13 Supreme Court Cases

1. What was the ruling in Marbury v. Madison?

The case was dismissed without a ruling.

The ruling was in favor of Marbury and Madison.

The petition was granted and deemed constitutional.

Facts: That U.S. Secretary of State James Madison must deliver judicial commissions issued by his predecessor to their rightful recipients.Ruling: The petition was denied and was uncostitutional.

Marbury v. Madison was a landmark Supreme Court case which established the principle of judicial review in the United States, allowing the Court to declare laws unconstitutional. In this case, the Court ruled against Marbury's petition, stating that part of the Judiciary Act of 1789, under which Marbury brought his case, was unconstitutional.

Explanation

Marbury v. Madison was a landmark Supreme Court case which established the principle of judicial review in the United States, allowing the Court to declare laws unconstitutional. In this case, the Court ruled against Marbury's petition, stating that part of the Judiciary Act of 1789, under which Marbury brought his case, was unconstitutional.

2. What was the case of Plessy v. Ferguson about?

Facts: That Louisiana's law requiring blacks and whites to ride in separate railway cars violated Plessy's right to equal protection under the law.Ruling: Ruled in favor of Ferguson by finding that Louisiana's law providing for "separate but equal" treatment for blacks and whites was constitutionally valid.

A tax evasion case

A property dispute case

An immigration case

Plessy v. Ferguson was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in 1896 which upheld the constitutionality of racial segregation laws for public facilities as long as the segregated facilities were equal in quality - the 'separate but equal' doctrine.

Explanation

Plessy v. Ferguson was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in 1896 which upheld the constitutionality of racial segregation laws for public facilities as long as the segregated facilities were equal in quality - the 'separate but equal' doctrine.

3. What was the significance of the Brown v. Board of Education case?

Facts: That racial segregation of public schools denied black schoolchildren equal protection of the law as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.Ruling: Ruled in favor of Brown by finding that racial segregation in public schools was unconstitutional.

The case established separate but equal facilities in public schools.

The case upheld the legality of racial segregation in public schools.

The case was related to labor laws in the education sector.

The Brown v. Board of Education case was significant as it ruled racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional, fundamentally changing the landscape of education and civil rights in the United States.

Explanation

The Brown v. Board of Education case was significant as it ruled racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional, fundamentally changing the landscape of education and civil rights in the United States.

4. What was the outcome of the Supreme Court case Mapp v. Ohio?

The court ruled that the search conducted was legal.

The case was dismissed due to lack of evidence.

The Supreme Court upheld Mapp's conviction.

Facts: That convicting her with evidence obtained during an illegal search violated the Fourth Amendment.Ruling: The Supreme Court reversed Mapp's conviction.

In Mapp v. Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled that convicting the defendant with evidence obtained during an illegal search violated the Fourth Amendment. As a result, the Court reversed Mapp's conviction.

Explanation

In Mapp v. Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled that convicting the defendant with evidence obtained during an illegal search violated the Fourth Amendment. As a result, the Court reversed Mapp's conviction.

5. What was the ruling in the case of Gideon v. Wainwright?

Facts: The Sixth Amendment right to legal counsel for defendants unable to afford an attorney should apply equally to the states.Ruling: The Sixth Amendment applies to the states and they are required to provide defendants charged with serious crimes and unable to afford an attorney with legal counsel.

The ruling stated that defendants with serious crimes who cannot afford an attorney must represent themselves in court.

The case established that defendants have no right to legal counsel if they cannot afford one.

The Sixth Amendment right to legal counsel only applies to federal cases, not state cases.

In the case of Gideon v. Wainwright, the Supreme Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment right to legal counsel applies to defendants in state cases as well, and states are required to provide legal counsel to those who cannot afford it.

Explanation

In the case of Gideon v. Wainwright, the Supreme Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment right to legal counsel applies to defendants in state cases as well, and states are required to provide legal counsel to those who cannot afford it.

6. What was the outcome of the Supreme Court case Tinker v. Des Moines?

The students were expelled from school.

Facts: That suspending them from school for wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War violated the freedom of speech.Ruling: The Supreme Court struck down the school regulation that resulted in the suspensions.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the school administration.

The suspensions were upheld by the Supreme Court.

In the case of Tinker v. Des Moines, the Supreme Court ruled that suspending students for wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War violated their freedom of speech. Therefore, the Supreme Court struck down the school regulation that resulted in the suspensions.

Explanation

In the case of Tinker v. Des Moines, the Supreme Court ruled that suspending students for wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War violated their freedom of speech. Therefore, the Supreme Court struck down the school regulation that resulted in the suspensions.

7. What was the outcome of the case Texas v. Johnson?

The court ruled that flag desecration is a criminal offense punishable by imprisonment.

The case was dismissed due to lack of evidence.

Facts: The demonstrators were protesting the policies of the Reagan Administration and of certain companies based in Dallas. They marched through the streets, shouted chants, and held signs outside the offices of several companies. At one point, another demonstrator handed Johnson an American flag stolen from a flagpole outside one of the targeted buildings and set the flag on fire.Ruling: Supreme Court of the United States that invalidated prohibitions on desecrating the American flag in force in 48 of the 50 states. Justice William Brennan wrote for a five-justice majority in holding that the defendant's act of flag burning was protected speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution

The Supreme Court upheld the state laws prohibiting flag desecration as constitutional.

In the case of Texas v. Johnson, the Supreme Court actually invalidated the state laws prohibiting flag desecration, affirming that it was protected speech under the First Amendment.

Explanation

In the case of Texas v. Johnson, the Supreme Court actually invalidated the state laws prohibiting flag desecration, affirming that it was protected speech under the First Amendment.

8. In the case of Nixon v. Fitzgerald, what was the ruling regarding legal liability for a president while performing their official duties?

The ruling stated that a president can be held legally liable for negligence while performing official duties.

The case decided that a president is only immune from criminal lawsuits, not civil lawsuits.

Facts: That a president should not be held legally liable for his actions while performing the duties of his office.Ruling: Ruled in favor of Nixon by holding that the president possesses absolute immunity from civil lawsuits while performing his official duties.

The case determined that a president can be held legally liable for actions while in office.

In Nixon v. Fitzgerald, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Nixon by granting presidents absolute immunity from civil lawsuits while carrying out their official duties. This decision sets a precedent that protects presidents from legal liability for their actions in office.

Explanation

In Nixon v. Fitzgerald, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Nixon by granting presidents absolute immunity from civil lawsuits while carrying out their official duties. This decision sets a precedent that protects presidents from legal liability for their actions in office.

9. What was the ruling in the case of Furman v. Georgia?

Georgia's death penalty statute was upheld as constitutional.

The case was dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction.

The ruling declared the death penalty as a constitutional form of punishment.

Facts: That the Georgia death penalty was cruel and unusual punishment under the Eight and Fourteenth Amendments.Ruling: Georgia's death penalty statute was unconstitutional.

In the case of Furman v. Georgia, the Supreme Court ruled that the Georgia death penalty was unconstitutional as it constituted cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Explanation

In the case of Furman v. Georgia, the Supreme Court ruled that the Georgia death penalty was unconstitutional as it constituted cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.

10. What was the outcome of the Miranda v. Arizona case?

Facts: In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested for robbery and other criminal activities. During the trial, Miranda's confession of guilt was used as evidence against him.Ruling: Miranda was found guilty in 1966. Months later, the Court said that it was illegal to arrest a citizen without informing the person of his or her rights. This decision set the precedent that all suspected criminals must be read their rights while being arrested. The courts then developed the Miranda Rights, which state suspected criminal's rights given in the 5th and 6th amendments.

Miranda was acquitted of all charges due to lack of evidence.

Miranda's confession was deemed inadmissible in court and the charges against him were dropped.

The case was dismissed by the Court due to procedural errors during the trial.

Miranda was found guilty in 1966, but the Court's ruling established that all suspected criminals must be read their rights while being arrested. This decision led to the development of the Miranda Rights.

Explanation

Miranda was found guilty in 1966, but the Court's ruling established that all suspected criminals must be read their rights while being arrested. This decision led to the development of the Miranda Rights.

11. What historical Supreme Court case established a woman's right to have an abortion?

Brown v. Board of Education

Facts: A woman's right to have an abortionRuling: The Court rested these conclusions on a constitutional right to privacy emanating from the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, also known as substantive due process.

Marbury v. Madison

Citizens United v. FEC

Roe v. Wade was the landmark Supreme Court case that established a woman's right to have an abortion based on a constitutional right to privacy. The case was decided in 1973, and its ruling has had a lasting impact on reproductive rights in the United States.

Explanation

Roe v. Wade was the landmark Supreme Court case that established a woman's right to have an abortion based on a constitutional right to privacy. The case was decided in 1973, and its ruling has had a lasting impact on reproductive rights in the United States.

12. What was the ruling in Gibbons v. Ogden?

Facts: That a New York state law granting exclusive rights to individuals to operate steamships in New York waters while conducting interstate commerce violates the Constitution's Commerce Clause.Ruling: Ruled in favor of Gibbons by finding that steamship navigation is part of commerce and that states could not pass laws regulating steamship traffic operating between two or more states.

That states have the power to pass laws regulating steamship traffic operating between two or more states.

That the New York state law granting exclusive rights to individuals to operate steamships in New York waters while conducting interstate commerce was constitutional.

That steamship navigation is not considered part of commerce under the Constitution's Commerce Clause.

The correct ruling in Gibbons v. Ogden was that states could not pass laws regulating steamship traffic operating between two or more states as it is considered part of commerce under the Commerce Clause.

Explanation

The correct ruling in Gibbons v. Ogden was that states could not pass laws regulating steamship traffic operating between two or more states as it is considered part of commerce under the Commerce Clause.

13. What was the outcome of McCulloch v. Maryland?

That McCulloch was ruled against due to lack of federal jurisdiction in the case.

That the case was dismissed without a ruling on constitutional grounds.

Facts: That a Maryland state tax imposed on the Bank of the United States was unconstitutional interference with federal government activities by the state.Ruling: Ruled in favor of McCulloch by finding that Congress had a constitutional power to establish a national bank and states could not legally interfere with federal law.

That Maryland state tax on the Bank of the United States was found to be constitutional.