-
Marbury v. Madison
Under the Adams administration, several new courts and judicial rankings were established. Marbury's confirmation in this was withheld by Secretary of State James Madison, under the new Jefferson administration. The Court ruled that the withholding of Marbury's confirmation was illegal, but under a law that was unconstitutional. The main takeaway from this case was that the Supreme Court gave themselves the power of 'judicial review,' the right to decide whether any law was constitutional. -
Gibbons v Ogden
A monopoly formed among traders in New York/New Jersey waters gave way to the debate whether or not states could interfere with laws regarding interstate commerce, and in a 6-1 ruling, the Supreme Court decided that only Congress had the power to regulate interstate commerce. -
Dred Scott v Sanford
Dred Scott was a slave who sued his owners for his freedom, under the basis that living in a free state made him a free man. The Supreme Court ruled that Scott was property, not a person. They ruled that the Constitution didn't apply to people of descent from slaves, whether they're free or not. This led to outrage from abolitionists and was one of the key components leading up to the Civil War. -
Munn v. Illinois
Munn ran a grain warehouse in Illinois, where the state set maximum rates for the grain house and elevator. Munn argued that this violated his equal protections rights and 14th amendment, but the Supreme Court held that states had the right to regulate the private industry when it affects the wellbeing of the public. -
Plessy v Ferguson
Plessy was a 7/8ths Caucasian man in Louisiana, who violated a segregation law called the Separate Car Act. He sat in a 'whites only' car on a train, and was arrested for violating the law. He argued that it violated his 13th/14th amendment rights. The Supreme Court held segregation was lawful, and that facilities could remain 'separate but equal.' This lasted for 6 decades. -
Near v Minnesota
In Minnesota, a local newspaper published an article implicaing that public officials were involved with gangsters. (sounds swaggy). They were found to be in violation of the Public Nuisance Law, because what they published was 'malicious defamation' of a public official. They appealed to the Supreme Court, and in a 5-4 decision, they ruled that the Public Nuisance Law was in violation of the 1st amendments Freedom of the Press. This case was a landmark in preventing censorship of the press. -
Brown v Board of Education
By 1950s, the Civil Rights movement had picked up enormous pace in the nation. The NAACP and other equal rights movements were gaining more and more ground socially and politically. The case was a combination of several cases regarding segregation in public schools, and in a unanimous decision, the Court ruled that separate schools for racial minorities were inherently unequal. This reversed the decision made in Plessy v Ferguson, and set way for decades of Jim Crow laws to be reversed. -
Mapp v Ohio
Mapp was suspected of hiding a bomber in her house, and the police searched without a warrant. They didn't find the bomber, but found obscene materials, which at the time were illegal. She argued that the police violated her first amendment right to expression, but the Courts ruled in a 6-3 decision that the violation was in her 4th amendment rights. That the police couldn't search her home without a warrant, and that the evidence obtained without a warrant was inadmissible in a court of law. -
Gideon v Wainwright
Clarence Gideon was charged with breaking and entering in Florida, and offered no attorney by the state's judicial system. He represented himself in court and ended up being sentenced to 5 years in prison. He filed a habeas corpus petition to the Florida Supreme Court, who denied relief. The SCOTUS found, in a unanimous decision, that the states are obligated to provide council by the 6th and 14th amendments. -
Miranda v Arizona
This case resulted when Miranda, a criminal in Arizona, was interrogated by police and ending up giving a written confession to the crimes he committed. He later argued that the police did not make him aware of his 5th amendment rights to remain silent, and to an attorney at the time of interrogation. The Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that police officers have to make suspects aware of these rights, thus we have "Miranda RIghts" Your 5th amendment rights read to you by police upon arrest
