1. Landmark Supreme Court Cases
Law Studies

2. Marbury v. Madison Facts – Question – Decision –
Thomas Jefferson, member of Republican Party, won election of 1800
Outgoing President John Adams, member of the Federalist Party, appointed 58 members of the Federalist Party to fill government posts
Secretary of State, John Marshall, was to give all important paperwork to newly appointed judges, but failed to do so
William Marbury, one of the new judges, was one of the judges to receive paperwork but didn’t
Marbury sued the new Secretary of State, James Madison, and asked the Supreme Court to deliver the commission (important paperwork)
Question –
Does Marbury have a right to the Commission?
Did Marbury have a right to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court?
Decision –
Marbury does have the right to the commission.
On the second question, the justices held that Constitution was the “fundamental and paramount law of the nation”, and that “an act of the legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void”. In other words, when the Constitution, the nation’s highest law, conflicts with an act of the legislature, that act of the legislature is invalid. This case establishes the Supreme Court’s power judicial review.

3. Plessy v. Ferguson Facts Question Decision
1890, Louisiana passed a statute called the Separate Car Act (all rail companies carrying passengers in Louisiana must provide separate but equal accommodations for white and non-white passengers)
Penalty for sitting in wrong compartment was a fine of $25 or 20 days in jail
Group of black citizens joined with the East Louisiana Railroad Company to fight the Act
1892, Homer Plessy, who was 1/8th black, purchased a first-class ticket, and sat in the white-designated railroad car
Plessy was arrested for violating the Separate Car Act; Plessy argued the Act violated the 14th Amendment
Question
Is Louisiana’s law requiring racial segregation on its trains unconstitutional?
Decision
No, the state law in 1890 was within constitutional boundaries. The justices based their opinion on the separate but equal doctrine; that separate facilities for blacks and whites satisfied the 14th amendment so long as they were equal.

4. Brown v. Board of Education
Facts
In Topeka, Kansas in the 1950s, schools were segregated by race
Linda Brown and her sister had to walk through a dangerous railroad switchyard to ride the bus to their all-black elementary school
There was a school close by for white students only
Linda Brown, and her family, believed a segregated school system violated the 14th Amendment
Federal district court decided segregation was harmful, but because all-black schools and all- white schools had similar buildings, transportation, curricula, and teachers, segregation was legal
Question
Does the segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race deprive minority children of equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the 14th Amendment?
Decision
Yes. The long held doctrine that separate facilities were permissible provided they were equal was rejected. Separate but equal is basically unequal in the context of public education. Racial segregation in public education has a detrimental effect on minority children because it is interpreted as a sign of inferiority.

5. Gideon v. Wainwright Facts Question Decision
Mr. Gideon was accused of breaking and entering a pool hall and stealing money from vending machines in Panama City, FL 1961
He was charged with a felony
In trial court, he appeared without funds for an attorney, asked the judge to appoint a lawyer because he could not afford one
The judge said he could not appoint an attorney because Florida law only allowed for the appointment of free legal counsel to persons charged with crimes that could lead to the death penalty
Mr. Gideon represented himself, was found guilty, and sentenced to five years in a Florida state prison
Mr. Gideon studied law in the prison library, filed a writ of habeas corpus to the Florida Supreme Court, claiming his conviction was unconstitutional under the U.S. Constitution (6th Amendment) because he did not have assistance of legal counsel in his defense
Florida Supreme Court denied
Gideon wrote the U.S. Supreme Court
Question
Did the state court’s failure to appoint counsel for Gideon violate his right to a fair trial and due process of law as protected by the 6th and 14th Amendments.
Decision
Yes. The Supreme Court held that the framers of the Constitution placed a high value on the right of the accused to have the means to put up a proper defense, and the state as well as the federal courts must respect that right. Also, state courts were required to appoint attorneys for criminal defendants who could not afford to retain counsel on their own.

6. Miranda v. Arizona Facts Question Decision
Ernesto Miranda was identified in a police lineup by a woman who accused him of kidnapping and assaulting her
He was arrested and questioned by police for 2 hours
He eventually confessed to the crimes
During the interrogation, Miranda was not told he had the right to an attorney, his right of protection against self-incrimination, nor informed of his 5th or 6th Amendment rights during the police interrogation
In a state trial court, the confession was used as evidence, and Miranda was convicted and sentenced to years in prison
Miranda’s attorney appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court, and then the U.S. Supreme Court, stating the police had unconstitutionally obtained the confession
Question
Does the police practice of questioning suspects in police custody without notifying them of their right to remain silent or their right to an attorney, violate their constitutional rights?
Decision
The Court held that the prosecutors could not use statements stemming from custodial interrogation (happens when one or more law enforcement officers question someone while he or she is being held for questioning) of defendants unless they demonstrated the use of procedural safe guards “effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination.” The Court specifically outlined the necessary aspects of police warnings to suspects, including warnings of the right to remain silent and the right to have counsel present during interrogations. (Miranda Rights)

7. In re Gault Facts Question before the Court Decision
Gerald Francis Gault was 15yrs old when taken into custody for allegedly making an obscene phone call, arrested, and then taken to a Children’s Detention Home in Arizona
He wasn’t informed of the charges against him
His mother was not home when he was arrested
He’d been on probation for six months prior to this arrest for being in the company of a friend who’d stolen a wallet from a woman’s purse
The following day, a petition was filed, but there was no hearing, no witnesses were sworn, no attorney was present for Gault,
Officer stated that the youth admitted to making obscene remarks after he was questioned
Gault’s parents were not present during the questioning of their son.
At the time, adults charged in similar circumstances would have likely received a sentence of 60 days Gault was sentenced to the State Industrial School until he was 21.
Question before the Court
In this case, the Court considered whether the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment applies to juvenile delinquency proceedings. Were the procedures used to commit Gault in violation of the U.S. Constitution?
Decision
Yes. The proceedings of the juvenile court failed to comply with the U.S. Constitution. The Court held that juveniles were entitled to some due process rights under the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution. These requirements included adequate notice of charges, notification of both the parents and the child of the juvenile's right to counsel, opportunity for confrontation and cross-examination of witnesses at the hearings, and adequate safeguards against self-incrimination. The Court found that the procedures used in Gault's case met none of these requirements.

8. Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District
Facts
John Tinker, 15 years old, his sister Mary Beth Tinker, 13 years old, and Christopher Eckhardt, 16 years old, decided, with approval from their parents, to protest the Vietnam War by wearing black armbands to their schools in December.
Believing the armbands would create problems and cause disturbances on campus, a policy was developed to prohibit students from wearing armbands to schools.
Students who wore armbands to school would be asked to remove them or face suspension.
The Tinkers and Eckhardt wore the armbands and were suspended.
During their suspension the students' parents sued the school for violating their children's right to free speech.
A U.S. district court sided with the school, ruling that wearing armbands could disrupt learning. The students appealed the ruling to a U.S. Court of Appeals, who affirmed the decision of the lower court. They took their case to the United States Supreme Court.
Question
Did the principals’ rule against wearing armbands in public school violate the students’ First Amendment?
Decision
Yes. The Supreme Court held that the students did not lose their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech when they stepped onto school property. In order to justify the suppression of speech, the school officials must be able to prove that the conduct in question would "materially and substantially interfere" with the operation of the school. In this case, the school district's actions evidently stemmed from a fear of possible disruption rather than any actual interference.

9. Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier Facts Question Decision
The Spectrum, a school-sponsored newspaper at Hazelwood East High School, was written and edited by students as part of a journalism class on campus.
In May 1983, Robert E. Reynolds, the school principal received the page proofs for the May 13th issue . The principal found two of the articles in the issue to be inappropriate, and ordered that the pages on which the articles appeared be removed from the publication. The articles dealt with teen pregnancy and the impact of divorce. Both articles also included interviews with students on campus.
The principal was concerned that the pregnant girls might be identified by other students on campus and that the article addressed issues that were inappropriate for ounger students . The principal was also concerned that the newspaper article did not seek comments from the parent of the student who was interviewed about divorce.
Students challenged the principal’s actions and brought the case to court.
Question
Did the principal's deletion of the articles violate the students' rights under the First Amendment?
Decision
No. The Court held schools must be able to set high standards for student speech disseminated under their watch, and that schools retained the right to refuse to sponsor speech that was ‘inconsistent with 'the shared values of a civilized social order.'" Educators did not offend the First Amendment by exercising editorial control over the content of student speech so long as their actions were ‘reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical(teaching) concerns." The actions of principal Reynolds, the Court held, met this test.

10. United States v. Nixon Facts Question Decision
Early in the morning of June 17, 1972, several individuals were arrested inside the office of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), located in the Watergate building in Washington, D.C.
Those arrested were connected to President Richard Nixon’s (Republican) re-election campaign, and they had been caught while attempting to wiretap phones and steal secret documents.
A grand jury returned indictments against seven of President Nixon's closest aides in the Watergate affair.
The special prosecutor appointed by Nixon and the defendants sought audio tapes of conversations recorded by Nixon in the Oval Office. Nixon asserted that he was immune from the subpoena claiming "executive privilege," which is the right to withhold information from other government branches to preserve confidential communications within the executive branch or to secure the national interest.
Question
Based on the facts provided, is the President's right to safeguard certain information, using his "executive privilege" confidentiality power, protected from judicial review?
Decision
No. The Court held that neither the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the generalized need for confidentiality of high - level communications, can support an absolute, unqualified, presidential privilege. The Court granted that there was a limited executive privilege in areas of military or diplomatic affairs, but gave preference to "the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of justice." Therefore, the president must obey the subpoena and produce the tapes and documents. Nixon resigned shortly after the release of the tapes.

11. Bush v. Gore Facts Questions Decision
The results of the 2000 Presidential election (November 7, 2000) between Texas Governor George W. Bush and Vice President were so close in Florida that state law (statute (7)) called for an automatic machine recount of ballots.
After the automatic machine recount, the results were even closer with Vice President Gore losing by a very small margin. Vice President Gore then sought manual recounts in Volusia, Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami - Dade Counties under Florida Law ( ). Florida law (FS ) also establishes a date for submitting the certified election results to the Secretary of State, which was November 14, Counties required to conduct a manual recount were unable to meet this deadline.
Because there were different interpretations as to when a county should order a manual recount and also a dispute over the deadline for the Secretary of State to certify the election results, the dispute was brought before Florida Supreme Court.
All seven justices agreed that a manual recount should occur if there was a difference between the votes the machine counted and the votes actually cast that were not electronically recorded because of how the ballot was marked or punched (‘undervotes’).
Each county where the votes were challenged were to be recounted by hand and the Secretary of State could not certify the election until the recounts had been completed or by November 26th. Even with the extended deadline, many counties could not complete the recount in time and some counties, like Miami - Dade, stopped counting.
On December 8, 2000, the Florida Supreme Court ordered that manual recounts of ballots were required in all Florida counties where ‘undervotes’ had not been recounted by hand and recounts should begin at once. The court explained that there could be no question that there were uncounted "legal votes” meaning those in which there was a clear indication of the voter's intent - sufficient to place the results of the election in doubt. The next day, the United States Supreme Court stopped the manual recounts in Florida and held oral argument on December 11, 2000.
Questions
Did the Florida Supreme Court exceed its authority by ordering a state - wide manual recount? And, would such a recount be constitutional?
Decision
On December 12, 2000, the Florida Supreme Court issued an opinion that the Florida Supreme Court violated the constitutional rights of voters by ordering a manual recount because there were no statewide standards established as to when a vote would be counted in order to determine the “intent of the voter.” At the same time, the majority of the United States Supreme Court (5 - 4) stated it was “too late”: that there was insufficient time for Florida to now establish statewide standards for a new recount before the deadline of December 12th, the date established for the selection of the State’s electors.

12. District of Columbia v. Heller
Facts
The District of Columbia passed the Firearms Control Regulations Act of This law made it a crime to carry an unlicensed handgun, and limited the distribution of licensed handguns mainly to police and security officers. It also required that all legal firearms must be kept unloaded and disassembled or trigger locked In 2003, a group of private gun – owners , including Mr. Richard Heller, brought suit claiming that certain parts of the Firearms Control Regulation Act violated the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. The federal trial court in Washington D.C. held that the Second Amendment applies only to militias, such as the National Guard, and not to private gun ownership based on precedent from a 1939 U.S. Supreme Court Case called U.S. v. Miller. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit disagreed, voting two to one that the Second Amendment does in fact protect private gun owners.
Question
Does the D.C. Code violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals not affiliated with service in a militia who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?
Decision
Yes. The Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self - defense within the home. The Court based its holding on the text of the Second Amendment, as well as applicable language in state constitutions adopted soon after the Second Amendment.