# data[].attributes.body
Background and Facts
This case is a follow up to Plessy v. Ferguson

Segregation of public schools based on race

Decided on May 17, 1954

Kansas, South Carolina, Virginia, Delaware, and Washington D.C.

Unequal citizenship

The case originated from the problem that African american students were denied admission to all-white schools. The case was brought up in order to desegregate public schools.

Constitutional Question / Issue
Does segregation of public schools based on race violate the 14th amendment?

Argument For Plaintiff
The operation of separate schools, based on race, was harmful to African American children.

Argument For Defendant
the separate schools for nonwhites in Topeka were equal in every way, and were in complete conformity with the Plessy standard.

Court’s Decision and Effects
Affected the education and personal growth of African Americans

The supreme court considered the “separate but equal” facilities to be unequal, they violate the fourteenth amendment; segregation based on race violates the constitution

# data[].attributes.body
Background:
Two students in Des Moines, Iowa wanted to wear armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War. While the school told them they were not allowed to wear them, they wore them anyway. The two students were suspended, and they argued this violated their right to free speech. While it is not technically speech to wear the armband, it is symbolic speech and the students felt that this was also protected under the first amendment.

Constitutional Question:
Does the constitutional right of free speech protect the symbolic speech of public school students and what are the limits on the first amendment?

Arguments of Plaintiff:
First amendment protects symbolic speech, violation of first amendment in public schools

Arguments of Defendant:
Armbands could be a disruption to learning, distractions to learning more important than right of the students to protest

Decision:
Justice Fortas ruled in favor of the Tinkers and decided that the students maintain their right to free speech even in school and that the wearing of the armbands would   “substantially interfere with the work of the school or impinge upon the rights of other students.”

# data[].attributes.body
Background: The Charter for the National Bank of the United States ran out and Congress commissioned the Second National Bank in 1816. In 1818, Maryland passed legislation to tax the National Bank. James W. McCulloch, the cashier of the bank, took exception to the taxing of a government instrument. The case went to court where the state appeals court held that the creation of a Second Bank was unconstitutional as it was not enumerated in the Constitution. McCulloch appealed and the question was now over the constitutionality of the Bank as well as whether it could be taxed.
McCulloch's Argument: As an instrument of the national government, made constitutional by the Necessary and Proper Clause in Article 1, Section 8, the Second National Bank could not be taxed.
Maryland's Argument: The Constitution is not meant to be abused. The chartering of a Second National Bank is not enumerated in the Constitution, and, therefore, should not be allowed. As the Bank is not necessary to the ability of Congress to legislate, it is just to tax the Bank.
Question:
Did the Chartering of a Second National Bank extend beyond the powers of Congress?
Did Maryland interfere with congressional powers?
Decision: By unanimous decision, the Court ruled that Congress was within its rights to charter the Second National Bank, and that it was unconstitutional to tax that based on the pursuance of the continued prosperity of the Constitution.

# data[].attributes.body
Background and facts:

President John Adams and Congress creating new inferior federal courts and judges. Adams ordered appointments of new judges on his way out of office, but some appointments were not physically delivered by the end of his term.

William Marbury was one of those appointments.

Incoming President Thomas Jefferson didn't like his nominations, and ordered his Secretary of State, James Madison, to block the appointments.

Marbury requested that the Supreme Court issue a writ of mandamus - a power granted to the Supreme Court by Congress in the Judiciary Act of 1789.

Issue:

Who interprets the Constitution and laws? Who has final say on whether an act of government violates the Constitution.

Argument for plaintiff:

Jefferson and Madison violated the Constitution by blocking the appointments.

The Supreme Court had the power to order the commission be delivered.

Argument for defendant:

Adams appointment was invalid because his commission was not delivered before the expiration of Adams' term as president.

Decision

Madison didn't have to deliver the commission to Marbury.

The Supreme Court also did not have the authority to require Madison to deliver the commission.

Judiciary Act of 1789 was in conflict with the original jurisdiction set up for the Supreme Court in the Constitution.

Supremacy Clause

Chief Justice Marshall checked a power granted to the Court by Congress, but granted the courts the power of JUDICIAL REVIEW

# data[].attributes.body
Background and Facts:

Ernesto Miranda was a poor man living in Phoenix, Arizona.

A woman in Phoenix was kidnapped and raped. She identified her kidnapper to be Miranda in a police lineup. He was then arrested and charged with the crimes.

During a two hour questioning, officers failed to inform him of his fifth amendment right against self-incrimination and his sixth amendment right to the assistance of an attorney.

The result of the questioning lead Miranda to a confession in writing to the crimes. His statement also included that he was aware of his right against self-incrimination. This confession was used to obtain a guilty conviction and thus sentencing him 20 - 30 years in prison on each count.

Issue:

Miranda appealed his case to the Arizona Supreme

What is the role of the police in protecting the rights of the accused, as guaranteed by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.

Do the police have an obligation to ensure that the accused person is aware of these rights before they question that person?

Arguments for Plaintiff:

His attorney argued that since he was  not been informed of his rights, nor had an attorney been present during his interrogation, his confession should have been excluded from trial.

Arguments for Defendant:

However, the state argued that Miranda must be aware of his rights since he had been convicted of a crime in the past too.

Decision:

The Arizona Supreme Court denied Miranda's appeal and upheld his conviction.

Miranda appealed to a higher court.

The Court held that “there can be no doubt that the Fifth Amendment privilege is available outside of criminal court proceedings and serves to protect persons in all settings in which their freedom of action is curtailed in any significant way from being compelled to incriminate themselves.” As such, “the prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination".

Miranda's conviction was overturned by a 5-4 vote but after a second trial he was once again convicted and sentenced to 20 - 30 years in prison. The second trial did not introduce into evidence

# data[].attributes.body
Background & Facts:

In 1890, Louisiana passed the Separate Car Act that declared you must have separate but equal accommodations for white and non-white passengers

A group of black citizens joined the East Louisiana Railroad Company to fight the act

In 1892, Homer Plessy who was 1/8th black, sat in the white section of the railroad car, and was arrested under the Separate Car Act

Plessy argued that his arrest violated the 13th and 14th amendments

After losing in the lower 2 courts he took it to the Supreme Court

Issue:

This case questioned whether separate areas designated for different racial groups, were inherently unequal in their nature

Plantiff Arguments:

Plessy argued that his arrest violated the 13th and 14th amendments, because it violates the equal protection clause, because he stated that separate cars were inherently unequal

Defendent Arguments:

Judge John H. Ferguson argued that the 14th amendment did not apply to the topic of race. He said that this arrest was constitutional because the 14th amendment only applied to things like voting and jury service, not “social rights” such as where you sit on the train car.

Courts Decision & Effects:

The Court decided that the state law was constitutional, and so was segregation

Basically, they decided that segregation did not in itself constitute unlawful discrimination

Decided that separate treatment did not imply the inferiority of African Americans

The effects are that for years segregation existed until it was overturned by Brown v. Board, where they deemed segregation to be unconstitutional

# data[].attributes.body
Background:
After the bombing of Pearl Harbor by Japan, many worried that Japanese Americans would attempt to aid the enemy. In 1942, FDR signed an order that forced many Japanese Americans into internment camps. Korematsu appealed the constitutionally of this.

Issue:
Did the President and Congress go beyond their war powers and violate the 14th amendment's equal protection clause by restricting the rights of Americans of Japanese descent?

Arguments for the plaintiff
- This order was discriminatory and stripped Japanese citizens of their constitutional rights.

Arguments for defendants:
-This order was justified to ensure the national security of America as the country was at war with Japan. Japanese citizens could spy or aid the enemy's war effort.

Decision:
6-3 decision for the United States. The majority opinion found that the executive order was not racially prejudiced but was just a strategic measure to keep the United States, particularly the west coast, safe from invasion.
- The safety and security of the United States outweighs any potential rights violations against Japanese Americans

Dissenting opinion:
- The order violates Japanese Americans constitutional protection guaranteed to the by the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

# data[].attributes.body
Background and facts:

Dred Scott was purchased in a slave state and brought to a non-slave state.

Owners refused to free him.

Dred Scott sued his owners due to living in a free territory.

Issue:

If a slave is relocated to a free state, are they still a slave?

Argument for Plaintiff:

Dred Scott lived in a free state − therefore he is free.

Argument for Defendant:

If purchased in a slave state, the slave still carries that status, regardless of the state.

Decision:

Court sided with defendant.

Slaves are property, therefore they cannot sue.

# data[].attributes.body
Background and facts:

A burglary occurred at the Bay Harbor Pool Room in Panama City, FL

Clarence Earl Gideon was found nearby and arrested

Gideon was poor and could not afford a lawyer. However, upon requesting that the state provide one for him, he was denied

Gideon defended himself and was found guilty of breaking and entering and petty larceny

Gideon petitioned to the Federal Supreme court while in prison and the court agreed to hear his case

Issue:

Are states required to provide a lawyer for people charged with non-capital offenses who cannot afford a lawyer?

Argument for Plaintiff:

6th amendment of the Constitution states that everyone is entitled to a lawyer

Argument for Defendant:

Under prior court ruling of Betts v. Brady, states only needed to provide a lawyer under "special circumstances".

Special circumstances include complex charges, incompetence, and/or illiteracy

State was not required to provide a lawyer because it was a case in a state criminal trial for a non-capital offense.

Decision:

The Supreme court ruled unanimously in Gideon's favor

The court concluded that "the right to the assistance of counsel in felony criminal cases is a fundamental right, and thus must be required in state courts as well as federal courts."

The Court concluded that the Sixth Amendment guarantee of a right to counsel was fundamental and essential to a fair trial in both state and federal criminal justice systems.  In all felony criminal cases, states must provide lawyers for indigent defendants.

# data[].attributes.body
Background and Facts:
- Thomas Gibbons was against the extensive fees to navigate his steamboats in New York and New Jersey.
- New York courts ruled against him in favor of Aaron Ogden, granting him a monopoly license
-Gibbons took the case to Supreme Court to get a more fair ruling
-Gibbons has a federal license from Congress, and New York tells him that he needs a New York license as well.

Issue:
Does the Federal Government have the power over the state governments to regulate interstate commerce? Does having a federal license mean that Gibbons does not need individual state licenses to operate?

Argument for Plaintiff:

- States regulating commerce would give an unfair advantage to people from the regulating state.
- The Supremacy Clause would give Gibbons's federal license more power than a state license.
- The Commerce Clause of the US Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate trade between states.

Argument for the Defendant:
- The Tenth Amendment states that powers not given to the federal government will be reserved to the states.
- The license given to Gibbons gave him permission to transport goods, but Gibbons used his ships to transport passengers, so Congress should not be able to regulate this movement.
- There are many areas where national and state governments have concurrent powers, such as levying taxes. Therefore, both state and federal government should be able to set their own regulations on commerce.

Decision and Effects
- The court ruled in favor of Gibbons, mainly based on the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution
- Set a legal precedent concerning powers given to the government by the commerce clause of the Constitution.