4,620
edits
Landmark Supreme Court cases: Difference between revisions
Landmark Supreme Court cases (view source)
Revision as of 03:37, 15 December 2022
, 15 December 2022→AP Gov list of required Landmark Supreme Court cases
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
!Date | !Date | ||
!Court | !Court | ||
! | !Issues / Doctrine | ||
!Constitutional Issues | !Constitutional Issues | ||
!Issues / Background / Description / Opinion / Dissent | !Issues / Background / Description / Opinion / Dissent | ||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
- Political Question doctrine | - 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 | * ruled that the state of Tennessee had ignored a 1901 state law that required redistricting to be adjusted according to census results | ||
| Line 62: | Line 63: | ||
|Roberts | |Roberts | ||
|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 78: | ||
|1962 | |1962 | ||
|Warren | |Warren | ||
| - prayer in public school | | ''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 87: | ||
<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 | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
| | | | ||
*[[wikipedia:Abington_School_District_v._Schempp|Abington School District v. Schempp]] (1963: banned public school-sponsored Bible reading) | *[[wikipedia:Abington_School_District_v._Schempp|Abington School District v. Schempp]] (1963: banned public school-sponsored Bible reading) | ||
*[[wikipedia:Wallace_v._Jaffree|Wallace v. Jaffree]] (1985: banned school-sponsored prayer but allowed for school-sponsored moment of silence for individual meditation) | *[[wikipedia:Wallace_v._Jaffree|Wallace v. Jaffree]] (1985: banned school-sponsored prayer but allowed for school-sponsored moment of silence for individual meditation) | ||
|- | |||
| | |||
=== Ex parte Milligan === | |||
|1866 | |||
| | |||
|''Can a military court try a citizen?'' | |||
| | |||
| | |||
| | |||
|- | |- | ||
| | | | ||
| Line 95: | Line 106: | ||
|1963 | |1963 | ||
|Warren | |Warren | ||
| | | - public counsel | ||
- incorporation case | - incorporation case | ||
|Right to counsel (6th amendment) | |Right to counsel (6th amendment) | ||
| Line 102: | Line 113: | ||
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 113: | Line 124: | ||
*[[wikipedia:Miranda_v._Arizona|Miranda v. Arizona]] (1966: self-incrimination protections; incorporation of 5th amendment; see also [[wikipedia:Berghuis_v._Thompkins|Berghuis v. Thompkins]] 2010) | *[[wikipedia:Miranda_v._Arizona|Miranda v. Arizona]] (1966: self-incrimination protections; incorporation of 5th amendment; see also [[wikipedia:Berghuis_v._Thompkins|Berghuis v. Thompkins]] 2010) | ||
|- | |||
| | |||
=== Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US === | |||
|1964 | |||
|Warren | |||
| | |||
|Commerce clause | |||
equal protection | |||
|(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) | |||
| | |||
|- | |||
| | |||
=== Lemon v. Kurtzman === | |||
|1971 | |||
|Burger | |||
|''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) | |||
|<< to do | |||
| | |||
|- | |- | ||
| | | | ||
| Line 119: | Line 152: | ||
|Marshall | |Marshall | ||
|Judicial supremacy | |Judicial supremacy | ||
| | | | ||
* Judicial review | * Judicial review | ||
* Original jurisdiction (Article III, Section 2) | * Original jurisdiction (Article III, Section 2) | ||
| Line 147: | Line 180: | ||
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 191: | ||
|2010 | |2010 | ||
|Roberts | |Roberts | ||
| | | - right to "keep and bear arms | ||
<nowiki>- incorporation case</nowiki> | <nowiki>- incorporation case</nowiki> | ||
| | | | ||
| Line 238: | Line 271: | ||
|Rehnquist | |Rehnquist | ||
|<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 255: | Line 289: | ||
|1969 | |1969 | ||
|Warren | |Warren | ||
|<nowiki>- protests in public schools</nowiki> | |''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 | ||
| | |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 300: | Line 336: | ||
|1972 | |1972 | ||
|Burger | |Burger | ||
|<nowiki>- parental rights </nowiki> | |''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 343: | ||
- 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"> | ||