APUSH Exam Review LANDMARK Supreme Court Cases
Marbury v. Madison • 1803 • John Marshall • “Midnight Judges” • Judicial Review Established
Fletcher v. Peck • 1810 • John Marshall • First Supreme Court case to rule a state law unconstitutional • Yazoo River land case from GA legislature • Protects legal contracts
McCulloch v. Maryland • “the power to tax involves the power to destroy” • “the power to create implies a power to preserve” • 1819 • John Marshall • States cannot tax the federal government • Loose Construction • Necessary & Proper Clause • Implied Powers • Federalist Influence???
Dartmouth College v. Woodward • 1819 • John Marshall • State of NH wants to remove trustees from Dartmouth • Court rules to protect University charter b/c it is a contract • Later protects business from state interference but also restricts regulation • Alumnus Daniel Webster reportedly brought tears to Marshall’s eyes with his eloquent words about Dartmouth
Cohens v. Virginia • 1821 • John Marshall • Illegal Lotto tickets sold in VA • The Supreme Court has the power to review the decisions of state courts. • How does this give more power to the federal government?
Gibbons v. Ogden • 1824 • John Marshall • The “Steamboat Case” – ferry b/w NY & NJ • Congress (Federal Gov’t) held the right to regulate interstate commerce not individual states.
Cherokee Nation v. Georgia - 1831Worcester v. Georgia - 1832 • Both John Marshall • Both cases deal with sovereignty of Indian Tribes in the U.S. • Cherokee: Tribes are dependent nations within the U.S. like a “ward to its guardian" • Worcester: basis for the Trail of Tears in 1838 • "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!“ • Alleged words of President Andrew Jackson
Prigg v. Pennsylvania • 1842 • Roger Taney • Fugitive Slave Case • Federal Fugitive Slave Act takes precedence over a PA law protecting escaped slaves
Dred Scott v. Sanford Popular sovereignty also unconstitutional • 1857 • Roger Taney • Three rulings in the Dred Scott Case: • Slaves did not have rights of citizens • Scott had no claim to freedom b/c he was living in MO • MO Compromise was unconstitutional. Why? Dred Scott
Plessy v. Ferguson • 1896 • Melville Fuller • Homer Plessy & an Louisiana Train Car • “one drop rule” • Est. “separate but equal” • Legalized segregation in the United States
The Insular Cases Does the Constitution follow the flag? • 1901 – 1903 • Melville Fuller • Necessary b/c of what “splendid little war”? • Deals with Constitutional status of Puerto Rico, the Philippines, & other island territories controlled by the U.S. • Do citizenship & the benefits thereof apply to territorial residents? • Full constitutional rights do not automatically apply to residents of newly acquired territories
Muller v. Oregon • 1908 • Melville Fuller • Supreme Court upheld Oregon law limiting the number of hours a woman could work in one day • Set precedent that progressive reforms could effectively target long work hours & poor conditions • Basically overturns Lochner v. New York • Lochner v. New York – Court rejects limits on single day work hours
Schenck v. United States • Associate Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. “Clear & present danger” majority opinion • • 1919 • Edward D. White • Socialist Schenck convicted of violating the WWI era Espionage Act of 1917 • Court rules the circumstances of wartime permit greater restrictions on free speech than would be allowable during peacetime.
Korematsu v. United States • 1944 • Harlan F. Stone • Constitutionality of WWII Japanese Internment Camps • Supreme Court rules Executive Order 9066 is constitutional b/c the need to protect against espionage outweighed the individual rights, of Japanese Americans. • Similarities to the Schenck case?
The Warren Court • Chief Justice Warren (1953 – 1969) greatlyexpanded individual freedoms • Earl Warren • Brown v. Board of Education, perhaps most significant ruling. • Required criminal courts to provide free legal counsel (Gideon v. Wainwright) • Right to a lawyer during questioning • People must be read their Miranda rights before questioning (Miranda v. Arizona - 1966) EQ: How did the Warren Court expand the individual rights of American citizens?
Brown v. Board of Education Future Justice Thurgood Marshall argues before the court on behalf of the NAACP • 1954 • Earl Warren • Epochal Supreme Court ruling strikes down “separate but equal” overturning Plessy v. Ferguson • Court orders state compliance “with all deliberate speed” "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.“ – unanimous decision of the Warren Court
Mapp v. Ohio • 1961 • Earl Warren • Evidence gained without a legitimate search warrant is not permissible in court • 4th Amendment cited -protection from “unreasonable searches & seizures”
Gideon v. Wainwright • 1963 • Earl Warren • Per the 6th Amendment, state courts must provide legal counsel in criminal cases for defendants who cannot afford to retain a lawyer.
Miranda v. Arizona Ernesto Miranda • 1966 • Earl Warren • Criminal suspects must be informed of their “right to remain silent” & the right to an attorney • Any evidence before a suspect is informed of these rights is impermissible “Miranda Rights”
Tinker v. Des Moines • 1969 • Earl Warren • Ruling defined the constitutional rights of students in U.S. public schools • Schools can only limit speech when it is shown to be harmful to the educational process Tinker siblingsCourt’s ruling leads to the “Tinker Test”
Roe v. Wade • Warren Burger • 1973 • Perhaps the most controversial Supreme Court case in U.S. History • Ignites religious, moral, & philosophical debates that still occur to this day • Ruling disallows many state restrictions on abortion • Roe v. Wade effectively legalizes most early term abortions in the U.S.
United States v. Nixon • 1974 • Warren Burger • At the height of the Watergate investigation the Supreme Court rules no person (even the President) is above the law • The President cannot claim executive privilege and withhold evidence that is relevant in a criminal trial. • The Supreme Court rejects President Nixon's claim to "an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances."
California v. Bakke Reverse Discrimination??? • 1978 • Warren Burger • In 1978 Allan Bakke applied to University of California at Davis medical school. The school had a quota – based affirmative-action plan that reserved 16 out of 100 spots for minorities. • Bakke sued for admission arguing that he had been discriminated against based on his race. In a 5 to 4 ruling the Supreme Court held that quotas were illegal and Bakke was admittedbut…race could still be used as one of many factors for admission