4,995
edits
Landmark Supreme Court cases: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
| - held that the state of Tennessee had ignored a 1901 state law that required redistricting to be adjusted according to census results; | | - held that the state of Tennessee had ignored a 1901 state law that required redistricting to be adjusted according to census results; | ||
the state had not drawn new districts since 1901, resulting in overrepresentation of rural over urban citizens | the state had not drawn new districts since 1901, resulting in overrepresentation of rural over urban citizens | ||
- the court held that challenges to state districting (gerrymandering) issues were not merely "political questions" and thus subject to Court review | - the court held that challenges to state districting (gerrymandering) issues were not merely "political questions" and thus subject to Court review | ||
- the Court was split on the case and the case had to be re-argued | - the Court was split on the case and the case had to be re-argued | ||
| - Justice Brennan argued that redistricting is a political question and should be left up to the states | | - Justice Brennan argued that redistricting is a political question and should be left up to the states | ||
| Line 46: | Line 44: | ||
- constitutional interpretation by the Court | - constitutional interpretation by the Court | ||
|affirmed concept of "legal remedy"<ref>Marshall invoked (referenced) the ancient Roman legal maxim ''ubi jus, ibi remedium'' for "where there is a legal right, there is a legal remedy"</ref> | |affirmed concept of "legal remedy"<ref>Marshall invoked (referenced) the ancient Roman legal maxim ''ubi jus, ibi remedium'' for "where there is a legal right, there is a legal remedy"</ref> | ||
|- settled a dispute between outgoing Adams and incoming Jefferson administrations over Adams' "midnight appointments", including one to Marbury | |- | ||
| - settled a dispute between outgoing Adams and incoming Jefferson administrations over Adams' "midnight appointments", including one to Marbury | |||
- ruled that the Judiciary Act of 1793 is illegal under the constitution, thus establishing "judicial review" | - ruled that the Judiciary Act of 1793 is illegal under the constitution, thus establishing "judicial review" | ||
- created the power of the Courts to invalidate statutory laws based upon their "constitutionality" | - created the power of the Courts to invalidate statutory laws based upon their "constitutionality" | ||
- Marbury lost his case, as the Court ruled that any legal remedy due to him was from an invalid law | - Marbury lost his case, as the Court ruled that any legal remedy due to him was from an invalid law | ||
|- | |||
|none | |none | ||
| | | | ||