Landmark Cases U.S. Supreme Court interpretations of the Constitution and its amendments

Landmark CasesLandmark Cases

U.S. Supreme Court U.S. Supreme Court interpretations of the interpretations of the Constitution and its Constitution and its

amendmentsamendments

Marbury Vs.MadisonMarbury Vs.Madison

Thomas Jefferson, a member of the Thomas Jefferson, a member of the Republican Party, won the election of Republican Party, won the election of 1800. Before Jefferson took office, John 1800. Before Jefferson took office, John Adams, the outgoing President who Adams, the outgoing President who was a Federalist, quickly appointed 58 was a Federalist, quickly appointed 58 members of his own party to fill members of his own party to fill government jobs created by Congress. government jobs created by Congress. He did this because he wanted people He did this because he wanted people from his political party in office from his political party in office


It was the responsibility It was the responsibility of Adams' Secretary of of Adams' Secretary of State, John Marshall, to State, John Marshall, to finish the paperwork finish the paperwork and give it to each of and give it to each of the newly appointed the newly appointed officials. Although officials. Although Marshall signed and Marshall signed and sealed all of the papers, sealed all of the papers, he failed to deliver 17 of he failed to deliver 17 of them to the appointees. them to the appointees.


Marshall thought his Marshall thought his successor would finish successor would finish the job. But when the job. But when Jefferson became Jefferson became President, he told his President, he told his new Secretary of State, new Secretary of State, James Madison, not to James Madison, not to deliver some of the deliver some of the papers. Those papers. Those individuals couldn't individuals couldn't take office until they take office until they actually had their actually had their papers in hand.papers in hand.


Adams had Adams had appointed William appointed William Marbury to be Marbury to be justice of the peace justice of the peace of the District of of the District of Columbia. Marbury Columbia. Marbury was one of the last-was one of the last-minute appointees minute appointees who did not receive who did not receive his papers. his papers.

Marbury Vs.MadisonMarbury Vs.Madison Marbury argued that he was entitled to the job and Marbury argued that he was entitled to the job and

that the Judiciary Act of 1789 gave the Supreme that the Judiciary Act of 1789 gave the Supreme Court of the United States original jurisdiction to Court of the United States original jurisdiction to issue a issue a writ of mandamuswrit of mandamus, which is the type of , which is the type of court order he needed. When the case came court order he needed. When the case came before the Court, John Marshall — the person who before the Court, John Marshall — the person who had failed to deliver the commission in the first had failed to deliver the commission in the first place — was the new Chief Justice. The Court had place — was the new Chief Justice. The Court had to decide whether Marbury was entitled to his job, to decide whether Marbury was entitled to his job, and if so, whether the Judiciary Act of 1789 gave and if so, whether the Judiciary Act of 1789 gave the Court the authority it needed to force the the Court the authority it needed to force the Secretary of State to appoint Marbury to his Secretary of State to appoint Marbury to his position.position.


"It is emphatically the province and "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the other, the courts must decide on the operation of each." operation of each."

— — Chief Justice John MarshallChief Justice John Marshall

McCulloch v. MadisonMcCulloch v. Madison

In 1791, the U.S. government created the In 1791, the U.S. government created the first national bank for the country. During first national bank for the country. During this time, a national bank was controversial this time, a national bank was controversial because people had different opinions about because people had different opinions about what powers the national government what powers the national government should have. Alexander Hamilton believed should have. Alexander Hamilton believed that the national government had the power that the national government had the power to create a new national bank. Thomas to create a new national bank. Thomas Jefferson believed that the national Jefferson believed that the national government did not have such a power. government did not have such a power. When Thomas Jefferson was president, he When Thomas Jefferson was president, he did not renew the national bank's charter. did not renew the national bank's charter.

McCulloch v. MarylandMcCulloch v. Maryland

After the War of After the War of 1812, President 1812, President James Madison James Madison decided that the decided that the country needed a country needed a national bank, and national bank, and he asked Congress he asked Congress to create a Second to create a Second Bank of the United Bank of the United States in 1816 States in 1816


After President After President Madison approved the Madison approved the bank, many branches bank, many branches were opened were opened throughout the throughout the country. Many states country. Many states did not want the new did not want the new bank branches to bank branches to open. There were open. There were several reasons why several reasons why the states opposed the states opposed these national banks. these national banks.


Maryland tried closing Maryland tried closing down the Baltimore down the Baltimore branch of the national branch of the national bank by passing a law bank by passing a law that forced all banks that forced all banks that were created that were created outside of the state pay outside of the state pay a $15,000 tax each a $15,000 tax each year. James McCulloch, year. James McCulloch, who worked at the who worked at the Baltimore Branch, Baltimore Branch, refused to pay the tax. refused to pay the tax.


The Supreme Court Reversed the The Supreme Court Reversed the lower courts and overturned lower courts and overturned McCulloch's conviction, holding that McCulloch's conviction, holding that establishing a national bank is within establishing a national bank is within the constitutional powers of Congress the constitutional powers of Congress under the "necessary and proper" under the "necessary and proper" clause and Maryland does not have clause and Maryland does not have authority to tax a federal institution.authority to tax a federal institution.

United States v. NixonUnited States v. Nixon In 1972, five burglars In 1972, five burglars

were caught breaking were caught breaking into the Democratic into the Democratic National Headquarters National Headquarters in the Watergate Hotel in the Watergate Hotel in Washington, D.C. in Washington, D.C. Among other activities, Among other activities, the Democratic the Democratic National Headquarters National Headquarters was responsible for was responsible for raising money for and raising money for and coordinating coordinating campaigns for campaigns for Democratic candidates, Democratic candidates, including the including the presidential candidate. presidential candidate.

United States v. NixonUnited States v. Nixon

Media and Media and government government investigations investigations discovered that the discovered that the burglars were burglars were connected to the connected to the White House, White House, which at the time which at the time was occupied by was occupied by President Richard President Richard Nixon, a Nixon, a Republican. Republican.

United States v. NixonUnited States v. Nixon Congress held hearings on the scandal to Congress held hearings on the scandal to

investigate wrongdoing by the president and his investigate wrongdoing by the president and his aides. During those hearings, the public aides. During those hearings, the public discovered that President Nixon had installed a discovered that President Nixon had installed a tape recorder in the Oval Office. These tape tape recorder in the Oval Office. These tape recordings probably had conversations between recordings probably had conversations between the president and his aides that could support the president and his aides that could support some of the accusations against them. The special some of the accusations against them. The special prosecutor in charge of the case wanted to hear prosecutor in charge of the case wanted to hear these tapes, but President Nixon did not want to these tapes, but President Nixon did not want to give them up. President Nixon even had the give them up. President Nixon even had the special prosecutor removed from his job to stop special prosecutor removed from his job to stop him from obtaining the tapes. However, the next him from obtaining the tapes. However, the next special prosecutor also requested them. This time special prosecutor also requested them. This time a federal court judge ruled that the president had a federal court judge ruled that the president had to hand over the tape recordings. to hand over the tape recordings.

United States v. NixonUnited States v. Nixon Before the Supreme Before the Supreme

Court, Nixon's lawyers Court, Nixon's lawyers argued that the courts argued that the courts could not hear the could not hear the case because it was a case because it was a dispute within the dispute within the executive branch over executive branch over which the courts had which the courts had no power or no power or jurisdiction. They also jurisdiction. They also argued that the tapes argued that the tapes should be protected should be protected by the president's by the president's executive privilege. executive privilege.


The Department of Justice, representing The Department of Justice, representing the people of the United States argued, the people of the United States argued, however, that executive privilege was not however, that executive privilege was not absolute. In this case, those normally absolute. In this case, those normally confidential communications were very confidential communications were very important for a criminal case. If only the important for a criminal case. If only the president had the power to decide when president had the power to decide when his communications could be revealed to his communications could be revealed to the public, then he could cover up the public, then he could cover up information about illegal activities and this information about illegal activities and this would be dangerous for the legal system would be dangerous for the legal system and the rule of law. and the rule of law.


In a special session, In a special session, the Supreme Court the Supreme Court heard oral heard oral arguments on July 8, arguments on July 8, 1974. The case 1974. The case issues: 1) Do the issues: 1) Do the courts have the courts have the jurisdiction to hear a jurisdiction to hear a case involving a case involving a dispute within the dispute within the executive branch? executive branch?


2) Does the 2) Does the president have the president have the power of absolute power of absolute privilege and, if so, privilege and, if so, does his privilege does his privilege prevail over the prevail over the demands of the demands of the subpoena in this subpoena in this case? case?


The Court rules that The Court rules that it does have it does have jurisdiction and that jurisdiction and that the president's the president's executive privilege executive privilege power is not power is not absolute. Therefore, absolute. Therefore, the president must the president must comply with the comply with the subpoena and turn subpoena and turn over the tapes.over the tapes.

Plessy v.FergusonPlessy v.Ferguson In 1890, Louisiana In 1890, Louisiana

passed a statute called passed a statute called the "Separate Car Act". the "Separate Car Act". This law declared that all This law declared that all rail companies carrying rail companies carrying passengers in Louisiana passengers in Louisiana had to provide separate had to provide separate but equal but equal accommodations for accommodations for white and non-white white and non-white passengers. The penalty passengers. The penalty for sitting in the wrong for sitting in the wrong compartment was a fine compartment was a fine of $25 or 20 days in jail.of $25 or 20 days in jail.

Plessy v.FergusonPlessy v.Ferguson On June 7, 1892, Plessy On June 7, 1892, Plessy

purchased a first-class purchased a first-class passage from New passage from New Orleans to Covington, Orleans to Covington, Louisiana and sat in the Louisiana and sat in the railroad car for "White" railroad car for "White" passengers. The passengers. The railroad officials knew railroad officials knew Plessy was coming and Plessy was coming and arrested him for arrested him for violating the Separate violating the Separate Car Act. Well known Car Act. Well known advocate for black advocate for black rights Albion Tourgee, a rights Albion Tourgee, a white lawyer, agreed to white lawyer, agreed to argue the case for free. argue the case for free.

Plessy v.FergusonPlessy v.Ferguson

Plessy argued in court Plessy argued in court that the Separate Car that the Separate Car Act violated the Act violated the Thirteenth and Thirteenth and Fourteenth Fourteenth Amendments to the Amendments to the Constitution. The Constitution. The Thirteenth Amendment Thirteenth Amendment banned slavery and the banned slavery and the Fourteenth Amendment Fourteenth Amendment requires that the requires that the government treat government treat people equally. people equally.


Plessy appealed the Plessy appealed the case to the Louisiana case to the Louisiana State Supreme Court, State Supreme Court, which affirmed the which affirmed the decision that the decision that the Louisiana law was Louisiana law was constitutional. Plessy constitutional. Plessy then took his case, then took his case, Plessy v. Ferguson, to Plessy v. Ferguson, to the Supreme Court of the Supreme Court of the United States, the the United States, the highest court in the highest court in the country. country.


The Court upheld the Louisiana State The Court upheld the Louisiana State Supreme Court's decision and Supreme Court's decision and declared that the "Separate Car Act" declared that the "Separate Car Act" was constitutional as long as there was constitutional as long as there were separate but equal were separate but equal accommodations for both whites and accommodations for both whites and blacks. blacks.

Brown v. Board of EducationBrown v. Board of Education In Topeka, Kansas in In Topeka, Kansas in

the 1950s, schools the 1950s, schools were segregated by were segregated by race. Each day, Linda race. Each day, Linda Brown and her sister, Brown and her sister, Terry Lynn, had to walk Terry Lynn, had to walk through a dangerous through a dangerous railroad switchyard to railroad switchyard to get to the bus stop for get to the bus stop for the ride to their all-the ride to their all-black elementary black elementary school. There was a school. There was a school closer to the school closer to the Brown's house, but it Brown's house, but it was only for white was only for white students. students.

Brown v. Board of EducationBrown v. Board of Education

Segregation in schools Segregation in schools and other public and other public places was common places was common throughout the South throughout the South and elsewhere. This and elsewhere. This segregation based on segregation based on race was legal race was legal because of a landmark because of a landmark Supreme Court case Supreme Court case called called PlessyPlessy v. v. FergusonFerguson

Brown v. Board of EducationBrown v. Board of Education However, the Brown's However, the Brown's

disagreed. Linda Brown disagreed. Linda Brown and her family believed and her family believed that the segregated that the segregated school system did school system did violate the violate the Constitution. In Constitution. In particular, they particular, they believed that the believed that the system violated the system violated the Fourteenth Amendment Fourteenth Amendment guaranteeing that guaranteeing that people will be treated people will be treated equally under the law.equally under the law.


No State shall . . . deny to any person No State shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.protection of the laws.

—Equal Protection Clause of the —Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution Constitution

Brown v. Board of EducationBrown v. Board of Education The federal district court The federal district court

decided that decided that segregation in public segregation in public education was harmful education was harmful to black children. to black children. However, the court said However, the court said that the all-black schools that the all-black schools were equal to the all-were equal to the all-white schools because white schools because the buildings, the buildings, transportation, curricula, transportation, curricula, and educational and educational qualifications of the qualifications of the teachers were similar; teachers were similar; therefore the therefore the segregation was legal. segregation was legal.


The Court combined The Court combined the Brown's case the Brown's case with other cases with other cases from South Carolina, from South Carolina, Virginia, and Virginia, and Delaware. The ruling Delaware. The ruling in the in the BrownBrown v. v. Board of EducationBoard of Education case came in 1954.case came in 1954.

Miranda v. ArizonaMiranda v. Arizona Miranda was arrested after Miranda was arrested after

a crime victim identified a crime victim identified him in a police lineup. him in a police lineup. Miranda was charged with Miranda was charged with rape and kidnapping and rape and kidnapping and interrogated for two hours interrogated for two hours while in police custody. while in police custody. The police officers The police officers questioning him did not questioning him did not inform him of his Fifth inform him of his Fifth Amendment right against Amendment right against self-incrimination, or of his self-incrimination, or of his Sixth Amendment right to Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of an the assistance of an attorney. attorney.

Miranda v. ArizonaMiranda v. Arizona

As a result of the As a result of the interrogation, he interrogation, he confessed in writing to confessed in writing to the crimes with which the crimes with which he was charged. he was charged. During his trial, the During his trial, the prosecution used his prosecution used his confession to obtain a confession to obtain a conviction, and he was conviction, and he was sentenced to 20 to 30 sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison on years in prison on each count. each count.

Miranda v. ArizonaMiranda v. Arizona Miranda's defense attorney Miranda's defense attorney

appealed to the Arizona appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court. His Supreme Court. His attorney argued that his attorney argued that his confession should have confession should have been excluded from trial been excluded from trial because he had not been because he had not been informed of his rights, nor informed of his rights, nor had an attorney been had an attorney been present during his present during his interrogation. The police interrogation. The police officers involved admitted officers involved admitted that they had not given that they had not given Miranda any explanation of Miranda any explanation of his rights. his rights.

Documents

Landmark Cases U.S. Supreme Court interpretations of the Constitution and its amendments