Pace v. Alabama 1883 What happened? 1883: Pace was a black man living in Alabama, dating a white woman. He was arrested for this. Alabama had laws that made it illegal for marriage between blacks and whites. (They were not married ) Pace appealed to Alabama's Supreme Court. It decided that the law did not discriminate because it applied equally to both blacks and whites.

Pace v. Alabama 1883 So What? The Precedent Pace sued the state of Alabama and appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled that protecting marriage was legitimate for the state, and that the threat of interracial relationships would cause serious harm to "white marriages." Therefore, the law couldn't be ruled unconstitutional.

Pace v. Alabama 1883 But then…. The precedent wasn't overturned until 1967. In Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court finally ruled unanimously that such laws were state-sponsored racism and violated the constitution.

Austin v. Michigan State Chamber of Commerce and Citizens United v Austin v. Michigan State Chamber of Commerce and Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission The Precedent: Michigan(The state was represented by Austin) v. Michigan State Chamber of Commerce Michigan's political campaign finance laws prevented companies (ex: McDonalds) from donating money to political campaigns. The Michigan State Chamber of Commerce sued the state of Michigan(Austin) claiming that their right to donate money was the same thing as their right to free speech. The Supreme Court ruled that political contributions did not equal speech. (Michigan won).

Austin v. Michigan State Chamber of Commerce and Citizens United v Austin v. Michigan State Chamber of Commerce and Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission But then… In 2010, the Supreme Court heard the case of Citizens United(non-profit group) v. Federal Election Commission(Government agency in charge of Elections i.e. the enforcer of a law) and overturned the Austin decision. The decision drew two conclusions: Money equals speech, and corporations have the same right to free speech as individuals.

Austin v. Michigan State Chamber of Commerce and Citizens United v Austin v. Michigan State Chamber of Commerce and Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission So What? This allows corporations to spend ridiculous sums of money on elections. In the 2016 election it is estimated that literally hundreds of millions of dollars will be spent on advertising. Many feel that this money will buy too much influence with politicians.

Wolf v. Colorado (1949) The Precedent: In 1949, Dr. Julius Wolf was convicted of performing illegal abortions, but he claimed the evidence against him had been seized illegally, without a proper search warrant or probable cause (4th Amendment). When the case made it to the Supreme Court, it ruled against Wolf. The heart of the matter was the federal exclusion rule, which discouraged improper search and seizure by ruling that all evidence collected illegally wasn't admissible in court.

Wolf v. Colorado (1949) So what? Wolf had run afoul of a state law, and the court decided that the exclusion rule didn't apply to states. The court felt that there were other methods to discourage illegal searches, and that neither the 4th or 14th Amendments needed the exclusion rule.

Wolf v. Colorado (1949) But then…. Mapp v. Ohio was decided just 12 years later, in 1961. In that case, authorities searched DollRee Mapp's house for a fugitive -- with no proof of a proper warrant. Mapp reported that they waved a piece of paper at her that she couldn't identify as a warrant, and no actual warrant was ever produced. The following 12 years had shown that the "other methods" of discouraging illegal search and seizure weren't working, so the Court reversed itself.

Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education The Precedent: Homer Plessy had one-eighth black ancestry, and his light skin allowed him to frequently ride in the white sections of trains. He was arrested and jailed. Louisiana had Jim Crow laws that made separate facilities for blacks and whites. The argument against Louisiana's "separate facilities" laws (and those of other states) was that they violated the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court didn't believe that the laws were a constitutional violation, ruling against Plessy in a 7-1.

Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education So what? Separate but Equal became the norm. But services were constantly worse than for whites.

Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education But then… In 1954, Brown v. Board of Education overturned Plessy, finding that "separate but equal" was invalid and banning racial segregation Students had to be protected during Integration.

Oregon v. Mitchell (1970) The Precedent In 1970, the state of Oregon sued U.S. Attorney General John Mitchell(Head of Justice Department who enforces this new voting law) in response to a federal law that made states set their voting age to 18. Oregon’s voting age was 21. The Court's ruled in Oregon's favor, giving the state (and therefore other states) the right to set their own election age laws.

Oregon v. Mitchell (1970) So what? There was big confusion because federal law said 18 year olds could vote, but some states had higher age laws. Federal and state election became difficult to manage. An 18 year old could vote in a federal election but not a state election. These were often listed on the same ballot

Oregon v. Mitchell (1970) But then… The confusion was sorted out by the 26th Amendment, adopted in 1971. The amendment set the national voting age to 18 for all elections, and was passed by 38 states in a matter of months - the fastest constitutional amendment ever adopted. It's interesting to note that the amendment forbids states (or anyone else) from taking away voting rights from anyone 18 or older. It doesn't stop states from granting voting rights to anyone below 18. (Judicial Review prompted Congress to propose an Amendment. This was not an overturned case)

McCulloch v. Maryland What happened? Congress created the Bank of the United States in 1816 and opened a branch in Baltimore. The Maryland General Assembly placed a tax on all money issued by the bank. The cashier, McCulloch, refused to pay the tax to the state of Maryland. Maryland argued in court that the Constitution said nothing about creating banks, so Maryland was allowed to impose the tax.

McCulloch v. Maryland So what? The Court ruled that Congress did have the power to create the bank, according to the necessary and proper clause. The court ruled that the state could not interfere with Congress’s constitutional powers, so any state law that did interfere (like the tax) was invalid.