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
|
|