Supreme Court Project

The Marshall Court
Marbury v. Madison (1803)
· The Case: Marbury, along with some other men, was appointed a position of power. In his case it was the position of Justice of the peace in the District of Columbia. However, these brand new positions created by Congress in the last days of the Adams administration, and were never finalized. In the end, these men sued to get their jobs.
· Q’s in front of the court: Is Marbury really entitled to the job? Can Marbury get a government job by suing? Is the Supreme Court in the position to appoint a government job?
· Outcome: Marbury won the case thus, getting his job along with the other appointed men. It was decided that Marbury was entitled to his job, the lawsuit was a correct one, and it depends on whether or not the Supreme Court is in the position to grant government positions.
· The Reasoning: when the Constitution--the nation's highest law--conflicts with an act of the legislature, that act is invalid.*
· The Dissenting Opinion: The justices held, through Marshall's forceful argument, that on the last issue the Constitution was "the fundamental and paramount law of the nation" and that "an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void."(Marshall)*
· Impact: Judicial Review is established for the Supreme Court after this case.

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)
· The Case: In 1816, Congress chartered the second federal bank of the United Sates. In 1818 however, the state of Maryland decided to impose a tax on the bank. A cashier at the Maryland branch of the bank refused to pay the tax; his name was James W. McCulloch.
· Q’s in front of the court: Was Congress allowed to establish the bank in the first place? Had Maryland done something unconstitutional by imposing a tax on the bank?
· Outcome: It was decided that Congress did have the power to establish the bank and that Maryland had no right to tax it.
· The Reasoning: The authorization of a bank was part of Congress’s constitutional powers and Maryland could not tax such a product of federal power.
· The Dissenting Opinion: "The constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof are supreme . . . they control the constitution and laws of the respective states, and cannot be controlled by them." (Marshall)*
· Impact: Federal power may not be controlled by individual state power.

Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1818-1819)
· The Case: In 1816, The New Hampshire legislature tried to convert Dartmouth College, a private school, into a state run university controlled by the Governor of the state. The Dartmouth College board of trustees filed a lawsuit against William H. Woodward, the state appointed secretary of the public Dartmouth.
· Q’s in front of the court: Did the New Hampshire legislature unconstitutionally interfere with Dartmouth College's rights under the Contract Clause?*
· Outcome: Dartmouth was returned to its private state of being.
· The Reasoning: Dartmouth had been created under the agreement of private parties, and the state legislature could not interfere with that.
· The Dissenting Opinion: Chief Justice Marshall's opinion emphasized that the term "contract" referred to transactions involving individual property rights, not to "the political relations between the government and its citizens."*
· Impact: It was enforced that state governments could not involve themselves in private contracts made by the citizens.

Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)
· The Case: New York State along with other states was giving exclusive operating rights to certain steamboat companies. Any other out-of-state company that came within state waters had to pay for an operating permit to use the waterways. One such steamboat operator was Gibbons.
· Q’s in front of the court: Was New York allowed to use the power given only to Congress: control interstate commerce?
· Outcome: New York and other states employing the steamboat permit for out-of-state steamboats were forced to take it back.
· The Reasoning: The Court found that New York's licensing requirement for out-of-state operators was inconsistent with a congressional act regulating the coasting trade.*
· The Dissenting Opinion: Chief Justice Marshall believed that the rights of the steamboat operators were controlled by Congress rather than individual states.
· Impact: State legislature was not allowed to enforce laws and regulations that were reserved for Congress and the federal government.

Fletcher v. Peck (1810)
· The Case: In 1795, the state legislature of Georgia had distributed land grants to four companies. However, by 1796, the state legislature decided to take back the grants and called them invalid. In 1800, a man by the name of John Peck got a hold of a piece of land from the original grant. Three years later though, he sold the land to Robert Fletcher. Fletcher then sued Peck for selling land that was never sold because of the invalidation of the grant.
· Q’s in front of the court: Could the contract between Fletcher and Peck be invalidated by an act of the Georgia legislature?*
· Outcome: It was decided that John Peck legally owned the land that he owned before he sold it because he had paid a hefty some for it.
· The Reasoning: The state of Georgia could not nullify the land contract because it had already sold the lot legally.
· Impact: It became unconstitutional for any state to cancel a contract once the contract was already made.

Native American Issues
Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831)
The Case: In 1830, the chief of the Cherokee nation along with some other tribe members, came to Washington to demand some rights that the state of Georgia was violating by creating laws that would “annihilate the Cherokee people as a society.” It was argued that the Indian nation was a foreign country and should not be touched by any state law.
Q’s in front of the court: Had Georgia violated the Cherokee nation by creating laws that extended onto independent peoples?
Outcome: The Cherokee plea was denied.
The Reasoning: Because the Cherokee nation was within the boundaries of states, it could not be an independent country in terms of constitution. Thus, they could not disregard Georgia state law because they were within Georgia state boundaries.
Impact: The impact of this case was short lived because the case led to the next case in Indian issues: Worcester v. Georgia which stated that no state law could be imposed on the territories of Indian nations or its people.

Worcester v. Georgia (1832)
· The Case: Samuel Worcester and some other non-native American men were living on Cherokee soil without a license and without taking the oath to defend and protect the state of Georgia. Worcester was prosecuted but he had a defense. He said that it was in the Constitution that he could regulate trade and intercourse with the natives. Georgia still however had sentenced Worcester to four years of hard labor.
· Q’s in front of the court: Did Georgia have the right to regulate the Constitutional Act that talked about the regulation of trade and intercourse with the natives?
· Outcome: Worcester won the case and he was freed of all charges.
· The Reasoning: It was decided that by Georgia altering or regulating a Constitutional Act, it was doing something unconstitutional.
· Dissenting Opinion: "Treaties and laws of the United States contemplate the Indian territory as completely separated from that of the states; and provide that all intercourse with them shall be carried on exclusively by the government of the union," Chief Justice Marshall argued.*
· Impact: States were not allowed to change or alter in any way the laws that had been set up by the federal government in relation to the Native Americans. Also, this case designated Indian territories as independent nations unlike the case that proceeded a year earlier: Cherokee Nation v. Georgia.

Economic
Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge (1837)
· The Case: In 1785 the Massachusetts state government had instructed the Charles River Bridge Company to build a bridge and collect tolls off it. However, in 1828, the state government instructed the company to build another bridge nearby that was free. Because of the new bridge, the company lost a lot of profit and sued the state.
· Q’s in front of the court: Did the state of Mass. cripple an economic contract with the company when it built a free bridge nearby? Did the impairment of the first contract go against section 1 article 10 of the Constitution?
· Outcome: The company’s lawsuit was scrapped by the Supreme Court.
· The Reasoning: When Mass. made the original contract with the company, it did not state that another bridge could not be built at a different time. Also, the company had never been given the exclusive right to completely control that particular water way.
· Impact: The court outlined the balance between the rights of private property against the need for economic development.

Commonwealth v. Hunt (1842)
The Case: Unions that were being created at the workplace were being charged with conspiracy and shut down. The case was to defend the rights of unions after some incidents against unions had occurred in Boston.
Q’s in front of the court: Are Unions and their actions, such as strikes legal?
Outcome: Unions are legal organizations and so are their strikes if they are not violent or against public health.
The Reasoning: Unions were legal if they did not pose a threat to society and were not violent.
Impact: This was a turning point decision for unions because to this point they were legally made illegitimate or charged for conspiracy. With unions now legal, there was room for improvement in the workplace thanks to the new power of unions. However, later on, judges would be more conservative towards unions and would try to limit and restrict them.
1st Amendment

Schenck v. US (1919)
The Case: Schenck was a man who during WWI spread around flyers to draftees urging them not to go and fight in the war but rather to get the Conscription Act repealed. He was charged with conspiracy of the Espionage Act.
Q’s in front of the court: Was what Schenck did his freedom of speech protected by the 1st amendment?
Outcome: Schenck was not protected in this case.
The Reasoning: Everything for the 1st amendment is circumstantial. In this case Schenck endangered the safety of the nation by his actions. During wartime things that may be deemed appropriate during peace time are not appropriate during war time.
The Impact: From that point on, freedom of speech became viewed differently during peace time and war. In summary, freedom of speech is limited during war time in the sense that if someone’s words are deemed to be endangering the nation, then they are not allowed.

U.S. V. O’Brien (1968)
The Case: O’Brien had burned his draft card in front of a courthouse in Boston. He was arrested and convicted for violating federal law in his burning of the card.
Q’s in front of the court: Was the federal law unconstitutional in relation to O’Brien’s freedom of speech?
The Outcome: It was decided that the federal law was constitutional.
The Reasoning: The government cause was justified and also the card had no relation to freedom of speech. The draft card was government property and could not be destroyed. O’Brien broke the law and his excuse was inexcusable.
The Impact: Freedom of speech could not be used for the destruction of government property because the two were classified in different categories. Burning draft cards remained illegal so many men went to Canada to avoid their draft cards that would send them to Vietnam. However, O’Brien was one of the many who was arrested for burning their draft cards.

NY Times v. US (1971)
The Case: The Nixon administration tried to prevent the New York Times and the Washington Post from publishing information regarding America’s activity in Vietnam. Nixon claimed that the information was a matter of national security and should not be released.
Q’s in front of the court: Did Nixon’s effort to stop the publications the information violate the first amendment?
The Outcome: Nixon tried to violate the first amendment.
The Reasoning: Because no danger to the nation would come out of the publication of these papers, Nixon was not allowed to have branded them as high security and then tried to keep them from being published. Nixon and his administration had tried to violate the first amendment.
The Impact: It was illegal for an administration to make papers that it didn’t want published high security due to possible incrimination of the government. First amendment rights allowed citizens to know what the government was up to unless the papers would compromise ongoing military or diplomatic affairs.

NY Times v. Sullivan (1964)
· The Case: Sullivan, the commissioner of the city of Montgomery, had just won a case against a New York Times ad in which it was said that the arrest of MLK in Montgomery was meant to destroy the civil rights movement. Sullivan had filed a libel suit against the ad and the four ministers that endorsed it because he claimed it defamed him. In Alabama, no reason needs to be provided on how one is being harmed, so he won 500,000 dollars.
· Q’s in front of the court: Did Alabama's libel law, by not requiring Sullivan to prove that an advertisement personally harmed him and dismissing the same as untruthful due to factual errors, unconstitutionally infringe on the First Amendment's freedom of speech and freedom of press protections?*
· Outcome: Sullivan’s case collapsed because the ad was deemed legal.
· The Reasoning: All statements, whether truthful or not, are legal under the first amendment. The only exception would be if someone was specifically trying to harm a specific person or group.
· The Impact: Freedom of speech had to be accepted in almost all of its forms, from the lies to the truth. The two times when it is was limited was when the words were putting the nation in danger during war and when purposely trying to spread false or malicious information about someone else. This case led to a lot more free speech in terms of civil rights without the worries of being falsely jailed for them. (Of course, some people were still wrongfully jailed in the southern states.)

Engel v. Vitale (1962)
· The Case: The New York board of regents had created a short prayer that was to be voluntarily recited at the beginning of each school day in public schools.
· Q’s in front of the court: Does the reading of a nondenominational prayer at the start of the school day violate the "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment?*
· Outcome: The prayer was determined to be unconstitutional.
· The Reasoning: By creating a school prayer, New York State was officially endorsing religion, something which was unconstitutional. Separation between church and state.
· The Impact: Though there is clearly a separation between church and state, many Americans remained unhappy with the court’s ruling. However, this case has stayed true with the morning prayer recitals and is still not legal in any public school.

Schempp v. Abington School District (1963)
· The Case: All Pennsylvania schools had Bible readings every morning. For a student to be exempt from the Bible reading, they had to have a signed note from their parents.
· Q’s in front of the court: Did the Pennsylvania law and Abington's policy, requiring public school students to participate in classroom religious exercises, violate the religious freedom of students as protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments?*
· Outcome: The Bible reading at the public schools along with how exemption from it had to be achieved was seen as interference with the first amendment right of freedom of religion.
· The Reasoning: The Bible readings were intended as a religious ceremony, something which went against the Establishment clause.
· Dissenting Opinion: Justice Clarke argued that a written note for exemption was irrelevant to the legality of the public school Bible readings because the readings themselves went against the Establishment clause.
· Impact: Religious readings or anything to do with religion during the school day in public schools is not allowed under any circumstances.

Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)
· The Case: One day, a group of teenagers decided to wear black armbands to protest the ongoing Vietnam War. However, the school saw it unfit and was worried that it would cause unnecessary disturbances. So, the kids were ordered to take them off. However, they refused and were thus, suspended.
· Q’s in front of the court: Did the ban concerning the wearing of armbands as a political statement interfere with the first amendment right to freedom of speech?
· Outcome: The wearing of armbands was seen as freedom of speech and was thus allowed.
· The Reasoning: The armbands were seen as a political statement which was protected by the first amendment. Thus, it was unconstitutional to ban the wearing of armbands.
· Dissenting Opinion: Justice Fortas said that the armbands were "closely akin to 'pure speech'"
· Impact: As long as the freedom of speech is not hurting anyone, it cannot be regulated by society.

Texas v. Johnson (1989)
· The Case: In 1984, a man by the name of Lee Johnson burned an American flag in protest of the Reagan administration. Under Texas state law, it was illegal to destroy flags and e was thus thrown in jail for a year.
· Q’s in front of the court: Was the destruction of the American flag legal under the first amendment? Was it a form of free speech?
· Outcome: In a 5-4 vote, it was decided that what Johnson did was protected under the first amendment.
· The Reasoning: Johnson’s flag burning was purely political and the message he was trying to get across could not be transformed into something negative because that is the accepted idea for flag burning.
· Dissenting Opinion: "[i]f there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable."*
· Impact: Political speech in its numerous forms is protected under the first amendment. Thus, no political statement, no matter how harsh it is, is legal. Just days ago, a church that picketed the funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq used the “freedom of speech” plea when sued by the deceased soldier’s father. In this case though, the circumstances were such that the court decided that the picketers were responsible for the emotional damages they caused, forcing them to pay up almost 11 million dollars.

Bethel v. Fraser (1986)
· The Case: At a school, a boy named Matthew Fraser made a speech to help in the nomination of his friend into the student government. However, as he made the speech in front of an audience of 600, he said something which was considered profane. The school had enforced a rule against profanities and he was suspended for a couple of days.
· Q’s in front of the court: Does the First Amendment prevent a school district from disciplining a high school student for giving a lewd speech at a high school assembly?*
· Outcome: The school was correct in its prohibition of vulgar language and in its discipline of Matthew Fraser.
· The Reasoning: The court decided that there was a difference between the protected political speech and the lewd language that Fraser used.
· Dissenting Opinion: Burger concluded that the First Amendment did not prohibit schools from prohibiting vulgar and lewd speech since such discourse was inconsistent with the "fundamental values of public school education."*
· Impact: Schools have the right to ban lewd language without affecting the first amendment. (Making it perfectly legal)

Dennis v. United States (1951)
· The Case: In 1948, the leaders of the Communist party in America were arrested. They were later tried under the Smith Act which stated that any teachings that were meant to overthrow the American government were illegal. They were all convicted.
· Q’s in front of the court: Did the Smith Act violate the first amendment?
· Outcome: It was decided that the Smith Act was constitutional.
· The Reasoning: The Smith Act did not inherently violate the 1st amendment and also, the teachings of communists and their philosophies gave a clear and present danger to the nation.
· The Impact: This decision was one of the ones that were made due to the ongoing Cold War which began almost immediately after WWII. This case along with others would give rise to McCarthyism. Something made possible by the fear of the Soviet Union in cases such as this one.

Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988)
· The Case: In 1983, the principal of a Hazelwood district high school banned the publication of two articles that were to be published in the student run school newspaper. The former students sued saying that banning their articles was going against their freedom of speech.
· Q’s in front of the court: Was the students’ freedom of speech violated when the principal banned certain articles?
· Outcome: The students lost the case because the court didn’t see any first amendment violations.
· The Reasoning: The school was there to promote high standards for the kids and was thus not required to sponsor something that was seen as below the high standard. Also, it was decided that the principal banned the articles over legitimate concerns.
· Impact: Schools have the right to ban certain material that spreads throughout the school if that material has cause for concern. These actions will not be considered to impede the students’ first amendment rights.

Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989)
· The Case: In 1986 the state of Missouri enacted a law which made it illegal for doctors or public health workers to suggest an abortion. Also, medical workers were not allowed to perform abortions unless it was to save the mother’s life. Finally, doctors had to take a viability test on pregnant women in their twentieth week of pregnancy.
· Q’s in front of the court: Did the Missouri restrictions unconstitutionally infringe upon the right to privacy or the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?*
· Outcome: It was decided that the state of Missouri had done nothing unconstitutional.
· The Reasoning: First, the Court held that the preamble had not been applied in any concrete manner for the purposes of restricting abortions, and thus did not present a constitutional question. Second, the Court held that the Due Process Clause did not require states to enter into the business of abortion, and did not create an affirmative right to governmental aid in the pursuit of constitutional rights. Third, the Court found that no case or controversy existed in relation to the counseling provisions of the law. Finally, the Court upheld the viability testing requirements, arguing that the State's interest in protecting potential life could come into existence before the point of viability. The Court emphasized that it was not revisiting the essential portions of the holding in Roe v. Wade.*
· Impact: States were given the right to discourage or even make it difficult to have an abortion if the mother’s life was not at stake. These decisions were different from the earlier, more liberal ones where abortions were to be legal and moderately easy to access. From this case on, the question on whether or not abortions should be kept legal at all has arisen and has been argued in most states. Typically, the more conservative states are pro-life while the more liberal states are pro-choice. The subject is one that greatly divides Americans today.

Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)
· The Case: The state of Pennsylvania created legislature which said the following: for a minor to get an abortion, they have to get written consent from at least one parent. For a married woman to get one, she would have to notify her spouse of her intent. In both cases, the women would have to go through a twenty four hour waiting period.
· Q’s in front of the court: Can a state require women who want an abortion to obtain informed consent, wait 24 hours, and, if minors, obtain parental consent, without violating their right to abortions as guaranteed by Roe v. Wade?*
· Outcome: The court allowed for the abortions but lowered the regulations for having one.
· The Reasoning: It was decided that abortions should be legal. However, the court saw the spousal notification for an abortion “an undue burden” and opted to remove it from the legislature.
· Impact: Made it illegal to almost completely and purposely obstruct a women’s choice to get an abortion. However, the question of whether there should be abortions in the first place remains a big question today.

Slavery/Segregation
Civil Right Cases 1883
· The Case: The Civil Rights Act of 1875 affirmed that any public place (including all businesses privately owned) had to have the same rules and treatment for blacks as whites. On five separate occasions there was a violation of this Act.
· Q’s in front of the court: Does the Civil Rights Act of 1875 violate the 10th Amendment of the Constitution which reserves all powers not granted to the national government to the states or to the people?*
· Outcome: It was decided that the federal government was powerless to stop the wrongdoings of individual states in terms of racial discrimination.
· The Reasoning: The Fourteenth Amendment restrains only state action. And the fifth section of the Amendment empowers Congress only to enforce the prohibition on state action. The amendment did not authorize national legislation on subjects which are within the domain of the state.*
· Impact: Racial segregation continued in some states and the federal government could do nothing about it.

Dred Scott (1856)
· The Case: Dred Scott was a slave in Missouri. From 1833 to 1843, he resided in Illinois (a free state) and in an area of the Louisiana Territory, where slavery was forbidden by the Missouri Compromise of 1820. After returning to Missouri, Scott sued unsuccessfully in the Missouri courts for his freedom, claiming that his residence in free territory made him a free man. Scott then brought a new suit in federal court. Scott's master maintained that no pure-blooded Negro of African descent and the descendant of slaves could be a citizen in the sense of Article III of the Constitution.*
· Q’s in front of the court: Was Dred Scott a free man or a slave by law.
· Outcome: Dred Scott was a slave.
· The Reasoning: No person descended from an American slave had ever been a United States citizen in terms of Article III.
· Impact: Unless you were a citizen of the United States of America, you couldn’t claim to be a citizen of a state meaning if you were a slave in one state and never granted freedom, you were a slave anywhere you went.

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)
· The Case: The state of Louisiana had enacted a law that made it illegal for blacks and whites to sit in the same railway cars. One day, a man by the name of Adolph Plessy, seven eights Caucasian, decided to sit in the white rail way car. He was thrown of the train and arrested for refusing to move to the black train car.
· Q’s in front of the court: Is Louisiana’s segregation law unconstitutional based on the 14th amendment?
· Outcome: It was decided that the law was constitutional.
· The Reasoning: The justices based their decision on the separate-but-equal doctrine, that separate facilities for blacks and whites satisfied the Fourteenth Amendment so long as they were equal.*
· The Impact: Segregation would continue to be accepted as long as the conditions for both groups under the segregation were equal. These rules would later be fought by the civil rights movement of the 60’s.

Brown v. Board of Ed. (1954)
· The Case: There was segregation for children of the white race and the black race at schools.
· Q’s in front of the court: Does the segregation law for public schools deprive minorities of the same safety and protection by the law as the majority?
· Outcome: Segregation banned in public schools.
· The Reasoning: Though claimed to be equal, segregation had a detrimental affect on minority school children and fostered racial inequality.
· Impact: the ban in school segregation would lead to a chain of events in which all segregation would be eventually outlawed. There was a lot of chaos after this case, with the parents of some white students taking their kids out of school and many others picketing outside of the schools.
Rights of the Accused

Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
· The Case: Mapp, a woman suspected of harboring a bombing fugitive, was searched by the police without a search warrant. Though no fugitive was found, a box of obscene material was found in her basement. According to Ohio law, it was illegal to have any obscene things in one’s possessions.
· Q’s in front of the court: Was it unconstitutional to use incriminating evidence against someone in a search that did not have a warrant.
· Outcome: All the evidence against Mapp was determined to have been obtained illegally and was not submit able in court.
· The Reasoning: Illegally obtained evidence was not allowed to be submitted in court.
· Impact: No legal searches were to be ever done again without a search warrant if the evidence was to be used in court. Only with a search warrant was evidence legally submitted in court.

Escobedo v. Ill. (1964)
· The Case: Danny Escobedo was arrested on the suspicion of murder. However, he was not allowed to get in contact of his lawyer and wasn’t informed of his rights to stay silent. During his interrogation, he confessed to murder.
· Q’s in front of the court: Was Escobedo denied the right to counsel as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment?*
· Outcome: Escobedo won the case and the charges were dropped.
· The Reasoning: Escobedo had not been advised properly to his right to an attorney (16th amendment) and he hadn’t been advised his right to remain silent (15th amendment). Thus the confession was gotten unconstitutionally.
· Dissenting Opinion: Confessions cannot be used if obtained without the complete knowledge of the defendant of their rights.
· Impact: Interrogations could only be done when the accused has been notified of his or her rights and used them if they so pleased.

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)
· The Case: Gideon was charged in Florida for breaking and entering. Because Gideon could not afford a lawyer, he asked that the court appoint him one. The court refused and he had to defend himself. He was convicted by a jury.
· Q’s in front of the court: Did the fact that the court failed to provide an attorney to Gideon violate his right to a fair trial protected under the fourteenth and sixth amendments.
· Outcome: It was decided that there was a clear violation of the right to an equal trial.
· The Reasoning: The sixth and fourteenth amendments provided for the right to counsel and a fair trial, something which had been denied in the case of Gideon.
· Impact: No accused could be tried without them having the option of a lawyer whether by their own expense or provided by the state.

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
· The Case: There were numerous cases in which the accused were not notified of their self incrimination rights as well as other procedural rights.
· Q’s in front of the court: Was the failure to notify the accused of their rights a violation of the Fifth Amendment?
· Outcome: It was decided that the failure to notify was a violation of the fifth.
· The Reasoning: The prosecution of someone without their knowledge of their rights was a violation of the Fifth Amendment and was thus unconstitutional.
· Impact: All accused must be notified of their rights before being interrogated.
Affirmative Action

Bakke v. Regents of Calif. (1977)
· The Case: Bakke, a 35 year old white male had been rejected to the medical at UCLA because 16 of the spots were for minorities. However, Bakke argued that since his GPA and test score were higher than that of any minority student, he wasn’t being admitted only on the principal of race.
· Q’s in front of the court: Did the University of California violate the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, by practicing an affirmative action policy that resulted in the repeated rejection of Bakke's application for admission to its medical school?*
· The Outcome: Bakke was ordered to be accepted to medical school but it was decided that a race criterion was accepted for higher education.
· The Reasoning: The use of rigid racial quotes was unjust and unlawful but at the same time, race could be legally a factor in admission.
· Impact: Affirmative action was decided to be a helpful way for minorities to get an equal opportunity and it is still used today by many schools. It does however limit the seats for different races making it more difficult to get into colleges that use affirmative action.

United Steel Workers v. Weber (1979)
· The Case: The United Steel Workers of America implemented a rule in which half of the trainees were to be black or from another minority. Weber, a white male claimed he was turned down in a case of “reverse discrimination.”
· Q’s in front of the court: Did United and Kaiser Aluminum's training scheme violate Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race?*
· The Outcome: No violations of the 1964 Civil Rights Act were seen.
· The Reasoning: The ’64 Civil Rights Act had been made to remove the predominantly white pattern at jobs. United Steel Workers was just doing its part in putting the Act into practice.
· Impact: Affirmative action was allowed to be used in the work place and is still used in some places today. Some claim this disadvantages people because there is more competition to get the work slot for their race. Also, some claim that affirmative is discriminatory because it looks at your race rather than your abilities.
Right to Privacy

Griswold v. Ct. (1965)
· The Case: Griswold was the Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut. Both she and the Medical Director for the League gave information, instruction, and other medical advice to married couples concerning birth control. Griswold and her colleague were convicted under a Connecticut law which criminalized the provision of counseling, and other medical treatment, to married persons for purposes of preventing conception.*
· Q’s in front of the court: Did the constitution allow couples to be counseled on marital issues and the use of contraceptives through marital privacy thus making the Connecticut restriction unconstitutional?
· The Outcome: Yes, the marital counseling was allowed by the constitution through indirect privacy clauses.
· The Reasoning: Though the constitution did not have a direct privacy clause, when the 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 9th amendments were taken together, they created a new constitutional right: the right to marital privacy.
· The Impact: State laws cannot put any restrictions on marital counseling, making it legal in absolutely every state as long as the constitutional right is there.

Roe v. Wade (1973)
· The Case: Roe, a woman in Texas decided to abort her pregnancy though Texas state law prohibited it unless it was to save the live of the mother.
· Q’s in front of the court: Does the constitution allow for a woman to abort her pregnancy if she so chooses?
· The Outcome: Roe was allowed to have the abortion without any charges being brought on.
· The Reasoning: The 14th amendment along with the women’s privacy clause allowed them to have an abortion if they so choose in the 1st trimester. However, in the 2nd and 3rd, the state may get involved.
· The Impact: The abortion laws of 46 states had to be changed. Eventually, Roe v. Wade would be overturned. Roe v. Wade had made it legal for a woman in any state to get an abortion in the 1st trimester. Highly disputed case. Became the model for many future abortion cases (pro-choice cases). Established rights of privacy.

Akron v. Akron Ctr. Of Reproduction (1983)
· The Case: In 1978 the Akron City Council enacted an ordinance which established seventeen provisions to regulate the performance of abortions. Among other things, the ordinance required: all abortions performed after the first trimester to be done in hospitals, parental consent before the procedure could be performed on an unmarried minor, doctors to counsel prospective patients, a twenty-four hour waiting period, and that fetal remains be disposed of in a "humane and sanitary manner." Some of the ordinance's provisions were invalidated by a federal district court.*
· Q’s in front of the court: Did several of the rules set up by the Akron City Council compromise the rights of women to get an abortion as in the rights of privacy and the 14th amendment?
· Outcome: It was decided that the rules violated a woman’s right to an abortion.
· The Reasoning: Some of the ordinances created by the Akron City Council were made to purposely influence women to not get an abortion. There were no medical necessities for it.
· Impact: After the court findings for Roe v. Wade, most abortion issues came back to the ruing that abortions should be allowed. The rights of privacy stemmed from Roe v. Wade and were used once again in this case. This case was another pro-choice decision which was short lived once more conservative judges came to the Supreme Court.

NJ V. TLO (1985)
· The Case: T.L.O., a fourteen year old girl was accused of smoking in the girl’s bathroom of her High School. Her principal questioned her and then searched her bag, a search which turned up a bag of marijuana.
· Q’s in front of the court: Did the search violate the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments?*
· Outcome: It was decided that the search was legal.
· The Reasoning: The court was less strict with searches that actually happened on school grounds. The question of rolling papers in the girls purse were enough of a suspicion for the principal to be allowed to search the girl’s purse.
· Impact: Searches on school grounds did not hold up to the rights of the searched outside of school grounds. Any amount of suspicion is enough for a student to be searched for the safety of the school at any time.

SOP
US. V. Nixon (1974)
· The Case: A grand jury returned indictments against seven of President Richard Nixon's closest aides in the Watergate affair. A prosecutor had tried to get tapes of conversations between Nixon and his aides in the oval office. Nixon refused the subpoena stating that he had executive privilege.
· Q’s in front of the court: Was Nixon completely safe from a judicial review because of his executive privilege?
· Outcome: No the court ruled that Nixon could not use executive privilege to be exempted from judicial review.
· The Reasoning: It was determined that executive power could be used in cases where diplomatic or military decisions used. However, these tapes did not have a high confidentiality and thus had to be disclosed.
· The Impact: The immediate effect of this case was the resignation of Nixon due to the content on the tapes. However, this case also outlined when executive privilege could be used. Today, when questioned on the Iraq war. President Bush uses the executive privilege because he claims any disclosure of the war could compromise it.

Korematsu v. US (1944)
· The Case: During WWII there was a Presidential executive order that gave the military the authority to move people of Japanese ancestry out of areas considered important to the defense of the nation and at risk of espionage. A man by the name of Korematsu remained in San Leandro, California and violated Civilian Exclusion Order No. 34 of the U.S. Army.
· Q’s in front of the court: Did the President and Congress go beyond their war powers by implementing exclusion and restricting the rights of Americans of Japanese descent?*
· Outcome: The court sided with the government.
· The Reasoning: At the time there was great danger in the nation and espionage was something that had to be controlled. Thus, it was okay to exclude people of Japanese decent because the nation was at war with Japan.
· The Impact: During the time period the rights of Japanese Americans were violated because of their ancestry. It went to show that at the time of crisis, nations become paranoid; anybody who is in some way related to the enemy at hand could be evicted, persecuted, and the likes. The same thing would happen during the Cold War. Anybody who was suspected of helping or supporting communism was heavily persecuted. Even today, with the war on terror, the Patriot Act has been employed, raising suspicion on any person resembling a middle-easterner.

Baker v. Carr (1962)
· The Case: Charles W. Baker and other Tennessee citizens alleged that a 1901 law designed to apportion the seats for the state's General Assembly was virtually ignored. Baker's suit detailed how Tennessee's reapportionment efforts ignored significant economic growth and population shifts within the state.*
· Q’s in front of the court: Did the Supreme Court have jurisdiction over questions of legislative apportionment?*
· The outcome: Yes, the court had the power to juristic over legislative apportionment.
· The Reasoning: The case held the question of the 14th amendment which allowed the court to intervene with the process of the state affairs and regulations.
· Impact: If any regulations or actions are taken by a state, the Supreme Court can intervene if those affairs pinch the rights of its citizens in some way. Thus, no state could make any regulations that cheated the Bill of Rights or the constitution.
Death Penalty

Furman v. Georgia (1972)
· The Case: Furman was robbing a house one day when he was discovered. Attempting to flee the scene, he started running away but tripped over a tree. His gun fell out and fired, killing a passerby. Furman was convicted of murder.
· Q’s in front of the court: Does the imposition and carrying out of the death penalty in these cases constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments?*
· Outcome: the court in a 5-4 vote, sided with Furman.
· The Reasoning: Some of the judges were against the death penalty in all cases while others believed that this case did not constitute for the death penalty.
· Impact: The decision on whether or not Furman deserved the death penalty was juggled with whether the death penalty should ever be an option. Many state laws changed on the subject, making it illegal to do the death penalty because of its “cruel and unusual nature”

Gregg v. Georgia (1976)
· The Case: Gregg was convicted of armed robbery and murder and was sentenced to death. Gregg stated that the death penalty was cruel and unusual punishment and went against the 8th and 14th amendments.
· Q’s in front of the court: Did the death penalty go against the 8th and 14th amendment.
· Outcome: The Supreme Court sided with the state of Georgia, allowing the death penalty in this case.
· The Reasoning: Not in all cases is the Death Penalty cruel and unusual. If someone commits an especially heinous crime on purpose, then the death penalty could be legally used.
· The Impact: The decision on whether or not the death penalty is humane and whether there are cases where it should be used still goes on. Most states have either outlawed the death penalty or just haven’t used it in a really long time. The two major states which still use the death penalty regularly are Texas and Florida.
Work Issues/ Industry

Muller v. Oregon (1908)
· The Case: Oregon enacted a law that limited a woman’s workday in factories and laundries to 10 hours a day.
· Q’s in front of the court: Does the Oregon law violate a woman's freedom of contract implicit in the liberty protected by due process of the Fourteenth Amendment?*
· Outcome: no constitutional violation.
· The Reasoning: Women were considered inferior to men and were thus not as able to handle a long workday as men physically.
· The Impact: One of the things women argued against when trying to gain suffrage: women should have their rights instead of their rights being made for them. In 1919, women finally got their suffrage.

Lochner v. NY (1905)
· The Case: New York enacted a law that forbade bakers from working for more than 10 hours a day or 60 hours a week.
· Q’s in front of the court: Did New York violate the due process protected by the 14th amendment?
· Outcome: New York’s law was invalidated.
· The Reasoning: New York’s law had interfered with the worker’s right to contract. The state could not interfere with the work hours of the contracts.
· The Impact: New York was trying, in this case unsuccessfully, to bring about a change to the working and environmental conditions in the workplace. Many of the new immigrants were so poor they were willing to work themselves to death. This was realized by both federal and state governments and conditions were thoroughly improved. However, by limiting the bakers’ work hours, New York would in a way further impoverishing the bakers because with limited hours they would make less money.

Wabash v. Illinois (1886)
· The Case: The state of Illinois enacted a law on the prices of railroad shipments both of goods and humans. It stated that any railroad company could not charge the same amount or even more for a trip that is shorter when compared to a longer trip.
· Q’s in front of the court: Do states have the power to regulate shipment rates for state and interstate transit?
· Outcome: Direct power of the states in relation to railroad companies was determined to be illegal.
· The Reasoning: While the state could adjust indirect rules for railroad companies (i.e. safety regulations), it could not be directly involved with the tariffs of private enterprises such as the railroad industry.
· The Impact: The Interstate Commerce Commission was created, it was the first time the federal government assumed a job that was previously delegated to individual states, and it clarified direct and indirect state responsibility (something that was later completely scrapped in the 1930’s.)

Shechter Poultry (1935)
· The Case: Section 3 of the National Industrial Recovery Act empowered the President to implement industrial codes to regulate weekly employment hours, wages, and minimum ages of employees. The codes had standing as penal statutes*
· Q’s in front of the court: Did Congress give the president legislative power, something that was unconstitutional?
· The outcome: The president’s legislative power was unconstitutional.
· The Reasoning: It was unconstitutional for a president to enforce codes.
· The Impact: The president could not enforce codes or regulations before they went through Congress and even the laws had to be created in the legislative branch of the government before the president could okay it. This still stands today, with the president either vetoing or accepting Bills or Laws.

United States v. EC Knight Co. (1895)
· The Case: EC Knight Co, a sugar producing company had a large portion of the sugar industry. Afterwards, it was bought by another sugar manufacturer that resulted in the new company’s 98%control of the sugar market. Grover Cleveland, the president at the time, wanted the monopoly to be broken up.
· Q’s in front of the court: could the Sherman Antitrust Act suppress a monopoly in the manufacture of a good, as well as its distribution?*
· The Outcome: The court sided with the company.
· The Reasoning: Sugar manufacture was a local activity and could thus not be regulated by a congressional government.
· The Impact: Breaking up monopolies became much more difficult because it was up to each state individually to break up a monopoly. Thus, many monopolies stayed whole until the 30’s when a tougher federal stance was taken on the issue to break up serious monopolies such as the Rockefeller oil company. Monopolies are illegal today though companies such as ExxonMobil do have great market shares in the oil industry.


Bibliography

1. OYEZ.com

2. Wikipedia.org

3. PBS.com

4. Law.Cornell.edu

5. Landmarkcases.org