Learn More About Supreme Court Cases

Mapp v. Ohio established the exclusionary rule, which states that evidence obtained illegally cannot be used in court. This case specifically dealt with the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. In Mapp v. Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled that evidence obtained through an illegal search and seizure was in violation of the defendant's constitutional rights and therefore could not be used as evidence in court. This landmark case set an important precedent for protecting individuals' rights against unlawful searches and seizures.

Brown vs. Board of Education is the correct answer because it was a landmark Supreme Court case in 1954 that declared racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional. This decision overturned the "separate but equal doctrine" established in Plessy vs. Ferguson, which had allowed for racial segregation as long as the separate facilities were equal. Brown vs. Board of Education marked a significant step towards ending school segregation and promoting equality in education.

The lasting impact of the Bush vs. Gore election was primarily political because George W. Bush emerged as the winner and became the President of the United States. This outcome had significant implications for the political landscape of the country, as Bush's presidency shaped policies and decisions that influenced various aspects of American society. Therefore, the statement "True" accurately reflects the political consequence of the Bush vs. Gore election.

In the case of Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. of Health, the Supreme Court ruled that in the absence of written proof of a patient's wishes regarding end-of-life decisions, families cannot make decisions on behalf of terminal patients. This case involved Nancy Cruzan, who was in a persistent vegetative state, and her parents wanted to remove her life-sustaining treatment. The Court held that the state had a legitimate interest in preserving life and that individuals have a constitutional right to refuse medical treatment. However, in the absence of clear evidence of the patient's wishes, the state could require clear and convincing evidence of their intent.

The correct answer is Griswold vs. Connecticut. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that a Connecticut law prohibiting the use of contraceptives violated the right to marital privacy. The Court recognized that the Bill of Rights, specifically the First, Third, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, creates zones of privacy that protect individuals from government intrusion. This landmark decision established the right to privacy, which has since been applied to other areas, such as abortion rights.

New York Times v. United States is the correct answer because it is a landmark Supreme Court case that established the principle that the government cannot restrain the press from publishing information unless it poses a threat to national security. This case, also known as the Pentagon Papers case, involved the publication of classified documents about the Vietnam War by The New York Times and other newspapers. The Court ruled in favor of the press, stating that prior restraint on publication is unconstitutional unless it can be proven that it would cause direct and immediate harm to the country.

During wartime, the government may restrict certain forms of speech that pose a clear and present danger to national security. In the case of Schneck vs. US, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Charles Schneck for distributing leaflets that encouraged draftees to resist the military draft during World War I. The Court ruled that Schneck's actions presented a clear and present danger to the war effort, and therefore, his speech was not protected under the First Amendment. This decision established the "clear and present danger" test, which allows the government to limit free speech rights in certain circumstances.

Roth v. United States and Miller v. California are two landmark Supreme Court cases that established the standard for obscenity and its protection under the First Amendment. In Roth v. United States, the Court ruled that obscene materials are not protected by the First Amendment, defining obscenity as material that appeals to the prurient interest, portrays sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. Miller v. California further refined this definition by adding the "Miller test," which requires that the material, when taken as a whole, lacks serious value and appeals to prurient interest. Therefore, the correct answer is Roth v. United States/Miller v. California.

Bakke vs. UC Regents is the correct answer because it is a landmark Supreme Court case that dealt with affirmative action in college admissions. The court ruled that while race could be considered as a factor in admissions, strict quotas based solely on race were unconstitutional. This decision set the precedent for future cases involving race-based college admissions and established that diversity could be a valid goal in admissions, but it must be achieved through a holistic approach that considers multiple factors.

Korematsu v. US is the correct answer because it is the Supreme Court case that upheld Executive Order 9066. This order authorized the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. The Court ruled that the need to protect against espionage outweighed the individual rights of Japanese-Americans, leading to the forced relocation and internment of over 100,000 people of Japanese descent. This decision has been widely criticized as a violation of civil rights and is considered a dark chapter in American history.

The correct answer is Gratz vs. Bollinger, Grutter vs. Bollinger. These two cases are significant Supreme Court decisions that upheld the constitutionality of affirmative action in college admissions. In Gratz vs. Bollinger, the court ruled that the University of Michigan's undergraduate admissions policy, which awarded extra points to minority applicants, was unconstitutional. However, in Grutter vs. Bollinger, the court upheld the University of Michigan Law School's admissions policy, which considered race as one of many factors in a holistic review process. These cases establish that affirmative action is legal as long as it does not involve quotas or give automatic preference to minority students.

In the case of Tinker vs. Des Moines, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of students' free speech rights at school. This case involved a group of students who wore black armbands to protest the Vietnam War, and the school suspended them. The Supreme Court held that students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." This landmark decision established that students have the right to express their opinions as long as it does not disrupt the educational environment.

Gideon v. Wainwright does not involve first amendment protections. This case was about the right to counsel in criminal cases, specifically the right to have an attorney appointed for defendants who cannot afford one. The first amendment protections involve freedom of speech, religion, and assembly, which are not the central issues in Gideon v. Wainwright.

In the case of Gitlow v. New York, the Supreme Court applied the Bill of Rights, specifically the 1st Amendment, to the states through the incorporation doctrine. This means that the states cannot deny freedom of speech, even though in this particular case, the sentence of an anarchist was upheld. Therefore, Gitlow v. New York is the correct answer because it established the principle that the states are bound by the protections of the Bill of Rights, including freedom of speech.

Bethel vs. Fraser/Morse vs. Frederick is the correct answer because this case established that schools have the authority to limit student speech that is lewd, vulgar, or offensive. In Bethel vs. Fraser, the Supreme Court ruled that schools can discipline students for using obscene language during a school assembly. Similarly, in Morse vs. Frederick, the Court held that schools can restrict student speech that promotes illegal drug use. Therefore, these cases support the idea that public education can place limits on student free speech to uphold fundamental values and maintain a conducive learning environment.