Supreme+Court+Case+Part+One

Historic Landmark Cases Early Cases

Marbury v Madison (1803) ● Basis: Article III, Judicial Powers ● Precedent: Chief Justice Marshall established “judicial review” as a power of the SC. McCulloch v Maryland (1819) ● Basis: Article 1, Section 9, Necessary and Proper Clause & National Supremacy ● Background: A Maryland law required federally chartered banks to use only a special paper to print $, which amounted to a tax. the cashier of a Baltimore branch of the bank, refused to use the paper, claiming that the states could not tax the Federal Government. The Court declared the Maryland law unconstitutional, commenting “…the power to tax implies the power to destroy.” ● Precedent: Verifies implied powers in the constitution via necessary and proper clause Brown v Baltimore (1833) ● Basis: 5th amendment, bill of rights not yet incorporated ● Precedent: 5th amendment (eminent domain) did not apply to states, but only to the federal gov’t. The Supreme Court does not apply the Bill of Rights to states until the 14th amendment is ratified.

First Amendment: Freedom of speech, religion (free enterprise and no establishment), Assembly, Petition, Press Freedom of Speech

Schenic v United States (1919) ● Basis: Freedom of speech ● Background: was an officer of an antiwar political group who was arrested for alleged violations of the Espionage Act of 1917, which was a law that made active opposition to WWI a crime. He had urged thousands of young men called to service by the draft act to resist & avoid induction. The Court limited free speech in time of war, stating that words, under the circumstances created a “clear and present” danger rule ● Precedent: Although later decisions modified this decision, this case created the PRECEDENT that the 1st amendment guarantees weren’t absolute. Gitlow v New York (1925) ● Basis: 1st and 14th amendment ● The case, involving “criminal anarchy” under New York law, was the first consideration of what came to be known as the selective “incorporation” doctrine. Under this doctrine, the provisions of the first amendment were “incorporated” by the 14th amendment, indicating that the Supreme Court could invalidate state laws. ● Precedent: For the first time, the Court decided whether the 1st and 14th amendments had influence on State Laws. Court used the 14th amendment to apply the 1st amendment to the states DeJong v Oregon (1937) ● 1st amendment ● Background: was charged with taking in part in a meeting of the Communist Party, an organization that the state claimed advocated criminal syndicalism and sabotage. He was convicted and sent to jail for 7 years. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) ● 1st Amendment: limitations on free speech ● Court defined what is meant by libel and slander as it pertains to public officials and public figures. ● Individuals must show that false statements were made and publicized with malice and knowledge of their falsity or with “reckless disregard of their truth of falsity.” (1969) ● Basis: First Amendment ● Background: The court reversed the conviction of a KKK member that held a rally and made strong derogatory remarks against African Americans and Jews. ● Precedent: Held that laws that punish people for advocating social change through violence violate the first amendment, the advocacy of an idea even an idea of violence is protected by the 1st amendment. What is not protected is inciting people to engage in violence, a change from the “clear and present danger” test. Tinker v Des Moins School District (1969) ● Freedom of Speech and Expression (1st amendment) ● Ruling – students allowed to wear the black arm bands in protest of Vietnam War ● Precedent: “Student’s right to expression would be protected except in cases where the expression materially disrupts class work or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others ● This decision was in favor of students’ rights. Ever since this, students’ rights have decreased. Furman v Georgia (1972) and Gregg v Georgia (1976) ● 1st amendment and Campaign financing ● You can spend as much of your own money on your campaign because the courts said it is political speech ● To get public funding (money from government), candidates must accept a limit on personal spending because the public funding is matched. Is okay because it is voluntary. Many candidate turn down public funding if they have enough of their own money. Island Trees School District v Pico (1982) ● 1st amendment ● Do school boards have the authority to censor school libraries? School had banned slaughterhouse five, the naked ape, down these mean streets, laughing boy, soul on ice, best short stories of negro writers (edited by Langston hughes) and some others because of their unpopular views. ● Ruled against school, said such censorship was violation of students’ first amendment rights (1986) ● Freedom of Speech (1st amendment) ● Student running for VP of student council gave a speech full of sexual innuendo, and was disciplined ● Ruling: Discipline constitutional ● Precedent: school may limit a student’s speech if it interferes with the educational process. T (1989) ● 1st amendment (symbolic speech) ● Is burning the American flag a protected form of (symbolic) political speech? Was a law providing punishment for such desecration a constitutional exercise in state power? ● The court ruled the law an unconstitutional violation of individual freedom of expression when the acts had a political purpose, and conviction was overturned. 1997) ● 1st amendment and the internet ● Tested the Communications Decency Act that made it a crime to distribute “indecent” material over the web. The Court said that protecting children from pornography did not supersede the right to freedom of expression, adding that the act was unenforceable with the current technology. ● Voted to strike the anti-indecency provisions of the Communications Decency Act

Supreme Court Case Part Two