Presentation Transcript

1. Supreme court Cases: 1734-1999

   Megan Abendroth and Katrina Moore
2. Zenger free-Press Trail: 1734 Presiding Judge: N/A Plaintiff: John Peter Zenger -newspaper printer, New York -defended by Andrew Hamilton Defendant: William Cosby -Royal Governor of New York ~Zenger’s newspaper assailed the governor ~Zenger charged with “seditious libel” -“bringing into contempt the government in writing” Verdict: Not Guilty
3. Significance ~First court case that dealt with the issue of free-press, eventually led to the adoption of the first amendment to the constitution.
4. Chisholm vs. georgia: 1793 Presiding Judge: John Jay Plaintiff: Heirs of Alexander Chisholm Defendant: State of Georgia ~Georgia wouldn’t give Alexander Chisholm’s heirs their property because they lived in South Carolina ~That Georgia allow all the heirs of Chisholm claim their property even though in residence in South Carolina. Verdict: In favor of Chisholm heirs. Could sue Georgia for property.
5. Significance Decision upheld Article III of the Constitution; would later be overturned by the Eleventh Amendment.
6. Marbury vs. Madison1803 Madison Presiding Judge: Chief Justice John Marshall Plaintiff: William Marbury, appointee to the Justice of Peace in the District of Columbia Defendant: James Madison, Secretary of State ~17 appointed under Adams did not receive their commissions Jefferson told Madison not to issue the commissions because he didn’t want opposing members to serve ~Marbury sued Madison claiming the right to his commision, wanted writ of madamus Verdict: Marbury entitled to commision, ruled Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional therefore the court cannot issue the writ, instituted judicial review Marbury
7. Significance Established Judicial Review and declared Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional. One of the most significant court cases in United States History.
8. Fletcher vs. Peck: 1810 Presiding Judge: John Marshall Plaintiff: Robert Fletcher Defendant: John Peck ~Peck bought land from Georgia and sold it to Fletcher. Georgia legislature rescinded the sale. ~Fletcher claimed that Peck was guilty of breach of contract. Verdict: Legislature can repeal the acts of a preceding legislature, but can not invalidate a previously made contract.
9. Significance State law was found invalid because it conflicted with the Constitution. “From one of the most scandalous episodes in Georgia state history came a major legal decision that ratified the importance both of contracts and of the federal government.”
10. Dartmouth vs. Woodward: 1818 Presiding Judge: Chief Justice John Marshall Plaintiff: Dartmouth College -counseled by Daniel Webster Defendant: State of New Hampshire ~Dartmouth received charter by King George III in 1769; New Hampshire attempted to alter it. ~college claimed that state could not alter previous contracts Verdict: In favor of Dartmouth
11. Significance States do not have the right to alter contracts made previous with other persons or corporations. Corporations are protected by the government.
12. Mcculloch vs. Maryland: 1819 McCulloch Presiding Judge: Chief Justice John Marshall Plaintiff: Maryland Defendant: James McCulloch, worked for the Bank but didn’t pay taxes for operating the bank ~McCulloch was part of the Bank which Maryland wanted to shut down, McCulloch refused to pay his taxes and Maryland took him to court ~Appealed to the Supreme Court on writ of error, charged with not complying to state laws Verdict: settled the meaning of the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution, determined the distribution of powers between the federal government and the states. The specific issues involved were Congress's power to incorporate the Second Bank of the United States and the right of a state to tax an instrument of the federal government
13. Significance Accepted loose interpretation of the Constitution. Trial between state and federal rights regarding a bank.
14. Cohens vs. Virginia: 1821 Presiding Judge: Chief Justice John Marshall Plaintiff: Virginia Defendants: Phillip and Mendes Cohens ~sold lottery tickets against Virginia law ~appealed for being found guilty Verdict: in favor of Virginia
15. Significance Asserted power of Supreme Court and federal law over state laws.
16. Gibbons vs. Ogden: 1824 Presiding Judge: Chief Justice John Marshall Plaintiff: Thomas Gibbons -owned steamboat service between New Jersey and New York -defended by Daniel Webster Defendant: Aaron Ogden -steamboat operator under legal monopoly ~Ogden’s right to commerce was issued by the state, and Gibbons’ was issued by Congress. Ogden believed that his monopoly should stand and Gibbons’ should be forced to stop traveling there. ~Ogden’s monopoly should stand, and he should receive control Verdict: In favor of Gibbons
17. Significance ~Congress controls interstate commerce
18. Charles river bridge vs. Warren Bridge: 1837 Presiding Judge: Chief Justice Roger B. Taney Plaintiff: Charles River Bridge Defendant: Warren Bridge ~Charles River Bridge held an exclusive charter to operate a toll bridge, Massachusetts gave a charter to Warren Bridge as well ~Charles River charged that Massachusetts violated the Contract Clause of the Constitution Verdict: Sided with Warren Bridge
19. Significance ~“In the past, the Court had usually defined the Contract Clause broadly, defending the interests of corporations. In Charles River Bridge, however, the Court ruled that a state charter did not grant a company any implicit rights; the exact terms of the contract had to be stated. In a larger sense, the Court also recognized that at times a state's power to promote the public welfare outweighed the rights of a corporation.”
20. Dred Scott vs. Sanford: 1857 Presiding Judge: Chief Justice Roger B. Taney Plaintiff: Dred Scott -slave moved into the North Defendant: Irene Emerson/John Sanford -owner of Scott and brother who took over her affairs ~Scott asked to be allowed to work for money in order to buy his freedom when the family moved to Illinois. Emerson refused. ~Scott sued Emerson for “false imprisonment” Verdict: In favor of Emerson/Sanford
21. Significance Taney ruled that blacks are not considered citizens and do not have the rights and privileges allotted to United States citizens. This was a devastating blow to all abolitionists.
22. Ex Parte Milligan: 1866 Presiding Judge: Salmon Portland Chase Plaintiff: Lambdin Milligan Defendant: United States ~Military charged Milligan with treason and conspiracy. ~Said military court couldn’t charge Milligan. Verdict: The trial of Milligan on charges of treason and conspiracy, was found to be illegal because it was conducted by a military court.
23. Significance Ruling upheld trial by jury.
24. Minor vs. Happersett: 1874 Presiding Judge: Joseph P. Bradley Plaintiff: Virginia Minor (with husband) Defendant: Reese Happersett ~right to vote, women’s right to vote ~constitutional rights were violated when Happersett wouldn’t register her to vote Verdict: 14th amendment did not give Virginia the right to vote even though she was a citizen
25. Significance Declined to grant woman’s right to protection under the 14th amendment.
26. Wabash Case: 1886 Presiding Judge: N/A Plaintiff: Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railroad Company Defendant: Illinois ~an Illinois law prohibited long- and short-haul clauses in transportation contracts ~Wabash claimed this law was unconstitutional Verdict: In favor of Wabash
27. Significance Denied states the right to regulate interstate commerce, power only given to Congress
28. US vs. EC Knight Company: 1895 Presiding Judge: N/A Plaintiff: United States Defendant: E.C. Knight Company ~E.C. Knight Company was a sugar company that had a trust with other sugar companies ~United States claimed the E.C. Knight was in violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act Verdict: in favor of E.C. Knight – Sherman Act did not apply to manufacturing
29. Significance ~The decision severely weakened the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890, the federal government's first attempt to limit the power of industrial monopolies
30. Plessy vs. ferguson:1896 Presiding Judge: Henry Billings Brown Plaintiff: Homer A. Plessy Defendant: J. H. Ferguson, New Orleans Criminal District Court Judge ~about black rights ~Louisiana’s law violated Plessy’s rights to equal protection under the law Verdict: in favor of Ferguson, “separate but equal”
31. Significance Sanctioned discriminatory state legislature. Wouldn’t be overruled until Brown vs. Board.
32. US vs. Wong Kim Ark: 1898 Presiding Judge: David Josiah Brewer Plaintiff: United States Defendant: Wong Kim Ark ~about citizenship ~that US court was wrong in affirming the citizenship of Wong Kim Ark Verdict: in favor of Wong Kim Ark
33. Significance This was the first case in which the Court interpreted Section I of the Fourteenth Amendment, in which all persons born in the United States are defined as citizens.
34. Northern Securities case: 1904 Presiding Judge: Edward D. White Plaintiff: Northern Securities Company -railroad company Defendant: United States ~United states thought Northern Securities was a conspiracy in restraint of trade under the Sherman Anti-Trust Law ~United States was wrong Verdict: in favor of U.S. – Northern securities violated Sherman Anti-Trust Law
35. Significance Ended further railroad trusts
36. Lochner vs. New York:1905 Presiding Judge: David Joseph Brewer Plaintiff: Joseph Lochner Defendant: People of the State of New York ~about labor ~Lochner said he did not violate the New York Bakeshop Act because it was an unreasonable exercise of police power Verdict: overruled the New York Bakeshop Act
37. Significance Was one of the most controversial decisions in Supreme Court history. Postponed protective legislation for women.
38. Loewe vs. Lawler: 1908 Presiding Judge: Chief Justice Fuller Plaintiff: Deitrich Loewe Defendant: Martin Lawler ~labor boycott of the D, E. Loewe & Company ~claimed it to be a conspiracy Verdict: in favor of Loewe
39. Significance Stuck to the Sherman Antitrust Act.
40. Muller vs. Oregon: 1908 Presiding Judge: Edward D. White Plaintiff: Curt Muller Defendant: State of Oregon ~In 1903, Oregon made a law stated the maximum hours women were allowed to work ~Maximum hour law is unconstitutional Verdict: In favor of Oregon – law is constitutional
41. Significance By stating that women were special and had different minimum wage and working hours furthered segregation in the workplace based on sex.
42. Debbs vs. Us:1919 Presiding Judge: N/A Plaintiff: Eugene Debbs Defendant: United States ~The U.S. passed the Espionage Act of 1917. Debbs was arrested for conspiring against the enlistment of soldiers in the army and navy ~Debbs claimed the Espionage Act denied his free speech as granted by the first amendment Verdict: in favor of U.S.
43. Significance Gave the United States the right to suspend its own constitutional amendments in a time of war
44. Schenckvs Us:1919 Presiding Judge: N/A Plaintiff: Charles Schenck Defendant: United States ~The U.S. passed the Espionage Act of 1917. Schenck was arrested for conspiring to print leaflets hampering the enlistment of soldiers ~Schenck claimed the Espionage Act denied his free speech Verdict: in favor of U.S.
45. Significance Gave the United States the right to suspend its own constitutional amendments in a time of war
46. Sacco-vanzetti: 1921 Presiding Judge: Webster Thayer Plaintiff: Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti ~during the Red Scare, arrested for murder and robbery ~guilty of robbery and murder Verdict: guilty
47. Significance Sacco and Vanzetti were arrested and found guilty even though they might not have been guilty, but because they were immigrants.
48. Adkins vs. children’s hospital: 1923 Presiding Judge: Pierce Butler Plaintiff: Jesse C. Adkins, et al; Minimum Wage Board of District of Columbia Defendant: Children’s Hospital of District of Columbia ~about minimum wage for women and children ~ Adkins said that US Congress did not have the power to set minimum wage for women and/or children Verdict: Minimum wage laws unconstitutional for women because they interfered with liberty granted in the 5th and 14th amendments
49. Significance Ruled that Congress did not have the power to set a minimum wage for women as a special group. Stopped efforts to equalize pay between men and women.
50. John Scopes/”Monkey Trial”: 1925 Presiding Judge: John T. Raulston Plaintiff: State of Tennessee Defendant: John Scopes ~whether or not evolution should be taught in the school system ~Charged Scopes because he taught evolution Verdict: Guilty, but neither side won
51. Significance Replaced religion with scientific in American thought. Brought fundamentalism into public education. Stripped William Jennings Bryan of his dignity as a key American figure.
52. Schechter “sick-Chicken” case: 1935 Presiding Judge: N/A Plaintiff: Schechter Poultry Corporation Defendant: United States ~Passed in 1933, the National Industrial Recovery Act held a code of fair business ~Schechter claimed that the Act did not affect his business because it did not have the force of law Verdict: in favor of Schechter – National Industrial Recovery Act is unconstitutional
53. Significance The decision overturned the major effort of the first administration of Franklin Roosevelt to regulate and control the economy during the Great Depression
54. US vs. Butler:1936 Presiding Judge: N/A Plaintiff: Butler Defendant: United States ~Congress enacted the Agricultural Adjustment Act in the New Deal era to stabilize farm prices.  ~AAA was unconstitutional Verdict: in favor of Butler
55. Significance Congress does not have the ability to use tax dollars to pay in a field reserved for states.
56. Korematsu vs. US:1944 Presiding Judge: Hugo Black Plaintiff: ToyosaburoKorematsu Defendant: United States ~about Japanese American internment camps ~military orders that sent Japanese Americans to internment camps during WW2 were not justified by military necessity Verdict: Military orders were upheld as valid exercise of war powers
57. Significance Korematsu is the only case in Supreme Court history in which the Court, using a strict test for possible racial discrimination, upheld a restriction on civil liberties.
58. Brown vs. Board of Education: 1954 Presiding Judge: Earl Warren Plaintiff: Linda Brown -black student Defendant: Board of Education at Sumner School in Topeka -all-white school ~Brown applied to the Sumner School and was rejected ~Brown sued Board claiming that they violated the Fourteenth amendment Verdict: In favor of Brown
59. Significance ~Reversed Plessy Vs. Ferguson. Claimed that “separate but equal” facilities were unconstitutional. Major step towards integration.
60. Gideon vs. Wainwright: 1963 Presiding Judge: Earl Warren Plaintiff: Clarence Earl Gideon Defendant: Louie L. Wainwright ~Gideon had been tried without a lawyer ~he had a sixth amendment right to legal counsel Verdict: in favor of Gideon – given a court-appointed lawyer
61. Significance Because of the ruling in this case, all indigent felony defendants--like many others charged with misdemeanors--have a right to court-appointed attorneys.
62. Griswold vs. connecticut: 1964 Presiding Judge: Earl Warren Plaintiff: Charles Lee Buxton and Estelle T. Griswold Defendant: State of Connecticut ~Connecticut had a law banning contraceptives with married couples ~Connecticut’s birth-control laws were unconstitutional Verdict: in favor of Griswold – struck down contraceptive laws
63. Significance Articulated the constitutions “right to privacy” clause – led to abortion debate in Roe vs. Wade
64. Miranda vs. arizona: 1966 Presiding Judge: Earl Warren Plaintiff: Ernesto Miranda -Mexican immigrant, charged with rape and kidnapping Defendant: the state of Arizona ~when Miranda was charged with the rape and kidnapping, he was not informed of his fifth and sixth amendment rights and incriminated himself. ~the police did not do their job by not reading Miranda his rights when he was arrested Verdict: in favor of Miranda
65. Significance All felons or suspected felons have the right to be read their fifth and sixth amendment rights (the right to be silent and use an attorney) when they are arrested.
66. Frontiero vs. Richardson: 1973 Presiding Judge: Warren E. Burger Plaintiff: Sharron A. Frontiero, Joseph Frontiero Defendant: Elliot L. Richardson, Secretary of Defense, et al. ~military criteria and liberties ~said that different requirements for having a male spouse is a violation to the 5th amendment Verdict:The federal statutes violated the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause and were overturned.
67. Significance Broke down male dominance barriers.
68. Roe vs. Wade:1973 Presiding Judge: Warren Burger Plaintiff: Norma McCorvey - “Jane Roe” -pregnant women, wanted an abortion Defendant: Henry B. Wade -District Attorney of Dallas Texas ~ Roe wanted to have an abortion, but Texas abortion law made it a felony to abort a fetus ~Texas abortion law is unconstitutional by violating the 14th amendment right to equal protection and personal liberty Verdict: In favor of Roe-Texas abortion law is unconstitutional
69. Significance Major step towards women’s abortion rights. Very controversial decision that is still debated today.
70. Milliken vs. Bradley: 1974 Presiding Judge: Chief Justice Burger Plaintiff: Milliken, Governor of Michigan Defendant: Bradley ~desegregation of busing ~against segregation of busing Verdict: segregation is unconstitutional in schools
71. Significance Was a continuation of Brown vs. Board of Education. Reversed “separate but equal”. Declared segregation in schools was unconstitutional.
72. US vs. Nixon: 1974 Presiding Judge: Warren Burger Plaintiff: Richard Nixon Defendant: The United States of America ~After the Watergate break-in in the democratic convention center, Nixon denied any knowledge of the situation. During the hearings, it was discovered that Nixon had tape recordings of his conversations in the Oval Office concerning the Watergate break-in. Nixon denied releasing these tapes during the prosecution. ~Nixon must release the tapes as was claimed by the subpoena Verdict: Nixon must release the tapes
73. Significance “The President is not immune from judicial process, and must turn over evidence subpoenaed by the courts. The doctrine of executive privilege entitles the president to a high degree of confidentiality if the evidence involves matters of national security or other sensitive information, but the President cannot withhold evidence.”
74. Bakke Case: 1978 Presiding Judge: Warren E. Burger Plaintiff: The Medical School of the University of California Defendant: Allan Bakke ~about differentiating treatment between minorities and others ~ special admissions program for minorities was an error Verdict: said that school’s special admissions program was unconstitutional
75. Significance First time Supreme Court said there could be reverse discrimination.
76. Webster vs. reproductive health services: 1989 Presiding Judge: Thurgood Marshall Plaintiff: William L. Webster, Attorney General of Missouri, et al.Defendant :Reproductive Health Services, et al. ~about women’s rights, abortion ~that they were wrong in overturning restrictions on abortion Verdict: upheld right to access abortion
77. Significance Would later be brought up again in Roe vs. Wade.
78. Planned Parenthood vs. Casey: 1992 Presiding Judge: William Rehnquist Plaintiff: Planned Parenthood Defendant: Robert P. Casey -governor of Pennsylvania ~in 1988 and 1989, Pennsylvania added amendments to the abortion law ~amendments were unconstitutional Verdict: in favor of both – law was constitutional in part and unconstitutional in part
79. Significance “It resolved a national dispute over abortion by upholding the essentials of Roe v. Wade while permitting Pennsylvania to regulate abortions as long as the state did not place an undue burden on women.”
80. Clinton impeachment: 1999 Presiding Judge: Rehnquist Plaintiff: Bill Clinton Defendant: United States ~Clinton was accused of committing adultery with a young intern, Monica Lewinsky, but denied it under oath. It was later released that he did, indeed, have an affair with her. ~perjury Verdict: not guilty
81. Significance Led the Senate to discuss the constitutionality of the impeachment rules and voted.