| Sandbox code
|
Current code
|
[[Category:Template:Pagetype with short description]]| Hylton v. United States |
|---|
 | Argued February 23, 1796 Decided March 8, 1796 |
|---|
| Full case name | Daniel Hylton, Plaintiff in Error v. The United States |
|---|
| Citations | 3 U.S. 171 (more) 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 171; 1 L. Ed. 556; 1796 U.S. LEXIS 397; 2 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 2155 |
|---|
| Case history |
|---|
| Prior | Defendant convicted, Circuit Court for the District of Virginia |
|---|
| Subsequent | None |
|---|
| Holding |
|---|
| A tax on the possession of goods is not a "direct" tax, which must be apportioned under Article I of the Constitution. | | Court membership |
|---|
- Chief Justice
- Expression error: Unexpected < operator.Oliver Ellsworth
- Associate Justices
- James Wilson · William Cushing
James Iredell · William Paterson Samuel Chase
| | Case opinions |
|---|
| Seriatim | Chase |
|---|
| Seriatim | Paterson |
|---|
| Seriatim | Iredell |
|---|
| Seriatim | Wilson |
|---|
| Ellsworth and Cushing took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | | Laws applied |
|---|
| U.S. Const. art. I |
|
[[Category:Template:Pagetype with short description]]| Hylton v. United States |
|---|
 | Argued February 23, 1796 Decided March 8, 1796 |
|---|
| Full case name | Daniel Hylton, Plaintiff in Error v. The United States |
|---|
| Citations | 3 U.S. 171 (more) 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 171; 1 L. Ed. 556; 1796 U.S. LEXIS 397; 2 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 2155 |
|---|
| Case history |
|---|
| Prior | Defendant convicted, Circuit Court for the District of Virginia |
|---|
| Subsequent | None |
|---|
| Holding |
|---|
| A tax on the possession of goods is not a "direct" tax, which must be apportioned under Article I of the Constitution. | | Court membership |
|---|
- Chief Justice
- Expression error: Unexpected < operator.Oliver Ellsworth
- Associate Justices
- James Wilson · William Cushing
James Iredell · William Paterson Samuel Chase
| | Case opinions |
|---|
| Seriatim | Chase |
|---|
| Seriatim | Paterson |
|---|
| Seriatim | Iredell |
|---|
| Seriatim | Wilson |
|---|
| Ellsworth and Cushing took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | | Laws applied |
|---|
| U.S. Const. art. I |
|
| Sandbox code
|
Current code
|
[[Category:Template:Pagetype with short description]]| Marbury v. Madison |
|---|
 | Argued February 11, 1803 Decided February 24, 1803 |
|---|
| Full case name | William Marbury v. James Madison, Secretary of State of the United States |
|---|
| Citations | 5 U.S. 137 (more) 1 Cranch 137; 2 L. Ed. 60; 1803 U.S. LEXIS 352 |
|---|
| Case history |
|---|
| Prior | Original action filed in U.S. Supreme Court; order to show cause why writ of mandamus should not issue, December 1801 |
|---|
| Subsequent | None |
|---|
| Holding |
|---|
| Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 is unconstitutional to the extent it purports to enlarge the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court beyond that permitted by the Constitution. Congress cannot pass laws that are contrary to the Constitution, and it is the role of the Judicial system to interpret what the Constitution permits. | | Court membership |
|---|
- Chief Justice
- Expression error: Unexpected < operator.John Marshall
- Associate Justices
- William Cushing · William Paterson
Samuel Chase · Bushrod Washington Alfred Moore
| | Case opinion |
|---|
| Majority | Marshall, joined by Paterson, Chase, Washington |
|---|
| Cushing and Moore took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | | Laws applied |
|---|
| U.S. Const. arts. I, III; Judiciary Act of 1789 § 13 |
|
[[Category:Template:Pagetype with short description]]| Marbury v. Madison |
|---|
 | Argued February 11, 1803 Decided February 24, 1803 |
|---|
| Full case name | William Marbury v. James Madison, Secretary of State of the United States |
|---|
| Citations | 5 U.S. 137 (more) 1 Cranch 137; 2 L. Ed. 60; 1803 U.S. LEXIS 352 |
|---|
| Case history |
|---|
| Prior | Original action filed in U.S. Supreme Court; order to show cause why writ of mandamus should not issue, December 1801 |
|---|
| Subsequent | None |
|---|
| Holding |
|---|
| Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 is unconstitutional to the extent it purports to enlarge the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court beyond that permitted by the Constitution. Congress cannot pass laws that are contrary to the Constitution, and it is the role of the Judicial system to interpret what the Constitution permits. | | Court membership |
|---|
- Chief Justice
- Expression error: Unexpected < operator.John Marshall
- Associate Justices
- William Cushing · William Paterson
Samuel Chase · Bushrod Washington Alfred Moore
| | Case opinion |
|---|
| Majority | Marshall, joined by Paterson, Chase, Washington |
|---|
| Cushing and Moore took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | | Laws applied |
|---|
| U.S. Const. arts. I, III; Judiciary Act of 1789 § 13 |
|
| Sandbox code
|
Current code
|
[[Category:Template:Pagetype with short description]]| Brown v. Board of Education |
|---|
 | Argued December 9, 1952 Reargued December 8, 1953 Decided May 17, 1954 |
|---|
| Full case name | Oliver Brown, et al. v. Board of Education of Topeka, et al. |
|---|
| Citations | 347 U.S. 483 (more) 74 S. Ct. 686; 98 L. Ed. 873; 1954 U.S. LEXIS 2094; 53 Ohio Op. 326; 38 A.L.R.2d 1180 |
|---|
| Case history |
|---|
| Prior | Judgment for defendants, 98 F. Supp. 797 (D. Kan. 1951) |
|---|
| Subsequent | Judgment on relief, 349 U.S. 294 (1955) (Brown II); on remand, 139 F. Supp. 468 (D. Kan. 1955); motion to intervene granted, 84 F.R.D. 383 (D. Kan. 1979); judgment for defendants, 671 F. Supp. 1290 (D. Kan. 1987); reversed, 892 F.2d 851 (10th Cir. 1989); vacated, 503 U.S. 978 (1992) (Brown III); judgment reinstated, 978 F.2d 585 (10th Cir. 1992); judgment for defendants, 56 F. Supp. 2d 1212 (D. Kan. 1999) |
|---|
| Holding |
|---|
| Segregation of students in public schools violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, because separate facilities are inherently unequal. District Court of Kansas reversed. | | Court membership |
|---|
- Chief Justice
- Expression error: Unexpected < operator.Earl Warren
- Associate Justices
- Hugo Black · Stanley F. Reed
Felix Frankfurter · William O. Douglas Robert H. Jackson · Harold H. Burton Tom C. Clark · Sherman Minton
| | Case opinion |
|---|
| Majority | Warren, joined by unanimous |
|---|
| Laws applied |
|---|
| United States Constitution, Amendment XIV |
|
[[Category:Template:Pagetype with short description]]| Brown v. Board of Education |
|---|
 | Argued December 9, 1952 Reargued December 8, 1953 Decided May 17, 1954 |
|---|
| Full case name | Oliver Brown, et al. v. Board of Education of Topeka, et al. |
|---|
| Citations | 347 U.S. 483 (more) 74 S. Ct. 686; 98 L. Ed. 873; 1954 U.S. LEXIS 2094; 53 Ohio Op. 326; 38 A.L.R.2d 1180 |
|---|
| Case history |
|---|
| Prior | Judgment for defendants, 98 F. Supp. 797 (D. Kan. 1951) |
|---|
| Subsequent | Judgment on relief, 349 U.S. 294 (1955) (Brown II); on remand, 139 F. Supp. 468 (D. Kan. 1955); motion to intervene granted, 84 F.R.D. 383 (D. Kan. 1979); judgment for defendants, 671 F. Supp. 1290 (D. Kan. 1987); reversed, 892 F.2d 851 (10th Cir. 1989); vacated, 503 U.S. 978 (1992) (Brown III); judgment reinstated, 978 F.2d 585 (10th Cir. 1992); judgment for defendants, 56 F. Supp. 2d 1212 (D. Kan. 1999) |
|---|
| Holding |
|---|
| Segregation of students in public schools violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, because separate facilities are inherently unequal. District Court of Kansas reversed. | | Court membership |
|---|
- Chief Justice
- Expression error: Unexpected < operator.Earl Warren
- Associate Justices
- Hugo Black · Stanley F. Reed
Felix Frankfurter · William O. Douglas Robert H. Jackson · Harold H. Burton Tom C. Clark · Sherman Minton
| | Case opinion |
|---|
| Majority | Warren, joined by unanimous |
|---|
| Laws applied |
|---|
| United States Constitution, Amendment XIV |
|
| Sandbox code
|
Current code
|
[[Category:Template:Pagetype with short description]]| Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission |
|---|
 | Argued March 24, 2009 Reargued September 9, 2009 Decided January 21, 2010 |
|---|
| Full case name | Citizens United, Appellant v. Federal Election Commission |
|---|
| Docket no. | [[[:Template:SCOTUS URL Docket]] 08-205] |
|---|
| Citations | 558 U.S. 310 (more) 130 S.Ct. 876 |
|---|
| Argument | Oral argument |
|---|
| Reargument | Reargument |
|---|
| Opinion announcement | Opinion announcement |
|---|
| Case history |
|---|
| Prior | denied appellants motion for a preliminary injunction 530 F. Supp. 2d 274 (D.D.C. 2008)[1] probable jurisdiction noted 128 S. Ct. 1471 (2008). |
|---|
| Holding |
|---|
| A provision of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act prohibiting unions, corporations and not-for-profit organizations from broadcasting electioneering communications within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary election violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. United States District Court for the District of Columbia reversed. | | Court membership |
|---|
- Chief Justice
- Expression error: Unexpected < operator.John Roberts
- Associate Justices
- John P. Stevens · Antonin Scalia
Anthony Kennedy · Clarence Thomas Ruth Bader Ginsburg · Stephen Breyer Samuel Alito · Sonia Sotomayor
| | Case opinions |
|---|
| Majority | Kennedy, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Alito; Thomas (all but Part IV); Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor (only as to Part IV) |
|---|
| Concurrence | Roberts, joined by Alito |
|---|
| Concurrence | Scalia, joined by Alito; Thomas (in part) |
|---|
| Concur/dissent | Stevens, joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor |
|---|
| Concur/dissent | Thomas |
|---|
| Laws applied |
|---|
| U.S. Const. amend. I |
|
[[Category:Template:Pagetype with short description]]| Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission |
|---|
 | Argued March 24, 2009 Reargued September 9, 2009 Decided January 21, 2010 |
|---|
| Full case name | Citizens United, Appellant v. Federal Election Commission |
|---|
| Docket no. | [[[:Template:SCOTUS URL Docket]] 08-205] |
|---|
| Citations | 558 U.S. 310 (more) 130 S.Ct. 876 |
|---|
| Argument | Oral argument |
|---|
| Reargument | Reargument |
|---|
| Opinion announcement | Opinion announcement |
|---|
| Case history |
|---|
| Prior | denied appellants motion for a preliminary injunction 530 F. Supp. 2d 274 (D.D.C. 2008)[1] probable jurisdiction noted 128 S. Ct. 1471 (2008). |
|---|
| Holding |
|---|
| A provision of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act prohibiting unions, corporations and not-for-profit organizations from broadcasting electioneering communications within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary election violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. United States District Court for the District of Columbia reversed. | | Court membership |
|---|
- Chief Justice
- Expression error: Unexpected < operator.John Roberts
- Associate Justices
- John P. Stevens · Antonin Scalia
Anthony Kennedy · Clarence Thomas Ruth Bader Ginsburg · Stephen Breyer Samuel Alito · Sonia Sotomayor
| | Case opinions |
|---|
| Majority | Kennedy, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Alito; Thomas (all but Part IV); Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor (only as to Part IV) |
|---|
| Concurrence | Roberts, joined by Alito |
|---|
| Concurrence | Scalia, joined by Alito; Thomas (in part) |
|---|
| Concur/dissent | Stevens, joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor |
|---|
| Concur/dissent | Thomas |
|---|
| Laws applied |
|---|
| U.S. Const. amend. I |
|