Landmark Supreme Court Cases
Order by
35 terms
Terms | Definitions |
|---|---|
 Marbury v. Madison (1803)[Marshall Court] | Judicial Review, Federalism Constitutional Principle: - Separation of powers - The judiciary Why Decision is Important: - Established the Supreme Court's right of judicial review - Strengthened the judiciary in relation to other branches of government |
| McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) [Marshall Court] | State Taxes, National Supremacy Constitutional Principle: - Federalism - National power - The judiciary Why Decision is Important: - Supported the use of the elastic clause to expand federal power - Established the principle of national supremacy - that the Constitution and federal laws overrule state laws when the two conflict |
| Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) [Marshall Court] | State Rights, Commerce Clause Constitutional Principle: - Federalism - Property rights and economic policy - The judiciary Why Decision is Important: - Established the basis of congressional regulation of interstate commerce - Reinforced the supremacy of national law over state law when the two conflict |
| Worcester v. Georgia (1832) [Marshall Court] | Constitutional Principle: - Federalism - National power - Separation of powers - Equality Why Decision is Important: - Stated that treaties between the United States government and Indian nations are the supreme law of the land - Declared that the federal government, not the state, had exclusive jurisdiction over - Cherokee nation's territory; therefore, Georgia laws taking jurisdiction of Cherokee people and land were void - President Jackson supported Georgia in defying this ruling, and Native American removal followed |
| Scott v. Sanford (1857) [Taney Court] | Slavery, Due Process, Equal Protection Constitutional Principle: - The judiciary - Equality Why Decision is Important: - Declared that slaves were property and that slaveholders could take them anywhere. Without risk of the slaves being freed - Ruled that African American were not citizens - Declared the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional; this decision was overturned by the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments - Superseded by U.S. Const. amends. XIII, XIV |
| Civil Rights Cases (1883) [Waite Court] | Constitutional Principle: - Equality - National power Why decision is Important: - Judged that racial discrimination by private persons did not place the "badge of slavery" of African Americans nor keep them in servitude - Ruled that neither Congress nor the Court has the powers to deal with private acts of discrimination |
| Wabash, St. Louis and Pacific RR v. Illinois (1886) [Waite Court] | Constitutional Principle: - National power - Federalism Why Decision is Important: - The Supreme Court forbade any state to set rates, even within its own borders, on railroad traffic entering from or bound for another state. This paved the way for the creation of the Interstate Commerce Commission in 1887 |
| United States v. E.C. Knight Co. (1895) [Fuller Court] | Constitutional Principle: - National power Why Decision is Important: - Ruled that Congress has the right to protect trade and commerce against unlawful restraints and monopolies |
| In Re Debs (1895) [Fuller Court] | Constitutional Principles: - National power Why Decision is Important: - Reinforced that the right of Congress to regulate interstate commerce extends to the commerce that is conducted by railroad and highway. - Ruled that the federal government has the right to intervene forcibly to eliminate monopolies in transportation of people, property, and mail |
| Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) [Fuller Court] | "Separate but Equal," Equal Protection Constitutional Principle: - Equality - Rights of minority groups Why decision is Important: - Gave legal justification for racial segregation for different races were legal as long as those facilities were equal to one another - Overturned/overruled by Brown v. Board of Education (1954) |
| Northern Securities Co. v. United States (1904) [Fuller Court] | Constitutional Principle: - National power Why Decision is Important: - Property rights and economic policy - Federal suit brought as part of Theodore Roosevelt's trust-busting using Sherman Anti-trust Act - Court in 5-4 decision ruled that the Northern securities Company was formed only to eliminate competition and ordered it to be dissolved |
| Lochner v. New York (1905) [Fuller Court] | Constitutional Principle: - Property rights and economic policy - Civil liberties Why Decision is Important: - Established that the Supreme Court has the power to oversee state regulations - Ruled hat a New York law limiting baker's hours was unconstitutional because it interfered with workers' Fourteenth Amendment right to sell their labor to their employers |
| Muller v. Oregon (1908) [Fuller Court] | Constitutional Principle: - Civil liberties - Federalism - Rights of women Why Decision is Important: - Let stand an Oregon law that limited women to a 10-hour work day in laundries or factories in order to protect women's health. - Stated that the need of the state to protect women's health outweighed the liberty to make a contract (a liberty that was upheld in Lochner) |
| Schenck v. United States (1919) [White Court] | Constitutional Principle: - Civil liberties Why Decision is Important: - Established limits on free speech holding that this right is not absolute - Set the "clear and present danger" standard for when free speech can be restricted - Overruled by Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) |
| Schechter Poultry Corporation v. United States (1935) [Hughes Court] | Constitutional Principle: - Separation of powers - Property rights and economic policy Why Decision is Important: - Placed limits on the ability of Congress to delegate legislative powers to President - Narrowly defined interstate commerce - Declared the New Deal's NRA unconstitutional |
| Korematsu v. United States (1944) [Stone Court] | Japanese Internment, Equal Protection Constitutional Principle: - Equality - Rights of minority groups Why Decision is Important: - Ruled that the forcible relocation of Japanese Americans to Wartime Relocation Agency camps during World War II was legal |
| Brown v. Board of Education (1954) [Warren Court] | School Segregation, Equal Protection Constitutional Principle: - Equality - Rights of minority groups Why Decision is Important: - Ruled that segregation in education creates inequality - Overturned Plessy v. Ferguson and nullified the concept of "separate but equal" |
| Watkins v. United States (1957) [Warren Court] | Constitutional Principle: - Civil liberties Why Decision is Important: - Ruled that the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) could not punish at will those witness who refused to cooperate |
| Mapp v. Ohio (1961) [Warren Court] | Warantless Search, Due Process Constitutional Principle: - Civil liberties Why Decision is Important: - Ruled that citizens are protected against unlawful search and seizure by the states as well as by the federal government |
| Baker v. Carr (1962) [Warren Court] | Constitutional Principle: - Avenues of representation - Federalism Why Decision is Important: - Upheld the principle that population is the only acceptable basis for the apportionment of seats in a legislative body - Established that the Supreme Court has cases when that reapportionment threatens voters' rights |
| Engel v. Vitale (1962) [Warren Court] | Constitutional Principle: - Civil liberties Why Decision is Important: - Reinforced the separation of church and state - Ruled that use of the public schools to encourage prayer or other religious practices is a direct violation of the establishment clause |
| Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) [Warren Court] | Right to Counsel, Due Process Constitutional Principle: - Civil liberties Why Decision is Important: - Ruled that to deny legal representation to defendants who can not afford to pay for it is a violation of those individuals' constitutional rights |
| Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964) [Warren Court] | Constitutional Principle: - Equality - National power Why Decision is Important: - Found racial segregation of private facilities engaged in interstate commerce unconstitutional |
| Miranda v. Arizona (1966) [Warren Court] | Self-Incrimination, Due Process Constitutional Principle: - Criminal procedures - Civil liberties Why decision is Important: - Established the requirement to inform people accused of crimes that they have the right to remain silent and receive legal representation before they say anything that can be held against them in court |
| Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969) [Warren Court] | Student Speech, Symbolic Speech Constitutional Principle: -Civil liberties Why Decision is Important: - Ruled that certain kinds of nonverbal communication can be protected under the First Amendment |
| New York Times Co. v. United States (1971) [Burger Court] | Constitutional Principle: - Civil liberties Why Decision is Important: - Gave the media more power against governmental secrecy |
| Roe v. Wade (1973) [Burger Court] | Abortion, Right of Privacy Constitutional Principle: - Civil liberties Why Decision is Important: -Ruled that state laws that criminalize abortion are unconstitutional |
| United States v. Nixon (1974) [Burger Court] | Watergate, Checks and Balances Constitutional Principle: - Separation of powers Why Decision is Important: - Limited the President's right to confidentiality - Gave federal courts the right to decide when and how that confidentiality should be limited |
| Regents of the U. of California v. Bakke (1978) [Burger Court] | Affirmative Action, Equal Protection In the 1978 Baake case, the Supreme Court ruled that a university can consider race in its admissions process. However, a system that uses racial quotas to reserve a certain number of spots for applicants who are from racial or ethnic minority groups is unconstitutional/unlawful. |
| New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985) [Burger Court] | Student Search & Seizure Constitutional Principle: - Civil liberties Why Decision is Important: - Ruled that juveniles have the right to the same protection as adults against illegal search and seizure - More clearly defined what constituted a legal search and seizure |
| Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988) [Rehnquist Court] | Censorship, Student Press Rights The Supreme Court ruled against the students in a 5-3 decision. "A school need not tolerate student speech that is inconsistent with its 'basic educational mission, even though the government could not censor similar speech outside the school." The Court decided that the issues involved in this case differ from those the Court ruled on in Tinker v. Des Moines. Tinker asked whether schools must tolerate certain student speech, while this case questioned whether schools must endorse student speech. The Supreme Court concluded that the First Amendment does not force schools to endorse student speech in their school-sponsored publications. Therefore, as long as the editorial control of school officials was "reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns" such as those mentioned above, it did not offend the First Amendment. Justice Brennan disagreed (Refer to: http://www.streetlaw.org//en/Page.Landmark.Hazelwood.decision.summary.aspx). |
| Texas v. Johnson (1989) [Rehnquist Court] | Flag Burning, Freedom of Speech In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled for Johnson. Justice Brenan wrote the opinion for the majority, ruling that Johnson's act of burning the American flag was protected by the First Amendment because it was expressive conduct. Conduct is sufficiently expressive when "an intent to convey a particularized message was present, and the likelihood was great that the message would be understood by those who viewed it." Given the context of political protest in which Johnson's conduct occurred, the justices concluded that it was sufficiently expressive to invoke First Amendment protection. According to Supreme Court precedent, speech can be prohibited when it would incite "imminent lawless action," and no such violent disturbance of the peace occurred when Johnson burned the flag. Secondly, Texas argued that the reason for prohibiting flag burning was to preserve the flag as a symbol of national unity, but the Court decided, however, that the Court had never "recognized an exception to [the First Amendment] even where our flag has been involved," and they acknowledged that while the government does have an interest in encouraging its citizens to treat the flag with respect, this interest did not justify the criminal prosecution of a man who burned the flag as part of a political protest. Justices Rehnquist, Stevens, White and O'Connor dissented. |
| Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health (1990) [Rehnquist Court] | Constitutional Principle: - Civil liberties Why Decision is Important: - "Clear and convincing" evidence was presented to demonstrate that a Missouri woman (Cruzan) in a coma from 1983 car accident should have the right to die. Intravenous feeding was ended with court approval, and Cruzan subsequently died |
| Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania et al. V. Casey (1992) [Rehnquist Court] | Constitutional Principle: - Civil liberties - Rights of women Why Decision is Important: - Struck down the portions of a Pennsylvania law requiring (1) that a woman seeking an abortion must wait 24 hours between being informed about the procedure and having it performed and (2) that a married woman must inform her husband that she planned to have an abortion - Upheld the portion of the law requiring minors to inform their parents before having an abortion |
| Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton (1995) [Rehnquist Court] | Constitutional Principle: - Civil liberties Why Decision is Important: - Ruled that a school's practice of testing athletes randomly for drug use is not an illegal search |
First Time Here?
Welcome to Quizlet, a fun, free place to study. Try these flashcards, find others to study, or make your own.