Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CITATION
FACT The case began on March 2, 1801, when an obscure Federalist, William Marbury, was designated as a justice of the peace in the District of Columbia. Marbury and several others were appointed to government posts created by Congress in the last days of John Adams's presidency, but these lastminute appointments were never fully finalized. The disgruntled appointees invoked an act of Congress and sued for their jobs in the Supreme Court.
ISSUE Is Marbury entitled to his appointment? Is his lawsuit the correct way to get it? And, is the Supreme Court the place for Marbury to get the relief he requests?
RULING
RATIONALE
CONCLUSION
FACT A New York state law gave two individuals the exclusive right to operate steamboats on waters within state jurisdiction. Laws like this one were duplicated elsewhere which led to friction as some states would require foreign (out-of-state) boats to pay substantial fees for navigation privileges. In this case a steamboat owner who did business between New York and New Jersey challenged the monopoly that New York had granted, which forced him to obtain a special operating permit from the state to navigate on its waters.
ISSUE
RULING
RATIONALE
CONCLUSION
CITATION Barron v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833)
FACT
ISSUE
RULING
RATIONALE
CONCLUSION No. The Court announced its decision in this case without even hearing the arguments of the City of Baltimore. Writing for the unanimous Court, Chief Justice Marshall found that the limitations on government articulated in the Fifth Amendment were specifically intended to limit the powers of the national government. Citing the intent of the framers and the development of the Bill of Rights as an exclusive check on the government in Washington D.C., Marshall argued that the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction in this case since the Fifth Amendment was not applicable to the states.
CITATION
FACT ISSUE The Board of Regents for the Does the State of New York reading of a authorized a short, voluntary nondenominatio prayer for recitation at the nal prayer at the start of each school day. This start of the was an attempt to defuse the school day politically potent issue by violate the taking it out of the hands of "establishment local communities. The of religion" blandest of invocations read clause of the as follows: "Almighty God, First we acknowledge our Amendment? dependence upon Thee, and beg Thy blessings upon us, our teachers, and our country."
RULING
RATIONALE
CONCLUSION
CITATION
FACT
ISSUE Did the Rhode Island and Pennsylvania statutes violate the First Amendment's Establishment Clause by making state financial aid available to "church-related educational institutions"?
RULING
RATIONALE
CONCLUSION Yes. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Burger articulated a three-part test for laws dealing with religious establishment. To be constitutional, a statute must have "a secular legislative purpose," it must have principal effects which neither advance nor inhibit religion, and it must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion." The Court found that the subsidization of parochial schools furthered a process of religious inculcation, and that the "continuing state surveillance" necessary to enforce the specific provisions of the laws would inevitably entangle the state in religious affairs. The Court also noted the presence of an unhealthy "divisive political potential" concerning legislation which appropriates support to religious schools. 6
CITATION Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe 530 U.S. 290 (2000)
FACT
ISSUE Does the Santa Fe Independent School District's policy permitting student-led, studentinitiated prayer at football games violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?
RULING
RATIONALE
CONCLUSION
CITATION
FACT
ISSUE Did the Pennsylvania law and Abington's policy, requiring public school students to participate in classroom religious exercises, violate the religious freedom of students as protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments?
RULING
RATIONALE
CONCLUSION The Court found such a violation. The required activities encroached on both the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment since the readings and recitations were essentially religious ceremonies and were "intended by the State to be so." Furthermore, argued Justice Clark, the ability of a parent to excuse a child from these ceremonies by a written note was irrelevant since it did not prevent the school's actions from violating the Establishment Clause.
CITATION
FACT During World War I, Schenck mailed circulars to draftees. The circulars suggested that the draft was a monstrous wrong motivated by the capitalist system. The circulars urged "Do not submit to intimidation" but advised only peaceful action such as petitioning to repeal the Conscription Act. Schenck was charged with conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act by attempting to cause insubordination in the military and to obstruct recruitment.
ISSUE Are Schenck's actions (words, expression) protected by the free speech clause of the First Amendment?
RULING
RATIONALE
CONCLUSION
FACT
ISSUE
RULING
RATIONALE
CONCLUSION
Did either the federal or California's obscenity restrictions, prohibiting the sale or transfer of obscene materials through the mail, impinge upon the freedom of expression as guaranteed by the First Amendment?
10
CITATION
FACT
ISSUE Does a prohibition against the wearing of armbands in public school, as a form of symbolic protest, violate the First Amendment's freedom of speech protections?
RULING
RATIONALE
CONCLUSION The wearing of armbands was "closely akin to 'pure speech'" and protected by the First Amendment. School environments imply limitations on free expression, but here the principals lacked justification for imposing any such limits.The principals had failed to show that the forbidden conduct would substantially interfere with appropriate school discipline.
11
FACT In 1984, in front of the Dallas City Hall, Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag as a means of protest against Reagan administration policies. Johnson was tried and convicted under a Texas law outlawing flag desecration. He was sentenced to one year in jail and assessed a $2,000 fine. After the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the conviction, the case went to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
RULING
RATIONALE
CONCLUSION
12
ISSUE
RULING
RATIONALE
CONCLUSION
13
ISSUE
RULING
RATIONALE
CONCLUSION
14
FACT
ISSUE
RULING
RATIONALE
CONCLUSION
15
ISSUE
RULING
RATIONALE
CONCLUSION
16
ISSUE
RULING
RATIONALE
CONCLUSION
17
FACT
ISSUE
RULING
RATIONALE
CONCLUSION
18
FACT
ISSUE
RULING
RATIONALE
CONCLUSION
19
ISSUE
RULING
RATIONALE
CONCLUSION
20
FACT
ISSUE
RULING
RATIONALE
CONCLUSION
21
FACT
ISSUE
RULING
RATIONALE
CONCLUSION
22
FACT
ISSUE
RULING
RATIONALE
CONCLUSION
23
ISSUE
RULING
RATIONALE
CONCLUSION
24
FACT
ISSUE
RULING
RATIONALE
CONCLUSION
25
FACT
ISSUE
RULING
RATIONALE
CONCLUSION
26
CITATION FACT Cruzan v. Missouri Department of Health, 497 U.S. 261 (1990)
ISSUE
RULING
RATIONALE
CONCLUSION
27
ISSUE
RULING
RATIONALE
CONCLUSION
28
ISSUE
RULING
RATIONALE
CONCLUSION
29
FACT
ISSUE
RULING
RATIONALE
CONCLUSION
30
FACT
ISSUE
RULING
RATIONALE
CONCLUSION
31
FACT
ISSUE
RULING
RATIONALE
CONCLUSION
32
33