Megan Abendroth and Katrina Moore. Presiding Judge: N/A Plaintiff: John Peter Zenger -newspaper...
-
Upload
joseph-anthony -
Category
Documents
-
view
216 -
download
1
Transcript of Megan Abendroth and Katrina Moore. Presiding Judge: N/A Plaintiff: John Peter Zenger -newspaper...
![Page 1: Megan Abendroth and Katrina Moore. Presiding Judge: N/A Plaintiff: John Peter Zenger -newspaper printer, New York -defended by Andrew Hamilton Defendant:](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062719/56649ebf5503460f94bca5ef/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
SUPREME COURT CASES:
1734-1999Megan Abendroth and Katrina Moore
![Page 2: Megan Abendroth and Katrina Moore. Presiding Judge: N/A Plaintiff: John Peter Zenger -newspaper printer, New York -defended by Andrew Hamilton Defendant:](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062719/56649ebf5503460f94bca5ef/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
ZENGER FREE-PRESS TRAIL: 1734Presiding Judge: N/APlaintiff: John Peter Zenger-newspaper printer, New York-defended by Andrew Hamilton
Defendant: William Cosby-Royal Governor of New York
~Zenger’s newspaper assailed the governor
~Zenger charged with “seditious libel”-“bringing into contempt the government in writing”
Verdict: Not Guilty
![Page 3: Megan Abendroth and Katrina Moore. Presiding Judge: N/A Plaintiff: John Peter Zenger -newspaper printer, New York -defended by Andrew Hamilton Defendant:](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062719/56649ebf5503460f94bca5ef/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
SIGNIFICANCE
~First court case that dealt with the issue of free-press, eventually led to the adoption of the first amendment to the constitution.
![Page 4: Megan Abendroth and Katrina Moore. Presiding Judge: N/A Plaintiff: John Peter Zenger -newspaper printer, New York -defended by Andrew Hamilton Defendant:](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062719/56649ebf5503460f94bca5ef/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
CHISHOLM VS. GEORGIA: 1793
Presiding Judge: John Jay Plaintiff: Heirs of Alexander ChisholmDefendant: State of Georgia
~Georgia wouldn’t give Alexander Chisholm’s heirs their property because they lived in South Carolina
~That Georgia allow all the heirs of Chisholm claim their property even though in residence in South Carolina.
Verdict: In favor of Chisholm heirs. Could sue Georgia for property.
![Page 5: Megan Abendroth and Katrina Moore. Presiding Judge: N/A Plaintiff: John Peter Zenger -newspaper printer, New York -defended by Andrew Hamilton Defendant:](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062719/56649ebf5503460f94bca5ef/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
SIGNIFICANCE
Decision upheld Article III of the Constitution; would later be overturned by the Eleventh Amendment.
![Page 6: Megan Abendroth and Katrina Moore. Presiding Judge: N/A Plaintiff: John Peter Zenger -newspaper printer, New York -defended by Andrew Hamilton Defendant:](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062719/56649ebf5503460f94bca5ef/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
MARBURY VS. MADISON1803
Presiding Judge: Chief Justice John MarshallPlaintiff: William Marbury, appointee to the Justice of Peace in the District of ColumbiaDefendant: James Madison, Secretary of State
~17 appointed under Adams did not receive their commissionsJefferson told Madison not to issue the commissions because he didn’t want opposing members to serve
~Marbury sued Madison claiming the right to his commision, wanted writ of madamus
Verdict: Marbury entitled to commision, ruled Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional therefore the court cannot issue the writ, instituted judicial review
Madison
Marbury
![Page 7: Megan Abendroth and Katrina Moore. Presiding Judge: N/A Plaintiff: John Peter Zenger -newspaper printer, New York -defended by Andrew Hamilton Defendant:](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062719/56649ebf5503460f94bca5ef/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
SIGNIFICANCE
Established Judicial Review and declared Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional. One of the most significant court cases in United States History.
![Page 8: Megan Abendroth and Katrina Moore. Presiding Judge: N/A Plaintiff: John Peter Zenger -newspaper printer, New York -defended by Andrew Hamilton Defendant:](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062719/56649ebf5503460f94bca5ef/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
FLETCHER VS. PECK: 1810Presiding Judge: John Marshall Plaintiff: Robert FletcherDefendant: John Peck
~Peck bought land from Georgia and sold it to Fletcher. Georgia legislature rescinded the sale.
~Fletcher claimed that Peck was guilty of breach of contract.
Verdict: Legislature can repeal the acts of a preceding legislature, but can not invalidate a previously made contract.
![Page 9: Megan Abendroth and Katrina Moore. Presiding Judge: N/A Plaintiff: John Peter Zenger -newspaper printer, New York -defended by Andrew Hamilton Defendant:](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062719/56649ebf5503460f94bca5ef/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
SIGNIFICANCE
State law was found invalid because it conflicted with the Constitution. “From one of the most scandalous episodes in Georgia state history came a major legal decision that ratified the importance both of contracts and of the federal government.”
![Page 10: Megan Abendroth and Katrina Moore. Presiding Judge: N/A Plaintiff: John Peter Zenger -newspaper printer, New York -defended by Andrew Hamilton Defendant:](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062719/56649ebf5503460f94bca5ef/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
DARTMOUTH VS. WOODWARD: 1818Presiding Judge: Chief Justice John Marshall Plaintiff: Dartmouth College-counseled by Daniel WebsterDefendant: State of New Hampshire
~Dartmouth received charter by King George III in 1769; New Hampshire attempted to alter it.
~college claimed that state could not alter previous contracts
Verdict: In favor of Dartmouth
![Page 11: Megan Abendroth and Katrina Moore. Presiding Judge: N/A Plaintiff: John Peter Zenger -newspaper printer, New York -defended by Andrew Hamilton Defendant:](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062719/56649ebf5503460f94bca5ef/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
SIGNIFICANCE
States do not have the right to alter contracts made previous with other persons or corporations. Corporations are protected by the government.
![Page 12: Megan Abendroth and Katrina Moore. Presiding Judge: N/A Plaintiff: John Peter Zenger -newspaper printer, New York -defended by Andrew Hamilton Defendant:](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062719/56649ebf5503460f94bca5ef/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
MCCULLOCH VS. MARYLAND: 1819Presiding Judge: Chief Justice John MarshallPlaintiff: MarylandDefendant: James McCulloch, worked for the Bank but didn’t pay taxes for operating the bank
~McCulloch was part of the Bank which Maryland wanted to shut down, McCulloch refused to pay his taxes and Maryland took him to court
~Appealed to the Supreme Court on writ of error, charged with not complying to state laws
Verdict: settled the meaning of the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution, determined the distribution of powers between the federal government and the states. The specific issues involved were Congress's power to incorporate the Second Bank of the United States and the right of a state to tax an instrument of the federal government
McCulloch
![Page 13: Megan Abendroth and Katrina Moore. Presiding Judge: N/A Plaintiff: John Peter Zenger -newspaper printer, New York -defended by Andrew Hamilton Defendant:](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062719/56649ebf5503460f94bca5ef/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
SIGNIFICANCE
Accepted loose interpretation of the Constitution. Trial between state and federal rights regarding a bank.
![Page 14: Megan Abendroth and Katrina Moore. Presiding Judge: N/A Plaintiff: John Peter Zenger -newspaper printer, New York -defended by Andrew Hamilton Defendant:](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062719/56649ebf5503460f94bca5ef/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
COHENS VS. VIRGINIA: 1821
Presiding Judge: Chief Justice John MarshallPlaintiff: VirginiaDefendants: Phillip and Mendes Cohens
~sold lottery tickets against Virginia law
~appealed for being found guilty
Verdict: in favor of Virginia
![Page 15: Megan Abendroth and Katrina Moore. Presiding Judge: N/A Plaintiff: John Peter Zenger -newspaper printer, New York -defended by Andrew Hamilton Defendant:](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062719/56649ebf5503460f94bca5ef/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
SIGNIFICANCE
Asserted power of Supreme Court and federal law over state laws.
![Page 16: Megan Abendroth and Katrina Moore. Presiding Judge: N/A Plaintiff: John Peter Zenger -newspaper printer, New York -defended by Andrew Hamilton Defendant:](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062719/56649ebf5503460f94bca5ef/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
GIBBONS VS. OGDEN: 1824Presiding Judge: Chief Justice John Marshall Plaintiff: Thomas Gibbons-owned steamboat service between New Jersey and New York-defended by Daniel WebsterDefendant: Aaron Ogden-steamboat operator under legal monopoly
~Ogden’s right to commerce was issued by the state, and Gibbons’ was issued by Congress. Ogden believed that his monopoly should stand and Gibbons’ should be forced to stop traveling there.
~Ogden’s monopoly should stand, and he should receive control
Verdict: In favor of Gibbons
![Page 17: Megan Abendroth and Katrina Moore. Presiding Judge: N/A Plaintiff: John Peter Zenger -newspaper printer, New York -defended by Andrew Hamilton Defendant:](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062719/56649ebf5503460f94bca5ef/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
SIGNIFICANCE
~Congress controls interstate commerce
![Page 18: Megan Abendroth and Katrina Moore. Presiding Judge: N/A Plaintiff: John Peter Zenger -newspaper printer, New York -defended by Andrew Hamilton Defendant:](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062719/56649ebf5503460f94bca5ef/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
CHARLES RIVER BRIDGE VS. WARREN BRIDGE: 1837Presiding Judge: Chief Justice Roger B. TaneyPlaintiff: Charles River BridgeDefendant: Warren Bridge
~Charles River Bridge held an exclusive charter to operate a toll bridge, Massachusetts gave a charter to Warren Bridge as well
~Charles River charged that Massachusetts violated the Contract Clause of the Constitution
Verdict: Sided with Warren Bridge
![Page 19: Megan Abendroth and Katrina Moore. Presiding Judge: N/A Plaintiff: John Peter Zenger -newspaper printer, New York -defended by Andrew Hamilton Defendant:](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062719/56649ebf5503460f94bca5ef/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
SIGNIFICANCE
~“In the past, the Court had usually defined the Contract Clause broadly, defending the interests of corporations. In Charles River Bridge, however, the Court ruled that a state charter did not grant a company any implicit rights; the exact terms of the contract had to be stated. In a larger sense, the Court also recognized that at times a state's power to promote the public welfare outweighed the rights of a corporation.”
![Page 20: Megan Abendroth and Katrina Moore. Presiding Judge: N/A Plaintiff: John Peter Zenger -newspaper printer, New York -defended by Andrew Hamilton Defendant:](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062719/56649ebf5503460f94bca5ef/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
DRED SCOTT VS. SANFORD: 1857Presiding Judge: Chief Justice Roger B. Taney Plaintiff: Dred Scott-slave moved into the NorthDefendant: Irene Emerson/John Sanford-owner of Scott and brother who took over her affairs
~Scott asked to be allowed to work for money in order to buy his freedom when the family moved to Illinois. Emerson refused.
~Scott sued Emerson for “false imprisonment”
Verdict: In favor of Emerson/Sanford
![Page 21: Megan Abendroth and Katrina Moore. Presiding Judge: N/A Plaintiff: John Peter Zenger -newspaper printer, New York -defended by Andrew Hamilton Defendant:](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062719/56649ebf5503460f94bca5ef/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
SIGNIFICANCE
Taney ruled that blacks are not considered citizens and do not have the rights and privileges allotted to United States citizens. This was a devastating blow to all abolitionists.
![Page 22: Megan Abendroth and Katrina Moore. Presiding Judge: N/A Plaintiff: John Peter Zenger -newspaper printer, New York -defended by Andrew Hamilton Defendant:](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062719/56649ebf5503460f94bca5ef/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
EX PARTE MILLIGAN: 1866Presiding Judge: Salmon Portland ChasePlaintiff: Lambdin MilliganDefendant: United States
~Military charged Milligan with treason and conspiracy.
~Said military court couldn’t charge Milligan.
Verdict: The trial of Milligan on charges of treason and conspiracy, was found to be illegal because it was conducted by a military court.
![Page 23: Megan Abendroth and Katrina Moore. Presiding Judge: N/A Plaintiff: John Peter Zenger -newspaper printer, New York -defended by Andrew Hamilton Defendant:](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062719/56649ebf5503460f94bca5ef/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
SIGNIFICANCE
Ruling upheld trial by jury.
![Page 24: Megan Abendroth and Katrina Moore. Presiding Judge: N/A Plaintiff: John Peter Zenger -newspaper printer, New York -defended by Andrew Hamilton Defendant:](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062719/56649ebf5503460f94bca5ef/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
MINOR VS. HAPPERSETT: 1874Presiding Judge: Joseph P. Bradley Plaintiff: Virginia Minor (with husband)Defendant: Reese Happersett
~right to vote, women’s right to vote
~constitutional rights were violated when Happersett wouldn’t register her to vote
Verdict: 14th amendment did not give Virginia the right to vote even though she was a citizen
![Page 25: Megan Abendroth and Katrina Moore. Presiding Judge: N/A Plaintiff: John Peter Zenger -newspaper printer, New York -defended by Andrew Hamilton Defendant:](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062719/56649ebf5503460f94bca5ef/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
SIGNIFICANCE
Declined to grant woman’s right to protection under the 14th amendment.
![Page 26: Megan Abendroth and Katrina Moore. Presiding Judge: N/A Plaintiff: John Peter Zenger -newspaper printer, New York -defended by Andrew Hamilton Defendant:](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062719/56649ebf5503460f94bca5ef/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
WABASH CASE: 1886Presiding Judge: N/A Plaintiff: Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railroad CompanyDefendant: Illinois
~an Illinois law prohibited long- and short-haul clauses in transportation contracts
~Wabash claimed this law was unconstitutional
Verdict: In favor of Wabash
![Page 27: Megan Abendroth and Katrina Moore. Presiding Judge: N/A Plaintiff: John Peter Zenger -newspaper printer, New York -defended by Andrew Hamilton Defendant:](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062719/56649ebf5503460f94bca5ef/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
SIGNIFICANCE
Denied states the right to regulate interstate commerce, power only given to Congress
![Page 28: Megan Abendroth and Katrina Moore. Presiding Judge: N/A Plaintiff: John Peter Zenger -newspaper printer, New York -defended by Andrew Hamilton Defendant:](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062719/56649ebf5503460f94bca5ef/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
US VS. EC KNIGHT COMPANY: 1895Presiding Judge: N/APlaintiff: United StatesDefendant: E.C. Knight Company
~E.C. Knight Company was a sugar company that had a trust with other sugar companies
~United States claimed the E.C. Knight was in violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act
Verdict: in favor of E.C. Knight – Sherman Act did not apply to manufacturing
![Page 29: Megan Abendroth and Katrina Moore. Presiding Judge: N/A Plaintiff: John Peter Zenger -newspaper printer, New York -defended by Andrew Hamilton Defendant:](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062719/56649ebf5503460f94bca5ef/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
SIGNIFICANCE
~The decision severely weakened the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890, the federal government's first attempt to limit the power of industrial monopolies
![Page 30: Megan Abendroth and Katrina Moore. Presiding Judge: N/A Plaintiff: John Peter Zenger -newspaper printer, New York -defended by Andrew Hamilton Defendant:](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062719/56649ebf5503460f94bca5ef/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
PLESSY VS. FERGUSON:1896Presiding Judge: Henry Billings BrownPlaintiff: Homer A. PlessyDefendant: J. H. Ferguson, New Orleans Criminal District Court Judge
~about black rights
~Louisiana’s law violated Plessy’s rights to equal protection under the law
Verdict: in favor of Ferguson, “separate but equal”
![Page 31: Megan Abendroth and Katrina Moore. Presiding Judge: N/A Plaintiff: John Peter Zenger -newspaper printer, New York -defended by Andrew Hamilton Defendant:](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062719/56649ebf5503460f94bca5ef/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
SIGNIFICANCE
Sanctioned discriminatory state legislature. Wouldn’t be overruled until Brown vs. Board.
![Page 32: Megan Abendroth and Katrina Moore. Presiding Judge: N/A Plaintiff: John Peter Zenger -newspaper printer, New York -defended by Andrew Hamilton Defendant:](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062719/56649ebf5503460f94bca5ef/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
US VS. WONG KIM ARK: 1898
Presiding Judge: David Josiah BrewerPlaintiff: United StatesDefendant: Wong Kim Ark
~about citizenship
~that US court was wrong in affirming the citizenship of Wong Kim Ark
Verdict: in favor of Wong Kim Ark
![Page 33: Megan Abendroth and Katrina Moore. Presiding Judge: N/A Plaintiff: John Peter Zenger -newspaper printer, New York -defended by Andrew Hamilton Defendant:](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062719/56649ebf5503460f94bca5ef/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
SIGNIFICANCE
This was the first case in which the Court interpreted Section I of the Fourteenth Amendment, in which all persons born in the United States are defined as citizens.
![Page 34: Megan Abendroth and Katrina Moore. Presiding Judge: N/A Plaintiff: John Peter Zenger -newspaper printer, New York -defended by Andrew Hamilton Defendant:](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062719/56649ebf5503460f94bca5ef/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
NORTHERN SECURITIES CASE: 1904Presiding Judge: Edward D. White Plaintiff: Northern Securities Company-railroad companyDefendant: United States
~United states thought Northern Securities was a conspiracy in restraint of trade under the Sherman Anti-Trust Law
~United States was wrong
Verdict: in favor of U.S. – Northern securities violated Sherman Anti-Trust Law
![Page 35: Megan Abendroth and Katrina Moore. Presiding Judge: N/A Plaintiff: John Peter Zenger -newspaper printer, New York -defended by Andrew Hamilton Defendant:](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062719/56649ebf5503460f94bca5ef/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
SIGNIFICANCE
Ended further railroad trusts
![Page 36: Megan Abendroth and Katrina Moore. Presiding Judge: N/A Plaintiff: John Peter Zenger -newspaper printer, New York -defended by Andrew Hamilton Defendant:](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062719/56649ebf5503460f94bca5ef/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
LOCHNER VS. NEW YORK:1905Presiding Judge: David Joseph BrewerPlaintiff: Joseph LochnerDefendant: People of the State of New York
~about labor
~Lochner said he did not violate the New York Bakeshop Act because it was an unreasonable exercise of police power
Verdict: overruled the New York Bakeshop Act
![Page 37: Megan Abendroth and Katrina Moore. Presiding Judge: N/A Plaintiff: John Peter Zenger -newspaper printer, New York -defended by Andrew Hamilton Defendant:](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062719/56649ebf5503460f94bca5ef/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
SIGNIFICANCE
Was one of the most controversial decisions in Supreme Court history. Postponed protective legislation for women.
![Page 38: Megan Abendroth and Katrina Moore. Presiding Judge: N/A Plaintiff: John Peter Zenger -newspaper printer, New York -defended by Andrew Hamilton Defendant:](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062719/56649ebf5503460f94bca5ef/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
LOEWE VS. LAWLER: 1908Presiding Judge: Chief Justice Fuller Plaintiff: Deitrich Loewe Defendant: Martin Lawler
~labor boycott of the D, E. Loewe & Company
~claimed it to be a conspiracy
Verdict: in favor of Loewe
![Page 39: Megan Abendroth and Katrina Moore. Presiding Judge: N/A Plaintiff: John Peter Zenger -newspaper printer, New York -defended by Andrew Hamilton Defendant:](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062719/56649ebf5503460f94bca5ef/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
SIGNIFICANCE
Stuck to the Sherman Antitrust Act.
![Page 40: Megan Abendroth and Katrina Moore. Presiding Judge: N/A Plaintiff: John Peter Zenger -newspaper printer, New York -defended by Andrew Hamilton Defendant:](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062719/56649ebf5503460f94bca5ef/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
MULLER VS. OREGON: 1908Presiding Judge: Edward D. White Plaintiff: Curt MullerDefendant: State of Oregon
~In 1903, Oregon made a law stated the maximum hours women were allowed to work
~Maximum hour law is unconstitutional
Verdict: In favor of Oregon – law is constitutional
![Page 41: Megan Abendroth and Katrina Moore. Presiding Judge: N/A Plaintiff: John Peter Zenger -newspaper printer, New York -defended by Andrew Hamilton Defendant:](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062719/56649ebf5503460f94bca5ef/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
SIGNIFICANCE
By stating that women were special and had different minimum wage and working hours furthered segregation in the workplace based on sex.
![Page 42: Megan Abendroth and Katrina Moore. Presiding Judge: N/A Plaintiff: John Peter Zenger -newspaper printer, New York -defended by Andrew Hamilton Defendant:](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062719/56649ebf5503460f94bca5ef/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
DEBBS VS. US:1919
Presiding Judge: N/APlaintiff: Eugene DebbsDefendant: United States
~The U.S. passed the Espionage Act of 1917. Debbs was arrested for conspiring against the enlistment of soldiers in the army and navy
~Debbs claimed the Espionage Act denied his free speech as granted by the first amendment
Verdict: in favor of U.S.
![Page 43: Megan Abendroth and Katrina Moore. Presiding Judge: N/A Plaintiff: John Peter Zenger -newspaper printer, New York -defended by Andrew Hamilton Defendant:](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062719/56649ebf5503460f94bca5ef/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
SIGNIFICANCE
Gave the United States the right to suspend its own constitutional amendments in a time of war
![Page 44: Megan Abendroth and Katrina Moore. Presiding Judge: N/A Plaintiff: John Peter Zenger -newspaper printer, New York -defended by Andrew Hamilton Defendant:](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062719/56649ebf5503460f94bca5ef/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
SCHENCK VS US:1919Presiding Judge: N/A Plaintiff: Charles SchenckDefendant: United States
~The U.S. passed the Espionage Act of 1917. Schenck was arrested for conspiring to print leaflets hampering the enlistment of soldiers
~Schenck claimed the Espionage Act denied his free speech
Verdict: in favor of U.S.
![Page 45: Megan Abendroth and Katrina Moore. Presiding Judge: N/A Plaintiff: John Peter Zenger -newspaper printer, New York -defended by Andrew Hamilton Defendant:](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062719/56649ebf5503460f94bca5ef/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
SIGNIFICANCE
Gave the United States the right to suspend its own constitutional amendments in a time of war
![Page 46: Megan Abendroth and Katrina Moore. Presiding Judge: N/A Plaintiff: John Peter Zenger -newspaper printer, New York -defended by Andrew Hamilton Defendant:](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062719/56649ebf5503460f94bca5ef/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
SACCO-VANZETTI: 1921
Presiding Judge: Webster Thayer Plaintiff: Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti
~during the Red Scare, arrested for murder and robbery
~guilty of robbery and murder
Verdict: guilty
![Page 47: Megan Abendroth and Katrina Moore. Presiding Judge: N/A Plaintiff: John Peter Zenger -newspaper printer, New York -defended by Andrew Hamilton Defendant:](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062719/56649ebf5503460f94bca5ef/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
SIGNIFICANCE
Sacco and Vanzetti were arrested and found guilty even though they might not have been guilty, but because they were immigrants.
![Page 48: Megan Abendroth and Katrina Moore. Presiding Judge: N/A Plaintiff: John Peter Zenger -newspaper printer, New York -defended by Andrew Hamilton Defendant:](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062719/56649ebf5503460f94bca5ef/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
ADKINS VS. CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL: 1923Presiding Judge: Pierce ButlerPlaintiff: Jesse C. Adkins, et al; Minimum Wage Board of District of ColumbiaDefendant: Children’s Hospital of District of Columbia
~about minimum wage for women and children
~ Adkins said that US Congress did not have the power to set minimum wage for women and/or children
Verdict: Minimum wage laws unconstitutional for women because they interfered with liberty granted in the 5th and 14th amendments
![Page 49: Megan Abendroth and Katrina Moore. Presiding Judge: N/A Plaintiff: John Peter Zenger -newspaper printer, New York -defended by Andrew Hamilton Defendant:](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062719/56649ebf5503460f94bca5ef/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
SIGNIFICANCE
Ruled that Congress did not have the power to set a minimum wage for women as a special group. Stopped efforts to equalize pay between men and women.
![Page 50: Megan Abendroth and Katrina Moore. Presiding Judge: N/A Plaintiff: John Peter Zenger -newspaper printer, New York -defended by Andrew Hamilton Defendant:](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062719/56649ebf5503460f94bca5ef/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
JOHN SCOPES/”MONKEY TRIAL”: 1925
Presiding Judge: John T. Raulston Plaintiff: State of TennesseeDefendant: John Scopes
~whether or not evolution should be taught in the school system
~Charged Scopes because he taught evolution
Verdict: Guilty, but neither side won
![Page 51: Megan Abendroth and Katrina Moore. Presiding Judge: N/A Plaintiff: John Peter Zenger -newspaper printer, New York -defended by Andrew Hamilton Defendant:](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062719/56649ebf5503460f94bca5ef/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
SIGNIFICANCE
Replaced religion with scientific in American thought. Brought fundamentalism into public education. Stripped William Jennings Bryan of his dignity as a key American figure.
![Page 52: Megan Abendroth and Katrina Moore. Presiding Judge: N/A Plaintiff: John Peter Zenger -newspaper printer, New York -defended by Andrew Hamilton Defendant:](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062719/56649ebf5503460f94bca5ef/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
SCHECHTER “SICK-CHICKEN” CASE: 1935Presiding Judge: N/A Plaintiff: Schechter Poultry CorporationDefendant: United States
~Passed in 1933, the National Industrial Recovery Act held a code of fair business
~Schechter claimed that the Act did not affect his business because it did not have the force of law
Verdict: in favor of Schechter – National Industrial Recovery Act is unconstitutional
![Page 53: Megan Abendroth and Katrina Moore. Presiding Judge: N/A Plaintiff: John Peter Zenger -newspaper printer, New York -defended by Andrew Hamilton Defendant:](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062719/56649ebf5503460f94bca5ef/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
SIGNIFICANCE
The decision overturned the major effort of the first administration of Franklin Roosevelt to regulate and control the economy during the Great Depression
![Page 54: Megan Abendroth and Katrina Moore. Presiding Judge: N/A Plaintiff: John Peter Zenger -newspaper printer, New York -defended by Andrew Hamilton Defendant:](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062719/56649ebf5503460f94bca5ef/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
US VS. BUTLER:1936Presiding Judge: N/APlaintiff: ButlerDefendant: United States
~Congress enacted the Agricultural Adjustment Act in the New Deal era to stabilize farm prices.
~AAA was unconstitutional
Verdict: in favor of Butler
![Page 55: Megan Abendroth and Katrina Moore. Presiding Judge: N/A Plaintiff: John Peter Zenger -newspaper printer, New York -defended by Andrew Hamilton Defendant:](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062719/56649ebf5503460f94bca5ef/html5/thumbnails/55.jpg)
SIGNIFICANCE
Congress does not have the ability to use tax dollars to pay in a field reserved for states.
![Page 56: Megan Abendroth and Katrina Moore. Presiding Judge: N/A Plaintiff: John Peter Zenger -newspaper printer, New York -defended by Andrew Hamilton Defendant:](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062719/56649ebf5503460f94bca5ef/html5/thumbnails/56.jpg)
KOREMATSU VS. US:1944Presiding Judge: Hugo BlackPlaintiff: Toyosaburo KorematsuDefendant: United States
~about Japanese American internment camps
~military orders that sent Japanese Americans to internment camps during WW2 were not justified by military necessity
Verdict: Military orders were upheld as valid exercise of war powers
![Page 57: Megan Abendroth and Katrina Moore. Presiding Judge: N/A Plaintiff: John Peter Zenger -newspaper printer, New York -defended by Andrew Hamilton Defendant:](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062719/56649ebf5503460f94bca5ef/html5/thumbnails/57.jpg)
SIGNIFICANCE
Korematsu is the only case in Supreme Court history in which the Court, using a strict test for possible racial discrimination, upheld a restriction on civil liberties.
![Page 58: Megan Abendroth and Katrina Moore. Presiding Judge: N/A Plaintiff: John Peter Zenger -newspaper printer, New York -defended by Andrew Hamilton Defendant:](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062719/56649ebf5503460f94bca5ef/html5/thumbnails/58.jpg)
BROWN VS. BOARD OF EDUCATION: 1954Presiding Judge: Earl Warren Plaintiff: Linda Brown-black studentDefendant: Board of Education at Sumner School in Topeka-all-white school
~Brown applied to the Sumner School and was rejected
~Brown sued Board claiming that they violated the Fourteenth amendment
Verdict: In favor of Brown
![Page 59: Megan Abendroth and Katrina Moore. Presiding Judge: N/A Plaintiff: John Peter Zenger -newspaper printer, New York -defended by Andrew Hamilton Defendant:](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062719/56649ebf5503460f94bca5ef/html5/thumbnails/59.jpg)
SIGNIFICANCE
~Reversed Plessy Vs. Ferguson. Claimed that “separate but equal” facilities were unconstitutional. Major step towards integration.
![Page 60: Megan Abendroth and Katrina Moore. Presiding Judge: N/A Plaintiff: John Peter Zenger -newspaper printer, New York -defended by Andrew Hamilton Defendant:](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062719/56649ebf5503460f94bca5ef/html5/thumbnails/60.jpg)
GIDEON VS. WAINWRIGHT: 1963Presiding Judge: Earl WarrenPlaintiff: Clarence Earl GideonDefendant: Louie L. Wainwright
~Gideon had been tried without a lawyer
~he had a sixth amendment right to legal counsel
Verdict: in favor of Gideon – given a court-appointed lawyer
![Page 61: Megan Abendroth and Katrina Moore. Presiding Judge: N/A Plaintiff: John Peter Zenger -newspaper printer, New York -defended by Andrew Hamilton Defendant:](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062719/56649ebf5503460f94bca5ef/html5/thumbnails/61.jpg)
SIGNIFICANCE
Because of the ruling in this case, all indigent felony defendants--like many others charged with misdemeanors--have a right to court-appointed attorneys.
![Page 62: Megan Abendroth and Katrina Moore. Presiding Judge: N/A Plaintiff: John Peter Zenger -newspaper printer, New York -defended by Andrew Hamilton Defendant:](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062719/56649ebf5503460f94bca5ef/html5/thumbnails/62.jpg)
GRISWOLD VS. CONNECTICUT: 1964
Presiding Judge: Earl Warren Plaintiff: Charles Lee Buxton and Estelle T. GriswoldDefendant: State of Connecticut
~Connecticut had a law banning contraceptives with married couples
~Connecticut’s birth-control laws were unconstitutional
Verdict: in favor of Griswold – struck down contraceptive laws
![Page 63: Megan Abendroth and Katrina Moore. Presiding Judge: N/A Plaintiff: John Peter Zenger -newspaper printer, New York -defended by Andrew Hamilton Defendant:](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062719/56649ebf5503460f94bca5ef/html5/thumbnails/63.jpg)
SIGNIFICANCE
Articulated the constitutions “right to privacy” clause – led to abortion debate in Roe vs. Wade
![Page 64: Megan Abendroth and Katrina Moore. Presiding Judge: N/A Plaintiff: John Peter Zenger -newspaper printer, New York -defended by Andrew Hamilton Defendant:](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062719/56649ebf5503460f94bca5ef/html5/thumbnails/64.jpg)
MIRANDA VS. ARIZONA: 1966Presiding Judge: Earl Warren Plaintiff: Ernesto Miranda-Mexican immigrant, charged with rape and kidnappingDefendant: the state of Arizona
~when Miranda was charged with the rape and kidnapping, he was not informed of his fifth and sixth amendment rights and incriminated himself.
~the police did not do their job by not reading Miranda his rights when he was arrested
Verdict: in favor of Miranda
![Page 65: Megan Abendroth and Katrina Moore. Presiding Judge: N/A Plaintiff: John Peter Zenger -newspaper printer, New York -defended by Andrew Hamilton Defendant:](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062719/56649ebf5503460f94bca5ef/html5/thumbnails/65.jpg)
SIGNIFICANCE
All felons or suspected felons have the right to be read their fifth and sixth amendment rights (the right to be silent and use an attorney) when they are arrested.
![Page 66: Megan Abendroth and Katrina Moore. Presiding Judge: N/A Plaintiff: John Peter Zenger -newspaper printer, New York -defended by Andrew Hamilton Defendant:](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062719/56649ebf5503460f94bca5ef/html5/thumbnails/66.jpg)
FRONTIERO VS. RICHARDSON: 1973Presiding Judge: Warren E. BurgerPlaintiff: Sharron A. Frontiero, Joseph FrontieroDefendant: Elliot L. Richardson, Secretary of Defense, et al.
~military criteria and liberties
~said that different requirements for having a male spouse is a violation to the 5th amendment
Verdict:The federal statutes violated the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause and were overturned.
![Page 67: Megan Abendroth and Katrina Moore. Presiding Judge: N/A Plaintiff: John Peter Zenger -newspaper printer, New York -defended by Andrew Hamilton Defendant:](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062719/56649ebf5503460f94bca5ef/html5/thumbnails/67.jpg)
SIGNIFICANCE
Broke down male dominance barriers.
![Page 68: Megan Abendroth and Katrina Moore. Presiding Judge: N/A Plaintiff: John Peter Zenger -newspaper printer, New York -defended by Andrew Hamilton Defendant:](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062719/56649ebf5503460f94bca5ef/html5/thumbnails/68.jpg)
ROE VS. WADE:1973Presiding Judge: Warren Burger Plaintiff: Norma McCorvey - “Jane Roe”-pregnant women, wanted an abortionDefendant: Henry B. Wade-District Attorney of Dallas Texas
~ Roe wanted to have an abortion, but Texas abortion law made it a felony to abort a fetus
~Texas abortion law is unconstitutional by violating the 14th amendment right to equal protection and personal liberty
Verdict: In favor of Roe-Texas abortion law is unconstitutional
![Page 69: Megan Abendroth and Katrina Moore. Presiding Judge: N/A Plaintiff: John Peter Zenger -newspaper printer, New York -defended by Andrew Hamilton Defendant:](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062719/56649ebf5503460f94bca5ef/html5/thumbnails/69.jpg)
SIGNIFICANCE
Major step towards women’s abortion rights. Very controversial decision that is still debated today.
![Page 70: Megan Abendroth and Katrina Moore. Presiding Judge: N/A Plaintiff: John Peter Zenger -newspaper printer, New York -defended by Andrew Hamilton Defendant:](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062719/56649ebf5503460f94bca5ef/html5/thumbnails/70.jpg)
MILLIKEN VS. BRADLEY: 1974
Presiding Judge: Chief Justice BurgerPlaintiff: Milliken, Governor of MichiganDefendant: Bradley
~desegregation of busing
~against segregation of busing
Verdict: segregation is unconstitutional in schools
![Page 71: Megan Abendroth and Katrina Moore. Presiding Judge: N/A Plaintiff: John Peter Zenger -newspaper printer, New York -defended by Andrew Hamilton Defendant:](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062719/56649ebf5503460f94bca5ef/html5/thumbnails/71.jpg)
SIGNIFICANCE
Was a continuation of Brown vs. Board of Education. Reversed “separate but equal”. Declared segregation in schools was unconstitutional.
![Page 72: Megan Abendroth and Katrina Moore. Presiding Judge: N/A Plaintiff: John Peter Zenger -newspaper printer, New York -defended by Andrew Hamilton Defendant:](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062719/56649ebf5503460f94bca5ef/html5/thumbnails/72.jpg)
US VS. NIXON: 1974Presiding Judge: Warren Burger Plaintiff: Richard NixonDefendant: The United States of America
~After the Watergate break-in in the democratic convention center, Nixon denied any knowledge of the situation. During the hearings, it was discovered that Nixon had tape recordings of his conversations in the Oval Office concerning the Watergate break-in. Nixon denied releasing these tapes during the prosecution.
~Nixon must release the tapes as was claimed by the subpoena
Verdict: Nixon must release the tapes
![Page 73: Megan Abendroth and Katrina Moore. Presiding Judge: N/A Plaintiff: John Peter Zenger -newspaper printer, New York -defended by Andrew Hamilton Defendant:](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062719/56649ebf5503460f94bca5ef/html5/thumbnails/73.jpg)
SIGNIFICANCE
“The President is not immune from judicial process, and must turn over evidence subpoenaed by the courts. The doctrine of executive privilege entitles the president to a high degree of confidentiality if the evidence involves matters of national security or other sensitive information, but the President cannot withhold evidence.”
![Page 74: Megan Abendroth and Katrina Moore. Presiding Judge: N/A Plaintiff: John Peter Zenger -newspaper printer, New York -defended by Andrew Hamilton Defendant:](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062719/56649ebf5503460f94bca5ef/html5/thumbnails/74.jpg)
BAKKE CASE: 1978
Presiding Judge: Warren E. BurgerPlaintiff: The Medical School of the University of CaliforniaDefendant: Allan Bakke
~about differentiating treatment between minorities and others
~ special admissions program for minorities was an error
Verdict: said that school’s special admissions program was unconstitutional
![Page 75: Megan Abendroth and Katrina Moore. Presiding Judge: N/A Plaintiff: John Peter Zenger -newspaper printer, New York -defended by Andrew Hamilton Defendant:](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062719/56649ebf5503460f94bca5ef/html5/thumbnails/75.jpg)
SIGNIFICANCE
First time Supreme Court said there could be reverse discrimination.
![Page 76: Megan Abendroth and Katrina Moore. Presiding Judge: N/A Plaintiff: John Peter Zenger -newspaper printer, New York -defended by Andrew Hamilton Defendant:](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062719/56649ebf5503460f94bca5ef/html5/thumbnails/76.jpg)
WEBSTER VS. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES: 1989Presiding Judge: Thurgood Marshall Plaintiff: William L. Webster, Attorney General of Missouri, et al.Defendant :Reproductive Health Services, et al.
~about women’s rights, abortion
~that they were wrong in overturning restrictions on abortion
Verdict: upheld right to access abortion
![Page 77: Megan Abendroth and Katrina Moore. Presiding Judge: N/A Plaintiff: John Peter Zenger -newspaper printer, New York -defended by Andrew Hamilton Defendant:](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062719/56649ebf5503460f94bca5ef/html5/thumbnails/77.jpg)
SIGNIFICANCE
Would later be brought up again in Roe vs. Wade.
![Page 78: Megan Abendroth and Katrina Moore. Presiding Judge: N/A Plaintiff: John Peter Zenger -newspaper printer, New York -defended by Andrew Hamilton Defendant:](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062719/56649ebf5503460f94bca5ef/html5/thumbnails/78.jpg)
PLANNED PARENTHOOD VS. CASEY: 1992Presiding Judge: William Rehnquist Plaintiff: Planned Parenthood Defendant: Robert P. Casey-governor of Pennsylvania
~in 1988 and 1989, Pennsylvania added amendments to the abortion law
~amendments were unconstitutional
Verdict: in favor of both – law was constitutional in part and unconstitutional in part
![Page 79: Megan Abendroth and Katrina Moore. Presiding Judge: N/A Plaintiff: John Peter Zenger -newspaper printer, New York -defended by Andrew Hamilton Defendant:](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062719/56649ebf5503460f94bca5ef/html5/thumbnails/79.jpg)
SIGNIFICANCE
“It resolved a national dispute over abortion by upholding the essentials of Roe v. Wade while permitting Pennsylvania to regulate abortions as long as the state did not place an undue burden on women.”
![Page 80: Megan Abendroth and Katrina Moore. Presiding Judge: N/A Plaintiff: John Peter Zenger -newspaper printer, New York -defended by Andrew Hamilton Defendant:](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062719/56649ebf5503460f94bca5ef/html5/thumbnails/80.jpg)
CLINTON IMPEACHMENT: 1999Presiding Judge: Rehnquist Plaintiff: Bill ClintonDefendant: United States
~Clinton was accused of committing adultery with a young intern, Monica Lewinsky, but denied it under oath. It was later released that he did, indeed, have an affair with her.
~perjury
Verdict: not guilty
![Page 81: Megan Abendroth and Katrina Moore. Presiding Judge: N/A Plaintiff: John Peter Zenger -newspaper printer, New York -defended by Andrew Hamilton Defendant:](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062719/56649ebf5503460f94bca5ef/html5/thumbnails/81.jpg)
SIGNIFICANCE
Led the Senate to discuss the constitutionality of the impeachment rules and voted.