Supreme Court Cases

Chisholm v. Georgia (1793)• Background: Executive Council of Georgia authorized the purchase

of needed supplies from a South Carolina businessman. After receiving the supplies, Georgia did not deliver payments as promised. After the merchant's death, the executor of his estate, Alexander Chisholm, took the case to court trying to collect from the state. Georgia stated that it was a sovereign state not subject authority of federal courts.

• Court Decision: Supreme Court ordered Georgia to pay the money Chisholm sought

• Chief Justice: John Jay• Legal Impact: considered one the first United States Supreme Court

Case of significance and impact; resulted in the eleventh amendment which removed federal jurisdiction in cases where citizens of one state or of foreign countries attempt to sue another state

Marbury v. Madison

• Background - When President Jefferson was elected 2 days before he entered office President Adams appointed Federalist William Marbury as justice of the peace in the District of Columbia in fact his official letter of appoint met signed by President Adams didn’t arrive until Jefferson was in office was in office dubbing it the “midnight appointments”. By then Madison was the new secretary of state Jefferson ordered him to with hold the letter of commission for Marbury

• Issue - Marbury sued for a court order for Madison to give him the commission.

• Court Decision - Chief justice Marshall said Marbury deserved commission but the court had no jurisdiction in the case. The court ruled that section 13 of the Federal Judiciary Act of 1789, giving the court authority over the matter, was unconstitutional because the constitution gave court original jurisdiction only in cases involving ambassadors and states.

• Impact of decision - It was the first supreme court decision to rule a law unconstitutional

• Chief Justice- John Marshall

• Issue- U.S. Supreme Court decision determined whether or not the sale of the Yazoo land , by Roger Fletcher, to John Peck was fraud.

• Decision- Court decided that laws annulling the grant made by previous legislative acts were constitutionally forbidden

- congress paid $4.2 million to the original spectators in 1814

Gibbons Vs. Ogden

• The Case was in 1824• This case decided that interstate

commerce was to be controlled and regulated by Congress.

• The “Commerce Clause” was added to the US Constitution, which gave Congress this power.

• The Chief justice of this court case was John Marshall.

Synopsis

• Gibbons was operating a steamboat service off the New York coast (regulating trade for Congress), when Ogden (someone trading in New York ports) filed a complaint. New York State said the Ogden was right, and that Gibbons had to stop, but Gibbons had US Congressional permission, so it went to the Supreme Court to decide whether state or federal government had the power to regulate interstate commerce.

Worchester v. GeorgiaBackground: -whites living in Cherokee Indian Territory had to have a state license-seven missionaries refused to obey the law-argued that the laws were unconstitutional

Issues:-states power to pass laws concerning Indian nations

Court Decision(s):-Worchester is convicted

-court ruled states had no power to pass the laws-convictions were reversed

Chief Justice: John Marshall

Legal Impact of the Decision:-disagreements between the 3 branches of government

-reaffirmation of tribal sovereignty becomes basis for court decisions for the next 160 years

Dred Scott V. Sandford (1857)

Background:

• Dred Scott, a slave had lived in the free state of Illinois and the free territory of Wisconsin, move back to Missouri to claim his freedom.

Issues:

• But the State supreme court ruled against Scotts, arguing that slave state did not have to honor freedom granted to slaves by free states. This case reach to the supreme court.

Court Decisions: Chief Justice: Roger B. Taney

• Taney reasons that when Scott return to the slave state, he had reverted to slave status upon his return to Missouri.

• Taney ruled that Scott don’t have the authority to stand in court because he lack the citizenship.

Legal Impact of the Decision:

• The supreme court ruled that the African decedents are not protected by the constitution meaning they have no rights to sue or the rights of citizenship. They are also excluded from the bill of rights.

Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)

• Scott based his legal argument claiming his presence and residence in free territories required his emancipation. Scott's lawyers argued the same for Scott's wife, and further claimed that Eliza Scott's birth on a steamboat between a free state and a free territory had made her free upon birth.

• Chief Justice- Robert Taney• Ruled that people of African descent imported into the United States

and held as slaves, or their descendants—whether or not they were slaves—were not protected by the Constitution and could never be citizens of the United States. It also held that the United States Congress had no authority to prohibit slavery in federal territories.

Plessy vs. Ferguson (1896)• Background:In 1890, the State of Louisiana passed an act that required separate

accommodations for African Americans and Whites on railroads. Concerned, several African Americans and Whites in New Orleans formed an association, the Citizens' Committee to Test the Separate Car Act, dedicated to the repeal of that law. Later, they enlisted Homer Plessy, who was one-eighth black, to take part in an act of planned civil disobedience. The plan was for Plessy to be thrown off the railway car and arrested not for violating the Separate Car Act, which could and did lead to a challenge with the high court. The intellectual roots of Plessy v. Ferguson were in part tied to the scientific racism of the era.

• Issue(s):On June 7, 1892, Homer Plessy boarded a car of the East Louisiana Railroad that was designated for use by white patrons only. Although Plessy was born a free person and was one-eighth black under a Louisiana law enacted in 1890, he was classified as Black, and thus required to sit in the "colored" car. When, in an act of planned disobedience, Plessy refused to leave the white car and move to the colored car, he was arrested and jailed

• .Court Decision(s): Court rejected Plessy's arguments based on the Fourteenth Amendment. Chief Justice predicted the Court’s decision before it happened.

• Legal Impact of the Decision:Plessy provided an impetus for further segregation laws. Legislative achievements won during the Reconstruction Era were erased through means of the "separate but equal" doctrine.

Schenck v. the United States• Background:The Espionage Act was passed to promote American unity in World

War I. Charles Schenck was the Secretary of the Socialist party. During the time of World War I he printed and gave out 15,000 copies of hand outs to men that could be drafted to the war. The handouts encouraged draftees to fight against the draft and essentially assert their perceived right of being able to resist the draft. They insisted that the draft was a product of the corrupt ways of capitalism. His hand outs told men not to “submit to intimidation" and to assert their “rights.” Although, he suggested only peaceful ways to protest, like petitioning.

• Issue(s):This court case tested the First Amendment by what ‘freedom of speech’ really defined. It questioned if what Schenck was advertising and advocating presented a danger that Congress was able to prevent before it erupted. It also challenged the Espionage Act because Schenck was attempting to convince people against the war

• Chief Justice – Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. Holmes decided that Schenck didn’t have protection by the First Amendment in his case. The court unanimously decided that a person’s right to speech and what they could say was different in wartime then it was in peacetime. It was concluded that, in essence, actions and consequences depend on their circumstances. The Espionage Act was upheld as a reasonable Schenck was charged with conspiracy against it.

Schenck vs. United States (1919) Under Chief Justice Oliver

Wendell Holmes Jr. Sec. of Socialist Party Charles

Schenck organized opposition to the WWI draft by sending leaflets urging men eligible for draft to resist intimidation and “assert your rights”

Supreme Court convicted Schenck because he didn’t have right to the 1st Amendment to speak out against military draft

Est. the “clear and present danger” rule-during wartime, more restrictions are put on free speech than during peacetime & upheld the Espionage Act of 1917

Abrams v. United StatesSupreme Court Case: Abrams v. United States October 21, 22, 1919Background: Convicts were in violation of the Espionage Act which prohibited any attempt to interfere with military operations, support America's enemies during wartime, promote insubordination in the military, or interfere with military recruitment.Issue(s): Jacob Abrams, a Russian immigrant and an anarchist, was arrested in New York City along with several of his comrades for throwing leaflets they printed out the windows of a building in New York City. One leaflet, signed "revolutionists", denounced sending troops to Russia and the other written in Yiddish denounced the war and US efforts to stop the Russian Revolution. The case would decide whether the anarchist violated the Espionage Act or were they protected by the free speech clause of the First Amendment.Court Decision(s): Upheld the conviction and the Espionage Act as constitutional and the anarchist were convicted to 20 years in jail.Chief Justice: Oliver Wendell HolmesLegal Impact of the Decision: People became a lot less open if they were in disfavor of the war efforts of the united states not a lot of antiwar rallies during this time

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas (1954)

• Background: Started with Linda Brown wanting to go to the school near her instead of the one a mile away.

• Issue: Schools are segregated• Decision: Declared segregation in schools

unconstitutional• Chief Justice: Earl Warren • Legal Impact: Overruled Plessy V.

Ferguson’s “separate but equal”

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas (1954)

Sarah Wheeler APUSH Mr. Wilson 2nd

Background: Topeka, Kansas, a black third-grader, Linda Brown, had to walk one mile through a railroad switchyard to get to her black elementary school, even though a white elementary

school was only seven blocks away. Linda's father tried to enroll her in the white elementary school, but the principal of the school refused. Mr. Brown went to the head of Topeka's branch of the NAACP and asked for help.

Their case was combined with other cases that challenged school segregation in South Carolina, Virginia, and Delaware

Issue(s): Segregation in schools and that even if separate facilities were equal in quality, the fact that they were segregating people by race gave blacks feelings of inferiority to whitesThe constitutionality of state-sponsored segregation in public schoolsseparate school systems for blacks and whites were unequal, and thus violated the "equal protection clause" of the Fourteenth Amendment

Court Decision(s): Chief Justice – Earl WarrenChief Justice Warren and the Supreme Court unanimously voted that “…in the field of public education the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place.”

Legal Impact of the Decision:The “Southern Manifesto”Struck down racial segregation in public education and declared “separate but equal” unconstitutional.The Brown case and Brown II, which was the Courts plan for desegregating schools came to be called, did not immediately get desegregation in all schools but got the ball rolling.

•

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan

BackgroundOn March 29, 1960 The New York Times published a full- page advertisement, “Heed Their Rising Voices,” requesting funds to defend Martin Luther King Jr. against a perjury charge. In the advertisement some actions against Civil Rights protestors were falsely described. Some of these descriptions involved the Montgomery, AL police force, which in turn reflected Commissioner L.B. Sullivan, or so he claimed.

IssuesL.B. Sullivan was displeased with the way he may have been perceived due to the New York Times advertisement and demanded a retraction be printed in order to attain recovery in this libel action. The New York Times refused to print a retraction so Sullivan sued.

Court DecisionSullivan received $500,000 in an Alabama court. However, the Supreme Court said that the Alabama ruling violated the First Amendment.

Legal Impact of the DecisionTherefore the Court ruled that Public Officials may not recover damages from such a slanderous action unless “actual malice” is proven. Meaning they must prove that “that the statement was made with … knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.”

Chief Justice-Earl Warren

*Libel-a legal term meaning defamation by written or printed words.

New York Times vs. Sullivan

• Summary- This case concerns a full-page ad in the New York Times which alleged that the arrest of the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. for perjury in Alabama was part of a campaign to destroy King's efforts for civil rights. L. B. Sullivan, the Montgomery city commissioner, claimed defamation.

• Result- Sullivan won a $500,000 judgment.• Judge- Justice Brennan

Engle V. Vitale (1962) • Background: The State Board of Regents in New York Public schools were

concerned about a decline in the morality of the students, so they started a program of “moral and spiritual training” in the schools. The families of public school students complained the prayer to "Almighty God" contradicted their religious beliefs. They were supported by groups opposed to the school prayer like rabbinical organizEthical Cultureations, , and Judaic organizations. The prayer in question was: Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our country. Amen.

• Issue(s): Whether it was unconstitutional for state officials to make an official school prayer and require for public schools to recite it. Starring school with a prayer violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution which says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Court Decision(s): The Court ruled that government-directed prayer in public schools was an unconstitutional violation of the Establishment Clause.

• Chief Justice - _____Earl Warren_______• Legal Impact of the Decision: It got the ball rolling on the issue of separation

between church and state in the latter half of the 20th century, because it was the first in a series of cases in the 1960’s to rule that a variety of religious activities violated the Establishment Clause.

Mapp vs Ohio (1961)• : Dollree Mapp The Cleveland Police went over to her house and

demanded entrance. They didn’t have a warrant, so Mapp refused to let them in. After a while, the officers forced their way inside the house. Mapp demanded to see a warrant, but the police only flashed around a piece of paper, who claimed it was a warrant. Police found a trunk in the basement which contained obscene and vulgar books.

• At the local court, Mapp was convicted for being in possession of the objects. Mapp’s lawyer demanded to see the warrant the police had used, but the police were not able to provide it. Mapp then appealed to the Court of Ohio, but her conviction was still upheld. So she decided to appeal to the Court of the United States.

• The US Supreme Court finally overturned the previous convictions based on the fact that it violated the 4th amendment, which guards an individual against “unreasonable searches and seizures”.

• Evidence gained by an illegal search became unusable in state courts as well as federal courts.

Miranda v Arizona (1963)• Ernesto Miranda was arrested for armed robbery, rape and

assault.• Faced charges of about 40+ years in jail, case was taken to

the Supreme Court; raised concerns of the 5th Amendment (respect of all legal rights owed to an individual)

• Established that Police may not use statements by the defendants in police custody unless they are assured of their rights known as the Miranda Rights, and that a defendant must have an attorney present during any police interrogation

• Miranda Rights : “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 be speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you at government expense”

Escobedo v. Illinois ( 1964 )Background:Danny Escobedo was arrested for murder and denied the right to see or speak to his lawyer. While under interrogation, he confessed to murdering the victim and was convicted.

Issue(s):Escobedo was denied the right to see or speak to a lawyer before being interrogated and was not read his constitutional rights when arrested.

Court Decision(s): Chief Justice – Earl WarrenThe Supreme Court decided that because Escobedo was not allowed to speak to his attorney and he had not been warned of his constitutional rights, his case went against the 6th Amendment and his confession was therefore not allowed and his conviction was overturned.

Legal Impact of the Decision:The Supreme Court ruled that any person accused of a crime must be allowed to consult a lawyer before being interrogated by the police.

• Case under Earl Warren as Chief Justice

• 1964, the Supreme court decided that any suspect of a crime, under the Sixth Amendment, had the right to counsel during interrogation

Reynolds v. Sims

• 1964• Appointment of Alabama Legislature called into question

because the number of legislators did not adjust to the amount of people in a county

• Chief Justice – Earl Warren• The major issue was that counties with many people had

few representatives proportionately to those with few people

• Decision – The amount of representatives from a county would be based on the population of the county

• This idea was extended into congressional districts

Gideon VS. Wainwright (1968)

• In 1961, Clarence Earl Gideon was charged in a Florida state court with breaking into and entering a poolroom with intent to commit a misdemeanor, a combination of offenses that constituted a felony under Florida law.

• He could not afford a lawyer, and he requested to have one appointed by the court but he was denied and found guilty of the charges.

• First trial without a lawyer he was charged guilty. Second trial with a layer he was charged not guilty.

• The government now hires attorneys to prosecute defendants, and individuals charged with crimes who are financially unable to hire attorneys to defend themselves for a person charged with a felony

Background:

Mildred Jeter, a Negro woman and Richard Loving, a White man left their hometown of Virginia to get married in the District of Columbia.

Issue(s):

Interracial marriage in Virginia was illegal at the time, so they were charged when they returned to their hometown. The Lovings believed that it violated their 14th amendment rights.

Court Decision(s): Chief Justice – Earl Warren

The court decided in favor of the Lovings that a state could not deny someone the right to marry simply because of their skin color, and that it violated the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment.

Legal Impact of the Decision:

The legal impact of this decision some hope will be used towards equality in same-sex marriage.

Loving v. Virginia

Tinker v. Des Moines

• John Tinker, Mary Tinker, and Christopher Eckhardt decided to wear black armbands to school with the peace symbol on them in protest of the Vietnam War. The school board responded by suspending anybody with those armbands.

• Conflict with the First Amendment. Was the First Amendment applicable to public schools?

• 7-2 Vote: Yes, the First Amendment was applicable to public schools. If speech was regulated in the classroom, there must be a constitutionally valid reason why.

• Tinker v. Des Moines is still a precedent upheld in the Supreme Court today in reference to student free-speech rights. School officials must justify censoring speech

Roe v. Wade ( 1973 )

• A landmark United States Supreme Court case establishing that most laws against abortion violate a constitutional right to privacy, overturning all state laws outlawing or restricting abortion.

• The Court issued its opinion on January 22, 1973, with a 7-2 majority voting to strike down the law.

Roe v. Wade (1973)• In 1969 Jane Roe (Norma L. McCovery )was

pregnant and wanted an abortion– In the state of Texas abortions were only legal in

cases of rape, incest, or saving the mother’s life. • Jane Roe filed a suit in the U.S. District Court of

Texas saying the abortion law violated the constitutional right to privacy.– Dallas County District Attorney Henry Wade

represented Texas• Supreme Court ruled that the 9th amendment’s

reservation of rights to the people was broad enough to encompass a woman’s right to end her pregnancy (ruled in Roe's favor)

• Importance: Ended state laws forbidding abortion, a big feat for the women’s rights movement.

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke

• Allan Bakke applied to the University of California, Davis School of Medicine and was rejected two years in a row

• Despite his higher academic scores, Bakke was not admitted because he was white and therefore not part of a minority

• 5-4 split: UC Davis Medical School's “special admissions” program was unconstitutional, deny applicants based on race

• 5-4 split: UC Davis has to admit Bakke• Established that there could be no race “quota,”

however race can be used as a “plus factor”