Landmark Supreme Court Cases Questions and Answers Flashcards

In Engel v. Vitale (1962), the Supreme Court ruled that state-sponsored prayer in public schools violated the Establishment Clause. Which legal doctrine did the Court primarily rely upon that had been incorporated against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment?

Answer: The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment via selective incorporation

The Court ruled that the Establishment Clause — which prohibits government from establishing or endorsing religion — applied to state governments through the doctrine of selective incorporation via the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. This was the constitutional mechanism that made the First Amendment's religion clauses binding on states, not just the federal government.

In Korematsu v. United States (1944), the Supreme Court upheld the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. What was the Court's standard of review applied, and which case later formally repudiated the Korematsu precedent?

Answer: Strict scrutiny; repudiated in Trump v. Hawaii (2018)

The Korematsu Court applied strict scrutiny — noting that racial classifications are 'immediately suspect' — yet still upheld the internment by deferring to military necessity claims. This made it an anomalous case: strict scrutiny applied but not used to strike down the policy. Chief Justice Roberts in Trump v. Hawaii (2018) explicitly stated that Korematsu was gravely wrong the day it was decided and formally overruled it, while ironically upholding the travel ban under rational basis.

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

Answer: Congress has implied powers under the Necessary and Proper Clause; states may not tax federal instrumentalities

Chief Justice Marshall held (1) that the Necessary and Proper Clause grants Congress implied powers beyond its enumerated ones — upholding the constitutionality of the Second Bank of the United States — and (2) that states have no power to tax federal instrumentalities because 'the power to tax involves the power to destroy,' and federal law is supreme under the Supremacy Clause. Maryland's tax on the Bank was therefore unconstitutional.

In Marbury v. Madison (1803), Chief Justice Marshall ruled that Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional. What was the precise constitutional defect Marshall identified?

Answer: Section 13 expanded the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction beyond what Article III permits

Article III of the Constitution specifies the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction — the cases it may hear first without going through lower courts — and that list is exhaustive. Congress cannot expand it by statute. Section 13 purported to grant the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, which is not among the Article III original jurisdiction categories. Marshall used this conflict to assert the power of judicial review: when a statute conflicts with the Constitution, the Court must apply the Constitution.

Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) protected students' symbolic speech rights, but the Court has since carved out exceptions to student speech protections. Which scenario would most likely be governed by Morse v. Frederick (2007) rather than Tinker?

Answer: A student holding a banner reading 'Bong Hits 4 Jesus' at a school-supervised off-campus Olympic torch relay

Morse v. Frederick (2007) addressed a student who displayed a 'Bong Hits 4 Jesus' banner at a school-supervised event across the street from school. The Court held that school officials could suppress speech reasonably interpreted as promoting illegal drug use, even at off-campus but school-supervised events. This created an exception to Tinker's substantial disruption standard for pro-drug speech. Option D describes Bethel School District v. Fraser (1986), and option C implicates Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988).

In United States v. Nixon (1974), the Supreme Court unanimously ruled against President Nixon's claim of absolute executive privilege. What critical limiting principle did the Court articulate that has shaped executive privilege doctrine ever since?

Answer: Executive privilege is a constitutionally grounded but qualified privilege that must yield to a demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a criminal proceeding

Chief Justice Burger, writing for a unanimous Court, acknowledged for the first time that executive privilege has constitutional underpinnings rooted in separation of powers and the need for candid presidential deliberation. However, the Court held it is a qualified, not absolute, privilege. When a privilege claim rests only on a generalized need for confidentiality — rather than military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets — it must yield to a specific demonstrated need for evidence in a pending criminal trial. This balancing framework remains controlling precedent.