Scotus Cases For Government

Front 1

Marbury v. Madison (1803)
CMC

Back 1

-establishes Judiciary review
-strengthens judicial branch power by giving SC authority to declare acts of congress unconstitutional

Front 2

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)
CMC

Back 2

-confirmed right of congress to use implied powers (elastic clause?) to carry out expressed powers
-validated supremacy of national government over states by saying states can't interfere with/tax legitimate activities of the federal government (supreme law of the land)

Front 3

Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)
CMC

Back 3

-federal government and interstate commerce
-established commerce clause's role as a way to expand federal power

Front 4

Engel v. Vitale (1962)
ECC

Back 4

-struck down state-sponsored prayer in schools
-said Regents' (NY school board) prayer was unconstitutional violation of establishment clause

Front 5

Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)
ECC

Back 5

-abolished state funding for private religious schools (PRS)

Front 6

Lemon Test
ECC

Back 6

-state aid for PRS has to pass this
(a) purpose of aid must be secular
(b) government action may not advance or inhibit the religion
(c) government action must not foster 'excessive entanglement' between government and religion

Front 7

Reynolds v. US (1879)
FECC

Back 7

-banned polygamy
-distinguished between religious practices protected by
-ruled that religion cannot make an act legal that would otherwise be illegal

Front 8

Oregon v. Smith (1990)
FECC

Back 8

-banned the use of illegal drugs in religious ceremonies
(extension of above?)
-ruled that the government can act when religious practices violate criminal law

Front 9

Schenck v. US (1919)
FSC

Back 9

-ruled that free speech could be limited when it presents a 'clear and present danger'
-established the 'clear and present danger test' for the conditions under which public authorities can limit free speech

Front 10

NYT v. Sullivan (1964)
FSC

Back 10

-public officials cannot win a suit for defamation unless the statement is made with 'actual malice'
-est. 'actual malice' standard for 'uninhibited, robust, and wide-open' public debate

Front 11

Roth v. US (1951)
FSC

Back 11

-ruled that obscenity is not constitutionally protected free speech
-created the 'prevailing community standards' rule requiring a consideration of the work force as a whole

Front 12

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District (1969) FSC

Back 12

-protected some forms of symbolic speech
-ruled that students 'don't shed free speech rights at the schoolhouse gate'
(MORE DETAIL?????)

Front 13

Texas v. Johnson (1989)
FSC

Back 13

-ruled that flag burning is a form of symbolic speech protected by the first amendment

Front 14

Barron v. Baltimore (1833)
SIC

Back 14

-ruled that bill of rights cannot be applied to the states
(MORE DETAIL???)
(this might be the basis for selective incorporation)

Front 15

Gitlow v. NY (1925)
SIC

Back 15

-established precedent for the doctrine of selective incorporation, extending requirements of the bill of rights to the states

Front 16

Weeks v. US (1914)
DPCC

Back 16

-established the exclusionary rule in federal cases (you can't be convicted if the way they found the evidence was unconstitutional)
-prohibited evidence obtained by illegal searches and seizures from being admitted in court

Front 17

Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
DPCC

Back 17

-extended the exclusionary rule to states
-illustrated process of selective incorporation through the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment

Front 18

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)
DPCC

Back 18

-ruled that the 6th amendment right-to-counsel provision applies to those accused of major crimes under state laws
-illustrated the process by which the 6th amendment was applied to the states by selective incorporation

Front 19

Miranda v. Arizona (1969)
DPCC

Back 19

-ruled that the police must inform criminal suspects of their constitutional rights before questioning suspects after arrest (Miranda rights)
-required police to read the miranda rules to criminal suspects

Front 20

Dred Scott v. Sanford
EPC

Back 20

-ruled that blacks were not citizens and therefore could not petition SC
-overturned by the fourteenth amendment (HAHAA)

Front 21

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)
EPC

Back 21

-upheld Jim Crow segregation by approving 'separate but equal'

Front 22

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1896)
EPC

Back 22

-ruled that racially segregated schools violated the Equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment
-reversed 'separate but equal'

Front 23

Regents of UC v. Bakke (1978)
EPC

Back 23

-ordered the Medical School at the UC Davis to admit Bakke (a white student)
-ruled that medical schools strict quota system did not offer Bakke protection under 14th amendment
-ruled that race could be used as one factor among others in competition for available places

Front 24

Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)
EPC

Back 24

-upheld affirmative action policy at the University of Michigan Law school
-upheld the Bakke ruling that race could be a consideration in admissions policy but that quotas are illegal

Front 25

Griswold v. CT (1965)
RTP

Back 25

-ruled that a CT law criminalizing contraceptives violated the right to marital privacy
-established an important precedent for Roe v. Wade

Front 26

Roe v. Wade (1973)
RTP

Back 26

-ruled that the decision to obtain an abortion is protected by the right to privacy implied by the Bill of Rights

Front 27

Baker v. Carr (1962)
A

Back 27

-ruled that judicial branch can rule on matters of legislative apportionment
-used the principle of 'one person one vote' (?)
-ordered state legislative districts to be as equal as possible

Front 28

Wesberry v. Sanders (1963)A

Back 28

-established the principle of 'one person one vote' in drawing congressional districts
-triggered widspread redistricting that gave cities and suburbs greater representation in congress

Front 29

Korematsu v. US (1944) Misc.

Back 29

-upheld constitutionality of Japanese internment camps as a wartime necessity
-viewed now as a flagrant violation of civil liberties

Front 30

US v. Nixon (1974) misc.

Back 30

-ruled that there is no constitutional guarantee of unqualified executive privilege

Front 31

Buckley v. Valeo (1976) misc.

Back 31

-upheld federal limits on campaign contributions
-struck down the portion of the Federal Election Campaign Act limiting the amount of money individuals can contribute to their own campaign
-ruled that spending money on one's own campaign is a form of constitutionally protected free speech
-complicated congressional efforts to enact significant campaign finance reform