Answers to U.S. Supreme Court
1) In United States v. ___________ the Supreme Court ruled in favour of a group of Africans, who had been charged with murder and piracy and faced demands from Spain for their extradition to Cuba. While then Democratic President Martin Van Buren pushed for the extradition, a former President successfully defended the group at the Supreme Court. The court in 1841 rejected the government position, ruling that the defendants had been illegally forced into slavery violating international treaties, making them free under American law. What is the case known as and name the former President? (Big hint: Spielberg film)
Amistad. The former President who defended the group of Africans was John Quincy Adams.
2) In a notorious ruling in the Dred Scott case in 1857, the Supreme Court concluded that people of African heritage - whether slaves or free - could never become U.S. citizens and therefore could not sue in federal court. The court also ruled that the federal government cannot prohibit slavery in its territories - which invalidated a 1820 law. Which measure was overturned? (The Dred Scott ruling hastened America’s march to the Civil War in the next decade)
Missouri Compromise. In 1820 the U.S. Congress admitted Maine as a free state and Missouri as a slave state to maintain a fragile balance of power. The compromise barred slavery north of latitude 36 degrees 30' (excepting the new state of Missouri and the existing states of Kentucky and Virginia). The Missouri Compromise was repealed by the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, which allowed people in Kansas and Nebraska to decide for themselves whether to allow slavery in their territory.
As part of the Dred Scott ruling, the Supreme Court ruled that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional. Then Chief Justice Taney Roger B. Taney penned the 7-2 majority opinion. His statue outside the Maryland State House in Annapolis was taken down in 2017.
3) On June 7, 1892 Homer Plessy boarded a ‘whites-only’ train car in New Orleans in an act of civil disobedience. He was dragged off the train after refusing to shift to the ‘colored’ section and charged with violating state law. The Plessy case led to a notorious 1896 U.S. Supreme Court judgement. What?
‘Separate but equal’ ruling. The court concluded that racial segregation is acceptable as long as equal facilities are provided, bolstering Jim Crow laws that lasted for decades. More about Homer Plessy here.
I don’t know if Mahatma Gandhi read about Homer Plessy, but it was exactly a year after Plessy's act of civil disobedience that Gandhi was thrown out of a 'whites-only' train car in Pietermaritzburg, South Africa on June 7, 1893. This happened just weeks after Gandhi arrived in South Africa as the lawyer for a businessman.
4) A Supreme Court ruling in 1911 led to the breakup of a corporate behemoth. Name the company
John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Company. The court ruled it was in violation of anti-trust legislation.
5) In 1954 the court in Brown v. Board of Education unanimously ruled that racial segregation of children in public schools was unconstitutional. The NAACP Legal Defense Fund fought on behalf of the plaintiffs. Who was their coordinating chief attorney?
Thurgood Marshall, who later became the first African American Supreme Court justice
6) Ernesto _________ , a high-school dropout was arrested in 1963 in Arizona and charged with kidnapping, rape and armed robbery. His case led to a Supreme Court ruling in 1966 which marked a seminal change for suspects, police and prosecutors. What resulted from the court ruling?
Miranda warning establishing that all criminal suspects should be advised of their rights before interrogation.
7) Richard and Mildred were married in Washington DC in 1958 only to be arrested a few weeks later and given a suspended sentence. Their case led to a landmark Supreme Court judgement in 1967. What?
The ruling in Loving v Virginia invalidated a Virginia law banning mixed-race marriage. The Supreme Court also legalised interracial marriage across the country, striking down anti-miscegenation laws. More about Richard and Mildred Loving here and here.
8) A crude, satirical ad in a magazine published in 1983 led to a libel suit that went all the way to the Supreme Court. The case symbolised the religious and cultural wars of the Ronald Reagan era. In a unanimous 8-0 ruling penned by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, the Court backed the defendant’s First Amendment rights in 1988, concluding that a public figure could not claim damages for ‘emotional distress’ from parody, caricature or satire. Who were the two prominent personalities on opposite sides of this case? (Hint: 1996 film)
Larry Flynt, publisher of Hustler magazine faced off successfully against conservative preacher Jerry Falwell Sr. More on the ruling here and here. More on the later friendship between Flynt and Falwell here, here and here.
9) As Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee from 1987 to 1995, Joe Biden played a pivotal role in multiple judicial confirmations, including Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 1993. He has been criticised and since apologised for the committee’s treatment of Anita Hill, who levelled sexual harassment allegations against Clarence Thomas amid his confirmation hearing in 1991. Four years earlier though, even as his first presidential campaign collapsed amid a plagiarised speech, Biden successfully torpedoed a Supreme Court nominee from President Reagan, a fight that set the template for every bitterly fought judicial confirmation battle since then. Whose nomination fell through? (this led to a new word/verb in the political lexicon of American English)
Robert Bork. As a law professor, he had criticised the legal basis for Supreme Court decisions on civil rights and abortion. He had also played a controversial role as Solicitor General as the Watergate scandal unfolded. Joe Biden was able to persuade a group of Republicans to vote against Bork along with Democrats. Bork was an adviser to Mitt Romney during his failed presidential run in 2012.
According to Merriam-Webster, ‘to Bork’ means ‘to attack or defeat (a nominee or candidate for public office) unfairly through an organized campaign of harsh public criticism or vilification’
10) The Supreme Court sided with Gregory Johnson by a narrow 5-4 majority in 1989 against the state of Texas. What was the issue? Hints: First Amendment and the case against Gregory Johnson is connected to the 1984 Republican Convention in Dallas)
The court ruled that the right to burn the American flag was protected speech under the First Amendment. Gregory Johnson burned the flag while protesting against the policies of President Ronald Reagan during the 1984 Republican Convention. More on Johnson here.
11) Ruth Bader Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court in 1996 in a landmark case known as United States v Virginia (7-1 decision). What changed? (Hint: An institution was no longer the last holdout)
The ruling struck down the male-only admission policy of Virginia Military Institute, a public institution. Ginsburg wrote that VMI violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. More here , here and here.
12) In 2007 the Supreme Court’s conservative majority ruled in favour of Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company against Lilly Ledbetter. Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a forceful dissenting opinion for the minority. What resulted from all this in 2009?
The first bill signed into law by President Obama in 2009 - equal pay for equal work known as Lilly Ledbetter law. Lilly Ledbetter had been a supervisor at a Goodyear Tire plant who discovered late in her career that her male colleagues including those with less seniority were paid more. The Supreme Court’s conservative majority ruled in 2007 that she should have filed much earlier. More on Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s dissent here and here.
13) During the 2008 presidential primary season a documentary by a non-profit corporation called ‘Hillary: The Movie’ was barred by the Federal Election Commission from being offered on cable TV video-on-demand. This led to a First Amendment case resulting in a controversial Supreme Court judgement in 2010. What are the implications?
The conservative non-profit corporation is Citizens United. The 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission allowed corporations and other outside groups such as unions to spend unlimited funds on elections. The conservative majority wrote that limiting what it called ‘independent political spending’ from corporations violates their right to free speech under the First Amendment. Corporations and unions can now spend unlimited funds on campaign advertising if they are not formally ‘coordinating’ with a candidate or political party.
14) A case filed by Alabama’s Shelby County led to the Supreme Court’s conservative majority in 2013 invalidating a key part of a decades-old law. What? (Hint: implications for elections)
The Supreme Court invalidated Section 5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, a key component of civil rights legislation. Under the provision, it was mandatory for some states and localities with a history of anti-minority election practices to obtain federal approval or ‘preclearance’ before making changes to voting laws. The court’s conservative majority ruled that the preclearance process was outdated and unconstitutional.
15) In 2007 Edith Windsor got married in Toronto. After her spouse’s death she was liable to pay a huge amount in federal estate taxes because her marriage was not federally recognised in the U.S. The Supreme Court ruled in her favour (conservative swing justice Anthony Kennedy voted with the four liberals) invalidating a 1996 law signed by President Clinton. Which law was invalidated?
Defence of Marriage Act or DOMA, which had barred federal recognition of same-sex weddings. President Bill Clinton signed off on the bill in September 1996, while running for re-election that year. In 2013, when the Supreme Court took up the case, Clinton argued for overturning DOMA. The court ruled that DOMA, which defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman, is unconstitutional. While it did not take on the issue of gay marriage in 2013, in Obergefell v. Hodges two years later it ruled that same-sex couples have the right to marry in all 50 states.
16) This May the Supreme Court ruled that a country had to pay punitive damages for two nearly simultaneous events in 1998. Name the country (The U.S. and this country have been taking steps towards mending ties this year)
Sudan, in connection with the 1998 bombings by Al Qaeda of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. A group of victims and their family members had argued that Sudan helped Al Qaeda in carrying out the bombings (Osama bin Laden lived in Sudan during the 1990s).
Update: In 2021, Sudan paid $335 million to compensate victims as part of an agreement that removed the country from Washington’s list of ‘state sponsors of terrorism’.
17) In these polarised times, the Supreme Court voted unanimously this July in favour of the states of Colorado and Washington in Colorado Dept. of State v. Baca and Chiafalo v. Washington. What are these cases all about? (Hint: makes the aftermath of the November presidential vote less complicated)
Limiting independent votes by ‘Faithless electors’. The court ruled that electors, who act on behalf of a state in the Electoral College, have to follow state laws that compel them to support the winner of that state’s popular vote. The court unanimously backed the states of Washington and Colorado, which imposed penalties on electors who refused to vote for their popular vote winner, Hillary Clinton, in 2016.