Landmark Supreme Court Cases by dfhdhdhdhjr


									Landmark Supreme
   Court Cases
          Marbury v. Madison
   1803
   Established doctrine of judicial review
   Allows the Supreme Court to review the
    constitutionality of any government action
   “It is emphatically the province and duty
    of the judicial department to say what the
    law is.”
         McCullough v. Maryland
   1819
   State taxation of a national bank violates the Supremacy
   Liberal view of Necessary and Proper Clause
   “But it may with great reason be contended, that a
    government, entrusted with such ample powers . . .
    must also be entrusted with ample means for their
   “Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of
    the constitution, and all means which are appropriate,
    which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not
    prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the
    constitution, are constitutional.”
       Schenck v. United States
   1919
   Mailings which encouraged resistance to the
    draft were not protected by the First
   Upheld conviction under Espionage Act
   "The question in every case is whether the
    words used are used in such circumstances and
    are of such a nature as to create a clear and
    present danger that they will bring about the
    substantive evils that Congress has a right to
    Brown v. Board of Education
   1954
   Overruled Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)
   Held that where a state chooses to provide
    public education, the opportunity must be made
    available to all on equal terms (Equal Protection
   “We conclude that the doctrine of 'separate but
    equal' has no place. Separate educational
    facilities are inherently unequal.”
                Baker v. Carr
   1962
   Drawing of legislative district lines is not
    merely a “political question” but rather a
    legal one subject to determination by
   Equal Protection Clause applies to
    reapportionment of legislative districts
          Gideon v. Wainwright
   1963
   Indigent (poor) defendants are entitled to legal
    counsel at state expense in felony cases
   Sixth Amendment right to counsel applies to the
    states under the 14th Amendment
   He requires the guiding hand of counsel at every
    step in the proceedings against him. Without it,
    though he be not guilty, he faces the danger of
    conviction because he does not know how to
    establish his innocence."
    Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United
   1964
   Upheld Civil Rights Act of 1964 which
    banned racial discrimination in public
    accommodations affecting interstate
   “Dual purpose” (also aimed at righting
    moral wrongs) did not affect the outcome
   Again rejected the “local effects”
           Miranda v. Arizona
   1966
   the prosecution may not use statements,
    whether exculpatory or inculpatory,
    stemming from custodial interrogation of
    the defendant unless it demonstrates the
    use of procedural safeguards effective to
    secure the privilege against self-
      Tinker v. Des Moines School
   1969
   Recognized that students have First Amendment
    rights, subject to certain restrictions
   Students work black armbands to protest
    Vietnam War
   Recognized this as political “symbolic speech”
   Does the speech threaten to disrupt education
    or interfere with rights of others?
           Lemon v. Kurtzman
   1971
   Established a three-part test to determine the
    constitutionality of aid given to parochial
    (church-sponsored) schools
   Aid must have a secular (non-religious) purpose
   Must not have the primary effect of promoting
   Must avoid excessive entanglement of
    government and religion
                 Roe v. Wade
   1973
   Recognized an implicit right of privacy under the
    9th Amendment and 14th Amendment due
    process clause
   Granted qualified abortion rights based on
    trimester of pregnancy
   “We, therefore, conclude that the right of
    personal privacy includes the abortion decision,
    but that this right is not unqualified, and must
    be considered against important state interests
    in regulation.”
     Kelo v. City of New London
   2005
   Expanded the “takings” clause of the Fifth
    Amendment to include property taken and
    transferred to a private developer for a public
   “For more than a century, our public use
    jurisprudence has wisely eschewed rigid
    formulas and intrusive scrutiny in favor of
    affording legislatures broad latitude in
    determining what public needs justify the use of
    the takings power.”

To top