supreme court case study 1 answers

Landmark Supreme Court Cases

Let's learn about some landmark Supreme Court cases and think about how they impacted American law and society!

Landmark Cases Video 1

Download the video viewing guide to get more out of viewing the video.

Landmark Cases Video 2

Landmark cases video 3, landmark cases video 4, showing what you know.

A case study collection to help students demonstrate understanding of the impact of landmark Supreme Court Cases on American law and society.

This will open in your browser as a Word document. Right click to save to your desktop.

A reading activity to help students demonstrate understanding of the impact of Marbury v. Madison (1803) on American law and society.

A reading activity to help students understand aspects of the state and federal trial process and its impact on American society.

A reading and graphic organizart activity to help students demonstrate understanding of Article III and the court system on American law and society.

Helpful Resources

Vocabulary Practice Concept Circle

• Landmark Cases (Bill of Rights Institute)
• Landmark Cases (StreetLaw)
• Landmark Cases (US Courts)
• Landmark Library (iCivics)
• Landmark Cases Gallery Walk (CPALMS)
• Supreme Decision (iCivics)

Supreme Court Cases Quiz

Our free Supreme Court cases quiz will test your knowledge on 30 landmark Supreme Court cases. It is important for every government and politics student to be familiar with each of these important Supreme Court cases. These cases involve individual rights, criminal law, federalism, first amendment rights, and more. This Supreme Court quiz will help you review and memorize these important decisions.

Which Supreme Court case reaffirmed that obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment, and also redefined the Constitutional test for determining what constitutes obscene material?

Which Supreme Court case upheld the individual health insurance mandate included in the Affordable Care Act?

Which Supreme Court case held that state laws establishing separate public schools for black and white students were unconstitutional?

Which Supreme Court case held that the government, through the use of eminent domain, can claim and pass on privately owned land to another private owner if doing so results in economic development?

Which Supreme Court case invalidated a state law prohibiting the use of contraceptives on the grounds that the law violated the right to marital privacy?

Which Supreme Court case held that the President cannot use executive privilege to withhold evidence that is relevant in a criminal trial?

Which Supreme Court case held that religious duty is not a legitimate defense to a criminal indictment?

Which Supreme Court case held that the Commerce Clause grants Congress the power to regulate any aspect of commerce that crosses state lines, including modes of transportation?

Which Supreme Court case struck down state funding for religious schools?

Which Supreme Court case held that people of African descent who were brought to the U.S. and held as slaves (and their descendants) were not U.S. citizens and were not protected by the Constitution?

Which Supreme Court case established that police must advise criminal suspects of their Constitutional rights before questioning them?

Which Supreme Court case held that abortion is a fundamental right under the United States Constitution?

Which Supreme Court case held that the act of burning a flag is protected “speech” under the First Amendment?

Which Supreme Court case prohibits race-based admission decisions to institutions of higher education?

Which Supreme Court case held that the Constitution does not provide a right to abortion?

Which Supreme Court case held that it is unconstitutional for state officials to write an official school prayer and to encourage students to recite it?

Which Supreme Court case held that the right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples?

Which Supreme Court case held that state courts are required by the Fourteenth Amendment to provide counsel to defendants in criminal cases, extending this Sixth Amendment federal requirement to the states?

Which Supreme Court case protects an individual’s right to possess a functioning handgun in their home?

Which Supreme Court case held that the First Amendment right to free speech doesn't protect speech that presents a “clear and present danger?”

Which Supreme Court case defined the First Amendment rights of public school students?

Which Supreme Court case invalidated laws prohibiting interracial marriage?

Which Supreme Court case upheld state laws requiring racial segregation at public facilities under the “separate but equal” doctrine?

Which Supreme Court case established that evidence obtained through unreasonable searches and seizures, in violation of the Fourth Amendment, may not be used in state courts for state law criminal prosecutions?

Which Supreme Court case upheld the constitutionality of Executive Order 9066, which ordered Japanese Americans into internment camps during World War II?

Which Supreme Court case established the basis for the exercise of judicial review under Article III of the Constitution?

Which Supreme Court case held that a search warrant is needed to track an automobile with a GPS tracking device?

Which Supreme Court case established that the Constitution grants implied powers to Congress which can be used to implement the Constitution's express powers?

Which Supreme Court case held that the government cannot restrict independent political expenditures by corporations?

Which Supreme Court case established that a public official suing for defamation must prove that the statement was made with “actual malice?”

Landmark Library

This library of mini-lessons targets a variety of landmark cases from the United States Supreme Court. Each mini-lesson includes a one-page reading and one page of activities. The mini-lessons are designed for students to complete independently without the need for teacher direction. However, they also make great teacher-directed lessons and class discussion-starters. 

Not sure which cases you want to use? Start by reviewing our Meet the Supremes Teacher’s Guide . It provides case summaries, teaching suggestions, and a crosswalk of the themes, laws, and amendments each case addresses. If you want to assign a Supreme Court case as a research project, use our Research Roadmap graphic organizer to guide students through the process.

Explore resources in this unit

• 6-8 | Middle
• 9-12 | High

EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch (2015)

This mini-lesson explores the Supreme Court’s decision regarding a company’s discrimination against a Muslim woman during the hiring process. Students learn how Title VII of the…

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

This mini-lesson covers the basics of the Supreme Court’s decision that affirmed the Court’s power of judicial review. Students learn how Congress tried to add to the Supreme…

Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

This mini-lesson covers the basics of the Supreme Court’s decision that overturned “separate but equal” in public schools. Students learn about segregation and “equality under the…

Clapper v. Amnesty International (2013)

This mini-lesson covers the basics of the Supreme Court’s decision that determined the government’s ability to conduct electronic surveillance of its citizens. Students learn about…

Texas v. Johnson (1989)

This mini-lesson covers the basics of the Supreme Court’s decision that burning the American flag is a form of political speech protected by the First Amendment. Students learn…

Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)

This mini-lesson covers the basics of the Supreme Court decision that determined Dred Scott, having lived in a free territory, was not entitled to his freedom. Students learn about…

Minersville v. Gobitas (1940)

This mini-lesson covers the basics of the Supreme Court's decision that allowed schools to require students to salute the flag and recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Students learn…

Elk v. Wilkins (1884)

This mini-lesson examines the Supreme Court’s ruling that the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause did not apply to American Indians born on Native reservations. Students analyze a…

In re Gault (1967)

This mini-lesson covers the basics of the Supreme Court’s decision that said juvenile offenders have a right to due process. Students learn about 14th Amendment due process,…

Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)

This mini-lesson covers the basics of the Supreme Court's decision that extended First Amendment protections to students in the classroom. Students learn about the concept of…

Lau v. Nichols (1974)

This mini-lesson covers the basics of the Supreme Court’s decision that required public schools to provide language supports to English and multilingual learners (ELs/MLs).…

Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)

This mini-lesson covers the basics of the Supreme Court’s decision that interpreted the Commerce and Supremacy Clauses of the U.S. Constitution and affirmed the federal…

Use the Scope & Sequence to help you plan your iCivics classroom experience!

Whether you enjoy finding opportunities within a well-structured sequence of resources or prefer looking around for pieces and bits that can be jigsawed together, our Scope & Sequence documents are a perfect reference point for planning. Scope & Sequence documents are available for elementary, middle, and high school classrooms and list all of our resources in one place.

What is the supreme court case study 1 answers?

Marbury v. Madison, 1803

1. The Marbury v. Madison case established

the right of the Supreme Court to rule on

the constitutionality of laws.

2. It provided a way to check the powers

of Congress and the president, and thus

more effectively balanced the powers of all

three branches of the federal government.

3. On the one hand,Marshall declared the

Judiciary Act unconstitutional because the

power for Congress to pass such an act

was not mentioned in the Constitution. Yet

at the same time he believed the Supreme

Court had the power to declare a law

unconstitutional, even though this power

was not specifically mentioned in the

Constitution.

4. Answers will vary. Students who favor

the Court's power may say that it provides

a check on Congress and more equally

balances the power of the three branches

of government. Students who oppose

the Court's power may say that since

Congressional representatives are elected,

they represent the will of the people, so

the laws passed by Congress should stand

and not be subjected to a review by a

Court of appointed judges.

5. Answers will vary. Students who think the

influence of personal politics on Court

rulings is improper may say that legal opinions

should be based on a legal interpretation

of the Constitution law and not on

politics. Students who accept political

influence on Court rulings as proper may

say that it often reflects the will of the

What reason did the president give for justifying his claim of executive privilege

Add your answer:

What is the supreme court case study 42 answer?

You need to answer this question because we don’t do homework. Your teacher is looking for your critical thinking skills skills and not our answers.

Was Emmett Till's court case a supreme court case?

No it was not a supreme court case, but a state case because it was held in the local court

Who won in the Rhodes v Chapman supreme court case?

chapman won the supreme court case

What does the supreme court case us v bagley do?

What does the supreme court case burns v. reed do?

The Supreme Court must have a to render a decision in a case?

The Supreme Court must have a simple majority to render a decision in a case.

Top Categories

• Location, Hours & Parking
• Transportation Grants

• Our Mission
• Board and Officers
• Teacher Advisory Council
• The Courthouse
• The Federal Courts
• Photo Gallery Tour
• Schedule a Tour
• Summer Teacher Institute
• The Supreme Court and My Hometown
• Citizenship in the Nation for Scouts
• Girl Scout Day at the Courthouse
• Bill of Rights Day 2024 Contest
• Student Art Competition 2024 Winners
• Tinker v. Des Moines Exhibit
• Program Photos
• Student Center Landing Page
• The Role of the Federal Courts
• Organization of the Federal Courts
• How Courts Work
• Landmark Cases
• Educator Center Main Page
• Online Learning Resources
• Comparing State and Federal Courts
• Law Day Lessons and Activities
• The Power of Judicial Review

Article III of the U.S. Constitution describes the powers and duties of the judicial branch.  Nowhere does it mention the power of the courts to review actions of the other two branches, and possibly declare these actions unconstitutional.  This power, called Judicial Review , was established by the landmark decision in Marbury v. Madison , 1803.

“ It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is…If two laws conflict with each other, the Courts must decide on the operation of each.  So, if a law be in opposition to the Constitution… the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty .” Chief Justice Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, 1803  

• Facts about Judicial Review
• Possible Subjects of Judicial Review
• No law or action can contradict the U.S. Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land.
• The court can only review a law that is brought before it through a law suit.
• State courts also have the power to review state laws or actions based upon their state constitutions.
• Legislative actions (laws made by congress)
• Executive actions (treaties, executive orders issued by the president, or regulations issued by a government agency)
• State and local laws

Case Studies

Marbury v. madison , 1803.

• Case History

When President John Adams did not win a second term in the 1801 election, he used the final days of his presidency to make a large number of political appointments.  When the new president (Thomas Jefferson) took office, he told his Secretary of State (James Madison), not to deliver the official paperwork to the government officials who had been appointed by Adams.  Thus the government officials, including William Marbury, were denied their new jobs.  William Marbury petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus , to force Madison to deliver the commission.

Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 (a law written by Congress), gave the Supreme Court the authority to issue writs of mandamus to settle disputes such as the one described here.  This power to force actions of government officials went above and beyond anything mentioned in Article III of the Constitution.

Therefore, in addition to deciding whether or not William Marbury had a right to his job, the U.S. Supreme Court also had to decide whether or not Section 13 of the Judiciary Act was in violation of the Constitution (the birth of Judicial Review ).

This case did not reach the U.S. Supreme Court the way most issues do.  Most cases reach the Supreme Court as the court of last resort, when the Justices are asked to review a decision of a lower court.  In this case, William Marbury petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court directly due to the provision in Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789.  Note:  The power to directly accept petitions such as these is not granted to the Supreme Court in the Constitution.

What Do You Think The U.S. Supreme Court Decided?

Though the Justices agreed that William Marbury had a right to his job, they also ruled that issuing the writ of mandamus to force that to happen did not fall under their jurisdiction as stated in the Constitution. The Supreme Court opinion explained that it is within their power and authority to review acts of Congress, such as the Judiciary Act of 1789, to determine whether or not the law is unconstitutional. By declaring Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional, the U.S. Supreme Court established the doctrine of Judicial Review.

The Supreme Court said “ The Constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and, like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it. If the (first) part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law .” by author of opinion, Chief Justice John Marshall.

• The Oyez Project
• The opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court
• The official version of the opinion can be found in the U.S. Reports at your local law library. Marbury v. Madison , 5 U.S. 137 (1803)

Ladue v. Gilleo, 1994

In 1990, Margaret Gilleo placed a sign in the yard of her home in Ladue, Missouri. The sign said “Say No to War in the Persian Gulf, Call Congress Now.” The city of Ladue had a law against yard signs, and told Ms. Gilleo to take her signs down. Ms. Gilleo sued the city of Ladue for violating her 1 st Amendment rights.

Was Ladue’s law against signs unconstitutional?

Margaret Gilleo sued the city of Ladue in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. The court ruled in her favor and stopped Ladue from enforcing the law. Ladue appealed the decision, and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals also found in Ms. Gilleo’s favor. The city of Ladue then asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case.

The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower courts. Ladue’s law against yard signs violated the 1 st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The 1 st Amendment protects political speech, and banning yard signs takes away the main avenue by which people traditionally express their personal political views. The value of protecting personal political speech is more important than Ladue’s desire to keep the city free of clutter.

The Supreme Court said “ They may not afford the same opportunities for conveying complex ideas as do other media, but residential signs have long been an important and distinct medium of expression .” by author of opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens.

• The official version of the opinion can be found in the U.S. Reports at your local law library. Ladue v. Gilleo , 512 U.S. 43 (1994)

Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 1966

Annie Harper was not allowed to register to vote in Virginia because she wasn’t able to pay the state’s poll tax. Virginia law required voters to pay $1.50 tax to register, with the money collected going to public school funding. Ms. Harper sued the Virginia Board of Elections, claiming the poll tax violated her 14 th Amendment right to equal protection. Note: The 24 th Amendment to the Constitution already banned poll taxes in federal elections, but not in state elections.

Was the Virginia law requiring a tax to vote in a state election unconstitutional?

The U.S. District Court dismissed Ms. Harper’s suit in favor of the Board of Elections. She then asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case.

The Supreme Court declared the Virginia poll tax law unconstitutional. By making it more difficult for poor people to vote, the state was violating the 14 th Amendment guarantee of equal protection. Voting is a fundamental right, and should remain accessible to all citizens. The amount of wealth someone has should have no bearing on their ability to vote freely.

The Supreme Court said “ We conclude that a State violates the …(Constitution).. …whenever it makes the affluence of the voter or payment of any fee an electoral standard. Voter qualifications have no relation to wealth nor to paying or not paying this or any other tax …. Wealth or fee paying has, in our view, no relation to voting qualifications; the right to vote is too precious, too fundamental to be so burdened or conditioned. ” by author of opinion, Justice William O. Douglas

• The official version of the opinion can be found in the U.S. Reports at your local law library. Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections , 383 U.S. 663 (1966)

• Find a Lawyer
• Ask a Lawyer
• Research the Law
• Law Schools
• Laws & Regs
• Newsletters
• Justia Connect
• Pro Membership
• Basic Membership
• Justia Lawyer Directory
• Platinum Placements
• Gold Placements
• Justia Elevate
• Justia Amplify
• PPC Management
• Google Business Profile
• Social Media
• Justia Onward Blog

Copyrights Supreme Court Cases

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution provides that Congress can “promote the progress of…useful art” by granting authors exclusive rights to their “writings.” This clause forms the foundation of U.S. copyright law, although the scope of copyrighted subject matter now extends well beyond “writings.” To be copyrightable, a creative work generally must have at least some originality and must be fixed in a tangible medium of expression. The holder of a copyright possesses a bundle of rights. These include the rights to reproduce, distribute, and publicly perform or display the work, as well as the right to create “derivative works” based on the original copyrighted work.

To sue someone else for infringing their copyright, the author must have registered their work with the U.S. Copyright Office. Perhaps the most common defense to infringement is the fair use defense, which generally requires a court to consider four factors:

• The purpose and character of the use
• The nature of the copyrighted work
• The amount and significance of the copied portion
• The market effect on the copyrighted work

As technology has evolved, copyright infringement of audio and visual works has become rampant despite the risk of harsh penalties. In response, the Supreme Court and other courts have developed theories of secondary copyright infringement, such as contributory infringement. These allow a copyright owner to more effectively enforce their rights.

Below is a selection of Supreme Court cases involving copyrights, arranged from newest to oldest.

Author: Elena Kagan

A copyright owner possessing a timely claim for infringement is entitled to damages, no matter when the infringement occurred.

Author: Sonia Sotomayor

If an original work and secondary use share the same or highly similar purposes, and the secondary use is commercial, the first fair use factor is likely to weigh against fair use, absent some other justification for copying.

Author: John Roberts

Copyright protection does not extend to the annotations in the official annotated code of a state.

Author: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

A copyright claimant may commence an infringement lawsuit only when the Copyright Office registers a copyright. Upon registration of the copyright, the copyright owner can recover damages for infringement both before and after registration.

Author: Clarence Thomas

A feature incorporated into the design of a useful article is eligible for copyright protection only if the feature can be perceived as a two- or three-dimensional work of art separate from the useful article, and it would qualify as a protectable pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work (on its own or fixed in another tangible medium of expression) if it were imagined separately from the useful article into which it is incorporated.

Author: Stephen Breyer

A streaming service infringed the public performance right by selling its subscribers a technologically complex service that allowed them to watch television programs over the Internet at about the same time as the programs were broadcast over the air.

The first sale doctrine applies to copies of a copyrighted work lawfully made abroad.

Author: David Souter

An entity that distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, going beyond mere distribution with knowledge of third-party action, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties using the device, regardless of the device's lawful uses.

The Seventh Amendment provides a right to a jury trial on all issues pertinent to an award of statutory damages in a copyright infringement case, including the amount.

Author: John Paul Stevens

The first sale doctrine endorsed in Section 109(a) of the Copyright Act is applicable to imported copies. (The first sale doctrine generally provides that the owner of a copy of a work may sell or dispose of the copy without getting permission from the copyright owner.)

The cognizable harm under the fourth factor of the fair use test is market substitution, rather than harm from criticism. A parody is unlikely to act as a substitute for the original work, since the two works usually serve different market functions.

Author: William Rehnquist

Prevailing plaintiffs and prevailing defendants in copyright infringement cases must be treated similarly regarding attorney fees, which may be awarded to prevailing parties only as a matter of the court's discretion.

Author: Sandra Day O’Connor

The originality requirement necessitates independent creation plus a modicum of creativity. Although a compilation of facts may possess the requisite originality because the author typically chooses which facts to include, in which order to place them, and how to arrange the data so that readers may use them effectively, copyright protection extends only to those components of the work that are original to the author.

Assignees of the right to produce a derivative work or some other portion of the renewal rights hold nothing but an unfulfilled and unenforceable expectancy if the author dies before the renewal period, unless the assignees secure a transfer of the renewal rights from the author's statutory successor.

Author: Thurgood Marshall

A creator was an independent contractor when he engaged in a skilled occupation, supplied his own tools, worked in a separate workplace, was retained for a short period of time, had absolute freedom to decide when and how long to work, and had total discretion in hiring and paying assistants, among other factors. (This case concerned whether a creative work was a work for hire.)

Generally, the author's right to control the first public appearance of their un-disseminated expression will outweigh a claim of fair use.

Congress did not intend to draw a distinction between authorizations to prepare derivative works that are based on a single direct grant and those that are based on successive grants.

The sale of copying equipment, like the sale of other articles of commerce, does not constitute contributory infringement if the product is widely used for legitimate, unobjectionable purposes, or is merely capable of substantial non-infringing uses.

Author: Potter Stewart

The reception of a radio broadcast of a copyrighted musical composition is not copyright infringement when the copyright owner has licensed the broadcaster to perform the composition publicly for profit.

Author: Warren Burger

The Constitution does not expressly or by inference vest all power to grant copyright protection exclusively in the federal government.

Author: Stanley Reed

Artistic articles are protected in form, but not their mechanical or utilitarian aspects.

Author: Mahlon Pitney

One who gathers news at pains and expense, for the purpose of lucrative publication, may be said to have a quasi-property in the results of their enterprise as against a rival in the same business, and the appropriation of those results at the expense and to the damage of one and for the profit of the other is unfair competition, against which equity will afford relief.

Author: Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

The performance of a copyrighted musical composition in a restaurant or hotel without charge for admission to hear it but as an incident of other entertainment for which the public pays infringes the public performance right.

Author: William Rufus Day

The sole right to vend granted by federal copyright law does not secure to the owner of the copyright the right to qualify future sales by their vendee or to limit or restrict such future sales at a specified price.

Author: Henry Billings Brown

When there is no evidence that the publishers were the assignees or acted as the agents of the author for the purpose of taking out copyright, the copyright entry of a magazine will not validate the copyright entry subsequently made under a different title by the author of a portion of the contents of the magazine.

The least pretentious picture has more originality in it than directories, which may be copyrighted.

Author: Samuel Freeman Miller

Congress can confer copyright protection for photographs that are representations of original intellectual conceptions.

Author: Joseph Bradley

A claim to the exclusive property in a peculiar system of bookkeeping cannot be maintained by the author of a treatise in which that system is exhibited and explained.

Author: John McLean

No reporter has or can have any copyright in the written opinions delivered by the Supreme Court, and the Justices cannot confer on any reporter any such right.

• Communications and Internet Law
• Entertainment Law
• Intellectual Property
• Bankruptcy Lawyers
• Business Lawyers
• Criminal Lawyers
• Employment Lawyers
• Estate Planning Lawyers
• Family Lawyers
• Personal Injury Lawyers
• Estate Planning
• Personal Injury
• Business Formation
• Business Operations
• International Trade
• Real Estate
• Financial Aid
• Course Outlines
• Law Journals
• US Constitution
• Regulations
• Supreme Court
• Circuit Courts
• District Courts
• Dockets & Filings
• State Constitutions
• State Codes
• State Case Law
• Legal Blogs
• Business Forms
• Product Recalls
• Justia Connect Membership
• Justia Premium Placements
• Justia Elevate (SEO, Websites)
• Justia Amplify (PPC, GBP)
• Testimonials