# Do you know the basics of these Supreme Court cases? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [October 2, 2008, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-know-the-basics-of-these-supreme-court-cases/466173 "2008-10-02T14:39:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2008, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-know-the-basics-of-these-supreme-court-cases/466173/21 "2008-10-03T03:29:39Z")
The only one I needed a refresher on was _Plessy v. Ferguson_ (know it’s about (de)segregation, forgot it’s the case that’s overturned by _Brown v. Board_, don’t think I’ve ever heard a discussion of either that didn’t reference the other). I admit to cheating on _Gideon v. Wainright_, I’ve seen [the movie](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080789/) 'bout a dozen times. CMC +fnord! [Couple of minutes of Abe Fortas’ opening argument to the SCotUS.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RimFu3hPGoc&feature=related) [Clarence Earl Gideon and (I’m guessing) Judge Robert McCrary Jr. reenact the start of the criminal trial.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXBvR8guIo8) Wainwright’s got three important SCotUS cases with his name on them; [_Wainwright v. Greenfield_](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wainwright_v._Greenfield), the use of post-Miranda silence to rebut an insanity defense, _Gideon v. Wainright_, and [_Ford v. Wainwright_](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_v._Wainwright), Eighth Amendment prohibits the execution of the insane. ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2008, 5:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-know-the-basics-of-these-supreme-court-cases/466173/22 "2008-10-03T05:54:58Z")
> [@shimmery](#): > > Roe v. Wade “The abortion one.” It’s led to abortion being treated legally as (and I hope I’m choosing the right terms here) a basic medical right. Sadly, it hasn’t led to any kind of improvement in “reproductive rights” or “gynecological healthcare” in general (I really, really, really wish I’d kept the brochure of the medical insurance that U of Miami got for the foreign students, '97-'98 school year, covering abortions but not a single other gynecological or tocological procedure). Disclaimer: I’m a foreigner, and AFAIK, when I lived in the USA that particular case affected me directly, being the owner of female bits. Like most people, I tend to pay more attention to things which I’m conscious affect me directly. And that case (or at least its name) gets trotted out any time abortion is mentioned in an American movie or TV series. I’ll be happy to use this thread to educate myself. ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2008, 6:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-know-the-basics-of-these-supreme-court-cases/466173/23 "2008-10-03T06:05:53Z")
I know Miranda, which wasn’t in the original list and I never remember who the other party was. It’s the one that led to the so-called “(Miranda) rights”, the ones movie cops recite boredly or read from a card. Miranda was a laborer who didn’t speakee no English señor, all he knew was that when someone spoke to him in English he was supposed to say “yessir.” So when he got questioned in relation to a murder I think it was, he kept saying “yessir.” He never had access to a lawyer he could speak with, in the original trial. He got charged and declared guilty without knowing what the hell was going on (well, I assume he figured out a partial notion after a while). So, now anybody who’s being charged or brought in for questioning is supposed to have access to a lawyer, an interpreter, etc. The rights of detainees in other countries are different, I’ve heard cops ranging from the amused to the irate telling about people who wanted them to “read them their rights” in Spain or Costa Rica. ---
**Author:** ![torie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/77aa72/32.png) [@torie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/torie)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2008, 6:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-know-the-basics-of-these-supreme-court-cases/466173/24 "2008-10-03T06:38:32Z")
I’ll give it a try… **Dred Scott v. Sandford** Dred Scott was a slave owned by a man who had traveled to free states and territories with him in tow. Dred Scott argued that since he was in free states and territories, he was now freed. The Supreme Court disagreed, using the same standards for ownerships of slaves that they did for livestock. It was the decision that established that slaves were considered property. **Marbury v. Madison** Marbury was a Federalist (?) appointed as a judge _right before_ John Adams left office. John Adams’ Secretary of Something, James Madison, refused to deliver Marbury the papers he needed to take the office. So Marbury took it to the Supreme Court and lost. I don’t remember exactly how, but the decision somehow led to the Supreme Court deciding that it was really their job to interpret the Constitution. This is all from my high school government class, which was 9 years ago, so be kind. 🙂 I’m off to Google and see how right I was. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2008, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-know-the-basics-of-these-supreme-court-cases/466173/25 "2008-10-03T16:04:32Z")
I know them all fairly well, because I are a lawyer. And I have a personal interest in constitutional law. I have a big round lapel pin that says “Ask me about _Estelle v. Gamble_!” [sub]No, not really.[/sub] ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Carrot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f0a364/32.png) [@Captain\_Carrot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Carrot)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2008, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-know-the-basics-of-these-supreme-court-cases/466173/26 "2008-10-03T16:58:25Z")
> [@torie](#): > > **Marbury v. Madison** > Marbury was a Federalist (?) appointed as a judge _right before_ John Adams left office. John Adams’ Secretary of Something, James Madison, refused to deliver Marbury the papers he needed to take the office. So Marbury took it to the Supreme Court and lost. I don’t remember exactly how, but the decision somehow led to the Supreme Court deciding that it was really their job to interpret the Constitution. IIRC, the Supreme Court said that Marbury was appointed correctly under the Judiciary Act, but that the Constitution laid out the jurisdiction and such of the Supreme Court, not Congress, so Marbury’s appointment was actually invalid. Chief Justice Marshall thus ruled the Judiciary Act unconstitutional and the Supreme Court a coequal branch of the US Government. ---
**Author:** ![TheLoadedDog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/35a633/32.png) [@TheLoadedDog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TheLoadedDog)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2008, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-know-the-basics-of-these-supreme-court-cases/466173/27 "2008-10-03T18:14:05Z")
Miranda vs Arizona Roe vs Wade Non-American here. ---
**Author:** ![NinjaChick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/71c47a/32.png) [@NinjaChick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NinjaChick)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2008, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-know-the-basics-of-these-supreme-court-cases/466173/28 "2008-10-03T18:15:27Z")
Gideon v. Wainwright is the only one of those I haven’t read all the opinions on for a seminar within the past year, so I’ll take a stab at it here. In the late 50’s(?), Mr. Gideon was standing trial in Florida for burglary and/or breaking and entering (I think). He couldn’t afford his own attorney, but at that point Florida drew on a prior Supreme Court ruling which said that yes the right to counsel was implied in the Bill of Rights but only in situations where the dependent was accused of a capital offense (I believe this was Powell v Alabama, but I’m not certain). Gideon tried to defend himself but was sentenced to prison time. From prison, he managed to build a suit against someone (the head of the state DoJ?). Eventually the Supreme Court decided that the right to legal counsel was a universal right and limiting it to capital offenses was unconstitutional. I’m know I’ve read about it but I can’t for the life of me which amendment was the focus - fifth, sixth, or fourteenth - of the case. **crowmanyclouds** - Plessy v Ferguson upheld the constitutionality of “separate but equal” public accommodation. Plessy was 7/8ths white and boarded a white-only train car in Louisiana. By state law he was considered black, and he refused to leave the white-only car. The Supreme Court ended up backing the state’s right to regulate the railroad, and the accommodations provided by it, as they saw fit. If you read the court’s opinion on Plessy, absolutely follow it with Harlan’s dissent. It’s absolutely worth the time. ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2008, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-know-the-basics-of-these-supreme-court-cases/466173/29 "2008-10-03T18:28:05Z")
> [@Jodi](#): > > I know them all fairly well, because I are a lawyer. And I have a personal interest in constitutional law. > > I have a big round lapel pin that says “Ask me about _Estelle v. Gamble_!” > > [sub]No, not really.[/sub] Hey Jodi, tell me about Estelle v. Gamble… ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2008, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-know-the-basics-of-these-supreme-court-cases/466173/30 "2008-10-03T19:43:07Z")
I used to tutor 1L law students in Con law. Some of the really esoteric Supreme Court cases I might have to look up and reread to remember the exact holding, but the six named in the OP I could nearly rewrite from memory. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2008, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-know-the-basics-of-these-supreme-court-cases/466173/31 "2008-10-03T19:50:35Z")
Some of those cases ring a bell with me, yes. ---
**Author:** ![Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a587f6/32.png) [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freddy_the_Pig)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2008, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-know-the-basics-of-these-supreme-court-cases/466173/32 "2008-10-03T20:17:02Z")
> [@delphica](#): > > And the Dred Scott thing has always bothered me. In lists, even in my school textbooks, all the cases were always Somebody v. Somebody else, except for Dred Scott. Why? **Why?** _ **Why?** _ Partly because the case had two incarnations, as Scott v. Emerson in state court and Scott v. Sandford in federal court. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2008, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-know-the-basics-of-these-supreme-court-cases/466173/33 "2008-10-04T00:14:30Z")
> [@Captain\_Carrot](#): > > IIRC, the Supreme Court said that Marbury was appointed correctly under the Judiciary Act, but that the Constitution laid out the jurisdiction and such of the Supreme Court, not Congress, so Marbury’s appointment was actually invalid. Chief Justice Marshall thus ruled the Judiciary Act unconstitutional and the Supreme Court a coequal branch of the US Government. No, the Court held that Marbury’s appointment was valid, and that all that was necessary to allow him to take up his duties was that Secretary of State Madison deliver the commission to Mr. Marbury. The question was whether the Supreme Court had the jurisdiction to issue that order, called a mandamus. That writ is an example of original jurisdiction, not appellate jurisdiction. The Court ruled that its original jurisdiction is defined by Article III of the Constitution, and Congress lacks the power to expand the Court’s original jurisdiction. The provision of the Judiciary Act that gave the Supreme Court the power to issue mandamus was therefore invalid. ---
**Author:** ![susan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/susan/32/17537_2.png) [@susan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/susan)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2008, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-know-the-basics-of-these-supreme-court-cases/466173/34 "2008-10-04T00:39:03Z")
I haven’t quite finished it (it’s dense), but Irons’s _A People’s History of the Supreme Court_ is fascinating, if also depressing (I thought better of SCoTUS before reading). Let’s not forget _Amistad Africans v. United States_ while we’re playing. ---
**Author:** ![SmackFu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/53a042/32.png) [@SmackFu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmackFu)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2008, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-know-the-basics-of-these-supreme-court-cases/466173/35 "2008-10-04T01:02:38Z")
I’m doubtful how important it is to know the overturned ones, except when discussing history. It’s not the law of the land anymore. ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2008, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-know-the-basics-of-these-supreme-court-cases/466173/36 "2008-10-04T01:45:36Z")
One I enjoy, both because it set a significant precedent and because it has one of the best names ever, is _United States v. One Package of Japanese Pessaries_. Not a SCOTUS case, though. Oh, and of course there’s _A Book Named “John Cleland’s Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure”, et al. v. Attorney General of Massachusetts_. ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2008, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-know-the-basics-of-these-supreme-court-cases/466173/37 "2008-10-04T01:48:13Z")
> [@SmackFu](#): > > I’m doubtful how important it is to know the overturned ones, except when discussing history. It’s not the law of the land anymore. It is, however, the history of the land. To use a Canadian example, it’s as important to know that the Canadian Supreme Court ruled that women were not qualified to sit in the Senate in the _Persons Case_ as it is to know that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council overruled that decision. It’s part of where we came from, and it’s the sort of reasoning and social circumstance we have to guard against in the future. ---
**Author:** ![NinjaChick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/71c47a/32.png) [@NinjaChick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NinjaChick)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2008, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-know-the-basics-of-these-supreme-court-cases/466173/38 "2008-10-04T02:05:31Z")
> [@matt\_mcl](#): > > One I enjoy, both because it set a significant precedent and because it has one of the best names ever, is _United States v. One Package of Japanese Pessaries_. Not a SCOTUS case, though. > > Oh, and of course there’s _A Book Named “John Cleland’s Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure”, et al. v. Attorney General of Massachusetts_. Wait, inanimate objects can be named as petitioners or respondents in court cases? ETA: are those the right generals terms? If not, please just pretend they are. ---
**Author:** ![Kyla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/eada6e/32.png) [@Kyla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kyla)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2008, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-know-the-basics-of-these-supreme-court-cases/466173/39 "2008-10-04T02:13:53Z")
Without looking at other peoples’ posts… **Marbury v. Madison** - this is the case that is the basis for the Supreme Court’s right to overturn laws as being unconstitutional. I have a very vague idea that the case is about a bridge in some way. **Brown v. Board** - the case that determined that “separate but equal” was inherently unequal and unconstitutional. Had to do with black children travelling really far to go to “black” schools when there were “white” schools nearer by, IIRC. The Board is the the Board of Education in Topeka, KS. Decided 9-0. **Roe v. wade** - The case that determined that the right to privacy included the right to abortion. To be honest, I am fuzzy on the actual details of the case. **Plessy v. Ferguson** - The case that introduced “separate but equal” in the first place. Had to do with segregation on train. **Gideon v. Wainright** - Nothing is coming to mind. **Dred Scott v. Sandford** - Dred Scott was a slave who sued for freedom when his owner moved to a non-slave state. The court ruled he did not have that right. I think I recall that this case was one of the landmark events leading up to the Civil War. FWIW, I learned about the Supreme Court in 12th grade AP US Government. I got a 4 on the AP Exam, but that was twelve years ago. I have a BA, and am currently a grad student in public policy. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2008, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-know-the-basics-of-these-supreme-court-cases/466173/40 "2008-10-04T02:17:36Z")
> [@NinjaChick](#): > > Wait, inanimate objects can be named as petitioners or respondents in court cases? > > ETA: are those the right generals terms? If not, please just pretend they are. No, _A Book Named “John Cleland’s Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure”, et al._ was Prince’s first shot at changing his name. 😃 In obscenity cases, the obscene material is sometimes named in the case style rather than its owner. I’m not sure why. Petitioner/respondent are used when you file a _petition_ - a request for the court to do something. Grant a writ, hear a motion, overturn your conviction, etc. Plaintiff/defendant are used when the requested redress is money: when you want money from the defendant, you file a _complaint._ [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-know-the-basics-of-these-supreme-court-cases/466173.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-know-the-basics-of-these-supreme-court-cases/466173.md?page=3)