Supreme+Court+Cases

=

 * Barron v. Baltimore (1833)** - When the growing city caused Barron's warfs to not run properly, Barron sued the city. In the Bill of Rights, the 5th amendment held whether or not the national government could take private property for public use without justly compensating the owner. The Supreme Court decided that the Bill of rights only applies to the national government, limiting their power on this issue and not the States.======

=

 * Dred Scott v. Stanford (1857)-** Dred Scott, a slave, sued in a Missouri court for his freedom from his master. The Supreme Court ruled that blacks were not and could never become citizens of the United States. The court also declared the 1820 Missouri Compromise unconstitutional causing all States to allow Slavery.======

// **Ex parte Milligan** // **(1866)-** During the civil war, Milligan was charged of plotting against the Union and sentanced to hang by a military court. The Supreme Court decided that military tribunals where civilian courts were still working was unconstitutional. They also said that the Habeas corpus, which is a legal action that a prisoner can be released from anlawful imprisonment, was constitutional in it's suspension.


 * McConnell v. Federal Election Committee** (2003): The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the McCain- Feingold Act on campaign finance reform. This Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act prevented soft money donations directly to political parties, limited advertisement by unions, corporations, and non-profit organizations in the 60 days before an election and restricted political parties' use of their money to advertise for their candidates. Companies like the NRA and individuals such as Congressman McConnell claimed this infringed on their first amendment rights and that Congress had exceeded the rights given it in the Section 4 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court denied both of these claims because the law did not prevent states from making different laws for state and local elections and because the restriction of free speech was minimal and necessary to protect against corruption.


 * District of Columbia v. Heller** (2008): The Supreme Court interpreted the second amendment to mean that citizens have the right to bear their own firearms within their own homes. Many amicus curiae briefs were filed because of the controversial nature of the case. The basic foundation was that the seoncd amendment was intimately tied to each individual's right to self-defense.


 * Medellin v. Texas** (2008): The Supreme Court ruled that international treaties are international law, but not binding domestically unless Congress passes statutes to enforce them. When Medellin ( a Mexican citizen) was 18, he raped and killed two teenage girls, when he was arrested he was not informed of his right to notify his consul under the Vienna Convention.


 * Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission** (2010): The Supreme Court held that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections could not be limited under the first amendment. The Court struck down a provision of the McCain–Feingold Act that prohibited all corporations, both for-profit and non-profit, and unions from broadcasting election advertisements within 60 days of the election. Citizens United wanted to run commercials promoting its movie //Hillary// closer to the election. The Court decided that it is invalid to limit expenditures by individuals or corporations.

Boy Scouts of America v. Dale: Dale filed suit against BSA b/c they revoked his membership on the grounds that his homosexuality hindering promotion of their values. New Jersey Supreme court ruled that their values prohibited discrimination and that his homosexuality was not a hinderance. US Supreme Court allowed a cetiorari to be filed and ruled that an organization cannot be forced to accept a member because of their right to expressive association, a First Amendment right. Bush v. Gore: Put a stop to the 2000 Florida ballot recount on the grounds that it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Also shows how much power the supreme court holds, as it basically decided the 2000 election and messed up the separation of powers PGA Tour v. Martin: Martin is a disabled golfer who asked to use a golf cart during a tournament, PGA refused b/c they require their participants to walk the course, Supreme Court ruled in favor of Martin under Americans with Disabilities Act

//**Near v. Minnesota**//: Near scandalized local officials. Officials obtained injunction preventing him from publishing his newspaper. Court Ruling: "gag law" unconstitutional, violation of 1st Am. b/c of prior restraint New constitutional doctrine **= gov cannot censor/prohibit a publication in advance, though can be punished afterward in criminal or other proceeding**

//Palko v. Connecticut// **: Palko charged w/1st-deg murder. Convicted of 2nd-deg murder/life imprisonment. CT appeals--guilty of 1st-deg murder/sentenced to death**
 * Court Ruling: charge of 1st-deg murder upheld (Palko died in electric chair) on basis that protection against double jeopardy not a fundamental right--not applied to states thru 14th Am **

//Minersville School District v. Gobitis**//: 2 Gob kids wouldn't salute flag (Jehovah's Witnesses) b/c against Bible. Still expelled from school Court Ruling: Mandatory flag salute upheld b/c state's interest in "nat'l cohesion" is "inferior to none in the hierarchy of legal values," nat'l unity=nat'l security , & flag--as important nat'l symbol--could be in legislation "to promote in the minds of children who attend the common schools an attachment to the institutions of their country."

// ﻿ ﻿ Texas v. Johnson:// Desecrating a flag is protected under the first amendment.

//Webster v. Reproductive Health Services:// The Court approved a Missouri law that imposed restrictions on the use of state funds, facilities and employees in performing, assisting with, or counselling on abortions. Supreme Court thus allowed for states to legislate in an area that had previously been thought to be forbidden under //Roe.//

//Planned Parenthood v. Casey:// A Pennsylvania law that required spousal notification prior to obtaining an abortion was invalid under the Fourteenth Amendment, because it created an undue burden on married women seeking an abortion. Requirements for parental consent, informed consent, and 24-hour waiting period were constitutionally valid regulations.

// (2003) Lawrence v. Texas- // In this court case the justices struck down the sodomy law in Texas. The sodomy law is a law that defines certain sexual acts as crimes. The ruling of Lawrence v. Texas was greatly celebrated by the gay community.

// (2003) Grutter v. Bollinger- // In this court case the justices upheld the Affirmative Action admissions policy of the University of Michigan Law School. A woman filed suit when she claimed she was descriminated against on basis of race because she wasn't a minority and the 14th amendment was violated. The Supreme Court ruled that it was alright that the school wanted a more diverse student body and that althought admissions should be racially blind in the future they upheld affirmative action.

// (2003) Gratz v. Bollinger- // In this court case the justices rule that the Affirmative Action policy of the University of Michigan, which uses points to help with the admissions process is unconstitutional. The university automatically awards points to applicants from underrepresented ethnic groups and the courts ruled that it was way too mechanistic in it's use of race as a factor of admissions.

//Plessy v. Ferguson 1896 -// Upheld ruling seperate but equal is constituional

//Schneck v. U.S.1919-// establishes "clear and present danger" and upheld the Esponiage Act of 1917 by ruling that it does not violate the freedom of speech of those convicted under it.

//Gitlow v. New York 1925-// Supreme Court says that the First Amendment applies to the states, says that the 14th Amendment had to expand to include the 1st Amendment

Mapp vs Ohio  -supreme court decided that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects against "unreasonable searches and seizures," may not be used in criminal prosecutions in state courts, as well as federal courts.

 Engel Vs Vitale  determined that it is unconstitutional for state officials to compose an official school prayer and require its recitation in public schools.

 Baker vs Carr <span style="display: block; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.5;"> decided that reapportionment (attempts to change the way voting districts are delineated) issues present justiciable questions, thus enabling federal courts to intervene in and to decide reapportionment cases. <span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.5;">Fletcher vs. Peck- Georgia passed a land grant Peck got some of the land then sold it but a year later geogia took back the grant so they wernt sure what to do with the sold land, because of this states can no longer No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin Money; emit bills of credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any title of nobility

McCulloch vs. Maryland- established the necessary and proper clause, this gives congress the power to make any law they deem necessary and proper, and it gave congress the power to tax

Gibbons vs. Ogden- gave congress right to regulate commerce between other nations and between states,

Everson V. Board of Education First case to incorporate establishment clause onto state governments.

Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. V Sawyer Limited the president’s to seize private property in the absence of enumerated authority from constitution or congress

Brown V. Board of Education Separate facilities are inherently unequal. Ended legal segregation.

====Gideon v. Wainwright 1963: Supreme Court unanimously ruled that state courts are required under the 6th Amendment of the Constitution to provide counsel in criminal cases for defendants who are unable to afford their own attorneys. ==== //Abington School District v. Schempp 1963:// declared school-sponsored Bible reading in public schools in the United States to be unconstitutional

//<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: 'Gill Sans MT',sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">Heart of Atlanta 1964: //U.S Congress could use the Constitution's Commerce Clause power to fight discrimination.

Roe v. Wade 1973: State laws against abortion are unconstitutional. "pro-life" vs "pro-choice".

U.S. v. Nixon 1974: There is no "unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances".

Buckley v. V<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">aleo 1976: Restrictions on individual contributions to political campaigns and candidates do not violate the First Amendment, but governmental restriction of independent expenditures in campaigns, the limitation on expenditures by candidates from their own personal or family resources, and the limitation on total campaign expenditures do violate the First Amendment.

Griswold v. Connecticut 1965: the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution protected a right to privacy.

Miranda v. Arizona 1966: The Court held that both inculpatory and exculpatory statements made in response to interrogation by a defendant in police custody will be admissible at trial only if the prosecution can show that the defendant was informed of the right to consult with an attorney before and during questioning and of the right against self-incrimmantion prior to questioning by police, and that the defendant not only understood these rights, but voluntarily waived them. These rights are now called the Miranda Rights

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District 1969: The Supreme Court defined the constitutional rights of students in U.S. public schools. The Tinker test is still used by courts today to determine whether a school's disciplinary actions violate students' First Amendment rights.

=
**//Vernonia v. Acton://** The Student Athlete Drug Policy adopted by School District 47J in the town of Vernonia, Oregon, authorizes random urinalysis drug testing of students who participate in the District's school athletics programs. We granted certiorari to decide whether this violates the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. =====

=
**//Romer v. Evans//:** Question: Does Amendment 2 of Colorado's State Constitution, forbidding the extension of official protections to those who suffer discrimination due to their sexual orientation, violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause? =====

=
//Conclusion:// Yes. In a 6-to-3 decision, the Court held that Amendment 2 of the Colorado State Constitution violated the equal protection clause. Amendment 2 singled out homosexual and bisexual persons, imposing on them a broad disability by denying them the right to seek and receive specific legal protection from discrimination. In his opinion for the Court, Justice Anthony Kennedy noted that oftentimes a law will be sustained under the equal protection clause, even if it seems to disadvantage a specific group, so long as it can be shown to "advance a legitimate government interest." Amendment 2, by depriving persons of equal protection under the law due to their sexual orientation failed to advance such a legitimate interest. Justice Kennedy concluded: "If the constitutional conception of 'equal protection of the laws' means anything, it must at the very least mean that a bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest." =====

**//Printz v. U.S.// :** Jay Printz, a law enforcement officer from Arizona, sued to challenge the constitutionality of the Brady Act provision that required him and other local chief law enforcement officials (CLEOs) to conduct background checks on prospective gun purchasers. Printz and other officials won at the district court, but the Court of Appeals found the Brady Act constitutional. They then appealed to the Supreme Court. [|Printz v. United States (1997)] []

**Lee v. Weisman**: <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Had to do with school prayer. It involved prayers led by religious authority figures at public school graduation ceremonies. Does a clergy who offers prayers at a public school ceremony violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">**Shaw v. Reno:** The ruling was significant in the area of redistricting and racial gerrymandering. It says redistricting based on race must be held to a standard of strict scrutiny under the equal protection clause. (in the 14th amendment)


 * U.S. v. Lopez: **set limits on congress's power under the commerce clause. involved congress outlawing guns near public schools using commerce clause as justification.

- ruling made it possible for New York Times and Washington Post to publish then-classified Pentagon Papers without government censure - question before court whether constitutional freedom of press in 1st amendment was subordinate to the executive branches need of keeping classified information secret
 * New York Times v. U.S. (1971) **


 * Lemon vs. Kurtzman**
 * -** a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that Pennsylvania's 1968 Nonpublic Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which allowed the state Superintendent of Public Instruction to reimburse nonpublic schools (most of which were Catholic) for the salaries of teachers who taught secular material in these nonpublic schools, secular textbooks and secular instructional materials, violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The decision also upheld a decision of the First Circuit, which had struck down the Rhode Island Salary Supplement Act providing state funds to supplement salaries at nonpublic elementary schools by 15%. As in Pennsylvania, most of these funds were spent on Catholic schools.


 * Furman vs. Georgia**
 * -**a United States Supreme Court decision that ruled on the requirement for a degree of consistency in the application of the death penalty. The case led to a //de facto moratorium// on capital punishment throughout the United States, that came to an end when Gregg vs. Georgia was decided in 1976. The Supreme Court consolidated //**Jackson v. Georgia**// and //**Branch v. Texas**// with the //Furman// decision, and thus also invalidated the death penalty for rape. The Court had also intended to include the case of Aiken vs. California, but between the time //Aikens// had been heard in oral argument and a decision was to be issued, the Supreme Court of California decided in California vs. Anderson that the death penalty violated the state constitution, thus the //Aikens// case was dismissed as moot since all death cases in California were overturned


 * Slaughterhouse Cases:** the first United States Supreme Court interpretation of the relatively new Fourteenth Amendmentt to the Constitution. It is viewed as a pivotal case in early civil rights law, reading the Fourteenth Amendment as protecting the "privileges or immunities" conferred by virtue of the federal United States citizenship to all individuals of all states within it, but not those privileges or immunities incident to citizenship of a state.


 * Munn v. Illinois:** The Fourteenth Amendment does not prevent the State of Illinois from regulating charges for use of a business' grain elevators.


 * Reynolds v. U.S.** Religious duty was not a suitable defense to a criminal indictment.


 * Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978)**: ruled that a quotalike ban on Bakke's admission was unconstitutional, "diversity" was a legitimate goal that could be pursued by taking race into account


 * New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985)**: 4th Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures applies to searches conducted by public school officials


 * Bowers v. Hardwick (1986**): Georgia law that stated homosexual sex in private was not unconstitutional; involves right of privacy

Reynolds v Sims (1964) Ruled that state legislature districts had to be roughly equal in population. Voters in Jefferson County, Alabama challenged the apportionment of the Alabama Legislature. Alabama Constitution provided that there be at least one representative per county and as many senatorial districts as there were senators Ruling: The court struck down state senate inequality, basing their decision on the principle of “one person, one vote” Laws Applied: 14th Amendment, Equal protection clause Source: [] New York Times v Sullivan (1964) Established the malice standard that has to be met before press reports about public officials or public affairs can be considered defamation and libel Allowed the free reporting of the civil rights campaigns in the southern states One of the key decisions regarding freedom of the press Ruling: The 1st amendment as a applied through the 14th protected a newspaper from being sued for libel in state court for making false defamatory statements about the official conduct of a public official because statements were not made with knowing or reckless disregard for the truth. Laws Applied: Amendments 1 and 14 Source: [] Escobedo v Illinois (1964) Supreme Court Case holding that criminal suspects have a right to counsel during police interrogations under the 6th amendment Danny Escobedo was arrested without a warrant and held in police custody and interrogated while the police refused him the right to an attorney while he was being interrogated Ruling: Where a police investigation begins to focus on a particular suspect who has been refused counsel, his statements to the police are excluded in the investigation. Laws Applied: 6th and 14th amendments Source: []


 * Cantwell v. State of Connecticut:** <span style="color: #00004c; font-family: 'Lucida Grande',arial,helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px;">Jesse Cantwell and his son were Jehovah's Witnesses; After voluntarily hearing an anti-Roman Catholic message on the Cantwells' portable phonograph, two pedestrians reacted angrily. The Cantwells were subsequently arrested for violating a local ordinance requiring a permit for solicitation and for inciting a breach of the peace.the Court held that while general regulations on solicitation were legitimate, restrictions based on religious grounds were not.


 * West Virginia State Board of Ed. v. Barnette:** It was a significant court victory won by <span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: initial; background-image: none; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #0645ad; text-decoration: none;">[|Jehovah's Witnesses], whose religion forbade them from saluting or pledging to symbols, including symbols of political institutions. However, the Court did not address the effect the compelled salutation and recital ruling had upon their particular religious beliefs, but instead ruled that the state did not have the power to compel speech in that manner for anyone.


 * Korematsu v. U.S.:** a landmark <span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: initial; background-image: none; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #0645ad; text-decoration: none;">[|United States Supreme Court] case concerning the constitutionality of <span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: initial; background-image: none; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #0645ad; text-decoration: none;">[|Executive Order 9066], which ordered <span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: initial; background-image: none; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #0645ad; text-decoration: none;">[|Japanese Americans] into <span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: initial; background-image: none; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #0645ad; text-decoration: none;">[|internment camps] during <span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: initial; background-image: none; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #0645ad; text-decoration: none;">[|World War II] . In a 6-3 decision, the Court sided with the government, ruling that the exclusion order was <span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: initial; background-image: none; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #0645ad; text-decoration: none;">[|constitutional].