Court Incidents

The Different Courts

MARSHALL COURT

For Marshall Biography.

Basic Attitudes:
- the first court to have a strong chief Justice
- Marshall really strived to expand and establish the Supreme Court's prestige and federal powers through cases like Marbury v. Madison
- interpreted the Constitution broadly to assert the federal government's power over state rights
- advocate of individual property rights

Landmark Cases:

- Marbury v. Madison (1803) - this case dealt of John Adams' "midnight appointments" right before he left office. More importantly the decision asserted the Supreme Court's right to judicial review. This decision went against prior limitation in the Judiciary Act of 1789. Judicial review allows for the Supreme Court to decide upon the constitutionality of Congress' legislation as a final authority in interpreting the Constitution. This power would play heavily in the Supreme Court's future

- McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) - a case questioning the constitutionality of the Second Bank of the United States since the power to charter a bank is not explicitly granted in the Constitution to Congress. The decision ruled in favor of Congress by citing the charter under the powers granted in the "necessary and proper" clause.

- Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819) - the New Hampshire legislature attempted to change Dartmouth's charter to make it into a state institution. The court ruled that Dartmouth's charter was a contract and therefore couldn't be violated by the state legislature under the Constitution's contract clause ("impairing the obligation of contracts" is prohibited).

- Cohens v. Virginia (1821)-the Cohen brother violated Virginia state laws by selling lottery tickets in D.C., a lottery authorized by a congressional act. The big question was does the Supreme Court have the right to overrule a state supreme court decision? An unanimous decision asserted that the Supreme Court does have the right to review and reverse decisions made by state court dealing with federal laws.

- Gibbens v. Ogden (1824) - a New York state law allowed for a steamboat company to establish a ferry monopoly on the Hudson River. The court decision struck the NY law, stating that Congress had authority over interstate commerce. Again this helped to strengthen federal power.

- Cherokee Nation v. State of Georgia (1813) - The Cherokees cited that Georgian laws against them were invalid since they were a foreign nation. The court ruled in favor of Georgia in that the Cherokees were not a foreign nation but a "domestic dependent nation".

TANEY COURT

For Taney Biography.

Basic Attitudes:
- the era of federal supremacy during the Marshall Court ended
- court was in support of state rights and sovereignty; this became crucial during the time of sectionalism before the Civil War
- court was mainly composed of Southern-sympathizing Democrats who ruled in favor of Southern state rights

Landmark Cases:

- Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857) - Dred Scott, a black slave, hoped to gain his freedom through agreement that he had resided in the free state of Illinois and the free territory of Wisconsin before moving back to the slave state of Missouri. The court ruled against Dred Scott, declaring that all blacks (free or slave) could never become U.S. citizens since the founders of the Constitution never intended for that to happen. They found that the Missouri Compromise of 1820 was unconstitutional since it places restriction on slavery, a guaranteed property right.
"He was bought and sold and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever profit could be made by it." -Taney
The court decision immediately sparked outrage in the North as abolitionists denounced the ruling. This landmark case would be a significant driving force in the Civil War by bringing the moral issue of slavery to national attention.

VINSON COURT

Basic Attitudes:
- under the stability of the 1950s was under-running current of hot conflict over state’s rights, federalism, and civil liberties
- mostly avoided controversial cases on civil rights and reapportionment
- slowly paved the road for the Warren Court to bring down racial inequality

Landmark Cases:

- Shelley v. Kraemer (1948) — a rare unanimous vote by the court to strike down state enforcement of racially restrictive real estate that confined sales to whites. Though the decision was made, no state enforce it and the law became worthless. "The Constitution confers upon no individual the right to demand action by the state which results in the denial of equal protection to other individuals..." —Vinson

- McLaurin v. Oklahoma and Sweatt v. Painter (1950) — unanimous cases that ruled on segregated graduate schools. The court upheld the concept of “separate but equal” but contended that the schools had to provide equal services.

WARREN COURT

Basic Attitudes:
- turbulent times in America including the “Red Scare”, civil rights movement, the Vietnam War, urban riots, and student revolutionary movements
- broaden the interpretation of the 14th Amendment (which restricts certain state actions) to protect individual rights
- advanced civil liberties and civil rights throughout the 1950s and 1960s
- supported the civil rights movement by reversing trespass convictions for those who demonstrated in non-violence marches and upholding the Civil Rights Act
- five main areas of advancement: racial segregation, reapportionment, freedom of expression, criminal justice, privacy rights

Landmark Cases:

Racial Segregation
- Brown v. Board of Education (1954) — unanimous court ruled that racial segregation in public elementary schools was unconstitutional, overturning the concept of separate-but-equal from Plessy v. Ferguson. “Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal." —Warren

Reapportionment
- Baker v. Carr (1962) — the court established the rule of “one man, one vote”, meaning that reapportionment should be based on population. This eliminated the unfair drawing of district lines to give rural an advantage over big cities. The case was also significant in that reapportionment was previously untouched since it trespassed into the political realm.

Freedom of Expression
- Yates v. United States (1957) — the 1st Amendment protected radical and revolutionary speech.
- Engel v. Vitale (1962) — states that required public schools to have prayers or Bible readings violated the First Amendment’s provision for separation of church and state.

Criminal Justice
- Mapp v. Ohio (1961) — evidence that was illegally seized may not be used in court against the defendant.
- Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) — required state courts to provide an attorney in the event that the accused is unable to afford one.
- Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) — concluded that the police must inform a person of his or her right to remain silent upon arrest.
- Miranda v. Arizona (1966) — concluded that the police must inform a person of his or her right to a lawyer during questioning (expanded from Escobedo).

Privacy Rights
- Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) — a state can’t prohibit the use of contraceptives. The court recognized this as a constitutional right of privacy as defined in the Bill of Rights.

BURGER COURT

Basic Attitudes:
- Burger Court represented an end to the liberal Warren Court, as Nixon nominated more conservative justices to replace the retiring justices
- the court still remained active in areas such as privacy rights, due process, and civil rights
- became conservative on issues of criminal justice and voting rights

Landmark Cases:

Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education (1971) — the court ruled for busing in order to eliminate racial segregation in schools

Roe v. Wade (1973) — recognized a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion

U.S. v. Nixon (1974) — the court determined that the president does not have an absolute right to privacy while in office. During the Watergate investigation, Nixon resisted a subpoena directing him to hand over tapes on the account of “executive privilege”. Nixon claimed that the tapes were under these special privileges and beyond judicial jurisdiction. The court ruled 8-0, with Rehnquist abstaining, against Nixon. Three weeks later, Nixon resigned.

REHNQUIST COURT

Basic Attitudes:
- more conservative than its predecessor as a result of Rehnquist being the Chief Justice
- conservative harmony maintained thanks to nominations made by Reagan and Bush Sr.
- the court has since tried to lessen the liberal rulings of the Warren Court in issues like criminal justice and privacy rights

Landmark Cases:

Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1989) — limited the right of a woman to an abortion, thus reversing Roe v. Wade. The 5-4 decision upheld the right of the state to enforce a 24-hour waiting period for abortions.

Bush v. Gore (2000) — the court ruled in favor of Bush and determined that a manual recount in Florida would violate the 14th Amendment. In essence, the decision handed Bush the presidency. The presidential election of 2000 was very close. Gore led in the popular votes as it all came down to Florida’s 25 electoral votes. A partial recount declared Bush the winner, but the Florida Supreme Court ordered a manual recount of the votes soon after. The Republicans then appealed the decision in Bush v. Gore, which they won.

Important Biographies

John Marshall

BIO
- born on the Virginian frontier in a log cabin, the first of fifteen siblings
- had a successful career as a lawyer defending against British creditors
- served in Virginia's House of Delegates
- a supporter for the Constitution to replace the Articles of Confederation
- declined several high position in both the Washington and Adam's administration including attorney general for Washington as Secretary of War for Adams
- short run as a congressman in the House representing Virginia
- after Ellsworth resigned, Adams nominated Marshall in 1804 after John Jay declined offer for chief Justice
- Marshall is related to Thomas Jefferson distantly through his mother; the two often crashed during Jefferson's presidency

IN COURT
- advocate of private property rights
- main force is establishing the prestige and expanding the power of Supreme Court
- a supporter of a strong, central government

Roger Taney

BIO
- born in Calvert County, Maryland on March 17, 1777
- graduated top of class from Dickinson College
- apprentice under Annapolis lawyer for 3 years before being admitted to the bar
- active politician, split from the Federalist party in support of the War of 1812 and became a Jacksonian Democrat
- nominated as attorney general by President Andrew Jackson
- originally nominated by Jackson in 1835 to replace associate Justice Duvall but since the nomination was delayed, Taney eventually replaced chief Justice John Marshall

IN COURT
- unlike Marshall before him, Taney was not in support of federal supremacy
- supporter of state rights and sovereignty especially in favor Southern state interests against Northern threats
- most known for the Dred Scott v. Sanford case

Sandra Day O’Connor

BIO
- born in El Paso, Texas on March 26, 1930
- grandmother was her greatest motivation in live to never give up
- had plan to major in economics at Stanford, but a legal dispute back home turn her interests to law
- graduated third in class at Stanford Law (top of class was William Rehnquist, future Chief Jutice)
- found it hard to get a job as a lawyer, so she started her own firm
- appointed to state senate by Arizona Governor to fill a vacant seat
- held the office her herself for two more terms, even becoming the majority leader ( a first for women anywhere in U.S.)
- nominated by Reagan to keep a campaign promise in 1981
- O’Connor became the first female to serve on the Supreme Court
- nomination admonished by both liberals and conservatives
- conservatives believed that she had no judicial experience and feared she would shift the vote on abortion
- liberals were disappointed that she wasn’t a strong supporter of feminist issues

IN COURT
- “unique conservative” “swing voter”
- has no concrete legal philosophy but attacks each case with individual attention and resolves a practical conclusion
- her moderation secures her role as mediator and coalition builder
- declined to overturn Roe v. Wade, but agreed to certain restrictions on a woman’s right to abortion (Planned Parenthood v. Casey)

Thurgood Marshall

BIO
- born in Baltimore, Maryland on July 12, 1908
- attended Lincoln University and Howard University law school
- was the head of NAACP’s Legal Defense and Education Fund
- instrumental in the legal effort to bring down racial segregation, he was the chief counsel in the landmark case of Brown v. Board of Education.
- appointed by President Kennedy to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Court
- nominated by President Johnson as Associate Justice in 1967
- was the first African American to serve on the Supreme Court

IN COURT
- outspoken liberal with a commitment to equality
- considered the polar opposite of Chief Justice Rehnquist
- powerful civil rights advocate
- stabilized the liberal block of the Warren Court
- supporter of 1st Amendment rights, equal protection rights, and the abolishment of capital punishment
- as liberal influence declined by the mid-1970s, Marshall was frequently the dissenter

How the Supreme Court Began

Colonial Justice System

Massachusetts - focusing on the Salem Witch Trials

Punishments - That grim diagnosis triggered a Puritan inquisition throughout the community. Finger pointing began. The first to be arrested were a Caribbean-born slave along with Sarah Good and Sarah Osburn, two elderly women of poor reputation. The hysteria raged into the summer months and filled the prisons with innocent people. Eventually, 150 "witches" were taken into custody. By late September, 19 men and women had been hanged on Gallows Hill, an eighty year old man pressed to death under stones for refusing a trial, five more accused had died in jail, but none of the executed had confessed to witchcraft.

Note that the New Hampshire system was not significantly different enough to merit another section. Essentially, a mixture of the various New England Colony systems will suffice.

Rhode Island

Connecticut - focusing on the Lesser Known Hartford Witch Trials

New York

Punishments - The American Quakers, one of several offshoots of Puritanism, brought forth important ideas and practices such as charity and reform into American consciousness. Efforts by the Quakers and others saw the New York State legislature authorize the construction of the first prison in New York City in 1796. Rather than follow what Quakers felt were revenge-based punishments then currently used, prison would deter others from criminal acts, and prevent criminals from repeating their criminal activities while morally reforming and rehabilitating those open to changing their ways. While seen as the first of several major reforms to the criminal justice system in New York State, the construction of New York City’s Newgate Prison simply led to its being filled. Prisoners who would normally have been given shorter sentences were now subjected to longer ones; there were riots and on occasion, and shooting of prisoners.

Pennsylvania (and Delaware) and New Jersey

Punishments - Most important among these Quakers was the "Great Law" of 1682, submitted to the Pennsylvania colonial assembly by William Penn and adopted without any significant changes. For the first time in the history of criminal jurisprudence, it was here provided that the majority of crimes should be punished by "hard labor" in a house of correction. This Quaker criminal code governed the procedure in Pennsylvanis until 1718, when the pressure of the British Government compelled the Pennsylvania authorities to abandon it in favor of the brutal Puritan codes which prevailed in the other English colonies. These relied on fines and corporal punishment rather than imprisonment in dealing with offenders. But, just as soon as Pennsylvania was freed from Britain by the Declaration of Independence, the Quaker influence reasserted itself and the Pennsylvania constitution of 1776 directed that the criminal code be reformed and imprisonment be substituted for corporal punishment. Supported by the Quaker reformers and others in the Philadelphia Prison Society, and by one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, Dr. Benjamin Rush, a law was passed on April 5, 1790, which first permanently established imprisonment at hard labor as the normal method of punishing convicted criminals.

The Ducking Stool

Maryland

Punishments - Under the Lords Baltimore, little criminal law was codified as the Proprietor and Assembly debated over whose prerogative such lawmaking was. In the absence of statutes, local courts defined crimes and punishments. Maryland's largest deviation from British precedent was in the low number of crimes for which death was the penalty. As opposed to many British Laws where hanging was the response to a wide range of crimes, from sheep-stealing to adultery, Maryland and other colonies found that for crimes against property, they could gradually replace capital punishment with corporal punishment. Restitution also was required, and a person without resources could be sold for a term of indentured servitude to cover the cost of restitution.

Virginia

North Carolina

Punishments -The North Carolina Constitution deemed that excessive bail should not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel or unusual punishments inflicted. Also, that in all controversies at law, respecting property, the ancient mode of trial, by jury, is one of the best securities of the rights of the people, and ought to remain sacred and inviolable.

South Carolina

Punishments - Within the South Carolina Constitution (circa 1778) there were provisions for fair punishments. Overall it deemed that punishments made in some cases less harsh, and in general more proportionate to the crime. It also ensured that no freeman was taken or imprison, or essentially treated badly without the judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.

Georgia

Punishments - Similar to those of South Carolina