-
Period: to
Landmark Supreme Court Cases
-
Period: to
Landmark Supreme Court Cases
-
Marbury v. Madison
When John Adams' presidential term, came to an end, he had a Secretary of Sate that failed to deliver documents commisioning William Marbury as Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia. Then Thomas Jefferson became president and he told James Madison not to deliver the documents to Marbury. The court rules that Marbury is entitled to his opinion. The decision established the doctrine of judicial review, which recognizes the authority of courts to declare statutes unconstitutional. -
McCulloch v. Maryland
In Maryland, the U.S government created the first national bank in Baltimore. Maryland attempted to close this bank by trying to pass a law saying that all banks created outside of the state to pay a yearly tax. James McCulloch was an employee and refused to pay this. Maryland argued that they had the power to tax any business in its state and that the Consitution does not give Congress the power to create a national bank. The Court ruled in favor of McCulloch; it gave them exercise of power. -
Dred Scott v. Sanford
Dred Scott was a slave and was purchased in Missouri and then brought to Illinois, which was a free-slave state. Scott and his owner then moved to Missouri but his owner passed away. Dred Scott sued the widow he was living with claiming he was not a slave because he lived in a free state; and became a free slave after that event. The Court ruled that Dred Scott was slave still because they believe they were property and once a slave, always a slave. -
Plessy v. Ferguson
In Louisiana, they passed a statue stating that all rail companies carrying passengers in Louisiana must provide seperate but equal trains for white and non-white passengers. This was called the Seperate Car Act. Homer Plessy was one-eighth black purchased a first-class ticket and sat in the white train. He was arrested. The Court ruled said that seperate facilities were constitutional as long as they were equal. It started applying to public life such as resturants, theaters, and schools. -
Korematsu v. U.S
Fred Korematsu refused to obey the wartime order to leave his home and report to a relocation camp for Japanese Americans. He was arrested and convicted. After losing in the Court of Appeals, he appealed to the United States Supreme Court, challenging the constitutionality of the deportation order. The court said that a citizen cannot be convicted without evidence that he is not loyal to the United States. This took racial descretion from the military. -
Brown v. Board of Ed Topeka KS
Linda Brown was denied admission to her local elementary school in Topeka because she was black.the court stressed that the "badge of inferiority" stamped on minority children by segregation hindered their full development no matter how "equal" physical facilities might be. The court ruled that all schools must be desegregated with deliberate speed.This even led to the civil rights movement and allowed children to attend school with other type of heritage. -
Mapp v. Ohio
Dollree Mapp was convicted in a state court of possessing pornographic material in violation of Ohio law. Her conviction was obtained on the basis of evidence taken by the police when they entered her house without a search warrant while looking for gambling materials.The Supreme Court overturned her convinction because of the exclusionary rule; that the items were illegal because the search was illegal. This made illegal evidence, by illegal search thrown off in courts. -
Gideon v. Wainwright
Clarence Earl Gideon was convicted of a felony in a Florida court. He had defended himself after being denied a request for free counsel. The Supreme Court overturned his conviction stating he has the right to counsel, for a fair trial. The Court said he was not guilty and erased his record of a convicted felon. This decision protected the rights of accused criminals and extended the guarantees in the Bill of Rights to state actions. -
Miranda v. Arizona
Miranda was being charged with a kidnapping and sexual assault. Ernesto Miranda, was arrested in his home, taken to the police station, identified by the victim, and taken into an interrogation room. Miranda was not told of his rights to counsel prior to questioning. 2 hours later, investigators had a conviction signed by Miranda. He overturned his conviction and the Court ruled that the police have to tell suspects their rights.This required police to inform suspects of alll their rights. -
Tinker v. Des Moines
John Tinker, his sister Mary Beth, and a friend were sent home from school for wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War. the Supreme Court ruled that the students had the right to wear armbands to school to protest because the first admendment applied to students also. Students can voice their opinion as long as it does not create a distubance or involve violence. This allowed students to voice their opinion, even if its about national news. -
Roe v. Wade
In Texas, State law prohibited the termination of a pregnancy by artificial means, except when the life of the mother was in danger. A woman wanted to fight against this law, because she wanted to get an abortion; but was denied the abortion. Court agreed with Roe and upheld her right to terminate a pregnancy in the first trimester (90 days). This allowed women to get abortions even if their life was not in danger. It also made this debate ontroversal between the women and her doctor. -
NJ v. T.L.O
-
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier
Hazelwood East High School Principal Robery Reynolds reviewed a school newspaper made by students in the school. The principal thought the articles in the newspaper were confidential articles that should not be published for the entire school to read. The principal took it upon his hands to have two pages of the newspaper deleted. The Court said -
Texas v. Johnson
Gregory Lee Johnson was part of a political demonstrstion in Dallas, Texas 1984. Johnson burned a flag by putting kerosene on it and setting it on fire and let it burn. The Court decided that this was Constitutional because of the First Admendment. This case said that the government nay not prohibit the expression of an idea just because soceity finds it offensive or disagrees.
