VIEWS: 4 PAGES: 53 POSTED ON: 9/24/2011
Marbury v Madison 1803 • was the first instance in which a law passed by Congress was declared unconstitutional. The decision greatly expanded the power of the Court by establishing its right to overturn acts of Congress, a power not explicitly granted by the Constitution. Initially the case involved Secretary of State James Madison, who refused to seat four judicial appointees although they had been confirmed by the Senate Fletcher v Peck 1810 • Said a state could not pass a law that impaired contracts or land titles acquired in good faith; first time that the Sup. Ct. said a state law was unconstitutional McCulloch v Md. 1819 • upheld the right of Congress to create a Bank of the United States, ruling that it was a power implied but not enumerated by the Constitution. The case is significant because it advanced the doctrine of implied powers, or a loose construction of the Constitution. The Court, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote, would sanction laws reflecting “the letter and spirit” of the Constitution. Gibbon v Ogden 1824 • defined broadly Congress's right to regulate commerce. The Court held that the New York law was unconstitutional, since the power to regulate interstate commerce, which extended to the regulation of navigation, belonged exclusively to Congress. In the 20th century, Chief Justice John Marshall's broad definition of commerce was used to uphold civil rights Barron v Baltimore 1833 • Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government not to the states. • Eminent domain case Dred Scott v Sanford 1857 The case involved Dred Scott, a slave, who was taken from a slave state to a free territory. Scott filed a lawsuit claiming that because he had lived on free soil he was entitled to his freedom. Chief Justice Taney disagreed, ruling that blacks were not citizens and therefore could not sue in federal court. Taney further inflamed antislavery forces by declaring that Congress had no right to ban slavery from U.S. territories The Civil Rights Cases 1883 • The 14th Amendment does not prohibit discrimination by businesses and individuals. • This will be overturned by Heart of Atlanta 1944. Plessy v Ferguson 1896 • was the infamous case that asserted that “equal but separate accommodations” for blacks on railroad cars did not violate the “equal protection under the laws” clause of the 14th Amendment. By defending the constitutionality of racial segregation, the Court paved the way for the repressive Jim Crow laws of the South. The lone dissenter on the Court, Justice John Harlan, protested, Schenck v US 1919 • Certain words can be considered clear and present danger during war time and are not protected by the 1st Amendment Gitlow v NY 1925 • Socialist called for socialism in NY. Claimed NY violated his rights.Supremes said no it did not BUT SC did say the 1st Amendment does apply (incorporation) does apply to states. Near v Minnesota 1931 • Incorporated the freedom of the press clause of the First Amendment. Minnesota and other states had to protect the rights of the press. Palko v Conn. 1937 • Upheld a 2nd conviction and man was executed. • Said 5th Amendment does apply to states but not Double Jeopardy part. • Benton v Md. 1969 Double Jeopardy is finally applied to states (incorporated or nationalized) Smith v Allwright 1944 • Declared that all-white primaries were unconstitutional Everson v Board of Ed 1947 • Incorporated the establishment clause so states had to protect it. • But this case said that a school district could provide school buses for religious schools. Such assistance would not violate the establishment clause. Dennis v US 1948 • The Smith Act does not violate the 1 st Amendment. Communism is a clear and present danger to the nation. Wolf v Colorado 1949 • Incorporated no unreasonable searches and seizures. • Also see Mapp Brown v Bd of Education 1954 • invalidated racial segregation in schools and led to the unraveling of de jure segregation in all areas of public life. In the unanimous decision spearheaded by Chief Justice Earl Warren, the Court invalidated the Plessy ruling, declaring “in the field of public education, the doctrine of „separate but equal‟ has no place” and contending that “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.” Future Supreme Court justice Thurgood Marshall was one of the NAACP lawyers who successfully argued the case. Rhenquist was a clerk that disagreed. NAACP v Alabama 1958 • Incorporated the freedom of association. • Alabama could not have a list of NAACP members since that would keep people from joining. Mapp v Ohio 1961 • Evidence was seized illegally and could not be used court. • Incorporated the exclusionary rule into the 14th Amendment and extended it to the states. • More recently courts have said if police act in good faith or would have found evidence another way then evidence would not be excluded from court. Wesbury v Sanders • Established the principle of "one man, one vote" for congressional districts Baker v Carr 1962 • Federal Courts could hear redistricting cases for state legislatures. • It led to Wesberry v Sanders 1962 – Ga. Cong. Districts were disproportional in size violating “one man one vote” Engle v Vitale 1962 • Although New York State‟s school prayer was non denominational and voluntary it still violated the Establishment clause of the First Amendment. Led to the Abington bible reading case the next year. Abington Twp v Schempp 1963 • Required bible reading and Lord‟s prayer violates 1 st Amendment establishment clause thus the district law is unconstitutional. Gideon v Wainright 1963 • Florida did violate person‟s right to a lawyer by not providing one. Heart of Atlanta Hotel v US 1964 • The motel's argument is that the government overstepped its bounds by using the Commerce Clause to exert influence over the hospitality industry in forcing them to treat black guests as they would white guests. The motel lost its case in district court and appealed to the Supreme Court. The Court found that the Congress did have the power exerted in the Act, and that the motel had no case against the Act. NYT v Sullivan 1964 • Statements about public figures are libelous only if made with malice and reckless disregard for the truth. Public figures don‟t have as much protection as regular private persons. Griswold v Connecticut 1965 • Held that various guarantees within the Bill of Rights create penumbras that establish a right to privacy in marital relations • Conn. Could not restrict birth control. Miranda v Arizona 1966 • The Warren Court reversed the conviction bc the suspect was not informed of his rights. • The court would not uphold any conviction on appeal if the accused had not been informed of their constitutional rights before being questioned. Harper v VA 1966 • Found Poll taxes in any election to be unconstitutional. Loving v VA 1967 • There is no “rational purpose” for discrimination by banning races from marrying one another. • Instead, such discrimination should receive “the most rigid scrutiny.” Tinker v Des Moines 1968 • The Court ruled in favor of students' rights to exercise their freedom of speech symbolically by wearing black armbands to protest the war in Vietnam. • SC overruled a school district and a state court. Swann v Charlotte 1971 out of order • Federal Court remedies to segregation were lawful. • Busing students to achieve racial integration was permitted. Lemon v Kurtzman 1971 Pa law regarding funding for nonpublic school violated 3 part test of Does the law 1.entangle, 2.promote , or 3. have a religious purpose? NYT v US 1971 • The Court ruled in this case that the government could not exercise prior restraint to prevent a newspaper from publishing negative information about the country's involvement in Vietnam. • Pentagon Papers Case Daniel Ellsburg gov employee leaked it. Later Nixon‟s people broke into Ellsburg‟s psychiatrist office Reed v Reed 1971 • Held that it was unconstitutional to mandate gender discrimination by preferring men to women in choosing the administrators of estates • Craig v. Boren (1976) • “Medium scrutiny” standard established for gender discrimination. Means that there might be times when discrimination based on gender may be acceptable. Roe v Wade 1973 • legalized abortion and is at the center of the current controversy between “pro-life” and “pro-choice” advocates. The Court ruled that a woman has the right to an abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy, contending that it is part of her “right to privacy.” States may intervene in the 2nd and 3rd trimesters but cannot place a undo burden on her. US v Nixon 1974 • Case which ruled that executive privilege was not unqualified. • Nixon had to give up the audio tapes that would show he was involved in a cover up of the Watergate Scandal. • SC asserted point that president was not more important than the law. Buckley v Valeo 1976 • Upheld contribution limits in elections, but said candidates could spend their own funds without limit; also held that since financial support of a candidate is protected under freedom of speech that individuals and outside groups could spend unlimited amounts as long as they were independent of the candidate's campaign. They are now called 527‟s. Regents of U. of Calif v Bakke 1978 • Supremes upheld notion of affirmative action but said race could be only one factor in determining admission. • Significant bc race could no longer be a predominant factor. • Since 1978 rulings have been mixed. Upholding some and striking down some. • See Grutter 2003 U of Michigan Immigration and Naturalization Service v Chadha 1982 • Ruled that the legislative veto was unconstitutional. Saying the legislative process must proceed that is House – Senate –President. • In this case just the House told the immigration service to deport someone from the country. South Dakota v Dole 1987 • Upheld Congressional legislation requiring states to raise the legal drinking age as a condition of receiving all their fed. hwy. funds. It would withhold 5% of the regular grant. Webster v Reproductive Health Services 1989 • Held that the Due Process Clause does not require states to enter into the business of abortion (state facilities) and did not mandate governmental aid; • states could restrict abortion although the Court upheld the right to an abortion • See Planned Parenthood v Casey Texas v Johnson 1989 • Struck down a Texas law banning the burning of the American flag on the grounds that such action was symbolic speech protected by the First Amendment. Shaw v Reno 1993 • White voters said boundaries of new congressional districts were minority majority. • Court agreed saying the odd shape was created to create a black district. • Race may be one factor but not be the only factor in drawing district boundaries. US v Lopez 1994 • Ruled that the Fed. Gun Control Act prohibiting the possession of a gun within 1000 ft. of a school was unconstitutional; limited the application of the Commerce Clause, Congress had overreached in its power. • Those desiring devolution were happy. Miller v Johnson 1995 • Racial gerrymandering is a violation of equal protection clause of 14 th Amendment. Printz v US 1996 • Held that the fed. govt. could not require state and local police to enforce a fed. law w/o providing money and state acceptance of that fed. Support. • Those favoring devolution were happy. Planned Parenthood v Casey 1992 • The Court reaffirmed a woman's right to have an abortion but upheld restrictions such as a 24-hour waiting period prior to an abortion and requiring minors to get a parent's consent before an abortion Adarand Constructors v. Pena 2000 • Held that racial classifications must pass strict scrutiny review to see if they serve a "compelling government interest." Thus federal programs cannot require that contracts go to minority businesses US v Morrison 2000 • Struck down part of the Violence Against Women Act; limitation of application of Commerce Clause Lawrence v Texas 2003 States may not prohibit private homosexual activity between consenting adults. • Overturned opposite view of Bowers 1986 Grutter v Bollinger 2003 • upheld the University of Michigan Law School's consideration of race and ethnicity in admissions, the university's program is consistent with the requirement of “individualized consideration” set in 1978's Bakke case. “In order to cultivate a set of leaders with legitimacy in the eyes of the citizenry, it is necessary that the path to leadership be visibly open to talented and qualified individuals of every race and ethnicity,” O'Connor said. However, the court, in Gratz v. Bollinger, ruled that the University of Michigan's undergraduate admissions system, which awards 20 points to black, Hispanic, and American-Indian applicants, is “nonindividualized, mechanical,” and thus unconstitutional Student Free Speech Cases • Tinker 1969 The wearing of armbands was "closely akin to 'pure speech'" and protected by the First Amendment. School environments imply limitations on free expression, but here the principals lacked justification for imposing any such limits.The principals had failed to show that the forbidden conduct would substantially interfere with appropriate school discipline. • Bethel v Fraser 1986 The Court found that it was appropriate for the school to prohibit the use of vulgar and offensive language. Chief Justice Burger distinguished between political speech which the Court previously had protected in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969) and the supposed sexual content of Fraser's message at the assembly. Burger concluded that the First Amendment did not prohibit schools from prohibiting vulgar and lewd speech since such discourse was inconsistent with the "fundamental values of public school education." • Hazelwood 1988 In a 5-to-3 decision, the Court held that the First Amendment did not require schools to affirmatively promote particular types of student speech. The Court held that schools must be able to set high standards for student speech disseminated under their auspices, and that schools retained the right to refuse to sponsor speech that was "inconsistent with 'the shared values of a civilized social order.'" Educators did not offend the First Amendment by exercising editorial control over the content of student speech so long as their actions were "reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns." The actions of principal Reynolds, the Court held, met this test. • Morse v Frederick 2007 The Court reversed the Ninth Circuit by a 5-4 vote, ruling that school officials can prohibit students from displaying messages that promote illegal drug use. Chief Justice John Roberts's majority opinion held that although students do have some right to political speech even while in school, this right does not extend to pro-drug messages that may undermine the school's important mission to discourage drug use. The majority held that Frederick's message, though "cryptic," was reasonably interpreted as promoting marijuana use - equivalent to "[Take] bong hits" or "bong hits [are a good thing]." In ruling for Morse, the Court affirmed that the speech rights of public school students are not as extensive as those adults normally enjoy, and that the highly protective standard set by Tinker would not always be applied. In concurring opinions, Justice Thomas expressed his view that the right to free speech does not apply to students and his wish to see Tinker overturned altogether, while Justice Alito stressed that the decision applied only to pro-drug messages and not to broader political speech. The dissent conceded that the principal should have had immunity from the lawsuit, but argued that the majority opinion was "[...] deaf to the constitutional imperative to permit unfettered debate, even among high-school students [...]."
"sup court decisions"