Marbury v.

Madison (1803)
In the election of 1800, President John Adams was defeated by Thomas
Jefferson, a Republican. The new administration did not take their offices
until March of 1801. The Federalists wanted to ensure a continued Federalist
presence in the government so they packed the judgeships with loyal
Federalist supporters, some positions which had been created for this
specific purpose by Congress in 1801. Adams signed the commissions for
these at the end of his term. When the new administration took office, the
new Secretary of State, James Madison, discovered that some of these
commissions had not yet been delivered. President Jefferson, angry with
Federalists, ordered that they not be delivered. William Marbury, one of the
people whose commission had not yet been received, applied to the Court
for a writ of mandamus to force Madison to complete the delivery of the
commissions, as per the Judiciary Act of 1789 which gave the Supreme Court
this power. The Court found that although Marbury was entitled to his
position, they did not have jurisdiction over the case since it came to them
on original jurisdiction as per a clause in the Judiciary Act of 1789. This case
did not fit any of the types of cases they could except on original jurisdiction
as per Article III, Section 2, Clause 2. The Court decided that that part of the
Judiciary Act giving them those powers was null and void (unconstitutional).
Through this case, the Supreme Court assumed the power of judicial review,
the power to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional.
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)
Early in the history of this nation, Congress established a federal bank better
deal with federal monetary issues. The State of Maryland, wanting banking
business to be done with the state banks, placed a tax on "all banks not
chartered by the state," including a branch of the federal bank. McCulloch,
who worked in the Baltimore Branch of the Bank of the United States of
America, refused to pay the tax to the state. Maryland brought suit against
him. The two issues in this case were whether the United States government
had the right to set up a national bank and whether the State of Maryland
had the power to tax it. The Court stated that as per the "necessary and
proper clause" and Congress' expressed powers to lay and collect taxes and
borrow money, Congress has the power to create a federal bank.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court ruled that Maryland could not tax the
federal bank because the "power to tax involves the power to destroy" and
that a state did not have that power over the institutions of the national
government.
Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)
Robert Fulton and Robert Livingston had been granted by the State of New
York exclusive navigation rights to their waters. These two gave Aaron Ogden

a permit to navigate between New York City and the New Jersey shore.
Ogden found himself competing with Thomas Gibbons who was operating a
similar steamboat under license by the United States government. Ogden
acquired an injunction against Gibbons who then appealed it. The Supreme
Court held that Congress' interstate commerce powers did not just apply to
"traffic" but was unlimited except as prescribed in the Constitution.
"Commerce" was redefined as intercourse and Congress has the power to
regulate any such intercourse. Additionally, any time federal law and state
law come into conflict over this matter, federal law takes precedence.
Congress has the power to regulate any interstate commerce.
Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857)
Dred Scott, a slave owned by a Dr. Emerson, was taken from Missouri to a
free state and then back to Missouri again. Scott sued, claiming that his
residence in a free territory granted him freedom. In a 7-2 vote, the Supreme
Court decided that Congress did not have the power to prohibit slavery in the
territories, making the already repealed Missouri Compromise of1820
unconstitutional. Furthermore, the Court went on to state that blacks were
not citizens of the United States and could not become citizens and therefore
they could not sue in a court.
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)
A Louisiana state law required separate accommodations on railroads for
white passengers and black ones. A black citizen, Plessy, was jailed for
refusing to leave a car that was reserved for white passengers. He appealed
to the Supreme Court on the basis that the principle of "equal but separate"
violated his rights under the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments. The
Court, in a 7-1 vote, upheld the "separate but equal" doctrine which lasted
until they reversed it in 1954 in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka.
Justice Harlan's stated in his famous dissent in the 1896 case that: "The
Constitution is color-blind and neither knows nor tolerates classes among
citizens." The Warren Court of the 1954 case echoed his sentiments.
Schenck v. United States (1919)
During World War I, when the United States was at war with Germany,
Congress passed the Espionage Act, outlawing any attempt to foster
insubordination or obstruct the draft. Charles Schenck, general secretary of
the Socialist Party, was arrested for conspiring to print and circulate leaflets
that would obstruct and hinder the enlistment service of the United States.
Schenck argued that the Espionage Act violated his rights to freedom of
speech and press. The Supreme Court held that in a time of war,

extraordinary conditions may take effect where Congress has the right to
forbid printed materials or speech aimed at hindering the war effort. The test
for "a clear and present danger" was formulated to deal with questions
regarding freedom of speech
Gitlow v. New York (1925)
Benjamin Gitlow, a member of a radical faction of the Socialist Party, was
charged with violating the New York State Criminal Anarchy Act of 1902 for
writing "The Revolutionary Age" and the "Left Wing Manifesto." He appealed,
claiming that the Act violated the "due process clause" of the Fourteenth
Amendment and his rights to freedom of speech and press under the First
Amendment. The Court ruled that the Act did neither of these things.
However, in their ruling, the Supreme Court incorporated the freedoms of
speech and press, beginning two decades worth of cases which ultimately
incorporated the entire First Amendment and many others.
Powell v. Alabama (1932)
In an Alabama Court, seven indigent, ignorant, minor African-Americans had
been falsely charged with the rape of two white girls and convicted in a oneday trial in a mob-dominated atmosphere without the benefit of proper
defense counsel. The Supreme Court incorporated the right to counsel
through the Fourteenth Amendment's "due process clause."
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954)
An African-American girl, Linda Carol Brown, was not allowed to attend a
school four blocks from her house because it was for white students. Instead,
she had to walk twenty-one blocks to the nearest all-black school. In a
unanimous decision, the Supreme Court reversed the 1896 Plessy v.
Ferguson decision saying that separate but equal is inherently unequal. In a
follow up case one year later, the Court stated that local school systems
should develop their own plans for desegregation to take effect "with all
deliberate speed."
NAACP v. Alabama (1958)
The state of Alabama had ordered the National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People to disclose its membership lists. At the time,
the NAACP was involved in a bitter civil rights struggle. The Court thought
that if these lists were made public, violent acts might be made against its
members. The Supreme Court ruled that Alabama's demand for the lists had
violated the freedom of association as guaranteed by the First Amendment.
Mapp v. Ohio (1961)

Cleveland police, without a warrant, raided Ms. Mapp's home and found
obscene material even though the Fourth Amendment, as incorporated by
the Fourteenth Amendment's "due process clause," protected her from
improper law enforcement procedures. The Supreme Court extended the
"exclusionary rule" to citizens in State courts, stating that condemning
unreasonable searches would be useless unless the evidence obtained in
these searches was excluded.
Abington School District v. Schempp (1963)
At Abington High School, as part of morning exercises, a verse from the Holy
Bible was read over the loudspeaker. The students were asked to stand and
repeat the Lord's Prayer right before the flag salute. Parents were informed
that students had the right to leave the room and not participate in the
reading or stay in the room and participate. The Schempp family, who were
of the Unitarian faith, challenged the state law claiming that it was
unconstitutional in supporting religion and specific denominations at that.
The Supreme Court reaffirmed the First Amendment's forbiddance of laws
building the establishment of a religion.
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)
Clarence Gideon, a man in Florida, was charged with breaking into a pool hall
and taking money from vending machines there. In Florida, this was
considered a felony. At his hearing, Gideon asked that the court appoint a
lawyer to represent him since he could not afford one. The court denied him
this, noting a Florida law which allowed counsel only in capital-offense cases.
Gideon went to trial and did the best he could, defending himself, but was
found guilty and sentenced to five years in jail. He appealed to the Supreme
Court, stating his right to counsel under the Fourteenth Amendment had
been violated. The Court incorporated the Sixth Amendment's right to
counsel and reversed his conviction, allowing him to be retried, this time with
the help of counsel. Gideon went back to trial and this time he was found
innocent of the charges.
Wesberry v. Sanders (1964)
A group of voters in Georgia charged that population variations among the
legislative districts of Georgia were so great as to violate Article I, Section 2
of the Constitution. In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the principle
that one person's vote in a Congressional election should be worth as much
as another's; this is known as the "one man, one vote" standard.
Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)

A physician had been arrested for giving information about contraception to

a married couple because Connecticut law prohibited the use of "any drug,
medicinal article, or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception."
The Court overturned the Connecticut law stating that it infringed upon
people's right to privacy. This decision raised more questions concerning the
unenumerated rights mentioned in the Ninth Amendment.
Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
Ernesto Miranda was arrested at his home in Arizona and taken to the local
police station, where he was questioned for two hours before confessing to
crimes of rape and kidnapping. In a decision of 5-4, the Court held that an
individual held for questioning must be clearly informed of their rights to talk
with counsel and have a lawyer present during their interrogation. If a lawyer
cannot be afforded then the court must appoint one for the defendant.
Furthermore, information obtained from someone who has not been informed
of his or her rights cannot be used against them. Nowadays, when someone
is arrested, they are read their rights which go something like this: "You have
the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you.
You have the right to have an attorney present during questioning. If you
cannot afford one, one will be appointed for you. Do you understand each
and every one of these rights as they have been presented to you?"
In Re Gault (1967)
(Note: "In Re" means In Regards to.)
Gerald Gault, a juvenile, had been sentenced to six years in an industrial
court after he was found guilty of having made obscene phone calls. As an
adult, he would have been entitled to representation by a lawyer and would
have had the opportunity to be confronted by the person who charged him.
However, since he was a juvenile, he was not entitled to these rights. In fact,
the maximum sentence for an adult who committed the same act would
have been $50 or two months in jail. In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court
granted children some but not all of those in the Bill of Rights.
Roe v. Wade (1973)
A single, pregnant, Texas woman, under the pseudonym of Jane Roe,
challenged anti-abortion laws by stating that they violated her rights under
the Constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment states that no state can
"deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law."
The Supreme Court had to decide whether a fetus was a person or not. The
Court upheld Roe's claim that her right to privacy entitled her to an abortion.

However, they went on to say that the right to privacy is not absolute. "A
state may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health [of the
mother], in maintaining medical standards [how and by whom abortions are
performed], and in protecting potential life." The Court ruled on this by
saying: 1. Abortions in the first three months of pregnancy cannot be limited
by the states excepting that they may require that doctors perform them. 2.
The state may set the conditions under which abortions may be performed
during the second three months of pregnancy to safeguard the health of the
mother. 3. The state may outlaw abortions during the last three months of
pregnancy to protect the "viable fetus," excepting cases in which the
mother's life or health is threatened.
United States v. Nixon (1974)
During the trial of those who had been accused of the 1972 break-in at the
Watergate Complex, the headquarters of the Democratic National
Committee, it was discovered that President Nixon had been taping
conversations in the Oval Office. A subpoena was issued for these tapes but
the President refused to turn them over on grounds of "executive privilege."
The Supreme Court heard the case. Nixon's lawyer argued that the issue at
stake was the philosophy of separation of powers while the prosecutor
argued that if the President is wrong in how he reads the Constitution, who is
going to tell him? The Court unanimously decided against the President
stating that even he had to stand trial in some circumstances. An ironic note
to this case is that the Chief Justice Burger, who delivered the Court's
decision, was Nixon's personal choice for Chief Justice.
Regents of the University of California at Davis v. Bakke (1978)
Allan Bakke, a Vietnam veteran, wanted to become a doctor. However, he
had been turned down by eleven medical schools. He then learned that the
University of California at Davis, a local medical school, had accepted
minority students who were less qualified academically. In suing them on
grounds of reverse discrimination, it was brought to light that the University,
as part of their affirmative action program, held sixteen places each year for
"disadvantaged students." The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling, upheld the
constitutionality of affirmative action. However, it also ruled that Bakke must
be accepted to U.C. at Davis Medical School because they used race as the
sole reason for reserving sixteen places for minority students. The University
could consider race in admitting students. So, while upholding the policy of
affirmative action, the Court decided that a system of strict quotas based on
race was in violation of the Civil Rights Act of1964 and thus unconstitutional.

Boy Scouts of America et al. v. Dale (2000)

BSA v. Dale was a case of the Supreme Court of the United States
overturning the New Jersey Supreme Court's application of the New Jersey
public accommodations law, which had forced the Boy Scouts of America
(BSA) to readmit assistant Scoutmaster James Dale. When he was a student
at Rutgers University, Dale became copresident of the Lesbian/Gay student
alliance. Then, in July 1990, he attended a seminar on the health needs of
lesbian and gay teenagers. During the seminar, he was interviewed, and the
work was subsequently published. He was expelled from Scouting after BSA
officials read the interview in a local newspaper and Dale was quoted as
stating he was gay. The Supreme Court held that the lower court's decision
unconstitutionally violated the rights of BSA, specifically the freedom of
association, which allows a private organization to exclude a person from
membership when "the presence of that person affects in a significant way
the group's ability to advocate public or private viewpoints." The court ruled
that opposition to homosexuality is part of BSA's "expressive message", and
allowing homosexuals as adult leaders would interfere with that message.
The case was argued on April 26, 2000 and was decided on June 28, 2000.