Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.


Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "LANDMARK SUPREME COURT CASES"— Presentation transcript:


2 Marbury VS. Madison Plaintiff: W. Marbury Defendant: J. Madison
Constitutional Question: Is Marbury entitled to his appointment? – despite it not being finalized in time Court Decision: when the Constitution--the nation's highest law--conflicts with an act of the legislature, that act is invalid Court Vote: 6 for Madison, 0 against Precedent: judicial review of the other two branches of government Significance: this was the original basis for judicial review

3 Brown VS. Board of Education
Plaintiff: Brown Defendant: Board of Education Topeka, KS Constitutional Question: Does the segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race deprive the minority children of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the 14th Amendment? Court Decision: Separate but equal is inherently unequal in the context of public education. Court Vote: 9 for Brown, 0 against Precedent: separate is not inherently unequal

4 Miranda VS. Arizona Plaintiff: Miranda Defendant: Arizona
Constitutional Question: Does the police practice of interrogating individuals without notifiying them of their right to counsel and their protection against self-incrimination violate the Fifth Amendment? Court Decision: The Court held 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." Court Vote: 5 for Miranda, 4 against Precedent: one who has been accused must be informed of their rights before questioning begins

5 Gideon VS. Wainwright Plaintiff: Clarence Earl Gideon
Defendant: Louie L. Wainwright, Director, Division of Corrections Constitutional Question: Does the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel in criminal cases extend to felony defendants in state courts? Court Decision: The Court held that it was consistent with the Constitution to require state courts to appoint attorneys for defendants who could not afford to retain counsel on their own. Court Vote: 9 for Gideon, 0 against Precedent: all who have been accused have the right to an attorney, regardless of their crime or ability to pay

6 Roe VS. Wade Plaintiff: Jane Roe Defendant: Henry Wade
Constitutional Question: Does the Constitution embrace a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy by abortion? Court Decision: The Court held that a woman's right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy (recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut) protected by the Fourteenth Amendment Court Vote: 7 for Roe, 2 against Precedent: states do not have the right to prohibit all abortions Significance: The laws of 46 states were affected by the Court's ruling.

7 United States VS. Nixon Plaintiff: United States
Defendant: Richard Nixon Constitutional Question: Is the President's right to safeguard certain information, using his "executive privilege" confidentiality power, entirely immune from judicial review? Court Decision: The Court held that neither the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the generalized need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified, presidential privilege Court Vote: 8 for the U.S., 0 against Precedent: executive privilege does not make an executive exempt from judicial review

8 Mapp VS. Ohio Plaintiff: Dollree Mapp Defendant: Ohio
Constitutional Question: May evidence obtained through a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment be admitted in a state criminal proceeding? Court Decision: all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is, by [the Fourth Amendment], inadmissible in a state court Court Vote: 6 for Mapp, 3 against Precedent: evidence obtained without a warrant is not admissible in court Significance: This was an historic -- and controversial -- decision. It placed the requirement of excluding illegally obtained evidence from court at all levels of the government.

9 Tinker VS. Des Moines Plaintiff: John F. Tinker and Mary Beth Tinker, Minors et al. Defendant: Des Moines Independent Community School District et al. Constitutional Question: Does a prohibition against the wearing of armbands in public school, as a form of symbolic protest, violate the students' freedom of speech protections guaranteed by the First Amendment? Court Decision: The Court held that the students did not lose their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech when they stepped onto school property. Court Vote: 7 for Tinker, 2 against Precedent: any limitation on free speech must have a reasonable justification, or else they are unconstitutional


Similar presentations

Ads by Google