Supreme Court Cases Marbury v Madison

1. Supreme Court CasesMarbury v Madison 1. Marbury was commissioned by John Adams as a Justice of the Peace 2. Madison was Jefferson’s Secretary of State 3. Madison was ordered not to deliver the commission to Marbury 4. Court rule in favor of Marbury 5. IMPORTANT BECAUSE: 1st time a congressional act was found unconstitutional. The case established JUDICIAL REVIEW.

2. Plessy v Ferguson 1. Plessy was 1/8 African American (one great-grandparent was black) was kicked off a train for sitting in the white section. 2. Ferguson was the local judge who ordered him imprisoned. 3. Plessy appealed arguing that his 14th amendment (equal protection under the law) was violated. 4. Court ruled in favor of Ferguson. 5. IMPORTANT BECAUSE: The case upheld SEPARATE BUT EQUAL.

3. Weeks v US 1. Weeks was arrested for sending lottery tickets through the mail. 2. A US marshall searched Weeks office and took some papers (seized evidence). 3. No warrants were issued for the search or the arrest. 4. Court ruled in favor of Weeks. 5. IMPORTANT BECAUSE: His 4th amendment had been violated. This established the EXCLUSIONARY RULE – if police obtain evidence illegally, it cannot be used against you.

4. Gitlow v New York 1. Ben Gitlow was convicted of violating the New York criminal anarchy act 2. New York officials arrested him 3. He advocated mass revolts, political strikes, and taking revolutionary action (govt. should be overthrown by force, violence, and assassination) 4. “Is subversive speech protected by the 1st amendment?” 5. Court rule in favor of New York 6. IMPORTANT BECAUSE: Subversive speech was found unprotected by the constitution because it presents a clear and present danger.

5. Miranda v Arizona 1. Miranda was arrested for rape. He was not informed of his right to remain silent or his right to an attorney. 2. Arizona officials arrested him. 3. He confessed after 2 hours of questioning. 4. Court ruled in favor of Miranda. 5. IMPORTANT BECAUSE: The 5th amendment says that you don’t have to testify against yourself. Established that PRIOR to custodial interrogation, YOU MUST BE INFORMED OF YOUR RIGHTS.

6. Sheppard v Maxwell (1966) 1. Dr. Samuel Sheppard was accused/convicted of murdering his pregnant wife. 2. E. L. Maxwell was the prison warden (Sheppard had exhausted all his appeals and filed against the warden under habeus corpus to see if he was denied due process. 3. There was major media coverage: jurors’ names were published & they were not sequestered. 4. Was Sheppard denied a fair trial in violation of due process – 14th amendment? 5. Court ruled in favor of Sheppard. 6. IMPORTANT BECAUSE: It is necessary to balance the importance of free press with the interest of justice.

7. Gregg v Georgia (1976) 1. Troy Leon Gregg was hitchhiking to Florida. 2. Georgia is where the murder took place 3. Gregg was convicted of killing 2 men who gave him a ride. 4. Does the death penalty constitute “cruel and unusual” punishment which citizens are protected from in the 8th amendment? 5. The court ruled in favor of Georgia. 6. IMPORTANT BECAUSE: The death penalty is constitutional. The punishment must be proportional to the seriousness of the crimeand must not involve unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.

8. New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985) 1. Initials are used when a minor is involved. TLO was a fourteen year old caught smoking in the bathroom at school. 2. The Vice Principal searched her purse and found cigarettes, marijuana, lots of money, a list of names and two letters implying intent to sell drugs. She was convicted on drug charges. She appealed her conviction claiming the search was illegal. 3. Does the 4th amendment (ban of illegal search & seizure) apply to schools? 4. The court ruled in favor of TLO. 5. The 4th amendment does apply to schools, however, school officials (reasonable suspicion) do not have to meet the same standards as police officers (probable cause/warrant).

9. Rostker v Goldberg (1981) 1. Rostker was one of several military men (1st name listed becomes the name of the case). 2. Goldberg was a Selective Service officer. 3. Several men who had to register for the draft claimed that women should have to register also. 4. Is due process of the 5th amendment violated by gender discrimination? 5. Court ruled in favor of Goldberg. 6. IMPORTANT BECAUSE: Gender discrimination is not a violation of due process in the 5th amendment – women are not eligible for combat.

10. Bethel School District v Fraser (1966) 1. Matthew Fraser used explicit, graphic, sexual metaphors in a high school assembly speech. (Class officer elections – warned by teachers to change it) 2. He was suspended for 2 days. 3. He claimed Freedom of Speech under the 1st Amendmenthad been violated. 4.Can school officials limit obscene and vulgar language? 5. The court found school officials can discipline students for indecent speech.

11. South Dakota v Dole (1987) • Elizabeth Dole was the Secretary of Transportation • Dept. of Transportation gives federal money to state to improve and build roads • Dept. of Transportation said they would withhold a percentage of the money if the state did not raise the drinking age to 21. • South Dakota had a drinking age of 19 and sued • Is the 21st amendment violated? (Deals with states setting liquor laws) • Court found for Dole – Congress could decided where and how to spend money (just as states have the right to set their drinking age)

12. Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988) 1. Kuhlmeier edited the high school newspaper. 2. The principal ordered 2 pages to be deleted from the high school newspaper – the articles dealt with pregnancy ( girls could be identified even if names were withheld and too sexually graphic) and divorce (talked about parents without parents right to respond) 3. Three student editors sued saying their Freedom of Speech was denied. 4. Can school officials regulate speech (1st amendment)in school sponsored newspapers and yearbooks? 5. The courts found that schools can set higher standards for student speech. (The newspaper differs from a normal newspaper because it is a teaching tool.)

13. Cruzan v. Director Missouri Dept. of Health (1990) 1. Nancy Cruzan was in a terrible car accident and was left brain dead. 2. Her parents wanted her taken off life support systems. The hospital refused. 3. Does the Constitution protect the liberty of seriously ill patientsto be free from life sustaining equipment? Can her parent (or family members) have her removed from life support? LIVING WILL 4. The court found that judgment of family members was not sufficient to end life sustaining treatment.

14. Wallace v Jaffree (1985) • Ishmael Jaffree had three children in Alabama schools • He did not like the daily “moment of silence” at school (a minute of quiet time when kids could meditate or pray if they wanted) • He said is violated the 1st amendment by establishing religion • Did the state law allowing a moment of silence violate the 1st amendment – freedom of religion? • Court found for Jaffree – moment of silence is unconstitutional and violates the 1st amendment.

15. Michigan Dept. of State Police v Sitz (1990) • Michigan police set up a field sobriety check point program • They detained drivers for about 25 seconds to look for signs of intoxication. • It lasted for 1 hour 15 minutes and they caught 3 drunk drivers • 25 drivers filed a lawsuit saying it was “unreasonable search and seizure” of the 4th amendment • Is seizure actually occurring at the checkpoints, and if so, is it reasonable or does it violate the 4th amendment? • Court found for Michigan State Police – No violation, checkpoints are reasonable and allowable.

16. International Union of UAW v Johnson Controls (1991) • Johnson Controls is a company that makes batteries • Batteries have lead in them. Lead is an element known to pose health risks to fetuses and small children • The company said: no woman of child bearing age can work in the department that handles lead • Women sued International Union • Did the policy discriminate against women? • Found in favor of the employees – You can’t exclude women just because they might have children.

17. Lau v Nichols (1974) • Lau was the parent of a Chinese child enrolled in the San Francisco • Schools. • In the 1970’s 2,856 chinese decent, non English speaking children were enrolled in the schools. • Majority were not given assistance for their language barrier. • Question: Were their 14 amendments rights ( equal protection inder the law) violated? • Answer: Yes, they had been violated and were entitled to a better education

18. US v Alvarez Manchin (1992) • Enrique Camareno was a US drug enforcement agent. He was killed. • The suspect in the killing was Alvarez Manchin who was in Mexico. • The US hired a bounty hunter to kidnap and bring him to America to stand trial. • Mexico was outraged. • QUESTION: Can the US constitution establish sovereignty over other countries? • Answer: 6-3 Yes we can! Nowhere does it say we can’t kidnap. Supreme court says this ruling can establish good implications for other criminals who have fled the country

19. Wisconsin v Mitchell (1992) • Todd Mitchell was a black youth who was convicted of attacking a white youth from Wisconsin. • prior to the attack, Mitchell said, “there goes a white boy, get him” • This statement indicated the crime to be a biased crime. (hate crime) • He was sentenced to 4 years rather than 2 years. • He appealed---- Freedom of speech--- • Question: Is a comment or thought freedom of speech & can you get extra punishment for saying your beliefs? • Answer: Yes, a heavier penalty is acceptable for a hate crime because it inflicts greater harm on the community.

20. Korematsu v. United States 1944 • 1. The port of Pearl Harbor, Hawaii was attacked by the Japanese in December 1941 • 2. Many Americans blamed Japanese Americans who were living in the United States.  People thought that Japanese Americans who lived there would help the Japanese military.  • 3. But at the time, there was no known case of espionage from any person of Japanese descent. • 4. In February, 1942, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066.  This order allowed the military to use curfews and to move Japanese and Japanese Americans to special camps.  • 5. Fred Korematsu was born in America and had Japanese parents.  • 6. He moved away and changed the way he looked to avoid the camps.  • 7. But he was arrested later and sent to a camp. • 8. Korematsu took his case to the courts.  He said that authorities didn’t have the power to send people to internment camps.  He also said that the government was discriminating against him because of his race.  9. Korematsu appealed this decision and the case came before the U.S. Supreme Court. His case eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court and, in 1944, the court upheld the order. • 10. In 1988, the decision was overturned and Korematsu along with many other detainees each got $20,000

21. Brown v. Board of Education (1954) • 1. In Topeka, Kansas, a black student named Linda Brown had to walk through a dangerous railroad to get to her all-black school. • 2. Her family believed that segregated schools should be illegal. The Brown family sued the school system. They thought that the system violated the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteeing that people will be treated equally under the law. • 3. The Court concluded that in the field of public education the idea of "separate but equal" has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. • 4. Plessy V. Ferguson was now overturned.

22. Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) • 1. John and Mary Beth Tinker attended public school in Des Moines, Iowa in 1965. • 2. Tinkers decided to wear armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War. The school officials asked the Tinkers to remove their armbands saying the bands were disruptive, the Tinkers refused. They were suspended from school. • 3. The Tinkers sued the school district in the U.S. District Court. Saying the Des Moines school district violated their right to free speech under the First Amendment. They were not speaking with their voices; they believed that wearing armbands was like speaking. This is called symbolic speech. • 4. Decision: The wearing of armbands was "closely akin to 'pure speech'" and protected by the First Amendment. • 5. Schools can put limits on free expression, but here, the principals failed to show that the arm bands would substantially interfere with the school environment.