More Quotes from U.S. Supreme Court Cases Quiz

Answer: Shelby County v. Holder

Shelby County v. Holder is a controversial 2013 Supreme Court case that eliminated the preclearance requirement certain states needed to clear before changing election laws under the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The decision was 5-4. Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion arguing that the formula used to determine which states needed preclearance was decades old and no longer viable. Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a fiery dissenting opinion in which she argued that was not the case as Congress had recently renewed the law and could have changed the formula if it felt it was outdated but chose not to.

The above quote is the most famous line from the three opinions issued in the case. Ginsburg argued that the formula was still clearly working and argued without preclearance, state election laws would change dramatically.

This was, indeed, the case as within five years dozens of states put restriction laws on the books, closed thousands of polling places and generally made it more difficult to vote.

Many of these new laws seemingly targeted minority groups and younger voters who tended to lack the necessary voter I.D.s some states required.

Answer: Snyder v. Phelps

Snyder v. Phelps was a 2011 First Amendment case that came before the Supreme Court. The Phelps Family (often called the most hated family in America) of the Westboro Baptist Church were being sued by the Snyder Family. The Phelpses had picketed the funeral of U.S. Marine Matthew Snyder who died in combat. The Westboro Baptist Church preached that military death during the Iraq War were punishment from God for America accepting homosexuality. The Phelps frequently picketed the funerals of servicemen and women who died in the war as well as famous people. The Snyders sued for emotional damages and won in the lower courts.

However, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that the Phelpses had the First Amendment Right to picket the funeral. Crucially, the Court (in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts) ruled that odious speech is still protected and that the Snyders did not even know about the picketing until they saw it later in the day on the news and not at the funeral at all.

Samuel Alito was the only dissenter. While he stated the First Amendment protects hate speech and other odious things, he felt the Phelpses' speech was too hateful and gross to be protected as it went above and beyond what was necessary to get their point across. In an interview years later, Ruth Bader Ginsburg stated that Alito had written what the other eight justices had felt personally but none felt they could join his opinion judicially.

Answer: Brown v. BOE

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka was a landmark 1954 Supreme Court case that officially ended segregation in public schools. Chief Justice Earl Warren ruled for the unanimous court that separate educational facilities for black children and white children can never be equal even with equal funding and resources (which was almost always never the case).

This decision was controversial in the Deep South. The South attempted to delay integration by using Warren's phrase "with all deliberate speed" against him. Southern governors stalled and said they were moving to end segregation as fast as possible while taking no meaningful steps. The Court had to rule in a different case that the phrase "with all deliberate speed" meant "immediately".

Answer: PICS Case

Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 (often shortened to PICS Case) is a 2007 Supreme Court case that struck down racial integration plans in Seattle and Louisville public schools. Decades after Brown v. Board of Education, many school districts were still struggling to integrate their public schools in a fair and proper manner.

In the PICS Case, a 5-4 majority struck down Seattle and Louisville's public school plan. In a blistering dissent which he read from the bench (an incredibly rare move), the normally quiet Justice Stephen Breyer declared that the majority was seeking to overturn Brown v. Board of Education without actually stating so by getting rid of plan after plan to integrate public schools. He also stated the majority threw into chaos school plans for cities and towns across the country just before the school year began.

Answer: Schenck v. U.S.

Schenck v. U.S. is a 1919 landmark Supreme Court case dealing with the First Amendment. Even though Schenck was convicted for attempting to undermine the World War I draft, the case established a broad view of the First Amendment. Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. wrote the unanimous opinion that determined that Schenck's speech was designed to cause chaos and thus was not protected by the First Amendment.

He declared that in order for speech to not be protected, it must violate the clear and present danger test; that is the speech must be something that would obviously and immediately cause danger or violence.

He famously gave the example of falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater. The clear and present danger test would later be surpassed by the imminent lawless action test.

Answer: Bush v. Gore

Bush v. Gore is a very controversial 2000 Supreme Court decision that essentially ended the 2000 Presidential Election in favor of George W. Bush. The issue at hand involved the method of recounting votes in the state of Florida. The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that the method Florida was using to recount the votes was unconstitutional. The controversial issue was the 5-4 decision that it was too late to even have a recount. The Court ordered Florida to stop recounting, allowing Bush to claim the state's electoral votes which put him over the necessary 270 electoral votes.

There were many opinions issued. One of the dissents was written by John Paul Stevens. Stevens (along with Ruth Bader Ginsburg) dissented in both decisions. He declared the Court was making a political decision, not a legal one, and that the American people were the ultimate losers because the election's legitimacy would always be questioned.

The majority opinion was per curium, meaning the authors' names were not listed on it, only on the dissents. It is widely believed Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion. While only Stevens and Ginsburg's names appear on the 7-2 dissent, David Souter and Stephen Breyer would later claim they dissented in both parts and their names were incorrectly withheld from the dissent by the majority to give the appearance the decision was not political and stronger than it really was.

Answer: Planned Parenthood v. Casey

Planned Parenthood v. Casey was a 1992 Supreme Court case that upheld the right to an abortion as determined in Roe v. Wade. Abortion opponents had hoped Roe would be overturned since the makeup of this court was considerably more conservative than one that decided Roe v. Wade. However, the court refused to do so by a vote of 5-4.

In addition, the court ruled on several abortion restrictions and regulations, some of which were struck down. This led to the court issuing seven different opinions. In a plurality decision, Sandra O'Connor established the undue burden test. O'Connor declared the abortion regulations are unconstitutional if they are not medical necessary and were created with the purpose of interfering with a woman's right to consider an abortion.

Answer: Lawrence v. Texas

Lawrence v. Texas was a 2003 Supreme Court case that struck down bans on same-sex sodomy. The majority opinion was written by Anthony Kennedy who frequently authored gay rights decisions during his tenure. He declared that the fundamental right to privacy was enshrined in the Constitution and that extended to individuals the right to make their own romantic decisions. He also noted the laws violated the Equal Protection Clause because the bans did not apply to consensual opposite-sex relations. One of the justices in the majority was Sandra Day O'Connor which is notable because she had voted to uphold same-sex sodomy bans in a previous case but flipped her decision here.

In a rather humorous dissent, Clarence Thomas said he thought the law was stupid and ridiculed it. However, he declared that he thought it was constitutional but would have repealed it had he been a member of a state legislature.

Answer: Bostock v. Clayton County

Bostock v. Clayton County was a 2020 Supreme Court case that ruled the Civil Rights Act of 1964's ban on sex discrimination in employment extended to sexual orientation and transgender people. In his majority opinion, Justice Gorsuch noted that the Civil Rights Act clearly did not cover sexual orientation but that did not matter since the gender of the employ was still relevant.

He noted that a female employee would not have been fired for marrying a man but, in some places, a male employee could be fired for the same action. Thus the gender of the employee was relevant and related to sexual orientation.

Answer: Rucho v. Common Cause

Rucho v. Common Cause was a 2019 Supreme Court case that ruled that partisan gerrymandering was a political issue and the federal courts had no jurisdiction over the matter. The ruling left in place a Republican gerrymander in North Carolina and a Democratic gerrymander in Maryland.

The decision was widely criticized as the Supreme Court was seen as punting on the issue rather than tackling it. Although the Court still allowed federal lawsuits on gerrymandering based on race and other issues, Justice Elena Kagan in her dissent noted that the majority opinion could lead to widespread issues. She noted that gerrymandering, even for partisan reasons, could be civil rights violations because it could potentially leave millions of voters disenfranchised or otherwise dilute certain groups of voters electoral strength. She also noted that gerrymandered state legislatures could continue to pass laws designed to keep themselves in power against the will of the people. Kagan wrote that in gerrymandered districts, unpopular lawmakers cannot simply be voted out.