Landmark Supreme Court Cases You Must Know
Landmark United States Supreme Court Cases Marbury v. Madison (). Issue: Who can ultimately decide what the law is? Importance: This decision gave the Court McCulloch v. Maryland (). Issue: Can Congress establish a national bank, and if so, can a state tax this bank? Gibbons v. Ogden. Engel v. Vitale - NEW CASE; Gibbons v. Ogden; Gideon v. Wainwright; Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier; Korematsu v. United States; Mapp v. Ohio; Marbury v. Madison; McCulloch v. Maryland; Miranda v. Arizona; New Jersey v. T.L.O. Obergefell v. Hodges - NEW CASE; Plessy v. Ferguson; Regents of the U. of California v. Bakke; Roe v. Wade; Schenck v. United States - NEW CASE; Texas v. Johnson; .
Subscriber Account active since. Some have changed race relations for the better, empowered women, given the press freedom to operate, guaranteed a person's right to expression, or reiterated that the president is not above the law. Not every decision has aged well. Other decisions have enforced slavery or create uneven schooling in the US. But the new administration's Secretary of State James Madison wouldn't validate the appointment.
So Marbury sued. The decision: The justices ruled unanimously that Madison's refusal was illegal, and that the law Marbury had sued under was also unconstitutional. More importantly, this ruling held that the Supreme Court had the power of "judicial review" to decide whether a law or executive action is constitutional.
This essentially gave the high court the legal authority for every decision it would make in the future. The case : InNew York state gave Aaron Ogden a year license to operate his steamboats on waters within the state. Thomas Gibson, another steam boat operator and Ogden's former business partner, was also working in the area, with a license from the federal government.
Ogden claimed Gibbons was undercutting his business by unfairly competing. He wanted Gibbons to stop operating, and argued his license how to test a starter with a multimeter enforceable, even though it was on interstate waters.
Gibbons argued that the US Constitution gave Congress power over interstate commerce. The decision : The Supreme Court unanimously held states cannot interfere with Congress's ability to regulate commerce. State laws had to yield to constitutional acts by Congress, so the court ruled in Gibbon's favor. It was an important early decision finding that federal governments had the ability to determine interstate commerce.
The case : InGeorgia passed laws prohibiting anyone except Native Americans from living on Native American land. Samuel Worcester, a missionary, was living on Native American land and refused to apply for a license. He was arrested and appealed, arguing his how to use your montgomery gi bill was a violation of his constitutional rights, as Georgia had no jurisdiction on Native American land.
The decision : The Supreme Court held,that the Cherokee Nation was a sovereign "distinct community. The case was important because it set out the relationship between tribes, states, and the federal government.
It meant that interaction with Native American states became a federal process, and provided some sovereignty how to make a hyderabadi chicken biryani interacting with the US government.
But it wasn't always enforced. Let him enforce it. In exchange for covering the costs of building and maintaining it, the company could collect tolls until the charter ended. But ina second company was authorized to build a competing bridge that would be free to the public, Charles River Bridge sought an injunction to prevent the second bridge from being built.
The decision : The Supreme Court held that the authority given to Charles River never granted them a monopoly, and that general welfare would be enhanced with a second bridge. The court said the responsibility of government was to promote the happiness and prosperity of the community. The case : This case arose from a suit brought by a slave in Missouri named Dred Scott. Scott had lived for a time in the free state of Illinois.
When his master died inhe sued the widow, arguing his time in the slave-free state made him a free man. The decision : The Supreme Court held that since Scott's ancestors were imported into the US and sold as slaves, he could not be an American citizen. Since he wasn't a citizen, he had no jurisdiction to sue, which also meant that black people living free in the north were barred from federal courts.
The court also held that under the Fifth Amendment, slaves were property, and any law that deprived a slave-owner of their property was unconstitutional. The decision is thought to be one of the factors that led to the Civil War. The case : InIllinois passed legislation that set the maximum rate private companies could charge for storing and transporting agricultural goods. Munn, a grain warehouse, charged too much and was found guilty of violating the law.
It appealed, arguing the regulation was an unconstitutional removal of property. The decision : The Supreme Court held that the law was constitutional, and that the state can regulate private industries when it affects the public.
Since storage facilities were devoted to the public, they could be regulated. This case allowed states to regulate businesses within their borders. It was important because it showed how private enterprises could be publicly regulated. The case : Homer Plessy, who was black under Louisiana law of the time, boarded a train and sat in a car that was reserved for white passengers. When he refused to move, he was arrested. Plessy argued that the Separate Car Act, which required all railroads to provide equal but separate accommodation, was violating his rights under the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause.
The decision : The Supreme Court held that "separate but equal" accommodations for whites and what is the meaning of hacked did not violate the 14th Amendment. Justice John Marshall Harlan, what is a baby anaconda called as the " great dissenter ," wrote that the Constitution was color-blind, and the US had no class system.
Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens," he wrote. Despite his dissent, the decision solidified the "separate but equal" doctrine for the next six decades. The case : InNew York passed a labor law limiting the working week for bakers to 60 hours.
Joseph Lochner, a Bavarian baker, was fined twice, because his employees worked more than 60 hours. Lochner appealed, arguing the law was unconstitutional. The court said the law interfered with the contract between an employer and and his employees.
This decision was widely condemned. For the next three decades, the court struck down minimum wage laws, rights to organize, and child safety laws using Lochner as precedent, before reversing course and allowing such laws.
They also advocated for a general strike, and had put out a call to arms if the US intervened in Russia. They were sentenced to prison for up to 20 years. They appealed. The decision : The Supreme Court held that the Espionage Act was valid, and that it was a crime to willfully publish " disloyal " language about US politics, arguing that such speech was not protected by the First Amendment.
One of the most important things to come out of this case is Justice Holmes' dissenting opinion. He argued that the government should only regulate people's expression when it was required to save the country. The case : The Maternity Act gave states money for programs aimed to help mothers and their infants. A woman named Frothingham thought the act would lead to an increase in her taxes, so she tried to sue the federal government. The issue was whether a taxpayer had standing to sue, when the only injury was going to be an increase in taxes.
The decision : The Supreme Court unanimously held she did not have standing because how to remove matted hair from a dog injury was too small and indeterminable.
It led to the legal concept of a "particularized" injurywhich needs to be traced to a legal violation. Without this decision, it would be a lot easier to take a suit to court.
The case : A young woman named Carrie Buck was diagnosed with "feeble mindedness," and committed to a state institution after she was raped by her foster parent's nephew, and had his child. Her mother had also been diagnosed as feeble minded. Under the Virginia Eugenical Sterilization Actshe was to be sterilized against her will, since she was seen as unfit to procreate. Buck's appointed guardian sued, hoping to have the Supreme Court find sterilization constitutional.
The decision : The Supreme Court held that there was nothing in the Eighth or 14th Amendments that said Carrie Buck could not be sterilized. In his opinion, Justice Oliver Holmes wrote, "It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from breeding their kind.
The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting Fallopian tubes … Three generations of imbeciles are enough. After this case, sterilizations did not cease until the s, and more than 60, people were sterilized without their consent. The case has never been overturned. The case : The Public Nuisance Bill, also known as the "Minnesota gag law," allowed judges to close down newspapers that were deemed obscene or slanderous.
Inhow to attach database file in sql server 2008 Saturday Press, a newspaper based in Minneapolis, began to publish articles attacking several public officials. One of what can cause your lips to turn purple accused a politician named Floyd B.
Olson of being a pawn to a conspiracy. Olson filed a complaint. A judge, using the law, issued a temporary restraining order against the newspaper. The newspaper appealed under the First Amendment's right to a free press. Chief Justice Hughes wrote, "This statute It is no longer open to doubt that the liberty of the press and of speech is within the liberty safeguarded by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from invasion of state action. The case stopped journalists from being censoredand enabled the press to fulfill its role as watchdog, including the printing of the Pentagon Papers in The case : The Agricultural Adjustment Act ofenacted to stabilize agricultural prices after the Great Depression, restricted how much wheat could be grownto avoid another recession.
He sued, arguing Congress didn't have the authority, since he'd never planned to sell all of the wheat. The issue was whether Congress had the authority to regulate local wheat production. The decision : The Supreme Court unanimously held that Congress had the power to regulate activities in the industry, and within states, when the activities had substantial effects on interstate commerce.
So, even though Filburn's wheat wasn't all going to make it into the market, growing it still altered supply and demand in a national market.
This case led to the federal government having more power to regulate the economyand also enabled federal regulation of things like workplace safety and civil rights. Not everyone has been in favor of this case. Notably, the late Justice Antonia Scalia used to laugh at it.
The case: In the s, Linda Brown had to take a dangerous route to school, because the only school that was closer was for white students. Her father, Oliver Brown, believed this was a breach of the 14th Amendment, which says, "no state can deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The decision: The Supreme Court unanimously held that separate educational facilities were inherently unequal. A second decision called for lower courts and school boards to proceed with desegregation.
Apr 06, · Landmark Supreme Court cases such as Mapp v Ohio in , Gideon v. Wainwright in , and Miranda v. Arizona were all Supreme Court cases that lead to what are commonly known as a suspected criminal’s Miranda rights.
Skip to content. Public Education. Issue: Who can ultimately decide what the law is? Result: "It is explicitly the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Issue: Can Congress establish a national bank, and if so, can a state tax this bank? Result: The Court held that Congress had implied powers to establish a national bank under the "necessary and proper" clause of the U.
The Court also determined that United States laws trump state laws and consequently, a state could not tax the national bank. Importance: The McCulloch decision established two important principles for constitutional law that continue today: implied powers and federal supremacy.
Issue: Can states pass laws that challenge the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce? Result: The Court held that it is the role of the federal government to regulate commerce and that state governments cannot develop their own commerce-regulating laws.
In this case, the Court determined that regulating water navigation was in fact an act that regulated commerce.
Importance: The impact of Gibbons is still felt today as it gives the federal government a much-broader base to regulate economic transactions. Issue: In this pre-Civil War case, the question was whether Congress had the constitutional power to prohibit slavery in free territories. A second question was whether the Constitution gave African Americans the right to sue in federal court. Result: The Court answered no on both accounts: Congress could not prohibit slavery in territories, and African Americans also had no right to sue in federal court.
In reaching these answers, the Court, interpreting the Constitution as it existed before the Civil War Amendments Constitutional Amendments 13, 14, and 15 abolished slavery, concluded that people of African descent had none of the rights of citizens.
The Court further reasoned that slaves were "property" and therefore could not be taken from their owners without due process. Importance: The Dred Scott case became a central issue in the debate surrounding the expansion of slavery and further fueled the flames leading to the Civil War.
Issue: Is certain speech, including sending antiwar pamphlets to drafted men, made in wartime and deemed in violation of the Espionage Act, protected by the First Amendment?
Result: No. Although the defendant would have been able to state his views during ordinary times, the Court held that in certain circumstances, like this case the nation being at war, justify such limits on the First Amendment.
Importance: The Schenck decision is best known for creating the "clear and present danger" test meaning that speech could be restricted if it presented a clear and present danger. The decision was also the first to explain the metaphor of falsely yelling "Fire!
Schenck was later modified by Brandenburg v. Ohio , which said that speech could be restricted if it would provoke an "imminent lawless action. Issue: Do racially segregated public schools violate the Equal Protection Clause? Result: Yes. A unanimous Court overturned Plessy v. Ferguson and held that state laws requiring or allowing racially segregated schools violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Court famously stated "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Ferguson which had created the "separate but equal" doctrine. In Plessy , The Court held that even though a Louisiana law required rail passengers to be segregated based on race, there was no violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause so long as the accommodations at issue were "separate, but equal.
Issue: Does the Constitution require that any individual charged with a felony, but unable to pay for a lawyer, be guaranteed the free assistance of legal counsel? Result: Yes, according to a unanimous Supreme Court. The Court held that the Sixth Amendment right to assistance of counsel applies to criminal state trials and that "lawyers in criminal court are necessities, not luxuries.
Issue: Are police constitutionally required to inform people in custody of their rights to remain silent and to an attorney? Result: Yes, the Court found that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments require police to inform individuals in custody that they have a right to remain silent and to be assisted by an attorney. According to the Court, if the police fail to do so, a criminal court judge may rule that any statements made by the accused cannot be admitted as evidence during trial.
Importance: The now famous "Miranda warnings" are required before any police custodial interrogation can begin if any of the evidence obtained during the interrogation is going to be used during a trial; the Court has limited and narrowed these warnings over the years. Issue: Does the First Amendment prohibit public school officials from barring students' from wearing black armbands to symbolize anti-war political protest?
Result: According to the Court, yes. The Supreme Court held that students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech…at the schoolhouse gate. Because there was no evidence of such a disruption, the school was in violation of the First Amendment freedom of speech. Importance: Tinker has become the central case for any challenges to school-based First Amendment rights.
Issue: Does the Constitution prohibit laws that severely restrict or deny a woman's access to abortion? The Court concluded that such laws violate the Constitution's right to privacy.
The Court held that, under the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause, states may only restrict abortions toward the end of a pregnancy, in order to protect the life of the woman or the fetus. Importance: Roe has become a center-piece in the battle over abortion-rights, both in the public and in front of the Court. Issue: Can an institution of higher learning use race as a factor when making admissions decisions?
Result: The Court held that universities may use race as part of an admissions process so long as "fixed quotas" are not used. The Court determined that the specific system in place at the University of California Medical School was "unnecessary" to achieve the goal of creating a diverse student body and was merely a "fixed quota" and therefore, was unconstitutional. Importance: The decision started a line of cases in which the Court upheld affirmative action programs. In , such academic affirmative action programs were again directly challenged in Gratz v.
Bollinger and Grutter v. In these cases, the Court clarified that admission programs that include race as a factor can pass constitutional muster so long as the policy is narrowly tailored and does not create an automatic preference based on race. The Court asserted that a system that created an automatic race-based preference would in fact violate the Equal Protection Clause. Search ABA. Close Search Submit Clear. Marbury v. Madison Issue: Who can ultimately decide what the law is?
McCulloch v. Maryland Issue: Can Congress establish a national bank, and if so, can a state tax this bank? Gibbons v. Ogden Issue: Can states pass laws that challenge the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce? Dred Scott v. Sandford Issue: In this pre-Civil War case, the question was whether Congress had the constitutional power to prohibit slavery in free territories.
Schenck v. United States Issue: Is certain speech, including sending antiwar pamphlets to drafted men, made in wartime and deemed in violation of the Espionage Act, protected by the First Amendment?
Gideon v. Wainwright Issue: Does the Constitution require that any individual charged with a felony, but unable to pay for a lawyer, be guaranteed the free assistance of legal counsel? Miranda v. Arizona Issue: Are police constitutionally required to inform people in custody of their rights to remain silent and to an attorney?
Tinker v. Des Moines Issue: Does the First Amendment prohibit public school officials from barring students' from wearing black armbands to symbolize anti-war political protest? Roe v. Wade Issue: Does the Constitution prohibit laws that severely restrict or deny a woman's access to abortion? Regents of the University of California v. Bakke Issue: Can an institution of higher learning use race as a factor when making admissions decisions?