APUSH Cases

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

The Issue: 

Did William Marbury have a legal right to his judicial commission?

Could the Supreme Court compel the delivery of a judicial commission under the Judiciary Act of 1789?

Context: 

In the final hours of his presidency, John Adams appointed Federalist judges, including William Marbury. By the time Jefferson took office, not all of the judicial commissions had been delivered. Jefferson's Secretary of State, James Madison, refused to deliver Marbury's commission, which caused Marbury to sue in order to receive the commission. 

Arguments:

Plaintiff Argument (Marbury): Marbury argued he had a legal right to the commission and asked the Supreme Court to force Madison to deliver it with a writ of mandamus, as it was allowed by the Judiciary Act of 1789.

Defendant Argument (Madison/Jefferson Administration): They claimed the appointment was incomplete and that the Court had no authority to intervene with the commission delivery. 

Supreme Court Ruling: 

The Supreme Court ruled 4-0 (unanimous, 2 judges recused themselves). It established that it did not have the authority to grant Marbury his commission because part of the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional. 

Summary: 

Chief Justice John Marshall declared that while Marbury had a right to his commission, the Court could not issue a writ of mandamus to force Madison to deliver it. This is because the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutionally expanded the Court’s powers beyond those listed in the Constitution. This marked the first time the Court declared a law unconstitutional, also known as judicial review. 

Effects: 

Short term: Marbury did not get his judicial commission, and Jefferson's administration avoided a direct challenge. The decision limited the Court's power at the moment. 

Long term: The case established the principle of judicial review, which gave the Supreme Court the authority to declare laws that Congress passed unconstitutional, fundamentally shaping the role of the judiciary and ensuring a balance of power among the branches.

Worcester v. Georgia (1832)

The Issue: 

Did Georgia have the authority to impose its laws on Cherokee lands?

Context: 

The case arose over missionary Samuel Worcester being arrested for living on Cherokee lands without a Georgia state license. In addition, Georgia had also enacted laws to remove white missionaries who supported Cherokee resistance to being relocated. Worcester argued that the state laws violated federal treaties as well as Native sovereignty.

Arguments:

Plaintiff Argument (Worcester):  Argued Georgia's laws are unconstitutional as they infringe on Cherokee sovereignty and violate treaties between the U.S. government as well as Native American Tribes.

Defendant Argument (State of Georgia): Georgia argued that their state had the authority to enforce state laws within borders, including Cherokee lands, claiming State sovereignty over all lands within their borders.

Supreme Court Ruling: 

The ruling was 5-1 and was in favor of Worcester, as the Supreme Court stated Georgia's law doesn't have the ability to enforce these laws within Cherokee territory and said that federal treaties had overruled these state laws.

Summary: 

The Supreme Court, given their support for the plaintiff, affirmed that Native American nations were distinct political communities and that states could not impose their laws on local tribes. Chief Justice John Marshall declared that only the federal government had power over Native American affairs.

Effects: 

Short term: Despite the ruling, President Andrew Jackson refused to honor this ruling and continued to remove Natives.

Long term: The decision established a legal precedent within the autonomy of Native American Tribes. However, the lack of enforcement weakened the impact and eventually led to the Trail of Tears.

Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)

The Issue: 

Was Dred Scott, an enslaved man who had lived in free territories,  entitled to his freedom? 

Were African Americans considered citizens under the Constitution?

Context: 

Dred Scott was enslaved in Missouri but lived in the Illinois and Wisconsin territories for several years, both of which were free areas. After he returned to Missouri, he sued and argued that since he spent time in free land, that made him free. 

Arguments: 

Plaintiff Argument (Dred Scott):  He argued that since he lived in free territories, he was a free man and he should be recognized as a free man under US law. 

Defendant Argument (Sandford): They argued that Scott was property and not a citizen, and property rights were protected under the Constitution, regardless of where the property was taken. 

Supreme Court Ruling: 

The court ruled 7-2 against Dred Scott, deciding that enslaved people and their descendants, were not US citizens and therefore had no right to sue in federal court. This also  declared the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional. 

Summary:

Chief Justice Roger B. Taney wrote that African Americans, whether free or enslaved, were not US citizens. The court also ruled that Congress had no authority to ban slavery in US territories, which made the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional. 

Effects: 

Short term: The decision created greater divisions over slavery, which angered abolitionists, it denied citizenship to African Americans, reinforced the role of slavery in society, and strengthened the Republican Party (this party was against slavery). 

Long term: This decision was a key factor that pushed the nation toward the Civil War,  reinforced the belief that African Americans were not citizens, and was directly overturned by the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. 

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

The Issue: 

Did racial segregation laws for public facilities violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment?

Context: 

After Reconstruction, Southern states passed Jim Crow laws that mandated racial segregation. The plaintiff Homer Plessy, who was 7/8 white and 1/8 black, was arrested for sitting in a whites only car. 

Arguments:

Plaintiff Argument (Plessy): He argued that the segregation law violated the 13th and 14th Amendments because it allowed racial inequality and reinforced the idea that Black people were inferior. 

Defendant Argument (Ferguson): Argued that the law treated both races equally, since it provided the same but separate accommodations and resources to African Americans and whites, and they did not imply that African Americans were inferior. 

Supreme Court Ruling: 

The court ruled 7-1 that racial segregation was constitutional under the "separate but equal doctrine."

Summary: 

The court ruled that as long as facilities were "equal," then racial segregation did not violate the Constitution. Furthermore, Justice Henry Billings Brown argued that the Constitution is "color blind" in legal terms, but segregation was public policy, and it did not imply racial inferiority. 

Effects: 

Short term: This legalized segregation in the South, which led to widespread enforcement of Jim Crow laws in public spaces. This decision reinforced the ideology of white supremacy, and this ruling made it significantly more difficult to challenge segregation laws in court since they were ruled constitutional. 

Long term: This decision solidified the racial inequality in America. The "separate but equal" doctrine remained law until it was overturned by Brown v. Board of Education. 

Brown v. Board of Education (1954) 

Issue: 

Did segregated public schools for African American and white students violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment? 

Context: 

In the 1950s, many states passed segregation legislation that prohibited African American and white children from attending the same schools. Brown v. Board of Education was a collection of cases that challenged school segregation. An example would be Linda Brown, an African American child, who unable to attend a white school just a few blocks from her house in Topeka, Kansas. Previously, the case of Plessy v. Ferguson and the "separate but equal doctrine" set the precedent for this case. 

Arguments: 

Plaintiff Argument (Brown and NAACP): The plaintiffs contend that segregated public schools are not "equal" and cannot be made "equal," and that hence they are deprived of the equal protection of the laws, violating the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. 

Defendant Argument (Board of Education): The Board of Education in Topeka, Kansas, and similar boards in other cases contended that segregated schools were legitimate, invoking the "separate but equal" theory established in Plessy v. Ferguson. They claimed that the Fourteenth Amendment, which ensures equal treatment under the law, did not prohibit segregation as long as facilities were equal. 

Supreme Court Ruling: 

The court ruled 9-0 (unanimous) and declared that state sponsored segregation in public schools is unconstitutional. This overturned the "separate but equal" doctrine established by Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), mandating school desegregation throughout the United States. 

Summary:

Chief Justice Earl Warren ruled that in the decision of Brown v. Board of Education,  the "separate but equal" doctrine was unlawful. Even though the "separate but equal" doctrine was established, he wrote that separate facilities are still unequal. The famous Brown v. Board decision was the LDF's (Legal Defense Fund) most celebrated victory in civil rights activism, and it marked a turning point in American history.

Effects

Short term: In the immediate aftermath of the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education verdict, there was the legal end of segregation in public schools and the start of the Civil Rights Movement. Furthermore, even though it ended racial segregation in public schools, Southern states pushed back, and overall enforcement was slow. 

Long term: The ruling paved the way for future initiatives to promote equitable educational opportunities for all children, notably the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). 

Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 

The Issue: 

Does the 5th Amendment's protection against self incrimination also apply when you are in police custody?

Should suspects be informed of their rights before they get interrogated?

Context: 

The petitioner, Ernesto Miranda, was arrested in 1963 in Phoenix, Arizona. Throughout his interrogation, the police did not inform him about his right to remain silent or his right to have an attorney present, so Miranda confessed to his crimes. His confession was later used as evidence in court, leading to his conviction. Afterwards, Miranda's lawyer filed an appeal, arguing that the confession should have been excluded as evidence since he had not been made aware of his constitutional rights. 

Arguments:

Plaintiff Argument (Ernesto Miranda): he argued that him not informed about his 5th Amendment right against self incrimination, and his 6th amendment right to counsel during the police interrogation. His attorney (Alvin Moore) said that his confessions were involuntary because of the lack of warnings.

Defendant Argument (Arizona): They argued that they didn't violate Miranda's constitutional rights by not providing him with the rights to remain silent and to have an attorney present during the interrogation. They also argued that Miranda's confession was voluntary and permitted because he did not specifically request an attorney. 

Supreme Court Ruling: 

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 and said that the police must inform the suspects of their constitutional rights before any sort of interrogation, including the right to remain silent and to have an attorney. This established what we now know as Miranda Rights. 

Summary: 

Chief Justice Earl Warren established that the individuals in police custody must be informed of their 5th and 6th Amendment rights before being interrogated. This decision made it so that it would protect against self incrimination and guarantee the right to counsel. It was also established that without these warnings, any confession could be deemed inadmissible in court. 

Effects: 

Short term: Miranda's conviction was overturned.

Long term: This decision made the "Miranda warning" a standard part of the police procedures, as police had to provide suspects with specific warnings before questioning them. This ruling overall strengthened the protections of suspects under the 5th and 6th Amendments.