Ted's SUPREME Court Cases
Marbury Vs. Madison (1803)
What happened?
William Marbury (one of John Adam’s Midnight Judges) sued Pres. Jefferson’s
Secretary Of State James Madison for not allowing him to fulfill his
commission as a justice of the peace in the Fed. District.
What was the ruling?
John Marshall ruled in favor of Madison, on the grounds that the Judiciary
Act of 1789 (Which gave the Supreme Court the power to force the president to
appoint judges) to be unconstitutional. This meant that the Supreme Court
had no power to force the Fed. Gov. to recognize Marbury’s commission.
Why was it significant?
Marbury Vs. Madison was the first important Supreme Court desicion in U.S.
History. It catapulted the Supreme Court into a legitimate 3rd breach of
Gov. and also establishes the concepts of Judicial Review in which the
Supreme Court had the power to decide whether Fed. Laws are valid under the
Constitution.
Fletcher Vs. Peck (1810)
What happened?
A corrupted and bribed Georgian Legislature sold a large amount of land @ an
extremely cheap price (1.5 cent/acre ß who ever said white people can’t
bargain?) to four Yazoo land companies. The scandal was eventually exposed
and @ election timed the P.Oed. people of Georgia cleaned house, and the new
non-Corrupted legislature repealed the contract. However, the Yazoo land
companies sued in the Supreme Court under the condition that the old contract
was still valid.
What was the ruling?
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Yazoo land companies, stating that
Article I, Sect 10 of the Constitution forbid state laws “impairing”
contracts.
Why was it significant?
Fletcher Vs. Peck established the contract law, which made written contracts
legal and binding and could not be changed w/out the consent of both
parties. It was also the first pro-business decision of the Supreme Court
and set the precedent that would allow the rulings of Dartmouth College Vs.
Woodward.
Dartmouth College Vs. Woodward (1819)
What happened?
The President of Dartmouth tried to make Dartmouth into a public institution
(instead of an private Ivy League school) by having the orig. charter of the
school (granted by some English king, wayyyyyyyyyyy back in the days)
revoked.
What was the ruling?
The Supreme Court ruled that the charter granted by the king (back in the
days) was still a legal contract and thus under the decision of Fletcher Vs.
Peck the contract could not be changed w/out the consent of both orig.
parties.
Why was it significant?
Dartmouth Vs. Woodward expanded the principles of Fletcher’s decision to
corporations and the state. These two rulings (Fletcher and Dartmouth) would
protect the many business corporations that would sprang up around the
country soon.
McCulloch Vs. Maryland (1819)
What happened?
The State of MD (that’s Maryland for those of you who don’t know their
Geography very well, ALTON!) tried to tax the Baltimore branch of the Bank of
the U.S. in order to protect the competitive position of the state banks.
What was the ruling?
The Court ruled in favor of the Fed. Gov. and basically back handed the State
Gov. in the face!
Why was it significant?
McCulloch Vs. Maryland established the superiority of the Fed. Gov. over the
State Gov., what it basically means is that the State’s Gov. is the Fed.
Gov.’s man slave NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND!
Gibbons Vs. Ogden (1824)
What happened?
Ogden had a NY state license, which allowed him to operate a ferry across the
Hudson. R. between NY and NJ (that’s New York and New Jersey for those of you
that don’t know! Again ALTON!). However Gibbons received a Fed. License,
and claimed that his license was better than Ogden’s.
What was the ruling?
The Court again ruled in favor of the Fed. Gov. and Gibbon because the Fed.
Gov. has the power to regulate interstate trade. (DON’T GET IT CONFUSED W/
INTRASTATE KATE ROSEN! It is unconstitutional for the Fed. Gov. to regulate
intrastate commerce.)
Why was it significant?
The Gibbon’s decision again stated the simple fact that the State’s Gov. is
the Fed. Gov.’s .
Cherokee Nations Vs. Georgia (1831)
What happened?
Georgian Gov. allowed the white man to encroach on the Cherokee land b/c it
believed that it had sovereignty over Cherokee land. The red man instead of
getting out their bows and arrows sued the “white man”.
What was the ruling?
Marshall ruled that the Fed. Gov. not the State. Gov. had sovereignty over
the Cherokee, so the people of GA did not have the right to violate and
encroach on the Cherokee lands.
Why was it significant?
The case of Cherokee Vs. Georgia was the 1st instance where the Fed. Gov.
actually backed the Indian’s and looked after the red man’s interest instead
of the white man’s.
Worcester Vs. Georgia (1832)
What happened?
GA. said any US citizen who wanted to enter Cherokee territory had to obtain
permission from the governor
What was the ruling?
GA law was overturned; b/c the federal Gov. had the constitutionally mandated
role of regulating trade with the tribes
Why was it significant?
In Worcester Vs. Georgia the GA Gov. again tried to remove the Indians, by
trying to gain control of trade w/ the tribes. Although the ruling was in
favor of the Indians Andrew Jackson removed the Indians and forced them to
relocate on the Trial of Tears. Jackson famously quoted “John Marshall has
made his decision. Now let him enforce it” meaning that he as the President
(executive power) was unwilling to enforce Marshall’s decision. B/c he was a
BIG MEANIE like Erik and did not wish to help the poor Indians =(.
La Amistad Case (1840)
What happened?
La Amistad was a Spanish slave ship that was carrying slaves that were bought
in the Caribbean Islands, which were illegally brought from Africa. The
Africans plotted a revolt and were successful however they were tricked by
the Spanish hostages to sail to America instead of their home land in
Africa. The U.S. Navy caught the ship and placed the rebellious Africans
into trial for murder
What was the ruling?
In 1840, a federal trial court found that the transportation of the Africans
was across the Atlantic from Africa instead of from the Caribbean Isla. Slave
trading across the Atlantic Ocean had been illegal and that they were not
legally slaves but free. The Africans were free of charges of murder and
were sent back to their homes in 1842.
Why was it significant?
Martin Van Buren was concern about southerners for his re-election and
relations with Spain and tried to return the slaves to Cuba, but was
unsuccessful. After the Africans were declared free, it greatly increased
the support of the abolitionist movement. John Calhoun and the southerners
criticized the courts ruling and it helped fuel the idea of secession.
Prigg Vs. Pennsylvania (1842)
What happened?
The Northern States did not wish to enforce the fugitive slave law in place
at the time, b/c they didn’t want the South bossing them around.
What was the ruling?
The S.C. ruled that the Northern States didn’t have to enforce the return of
fugitive slaves.
Why was it significant?
This ruling led to a demand for a stricter and better fugitive slave law,
that would appear in the compromise of 1850, and also contributed to the rise
of sectional tension between the North and the South.
Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)
What happened?
Dred Scott is a slave who was taken to the Free State Illinois temporarily by
his slave master. Once the slave master brought Dred Scott back to the slave
state Missouri, Scott sued for his freedom. The slave claimed that his time
in Illinois made him a freed African slave.
What was the ruling?
The Supreme Court members during the Dred Scott Trial consisted of seven
southerners including Chief Justice Roger Taney. The Supreme Court ended up
ruling against Scott. The court decided that as a black man, Scott was not a
U.S citizen and thus had no right to sue, and was a Missouri resident so
Illinois’s freedom of slaves does not apply to Scott. The court also decided
that Scott was property and the government cannot interfere with the slave
master’s rights.
Why was it significant?
This decision basically destroyed Missouri Compromise because based on this
ruling a white slave owner could purchase slaves in a slave state and then
travel to a state where slavery is illegal and without losing their rights to
the slaves, which shifts the slave issue to the benefits of southerners. This
factor greatly upset the Northerners causing more sectional tensions.
Munn Vs. Illinois (1877)
What happened?
P.O.ed Mid-Western farmers felt victimized by the extremely high rates of the
mean old railroads. The state of Illinois tried to help the farmers by
passing a law that fixed the max. rate the states railroads and grain
elevators could charge. So the railroads being evil money grubbers sued.
What was the ruling?
The court ruled in favor of the farmers on the grounds that grain
transportation was part of public interest (it was the good for the public
that grain transportation was cheap), and the Illinois state Gov. had the
right to regulate this interest.
Why was it significant?
The Munn Vs. Illinois decision was a rare decision during the Gilded Age in
which the Fed. Gov. actually wanted to help the people. (Remember a lot of
the Fed. Gov. during this time was filled w/ corrupt self-centered JERKS kind
of like me that did not wish to help the common man.)
Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railway Co. v. Illinois (1886)
What happened?
Illinois passed granger laws to protect the interest of the farmers from the
mean railroad companies (or as I like to call them “the man”). One of these
granger laws dealt with regulating interstate state trade. The railroad
companies saw an opportunity and sued the state.
What was the ruling?
The court ruled in favor of the big bad railroad company b/c we learned kids
that in Gibbons Vs. Ogden (1824), only the Fed. Gov. had the right to
regulate interstate commerce. (THIS IS IMPORTANT: don’t get interstate and
intrastate confused, it is unconstitutional for the Fed. Gov. to regulate
intrastate commerce.)
Why was it significant?
This case wasn’t really that much of a significant trial, except the decision
encouraged the Fed. Gov. to pass its own laws to regulate railroad prices,
since it had the power to regulate interstate trade.
Plessy Vs. Ferguson
What happened?
Homer Plessy protested the Jim Crow laws passed in the South and was
arrested riding violating a law that forced segregated trains. He claimed
that these laws were unconstitutional under the 14th amendment.
What was the ruling?
The Court upheld the Jim Crow laws and ruled that the 14th amendment did say
that Blacks had the right to the same facilities, just equal facilities. By
ruling this way the court created the doctrine of "separate but equal."
Why was it significant?
This dumb decision completely and utterly screwed the African-Americans over,
and greatly hurt their hopes of equal rights w/ the whites.
Korematsu v. United States (1944)
What happened?
As the U.S. Gov. began to relocate Japanese Americans into concentration
camps on the grounds of protecting national security, Korematsu sued the U.S.
Gov. on the grounds that its actions violated the 14th amendment which
guaranteed all citizens equal protection under the law.
What was the ruling?
The Court upheld the Gov. decision to relocate the Jap. b/c it really did
consider the Jap. to be a threat of national security.
Why was it significant?
The U.S. completely alienated the Japanese Americans (all b/c they were
Asian) and the S.C. completely supported the U.S. This court decision marked
one of the worst violations of civil rights that the U.S. Gov. ever
participated in.
Brown Vs. The Board of Education (1955)
What happened?
Oliver Brown asked for the help of the NAACP (their lawyer was Thurgood
Marshall) to help allow his daughter to attend a white school right across
the St. from her instead of walking 5 miles to a black school. Marshall
argued that Plessy Vs. Ferguson was unconstitutional because it violated the
14th amendment.
What was the ruling?
The S.C. ruled in favor of the Browns and overturned Plessy Vs. Ferguson.
Chief Justice Earl Warren stated that “in the eyes of the law, justice was
color-blind”.
Why was it significant?
Unlike Plessy Vs. Ferguson the Brown case completely helped the black civil
rights movement. After the case the S.C. the integration of American
schools “w/ all deliberate speed” also the Montgomery Bus Cuts happened right
after the case as well. Brown Vs. The Board of Education was the first
stepping stone and the beginning of the civil rights movements of the 60s.
Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
What happened?
A Mexican immigrant living in Phoenix, Arizona named Ernesto Miranda, who
only had an elementary school education, was charged of robbery, kidnapping,
and rape.
What was the ruling?
Prosecutors only gave confessions of the Ernesto Miranda in the interrogation
with the police. He was found guilty and sentenced to 20 -30 years in prison.
However Chief Justice claimed that none of the confessions can be used as
evidence under the Fifth Amendment self-incrimination clause and Sixth
Amendment which gives the right to an attorney and made aware of the
convict’s rights. Miranda was retried, and this time the police did not use
the confession but called witnesses and used other evidence. Miranda was
convicted, and served 11 years.
Why was it significant?
The Court specifically outlined the necessary aspects of police warnings to
suspects, including warnings of the right to remain silent and the right to
have guidance present during interrogations. After the Miranda case, police
were required to inform the arrested of their Miranda rights. (Such as you
have the right to a fair trail, and other things that I can’t remember right
now.)
Roe Vs. Wade (1973)
What happened?
Norma McCorvey (under the name of Jane Roe) sued the Texas Gov. b/c she
wanted an abortion and the Texas Gov. outlawed abortion. She claimed that
the state of Texas violated her right to privacy by prohibiting the abortion
and telling her what to do with her own body.
What was the ruling?
The S.C. ruled in favor of Roe, and claimed that laws prohibiting abortion
violated a woman’s constitutional right of privacy.
Why was it significant?
Roe Vs. Wade is the biggest and most controversial S.C. decision of the 20th
century. So you should definitely know this because they are definitely
going to ask you this on the AP TEST.
Other Important Court Cases
Commonwealth v. Hunt (1842) - Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that unions
and strikes were legal, this was a big plus for the common man and set a
precedent for farther pro-union laws in the future.
Muller Vs. Oregon – The court gave women and children lesser work hrs. b/c it
is proved that women can’t survive in a work place as long as a dude.
However this backfires when the feminist movement pushes for same wage for a
female as a male b/c it makes women seem like weak creatures.