Landmark Supreme Court cases: Difference between revisions

From A+ Club Lesson Planner & Study Guide
Line 163: Line 163:
|1971
|1971
|Burger
|Burger
|freedom of the press
| - prior restraint
- freedom of the press
|
|
* Freedom of the press (1st amendment)
* Freedom of the press (1st amendment)
|
|
* the New York Times (NYT) newspaper published the leaked "Pentagon Papers," which were secret reports by the Pentagon regarding the U.S. intervention in Vietnam; the government fought to stop their publication based on national security grounds and that the possession of them by the NYT was illegal, as the documents were
* the New York Times (NYT) newspaper published the leaked "Pentagon Papers," which were secret reports by the Pentagon regarding the U.S. intervention in Vietnam; the government fought to stop their publication based on national security grounds and that the possession of them by the NYT was illegal
* the Court ruled that the government's need to keep certain secrets (i.e., classified information) was subordinate to constitutional protections of the press, even if those secrets were unlawfully released (leaked)
* the government was asking for "prior restraint" of further publication of the Papers (there were 7,000 pages, so the NYT started printing selections, upon which time the Government ordered the NYT to halt publication ("prior restraint" = to stop criminal behavior before it is actually done)
* the ruling stated that when balanced against the freedom of the press, the government "carries a heavy burden of showing justification for the imposition of such a restraint."
* the Court ruled that the government's need to keep certain secrets (i.e., classified information) was subordinate (less important than) to constitutional protections of the press, even if those secrets were unlawfully released (leaked)
* the ruling stated that when balanced against the freedom of the press, the government's position for prior restraint "carries a heavy burden of showing justification for the imposition of such a restraint"
* the Court created a standard for testing the importance of keeping state secrets to the "grave and irreparable danger" standard
* the Court created a standard for testing the importance of keeping state secrets to the "grave and irreparable danger" standard
* other issues include, ''censorship, prior restraint, injunction''
* other issues include, ''censorship, prior restraint, injunction''
Line 176: Line 178:
|Roe v. Wade
|Roe v. Wade
|1973
|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"
* 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
|
|
|
* [[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)
|-
|-
|Schenck v. United States
|Schenck v. United States
Line 284: Line 297:
=== Legal Tests & Rules ===
=== Legal Tests & Rules ===


* "Grave and probable danger" rule (Dennis v. US, 1951) updated to "Grave and irreparable danger standard "(NY Times v. US, 1971)
* "'''Grave and irreparable danger standard''' "(NY Times v. US, 1971)
** updated from the "grave and probable danger" rule (Dennis v. US, 1951)
** the government must show "irreparable" (unfixable) danger in order to justify "prior restraint"
*** "prior restraint" = stopping an action or behavior before it happens, usually referring to halting the publication of something that might pose a harm to national security
* '''Undue burden standard'''
** a law must not create an "undue" (unnecessary) or overly burdensome or that is overly restrictive of fundamental rights


== Full list of Landmark Supreme Court cases ==
== Full list of Landmark Supreme Court cases ==

Revision as of 18:13, 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 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
  • 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)
Brown v. Board of Education 1954 Warren equal protection Equal protection clause (14th amendment)
  • 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
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission 2010 Roberts campaign finance law Free speech clause (1st amendment)
  • held that "political spending" by organizations is protected speech
  • the case regarded advertising of a movie during a primary election season that was critical of Hillary Clinton and that violated a 2002 law, Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act that prohibited "electioneering communication" by corporations, non-profits or unions withing 30 days of a primary or 60 days of an election; the law was invalidated by the case
Engel v. Vitale 1962 Warren - prayer in public school

- "separation of Church and State" doctrine

Establishment clause (1st amendment)
  • ruled that official public school prayer (i.e., school-sponsored) violated the 1st amendment prohibition of government sponsored religion
  • the ruling affirmed the "wall of separation between Church and State," which is from a published letter by President Thomas Jefferson in 1802
  • dissent:
    • 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
Gideon v. Wainwright 1963 Warren - public counsel

- incorporation case

Right to counsel (6th amendment)
  • Gideon requested but was denied a public attorney (Florida only allowed it for capital offenses)
  • 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
  • Powell v. Alabama (1932: required state-sponsored counsel in capital crimes; it importantly incorporated the 6th amendment right via the 14th amendment's "due process" clause)

for similar cases regarding criminal protections:

  • Massiah v. United States (1964: prohibited use of statements by criminals who had counsel without that attorney present)
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]
  • note that Marshall's appointment to the Court as Chief Justice was one of Adams' final appointments after having lost the election of 1800
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
McDonald v. Chicago 2010 Roberts - right to "keep and bear arms

- incorporation case

  • Second amendment right to bear arms
  • in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) the Court affirmed the 2nd amendment right to "keep and bear arms" as an individual right by declaring a gun control law of the District of Columbia (DC) law unconstitutional.
  • Since Heller regarded a DC law, which is a federal territory, the ruling was not immediately applicable to state law
  • McDonald applied Heller it to state law via the Due Process clause of the 14th amendment
New York Times v. United States 1971 Burger - prior restraint

- freedom of the press

  • Freedom of the press (1st amendment)
  • the New York Times (NYT) newspaper published the leaked "Pentagon Papers," which were secret reports by the Pentagon regarding the U.S. intervention in Vietnam; the government fought to stop their publication based on national security grounds and that the possession of them by the NYT was illegal
  • the government was asking for "prior restraint" of further publication of the Papers (there were 7,000 pages, so the NYT started printing selections, upon which time the Government ordered the NYT to halt publication ("prior restraint" = to stop criminal behavior before it is actually done)
  • the Court ruled that the government's need to keep certain secrets (i.e., classified information) was subordinate (less important than) to constitutional protections of the press, even if those secrets were unlawfully released (leaked)
  • the ruling stated that when balanced against the freedom of the press, the government's position for prior restraint "carries a heavy burden of showing justification for the imposition of such a restraint"
  • the Court created a standard for testing the importance of keeping state secrets to the "grave and irreparable danger" standard
  • other issues include, censorship, prior restraint, injunction
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"
  • 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
  • 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)
  • 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)
Schenck v. United States 1919 Hughes
Shaw v. Reno 1993
Tinker v. Des Moines 1969
United States v. Lopez 1995
Wisconsin v. Yoder 1972


Major "Courts" (Chief Justices)[edit | edit source]

Marshall (John), 1801-1835[edit | edit source]

  • early Republic period
  • established judicial review and federal supremacy

Taney (Roger)[edit | edit source]

  • prior to the Civil War, Taney defended slave states
  • most important decision: Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)

Fuller (Melville)[edit | edit source]

White (Edward Douglass)[edit | edit source]

Taft (William Howard)[edit | edit source]

Hughes (Charles Evans)[edit | edit source]

Vinson[edit | edit source]

Warren (Earl)[edit | edit source]

Burger[edit | edit source]

Rhenquist[edit | edit source]

Roberts[edit | edit source]

List of Fourteenth Amendment "Incorporation Cases"[edit | edit source]

14th Amendment incorporation cases[edit | edit source]

  • the 14th amendment explicitly applied itself to the states
  • thus its "due process" and "equal protection" clauses also apply to the states
  • "incorporation" ("putting into the body") means applying the Bill of Rights and other constitutional protections to state law via the 14th amendment

Selective Incorporation[edit | edit source]

  • Duncan v. Louisiana (1968) created the

List of Court Doctrines & Tests[edit | edit source]

  • 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

Court Doctrines[edit | edit source]

Legal Tests & Rules[edit | edit source]

  • "Grave and irreparable danger standard "(NY Times v. US, 1971)
    • updated from the "grave and probable danger" rule (Dennis v. US, 1951)
    • the government must show "irreparable" (unfixable) danger in order to justify "prior restraint"
      • "prior restraint" = stopping an action or behavior before it happens, usually referring to halting the publication of something that might pose a harm to national security
  • Undue burden standard
    • a law must not create an "undue" (unnecessary) or overly burdensome or that is overly restrictive of fundamental rights

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)