The Most Influential US Court
Cases
THE CASES
• Constitutional Cases
– Gitlow v. New York 1925
– Gideon v. Wainwright 1963
– Miranda v. Arizona 1966
– Texas v. Johnson 1989
• Executive Power Cases
– Marbury v. Madison 1803
– United States v. Nixon 1974
Marbury v. Madison 1803
Marbury v. Madison: The Question
• Does the Constitution give the Supreme Court
the authority to review acts of Congress and
declare them, if repugnant to the
Constitution, to be void?
Marbury v. Madison Background
• The bitter Presidential
election of 1800 saw John
Adams lose to Thomas
Jefferson
• Adams in his final days
wanted to pack the courts
with as many Federalist
judges.
• One of the commissions
(William Marbury) was
not delivered while
Adams was President
Marbury v. Madison Background
• Secretary of State James Madison did not
honor Adams commissions, and Marbury
petitioned the Supreme Court to execute the
order of Adams
• Chief Justice Marshall was a Federalist and
named Chief Justice by John Adams
Marbury v. Madison: The dilemma
– If the Supreme Court
issues the order,
Madison could refuse it.
The Court has no way of
enforcing it
– If the Supreme Court
does not issue the writ,
it risks surrendering
judicial power to the
executive branch
(Jefferson)
Marbury v. Madison: The Decision
• Marbury’s action was
discharged because the
court didn’t have original
jurisdiction. The Judiciary
was considered
unconstitutional
• It was stated that the
Constitution is superior to
any legislative act.
• The Court must
determine when an act is
made in harmony with
the Constitution
Marbury v. Madison: Significance
• The question of judicial review of legislative
acts was a question during ratification
• To limit the judiciary branch to a passive task
would weaken their power. Marbury v.
Madison served to lift the judiciary branch as
equals to the other two branches
United States v. Nixon 1974
United States v. Nixon: The Question
• Does the President have
an absolute executive
privilege from being
forced to provide
evidence relevant to the
prosecution of a
criminal trial
United States v. Nixon: Background
• Seven men involved in the
Watergate break-in of the
Democratic National
Committee’s HW were
indicted by a federal grand
jury
• President Nixon was named as
a co-conspirator and was
subpoenaed to deliver tape
records made within the Oval
Office
• Nixon refused to release the
tapes or transcripts and would
only provided edited versions
United States v. Nixon: The Dilemma
• The argument of
President Nixon was that
the Court did not have
the power to make him
produce the tapes
• Nixon also argued that
certain information falls
under executive privilege
• The government’s
argument was that
evidence in a criminal
court outweighs
executive privilege
United States v. Nixon: The Decision
• Chief Justice Burger held that
the tapes needed to be turned
over, because it is duty of the
courts to say what the law is
• Burger also asserted that
executive privilege flows
through the Constitution, and
the ultimate interpreter of the
Constitution is the Court
• Burger also noted that the
president’s right to secrecy is
different than an ordinary
citizen
United States v. Nixon: The
Significance
• President did have to hand over the tapes 12
days after the decision, and resigned 3 days
later
• United States v. Nixon did expand the power
of the presidency, it was the first time the
Supreme Court acknowledged this power
ending decades of debate
Gitlow v. New York 1925
Gitlow v. New York: The Question
• Does a statute that defines and prohibits the
advocacy of criminal anarchy violate the 1st
Amendment which guarantees freedom of
speech and press and the 14th Amendment?
Gitlow v. New York: Background
• Benjamin Gitlow and 3 others were convicted
of criminal anarchy
• Gitlow was tried separately and indicted on 2
counts.
– 1. Gitlow advocated and taught the duty,
necessity of overthrowing the govt by force and
violence if necessary
– 2. Gitlow printed, published, and knowingly
distributed this literature
At trial no evidence was presented on count 2
Gitlow v. New York: The Dilemma
• Gitlow rested upon two propositions. First,
liberty protected by 14th Amendment included
freedom of speech and press.
• Second, even though freedom of expression is
not absolute it may be restricted only in
circumstances between the connection
between proscribed behavior and method of
restraint
Gitlow v. New York: The Dilemma
• The State argued that they (the state) are the
best judge of which regulations are in the best
interest of public safety and welfare
• The State said they just can’t wait for the
peace to be broken before they react to
violent behavior
Gitlow v. New York: The Decision
• The Supreme Court affirmed Gitlow’s
conviction
• The Court noted that the Court applied the
Constitution correctly
• Freedom of speech is not an absolute
Gitlow v. New York: The Decision
• Justice Holmes wrote a
dissenting opinion along
with Justice Brandeis
• Free speech is included in
the 14th Amendment
• They argued that the “Clear
and present danger” test
from Schenck v. US should
be applied
• Within the Gitlow case,
these judges believe that
Gitlow’s ideas were more
theory than active
indictment
Gitlow v. New York: The Significance
• Gitlow was the first case to address the extent
to which 1st Amendment can be incorporated
• Since the assassination of President McKinley
in 1900 this law was used to prosecute
anarchists
• Gitlow now serves as the mechanism by which
citizens protect their rights against coercive
state and private action
Gideon v. Wainwright 1963
Gideon v. Wainwright: The Question
• Does the 6th and 14th Amendments require a
state to provide counsel to poverty-stricken
defendants in criminal prosecutions?
Gideon v. Wainwright: The
Background
• Gideon was charged in
Florida with the felony
offense of breaking and
entering with the intent to
commit a misdemeanor
• Gideon requested a lawyer
but was denied because the
judge said a lawyer would
only be needed with capital
offenses
• Gideon was found guilty
and sentenced to 5 years.
The state supreme court
upheld the decision
Gideon v. Wainwright: The Dilemma
• Gideon argued that the Bill
of Rights applied to the
states through the 14th
Amendment
• His argued he was refused
legal representation
• Wainwright, the director of
the Division of Corrections,
argued Gideon’s case
justified no abandoning of
state’s public policy
Gideon v. Wainwright: The Decision
• Justice Black ruled that the states are required
by the 6th and 14th Amendment to provide
council for indigent criminal defendants
• The Court extended the right to counsel of
defendants charged with only misdemeanor
offenses
• The Court noted the nature of the charge is
not the determining factor, most important is
loss of liberty
Gideon v. Wainwright: The
Significance
• The Court had to abandon the distinction
between capital and noncapital crimes
• Once a defendant presented the preliminary
evidence of the denial of his right to counsel,
the relationship with due process was
presumed
Miranda v. Arizona 1966
Miranda v. Arizona: The Question
• Are statements obtained from a defendant
while in police custody, or otherwise deprived
of his freedom of action in any significant way,
admissible in court?
Miranda v. Arizona: The Background
• The Miranda case is actually the combination
of 4 separate cases. The Supreme Court is
allowed to lump cases together is a common
question is being asked
• The 5th Amendment prohibits admission at
trial of a confession obtained when the
request to speak to an attorney is denied
Miranda v. Arizona: The Background
• Miranda v. Arizona: Mexican American with
poor knowledge of language and rights has
confession obtained without knowing rights
• Vinera v. New York: Defendant made oral
admissions to police after interrogation. Then
signed incriminating statement while being
questioned by assistant district attorney
Miranda v. Arizona: The Background
• Westover v. United States: defendant handed
over to FBI after lengthy interrogation
• California v. Stewart: local police hold
defendant for 5 days and interrogate him 9
times before obtaining a statement
Miranda v. Arizona: The Dilemma
• Prosecutors argue that in all cases that
confessions were voluntary, therefore no
violations were committed
• Defense argue that no safeguards were in
place to remind them that they could remain
silent, or that they could have a lawyer
present
Miranda v. Arizona: The Decision
• There was a fear that Miranda could limit the
ability of the police and government to do
their job in terms of protecting society against
criminals
• The decision wasn’t unanimous, however it is
required that the accused know their rights
Miranda v. Arizona: The Significance
• Miranda rights are
universally recognized
by the entire population
• A negative backlash has
not been observed
since Miranda in 1966
Texas v. Johnson 1989
Texas v. Johnson: The Question
• Is the burning of an American flag as a means
of political protest protected by the right to
free speech as set forth in the 1st
Amendment?
Texas v. Johnson: The Background
• At the 1984 Republican National Convention,
Johnson burned an American flag in protest of
President Reagan’s administration and some
Dallas based corporations
• No one was hurt, only some people were
offended.
• Johnson violated Texas law which prohibits
the desecration of a state or national flag
Texas v. Johnson: The Dilemma
• Johnson’s lawyer argued that even though
Johnson burned a flag it was protected under
the 1st Amendment because it falls under
Freedom of Expression
• Texas argued that preserving the flag as a
national symbol is by its nature an offense
because it possess the potential of violence
Texas v. Johnson: The Decision
• It was stated that the government can’t
dictate what a symbol such as a flag
represents by “prohibiting the expression of
an idea simply because society finds the idea
itself offensive”
• Johnson’s conviction was overturned
Texas v. Johnson: The Significance
• Texas v. Johnson expanded the 1st Amendment
to protect free expression
• The government can not enact laws
prohibiting political expression relating to the
flag without legitimate interest