Important Court Cases

THINGS YOU NEED TO KNOW!

Important Cases

Marbury v. Madison (1803) McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) Brown v. Board of Education (1954) Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) Miranda v. Arizona (1966) Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985)

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

Established Judicial Review

Judicial Review: The principle by which courts can declare acts of either the executive branch or the legislative branch unconstitutional. (American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition )

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)(US Bank vs. Maryland…over whether they could tax them or not)

Supremacy Clause: The federal government is supreme above state governments.

1. Constitution grants to Congress implied powers for implementing the Constitution's express powers, in order to create a functional national government, and

2. Congress can do anything they think is “necessary and proper” to do their job (like create a bank and put a branch in B-more).

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) (Black man wanting to ride a white train)

Plessy set the precedent that "separate" facilities for blacks and whites were constitutional as long as they were "equal”.

The "separate but equal" doctrine was quickly extended to cover many areas of public life, such as restaurants, theaters, restrooms, and public schools.

SEPARATE BUT EQUAL is established.

Brown v. Board of Education (1954) (Linda Brown wanted to go to white school)

"We conclude that the doctrine of 'separate but equal' has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.“ -- Chief Justice Earl Warren  

Overturned Plessy

Schools are integrated!! Separate but equal is OVER.

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that state courts are required under the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution to provide counsel (lawyer) in criminal cases for defendants unable to afford their own attorneys.

States courts must provide a lawyer even if you can’t afford one. (part of Miranda rights)

Miranda v. Arizona (1966) (your “Miranda Rights”)

". . . the prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination."

—Chief Justice Earl Warren, speaking for the majority

You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used

against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be

appointed for you. You have protection against self-

incrimination. (5th Amendment)

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) (black armbands)

". . . In the absence of a specific showing of constitutionally valid reasons to regulate their speech, students are entitled to freedom of expression of their views." -- Justice Fortas, speaking for the majority

Protection of “symbolic speech” (making a statement) – 1st Amendment

"Expression may be symbolic, as well as verbal. Symbolic speech is conduct that expresses an idea. Sit-ins, flag waving, demonstrations, and wearing . . . protest buttons are examples of symbolic speech. While most forms of conduct could be said to express ideas in some way, only some conduct is protected as symbolic speech. In analyzing such cases, the courts ask whether the speaker intended to convey a particular message, and whether it is likely that the message was understood by those who viewed it.

Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)

In order to convince a court that symbolic conduct should be punished and not protected as speech, the government must show it has an important reason. However, the reason cannot be that the government disapproves of the message conveyed by the symbolic conduct"

Students have the right to symbolic speech as long as it is not disruptive to the educational process (because you also have the right to an education!)

Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)

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

". . . The warrant requirement, in particular, is unsuited to the school environment . . . . [T]he legality of a search of a student should depend simply on the reasonableness, under all the circumstances, of the search . . . —Justice Byron White, speaking for the majority

Authorities at school, if they suspect something (“reasonable suspicion”), have the right to search

through your belongings. Must have 2 adults present, but don’t need a search warrant.