The following are just some of the Landmark Supreme Court decisions in American History. Each case is supplied with the essential information you will need to know.
- What was the constitutional question?
- What were both sides contesting?
- What was the Supreme Courts decision?
You will be expected to know each case and the key terminology. We will spend at least two days in reviewing these cases using creative and fun strategies. I encourage you to look up additional background on any cases in which you are confused about. At the end of the document is a work cited page that will assist you.
I also suggest grouping the cases by categories. This will help you when trying to recall the cases and their content. Fill out the Classifications worksheet.
1. Adarand Construction v. Pena
Constitutional Question: ifthe concept of ‘disadvantaged persons’ is based on race alone, and therefore given favored treatment, a violation of the equal protection of the 14th amendment and Due Process of the 5th amendment.
Plaintiff Contesting:Mountain Gravel was under contract with the US depratment of Transportation. They looked for bids from a subcontractor. The lowest bidder was not awarded the subcontract because they were not labeled as ‘disadvantaged.’ There was a greater monetary advantage for Mountain Gravel to subcontract with a higher bidder that was labeled disadvantaged and Adarand Construction felt the bous incentive, that caused him to lose the contact, was unconstutional.
Defendant Contesting: Adhered to the laws and provision of the Small Business Association and the federal government.
Supreme Court Decision: Ruled in favor of the US department of transportation, that when race- based issues are involved, the best way to analyze them is ‘strict scrutiny.’
2. Boy Scouts of America (2000)
Constitutional Question: Does the New Jersey public accommodation law interfere with the Boy Scouts 1st amendment right of expressive association and thus allow them to bar homosexual adult members.
Plaintiff Contesting: The Boys Scouts of America acted against New JerseyState law that prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation in places of public accommodation.
Defendant Contesting: The Boys Scouts is a private non-profit organization and the plaintiff’s actions work against the morals and values the Boy Scouts exhibit.
Supreme Court Decision: 5-4 decision in favor of the Boy Scouts. The public accommodations law did violate the Boy Scouts 1st amendment right. The Boy Scouts were able to prove that homosexuality worked against its ethics so they had the constitutional right to bar it.
3. Brown v. Board of Education
Constitutional Question: Between white and black schools equal curricula, buildings, qualifications, and teacher salaries had already been determined. So did it act against the 14th amendment to segregate schools solely based on race.
Plaintiff Contesting: segregating school children based solely on race was unconstitutional.
Defendant Contesting: Legally, public schools could segregate based on race, like many other public places.
Supreme Court Decision: 9-0 decision in favor of Brown. It was in violation of
the 14th amendment when schools segregate solely on race.
4. Buckley v. Valeo Cases
Constitutional Question: Did the disclosure and limitations placed on campaign donations by the Federal Elections Campaign Act of 1971 violate the First Amendment protection of freedom of speech and freedom of expression?
Plaintiff Contesting: Buckley wanted the key provision found in the Federal Elections Campaign Act of 1971 over turned because he felt they violated 1st amendment rights.
Defendant Contesting: Valeo was a former member of the FEC and represented the government in this case. He believed the Federal Elections Campaign Act of 1971 did not violate the constitution and enhanced democracy by making elections fairer.
Supreme Court Decision: the cases established to main parts of financing elections. First, limitations and restrictions on individuals to candidates and campaigns did not violate the first amendment. They acted as a safe guard against corrupt practices. Second, candidates can give an unlimited amount of their own money to their campaign because this did not enhance or promote, in any significant manner, unethical practices.
6. Engle v. Vitale
Constitutional Question: does the voluntary reading of a non-denominational prayer each morning in a public school violate the 1st amendment freedom of religion clause?
Plaintiff Contesting: The prayer violated certain families’ beliefs concerning religion.
Defendant Contesting: the prayer is non-denominational and voluntary.
Supreme Court Decision: prayer in school is in violation of the 1st amendment regardless of how it is presented because of the separation of church and state.
7. Escobedo v. Illinois
Constitutional Question: Danny Escobedo was held and interrogated by police for hours. He asked several times to meet with his lawyer. His requests were denied and he, subsequently, confessed to murder. Did the tactics of the police violate the 6th amendment provision of a right to counsel?
Plaintiff Contesting: Escobedo was treated in a manner that violated his constitutional right to counsel
Defendant Contesting: Police complied with laws and protocol.
Supreme Court Decision: in a 5 -4 decision the Supreme court concluded that Escobedo’s right to counsel under the 6th amendment was impeded on because he was not fully aware of his right to remain silent rather than incriminate himself.
8. Furman v. Georgia
Constitutional Question: Furman was burglarizing a home when a resident of the home discovered him. He tried to run, but he tripped, fell and the gun he was carrying fired and killed a resident of the home. Was the implementation of the death penalty in this case and two others (concerning rape and murder) cruel and unusual punishment and therefore in violation of the 8th and 14th amendments.
Plaintiff Contesting: The sentencing given by the lower courts in these cases were cruel and unusual.
Defendant Contesting: The disposition given in these cases were in compliance and to the caliber of the crime.
Supreme Court Decision: the Supreme Court determined that in these cases the death penalty was cruel and unusual. This decision forced state and local governments to rethink their laws concerning capital crimes.
9. Gideon v. Wainwright
Constitutional Question: Gideon was charged with a felony for breaking and entering. He could not afford and attorney and when he asked for the court to provide him with one, it refused. Was the court’s refusal to provide Gideon with an attorney a violation of due process and the right to a fair trial found in the 5th and 6th amendments?
Plaintiff Contesting: The way which Gideon was treated by the court violated his constitutional rights.
Defendant Contesting:The court is only obligated to appoint counsel to indigent defendants in capital cases.
Supreme Court Decision: 9-0 decision found that Gideon’s constitutional rights were violated. The provision in the 6th amendment, that guarantees legal counsel, is fundamental to a fair trial.
11. Griswold v. Connecticut
Constitutional Question: Did the US constitution protect the couple’s right to marital privacy over Connecticut state law?
Plaintiff Contesting: The couple’s right to counseling was protected by marital privacy in issues concerning conception.
Defendant Contesting: it was against Connecticut state law to provide counseling or other provide other provisions to married couples for the purpose of preventing conception.
Supreme Court Decision: The constitution does not specifically provide a right to privacy, but through a combination of 1st ,3rd ,4th ,and 9th amendments, the Supreme Court voted in favor of the plaintiff
12. Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier
Constitutional Question: Did the principal’s requiring of the articles he found inappropriate to be cut from the paper infringe upon the student’s right to free speech?
Plaintiff Contesting: The principal’s censoring of the school newspaper violated the students’ freedom of speech.
Defendant Contesting: the school had the right to censor what was put out in its newspaper.
Supreme Court Decision: Voted for the plaintiff. The 1st amendment did not require schools to sponsor certain types of student speech. As long as the editing by the school complied with a few basic standards, it was fine. In this particular case, the principal met the criteria.
13. Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States
Constitutional Question: Congress’s passage of title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 violated the commerce clause of the constitution.
Plaintiff Contesting: The law that required a business not to turn away customers based on race violated a business’s right to choose its own customers.
Defendant Contesting: Racial discrimination was illegal in a place of public accommodation.
Supreme Court Decision: 9 votes for US. The court concluded that even without the government regulation, places of public accommodation did not have the ‘right’ to choose its customers.
14. Hustler v. Falwell
Constitutional Question: In the first Amendment, does freedom of speech extend to statement about public figures that could possibly be offensive and cause emotional stress.
Plaintiff Contesting: The actions of Hustler magazine infringed upon Falwell’s personal rights, causing emotional distress and other harms.
Defendant Contesting: The press was within its right when exposing Falwell.
Supreme Court Decision: 8 votes for, zero against Hustler Magazine. It decided that public figures, like Falwell, could not recover from emotional distress unless he could prove the publication contained false facts or information that proved “actual malice.”
16. Katz v. United States
Constitutional Question: does the protection from unreasonable search and seizure of the Fourth Amendment require police to get a search warrant to wiretap a pay telephone.
Plaintiff Contesting: The tapes used against him were not useable as evidence because they infringed upon his 4th amendment rights.
Defendant Contesting: The phone booth was a public place and the police did not need a warrant to monitor it.
Supreme Court Decision: The fourth amendment protects people not places. Therefore the police needed a warrant to keep record of Katz’s phone conversations regardless of where they took place at.
17. Kelo v. City of London 2005
Constitutional Question: if a government takes private land for private use, to stimulate the economy, is the 5th amendment violated?
Plaintiff Contesting: The city taking land from individuals without compensation violated the 5th amendment.
Defendant Contesting: the 5th amendment talks about private lands taken for public use the city took the land and kept it private.
Supreme Court Decision: 5/4 decision that the 5th amendment was not violated.
18. Korematsu v. United States
Constitutional Question: Did the president with executive order 9066 and congress go beyond war powers by excluding the rights of Americans of Japanese descent.
Plaintiff Contesting: His rights as an American were taken away under the executive order and he should not be made to follow it.
Defendant Contesting: in a time of war the situation is different
Supreme Court Decision: sided with the American government. The actions taken against the Japanese Americans was just and even trumped rights under times of “emergency and peril”
19. Lawrence v. Texas
Constitutional Question: was equal protection of the 14th amendment violated and the due process clause of the 14th amendment? Should Bowers v. Hardwick be overruled?
Plaintiff Contesting: Their privacy was invaded as well as their equality that other couples are granted
Defendant Contesting: using Bowers v. Hardwick as precedent the actions of the plaintiff’s was illegal and they could be charged for it.
Supreme Court Decision: concerning the constitutionality question, no, yes, yes. There was not legitimate reason as to why their private acts harm the government, so the government could not intervene.
21. Mapp v. Ohio
Constitutional Question: May evidence be used that was taken in violation of the 4th amendment and is it protected by the 1st amendment in freedom of expression.
Plaintiff Contesting: The materials taken from her home in an illegal search were her freedom of expression
Defendant Contesting: the exposure of the obscene material were incriminating
Supreme Court Decision: The court looked past the 1st amendment issue and determined that all evidence obtained against the 4th amendment could not be used in court.
22. Miranda v. Arizona
Constitutional Question: does interrogation by the police without notifying people of their right to protect against self incrimination and their right to an attorney violate the 5th amendment?
Plaintiff Contesting: suspects were held with absolutely not contact to the outside world and were not aware of their rights, this is not constitutional.
Defendant Contesting:suspects were treated lawfully but interrogated into a confession.
Supreme Court Decision: Prosecutors had to make suspects aware of their right to remain silent and the right to counsel.
23. New York Times v. Sullivan
Constitutional Question: did not making Sullivan prove that the ad in the NYT personally harmed him or proving factuality infringe upon the 1st amendment freedom of speech and press?
Plaintiff Contesting:statements made by the paper should be factually correct and not target and individual.
Defendant Contesting: The NYT ad complied with freedom of the press.
Supreme Court Decision: The 1st amendment protects all statements even false ones. The paper could not be prosecuted unless intentional malice could be proven.
24. New York Times v. United States
Constitutional Question: did the Nixon administration’s attempt to keep material ‘classified’ act against the 1st amendment?
Plaintiff Contesting: The United States government could not prevent the publication of stories even if they are labeled as classified information.
Defendant Contesting: The information kept out of publication had a classification ranking that kept it from being circulated for the mass public to see.
Supreme Court Decision: the court sided with the New York Times. It found that the publication of the story would not cause and inevitable or immediate threat to the security of the nation. Also, the was already high suspicion that the government was trying to withhold information from the press on a similar issue previously that was not overlooked in the decision of this case.
26. Printz v. United States
Constitutional Question: Under the necessary and proper clause of article one of the constitution, could state CLEO’s be forced to perform background checks on prospective gun holders as the Brady Act called for.
Plaintiff Contesting: it was unconstitutional for state officials to carry out a federal task, even temporarily
Defendant Contesting: the background checks and the Brady Bill were in attempt to decrease handgun related violence and state CLEO’s were only to perform the background checks until the federal system was established.
Supreme Court Decision: the necessary and proper clause was not applicable in this situation. It was not constitutional, temporarily or permanently, for a state official to carry out a federal task.
27. Regents of the University of California v. Bakke
Constitutional Question: Did Bakke’s rejection because of his race violate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment and the civil rights act of 1864?
Plaintiff Contesting: Bakke was excluded from the University of California medical program solely on the basis of race
Defendant Contesting: 16 spots of every 100 in the medical program were awarded to individuals of minorities as a part of the University’s affirmative action program
Supreme Court Decision: 5/4 decision for Bakke, but there was not one majority opinion.
28. Roe v. Wade
Constitutional Question: Does the constitution allow a woman the right to terminate a pregnancy by and abortion
Plaintiff Contesting: Ms. Roe felt she could terminate her pregnancy at her will.
Defendant Contesting: it was against Texas law to have an abortion except in a case where the mother’s was threatened
Supreme Court Decision: a woman’s right to an abortion fell within the privacy clause of the 14th amendment. This ruling gave women complete authority over the 1st trimester of pregnancy and other provisions during the 2nd and 3rd.
29. Schenck v. United States
Constitutional Question: Are Schenck’s actions of rejecting the draft and urging peaceful protest protected by the 1st amendment?
Plaintiff Contesting: It was legal to disagree with the government
Defendant Contesting: Schenck was conspiring to violate the espionage act and create insubordination within the military.
Supreme Court Decision: 9-0 decision found Schenck was not protected in this situation. His action presented a “clear and present danger” and that some actions that are tolerable in a time of peace are not acceptable in times of war.
30. Texas v. Johnson
Constitutional Question: Is the destruction of the American flag, by any means, an action that is protected by freedom of speech found in the 1st amendment?