Supreme Court CasesSupreme Court Cases

Marbury vs. Madison 1803Marbury vs. Madison 1803

Established the power of Judicial ReviewEstablished the power of Judicial Review Declared part of the Judiciary Act of 1789 Declared part of the Judiciary Act of 1789

unconstitutional, because it gave the unconstitutional, because it gave the Supreme Court original jurisdiction by Supreme Court original jurisdiction by allowing them to issue a “Writ of allowing them to issue a “Writ of Mandamous” to government officials.Mandamous” to government officials.

The Constitution specifies those instances The Constitution specifies those instances in which the Supreme Court has original in which the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in Article III.jurisdiction in Article III.

McCulloch vs. Maryland 1819McCulloch vs. Maryland 1819

Established the supremacy of the national Established the supremacy of the national government.government.

Declared a Maryland law unconstitutional Declared a Maryland law unconstitutional because it taxed the federal government, because it taxed the federal government, the National Bank.the National Bank.

The states cannot tax the Federal The states cannot tax the Federal Government, because “the power to tax Government, because “the power to tax implies the power to destroy.”implies the power to destroy.”

Gibbons vs. Ogden 1824Gibbons vs. Ogden 1824

Supremacy of the national government in its Supremacy of the national government in its ability to regulate INTER-state commerce.ability to regulate INTER-state commerce.

Ogden had a license from New York, that gave Ogden had a license from New York, that gave him exclusive rights to operate steamboats to him exclusive rights to operate steamboats to and from New York.and from New York.

Gibbons had a federal “coasting license”Gibbons had a federal “coasting license” Since Gibbons operated a ferry from New Jersey Since Gibbons operated a ferry from New Jersey

to New York, it fell within the power of the to New York, it fell within the power of the federal government, not the state of New York, federal government, not the state of New York, to regulate his ferry boat service.to regulate his ferry boat service.

Gideon vs. Wainwright 1963Gideon vs. Wainwright 1963 Right of the accused to have a lawyerRight of the accused to have a lawyer Mr. Gideon was charged with breaking and Mr. Gideon was charged with breaking and

entering, and theft. He asked that a lawyer be entering, and theft. He asked that a lawyer be appointed to him because he could not afford appointed to him because he could not afford one. A Florida law only allowed for persons one. A Florida law only allowed for persons convicted of a capital offense to be appointed a convicted of a capital offense to be appointed a lawyer.lawyer.

The Supreme Court ruled that this violated the The Supreme Court ruled that this violated the 66thth amendment by penalizing poor people who amendment by penalizing poor people who could not afford the “right to counsel”, and the could not afford the “right to counsel”, and the 1414thth guaranteeing everyone “due process”. “Due guaranteeing everyone “due process”. “Due process” includes the right to a lawyer.process” includes the right to a lawyer.

Miranda vs. Arizona 1966Miranda vs. Arizona 1966 Right of the accused to not “be a witness against Right of the accused to not “be a witness against

himself.”himself.” Mr. Miranda was accused of rape. He was told that the Mr. Miranda was accused of rape. He was told that the

victim had identified him in a police line up, (she had victim had identified him in a police line up, (she had not). He made a signed confession because he was told not). He made a signed confession because he was told that doing so would make the court go easier on him. that doing so would make the court go easier on him. He later argued that he was unaware that he had the He later argued that he was unaware that he had the right to remain silent.right to remain silent.

The Supreme Court ruled that persons must be told that The Supreme Court ruled that persons must be told that they have the right to they have the right to “remain silent”“remain silent” when they are taken when they are taken into custody into custody (5(5thth amendment), amendment), as well as their right to as well as their right to have an attorney present before questioning. The have an attorney present before questioning. The “Miranda” warnings“Miranda” warnings are now given to ensure persons are now given to ensure persons right to “due process” is protected.right to “due process” is protected.

Mapp v. Ohio, 1961Mapp v. Ohio, 1961

Protection against unreasonable search and seizureProtection against unreasonable search and seizure.. Police came to Ms. Mapp’s home because of a tip that a Police came to Ms. Mapp’s home because of a tip that a

fugitive was hiding in her home. She refused to let them fugitive was hiding in her home. She refused to let them in, and called her lawyer who told her to only let them in in, and called her lawyer who told her to only let them in if they had a warrant. Police then broke her door down if they had a warrant. Police then broke her door down and her they had a warrant, (they did not). They found and her they had a warrant, (they did not). They found illegal items in her home and charged her for possession illegal items in her home and charged her for possession of those items, no fugitive was found. She was found of those items, no fugitive was found. She was found guilty of possession and sentenced to jail.guilty of possession and sentenced to jail.

The Supreme court ruled that any evidence obtained The Supreme court ruled that any evidence obtained illegally were inadmissible in court. All courts must now illegally were inadmissible in court. All courts must now prove that any evidence was obtained through only legal prove that any evidence was obtained through only legal means in order to be used in court (4means in order to be used in court (4thth amendment) amendment)

Plessy vs. Ferguson 1896Plessy vs. Ferguson 1896 ““Separate but Equal” = Established SegregationSeparate but Equal” = Established Segregation A Louisianna law made it mandatory for separate A Louisianna law made it mandatory for separate

coaches for white and black passangers on trains.coaches for white and black passangers on trains. Mr Plessy bought a first class ticket, but because he was Mr Plessy bought a first class ticket, but because he was

not white, he was told that he had to ride in the “colored” not white, he was told that he had to ride in the “colored” train car. He refused and was arrested and convicted for train car. He refused and was arrested and convicted for violating the law.violating the law.

He argued that the 14He argued that the 14thth amendment (right to equal amendment (right to equal treament under the law) was being violated.treament under the law) was being violated.

The Supreme Court ruled that the 14The Supreme Court ruled that the 14thth amendment amendment gauranteed political equality, but not social equality. gauranteed political equality, but not social equality. Having laws that established separate facilities for blacks Having laws that established separate facilities for blacks and whites was a social issue, and therefore and whites was a social issue, and therefore constitutional.constitutional.

Brown vs. Board of Ed. 1954Brown vs. Board of Ed. 1954

““Separate but Equal” = Segregation Separate but Equal” = Segregation UnconstitutionalUnconstitutional

A little girl was forced to a school across town A little girl was forced to a school across town when a school was located a few blocks from when a school was located a few blocks from her home because she was black.her home because she was black.

The Supreme Court ruled the 14The Supreme Court ruled the 14 thth amendment amendment DID guarantee equality social and political in the DID guarantee equality social and political in the law, and that “separate but equal” had no place law, and that “separate but equal” had no place in our government.in our government.

This decision overturned Plessey vs. FergusonThis decision overturned Plessey vs. Ferguson

Regents of California v. Bakke, Regents of California v. Bakke, 19781978

Issue:Issue: School admissionsSchool admissions

Amendment:Amendment: 1414thth, executive order for affirmative action, executive order for affirmative action

Rights:Rights: Equal protection under the law, affirmative actionEqual protection under the law, affirmative action

Precedent:Precedent: Race cannot be the only factor in determining Race cannot be the only factor in determining

admissions.admissions. Lasting effects:Lasting effects:

Korematsu v. United States, 1944Korematsu v. United States, 1944

Issue:Issue: DiscriminationDiscrimination

Amendment:Amendment: 14th14th

Rights:Rights: Equal protection under the lawEqual protection under the law

Precedent:Precedent: Can limit your rights in time of warCan limit your rights in time of war

Lasting effects:Lasting effects:

Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S., Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S., 19641964

Issue:Issue: DiscriminationDiscrimination

Amendment:Amendment: 14th14th

Rights:Rights: Equal protection under the lawEqual protection under the law

Precedent:Precedent: Banned discrimination in all placesBanned discrimination in all places

Lasting effects:Lasting effects: Declares the civil rights act as constitutional.Declares the civil rights act as constitutional.

Swann v. Charlotte/Mecklenburg Swann v. Charlotte/Mecklenburg Schools, 1969Schools, 1969

Issue:Issue: Bussing vs. Freedom of ChoiceBussing vs. Freedom of Choice

Amendment:Amendment: 14th14th

Rights:Rights: Equal protection under the lawEqual protection under the law

Precedent:Precedent: If freedom of choice for school assignments was If freedom of choice for school assignments was not not

successful in integrating schoolssuccessful in integrating schools, then more active , then more active plans such as plans such as bussing must be usedbussing must be used..

Tinker v. Des Moines School Tinker v. Des Moines School District, 1969District, 1969

Issue:Issue: ArmbandsArmbands

Amendment:Amendment: 1st1st

Rights:Rights: Free speech/expressionFree speech/expression

Precedent:Precedent: Students may express themselves as long as Students may express themselves as long as

they do not cause a disruption.they do not cause a disruption.

New Jersey v. TLO, 1985New Jersey v. TLO, 1985 Issue:Issue:

School officials searching studentsSchool officials searching students Amendment:Amendment:

4th4th Rights:Rights:

Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.Protection from unreasonable search and seizure. Precedent:Precedent:

School officials only require a “suspicion” in order to search a School officials only require a “suspicion” in order to search a student.student.

Lasting effects:Lasting effects: School officials have a greater ability to ensure a proper learning School officials have a greater ability to ensure a proper learning

environmentenvironment

Bethel School District v. Frasier, Bethel School District v. Frasier, 19861986

Issue:Issue: Student speech/conductStudent speech/conduct

Amendment:Amendment: 1st1st

Rights:Rights: Freedom of speechFreedom of speech

Precedent:Precedent: Schools have the right to limit student speechSchools have the right to limit student speech

Lasting effects:Lasting effects: School officials may determine what is “vulgar and lewd” School officials may determine what is “vulgar and lewd”

language and punish persons for using it, in order to preserve language and punish persons for using it, in order to preserve the “school’s basic educational mission.”the “school’s basic educational mission.”

Hazelwood School District v. Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 1988Kuhlmeier, 1988

Issue:Issue: School newspapersSchool newspapers

Amendment:Amendment: 1st1st

Rights:Rights: Freedom of the press/speechFreedom of the press/speech

Precedent:Precedent: Schools have editorial power over school sponsored Schools have editorial power over school sponsored

events and publications.events and publications. Lasting effects:Lasting effects:

Schools have more ability to regulate student conductSchools have more ability to regulate student conduct

Texas v. Johnson, 1991Texas v. Johnson, 1991 Issue:Issue:

Flag burningFlag burning Amendment:Amendment:

1st1st Rights:Rights:

Freedom of Speech (expression)Freedom of Speech (expression) Precedent:Precedent:

Flag burning is a form of expression.Flag burning is a form of expression. Lasting effects:Lasting effects:

““the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive.”simply because society finds the idea itself offensive.”

Engel v. Vitale, 1962Engel v. Vitale, 1962

Issue:Issue: Prayer in SchoolPrayer in School

Amendment:Amendment: 1st1st

Rights:Rights: Freedom of religion (shall make no law respecting an Freedom of religion (shall make no law respecting an

establishment of religion)establishment of religion) Precedent:Precedent:

No prayer in public schools.No prayer in public schools. Lasting effects:Lasting effects:

Furman v. Georgia, 1972Furman v. Georgia, 1972 Issue: Issue:

Death PenaltyDeath Penalty Amendment:Amendment:

8th, 14th8th, 14th Rights:Rights:

Equal protection under the law, protection from cruel and Equal protection under the law, protection from cruel and unusual punishment.unusual punishment.

Precedent:Precedent: The death penalty was unconstitutional under state law because The death penalty was unconstitutional under state law because

it was not administered equally.it was not administered equally. Lasting effects:Lasting effects:

States will change their laws in order to solve the problems States will change their laws in order to solve the problems presented in Furman Georgia. presented in Furman Georgia.

Gregg v. Georgia, 1976Gregg v. Georgia, 1976 Issue: Issue:

Death PenaltyDeath Penalty Amendment:Amendment:

88thth, 14th, 14th Rights:Rights:

Equal protection under the law, protection from cruel and Equal protection under the law, protection from cruel and unusual punishment.unusual punishment.

Precedent:Precedent: The death penalty was constitutional as long as it met certain The death penalty was constitutional as long as it met certain

criteria. No undue pain, proportionate to the crime committed.criteria. No undue pain, proportionate to the crime committed. Lasting effects:Lasting effects:

Capital punishment is able to continue.Capital punishment is able to continue.

The State Courts There are generally four levels of state courts: District Court: one per county

Probable cause hearings for felony cases, all domestic relations cases, and civil cases involving amounts of $10,000 or less.

Superior Court: 39 Judicial Districts General jurisdiction trial court for the state & civil

cases involving amounts over $10,000. Court of Appeals:

12 judges sit in panels of 3 judges State Supreme Court:

Chief Justice & 6 associate justices

N.C. State Supreme CourtN.C. State Supreme Court

State v. Mann, 1830State v. Mann, 1830 Slave holder John Mann was arrested for Slave holder John Mann was arrested for

beating and wounding an enslaved African beating and wounding an enslaved African American named Lydia.American named Lydia.

The NC Supreme Court overturned his The NC Supreme Court overturned his conviction stating that slaveholders could not conviction stating that slaveholders could not be punished for attacking the enslavedbe punished for attacking the enslaved

N.C. State Supreme CourtN.C. State Supreme Court

The Leandro CaseThe Leandro Case The NC constitution states that the people of The NC constitution states that the people of

the state have a right to an education and that the state have a right to an education and that it is the duty of the state to maintain it.it is the duty of the state to maintain it.

In 1994 many “Low-Wealth” counties filed suit In 1994 many “Low-Wealth” counties filed suit against the state because they had less against the state because they had less money to spend their children were not money to spend their children were not receiving an adequate education.receiving an adequate education.

The NC Supreme Court ruled that the The NC Supreme Court ruled that the constitution does not require equal fundingconstitution does not require equal funding