LANDMARK Supreme Court Cases APUSH Exam Review LANDMARK Supreme Court Cases

Marbury v. Madison 1803 John Marshall  Judicial Review Established “Midnight Judges” Judicial Review Established

Fletcher v. Peck 1810 John Marshall First Supreme Court case to rule a state law unconstitutional Yazoo River land case from GA legislature Protects legal contracts

McCulloch v. Maryland 1819 John Marshall “the power to tax involves the power to destroy” “the power to create implies a power to preserve” 1819 John Marshall States cannot tax the federal government Loose Construction Necessary & Proper Clause Implied Powers Federalist Influence??? 

Dartmouth College v. Woodward 1819 John Marshall State of NH wants to remove trustees from Dartmouth Court rules to protect University charter b/c it is a contract Later protects business from state interference but also restricts regulation Alumnus Daniel Webster reportedly brought tears to Marshall’s eyes with his eloquent words about Dartmouth

Cohens v. Virginia 1821 John Marshall Illegal Lotto tickets sold in VA The Supreme Court has the power to review the decisions of state courts. How does this give more power to the federal government?

Gibbons v. Ogden 1824 John Marshall The “Steamboat Case” – ferry b/w NY & NJ Congress (Federal Gov’t) held the right to regulate interstate commerce not individual states.

Cherokee Nation v. Georgia - 1831 Worcester v. Georgia - 1832 "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!“ Alleged words of President Andrew Jackson Both John Marshall Both cases deal with sovereignty of Indian Tribes in the U.S. Cherokee: Tribes are dependent nations within the U.S. like a “ward to its guardian" Worcester: basis for the Trail of Tears in 1838 

Prigg v. Pennsylvania 1842 Roger Taney  Fugitive Slave Case Federal Fugitive Slave Act takes precedence over a PA law protecting escaped slaves

Dred Scott v. Sanford 1857 Roger Taney Popular sovereignty also unconstitutional 1857 Roger Taney Three rulings in the Dred Scott Case: Slaves did not have rights of citizens Scott had no claim to freedom b/c he was living in MO MO Compromise was unconstitutional. Why? Dred Scott

Plessy v. Ferguson 1896 Melville Fuller  Homer Plessy & an Louisiana Train Car “one drop rule” Est. “separate but equal” Legalized segregation in the United States

The Insular Cases 1901 – 1903 Melville Fuller Does the Constitution follow the flag? 1901 – 1903 Melville Fuller Necessary b/c of what “splendid little war”? Deals with Constitutional status of Puerto Rico, the Philippines, & other island territories controlled by the U.S. Do citizenship & the benefits thereof apply to territorial residents? Full constitutional rights do not automatically apply to residents of newly acquired territories

Muller v. Oregon 1908 Melville Fuller Supreme Court upheld Oregon law limiting the number of hours a woman could work in one day Set precedent that progressive reforms could effectively target long work hours & poor conditions Basically overturns Lochner v. New York Lochner v. New York – Court rejects limits on single day work hours

Schenck v. United States Associate Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. “Clear & present danger” majority opinion 1919 Edward D. White Socialist Schenck convicted of violating the WWI era Espionage Act of 1917 Court rules the circumstances of wartime permit greater restrictions on free speech than would be allowable during peacetime. 

Korematsu v. United States 1944 Harlan F. Stone Constitutionality of WWII Japanese Internment Camps Supreme Court rules Executive Order 9066 is constitutional b/c the need to protect against espionage outweighed the individual rights, of Japanese Americans. Similarities to the Schenck case?

The Warren Court Chief Justice Warren (1953 – 1969) greatly expanded individual freedoms Earl Warren  Brown v. Board of Education, perhaps most significant ruling. Required criminal courts to provide free legal counsel (Gideon v. Wainwright) Right to a lawyer during questioning People must be read their Miranda rights before questioning (Miranda v. Arizona - 1966) EQ: How did the Warren Court expand the individual rights of American citizens?

Brown v. Board of Education Future Justice Thurgood Marshall argues before the court on behalf of the NAACP 1954 Earl Warren Epochal Supreme Court ruling strikes down “separate but equal” overturning Plessy v. Ferguson Court orders state compliance “with all deliberate speed” "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.“ – unanimous decision of the Warren Court

Mapp v. Ohio 1961 Earl Warren  Evidence gained without a legitimate search warrant is not permissible in court 4th Amendment cited -protection from “unreasonable searches & seizures”

Gideon v. Wainwright 1963 Earl Warren Per the 6th Amendment, state courts must provide legal counsel in criminal cases for defendants who cannot afford to retain a lawyer.

Miranda v. Arizona 1966 Earl Warren Ernesto Miranda 1966 Earl Warren Criminal suspects must be informed of their “right to remain silent” & the right to an attorney Any evidence before a suspect is informed of these rights is impermissible “Miranda Rights”

Tinker v. Des Moines 1969 Earl Warren Ruling defined the constitutional rights of students in U.S. public schools Schools can only limit speech when it is shown to be harmful to the educational process Tinker siblings Court’s ruling leads to the “Tinker Test” 

Roe v. Wade Warren Burger 1973 Perhaps the most controversial Supreme Court case in U.S. History Ignites religious, moral, & philosophical debates that still occur to this day Ruling disallows many state restrictions on abortion Roe v. Wade effectively legalizes most early term abortions in the U.S.

United States v. Nixon 1974 Warren Burger At the height of the Watergate investigation the Supreme Court rules no person (even the President) is above the law The President cannot claim executive privilege and withhold evidence that is relevant in a criminal trial. The Supreme Court rejects President Nixon's claim to "an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances."

California v. Bakke 1978 Warren Burger In 1978 Allan Bakke  applied to University of California at Davis medical school. The school had a quota – based affirmative-action plan that reserved 16 out of 100 spots for minorities. Bakke sued for admission arguing that he had been discriminated against based on his race. Reverse Discrimination??? In a 5 to 4 ruling the Supreme Court held that quotas were illegal and Bakke was admitted but…race could still be used as one of many factors for admission