Landmark Supreme Court Cases Flashcards

In Marbury v. Madison (1803), Chief Justice John Marshall established judicial review by ruling that Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional. What was the precise constitutional basis Marshall used to invalidate that provision?

Answer: It attempted to grant the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over writs of mandamus, exceeding what Article III permits

Marshall ruled that the Constitution's Article III limits the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction to specific cases (those involving ambassadors and states), and Congress cannot expand that jurisdiction by statute. Section 13's grant of mandamus power to the Supreme Court in original jurisdiction cases contradicted Article III directly, making it void under the Constitution's supremacy over ordinary legislation.

The Supreme Court's decision in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) relied heavily on the Necessary and Proper Clause. Which of the following most accurately describes how Marshall interpreted that clause in relation to federal power?

Answer: Congress may use any means that is convenient and conducive to executing an enumerated power, even if not explicitly listed

Marshall explicitly rejected the narrow 'strictly necessary' reading and adopted a broad construction: if the end (an enumerated power) is legitimate and the means chosen is plainly adapted to that end and not prohibited by the Constitution, Congress may use it. This 'let the end be legitimate' standard greatly expanded implied federal power and rejected Maryland's argument for a strict interpretation.

In Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), Justice John Marshall Harlan wrote a famous lone dissent. Which argument did Harlan make that most directly foreshadowed the reasoning the Court would use 58 years later in Brown v. Board of Education?

Answer: The Constitution is color-blind and enforced separation brands Black citizens with a badge of inferiority, violating equal protection

Harlan argued that the 'thin disguise' of equality did not hide that the law's purpose was to degrade Black citizens and assert white supremacy, making them unequal before the law. This 'badge of inferiority' and stigma argument directly parallels Chief Justice Warren's use of psychological harm and stigmatization evidence (the 'doll studies') in Brown v. Board of Education (1954) to strike down segregation.

In Miranda v. Arizona (1966), the Supreme Court held that suspects must be informed of their rights before custodial interrogation. Which later case held that a Miranda violation does NOT automatically result in exclusion of all evidence derived from the un-Mirandized confession?

Answer: United States v. Patane (2004)

In United States v. Patane (2004), a plurality of the Court held that physical evidence (here, a gun) discovered as a result of a voluntary but un-Mirandized statement need not be suppressed. The Court reasoned that Miranda protects against compelled self-incrimination (testimonial evidence), not against derivative physical evidence — limiting Miranda's fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree reach. Missouri v. Seibert actually restricted a two-step interrogation tactic used to circumvent Miranda.

The Supreme Court's ruling in Engel v. Vitale (1962) struck down state-sponsored prayer in public schools. Which constitutional provision was the PRIMARY basis for this decision, and what doctrine did the Court apply?

Answer: The Establishment Clause; the Court applied the principle that government may not compose or sponsor official prayers regardless of their non-denominational character

The Court rested its decision squarely on the Establishment Clause, holding that the very act of state officials composing and directing an official prayer — even a deliberately bland, non-denominational one — crossed the constitutional line separating government from religion. The Court did not require proof of coercion; state sponsorship of prayer was itself the violation, regardless of whether students could opt out.

In Kelo v. City of New London (2005), the Supreme Court ruled 5–4 that the government could use eminent domain to transfer property from one private party to another for economic development. Which constitutional provision was at the center of the challenge, and what element did the majority say was satisfied despite the transfer being to a private developer?

Answer: The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment; the majority held that economic development constituting a public benefit satisfies the 'public use' requirement

The Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause requires that private property taken by government be for 'public use' and that just compensation be paid. The homeowners argued economic development for a private developer is not 'public use.' The majority, in an opinion by Justice Stevens, deferred to the city's judgment that the development plan served a 'public purpose' (jobs, taxes, revitalization) and held that public purpose is sufficient to satisfy 'public use,' even if the land goes to a private entity.