Landmark Supreme Court Cases Landmark Supreme Court Cases ***LOOK FOR TEXTBOOKS AT HOME!!!!!!!!
Early Supreme Court Cases
description
Transcript of Early Supreme Court Cases
Early Supreme Court CasesWho do these judges think they are interpreting the constitution?
Marbury vs. Madison
Judicial Review is established.
After the 1800 election, Adams appoints new judges… John Adams (Federalist) signs
appointments on his last night in office.
Thomas Jefferson (Democratic Republican) is to take over as President.
What political party do you think the judges Adams appointed belonged to? Why did he did this?
“midnight judges”- what these new judges were referred to.
William Marbury was one of these “midnight judges.”
Why is Madison involved? James Madison, TJs new Secretary of
State, was supposed to officially present Marbury with his new position…But he didn’t!
So… Marbury sued and appealed to the Supreme Court to get Madison to award him the position…
The Verdict.Supreme Court refuses to grant Marbury
his position!!Why?A section of the Judiciary Act of 1789
(which set up the federal court system in the first place) was unconstitutional and void.
Lasting ImpactThis is the first time the Supreme
Court overturns an act of Congress. Checks & balances in action!Judicial Review- Supreme Court’s
ability to declare a law or act unconstitutional
McCulloch v. Maryland
More major cases…
Federalism and the Issue Federalism: Coexistence of Federal, state, and
local POWERS Second Bank of the United States created Maryland tried to impede operation of the BUS imposed a tax on all notes of banks not
chartered in Maryland BUS was the only out-of-state bank in Maryland
Fundamental Issues Does the Constitution grants Congress implied powers for implementing the Constitution's express powers?
Can a state’s action impede valid constitutional exercises of power by the Federal government?
The Verdict On the first question, Marshall argued that the
necessary and proper clause of the Constitution implied that Congress could charter a national bank
Congress was exercising its explicit power to regulate interstate commerce and coin and regulate money.
On the second question, Marshall wrote that "the power to tax is the power to destroy”
Allowing the state to tax the national bank violated the supremacy clause (Article VI) of the Constitution.
The Bank therefore is legal
“Necessary & proper” clause Article I (Legislative duh!)
Section 8.18 “To make all laws which shall be
necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.”
U. S. Constitution Article I: “The Congress shall have
power . . . to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.”
Article VI: “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof . . . shall be the supreme law of the land.”
Gibbons v. Ogden
The commerce clause…
Ogden’s Steamboat MonopolyUnder a New York law adopted in 1798,
Robert Livingston obtained a monopoly, or exclusive right, for steamboat navigation within the state of New York.
Any boats that competed with this monopoly would be forfeited by the owner.
More facts… In 1815, after the deaths of Livingston and
Fulton, Aaron Ogden obtained a right under the monopoly and began to run a steamboat between New Jersey and New York City.
In 1818 Thomas Gibbons, one of Ogden’s former partners, began a competing operation between Elizabethtown, New Jersey, and New York City.
Ogden sued Gibbons for violation of his monopoly and in 1820 New York's highest court found in Ogden’s favor.
In the US Supreme Court The Supreme Court unanimously concluded that
the New York law granting the monopoly was invalid. Chief Justice John Marshall wrote the Court’s opinion.
Marshall: “Commerce, undoubtedly, is traffic, but it is something more…” Marshall concluded that commerce included all navigation that is “in any manner connected with commerce.”
Intra- versus Inter-State Commerce Marshall stated that the power of
Congress to regulate commerce did not include commerce that was “completely internal” and that did not “extend to or affect other States.” The states had the power to regulate such completely internal commerce. However, the issue before the Court concerned commerce between two states and therefore involved federal authority over commerce.
Reconstruction Amendments Reconstruction = period after Civil War
when US needed to “put itself back together”
13th Amendment – abolished slavery 13 B Abolish
14th Amendment – citizenship, rights & immunities, equal protection
15th Amendment – guarantees vote for all men, regardless of race
14th Amendment Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
14th Amendment Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
14th Amendment Establishes citizenship for freed-slaves &
African Americans “all those born or naturalized” in United States
Applies the Bill of Rights to the states Before it had mostly been left to state Bill of
Rights “Privileges and immunities” clause
Due process Equal protection of laws Congress has power to enforce
Gitlow v. New York 14th Amendment sort of ignored until Gitlow Gitlow – a socialist – is arrested for
distributing copies of “propaganda” calling for socialism & overthrow of the government
Arrested under state anarchy law Gitlow argues that since no actions took
place, the state was in violation of his free speech
Cross out second Swann v. CMS case
Decision Did New York’s law violate the personal freedoms
guaranteed by First Amendment? Decision:
YA SORT OF, First Amendment is subject to state protections too
BUT, Gitlow’s conviction was still upheld given the nature of his free speech
“dangerous tendency” Significance: first major case to explicitly
confirm 14th amendment to the protect individuals from states
Limits on Free Speech “Clear and present danger”
Cannot advocate violent overthrow “Fire in a crowded theater” Slander - the action or crime of making a false
spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation
Libel - a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation.
Obscenity – child pornography, vulgar materials, etc.
Dred Scott v. Sandford (1856) Dred Scott was a slave in Missouri. From 1833 to 1843, he resided in Illinois (a free
state) and part of Louisiana Territory where slavery was prohibited
After returning to Missouri, Scott sued unsuccessfully in the Missouri courts for his freedom, claiming that his residence in free territory made him a free man.
Scott then brought a new suit in federal court. Scott's master maintained that no pure-blooded Negro of African descent and the descendant of slaves could be a citizen
Decision Court agrees that no slave or
descendant of a slave was ever a citizen under the intent of the Constitution
Overturned by 14th Amendment
Plessy v. Ferguson (1895) The state of Louisiana enacted a law that required
separate railway cars for blacks and whites. In 1892, Homer Adolph Plessy--who was seven-
eighths Caucasian--took a seat in a "whites only" car of a Louisiana train. He refused to move to the car reserved for blacks and was arrested.
Is Louisiana's law mandating racial segregation on its trains an unconstitutional infringement on both the privileges and immunities and the equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Decision No, the state law is within constitutional
boundaries The justices based their decision on the
separate-but-equal doctrine, that separate facilities for blacks and whites satisfied the Fourteenth Amendment so long as they were equal
Segregation does not in itself constitute unlawful discrimination
Overturned by what Supreme Court case?
State of NC v. Mann (1830) John Mann is a slave-owner were was
charged with a crime for shooting a female slave who tried to escape during a beating
He sued stating that he could not be charged since his slaves were his property.
NC judge will side with Mann States his uneasiness with the case But says that legally, there is no crime being
committed
RECAP: In case you missed it…Highlights of some important cases
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) Gideon was charged in a Florida state court with a
felony for breaking and entering. He lacked funds and was unable to hire a lawyer to prepare his defense. When he requested the court to appoint an attorney for him, the court refused, stating that it was only obligated to appoint counsel to indigent defendants in capital cases. Gideon defended himself in the trial; he was convicted by a jury and the court sentenced him to five years in a state prison
Quit school after 8th grade Wrote his petition to re-hear the case in PENCIL while
he was in jail!
Decision 9 – 0 Sixth Amendment “right to
counsel” is fundamental to all Right to a lawyer
Justice Black: the “noble ideal” that “every defendant stands equal before the law”
Miranda v. Arizona (1966) Key Question:
Does the police practice of interrogating individuals without notifiying them of their right to counsel and their protection against self-incrimination violate the Fifth Amendment?
Decision: 5 – 4, Yes Establishes Miranda Rights
Must be made aware of your rights Can refuse to answer questioning without lawyer
present
DC v. Heller (2007) First Supreme Court case regarding 2nd
amendment in more than 70 years DC gun bans
Ban on handguns bought after 1976 Ban on carrying guns bought before 1976
without permit Shotguns and rifles in the home must be
unloaded
Decision Court rules ALL three gun bans /
provisions to be unconstitutional Argue that 2nd amendment allows for
right to own guns, unconnected to “militia purposes” (militia language is in original amendment)
5 – 4 decision Debates are ongoing about what exactly
the 2nd Amendment protects
McDonald v. Chicago (2010) More challenges after DC v. Heller Claim that Chicago handgun ban is
unconstitutional Decision: 5 – 4 again
Majority opinion: 14th Amendment protects 2nd Amendment rights from the State
Chicago’s ban is unconstitutional
Mapp v. Ohio (1960) 4th and 14th Amendments Can evidence obtained in violation of
the Fourth Amendment be used? 4th Amendment protections exist in ALL
courts, not just federal courts Court says NO
“exclusionary rule” Courts since the 1980s have frequently
limited when this can be used
Furman v. Georgia Does the imposition and carrying out of the death
penalty in these cases constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments? Court says YES Forces states to rethink and rewrite their DEATH
PENALTY laws What crimes should it include? Must make the decision less arbitrary
Led to “moratorium” on the death penalty until after Gregg v. Georgia Temporary stop of executions
Gregg v. Georgia Is the imposition of the death sentence
prohibited under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments as "cruel and unusual" punishment? Decided w/ several other cases including
one from North Carolina Court AFFIRMS use of capital
punishment in the United States
Roe v. Wade (1973) Is a women’s right to an abortion protected
by the United States constitution? The Court held that a woman's right to an
abortion fell within the right to privacy (recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut) protected by the Fourteenth Amendment Limits this to FIRST TRIMESTER (3 months) State’s can put limits on abortions after that
Texas v. Johnson (1988) Is the desecration of an American flag,
by burning or otherwise, a form of speech that is protected under the First Amendment? 5 – 4 decision stated that Johnson’s
actions were protected under 1st Amend.
Texas v. Johnson (1988) “if there is a bedrock principle underlying
the First Amendment, it is that the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable”
“We do not consecrate the flag by punishing its desecration, for in doing so we dilute the freedom that this cherished emblem represents”