Marbury vs MadisonMarbury vs MadisonWhen:1803Case: Last minute appointments were neverfinalized, so was Marbury entitled to hisappointment still?Ruling: Unanimous; Madison won on the rulingthat when the Constitution conflicts with an actof legislature the act is invalid.
Engel vs VitaleEngel vs VitaleWhen: 1961Case: New York authorized prayer at thebeginning of school. Engel felt this violated theestablishment of religion in the firstamendment.Ruling: 6 for Engel, 1 against. Engel won on thepremise that the requirement was a violation ofthe constitution.
Wallace vs JaffreeWallace vs JaffreeWhen: 1984Case: Jaffree argued that the Alabama lawpermitting prayer in school violated the firstamendment’s establishment clause.Ruling: 6 for Jaffree, 3 against. Jaffree won onthe premise that the prayer law wasunconstitutional. Very similar to Engel v. Vitale.
Tinker vs Des MoinesTinker vs Des MoinesWhen: 1968Case: John Tinker, Mary Beth Tinker,Christopher Echardt, and parents decided toprotest Vietnam war by wearing blackarmbands. They were asked to remove themand refused and were suspended from school.Ruling: 7 for Tinker, 2 against. Tinker won onthe premise that being unable to wear thearmband is a violation of the first amendmentconcerning freedom of speech.
NY Times vs United StatesNY Times vs United StatesWhen: 1970Case: Nixon administration tried preventingNew York times and Washington Post frompublishing classified information from Vietnam.Nixon claimed this was a matter of nationalsecurity.Ruling: 6 for NY Times, 3 against. NY Timeswon on the premise that the nixonadministration was trying to violate the firstamendment concerning freedom of speech.
New Jersey vs TLONew Jersey vs TLOWhen: 1983Case: TLO was a student accused of smoking inthe girls bathroom at school. When searched;marijuana and drug paraphernalia was found.Ruling: 6 for New Jersey, 3 against. New Jerseywon because having probable cause on schoolgrounds mean the search was not in violation ofthe fourth or fourteenth amendments.
Mapp vs OhioMapp vs OhioWhen: 1960Case: Mapp convicted for ownership of obscenematerials discovered during police search.Ruling: 6 for Mapp, 3 against. Mapp won noton the premise of freedom of speech but insteadon the fourth amendment stating all search andseizure evidence unconstitutionally obtained isinadmissible in a court of law.
Betts vs BradyBetts vs BradyWhen: 1941Case: Betts was convicted for robbery and wasunable to afford counsel. When he asked thecourt to provide him with one, the judge deniedhis request.Ruling: The ruling was that the denial ofcounsel was not a violation of fourteenth orsixth amendment.
Gideon vs WainwrightGideon vs WainwrightWhen: 1962Case: Gideon was convicted for breaking andentering and requested the court to provide himcounsel and the court denied his request.Ruling: Unanimously Gideon; Due to the 14thamendment state courts are required to providecounsel for defendants unable to afford one.
Escobedo vs IllinoisEscobedo vs IllinoisWhen: 1963Case: Escobedo was arrested and questioned.The police questioning him refused hisrequested to see his lawyer and eventuallyincriminated himself.Ruling: 5 for Escobedo, 4 against. Escobedowon on the premise that his rights were deniedand he wasn’t informed of his otherconstitutional rights to remain silent.
Miranda vs ArizonaMiranda vs ArizonaWhen: 1965Case: This was a joint case concerning whetherpeople’s rights were being violated duringpolice investigations due to not being notifiedof their rights.Ruling: 5 for Miranda, 4 against. Miranda wonon the premise that the court cannot usestatements from interrogations unless theperson is notified of their rights prior.
Griswold vs ConnecticutGriswold vs ConnecticutWhen: 1964Case: Griswold provided counsel to marriedcouples for birth control and was convicted forviolating the Connecticut law that criminalizedoffering help to married people with preventingconception.Ruling: 7 for Griswold, 2 against. Griswold wondue to a combination of first, third, fourth, andninth amendments create the right to privacy inmarriage.
Roe vs WadeRoe vs WadeWhen: 1971Case: Roe wished to have an abortion butTexas law prohibited abortions unless themother is in jeopardy.Ruling: 7 for Roe, 2 against. Roe won by thesame standards in Griswold v. Connecticutbecause the constitution protects the rights toprivacy during the first trimester. This rulingaffected 46 states.
Dred Scott vs SanfordDred Scott vs SanfordWhen: 1856Case: Dred Scott was a slave living in a freestate and therefore tried to sue Missouri for hisfreedom when he returned to the slave state.Ruling: 7 for Sanford, 2 against. Sanford wonbecause under articles III and IV only citizensof the USA can be citizens of a state. Alsodecided the Missouri Compromise wasunconstitutional.
Plessy vs FergusonPlessy vs FergusonWhen: 1895Case: Louisiana enacted a law requiringseparate train cars for blacks and whites. Plessywho was 7/8 caucasian sat in the white sectionand pulled a Rosa Parks and was arrested.Ruling: 7 for Ferguson, 1 against. The state lawwas in constitutional boundaries based on theseparate but equal doctrine.
Brown vs Board of EducationBrown vs Board of EducationWhen: 1952Case: Public schools were segregated. Brownfelt that the segregation based on race deprivedminority children of the laws guaranteed by the14th amendment.Ruling: Unanimously. Brown won on the ideathat intangible factors supported inequality bycausing the minorities to feel inferior.
US vs NixonUS vs NixonWhen: 1974Case: This was the case concerning thewatergate affair based off of audio tapes. Nixonclaimed it was his executive privilege towithhold information that was to securenational interest.Ruling: Unanimous. The United States wonbased on the fact that presidents are notimmune from judicial review. The courtordered that Nixon must obey the subpoena.
Schenck vs USSchenck vs USWhen: 1918Case: Schenck was charged with conspiracy forspreading mail encouraging peaceful protestsagainst the draft. He was accused of attemptingto cause insubordination in the military and inmilitary recruitment.Ruling: Unanimous. The United States won dueto the circumstances. The freedom of speechargument was dismissed.
Bakke vs California Board ofBakke vs California Board ofRegentsRegentsWhen: 1977Case: Bakke had applied to the University ofCalifornia Medical School at Davis twice andgot rejected twice. His scores exceeded those ofthe minorities who had been admitted so heargued he was rejected based on race notacademics.Ruling: 5 for Bakke, 4 against. Bakke wonhowever the court made progress in bothaffirmative action and minimizing whiteoppression.
Swann vs Charlotte Meck SchoolsSwann vs Charlotte Meck SchoolsWhen:1970Case: This furthered Brown vs Board ofEducation with the issue of segregation in theschool system. Charlotte-Mecklenburg schoolshad about 14,000 students that were all blackattending all black schools.Ruling: Unanimous. Charlotte-Mecklenburgwon and guidelines for segregated schools wereput in place.
Korematsu vs USKorematsu vs USWhen: 1944Case: Japanese were excluded from areasduring WWII where national security was indanger. Korematsu violated this order referredto as the Civilian Exclusion Order No. 34 bythe army.Ruling: 6 for US, 3 against. The United Stateswon on the premise that the need to preventespionage was more important than his rights.
Abington Schools vs SchemppAbington Schools vs SchemppWhen: 1962Case: Bible reading was a part of the schoolsystem where students were required to read tenBible verses and recite the Lord’s Prayer unlessexcused with a parent note. Murray claimedthis to be a violation of the 1st and 14thamendments concerning freedom of religion.Ruling: 8 for Schempp, 1 against. The courtruled that the school system was in fact inviolation of these rights.
Minersville vs GobitisMinersville vs GobitisWhen: 1939Case: Two students were expelled from publicschool for refusing to salute the flag. They wererefusing due to their religious beliefs asJehovahs Witnesses.Ruling: 8 for Minersville, 1 against. Basicallysaluting the flag brings unity to the nation andwas the basis of national security which is thestupidest thing I’ve ever heard of.
Hazelwood Schools vs KuhlmeirHazelwood Schools vs KuhlmeirWhen: 1987Case: Two articles in the school newspaper weresaid to be inappropriate by the principal. Thestudents felt removing the articles violated theirright of freedom of speech.Ruling: 5 for Hazelwood, 3 against. Schools arenot required to promote certain student speech.
In re GaultIn re GaultWhen: 1967Case: A 15 year old was taken into custodywithout notifying the parents or providing anydetails on the hearings and convictions.Ruling: Juveniles being charged still have thesame rights as adults and must be notified ofthese rights such as right to counsel and right toremain silent.
Baker vs CarrBaker vs CarrWhen: 1960Case: The law to apportion the seats wasignored and restraining economic growth.Ruling: 6 for Baker, 2 against.
McCulloch vs MarylandMcCulloch vs MarylandWhen: 1819Case: A cashier at the new bank refused to paythe taxes that were put into placeRuling: Unanimous. McCulloch won on thepremise that Maryland can not tax instrumentsof the national government in the execution ofconstitutional powers.
Leandro vs NCLeandro vs NCWhen: 1994Case: The Leandro family wanted equaleducation for children and that a child’seducation should not be based on the wealth ofthe community they live in.Ruling: Every child has the right to a basiceducation however it is not the State’s job tofund that education.
Texas vs JohnsonTexas vs JohnsonWhen: 1988Case: Gregory Lee Johnson burned anAmerican flag as a means of protest againstReagan administration policies. Johnson wastried and convicted under a Texas lawoutlawing flag desecration.Ruling: 5 for Johnson, 4 against. His expressionof burning the flag was protected by his 1stamendment rights.
West Virginia vs BarnetteWest Virginia vs BarnetteWhen: 1942Case: The West Virginia Board of Educationordered that the "flag salute" must occur at anyactivity in public schools. If a student did notparticipate, they could be expelled or chargedwith delinquency.Ruling: 6 for Barnette, 3 against. This was aviolation of the 1st amendment rights.
Gratz vs BullingerGratz vs BullingerWhen: 2002Case: When Jennifer Gratz and PatrickHamacher applied to the University ofMichigan, they were both rejected even thoughthey were qualified. The University thenadmitted to using race as a factor in theadmission process.Ruling: 6 for Gratz, 3 against. The school wasin violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
Katz vs USKatz vs USWhen: 1967Case: When federal agents found out that Katzmay have been communicating gamblinginformation to other states, they bugged thepublic telephone booth that Katz typically used.He was convicted based on his recordingsRuling: 7 for Katz, 1 against. The evidence hadto be thrown out because it was a violation ofthe 4th amendment.
Reynolds vs SimsReynolds vs SimsWhen: 1963Case: Each country was allowed one senator.However, population ratios varied up to fortyone to one.Ruling: 8 for Sims, 1 against. Many thought itviolated the Equal Protection Clause of theFourteenth Amendment by not taking intoaccount population variances but it wasn’t inviolation.
Gibbons vs OgdenGibbons vs OgdenWhen: 1824Case: It caused states to charge large fees tooperate steamboats for out-of-state individuals,and it created a monopoly. A steamboat ownerchallenged this monopoly and brought intoquestion whether or not New York hadoverstepped its bounds and exercised powers ofthe Congress.Ruling: Unanimously Gibbons
Olmstead vs USOlmstead vs USWhen: 1927Case: Roy Olmstead had been suspected ofbootlegging. Federal agents decided that to getproof they would wiretapped the basement ofOlmsteads building and areas near his home.Green vs. United States and McInnis vs. UnitedStates were both decided along with this case.Olmstead argued that wiretapping his privateconversations were in violation of his Fourthand Fifth Amendment rights.Ruling: 4 for Olmstead, 5 against.
Gitlow vs NYGitlow vs NYWhen: 1922Case: Socialist Gitlow was arrested for anarchyfor distributing his “left-wing manifesto.” Sinceno action came from it he felt he had no right tobe charged.Ruling: New York won on the premise that it isthe states right to prevent a disturbance inpeace.