-
Marbury v. Madison
John Adams appointed New courts and judges for the Congress. Marbury was appointed Justice of peace at the time and needed validation for an appointment. James Madison was Secretary of State at the time and he refused to the appoint, so Marbury sued. The decision by the Supreme Court was that the refusal by Madison was illegal. They also said Marbury suing was unconstitutional. The ruling held that the Supreme court had judicial review over laws and executive orders. -
Dred Scott v. Sandford
Dred Scott lived in Illinois a free state during the time. After his master died in 1849 he sued the widow saying his time in the free state made him a free man. The Supreme court ruled 7-2 since Scott's ancestors were imported to the U.S. they are technically not American citizens. The Supreme court ruled that Scott suing the widow was unconstitutional and said that slaves were part of property. The deciding factor was thought to be a decision that led to the Civil war. -
Plessy v. Ferguson
Homer Plessy was identified black under Louisiana law. He was at a train station and ended up sitting in passenger seats that were strictly for whites and refused to get up. They ended up arresting Plessy and Plessy said the Separate Car Act was violating his 14th amendment. He ended up taking it to the Supreme court ruling it a 7-1 for Ferguson saying it was "separate but equal". The Supreme court also said that the accommodations did not violate the 14th amendment. -
Brown v. Board of Education
In 1950 Linda Brown had to take a dangerous route to school every day because the closest school around was white. Oliver Brown thought that what his daughter had to do every day was faulty part of the 14th amendment. Brown and a few other parents challenged the segregation law and took it to court. Supreme court unanimously voted that the separate education facilities were separate but were not equal. The ruling also called for lower courts and school boards to proceed with desegregation. -
Mapp v. Ohio
Police barged into Dollrees Mapp's house because they thought she was hiding a suspected bomber. She asked for a warrant to search the house they showed her a piece of paper and went on searching. They ended up finding pornographic images in her house and ended up arresting her for obscene material which she then appealed. The Supreme Court voted 6-3 for Mapp. They said it was a violation of 4th amendment rights because the unlawful search and seizures made the evidence inadmissible to courts. -
Miranda v. Arizona
Police obtained a written confession that Ernesto Miranda raped and abducted a girl. During his interrogation, they did not tell Miranda he could have an attorney. So Miranda appealed that his confession was gained unconstitutionally via no attorney. So the Supreme court voted 5-4 for Miranda saying law enforcement should advise suspects to remain silent and to be able to provide an attorney if need be. Evidence can not be used in a trial setting unless the warnings had been given. -
Loving v. Virginia
In 1958 at the time interracial marriage was illegal. Mildred Jeter and Richard Loving got married in Washington D.C and started returning back home. When returning back home they were charged with breaking the law and sentenced to 1 year in prison. They were not able to come back for another 25 years. Loving reached out to ACLU which helped sue. The unanimous decision by the Supreme Court said that it was unconstitutional via the 14th amendment. It was a big step for the civil rights movement. -
Terry v. Ohio
A detective in Cleveland Ohio saw three men pacing he suspected they were about to rob a store. He confronted the men identified himself and frisked them finding two guns. One of the men was convicted of having a gun. The man appealed saying it was a violation of the fourth amendment because of frisking by the detective. The ruling was 8-1 for the detective saying if someone acts suspiciously warranting inquiry. If an individual is believed to be armed and dangerous officer may pat down him/her. -
Brandenburg v. Ohio
During a gathering for the Ku Klux Klan, Clarence Brandenburg made racist comments and said action might be taken. The media filmed all this at the gathering and state law said violence is not needed for political reform. He was sentenced to 10 years in prison but appealed saying speech for violence was protected by the 1st amendment. The Supreme court ruled that his speech had been violated. Saying something and actually doing it are two completely different things. -
United States v. Nixon
The case was triggered during the Watergate Scandal when a special prosecutor asked for tapes from Richard Nixon. Richard refused to give them up saying he has executive privileges. This led to Nixon and the persecuted filing for petitions to the Supreme court. Supreme court ruling was that Nixon does have executive privilege but it is not enough for this case. Nixon had to give up the tapes which led to his resignation. Ensures that the president doesn't have unlimited privileges.
