Studied by 12 peopleTags & Description
McCulloch v. Maryland
Facts: In 1816, Congress charters the Second Bank of the US which attempted to establish branches in multiple states. In Maryland, they passed state legislature saying that any bank in Maryland that was not a state owned bank would be subject to a $15,000 tax per year. James McCulloch refused to pay the tax for the bank.
Constitutional principle: Necessary and proper clause, Article 1 Section 8. Congress is given explicit powers in Article 1 Section 8, and the necessary and proper clause gives them the power to pass laws to make sure their duties can be upheld. These are called implied powers.
Decision: 6-0 in favor of McCulloch, Chief Justice John Marshall argued that the bank was constitutional on account of the authority of the necessary and proper clause. If the law is not in the Constitution but upholds the spirit of the Constitution then it stands. Established the supremacy of federal/national laws over state laws.
Why it matters: Important because it demonstrated a case of federalism (the balance between national and state governments). The balance is tipped in favor of the federal government. Has been a precedent to return to to decide the balance between states and federal government.
United States v. Lopez
Facts: In Texas, a high school senior is carrying a gun on school campus. Lopez was arrested and sent to jail for violating a Texas law that forbade guns on school property. In addition to this law, the federal Gun Free School Zone Act also prohibited guns on school property.
Constitutional principle: This case is NOT ABOUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT. This is a case about the implied powers of the federal government. Congress used the commerce clause to justify the Gun Free School Zone Safety Act.
Arguments: Was argued that guns in school directly relate to the economy of the state. Was argued for Lopez that gun regulation on school property is a power specifically reserved for the states—Congress had no business passing this law in the first place
Decision: 5-4 in favor of Lopez. In the majority decision, it was said that if Congress can use the commerce clause to regulate guns on school property… then what can’t Congress regulate with the commerce clause?
Why it matters: This case is about federalism—the balance of power between the federal and state governments. This case tipped the balance in favor of the states.
Baker v. Carr
Facts: The state of TN in 1962 had not redrawn their legislative districts in over 60 years. Their populations had grown since then, and due to no changes, rural voters had more power than urban voters. In the past, the Supreme Court had ruled that redistricting was justiciable meaning that the Court had no business ruling on it—argued that it was a political question.
Constitutional principle: The 14th amendment, specifically the equal protection clause—”No state shall make or enforce an law which shall… deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”. Deals with state infringement upon liberty.
Argument: By refusing to redraw the districts and reapportion the representatives, all citizens in TN were not equally protected under the law and therefore unconstitutional.
Decision: Decided that issues of reapportionment WERE IN FACT justiciable, and that the Supreme Court did have authority to rule on questions of legislative reapportionment
Why it matters: Established the foundation for the one person, one vote doctrine in which states required to apportion their representatives in a way that equally represented all the people so that votes counted any more than any other vote. Fundamentally altered the nature of political representation across the United States—many states had to redraw their districts following the ruling. This decision got the Supreme Court involved in “political questions”. Established a six part test to see if Supreme Court cases were justiciable or just political.
Shaw v. Reno
Facts: None of North Carolina’s representatives were black in the 90s despite 20% of the population being black. NC drew one district that had a black majority population. Then they drew a second majority black district after the Justice Department suggested it. This is racial gerrymandering, which is when congressional districts are drawn to favor one racial group over another (different from partisan gerrymandering, which favors PARTIES instead of GROUPS). The Voting Rights Act of 1965 required voting districts to be approved.
Constitutional principle: Argued on the merits of equal protection clause of the 14th amendment and that this clause was violated because districts were drawn only with race in mind.
Arguments: By a strict “colorblind interpretation” of the Constitution, this redrawing of districts is wrong. In an interpretation where colorblindness is not considered, helping marginalized groups get representation in government should be allowed to create a more equitable society.
Decision: Ruled AGAINST Reno/Justice Department. While these districts may have been drawn with noble intentions, districts drawn only based on race were unconstitutional because it set a dangerous precedent. The 14th amendment was thus violated.
Why it matters: Set a precedent for future cases involving gerrymandering and to this day districts cannot be redrawn solely based on race.
Marbury v Madison
Facts: John Adams lost to Thomas Jefferson and therefore appointed Federalist judges to frustrate Jefferson’s policy agenda. A few were not delivered and left them up to the secretary of Jefferson, James Madison. Madison did not deliver the commissions. William Marbury sued Madison to get a Writ of Mandamus, which Is a Court order for an official to do what they’re legally required to do.
Constitutional principle: The jurisdiction clauses in Article III of the Constitution—Article III is about the judicial branch, what kind of power it receives, and what jurisdiction it has. Article III states that the SC has original and appellate jurisdiction and there is a narrow set of circumstances where they have original—cases involving states or foreign ambassadors/consuls.
Arguments: Does Marbury have the legal right to his commission? If yes,is the court-ordered writ of mandamus the proper legal means to get the commission? If yes, does the Court have the authority to grant the writ of mandamus?
Decision: Marbury HAS the legal right to his commission. Then YES, the writ of mandamus is the proper legal means of obtaining the commission. NO, the Court does not have the authority to grant the writ of mandamus. Marbury thought the Judiciary Act of 1789 would grant the Supreme Court the power to issue writs of mandamus in original jurisdiction cases, but John Marshall ruled that Article 13 of the Judiciary Act conflicted with Article III of the Constitution, because in the Constitution it deals with states/ambassadors, which Marbury and Madison ARE NOT. Article 13 of the Judiciary Act is unconstitutional and therefore null and void
Why it matters: When Article 13 was ruled unconstitutional, John Marshall established the Supreme Court’s power of judicial review—the final interpreter of the Constitution that could strike down or uphold laws passed by Congress.
Engel v. Vitale
Facts: The New York Board of Regions imposed a non-denominational prayer to be said by school children after the Pledge. Children could opt out of the prayer with permission from parents. A group of parents challenged the practice
Constitutional principle: Violation of the 1st amendments establishment clause—Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
Arguments: In the establishment clause, it deals with Congress establishing religion, not states. However, in the 14th amendment, it is stated that “no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States”. The 14th amendment essentially applies the 1st amendment to the states.
Decision: 6-1 in favor of Engel, the reading of state sponsored prayer in school violated the establishment clause of the first amendment.
Why it matters: Demonstration of how the Court ruled in favor of individual liberty. Established the groundwork for many subsequent cases regarding school and religious activities. Relationship between government and religion
Wisconsin v. Yoder
Facts: Three Amish families in Wisconsin removed their children from schools after 8th grade due to religious beliefs and deeply concerned with ideas they would pick up in high school. Wisconsin had a compulsory education law that required education up to age 16 and the parents were fined.
Constitutional principle: Argued the compulsory education law violated their first amendment rights to the free exercise of their religion.
Decision: Unanimous in favor of Yoder. Argued that the state’s interest in educating children should not trump the ability of Amish families to exercise their religion freely.
Why it matters: Set the precedent for cases involving state interests and the free exercise of religion. The home school movement also gained traction.
Tinker v. Des Moines
Facts: In symbolic protest, teenagers wanted to wear black armbands to school to support a decision of peace within the Vietnam war. When the school heard, they wrote a policy that wearing an armband would result in suspension or removal of the armband. Parents filed suit
Constitutional principle: This was a case about the first amendment’s protection of free speech—our Rights are not absolute. Was the intervention from school administration a reasonable infringement on a students right to free speech.
Decision: 7-2 in favor of Tinker, this was a violation of free speech. While there are reasons for administration to restrict the speech of students on some occasions, this case did not meet the criteria. The substantial disruption test was created as a decision-making criterion for how school administrators could constitutionally limit student speech. If a school admin is going restrict student speech, they must be able to demonstrate that the speech in question would “materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school”. Additionally, “It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate”
Why it matters: Set the parameters for the question of free speech on school campus. Subsequent cases have refined this to limit the scope of free speech on school campus for students. Vulgar speech is not the same as political speech on school campus and there are legitimate restrictions on student speech
Schenk v. the United States
Facts: Congress passes the Espionage Act which outlawed hindrances to military recruitment. Charles Schenk, a socialist party member, wrote a pamphlet addressed to young American men to resist the draft. He was arrested and sent to trial.
Constitutional principle: Schenk had violated the Espionage Act, but he argued that his first amendment right to free speech was violated and therefore that section of the Espionage Act was unconstitutional.
Decision: Unanimous decision AGAINST Schenck, his first amendment rights were not violated because he wasn’t merely protesting the draft, he was actively encouraging men to avoid the draft—which is not protected speech. “Clear and present” danger test was established to measure constitutional and unconstitutional speech (fire in a crowded theater and causing a panic is not protected speech).
Why it matters: Created a very clear standard for the silencing of speech. Argued that government has more right to infringe upon the right to free speech during war time. Clear and present danger test was created but can no longer be used because it was superseded by the BRANDENBURG TEST which makes a clear distinction between the intent of speech and its likelihood to incite lawless activity. If it is clear that the speech did not intend to incite lawless action then even if its incendiary and offensive the speech is usually protected. Set an even higher bar for the government to clear before silencing speech.
New York Times v. The United States
Facts: The US was involved in the Vietnam conflict in the 60s/70s, which caused controversy In American politics. Nixon commissioned a top secret inquiry into the history of the US involvement in the war and the findings showed how presidents and agencies had systematically deceived the public concerning the war. One of the guys who worked on the report leaked huge portions of it to the New York Times and the Washington Post. They started publishing these papers and the Nixon Administration sent out orders to stop these publishers because it was a threat to national security—also called prior restraint.
Constitutional principle: Case about the first amendment’s protection of the freedom of the press. NYT claimed that Nixon’s invocation of prior restraint violated their first amendment rights, Nixon admin claimed that prior restraint was justified in this case because the publication of these papers would threaten national security.
Decision: Court agreed with the NYT, Nixon administration’s restraining order was unconstitutional and therefore allowed the paper to continue printing the Pentagon Papers. Any system of prior restraint comes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity.
Why it matters: Hailed as a victory for the free press against censorship. The decision made it very clear to censor the free press despite the vagueness it has been criticized for.
McDonald v. Chicago
Facts: Heller v. The District of Columbia ruled that restrictive gun ownership laws in Washington DC were unconstitutional but since Washington DC is a federal district it only applied to federal territory. McDonald wanted it applied to the states because of the dangers in Chicago and wanted to buy a handgun. Due to their restrictive handgun laws, he sued.
Constitutional principle: Second amendment right to bear arms. McDonald argued that Chicago’s restrictive gun laws infringed on the people’s right to own guns. Chicago argued that restrictive gun laws were needed for public safety. (Personal liberty vs. public safety)
Decision: Ruled in favor of McDonald, argued that Chicago’s gun laws were indeed a violation of these citizen’s Second Amendment rights. Although it is about the 2nd amendment this case is also about the 14th amendments equal protection clause that allowed the Court to apply the Bill of Rights to state governments as well, which is why the Court can rule on a state law about guns.
Why it matters: Since the Heller case only applied to federal territory, the McDonald case applied the same ruling to the states—known as selective incorporation. Gun laws had to be rewritten to fall in line with the McDonald ruling.
Gideon v. Wainwright
Facts: Gideon broke into a pool hall and stole money and was arrested and sent to trial. In previous cases, he was given a lawyer. But in his state, he did not receive representation.
Constitutional principle: Sixth amendment which gives the accused right to counsel for their defense. But this only applies to federal government. The 14th amendment’s equal protection clause applies the liberties contained in the Bill of Rights to the states.
Decision: Unanimous in favor of Gideon, his 6th amendment right to counsel applied to the states by the 14th amendment was violated.
Why it matters: Through it, the 6th amendment was incorporated to the states—selective incorporation. In the wake of the decision, states had to hire/train/pay to help clients who could not pay for a lawyer.
Brown v. Board of Education
Facts: Series of cases consolidated into one dealing with segregation as a result of Jim Crow laws. Justified based on the ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson “separate but equal” doctrine which allowed segregation if the doctrine was followed. A black family tried to get admission to a White school due to the distance from their house
Constitutional principle: Racial segregation is a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. Even if separate facilities were equal in terms of funding the very fact of segregation was unequal—damage to psyche and instilling of inferiority.
Decision: Overturned Plessy v Ferguson with a unanimous vote for Brown, saying that separate facilities violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.
Why it matters: Judicial victory for the civil rights movement. Southern states resisted integration of the decision and took a while for schools to be integrated.
Citizens United v. FEC
Facts: Campaign finance laws! The Bipartisan Campaign Finance Act (BCRA, 2002) made it illegal for corporations or non profits to engage in electioneering communications for 60 days before an election or 30 days before a primary. As 2008 election was heating up, Citizens United created Hillary: The Movie but could not release it due to BCRA. They challenged this law.
Constitutional principle: Citizens United argued that BCRA’s prohibition against electioneering communication by corporations was a violation of the first amendment’s protection of the freedom of speech.
Decision: Supreme Court decided 5-4 in favor of Citizens United, argued that limitations put upon corporations to run political advertisements and communications were not materially different from government censorship of speech toward individuals. Therefore that part of BCRA got struck down.
Why it matters: Since money equals speech in the political speech is it fair for those with the most money to have the loudest voices? In this case, yes. Corporations and labor unions and non profits can spend as much money as they want independently leading up to elections.
Note
Flashcard