Study your flashcards anywhere!

Download the official Cram app for free >

  • Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

A key: Read text to speech.a key


Play button


Play button




Click to flip

23 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
  • 3rd side (hint)
Marbury v. Madison
1803: -William Marbury (one of Adams' midnight appointments), sued Secretary of State Madison to force delivery of his commission as a justice of the peace in the federal district; Marshall would not rule on it, because he said the law that gave the Supreme Court power to rule over such matter was unconstitutional

-established the policy of judicial review over federal legislation

-Precedent of the Supreme Court's power to rule on the constitutionality of federal laws
Chief Justice John Marshall
Fletcher v. Peck
1810: -Georgia legislature issued extensive land grants to Yazoo Land Company; afterwards, it was considered corrupt, so there was a legislative session that repealed the action

-Court ruled that the original contract was valid and could not be broken
Chief Justice John Marshall
Dartmouth College v. Woodward
1819: -Republicans back the president of the college, Federalists backed the trustees

-president try to make it a public institution (instead of private) by having the charter revoked

-ruled that even though charter was granted by the king, it was still a contract and thus could not be changed without the consent of both parties
Chief Justice John Marshall
McCulloch v. Maryland
1819: -state of MD tried to levy a tax on the Baltimore branch of the Bank of the United States (to protect the competitive position of state banks)

-ruled against state, b/c state had no right to control an agency of the federal gov't
Chief Justice John Marshall
Gibbons v. Ogden
1824: -NY state had granted monopoly to Ogden of Hudson River. Gibbons obtained a permit from Congress to operate steamboat there

-Ogden sued, and state ruled in his favor

-Marshall ruled that it was interstate commerce and could not be regulated by a state (only Congress could) - the monopoly was then voided
Chief Justice John Marshall
Cherokee Nation v. Georgia
1831: -Court refused to hear case, which the Cherokees brought forward, b/c GA had abolished their tribal legislature and courts (said that because the tribe was a "foreign nation, the decision should be made by the Supreme Court)

-Marshall said they really were not foreign nations (they just had special status)
Chief Justice John Marshall
Worcester v.Georgia
1832: -GA state gov't said any US citizen who wanted to enter Cherokee territory had to obtain permission from the governor

-GA law was overturned, b/c the federal gov't had the constitutionally mandated role of regulating trade with the tribes

-Jackson said of Marshall "John Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it"
Chief Justice John Marshall
Dred Scott v. Sanford
1856: -Dred Scott, (slave from Missouri), had been taken to Illinois (a free state) by his owner for several years, so he sued for his freedom

-ruled that he, as a slave, was not a slave, and could not sue in court
Chief Justice Roger B. Taney
Munn v. Illinois
1877: -upheld Granger Laws that regulated railroads
Chief Justice Roger B. Taney
Wabash Case (Wabash, St.Louis, and Pacific Railroad Co. v. Illinois)
1886: -ruled one of the Granger laws in Illinois was unconstitutional because it tried to control interstate commerce, which was a power of Congress only

-restricted state regulation of commerce
Chief Justice Roger B. Taney
United States v. E.C. Knight Co.
1895: -Congress charged that a single trust controlled 98% of refined sugar manufacturing in the US, but Court rejected case because trust was involved in manufacturing, NOT interstate commerce (which was what Congress could control), so, trust was not illegal

-weakened Sherman Antitrust Act
Chief Justice Roger B. Taney
Plessy v. Ferguson
1896: -ruled that segregation was allowed, as long as the facilities were "separate but equal"
Chief Justice Roger B. Taney
Korematsu v. United States
1944: - Roosevelt's 1942 order that Issei and Nisei be relocated to concentration camps was challenged

-Court upheld it
Chief Justice Roger B. Taney
Smith v. Allwright
1944: -Supreme Court stopped the Texas primary elections because they had violated the 15th amendment by being restricted only to whites
Chief Justice Roger B. Taney
Sweatt v. Painter
1950: -ruled that blacks must be allowed to attend integrated law schools in OK and TX
Chief Justice Roger B. Taney
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka
1954: -NAACP lawyer Thurgood Marshall challenge decision from Plessy v. Ferguson

-Court ruled that the separate educational facilities were not equal

-1955 - said states must "integrate with great speed"

**(note: when Court announces Brown II decision, Montgomery bus boycotts began
Engel v. Vitale
1962: -ruled that prayers in public schools were unconstitutional
Miranda v. Arizona
1966: -confirmed the obligation of authorities to inform a criminal suspect of his or her rights
Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education
1971: -Court ruled in favor of forced busog to achieve racial balance in schools
Furman v. Georgia
1972: -overturned existing capital punishment statutes and established strict new guidelines for such laws in the future
Roe v. Wade
1973: -based on new theory of constitutional "right to privacy" (first recognized in Grizwold v. Connecticut)

-invalidated all laws prohibiting abortions during the first trimester of pregnancy
Webster v. Reproductive Health Services
1989: -Court upheld a law from Missouri that prohibited public employees from performing abortions, unless the life of the mother was threatened

-because of this decisions, some states tried to create similar laws
Commonwealth v. Hunt (not Supreme Court)
-Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that unions and strikes were legal