Supreme Court

Important Supreme Court Decisions

Marbury v Madison (1803)

Before the end of John Adam’s presidency, he appointed William Marbury to be a justice of the peace under the Judiciary Act of 1801. The papers for this appointment had not yet been delivered. Thomas Jefferson ordered Secretary of State James Madison not to honor Marbury's appointment as well as others derived from the Judiciary Act of 1801. Marbury sued Madison believing he deserved the position and asked the court to issue a writ of mandamus (an order to compel executive officials to act). This kind of writ was authorized by the Judiciary Act of 1789.

The writ of mandamus section of the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional.

It established the principle of judicial review, the Supreme Court could strike down laws that were not consistent with the Constitution. The Federalist Party, which dominated the Supreme Court, still had power during the Jeffersonian Era of American politics.

In 1795, Georgia sold stolen Native American land to speculators. Speculator John Peck then sold the land to Robert Fletcher, but a new law withdrew all the sales of that land. Fletcher sued for his money back.

Can the new law passed by the Georgia legislature invalidate the contract entered into by Mr. Fletcher and Mr. Peck?

King George III established Dartmouth College in 1769 by issuing a charter. New Hampshire tried to nullify the charter in order to make the private college a state university. The original trustees protested because they wanted to keep the original charter and avoid state control.

Was Dartmouth College’s private corporate charter constitutionally protected against any state law designed to interfere with the nature and purpose of the original charter?

Maryland sued James McCulloch for not paying a tax for the United States Bank, a federal institution where federal government money was held.

Verdict: The Bank of the United States could not be taxed by the states. It upheld the idea of implied powers of the Constitution (those powers not specifically mentioned in the Constitution but were necessary in order to perform duties that were specifically cited). The Congress could take all actions that were “necessary and proper” to carry out duties specifically mentioned in the Constitution (like managing federal funds).

Ogden and Gibbons received permission to navigate through the waters of New York from Fulton and Livingston. Gibbons split from Ogden and received permission from the state to navigate the waters. Ogden petitioned New York to prohibit Gibbons from operating.

Was the New York statute prohibiting vessels licensed by the United States from navigating the waters of New York unconstitutional and, therefore, void?

The Cherokees received a grant to land in Georgia. Georgia state legislature made laws to restrict the Native Americans from their lands and executed a Native American.

Could the state of Georgia enforce its state laws upon the Cherokee nation and deny the constitutional jurisdiction of the Supreme Court?

The Supreme Court did not hear the case because Marshall explained that they had no jurisdiction.

Georgia required all non-Indians to require a permit to stay on Cherokee land. Two missionaries violated this law, but counter sued.

Did States have the reserve power to pass laws concerning the Indian Nations?

Dred Scott thought that he was free because he spent a long period of time in a free state with his master.

Was Dred Scott,a citizen of the United States and legally entitled to use the courts to sue?

John Merryman burned railroad bridges because he favored the South after the beginning of the Civil War. He asked for a writ of habeas corpus, but the military tribunal ignored it because Lincoln suspended that writ.

Did the President of the United States have the power to suspend a writ of habeas corpus without the consent of Congress; and whether Merryman was deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process?

Lincoln did not have the power to suspend habeas corpus (but he eventually received that power anyway)

L.P. Milligan plotted to release prisoners of war so that they could invade Indiana. Lincoln had him tried in a military court even though there was a civilian court.

Can the President of the United States or the United States Congress replace civilian courts with military courts to try civilians?

The president cannot institute a military trial for civilian where civilian courts are available

Five civil rights cases involved the discrimination of blacks from publicly used, privately owned businesses. The law forbade the segregation of races in public places.

Did the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments provide the United States Congress power to establish laws barring discrimination in privately owned accommodations?

The American Sugar Refining Company owned 90% of the sugar industry by controlling manufacturing, even though the Sherman Anti-Trust act was passed in 1980.

Did Congress have the authority to regulate manufacturing; and did the Sherman Anti-Trust Act outlaw manufacturing monopolies?

The issue concerning Plessy v. Ferguson has to deal with whether the laws that provide for the separation of races violates the rights of blacks as citizens, guaranteed by the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Court believed that “all railway companies were to provide equal but separate accommodations for white and black races” did not violate the Constitution as long as the companies provide the services equally.

This decision led to the decision of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, which overturned the Plessy doctrine of “separate but equal”.

Does the U.S. Constitution extend to peoples of annexed territories and do they have the privileges of U.S. citizenship (Delima v. Bidwell, Dooley v. U.S., and Downes v. Bidwell)?

The Constitution and citizenship do not automatically follow U.S. annexation of a territory.

This decision allowed the federal government to decide when and which peoples in the the various American territories received citizenship.

The issue at hand deals with whether or not the United States Congress had the authority under the Commerce Clause in the Constitution of the United States to regulate the holding company’s effort to eliminate competition.

The Court decided in a 5-4 decision that a holding company formed to eliminate competition between two railroads was in violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act because it restrained interstate and international commerce.

This decision not only applies to the railroad companies but it also applies to any conspiracy, which seeks to eliminate competition between otherwise competitive companies.

The issue was to decide whether the law that limits the number of hours bakery employees were allowed to work interfered with the bakery owner’s right to make employer/employee contracts.

The Supreme Court held that even though states have the power to regulate the areas of health, safety, morals, and public welfare, the New York law in question was not within the limits of these “police powers” of the State.

This decision marked the beginning of the “substantive due process” era, in which the Court struck down a number of state laws that interfered with an individual’s economic and property rights. (It was overturned twelve years later in Bunting v. Oregon.)

At issue was whether an Oregon law that barred women in factories and laundries from working more than ten hours a day interfered with an owner’s right to make employer/employee contracts. Muller was a laundry owner who had ordered his female employees to work beyond the ten hour limit.

The Supreme Court upheld the Oregon law based upon scientific evidence concerning women's health.

This allowed sociological evidence to be considered by the court when making its judgments. This idea will be key for future decisions like Brown v. Board of Education.

The issue was whether Schneck’s and Baer’s First Amendment right to freedom of speech were violated when they were convicted of conspiring to obstruct the recruitment and enlistment of service.

The Court unanimously upheld the conviction of Schneck, not for violation of the Espionage Act, but rather for conspiracy to violate it. The Court found that the First Amendment did not apply in this case, and that Schneck’s speech was not constitutionally protected because it posed a “clear and present danger” to the country. The nation was involved in World War I, and the Court saw Schneck’s speech and action as counter-productive to the national war effort. The Court reasoned that certain speech could be curtailed, using the example of a situation where one cannot yell “fire” in a crowded theatre.

This led to the idea that the government can alter certain amendments and rights during a time of war when the citizen’s freedom of speech could pose as a “clear and present danger” to the country.

The issue was whether or not the United States violated the right of freedom of speech given to Debs in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

The Supreme Court made the decision in favor of the lower court’s decision to favor the United States. The Court said that Debs had actually planned to discourage people from enlisting in the Armed Forces. The Court refused to grant him protection under the First Amendment freedom of speech clause, stating that Debs “used words [in his speech] with the purpose of obstructing the recruiting service.” Debs’ conviction under the Espionage Act would stand, because his speech represented a danger to the safety of the United States.

This also enforces the idea that certain rights of U. S. citizens are restrained during a time war time or any other time the government feels the need to censor and impair such rights.

The issue present is whether or not the defendants in the “First Scottsboro Case” denied the right to counsel and due process within the Fourteenth Amendment since they were not given the opportunity to consult with a lawyer in a timely fashion to prepare for their defense.

The Court ruled with a 7-2 decision that because the defendants were ignorant, illiterate, and young, the failure of the trial court to give them reasonable time and opportunity to secure counsel and prepare for trial was a clear denial of due process.

As a result of this case, states were required to appoint counsel for poor people in all capital cases, and in non-capital cases where denial of counsel would result in an unfair trial.

The issue was whether President Franklin Delano Roosevelt authority to regulate certain aspects of commerce during the Depression through the National Industrial Recovery Act was an unconstitutional delegation of presidential power.
Verdict

Unanimously, the Court held that the delegation of power made by the NIRA was unconstitutional. Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce, not the President, and that Congress cannot delegate legislative power to the President.

This reversed the Schechter’s conviction because its business indirectly affected interstate commerce.

The issue deals with whether the flag salute ceremonies in the schools violated students’ liberties as guaranteed by the First Amendment.

In a 6-3 decision, the Court decided in favor of Barnette and other Jehovah’s Witnesses. It held that the Board of Education could not require daily flag salute and pledge as a condition that students must meet to receive a public education.

This decision provides students “scrupulous protection” of their constitutional liberties as guaranteed by the First Amendment.

Among the 8,130 "residents" of the Topaz camp in Utah were Fred Korematsu and his family. Korematsu had briefly eluded the relocation order by working as a welder in a California shipyard under a Mexican alias. Before long he was discovered and turned over to the FBI. Korematsu's case was taken up by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). He was prosecuted in federal court and convicted in 1942. His prison sentence was suspended and he was sent to Topaz.

Korematsu's lawyers appealed, and in a 6-3 decision the U.S. Supreme Court upheld his conviction, thus ratifying the constitutionality of the relocation order. The court's position was that race had nothing to do with the relocation; it was strictly a necessary and reasonable wartime security measure.

The court later barred further internment. By 1945, all internees were allowed to return. In 1988 Congress passed the Civil Liberties Act, providing a formal apology and restitution in the amount of $20,000 to each survivor of the relocation camps (82,000 eligible Nisei received a total of $1.6 billion).

The issue was whether segregation of children in public schools denies blacks their Fourteenth Amendment right of equal protection under the law.

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that segregation of black children in the public school system was a direct violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

This decision rejected the “separate but equal” doctrine of Plessy v. Ferguson and stated that this doctrine has no place in education. Even if the facilities were physically equal, the children of the minority group would still receive an inferior education. Separate educational facilities were held to be “inherently unequal.” This led to the public school diversity we still have to this very day.

The issue was whether Watkins was within his rights to refuse to answer, and whether his conviction was a violation of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.

The Court ruled that Watkin’s conviction was invalid because Congress had to spell out its purpose specifically to guarantee that people summoned to testify are treated fairly and given all their rights.

The impact of this case results in committees that are restricted to the areas of investigation delegated to the committees. No witness can be made to testify on matters outside those areas.

The issue here was whether or not Miss Mapp’s Fourth Amendment right to be secure from search and seizure was violated during the search of her home for betting slips and a bomber.

The Supreme Court ruled that Miss Mapp’s Fourth Amendment right to be secure from search and seizure was violated.

The Court now holds that both the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments protected persons from unwarranted federal and state intrusion of their private property.

The issue was whether the state of Florida violated Gideon’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel, made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, by not providing him with the assistance of counsel for his criminal defense.

The Court ruled unanimously in Gideon’s favor, and held that the Fourteenth Amendment included state as well as federal defendants. The Court also said that all states must provide an attorney in all felony and capital cases for people who cannot afford one themselves.

Through the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause, the Sixth Amendment guaranteed of the right to counsel applies to the states as well as the federal government.

The issue was whether the state of Arizona violated the constitutional rights of Miranda under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments when they interrogated him without advising him of his constitutional right to remain silent.

The Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the police were in error. The police needs to inform suspects that they have the right to remain silent, that anything they say may be used against them, and that they have the right to counsel before the police may begin to question those held in custody.

This decision establishes the “Miranda Warning” which police now use prior to interrogation of persons arrested.

The issue was whether Congress could grant 18-year-olds the right to vote in federal and state elections.

The Court ruled to sustain the Voting Rights Act Amendments with respect to federal elections, but struck it down with respect to state elections.

This decision was handed down on December 21, 1970. Three months later, Congress submitted the Twenty-Sixth Amendment to the states for ratification. On June 30, 1971, the states ratified the Twenty-Sixth Amendment which provided 18-year-olds the right to vote in all state and federal elections. This decision is still in used today as 18-year-olds can register to vote in state and federal elections.

A woman from Texas sought an abortion, but a Texas law prohibited such an action unless the mother’s life was in danger. Ms. Roe challenged the law arguing the law violated her Fourteenth Amendment right and right to privacy under the Bill of Rights.
Was the law that banned abortion violate a woman’s privacy?

The Supreme Court ruled that abortions can only be regulated by the state under circumstances, but other than that she had a right to privacy and reproductive autonomy.

If the unborn child reaches the third trimester, it reaches viability and is given constitutional protection. The woman’s right to privacy is a fundamental right that can “only be denied if compelling state interest existed.”

The Watergate Office Building in Washington, D.C. was broken into in the first half of 1972. The investigation focused on members of Nixon’s Republican staff. The Special Prosecutor found tapes and documents of specific meetings held at the White House to order a subpoena (an order to appear in court).
The President’s lawyer sought to deny the subpoena.
Did the United States violate Nixon’s executive power, need for confidentiality, need to maintain separation of power, and executive privilege to immunity from any court demands for information and evidence?

The Supreme Court ruled 8-0 that Nixon must hand over the specific tapes and documents.

Presidential power, the Court argues, is not above the law, and it cannot protect evidence that may be used in a criminal trial. Nixon would subsequently resign after this ordeal.

A white male, Allan Bakke, was denied admissions from the University of California at Davis Medical School because he did not meet standard entrance requirements. At Davis Medical, a program for minorities reserving sixteen percent of available places for minorities who did not meet standard entrance requirements existed. Bakke argued the requirements the special program was discriminatory because only minorities were allowed to compete for these places. The University of California argued their program solved the wrong of racial discrimination.
Was the University’s special program to allow students with lower scores than Bakke violate his equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment? Does the University have the ability to take race into account as a determining factor for future admissions decisions.

There was no majority opinion in this case. The Court invalidated the University’s special program because it barred people like Bakke from applying.

The Court allowed institutions of higher learning to take race into account as a factor in their future admissions decisions. “Race can be taken into account when it does not act to insult any group but to remedy disadvantages cast on minorities by past racial prejudice.”
[While to some observers Bakke won a place in the school and the particular special admissions program at Davis was invalidated, the case really stands as a landmark civil rights-affirmative action decision. Race may hereafter be taken into account as a factor in college admissions.]

In protest to Ronald Regan’s Administration, Gregory Johnson burned an American flag in front of the Dallas City Hall. Texas law considers desecration of the American flag is a criminal offense and Johnson was subsequently sentenced to a year in jail and a fine of $2,000.
Are the First Amendment rights of freedom of speech violated by the Texas law?

The Supreme Court decided, 5-4, that desecrating a flag is an act of expression protected by the First Amendment.

The Court found that flag burning was political speech which is the “principle underlying the First Amendment.” An expression of free speech can not be prohibited under the basis that society views it as offensive.

Nancy Beth Cruzan was involved in a 1983 car accident that left her in a state resembling a vegetable with no possible chance of recovery. She was on life support that included artificial feeding. Her parents attempted to terminate her life support based on her statements that she would not want to live in such a manner. Hospital officials refused to pull the plug arguing they were bounded to their oath of preserving lives.
Did the state’s refusal to terminate the life support violate Fourteenth Amendment due process and freedom to refuse undesired medical treatment?

The Supreme Court decided, 6-3, a person did not have such liberties to refuse medical treatment.

The Cruzans had no “clear and convincing” evidence that Nancy had the affirmative wish to end her life under such circumstances. The Cruzans had evidence like a living will stated by Nancy that she wanted to terminate her life support system. Without such evidence, the state obtains an obligation to preserve human life.

The United States Congress passed in 1996 the Line Item Veto, which stated the President would be able to veto or cancel parts of a particular act without
vetoing it entirely.
Does the Line Item Veto Act violate the separation of powers outlined in Article I, II and III of the Constitution of the United States?

By a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court struck down the Line Item Veto Law to be unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court reasoned that the President’s ability to cancel provisions would change the very process of how laws were creating. This decision
was important in continuing the separation of power.