Landmark Supreme Court cases: Difference between revisions

From A+ Club Lesson Planner & Study Guide
No edit summary
Line 13: Line 13:
!Big Ideas/ Court Doctrine
!Big Ideas/ Court Doctrine
!Constitutional Issues
!Constitutional Issues
!Constitutional Issues
!Issues / Background / Description / Opinion / Dissent
!Issues / Background / Description / Opinion
!Dissent (if relevant)
!Related Cases
!Related Cases
|-
|-
Line 24: Line 22:


- Political Question doctrine
- Political Question doctrine
|Equal protection
|
|judicial review
* Equal protection
 
* Judicial review
|  
|  
* held 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


* 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 state had not drawn new districts since 1901, resulting in overrepresentation of rural over urban citizens  
* the Court was split on the case and the case had to be re-argued  
* held that challenges to state districting (gerrymandering) issues were not merely "political questions" and thus subject to Court review
| - Justice Brennan argued that redistricting is a political question and should be left up to the states
* the Court was split on the case and the case had to be re-argued
- Justice Frankfurter held that the decision was "judicial overreach"
* dissents:
** Justice Brennan argued that redistricting is a political question and should be left up to the states
** Justice Frankfurter held that the decision was "judicial overreach"
|
|
* Reynolds v. Sims (1964)
* Reynolds v. Sims (1964)
Line 42: Line 44:
|Marshall  
|Marshall  
|Judicial supremacy
|Judicial supremacy
| Original jurisdiction (Article III, Section 2)
|  
|"legal remedy" concept <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>
* Judicial review
 
* Original jurisdiction (Article III, Section 2)
 
* "legal remedy" concept <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
* unanimous decision that settled a dispute between outgoing Adams and incoming Jefferson administrations over Adams' "midnight appointments", including one to Marbury


* ruled that Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1793 was illegal under the Constitution, thus establishing "judicial review"
* ruled that Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1793 was illegal under the Constitution, thus establishing "judicial review"
Line 52: Line 58:


* Marshall quoted Federalist No. 78 by Hamilton, "''...  that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void''."<ref>Note that Hamilton did not envision Judicial review, instead arguing that the Congress must avoid unconstitutional unto itself.</ref>
* Marshall quoted Federalist No. 78 by Hamilton, "''...  that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void''."<ref>Note that Hamilton did not envision Judicial review, instead arguing that the Congress must avoid unconstitutional unto itself.</ref>
|none (unanimous decision)
|
|
* Hylton v. United States (1796)<ref>In this case the Court upheld a challenge to a law's constitutionality, in that a tax on carriages did not violate the Constitution. ''Marbury'' was not decided on this precedent, however, Chief Justice Roberts cited ''Hylton'' in ''National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius'' (2012)</ref>
* [[wikipedia:Hylton_v._United_States|Hylton v. United States]] (1796)<ref>In this case the Court upheld a challenge to a law's constitutionality, in that a tax on carriages did not violate the Constitution. ''Marbury'' was not decided on this precedent, however, Chief Justice Roberts cited ''Hylton'' in ''National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius'' (2012)</ref>
|-
|-
|'''McColluch v. Maryland'''
|'''McColluch v. Maryland'''
Line 60: Line 65:
|Marshall
|Marshall
|implied powers  
|implied powers  
|Supremacy clause (Article VI)
|
|Necessary and proper clause
* Supremacy clause (Article VI)
|<nowiki>-  Maryland tried to stop the Baltimore branch of the Second National Bank by taxing it</nowiki>
* Necessary and proper clause
|
* Maryland tried to stop the Baltimore branch of the Second National Bank by taxing 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 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  
|
|
|
|-
|-
Line 80: Line 86:
|Equal protection
|Equal protection
|
|
|<nowiki>- overturned </nowiki>''Plessy v. Furguson''
* unanimous ruling held that segregated schools were "inherently unequal" and thus violated the 14th amendment's equal protection clause regarding public school segregation
- the Court ruled that segregated schools violated the 14th amendment's equal protection clause regarding public school segregation, ruling that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal"
* the ruling did not completely overturn ''Plessy'', as ''Brown'' applied only to public education, but it became the primary precedent for further challenges to ''de jure'' (in law) segregation
|none (unanimous)
* subsequent cases also addressed ''de facto'' (in fact or practice) segregation
|
|
* [[wikipedia:Swann_v._Charlotte-Mecklenburg_Board_of_Education|Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education]] (1971: busing to promote racial integration in schools)
* [[wikipedia:Milliken_v._Bradley|Milliken v. Bradley]] (1974: "busing"; distinguished between ''de jure'' and ''de facto'' segregation)
|-
|-
|
|
|
|
|
|

Revision as of 13:45, 28 April 2022

** page under construction **

Short list of Landmark Supreme Court cases[edit | edit source]

  • cases as generally recommended for core study for the AP Gov exam
  • review of additional cases will yield greater student comprehension and analysis
Case Date Court Big Ideas/ Court Doctrine Constitutional Issues Issues / Background / Description / Opinion / Dissent Related Cases
Baker v. Carr 1961 Warren - "One person one vote" standard

- Political Question doctrine

  • Equal protection
  • Judicial review
  • ruled 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
  • 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
  • dissents:
    • Justice Brennan argued that redistricting is a political question and should be left up to the states
    • Justice Frankfurter held that the decision was "judicial overreach"
  • Reynolds v. Sims (1964)
  • Shaw v. Reno , 1993)
Marbury v. Madison 1803 Marshall Judicial supremacy
  • Judicial review
  • Original jurisdiction (Article III, Section 2)
  • "legal remedy" concept [1]
  • unanimous decision that settled a dispute between outgoing Adams and incoming Jefferson administrations over Adams' "midnight appointments", including one to Marbury
  • ruled that Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1793 was illegal under the Constitution, thus establishing "judicial review"
  • 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
  • Marshall quoted Federalist No. 78 by Hamilton, "... that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void."[2]
McColluch v. Maryland 1819 Marshall implied powers
  • Supremacy clause (Article VI)
  • Necessary and proper clause
  • Maryland tried to stop the Baltimore branch of the Second National Bank by taxing 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"
  • 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
Brown v. Board of Education 1954 Warren equal protection Equal protection
  • unanimous ruling held that segregated schools were "inherently unequal" and thus violated the 14th amendment's equal protection clause regarding public school segregation
  • the ruling did not completely overturn Plessy, as Brown applied only to public education, but it became the primary precedent for further challenges to de jure (in law) segregation
  • subsequent cases also addressed de facto (in fact or practice) segregation


Full list of Landmark Supreme Court cases[edit | edit source]

Landmark Supreme Court cases: alphabetical[edit | edit source]

Landmark Supreme Court cases: by date & historical era[edit | edit source]

Landmark Supreme Court cases: by topic[edit | edit source]

  1. Marshall invoked (referenced) the ancient Roman legal maxim ubi jus, ibi remedium for "where there is a legal right, there is a legal remedy"
  2. Note that Hamilton did not envision Judicial review, instead arguing that the Congress must avoid unconstitutional unto itself.
  3. In this case the Court upheld a challenge to a law's constitutionality, in that a tax on carriages did not violate the Constitution. Marbury was not decided on this precedent, however, Chief Justice Roberts cited Hylton in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012)