Gov Famous Cases
MARBURY V. MADISON 1803
Fact: This case made John Marshall a chief justice establish the principle of judicial review.
Issue: Congress does not have the power to pass laws that override the Constitution, such as by expanding the scope of the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction.
Holding: The U.S. Supreme Court held that it could not order the surrender of the commission
Reasoning: The law that would have empowered it to do so was unconstitutional
Decision: Chief Justice John Marshall established the principle of judicial review, an important addition to the system of checks and balances, created to prevent any one branch of the Federal Government from becoming too powerful.
Opinion: The majority of the opinion was in favor of John Marshall.
ENGEL V. VITALE 1962
Facts:A New York State law required public schools to open each day with the Pledge of Allegiance and a nondenominational prayer in which the students recognized their dependence upon God.
Issue: Whether school-sponsored nondenominational prayer in public schools violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
Holding: school-sponsored Bible reading constituted government endorsement of a particular religion, and thus violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
Reasoning:The majority, via Justice Black, held that school-sponsored prayer violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
Decision: Yes (6-1)
Opinion:
SHAW V. RENO 1993
fact: 1993 Supreme Court decision on a case involving redistricting and racial gerrymandering
Issue: drawing districts based on race violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
holding: In a 5-4 decision the courts ruled in favor of Shaw (the petitioner)
reasoning: it violated the Fourteenth Amendment because it was drawn solely based on race.
decision:5-4 decision
opinion:when it comes to redrawing voting districts, race could not be the deciding factor
MCCULLOCH V. MARYLAND 1819
Fact: The decision in McCulloch had a profound effect on cases involving state vs. federal power.
Issue: Whether Congress had the authority under the Constitution to commission a national bank and if so, whether the state of Maryland had the authority to tax a branch of the national bank operating within its borders.
Holding: Maryland may not impose a tax on the bank
Reasoning: 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.
Decision: The court decided that the Federal Government had the right and power to set up a Federal bank and that states did not have the power to tax the Federal Government.
Opinion: Marshall ruled in favor of the Federal Government and concluded, “the power to tax involves the power to destroy."
GIDEON V. WAINWRIGHT 1963
Facts: Clarence Earl Gideon was an unlikely hero. He was a man with an eighth-grade education who ran away from home when he was in middle school. He spent much of his early adult life as a drifter, spending time in and out of prisons for nonviolent crimes.
Issue: A prior decision of the Court’s, Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S. 455 (1942), held that the refusal to appoint counsel for an indigent defendant charged with a felony in state court did not necessarily violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Holding: the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of Gideon, guaranteeing the right to legal counsel for criminal defendants in federal and state courts.
Reasoning:The Court held that the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of counsel is a fundamental right essential to a fair trial and, as such, applies the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Decision: Reversed and remanded. In its opinion, the Court unanimously overruled Betts v. Brady.
Opinion: the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of Gideon,
UNITED STATES V. LOPEZ 1995
facts:the Supreme Court ruled that Congress had exceeded its constitutional authority under the Commerce Clause when it passed a law prohibiting gun possession in local school zones.
issue:reaffirmed certain limits on congressional power.
holding: the federal government cannot base a law prohibiting gun possession near schools on the Commerce Clause.
reasoning: Gun possession is not an economic activity that has any impact on interstate commerce, whether direct or indirect, so the federal government cannot base a law prohibiting gun possession near schools on the Commerce Clause.
decision: the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 was unconstitutional because the U.S. Congress, in enacting the legislation, had exceeded its authority under the commerce clause of the Constitution.
opinion: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
SCHENCK V. UNITED STATES 1919
Fact: Schenck was charged with conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act of 1917 by attempting to cause insubordination in the military and to obstruct recruitment
Issue: Charles Schenck was charged under the Espionage Act for mailing printed circulars critical of the military draft
Holding: Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes upheld Schenck's conviction
Reasoning: If speech is intended to result in a crime, and there is a clear and present danger that it actually will result in a crime, the First Amendment does not protect the speaker from government action.
Decision:The Court ruled that freedom of speech and freedom of the press under the First Amendment could be limited only if the words in the circumstances created "a clear and present danger."
Opinion: 9 - 0 decision; United States wins; The Supreme Court held that the Espionage Act did not violate the 1st Amendment and was an appropriate exercise of Congress' authority.
TINKER V. DES MOINES INDEPENDENT COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT 1969
Facts: At a public school in Des Moines, Iowa, students planned to wear black armbands at school as a silent protest against the Vietnam War.
Issue: a landmark case addressing the free speech rights of public school students.
Holding: 7-2 decision
Reasoning: the Supreme Court’s majority ruled that neither students nor teachers “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” The Court took the position that school officials could not prohibit only on the suspicion that the speech might disrupt the learning environment.
Decision: In a 7-2 decision,
Opinion: the Supreme Court's majority ruled that neither students nor teachers “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”
MCDONALD V. CHICAGO 2010
facts: landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that found that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms", as protected under the Second Amendment, is incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment and is thereby enforceable against the states
issues:a challenge to the city's strict gun control laws, which banned possessing them within city limits
holding:the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” applies to state and local governments as well as to the federal government.
reasoning: The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment extends the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms to the states, at least for traditional, lawful purposes such as self-defense.
decision: the Second Amendment right to bear arms was applicable to the states.
opinion: a 5–4 majority held that “the right to possess a handgun in the home for the purpose of self-defense” is applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause.
BROWN V. BOARD OF EDUCATION 1954
Facts: The plaintiffs took great personal risks to be part of the case.
Issue: Separating children in public schools on the basis of race was unconstitutional.
Holding: Board of Education imposed a framework related to public school integration on state governments.
Reasoning: Separate school systems for Black students and white students were inherently unequal, and a violation of the "Equal Protection Clause" of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Decision: State-sanctioned segregation of public schools was a violation of the 14th amendment and was therefore unconstitutional
Opinion: Southern white political leaders condemned the decision and vowed to defy it.
NEW YORK TIMES CO. V. UNITED STATES 1971
Facts: the Court ruled that the President's attempt to prevent the publication was a violation of First Amendment protections for press freedom.
Issue: limiting the freedom of the press,
Holding: upheld the right of the newspapers to publish the material.
Reasoning: the intent of the publication was not to put the U.S. in danger but to educate the American people about the Vietnam War
Decision: The Court ruled that the intent of the publication was not to put the U.S. in danger but to educate the American people about the Vietnam War
Opinion: wanted to educate the people
CITIZENS UNITED V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 2010
facts:represented a turning point on campaign finance
issue:Federal Election Commission that held that corporations could be banned from making electioneering communications.
holding: The court held 5–4 that the freedom of speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political campaigns by corporations, nonprofit organizations, labor unions, and other associations.
reasoning:since the ads are not subject to the EC corporate funding restriction, it is unconstitutional to require disclosure of the donors who paid for the advertisements or disclaimers on the advertisements.
decision:anti corruption interest is not sufficient to displace the speech in question from Citizens United and that "independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption."
opinion:The Court ultimately held in this case that the anti corruption interest is not sufficient to displace the speech in question from Citizens United
BAKER V. CARR 1962
Fact: Charles W. Baker and other Tennessee citizens alleged that a 1901 law designed to apportion the seats for the state's General Assembly was virtually ignored.
Issue: A state's drawing of electoral boundaries, i.e. redistricting, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.
Holding: Redistricting qualifies as a justiciable question under the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause
Reasoning: Because rural districts had fewer people, representation was unevenly distributed; thus, Baker was denied equal protection under the law.
Decision: The court ruled 6-2 in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that apportionment cases are justiciable (i.e., that federal courts have the right to intervene in such cases).
Opinion: Federal courts do have jurisdiction over reapportionment issues.
WISCONSIN V. YODER 1972
Facts: the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that Amish parents could remove their children from public schools
Issue: a state law requiring that children attend school past eighth grade violates the parents' constitutional right to direct the religious upbringing of their children.
Holding: individual's interests in the free exercise of religion under the First Amendment outweighed the State's interests in compelling school attendance beyond the eighth grade.
Reasoning:a state law requiring that children attend school past eighth grade violates the parents' constitutional right to direct the religious upbringing of their children.
Decision: Unanimous (7-0) vote in support of Yoder
Opinion: the free exercise rights of the Amish families outweighed the state's compelling interest in ensuring that Amish children continued attending public schools after the eighth grade.