Ch.11 Court Cases

1. Dred Scott vs. Sandford

1.1. Dred Scott was an African American slave who was taken with his owners to free states in territories, in which he deemed in appropriate to sue for his freedom.

1.2. The Court held that Scott could not sue because any African American, slave or not, could not be a certified American citizen, in which he could not go before the federal court. This was a very significant decision because it was considered a low-key catalyst to the American Civil War.

2. Gibbons vs. Ogden

2.1. Ogden brought the lawsuit upon Gibbons in hopes of restraining him from navigating his steam ships in the New York waters, since Ogden was already given the privilege to do so. Ogden was granted this request, but Gibbons appealed, claiming that his ships were licensed under an Act of Congress. Gibbons implied that the Act of Congress took precedence over a simple privilege granted by New York state.

2.2. The New York "exclusive privilege" was held invalid under the Constitution's Commerce Clause, which gave Congress the power to control interstate commerce (commerce also meaning navigation).

3. McCulloch vs. Maryland

3.1. Maryland enacted a law that had taxes paid on all bank notes not chartered by the state. McCulloch, of Baltimore, issues these notes disregarding the law. Maryland sued McCulloch for not paying his fees, but McCulloch found it unconstitutional. The state court held for MD, so McCulloch appealed.

3.2. The Court found that Maryland could not force a tax on a bank because it violated the Constitution. This was a significant case because it was forced to create a balance between the federal and state courts.

4. Plessy vs. Ferguson

4.1. Homer Plessy was a man who was 7/8ths Caucasian and 1/8th African American who boarded a train on the "whites only" car. Since he was partial African descent, he was classified as black, therefore seen as violating the Separate Car Act. It went to the extremes of forcing Plessy out of the car and taking him to court.

4.2. Plessy's lawyers argued that these accusations interefered with the Fourteenth Amendment, but it was not enough. They saw that there was no way that the state of Louisiana violated his rights, and that the cars were of equal quality and did not make him inferior to whites. This decision played heavily into the "separate but equal" provision, which followed that segragation was moral and legal as long as the facilities were of equal quality.

5. Brown vs. Board of Education

5.1. This was a suit called upon by African American parents in the Topeka district in 1954, in attempt to diminish the racial segregation policy of the public schools in that district. There were separate elementary schools for blacks and whites at the time, and the black children had to walk a more strenuous extent to their school

5.2. The Court denied the parents' request under the "separate but equal" provision, it being that the black students had equal facilities, transportation, curriculum, etc.as the white students. Their decision was also weighed upon the decision of Plessy vs. Ferguson in 1896, where he was denied the use of a white railway car because he was black and had an equal facility for his race.

6. U.S. vs. E.C. Knight and Co.

6.1. The American Sugar Refining Company took over the E.C. Knight Company and many other companies in 1892, giving them 98% of the sugar industry. President Cleveland insisted that the national government sue the Knight Co. under the Sherman Antitrust Law, which attempted to reduce economic control that decreased competition.

6.2. The Court's ruling rejected the government's accusations, in stating that the actions of the company could not be disciplined under the provisions of that specific law. They also stated that it was an activity that could not be diminished under Congressional regulation.

7. Debs vs. U.S.

7.1. Debs was a political leader who was arrested for giving an anti-war speech in Canton, Ohio that went against America's involvement in WW1. The reason for arrest was that he violated the Espionage Act of 1917.

7.2. After review of his speeches, the Court ruled that Debs was guilty for his actions, since it implied treason in preventing soldiers from being drafted into the war. Debs lawyer argued for his right to free speech, but this landmark case was one of three that "upheld convictions that restricted free speech."

8. Schechter Poultry Corporation vs. U.S.

8.1. The government claimed that Schechter Poultry Co. was selling sick poultry and exceeding maximum work hours. These acts went against provisions in the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933, which followed the requirements regarding the sale of whole chickens, as well as the maximum work hours for union workers.

8.2. The Court's decision sided with the Poultry Co., stating that the law did not establish provisions or standards that regulated and/or evaluated indutrial activity.

9. Lochner vs. New York

9.1. Lochner was a bakery owner that had one of his employees work over sixty hours a week, which violated the Bakeshop Act. He was convicted and fined, but he appealed under the idea that this action violated his right of contract to the Due Process Clause.

9.2. The Court sided with Locher under the terms that the Court was prohibited from interefering with a contract between an employer and employee.

10. Schenck vs. U.S.

10.1. Schenck was a man who mailed out "circulars" to draftees during WW1 that suggested that they protest against the Conscription Act. Schenck was charged with conspiracy under violation of the Espionage Act, since he attempted to diminish recruitment for the war.

10.2. The Court's ruling was against Schenck in that certain words and certain cases cannot take precedence over others. He violated the law, which holds him accountable for his actions.

11. Roe vs. Wade

11.1. Roe was a pregnant single woman in Texas who filed a suit against the Texas abortion laws, which were set out to make the attempt and/or act of abortion a crime unless for a medical purpose.

11.2. The Court held their opinion in favor of Roe, stating that the Texas laws were too vague, and that the act of abortion was a fundamental right under the Constitution.

12. Dartmouth College vs. Woodward

12.1. The legislature of New Hampshire attempted to alter the charter of Dartmouth College in 1816, which converted the school from a private institution to public. Because of this change, the College's corporate property, such as their seal and book of records, was to be striped from them. Dartmouth's trustees disagreed, in which they pursued a case to deem the acts of the legislature unconstitutional.

12.2. In 1819, the Court ruled in favor of Dartmouth College. It being that the charter was a contract between one or more parties, it sided with the section of the Constitution that reads that a state cannot pass laws that impair a contract.

13. Fletcher vs. Peck

13.1. Fletcher was a speculator who bought land from Peck while the Yazoo Land Grant of 1795 was still in act. However, the Act was later found to be affirmed through acts of bribery, which meant that the land was sold through illegal practices. Later, in 1803, Fletcher brought a suit upon Peck for selling him land that did not have a clear title or distinction to it. This so happened to be a case of collusion, which is when a secret agreement is made for an illegal purpose, so he indefinitely had no chance of winning.

13.2. The Court deemed that the repeal of the law was unconstitutional because it interfered with the Constitution's "Contract Clause." Which states that since the sale was a binding contract, it could not be invalidated even though it was done through deceitful technique.

14. Marbury vs. Madison

14.1. William Marbury was a newly appointed Justice of the Peace under the Adams Administration who compiled a petition against the Supreme Court to force James Madison (Secretary of State) to deliver his commission that Madison previously refused to do so.

14.2. This case was the first to establish the exercise of judicial review, which was a landmark in itself. In the end, Chief Justice Marshall found that the actions of Madison were illegal, but the provision was restrained because Marbury's petition was unconstitutional in itself. Marbury's claims went against the Judiciary Act of 1789, since it pushed to extend the Court's original jurisdiction, thus denying Marbury's request to petition.