4,993
edits
Landmark Supreme Court cases: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
!Big Ideas/ Court Doctrine | !Big Ideas/ Court Doctrine | ||
!Constitutional Issues | !Constitutional Issues | ||
!Issues / Background / Description / Opinion / Dissent | |||
!Issues / Background / Description / Opinion | |||
!Related Cases | !Related Cases | ||
|- | |- | ||
| Line 24: | Line 22: | ||
- Political Question doctrine | - Political Question doctrine | ||
|Equal protection | | | ||
* 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 | * 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 | ||
* 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) | * Reynolds v. Sims (1964) | ||
| Line 42: | Line 44: | ||
|Marshall | |Marshall | ||
|Judicial supremacy | |Judicial supremacy | ||
| Original jurisdiction (Article III, Section 2) | | | ||
* 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> | ||
| | | | ||
* 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) | | | ||
* 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 | |||
| | | | ||
|- | |- | ||
| Line 80: | Line 86: | ||
|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 | |||
| | | | ||
* [[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) | |||
|- | |- | ||
| | | | ||
| | | | ||