried to The big question that the Supreme court tried to reason was reason was does the Constitution embrace a woman's does the Constitution embrace a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy by abortion? right to terminate her pregnancy by abortion?

The Court held that The Court held that a woman's right to an abortion a woman's right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy (recognized in fell within the right to privacy (recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut) protected by the Griswold v. Connecticut) protected by the Fourteenth AmendmentFourteenth Amendment. The decision gave a woman . The decision gave a woman total autonomy over the pregnancy during the first total autonomy over the pregnancy during the first trimester trimester

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963):Clarence GideonClarence Gideon was found was found guilty of breaking guilty of breaking

and entering and sentenced him to 5 years in and entering and sentenced him to 5 years in prison.prison.

Gideon appealed claiming that Gideon appealed claiming that he had been he had been unconstitutionally unconstitutionally denied counsel denied counsel during trial during trial due to Floridadue to Florida’’s policy of only providing legal s policy of only providing legal counsel in capital areas.counsel in capital areas.

Gideon received a new trialGideon received a new trial (with a court-(with a court-appointed attorney) appointed attorney) and was and was found not guilty.found not guilty.

““The Gideon RuleThe Gideon Rule””: : guarantees counsel to all poor guarantees counsel to all poor persons facing a felony charge (6th Amendment).persons facing a felony charge (6th Amendment).