Marbury v.

Madison (1803)
Before President John Adams left office, he appointed several new Judges, one of them being
William Marbury. Marbury's commission would be signed and approved by Adams, but it wasn't
delivered until after Adams' term ended. The new President, Thomas Jefferson, being a
Democratic-Republican, saw Adams' (Federalist) action of appointing new judges as a way for
Federalists to strengthen their hold on the federal courts, and thus refused to deliver Marbury's
commission, directing his Secretary of State, James Madison, to withhold it. Marbury would sue
Madison before the Supreme Court because of this, seeking a court order to force Madison to
deliver the commission, based on the Judiciary Act of 1789, which stated that the Supreme Court
could order Madison to deliver the commission. However, the supreme court found that it could
not order the delivery of the commission because that specific section of the Judiciary Act of
1789 (section 13) was in conflict with Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 of the constitution, which
states that the supreme court only has original jurisdiction for cases involving ambassadors,
ministers, consuls, and states, Because of this, the Supreme Court ruled that although Marbury
has the right to his commission, they couldn't force Madison to deliver it. The aftermath of the
case led to the creation of judicial review, which allows the Supreme Court to strike down laws
that conflict with the Constitution.
​

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

In 1816. Congress created the 2nd national Bank to collect taxes (Article I, Section 8, Clause 1),
borrow money (Clause 2), regulate commerce (Clause 3), and coin and regulate the value of the
dollar (Clause 5). Maryland not only saw the bank as unconstitutional, as the Constitution didn't
explicitly say Congress could do that, but also viewed it as a shift to a more Federalist style of
governing (centralized government with national economy). With Democratic - Republicans in
Maryland distrusting the bank and wanting to limit its power, the state would implement a tax on
banks without a state charter. James McCulloch, the bank cashier for the Baltimore branch of the
bank, refused to pay the tax, ultimately leading Maryland to sue the cashier to force him to pay,
stating that Congress had no authority to create a national bank, as the Constitution never stated
that Congress could create a national bank. In the state court, the court would side with
Maryland, forcing McCulloch to pay the tax. However, McCulloch would appeal the case to the
Supreme Court, stating that the national bank was "necessary and proper" to carry out several
powers given to Congress listed by the Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clauses 1, 2, 3, and 5).
The Supreme Court would side with McCulloch, stating that although the Constitution didn’t
explicitly state that Congress could create a national bank, Congress can do anything necessary
and proper to carry out its powers. Therefore, the bank wasn't unconstitutional, and Maryland
couldn’t tax it. The case not only set a precedent for a broader interpretation of the Constitution
but also reinforced federal supremacy.
​

Schenck v. United States (1919)

During WWI, the United States would implement the Espionage Act of 1917, which would limit
freedom of speech by criminalizing actions such as conveying information that would harm the
war effort, to maintain national unity and prevent any interference with the draft. Charles
Schenck and Elizabeth Baer would pass out leaflets during this time to convince draftees to resist
the draft peacefully. The United States filed a lawsuit against them, claiming that the leaflets they
passed out created a “clear and present danger” to the war effort, citing Section 3 of the
Espionage Act of 1917, which prohibited wilfully obstructing the recruiting or enlistment service
of the United States. Schneck argued that his actions were protected by the First Amendment. In
the end, the Supreme Court sided with the United States, stating that freedoms could be restricted
when there is a “clear and present” danger. The case established the Clear and Present Danger
Test to determine whether free speech was restricted during times of war.
​

Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

In the mid-20th century, racial segregation in public schools was not only common but justified
under the Supreme Court decision in Plessy v. Ferguson (1869), which upheld the belief of
"separate but equal.” However, with the rise of the civil rights movement, many would challenge
the notion that was upheld by Plessy v. Ferguson, arguing that segregated schools were
inherently unequal. Because of the fact that schools were segregated, some students had to travel
farther away to attend school, even if there was a closer school, just because of their skin color.
Oliver Brown was a parent to one of these students, and he and other parents would sue the
Board of Education of Topeka because of this. The Board of Education would defend
segregation in schools by pointing to the Supreme Court case Plessy v. Ferguson, which stated
that schools could be segregated as long as the facilities were equal, which the Board argued that
they were because they had similar buildings, transportation, curricula, and teacher
qualifications. However, this was countered by evidence presented by the doll test, which
showed that black children often preferred white dolls over black dolls and associated negative
traits with the doll that resembled themselves. The test demonstrated that although the schools
did have similar facilities, the fact that they were segregated would instill feelings of inferiority,
thus making the schools unequal. The Supreme Court would unanimously side with Oliver
Brown and the other families, stating that “the denial of opportunity for an adequate education
would often be a denial of the opportunity to succeed in life.” This decision would not only
overturn the decision in Plessy v. Ferguson in the context of education, but would also mark a
turning point in the Civil Rights Movement.
​

Engel v. Vitale (1962)

In the 1950s, the New York State Board of Regents wrote a voluntary prayer for public schools
to use at the start of the school day(similar to the pledge). The prayer went ‘Almighty God, we
acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our
teachers, and our Country.” While the prayer was completely voluntary, many schools in New
York adopted it. This would lead to a group of families, one of them being Steven Engel, who
was Jewish, to objecting to the prayer and filing a lawsuit against the Board of Education of the
Union Free School District No.9 in New Hyde Park, stating that although the prayer was
voluntary, it still violated the First Amendment as the government was endorsing a religion,
using the first part of the amendment “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion.” However, the Board of Regents would defend themselves by stating that the First
Amendment does not forbid making a prayer that endorses a religion; rather, it only forbids
making laws that do so, and that the prayer was completely mandatory, so the family’s kids do
not need to participate in the daily prayer. In the end, the Supreme Court would side with Steven
Engel and the other families, stating that the prayers did violate the First Amendment, stating
that although the prayer was voluntary, the government had no business making official prayers
for students to recite in school. The decision shut down the use of prayer across the nation, and
many religious groups and political leaders would see it as an attack on both religion and
morality in schools. Engel v. Vitale was the first among many Supreme Court cases that
emphasized the separation of church and state.
​

Baker v. Carr (1962)

Before Baker v. Carr, many states had not redrawn their legislative districts for multiple years,
despite drastic population changes. A prime example of this would be Tennessee, which would
still use district boundaries that were set in 1901, even though cities such as Memphis had grown
significantly. This would lead to rural votes carrying more weight than even the most urban
areas, leading to inaccurate representation. Because of this, a resident of Memphis, Charles
Baker, would sue the Tennessee Secretary of State Joe Carr, arguing that his vote was not
properly being weighted and was being diluted, and that this violated the Equal Protection
Clause in the 14th Amendment, “No state shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the
equal protection of the laws.” Carr argued that the federal court had no authority to challenge
how states drew their legislative districts and that it was a matter for the state legislature to
decide. The court would rule in favor of Baker, with Justice William Brennan stating, “We
conclude that the complaint’s allegations of denial of equal protection present a justiciable
constitutional cause of action upon which appellants are entitled to a trial and decision." This
ruling would open the door for a massive wave of lawsuits, which forced states to redraw
legislative districts so urban areas had representation that was proportional to their population,
leading to the principle of “one person, one vote.”
​

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

Clarence Earl Gideon was charged with breaking and entering a pool hall in Florida. During his
trial, he could not afford a lawyer and requested that the court appoint one for him. However, his
request was denied, with the trial court stating that court-appointed lawyers could only be
provided for capital cases(i.e., first-degree murder, treason, etc.). Because of this, Gideon was
forced to represent himself in court and was sentenced to five years in prison. While in prison,
Gideon would study law and would file a petition to the Supreme Court, stating that his
constitutional right to counsel was violated. In this petition, Gideon would refer to the Sixth
Amendment, which states, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right … to
have the assistance of counsel for his defence.” Louie Wainwright, who represented the state of
Florida, argued that Florida only required court-appointed lawyers for capital cases, and for
non-capital cases, such as the one for Gideon, the state was not obligated to provide a lawyer.
The Supreme Court would reject these arguments, stating that the Sixth Amendment applies to
state courts through the Fourteenth Amendment as federal rights apply to the states. Gideon v.
Wainwright established that any defendant facing criminal charges would have the right to a
lawyer, even if they couldn’t afford one.
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969)
In 1965, a group of students in Des Moines, Iowa, including John and Mary Beth Tinker, were
planning on wearing black armbands to school to protest against the Vietnam War. The school
district would learn of their plans and would adopt a policy banning armbands and threatening
suspension to anyone caught wearing them before the students could protest. However, the
students wore the armbands anyway and were suspended because of it, leading to their parents
filing a lawsuit against the school district, claiming that the school violated their First
Amendment right to free speech. The school argued that the ban was justified as the armbands
could cause a disruption in school and could interfere with teaching and order, therefore giving
the school the right to ban them. However, the Supreme Court would rule in favor of the
students, stating that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or
expression at the schoolhouse gate.” The Supreme Court would state that students could express
themselves unless it interferes with teaching and learning in a serious way. Since the armbands
were a silent way to protest against the war, they did not cause any disruption, thus making the
school's action of banning them unconstitutional. Tinker v. Des Moines became a landmark case
that showed students in public schools still retained their First Amendment rights, and
established the substantial disruption test for determining when schools can limit student speech.
​

New York Times Co. v. United States (1971)

In 1971, the New York Times and Washington Post would obtain a classified government report
called the Pentagon Papers, which detailed US political and military involvement in Vietnam.
The papers revealed that multiple government administrations have misled the public about the
war’s progress. The Nixon administration sought a court injunction to stop both the New York
Times and the Washington Post to stop the newspapers from publishing, claiming that the
documents would threaten national security. The newspapers would argue that publishing the
Pentagon Papers was protected under the First Amendment, where the press has a right to inform
the public about government actions. Ultimately, the Supreme Court would side with the
newspapers, allowing them to publish the Pentagon Papers. The Supreme Court noted that since
the government was unable to provide any proof that the publication of the Pentagon Papers
would cause “direct, immediate, and irreparable harm” to national security, the injunction was
unconstitutional. New York Times Co. v. The United States would become a landmark case for
freedom of the press, establishing that the government cannot easily prevent publication, even of
classified materials, unless it can show clear and direct danger.
​

Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)

The state of Wisconsin had a law requiring all children to attend school until the age of 16,
stating that doing so would prepare them to participate in politics and the economy. However, a
group of Amish families, including Jonas Yoder, would sue the state, claiming that sending their
children to a public high school after 8th grade went against their religious beliefs and way of
life, as Amish communities emphasized simple living, farming, and a separation from modern
society. Wisconsin would fire back by suing them for violating their compulsory education laws.
Wisconsin would state that education past middle school was necessary to teach civic
responsibility, building skills to prepare them for the modern workforce, and to prevent children
from becoming a financial burden to society, and that if they made an exception for the Amish, it
would undermine the integrity of their universal education laws, since others would demand
exceptions as well. This can be seen when they said, “Some degree of education is necessary to
prepare citizens to participate effectively and intelligently in our open political system if we are
to preserve freedom and independence. Further, education prepares individuals to be self-reliant
and self-sufficient participants in society.” The Amish community would state that sending their
children to high school would endanger their religious faith, and that they had the religious right
to do so under the first amendment to take their children out of high school so they could begin
vocational training and religious education within the Amish community, stating “The Amish
object to the high school and higher education generally, because the values they teach are in
sharp conflict with the fundamental mode of life mandated by the Amish religion. They view
such education as an impermissible exposure of their children to a ‘worldly’ influence in conflict
with their beliefs.” After hearing both sides, the Supreme Court would side with the Amish,
stating that the First Amendment, specifically the part where it states “Congress shall make no
law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” outweighed
Wisconsin’s interest in forcing the Amish to attend high school. The Court would come to this
conclusion by stating that the Amish have been self-sufficient for centuries, so the state’s fear
that the Amish children would be burdens was unfounded. Ultimately, the ruling showed that
states can’t always enforce general laws if they conflict with sincere religious practices, and gave
the Amish the right to withdraw their children from school after 8th grade.
​

Shaw v. Reno (1993)

After the 1990 Census, North Carolina had to redraw its congressional districts. The state’s first
map would include only one majority black district, but the US Attorney General at that time,
Janet Reno, rejected it, saying that only one black district wasn’t enough to protect minority
voting rights under the Voting Rights Act of 1965. North Carolina would then create a second
majority black district, but it was extremely oddly shaped, with it being 160 miles long, thin in
some places, and winding along a highway. Because of this, a group of white voters, led by Ruth
O. Shaw, sued, arguing that this was racial gerrymandering and that it not only violated the Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (nor shall any state … deny to any person
within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws). The plaintiffs would argue that drawing
districts primarily on race was unconstitutional, and the odd shape not influenced by geography
or communities proved that race was the deciding factor, and that this amounted to segregation
by race in politics. The defense would argue that the unusual district was necessary to comply
with the Voting Rights Act so that it wouldn’t discriminate against minorities and ensure that
black voters had a fair chance to elect candidates of their choice. Ultimately, the Supreme Court
would side with the plaintiffs, stating that racial jerrymandering violates the Equal Protection
Clause if race was the predominant factor in drawing districts, with Justice Sandra Day
O’Connor writing, “A reapportionment plan that separates voters into different districts on the
basis of race, and that cannot be explained on grounds other than race demands close judicial
scrutiny.” The case would establish that while states could consider race when redrawing
districts, it cannot be the deciding factor, and that all redistricting plans with strong racial
considerations must pass strict scrutiny.
United States v. Lopez (1995)
Alfonso Lopez Jr., a high school senior in Texas, was caught carrying a concealed .38-caliber
revolver and five cartridges. Because of this, he would be charged under the federal Gun Free
School Zones Act of 1990, which states, “It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to
possess a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a
school zone.” However, Lopez would argue that Congress overstepped its authority under the
Commerce Clause to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the several states, and with
the Indian tribes (US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). Essentially, Lopez was saying
that the government only had power to regulate the economy and everything that could affect the
economy, and that carrying a concealed firearm into school grounds would not significantly
affect the economy in any way, so therefore the government overstepped its authority and has no
say in his carrying a firearm. The federal government would fire back by saying that guns in a
school zone could affect the economy by contributing to crime and violence, which might
indirectly affect interstate commerce. In the end, the Supreme Court would side with Lopez,
stating that the Gun Free School Zones Act exceeded Congress’s power under the Commerce
Clause because possessing a gun in a school is not an economic activity, and that it would not
substantially affect interstate commerce. This case would mark a shift toward limiting federal
power, and showed that not everything can be federally regulated under the Commerce Clause,
giving states more authority over local issues such as school safety.
​
McDonald v. Chicago (2010)
Otis McDonald, a resident of Chicago, wanted to own a handgun for self-defense in his home.
However, Chicago had strict local gun control laws that basically banned most handguns.
Because of this, McDonald would sue the city of Chicago for violating his Second Amendment
rights to bear arms, which should apply to the federal government, but would also apply to the
states through the Fourteenth Amendment, which states, “No state shall make or enforce any law
which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” The city of
Chicago would counter this by saying that its handgun ban was a public safety measure aimed at
reducing gun violence, and that the Second Amendment only limited the federal government, not
local governments, so their law was legally permissible. Ultimately, the Supreme Court would
side with Otis McDonald, stating that although the Second Amendment originally only limited
the federal government, the Fourteenth Amendment meant that it would also limit local
governments as well. This means that the city of Chicago cannot infringe on people’s rights to
keep and bear arms for self-defense in the home. The ruling applied the Second Amendment
nationally, limiting state and local gun regulations, and reinforced the concept of incorporation,
where fundamental rights of the Bill of Rights are applied to the states through the Fourteenth
Amendment.
​
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010)
Citizens United, a nonprofit organization, produced a documentary critical of Hilary Clinton
shortly before the 2008 Democratic primary. However, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act
(BCRA) of 2002 prohibited corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds to
make electioneering communications such as ads or documentaries within 30 days of a primary
election and 60 days of a general election. Citizens United would challenge this law and sue the
Federal Election Commission (FEC), arguing that it violated the First Amendment by restricting
corporate political speech. However, the FEC would counter by saying the BCRA restrictions
were constitutional as they limited the amount of influence corporations could have over
candidates, and that regulating corporate expenditure on ads and documentaries would protect
the integrity of the electoral process. The Supreme Court would still side with Citizens United in
the end, stating that corporations and unions have the First Amendment right to spend unlimited
money on independent political communications, such as ads or films, as long as the spending is
not directly coordinated with a candidate's campaign. This can be seen when Justice Anthony
Kennedy writes, “Political speech does not lose First Amendment protection simply because its
source is a corporation.” Ultimately, the ruling led to the rise of Super PACs, political action
committees that can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money from corporations, unions, and
individuals, and dramatically increased corporate and union influence in elections, allowing for
massive independent expenditure in support or against candidates.