Quotes from U.S. Supreme Court Cases Quiz

Quiz Answer Key and Fun Facts

1. Sandra Day O'Connor, concurring: "But we do not count heads before enforcing the First Amendment"

Answer: McCreary County v. ACLU

McCreary County v. ACLU was a 2005 Supreme Court case involving the display of the Ten Commandments on public property (several courthouses and schools). In a 5-4 decision, the Court decided that the manner of which the Ten Commandments were displayed was unconstitutional. David Souter wrote the majority opinion which laid three reasons for the decision. The most important reason was that the Ten Commandments were displayed in an obvious religious context, not a secular one.

However, the most famous opinion from this case is Sandra Day O'Connor's concurrence where she further explained her views. In response to Antonin Scalia's dissenting opinion, O'Connor noted that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment is reliant on how many people hold a certain viewpoint. Scalia had argued the display was constitutional because the vast majority of religious people believe in the Ten Commandments. O'Connor argued infamously that "we do not count heads before enforcing the First Amendment" and noted that as times change so do religions. What might be popular in one place at one time may not last forever.

2. Roger Taney, in the majority: "We think that they are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word "citizens" in the Constitution."

Answer: Dred Scott v. Sandford

Dred Scott v. Sandford is perhaps one of the most infamous Supreme Court cases in U.S. history. It is widely regarded as one of the worst decisions issued by the Court. In his majority opinion, Roger Taney concluded that blacks living in the U.S. were not citizens and could not be citizens because they were not considered such at the time of the writing of the Constitution. Thus, Dred Scott could not sue for his freedom as he was not a U.S. citizen and was considered property. Furthermore, Taney declared the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional.

This decisions was overturned by the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments.

3. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, dissenting: "In a decision of startling breadth, the Court holds that commercial enterprises, including corporations... can opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs."

Answer: Burwell v. Hobby Lobby

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby was a 2014 case that ruled that closely held corporations could opt out of the contraception mandate of the Affordable Care Act because of their First Amendment rights to freedom of religion. The majority (opinion written by Samuel Alito) noted that this was not the least restrictive means accomplish the government's goal of increasing access to affordable birth control for women.

The most opinion in the case is the dissent of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She and three other justices argued that the majority extended religious rights to corporations and potentially created a slippery slope. She wrote that the majority opened the door to challenges of any law on religious grounds, no matter how flimsy the claim may be. It was this dissent that gave rise to Ginsburg's nickname Notorious RBG.

4. Antonin Scalia, dissenting: "One would think that Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage. Ask the nearest hippie."

Answer: Obergefell v. Hodges

Obergefell v. Hodges was a 2015 Supreme Court cases that struck down same-sex marriage bans across the U.S. The majority opinion - written by Anthony Kennedy - relied largely on past precedent in other landmark marriage cases such as Loving v. Virginia. Kennedy also wrote in response to opponents of same-sex marriage who claimed same-sex marriage would denigrate the institution. Kennedy laid out several reasons why this was not true.

Antonin Scalia wrote a dissent that appeared to be in response to Kennedy's claim about same-sex marriage not denigrating traditional marriage. Scalia's dissent was widely criticized as lacking any constitutional or legal insight and was more of an angry rant than anything else. Scalia claimed, among other things, that the idea that marriage was strengthen intimacy between two people was unfounded and not a reason to extend marriage rights. Among his other questionable claims that gained attention was that California was not a true western state.

5. Harry Blackman, in the majority: "This right of privacy... is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."

Answer: Roe v. Wade

Roe v. Wade was a 1973 Supreme Court case that struck down state laws banning women from securing an abortion. Blackmun wrote the majority opinion that was largely based on prior court precedents establishing a right to privacy within the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Court established a trimester test for dealing with when regulations could be placed on abortions. This test was replaced with the undue burden test in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992.

6. John Marshall Harlan, dissenting: "The judgment this day rendered will, in time, prove to be quite as pernicious as the decision made by this tribunal in the Dred Scott case."

Answer: Plessy v. Ferguson

Plessy v. Ferguson was an 1896 Supreme Court case that upheld the separate but equal doctrine that was common in many southern states to enforce racial segregation. The case is considered amongst the worst decisions in Supreme Court history.

In a famous dissent written by the lone dissenter John Marshall Harlan opined that this case would be noted as an awful decision years down the line. Indeed this proved to be correct as Plessy v. Ferguson is amongst the Court's most notorious bad decisions. The case was overturned by Brown v. Board of Education in 1954.

7. John Roberts, in the majority: "Korematsu was gravely wrong the day it was decided, has been overruled in the court of history."

Answer: Trump v. Hawaii

Trump v. Hawaii was a 2018 Supreme Court case that upheld the legality of Donald Trump's alleged ban on Muslim entering the U.S. from certain foreign countries. The Court declared that the ban was not a true Muslim ban but was based on the actions of certain countries and did not ban Muslims in general. Roberts responded to Sonia Sotomayor's dissent that his decision was a furthering of the Korematsu decision.

Korematsu v. United States was a controversial Supreme Court case that upheld the legality of Japanese internment during World War II. Roberts declared that his decision was very narrowly based and agreed that Korematsu was wrongly decided. Legal scholars are conflicted as to whether or not Korematsu was officially overturned by Trump v. Hawaii since the two cases dealt with different subject matter and the Court was not asked to overrule or uphold Korematsu in the hearings.

8. Abe Fortas, in the majority: "It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."

Answer: Tinker v. Des Moines

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District was a 1969 Supreme Court case that upheld the First Amendment rights of students in public schools. The case dealt with several students who were suspended for protesting the Vietnam War by wearing black armbands to school. Abe Fortas wrote the majority opinion by noting that there is no age limit or restrictions on the First Amendment and that schools may be an appropriate forum for such controversial discussion.

He also added, however, that students' First Amendment rights are not as absolute as they are outside of schools. Fortas wrote that schools have the right to regulate speech if said speech or expression would interfere with the learning process.

However, he ruled that the black armbands did no such thing.

9. Sonia Sotomayor, dissenting: "It would not matter whether the State intended to use midazolam, or instead to have petitioners drawn and quartered, slowly tortured to death, or actually burned at the stake."

Answer: Glossip v. Gross

Glossip v. Gross was a 2015 Supreme Court case that upheld the constitutionality of the drug midazolam in lethal injection executions. Midazolam had been used in more than one botched execution and the petitioners sued claiming the drug caused undue suffering and violated their right of protection from cruel and unusual punishment. The Court rejected that claim because the petitioners failed to propose an alternate method of execution.

Sonia Sotomayor wrote the main dissent in the case. She claimed the majority abandoned the protections from cruel and unusual punishment in this case. She found it ridiculous that the condemned would have to come up with an alternate method of execution and noted that the lack of availability of the drugs previous used in executions was not a reason to use any old drug the State came up with. Sotomayor then wondered how far a State could go with this precedent. Should midazolam become unavailable, Sotomayor wondered if particularly barbaric methods of execution would suffice if they were the only ones available.

10. John Marshall, in the majority: "A law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."

Answer: Marbury v. Madison

Marbury v. Madison was a landmark Supreme Court case decided in 1803. The Court declared that the it had the power of judicial review, that is to determine whether laws passed by Congress violate the Constitution or not. John Marshall writing for the unanimous court, stated that judicial review was necessary because the Constitution declare all three branches of government equal and each had checks and balances on the other.

The power to strike down unconstitutional laws was the Judicial Branch's check on the other two branches.

Source: Author Joepetz

This quiz was reviewed by FunTrivia editor stedman before going online.
Any errors found in FunTrivia content are routinely corrected through our feedback system.

Questions		Choices
1. Sandra Day O'Connor, concurring: "But we do not count heads before enforcing the First Amendment"		Glossip v. Gross
2. Roger Taney, in the majority: "We think that they are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word "citizens" in the Constitution."		Trump v. Hawaii
3. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, dissenting: "In a decision of startling breadth, the Court holds that commercial enterprises, including corporations... can opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs."		Obergefell v. Hodges
4. Antonin Scalia, dissenting: "One would think that Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage. Ask the nearest hippie."		McCreary County v. ACLU
5. Harry Blackman, in the majority: "This right of privacy... is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."		Roe v. Wade
6. John Marshall Harlan, dissenting: "The judgment this day rendered will, in time, prove to be quite as pernicious as the decision made by this tribunal in the Dred Scott case."		Marbury v. Madison
7. John Roberts, in the majority: "Korematsu was gravely wrong the day it was decided, has been overruled in the court of history."		Plessy v. Ferguson
8. Abe Fortas, in the majority: "It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."		Tinker v. Des Moines
9. Sonia Sotomayor, dissenting: "It would not matter whether the State intended to use midazolam, or instead to have petitioners drawn and quartered, slowly tortured to death, or actually burned at the stake."		Dred Scott v. Sandford
10. John Marshall, in the majority: "A law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."		Burwell v. Hobby Lobby

Match the famous quote from a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision to the case from which it originated.