John marshall portrait

Landmark Supreme Court Cases

By bsidor
  • Marbury v Madison

    Marbury v  Madison
    The Marshall Court ruled…when the Constitution--the nation's highest law--conflicts with an act of the legislature, that act is invalid. This case establishes the Supreme Court's power of judicial review.
  • Fletcher v Peck

    Fletcher v Peck
    Marshall Court ruled that a state could not pass laws that invalidated acontract--"Sanctity of Contract"
  • Martin v Hunter's Lessee

    Martin v Hunter's Lessee
    The Marshall Court established the supremacy of the federal courts over state courts.
  • Dartmouth College v Woodward

    Dartmouth College v Woodward
    Marshall Court ruled that a state cannot invalidate a contract.
    Sanctity of Contract--Daniel Webster argued for Dartmouth
  • McCulloch v Maryland

    McCulloch v Maryland
    Marshall Court ruled that the government possessed the IMPLIED power t to create a national bank; that the bank could not be taxed by the state because this would give the "POWER TO DESTROY" the bank; the federal law is absolute over alll states.
    Supremacy Clause and Loose Construction of CONST
  • Gibbons v Ogden

    Gibbons v Ogden
    The court recognized the fedral government's authority over INTERSTATE COMMERCE
  • Cohens v Virginia

    Cohens v Virginia
    The Marschall court asserted the right og the Supreme Court to in review the decisions of the state supreme courts in issues dealing with the authority of the federal governent.
    Protests by states rightists
  • Dred Scott v Sanford

    Dred Scott v Sanford
    No person descended from an American slave had ever been a citizen for Article III purposes. The Court then held the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, hoping to end the slavery question once and for all.
  • Civil Rights Cases (1882)

    Civil Rights Cases (1882)
    The Waite Court ruled ...14th Amendment did not authorize national legislation on subjects which are within the domain of the state. Private acts of racial discrimination were simply private wrongs that the national government was powerless to correct.
  • Plessy v Ferguson

    Plessy v Ferguson
    The Fuller Court based their decision on the separate-but-equal doctrine, that separate facilities for blacks and whites satisfied the Fourteenth Amendment so long as they were equal.
  • Lochner v New York

    Lochner v New York
    The Fuller Court The Court invalidated the New York law. The The Fuller Coourt maintained ... The statute limiting bakers hours to 60/week inerfered with the freedom of contract, and thus the Fourteenth Amendment's right to liberty afforded to employer and employee.
  • Schenck v United States

    Schenck v United States
    Justice Holmes ...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." During wartime, utterances tolerable in peacetime can be punished.
  • Brown v Board of Education

    Brown v Board of Education
    The Warren Court ruled
    Separate but equal is inherently unequal in the context of public education. The unanimous opinion sounded the death-knell for all forms of state-maintained racial separation.
  • Mapp v Ohio

    Mapp v Ohio
    The Warren Court "
    all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is, by [the Fourth Amendment], inadmissible in a state court."
  • Engel v Vitale

    Engel v Vitale
    The Warren Court ruled..neither the prayer's nondenominational character nor its voluntary character saves it from unconstitutionality. By providing the prayer, New York officially approved religion... the Court used the establishment clause to eliminate religious activities of all sorts.
  • Gideon v. Wainwright

    Gideon v. Wainwright
    The Warren Court ruled the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of counsel was a fundamental right, essential to a fair trial, which should be made applicable to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
  • Griswold v Connecticut

    Griswold v Connecticut
    The Warre Court ruled ...First, Third, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, create a new constitutional right, the right to privacy in marital relations. Statutes that outlawd Birth Control conflict with the exercise of this right and is therefore null and void.n Court ruled. Voids the Comstock Laws (1873)
  • Miranda v Arizona

    Miranda v Arizona
    The Warren Court ruled that prosecutors could not use statements stemming from custodial interrogation of defendants unless they demonstrated the use of procedural safeguards "effective to secure the privilege against self- incrimination--right to remain silent and the right to have counsel present during interrogations.
  • Tinker v Des Moines

    Tinker v Des Moines
    The Warren Court ruledThe wearing of armbands was "closely akin to 'pure speech'" and protected by the First Amendment. School environments imply limitations on free expression, but the principals had failed to show that the forbidden conduct would substantially interfere with appropriate school discipline.
  • Roe V Wade

    Roe V Wade
    The Burger Court ruled that a woman's right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision gave a woman total autonomy over the pregnancy during the first trimester and defined different levels of state interest for the second and third trimesters.
  • United States v Nixon

    United States v Nixon
    The Burger Court granted that there was a limited executive privilege in areas of military or diplomatic affairs, the president must obey the subpoena and produce the tapes and documents. Nixon resigned shortly after the release of the tapes.
  • California v Bakke

    California v Bakke
    The Burger Court Ruled-- that the use of race as a criterion in admissions decisions in higher education was constitutionally permissible...ONLY if it is one of several admission criteria. The Court upheld equality goal of Affirmative Action
  • Texas v Johnson

    Texas v Johnson
    The Rehnquist Court held that Johnson's burning of a flag was protected expression under the First Amendment. The Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.
  • Lawrence v Texas

    Lawrence v Texas
    The Rehnquist Court ruled LBGT's have the right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government, The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual,"