Landmark Cases and Their Precedents Quiz

Answer: Plessy v. Ferguson

This case was decided in 1896, after the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1875, which stated that all races were entitled to the same treatment. Despite this, many private individuals continued to discriminate against blacks with segregation. Homer Plessy, who was only one-eighth black, was required to ride the "colored" train car, and when he refused to, he was jailed.

He sued the state, but they ruled in favor of the railroad company. He eventually took the case all the way to the Supreme Court, where the court also ruled against Plessy, deciding that it was constitutional to have separate facilities for each race.

Answer: Miranda v. Arizona

The defendant, Ernesto Miranda, prior to the Supreme Court case, was convicted of robbery and attempted rape based solely on his confession during interrogation. However, his Fifth Amendment rights were violated because he was not aware that he could remain silent during an interrogation.

In addition, he was not given due process that was entitled to him in the Fourteenth Amendment. Thus, the court ruled that the rights had to be read to a suspect. They became known as "Miranda Rights".

Answer: line-item vetoes

In 1996, President Clinton was given the power to veto certain parts of bills in order to eliminate unnecessary budget appropriations. However, some members of Congress felt this was a breach in the checks and balances provided by the Constitution; the President was given the power to control budget, which is supposed to be Congress' power.

The Court agreed and ruled the Line-Item Veto Act of 1996 unconstitutional.

Answer: True

Shortly after the first case that decided to end school segregation, another case commanded that the schools to desegregate immediately because many schools were postponing it. However, some people consider the language used in the majority opinion is too ambiguous to suggest immediate haste of desegregation.

Answer: McCulloch v. Maryland

McCulloch v. Maryland only decided on the national supremacy of the Constitution over the states. Engel v. Vitale decided that it was unconstitutional to have state-sponsored school prayers in a public school. This was a violation of the establishment clause in the First Amendment. New York Times v. U.S. found that newspapers were allowed to publish scrutiny against the government so that they were free from prosecution. And Schenk v. U.S. decided that some speech during times of war were unsafe and could be limited if they had "clear and present danger".

Answer: Smith v. Allwright

This case came before the landmark case of Brown v. Board, and many feel that this case aided in the later movement for civil rights. Lonnie E. Smith sued for the right to vote in a Democratic primary. The court ruled in Smith's favor.

Answer: Buckley v. Valeo

Although the amount of campaign contributions was limited by Buckley v. Valeo, many people still disagree with the ruling. They consider money as a form of free speech because with money, candidates are able to get out their views in an election. By limiting money, some believe that the government is limiting free speech.

Answer: Webster v. Reproductive Health Services

Although the court claimed that it was not overturning the decision in Roe v. Wade, many believe that this case is contradicting the Roe v. Wade decision. In fact, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and Antonin Scalia both agreed that they should have overturned the Roe v. Wade decision.

Answer: sent around fliers promoting peaceful protest against a draft

Despite the seemingly harmlessness in his fliers, Schenk was still found guilty in the Supreme Court case. The case set the precedent of the "clear and present danger" test that is used to decide whether speech can be considered harmful to the United States, and thus needed to be limited.

Answer: judicial review

Marbury v. Madison, the first landmark case, had established judicial review. This is an informal power of the Supreme Court because the Constitution does not explicitly say that the Supreme Court has the right to judicial review.