1. Supreme Court Decisions

2. GIBBONS V. OGDEN MIRANDA V. ARIZONA FURMAN V. GEORGIA GIDEON V. WAINWRIGHT TINKER V. DES MOINES U.S. V. NIXON NY TIMES V. U.S. KORAMATSU V. U.S. IN RE GAULT MARBURY V MADISON McCULLOCH V. MARYLAND DRED SCOTT V. SANDFORD BRANDENBURG V. OHIO PLESSY V. FERGUSON ROE V. WADE LEANDRO V. N.C. MAPP V. OHIO SWANN V. MECKLENBURG DISTRICT BROWN V. BOARD OF ED HEAT MOTEL V. U.S. NEW JERSEY V T.L.O. ABINGTON S.D. V. SCHEMPP SCHENCK V. U.S. DARTMOUTH V. WOODARD

3. MAPP V. OHIO CASE SURROUNDED BY SEARCH AND SEIZURE LAWS AND PRIVACY RIGHTS OF THE 14 TH AMENDMENT. DECISION. –POLICE CANNOT USE EVIDENCE THAT IS NOT PART OF THE SEARCH WARRANT TO CONVICT OF ANOTHER CRIME. –EXTENDED THE 14 TH AMENDMENT TO RIGHT OF PRIVACY.

4. NEW JERSEY V. T.L.O. STUDENT WAS FOUND TO HAVE DRUGS DURING A SEARCH OF HER PURSE. 4 TH AMENDMENT ISSUE OF PROBABLE CAUSE, & ARE SCHOOL OFFICIALS UNDER THE SAME RESTRICTIONS OF POLICE? COURT RULING. –SCHOOL OFFICIALS DO NEED PROPABLE CAUSE TO SEARCH, BUT NOT A WARRANT. –SCHOOL SAFETY IS OVER STUDENT PRIVACY. –THE SEARCH IN THIS CASE WAS LEGAL DUE TO PROBABLE CAUSE.

5. ABINGTON S. D. V. SCHEMPP PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT HAD BIBLE VERSE TO BEGIN EACH DAY. FAMILY SUED FOR VIOLATION OF 1 ST AMENDMENT. COURT RULING –REAFFIRMED EARLY RULING OF SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. –NO RELIGION CAN COME FROM PUBLIC SOURCES.

6. SCHENCK V. U.S. DEALS WITH 1 ST AMENDMENT FREEDOM OF SPEECH. SCHENCK VIOLATED THE ESPIONAGE ACT. –CRIME TO CAUSE INSUBORDINATION IN THE ARMED FORCES. COURT RULING. –ESPIONAGE ACT WAS CONSTITUTIONAL. –DEALT WITH LIMITS OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH DURING WARTIME. –ESTABLISHED THE CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER PRINCIPLE.

7. DARTMOUTH V. WOODARD STARTED DUE TO STATE GOV’T ATTEMPT TO MAKE A PRIVATE COLLEGE A STATE UNIVERSITY. REPRESENT A FIGHT BETWEEN FEDERALISTS AND REPUBLICANS. COURT RULING. –PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS ARE PROTECTED UNDER ART. 1 SEC. 10 OF THE CONSTITUTION FROM INTERFERENCE BY A STATE. –STATES CANNOT CREATE A LAW THAT IS IN CONFLICT WITH AN EXISTING CONTRACT WITH THAT STATE

8. SWANN V. MECKLENBURG ISSUE CHALLENGES BUSING STUDENTS IN THE DISTRICT. DECISION. –DISTRICTS MAY BUS STUDENTS TOT OTHER DISTRICTS TO END THE PATTERN OF ALL BLACK OR ALL WHITE SCHOOLS.

9. LEANDRO V. N.C. LAWSUIT INVOLVED THE CHALLENGE ON HOW THE STATE FUNDS SCHOOLS AND THE EQUAL EDUCATION LAW. DECISION: –THE STATE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT REQUIRE EQUAL FUNDING OF EDUCATION BUT A GUARANTEE OF A FREE, BASIC, PUBLIC EDUCATION

10. ROE V. WADE CHALLENGED THE ABORTION LAWS IN TEXAS AND GEORGIA. DUE PROCESS OF THE LAW AND RIGHT TO PRIVACY ALLOWS WOMEN TO MAKE THE DECISION TO TERMINATE A PREGNANCY.

11. BRANDENBURG V. OHIO EXPANDED THE SCOPE OF POLITICAL SPEECH BY PROTECTING ALL POLITICAL SPEECH. –MADE IT ONE OF THE 7 TESTS OF FREE SPEECH. FREE SPEECH UNLESS LINKED TO IMMEDIATE LAWLESSNESS BEHAVIOR. –MADE IT ONE OF THE 7 TESTS OF FREE SPEECH.

12. HEAT OF ATLANTA MOTEL V. U.S. UPHELD THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964. –PROHIBITS RACIAL DISCRIMINATION IN TERMS OF SERVICE AND EMPLOYMENT.

13. PLESSY V. FERGUSON COURT CLAIMED THAT SEPARATE BUT EQUAL PUBLIC FACILITIES WAS CONSTITUTIONAL, INCLUDING PUBLIC EDUCATION.

14. DRED SCOTT V. SANFORD SCOTT A SLAVE IS SUEING FOR HIS FREEDOM BASED ON THAT HE IS IN FREE TERRITORY. S.C. DECISION. –BLACKS ARE NOT CITIZENS OF THE U.S. AND MAY NOT SUE FOR FREEDOM OF A CITIZEN. –VOIDED THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE WHICH OUTLAWED SLAVERY IN TERRITORIES.

15. MARBURY V MADISION PRES. ADAMS APPOINTS MARBURY LAST MINUTE TO PACK COURT. MADISON DOES NOT COMPLY. DECISION. –ESTABLISHED JUDICAL REVIW. RIGHT OF S.C. TO DECLARE ACTS OF LEG AND PRES. UNCONSTITUTIONAL

16. McCULLOCH V MARYLAND STATE OF MARYLAND ATTEMPTED TO TAX A FEDERAL BANK OUT OF PROTEST. U.S. BANK REFUSED TO PAY. DECISION. –S.C. UPHELD NEC. & PROPER CLAUSE. –REINFORCED SUPREMACY CLAUSE.

17. GIBBONS V OGDEN CONFLICT DUE TO FEDERAL LICENSE VS. STATE LICENSE. AND COMMERCE REGULATE RIGHTS OF STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. DECISION. –S.C. MADE IT CLEAR THAT CONGRESS HAS THE SOLE AUTHORITY TO REGULATE COMMERCIAL COMMERCE.

18. BROWN V BOARD OF ED. OVERTURNED PLESSY V. FERGUSON THAT ESTABLISHED SEPARATE BUT EQUAL PUBLIC FACILITIES. DECISION. –SEPARATE BUT EQUAL IN SCHOOLS VIOLATED THE 14 TH AMENDMENT. –SCHOOLS NEEDED TO BE FULLY INTERGRATED.

19. MIRANDA V. ARIZONA ERNESTO MIRANDA ARRESTED AND NOT GIVEN HIS RIGHTS BEFORE BEING ARRESTED. DECISION. –POLICE CANNOT TAKE A PERSON INTO CUSTODY AND QUESTIONED WITHOUT NOTIFYING THAT PERSON OF THEIR RIGHTS. –ENSURE PERSON DOES’T GIVE UP THEIR 5 TH AMENDMENT OF SELF INCRIMINATION.

20. FURMAN V. GEORGIA COURT CASE TERMINING DEATH PENALTY. DECISION. –HALTED ALL DEATH PENALTIES DUE TO THE CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT CLAUSE. –STATE HAD TO REWRITE THEIR DEATH PENALTY STATUE TO COMPLY.

21. GIDEON V WAINWRIGHT GIDEON WAS ACCUSED OF ROBBERY AND THE JUDGE REFUSED TO APPOINT A FREE ATTORNEY. DECISION. POOR DEFENDENTS IN A CRIMINAL CASE HAVE THE RIGHT TO A STATE-PAID ATTORNEY UNDER THE 6 TH AMENDMENT.

22. TINKER V DES MOINES SCHOOL DISTRICT. SCHOOL ADOPTED A POLICY BANNING ARMBANDS WORE IN SCHOOL. STUDENTS DID AND WERE SUSPENDED. VIOLATE 1 ST AMEND. DECISION. –STUDENTS AND TEACHER DO NOT GIVE UP 1 ST AMENDMENT WHEN IN SCHOOL. –SCHOOLS CANNOT SUSPEND FOR ARMBANDS THAT MAKE A PURE SPEECH ACTION.

23. UNITED STATES V NIXON NIXON TOLD HE MUST HAND OVER TAPES OF OVAL OFFICE. DUE TO IMPLICATIONS TO A CRIMINAL CASE. DECISION. –NIXON MUST NOT INHIBIT A CRIMIAL CASE. –NO ONE EVEN THE PRES. IS ABOVE THE LAW.

24. NEW YORK TIMES V U.S. NEW YORK TIMES WAS LEAKED THE “PENTAGON PAPERS BY ANTIWAR OFFICIAL. NIXON ATTEMPTED TO BAN THE PUBLICATION. DECISION. –DOCTRINE OF PRIOR RESTRAINT. PROTEST PRESS FROM GOV’T CENSORSHIP UNLESS EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES. –SAFETY OF TROOPS.

25. KORMATSU V. U.S. JAPANESE AMERICAN SUED U.S. GOV’T FOR INTERNMENT CAMPS DURING WW II OF JAPANESE. DECISION. –S.C. SIDED WITH THE U.S. AND UPHELD THE “EXCLUSION ORDERS” IN TIMES OF WAR AS PART OF THE NECESSARY AND PROPER CLAUSE DURING WAR TIMES. IN 1983 DECISION WAS OVERTURNED.

26. IN RE GAULT GAULT, A MINOR, WAS HELD WITHOUT PARENTAL NOTICE AND WITHOUT HIS 14 TH AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF DUE PROCESS THAT ARIZONA JUVENILE CODE DID NOT PROVIDE. DECISION. –S.C. FOUND THAT JUVENILES ARE GIVEN THE SAME RIGHTS AS PROVIDED TO ADULTS IN THE 14 TH AMENDMENT. –ALL AMENDMENTS ARE FOR ALL PEOPLE OVER AND UNDER 18.