Mcculloch v Maryland

    One day long long ago (1816) the US Government decided to create a bank called the Second Bank of the United States. The state of Maryland decided to impose a tax on the bank, which the cashier of the Maryland branch refused to pay. The case was taken to the Maryland Court of Appeals, which decided that the federal bank was unconstitutional, as it was not stated in the Constitution that one could be established.     

I'm not paying that tax!! AHHH!!!!

    The justices decided that the court had the power to establish a bank, even though it wasn't written in the Constitution that they could. The justified this with the Necessary and Proper clause. They also decided that Maryland could not tax the bank because of the Supremacy Clause. 

    The significance of this case is that it was declared constitutional for congress to exercise implied powers. This greatly increased the scope of laws they could make and the powers that the Constitution gave them, allowing for future important legislation. 

Let them use the elastic clause!

United States V Lopez

    On one dark and gloomy day years ago, a high school student (Alfonzo Lopez) brought a gun onto his school grounds. He was charged by the state, and then the federal government for violating the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, which was justified with the Commerce Clause. Lopez was sentenced to jail for 6 months, but repealed his case saying that the federal government had extended its constitutional boundaries with the law because controlling school systems is a state held power.  

No Guns Allowed!! Federal Law!!

AWW Come On!!

    The Supreme Court agreed that the Gun-Free School Zones Act was unconstitutional under the commerce clause because having a gun in a school zone does not have an impact on interstate commerce, it is just a criminal offense. 

    The significance of United States v Lopez was that state legislatures maintained the power to control local issues like creating laws for schools, rather than the federal government controlling school systems.  

I only have a state punishment now!

Engel v vitale

    Long ago in a town far away, a school system approved of a voluntary prayer at the beginning of each day. Many interest groups and organizations protested the prayer, saying it was unconstitutional and violated the Establishment Clause, which prohibits Congress from establishing a nation wide religion. The New York Court of Appeals rejected the argument, so the interest groups appealed it to the Supreme Court.

That is so unconstitutional!!

    The Supreme Court decided that the prayer was unconstitutional because it breached the separation of power between the church and state, and was in violation of the Establishment Clause. Because the government can not put religion into state sponsored things, a prayer in schools is unconstitutional. 

    The significance of this case is that it specified that the Establishment clause applied to public schools as well as Congress not being able to establish a national religion.

Wisconsin v Yoder

    One day long long ago, three Amish parents were prosecuted for removing their children from school after 8th grade, because Wisconsin law said they had to be in school until age 16. They said that the law violated their religious beliefs and their First Amendment rights. The families took the state law to the Supreme Court.

Your law is unconstitutional! 

Yeah!!

    The court ruled unanimously that the families were correct, and that the Wisconsin law did violate the Amish religion and the parent’s right to determine how much schooling their children should have. The law specifically violated the parent’s right to express religion freely under the 1st Amendment. 

    The significance of Wisconsin v Yoder was that the individual freedom of expression of religion was put over enforced education, and the amount of required education and laws surrounding it changed.

Tinker V Des Moines

    Long ago on a dark and dreary day, several students decided to wear black armbands to school in protest of the Vietnam War. The school suspended the students for wearing the bands, causing the student’s parents to sue the school board for violating their first amendment right to freedom of expression. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court.

We deserve freedom of expression even at school!!

    The majority opinion of the court was that the armbands were a representation of free speech, and was not interfering with school procedures. They ruled that students maintain their first amendment rights while on a school campus. 

    The significance of this case was that schools have to be able to justify suppression of speech with proof that it is disrupting education significantly, and that students can express political and other opinions at school.

They have 1st Amendment rights even at school!

New York Times Co v United States

    One dark and dreary night, the New York Times attempted to publish classified Defense Department papers on US involvement in Vietnam. President Nixon tried to prevent this publishing by saying that it needed to be hidden to protect national security. The New York Times claimed that hiding the papers violated the first amendment right of  Freedom of the Press.

   The Supreme Court determined that withholding the papers from was unconstitutional, and violated the first amendment. They argued that “security” was too vague and could not justify withholding the papers from the press. 

    The court established a “heavy presumption” of prior restraint, meaning that government censorship is almost always unconstitutional. This impacts other future censorship cases by setting a precedent.

Let us publish these papers! The people have a right to know!

Schenck v United States

    Long ago in a town far far away, during the draft for WWI, Charles Schenck distributed leaflets protesting the draft, and saying that people should peacefully disobey the draft. He was convicted of violating the Espionage Act of 1917, which regulated what could be shared, or done that may hurt the US's chances in the war during wartime only. Schenck appealed to the Supreme Court, saying that the act violated the first amendment.

Don't obey the Draft!!

    The justices unanimously agreed that the Espionage Act was constitutional in wartimes, because the government had more power or authority during wartime, and the first amendment does not protect speech that "approaches a clear and present danger".

    The significance of this case was that it maintained the constitutionality of the Espionage Act, and determined the Clear and Present Danger test to determine when an individual's freedom of speech can be limited.  

Gideon v Wainwright

    On a dark and stormy night, Clarence Earl Gideon was charged with breaking and entering, and appeared at court without a lawyer. Because he was not an indigent defendant, he was not subject to a state lawyer and represented himself in court. He was found guilty, and the case was appealed to the Supreme Court, with Gideon arguing that his right to be represented by counsel was violated.

You don't get a lawyer!!

What!?!?

    The Supreme Court agreed unanimously with Gideon, saying that all state courts needed to provide lawyers to those who could not afford them according to the 6th and 14th amendments in the Constitution.    

   The significance of this case was that it was determined that all state courts had to give defendants the option of a lawyer, by law of the Constitution.

I got a lawyer!!

Roe v Wade

    On a cold and dreary night long ago, a women filed a lawsuit against the district attorney of Dallas Texas over a law prohibiting abortions except in emergency situations. She claimed that the law violated her right to privacy stated in the Constitution, and appealed the case to the supreme court.    

women have the right to an abortion under the 14 amendment!

    The court agreed with Roe, ruling that the state law was unconstitutional because it was very vague. They established a new precedent for abortion, including a more lenient timeline for when women could get an abortion.

    This case was significant because it set the precedent for other abortion cases in the future and also increased the federal government's role in health care, specifically women's healthcare.

Yay! i won my case!