Flashcards and Answers – Supreme Court Cases

Congress passed the new law, the Judiciary Act in 1801, granting John Adams who was nearing the end of his presidency the ability to fill the court with judges sharing his Federalist views.

-Act of Congress void -Marbury appointed a justice of peace - Refused Marbury's Commision. -President John Adams named forty-two justices of the peace and sixteen new court justices for the District of Columbia

Does the Jefferson administration have the right to declare John Adam's court appointees that have not taken office null and void? In a 4-0 decision, the Supreme Court decided Marbury had a right to his commission.

With Adams about to lose his post as president, he appointed many judges that fit his political view, in doing so, Marbury lost his position and took to court how this was not lawful in order to regain his post that was wrongfully taken from him.

First U.S. Supreme Court case to apply the principle of \"judicial review\" (the power of federal courts to void acts of Congress in conflict with the Constitution). Meant that federal courts could interpret the constitution which seems as an excess of self given power and state court's power were lessened because the constitution were the ultimate rules of the land.

After the Treaty of Paris ended the American Revolution, Georgia claimed a 35-million acre region later known as the \"Yazoo Lands\". In 1795, the Georgia legislature split the land into 4 parts and sold them for a total of half a million dollars. The legislature approved this land act, however it was later revealed that Yazoo Land Act had been approved for bribes. After the scandal became public, the voters rejected most of the incumbents in the next election and repealed the law and voided the transaction.

Supreme Court held that a state law was unconstitutional 2. public grants were contractual obligations that could not be abrogated without fair compensation

The Supreme Court, in a 4-1 decision written by Chief Justice John Marshall, ruled that Georgia had violated the Contract Clause of the Constitution when it repealed the grants.

The Court reasoned that Peck was an innocent third party who had entered into two valid contracts: first when he paid for the land from the original grantee, and second when he sold the land to Fletcher. Peck thus fell outside the original fraud the Georgia legislature sought to undo in its repeal.

It was the first case in which the Supreme Court ruled a state law unconstitutional, the decision also helped create a growing precedent for the sanctity of legal contracts, and hinted that Native Americans did not hold title to their own lands. It Protected property rights throughout reading of Constitution.

The Panic of 1819 was the first great financial panic which went back to the war of 1812. The first bank of the United States charter expired in 1811. The war of 1812 caused many banks to close and the economy was pressured. The second bank of the United States was chartered in 1816.

In 1816, Congress chartered The Second Bank of the United States. · In 1818, the state of Maryland passed legislation to impose taxes on the bank. · James W. McCulloch refused to pay the tax.

Question: The state of Maryland had attempted to obstruct operation of a branch of the Second Bank of the United States by imposing a tax on all notes of banks not chartered in Maryland. The decision was unanimous (7-0) for McCulloch; Chief Justice Marshall rejected the Maryland argument because he said that the Constitution was the instrument of the people, not the States. The Congress had the power to incorporate the bank and that Maryland could not tax instruments of the national government employed in the execution of constitutional powers.

Marshall reasoned that because the Congress had more power (not explicitly stated in the constitution) that the states could not tax a federal institution employed by the execution of constitutional powers.

One of the first and most important Supreme court cases under federal power that gave Congress the power to create national banks through implied rights. This case defined the powers that the states had and what they could and couldn't do.

Relatively new nation trying to figure out just how much power the state government should have ,New Hampshire attempted to change the Dartmouth college into a state university , perhaps to get profit from it coming

1.1769 England granted a charter to Dartmouth College.The charter set up rules for the School. 2.Then in 1816 the state legislature of New Hampshire passed laws that revised the charter and its rules and regulations. 3. The trustees claimed that the revision was unconstitutional because it \"impaired\" the contract.

Is it considered Constitutional for the state to change the charter of a college? The Supreme Court agreed with Dartmouth, (5-1 margin), and struck down the law stating that the charter was an agreement between the king and the trustees. The agreement was considered valid due to the Constitution's stating the state's inability to pass laws impairing a contract.

1819 In a contract between two private parties, the legislature was not able to interfere. This clarified the term \"contract\" as a contract is transactions INVOLVING individuals' property rights not \"the political relations between the government and its citizens.\"

This decision greatly influenced and encouraged business growth. States cannot pass laws to impair charters, or the obligation of contracts. Without the consent of the corporation, any change submitted by the state power is an unconstitutional manner.

Following the economical collapse called the \"Panic of 1819\" the government passed the bill for a National Lottery, trying to recover the economy.

-authorized the selling of lottery -Signified that the Supreme Court 's had jurisdiction -This Case strengthened the Supreme Court Jurisdiction and in every case

Does the state of Virginia have the right to uphold their law that prohibits the sale of out-of-state lottery tickets even though congress passed a law that creates a national lottery whose tickets can be sold in all the states? The court unanimously ruled that Virginia's law violated state law.

WIth the national lottery in place, the Cohen brothers began to sell the tickets in Virginia, in doing so, Virginia banned and claimed that they could not sell \"out of state\" tickets with a 100$ fine. The Cohen brothers appealed and stated that it was unlawful for the state to make such law since the tickets were national.

Stated that state laws that went against the constitution and federal laws were to be voided. This was seen to be true as constitutional laws were absolute towards all states and federal laws were being applied to all. Finally state laws were seen as personal issues within the states as such should not void laws affecting all states as a whole.

Thomas Johnson bought land from the Piankeshaw Indians in 1773 and 1775. The plaintiffs were the tenants of Johnson's descendants, who had inherited the land. The plaintiffs brought an action for ejectment against M'Intosh in the United States District for the District of Illinois, contending that their chain of title was superior by virtue of Johnson's purchases. The District Court dismissed the claim on the grounds that the Piankeshaw were not able to convey the land.

1.Two non-Native American groups claimed title to land in Illinois 2. Johnson inherited a tract of land from his father, who bought the land from the Piankeshaw Indians 3.M'Intosh was later granted title from the United States government. Johnson and M'Intosh filed an action for ejectment.

The Court upheld McIntosh's claim and affirmed the lower court's decision denying U.S. recognition of land title purchased from Indian tribes by individuals.

Marshall reasoned that Indians' \"rights to complete sovereignty, as independent nations, were necessarily diminished.\" As a result of the European discovery and conquest of America, the U.S. government had \"extinguished\" absolute Indian title in land.

It established that aboriginal title to the land was recognized by the federal government. Only the Federal government could acquire the land from native Americans.

The McCulloch v. Maryland cases verdict defined the state and federal powers. The Fletcher v Peck court case was the first case for the federal government to rule a state law unconstitutional.

1) Marshall developed a clear definition of the word commerce, which included navigation on interstate waterways. 2) A New York state law gave to individuals the exclusive right to operate steamboats on waters within state jurisdiction. 3) Interstate commerce between New York and New Jersey

Question: Gibbons sued Ogden on the basis that the State of New York granted a license for the operation of a steamboat to carry passengers from the State of New Jersey to the ports of New York City. It was a unanimous decision for Gibbons (7-0); the Court concluded that New York's licensing requirement for out-of-state operators was inconsistent with a congressional act regulating the coasting trade. They also concluded that regulation of navigation by steamboat operators and others for purposes of conducting interstate commerce was a power reserved to and exercised by the Congress and that the national government had exclusive power over interstate commerce, negating state laws interfering with the exercise of that power.

He concluded that regulation of navigation by steamboat operators and others for purposes of conducting interstate commerce was a power reserved to and exercised by the Congress. In a concurring opinion, Justice William Johnson argued a much stronger position that the national government had exclusive power over interstate commerce, negating state laws interfering with the exercise of that power.

This case changed the relationship between federal and state governments because it established a line of power between the two, where federal can interfere (override) with states laws. Allowing the federal government to have a say in interstate commerce.

America kept expanding west, largely due to the expansion of slavery,Southern slave states wanted to increase their territory to get more plantations to get more economic opportunities. So natives were constantly being moved from their territories.

1.The Cherokee Nation wanted a federal Injunction against laws passed by the state of Georgia 2. The laws deprived the Cherokee Nation of basic human rights within their own tribal boundaries. 3.The Supreme Court did not hear the case because the Cherokee Nation was its own nation within United States.

Was the Cherokee nation viewed as a foreign state in terms of the Constitution? The court overruled the state's desire to expand into Cherokee territory. Sympathizing with the Cherokees, the court viewed them as a dependent entity within a larger nation.

A \"foreign state\" in the constitution is not the same context as what the Cherokee Nation is. The Cherokees are a state, and have been treated so since the settlement of the United States. \"The acts of our Government plainly recognise the Cherokee Nation as a State, and the Courts are bound by those acts.\"

The Federal Government recognizes the Cherokee Nation as a state rather than a foreign state. The Federal Government's decision normally outweighs the decision of the state.

1.vacated the conviction of Samuel Worcester 2.Georgia criminal statute that prohibited non-Native Americans from being present on Native American lands without a license from the state was unconstitutional 3.The court ruled that the individual states had no authority in American Indian affairs.

The ruling in Worcester ordered that Worcester be freed, and Georgia complied after several months

He argued that the United States, in the character of the federal government, inherited the rights of Great Britain as they were held by that nation. Those rights, he stated, include the sole right to deal with the Indian nations in North America, to the exclusion of any other European power. This did not include the rights of possession to their land or political dominion over their laws.

ave federal rights and protection to Native Americans against state action. Proves that the Federal Government,s, had authority over Indian Affairs, and other domestic disputes.

The immigration of people in the city caused expansion in Baltimore. As well, the city was expanding in industrial factories.

John Barron was co-owner of a profitable dock in the harbor of Baltimore. As the city developed and expanded, large amounts of sand accumulated in the harbor, depriving Barron of the deep waters which had been the key to his successful business. He sued the city to recover a portion of his financial losses.

Question: Mr. John Barron in Barron v. Baltimore said that the government's use of eminent domain was a direct violation of the 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution. The 5th amendment states that the government must respect, maintain and uphold the legal rights of all American citizens and that the government must retain a person's liberties and human rights. Mr. Barron thought that is was unfair and illegal for the government to mess with his personal property. He thought that he should be repaid for the damages caused to his boats. The city of Baltimore thought that they were in their rights to restrict water supply. They thought that they were allowed to do this because it ultimately helped out the community. There was a unanimous decision for Mayor of Baltimore (7-0) without even hearing the arguments of the City of Baltimore. Limitations on government articulated in the Fifth Amendment were specifically intended to limit the powers of the national government. Supreme Court had no jurisdiction in this case since the Fifth Amendment was not applicable to the states.

Writing for the unanimous Court, Chief Justice Marshall found that the limitations on government articulated in the Fifth Amendment were specifically intended to limit the powers of the national government. Citing the intent of the framers and the development of the Bill of Rights as an exclusive check on the government in Washington D.C., Marshall argued that the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction in this case since the Fifth Amendment was not applicable to the states.

This case is significant in it clarified the restrictions in the Bill of Rights , pertaining to whether applied to states or federal. Since the Fifth Amendment was the key the federal government clarified that the Bill of Rights applies to federal powers and not state powers.