WGU C963 Court Cases questions and
answers 2024\2025 A+ Grade
Marbury v. Madison
- correct answer This case involved the Judiciary Act of 1789. The Supreme Court declared that the law
conflicted with the U.S. Constitution, and the case established the principle of judicial review wherein
the Supreme Court has the power to declare laws passed by Congress and signed by the president to be
unconstitutional.
Dred Scott v. Sanford
- correct answer Supreme Court case that decided US Congress did not have the power to prohibit
slavery in federal territories and slaves, as private property, could not be taken away without due
process - basically slaves would remain slaves in non-slave states and slaves could not sue because they
were not citizens
Plessy v. Ferguson
- correct answer a 1896 Supreme Court decision which legalized state ordered segregation so long as the
facilities for blacks and whites were equal
United States v. Miller
- correct answer 1939; ruled that the National Firearms Act of 1934 was constitutional, allowing federal
govt to ban interstate shipping of some unregistered guns (because it was unrelated to state militias)
Korematsu v. US
- correct answer 1944 Supreme Court case where the Supreme Court upheld the order providing for the
relocation of Japanese Americans. It was not until 1988 that Congress formally apologized and agreed to
pay $20,000 2 each survivor
, Brown v Board ofEducation of Topeka (1954)
- correct answer Supreme Court ruling that overturned the Plessy v. Ferguson Supreme Court Case of
1896. "Separate but equal" is Unconstitutional in the field of public education
Mapp v. Ohio
- correct answer Established the exclusionary rule was applicable to the states (evidence seized illegally
cannot be used in court)
Gideon v. Wainwright
- correct answer A person who cannot afford an attorney may have one appointed by the government
Sherbert vs. Verner
- correct answer Unemployment may not be denied on religious basis
Grsiwold v. Connecticut
- correct answer Although several state constitutions do list the right to privacy as a protected right, the
explicit recognition by the Supreme Court of a right to privacy in the U.S. Constitution emerged only in
the middle of the twentieth century. In this 1965 case, the court spelled out the right to privacy for the
first time in a case that struck down a state law forbidding even married individuals to use any form of
contraception.
Miranda v. Arizona
- correct answer Supreme Court held that criminal suspects must be informed of their right to consult
with an attorney and of their right against self-incrimination prior to questioning by police.
Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections
- correct answer Struck down poll taxes at the state level
Tinker v. Des Moines
- correct answer Students have the right to symbolic speech at school as long as it is not disruptive
Brandenburg v. Ohio
- correct answer 1969--Determined that a law that proscribes advocacy of violence for political reform is
constitutional if applied to speech that is not directed toward producing imminent lawlessness and is
not likely to produce such action is not constitutional.
answers 2024\2025 A+ Grade
Marbury v. Madison
- correct answer This case involved the Judiciary Act of 1789. The Supreme Court declared that the law
conflicted with the U.S. Constitution, and the case established the principle of judicial review wherein
the Supreme Court has the power to declare laws passed by Congress and signed by the president to be
unconstitutional.
Dred Scott v. Sanford
- correct answer Supreme Court case that decided US Congress did not have the power to prohibit
slavery in federal territories and slaves, as private property, could not be taken away without due
process - basically slaves would remain slaves in non-slave states and slaves could not sue because they
were not citizens
Plessy v. Ferguson
- correct answer a 1896 Supreme Court decision which legalized state ordered segregation so long as the
facilities for blacks and whites were equal
United States v. Miller
- correct answer 1939; ruled that the National Firearms Act of 1934 was constitutional, allowing federal
govt to ban interstate shipping of some unregistered guns (because it was unrelated to state militias)
Korematsu v. US
- correct answer 1944 Supreme Court case where the Supreme Court upheld the order providing for the
relocation of Japanese Americans. It was not until 1988 that Congress formally apologized and agreed to
pay $20,000 2 each survivor
, Brown v Board ofEducation of Topeka (1954)
- correct answer Supreme Court ruling that overturned the Plessy v. Ferguson Supreme Court Case of
1896. "Separate but equal" is Unconstitutional in the field of public education
Mapp v. Ohio
- correct answer Established the exclusionary rule was applicable to the states (evidence seized illegally
cannot be used in court)
Gideon v. Wainwright
- correct answer A person who cannot afford an attorney may have one appointed by the government
Sherbert vs. Verner
- correct answer Unemployment may not be denied on religious basis
Grsiwold v. Connecticut
- correct answer Although several state constitutions do list the right to privacy as a protected right, the
explicit recognition by the Supreme Court of a right to privacy in the U.S. Constitution emerged only in
the middle of the twentieth century. In this 1965 case, the court spelled out the right to privacy for the
first time in a case that struck down a state law forbidding even married individuals to use any form of
contraception.
Miranda v. Arizona
- correct answer Supreme Court held that criminal suspects must be informed of their right to consult
with an attorney and of their right against self-incrimination prior to questioning by police.
Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections
- correct answer Struck down poll taxes at the state level
Tinker v. Des Moines
- correct answer Students have the right to symbolic speech at school as long as it is not disruptive
Brandenburg v. Ohio
- correct answer 1969--Determined that a law that proscribes advocacy of violence for political reform is
constitutional if applied to speech that is not directed toward producing imminent lawlessness and is
not likely to produce such action is not constitutional.
