10._All_Cases.docx - Plessy v Ferguson(1897*Schenck v United States(1919 Texas v Johnson(1989 Near v Minnesota(1931*New York Times Co v Sullivan(1964

10._All_Cases.docx - Plessy v Ferguson(1897*Schenck v...

This preview shows page 1 - 3 out of 5 pages.

Plessy v. Ferguson (1897) *Schenck v. United States (1919) Texas v. Johnson (1989) Near v. Minnesota (1931) *New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) Miller v. California (1973) *Engel v. Vitale (1962) Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) *Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) Everson v. Board of Education (1947) Gitlow v New York (1925) *Brown v. BoE (1954) *McCullough v Maryland (1819) *US v Lopez (1995) *Tinker v Des Moines (1969) *Gideon v Wainwright (1963) *Roe v Wade (1973) Mapp v. Ohio (1961) *McDonald v Chicago (2010) *Citizens United v FEC (2010) *Baker v Carr (1962) *Shaw v Reno (1993) *Marbury v Madison (1803) Miranda v. Arizona (1966) US v. Nixon (1974) Organize these cases into common themes and create a chart giving all of this information. I’ve given you a couple cases as examples. Use different colors for font/highlighting to show common themes. Be sure to make a key (blue = 14 th amend; red = free speech; etc..) Key: 14 th – equal treatment 14 th – equal protection clause 14 th – Due Process Clause 1 st – Freedom of speech 1 st – Free Press 1 st – Establishment Clause 1 st – Free exercise of religion Constitution 4 th – rules for search and seizure 5 th – Protection against self-incrimination
Image of page 1
Year Name of Case Essential Question of Case Constitutional Principle(s) Outcome - Decision Impact -Why is this case important? 1897 Plessy v. Ferguson Separating train cars by race ok? 14 th – equal treatment Separate but equal ok – as long as facilities are the same Court approved “Separate but equal” 1954 Brown v. Board of Education Separate by race in UNEQUAL facilities 14 th – equal treatment Separate is inherently unequal Ended “Separate but equal” policy 1962 Baker v Carr Does the SCOTUS have jurisdiction over questions of legislative apportionment? 14 th – equal protection clause It was declared that there was no question to be answered that it was a justiciable issue rather than a court issue. It showed that there were times where the supreme court felt that they did not need to intervene in a case. 1993 Shaw v Reno Did the gerrymandering claim raise a constitutional issue under the 14 th amendment’s equal protection clause? 14 th – Equal protection clause It was declared that the shape was bizarre enough to be considered that there was an effort to separate voters into different districts based on race, Played a part in gerrymandering.
Image of page 2
Image of page 3

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 5 pages?

  • Fall '19
  • Supreme Court of the United States, Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture