K ey Cases:
Snyder vs Phelps 2011:
The Westboro Baptist Church believes that God punishes the United States for its
tolerance of homosexuality, particularly within the military. To demonstrate their beliefs,
Phelps and his followers often picket at military funerals, and in this case, the funeral of
Matthew Snyder. They displayed signs such as “Thank God for dead soldiers” and “don't
pray for the USA”.
Snyder sued Phelps and claimed the church caused him distress. In defense, Phelps
argued that it was free speech, which was protected under the Free Speech Clause of the
1st Amendment to the Constitution.
The court ruled 8-1 in favor of Phelps, thus protecting the right to free speech.
Roe vs W ade 1973 an d Dobbs vs Jackson 2022:
Roe versus Wade was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court rules. The court
ruled that everybody had a right to an abortion. Therefore, striking down many abortion
laws. The court ruled 7-2 in favor of Jane Roe
The case of Dobbs versus Jackson Williams Health Organization in 2022 ruled that the
Constitution of the United States does not confer a right to abortion, thus overruling Roe
versus wade in 1973 and returning the power over abortion laws to the states.
The court ruled 6 –3 in favor of Dobbs. This shows a lack of Stare decisis, which is a key
principle of the Supreme Court.
B r ow n vs B oar d of Edu cation of Topeka 1954
This decision ruled that US state laws establishing racial segregation in public schools
are unconstitutional, even if the segregated schools are otherwise equal in quality. This
overruled the court decision of 1896, Plessy vs Ferguson, which held that racial
segregation laws did not violate the US Constitution if facilities for each race were an
equal quality “separ ate but equal”
The decision was 9-0 in favor of Browns
Regen ts of Un iver sity of Califor n ia vs B akke 1978
The case started when Bakke had applied to study medicine at the University of
California. His application was rejected, and he felt he had an injustice done to him, due
to a specific racial quota that meant that 16 out of the 100 applicants had to be of a
minority background.
The Court upheld this affirmative action, however, it said that specific racial quotas are
unconstitutional. 5-4 decision
, Ian cu vs B r un etti 2019
The issue was with an FUCT trademark – it was said to be ‘scandalous and immoral’ and
therefore banned. However, it was argued that this violated the 1st Amendment.
The decision was 6-3 and said that the decision to ban it was unconstitutional and
violated the 1st Amendment.
Allen vs Milligan 2023
The case argued against the redistricting in Alabama, in which a new majority minority
district was created as there was a growth in the minority ethnic population in Alabama.
The case argued that this violated the terms of the Voting Rights Act.
On June 8, 2023, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court and held Alabama's map
likely violated the Voting Rights Act.
K ey info:
The case of Mar bur y vs Maddison 1803 gave the SC power of Judicial
Review on feder al law s
The case of Fletcher vs Peck 1810 gave the SC the power of Judicial Review
on state law s
Difference between independence and neutrality. Independence is the idea that a
SC justice should be free from influence from pressure groups, lobbyists and
political parties. Neutrality is about the ideology that a SC holds and how their
views should not affect their decision.
K ey Defi nitions:
Judicial Activism : An approach to judicial decision making which holds that a judge
should not use his or her position to promote desirable ends.
Judicial Restr aint: An approach to judicial decision making which holds that a judge
should refer to the executive and legislative branches which are politically accountable to
the voters and should put great stress on the precedent established in the previous court
decisions
Affi r m ative Action : A policy that allows minority groups to be intentionally
advantaged in order to begin to correct historic disadvantages.
Appellate Jur isdiction : This refers to the Court's authority to review and potentially
change the decision of a lower court. The Supreme Court does not hear the case initially,
but rather on appeal from a lower court's ruling.
Snyder vs Phelps 2011:
The Westboro Baptist Church believes that God punishes the United States for its
tolerance of homosexuality, particularly within the military. To demonstrate their beliefs,
Phelps and his followers often picket at military funerals, and in this case, the funeral of
Matthew Snyder. They displayed signs such as “Thank God for dead soldiers” and “don't
pray for the USA”.
Snyder sued Phelps and claimed the church caused him distress. In defense, Phelps
argued that it was free speech, which was protected under the Free Speech Clause of the
1st Amendment to the Constitution.
The court ruled 8-1 in favor of Phelps, thus protecting the right to free speech.
Roe vs W ade 1973 an d Dobbs vs Jackson 2022:
Roe versus Wade was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court rules. The court
ruled that everybody had a right to an abortion. Therefore, striking down many abortion
laws. The court ruled 7-2 in favor of Jane Roe
The case of Dobbs versus Jackson Williams Health Organization in 2022 ruled that the
Constitution of the United States does not confer a right to abortion, thus overruling Roe
versus wade in 1973 and returning the power over abortion laws to the states.
The court ruled 6 –3 in favor of Dobbs. This shows a lack of Stare decisis, which is a key
principle of the Supreme Court.
B r ow n vs B oar d of Edu cation of Topeka 1954
This decision ruled that US state laws establishing racial segregation in public schools
are unconstitutional, even if the segregated schools are otherwise equal in quality. This
overruled the court decision of 1896, Plessy vs Ferguson, which held that racial
segregation laws did not violate the US Constitution if facilities for each race were an
equal quality “separ ate but equal”
The decision was 9-0 in favor of Browns
Regen ts of Un iver sity of Califor n ia vs B akke 1978
The case started when Bakke had applied to study medicine at the University of
California. His application was rejected, and he felt he had an injustice done to him, due
to a specific racial quota that meant that 16 out of the 100 applicants had to be of a
minority background.
The Court upheld this affirmative action, however, it said that specific racial quotas are
unconstitutional. 5-4 decision
, Ian cu vs B r un etti 2019
The issue was with an FUCT trademark – it was said to be ‘scandalous and immoral’ and
therefore banned. However, it was argued that this violated the 1st Amendment.
The decision was 6-3 and said that the decision to ban it was unconstitutional and
violated the 1st Amendment.
Allen vs Milligan 2023
The case argued against the redistricting in Alabama, in which a new majority minority
district was created as there was a growth in the minority ethnic population in Alabama.
The case argued that this violated the terms of the Voting Rights Act.
On June 8, 2023, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court and held Alabama's map
likely violated the Voting Rights Act.
K ey info:
The case of Mar bur y vs Maddison 1803 gave the SC power of Judicial
Review on feder al law s
The case of Fletcher vs Peck 1810 gave the SC the power of Judicial Review
on state law s
Difference between independence and neutrality. Independence is the idea that a
SC justice should be free from influence from pressure groups, lobbyists and
political parties. Neutrality is about the ideology that a SC holds and how their
views should not affect their decision.
K ey Defi nitions:
Judicial Activism : An approach to judicial decision making which holds that a judge
should not use his or her position to promote desirable ends.
Judicial Restr aint: An approach to judicial decision making which holds that a judge
should refer to the executive and legislative branches which are politically accountable to
the voters and should put great stress on the precedent established in the previous court
decisions
Affi r m ative Action : A policy that allows minority groups to be intentionally
advantaged in order to begin to correct historic disadvantages.
Appellate Jur isdiction : This refers to the Court's authority to review and potentially
change the decision of a lower court. The Supreme Court does not hear the case initially,
but rather on appeal from a lower court's ruling.
