Landmark Supreme Court Cases Questions and Answers Flashcards

In Engel v. Vitale (1962), the Supreme Court ruled that a New York school board's nondenominational prayer was unconstitutional. Which constitutional provision was the PRIMARY basis for this ruling?

Answer: The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment

The Court ruled 6-1 that even a nondenominational, voluntary school prayer violated the Establishment Clause, which prohibits government from sponsoring or endorsing religious activity. The Free Exercise Clause protects individuals' right to practice religion, which was not the issue here — the issue was government-sponsored religious activity in public schools.

The Supreme Court's decision in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) established two foundational constitutional principles. Which pair CORRECTLY identifies both?

Answer: Congress has implied powers beyond those explicitly listed; federal institutions are immune from state taxation

Chief Justice Marshall's opinion established that Congress possesses implied powers under the Necessary and Proper Clause (allowing the Bank of the United States), and that Maryland could not tax the federal bank because 'the power to tax involves the power to destroy.' The other options either misstate the ruling or describe principles from different cases.

In Korematsu v. United States (1944), the Court upheld Japanese American internment. Decades later, Trump v. Hawaii (2018) formally repudiated Korematsu while upholding a travel ban. What was the Court's stated reason for rejecting Korematsu's continued precedential value?

Answer: The Korematsu decision rested on race-based distinctions that have no place in constitutional law

Chief Justice Roberts wrote in Trump v. Hawaii that Korematsu was 'gravely wrong the day it was decided' because it upheld race-based exclusion — something incompatible with the Constitution's equal protection principles. The Court did not invalidate it on mootness or narrow wartime grounds; it repudiated the core reasoning that racial classifications could be justified by military necessity.

Which aspect of Miranda v. Arizona (1966) is most commonly misunderstood in its actual legal effect?

Answer: Failure to give Miranda warnings makes a confession automatically inadmissible in all court proceedings

A common misconception is that un-Mirandized statements are always inadmissible everywhere. In reality, such statements may still be used for impeachment purposes if the defendant testifies inconsistently (Harris v. New York, 1971), and Miranda warnings are only required before custodial interrogation — not upon arrest itself. The automatic inadmissibility claim overstates the ruling's scope.

In Marbury v. Madison (1803), Chief Justice Marshall avoided a direct confrontation with President Jefferson while still establishing a sweeping constitutional principle. How did he accomplish this?

Answer: He ruled that Marbury had a legal right to his commission but that the Court lacked jurisdiction to issue the writ, thereby voiding Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789

Marshall's genius was finding that Marbury was legally entitled to his commission, which criticized Jefferson's actions, while simultaneously ruling the Court had no power to enforce it because Section 13 of the Judiciary Act unconstitutionally expanded original jurisdiction beyond what Article III allows. Jefferson got what he wanted (no writ issued) but Marshall established judicial review — the power to void acts of Congress — as a permanent constitutional doctrine.

The Supreme Court's ruling in Shelby County v. Holder (2013) effectively invalidated a key enforcement mechanism of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Which specific provision did the Court strike down, and on what constitutional basis?

Answer: Section 4(b)'s coverage formula, on the basis that it was no longer rationally related to current conditions and therefore exceeded Congress's enforcement power under the Fifteenth Amendment

The Court struck down Section 4(b), the formula determining which jurisdictions needed federal preclearance before changing voting laws. Chief Justice Roberts held that the formula relied on 40-year-old data and no longer reflected current voting conditions, making it an impermissible burden on states' equal sovereignty. Without Section 4(b), Section 5 preclearance requirements became unenforceable, though Section 5 itself was not formally struck down.