| A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Timestamp | Name (Last, First) | Case Title | Year Case Decided | Facts of the Case (Very Briefly) | Constitutional Question being answered | Constitutional Issues at play | Decision of the Court (briefly, including vote) | Importance and Impact | Feedback - which websites were useful? Which were not? | ||||||
2 | Baker v Carr | 1962 | A Tennessee state statue designed to apportion seats for the General Assembly was being virtually ignored, resulting in one-third of the state's population electing two-thirds of the representatives. This was do to the district lines not being redrawn with the increasing population. | Does the Supreme Court have jurisdiction over questions of legislation appointment? | Redistricting, Jurisdiction | 6-2 yes, the supreme court does have jurisdiction over questions of legislative apportionment. | Established the right of courts to review redistricting issues. ONE MAN = ONE VOTE | |||||||||
3 | Baze v. Rees | 2008 | In Kentucky, lethal injection used 4 drugs; the first two incapacitated the person while the second two stopped their heart and lungs. Four inmates challenged this method as being 'cruel and unusual punishment' because the last two drugs on their own could cause pain to the recipient. The Kentucky Supreme Court held that the method was okay and the inmate appealed to SCOTUS. | Is lethal injection with drugs that could cause pain cruel and unusual punishment/in violation of the 8th Amendment? | Cruel and Unsual Punishment | 7-2 in favor of Rees. The majority argued that this method did not violate the 8th Amendment because there was no evidence of pain with the first two drugs and there was no substantial risk of administering the medication wrong and causing pain. But they did say it could potentially be cruel and unusual if there were better alternatives available. | This case helped establish the Constitutionality of the death penalty and further define what Constitutes a cruel and unusual punishment. | |||||||||
4 | Bethel v Fraser | 1986 | A high school student was suspended by Bethel High School for using a graphic sexual metaphor in a speech nominating another student for elective office. | Does the first amendment prevent a school from disciplining a student for giving a lewd speech at a assembly? | Free Speech/Press | 7-2 yes, the school can limit a student's free speech. | Certain limits on expression are permitted by the first amendment in specific scenarios. CUT BACK ON FREE SPEECH IN SCHOOL, IN CONTRAST TO TINKER. | |||||||||
5 | Boumediene v. Bush | 2008 | In 2002 Lakhdar Boumediene and five other Algerian natives were seized by Bosnian police when U.S. intelligence officers suspected their involvement in a plot to attack the U.S. embassy there. The U.S. government classified the men as enemy combatants in the war on terror and detained them at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, which is located on land that the U.S. leases from Cuba. Boumediene filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging violations of the Constitution's Due Process Clause, various statutes and treaties, the common law, and international law. | Should the Military Commissions Act of 2006 be interpreted to strip federal courts of jurisdiction over habeas petitions filed by foreign citizens detained at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba? If so, is the Military Commissions Act of 2006 a violation of the Suspension Clause of the Constitution? Are the detainees at Guantanamo Bay entitled to the protection of the Fifth Amendment right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law and of the Geneva Conventions? Can the detainees challenge the adequacy of judicial review provisions of the MCA before they have sought to invoke that review? | Due Process | A five-justice majority answered yes to each of the questions. | It strengthens the writ of heabeus corpus and discourages detaining people without due process. MAJOR BLOW TO BUSH ADMINISTRATION'S ATTEMPT TO HOLD PEOPLE IN GUANTANAMO WITHOUT DUE PROCESS. | |||||||||
6 | Boy Scouts of America v. Dale | 2000 | A boy scouts assistant scout master was fired for his sexual orientation. The Boy Scouts of America organization is a not-for-profit, so all the courts sided with the Boy Scouts. Dale was not reinstated after attempting to sue the organization. | Does the application of New Jersey's public accommodations law violate the Boy Scouts' First Amendment right of expressive association to bar homosexuals from serving as troop leaders? | Free Speech/Press, Equal Protection, RIGHTS OF ASSOCIATION | It was decided 5-4 in the Supreme Court that the Boy Scouts for America have the right to free speech and to bar any gay person from becoming a leader. If they want to convey to the public that they do not support homosexual behavior and it is not acceptable behavior, they are allowed to do so. | Equal Rights and other laws pertaining to that are not protected when dealing with private organizations. | Oyez | ||||||||
7 | Brandenburg v. Ohio | 1969 | Brandenburg, a leader in the Ku Klux Klan, made a speech at a Klan rally and was later convicted under an Ohio criminal syndicalism law. The law made illegal advocating "crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform," as well as assembling "with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism." | Did Ohio's criminal syndicalism law, prohibiting public speech that advocates various illegal activities, violate Brandenburg's right to free speech as protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments? | Free Speech/Press | The Court's Per Curiam opinion held that the Ohio law violated Brandenburg's right to free speech. | It strengthens the ability of people to share ideas, even if they are contrary to one’s own opinions or beliefs. CREATED THE "IMMINENT DANGER TEST" TO DETERMINE IF SPEECH IS PROTECTED. | |||||||||
8 | Branzburg v. Hayes | 1972 | Branzburg was a reporter who wrote a story about drugs activity in Kentucky and was then called upon by the government to testify in state grand jury. Branzburg refused to show and potentially disclose the identities of his confidential sources. | Is the requirement that news reporters appear and testify before state or federal grand juries an abridgement of the freedoms of speech and press as guaranteed by the First Amendment? | Free Speech/Press, Reportorial Privilege | 5-4 The court decided that when reporters receive information from sources in confidence does not privilege them to withhold that information during a government investigation. | The cases has been interpreted to say that reportorial privilege does exist, but not in certain cases like grand juries when they serve as "compelling" and "paramount" state interest. | Oyez.org | ||||||||
9 | Brown v Board of education 1 and 2 | 1954 | This case was the consolidation of four cases arising in separate states relating to the segregation of public schools on the basis of race. | Brown I-This case was the consolidation of four cases arising in separate states relating to the segregation of public schools on the basis of race. Brown II-After its decision in Brown (1) which declared racial discrimination in public education unconstitutional, the Court convened to issue the directives which would help to implement its newly announced Constitutional principle. | Due Process, Equal Protection | 9-0 decision was that the separate by equal doctrine was unconstitutional. The Court also held that the segregation of public education based on race instilled a sense of inferiority that had a hugely detrimental effect on the education and personal growth of African American children. | Ended the separated but equal doctrine that had been prevalent in the country. BROWN II ATTEMPTED TO PUSH THE DISTRICTS TO ACTUALLY IMPLEMENT THE LAW "WITH ALL DELIBERATE SPEED." | Ours.org | ||||||||
10 | Buckley v Valeo | 1976 | The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 limited the amount of money an individual could contribute to a single campaign and required reporting of contributions above a certain threshold amount. | Can Congress limit free speech in the form of campaign donations or does that violate the first amendment? | Free Speech/Press | Buckley won 7-2. The court said that restrictions on individual contributions to political campaigns and candidates did not violate the First Amendment but that governmental restriction of independent expenditures in campaigns, the limitation on expenditures by candidates from their own personal or family resources, and the limitation on total campaign expenditures did violate the First Amendment. | Allowed for the government to restrict the freedom of speech and association if it "[served] a government interest great enough to warrant [it]" PRECENT FOR CITIZEN'S UNITED, MONEY=SPEECH. | |||||||||
11 | Burwell v Hobby Lobby Stores | 2014 | The Green family, owners of the Hobby Lobby Stores, were christian and ran their for-profit business as such. They object to having to provide their employees with contraception as is required under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) so they sued Kathleen Sebelius (Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services) and challenged the contraception requirement. The Greens argued that requiring them to provide contraception violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA). Not-for-profit religious organizations were not bound to the same restrictions. | Are for-profit religious groups allowed to deny a basic part of medical coverage to their employees because it goes against their personal beliefs? | freedom of religion in business | Hobby Lobby Stores won 5-4. The court decided that Congress intended for the RFRA to be read as applying to corporations (or profit businesses) because they are made up of individuals who use them to achieve desired ends (make money??), however this only applies to contraception not healthcare overall. | It allowed for-profit businesses to deny parts of healthcare to their employees on the basis of the employers religious beliefs. | |||||||||
12 | Bush v Gore | 2000 | The Florida Supreme Court ordered that 9000 contested ballots should be tabulate by hand and that every county in Florida must immediately begin manually recounting all "under-votes". There were enough contested ballots to place the outcome of the election in doubt. Governor George Bush and his running mate requested for review in the U.S. Supreme Court and sought an emergency petition for a stay of the Florida Supreme Court's decision. The U.S. Supreme Court granted review and issued the stay on December 9. | Did the Florida Supreme Court violate Article II Section 1 Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution by making new election law? Do standardless manual recounts violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Constitution? | Due Process, Equal Protection | The Equal Protection clause guarantees individuals that their ballots cannot be devalued. The court held 7-2 that the for recounting ballots was fine in theory but unconstitutional in practice. The record suggested that different standards were applied from ballot to ballot, precinct to precinct, and county to county.Because of this, the court held, 5 to 4, that no constitutional recount could be fashioned in the time remaining. | ONE OF THE MOST CONTROVERSIAL RECENT SC DECISIONS BECAUSE IT STOPPED THE RECOUNT AND GAVE ALL OF FLORIDA'S ELECTORAL VOTES TO BUSH, ELECTING HIM PRESIDENT | |||||||||
13 | Cantwell v Connecticut | 1940 | Two Jehovah's Witnesses, the Cantwells, were proselytizing a prominently catholic neighborhood. After angering two pedestrians, they were arrested for violating a local ordinance requiring a permit for solicitation and for inciting a breach of the peace. | Did the solicitation statute or the "breach of the peace" ordinance violate the Cantwells' First Amendment free speech or free exercise rights? | Free Speech/Press, Religion Rights | In a unanimous decision, the Court held that restrictions based on religious grounds were not legitimate. Because the statute allowed local officials to determine which causes were religious and which ones were not, it violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court also held that while the maintenance of public order was a valid state interest, it could not be used to justify the suppression of free speech. | States are now bound by the First Amendment’s limitation on government to interfere with free religious exercise. After the ruling, neither federal nor state governments could unduly infringe on the right to freely exercise religion without a compelling state interest. | |||||||||
14 | Citizens United V. Federal Election Commision | 2010 | Hllary Clinton was running for president. Non profit organization made the movie | WAS THE BCRA (Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act) UNCONSTITUTIONAL WHEN IT DID NOT ALLOW PRIVATE GROUPS TO CREATE CAMPAIGN ADS AND MOVIES? | Free Speech/Press | 5-4 that the government cant deny the liberty of free speech (MONEY) FOR CORPORATIONS | The ruling allows virtually unlimited election spending by corporations through groups known as Super PACs. Since these PACs aren't affiliated with any candidate, any individual or corporation can donate an unlimited amount of money to them. This has raised concerns that a small number of extremely wealthy individuals could "buy elections" by funneling significant amounts of money through Super PACs. | |||||||||
15 | Dred Scott V. Sandford | 1857 | Dred Scott, a Missourian slave, resided in parts of the country where slavery was illegal for ten years. Upon returning to Missouri he sued for his freedom, but his master argued that because he was a descendant of slaves he could not be a slaves under Article III. | Was Dred Scott free or a slave? | EQUAL PROTECTION, SLAVERY | 7-2 for Sandford. Also declared the Missouri Compromise as unconstitutional. | In the case's opinion Chief Justice Taney held that no descendant of an American slave had ever been a citizen for the purposes of Article III, preventing pretty much all African Americans from citizenship. The declared unconstitutionality of the Missouri Compromise led to national tension and unrest, which would eventually produce the Civil War. | |||||||||
16 | Engel v. Vitale | 1962 | The state of New York authorized an (optional) official prayer to be read in schools. | Does the reading of a prayer in public schools violate the "establishment of religion" clause of the first amendment? | Religion Rights | Despite the prayer being nondenominational and voluntary, this action by New York would have officially sanctioned religious practice in a government setting; the practice was therefore ruled unconstitutional (6-1 for Engel). | This, in tandem with a few other cases from the same era, established what we currently view as the separation of church and state. Previously, this had meant only that there would not be a state sponsored religion, this case set the precedent that government could not participate in any religious activities. | |||||||||
17 | Escobedo v. Illinois | 1964 | Escobedo was arrested and denied consultation with his attorney despite repeated requests, he then confessed to murder. | Did this violate Escobedo's 6th amendment right to counsel? | Due Process, Rights of the Accused | Yes, this violated not only his right to counsel but also his right to remain silent (5-4). | This case established that the right to counsel applied not only during a trial, but from the moment of arrest. It also spoke of the "right to remain silent" for the first time, drawing from the 5th amendment right to avoid self-incrimination. | |||||||||
18 | Ex Parte Milligan | 1866 | Lambden P. Milligan had been sentenced to death for dissenting with Union. He was found to be a disloyal member of the state by an Indiana court. | Can a civil court have jurisdiction over a military tribunal (Oyez)? | Free Speech/Press, Rights of the Accused | Milligan must be freed from custody of military tribunal and tried in a civilian court: 9-0. | Imposition of limits on executive power is important: Lincoln imposed martial law and suspended the writ of habeas corpus. Military tribunals applied to citizens -- when a more appropriate alternative is available -- is unconstitutional; pertained to Lincoln's proposed method of dealing with Union dissenters after the Civil War. MADE A CHECK ON EXECUTIVE POWER EVEN DURING WAR TIME. | |||||||||
19 | Fisher v. University of Texas | 2016 | Fisher, a white woman, wasn't in the top 10 percent of Texas students that get automatic entrance into the University of Texas, and she was also denied in regular admission. University of Texas' admission process considers a number of factors including race; Fisher claimed that this violated the 14th Amendment. | Does the University of Texas's consideration of race in the admission process violate the 14th Amendment? | Due Process, Equal Protection | In 2013 the court voted 6-1 that UT's consideration of race was acceptable so long as it held up under strict scrutiny, and sent the case back to lower courts to see if it did. In 2016 the court held 4-3 that the University of Texas could consider race as part of its holistic process because they considered it as a factor among many, and because they set no hard ratios or quotas. | This case upheld the legality of affirmative action programs, something that was established in Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), but continues to be threatened. | Oyez was useful for getting the facts of the case, but not the reason why the case was heard twice. I found an article in the Atlantic that filled in these factual gaps. | ||||||||
20 | Gibbons v. Ogden | 1824 | New York granted a monopoly to steamboat operators within the waters of a specific state; they further required that operators from other states pay substantial fines for navigation rights within the waters of that state. Gibbons argued that this was unconstitutional and fought the New York state statute. | Did the state of New York overstep the bounds of its power and appropriate power vested in the federal government (referring specifically to the regulation of interstate commerce)? | Federalism | 8-0 for Gibbons, as Justice Thompson did not participate: John Marshall wrote the majority opinion -- New York statute was invalid due to the Supremacy Clause. Regulation of interstate commerce was reserved for the federal government. | Federal government has exclusive power over interstate commerce. This was one of the first cases decided by the Interstate Commerce Clause. It also settled disagreements with the shared powers between state and federal governments; it once again showed the supremacy of the federal government in this realm. | |||||||||
21 | Gideon v. Wainwright | 1963 | Clarence Earl Gideon was charged with a felony after he broke and entered into a Florida poolroom with the intent to commit a misdemeanor. He requested that the court appoint him a lawyer; however, Florida law states that an attorney may only be appointed to an indigent defendant in capital cases. He was forced to represent himself in trial, in which he was found guilty and sentenced to 5 years in prison. He claimed that the trial court's decision violated his constitutional right to be represented by counsel. | Does the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel in criminal cases extend to felony defendants in state courts? | Due Process, Rights of the Accused | Unanimous decision for Gideon. The Court held that it was consistent with the Constitution to require state courts to appoint attorneys for defendants who could not afford to retain counsel on their own. | The Constitution requires the states to provide defense attorneys to criminal defendants charged with serious offenses who cannot afford lawyers themselves. Previously, the states had simply been forbidden from preventing a defendant from obtaining a lawyer; after Gideon v. Wainwright, they were required to actively provide a lawyer for defendants in need. | |||||||||
22 | Gitlow v. New York | 1925 | Gitlow, a socialist, was arrested for distributing copies of a "left-wing manifesto" that called for the establishment of socialism through strikes and class action of any form. Gitlow was convicted under a state criminal anarchy law, which punished advocating the overthrow of the government by force. He argued that because no government overthrow resulted from his manifesto, the law unfairly punished people simply for speaking out, regardless of whether or not they incited people to direct action. The New York court decided that anyone who advocated for violent revolution was breaking the law. | Is the punishment of advocacy to overthrow the government by force an unconstitutional violation of the free speech clause of the First Amendment? | Free Speech/Press | 7-2 for New York. The Free Speech Clause did not shield Gitlow from the New York statute. | 1st Amendment protections of free speech apply to states as well as individuals, and 14th Amendment's due process clause holds state and federal governments to the same standard regarding free speech. Following this decision, the court held that a state may forbid free speech if that speech has a tendency to result in action dangerous to public security, even though the speech poses no obvious danger. FIRST EXAMPLE OF INCORPORATION OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS TO THE STATES. | |||||||||
23 | Gonzales v. Oregon | 2006 | Almost a decade after Oregon's 1994 Death with Dignity Act it was challenged in court. The argument was that it violated the 70s Controlled Substance Act, by allowing the commerce of illicit substances. | Does the rights of individual states to allow physician assisted suicide override federal legislation or not. | Federalism | The court fell in favor of Oregon, stating that the CSA was created to keep doctors from givingout illicit drugs, not to keep them from constitutionally acceptable drugs. | It ruled in favor of states, giving them more authority in future cases that pit federal legislation against state legislation. | |||||||||
24 | Gonzales v. Raich | 2005 | After California passed the Compassionate Care Act, an act that allowed medical medical marajuana use, many argued it went against the federal court's Controlled Substance Act. This act, under the commerce clause, prohibited illicit drug use in The United States. | Does the CSA override California's decision to allow marajuana use in medical situations? | Federalism | Was decided 6-3 in favor of the federal government, prohibiting California's pro-medical marajuana laws. The argument used was that California's legalization affected nationwide commerce of marajuana, thus should be prohibited. | This fell in favor of the federal government, which takes away power from states in similar decisions in the future. | |||||||||
25 | Griswold v. Connecticut | 1965 | Connecticut had a law that prohibited counseling or giving medical treatment to married couples to prevent pregnancy. Griswold, the Executive Director of Connecticut's Planned Parenthood League, were in violation of this law for talking to married couples about birth control. | Does right to privacy extend to married couples affairs in contraception? | Due Process, Right to Privacy | 7-2 Decision in favor of Griswold. They used the due process clause to apply the Bill of Rights to the states. They said the First, Third, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments create a right to privacy that applies to married couples. Because Connecticut's law does not adhere to that right, it is overturned. | This case helped make the idea of a right to privacy more of a concrete right guaranteed by our Bill of Rights, even though it isn't explicitly stated; it pinpointed the four Amendments that, together, create a right to privacy. It also extended right of privacy to include privacy not only of individuals, but of and in relationships. | |||||||||
26 | Grutter v. Bollinger | 2003 | Grutter's application to the University of Michigan law school was rejected. UM Law has publicly acknowledged that they consider race as part of an applicant's qualifications, a practice Gutter believed to be a violation both the 14th amendment and the civil rights act. | Do racial preferences in college admissions violate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment or the civil rights act of 1964? | Equal Protection | No, because the college has a "compelling interest" in making the incoming class as diverse as possible. (5-4) | Along with Fisher v. UT, this case upheld a precedent that both public and private schools can set higher academic standards for admission depending on race. | |||||||||
27 | Hamdi v. Rumsfeld | 2004 | Yaser Hamdi was a U.S. Citizen detained in Afghanistan and accused of being part of the Taliban and called an "enemy combatant". He was transferred to a military prison in Virginia. His father was granted a writ of habeas corpus after Hamdi wasn't given access to a lawyer or the courts and his defense attorney argued that Hamdi's 5th Amendment right to due process had been violated. The government appealed the case after refusing to give info on why they detained Hamdi and claiming that the Executive Branch had the right to call people enemy combatants and restrict their access to the judicial system. The appeals court found that the Executive and Legislative branches were able to deal with oversea conflict in a way the Judiciary couldn't, so it should defer to the Executive branch. Hamdi appealed to SCOTUS. | Does being classified as an "enemy combatant" deny a person their 5th Amendment rights to due process? Does the separation of powers mean courts have to defer to Executive decisions, like calling someone an "enemy combatant" when it comes to oversea conflict? | Due Process, Rights of the Accused, Executive Power | 8-1 in favor of Hamdi. Four judges found that the 5th Amendment guarantees enemy combatants in the US the right to contest their detention for a neutral decision maker and rejected the idea that the courts couldn't hear this challenge on Executive authority. 2 justices concurred, but did not agree that Congress authorized Hamdi's detention just because it authorized the conflict in Afghanistan, as the plurality claimed. | It extended the bounds of due process to include those labeled enemy combatants, so due process now encompasses even more American citizens. It also prevented the Executive branch from claiming the unchecked power of being able to label anyone the enemy and them hold them for an undetermined period of time without question. | |||||||||
28 | Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier | 1988 | After Robert E. Reynolds, principal of Hazelwood East High School, deemed two stories for the school-sponsored student-run newspaper as too inappropriate, three students took the issue to Court. | Did the principal's deletion of the articles violate the students' rights under the First Amendment? | Free Speech/Press | No. In a 5-to-3 decision, the Court held that schools retained the right to refuse to sponsor speech that was "inconsistent with 'the shared values of a civilized social order.'" | This decision was a giant step back for student press and speech rights. It was unlike an earlier Supreme Court ruling that established the so-called Tinker Standard (students/teachers don't shed their constitutional rights at schoolhouse gate). | |||||||||
29 | Hustler v. Falwell | 1988 | Falwell, a Fundamentalist minister and political leader, sued Hustler Magazine featured a "parody" of an advertisement claimed he had a drunken incestuous relationship with his mother in an outhouse. He sued them to recover damages for libel, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. | Does the First Amendment's freedom of speech protection extend to the making of patently offensive statements about public figures, resulting perhaps in their suffering emotional distress? | Free Speech/Press | Unanimous decision in favor of Hustler magazine. | The Court held that the interest of protecting free speech, under the First Amendment, surpassed the state's interest in protecting public figures from patently offensive speech. (As long as such speech could not reasonably be construed to state actual facts about its subject) | |||||||||
30 | In re Gault | 1967 | 15-year-old Gerald Francis Gault was taken into custody for allegedly making an obscene phone call to a neighbor, Mrs. Cook. After she filed a complaint, Gault was arrested. He had previously been on probation, and police did not notify Gault's parents, who were working, when he was arrested. After proceedings before a juvenile court judge, he was committed to the State Industrial School until he was 21. | Were the methods used by the juvenile court to commit Gault legitimate under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment? | Due Process | 8-1 decision for Gault The court ruled that the Juvenile court had to follow the requirements of the 14th Amendment. Such requirements include: adequate notice of charges, notification of both the parents and the juvenile of their right to counsel, opportunity for confrontation and cross-examination, and safeguards against self-incrimination. | In its opinion, the Court underscored the importance of due process, stating that it “is the primary and indispensable foundation of individual freedom”. The Court stated that while there are legitimate reasons for treating juveniles and adults differently, when facing a sentence of delinquency and incarceration juveniles are entitled to certain procedural safeguards under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. | |||||||||
31 | Katz v. United States | 1967 | Federal agents attached an eavesdropping device to the outside of a public phone booth Katz was using, acting on a suspicion that he was transferring gambling information by phone to clients in other states. Using recordings of his end of the conversations, Katz was convicted under an eight-count indictment for the illegal transmission of wagering information from Los Angeles to Boston and Miami. On appeal, he challenged his conviction arguing that the recordings couldn't be used as evidence against him. The Court of Appeals rejected this, noting the absence of a physical intrusion into the phone booth itself. The Court granted Katz certiorari. | Does the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures require the police to obtain a search warrant in order to wiretap a public pay phone? | Search and Seizure | 7-1 Decision for Katz, with Majority Opinion by Potter Stewart The Court ruled that Katz was entitled to Fourth Amendment protection for his conversations and that a physical intrusion into the space he occupied was unnecessary to bring the Amendment into play. "The Fourth Amendment protects people, not places," wrote Justice Potter Stewart for the Court | A concurring opinion by John Marshall Harlan introduced the idea of a 'reasonable' expectation of Fourth Amendment protection. It extended the reach of 4th amendment protection to all areas where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. | |||||||||
32 | Korematsu v US | 1944 | World War II, Presidential Executive Order 9066 for japenese internment, Korematsu remained in San Leandro, California and violated Civilian Exclusion Order No. 34 of the U.S. Army. | Did the President and Congress go beyond their war powers by implementing exclusion and restricting the rights of Americans of Japanese descent? | Presidential Power, Equal Protection, Origen or ansestrial based exclusion | 6-3 The Court sided with the government and held that the exclusion of such citizens was based on the public security. The majority held that the need in wartime to protect against espionage outweighed Korematsu's individual rights. Justice Black stated as “emergency and peril.” "with as little as one-sixteenth Japanese blood." | It was a specific discriminatory law taking away the right to freedom of innocent citizens. First case of strict scrutiny ruled by Supreme Court. | Oyez, wiki, national ww2 museum | ||||||||
33 | Lawrence and Garner v Texas | 2003 | Police false notified of gun shots in a home. Broke into find consensual intercourse of gay couple criminalized under "Homosexual Conduct" law State Court of Appeals held that the statute was not unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, with Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986) | Do the criminal convictions of John Lawrence and Tyron Garner under the Texas "Homosexual Conduct" law, which criminalizes sexual intimacy by same-sex couples, but not identical behavior by different-sex couples, violate the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of equal protection of laws? Do their criminal convictions for adult consensual sexual intimacy in the home violate their vital interests in liberty and privacy protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? Should Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), be overruled? | Due Process, Equal Protection, Privacy | 6-3 vote that it violates their rights to criminalize what goes on in private bedroom. Texas Law was unconstitutional. Accordingly, the Court overruled Bowers | The importance of the case is an example of the right to privacy, and protection under the due process clause AND EQUAL PROTECTION | Oyez | ||||||||
34 | Loving v. Virginia | 1967 | Two residents of Virginia, Mildred Jeter, a black woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, were married in the District of Columbia. The couple was then charged with violating the state's anti miscegenation statute, which banned inter-racial marriages. The Lovings were found guilty and sentenced to a year in jail. | Did Virginia's anti-miscegenation law violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? | Federalism, Rights of Association, Equal Protection | Yes. In a unanimous decision, the Court held that distinctions drawn according to race were generally "odious to a free people" and were subject to "the most rigid scrutiny" under the Equal Protection Clause. The Virginia law, the Court found, had no legitimate purpose "independent of invidious racial discrimination." | The prohibiting and punishing marriage based on racial qualifications violated the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. It gave equal rights for everyone to get married to whoever they wanted | |||||||||
35 | Mapp v. Ohio | 1961 | Dollree Mapp was convicted of having "obscene" photos in her basement after police illegally searched her house looking for a fugitive | can evidence found in a search that violates the 4th Amendment be admitted in court | Search and Seizure | in a 6-3 decision the court found in favor of Mapp stating that evidence found through methods that conflict with the constitution are not admissible in court | It made it so that any and all illegal evidence found cannot be used to convict someone in court THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE APPLIES TO ALL STATES | |||||||||
36 | Marbury v. Madison | 1803 | John Adams failed to deliver all of his commissions before he had to step down from the presidency, then Thomas Jefferson had his secretary of State James Madison not deliver the commissions and so Marbury who didn't get his commission sued Madison in the supreme court | does marbury have a right to get his commission, does the supreme court have the authority to order a commission to be delivered | Federalism, Presidential Power | The court unanimously decided that yes Marbury should get his commission but the supreme court did not have the jurisdiction to rule on the case, as they found that the law that Marbury used to start his case in the supreme court was "Unconstitutional" | This case gave the court the pivotal power of Judicial Review | |||||||||
37 | Matal v Tam | 2017 | Simon Tam's band "The Slants" wanted to register their name with the trademark office, but was denied as it was deemed that the name would be degrading to Asians. | Is the Disparagement Clause invalid under the 1st amendment? | Free Speech/Press, Disparagement Clause | In a 8-1 decision, the court decided that the Disparagement clause violated the 1st amendment. | It clarified the difference between Disparaging speech and threatening speech, which is not protected by the 1st amendment. | |||||||||
38 | McCulloch v Maryland | 1819 | Congress chartered The Second Bank of the United States in 1816. Maryland passed legislation to tax the bank, but the cashier of the Baltimore branch (MuCulloch), refused to pay the tax. | The Supreme Court asked two questions: did congress have the authority to establish the bank, and did Maryland have the authority to tax a congressional creation? | Federalism | 6-0 that under the “necessary and proper” clause congress had the power to create the bank, and that while states had the power to tax, federal law reigned supreme, so they were above taxation by the states. | The case affirmed that congress had more powers than those enumerated, through the “necessary and proper” clause; in this it case specifically allowed it to create a National Bank, but it left the door open for congress to claim more powers. | |||||||||
39 | McDonald v Chicago | 2010 | After District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) overturned a ban on handguns in DC on the grounds that it violated the 2nd Amendment, suits were filed against gun control laws in Oak Park and Chicago in Illinois. | Does the 14th Amendment’s Due Process and Privileges and Immunities clause incorporate the 2nd Amendment and make it apply to the states? | Federalism, Due Process, Incorporation | 5-4, incorporating the 2nd Amendment to the states, primarily because it had called the right to defense “fundamental” in the Heller case | The 2nd Amendment right to arms was one of the last to be incorporated. The fact that it was makes it significantly harder to create any gun laws at either federal or state levels, no matter how many mass shootings the country weathers. | |||||||||
40 | Miller v. California | 1973 | Marvin Miller sent out a brochure depicting sexual activity to advertise for his mail-order porn business, a restaurant in Newport Beach got 5 of them and sued on the basis that it was obscene and therefore violated a California anti-obsenity law. | IS THE SALE OF OBSCENE MATERIALS OVER THE MAIL PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND THE PRESS? | Free Speech/Press | 5-4 decision against Miller (Ruled that his brochures were obscene and obscenity is not protected under the 1st amendment) | The court ruled that obscenity was not protected under the first amendment redefined its definition of obscenity from that of "utterly without socially redeeming value" to that which lacks "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value". It is now referred to as the three-prong standard or the Miller test, with the third prong being informally known by the initialism and mnemonic device "SLAPS" or the term "SLAPS test". | |||||||||
41 | Miranda v. Arizona | 1966 | Ernest was arrested on suspicion of kidnapping and rape, and was questioned by police until he gave a written confession, without the police advising him of his right to have a lawyer or not testify against himself. | Do the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination extend to the police interrogation of a suspect? | Rights of the Accused | 5-4 for Miranda. They ruled that the fifth amendment's protection against self-incrimination is available in all settings. | Established that the prosecution cannot use any statements by the defendant unless he was read his "Miranda Rights", including the right to remain silent and have legal counsel. | |||||||||
42 | NAACP v. Patterson | 1958 | As part of Alabama's strategy to prohibit the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) from operating, Alabama required it to reveal the names and addresses of all of its members and agents in the state to the State's Attorney General . | Did Alabama's requirement that the NAACP reveal all of its members and their information violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? | Due Process, RIGHTS OF ASSOCIATION | In a unanimous vote, the Supreme Court held that "a compelled disclosure of the NAACP's membership lists would have the effect of suppressing legal association among the group's members". To justify Alabama's actions, the state would have needed to present that it was in the "valid" interest of the state, and the court held that this was not presented in this case. | Tis is important because the Court’s decision to allow private groups to keep membership information confidential was a clarification of an individual's right to privacy, and acts as a precedent for newer cases. | |||||||||
43 | National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sebelius | 2012 | After Congress passed ACA in 2010, 26 states filed a suit in district courts against the constitutionality. National Federation of Independent Businesses sued the individual mandate which requires individuals to purchase health issue or suffer from a penalty and the medicare expansion. | Is the suit brought by respondents to challenge the minimum coverage provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act barred by the Anti-Injunction Act, 2 U.S.C. 7421(a)? Does Congress have power under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, specifically under the Commerce Clause or the Taxing and Spending Clause, to require most Americans to purchase health insurance? Is the individual mandate severable from the ACA? Did Congress exceed its enumerated powers and violate principles of federalism when it pressured States into accepting conditions that Congress could not impose directly by threatening to withhold all federal funding under Medicaid, the single largest grant-in-aid program? | Federalism, Commerce Clause | Chief Justice Roberts, writing the divided majority found parts of the ACA constitutional and unconstitutional. The individual mandate could not be justified with Congress violating the elastic clause by forcing citizens to purchase healthcare insurance. Most importantly, states could not be forced to participate in the Medicaid expansion and prohibited the federal government from withdrawing of Medicaid funds from states that chose not to participate. | Congress has the authority to tax people instead of calling it a penalty. Also, this is significant for states and insurance providers. Each state will have the ability to determine the Medicaid expansion terms, without the risk of losing all of its Medicaid programs. Meanwhile, the ACA expanded eligibility for Medicaid to provide health care for low income people who do not have employer-sponsored insurance and cannot pay their own health insurance. OVERALL THE ACA WAS ALLOWED UNDER THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO TAX, A CONTROVERSIAL DECISION TO THIS DAY | |||||||||
44 | NEW JERSEY V. T.L.O. | 1985 | T.L.O. and another student was caught smoking in the bathroom. When they were brought to the Vice Principal's office, | Do school officials have the right to violate a student's fourth amendment when there is a "probable cause"? | Rights of the Accused, Fourth Amendment | In a 6-3 decision, the majority opinion viewed that T.L.O's conviction had concrete evidence which made the Vice Principal suspicious and harmed the school's safety and rules. | Although school administrators are not parents, they can search students due to safety reasons upon "probable cause" without a warrant. Furthermore, privacy of students are limited when they're at school. SCHOOLS ONLY NEED "REASONABLE SUSPICION" NOT "PROBABLE CAUSE" | |||||||||
45 | New York Times v. United States | 1971 | The Nixon administration tried to keep the NY times and Washington post from publishing materials exposing the Vietnam War (the pentagon papers) | Did the Nixon administration's efforts to prevent the publication of what it termed "classified information" violate the First Amendment? | Free Speech/Press, Presidential Power | 6-3 yes, the government did not overcome the "heavy presumption against" prior restraint of the press in this case. The vague word "security" should not be used "to abrogate the fundamental law embodied in the First Amendment." | This case is important because it established the fact that the Press should be able to check the government. It lets the citizens be more involved in the truth that lies beneath the skin of our government. | |||||||||
46 | Obergefell v. Hodges | 2015 | Groups of same sex couples sued state agencies in Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, and Tennessee to challenge the constitutionality on the state bans on same sex marriage or refusal to recognize same sex marriages were permitted in other states. | Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex? Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex that was legally licensed and performed in another state? | Due Process, Equal Protection | 5-4 decision for Obergefell. The Fourteenth Amendment requires both marriage licensing and recognition for same-sex couples. the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees the right to marry as one of the fundamental liberties it protects, and that analysis applies to same-sex couples in the same manner as it does to opposite-sex couples. | Obergefell v Hodges is very important because it shows a milestone in how the LGBT community is more represented as a minority in the U.S. and it shows that gay people should be represented in the fundamental right to marriage. Although it has also impacted negatively in the sense that the political turmoil around the LGBT community has gotten worse and tension has risen, as exemplified by the events in orlando in 2016. | |||||||||
47 | Oregon v. Smith | 1990 | Two Native American people were fired from their job for taking peyote as part of a religious ritual. They were then denied unemployment due to the nature of their dismissal. Eventually the Oregon Supreme Court found that prohibiting drug use during religious rituals violated the free exercise clause, and the case came before the Supreme Court. | Can states deny unemployment to people who take illicit drugs for religious purposes. | Religion Rights | The Court decided 6-3 that, yes, the state was allowed to deny unemployment to people fired because they broke a law through their religious practice. The Court stated that religion did not exempt anyone from any law, as long as the government was within its jurisdiction to create said law. The law would be violating the free exercise clause if the law only banned peyote for religious purposes, or was otherwise religiously motivated. | This case is relevant because it shows that religion cannot be used as an excuse for breaking the law. This immediately calls the Masterpiece cake shop case to mind, since both have a conflict between religious expression and the law. This case also led to the "Religious Freedom Restoration Act" of 1993, which was passed as a response to the ruling and required strict scrutiny for determining free exercise cases. The RFRA was later deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court as it applied to states, further reaffirming the Court's commitment to their original decision | |||||||||
48 | Plessy v Ferguson | 1896 | In a situation orchestrated by a group of activists, the seven eights white, Homer Plessy boarded a whites only car of a train he had purchased a ticket for. He refused to leave, and was then arrested. | Do segregation laws violate the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment? | Equal Protection, Racial Discrimination | In a seven to one decision, the Supreme court ruled that, no, segregation laws do not violate the fourteenth amendment. The court decided that, as long as they were equal, separate amenities for white and non white people were equal before the law. They also said that the fourteenth amendment only went as far as to make people equal legally not socially. | This case gives segregation a legal basis and fully establishes the doctrine of "separate but equal". This was a major blow to civil rights and provided many states the perfect opportunity to try and return to the antebellum status quo. While overturned nearly sixty years later, Plessy v Ferguson paved the way for Jim Crow laws. | |||||||||
49 | Powell v. Alabama | 1932 | -Nine black youth were accused of raping two white woman -Alabama officials gave them 3 trials in 1 day, all sentences to death - Alabama officials were quick to their decision - Attorneys barely helped the youth, just represented them | Did the trials violate the Due process Clause of the Fifteenth Amendment? | Due Process, Rights of the Accused | THE COURT VOTED 7-2 THAT ALABAMA DID VIOALTE THE DEFENDANT'S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS. | Before this case, the courts dealed with cases by using racial discrimination and jury selection. It shows people how the old system was towards African Americans and it can be a comparison to todays judicial system. THIS IS CALLED THE SCOTTSBORO BOYS CASE AND INCORPORATED PARTS OF THE 5TH AND 6TH AMENDMENT TO THE STATES. | |||||||||
50 | Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC | 1969 | -Federal Communications Commission (FCC) fairness doctrine requires two primary requirements for radio and television broadcasters - needs to present a balanced + fair discussion of public issues on their airways - FCC renewed broadcasting licenses on compliance's with its regulations -Rion Lion Broadcasting challenged its requirements | Do the FCC's fairness doctrine regulations, concerning personal attacks made In the context of public issue and political editorilizating, violate the First Amendment's freedom of speech guarantees? | Free Speech/Press | The court stated that the doctrine did not violate the First Amendment (unanimous decision) and that FCC enhanced it rather than violate it. | EVEN THOUGH THE COURT SAID THAT THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE DID NOT VIOLATE THE 1ST AMENDMENT, THE FCC EVENTUALLY GOT RID OF IT, LEADING TO NEWS SHOWS AND CHANNELS THAT ONLY TRY AND SHOW ONE SIDE | |||||||||
51 | Regents of the University of California at Davis v. Bakke | 1978 | A white man was rejected from a medical school, even though his GPA and other credentials were better than minorities at the school. There were 16 slots (of the 100) reserved for minorities. | Did the institution's use of affirmative action violate either the Equal Protection Clause or the Civil Rights Act of 1964? | Incorporation, Equal Protection | In an 8-1 decision for Bakke, the court found that the use of racial quotas violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964; however, the use of affirmative action (minus quotas) was found to be constitutional. | Set the precedent for affirmative action but refined the way affirmative action may be enacted. | |||||||||
52 | Reno v ACLU | 1997 | Challenged two parts in the 1996 Communications Decency Act. The Act criminalized the intentional transmission of "obscene or indecent" messages as well as the transmission of information which depicts or describes "sexual or excretory activities or organs" in a manner deemed "offensive" by community standards. | Did certain provisions of the 1996 Communications Decency Act violate the First and Fifth Amendments by being overly broad and vague in their definitions of the types of internet communications which they criminalized? | Free Speech/Press | Unanimous decision. The court said that the act violated the first amendment. The act did not clearly define 'indecent' communications, limit its restrictions to particular times or individuals. The court did not address the fifth amendment issues. | THE CLINTON ADMINSTRATION ATTEMPTED TO REGULATE THE EARLY INTERNET, BUT FAILED | |||||||||
53 | Reynolds v. United States | 1879 | George Reynolds was convicted for challenging a federal anti-bigamy statute. | Does the statute violate the First Amendment because bigamy is a religious practice? | Religion Rights | Unanimous decision for United States. | Illegal religious practices are not protected by the First Amendment. THE ORIGINAL LAW WAS SEEN AS A CRACKDOWN ON THE MORMON CHURCH, AND THE COURT DETERMINED THAT YOU CANNOT BREAK LAWS THAT APPLY TO EVERYONE, EVEN IF THAT'S YOUR RELIGION. | |||||||||
54 | Riley v California | 2014 | Riley was part of a gang, they open fired on a rival gang , Riley's gang drove away in his car. Later the police found Riley in a different car with expired tags and searched that care and Riley's phone which had been on him. | Was the evidence admitted at trial from Riley's cell phone discovered through a search that violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches? | Search and seizure | Unanimous decision for Riley. The court said that the searching of the car was for the purpose of protecting police, but did not see how the phone would. The digital data could not be used as a weapon. | APPLIES THE 4TH AMENDMENT TO SMART PHONES, UPDATING TO NEW TECHNOLOGY | |||||||||
55 | Roe v. Wade | 1973 | Jane Roe was denied an abortion in Texas because they were illegal. | Does the Constitution give women the right to an abortion? | Due Process, Equal Protection, PRIVACY | 7-2 in favor of Roe | It legalized abortion ACROSS THE COUNTRY, USING THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY DETERMINED IN CANTWELL | |||||||||
56 | Roper v. Simmons | 2005 | Christopher Simmons was sentenced to death while under the age of 18. The Mississippi Supreme Court found this to be cruel and unusual even though Stanford v. Kentucky rules that the execution of minors was not unconstitutional. | Does the execution of minors violate the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment? | Rights of the Accused | 5-4 in favor of Roper | Declared executions of minors unconstitutional and overruled Stanford v. Kentucky. IN A SERIES OF DECISIONS LIMITING WHEN STATES CAN USE CAPITAL PUNISHMENT, COURT CITING THE "CHANGING MORALITY OF THE TIMES" | |||||||||
57 | Schenck v. United States | 1919 | Schenck mailed circulars/pamphlets to draftees during WWI suggesting that the draft was terrible and encouraging efforts to repeal the Conscription Act. This action violated the Espionage Act. | Is Schenck's actions protected under the 1st Amendment? | Free Speech/Press | Unanimous in favor of the U.S., finding that Congress has the right to prevent free speech that would cause "substantive evils" and that "many things that might be said in time of peace" are not protected during war. | This decision outlined the sentiment still expressed by the Supreme Court that the freedom of speech is not protected if it is intended and likely to cause unlawful or aggressive behaviors. Further decisions by Justice Holmes would seek to clarify that this decision should not be used to suffocate commonly displeasing views. | |||||||||
58 | Shaw v. Reno | 1993 | After another redistricting plan was rejected on the base of only one black-majority district, North Carolina submitted a second proposal in which a black-majority district was created with only the with of an interstate road. 5 residents challenged the proposal on the base of the 14th Amendment, claiming that the districts only accounted race, and nothing else (ideology, for example). | Are Racially based districts a valid Constitutional issue under the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause? | Redistricting, Voting Rights | 5-4 in favor of Shaw. Found that the district was racially based and held that that presented an issue in light of the Equal Protection Clause, warranting strict scrutiny | This case held that racial gerrymandering was unconstitutional. | |||||||||
59 | Shelby County v. Holder | 2013 | Although states are guaranteed self-government, section 4(b) and section 5 of the Constitution defines eligible districts and declares that if an eligible district wants to change their voting laws they have to prove to Washington D.C. court judges that the change would be nondiscriminatory towards minorities. Shelby County, Alabama declared this to be unconstitutional. | Does the renewal of Section 5 of the Voter Rights Act under the constraints of Section 4(b) exceed Congress' authority under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, and therefore violate the Tenth Amendment and Article Four of the Constitution? | Voting Rights | It was decided 5-4 in favor of Shelby County that those sections of the Constitution are Unconstitutional. | The Supreme Court believes that the United States no longer needs to force states to abide by the Fifteenth Amendment because they deem voting discrimination to no longer be an issue. | Oyez | ||||||||
60 | Snyder v. Phelps | 2011 | Westboro Baptist Church picketed at a funeral of a deceased marine and the family claimed that their right to privacy was invaded while the church inflicted emotional distress. | Does the First Amendment protect protesters at a funeral from liability for intentionally inflicting emotional distress on the family of the deceased? | Free Speech/Press, Religion Rights, Rights of Association | The Supreme Court voted 8-1 that funeral protesting is protected under the first amendment of right of free speech and religious expression. | All speech is protected and if the government limits one type of speech, what will prevent any other opinions from being censored. | Oyez | ||||||||
61 | Texas v. Johnson | 1989 | Johnson burned a flag in protest of Reagan outside the RNC. He was arrested and fined under a Texas law banning flag desecration. | Does the first ammendment protect American flag deecration as a form of speech? | Free Speech/Press | In a 5-4 decision the Court ruled that burning the American flag was a form of speech protected by the first amendment. They explained that the speech was political in nature and just because many are offended by it doesn't mean it can be prohibited. | It established that actions can count as speech and that censorship based on content almost never allowed. | |||||||||
62 | Tinker v Des Moines | 1969 | Students at a public school decided to wear black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam war. The administration enacted an anti armband policy and when students refused to remove the arm bands they were sent home, the students sued the school district under the first amendment. | Do students have the same constitutional rights as adults? And do armbands count as protected speech? | Free Speech/Press | In a 7-2 decision the Court ruled that the armbands were protected political speech. Additionally students don't lose their first amendment rights at school. | The case established the tinker test which requires schools to prove that speech "substantially interferes" with the schools ability to provide education before they can prohibit it. It also affirmed that students have first amendment rights and many forms of expression count as speech. | |||||||||
63 | US v Jones | 2012 | Antoine Jones was arrested for drug possession after police attached a tracker to Jones's car without judicial approval (2005). They then followed him for a month using this tracker's location. A jury found Jones not guilty on all charges except conspiracy, jurors were not sure about this issue. District prosecutors, because they were upset at the loss, re-filed a single count of conspiracy against Jones and his business partner, named Lawrence Maynard. Jones owned the "Levels" nightclub in Washington DC. He and Maynard were then convicted. Eventually, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals (D.C. Circuit)used the Supreme court's ruling in an 1983 case regarding the use of a beeper to track a suspect could not be used to justify 24-hour surveillance without a warrant. | Did the warrantless use of a tracking device on public streets violate Jones' Fourth Amendment rights? | Search and Seizure, RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED | Unanimous decision holding what the lower courts stated, that searching and tracking Jones without a warrant constituted an unlawful search under the Fourth Amendment. | This case clarified the meaning within the 4th amendment regarding search and seizure, that tracking someone without a warrant was unlawful and violated the 4th amendment. This leads to right to privacy and sets a precedent regarding other potential future cases and searching without a warrant. | |||||||||
64 | US v Lopez | 1995 | Alfonzo Lopez, a 12th grader at a San Antonio high school high school carried a concealed weapon onto school grounds, and was charged under Texas law with firearm possession on school premises. The state charges were dismissed the next day, when federal agents charged him with violating a federal criminal statute: the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. The act forbids "any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that [he] knows...is a school zone." Lopez was found guilty and sentenced to six months' imprisonment as well as two years' supervised release. | Is the Gun-Free School Zones Act (which forbids individuals from knowingly carrying a gun in a school zone) unconstitutional because it exceeds the power of Congress to legislate under the Commerce Clause? | Powers of Congress, FEDERALISM | In a 5–4 decision, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The possession of a gun in a local school zone is not an economic activity that might have a substantial effect on any interstate commerce, therefore it is a violation of Congress' powers within the commerce clause. The law is a criminal statute that has nothing to do with "commerce" or any sort of economic activity. | This case showcases the importance of checks and balances, and how it may affect people in their everyday lives. CONGRESS CANNOT MAKE LAWS ABOUT EVERYTHING, FOR NOW | |||||||||
65 | US v Nixon | Burger Court | A grand jury returned indictments against seven of President Richard Nixon's closest aides in the Watergate affair. The special prosecutor appointed by Nixon and the defendants sought audio tapes of conversations recorded by Nixon in the Oval Office. | Is the President's right to safeguard certain information, using his "executive privilege" confidentiality power, entirely immune from judicial review? | Free Speech/Press, Incorporation, Presidential Power, Equal Protection | UNANIMOUSLY, the Court granted that there was a limited executive privilege in areas of military or diplomatic affairs, but gave preference to "the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of justice." Therefore, the president must obey the subpoena and produce the tapes and documents. Nixon resigned shortly after the release of the tapes. | THE PRESIDENT IS NOT ABOVE THE LAW | |||||||||
66 | US v Virginia | 1996 | The state of Virginia had an exclusively male public undergraduate higher learning institution, the Virginia Military Institute (VMI). The United States sued Virginia saying that that the school being male only violated the 14th amendment. The district court ruled in favor of the US, at which Virginia offered to create the Virginia Women's Institute for Leadership (VWIL) as a parallel program for women. The fourth court ruled that the two schools would be "substantively comparable" and the case was appealed to the SC. | Can a public school allow only a single gender admittance and does creating a parallel program (separate but "equal") rectify the situation? | Equal Protection | United States won 7-1. The court ruled that Virginia failed to show "exceedingly persuasive justification" for VMI's gender-biased admissions policy and therefore violate the equal protection clause. Also, "all gender-based classifications today" now have to be evaluated with "heightened scrutiny." | Raised gender to be evaluated with a higher level of scrutiny. | |||||||||
67 | US v Windsor | 2013 | When Edith Windsor's wife died she tried inherited her estate. While the New York state government recognized the fact that they were married in Canada, the federal government did not recognize their marriage. This was because the "Defense of Marriage Act," passed in 1996, defines marriage as being between one man and one woman. Because of this, to claim the inheritance, Windsor had to pay around three hundred and sixty thousand dollars in federal estate tax. If their marriage had been recognized as valid, Windsor would not have been required to pay any estate tax. | Does the Defense of Marriage Act deprive same sex couples of their right to equal protection when they have been legally married in their state? | Federalism, Equal Protection | Yes, the court ruled five to four that not only does DOMA deprive same sex couples of their right to equal protection, but congress did not have the authority to pass the act. The states have traditionally had the right to define marriage, so congress' passing of DOMA was unconstitutional. The Court also stated in the majority opinion that the only purpose of the act was to impose a "stigma," against people in same sex marriages. | This case was important because it overturned the federal law which defined marriage as only being between a man and a woman. This led to many groups attempting to overturn anti same sex marriage laws in other states. It also marked a turning point in the support for legal same sex marriage in the US. It had become legal in many states, and with US v Windsor the push for full national legalization was started. Same sex marriage would later become nationally legal with Obergefell v Hodges in 2015 . | |||||||||
68 | US v Wong Kim Ark | 1898 | The Chinese Exclusion Acts denied citizenship to Chinese immigrants. Moreover, by treaty no Chinese subject in the United States could become a naturalized citizen. Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco. | Could the government deny citizenship to persons born in the United States in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment? | Due Process, Equal Protection, rights immigrants | 6-2 IN FAVOR OF WONG | UPHELD THE 14TH AMENDMENT AS BEING EQUAL FOR ALL CITIZENS, REGARDLESS OF RACE | |||||||||
69 | Vernonia v Acton | 1995 | When Vernonia School district was found to have a drug problem among its athletes, it implemented a random drug testing policy. James Acton and family refused to take the drug test, and he was expelled from the football team. | Does random drug testing of High School athletes violate the reasonable search and seizure clause of the 4th amendment? | Due Process, Search and Seizure | The court decided in a 6-3 decision in favor of Vernonia School district that because the athletes were under government supervision (i.e. school) they did not have the same rights as free adults. | The decision increased the power of school districts by giving them many of the liberties given to parents over their children, as well as legalizing the random search of students in school given adequate privacy. | http://www.loyno.edu/~wagues/article7.html = good Oyez too. | ||||||||
70 | Wallace v Jaffree | 1985 | Jaffree had three children in the Mobile district in Alabama which had a law requiring prayer every morning. He argued that the school was engaging in acts of religions indoctrination, and therefore violated the 1st amendment. | Did Alabama's law violate the First Amendment's Establishment Clause? | Religion Rights | 6-3 decision in favor of Jaffree said that without a secular legislative reason, a statute or law was unconstitutional. They used the "Lemon Test". | The decision set a precedent for stricter laws regarding religion in schools. Some states however (Texas) don't care though. | https://www.britannica.com/event/Wallace-v-Jaffree Oyez doesn't give much information https://www.britannica.com/topic/Lemon-v-Kurtzman = previous decision used in argument | ||||||||
71 | Wesberry v Sanders | 1964 | James P Wesberry, Jr. filed a suit against the Governor of Georgia, Carl E Sanders against the apportionment. The population of his district of residence was 2-3 times larger than some others in the state. He claimed this diluted his vote. | Did Georgia’s congressional districts violate the 14th amendment of violate the citizens of their full right vote? | Redistricting, Voting Rights | A 6-3 decision for Wesberry stated that the apportionment in Georgia was completely inappropriate and that citizens deserved and equal opportunity voice in elections. | This case matters because it was about gerrymandering, as well as voting rights and representation. | |||||||||
72 | Worcester v Georgia | 1832 | Samuel A Worcester and other non-Native Americans were indicted for being on a Cherokee Nation without a listence. Worcester argued against the persecution and said that it violated the constitution and trade treaties with the Cherokee Nation. | Does the state of Georgia have the authority to regulate the intercourse of its citizens between the state and the Cherokee Nation? | Federalism, State’s Rights | In the 5-1 decision favouring Worcester, the court decided that no, in fact, Georgia does not have the authority to regulate that intercourse. Essentially, this is because the Cherokee Nation was its own entity and Georgia had no jurisdiction over it. | Because it limited state’s rights and promoted the federal government model, moving away from the decentralised states that first formed the country. | |||||||||
73 | ||||||||||||||||
74 | ||||||||||||||||
75 | ||||||||||||||||
76 | ||||||||||||||||
77 | ||||||||||||||||
78 | ||||||||||||||||
79 | ||||||||||||||||
80 | ||||||||||||||||
81 | ||||||||||||||||
82 | ||||||||||||||||
83 | ||||||||||||||||
84 | ||||||||||||||||
85 | ||||||||||||||||
86 | ||||||||||||||||
87 | ||||||||||||||||
88 | ||||||||||||||||
89 | ||||||||||||||||
90 | ||||||||||||||||
91 | ||||||||||||||||
92 | ||||||||||||||||
93 | ||||||||||||||||
94 | ||||||||||||||||
95 | ||||||||||||||||
96 | ||||||||||||||||
97 | ||||||||||||||||
98 | ||||||||||||||||
99 | ||||||||||||||||
100 |