U.S. Landmark Supreme Court Cases

Bethel School District V. Frasier (1986) Miranda V. Arizona (1966)

Brown V. Board of Ed (1954) Plessy V. Ferguson (1896)

Engel V. Vitale (1962) State V Mann (1829)

Gibbons V. Ogden (1824) Swann V. Charlotte-Meck Board of

Gideon V. Wainwright (1963) Education (1969)

Gregg V. Georgia (1976)

Hazelwood V. Kuhlmeier (1988) Texas V. Johnson (1989)

Heart of Atlanta Motel V. U.S. (1964) New Jersey V. T.L.O. (1985)

Korematsu V. U.S. (1944) Tinker V. Des Moines School District (1969)

Leandro V. North Carolina (1997) Furman V. Georgia (1972)

Mapp V. Ohio. (1961)

Marbury V. Madison (1803)

McCulloch V Maryland (1819)

Tinker V. Des Moines School District

• Strengthened the rights of free speech guaranteed in the First Amendment (as the apply to high school students)

• The Court ruled that students wearing black armbands to school into protest of the Vietnam War had the right to freely express their opinions

Tinker V Des Moines School District

Bethel School District V Frasier (1986)

•Supreme Court Case that upheld restrictions of obscene speech at high schools

Brown V. Board Of Education, Topeka, Kansas

• overturned earlier ruling going back to Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896, by declaring that state laws that established separate public schools for black and white students denied black children equal educational opportunities

• unanimous (9-0) decision stated that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal."

• ruled a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution

Engel V. Vitale (1962)• “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon

Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our country. Amen”

• determined that it is unconstitutional for state officials to compose an official school prayer and require its recitation in public schools.

• The court decided that government-directed prayer in public schools was an unconstitutional violation of the Establishment Clause. This was decided in a vote of 6-1

Gibbons V. Ogden (1824)

• power to regulate interstate commerce was granted to Congress by the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

• the law at issue was the commerce clause

• The Court said that Congressional power over commerce should override state laws to the contrary:

Gideon V. Wainwright (1963)

A burglary occurred at the Bay Harbor Pool Room in Panama City, Florida. A witness reported that he had seen Clarence Earl Gideon in the poolroom at around 5:30 that morning. Gideon was found nearby with a pint of wine and some change in his pockets.

He appeared in court and was too poor to afford counsel,

Gideon V. Wainwright (1963)

Gideon was forced, therefore, to act as his own counsel and conduct a defense of himself in court

From his prison cell at Florida State Prison, making use of the prison library and writing in pencil on prison stationery, Gideon appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court

Gideon V. Wainwright (1963)

• The decision was announced on March 18, 1963

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

Gideon V. Wainwright (1963)

• Robert F. Kennedy remarked about the case, "If an obscure Florida convict named Clarence Earl Gideon had not sat down in prison with a pencil and paper to write a letter to the Supreme Court; and if the Supreme Court had not taken the trouble to look at the merits in that one crude petition among all the bundles of mail it must receive every day, the vast machinery of American law would have gone on functioning undisturbed. But Gideon did write that letter; the court did look into his case; he was re-tried with the help of competent defense counsel; found not guilty and released from prison after two years of punishment for a crime he did not commit. And the whole course of legal history has been changed"

Furman V. Georgia (1972)

• Furman was burglarizing a private home when a family member discovered him. He attempted to flee, and in doing so he tripped and fell. The gun that he was carrying went off and killed a resident of the home. He was convicted of murder and sentenced to death

• Does the death penalty in these cases constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments?

FURMAN V GEORGIA (1972)• The Court decided, in a 5-4

decision, that it does. The Court's opinion held that the imposition of the death penalty in this case constituted cruel and unusual punishment and violated the Constitution.

+ =

Gregg V. Georgia (1976)• Reaffirmed the Supreme Court's acceptance

of the use of the death penalty in the United States, upholding, in particular, the death sentence imposed on Troy Leon Gregg.

Gregg V. Georgia

• The Court also found that the death penalty fits “with the basic concept of human dignity at the core of the [Eighth] Amendment."

• The death penalty serves two principal social purposes—retribution and deterrence

Hazelwood V. Kuhlmeier

• The U.S. Supreme Court held for the first time that public school officials may impose some limits on what appears in school-sponsored student publications

• The First Amendment's freedom of speech protections were not violated by the school district because the First Amendment protection for student expression described in (1969), does not compel a public school to sponsor speech that conflicts with its "legitimate goals”

Korematsu V. United States

• A landmark United States Supreme Court case concerning the constitutionality of Executive Order 9066, which required Japanese-Americans in the western United States to be excluded to a described West Coast military area.

• In a 6-3 decision, the Court sided with the government, ruling that the exclusion order was constitutional

Korematsu V. United States

• the need to protect against espionage outweighed individual rights, and the rights of Americans of Japanese descent

Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. V. United States

• race relations in the United States had been dominated by segregation, a system of racial separation, while in name providing for "separate but equal" treatment of both white and black Americans, in truth inferior accommodation, services, and treatment for black Americans.

• Passed on July 2, 1964, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 banned racial discrimination in public places, particularly in public accommodations, largely based on Congress' control of interstate commerce

Heart of Atlanta Motel V. United States

• The Heart of Atlanta Motel refused to rent rooms to black patrons, in direct violation of the terms of the act.

• The Court held that Congress acted well within its jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce clause in passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, thereby upholding the act

Mapp V. Ohio

• a landmark case in criminal procedure, in which the United States Supreme Court decided that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects against "unreasonable searches and seizures", may not be used in criminal prosecutions in state courts, as well as federal courts.

Mapp V. Ohio

• the court had determined that the federal government may not use such evidence due to the exclusionary rule which forbids evidence gathered illegally to be admissible in court

Marbury V Madison

• formed the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States under Article III of the Constitution.

• This case resulted from a petition to the Supreme Court by William Marbury, who had been appointed as Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia by President John Adams shortly before leaving office

Marbury V. Madison

• The Supreme Court denied Marbury's petition, holding that the statute upon which he based his claim was unconstitutional.

• Acts of Congress that conflict with the Constitution are not law and the Courts are bound instead to follow the Constitution, affirming the principle of judicial review

Marbury V. Madison

• there would be no point of having a written Constitution if the courts could just ignore it

• courts have to be able to decide what law applies to each case

Marbury V. Madison

• If two laws conflict with each other, a court must decide which law applies. Finally, Marshall pointed to the judge's oath requiring them to uphold the Constitution, and to the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, which lists the "Constitution" before the "laws of the United States

McCulloch V. Maryland

• Strengthened the power of the Federal Government– The state (Maryland) taxed banks that issued

money without its consent.– The Supreme Court ruled that states could not

tax the federal government– Case was most important b/c the affirmed the

authority of federal powers over state powers

John Marshall

Miranda V. Arizona

• Supreme Court upheld the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination.

• The law also ruled that arresting law enforcement officers have to inform suspects of their legal rights, such as an attorney

Plessy V. Ferguson

• Established the principle of “Separate, but equal”

• Homer Plessy, a black man, sat in the “white only” section of the train in New Orleans and was arrested.

• The Supreme Court ruled that if public accommodations were equal for blacks and whites, the races could be separated.

State V. Mann

• One of the most important decision of the North Carolina State Supreme Court– John Mann, a slave owner, was convicted of

killing one of his slaves by a lower court. – The NC Supreme Court overruled the

conviction, slave owners could not be guilty of murder for killing their slaves because slaves were property.

Swann V. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education • Extended the principles of the Brown

decision and Civil Rights Act.– The Court ruled that NC school districts had a

duty to dismantle, by law, school segregation. – It also upheld the policy of forced busing of

students to combat segregation

Texas V. Johnson

• Gregory Johnson, burned a U.S. flag as a sign of protest.

• Supreme Court said that is action fell under freedom of speech, guaranteed by the 1st Amendment.

New Jersey V. T.L.O.

• Search and seizure involving a high school student.

– Fourteen-year-old caught smoking in the bathroom.

– Principle searched purse and found Marijuana.

• Supreme Court ruled that this search did not violate the Fourth Amendment protection against illegal search and seizures because the state interest in educating minors permitted such

searches.