Supreme court Cases

Plessy Vs ferguson ( 1896 )

​ ​ ​ ​ This happened between
Progressive era (1890 -1920s)

Plessy
-​ Louisiana's separate car act which
required separation for black and white
violated 13th amendment and 14th
amendment.

Ferguson
-​ Separation is okay if facilities are
[Link] does not violate the
constitution.

Court→ separate but equal is allowed

C ; Southern states wanted to separate races

Issue
-​ a black man rode in a white only train
car
Ruling - segregation is legal if it’s separate but
​ ​ equal
Effect ; legalized segregation for 58 years
Right —> 14th amendment equal protection
PS; justified jim crow laws until brown and
board
//////////////////////////////////////////////

Brown Vs board of education

Brown ( student’s side )

-​ Segregated schools hurt black
students , make them feel inferior
violates equal protection under 14th
amendment

Board side
-​ Separate schools are legal as long
as they are equal follows plessy Vs
ferguson

Court ruling
-​ separate is never [Link] is
unconstitutional.

C;
-​ challenged ‘separate but equal ‘ from
plessy vs ferguson
Issues - segregated school
Ruling
-​ 14th amendment (segregation is
unconstitutional )

Effect - desegregated schools inspired civil

rights movement
Right - 14th amendment
So this happened before civil war
////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Loving Vs virginia ( 1967 )

-​ This happened in civil right movement
1950s - 1960s

Loving side
-​ MArriage is a basic human right and
banning on interracial marriage
violates 14th amendment

Virginia
-​ Laws applies equally (no one could
marry outside of their race )

Court -> ban violate equal protection and due

process
C ; anti miscegenation laws in virginia

Issue ; interracial couple arrested for marrying

Ruling ; bans on interracial marriage are

unconstitutional

Effect
-​ Strengthened marriage rights and civil
rights

Right - 14th amendment - equal protection and

due process

Theme - marriage equality and civil rights

////////////////////////////////////////////////

Obergefell VS Hodges 2015

-​ The latest one so far

Obergefell
-​ denying marriage is unfair and
humiliating violate 14th amendment

Hodges
 -​ Marriage should follow traditional values -
and states have right to decide

Court
-​ They have the same marriage rights
under the 14th amendment

C ; discrimination in marriage laws

Issue - same sex couple wanted marriage
rights

Ruling - legalized gay marriage nationwide

Right - 14th amendment
////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Bush Vs gore 2000

-​ This happened before sep 11 , 2001 9/11
attack

Gore
-​ Recount every votes fairly important for
democracy

Bush
-​ Recount was messy and unfair in
different countries
Court
-​ Recount procedures violated equal
protection
So bush won

C ; voting inconsistency across countries

Issue ;
-​ disputed florida recount in
presidential election

Ruling
-​ Stopped florida recount due to unfair
procedures

Theme - election
Right - 14th amendment equal protection
////////////////////////////////////////////\

Shelby county Vs holder ( 2013 )

Shelby county
-​ Voting rights is outdated - states
should control their own election

Holder
 -​ States with history of racism need
checks to protest voters

Court - voting rights act is outdated - gave

states control over their election

C ; claims of outdated protections

Issue - challenged voting rights act protections
​
Ruling - states no longer need federal approval
to change voting laws

Effect
-​ Some states added voting restrictions

Theme - state power

Rights - 14th amendment and 15th
amendments ( voting rights)
////////////////////////////////////////////////

Tinker VS des Moines ( 1969 )

-​ This happened during cold war specifically
case happened cause of vietnam war
Tinker
-​ Wearing armbands = peaceful protest =
protected speech

Des Moines
-​ Armbands might cause disruption and
school has the right to keep peace

Court
-​ Student keep freedom of speech at
school if not disruptive

C ; sch punished peaceful protest

Issue
-​ Student wore armbands to protest
vietnam war

Ruling - students have rights at school if its not

disruptive

Effect - protected student political expression

Theme - protest / students rights

Right - amendment 1
////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Hazelwood Vs kuhlmeier (1988)

This case happened during cold war too

Hazelwood
-​ School paper is student speech and
should be protected

Kuhlmeier
-​ Newspaper is school-sponsored and
school can control the content

Court → school can limit speech in school (

sponsored activities )

C ; school disagree with content

Issue - school removed student newspaper
articles
Ruling - sch can limit school sponsored speech

Effect
-​ limit student free press

Right - 1st amendment ( freedom of press )

///////////////////////////////////////////
Texas Vs Johnson ( 1989 )
This happened during cold war too

johnson
-​ Burning the flag is symbolic protest so
it's under the freedom of speech

Texas
-​ Flag represents national unity and
burning iss offensive and illegal

Court → flag burning is protected expression

under the first amendment

C ; arrested for burning Us flag during protest

Issue - flag burning protest

Ruling - burning the flag is protected under

freedom of speech

E ; expanded symbolic protest rights

Right - first amendment symbolic speech
Theme –freedom of expression
//////////////////////////////////////
Engel Vs vitale ( 1962 )
-​ Happened during civil right movements
1950 - 1960

Engel
-​ School prayer is religious coercion that
violates separation of church and state

Vitale
-​ Prayer is optional and non-
denominational - not forcing religion

Court - any school led prayers violates the

establishment clause

C ; parents objected to religious influence

Issue - school led prayer in public school

Ruling - government can’t require prayer in

public school

Effect
-​ Separated religion and public
education

Right - first amendment - freedom of religion

Theme - school / religion / state
///////////////////////////////////////////////////

Miranda Vs arizona ( 1966)

-​ This case happened during civil rights
movement

Miranda’s side
-​ He didnt know he could stay slient
-​ Unfair traill

Arizona’ side
-​ He confessed voluntarily no trick

Court → police must inform suspects of their

rights before questioning

C ; uniformed confession used in court

Issue - confessed without knowing rights
Ruling ;
-​ Must be informed of rights before
questioning

E ; police now read ‘ miranda rights ‘

This mirandan is a set of rights that police
must read to a suspect before questioning
them

Theme – de process / fair trial

Right - 5th amendment - right to remain silent

and 6 th amendment - right to have a lawyer

////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Grideon Vs wainwright ( 1963 )

Grideon’s side -
-​ Couldn't afford a lawyer - trail wasn't
fair

Wainwright’s side
-​ Only capital cases ( dead penalty )
need free lawyers

Court → all people have the right to a lawyer in

criminal cases

C ; gideon represented himself and lost

Issue ; denied a lawyer because he was poor
Ruling ; state must provide a lawyer if you cant
afford one

E ; legal support for all and not just the rich

Theme ; equal justice and public defenders

Right ; 6th amendment ( right to an attorney )

/////////////////////////////////////////////
Mapp Vs ohio ( 1961 )
-​ This happened during civil right
movements too

Mapp’s side
-​ Police searched her home illegally
evidence shouldn't count

Ohio’s side
-​ They found real illegal stuff and should
be used

Court → illegally found evidence and cant be

used in court

C ; found evidence without proper warrant

Issue ; illegal police search without warrant

Ruling ; evidence found illegally and cant be

used in court

E ; protect privacy and due process

Theme - search and seizure rights

Right 0 4th amendment ( no illegal search and
seizure )

//////////////////////////////////////////////
Terry Vs ohio ( 1968 )

Terry’s side ;
-​ Police searched him without a
warrant so it violate 4th amendment

Ohio’s side ;
-​ The officer had reasonable
suspicion search was for the safety

Court - stop and frisk is allowed if there's

reasonable suspicion
C ; officer suspected a robbery was about to
happen
Issue - frisked without warrant
Ruling - stop and frisk is legal with reasonable
suspicion
E ; gave police more power in public

Theme → law enforcement - civil liberties

Right - 4th amendment - limited search

////////////////////////////////////////////////

Marry bury Vs madison ( 1803 )

-​ Happened during louisiana purchase

Marry bury
-​ Hr deserved his judge job and wanted
the court to force it

Madison
-​ The court doest have that power

Court - law giving the court that kind of power

is unconstitutional started judicial review.

C ; conflict over political appointments

Issue ; dispute over judicial appointment
Ruling ;
-​ court can strike down unconstitutional laws

Effect - gave supreme court major power

Theme - check and balance
-​ That's where we get judicial review

/////////////////////////////////////////

MCculloch Vs maryland 1814

Maryland - states can tax banks in their state

including federal bank

Fed ( mcculloch)
-​ National bank is legal , and states can't
control federal power

Court - federal law is supreme and states cant

tax federal banks

C ; maryland taxed national bank

Issue ; can a state tax a federal bank??
Ruling ; federal government is supreme over
states
E ; strengthened fed power
Theme ; state vs fed authority
That's where we get federalism

////////////////////////////////////

*** cherokee nation Vs georgia ( 1831 )

Cherokee said
-​ Georgia cant take their land and they
are a sovereign nation

Georgia said
-​ Natives ae with state borders and not
separate

Court→ tribes aren't foreign nations and can't

sue us in federal court

C ; georgia tried to take cherokee land

Issue ; native lands right
Ruling ; tribes are not sovereign nations so
they can't sue the US
Effect
-​ Allowed removal of tribes
Theme - native rights / state power
/////////////////////////////
​
Citizens united VS fec 2010

Citizens’s side
-​ Limiting corporate spending equal to
limiting our speeches

Fec - unlimited money in politics lead to

corruption

Court → political spending equal to free

speech and cant be restricted

C ; limit on campaign ads

Issue
-​ Corporate spending in elections
​
Ruling - money is speech and corporation can
spend on politics

E ; huge increase in champaign spending

Theme ; campaign finance

Right - 1st amendment freedom of speech

Overview -

●​Civil Rights & Equality (14th Amendment):​

​
Plessy v. Ferguson, Brown v. Board, Loving
v. Virginia, Obergefell v. Hodges, Bush v.
Gore, Shelby County v. Holder​

●​Student Rights & Expression (1st

Amendment):​
​
Tinker v. Des Moines, Hazelwood v.
Kuhlmeier, Texas v. Johnson​

●​Religion & Schools:​

​
Engel v. Vitale​

●​Rights of the Accused (Due Process / Fair

Trial):​
​
Miranda v. Arizona, Gideon v. Wainwright,
 Mapp v. Ohio, Terry v. Ohio​

●​Federal Power vs. State Power:​

​
Marbury v. Madison, McCulloch v.
Maryland​