Court Cases

Front 1

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

Back 1

Court establishes “Judicial Review” concept- affirms the Court’s position as a coequal branch of government having considerable influence on the politics of government and direction of public policy.

Front 2

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

Back 2

Marshall Court defines what is meant by “necessary and proper” and established the primacy of federal government power over state government.

Front 3

United States v. Lopez (1995)

United States v. Morrison (2000)

Back 3

Rehnquist Court decision in what some call the “devolution federalism” era. For years Congress had used the interstate commerce clause to encroach into a number of areas normally reserved to the states under the 10th Amendment. The commerce clause does not give Congress unlimited powers more appropriately reserved to the states. This begins a policy of the reigning in of “creeping federalism”. In the Lopez case, the majority opinion presents an excellent overview of the various interpretations and phases of federalism since the Founding.

Front 4

Gitlow v. New York (1925)

Back 4

Court nationalizes the Bill of Rights for the first time (“Incorporation Doctrine”). By the 1960’s, the Court will apply almost all of the provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states through the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause.

Front 5

Weeks v. United States (1914)
Wolf v. Colorado (1946)
Mapp v. Ohio (1961)

Back 5

Establishment and development of the “Exclusionary Rule”- illegally obtained evidence cannot be used against a defendant at trial. Made applicable to the states in Mapp.

Front 6

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)
Escobedo v. Illinois (1964)
Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

Back 6

Landmark rulings dealing with the rights of the accused, government interrogations, and the right to counsel.

Front 7

Engel v. Vitale (1962)
Wallace v. Jaffree (1985)
Lee v. Weisman (1992)
Santa Fe ISD v. Doe (2000)
Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow (March 2004)

Back 7

Establishment Clause and school prayer- Public school policy that permits, endorses, or encourages prayer violates the 1st Amendment. Prayer in school is allowed if it is student initiated, student-led, and voluntary

Front 8

Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)

City of Boerne v. Flores (1997)

Back 8

Free Exercise Clause- Latter case struck down the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 saying that Congress may enact legislation enforcing constitutional rights established by the Court, but it does not have the power to expand or enlarge those religious freedom rights.

Front 9

Schenck v. United States (1919)

Back 9

Court establishes the “clear and present danger” doctrine with respect to subversive and unpopular speech. This is the case in which Justice Holmes uses the famous “falsely shout fire in a theater and cause a panic” analogy in drawing the line on the limits of free speech.

Front 10

New York Times Co. v. United States (1971)

Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988)

Virginia v. Black et al (2002)- yet to be announced

Back 10

Censorship cases (“prior restraint”) - Speech that addresses matters of public concern may not be censored. The only exceptions would be in matters of high national security (Times case) and in school-sponsored publications (Hazelwood case). The rationale for the latter is that school publications are not open public forums for students to exercise free speech. Another area, is “hate-speech” laws. The court took up a case on this issue in December of 2002 (Virginia v. Black et al).

Front 11

Miller v. California (1973)

Reno v. ACLU (1997)

Back 11

Often referred to as the “Miller Test”, the Court stipulated three tests for determining what is obscene: (1) whether the average person, applying local community standards, would find that a work, taken as a whole, appeals to a prurient interest; (2) whether the work depicts in a patently offensive way sexual conduct specifically defined as “obscene” in law; and (3) whether the work lacks “serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.” In the Reno v. ACLU case, the Court struck down provisions of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 which attempted to limit minors’ access to internet pornography. The law which prohibited “indecent” and “patently offensive” material found on the internet was too vague and could result in a “chilling effect”.

Front 12

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964)

Back 12

The Court defined what is meant by libel and slander as it pertains to public officials and public figures. Individuals must show that false statements were made and publicized with malice and knowledge of their falsity or with “reckless disregard of their truth or falsity” This standard makes it very hard for public figures to win libel suits.

Front 13

Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)

Texas v. Johnson (1989)

Back 13

Landmark symbolic speech cases. In Tinker, student expression (wearing of armbands) is protected so long as it does not cause a “material disruption or substantial interference”. In Texas v. Johnson, the burning of a flag (which the Court determined to be only a symbol) in public is protected by the 1st Amendment.

Front 14

Furman v. Georgia (1972)


Gregg v. Georgia (1976)

Back 14

In Furman, the Court ruled that the death penalty violated the 8th Amendment because of the indiscriminate and inconsistent manner in which it was imposed. Four years later in Gregg, the Court upheld a state law that “contained sufficient standards to pass constitutional muster” to eliminate excessive jury discretion in imposing the death penalty.

Front 15

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)

Back 15

Landmark ruling in which the Court establishes that there is a “penumbra” of rights. These are civil liberties closely attached to the Bill of Rights. In this case, the right of consenting adults to use birth control is a privacy right protected under the 4th, 9th, and 14th Amendments.