Famous U.S. Supreme Court Cases Quiz

Answer: Marbury v. Madison

There is likely no case in U.S. history more important than Marbury v. Madison. This court decision, handed down only a few years after the country became independent, stands for the principle that federal courts are the ultimate arbiter of constitutionality. The decision was written by Chief Justice John Marshall, who was appointed by President John Adams while serving as Secretary of State. The case started as a dispute about Marbury's commission to serve as a justice of the peace, but Marshall used the opinion to establish judicial review while simultaneously declining to expand the Court's jurisdiction (some scholars refer to this as "genius"!)

The role of today's Supreme Court would not be the same without this decision. The main takeaways are (1) that Congress may not increase the jurisdiction of federal courts beyond what is allowed in the Constitution, and (2) that the Court can review executive and legislative action (the other two branches of government) for their constitutionality. The latter principle is embodied in one of the most famous lines from the case: "it is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is."

Answer: Bank cashier

In the 1800s, the U.S. was still in its early stages and there was uncertainty as to the balance of federal and state powers. McCulloch v. Maryland is a landmark case because its interpretation of the Constitution's Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 (otherwise known as the "necessary and proper clause").

Essentially, the case was born from a disagreement between Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson. Hamilton wanted (and succeeded in persuading President Washington) to create a national bank; Jefferson (and James Madison) believed such bank was unnecessary as the states already had one. McCulloch, a cashier for the Second Bank of the United States in Maryland, was sued by the state after refusing to pay state taxes. In a unanimous decision, the Marshall court held not only that Maryland could not tax the bank, but that the necessary and proper clause gave Congress implied authority to establish a national bank (just like Article I Section 8 also allows it to establish post offices).

Answer: John Marshall Harlan

Plessy v. Ferguson is often regarded as one of the worst Supreme Court decisions of all time. Argued and decided in 1896, the opinion effectively created the "separate but equal" doctrine that permitted states to engage in racial segregation. The case arose when Homer Plessy was arrested in Louisiana for refusing to move from a part of the train reserved for white people. In an opinion written by Justice Henry Brown, the Supreme Court held that Louisiana's law did not violate the 14th Amendment because the actions at issue did not mean that Black people were inferior.

The Court voted 7-1 with Justice Harlan being the only dissenter. Harlan claimed that the Constitution was "color-blind" and that he thought the law was obviously discriminatory. Before being appointed to the Supreme Court by President Hayes, Harlan served as Attorney General of Kentucky.

Answer: Immigration

The law of pre-emption stems in large part from Article VI of the Constitution, and particularly its second clause, known as the Supremacy Clause. Pre-emption can be either express (a statute explicitly states that federal law trumps state law) or implied. Implied pre-emption can be categorized as obstacle pre-emption (interference with a federal objective) or field pre-emption (when a field of law is completely occupied by federal law).

Due to the built-in tension in the Constitution between federal and state powers, pre-emption cases are often interesting sources of legal analysis. Hines v. Davidowitz is commonly cited as an example of field pre-emption. In that case, the Supreme Court held that a Pennsylvania law requiring aliens to register was pre-empted because the field of immigration was already fully occupied by the federal government (indeed, federal law already required alien registration).

Answer: Minimum contacts

A big theme in Constitutional Law cases is the struggle between the powers afforded to the President and their limits. It is important to remember that the Founders were concerned about unlimited and unchecked power, given that they were unhappy with the monarchy that ruled them before.

The Youngstown case took place with the Korean War in the background. President Truman issued an executive order to allow the Secretary of Commerce (Sawyer) to take over the Youngstown steel plant, following a strike. Steel was essential to wartime efforts and a complete shutdown of steel production could've had catastrophic consequences. The Court looked at Article II of the Constitution (which deals with presidential powers) and held in an opinion written by Justice Black that the president did not have inherent power to seize private property.

Black's majority opinion was overshadowed in legal circles by Justice Robert Jackson's concurrence, where he provided a tripartite framework to assess the president's powers granted by the Constitution. In summary, presidential authority is at its maximum when he/she acts pursuant to express or implied authorization, there is a "zone of twilight" when the President acts in the absence of a Congressional grant or denial of authority, and power is at its "lowest ebb" when executive action is incompatible with the express or implied will of Congress.

The term "minimum contacts" is not a Constitutional Law phrase, but it belongs to the study of Civil Procedure. The now-outdated standard for "minimum contacts" (sufficient connection of a defendant with a forum state) was articulated in the famous International Shoe v. Washington case.

Answer: Kansas

Brown v. Board of Education was a pivotal decision in U.S. history. In a unanimous opinion written by Chief Justice Earl Warren, the Supreme Court held that racial segregation in public schools violated the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, which guarantees equal protection of the law to all citizens. The case started when several parents of children who had to study in separate facilities sued the Topeka Board of Education. Lower courts ruled in favor of the Board because they were bound by Supreme Court precedent (particularly the "separate but equal" doctrine created in Plessy v. Ferguson.

The Supreme Court's 9-0 decision argued that by segregating schools, the Board was depriving minority children of equal educational opportunities. Brown is considered a big step in progress in race relations. The decision, however, angered some in the Southern states for many years. One of the most notable expressions of this sentiment was captured in the words of Alabama Governor George Wallace: "segregation now, segregation tomorrow and segregation forever".

Topeka is the capital of the state of Kansas. Notable people that were born in Topeka include Vice President Charles Curtis, actress Fay Tincher, and novelist Linda Spalding.

Answer: Political Question Doctrine

In 1962, one of the most consequential and debated cases in U.S. history was decided by the Supreme Court. At a very basic level, the issue involved Tennessee rural districts being overrepresented while urban districts were underrepresented because the state legislature did not redraw election maps, despite changes in population. In the past, the courts had stayed away from hearing redistricting cases because they were deemed to fall within the Political Question Doctrine (or PQD). A PQD case is one where the Court believes an issue is best left to the political process, and not judicial review.

In a majority opinion written by Justice William Brennan, the Court held that it could protect political rights without becoming a political question, and that equal protection was also at issue. Justice Frankfurter, who had refused to hear similar cases in the past, strongly dissented and argued that the case was non-justiciable; in other words, the issue was best left to the elected legislatures.

Many commentators believe Baker v. Carr greatly politicized the Court. The case was also known to be very contentious: Justice Whittaker, whose vote would have been critical to the outcome of the case, suffered a nervous breakdown in 1962 (many believe it was mainly due to the stress from this case). He recused himself from the decision and resigned from the Supreme Court soon thereafter.

Answer: Engel v. Vitale

Freedom of religion is one of America's most sacred principles, and it is protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution. Within the First Amendment, the Establishment Clause prohibits Congress from establishing a particular religion. This was at the heart of Engel v. Vitale, a case where New York public schools implemented mandatory prayers at the beginning of each day. Engel (a Jewish parent) and others sued Vitale (the school board president) claiming that the prayer requirement violated the First Amendment.

The Supreme Court, in a 6-1 decision written by Justice Hugo Black, held that the school board's actions were unconstitutional. The Court rejected the board's argument that prayer (a religious activity) was non-denominational and students were allowed to leave the room. Justice Stewart was the only dissent. He believed that the Establishment Clause was only meant to separate church from state, not to stop a brief, non-mandatory prayer.

Gideon v. Wainwright established the right to counsel for criminal defendants who can't afford a lawyer. Sweatt v. Painter was a racial segregation case that influenced Brown v. Board. Hawkins v. McGee is a contract law case (hairy hands are involved!)

Answer: Barbecue

In 1964, after the passage of the Civil Rights Act, businesses like Alabama's Ollie's Barbecue sued the government (McClung was the owner; Katzenbach was the Attorney General) claiming that desegregation would hurt their business. Oddly enough, the Court did not use the 14th Amendment (Equal Protection) as the main rationale for their decision. It seemed like the most obvious choice since segregation has long been linked with equal protection issues (and in fact, Justice Douglas pointed this out in his concurrence). Ultimately, the Court decided that Congress could regulate the restaurant's actions (by forbidding discrimination) because those actions had a substantial effect on interstate commerce.

The Commerce Clause, which allows Congress to regulate interstate commerce as one of its enumerated powers in Article I Section 8 of the Constitution, was used by the Court to argue that Ollie's Barbecue was using goods from other states, and that in discriminating, it would be selling less of these interstate goods and hence affecting interstate commerce. Coupled with the Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S. case, Katzenbach v. McClung represented important civil rights milestones propelled by the Court's interpretation of the Commerce Clause.

Answer: Yes

This case was decided in 1980 and it found that the Hyde Amendment was constitutional. Abortion has long been among the most controversial issues in the U.S. In the landmark Roe v. Wade case, the Supreme Court ruled in 1973 that the Fourteenth Amendment granted women a constitutional right to abortion. Three years later, Congress passed the Hyde Amendment, which restricted the use of public funds (Medicaid) for abortion services. Almost immediately after it passed, a group of women and hospitals sued the Secretary of Health and Human Services, claiming that the Hyde Amendment violated their First and Fifth Amendment rights.

By a 5-4 contested vote, the Supreme Court held that the Hyde Amendment did not violate the Constitution because freedom of choice did not include the right to use government funding to get an abortion. The decision was criticized for its negative effect on indigent women who could not afford an abortion procedure.