C963 IMPORTANT COURT CASES 2023

C963 IMPORTANT COURT CASES 2023 This case involved the Judiciary Act of 1789. The Supreme Court declared that the law conflicted with the U.S. Constitution, and the case established the principle of judicial review wherein the Supreme Court has the power to declare laws passed by Congress and signed by the president to be unconstitutional. Ans- Maybury vs. Madison (1803) This case concerned the constitutionality of the Missouri Compromise, which declared that certain states would be entirely free of slavery. A slave, who was brought by his owner into free territories and back to Missouri, a slave state, sued claiming that his time living in free territory made him free. The court declared that the relevant parts of the Missouri Compromise were unconstitutional, and that he remained a slave as a result. Ans- Dred Scott vs. Stanford (1856) When a man of mixed racial heritage, sat in a whites-only railroad car in an attempt to challenge a Louisiana law that required railroad cars be segregated, he was arrested and convicted. The court refused his appeal that the law was in a violation of the equal protection principle because the different train cars were separate but equal. Ans- Plessy vs. Furguson (1896) In the early 1980s, following an assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan, laws requiring background checks for prospective gun buyers were passed. In this case, the Supreme Court upheld the 1934 National Firearms Act's prohibition of sawed-off shotguns, largely on the basis that possession of such a gun was not related to the goal of promoting a "well regulated militia." Ans- United States vs. Miller (1939) During World War II, citizens of Japanese descent living on the West Coast, whether naturalized immigrants or Japanese Americans born in the United States, were subjected to the indignity of being removed from their communities and interned under Executive Order 9066. When challenged, the Supreme Court decision in this case upheld the actions of the government as a necessary precaution in a time of war. Ans- Korematsu vs. United States ( 1944) This case challenged the principle of "separate but equal." It was brought by students who were denied admittance to certain public schools based exclusively on race. The unanimous decision in this case determined that the existence of racially segregated public schools violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Ans- Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka (1954) In this case involving the Ku Klux Klan, the Supreme Court found that only speech or writing that constituted a direct call or plan to imminent lawless action, an illegal act in the immediate future, could be suppressed; the mere advocacy of a hypothetical revolution was not enough. Ans- Brandenburg vs. Ohio (1969) Students were suspended for wearing black armbands to school as a protest against the continuing American involvement in the Vietnam conflict. The Supreme Court ruled in this case the suspensions violated the free speech rights of the students and the symbolic political speech that this protest represented. Ans- Tinker vs. Des Moines (1969) Before this case, Congress proposed what later became the Twenty-Fourth Amendment, which banned the poll tax in elections to federal (but not state or local) office; in this case, the Supreme Court declared that requiring payment of a poll tax in order to vote in an election at any level was unconstitutional. AnsHarper vs. Virginia Board of Elections (1966) When a man was arrested, interrogated, and confessed to kidnapping, the arresting officers neglected to inform him of his Fifth Amendment right not to self-incriminate. His appeal to the Supreme Court upon being found guilty resulted in a decision that the right to not incriminate oneself relies heavily a suspect being informed of these rights at the time of arrest. This ensures that any statements they provide are voluntary. Ans- Miranda vs. Arizona (1966) Although several state constitutions do list the right to privacy as a protected right, the explicit recognition by the Supreme Court of a right to privacy in the U.S. Constitution emerged only in the middle of the twentieth century. In this 1965 case, the court spelled out the right to privacy for the first time in a case that struck down a state law forbidding even married individuals to use any form of contraception. Ans- Griswold vs. Connecticut (1965) In this case the Supreme Court ruled that states could not deny unemployment benefits to an individual who turned down a job because it required working on the Sabbath. Ans- Sherbert vs. Verner (1963) This case perpetuated from the arrest of a man who was accused of breaking into a poolroom and stealing money from a cigarette machine. Not being able to afford a lawyer, and being denied a public defender by the judge, the man defended himself and was subsequently found guilty. Upon his appeal, the Supreme Court declared that the Sixth Amendment required that those facing felony criminal charges be supplied with legal representation. Ans- Gideon vs. Wainwright (1963) In this Supreme Court case it was decided that evidence obtained without a warrant that didn't fall under one of the exceptions mentioned above could not be used as evidence in a state criminal trial, giving rise to the broad application of what is known as the exclusionary rule, which was first established in 1914 on a federal level in Weeks v. United States. Ans- Mapp vs. Ohio This case challenged a mandate in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that required that all employment-based group health care plans provide coverage for certain types of contraceptives. The decision declared that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) permits for-profit companies to deny coverage for contraception in their health plans when that coverage violates a religious belief. Ans- Burwell vs. Hobby Lobby Stores (2014) A nonprofit corporation was prevented by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) from showing a movie about a presidential candidate of the time because it violated the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA). The decision in this case concluded that the restrictions imposed by BCRA and enforced by the FEC violated the corporation's First Amendment right to free expression. Ans- Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commissions (2010) When the Supreme Court initially decided that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, it did not decide then that it was a fundamental liberty the states must uphold as well until this case two years later. Ans- McDonald vs. Chicago (2010) Supreme Court justices appointed by Republican presidents began to roll back the Roe decision. A key turning point was the court's ruling in this case, which rejected Roe's framework based on trimesters of pregnancy and replaced it with the undue burden test, which allows restrictions prior to viability that are not "substantial obstacle[s]" (undue burdens) to women seeking an abortion. Ans- Planned Parenthood vs. Casey (1992) As part of a protest, an individual set fire to a U.S. flag that another protestor had torn from a flagpole. He was arrested, charged with "desecration of a venerated object" and eventually convicted. However, the Supreme Court decided in this case that burning the flag was a form of symbolic speech protected by the First Amendment and found the law, as applied to flag desecration, to be unconstitutional. AnsTexas vs. Johnson (1989) This case involved a pregnant woman from Texas who desired to terminate her pregnancy. The woman Supreme Court, declared that the right to privacy included a woman's right to an abortion. Ans- Roe vs. Wade (1973) The Supreme Court used this case to establish a test for deciding whether something is obscene. AnsMiller vs. California (1973) A man was caught burglarizing a private home. As he fled the scene he tripped causing the gun to accidently fire, killing the individual who discovered him. He was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. In this case the court laid out guidelines for capital punishment. Ans- Furman vs. Georgia (1972) In this case the Supreme Court established a test for deciding whether a law or other government action that might promote a particular religious practice should be allowed to stand. Ans- Lemon vs. Kurtzman (1971) To avoid serving in the Vietnam War, many people claimed to have a conscientious objection to military service on the basis that they believed this particular war was unwise or unjust. However, the Supreme Court ruled in this case that to claim to be a conscientious objector, a person must be opposed to serving in any war, not just some wars. Ans- Gillette vs. United States (1971