Directions: (MUST BE HANDWRITTEN, NUMBERED, AND SUBMITTED IN THE ORDER LISTED BELOW). Use the po handout to complete note cards with the following (30) key SCOTUS landmark cases on them. A. Sideone: Title, Date of Case and type of case (topic/category) B. Sidetwo: Significance of the case (why it s considered a landmark decision) TOPIC CASE SIGNIFICANCE Freedom of speech, Press, and Assembly (6) 1. Buckley v. Valeo, 1976 Campaign spending is a form of political expression the 1st Amendment protects. While the Court found the Constitution forbids Congress from limiting individual political campaign expenditures, Congress can regulate contributions to candidates and parties. 2. Citizens United v. FEC, 2010 In a 5-4 decision, the Court struck down parts of the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), holding that political spending is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment, and the government may not keep corporations or unions from spending money to support or denounce individual candidates in elections. However, a ban on direct contributions to candidates was left in place. Further, while corporations or unions may not give money directly to campaigns, they may seek to persuade the voting public through other means, including ads, thus leading to the development of Super PACs to spend unlimited amounts of money for campaigning activities so long as they are not directly coordinated with a particular campaign. (independent expenditures) and 527s for issue advocacy. 3. Schenck v. United States, 1919 Court established the clear and present danger test to determine when states could place limits on an individual s free speech rights. The Court asserted that, in certain contexts, words can create a "clear and present danger" that Congress may constitutionally prohibit. This is the case in which Justice Holmes used the famous falsely shout fire in a theater and cause a panic analogy in drawing the line
on the limits of free speech. 4. Tinker v. Des Moines School District, 1969 Landmark decision that symbolic speech is protected by the Constitution Student expression (wearing armbands to protest the Vietnam War) is protected so long as it does not cause a material disruption of the educational process or substantial interference. The Court asserted that students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gates. 5. Texas v. Johnson, 1989 Landmark symbolic speech case - The burning of a flag (which the Court determined to be only a symbol) in public is protected by the 1st Amendment. The majority noted that freedom of speech protects actions that society may find very offensive, but society's outrage alone is not justification for suppressing free speech.the majority further said that the government could not discriminate in this manner based solely upon viewpoint. 6. NY TIMES v. US, 1971 The decision by the New York Times and Washington Post to print illegally leaked, classified documents (the Pentagon Papers ) about American involvement in the Vietnam War sparked a First Amendment battle between the highest levels of government and two of the most respected newspapers in the country. In a 6-3 decision, the Court ruled Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government In revealing the workings of government that led to the Vietnam War, the newspapers nobly did that which the Founders hoped and trusted they would do. Thus determining that prior restraint is unconstitutional - speech that addresses matters of public concern may not be censored. Freedom of Religion (4) 7. Wisconsin v. Yoder, 1972 Wisconsin compulsory school attendance law was not applicable to the Amish under the free-exercise clause. 8. Engel v. Vitale, 1962 School prayer- Public school policy that permits,
endorses, or encourages prayer violates the 1st Amendment. Prayer in school is allowed if it is student initiated, student-led, and voluntary, rather than state sponsored. 9. Lemon v. Kurtzman, 1971 Established the Lemon Test, which has three components that a statute must pass: - Statute must have a secular legislative purpose - Its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion. - The statute must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion 10. Oregon v. Smith, 1990 Free Exercise: Prohibited the use of peyote, an illegal drug, for religious purposes. Writing for the majority, Justice Scalia observed that the Court has never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that government is free to regulate. Rights of the Accused (2) 11. Gideon v. Wainwright, 1963 Landmark rulings dealing with the rights of the accused and the right to counsel. Ruling established right to counsel (5th and 6th Amendments). The Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution requires the states to provide defense attorneys to criminal defendants charged with serious offenses who cannot afford lawyers themselves. 12. Mapp v. Ohio, 1961 Establishment and development of the Exclusionary Rule - illegally obtained evidence cannot be used against a defendant at trial. Mapp made this rule applicable to the states. Fruit of the poisonous tree Protection from the Excessive Bail and Cruel & Unusual Punishment (2) 13. Furman v. Georgia, 1972 Court ruled that the death penalty violated the 8th Amendment because of the indiscriminate and inconsistent manner in which it was imposed.the Court noted that there were no rational, objective standards for when the death penalty would be given, and thus the random nature with which it was applied was cruel
and unusual. 14. Gregg v. Georgia, 1976 Four years after Furman,the Court found that Georgia s system for applying the death penalty was judicious and careful. Gregg had gone through two trials one to determine guilt and one for sentencing. Further, specific jury findings of aggravating circumstances were necessary to impose the death penalty. There was therefore no Eighth Amendment violation, and the death penalty was constitutional. Right to Privacy (3) 15. Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965 Landmark ruling in which the Court established that there is a penumbra of rights. These are civil liberties closely attached to the BOR. In this case, the right of consenting adults to use birth control is a privacy right protected under the 4th, 9th, and 14th Amendments. Established that there is a Constitutional right to privacy. 16. Roe v. Wade, 1973 The Court ruled that the Texas statute violated Jane Roe's constitutional right to privacy. The Court argued that the Constitution's First, Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual's "zone of privacy" against state laws and cited past cases ruling that marriage, contraception, and child rearing are activities covered in this "zone of privacy." Further, the Court ruled that the states were forbidden from outlawing or regulating any aspect of abortion performed during the first trimester of pregnancy, could only enact abortion regulations reasonably related to maternal health in the second and third trimesters, and could enact abortion laws protecting the life of the fetus only in the third trimester. Even then, an exception had to be made to protect the life of the mother. 17. Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 1992 The Court ruled that states may pass restrictions on abortion so long as it does not impose an undue hardship or burden on the mother. No undue burden
standard SCOTUS affirmed the basic ruling of Roe v. Wade that the state is prohibited from banning most abortions. However, states may regulate abortions so as to protect the health of the mother and the life of the fetus, and may outlaw abortions of "viable" fetuses. Civil Rights (3) 18. Grutter v. Bollinger, 2003 Gratz v. Bollinger, 2003 -The Court upheld the University of Michigan Law School s affirmative action policy of special consideration for racial minorities for admissions. Universities may take race into consideration as one factor among many factors when selecting incoming students (race as a factor) - The related Gratz v. Bollinger (2003) ruled the University of Michigan s bonus point admission system for underrepresented minorities unconstitutional (no bonus points). The Court upheld the value of student body diversity (compelling governmental interest), but decided that the use of race in the University of Michigan's undergraduate equal opportunity program was not narrowly tailored to achieve the university's asserted interest in diversity. The undergraduate program used a system that assigned points for certain factors such as geography, legacy/alumni relationships, and race, while the law school took a more holistic approach. No racial quotas (UC Regents v. Bakke, 1978) 19. Shaw v. Reno, 1993 North Carolina s redistricting map was so irregular on its face that it could only be viewed as an effort to segregate races for the purposes of voting, without regard for traditional districting principles and without sufficiently compelling justification. Redistricting based on race limited; no racial gerrymandering
20. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 1954 (Brown I) Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 1955 (Brown II) State laws that allow for separate but equal public educational facilities based on race violate the Equal Protection Clause. This landmark case overturned Plessy v. Ferguson (1896). It is also important because it is a case that sparked the Civil Rights Movement of the 50 s and 60 s, culminating in the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Brown II decided that the ruling to get rid of segregation in schools be done with all deliberate speed. Federalism (7) 21. Baker v. Carr, 1962 Established the right of federal courts to review redistricting issues, which had previously been termed "political questions"and thus outside the Court s jurisdiction. The Court s willingness to address legislative reapportionment in this case paved the way for the one man, one vote standard of American representative democracy later used in Wesberry v. Sanders 1964. 22. Bush v. Gore, 2000 A narrow 5-4 majority ruled that Florida s practice of allowing local election jurisdictions to establish their own procedures for counting ballots and determining voter intent is inconsistent with the Constitution s Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses. It ruled that Florida s procedures for manually recounting presidential votes were not specific enough when presidential election. 23. Marbury v. Madison, 1803 Court established judicial review concept: affirms the Court s position as a coequal branch of government having considerable influence on the politics of government and direction of public policy. 24. McCulloch v. Maryland, 1819 Marshall Court defined what was meant by necessary and proper (aka. Elastic Clause, and thus the legitimacy of implied powers) and established the primacy of federal government power over state government (national supremacy).
25. Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015 Ruled state laws prohibiting same-sex marriage unconstitutional as violations of both the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment. The Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees the right to marry as one of the fundamental liberties it protects, and that analysis applies to same-sex couples in the same manner as it does to opposite-sex couples. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment also guarantees the right of same-sex couples to marry as the denial of that right would deny same-sex couples equal protection under the law. 26. Shelby County v. Holder, 2012 The Court (5-4) struck down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which set the formula used to determine which states and local governments must comply with Section 5 s preclearance. Section 4 required states with a history of voting discrimination to have changes in election law cleared by the Department of Justice prior to implementation, no matter how small.. The Court found this was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause and an overreach of federal power. Although the constraints this section places on specific states made sense in the 1960s and 1970s, they do not any longer and now represent an unconstitutional violation of the power to regulate elections that the Constitution reserves for the states. The Court also held that the formula for determining whether changes to a state's voting procedure should be federally reviewed is now outdated and does not reflect the changes that have occurred in the last 50 years in narrowing the voting turnout gap in the states in question. 27. US v. Lopez, 1995 the Supreme Court ruled that Congress had exceeded its constitutional authority under the Commerce Clause when it passed a law prohibiting gun possession in local school zones.
Rehnquist Court decision in what some call the devolution federalism era. For years Congress had used the interstate commerce clause to encroach into a number of areas normally reserved to the states under the 10th Amendment. The Commerce Clause does not give Congress unlimited powers more appropriately reserved to the states. Incorporation (3) 28. DC v. Heller, 2008 McDonald v. Chicago, 2009 District of Columbia (DC) v. Heller (2008) The Court ruled that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to keep weapons at home for selfdefense. Since the case involved the District of Columbia s handgun ban, the right found in the Second Amendment applied only to the national government. McDonald v. Chicago (2010) Two years later, the Court faced the question of whether to incorporate the Second Amendment and whether the right to keep arms for self-defense was fundamental. In a 5-4 split, the Court struck down a similar gun ban in Chicago, thus applying the Second Amendment right to own guns for self-defense to state and local governments (selective incorporation). 29. Palko v. Connecticut, 1937 Court established the fundamental rights test to determine which rights that without which liberty would not exist should be incorporated via the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause This application of parts of the Bill of Rights to state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment is called the doctrine of selective incorporation. In general, the Court would apply a right to the states if it determined that the right was fundamental to ordered liberty, or it if was deeply rooted in this Nation s history and tradition. 30. Gitlow v. New York, 1925 Court nationalizes the Bill of Rights for the first time. By the 1960 s, the Court will apply almost all of the provisions of the BOR to the states through the 14th
For further study of these cases, visit: www.oyez.org www.scotusblog.com www.billofrightsinstitute.org Amendment s Due Process Clause on a cases by cases basis (selective incorporation doctrine).