Judicial Review: Precedent & Change Organizer

Directions: Review the list of Supreme Court cases. Each case lists its facts, issue, holding, reasoning, decision, and opinion. Additionally, each case is paired with a previous case to compare it. Use this information to identify whether the Supreme Court followed or broke precedent. Fill in the appropriate sections of the table and justify your answer. Then, categorize each case using judicial activism or judicial restraint and justify your categorization.

Essential Vocabulary 

• Judicial Review: The power of the courts to evaluate actions of the legislative and executive branches and declare as unconstitutional, if necessary
• Precedent: Previous decisions that influence future outcomes
• Stare Decisis: “Let the decision stand;” the practice of basing judicial decisions on precedents established in similar cases in the past
• Judicial Activism: View that the courts should actively interpret the Constitution and laws to reflect current conditions and values, even if it means overturning past decisions or making new legal precedents

Example:

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

• Facts: William Marbury was appointed as a justice of the peace in the final hours of the Adams administration, but his commission was not delivered. Marbury petitioned the Supreme Court to compel Secretary of State James Madison to deliver the documents.
• Issue: Does Marbury have a right to his commission, and can the Supreme Court issue a writ of mandamus (order from the court to do something) to compel its delivery?
• Holding: The Supreme Court held that while Marbury was entitled to his commission, the Court did not have the power to issue a writ of mandamus in this case.
• Reasoning: The Court found that the section of the Judiciary Act of 1789 granting the Supreme Court the power to issue writs of mandamus exceeded the authority allotted to the Court under Article III of the Constitution.
• Decision: The Court established the principle of judicial review, empowering the Supreme Court to declare legislative acts unconstitutional. Opinion: Chief Justice John Marshall wrote the majority opinion, stating that it is the duty of the judicial system to interpret what the law is.

Precedent Status  Did the Supreme Court follow or break precedent?	Explain your answer
Neither	While the Court exercised judicial review over state laws in the early republic, Marbury established the precedent of judicial review to declare congressional laws unconstitutional.

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

• Facts: The state of Maryland imposed taxes on the Second Bank of the United States. James McCulloch, a cashier at the Baltimore branch, refused to pay the tax.
• Issue: Does Congress have the authority to establish a national bank, and can a state tax a federal entity?
• Holding: The Court held that 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.
• Reasoning: The Court used the Necessary and Proper Clause to affirm Congress’s implied powers and reinforced the supremacy of federal laws over state laws.
• Decision: The Court ruled in favor of McCulloch, reinforcing federal supremacy and the implied powers of Congress.
• Opinion: Chief Justice John Marshall wrote the majority opinion, emphasizing that the Constitution grants Congress implied powers for implementing the Constitution’s expressed powers.
• Related Case: Marbury v. Madison (1803) set the foundation for the role of the Supreme Court in interpreting the Constitution.

Precedent Status  Did the Supreme Court follow or break precedent?	Explain your answer

Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

• Facts: African American students in several states were denied admittance to certain public schools based on laws allowing public education to be segregated by race.
• Issue: Does the segregation of public education based solely on race violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
• Holding: The Court held that separate educational facilities were inherently unequal and violated the Equal Protection Clause.
• Reasoning: The Court reasoned that segregation in public education created a sense of inferiority among African American children that undermined their educational opportunities.
• Decision: The Court ruled unanimously in favor of Brown, overturning the “separate but equal” doctrine of Plessy v. Ferguson.
• Opinion: Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote the majority opinion, emphasizing that separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.
• Related Case: Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) established the “separate but equal” doctrine, allowing state laws to mandate racial segregation in public facilities as long as the facilities were equal in quality.

Precedent Status  Did the Supreme Court follow or break precedent?	Explain your answer

Engel v. Vitale (1962)

• Facts: A New York State law required public schools to start the day with a nondenominational prayer. A group of parents, led by Steven Engel, challenged the law.
• Issue: Does the recitation of a nondenominational prayer in public schools violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?
• Holding: The Court held that state-sponsored prayer in public schools violates the Establishment Clause.
• Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the government should not be involved in writing or sanctioning official prayers.
• Decision: The Court ruled in favor of Engel, prohibiting the practice of school-sponsored prayer.
• Opinion: Justice Hugo Black wrote the majority opinion, stating the practice of official prayer in public schools violates the Establishment Clause.
• Related Case: West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) held that the government cannot force students to salute the flag or say the Pledge of Allegiance, reinforcing the protection of individual rights under the First Amendment.

Precedent Status  Did the Supreme Court follow or break precedent?	Explain your answer

Baker v. Carr (1962) 

• Facts: Charles Baker challenged Tennessee’s apportionment laws, claiming they ignored significant economic growth and population shifts within the state.
• Issue: Does the Supreme Court have jurisdiction over questions of legislative apportionment?
• Holding: The Court held that redistricting issues present justiciable questions, thus enabling federal courts to hear them.
• Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the Equal Protection Clause provides a basis for challenging the constitutionality of legislative apportionment.
• Decision: The Court ruled in favor of Baker, establishing that redistricting cases can be reviewed by federal courts.
• Opinion: Justice William J. Brennan wrote the majority opinion, stating that legislative apportionment was a justiciable issue under the Equal Protection Clause.
• Related Case: Colegrove v. Green (1946) deemed legislative apportionment a political question, not a judicial one, and thus not subject to review by the courts.

Precedent Status  Did the Supreme Court follow or break precedent?	Explain your answer

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

• Facts: Clarence Earl Gideon was charged with felony breaking and entering. He requested a court-appointed attorney, but Florida law only provided counsel for indigent defendants in capital cases. Gideon represented himself and was convicted.
• Issue: Does the Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel in criminal cases extend to felony defendants in state courts?
• Holding: The Court held that the right to counsel is a fundamental right essential to a fair trial and, as such, applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
• Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of counsel is a fundamental right necessary for a fair trial, and this right is obligatory upon the states by the Fourteenth Amendment.
• Decision: The Court unanimously ruled in favor of Gideon, extending the right to counsel to all felony defendants in state courts.
• Opinion: Justice Hugo Black wrote the majority opinion, emphasizing that fair trials cannot be realized if the poor are unable to have legal representation.
• Related Case: Powell v. Alabama (1932) held that the right to counsel was fundamental to a fair trial in capital cases, establishing the importance of legal representation for defendants facing serious charges.

Precedent Status  Did the Supreme Court follow or break precedent?	Explain your answer

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969) 

• Facts: Students wore black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War and were suspended. The students sued the school district for violating their right to free speech.
• Issue: Does a prohibition against the wearing of armbands in public school as a form of symbolic protest violate the students’ freedom of speech protections guaranteed by the First Amendment?
• Holding: The Court held that the students’ suspension violated their First Amendment rights.
• Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the armbands represented pure speech and students do not lose their First Amendment rights at school, unless the speech substantially interferes with the operation of the school.
• Decision: The Court ruled in favor of Tinker, establishing that students’ rights to free speech are protected in public schools.
• Opinion: Justice Abe Fortas wrote the majority opinion, emphasizing that student expression is protected as long as it does not disrupt educational activities.
• Related Case: West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) held that the government cannot force students to salute the flag or say the Pledge of Allegiance, reinforcing the protection of individual rights under the First Amendment.

Precedent Status  Did the Supreme Court follow or break precedent?	Explain your answer

New York Times Co. v. United States (1971) 

• Facts: The Nixon Administration attempted to prevent the New York Times and Washington Post from publishing materials from a classified Defense Department study regarding the history of U.S. activities in Vietnam (the “Pentagon Papers”).
• Issue: Did the Nixon administration’s efforts to prevent the publication of what it termed “classified information” violate the First Amendment?
• Holding: The Court held that the government did not overcome the “heavy presumption against” prior restraint of the press in this case.
• Reasoning: The Court reasoned that prior restraint is unconstitutional except in cases where the publication would cause inevitable, direct, and immediate harm to the safety of American forces.
• Decision: The Court ruled in favor of the New York Times, allowing the publication of the Pentagon Papers.
• Opinion: Justices Hugo Black and William O. Douglas concurred, emphasizing the paramount importance of a free press, and rejecting any form of prior restraint.
• Related Case: Near v. Minnesota (1931) held that prior restraints on publication are unconstitutional except in exceptional cases, establishing the standard for evaluating government attempts to censor the press.

Precedent Status  Did the Supreme Court follow or break precedent?	Explain your answer

Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)

• Facts: Members of the Amish community in Wisconsin refused to send their children to public school past the eighth grade, citing religious beliefs. The state of Wisconsin fined the parents for noncompliance with compulsory education laws.
• Issue: Does the requirement for Amish children to attend school until age 16 violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment?
• Holding: The Court held that Wisconsin’s compulsory school attendance law was unconstitutional as applied to the Amish because it violated their right to freedom of conscience under the Free Exercise Clause.
• Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the state’s interest in compulsory education was not sufficient to outweigh the right of religious liberty of the Amish parents.
• Decision: The Court ruled in favor of Yoder, allowing Amish parents to withdraw their children from public schools after the eighth grade.
• Opinion: Chief Justice Warren E. Burger wrote the majority opinion, emphasizing the importance of religious freedom and the minimal impact on public order of granting an exemption to the Amish.
• Related Case: Sherbert v. Verner (1963) held that the government must demonstrate a compelling interest to deny unemployment benefits to a person whose religious beliefs prohibited her from working on certain days, reinforcing the protection of religious liberty.

Precedent Status  Did the Supreme Court follow or break precedent?	Explain your answer

Shaw v. Reno (1993) 

• Facts: North Carolina residents challenged the state’s new congressional district map, which included an unusually shaped district designed to ensure the election of Black representatives.
• Issue: Did the North Carolina residents’ claim, that the state created a racially gerrymandered district, raise a valid constitutional issue under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause?
• Holding: The Court held that the plaintiffs’ claim did raise a valid constitutional issue under the Equal Protection Clause.
• Reasoning: The Court reasoned that while race can be a factor in redistricting, it cannot be the predominant factor, overriding traditional districting principles.
• Decision: The Court ruled in favor of Shaw, allowing the challenge to proceed.
• Opinion: Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote the majority opinion, emphasizing that racial gerrymandering, even with good intentions, can violate the Equal Protection
• Related Case: Gomillion v. Lightfoot (1960) held that electoral district boundaries drawn to disenfranchise Black voters violated the Fifteenth Amendment, establishing the precedent for evaluating racially motivated redistricting.

Precedent Status  Did the Supreme Court follow or break precedent?	Explain your answer