Court+Cases

COURT CASES TO KNOW/LOVE/TREASURE/ forget after tomorrow? ;)

**RED** = must-know

COLONIAL Era—————> starting from around the 18th century, when the "American character" really starts to form

**(1735) Zenger case:** - John Peter Zenger, a NY editor/publisher of a newspaper was charged of libelously criticizing NY's royal governor - back then, could be jailed if any article offended political authorities (even if it was true) - defended by lawyer Andrew Hamilton vs. English common law at the time--> injuring a governor's reputation was a crime, no matter if it was true or false - jury ignored English law and ruled in favour of Zenger = small step towards securing freedom of press

JEFFERSON, MADISON, MONROE ERA—————> Supreme Justice JOHN MARSHALL (Hardcore Federalist! Once appeared on a MCQ)

**(1803) Marbury vs. Madison:** - ruled that "midnight judge" and Federalist William Marbury (appointed by John Adams at the last minute before Jefferson came into office) could not sue for his commission under the Judiciary Act of 1789, because the Act itself was unconstitutional. - basically Marshall sacrificed the short-term, victory of appointing a Federalist for the long-term judicial victory for the power of the Supreme Court. - established JUDICIAL REVIEW:only the Supreme Court has the power to decide whether federal legislation is constitutional (comes out in like every MCQ we've seen)

- involved land fraud in Georgia - Marshall rules that states must honour private contracts - first time a state law was declared unconstitutional = protection of private property/contracts
 * (1810) Fletcher vs. Peck:**

- established that power of Supreme Court > state court = strengthening central government
 * (1816) Martin vs. Hunter's Lease:**

- New Hampshire law had tried to change Dartmouth College from private to public - Marshall slammed it = contract for a private corporation can't be altered by the state = protection of contracts again/less state power
 * (1819) Dartmouth College vs. Woodward:**

- the second Bank of the US is constitutional = "implied power" in the Constitution (typical Federalist's loose interpretation) ---> the state of Maryland can't tax the federal bank = again, federal power > state power
 * (1819) McCulloch vs. Maryland:**

- Supreme Court can review a state court's decision involving any of the powers of federal gov't = again, federal power > state power
 * (1821) Cohens vs. Virginia:**

- state of NY had tried to grant a steamboat company monopoly - ruled that NY monopoly was unconstitutional = federal government's broad control of interstate commerce (HUGE contrast to the situation under the Articles of Confederation)
 * (1821) Gibbons vs. Ogden** *(seems to come out on a lot of MCQs)

**— — — — — — — >> recurring Federalist themes under John Marshall:** **- federal power > state power** **- Supreme court authority > congressional/legislative authority** **- protection of contracts/private property (especially from state governments)**

AGE OF JACKSON —————> still under John Marshall, but decisions mostly disregarded by "King Jackson"

- Georgia and other states were trying to force Cherokees to move West (under Jackson's 1830 Indian Removal Act) - Cherokees challenge the state in courts - Supreme Court declares that Cherokees are NOT a foreign nation and CAN'T sue in a federal court, but they did have "special status" (another example of government ambiguity/going back and forth in their treatment of Native Americans)
 * (1831) Cherokee Nation vs. Georgia:**

BUT THEN **(1832) Worcester vs. Georgia:** - Marshall rules that the laws of the state don't apply within Cherokee territory - again established federal authority > state (said the federal gov't had the constitutionally-granted role of dealing with Natives) --> Pres. Andrew Jackson's response: "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it." (makes sense, Jackson is all about states' rights UNLESS they threaten his own personal power/try to nullify or something like that) --> "Trail of Tears" tragedy in the late 1830s

SECTIONAL CRISIS/ANTEBELLUM ERA —————————> remember everything is highly charged/tense w the slavery/expansion issue… North becomes more industrialized, South remains the "Old South"

- Massachusetts Supreme Court (state court) rules that "peaceful unions" had the right to negotiate labour contracts w employers = early victory for organized labour BUT doesn't really mean much at this point—workers still limited by depressions, tons of cheap immigrant labour to replace them, etc.
 * (1842) Commonwealth vs. Hunt:** (*remember, by the 1830s point the Industrial Revolution is making the Northeast industrial/textile oriented = lots of mistreated early factory workers = first organized labour forms around 1828 in Philadelphia)

**(1857) Dred Scott vs. Sandford:** - Dred Scott, slave from Missouri, argued that spending two years in Wisconsin (free state) had made him free - Chief Justice = Roger Taney, Southern Democrat (you know what that means) 1. ruled that Dred Scott was black, therefore not a citizen, therefore unable to sue in court 2. Congress does not have the power to take away anybody's property ---> slaves are "property" so Congress can't exclude slavery from any federal territory == essentially declaring the Missouri Compromise of 1820 (that had excluded slavery from Wisconsin and other northern territories) was UNCONSTITUTIONAL* (this appears on MCQs often) > obviously Northerners are going WHAT?!, inflamed the situation (*only three years before Lincoln's election/Southern secession)

END OF CIVIL WAR—> RECONSTRUCTION —> SECOND INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION

- military tribunals cannot try civilians, during peace or war, in areas where the civil courts were open > kind of contradicted by the Reconstruction Acts of 1867, which placed the entire area under military watch
 * (1866) Ex parte Milligan:**

- effectively killed the weak Civil Rights Act of 1875 (giving equal accommodations in places open to public, prohibiting courts from excluding freed blacks from juries) - court declared that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibited only government violations of civil rights, not violations by individuals = legalized segregation for private property
 * (1883) Civil Rights Cases of 1883:**

**(1877) Munn vs. Illinois:** (* from 1865-1900, farmers suffer more and more, North, South and West. 1. becoming minority population 2. farming becoming increasingly commercialized, requiring large/expensive machinery 3. smaller farmers being pushed out by large farms 4. competition from Argentina, Russia, and Canada drive down global prices for crops 5. as prices fell, farmers w mortgages needed to pay back debts w interest, so constantly overproduce (again, lowering the price) 6. vicious cycle of more debts, foreclosures by banks, and more farmers becoming tenants/sharecroppers. --> leads to the National Grange Movement = Supreme Court upheld the right of a state to regulate businesses of a public nature (i.e. railroads) = some protection for farmers against discriminatory rates for shipment/storage of grain

BUT THEN - Supreme Court rules that individual states cannot regulate INTERSTATE commerce (under Munn vs. Illinois ruling above, states can control rates for only local/short-haul trains) - interstate commerce = a federal matter == the Court effectively nullifies many of the state regulations achieved by the Grangers
 * (1886) Wabash vs. Illinois: **

———> farmers cry foul, so Congress creates the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) in 1886, requiring railroad rates to be "reasonable and just" = first federal regulatory agency (but ICC is not very effective for farmers. will be strengthened later on...)

- ruled that the Sherman Anti-trust Act (which tried to prohibit trusts and monopolies) could be applied only to commerce, not manufacturing - problem is, manufacturing makes up the biggest part of the economy during the second industrial revolution—steel, oil, coal etc. - effectively showed the vague wording/weakness of the Sherman Anti-trust Act (which would be strengthened later by the Clayton Anti-trust Act during the Progressive Era)
 * (1895) United States vs. E.C. Knight Co.:**

**(1896) Plessy vs. Ferguson: (MUST KNOW)** - Supreme Court supports a Louisiana law requiring "separate but equal accommodations" for white and black passengers on railroads - argued that it technically doesn't violate the 14th Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection of the laws" > leads to a ton of Jim Crow segregation laws, segregating washrooms, drinking fountains, park benches, and other facilities in virtually all public places > will eventually be overturned in the 1950s by Brown vs. Board (below)

- said states could use literacy tests to "determine citizens' qualifications for voting" - contributes to 99% drop of registered black voters from 1896-1904 - remember, literacy tests were like giving Chaucer to a five-year old and expecting him/her to analyze it
 * (1898) Williams vs. Mississippi:**

20th CENTURY

**(1901-1903) Insular cases:** - followed the Spanish-American War and the US defeat of the Philippine insurrection under Emilio Aguinaldo - about the constitutional rights of the Philippine people: Did the Constitution follow the flag? Did US citizen rights extend to people in US-controlled territories? - ruled NO, not automatically citizens/given constitutional rights. ---> angered anti-imperialists like William Jennings Bryan (Dem. presidential candidate for election of 1900... but he lost to McKinley)

- declared that a NY act could not limit the working hours of bakers—technically under the 14th Amendment rights, their rights to work can't be limited
 * (1905) Lochner vs. New York:**

- set a 10-hour work day for women laundry workers, recognizing their concern for health/community issues
 * (1908) Muller vs. Oregon**

- unanimously upheld the Espionage Act of 1917 which declared that people who interfered with the war effort in WWI were subject to imprisonment; declared that the 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech was not absolute; free speech could be limited if its exercise presented a "clear and present danger."
 * (1919) Schenck vs. US**

**(1941) Korematsu vs. US** - Fred Korematsu, a Japanese-American sues the government for violating his rights as an American citizen in keeping him in internment camps (after Pearl Harbour) - the court says his individual rights aren't as important as the safety of the majority (in fear of Japanese espionage and invasion) --> so Japanese camps continue during WWII

**(1954) Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas:** - under liberal leadership of Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren - NAACP lawyer Thurgood Marshall challenges the Plessy vs. Ferguson decision - decision declaring "separate but equal" unconstitutional (repealing Plessy vs. Ferguson) - says that segregated areas are "inherently unequal" --> reaction to this is ugly in the South (Little Rock Nine, closed schools, "massive resistance")

- says mandatory prayers in public school = unconstitutional = 1st Amendment: government will not favour one religion over another, and since public schools are under government jurisdiction, no prayers. ---> obviously doesn't affect private schools (YISS, SFS)
 * (1962) Engel vs. Vitale:**

(1963-1966) all those cases related to due trial/process of law:
 * **Gideon vs. Wainwright (1963):** extends to the defendant the right of counsel in all state and federal criminal trials, even if they can't pay for it.
 * **Escobedo vs. Illinois (1964):** ruled that a defendant must be allowed access to a lawyer before questioning by police ("I want a lawyer.")
 * **Miranda vs. Arizona (1966):** the cops have to say "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law...." or else their evidence doesn't count in court

**(1973) Roe vs. Wade:** - the court legalized abortion by ruling that state laws could not restrict it during the first three months of pregnancy. - based on 4th Amendment rights of a person to be secure in their persons. = right to privacy --> part of sexual revolution/feminist movement going on during the 70s

**(1974) US vs. Richard Nixon:** - the court rejected Nixon’s claim to an absolutely unqualified privilege against any judicial process - basically, they won't allow Nixon's "executive privilege" BS anymore ---> Watergate Scandal - Nixon ends up NOT impeached, because he just steps down from the presidency - Gerald Ford, his successor, grants him a full pardon (SCANDALOUS!)

- dealt with affirmative action programs that used race as a basis of selecting participants - basically a white applicant, Bakke, claims he is more qualified to medical school than some admitted black kids - court declares that while schools can try to make a diverse class, in the event of direct comparison, they can't just fill quotas (i.e. exactly 5% Hispanic, 5% Black, etc.) - Bakke got into Davis and became a doctor.
 * (1978) Bakke v. Regents of the University of California:**