-
Dred Scott v. Sanford
Was Dred Scott free or a slave?
Dred Scott had been a slave in Missouri before moving to Illinois to escape slavery because it was a free state. When Scott returned to Missouri he took this case to the Supreme Court was ruled against. He was ruled against because a slave was property and not a citizen which did not give him the right to go to court. He was also still a slave because moving to a free state did not render him free. -
Plessy v. Ferguson
Does the Separate Car Act violate the Fourteenth Amendment? Plessy was arrested for sitting on a whites-only train car because of the Separate Car Act. He took this case to the United States Supreme Court to see if this act violated the 14th Amendment The Supreme Court ruled that the act was Constitutional because the cars may be separate but as long as the two cars are equal it is Constitutional. -
Korematsu v. United States
Did the President and Congress go beyond their war powers by implementing exclusion and restricting the rights of Americans of Japanese descent?
This question was brought to the Supreme Court after Executive Order 9066. Korematsu did not attend the camps produced by Executive Order 9066 and was arrested. He brought it to the Supreme Court because he thought this violated his 5th Amendment rights. The Court ruled in favor of the United States because they wanted to protect the US from invasion. -
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka
Does the segregation of public education based solely on race violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
The Supreme Court ruled that racially separated schools may be equal but there is still a sense of inferiority and that it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. So, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of Brown. -
Mapp v. Ohio
Were the confiscated materials protected from seizure by the Fourth Amendment?
Mapp was convicted of having obscene material in her house, but it was found by an illegal search and seizure. The Supreme Court ruled in Mapp's favor because any evidence that is found illegally is not admissible in court. -
Gideon v. Wainwright
Does the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel in criminal cases extend to felony defendants in state courts?
Gideon was charged with breaking and entering in the state of Florida. He did not have a lawyer to defend him in court, so he asked for one to be provided. They denied him this right and he was sentenced to five years of jail. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of Gideon because the 6th Amendment requires that the criminal be appointed an attorney if they can not afford one. -
Miranda v. Arizona
Does the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination extend to the police interrogation of a suspect? The Miranda v. Arizona case was not just one instance of violation. This was brought to the Supreme Court based on violating the 5th Amendment. When Miranda was interrogated he wasn't informed of his rights, which would not require Miranda to answer. The jury ruled in Miranda's favor requiring that these rights be told to the accused. -
Brandenburg v. Ohio
Did Ohio's criminal syndicalism law, prohibiting public speech that advocates various illegal activities, violate Brandenburg's right to free speech as protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments?
Brandenburg was convicted for speaking as a leader at a Ku Klux Klan meeting. He brought this to the Supreme Court on the fact that his 1st Amendment right was violated by the law. The Supreme Court ruled in Brandenburg's favor because the Ohio law was too broad. -
Roe v. Wade
Does the Constitution recognize a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy by abortion? Jane Roe filed a lawsuit against Henry Wad because she was not allowed to get an abortion because of Texas law. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Roe because the 14th Amendment protects the right to abortion. -
United States v. Nixon
Is the President's right to safeguard certain information, using his "executive privilege" confidentiality power, entirely immune from judicial review?
President Nixon recorded tapes of conversations and thought that he did not have to release them during the Watergate Scandal to keep confidentiality. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that he is not protected from the subpoena and had to release the tapes.