Significant Supreme Court Cases from 1900 to 1920
****will identity cases you most often see on AP Exam
Other cases are included to better understand the “Context” of the Era.
1-****Insular Cases (Does the Constitution follow the Flag-US Empire), 1901 and many that follow through 1905---The SC decides all in a similar fashion… The peoples of our “colonies” are not protected by the Constitution.
Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock (1903) The USA can unilaterally end or deny any treaty promises with Native Americans—Led to the loss of 90 million acres of legally owned Native American lands through the Dawes Act (1887)
***Note: Recently two LANDMARK CASEs have brought the Native Americans some redress:1-SALAZAR v. RAMAH NAVAJO CHAPTER(2012)– this case was in the courts for 22 years—this case ruled in favor of the Native Americans and is worth over 940 million dollars ---another: 2-United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians (1980)was also ruled in favor of the Sioux---and sits in an account worth over 1 Billion $$$ --the Sioux have not accepted this as payment due the fact that they do not want to lose the rights to the land (Black Hills).
HUGE***
2- ****Northern Securities Co. v. United States (1904) – TR- US enforces the SHERMAN ANTI-TRUST ACT, 1890---and forces the Monopoly of the Northern Securities Company of RRs in the West to dissolve. This company had attempted to monopolize all Western RRs –planned by James J Hill and JP Morgan—and it would have become the largest company in the World.
Swift & Co. v. United States (1905) - TR destroys the “beef trust.” Enforcing the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, 1890— TR was inspired to act by Upton Sinclair’s book, The Jungle. Swift & Co. controlled 75% of the market
HUGE****
3-****Lochner v. New York (1905) – a defeat for Progressivism—SC rules that the State of NY could not limit the number of hours bakers work to 10 per day—because it violated the 14th amendment promise of “due process” (Life Liberty Property) in this case the “liberty” for an individual to “contract freely” (his labor) ---THIS CASE BEGINS WHAT IS CALLED “THE LOCHNER ERA” IN THE S.C. – WHERE THE SC INVALIDATES SEVERAL FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS THAT Sought to “regulate” working conditions during the Progressive and New Deal eras.===This ERA ENDs--IN 1937 After FDRs threat to “Pack the Court” (add additional justices—he does not) and the SC decision in the case: West Coast Hotel v. Parrish (1937) –upheld the constitutionality of “minimum wage” legislation in the state of Washington—which overturned a previous case Adkins v. Children’s hospital (1923) which had held that minimum wage legislation for Women passed by Congress violated the “liberty of Contract” idea established in the Lochner case.
United States v. Shipp (1906)-LYNCHING-only criminal trial in Supreme Court history—Ed Johnson, was accused of rape in Chattanooga, Tennessee—found guilty and sentenced to hang—he appealed his decision AND WAS GRANTED A “STAY” while the court reviewed his appeal. Sherriff Shipp allowed him to be taken by a mob and LYNCHED on the Walnut Street Bridge---Sherriff Shipp and his co-defendants were sentenced to 2-3 months in Federal Prison and were released early for good behavior.
Adair v. United States (1908) SC declares any law that bans “yellow-dog” contracts unconstitutional---that an employee could not be fired for joining a Union---this case actually protects Labor Union Members—and is consistent with the “Lochner Case” due to= if states or the Federal Gov’t could ban “yellow dog” contracts it would violate an individuals “liberty” of contract.
4-****Loewe v. Lawlor (1908 & 1915) “Danbury Hatter’s Case” – This case APPLIES THE SHERMAN ANTI-TRUST ACT TO LABOR UNIONS---making Unions liable for any damages to the company during a strike or boycott---individual Union Members were held financially liable—this is effectively overturned by the CLAYTON ANTI-TRUST ACT (1914) which stated “the labor of a human being is not a commodity or an article of commerce.”
Note:Prosecution of Labor under Anti-Trust Laws continues until Congress in the “New Deal” (FDR) passes the Norris-LaGuardia Act (1932) --which expressly exempted organized labor from anti-trust cases and the N-L Act is upheld by the S.C. in the United States v. Hutcheson (1941).
HUGE****
5-****Muller v. Oregon (1908) – A LANDMARK CASE*** - justifying sex discrimination and the “special protection” of Women in the workplace---the case upheld the state of Oregon’s restrictions on the working hours of women ---and is not consistent with the Lochner decision—a Progressive victory…but….equal rights feminists opposed the case because it separated the sexes into stereotyped gender-roles and restricted women’s financial independence---Louis Brandeis (future SC Justice – and first Jewish SC justice) becomes famous in this apparent victory due to his detailed “brief” full of statistics that supported workplace protection legislation –--
Berea College v. Kentucky (1908) States can legally prohibit private educational institutions from admitting both black and white students (upholding Jim Crow Laws and allowing STATES to prohibit integrated schooling in private schools as well as public schools.)
This one is still effective law and scary –
Moyer v. Peabody (1909) –The S.C. rules that a State Governor (President of the USA -2001) and officers of the National Guard, or Federal Officials (2001), MAY IMPRISON WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES IN A TIME OF “insurrection” (key---the determination of when an insurrection has occurred is left to the “executive”-- Governor or President—) AND DENY THEM HABEUS CORPUS (The right to be released from prison after an “unlawful arrest” or an arrest without “legal merit”) -- This is used against Union Members during the many strikes that occur from 1900 – 1932--- Especially during the “Colorado Labor Wars” – when Colorado Governor, James Peabody, calls out the National Guard (like during the Pullman Strike in Chicago) which led to massacres of Men, Women, and Children of Union Members. This led directly to the “radicalization” of some Unions—like the IWW (Wobblies) ---and eventually led to many of their leaders-American Citizens-forced deportation ORDERED BY A. MITCHELL PALMER, US ATTORNEY GENERAL DURING THE 1ST “RED SCARE”- on the USS Buford to the Soviet Union after the 1st World War.
HUGE***
6****Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States (1910-11)–“rule of reason” applied** (a cornerstone of US anti-trust law—that a monopoly is only “unreasonable-illegal” when the monopoly’s effect is to unreasonably “restrain trade.”) S.C. rules that Standard Oil Co. (Rockefeller) was guilty of (violating the Sherman Anti-Trust Act) Monopolizing the Petroleum Industry by abusive and anti-competitive actions AND ORDERS IT DIVIDED INTO SMALLER COMPETING COMPANIES. United States v. American Tobacco (1911)(Duke) is decided in similar fashion on the same day--- S.C. rules that the American Tobacco Co. was a “combination” created to “unreasonably restrain trade and attempt to monopolize the business Tobacco” and ordered to be split into 4 competitors.
Rockefeller still controlled the smaller companies—today: Exxon-Mobil, Chevron-Texaco, BP, Sunoco, Marathon, Amoco, Pennzoil-Shell---(34 smaller “Baby Standards” at the time)
Love this particular PC that deals with this case:
Caption: The infant Hercules and the Standard Oil Serpent(s) - (Puck Magazine, 1906)
Hoke v. United States (1913) S.C. rules that the US Congress could not regulate “Prostitution” that only States could do so…but it could regulate interstate travel for purposes of prostitution or “immoral purposes” (Mann Act)
Mutual Film Corporation v. Industrial Commission of Ohio (1915) –Allows for “censorship” of Moving Pictures “Movies are not “Free Speech” and not protected by the 1st Amendment—Film by the States and US Government—led to the “Hayes Code” Federal Law- (Motion Picture Production Code) that was in effect from 1930 until 1968 –then establishing “MORAL GUIDELINES” for the movies---today the voluntary “ratings system.”
Guinn v. United States (1915) ruled that “Grandfather Clauses” that allowed an exemption to the Literacy Test requirement to vote IF THEIR GRANDFATHERS HAD BEEN ELIGIBLE TO VOTE BEFORE JANUARY 1ST, 1866--Oklahoma, Maryland, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, North Carolina, and Virginia- WAS UNCONSITUTIONAL*** AND VIOLATED THE 15TH AMENDMENT***These states immediately pass new laws that were almost identical and that had to be challenged in courts---thus leading to the case of Lane v Wilson (1939) again ruling “Grandfather Clauses” and they subsequent replacement laws unconstitutional---yet it still occurred because the Federal Government wouldnot “police” the states---UNTIL THE 1960’S LANDMARK Voting Rights Act (1965) Part of LBJ’s “Great Society” initiatives--- which prohibited racial discrimination in voting and is amended and expanded five times after to expand its protections—the most effective civil rights legislation ever enacted in the history of the USA—and allows for FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT****KEY.
Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. (1916) –S.C. upheld the constitutionality of the 16th Amendment---INCOME TAX… A SERIES OF CASES CHALLENGES THE MANY DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF AN “INCOME TAX” AND THE SC SUBSEQUENTLY AFFIRMS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS ABILITY TO TAX INCOMES…
United States v. Forty Barrels and Twenty Kegs of Coca-Cola (1916) –Harvey Wiley, the founder of the “poison squad” and first commissioner of the FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION---attempted to use the FOOD AND DRUG ACT to stop “Coca-Cola” from selling a product with harmful components…”Coca-leaves-Cocaine” and Caffeine---which Wiley proved was harmful to people and especially because it was being consumed by children….THE SUPREME COURT RULES AGAINST WILEY AND THE FDA---
Bunting V. Oregon (1917) S.C. upheld as constitutional a 10 hour work day for Men and Women in Oregon---also allowed for time and ½ pay for “overtime.”
7-**** Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918)SC rules that the ***Keating-Owen Act of 1916that prohibited interstate commerce of any merchandise that had been made by children under the age of 14, or merchandise that had been made in factories where children between the ages of 14 and 16 worked for more than 8 hours a day, worked overnight, or worked more than 60 hours a week.
Dagenhart worked in a cotton mill in Charlotte, North Carolina with his two sons and sued saying the Keating-Owen Act was unconstitutional. The SC says it is a State matter—
Note: This ruling is overturned by the Supreme Court in the case: United States v. Darby Lumber Co. (1941) in this case the SC affirmed the Fair Labor Standards Act (1938)***part of FDRs “New Deal”---stating that the US Congress has the power under the Commerce Clause to REGULATE employment conditions---preventing STATES from using substandard labor practices to their advantage through interstate commerce.
Huge*** case comes to the court due to the controversial “Espionage Act, 1917 and Sedition Act, 1918 -During World War I
8*****Schenk v. United States (1919) Clear and Present Danger Test***– The S.C. in a UNANIMOUS DECISION---that a citizen could not “criticize” the DRAFT and was not protected by the 1st amendment’s freedom of speech—because it created a “clear and present danger” to the United States during a state of WAR.
Schenk was distributing “leaflets” to men urging them not to submit to the draft and urged men not to comply arguing that it constituted involuntary servitude, which is prohibited by the 13th amendment.
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes famously states in the unanimous opinion:
“The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. The question in every case is whether the words used are
used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger
that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.”
8****Debs v. United States (1919) – Eugene Debs (Pullman strike, Socialist Party leader) also is convicted of violating the Espionage Act of 1917 due to his anti-war speech given in Canton, Ohio on June 16, 1918—he was sentenced to serve ten years in prison and lose his ability to vote for life. The SC upholds Debs Conviction(based on the “Schenck” decision) and while in Prison Debs runs for President of the USA in 1920 as a candidate of the Socialist Party and receives close to 1 million votes. President Harding releases Debs from Prison on December 23, 1921.
8*** Abrams v. United States (1919) –A group of anti-war protesters throw leaflets suggesting the stop of manufacture of War Materials—into the window of a factory--- the group received sentences ranging from 3 years to 20 years in prison and fines. The SC upheld the convictions—see “Schenk.”
Justice Holmes again-- this time though in dissent?
“Prosecution for the expression of opinions seems to me perfectly logical…however, men may come to believe even more that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in
ideas…the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market” --
THIS“MARKETPLACE OF IDEAS” principle SETS THE STANDARD
FOR FUTURE 1ST AMENDMENT CASES—even regarding cases today concerning the USA PATRIOT ACT---AND THE FAMOUS Ciitzens United v. Federal Elections Commission (2010) which allows unlimited election spending by individuals and Corporations (some say re-shaping the political landscape of the United States)