Engel v. Vitale 1962

Engel v. Vitale 1962

CASE BACKGROUND/FACTS

1st Amendment in constitution protects religious worship and protects Americans from establishment of state-

sponsored religion. courts decide cases about the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of Fist Amendment. - U.S.

Infuses religion into political practices: “In God We Trust” on currency, Congress opens each session with a prayer,

etc. This case is about whether public schools may play a role in teaching faith to God through the daily recitation of

prayer. Every day student in NY would salute the flag. Students and teachers voluntarily recited a prayer that was

drafted by the state education agency. Students didn’t have to say the prayer and they were led by a teacher or

teacher-selected student. Two Jewish Families (including Stephen Engel) sued the school board. Argued that the

prayer violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. NY courts upheld the prayer, Supreme Court agreed to

hear it.

CONSTITUTIONAL CONNECTION(S) KEY TERMINOLOGY

First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Establishment

Clause, Exercise clause (The Establishment Clause is the

main aspect at question here, not free exercise)

Establishment Clause, nondenominational, Free

Exercise Clause, First Amendment

(define these terms)

HOLDING (X-X Decision)

Supreme Court rules 6-1 in favor of objecting parents.

MAJORITY OPINION

Quotes/Key Arguments/Reasoning (Author) DISSENTING OPINION

Quotes/Key Arguments/Reasoning (Author)

Justice Black wrote the opinion: court rules school-

sponsored prayer violated the Establishment Clause. the

prayer was used as part of a government program to

advance religious beliefs. Court explained that the effect

of the Establishment Clause was to prevent the

government from setting up a particular religious sect of

church as “ official” church

Justice Stewart wrote this. He argued that the majority

opinion misapplied the Constitution. Emphasized that the

prayer was voluntary. Stewart described the history of

religious traditions in the U.S. Ex. God references in the

Star spangled Banner, employment of a chaplain in the

House of Representatives. He argued that the

Establishment Clause was supposed to keep the

government from forming a state-sponsored church like

the Church of England and not to prohibit all the ways

that government was involved with religion

IMPACT

This case was the first to effectively prohibit the government from sponsoring official prayer in schools. Engel v.

Vitale also got the ball rolling on separation of church and state issues.

McDonald V. Chicago (Year: 2010)


Law suits were filed against cities Chicago and Oak Park in Illinois. The suits were filed to challenge the gun ban that

had been implemented. Supreme Court case Heller v. District of Columbia ruled that D.C. gun laws passed to ban

handguns were a violation of one’s Second Amendment rights. Otis McDonald saw grounds to challenge the law

because he felt a connection to the strong precedent for this case. Citizens of Chicago and Oak Park were not

permitted to have unregistered handguns, but registration for most handguns was restricted. He felt that the second

amendment was necessary for self-defense. Otis McDonald used the Due Process and Privileges and Immunities

Clauses in the 14th Amendment to argue that these rights should be upheld, even within states. He argued that

privileges and immunities are not to be abridged by the state, and that due process does, indeed, incorporate the

Second Amendment. After McDonald’s case was dismissed by the district court and the Court of Appeals of the

Seventh Circuit, the case was heard by the Supreme Court. It was an issue of whether or not the Second

Amendment’s right to bear arms was to be incorporated against the states, using the Due Process and Privileges and

Immunities Clauses. On Jun 28th, 2010, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of McDonald.


Second Amendment to the US Constitution

14th Amendment to the US Constitution

Does the Second Amendment right to keep and

bear arms apply to state and local governments

through the 14th Amendment and thus limit

Chicago’s ability to regulate guns?

Second Amendment: The constitutional amendment that protects the

right of the people to keep and bear arms. The

Supreme Court ruled in the 2008 Heller decision

that the right belongs to individuals in their homes

for self-defense, while also ruling that the right is

not unlimited. It also proclaimed the right to keep

and bear arms as necessary to maintain a state

militia.

14th Amendment: The constitutional amendment that granted

citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the

United States—including former slaves—and

guaranteed all citizens “equal protection of the

laws.” It defined national citizenship and forbade

the states to restrict the basic rights of citizens or

other persons.

Privileges and Immunities Clause:

A clause in Article IV, Section 2, of the

Constitution according citizens of each state most

of the privileges of citizens of other states.

Due Process Clause: Part of the 14th Amendment guaranteeing that

persons cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or

property by the United States or state governments

without due process of law.


https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/ap-us-government-and-politics/foundations-of-american-democracy/constitutional-interpretations-of-federalism/v/mcculloch-vs-maryland

In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court decided that the Second Amendment right to bears arms for self-defense was to be

applied to local and state governments, as well as the federal government.

MAJORITY OPINION



Justice Alito concluded that the Second

Amendment right to keep and bear arms for the

purpose of self-defense is fully applicable to the

states under the 14th Amendment.

The Court considered whether the right to keep

guns “is fundamental to our scheme of ordered

liberty and system of justice.”

The Court reasoned that rights that are

“fundamental too the Nation’s scheme of ordered

liberty” or that are “deeply rooted in this Nation’s

history and tradition” are appropriately applied to

the states through the 14th Amendment.

The Second Amendment applies to the states

because the right to keep and bear arms is deeply

rooted in American history. Possessing a gun is a

right that pre-dates even the founding of the

country, and guns are still an important part of

American culture and liberty.

They said that self-defense is a basic right, and

that, under Heller, individual self-defense is the

central component of the Second Amendment

right to bear arms.

The Second Amendment affords American

citizens the ability to defend themselves against a

tyrannical government. It would not make sense

to allow citizens to defend themselves against the

federal government but not state or local

governments.

Justice Stevens

Justice Breyer

Justice Ginsburg

Justice Sotomayor

Justice Stevens and Justice Breyer filed separate

dissenting opinions.

Justice Stevens expressed that the Second Amendment

protects the right to bear arms in military service but can

be subject to government regulation for civilian use. He

called the majority’s holding “strained and

unpersuasive,” with its conclusion that is “overwrought

and novel.”

Justice Breyer expressed that there is no logical way to

determine the constitutionality of gun control laws. He

supported an approach that would be a “balancing test,”

In places where gun violence is rampant, district’s gun

law could be constitutionally permissible. Essentially,

Breyer asserted that there are unique situations that can

call for unique decisions.

IMPACT

Because it has been decided, by the Supreme court, that the Second Amendment guarantees “the right of the people

to keep and bear arms” applies to state and local governments, as well as to the federal government, American

citizens to this day practice the right of owning guns in their house for the purpose of self-defense.

Shaw v. Reno (1993)


In order to prevent states from suppressing the right of minorities to vote, Congress passed the Voting Rights Act in

1965. This law prohibited voting rules that discriminated on the basis of race. The law also placed cities, counties,

and states with a history of discriminatory practices in a special category. These jurisdictions had to request pre-

clearance from the federal government before changing their voting rules and were required to prove that the

proposed change did not limit a person’s right to vote because of their race. While states generally can adopt their

own criteria for districting—which typically include making districts that are reasonably compact and contiguous and

that align with existing geographical boundaries like cities or counties—they may not draw districts in a way that

discriminates on the basis of race. The U.S. Attorney General rejected a North Carolina congressional

reapportionment plan because the plan created only one black-majority district. North Carolina submitted a second

plan creating two black-majority districts. One of these districts was, in parts, no wider than the interstate road along

which it stretched.


The residents were denied by the district court because

there was no constitutional basis for their complaint.

Unhappy with their results, the residents (shaw) appealed

their ruling and went to the supreme court. The Supreme

Court granted the case certiorari because of the violation

of the 14th Amendment.

Gerrymandering: the act of diving an area or district in an

unusual way to give a certain group an advantage or

disadvantage

—Equal protection clause (14th amendment): major

constitutional restraint on the power of the governments

to discriminate against against persons bc of race,

national origin, or sex. It’s used to combat discrimination

and raise equality


In a 5-4 decision, the supreme court decided in favor of Shaw, and supported the idea that redistricting based on racial

profiling is unconstitutional.

MAJORITY OPINION



The justices of the supreme court decided that to allow

racial gerrymandering is to “balkanize us into competing

racial factions; it threatens to carry us further from the

goal of a political system in which race no longer

matters.” The argument is that racial gerrymandering

resembles segregation far too much. Even if the

separation of districts based on race were with the

intention of benefitting a racial group, it could result in

the elected officials to pander to the group rather than

trying to serve the constituency of everyone else. Justice

O’Connor authored the majority decision, which was

The dissenting opinion for the argument states that unless

the process of redistricting deprives a particular racial

group of an equal opportunity or enhances the power of

those drawing the districts, it is not unconstitutional.

Justices White, Blackmun, Stevens, and Souter authored

the dissention.

joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Scalia,

Kennedy, and Thomas

IMPACT

Shaw v. Reno established the idea that although a legitimate goal for state legislatures is to take race into account

when drawing electoral districts in order to increase the voting strength of minorities, they may not make race the sole

reason for drawing district lines.

BAKER V. CARR (Year:1961-1962)


Charles W. Baker and the citizens of Tennessee claimed that a 1901 law that apportioned the seats for the state’s

general assembly was being ignored. Baker took the stance that Tennessee’s efforts for reapportionment disregarded

significant changes in economic growth and population in the state.

(Elaborate further regarding the rural v. urban representation issue)


Baker’s argument entailed that the discrepancy was

causing him to not receive his due equal protection of the

laws issued by the Fourteenth amendment.

Re-apportionment- redistribution of representation in a

legislative body Civil liberties- rights guaranteed by laws of a country, as

in the U.S. by the Bill of Rights Re-districting- dividing

an area into new political districts


Supreme Court Justice William Brennan wrote for the majority that the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause

was valid grounds to bring a reapportionment lawsuit, and that Charles Baker was justified. Tennessee's refusal to

follow the re-mapping laws violated the Equal Protection Clause, which forces every United States citizen to be

treated equally without bias regarding their pursuit of happiness. (6-2 ruling)

MAJORITY OPINION Quotes/Key Arguments/Reasoning (Author)

DISSENTING OPINION Quotes/Key Arguments/Reasoning (Author)

The right to vote is inherent in the Constitution. Each vote

should hold equal weight. The Equal Protection Clause was

meant to prevent one vote counting more than another.

(Douglas)

The proper place for this decision to be made is the Trial

Court. Baker states a rather justiciable legal theory, so he

should be entitled to relief. (Stewart)

The majority’s decision doesn’t base its decision on

precedents set by previous cases. This notion violates judicial

restraint (the belief that judges should limit the use of their

power to deal with the termination of laws) and separation of

powers. Basically, there’s not enough evidence under the

Equal Protection Clause and the Guaranty Clause to decide

against an existing precedent. (Frankfurter and Harlan)

IMPACT

This decision impacted similar lawsuits that redrew election maps around the United States. Baker vs Carr also

allowed the federal courts to redraw districts with regards to unrepresented voters. After this decision several other

cases concerning re-districting led to the re-drawing of the nation’s political map. Because of this rural areas and

urban areas were given appropriate representation.

Wisconsin V. Yoder (Year:1972)


Jonas Yoder, Wallace Miller, and Adin Yutzy were all followers of the Amish religion. Due to their beliefs, they had planned to

pull their children from school after graduating 8th grade, providing them additional informational vocational education. At the

time, Wisconsin’s compulsory school-attendance law required the students to attend until they reach the age 16. Yoder, Miller,

& Yutzy refused to send their children back to school and in turn were fined $5 for violating the state law.


The decision enforced the First Constitutional Amendment as

the amendment states “congress will make no law respecting

an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise

thereof.”

(The Free Exercise Clause is the more significant of the two religious clauses here)

Amish – a group of traditionalist Christian church fellowships

with Swiss German Anabaptist origins. Those who are closely

related to, but distinct from, Mennonite churches.

Education – the process of facilitating learning or the

acquisition of knowledge, skills, values and habits.

Vocational education – education that prepares people to work

in various jobs, such as a trade, a craft, or as a technician.

Compulsory attendance laws – laws crafted by each state

require school attendance for children of certain ages.


The court came to a unanimous decision that held the individual’s interests to exercise religion under the First Amendment was

greater than the State’s interest in compelling school attendance beyond 8th grade.



Chief Justice Burger wrote the majority opinion. One of the

key arguments was that “enforcement of the State’s

requirement of compulsory formal education after the eighth

grade would gravely endanger, if not destroy, the free exercise

of respondents’ religious beliefs.” The other key argument was

that the Amish were a law-abiding community for hundreds of

years despite their lack of secondary education, which was

proof that attending school after the 8th grade was not

necessary to produce proper citizens.

Justice Douglas wrote a partial dissent, disagreeing with how

the majority opinion focused on the parents and not the

children. He wanted to learn whether the children themselves

wanted to attend school past eighth grade. Mr. Yoder’s

daughter was the exception to this, since she testified in lower

court confirming that she wished to be educated at home.

IMPACT

The court’s ruling enforced the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment by preventing Wisconsin’s government from

overruling religious beliefs in order to comply with state law.

Roe V. Wade (Year:1973)


There were abortion efforts in the 1960’s to repel abortion laws in the states. Two attorneys, Sarah Weedington and

Cindy Coffee looked for a Women to represent their case. Norma Mcooney was their pick. She was an unmarried 22-

year-old who gave her first child to her mom and put her second child up for adoption, she was about to have a third

child and wanted to terminate it. Norma took the case and was given the name Jane Roe to conceal her identity.

Henry Wade was the Dallas County district attorney in Texas federal court that Roe sued (took place in Texas).


Roe claimed that the Texas law legalizing abortion

violated her right to privacy. She used the constitutional

14th amendment to argue her point. The guaranteed due

process clause of the 14th amendment helped her case.

(Note: the right to privacy is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, but many argue that some Amendments like the 9th and 4th taken together imply a right to privacy)

14th amendment due process clause right to privacy: no

state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge

the privileges or immunities of citizens of the US; 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.


The court ruled 7-2 that a right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th amendment extended to a woman’s

decision to have an abortion, but that this right must be balanced against the state’s interests in regulating abortions,

protecting women’s health, and protecting the potentiality of human life.



Court ruled in favor of Roe (7-2) Justice Blackmun wrote

that he recognized a woman’s choice whether to have an

abortion is protected by her right to privacy. Justices

Stewart, Burger, and Douglas wrote similar statements.

(The Court did also acknowledge that after the first trimester of pregnancy, the state has the ability to regulate abortion procedures reasonably)

Justices William Rehnquist and Byron White wrote that

the court was just making up a new constitutional rights

in didn’t have the authority to do so Rehnquist argued the

other justices were expanding the 14th amendment to

mean something much more than our original authors

intended.

IMPACT

The court recognized for the first time that the constitutional right to privacy is broad enough to let women decide

what they want to do with their pregnancy. It legalized abortion and created lots of controversy on the topic.

Gideon V. Wainwright (Year: 1963)


Clarence Earl Gideon was charged with felony breaking and entering. He appeared in court with no lawyer. He requested a lawyer.

However, they denied him a lawyer because according to Florida’s law only lawyers are provided for an indigent in capital cases.

Gideon could not afford a lawyer; therefore, he represented himself in court. He lost and had to spend 5 years in prison. Gideon filed

out a habeaus corpus petition on the account of infringement upon rights. Florida court denied the habeaus corpus relief. From his

cell he wrote a petition to the US Supreme Court. This case is based on the 6th Amendment protecting the rights of people accused of

crimes. Even if a person cannot afford a lawyer they have the right to one. The argument stands, “Does this apply to state courts?”


6th Amendments

14th Amendments

Powell v. Alabama (1932)

Johnson v. Zerbst (1938)

Betts v. Brady (1942)

Indigent- A person who is poor or in need.

Capital Case(s)- A capital case is a prosecution case for murder.

The terms are if the person is found guilty the jury has to decide if

they should be put to death.

Habeaus Corpus- Is a writ that requires under arrest to be brought

into court or before a judge.


9-0 Gideon



Authored by Justice Hugo L. Black, the Supreme Court ruled that

the right to an attorney/assistance of counsel in criminal trials

(Sixth Amendment) was a fundamental right made obligatory by

the Fourteenth Amendment (Due Process Clause), effectively

overturning Betts v Brady, which concluded the Sixth

Amendment’s guarantee of an attorney is not a basic right. Black

said that “reason and reflection require us to recognize that in our

adversary system of criminal justice, any person haled into court,

who is too poor to hire a lawyer, cannot be assured a fair trial

unless counsel is provided for him.” He also stated that the

presence of a defense counsel is “fundamental and essential to

fair trials.”

No dissenting opinion; however, Justices Douglas,

Clark, and Harlan each wrote concurring opinions.

IMPACT

“Lawyers in criminal courts are necessities not luxuries…” Gideon v. Wainwright had a major impact on the justice


system as we now know it. The right to a fair trial and a fair legal system would not have been possible without this

case. Without Gideon v. Wainwright, those of a lower income would never stand a chance at a fair trial. This case

introduces the idea of an equal and fair justice system that our country has been built off of.

Citizens United V. Federal Election Commission

(Year: 2010)


In 2008, Citizens United filmed a campaign ad titled “Hillary: The Movie,” which expressed opinions about Hillary

Clinton and whether or not she would make a good president in light of the 2008 election which raised a debate about

Clinton or Barack Obama for president. According to section 202 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA),

which was created and enforced by the Federal Election Commission, corporations and labor unions have restrictions

on how much money they can contribute to “electioneering communications,” also known as political ads or

broadcasts. In the case, Citizens United argued that this Act was unjust and said that corporations/labor unions should

be able to donate as much money as they want to campaign ads. They also said that the act violated the First

Amendment and was unconstitutional when applied to their movie.

(Note: the specific part of the law – BCRA- that was being challenged was the provision prohibiting corporations

from running ads for/against a candidate 30 days prior to a primary and 60 days prior to a general election)


Is the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act an obstruction

against first amendment rights (freedom of speech)?

freedom of speech, Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act,

First Amendment, Citizens United, Federal Election

Commission, soft money, electioneering

communication

(Define terms)


5-4 for Citizens United



The majority said that under the First Amendment

corporate funding of political broadcasts and

communications should not and cannot be limited. Justice

Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority, concluding

that political speech is necessary to democracy, even if

the speech comes from a corporation or labor unions. The

majority also ruled that the opinions expressed in

“Hillary: The Movie” were constitutional and only

provided the country with information. In the Opinion of

the Court, he wrote “the Court cannot resolve this case on

a narrower grounds without chilling political speech,

Justice John Paul Stevens dissented by arguing that

corporations and labor unions are not directly members

of society and that there should be restrictions on a

corporation’s ability to spend money during elections.

He stated that “section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign

Reform Act of 2002 has never been reconcilable with

that protection,” referring to the obstruction against the

First Amendment. He went on to say that congress

cannot say that Citizens United wanting to provide

voters with relevant information is equal to “free

speech.”



speech that is central to the meaning and purpose of the

First Amendment.”

IMPACT

This case allowed all corporations and labor unions to fund political ads and broadcasts without any restrictions or

limitations (as long as they do not communicate/coordinate with a campaign/candidate). However, corporations are

still unable to directly fund a campaign. The case brought to light the discussion on whether or not First amendment

rights apply to corporations.

Tinker_ V. ___Des Moines (Year:____1969)


In 1969, students in Idaho planed a Vietnam War protest calling for a truce. Sixteen Year old Christopher Eckhardt

and peers planned to wear black armbands in support of the truce as well as fasting on December 16 and New

Years Eve. Their school in Des Moines created a policy that the students would be suspended if they wore the

armband to school. Marybeth Tinker, Christopher Eckhardt, and John Tinker were all suspended and, they did not

return to school until the protest was over. The students sued the school for violation of expression. The case was

dismissed by the district court and the US Court of Appeals in favor of the school.


Does this ban of a symbolic protest stifle the students’

First Amendment Right?

Protest, freedom of speech, students, school

(define terms)


7-2 For Tinker



The Court ruled that the armbands were the individual right to freedom of speech and therefore separate. They ruled that the students did not lose their free speech when entering school property. The schools must justify the suspension of free speech by proving that it would “materially and substantially interfere” with the operation of the school. Justices Abe Fortas and Potter Stewart gave the students the entirety of the first amendment rights.

The dissenting opinion by Justice Hugo L Black states

that the first amendment does not permit them to

express the right all the time. He claimed the armbands

did distract the students from their work and the school

administration from their jobs, therefore the school was

within their power to discipline the students. Justice John

M Harlan claimed that schools should have authority

over matters, such as this, in which it is in the best

interest to maintain order in the school.

IMPACT

“The beginning of a new revolutionary era of permissiveness in this country fostered by

the judiciary” - Justice Potter Stewart

This case established students’ rights to freedom of speech in schools. However, cases

such as Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser (1986), Hazelwood School District v.

Kuhlmeier (1988), and Morse v. Frederick (2007), have lessened Tinker’s holding to a

student’s First Amendment rights. Questions still remain as to what degree a school can

punish students for speech expressed off-campus or online.

Schneck V. United States(Year:1919)


Charles T Schneck was arrested for having violated the espionage act. He was a general secretary on a U.S. Socialist

party that opposed the military draft, Schneck claims he was exercising his freedom of speech.

(key detail – he was distributing pamphlets that urged men to resist the draft)


This case connects to the first Amendment, that

guarantees Freedom of speech to all citizens of the

United States.

Free Speech 1st Amendment Espionage Violate

Prohibited (Define terms. “Clear and present danger” is also important to define here)


Schneck ultimatley lost, after articulating the "Clear and present danger" test the court decided that free speech could be limited by congress. All nine judges agreed unanimously that amendments could be limited in times of war therefore Schneck's action weren't protected by the 1st amendment



“The count alleges overt acts in pursuance of the

conspiracy, ending in the distribution of the document set

forth. The second count alleges a conspiracy to commit

an offense against the United States, to-wit, to use the

mails for the transmission of matter declared to be non-

mailable by title 12, 2, of the Act of June 15, 1917

(Comp. St. 1918, 10401b), to-wit, the above mentioned

document, with an averment of the same overt acts. The

There is no dissenting opinion published.

third count charges an unlawful use of the mails for the

transmission of the same matter and otherwise as above.

The defendants were found guilty on all the counts.”

The majority opinion ruled that Schneck was guilty on all

of these accounts and found no reason to free him of the

charges due to Freedom of Speech concerns.

IMPACT

The Schenck v. United States case holds little impact in today’s society due to the fact that the “clear and present

danger” test that was established during the case is no longer relevant. In more recent years, cases have been

protected under the First Amendment even if they seemed to cause “Clear and present danger” due to the recent push

for amplified Free Speech. While it did establish a precedent for Free Speech, this precedent has mostly been

disregarded. (Note: though the court has shown a tendency to side with the right to free speech lately, limiting speech

in times of war or speech that poses a “clear and present danger” is still an important precedent)

United States V. Lopez (Year: 1995)


On March 10, 1992, 12th grade student Alfonso Lopez Jr. arrived to his school in San Antonio, Texas, with a

concealed .38 caliber handgun. Acting on an anonymous tip, police searched Lopez who admitted to possessing the

weapon, and was arrested under violation of the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990. After having been found guilty

of violating the act on a bench trial, Lopez appealed his case under the argument that Gun Free School Zones Act of

1990 was unconstitutional because Congress did not have the power to pass such an act under the Commerce Clause.

The fifth circuit Court of appeals agreed and reversed Lopez's conviction.


Commerce Clause – An enumerated power of

Congress granted by the Constitution, allowing

Congress “to regulate commerce with foreign nations,

and among the several states, and with the Indian

Tribes.”

Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990 – An act of

Congress prohibiting any unauthorized individual

from possessing a firearm within any area that is

known to be, or suspected to be a school zone.

Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) - The first significant

Supreme Court case to concern the reach of the

power of congress under the commerce clause.

HOLDING (5-4 Lopez)

-In the case conclusion, written by Chief Justice, It was ruled that the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990 was

unconstitutional, as it exceeded the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause.



Justice Rehnquist argued that the Gun Free School Zones

Act of 1990 was considered a criminal statute with no

basis in interstate commerce.

-"The possession of a gun in a local school zone is not an

economic activity that might, through repetition

elsewhere, have a substantial effect on interstate

commerce.”

Justice Stephens argued that the Commerce Clause

allowed for the banning of guns in school zones because

"[they] can be used to restrain commerce.

-"[Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990 is] well within

the scope of the commerce power as this Court as

understood that power over the last half century."

IMPACT

Over the past 231 years since the Constitution of the United States was written, the limits on the power of Congress

under the Commerce Clause have fluctuated greatly. The main point of this argument was over what was considered

within the realm of "Interstate Commerce" and what was considered "domestic commerce," and if the Commerce

Clause allowed for acts indirectly related to commerce, or only those directly related to commerce. U.S. v Lopez

said that a Congressional act must be directly related to commerce, as opposed to an indirect relation such as the

potential economic impact of the presence of firearms within school zones.

Marbury V. Madison (Year: 1803)


William Marbury didn’t get his commission before President Jefferson became president, since he was one of the last

to be added to the “midnight appointments.” One time Jefferson got James Madison, his secretary of state, to

withhold the commission which resulted in Marbury getting the Supreme Court to issue a writ of mandamus. Many

disliked Marshall involving himself in the case, being that he was John Adam’s previous secretary of state, but

ultimately even with his involvement, Marbury sued Madison and required him to deliver the documents needed to

officially give Marbury the title of Justice of the Peace and established the concept of judicial review.


One of the foundations of the US Constitutional law was

formed from this court case when the Supreme Court

declared an act of Congress unconstitutional which then

established judicial review.

Writ of Mandamus: Latin phrase that translates to

“in command” or mandate. Mandamus is a judicial

remedy which is in the form of an order from a

superior court to any government, subordinate court,

to do or forbear from doing some specific act which

that body is obliged under law to refrain from doing.

Judicial review: The power of a court to refuse to

enforce a law or government regulation that in the

opinion of the judges conflicts with the US

Constitution or, in a state court, the state constitution.

HOLDING (4-0 Marbury)

In February of 1803, the court unanimously the Marbury had the right to his commission, but the court did not have

the power to appoint him.



Written by Chief Justice Marshall

-Found that the Supreme Court could not appoint

Marbury, because it could be unconstitutional. (writ of

mandamus)

-Found (parts of) the Judiciary Act of 1789

unconstitutional.

-The supremacy clause prohibited supreme court from

changing the Constitution through regular legislation

(The Court agreed that Marbury had a right to his

commission, but they stated that it was not within the

Court’s power to enforce this)

No dissenting or concurring decision since the court was

unanimous.

IMPACT

This case decision established the Supreme Court’s power of judicial review. Marshall writes “that a law repugnant

to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.” Just adds a

way in which the judiciary branch participates in the checks and balances system which holds each branch

accountable for each other.

New York Times Co. V. U.S. (Year:1971)


United States involvement in Vietnam War

Espionage act

(Needs further description about the background. What happened? Why was this in court? Who was suing who

over what?)


First amendment (freedom of the press)

Pentagon Papers: secret documents disclosing the U.S.’s involvement in Vietnam

Per Curiam: by decision of a judge or of a court in unanimous agreement

Prior restraint: censorship being imposed, typically by government/authority


6-3; for the New York Times

New York Times wasn’t sued for violating the Espionage Act




First amendment’s freedom of the press is absolute and “the press must be left free to publish news, whatever the source, without censorship, injunctions, or prior restraints” (Justice Black and Justice Douglas)

“The press was to serve the governed, not the governors.” (Justice Black)

Discusses the exception to the Espionage Act would be imminent threat during a time of war (Justice Stewart elaborates and says that the Pentagon Papers would provide “irreparable damage” to the U.S.)

Neither the executive nor the judicial branch has authority to help or penalize disclosure of information

- Court rushed to the case/all the information wasn’t reviewed

- Not prepared to understand the merits of the case

- The first amendment is not absolute - The judiciary did not have the authority to check

the executive branch on issues regarding national security if the issues are within the president’s foreign powers and the information disclosed would ultimately harm the executive branch definitively (Justice John Harlan)

- “The First Amendment is only one part of the Constitution…Article II…vests in the executive branch primary power over the conduct of foreign affairs.” (Justice Blackmun)

IMPACT

Major victory for freedom of the press as the ruling established “heavy presumption against prior restraint”;

government censorship was unconstitutional even with sensitive information about the executive branch's

McCulloch V. Maryland (Year: 1819)


In 1816, Congress chartered The Second Bank of the United States. In 1818, the state of

Maryland passed legislation to impose taxes on the bank. James W. McCulloch, the cashier of

the Baltimore branch of the bank, refused to pay the tax. The state appeals court held that the

Second Bank was unconstitutional because the Constitution did not provide a textual

commitment for the federal government to charter a bank.

CONSTITUTIONAL

CONNECTION(S)

KEY TERMINOLOGY

The Necessary and Proper Clause and the

Supremacy Clause both were involved in this

case. The Necessary and Proper Clause was

involved in the way that congress has all

power and makes all of the laws. The

Supremacy Clause was involved in the way

that it made the constitution and the laws the

most important laws of the land.

The Supreme Court ruled that Congress had

implied powers under the Necessary and

Proper Clause of Article I, Section 8 of the

Constitution to create the Second Bank of the

United States and that the state of Maryland

lacked the power to tax the Bank.


6-0. Unanimous decision for McCulloch, Maryland did not impose tax on the bank.



There was a unanimous decision for this court

case, and that was that Maryland may not

impose a tax on the bank. The Court held that

Congress had the power to incorporate the

bank and that Maryland could not tax

instruments of the national government

employed in the execution of constitutional

powers.

States' rights advocates were unhappy with

Marshall's decision. A series of angered

newspaper responses followed from Judge

Spencer Roane, Judge William

Brockenbrough and former U.S. Senator John

Taylor. However, Marshall did not let the

articles go unanswered. He responded under

the nom de plume "A Friend of the Union," in

Philadelphia. Because the paper did not print

his responses in their entirety, he republished

them in Virginia under the name "A Friend of

the Constitution."

Later, in 1832, Andrew Jackson dismantled

the bank. Despite this action, the Supreme

Court's interpretation of the Constitution was

upheld.

IMPACT

This decision extended Congress' authority by recognizing implied powers as a result of the

Necessary and Proper Clause of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. This case is important

because it set up the idea that the federal government can do whatever is wants, and it set up a

broad definition of the power of Congress under the Constitution. (not that the federal gov’t

can do whatever it wants, but that its laws are supreme over state laws as long as they are

constitutional)

https://ballotpedia.org/Andrew_Jackson

Brown V. Board of Education (Year: 1954)


The 14th Amendment was constructed after Civil War and states that all states must give all people equal protection

of the law. Segregation was determined legal through a loophole in the 14th Amendment, as long as segregated

facilities were relatively equal (“separate but equal”). “Separate but equal” was determined in Plessy v. Ferguson in

1896 because the Supreme Court determined that segregation was a matter of social equality, not legal equality. By

1954, many public and private facilities had been segregated for years.

Linda Brown, an African American student from Topeka, Kansas, tried to gain admission into the Sumner School

because it was closer to her house than the all-black Monroe School that she was attending. She was denied entry into

the Sumner School by the Board of Education of Topeka because of her race; the Sumner School was for white

students only. Brown gathered together parents of students who were denied entry to white only schools and claimed

that the segregation of schools violates the equal protection laws found in the 14th Amendment. The federal district

court determined that segregation didn’t violate any of Brown’s rights because of the “separate but equal” doctrine.

So, Brown asked the Supreme Court to review the decision made by the district court.


The segregation of schools violated the 14th Amendment

Equal Protection clause.

The Plessy v. Ferguson case determined that “separate

but equal” is fair, but Brown v. Board determined that it

is inherently unequal.

- Oliver Brown- Parent of an African American student

who was named in the Brown v. Board of Education.

- Earl Warren- Chief Justice during the Brown v. Board

of Education case. He read the ruling in the case that

abolished the “separate but equal” ruling of Plessy v.

Ferguson.


9-0 Unanimous decision

The SCOTUS in favor of Linda Brown and the students. The decision ruled that segregation in public schools

violated Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment.



Written by Chief Justice Earl Warren.

The court noted that education is “the very foundation of

good citizenship” and is “a principle instrument in

awakening the child to cultural values.” The justices

thought it would be very hard for a child to succeed in

life without a good education. Access to a good education

is “a right which must be made available to all on equal

terms.” The Court then went on to explain that although

the different schools might be equal in “tangible” factors,

segregation in schools leads to innumerable intangible

factors that lead to inequality. “We conclude that in the

field of public education the doctrine of ‘separate but

No dissenting opinion.


equal’ has no place.” The court determined that separate

but equal is inherently unequal.

IMPACT

The Supreme Court's decision marked a turning point in the history of race relations in the United States. The Court

took away constitutional sanctions for segregation by race and made equal opportunity in education a law. The

decision in Brown v. Board led to

Engel v. Vitale 1962

Documents

Transcript of Engel v. Vitale 1962