| Terms |
Definitions |
|
Plessy v Ferguson (1896)
|
Plessey 1/8th black, purchased a first-class ticket on East Louisiana Railway. He appeared white, but told conductor of his heritage. Blacks could only purchase 3rd class tickets. Plessey was arrested for refusing to leave his seat. The majority of the Court rejected the view that the Louisiana law fostered any inferiority of Blacks, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, held rather that the law merely separated the races as a matter of social policy. The "separate but equal" provision of public accommodations by state governments is constitutional under the Equal Protection Clause. C.J. Melville Fuller.
|
|
R.A.V. v City of Saint Paul (1992)
|
When teens burned a cross inside the yard of a black family, one teen was arrested because of a St Paul Minnesota ordinance which made illegal symbols or objects known to arouse anger or alarm on the basis of color, race, religion or gender. Case dismissed due to over-broadness of the ordinance, but the Minnesota SC reversed the trial court judge. Supreme Court, though for different reasons, ruled the ordinance was constitutionally unacceptable protecting symbolic hate speech under the 1st Amendment. C.J. William H. Rehnquist.
|
|
Brenton v Maryland (1969)
|
the Supreme Court found that the Fifth Amendment protection against double jeopardy is enforceable against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. C.J. Warren E. Burger.
|
|
Mapp v Ohio (1961)
|
The Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures, as applied to the states through the Fourteenth, excludes unconstitutionally obtained evidence from use in criminal prosecutions. The court stated that the exclusionary rule also applies to states, meaning that states can't use evidence gained by illegal means to convict someone. C.J. Earl Warren.
|
|
Gideon v Wainwright (1963)
|
Involved the case of an indigent who broke into vending machines in panama City, Florida. Florida court refused to appoint counsel because he didn't commit a capital offense. Court decided the Sixth Amendment right to counsel is a fundamental right applied to the states through the Fourteenth, and requires that indigent criminal defendants be provided counsel at trial. Modified a previous SC decision (Betts 42') that looked to appoint counsel on a case by case basis. C.J. Earl Warren.
|
|
Dred Scott v Sanford (1857)
|
Africans residing in America, whether slaves or free, could not become United States citizens and the plaintiff therefore lacked the capacity to file a lawsuit. Furthermore, the parts of the Missouri Compromise creating free territories were unconstitutional because Congress had no authority to abolish slavery in federal territories. Judgment of Circuit Court for the District of Missouri reversed and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. C.J. Roger B. Taney
|
|
Muller v Oregon (1908)
|
Curt Muller, the owner of a laundry, was convicted of violating Oregon labor laws by requiring a female employee to work in excess of ten hours in a day, for which he was fined $10. Muller appealed to the Oregon Supreme Court and then to the U.S. Supreme Court, both of which upheld the constitutionality of the labor law and affirmed his conviction. It was a landmark decision in United States Supreme Court history, as it relates to both sex discrimination and labor laws. The case upheld Oregon's restrictions on the working hours of women as justified by the special state interest in protecting women's health. C.J. Melville Fuller
|
|
Escobedo v Illinois (1964)
|
Escobedo was implicated in the shooting of his brother-in-law. He asked for an Attorney and, once one got to his holding location, was not allowed to speak to him. Escobedo was allowed to confront the man who implicated him in custody and wound up implicating himself as an accessory to the crime. Court found that where a police investigation begins to focus on a particular suspect who has been refused counsel and not Mirandized, his statements to police are excluded. C.J. Earl Warren.
|
|
U.S. v Lopez (1995)
|
The Supreme Court held that while Congress had broad lawmaking authority under the Commerce Clause, it was not unlimited, and did not apply to things far from commerce as carrying handguns, especially when there was no evidence that carrying them affected the economy on a massive scale. Possession of a gun near a school is not an economic activity that has a substantial effect on interstate commerce. A law prohibiting guns near schools is a criminal statute that does not relate to commerce or any sort of economic activity. C.J. William Rehnquist.
|
|
U.S. v Nixon (1974)
|
The Supreme Court does have the final voice in determining constitutional questions; no person, not even the President of the United States, is completely above law; and the president cannot use executive privilege as an excuse to withhold evidence that is 'demonstrably relevant in a criminal trial. C.J. Warren E Burger.
|
|
Palko (Palka) v Connecticut (1937)
|
Frank Palka had been charged with first-degree murder but was instead convicted of the lesser offense of second-degree murder and given a sentence of life imprisonment. Prosecutors appealed per Connecticut law and won a new trial, in which Palka was found guilty of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. Palka appealed, arguing that the Fifth Amendment protection against double jeopardy applied to state governments through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court eventually reversed course and incorporated the protection against double jeopardy with its ruling in Benton v. Maryland (1969). C.J. Charles Evans Hughes.
|
|
Stromberg v California (1931)
|
Stromberg worked for a summer camp for kids, sponsored, in part, by organization communist in ideology. Stromberg and other staff members were arrested for violating a California ordinance (California Red Flag Law) banning public use or display of a red flag. Supreme Court found the law unconstitutional because it violated the liberties protected by the 14th Amendment...to include a protection of the 1st Amendment, in this case symbolic speech. C.J. Charles Evans Hughes.
|
|
Roe v Wade (1973)
|
privacy and abortion in the United States. According to the Roe decision, most laws against abortion violated a constitutional right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision overturned all state and federal laws outlawing or restricting abortion that were inconsistent with its holdings. Roe is one of the most controversial and politically significant cases in U.S. Supreme Court history. The central holding of Roe v. Wade was that abortions are permissible for any reason a woman chooses, up until the "point at which the fetus becomes 'viable,' that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid. Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks." The Court also held that abortion after viability must be available when needed to protect a woman's health, which the Court defined broadly.C.J. Warren E. Burger.
|
|
Miranda v Arizona (1966)
|
The 5th Amendment privilege against self-incrimination (A.5. 3 - that no person shall be held to testify against himself) requires law enforcement officials to advise a suspect interrogated in custody of his rights to remain silent (referring to A.5. 3) and to obtain an attorney (referring to the 6th Amendment). The courts opinion looks similar to the text of the "Miranda Rights" as read someone getting arrested..."The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to remain silent, and that anything he says will be used against him in court; he must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation, and that, if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him." Miranda's original conviction was overturned and he was later retried and convicted. C.J. Earl Warren.
|
|
Roth v U.S. (1957)
|
Samuel Roth owned a literary business and was convicted under a federal statute criminalizing the sending of "obscene, lewd, lascivious or filthy" materials through the mail for advertising and selling a publication called American Aphrodite. Court said that obscenity was not protected by the First Amendment, and, more importantly, strictly defines what is considered "obscene". C.J. Earl Warren
|
|
New York Times v United States (1971)
|
"Pentagon Papers" NY times started printing a series of classified US documents. A temp. restraining order was granted, but not a permanent injunction. Eventually the Supreme Court ruled even the temp. restraining order was in violation of prior restraint under the 1st Amendment because the US hadn't met the burden of proving the need for prior restraint (Clear and Present Danger and Obscenity). C.J. Warren E. Burger.
|
|
McCulloch v Maryland (1819)
|
Although the Constitution does not specifically give Congress the power to establish a bank, it does delegate the ability to tax and spend, and a bank is a proper and suitable instrument to assist the operations of the government in the collection and disbursement of the revenue. Because federal laws have supremacy over state laws, Maryland had no power to interfere with the (U.S.) bank's operation by taxing it. C.J. John Marshall.
|
|
Brandenburg v Ohio (1969)
|
further restricted the governments ability to punish free speech by requiring an actual empirical finding of imminent harm as opposed to a "tendency" as set forth in Schenck. Allowed the government to punish advocacy of illegal action ONLY if "such advocacy is directed to incite or produce imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." C.J. Warren E. Burger.
|
|
Weeks v U.S. (1914)
|
The warrantless seizure of documents from a private home violated the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures, and evidence obtained in this manner is excluded from use in federal criminal prosecutions. C.J. Edward Douglas White
|
|
Brown v Board of Education (1954)
|
Segregation of students in public schools violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, because separate facilities are inherently unequal. The case overturned Plessy v Ferguson (1896). C.J. Earl Warren.
|
|
Chaplinsky v New Hampshire (1942)
|
Justice Frank Murphy created a two-tier theory which states certain "well-defined" and "narrowly-limited" categories of speech fall outside the bounds of constitutional protection (lewd, profane, obscene, libelous and now fighting words). A criminal conviction for causing a breach of the peace through the use of "fighting words" does not violate the Free Speech guarantee of the First Amendment. C.J. Harlan Fiske Stone
|
|
Gibbons v Ogden (1824)
|
was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the power to regulate interstate navigation was granted to Congress by the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. "A Congressional power to regulate navigation is as expressly granted as if that term had been added to the word 'commerce'." The Court went on to conclude that Congressional power over commerce should extend to the regulation of all aspects of it, overriding state law to the contrary. C.J. John Marshall.
|
|
New York Times v Sullivan (1964)
|
The First Amendment, as applied through the Fourteenth, 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 the statements were not made with knowing or reckless disregard for the truth. Supreme Court established the actual malice standard before press reports could be considered to be defamation and libel. C.J. Earl Warren.
|
|
U.S. v Miller (1939)
|
is the only Supreme Court decision to directly address the 2nd Amendment. April 18, 1938 Jack Miller and Frank Layton were arrested for transporting an unlicensed sawed-off shotgun ("having a barrel less than 18 inches in length") across state lines while engaged in interstate commerce, in violation of the National Firearms Act (NFA). Defendant's argument at trial court was as follows: The NFA is not a revenue measure but an attempt to usurp police power reserved to the States, and is therefore unconstitutional. Also, it offends the inhibition of the 2nd Amendment. The Court decided that The NFA - as applied to transporting in interstate commerce a 12-gauge shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches long, without having registered it and without having in his possession a stamp-affixed written order for it - was not unconstitutional as an invasion of the reserved powers of the States and did not violate the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. C.J. Charles Evans Hughes.
|
|
Lawrence v Texas (2003)
|
A Texas law prohibiting homosexual sodomy violated the privacy and liberty of adults, under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, to engage in private intimate conduct. C.J. William Rehnquist
|
|
Near v Minnesota (1931)
|
A Minnesota law that imposed permanent injunctions against the publication of newspapers with "malicious, scandalous, and defamatory" content violated the First Amendment, as applied to the states by the Fourteenth. Minnesota Supreme Court reversed. C.J. Charles Evans Hughes
|
|
Marbury v Madison (1803)
|
- Established Judicial Review for federal laws by declaring Sec 13 of the Federal Judiciary Act Unconstitutional, to the extent it purports to enlarge the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. C.J. John Marshall. Martin v Hunter's Lessee (1816) - Article Three of the U.S. Constitution grants the U.S. Supreme Court jurisdiction and authority over state courts on matters involving federal law. C.J. John Marshall, Maj. Opinion written by Joseph Story.
|
|
Griswold v Connecticut (1965)
|
Although the Bill of Rights does not explicitly mention "privacy", Justice William O. Douglas (writing for the majority) ruled that the right was to be found in the "penumbras" of other constitutional protections. Justice Arthur Goldberg wrote a concurring opinion in which he used the Ninth Amendment to defend the Supreme Court's ruling. Justice John Marshall Harlan II wrote a concurring opinion in which he argued that privacy is protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Byron White also wrote a concurrence based on the due process clause. Court found that the Connecticut law criminalizing the use of contraceptives violated the right to marital privacy. C.J. Earl Warren.
|
|
Barron v Baltimore (1833)
|
State governments are not bound by the Fifth Amendment's requirement, specifically the Fifth Amendment's guarantee that government takings of private property for public use require just compensation, are restrictions on the federal government alone for just compensation in cases of eminent domain. Also, consequently, that the federal courts could not stop the enforcement of state laws that restricted the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. C.J. John Marshall
|
|
Gitlow v New York (1925)
|
Though the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits states from infringing free speech, the defendant was properly convicted under New York's criminal anarchy law for advocating the violent overthrow of the government through the dissemination of Communist pamphlets. The case partially reversed Barron v Baltimore (1833). C.J. William Howard Taft
|
|
Cooper v Aaron (1958)
|
After Brown v. Board of Education, the school district of Little Rock, Arkansas formed a plan to desegregate its schools. Meanwhile, other school districts in the state opposed the Supreme Court's rulings and attempted to find ways to continue segregation. The Arkansas state legislature amended the state constitution to oppose desegregation. The school board of Little Rock continued with the desegregation program anyway. On February 20, 1958, five months after the integration crisis involving the Little Rock Nine, members of the school board (along with the Superintendent of Schools) filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, urging suspension of its plan of desegregation
|
|
Webster v Reproductive Health Services (1989)
|
The Court approved a Missouri law that imposed restrictions on the use of state funds, facilities and employees in performing, assisting with, or counseling on abortions. The Supreme Court thus allowed for states to legislate in an area that had been previously been thought to be forbidden under Roe. C.J. William Rehnquist.
|
|
Schenck v U.S. (1919)
|
The Clear and Present danger test, established here, considers both the context of speech (distinguished between wartime and peacetime speech) and the intent of the person who presents it, in this case Socialist Party General Secretary Schenck's anti-draft leaflets. The leaflets stated the draft was in violation of the 13th Amendment's protection against "involuntary servitude." For the court, Holmes stated, "the question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about substantive evils that congress has a right to prevent." C.J. Edward Douglass White.
|
