Transcript an example

Landmark Cases
U.S. Supreme Court
interpretations of the Constitution
and its amendments
Marbury Vs.Madison

Thomas Jefferson, a member of the
Republican Party, won the election of
1800. Before Jefferson took office, John
Adams, the outgoing President who was a
Federalist, quickly appointed 58 members
of his own party to fill government jobs
created by Congress. He did this because
he wanted people from his political party
in office
Marbury Vs.Madison

It was the responsibility
of Adams' Secretary of
State, John Marshall, to
finish the paperwork and
give it to each of the
newly appointed officials.
Although Marshall signed
and sealed all of the
papers, he failed to
deliver 17 of them to the
appointees.
Marbury Vs.Madison

Marshall thought his
successor would finish
the job. But when
Jefferson became
President, he told his new
Secretary of State, James
Madison, not to deliver
some of the papers.
Those individuals couldn't
take office until they
actually had their papers
in hand.
Marbury Vs.Madison

Adams had appointed
William Marbury to be
justice of the peace of
the District of
Columbia. Marbury
was one of the lastminute appointees
who did not receive
his papers.
Marbury Vs.Madison

Marbury argued that he was entitled to the job and that
the Judiciary Act of 1789 gave the Supreme Court of the
United States original jurisdiction to issue a writ of
mandamus, which is the type of court order he needed.
When the case came before the Court, John Marshall —
the person who had failed to deliver the commission in
the first place — was the new Chief Justice. The Court
had to decide whether Marbury was entitled to his job,
and if so, whether the Judiciary Act of 1789 gave the
Court the authority it needed to force the Secretary of
State to appoint Marbury to his position.
Marbury Vs.Madison


"It is emphatically the province and duty
of the judicial department to say what the
law is. Those who apply the rule to
particular cases, must of necessity
expound and interpret that rule. If two
laws conflict with each other, the courts
must decide on the operation of each."
— Chief Justice John Marshall
McCulloch v. Madison

In 1791, the U.S. government created the first
national bank for the country. During this time, a
national bank was controversial because people
had different opinions about what powers the
national government should have. Alexander
Hamilton believed that the national government
had the power to create a new national bank.
Thomas Jefferson believed that the national
government did not have such a power. When
Thomas Jefferson was president, he did not
renew the national bank's charter.
McCulloch v. Maryland

After the War of
1812, President
James Madison
decided that the
country needed a
national bank, and he
asked Congress to
create a Second Bank
of the United States
in 1816
McCulloch v. Maryland

After President Madison
approved the bank, many
branches were opened
throughout the country.
Many states did not want
the new bank branches to
open. There were several
reasons why the states
opposed these national
banks.
McCulloch v. Maryland

Maryland tried closing
down the Baltimore
branch of the national
bank by passing a law
that forced all banks that
were created outside of
the state pay a $15,000
tax each year. James
McCulloch, who worked
at the Baltimore Branch,
refused to pay the tax.
McCulloch v. Maryland

The Supreme Court Reversed the lower
courts and overturned McCulloch's
conviction, holding that establishing a
national bank is within the constitutional
powers of Congress under the "necessary
and proper" clause and Maryland does not
have authority to tax a federal institution.
United States v. Nixon

In 1972, five burglars
were caught breaking
into the Democratic
National Headquarters in
the Watergate Hotel in
Washington, D.C. Among
other activities, the
Democratic National
Headquarters was
responsible for raising
money for and
coordinating campaigns
for Democratic
candidates, including the
presidential candidate.
United States v. Nixon

Media and
government
investigations
discovered that the
burglars were
connected to the
White House, which
at the time was
occupied by President
Richard Nixon, a
Republican.
United States v. Nixon

Congress held hearings on the scandal to investigate
wrongdoing by the president and his aides. During those
hearings, the public discovered that President Nixon had
installed a tape recorder in the Oval Office. These tape
recordings probably had conversations between the
president and his aides that could support some of the
accusations against them. The special prosecutor in
charge of the case wanted to hear these tapes, but
President Nixon did not want to give them up. President
Nixon even had the special prosecutor removed from his
job to stop him from obtaining the tapes. However, the
next special prosecutor also requested them. This time a
federal court judge ruled that the president had to hand
over the tape recordings.
United States v. Nixon

Before the Supreme
Court, Nixon's lawyers
argued that the courts
could not hear the case
because it was a dispute
within the executive
branch over which the
courts had no power or
jurisdiction. They also
argued that the tapes
should be protected by
the president's executive
privilege.
United States v. Nixon

The Department of Justice, representing the
people of the United States argued, however,
that executive privilege was not absolute. In this
case, those normally confidential
communications were very important for a
criminal case. If only the president had the
power to decide when his communications could
be revealed to the public, then he could cover
up information about illegal activities and this
would be dangerous for the legal system and
the rule of law.
United States v. Nixon

In a special session,
the Supreme Court
heard oral arguments
on July 8, 1974. The
case issues: 1) Do the
courts have the
jurisdiction to hear a
case involving a
dispute within the
executive branch?
United States v. Nixon

2) Does the president
have the power of
absolute privilege
and, if so, does his
privilege prevail over
the demands of the
subpoena in this
case?
United States v. Nixon

The Court rules that it
does have jurisdiction
and that the
president's executive
privilege power is not
absolute. Therefore,
the president must
comply with the
subpoena and turn
over the tapes.
Plessy v.Ferguson

In 1890, Louisiana
passed a statute called
the "Separate Car Act".
This law declared that all
rail companies carrying
passengers in Louisiana
had to provide separate
but equal
accommodations for
white and non-white
passengers. The penalty
for sitting in the wrong
compartment was a fine
of $25 or 20 days in jail.
Plessy v.Ferguson

On June 7, 1892, Plessy
purchased a first-class
passage from New
Orleans to Covington,
Louisiana and sat in the
railroad car for "White"
passengers. The railroad
officials knew Plessy was
coming and arrested him
for violating the Separate
Car Act. Well known
advocate for black rights
Albion Tourgee, a white
lawyer, agreed to argue
the case for free.
Plessy v.Ferguson

Plessy argued in court
that the Separate Car Act
violated the Thirteenth
and Fourteenth
Amendments to the
Constitution. The
Thirteenth Amendment
banned slavery and the
Fourteenth Amendment
requires that the
government treat people
equally.
Plessy v.Ferguson

Plessy appealed the case
to the Louisiana State
Supreme Court, which
affirmed the decision that
the Louisiana law was
constitutional. Plessy then
took his case, Plessy v.
Ferguson, to the Supreme
Court of the United
States, the highest court
in the country.
Plessy v.Ferguson

The Court upheld the Louisiana State
Supreme Court's decision and declared
that the "Separate Car Act" was
constitutional as long as there were
separate but equal accommodations for
both whites and blacks.
Brown v. Board of Education

In Topeka, Kansas in the
1950s, schools were
segregated by race. Each
day, Linda Brown and her
sister, Terry Lynn, had to
walk through a
dangerous railroad
switchyard to get to the
bus stop for the ride to
their all-black elementary
school. There was a
school closer to the
Brown's house, but it was
only for white students.
Brown v. Board of Education

Segregation in schools
and other public places
was common throughout
the South and elsewhere.
This segregation based
on race was legal
because of a landmark
Supreme Court case
called Plessy v. Ferguson
Brown v. Board of Education

However, the Brown's
disagreed. Linda Brown
and her family believed
that the segregated
school system did violate
the Constitution. In
particular, they believed
that the system violated
the Fourteenth
Amendment guaranteeing
that people will be
treated equally under the
law.
Brown v. Board of Education

No State shall . . . deny to any person
within its jurisdiction the equal protection
of the laws.
—Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution
Brown v. Board of Education

The federal district court
decided that segregation
in public education was
harmful to black children.
However, the court said
that the all-black schools
were equal to the allwhite schools because
the buildings,
transportation, curricula,
and educational
qualifications of the
teachers were similar;
therefore the segregation
was legal.
Brown v. Board of Education

The Court combined
the Brown's case with
other cases from
South Carolina,
Virginia, and
Delaware. The ruling
in the Brown v. Board
of Education case
came in 1954.
Miranda v. Arizona

Miranda was arrested after a
crime victim identified him in a
police lineup. Miranda was
charged with rape and
kidnapping and interrogated
for two hours while in police
custody. The police officers
questioning him did not inform
him of his Fifth Amendment
right against self-incrimination,
or of his Sixth Amendment
right to the assistance of an
attorney.
Miranda v. Arizona

As a result of the
interrogation, he
confessed in writing to
the crimes with which he
was charged. During his
trial, the prosecution
used his confession to
obtain a conviction, and
he was sentenced to 20
to 30 years in prison on
each count.
Miranda v. Arizona

Miranda's defense attorney
appealed to the Arizona
Supreme Court. His attorney
argued that his confession
should have been excluded
from trial because he had not
been informed of his rights,
nor had an attorney been
present during his
interrogation. The police
officers involved admitted that
they had not given Miranda
any explanation of his rights.