Landmark Landmark Supreme Court Supreme Court

Cases:Cases:American HistoryAmerican History

Marbury v. MadisonMarbury v. Madison Essentials:Essentials:

Established JUDICIAL REVIEWEstablished JUDICIAL REVIEW 1803 Judiciary Act ruled 1803 Judiciary Act ruled

unconstitutionalunconstitutional Midnight Judges/AppointmentsMidnight Judges/Appointments

Supreme Court could now review the Supreme Court could now review the constitutionality of any federal lawconstitutionality of any federal law

Marbury v. Madison (1803):Marbury v. Madison (1803):William Marbury William Marbury was appointed justice of the was appointed justice of the

peace by peace by John AdamsJohn Adams the day before he left the day before he left office. office. Thomas JeffersonThomas Jefferson (the new president), (the new president), cancelled Marburycancelled Marbury’’s appointments appointment. . Marbury Marbury asked the Supreme Court to rule on the asked the Supreme Court to rule on the case based on the Judiciary Actcase based on the Judiciary Act, , which which enabled him to take his case directly to the enabled him to take his case directly to the Supreme Court.Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court ruled that the Judiciary The Supreme Court ruled that the Judiciary Act itself was unconstitutional and Marbury Act itself was unconstitutional and Marbury lost his case.lost his case.

Judicial ReviewJudicial ReviewThe decision established The decision established ““judicial judicial

reviewreview””: : the evaluation of federal the evaluation of federal lawslaws’’ constitutionality as a power of constitutionality as a power of the Supreme Courtthe Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has the ability to The Supreme Court has the ability to review laws, cases, decisions, etc. review laws, cases, decisions, etc. and judge their constitutionality.and judge their constitutionality.

Plessy v. FergusonPlessy v. Ferguson Essentials:Essentials:

18961896 Overturned by Overturned by Brown v. Board of Brown v. Board of

EducationEducation Allowed Allowed ““separate but equalseparate but equal””

discriminationdiscrimination Supreme Court ruled 14Supreme Court ruled 14thth Amendment Amendment

rights NOT violatedrights NOT violated

Plessy v. Fergusson (1896):Plessy v. Fergusson (1896):A Louisiana law required separate seating A Louisiana law required separate seating

for white and African Americans on public for white and African Americans on public railroads railroads ((segregationsegregation))..

----Herman PlessyHerman Plessy said his said his 14th 14th AmendmentAmendment rights rights (Equal Protection (Equal Protection Clause)Clause) had been violated. had been violated.

----The Supreme Court ruled that his The Supreme Court ruled that his rights were not violatedrights were not violated, and , and segregated segregated public facilities were permitted until 1954.public facilities were permitted until 1954.

Brown v. Board of Brown v. Board of EducationEducation

EssentialsEssentials ““Separate but EqualSeparate but Equal”” overturned overturned Ruled that public schools must be Ruled that public schools must be

integratedintegrated Top 5 most important case in US Top 5 most important case in US

HistoryHistory 19541954 Equal Protection Clause of 14Equal Protection Clause of 14thth

AmendmentAmendment

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954)(1954)

10-year-old, 10-year-old, Linda BrownLinda Brown, was not allowed to , was not allowed to attend her neighborhood school because she attend her neighborhood school because she was African American.was African American.

--Linda Brown said her --Linda Brown said her 14th Amendment 14th Amendment rightsrights ( (Equal Protection ClauseEqual Protection Clause) had been ) had been violated.violated.

----The Supreme Court ruled that The Supreme Court ruled that ““separate separate but equalbut equal”” segregation was a violation of segregation was a violation of the Equal Protection Clausethe Equal Protection Clause.. This decision This decision overturned the precedent established by Plessy overturned the precedent established by Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896.v. Ferguson in 1896.

Mapp v. OhioMapp v. Ohio EssentialsEssentials

19621962 Women had female porn in house; Women had female porn in house;

““obscene materialobscene material”” was illegal at the was illegal at the timetime

Conviction overturned, led to Conviction overturned, led to ““Exclusionary RuleExclusionary Rule””

Mapp v. Ohio (1962):Mapp v. Ohio (1962):Dollree MappDollree Mapp was was convicted of having obscene convicted of having obscene

materials in her home.materials in her home.

Mapp appealed the conviction, saying that Mapp appealed the conviction, saying that the police the police had violated her rights by had violated her rights by entering her house entering her house without a warrantwithout a warrant..

The Supreme Court overturned the lower courtThe Supreme Court overturned the lower court’’s s decisiondecision, saying that the police had acted , saying that the police had acted improperly, this excluding the evidence that they had improperly, this excluding the evidence that they had found.found.

““Exclusionary RuleExclusionary Rule””:: excludes all evidence that is excludes all evidence that is found in illegal police searched.found in illegal police searched.

Gideon v. WainwrightGideon v. Wainwright EssentialsEssentials

19631963 Gideon Rule: everyone is guaranteed a Gideon Rule: everyone is guaranteed a

lawyer, regardless of ability to paylawyer, regardless of ability to pay He was found guilty in part due to bad He was found guilty in part due to bad

legal representation in first triallegal representation in first trial At retrial found not guiltyAt retrial found not guilty

Gideon v. Wainwright Gideon v. Wainwright (1963):(1963):

Clarence GideonClarence Gideon was found was found guilty of breaking and guilty of breaking and entering and sentenced him to 5 years in prison.entering and sentenced him to 5 years in prison.

Gideon appealed claiming that Gideon appealed claiming that he had been he had been unconstitutionally unconstitutionally denied counsel denied counsel during trial during trial due to Floridadue to Florida’’s policy of only providing legal s policy of only providing legal counsel in capital areas.counsel in capital areas.

Gideon received a new trialGideon received a new trial (with a court-(with a court-appointed attorney) appointed attorney) and was and was found not guilty.found not guilty.

““The Gideon RuleThe Gideon Rule””: : guarantees counsel to all poor guarantees counsel to all poor persons facing a felony charge (6th Amendment).persons facing a felony charge (6th Amendment).

Miranda v. ArizonaMiranda v. Arizona EssentialsEssentials

19661966 Miranda RightsMiranda Rights Police messed upPolice messed up If you donIf you don’’t read an arrestee their rights, t read an arrestee their rights,

anything they say doesnanything they say doesn’’t countt count

Miranda v. Arizona (1966):Miranda v. Arizona (1966):Ernesto MirandaErnesto Miranda was arrested for kidnapping and was arrested for kidnapping and

sexual assault – sexual assault – he signed a full confession including he signed a full confession including a statement that he a statement that he ““had full knowledge of his legal had full knowledge of his legal rights.rights.””

Miranda appealed claiming that he Miranda appealed claiming that he had not received had not received warning or legal council to guide his decision warning or legal council to guide his decision to confess.to confess.

The Supreme Court agreed with MirandaThe Supreme Court agreed with Miranda, saying , saying that all suspects must be forewarned that they have that all suspects must be forewarned that they have the right to remain silent and the right to an the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney.attorney.

““Miranda RuleMiranda Rule””:: before a suspect is questioned by before a suspect is questioned by police, he/she must be:police, he/she must be:

The Miranda Rights:The Miranda Rights:

1. Told of their 1. Told of their right to remain silent.right to remain silent.

2. Warned that 2. Warned that whatever they say may be whatever they say may be usedused in court.in court.

3. Informed of their 3. Informed of their right to an attorney.right to an attorney.

4. Informed that an 4. Informed that an attorney will be attorney will be provided if they cannot afford one.provided if they cannot afford one.

5. Told that they can 5. Told that they can stop police stop police questioning at any time.questioning at any time.

Follow-upFollow-up What do the cases Miranda v. What do the cases Miranda v.

Arizona AND Gideon v. Wainwright Arizona AND Gideon v. Wainwright have in common?have in common?Who BENEFITS from these rulings?Who BENEFITS from these rulings?

A) Lawyers? A) Lawyers? B) criminals/suspected criminals/the B) criminals/suspected criminals/the

accused? accused? C) someone else?C) someone else?

Gregg v. Georgia (1976):Gregg v. Georgia (1976):Troy GreggTroy Gregg was was sentenced to death after being sentenced to death after being

found guilty of 2 counts of armed robbery and found guilty of 2 counts of armed robbery and 2 counts of murder.2 counts of murder.

Gregg appealed claiming that Gregg appealed claiming that the sentence the sentence violated the violated the ““cruel and unusual punishmentcruel and unusual punishment”” clause of the 8th Amendment.clause of the 8th Amendment.

The Supreme Court denied the appealThe Supreme Court denied the appeal, , stating for the first time that stating for the first time that ““the death penalty the death penalty does not invariably violate the Constitutiondoes not invariably violate the Constitution””..

Gregg v. GeorgiaGregg v. Georgia EssentialsEssentials

19761976 Gregg appealed, citing Gregg appealed, citing ““cruel and cruel and

unusual punishmentunusual punishment”” GreggGregg’’s appeal denied, sentenced to s appeal denied, sentenced to

death for 2 counts armed robbery, 2 death for 2 counts armed robbery, 2 counts murdercounts murder

Supreme Court ruled death penalty Supreme Court ruled death penalty does not violate the Constitutiondoes not violate the Constitution

Roper v. Simmons (2005)Roper v. Simmons (2005) EssentialsEssentials

Juveniles cannot be sentenced to deathJuveniles cannot be sentenced to death Cruel and Unusual Punishment to kill a Cruel and Unusual Punishment to kill a

juvenilejuvenile

New Jersey v. T.L.O.New Jersey v. T.L.O. EssentialsEssentials

Female student (initials TLO) caught smoking in Female student (initials TLO) caught smoking in school bathroomschool bathroom

Vice-Principal searched her purse, found marijuana Vice-Principal searched her purse, found marijuana and cigarettes / confessed to police / probationand cigarettes / confessed to police / probation

State SC overturned, Federal SC reversed decisionState SC overturned, Federal SC reversed decision ““Reasonable suspicionReasonable suspicion”” and and ““probable causeprobable cause”” Public schools are allowed to search students Public schools are allowed to search students

lockers, purses, etc, if there is reasonable lockers, purses, etc, if there is reasonable suspicionsuspicion

New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985):New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985):

T.L.O.T.L.O. (a New Jersey high school student) was sentenced (a New Jersey high school student) was sentenced to probation by juvenile court after a to probation by juvenile court after a vice-principal vice-principal searched her purse and found cigarettes and searched her purse and found cigarettes and marijuana.marijuana.

T.L.O. appealed the ruling saying T.L.O. appealed the ruling saying the principalthe principal’’s s search search was unreasonable.was unreasonable.

The Supreme Court denied the appealThe Supreme Court denied the appeal, saying that , saying that schools are allowed more leeway when conducting schools are allowed more leeway when conducting searches.searches.

The Court created a The Court created a ““reasonable suspicionreasonable suspicion”” rulerule for for schools conducting searches, instead of the schools conducting searches, instead of the ““probable probable causecause”” rulerule that exists for the rest of society. that exists for the rest of society.

Roe v. WadeRoe v. Wade EssentialsEssentials

19731973 Abortion is now legalAbortion is now legal WomenWomen’’s right to privacys right to privacy Follow-up to Follow-up to Griswold v. Connecticut Griswold v. Connecticut

(1965)(1965)

Regents of Univ of Regents of Univ of California v. Bakke California v. Bakke

(1978)(1978) EssentialsEssentials White male was rejected into a medical schoolWhite male was rejected into a medical school School took top 100 applicants, but only 80 School took top 100 applicants, but only 80

whiteswhites He was more qualified than every minority He was more qualified than every minority

student but, because the school wanted student but, because the school wanted diversity, he did not get indiversity, he did not get in

He sued and was successful: In this case, He sued and was successful: In this case, AFFIRMATIVE ACTION (saving spots for AFFIRMATIVE ACTION (saving spots for minorities) was unconstitutionalminorities) was unconstitutional

Tinker v. Des Moines Tinker v. Des Moines (Iowa)(Iowa)

Two students wore black armbands Two students wore black armbands to school to protest the Vietnamto school to protest the Vietnam

The school told them to take them The school told them to take them off, they refused and were off, they refused and were suspendedsuspended

Supreme Court ruled in the students Supreme Court ruled in the students favor, citing FREEDOM OF SPEECHfavor, citing FREEDOM OF SPEECH

Legality of Arm BandsLegality of Arm Bands The Supreme Court held that the The Supreme Court held that the

armbands represented pure speech that is armbands represented pure speech that is entirely separate from the actions or entirely separate from the actions or conduct of those participating in it. The conduct of those participating in it. The Court also held that the students did not Court also held that the students did not lose their First Amendment rights to lose their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech when they stepped onto freedom of speech when they stepped onto school property. To suspend the students, school property. To suspend the students, the arm bands would have to interfere the arm bands would have to interfere with the school day, and they did notwith the school day, and they did not

SC Case ReviewSC Case ReviewWhat were the main What were the main

arguments/outcomes of each of the arguments/outcomes of each of the following cases?following cases?

Miranda v. ArizonaMiranda v. Arizona Plessy v. FergussonPlessy v. Fergusson Brown v. Board of EducationBrown v. Board of Education Gregg v. GeorgiaGregg v. Georgia Mapp v. OhioMapp v. Ohio TLO v. New JerseyTLO v. New Jersey Marbury v. MadisonMarbury v. Madison