-
Creation of the Supreme Court
The powers of the Supreme Court are listed in Article 3 of the Constitution of the United States. The judicial branch's purpose is to interpret the laws. -
Period: to
John Jay
John Jay was the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. He was elected usanimously by the Senate and appointed by George Washington. He . He was also a founding father. He also wrote the Federalist Papers. -
Period: to
John Marshall
He was appointed by President John Adams as Chief Justice. He gave the power of judicial review and firmly established the Judiciary as the most powerful branch of the federal government. -
Marbury v. Madison
John Adams had appointed many Federalists at the end of his presidency, midnight appointments. Thomas Jefferson did not send commissions to the Federalist judges. William Marbury sued for his commission and Marshall ruled that Marbury had the right to his commission according to the Judiciary Act of 1789. However the Judiciary Act was unconstitutional, so Marbury could not be given his commission. -
Fletcher v. Peck
This case involved land fraud in Georgia. Marshall ruled that a state could not pass legislation that invalidateed a contract. The ruling was significant because it protected property rights against popular pressures. This was the first time that the Supreme Court declared a state law to be unconstitutional. -
McCollough v. Maryland
This concerned a tax that the state of Maryland tried to collect from the second Bank of the United States. Marshall ruled that the federal government had the implied power to create the band and that a state could not tax a federal institution.This strengthened federal authority and the implied powers of Congress. -
Dartmouth College v. Woodward
Dartmouth College had been granted in 1769 by King George III. A New Hampshire court ruled that Dartmouth was to be changed from a private to a public institution. Marshall ruled that the original charter must stand because a contract for a private corporation could not be altered by the state. It was significant because it protected private corporations from domination by the states’ governments. -
Gibbons v. Ogden
The state of New York granted a monopoly to a steamboat company which conflicted with a charted authorized by Congress. The New York monopoly was ruled unconsitutional and Marshall established that the federal government had broad control of nterstate commerce. Marshall’s ruling checked the power of the states and upheld the sovereign power of the federal government. -
Cherokee Nation v Georgia
The Cherokee Nation were against laws passed by the state of Georgia that deprived them of rights within its boundaries,The Cherokee were a foreign state, so the Supreme Court had no original jurisdiction in the subject. -
Worcester v Georgia
The Cherokees went to court when Georgia asked the tirbe to leave the state. This case ruled that the Georgian laws were unconstitutional becase states were not allowed to pass laws that involved sovereign Indian Nations. It laid the foundation of tribal soverignty. However, the Cherokees were still removed from their homeland. -
Commonwealth v Hunt
Before this case, unions that created a unionized workplace could be tried with conspiracy. Chief Justice Lemuel Shaw ruled that unions had the right to organize a strike and were legal organizations. -
Dred Scott v Sandford
Emerson and his slave Dred Scott moved to Illinois then Wisconsic Territory, which was a free state, so Scott was free. They moved to Louisiana, where he became a slave again. Scott sued for his freedom - he had lived in a free state and was legally free, so he could not be a slave. The Supreme Court ruled that people of African descent could never be US citizens and were not protected by the Constitution. Also, it was ruled that Congress could not prohitbit slavery in federal territories. -
Douglas v. Independent Living Center of Southern California
Medical providers challenged the cuts after the state of California reduced Medicaid reimbursements in 2008 and 2009. The 9th Circuit ruled that the state failed to conduct enough studies before carrying out the cuts. California argued that the providers could not bring private claims to enforce the federal Medicaid Act.
