A+ Club Lesson Planner & Study Guide

Landmark Supreme Court cases: Difference between revisions

Page Discussion

Landmark Supreme Court cases (view source)

Revision as of 21:10, 15 December 2022

15,283 bytes added ,  15 December 2022
→‎AP US Gov Units / Learning Objectives re. Court Cases
VisualWikitext
 
(14 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 4: Line 4:
[[Category:AP US Government & Politics]]
[[Category:AP US Government & Politics]]
== AP Gov list of required Landmark Supreme Court cases ==
== AP Gov list of required Landmark Supreme Court cases ==
* cases as generally recommended for core study for the AP Gov exam
* cases as listed by College Board for inclusion in AP US Gov exam
* review of additional cases will yield greater student comprehension and analysis
** <u>Note</u>: for 2023,
{| class="wikitable sortable  
*** '''''Roe v. Wade''' (1973)'' will NOT be included, as it was overturned by the recent '''''Dobbs''''' (2022) decision
|+
*** '''Lemon v. Kurtzman''' (1971 will NOT be included, as it was overturned by the recent '''''Kennedy''''' (2022) decision
*** see: [https://apcentral.collegeboard.org/courses/ap-united-states-government-and-politics/exam AP United States Government and Politics Exam – AP Central | College Board]
* review of additional cases will yield greater student comprehension and analytical skills for understanding, evaluating and applying constitutional and legal concepts and Court decisions.
 
{| class="wikitable sortable "
|+LANDMARK SUPREME COURT CASES (AP US GOV TEST REQUIRED)
!Case
!Case
!Date
!Date
!Court
!Court
!Big Ideas/ Court Doctrine
!AP Unit 1 Objective
!Issues / Doctrine
!Constitutional Issues
!Constitutional Issues
!Issues / Background / Description / Opinion / Dissent
!Issues / Background / Description / Opinion / Dissent
Line 20: Line 26:
|1961
|1961
|Warren
|Warren
|<nowiki>- "One person one vote" standard</nowiki>
|Republicanism (CON-3)
| -
<nowiki>- "One person one vote" standard</nowiki>


- Political Question doctrine
- Political Question doctrine
|Equal protection clause
(14th amendment)
Judicial review
|
|
* Equal protection clause (14th amendment)
* Judicial review
|
* ruled that the state of Tennessee had ignored a 1901 state law that required redistricting to be adjusted according to census results
* ruled that the state of Tennessee had ignored a 1901 state law that required redistricting to be adjusted according to census results
click EXPAND for more:  
click EXPAND for more:  
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed">
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed">
* 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
* held that challenges to state districting (gerrymandering) issues were not merely "political questions" and thus subject to Court review
* 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
Line 46: Line 55:
|1954
|1954
|Warren
|Warren
|equal protection
|Equal protection (PRD-1)
| - equal protection
-  "separate is not equal"
|Equal protection clause (14th amendment)
|Equal protection clause (14th amendment)
|
|
Line 61: Line 72:
|2010
|2010
|Roberts
|Roberts
|Electoral rules (PRD-2)
|campaign finance law
|campaign finance law
|Free speech clause (1st amendment)
|Free speech clause
(1st amendment)
|
|
* held that "political spending" by organizations is protected speech
* held that "political spending" by organizations is protected speech
Line 76: Line 89:
|1962
|1962
|Warren
|Warren
|  - prayer in public school
|Civil Liberties (LOR-2)
|  ''Can public schools conduct prayer?'' 
- prayer in public school
- "separation of Church and State" doctrine
- "separation of Church and State" doctrine
|Establishment clause (1st amendment)
|Establishment clause (1st amendment)
Line 84: Line 99:
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed">
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed">
* the ruling affirmed the "wall of separation between Church and State,"  which is from a published letter by President Thomas Jefferson in 1802
* the ruling affirmed the "wall of separation between Church and State,"  which is from a published letter by President Thomas Jefferson in 1802
* dissent:
* dissent: Justice Stewart argued that the Establishment clause prohibited creation of a state- (government) sponsored church and not the non-mandatory practice of religion within a public school
** Justice Stewart's argued that the Establishment clause prohibited creation of a state- (government) sponsored church and not the non-mandatory practice of religion within a public school
</div>
</div>
|
|
Line 95: Line 109:
|1963
|1963
|Warren
|Warren
| - public counsel
|Civil Liberties (LOR-3)
| - public counsel
- incorporation case
- incorporation case
|Right to counsel (6th amendment)
|Right to counsel (6th amendment)
Line 102: Line 117:
click EXPAND for more:  
click EXPAND for more:  
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed">
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed">
* the unanimous decision held that a state must provide counsel for criminal defendants who can not afford an attorney or who are otherwise incapable of representing themselves (incompetency or illiteracy)  
* the unanimous decision held that a state must provide counsel for criminal defendants who can not afford an attorney or who are otherwise incapable of representing themselves (incompetency or illiteracy)
* ''Gideon'' is an incorporation case, as the 6th amendment right to counsel was applied state law via the 14th amendment's Due Process clause
* ''Gideon'' is an incorporation case, as the 6th amendment right to counsel was applied state law via the 14th amendment's Due Process clause
</div>
</div>
Line 118: Line 133:
|1803
|1803
|Marshall  
|Marshall  
|Judicial review (CON-5)
|Judicial supremacy
|Judicial supremacy
|  
|
* Judicial review
* Judicial review
* Original jurisdiction (Article III, Section 2)
* Original jurisdiction (Article III, Section 2)
Line 139: Line 155:
|1819
|1819
|Marshall
|Marshall
|Federalism
(CON-2)
|implied powers  
|implied powers  
|
|
Line 147: Line 165:
click EXPAND for more:  
click EXPAND for more:  
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed">
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed">
* the Court ruled that the National Bank was legitimate and superseded (was over) state law, thus Maryland could not tax it  
* the Court ruled that the National Bank was legitimate and superseded (was over) state law, thus Maryland could not tax it
* the Court ruled that if the National Bank was legal (constitutional) measures to implement it were also Constitutional via the "necessary and proper clause"  
* the Court ruled that if the National Bank was legal (constitutional) measures to implement it were also Constitutional via the "necessary and proper clause"
* additionally, if a federal law was legal it is also "supreme" (Article VI) over state law  
* additionally, if a federal law was legal it is also "supreme" (Article VI) over state law
* Marshall's ruling denied 10th amendment reservations of unexpressed powers  
* Marshall's ruling denied 10th amendment reservations of unexpressed powers
</div>
</div>
|
|
Line 158: Line 176:
|2010
|2010
|Roberts
|Roberts
| - right to "keep and bear arms
|Civil Liberties (LOR-3)
| - right to "keep and bear arms
<nowiki>- incorporation case</nowiki>
<nowiki>- incorporation case</nowiki>
|
|
Line 174: Line 193:
|1971
|1971
|Burger
|Burger
|Civil Liberties (LOR-2)
| - prior restraint
| - prior restraint
- freedom of the press
- freedom of the press
Line 189: Line 209:
</div>
</div>
|
|
|-
|
=== Roe v. Wade ===
|1973
|Burger
|right to privacy
|
* due process (14th amendment
* 9th amendment reservation of the rights of the people
|
* the court ruled that the Fourteenth amendment's "Due Process" clause creates a "right to privacy" that protects a woman's right to have an abortion
click EXPAND for more:
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed">
* the court reasoned that the "due process" clause provides protection against excessive government restrictions of "personal liberty"
* the ruling struck down laws that banned abortion but still allowed some regulation of abortion, such as time limits on the age of the fetus and its "viability" for birth (which it deemed was in the 3rd trimester and so allowed for bans on abortion on it).
* dissent:
** Justice White argued that the Court has no standing to choose between a mother and an unborn child and said that in the decision the Court had exceeded it's powers of judicial review; he felt it was a political and not judicial question
** Justice Rehnquist argued that the Court had invented a right that the writers of the 14th Amendment had not intended, as when it was adopted in 1868 there were 36 state or territory laws limiting abortion
</div>
|
* [[wikipedia:Griswold_v._Connecticut|Griswold v. Connecticut]] (1965: held that laws banning contraception violated the right to marital privacy (in marriages) and that that right to privacy was implicit in the 1st, 3rd, 4th & 5th amendments)
* [[wikipedia:Planned_Parenthood_v._Casey|Planned Parenthood v. Casey]] (1992: held that laws restricting abortion, such as mandatory waiting periods, spousal or parental notice, etc.  had to meet the "undue burden standard" of creating undue or burdensome restrictions on individual rights)
* Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (pending as of April 2022)
|-
|-
|
|
Line 217: Line 214:
|1919
|1919
|Hughes
|Hughes
|Civil Liberties (LOR-2)
|"clear and present danger"
|"clear and present danger"
|<nowiki>- right to speech (1st amendment)</nowiki>
|<nowiki>- right to speech (1st amendment)</nowiki>
Line 237: Line 235:
|1993
|1993
|Rehnquist
|Rehnquist
|Republicanism (CON-3)
|<nowiki>- redistricting and gerrymandering</nowiki>
|<nowiki>- redistricting and gerrymandering</nowiki>
|equal protection (14th amendment)
|equal protection
(14th amendment)
|
|
* ruled that redistricting based on race (i.e. creating voting districts based on the race of the inhabitants) must meet the "strict scrutiny" standard (be carefully examined and measured for purpose and effect)
* ruled that redistricting based on race (i.e. creating voting districts based on the race of the inhabitants) must meet the "strict scrutiny" standard (be carefully examined and measured for purpose and effect)
Line 249: Line 249:
</div>
</div>
|
|
* Miller v. Johnson (1995: addressed racial gerrymandering that had created a "geographic monstrosity" in order to have a black-majority of voters)
* [[wikipedia:Miller_v._Johnson|Miller v. Johnson]] (1995: addressed racial gerrymandering that had created a "geographic monstrosity" in order to have a black-majority of voters)
|-
|-
|
|
Line 255: Line 255:
|1969
|1969
|Warren
|Warren
|<nowiki>- protests in public schools</nowiki>
|Civil Liberties (LOR-2)
|''Can public schools regulate student speech?''<nowiki>- protests in public schools</nowiki>


- public safety (protecting children) v. rights of minors
- public safety (protecting children) v. rights of minors


- "substantial disruption" test  
- "substantial disruption" test  
|<nowiki>- 1st amendment </nowiki>
|Free speech clause
(1st amendment)
|
|
* students who wore armbands to protest the Vietnam War were suspended by the school for violating a rule that was created specifically for this protest
* students who wore armbands to protest the Vietnam War were suspended by the school for violating a rule that was created specifically for this protest
click EXPAND for more:  
click EXPAND for more:  
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed">
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed">
* the court held that the "silent symbol" of the armbands was not disruptive and the conduct of the students did not "materially and substantially interfere" with school operations or discipline
* the court held that the "silent symbol" of the armbands was not disruptive
* and the conduct of the students did not "materially and substantially interfere" with school operations or discipline
* and that even if they caused "discomfort and unpleasantness" in those who disagreed with them, the rights of the students
* and that even if they caused "discomfort and unpleasantness" in those who disagreed with them, the rights of the students
* the court allowed for circumstances in which student speech might cause disruptions
* the court allowed for circumstances in which student speech might cause disruptions
* the court created a "substantial disruption" test  
* the court created a "substantial disruption" test
* two justices dissented, including Justice Black who stated that "symbolic speech" was not a protected 1st amendment right and that people do not have a particular right to speak any "where" and "when" they please
* two justices dissented, including Justice Black who stated that "symbolic speech" was not a protected 1st amendment right and that people do not have a particular right to speak any "where" and "when" they please
</div>
</div>
Line 279: Line 282:
|1995
|1995
|Rehnquist
|Rehnquist
|Federalism (CON 2)
|validity of Commerce clause based on substantial effect on interstate commerce
|validity of Commerce clause based on substantial effect on interstate commerce
|Commerce clause (Article I, section 8)
|Commerce clause (Article I, section 8)
Line 300: Line 304:
|1972
|1972
|Burger
|Burger
|<nowiki>- parental rights </nowiki>
|Civil Liberties (LOR-2)
|''Can a state force parents who object on religious grounds to send their children to school?''
<nowiki>- parental rights </nowiki>


- freedom of religion
- freedom of religion
Line 306: Line 312:


- incorporation case (via the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause)
- incorporation case (via the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause)
|  
|
* the Court ruled that the First Amendments protection of the "free exercise" of religion supersedes (is more important than) the public interest in laws that create compulsory (required) school attendance  
* the Court ruled that the First Amendments protection of the "free exercise" of religion supersedes (is more important than) the public interest in laws that create compulsory (required) school attendance
click EXPAND for more:  
click EXPAND for more:  
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed">
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed">
Line 320: Line 326:
|}
|}


== Major "Courts" (Chief Justices) ==
== AP US Gov Units / Learning Objectives re. Court Cases ==
In the above table, Landmark cases include categories for AP US Gov units and "Learning Objectives". These include:
* '''Unit 1 Court Cases Learning Objectives (CON)'''
** CON = "Constitutionalism"
** CON-2: Federalism reflects the dynamic distribution of power between national and state governments
*** 2.A. Describe the facts, reasoning, decision, and majority opinion of required Supreme Court cases
*** 2.B. Explain how the appropriate balance of power between national and state governments has been interpreted differently over time.
** CON-3: The republican ideal in the U.S. is manifested in the structure and operation of the legislative branch.
*** CON-3 C. Explain how congressional behavior is influenced by election processes, partisanship, and divided government.
** CON-4:
** CON-5: The design of the judicial branch protects the Supreme Court’s independence as a branch of government, and the emergence and use of judicial review remains a powerful judicial practice.
*** CON-5 A. Explain the principle of judicial review and how it checks the power of other institutions and state governments.
* '''Unit 3 Civil Liberties and Civil Rights (LOR)'''
** LOR = "Liberty and Order"
** LOR-2: Provisions of the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights are continually being interpreted to balance the power of government and the civil liberties of individuals.
*** LOR 2.C. Explain the extent to which the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the First and Second Amendments reflects a commitment to individual libertY
** LOR-3: Protections of the Bill of Rights have been selectively incorporated by way of the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause to prevent state infringement of basic liberties.
** PRD = "(civic) Participation in a Representative Democracy"
** PRD-1: The Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause as well as other constitutional provisions have often been used to support the advancement of equality.
** PRD-2: The impact of federal policies on campaigning and electoral rules continues to be contested by both sides of the political spectrum.
** PRD-3:


=== Marshall (John), 1801-1835 ===
== Other Court Cases commonly assigned by AP US Government teachers ==


* early Republic period
{| class="wikitable sortable "
* established judicial review and federal supremacy
|+LANDMARK SUPREME COURT CASES (AP US GOV TEST REQUIRED)
!Case
!Date
!Court
!AP Unit 1 Objective
!Issues /  Doctrine
!Constitutional Issues
!Issues / Background / Description / Opinion / Dissent
!Related Cases
|-
|
=== Ex parte Milligan ===
|1866
|Chase
|n/a
|''Can a military court try a citizen?''- prohibited use of military tribunals when civilian courts are available
|''habeas corpus''(note that "ex parte" means "on behalf of", thus for a court in which a party to a suit is absent or not notified)
| - During the Civil War, the Lincoln administration tried northern dissenters in military courts
- Decision: "marial rule can never exist when the courts are open" and martial law operates only under "military operations, where war really prevails"
|
* [[wikipedia:Ex_parte_Merryman|Ex parte Merryman]] (1861 regarding suspemsion of habeas corpus)


=== Taney (Roger) ===
* [[wikipedia:Ex_parte_Quirin|Ex parte Quirin]] (1942 regarding military trial of German spies in the U.S.)
|-
|
=== Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US ===
|1964
|Warren
|n/a
|''Can a public accommodation (a business or other publicly available service) discriminate by race?''- racial discrimination
- upheld Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
|Commerce clause
equal protection
| - prior desegregation cases focused on public facilities (buses, school), but this case involved a private entity, a motel. However, since a motel is a "public accommodation," i.e. open to the public, the Court upheld the terms of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that prohibited discrimination based on race, religion or national origin.
|
* ''[[wikipedia:Katzenbach_v._McClung|Katzenbach v. McClung]] (1964; upheld federal laws prohibiting racial discrimination in restraurants''
|-
|
=== Lemon v. Kurtzman ===
|1971
|Burger
|n/a
- this case was overturned in 2022 by [[wikipedia:Kennedy_v._Bremerton_School_District|Kennedy v. Bremerton School District]]) and so is no longer U.S. law and not on the AP US Gov test)
|''Can a state fund teach pay for religious schools?''
- government entanglement with religion
- "Lemon Test": to assess secular (non-religious) purpose
|Establishment clause
(1st amendment)
| - consolidated with a Rhode Island case that similarly tested validity of state compensation for religious school teachers
- the "Lemon Test" resulted from this case, although ''Kennedy'' (2022) instructed lower courts to ignore the Lemon Test standard.
- the Lemon Test proposed a "standard" for measuring legislative violation of the Establishment clause , including that the law must


* prior to the Civil War, Taney defended slave states
# have a secular purpose
* most important decision: Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)  
# neither advance nor inhibit religion
# not create "excessive government entanglement" with religion, as measured by 1. nature and purpose of the institution; 2) nature of the state aid; 3) resulting relationship between the government and the religious institution
|
|-
|
=== Roe v. Wade ===
|1973
|Burger
|n/a
- this case was overturned by ''[[wikipedia:Dobbs_v._Jackson_Women's_Health_Organization|Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization]] (2022)'' and thus removed from the AP Gov Test in 2022 due to ''Dobbs'' decision)
| - right to privacy
- right to abortion
- state regulation of abortion
|
* due process (14th amendment
* 9th amendment reservation of the rights of the people
|
* the court ruled that the Fourteenth amendment's "Due Process" clause creates a "right to privacy" that protects a woman's right to have an abortion
click EXPAND for more:
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed">
* the court reasoned that the "due process" clause provides protection against excessive government restrictions of "personal liberty"
* the ruling struck down laws that banned abortion but still allowed some regulation of abortion, such as time limits on the age of the fetus and its "viability" for birth (which it deemed was in the 3rd trimester and so allowed for bans on abortion on it).
* dissent:
** Justice White argued that the Court has no standing to choose between a mother and an unborn child and said that in the decision the Court had exceeded it's powers of judicial review; he felt it was a political and not judicial question
** Justice Rehnquist argued that the Court had invented a right that the writers of the 14th Amendment had not intended, as when it was adopted in 1868 there were 36 state or territory laws limiting abortion
</div>
|
* [[wikipedia:Griswold_v._Connecticut|Griswold v. Connecticut]] (1965: held that laws banning contraception violated the right to marital privacy (in marriages) and that that right to privacy was implicit in the 1st, 3rd, 4th & 5th amendments)
* [[wikipedia:Planned_Parenthood_v._Casey|Planned Parenthood v. Casey]] (1992: held that laws restricting abortion, such as mandatory waiting periods, spousal or parental notice, etc.  had to meet the "undue burden standard" of creating undue or burdensome restrictions on individual rights)
* Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (pending as of April 2022)
|}


=== Fuller (Melville) ===
== Fourteenth Amendment "Incorporation Cases" ==


=== White (Edward Douglass) ===
=== Incorporation meaning ===
* "Incorporation" refers to application of the rights and protections of the Bill of Rights to state law
** in- = into + corp = body + -tion (makes a noun)
** = "put into the body"
* the anti-Federalists (viz. Brutus) argued that the Constitution did not protect the rights of the citizens
** thus the agreement was made that upon adoption of the Constitution it would be amended to include certain protections
** the Bill of Rights (BOR) added these protections by limiting or prohibiting certain actions by the new federal government
*** thus the language of the BOR, "''Congress shall make no law...''" or "...''shall not be violated''"
** it was understood by all the Founders that, except for where explicitly stated in the Constitution regarding the states, the Constitution and its amendments applied to the federal and not to the state governments
* in 1833, the Supreme Court ruled that the Bill or Rights does not apply to the states
** ''Barron v. Baltimore'' (1833)
* following the Civil War, the Constitution was amended three times in order to
*# abolish slavery (13th Amendment)
*# provide to the former slaves citizenship and equal protection under the laws (14th amendment)
*## and also to make arrangements for re-entry of rebellious states back into the Union
*# secure the vote of former male slaves (15th amendment)


=== Taft (William Howard) ===
=== Fourteenth amendment ===
* the '''Fourteenth amendment''' explicitly applied to the federal and all state governments
** given this national aspect, any case reviewed by the Courts regarding the 13-15th amendments was applicable to the states
** it was through the 14th amendment's "due process" and "equal protection" clauses that, over time, the Courts applied other rights and protections from the BOR to the states, such as
*** 1st amendment protections of speech
*** 4th amendment protection of the rights of the accused (esp. search and seizure)
*** 5th amendment due process protections (especially self-incrimination and due process)
**** note that the 14th amendment "due process" clause explicitly repeats the 5th amendment language
* thus Court cases that apply the BOR protections to state laws are called "incorporation cases"


=== Hughes (Charles Evans) ===
=== Select list of Landmark incorporation cases ===


=== Vinson ===
* see this Wikipedia article that lists incorporation cases per each of the Bill of Rights:[[wikipedia:Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights#Specific_amendments|Incorporation of the Bill of Rights]]


=== Warren (Earl) ===
== 14th Amendment "privileges or immunities," "due process" & "equal protection" clauses ==
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the '''privileges or immunities''' of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without '''due process of law'''; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the '''equal protection''' of the laws.


=== Burger ===
=== privileges or immunities ===
* = protects the rights and protections of citizens
** was intended to protect BOR protections (Amendments 1-8) from state law
** however, the 1873 ''Slaughter-House Cases'' limited "privileges or immunities" to measures regarding U.S. (national) and not state citizenship
*** the case upheld a New Orleans law that took control of the city's slaughterhouse (meat packing) industry
*** the Court upheld the power of the city to enforce the public safety at the expense of the "privileges or immunities" of the litigants regarding their right to contract and property
* Courts have subsequently relied on the "Due Process" and "Equal Protection" instead of "Privileges or Immunities" clauses
** Justice Thomas' concurring opinion (with the majority) in ''McDonald v. Chicago (''2010; regarding gun rights) invoked the 14th amendment Privileges or Immunities clause
*** Judge Thomas argued that "substantive due process" is an invalid doctrine and that the Privileges or Immunities clause directly applies the Bill of Rights to state law
**** thus the Court need not rely on "process" in the Due Process clause and instead apply Amendments 1-8 directly


=== Rehnquist ===
=== due process ===


=== Roberts ===
* = the rules, procedures and processes required of the government when enforcing a law upon a citizen
** these rules and processes include other BOR protections and are understood to apply to all government actions
* due process violations occur when
** property is searched without a warrant
** a criminal is held without charges
** a court fails to adequately notify someone of a proceeding
* "due process" is also called "procedural law"


== List of Fourteenth Amendment "Incorporation Cases" ==
=== substantive due process ===


=== 14th Amendment incorporation cases ===
* in Lochner era cases, the Courts developed a concept called "substantive due process"
* whereas 5th and 14th Amendment "due process" regards "procedure" and "rules"
** substantive due process:
*** regards actual rights, generally those "unenumerated," or not listed in the BOR
*** applies to any right or protection that is understood to be an inherent or fundamental right even if not specifically protected in law, such as
**** an individual's right to movement
**** economic liberties, such as the right to work or rights of contract
**** (note that near the end of the Great Depression, the Court accepted more limits on economic liberties)
* Warren era cases (1950s-1960s) employed "substantive due process" in creating "privacy" protections such as express in ''Roe v Wade'' (1973)


* the 14th amendment explicitly applied itself to the states
=== equal protection ===
* thus its "due process" and "equal protection" clauses also apply to the states
* = the laws shall be applied or enforced upon all people equally
* "incorporation" ("putting into the body") means applying the Bill of Rights and other constitutional protections to state law via the 14th amendment
** i.e. without undue burdens (going hard on) or leniencies (going easy on) different classes of people (race, religion, location, etc.)
 
* the clause deliberately applied Federal law over state law
=== Selective Incorporation ===
* the phrase "equal justice under law" is derived from Fourteenth Amendment language in the Equal Protection clause
 
* both Brown v Board of Education (1954) ruling explicitly invoked the Equal Protection Clause
* Duncan v. Louisiana (1968) created the  
* other important cases include:
** [[wikipedia:Strauder_v._West_Virginia|Strauder v. West Virginia]] (1880), which ruled that exclusion of blacks from a jury violated the Equal Protection clause
** Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), which allowed racial discrimination in public facilities so long as they were "separate but equal"
*** in other words, even though Plessy legalized ''de jure'' segregation, the Court had to make that decision in terms of the 14th Amendment
*** Judge Harlan's lone dissent affirmed strict Equal Protection by stating that the Constitution "is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens"
** Brown v. Board of Education (1954) applied the Equal Protection clause to eliminate racial segregation in public schools
* for list of cases decided under the Equal Protection Clause, see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_14th_amendment_cases List of 14th Amendment cases (wikipedia)]


== List of Court Doctrines & Tests ==
== List of Court Doctrines & Tests ==
* a "doctrine" is a judicial ruling that services as precedent for other cases
* a "doctrine" is a judicial ruling that services as precedent for other cases
* "legal test" is a standard that a court may develop in a ruling that is used to decide if a case or action fits in or not to a certain legal category or type of case
* "legal test" is a standard that a court may develop in a ruling that is used to decide if a case or action fits in or not to a certain legal category or type of case


=== Court Doctrines ===
=== Court Doctrines ===
* "One person one vote" standard (Baker v. Carr, 1961)
* "One person one vote" standard (Baker v. Carr, 1961)
* Political Question doctrine
* Political Question doctrine
* Strict scrutiny
* Strict scrutiny
Line 377: Line 531:


=== Legal Tests & Rules ===
=== Legal Tests & Rules ===
* <u>clear and present danger</u> (Schenck v. US , 1919)
* <u>clear and present danger</u> (Schenck v. US , 1919)
** speech that creates a "clear and present danger" may be prohibited by law
** speech that creates a "clear and present danger" may be prohibited by law
Line 394: Line 547:
* <u>Undue burden</u> standard
* <u>Undue burden</u> standard
** a law must not create an "undue" (unnecessary) or overly burdensome or that is overly restrictive of fundamental rights
** a law must not create an "undue" (unnecessary) or overly burdensome or that is overly restrictive of fundamental rights
== Major "Courts" (Chief Justices) ==
=== Marshall Court, 1801-1835 ===
* under Chief Justice John Marshall
* early Republic period
* established judicial review and federal supremacy
* protected contract and property rights from state encroachment
=== Taney (Roger) ===
* prior to the Civil War, Taney defended slave states
* most important decision: Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)
** which invalidated the Compromise of 1850
=== Chase, Waite & Fuller Courts, 1864-1910 ===
* Chief Justices Salmon P. Chase (1864-1873), Morrison Waite (1874-1888) and Melven Weston Fuller (1888-1910)
* the Chase court oversaw Reconstruction Era civil rights laws and cases
* Waite Courts
* Fuller Courts were marked by
** anti- federal regulations
** pro-freedom of contract
** legalized segregation (Plessy v. Furgeson, 1894) and created the "separate but equal" doctrine
=== Lochner era ===
* named for the case "Lochner v. New York (1905)
** in which the Court invalidated a maximum hours law under the theory that they violated private contract
** the state of New York enacted a law that limited work hours
** a baker, Joseph Lochner, was arrested for violating the law
** the Court ruled that the law violated "due process" protections of individual rights to contract
*** i.e., that Lochner and his employees had a right to contract work hours without state interference
* the '''Lochner era''' Courts generally invalidated state and federal laws that regulated the workplace (hours, wages, etc.)
* the ''Lochner'' case created the idea of "substantive due process" (see "Incorporation cases")
* the Lochner era ended when, following President Franklin Roosevelt's "court packing scheme", the Court adjusted its attitude towards New Deal programs
** ''West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish'', (1937) upheld a minimum wage law, and thus allowed for state restrictions on private contract
=== White, Taft & Hughes & Vinson Courts ===
* Edward Douglass White,
* William Howard Taft
* Charles Evans Hughes
* Vinso
=== Warren Court ===
* Chief Justice Earl Warren,
=== Burger Court ===
=== Rehnquist Court ===
=== Roberts Court ===


== Full list of Landmark Supreme Court cases ==
== Full list of Landmark Supreme Court cases ==
Line 399: Line 605:
<div style="column-count:3">
<div style="column-count:3">
* Abington School District v. Schempp (1963: religion in schools)
* Abington School District v. Schempp (1963: religion in schools)
* Baker v. Carr (1962, racial preferences)
* Baker v. Carr (1962, redistricting; "One person one vote" standard)
* Bakke v. Regents of the University of California (1978)
* Bakke v. Regents of the University of California (1978: limited affirmative action / racial preferences in college admissions)
* Bob Jones University v. US (1983)
* Bob Jones University v. US (1983)
* Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000: freedom of association; banned laws forcing inclusion in a private group; homosexuality)
* Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000: freedom of association; banned laws forcing inclusion in a private group; homosexuality)
* Bowers v. Hardwick (1986: privacy, homosexuality)
* Bowers v. Hardwick (1986: privacy, homosexuality)
* Brown v. Board of Education (1954, equal protection, overturned ''Plessy'')
* Brown v. Board of Education (1954, equal protection, overturned Plessy)
* Buckley v. Valeo (1976)
* Buckley v. Valeo (1976)
* Bush v. Gore (2000: presidential election)
* Bush v. Gore (2000: presidential election)
Line 410: Line 616:
* Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831)
* Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831)
* Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010: campaign finance)
* Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010: campaign finance)
* Civil Rights Cases of 1883
* Civil Rights Cases of 1883 (five cases; the Court ruled that the 13th and 14th Amendments did not outlaw racial discrimination by private individuals)
* Clinton v. City of New York (1998)
* Clinton v. City of New York (1998)
* Clinton v. Jones (1997)
* Clinton v. Jones (1997)
* Commonwealth v. Hunt (1842)
* Commonwealth v. Hunt (1842)
* Cooper v. Aaron (1958, states cannot nullify federal Court rulings)
* Cooper v. Aaron (1958, states cannot nullify federal Court rulings)
* Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819)
* Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819: no state shall make laws that impair (violate) contract)
* District of Columbia v. Heller (2008: gun rights upheld)
* District of Columbia v. Heller (2008: gun rights upheld)
* Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)
* Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)
Line 422: Line 628:
* Ex parte Endo (1944)
* Ex parte Endo (1944)
* Ex parte Milligan (1866)
* Ex parte Milligan (1866)
* Fletcher v. Peck (1810)
* Fletcher v. Peck (1810: 1st ruling to invalidate a state law; regarded contracts & property rights)
* Furman v. Georgia (1972)
* Furman v. Georgia (1972)
* Gibbons v. Ogden (1824: upheld federal interstate commerce / Commerce clause powers)
* Gibbons v. Ogden (1824: upheld federal interstate commerce / Commerce clause powers)
Line 432: Line 638:
* Hamdi v. Rumsfield (2004)
* Hamdi v. Rumsfield (2004)
* Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1983: speech; upheld limits on student publications)
* Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1983: speech; upheld limits on student publications)
* Heart of Atlanta v. US (1964)
* Heart of Atlanta v. US (1964: court ruled that the Commerce Clause gave Congress the power to prohibit racial discrimination in "public accommodations", i.e. businesses open to the public)
* Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co. (1968: prohibited racial discrimination in land sales or rental based on the 13th Amendment)
* Kelo v. City of New London (2005)
* Kelo v. City of New London (2005)
* Korematsu v. United States (1944)
* Korematsu v. United States (1944)
Line 459: Line 666:
* Obergefell v. Hodges (2015: same-sex marriage)
* Obergefell v. Hodges (2015: same-sex marriage)
* Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)
* Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)
* Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)
* Plessy v. Ferguson (1896: legalized segregation under "separate but equal" doctrine)
* Pollock v. The Farmers' Loan and Trust Co. (1895)
* Pollock v. The Farmers' Loan and Trust Co. (1895)
* Roe v. Wade (1973: right to privacy; abortion)
* Roe v. Wade (1973: right to privacy; abortion)
Line 478: Line 685:
* Wabash, St. Louis, and Pacific Railway Co. v. Illinois (1886)
* Wabash, St. Louis, and Pacific Railway Co. v. Illinois (1886)
* West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943)
* West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943)
* West Coast Hotel v. Parrish (1937)
* West Coast Hotel v. Parrish (1937: legalized minimum wage laws)
* Zelma v. Simmons-Harris (2002, religion, school vouchers)
* Zelma v. Simmons-Harris (2002, religion, school vouchers)
</div>
</div>
Retrieved from "https://school4schools.wiki/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/2870...3721"