12th grade Landmark Supreme Court cases and what each decided worksheet

Landmark Supreme Court cases and what each decided

Grade 12 Social Studies Worksheet - Challenge Me

Circle the best answer.

1. Read this first

   Use this

   Cards A to C on Marbury v. Madison. Card A, "Article III, section 2" (National Archives transcript, exact, second paragraph): "In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." Card B, "Chief Justice Marshall" (Marbury v. Madison, 1803 (opinion of the Court, exact)): "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." Card C, "The case" (summary in our words, not a quotation): William Marbury asked the Supreme Court directly for an order requiring Secretary of State James Madison to deliver Marbury's commission as a justice of the peace. A law of Congress, the Judiciary Act of 1789, said the Court could issue such orders. The Court held that Marbury had a right to the commission. It also held that this part of the law conflicted with Article III, so the Court did not issue the order.

2. 1.

   Ari reads Cards A and C. Why did the Court not order Madison to deliver the commission?

   • Because Marbury had no right to the commission, so no court could order it delivered
   • Because Madison, as Secretary of State, could not be ordered by any court to deliver a commission
   • Congress could not add to the cases the Court hears first, so that part of the law conflicted
   • Because Congress may not pass a law about the Supreme Court's jurisdiction
3. 2.

   Invented case: Congress passes a law letting the Supreme Court first hear any dispute between two private companies. Bo applies Cards A to C. What follows?

   • The law stands, since Card A lets Congress make regulations for the Supreme Court
   • The Court must apply it, since Card B says the courts apply the law Congress writes and nothing more
   • By Marbury's reasoning the Court would decline that part, which adds to Card A's list
   • The whole law is void and Congress loses its power over the courts
4. 3.

   Jun reads Marshall's reasoning: Card A's list of first-hearing cases is a limit Congress cannot widen. What does that reading assume?

   • That the President may overrule the Court's reading of Card A when the two disagree
   • That Madison was entitled to keep the commission because Marbury had no right to it
   • That naming some cases for first hearing excludes others, though Card A does not say only
   • That the Constitution is silent about what cases the Supreme Court may hear first

5. Use this

   Cards A to D on Gideon v. Wainwright. Card A, "The Sixth Amendment" (National Archives transcript, exact, one clause): "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right … to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." Card B, "Justice Black" (Gideon v. Wainwright, 1963 (opinion of the Court, exact)): "…any person haled into court, who is too poor to hire a lawyer, cannot be assured a fair trial unless counsel is provided for him." Card C, "Betts v. Brady" (same opinion, exact): "We accept Betts v. Brady's assumption, based as it was on our prior cases, that a provision of the Bill of Rights which is 'fundamental and essential to a fair trial' is made obligatory upon the States by the Fourteenth Amendment. We think the Court in Betts was wrong, however, in concluding that the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of counsel is not one of these fundamental rights." Card D, "The case" (summary in our words, not a quotation): The vote was 9 to 0. Gideon, charged in Florida with a serious crime, asked for a lawyer and could not pay for one. Florida provided lawyers only in some cases. The Court overruled its 1942 decision in Betts v. Brady, which had required a lawyer for a poor defendant in a state court only in special circumstances.

6. 4.

   Invented case: the state of Alder provides a lawyer only to defendants charged with murder. A person charged with a serious theft cannot pay for one. Luz applies Cards B to D. What follows?

   • Alder must provide a lawyer for each offense, however small, since Card B covers any person
   • Alder's rule fails: Card B ties a fair trial to counsel, and Card D reaches serious crimes
   • Alder's rule stands, since Card A applies to federal courts and the Court left the States alone
   • Alder's rule stands, since Betts v. Brady still requires counsel in special circumstances alone
7. 5.

   Milo reads this claim: 'Gideon applied the Sixth Amendment to Florida directly, because Card A says all criminal prosecutions.' What is the strongest objection?

   • The claim is right, since the Sixth Amendment's words about criminal prosecutions name no court
   • Card A does not name the States; Card C shows the Court reached Florida through the Fourteenth Amendment
   • Card A covers criminal prosecutions in federal courts alone, so Florida was outside it entirely
   • The vote was 9 to 0, which shows the Court applied the amendment directly to each state
8. 6.

   Noah reads Card B: a poor person 'cannot be assured a fair trial unless counsel is provided.' What does that sentence assume?

   • That a wealthy defendant has a right to a better lawyer than a poor defendant has
   • That a poor defendant cannot defend effectively alone, so counsel is part of a fair trial
   • That even a defendant who can hire a lawyer cannot be assured a fair trial without one
   • That Florida's courts treated poor defendants unfairly in most cases they heard

9. Use this

   Cards A to C on United States v. Nixon. Card A, "The Court" (United States v. Nixon, 1974 (opinion of the Court, exact)): "…neither the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances." Card B, "The case" (summary in our words, not a quotation): The vote was 8 to 0, because one justice did not take part. A special prosecutor asked for tape recordings of the President's conversations for use in a criminal trial. The President claimed a privilege to keep them private. The Court ruled on July 24, 1974, that he had to hand them over. Nixon resigned on August 9, 1974. Card C, "Two readings" (invented, for practice): Reading 1: the ruling shows that no President is above the law. Reading 2: the ruling shows only that a claim of privilege cannot defeat a criminal trial's need for evidence, and the Court did not reject all privilege.

10. 7.

    Pia reads Reading 1 and Reading 2 in Card C. Which is better supported by the words of Card A?

    • Reading 2: Card A rejects an absolute privilege 'without more,' so some privilege may remain
    • Reading 1: Card A shows that no President is above the law in any matter that comes before a court
    • Reading 2: Card A says a privilege can be claimed by a former President alone, not a sitting one
    • Reading 1: Card A rejects any claim of privilege, so no claim can succeed in any court
11. 8.

    Invented case: a later President claims privilege to keep a conversation private in a criminal trial where evidence is needed. Ren applies Card A. What does it suggest?

    • The claim could not simply end the request, since Card A rejects an absolute privilege
    • The request must be granted, since Card A shows courts may order any record produced
    • The claim ends the request, since Card A shows the President's need for confidentiality controls
    • The claim fails because the President in this case is not Nixon
12. 9.

    Tala reads this claim: 'Nixon resigned because of the ruling.' What is the strongest objection that Card B supports?

    • The claim is wrong, since the ruling and the resignation were 16 days apart, too long for one to cause the other
    • The claim is wrong, since the 8 to 0 vote shows the ruling was not important
    • The claim is right, since the Court ruled that the tapes must be handed over and he resigned
    • Card B gives two dates 16 days apart; coming after the ruling does not show it was the cause
13. 10.

    Zee reads this claim: 'The 8 to 0 vote shows the whole Court agreed.' What does the claim assume?

    • That the President could appoint a justice to cast a ninth vote before the ruling was announced
    • That a unanimous vote is the sole way the Court can decide a case, whatever its size
    • That a unanimous vote of those who took part shows the ruling was correct
    • That the justice who did not take part would have voted the same way as the other eight