Landmark US Supreme Court Cases - Constitutional Law

1.)​ Baker v. Carr (1962) 2.)​ Shaw v. Reno (1993) 3.)​ McCullough v. Maryland (1816) 4.)​ U.S. v. Lopez (1995) 5.)​ Schenck v. U.S. (1919) 6.)​ McDonald v. Chicago (2010) 7.)​ Brown v. Board (1954) 8.)​ Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) 9.)​ Engel v. Vitale (1962) 10.)...

1.)​ Baker v. Carr (1962) 2.)​ Shaw v. Reno (1993) 3.)​ McCullough v. Maryland (1816) 4.)​ U.S. v. Lopez (1995) 5.)​ Schenck v. U.S. (1919) 6.)​ McDonald v. Chicago (2010) 7.)​ Brown v. Board (1954) 8.)​ Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) 9.)​ Engel v. Vitale (1962) 10.)​Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) 11.)​Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) 12.)​New York Times v. U.S. (1971) 13.)​Marbury v. Madison (1803) 14.)​Citizens United v. FEC(2010) Baker v. Carr (1962) (Baker) ​ Constitutional Principle: Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. ​ Ruling/Holding: The Supreme Court held that redistricting issues present justiciable questions, allowing federal courts to intervene in and decide redistricting cases. ​ Background: Charles Baker and other Tennessee citizens alleged that a 1901 law designed to apportion the seats for the state's General Assembly was virtually ignored. They argued that the state's failure to redraw legislative districts since then led to significant population disparities among districts, diluting their votes and violating the Equal Protection Clause. Shaw v. Reno (1993) (Shaw white residents challenging the district) ​ Constitutional Principle: Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.​ ​ Ruling/Holding: The Court ruled that North Carolina's redistricting plan, which resulted in a bizarrely shaped majority-black district, was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The Court held that redistricting based on race must be held to a standard of strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause ​ Background: After the 1990 census, North Carolina submitted a congressional reapportionment plan with one majority-black district. The Department of Justice rejected it, prompting the state to create a second majority-black district with an unusual shape. Residents challenged this district, alleging it was drawn solely based on race. ​ McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) (McCulloch federal bank) ​ Constitutional Principle: Necessary and Proper Clause (Article I, Section 8) and the Supremacy Clause.​ ​ Ruling/Holding: The Supreme Court held that Congress had the power to establish a national bank and that Maryland could not tax it. The Court reasoned that the Necessary and Proper Clause granted Congress implied powers not explicitly outlined in the Constitution. ​ Background: The state of Maryland imposed a tax on the Second Bank of the United States. James McCulloch, the bank's cashier, refused to pay the tax, leading to a lawsuit questioning whether Congress had the authority to establish the bank and if Maryland's tax interfered with federal powers. United States v. Lopez (1995) (Lopez) ​ Constitutional Principle: Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8).  ​ Ruling/Holding: The Court ruled that the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 exceeded Congress's authority under the Commerce Clause, as carrying a gun in a school zone is not an economic activity that affects interstate commerce. ​ ​ Background: Alfonso Lopez, a high school student, was charged under the Gun-Free School Zones Act for bringing a firearm to school. He challenged the conviction, arguing that the Act was beyond Congress's legislative power under the Commerce Clause. Schenck v. United States (1919) (U.S.) ​ Constitutional Principle: First Amendment – Freedom of Speech.​ ​ Ruling/Holding: The Supreme Court upheld Schenck's conviction, establishing the "clear and present danger" test. The Court concluded that speech creating a clear and present danger of significant evils can be restricted. ​ ​ Background: Charles Schenck distributed leaflets opposing the military draft during World War I, urging resistance. He was charged with violating the Espionage Act. Schenck argued that his conviction violated his First Amendment rights. ​ McDonald v. Chicago (2010) (McDonald) ​ Constitutional Principle: Second Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. ​ Ruling/Holding: The Court held that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for self-defense is fully applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. ​ Background: Several Chicago residents challenged the city's handgun ban, arguing that the Second Amendment should apply to state and local governments. The case questioned whether the right to keep and bear arms is fundamental and thus incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. ​ Brown v. Board of Education (1954) (Brown) ​ Constitutional Principle: Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.​ ​ Ruling/Holding: The Supreme Court declared that racial segregation in public schools was unconstitutional, stating that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal." ​ Background: African American students were denied admission to certain public schools based on laws allowing public education to be segregated by race. They argued that such segregation violated the Equal Protection Clause. ​ Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) (Gideon) ○​ Constitutional Principle: Sixth Amendment – Right to Counsel; applied to states via the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause.​ ○​ Ruling/Holding: The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of counsel is a fundamental right essential to a fair trial, and, through the Fourteenth Amendment, states are required to provide legal counsel to defendants in criminal cases who cannot afford their own attorneys. ​ ○​ Background: Clarence Earl Gideon was charged with felony breaking and entering in Florida. Unable to afford an attorney, he requested that the court appoint one for him. His request was denied based on Florida law, which only provided court-appointed counsel for indigent defendants in capital cases. Forced to represent himself, Gideon was convicted. He appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear his case and ultimately ruled in his favor, emphasizing the necessity of legal representation in ensuring a fair trial. Engel v. Vitale (1962) (Engel parents challenging prayer) ○​ Constitutional Principle: First Amendment – Establishment Clause.​ ○​ Ruling/Holding: The Court ruled that it is unconstitutional for state officials to compose an official school prayer and encourage its recitation in public schools, as this violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. ○​ Background: The New York State Board of Regents authorized a short, voluntary prayer for recitation at the start of each school day. A group of parents, including Steven Engel, challenged this practice, arguing that it violated the Establishment Clause. The Supreme Court's decision reinforced the principle of separation of church and state by prohibiting government-mandated religious activities in public schools. Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) (Yoder Amish families) ○​ Constitutional Principle: First Amendment – Free Exercise Clause. ○​ Ruling/Holding: The Supreme Court held that Wisconsin's compulsory school attendance law violated the Amish families' right to free exercise of religion under the First Amendment. The Court recognized that the state's interest in universal education must be balanced against fundamental religious freedoms. ○​ Background: Members of the Amish community, including Jonas Yoder, were prosecuted under Wisconsin law for refusing to send their children to public school beyond the eighth grade. The Amish parents argued that high school attendance was contrary to their religious beliefs and way of life. The Court's decision acknowledged the sincerity of their religious convictions and exempted them from the state's compulsory education requirements beyond the eighth grade. Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969) (Tinker students)  ○​ Constitutional Principle: First Amendment – Freedom of Speech. ○​ Ruling/Holding: The Supreme Court ruled that students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." The Court held that the students' wearing of black armbands in protest of the Vietnam War constituted symbolic speech protected by the First Amendment, as it did not cause substantial disruption to the school's operations. ○​ Background: John and Mary Beth Tinker, along with other students, wore black armbands to their public schools in Des Moines, Iowa, as a silent protest against the Vietnam War. School authorities suspended the students, leading to a lawsuit claiming violation of their First Amendment rights. The Supreme Court's decision set a precedent for student free speech rights in schools. New York Times Co. v. United States (1971) (New York Times) ○​ Constitutional Principle: First Amendment – Freedom of the Press. ○​ Ruling/Holding: The Supreme Court ruled that the government could not prevent the New York Times and Washington Post from publishing the classified Pentagon Papers, asserting that prior restraint was unjustified in this case. The Court emphasized a heavy presumption against prior restraint, even in cases involving national security. ○​ Background: The Nixon Administration sought to prevent the New York Times and Washington Post from publishing materials from a classified Defense Department study regarding U.S. activities in Vietnam, known as the Pentagon Papers. The government argued that publication would endanger national security. The newspapers contended that the public had a right to know the information. The Supreme Court's decision reinforced the principle that the press has the right to publish information of public concern without unwarranted government interference. Marbury v. Madison (1803) (Madison) ​ Constitutional Principle: Established the principle of judicial review, affirming that the Supreme Court has the authority to declare laws unconstitutional. ​ Ruling/Holding: The Court held that while William Marbury had a right to his commission, the Court did not have the authority to issue a writ of mandamus compelling delivery of the commission because the provision of the Judiciary Act of 1789 that granted the Court this power was unconstitutional. This decision established the judiciary's role in reviewing the constitutionality of legislative acts. ​ ​ Background: In the final days of President John Adams's administration, he appointed several justices of the peace, including William Marbury. However, the commissions were not delivered before Thomas Jefferson took office. Jefferson's Secretary of State, James Madison, refused to deliver Marbury's commission. Marbury petitioned the Supreme Court to compel Madison to deliver the documents. The Court's decision, authored by Chief Justice John Marshall, denied Marbury's request but, in doing so, established the principle of judicial review. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) (Citizens United) ​ Constitutional Principle: First Amendment – Freedom of Speech, particularly in the context of political spending by corporations and unions. ​ Ruling/Holding: In a 5–4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the government cannot restrict independent expenditures for political communications by corporations, associations, or labor unions. The Court held that such restrictions violate the First Amendment's protection of free speech. ​ ​ Background: Citizens United, a nonprofit organization, sought to air and advertise a film critical of then-Senator Hillary Clinton shortly before the 2008 Democratic primary elections. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) prohibited such expenditures close to elections. Citizens United challenged the law, arguing that its provisions violated the First Amendment. The Supreme Court's decision struck down parts of the BCRA, leading to significant changes in campaign finance laws and the rise of Super PACs. ​