John Marshall was the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court between 1801 and 1835. His court opinions helped create the foundation for constitutional law in America and made the United States Supreme Court a coequal branch of government with the executive and legislative branches. Previously, John Marshall had acted as the leader of the Virginia Federalist Party and also served in the U.S. House of Representatives between 1799 and 1800. Marshall was also the Secretary of State Adams from 1800 to 1801 under President John.

As the longest-serving Chief Justice in the history of the Supreme Court, John Marshall dominated the Supreme Court for over 30 years and played an important role in the evolution of the American legal system. His most noted contribution was reinforcing the idea that the federal courts were obligated to exercise judicial review, by discounting supposed laws if they violated the Constitution. Under Chief Justice John Marshall, the Supreme Court made many important decisions regarding to federalism, which affected the balance of power between the states and the federal government. Particularly, John Marshall confirmed the authority of federal law over state law multiple times, and he supported an expansive interpretation of the enumerated powers.

John Marshall served as the Chief Justice during six different administrations, where he participated in more than 1000 decisions, writing more than half of the opinions himself. Marshall helped to establish the Supreme Court as the highest authority on interpreting the Constitution in controversies and cases that had to be decided on by the federal courts. Soon after becoming the Chief Justice, John Marshall changed the way the Supreme Court announced decisions. Previously, each Justice would write a seriatim or separate opinion. Under John Marshall, the Supreme Court implemented the practice of handing a single opinion of the Supreme Court, allowing the opinion to present a clear rule. Since John Marshall was nearly always the author of these opinions, he effectively became the sole spokesman of the Court in important cases.

Marbury v. Madison (1803): A landmark case by the Supreme Court and in United States law, as well as for worldwide law. The case created the basis for the power of judicial review by the judicial branch in the United States under the Constitution, specifically under Article III. This case also demonstrated the first time in Western history where a court nullified a law by pronouncing it unconstitutional, a process which is now called judicial review. The decision helped create and define the checks and balances found in American Government.

The case came out from a petition by William Marbury to the Supreme, who had been appointed as the Justice of Peace in the District of Columbia by President John Adams. However, the commission was not subsequently delivered to Marbury. Marbury then proceeded by asked the Supreme Court to force James Madison, the Secretary of State to deliver the documents. However, Justice Samuel Chase along with the Court and Chief Justice John Marshall denied the petition. Instead, the Court held that specific provision found in the Judiciary Act of 1789 which allowed William Marbury to bring forth his claim regarding the petition to the Supreme Court unconstitutional, because the act tried to extend the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction beyond the point which was established by Article III of the constitution.

The decision was a unanimous one that was based on three distinct questions: whether Marbury had the right to a commission, if the country’s laws could give a legal remedy to Marbury, and whether getting the Supreme Court to give a writ of mandamus was the correct legal remedy for this situation. John Marshall easily answered the first two affirmatively and found that the failure of the commission delivery violated a vested legal right. When John Marshall though about whether Marbury had a remedy, he stated the government could not let a vested legal right be violated and thus a legal remedy should exist for it. 

When Chief Justice John Marshall looked at the third question, he first asked if a writ of mandamus was the correct legal remedy and if so, whether the Supreme Court could issue it. Marshall looked at the Judiciary Act of 1789 and decided that the Act’s purpose gave the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over the writs. He then looked to the Constitution, specifically Article III, which explains the original and appellate jurisdictions of the Supreme Court. Justice Marshall held that Congress did not have the authority to modify the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Consequently, Chief Justice John Marshall found that the Judiciary Act and the Constitution conflicted. This raised the critical question of what to do when the Constitution conflicted with an act passed by Congress. Chief Justice Marshall answered that any conflicting acts were not law and the Courts are instead bound to follow the Constitution first, which affirmed the idea of judicial review. 

Fletcher v. Peck (1810): A landmark Supreme Court unanimous decision where for the first time Court ruled a state law unconstitutional. This action helped start and create a precedent for the sanctity and importance of legal contracts, and implied that Native Americans did not actually hold title to their own lands. The case resulted in the Supreme Court, as well as Justice William Johnson, reaching a unanimous decision that ruled that the repeal by the state legislature of the law was not valid because of the unconstitutionality of the law.

The case revolved around a land grant that was approved by the Georgia legislature, called the Yazoo Land Act of 1795. Later it was revealed that the grant had actually been approved through bribery, and therefore the majority voters rejected many of the incumbents. The next Georgia legislature repealed the legislation and voided all succeeding transactions, including honest ones, resulting from the scandal. The opinion of the court, which was written by Chief Justice John Marshall, stated that a sale was a binding contract and could not be invalidated even if the contract was illegally secured, in accordance to the Contract Clause, or Article I, Section 10, Clause I of the Constitution.  Chief Justice Marshall emphasized that the repeal would also seize property from those who had acquired it honestly, and would not provide compensation.

Based on the principle of the separation of powers, Chief Justice John Marshall questioned whether the rescinding act could even be considered valid if even in the case that Georgia were a fully sovereign state independent of the national Constitution. Ultimately, Marshall’s opinion relied on the restrictions placed by the federal Constitution. This case resulted in the Court asserting its judicial right to invalidate a state law which was in conflict with the Constitution.  

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819): A landmark Supreme Court decision which established two principles. The first of the two was that the Constitution gave Congress the implied powers to implement their will in order to make a functional national government. The second was that these powers and actions could not impede on any constitutional exercises of power performed by the federal government. This case resulted from an event where the state of Maryland tried to impede the operation of the Second Bank of the U.S. by placing a tax on all bank notes not chartered within the state.

While the law was generally applicable to all banks which were not chartered in Maryland, this particular bank was the only one existing in the state that was an out-of-state bank, meaning that the law specifically targeted this U.S. Bank. The Supreme Court determined that Congress did had the power to create the Bank. Chief Justice Marshall also refuted the argument that the states retain ultimate sovereignty since they ratified the constitution. He contended that it was the people who ratified the Constitution not the states, which made the people sovereign.

Chief Justice Marshall discussed the scope of congressional powers given under Article I. He addressed the necessary and proper clause and admitted that the Constitution did not enumerate a power to make a central Bank, but this did not mean Congress had the power to do so. Lastly, the opinion textually invoked the Necessary and Proper Clause, allowing Congress to try to meet an objective as long as it is within its enumerated powers and is not forbidden by the Constitution while it is rationally related to the objective at hand. With this interpretation, the court rejected Maryland’s extremely narrow interpretation of the clause, which assumed that “necessary” only meant that Congress could pass laws that were absolutely essential in executing its enumerated powers. Chief Justice Marshall ultimately determined that Maryland’s tax on the bank was unconstitutional. 

Cohens v. Virginia (1821): A Supreme Court decision which is most noted for Chief Justice John Marshall and the Supreme Court’s assertion of its power to look over state supreme court decisions regarding criminal law when plaintiff claims that their Constitutional rights were been violated. The Supreme Court had previously this jurisdiction over civil cases with American parties.

This case revolved around an act of Congress which approved the creating and operation of a District of Columbia lottery. The Cohen brothers started to sell these lottery tickets in the Commonwealth of Virginia, which violated state law. State authorities convicted the Cohen brothers, and the state courts said that the Virginia law which prohibited lotteries could be enforced, despite the act of Congress which allowed the D.C. lottery. The Cohen appeals appealed to the Supreme Court and argued that their actions were protected by the act passed by Congress.

The main issue in the suit was whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to hear the appeal of a criminal case which was decided by a state court. Virginia argued that the Constitution did not give the Supreme Court any appellate jurisdiction over criminal judgments made by the state courts. The state also argued that the Supreme Court did not have appellate jurisdiction according to the Constitution in cases which a state was a party. Effectively, Virginia believed that its decision was final and could not be reviewed by the federal courts, 

Chief Justice John Marshall and the Supreme Court used Article III, Section 2 to determine that the Supreme Court did have appellate jurisdiction regarding any case and that there were no exceptions to this jurisdiction for state being a party. This conclusion was also reinforced by the Supremacy Clause found in Article VI of the Constitution, which placed federal law above state law. Knowing this jurisdiction, the Supreme Court upheld the Cohen brother’s convictions. The Supreme Court found that Congress did not mean to authorize lottery ticket sale outside of the D.C., so no conflict existed between Congress authorizing a lottery and Virginia prohibiting lotteries within the state.

Gibbons v. Ogden (1824): A landmark Supreme Court decision the court held that Congress had the power to regulate interstate commerce by the Commerce Clause found in the Constitution.  The decision overturned a monopoly that was granted by the state legislature of New York to certain steamship companies operating between New Jersey and New York. Gibbons argued that since the Constitution gave Congress the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce, states did not have the concurrent power to do the same.

Chief Justice Marshall avoided discussing the issue about the exclusiveness of the federal commerce power because it was not necessary to look at in order to decide the case. Instead, John Marshall focused on the actual, existing federal statute that existed for licensing ships, and he stated that the federal law in place was a legitimate exercise of the Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce, meaning that the federal law in place superseded the state law that granted the monopoly.

The court ruled in favor of Gibbons. Because the commerce clause was the most argued point of the case, the Supreme Court had to answer whether the Commerce clause exactly what was being regulated. The Supreme Court held that commerce was more than just traffic, but that it was the trade of commodities and it included navigation. The Supreme Court interpreted commerce “among” the states as that which intermingled with.  Chief Justice John Marshall’s ruling determined that Congress had the power to regulate navigation as a part of Congress and that this Congressional power could extend to all aspects of the regulation, which would override any state laws that were contrary to it. The immediate result of this decision was to use Congress’ power to end many monopolies that were granted by state laws. Doing so lowered prices, raised competition, and promoted free enterprise.

Thurgood Marshall was the 96th Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States who served from October 1967 until October 1991. Justice Thurgood Marshall also the first African-American justice on the United States Supreme Court.

Before becoming a justice, Thurgood Marshall was a lawyer who was most noted for his high success rate when arguing cases before the Supreme Court. He was more particularly known for his victory in Brown v. Board of Education. Thurgood Marshall argued more court cases before the Supreme Court than anyone other individual in the history of the Supreme Court. Marshall also served on the Second Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals after being appointed by President Kennedy and then later was appointed by President Johnson in 1965 as the Solicitor General. President Johnson also nominated Marshal in 1967 to the United States Supreme Court.

Thurgood Marshall was born on July 2, 1908 in Baltimore, Maryland grandson and the great-grandson of slaves.  Marshall attended Frederick Douglass High School in Baltimore where he graduated in 1925. He then went on to attend Lincoln University in 1930. There, Thurgood Marshall was initiated as a member of Alpha Phi Alpha, the first black fraternity.

While Thurgood Marshall wanted to apply to the University of Maryland School of Law, his hometown law school, the dean of the school said the school’s segregation policy would prevent his acceptance. Instead, Marshall attended Howard University School of Law and graduated in 1933 as the first in his class. 

As a Justice of the Supreme Court, Thurgood Marshall believed in the Constitution being a living document. Marshall argued that the Constitution should be interpreted with respect to the political, cultural, and moral climate of the age of interpretation.  This idea was also looked at as loose constructionism, meaning that the Constitution had a dynamic meaning or that the properties of the constitution were forever changing. The main idea that Marshall tried to convey was that the contemporaneous society should be considered when interpreting key constitutional phrases. 

Terry v. Ohio (1968): A decision by the Supreme Court which stated that if a police officer stops an individual or suspect on the street and frisks the person without any probable cause to arrest, the prohibition in the Fourth Amendment on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated, as long as the police officer has reasonable suspicion that the individual has committed, is committing, will immediately commit a crime. The police officer must also have a reasonable belief that the suspect may be possibly armed and dangerous. 

The foundation of the Supreme Court decision was based on the understanding that the exclusionary rule has limitations, meaning that the point of the rule is to protect citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures that are aimed at gathering evidence, rather than searches and seizures for other reasons, such as preventing crime or personally protecting police officers. 

Chief Thurgood Marshall joined Chief Justice Warren’s opinion for the Court. The majority opinion first began by reciting the principles of the Fourth Amendment and whether they included situations such as the stop and frisk involved in the case. Two important points that the court particularly made were regarding the admissibility of evidence obtained through this police action, and whether the stop and frisk procedure was the result of officers over-exerting their authority.

The court, including Chief Thurgood Marshall also had to determine just when specifically a person would be considered “seized” and what would constitute as a “search”. The Supreme Court rejected the notion that a stop and search could not be considered a search or seizure subject to the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection, but instead allowed more police action outside of a traditional arrest to be considered a seizure. The court also had to examine just what “reasonable” would include when taking reasonable action. With these principles though out, Justice Thurgood Marshall and the Court feel that the stop and Frisk of Terry was in fact reasonable and that the evidence found during the search could be properly admitted because of this.

Miller v. California (1973): A landmark United States Supreme Court case which looked at what specifically constituted as unprotected obscenity for the sake of the First Amendment. The decision restated that obscenity was not protected under the First Amendment. It also established the Miller test, which could determine what constituted as obscene material. The appellant was Marvin Miller, an operator of a large mail-order business for sexually explicit material. He had conducted a mass mailing campaign advertising the sale of illustrated books that were labeled as adult material. The Superior Court of Orange County found him guilty of a misdemeanor for distributing obscene material knowingly. This conviction was then affirmed by the Court of Appeals of California.

When the case came up to the Supreme Court, the issue was whether the distribution and sale of obscene material was a protected action under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled that distributing and selling was not protected. However, the Supreme Court acknowledged the potential dangers of attempting to regulate any form of expression and explained that State statutes that were designed to control the sale and distribution of obscene materials should be carefully limited.

United States v. Nixon (1974): was a United States Supreme Court unanimous decision which involved President Richard Nixon and the late stages of the Watergate scandal. This Supreme Court Case is often thought of as an extremely significant precedent which limits the power of a United States president.

The Watergate scandal started during the presidential campaign in 1972 between President Richard Nixon and Democratic Senator of South Dakota George McGovern. On June 17, before President Nixon won the presidential election, five burglars broke into the Democratic headquarters in the Watergate building complex in Washington, D.C.

President Nixon appointed Archibald Cox as the special prosecutor, charged with carefully investigating the break-in, but then Nixon arranged to have Archibald Cox fired in the Saturday Night Massacre. However, public outrage forced President Nixon to appoint a different special prosecutor, Leon Jaworski, who was to conduct the Watergate investigation for the United States government.

In April 1974, Jaworski received a subpoena which ordered Nixon to release certain papers and tapes related to meetings between Nixon and those indicted by the grand jury, which contained damaging evidence involving those men and possibly the President. Nixon handed over edited transcripts and hoped it would be enough, but Judge John Sircica, the judge of the D.C. District Court, ordered the president to turn the tapes over. James St. Clair, Nixon’s attorney, and Jaworski appealed to the Supreme Court. St. Clair argued the issue should not be subject to “judicial resolution” since it was a dispute within the executive branch and that Nixon had an executive privilege to withhold and protect communications between Government officials and those advising them.

All of the Justices, including Thurgood Marshall, contributed to the opinion which was unanimous decision. The opinion stated that the Supreme Court did have the authority to resolve the issue and that and that Jaworski had proven that there was a significant chance that the tapes contained conversations relevant information to the offenses of the indictment. The Supreme Court rejected the claim that there was an unqualified, absolute Presidential privilege of immunity under all circumstances from the judicial process.

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978): A landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court which ruled that the admission process of the University of California at Davis Medical School, which put aside 16 of the 100 available seats for African American students was unconstitutional. The justification of “diversity in the classroom” for looking at race as a factor in the school’s admissions policies was not the same in comparison to the original purpose stated by the school, whose admissions program that was under review was designed to ensure the admissions of minorities that were traditionally discriminated-against. UC Davis Medical School developed the program originally to decrease the historic deficit of conventionally disfavored minorities in the medical profession and in medical schools, fight against the effects of societal discrimination, increase the amount of physicians who would practice in communities that were currently underserved, and receive the educational benefits that result from a student body that is ethnically diverse.

Justice Thurgood Marshall joined Justice Powell’s opinion that the school had to admit Bakke to the school. However, his reasoning for this did not include the majority of justices. Justice Thurgood did join this opinion, which stated that the school had a reasonable and compelling interest in a creating a diverse student body and therefore could look at race as a factor in admissions. However the school could not specifically aside seats for certain races, which would automatically exclude others due to race. 

Bowers v. Hardwick (1986): A Supreme Court decision that supported the constitutionality of sodomy law from Georgia which both private anal and oral between consenting homosexual adults. Seventeen years after the decision in Bowers v. Hardwick, the Supreme Court overruled the decision directly in Lawrence v. Texas (2003), and stated that these laws were unconstitutional. Justice Thurgood Marshall, joined a dissent by Justices Blackmun which said that the case was no longer just about the fundamental right for a citizen to engage in homosexual sodomy, but went further by looking at the rights most valued by citizens, specifically the right to be left alone. Justice Thurgood Marshall also joined a dissent made by Justice Stevens which went even further away from the majority opinion and said that the Supreme Court ordered the dismissal of the complaint made by the respondent even though the statute in question prohibits all sodomy. This prohibition was extremely unconstitutional for heterosexuals and it was clear through the States actions that the respondent alleged a constitutional claim which was sufficient enough to stand up to a motion to dismiss.

Texas v. Johnson (1989): A landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court which invalidated prohibitions regarding desecrating the American flag which was enforced in 48 of the 50 states. 

This case revolved around Gregory Lee Johnson, a former member of the Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigade, who participated in a political demonstration in Dallas, Texas during the Republican National Convention of 1984, which protested some policies of the Reagan Administration as well as some companies in Dallas. A demonstrator gave Johnson an American flag which was stolen from a targeted building. Once the protesters arrived at Dallas City Hall, Johnson drenched the flag with kerosene and set it on fire. While no one was injured, some claimed to be extremely offended. 

Johnson was charged with breaking the Texas law that prohibited the desecration of a venerated item. He was convicted, fined, and sentenced to a year in prison. The Court of Criminal Appeals in Texas saw the case through an appeal and overturned the conviction, saying that the State did not have the power to could not punish him for burning the flag since it was protected under the First Amendment as symbolic speech. However, the State of Texas claimed that its interests were more important than the symbolic speech rights because the state wished to preserve the national flag as a symbol of national unity while maintaining order, but the court stated that neither of these could justify the conviction.

The State asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case. The opinion of the court was a controversial 5-4 decision, with Justice Thurgood Marshall being a part of the majority. The court first looked at whether the First Amendment could include non-speech acts and, if so, if flag burning was included. The court found that in this case, the flag burning constituted as expressive conduct, allowing Johnson the protecting under the First Amendment. The court also found that there was no disturbance of the peace due to the flag burning, and rejected the States claim that the flag burning was to incite breaches of the peace. The last issue was if the states had a legitimate interest in preserving the national flag as a symbol of principles and national identity. However, the majority found that the lack of evidence for Constitutional support regarding flag burning, so the Court concluded that it was protected under the first amendment. 

Anthony McLeod Kennedy is current Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court and was appointed in 1988 by President Ronald Reagan. After the retirement of Sandra Day O’Connor, Justice Kennedy is often the swing vote on many cases that are politically charged split opinions. 

Anthony Kennedy was born Sacramento, California as the son of Anthony J. Kennedy, an well-known attorney who had a reputation for having a strong influence in the legislature of California, and Gladys McLeod, an active participant in many civic activities locally. Because of his parents, Anthony Kennedy was often around prominent politicians like the California Governor or later the U.S. Chief Justice. Anthony Kennedy graduated in 1954 from C. K. McClatchy High School and then graduated from Stanford University in 1958, receiving a B.A. in Political Science. Kennedy then went on Harvard Law School, where he earned an LL.B and graduated cum laude in 1961.

Anthony Kennedy first went into private practice 1961 to 1963, and then took over his father’s practice in from 1963 to 1975. He also taught Constitutional Law at McGeorge School of Law from 1965 to 1988. Throughout his career, he has also served on the California Army National Guard, the board of the Federal Judicial Center, committees in the Judicial Conference of the United States, as well as the Committee on Pacific Territories. Anthony Kennedy was later nominated by President Ford to a seat on the Ninth Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals, and was unanimously confirmed by the Senate on March 20, 1975, receiving his commission four days later.  

Anthony Kennedy was nominated to the Supreme Court and was confirmed by the Senate by a unanimous vote of 97 to 0 on February 3, 1988, and received his commission eight days later. As a Justice, Kennedy has had a somewhat confusing ideological path and tends to examine cases individually rather than sticking to one particular ideology. He, along with Sandra Day O’Conner, acted as the swing votes in many split decisions during the Roberts and Rehnquist votes.  Kennedy has often supported adding more substance to all liberty interests that are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause.

Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992): A Supreme Court Case that challenged the constitutionality of many Pennsylvania state regulations dealing with abortion. The plurality opinion of the court upheld the constitutional right to have an abortion. However, the court also examined many restrictions of the right and upheld certain portions while invalidating others. Justice Anthony Kennedy was a part of the plurality opinion which stated that their opinion was upholding the essential precedent of Roe V. Wade, meaning that the right to abortion was a fundamental part of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.  The plurality also described the importance of standing by previous decisions even if they seemed unpopular, unless a change in the fundamental reasoning of the previous decision had occurred. It went further on to describe the rejection of the separate but equal idea concept as the correct reason for the court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education court’s where they rejected the Plessy v. Ferguson doctrine.

Stenberg v. Carhart (2000): A Supreme Court case that looked at a Nebraska law that illegalized partial-birth abortion, except when it would save the mother’s life. The Supreme Court struck down the law, and found that it violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause as interpreted in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Justice Anthony Kennedy dissented and claimed that the law was allowed based on precedent in Planned Parenthood v. Casey because it allowed a certain extend of prenatal life preservation. He also went on to describe what he felt was an alternative to partial-birth abortion which was constitutionally protected.

Lawrence v. Texas (2003): A landmark Supreme Court case that struck down a sodomy law in Texas by a 6-3 ruling. In the previous case Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), the court had upheld a Georgia statute and claimed that there was no protection of sexual privacy in the constitution. The new ruling held that the previous case looked at liberty interest too narrowly. The majority decision, which included Justice Anthony Kennedy, stated that intimate consensual sexual conduct was protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. The decision invalidated similar laws in the country that criminalized sodomy between consenting heterosexual and homosexual adults in private. 

Salmon P. Chase was an American jurist and politician who served as the United States Senator from Ohio as well as the 23rd Governor of the State of Ohio. He also acted as the United States Treasury Secretary during the Lincoln administration and most notably, as the sixth Chief Justice for the U.S. Supreme Court.

Salmon P. Chase was born in Cornish, New Hampshire. He received his primary education in the common schools of Worthington, Ohio and Windsor, Vermont, and then attended Cincinnati College prior to entering the third year class at Dartmouth College. In 1826, he graduated from Dartmouth and then moved to the District of Columbia, where he began his studies in law under United States Attorney General William Wirt. Chase was accepted into the bar in 1829.

The next year, Salmon P. Chase moved to Cincinnati, Ohio, where he soon gained a role of prominence at the bar. Chase published an annotated version of the Ohio laws that was considered a standard for many years. In 1835, his first wife died, causing a spiritual reawakening and passion for causes more associated with his religious beliefs, such as abolition. Salmon was very well known for his anti-slavery stance and was nicknamed the Attorney General for fugitive slaves.

In October 1864, President Lincoln mentioned named Salmon P. Chase as to replace Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, who had died that month. President Lincoln issued on the justice nomination on December 6, and Chase was confirmed the same day by the Senate. Chase held this office from 1864 until his death in 1873. Unlike his predecessor, Salmon P. Chase did not hold a pro-slavery stance, and one of his first acts as the Chief Justice was to allow John Rock to argue cases before the Supreme Court as the first African-American attorney.

As Chief Justice, Salmon P. Chase presided at President Andrew Johnson’s impeachment trial in 1868. Some of his other important decisions as the Chief Justice included the following: 

This was a significant case which involved a claim made by the Reconstruction government of Texas. They had stated that United States bonds which were owned by Texas since 1850 had actually been illegally sold during the Civil War by the Confederate state legislature. The state filed the suit directly with the United States Supreme Court, who had original jurisdiction.

The court ruled that the state of Texas had remained a state ever since joining the Union, despite joining the Confederate States and having military rule during the decision in the case. The court decided that the Constitution did not allow states to unilaterally secede, and that the secession ordinances, and all legislative acts within these states intended to reinforce the ordinances, were “absolutely null. Salmon P. Chase asserted that U.S. Constitution created a permanent union, made of indestructible states that could have some divisibility through the States’ consent or through revolution. 

The Chief Justice was a part of the majority opinion which stated that Congress had the power to pass act on July 13, 1866, that imposed a 10% tax on notes of state banks, state banking associations, and private persons.

Salmon P. Chase spoke for the court as Chief Justice and declared certain portions of the legal tender acts as unconstitutional. This included the greenback issuance, which Chase was personally responsible for overseeing when he was Secretary of the Treasury. The decision in this case was specifically overruled later by Knox v. Lee and the other Legal Tender Cases, in which Salmon P. Chase strongly dissented.

Antonin Scalia is an American jurist and a current Justice of the United States Supreme. As the current longest-serving justice on the Supreme Court, Justice Scalia is the Senior Associate Justice. He was appointed to the Supreme Court in 1986 by President Ronald Reagan. 

Antonin Scalia was born in Trenton, New Jersey but went to school in New York. He received his undergraduate degree at Georgetown University and later received his Bachelor of Laws from Harvard Law School. After working six years in a Cleveland law firm, Scalia became a law school professor. He served in the both the Nixon and Ford administrations, ultimately as the assistant attorney general. In 1986, Antonin Scalia was appointed to the Supreme Court by Regan. Antonin Scalia was confirmed unanimously by the Senate, and took his place in the Supreme Court on September 26, 1986.

As a Supreme Court Justice, Antonin Scalia has shown a very conservative ideology in many of opinions, emphasizing originalism in interpreting the Constitution and textualism in statutory interpretation. Scalia strongly defends the powers of the executive branch, and holds that presidential power should be powerful in many aspects. Scalia also opposes affirmative action and policies that look at minorities as groups. 

Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992): A Supreme Court Case that challenged the constitutionality of many Pennsylvania state regulations dealing with abortion. The plurality opinion of the court upheld the constitutional right to have an abortion. However, the court also examined many restrictions of the right and upheld certain portions while invalidating others. Justice Antonin Scalia as well as Justice Rehnquist joined the plurality and upheld the parental consent, waiting period, and informed consent laws. However, both of them joined a concurring dissent and felt that Roe v. Wade was incorrectly decided, and that the spousal notification law should have been struck down. 

Bush v. Gore (2000): A landmark Supreme Court decision on December 12, 2000, that resolved the controversy of the 2000 presidential election in favor of George W. Bush. Eight days before, the U.S Supreme Court had decided unanimously the related case of Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board (2000) and three days before that, had preliminarily stopped the recount that was happening in Florida. The Court ruled in a per curiam decision that the Florida Supreme Court’s technique for the ballot recount violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. The Supreme Court also ruled that no other method could be made within the time limits that were created by Florida State. The concurring opinion made by Chief Justice Rehnquist was joined by Justices Scalia. It started by emphasizing that this particular case was unusual since the Constitution required federal courts to decide if a state Supreme Court has correctly interpreted the state legislature’s will. After discussing this aspect of the case, the dissent examined and supported the arguments made by the judges who dissented in the Florida Supreme Court.

Lawrence v. Texas (2003): A landmark Supreme Court case that struck down a sodomy law in Texas by a 6-3 ruling. In the previous case Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), the court had upheld a Georgia statute and claimed that there was no protection of sexual privacy in the constitution. The new ruling held that the previous case looked at liberty interest too narrowly. Justice Antonin Scalia dissented, and was joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Justice Scalia objected to the decision to revisit the Bowers v. Hardwick case, stating that there were many decisions afterwards from lower courts that could be affected, including Williams v. Pryor, Holmes v. California Army National Guard, and Owens v. State. Justice Scalia also pointed out that the justification behind overturning the first case could have been easily used to overturn Roe v. Wade. Furthermore, Justice Antonin Scalia also suggested that other state laws against same-sex marriage, bigamy, adult incest, masturbation, prostitution, adultery, bestiality, fornication, and obscenity are only sustainable with Bowers v. Hardwick’s validation.

Grutter v. Bollinger (2003): A Supreme Court case where the court upheld the affirmative action admissions policy set by the University of Michigan Law School in a 5-4 decision. The Supreme Court’s majority rule held that the U.S. Constitution did not specific prohibit narrowly tailored use of race by the school in admissions to promote a compelling interest in obtaining educational benefits that result from a diverse student body. Justice Antonin Scalia joined Chief Justice Rehnquist’s dissent which argued school’s admissions policy, saying it tried to achieve an unconstitutional racial balancing. Justice Scalia also joined Justice Thomas in an opinion, partially concurring and dissenting which argued that if the school could not remain a prestigious institution while admitting students though a race-neutral system, the school should be forced to decide between a classroom aesthetic and exclusionary admissions.

Rasul v. Bush (2004): A landmark Supreme Court decision that established that the United States court system has the explicit authority to make decisions about whether foreign nationals held in Guantanamo Bay were considered wrongfully imprisoned. The 6-3 Supreme Court ruling reversed a previous District Court that held that the Judiciary did not have any jurisdiction in deciding wrongful imprisonment cases which involved foreign nationals held in Guantanamo Bay.  Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a dissent, which was joined by Clarence Thomas and William Rehnquist. Justice Antonin Scalia also discussed the intention of jurisdiction by saying that the Constitution needed jurisdiction so that an American citizen who had the protection of the Constitution could have some way of vindicating these rights.

Gonzales v. Raich (2005): A decision made by the U.S. Supreme Court which ruled that the United States Congress could criminalize the use and production of home-grown cannabis even in states which had laws that approved its use for medicinal purposes. Congress could do this with the power given to them from the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.  Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a separate concurring opinion that tried to differentiate the Court’s decision from the recent results of the cases United States v. Morrison and United States v. Lopez. Although Antonin Scalia voted in favor of limiting the Commerce Clause in these previous decisions, Scalia felt that his interpretation of the Necessary and Proper Clause in the Constitution resulted in him voting in favor of Raich. This was because Scalia felt that Congress could only regulate non-economic intrastate activities when not doing so could potentially undercut the interstate regulation of the activity. 

Clarence Thomas is an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court and the second African American to serve. Succeeding Thurgood Marshall, Thomas is the second African American to serve as an Associate Justice on the Court. Clarence Thomas was born on June 23, 1948, and grew up in Georgia. He attended the College of the Holy Cross where he graduated cum laude with an A.B. in English literature. He went on to attend Yale Law School where he received his law degree in 1974.

As a Supreme Court Justice, Clarence Thomas has taken a very textualist approach to legislative interpretation, working to uphold the original meaning of the Constitution as well as the original meaning of statutes. Clarence Thomas is generally looked at as one of the most conservative members of the Supreme Court. He has very often approached issues of federalism in a way that limits the federal government’s power while expanding the power of local and state governments. Meanwhile, Clarence Thomas’s opinions have typically suggested a powerful role for the executive branch within the federal government.

Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña (1995): A Supreme Court case that stated that racial classifications that were imposed by the federal government needed to be analyzed under the standard of strict scrutiny. Strict scrutiny is the most critical level of review which states that racial classifications must be narrowly tailored in order to further compelling interests by the government. The majority opinion of the court, which included Justice Clarence Thomas, effectively overturned the precedent set by Metro Broadcasting, Inc. v. FCC (1990), where the Court had made a two-tiered system to analyze racial classifications. Adarand held the federal government to equal standards as both the local and state governments by using a process of “reverse incorporation,” where the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment was used to bind the federal government to equal standards as the local and state governments are bound under the Constitution’s 14th Amendment.

Romer v. Evans (1996): A landmark Supreme Court decision regarding state laws and civil rights. The case was the first to deal with LGBT rights after Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), a case where the Supreme Court had ruled that a Georgia law that criminalized homosexual sex was constitutional. Romer v. Evans dealt with an amendment made to the Colorado state constitution which was passed by Colorado voters in a referendum that could have to prevent any town, county, or city in the state from taking any judicial, executive, or legislative action to recognize homosexual citizens as a protected class. A trial court issued an injunction against the amendment. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court of Colorado ruled that it was subject to “strict scrutiny” under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. The state trial court concluded that it could not pass strict scrutiny, and the Colorado Supreme Court agreed with this upon review. The United States Supreme Court ruled that the amendment did not pass strict scrutiny or even the rational basis test in a 6-3 decision. The decision set a precedent that was used in Lawrence v. Texas (2003), where the Supreme Court overruled its previous court decision in Bowers. Justice Clarence Thomas joined Justice Scalia and Chief Justice Rehnquist in a dissent, which argued that the amendment did not deny access to the political process to homosexuals, but rather it simply made it more challenging to enact laws that were favorable to the minority. The dissent continued by saying that the majority decision completely contradicted the decision made in Bowers v. Hardwick.

United States v. Morrison (2000): is a decision made by the Supreme Court that stated that sections of the Violence Against Women Act (1994) were unconstitutional because the act passed by Congress exceeded congressional power under the Commerce Clause as well as under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. This act that was originally passed contained a provision regarding federal civil remedies for gender-based violence victims, even in cases where no charges were filed.  The case revolved around an incident at Virginia Tech where a freshman student was allegedly assaulted and raped by members of the football team. One of the students admitted to having sexual contact with the student despite her protests. The college initially punished the student, but it was later struck down by the school administration. The Supreme Court affirmed the Fourth Circuit Court’s decision to support the U.S. District Court’s opinion that Congress had exceeded their power under the Constitution. While Justice Clarence Thomas was in the majority, he also had a concurring opinion which expressed concern about Congress appropriating state police powers under the name of commerce regulation.

Bush v. Gore (2000): A landmark Supreme Court decision on December 12, 2000, that resolved the controversy of the 2000 presidential election in favor of George W. Bush. Eight days before, the U.S> Supreme Court had decided unanimously the related case of Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board (2000) and three days before that, had preliminarily stopped the recount that was happening in Florida. The Court ruled in a per curiam decision that the Florida Supreme Court’s technique for the ballot recount violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. The Supreme Court also ruled that no other method could be made within the time limits that were created by Florida State. Justice Clarence Thomas joined Chief Justice Rehnquist’s concurring opinion, which emphasized that this specific case was unusual than others since the Constitution required the federal courts to decide if a state Supreme Court had correctly interpreted the state legislature’s will. After analyzing this aspect of the case, the concurring opinion then examined and supported the arguments which were made by the judges who dissented in the Florida Supreme Court.

Grutter v. Bollinger (2003): A Supreme Court case where the court upheld the affirmative action admissions policy set by the University of Michigan Law School in a 5-4 decision. The Supreme Court’s majority rule held that the U.S. Constitution did not specifically prohibit narrowly tailored use of race by the school in admissions to promote a compelling interest in obtaining educational benefits that result from a diverse student body. Justice Clarence Thomas’s opinion was partially concurring and dissenting and argued that if the school could not remain a prestigious institution while admitting students though a race-neutral system, the school should be forced to decide between a classroom aesthetic and exclusionary admissions. He also agreed with the dissent which felt a sense of disbelief in the validity of the claim made by the law school that the system used in admissions was needed to provide a diverse educational environment and create a critical mass of minority students.

Lawrence v. Texas (2003): A landmark Supreme Court case that struck down a sodomy law in Texas by a 6-3 ruling. In the previous case Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), the court had upheld a Georgia statute and claimed that there was no protection of sexual privacy in the constitution. The new ruling held that the previous case looked at liberty interest too narrowly. Justice Clarence Thomas joined Justice Scalia’s dissent, which objected to the decision to relook at the Bowers v. Hardwick case since there were many lower court decisions that could be affected. Justice Scalia also looked at the justification behind overturning the Bowers v. Hardwick and felt that these reasons could have also been used to overturn Roe v. Wade. Furthermore, the dissent suggested that other state laws against could become only sustainable with the validation of this previous case, such as same-sex marriage, bigamy, incest, masturbation, prostitution, bestiality, and obscenity. In a separate short dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the law which was struck down by the court was silly, but because he could not find any relevant liberty or general right to privacy in the Constitution, he felt he had to uphold the law. Justice Thomas also mentioned that if he were a part of the Texas Legislature, he would have voted to repeal the sodomy law. However, he also did not feel that the plaintiffs had the standing to bring the case before the Court.

Georgia v. Randolph (2006): A Supreme Court case the Court held that the police did not have a constitutional right to search a house when one resident consented while the other resident objects to the search unless the police have a search warrant. The Supreme Court distinguished this particular case from the precedent established in United States v. Matlock (1974) regarding the “co-occupant consent rule”, which allowed one resident to consent in the absence of the other co-occupant. The case of Georgia v. Randolph was a good example of the continuing competition between proponents of the Living Constitution and Originalist philosophies that are applicable in United States jurisprudence and in the Supreme Court. The Court decided in a 5-3 majority opinion that a co-resident could refuse to give consent to a police search, even when another resident consented, specifically when such an evidentiary seizure is most likely lawful with one occupant’s permission when the other occupant, who seeks to suppress the evidence later, is currently present at the scene and explicitly refuses to consent. In these circumstances, a co-occupant who is physically present can refuse to allow entry, which makes the warrantless search invalid and unreasonable. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented and stated that would reverse the judgment of the Supreme Court of Georgia.

Gonzales v. Carhart (2007): A case in the Supreme Court that upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. The case reached the Supreme Court after Alberto Gonzales, the U.S. Attorney General appealed a ruling of in favor of LeRoy Carhart by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit that went against the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. The majority decision by the Supreme Court, which included Justice Clarence Thomas, upheld Congress’s ban and stated that the act did not impose any sort of undue burden on a woman’s due process right to get an abortion. The opinion also stated that the respondents were unable to show that the U.S. Congress lacked the authority to ban the abortion procedure. This case was broadly interpreted as showing a shift in Supreme Court jurisprudence toward more restrictive abortion rights, partly due to Sandra Day O’Connor’s retirement and Samuel Alito acting as her replacement.  Justice Clarence Thomas also filed a concurring opinion which briefly discussed whether Congress had the power to enact this ban under the Commerce Clause. The concurring opinion also stated that Justices Thomas joined the majority opinion because it correctly applied current jurisprudence, although the current abortion jurisprudence did not have a basis in the Constitution.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010): A landmark 5–4 decision by the Supreme Court which held that the First Amendment of the Constitution prohibits the government from censoring any political broadcasts in candidate elections even if those broadcasts are funded entirely by corporations or unions. This Supreme court decision originated in an argument regarding whether Citizens United, a non-profit corporation, had the right to air a film which was critical of Hillary Clinton as well as whether the corporation could advertise the film as a broadcast ad which would feature Hillary Clinton’s image, which was an apparent violation of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002.

The case reached the Supreme Court from a 2008 case that was appealed from the District of Columbia District Court. The district court’s decision had allowed the provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform act of 2002, which prevented the featuring Hillary Clinton from being televised within 30 days of Democratic primaries of 2008. The United States Supreme Court reversed the previous decision of the lower court, striking down the provisions of the 2008 act that barred all corporations, including not-for-profit and for-profit corporations as well as and unions from broadcasting any electioneering communications such as a cable, satellite, or broadcast communication which mentioned a candidate in a 60 day period before a general election or 30 days before a primary.

Justice Clarence Thomas joined the majority opinion, which stated that the prohibition of all independent expenditures made by both the unions and corporations was invalid and thus was not applicable to spending such as that in the movie. Furthermore, since there was no way to tell apart the media and other corporations, the restrictions could allow Congress to potentially suppress political speech found in books, television, blogs, or newspapers.

Justice Thomas also wrote a separate dissent where he stated that he would have struck down reporting requirements instead of challenging them on a case-by-case basis in order to protect anonymity for contributions that went to organizations that exercised free speech. The argument for this was that anonymous free speech would be protected, but contributor public lists could subject contributors to retaliation.

Samuel Anthony Alito, Jr. is a current Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. Samuel Alito was born in Trenton, New Jersey and raised in Hamilton Township, New Jersey. He received his undergraduate degree at Princeton University and his Juris Doctor at Yale Law School. Before becoming a Justice, he worked as New Jersey’s district Assistant U.S. Attorney, Assistant to Solicitor General Rex Lee, Deputy Assistant to Attorney General Edwin Meese, and the U.S. Attorney for the New Jersey district. He was nominated on February 20, 1990 by President George H. W. Bush to the Third Circuit  of the U.S. Court of appeals. In 2005, Samuel Alito then received President George W. Bush’s nomination for the Supreme Court.  He began serving on the court since January 31, 2006.

Throughout his first term, Samuel Alito voted rather conservatively, with his opinion aligning well with other conservative justices such as Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Thomas, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Scalia. This was seen particularly in the cases Garcetti v. Ceballos, Rapanos v. United States, and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld.  However, many of his opinions have also diverged from this. In his first decision on the Supreme Court, Alito’s vote was in the 6-3 majority to refuse the request by Missouri to vacate the stay of execution that was issued by the 8th Circuit court for a death-row inmate. 

Furthermore, it seems that Samuel Alito believes that restrictions on an abortion procedure are constitutionally allowed, but he has not indicated a desire to overturn Roe v. Wade. His stance came into play in the case of Gonzales v. Carhart, which was a lawsuit that came out of the 2003 Partial-Birth Abortion Act which was passed by congress. A previous ruling in Stenberg v. Carhart stated that this ban was unconstitutional because it did not allow for an exception to be made if the mother’s health was in danger.   The Supreme Court handed down a ruling on April 18, 2007 with a five-justice majority opinion that stated that Congress had the power to overall ban the procedure, although the court allowed for certain challenges. Samuel Alito was a part of this majority while a concurring opinion was filed by Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas, which felt that prior court decisions in Planned Parenthood v. Casey and Roe v. Wade should be reversed and that Congress was overexerting its powers under the Commerce Clause. 

In the 2005 term, Samuel Alito’s views have differed from those of Justice Scalia much more significantly. Justice Scalia is very adamant on his reliance of legislative history when interpreting legislation and the Constitution. He was the only justice in Zedner v. United States to not join any section of Samuel Alito’s opinion which discussed the legislative history of the specific legislation in the case. In Randall v. Sorrell and LULAC v. Perry, two other significant cases that involved the constitutionality of campaign finance reform and political gerrymandering, Samuel Alito declined to join the stronger positions shown by either sides of the Supreme Court.

In the landmark 2007 case Morse v. Frederick which looked at free speech, Samuel Alito joined Chief Justice Roberts’ majority decision stating that speech advocating drug use could be banned in public schools, but emphasized that the decision could not interfere with political speech, like a debate regarding medical marijuana.

A third influential majority opinion by Alito was in the Gomez-Perez v. Potter, a 2008 worker protection case that helped federal workers who dealt with retaliation after filing complaints of age discrimination. Alito sided with the more liberal Justices, and agreed with needed protection against this retaliation despite the explicit provision concerning retaliation not existing.

Hugo Black was a jurist and an American politician. Black represented Alabama in the United States Senate as a Democratic Senator from 1927 to 1937 and was also a justice in the United States Supreme Court between 1937 and 1971. He was nominated by President Franklin D. Roosevelt for the judicial office and was confirmed by a 63 to 13 vote by the Senate.

Hugo Black was born on February 27, 1886, in Ashland, Alabama as the youngest in a family with children late. While he originally planned to follow the footsteps of his brother and attend medical school, he ended up enrolling at the law school of the University of Alabama. After graduating and receiving his law degree in June 1906, Hugo Black returned home and set up a legal practice, but later moved to Birmingham where his practice specialized in personal injury and labor law cases. He was then asked to serve as a police court judge, but stepped down only to later work as the Prosecuting Attorney of Jefferson County. During World War I, Hugo black resigned and joined the United States Army, where he became a captain in the 81st Field Artillery. After the war, he eventually became the Senator of Alabama from 1927 to 1937

Supreme Court Career

President Roosevelt nominated Hugo Black on August 12, 1937. Traditionally since 1853, when a senator was nominated for a judicial or executive office, he would be immediately confirmed without debate. However, the Senate departed from this practice and instead referred this nomination to the Judiciary Committee, where he was criticized for his cultural roots, presumed bigotry, and later, his membership with the Ku Klux Klan. However, the Judiciary Committee recommended his confirmation by 13–4 vote on August 16, 1937. The full Senate then considered the nomination the same day and ultimately Confirmed Hugo Black by a 63-16 vote. 

As soon as Hugo Black started on the Court, he quickly promoted judicial restraint and worked to shift the Court away its habit of interjecting itself in social and economic matters. He also strongly defended the plain meaning of the Constitution as a textualist and emphasized the importance and supremacy of the legislature by saying that the purpose of the Supreme Court was constitutionally bound and limited. 

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965): A landmark Supreme Court case that ruled that the Constitution did in fact protect a right to privacy. This case involved a Connecticut law that made the use of contraceptives illegal. The Supreme invalidated this law by a 7–2 vote on the grounds that the law violated the right to marital privacy. Justice Hugo Black, as well as Justice Potter Stewart dissented, stating that the right to privacy is not explicitly found in the Constitution. Furthermore, Black criticized the majority’s interpretations of the 9th and 14th Amendment.

Baker v. Carr (1962): A landmark Supreme Court case that moved away from the political question doctrine of the Court, and decided that that redistricting issues were justiciable questions, meaning that federal courts could intervene in order to decide reapportionment cases. The defendants of the case argued unsuccessfully that legislative district reapportionment should not have been resolved by federal courts since it was a “political question”. The decision was split in a 6 to 2 and resulted in a reformulation in just exactly what questions could be considered “political”. Justice Hugo Black compromised from his typical absolutist position and joined the majority in this case.

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954): A landmark Supreme Court decision that declared that state laws which separate public schools for white and black students as unconstitutional laws, which overturned the precedent set by Plessy v. Ferguson (1896). Justice Hugo Black was a part of the unanimous decision which stated that the separate educational facilities were inherently unequal. The case resulted in de jure racial segregation being a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and also paved the way for the civil rights movement and integration .

Samuel Chase was an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States and also a signer of the Declaration of Independence as the representative from Maryland. Samuel Chase was born on April 17, 1741 in Princess Anne, Maryland as the was the only child of his family. Chase was homeschooled, and left at the age of eighteen and went to Annapolis, where he studied law under John Hall, an attorney. Samuel Chase  was admitted to the bar in 1761. Afterwards, Chase started a law practice in the same town.

Samuel Chase was elected in 1764 to the Maryland General Assembly, and he held the seat for twenty years. Between 1774 and 1776, he was the member of the Annapolis Convention, where he represented Maryland at the Continental Congress. Samuel Chase was re-elected in 1776 became one of the signers of the U.S. Declaration of Independence. Chase stayed at the Continental Congress until 1778.

In 1786, Samuel Chase moved to Baltimore, and he stayed there for the remainder of his life. Two years later, he was appointed as the Chief justice of the Baltimore District Criminal Court and served the seat until 1796. In 1791, Chase also became the Chief Justice of the Maryland General Court. President George Washington appointed Samuel Chase on January 26, 1796 as an associate justice of the United States Supreme Court, which he served until his death on June 19, 1811.

Marbury v. Madison (1803): A landmark case by the Supreme Court and in United States law, as well as for worldwide law. The case created the basis for the power of judicial review by the judicial branch in the United States under the Constitution, specifically under Article III. This case also demonstrated the first time in Western history where a court nullified a law by pronouncing it unconstitutional, a process which is now called judicial review. The decision helped create and define the checks and balances found in American Government. The case came out from a petition by William Marbury to the Supreme, who had been appointed as the Justice of Peace in the District of Columbia by President John Adams. However, the commission was not subsequently delivered to Marbury. Marbury then proceeded by asked the Supreme Court to force James Madison, the Secretary of State to deliver the documents. However, Justice Samuel Chase along with the Court and Chief Justice John Marshall denied the petition. Instead, the Court held that specific provision found in the Judiciary Act of 1789 which allowed William Marbury to bring forth his claim regarding the petition to the Supreme Court unconstitutional, because the act tried to extend the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction beyond the point which was established by Article III of the constitution.

Stuart v. Laird (1803): A Supreme Court case most notably decided a week after Marbury v. Madison. The case dealt with a circuit judge’s judgment, after the particular judge’s job had been eliminated by the Judiciary Act of 1801’s repeal. This act created many federal judgeships and established new circuit court judges for intermediate appeals. Because of this, Supreme Court justices would not have to travel to hear appeals across the country, known as circuit riding. The court sustained the Judiciary Act of 1802, which resulted in only one federal judge required for a quorum in any circuit court, allowing Supreme Court justices to rely on the district court judges to hear intermediate appeals. This strategy proved necessary to eliminating circuit riding.

Justice Stephen Breyer is a current Justice of the United States Supreme Court who was appointed in 1994 by President Bill Clinton. Stephen Breyer was born on August 15, 1938 in San Francisco to a middle-class Jewish family in San Francisco. He graduated from Lowell High School and then went on to Stanford University where he received a B.A. in philosophy along with a B.A. from Magdalen College. Stephen Breyer then continued on to receive his LL.B from Harvard University.

Stephen Breyer first served as a law clerk in 1964 and continued on to be a special assistant to the U.S. Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust between 1965 and 1967. Afterwards he was an assistant special prosecutor in 1973 for the Watergate Special Prosecution Force. He also served as chief counsel of the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary.

Afterwards, Stephen Breyer worked a judge on the First Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals . He was nominated by President Bill Clinton in 1993 for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court, and was appointed in 1994.  As a Judge, Stephen Breyer’s practical approach to the law is to assessing a law’s constitutionality by look at the consequences and purposes of the Constitution’s text rather than looking at the text in a more literal and historical fashion.

Lawrence v. Texas (2003): A landmark Supreme Court case that examined and struck down a Texas sodomy law by a 6-3 ruling. In the previous Supreme Court case Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), the court upheld a Georgia statute and stated that there was no protection of sexual privacy that existed in the constitution. The new ruling stated that the previous case examined liberty interest of citizens too narrowly. The majority decision, which included Justice Stephen Breyer, explained that intimate sexual conduct which was consensual was protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. The Court’s decision invalidated many similar laws in the country that criminalized sodomy between consenting heterosexual as well as homosexual adults in private.

Stenberg v. Carhart (2000): A Supreme Court case that carefully examined a Nebraska law that illegalized partial-birth abortion, with the exception of when it would save the mother’s life. The Supreme Court struck down the partial-birth abortion ban, and found that it violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause which was first interpreted in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the majority opinion of the Court, and stated that in Planned Parenthood v. Casey found that an abortion law that limited an undue burden on the right to choose for a woman was unconstitutional. Breyer continued by saying that the ban would cause a fear of prosecution, conviction, and imprisonment, which would be an undue burden, thus unconstitutional.

District of Columbia v. Heller (2008): A landmark Supreme Court case where the held that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protected an citizen’s right to possess a firearm for lawful purposes, such as self-defense within a residence. The Court’s decision did not discuss the question of if the 2nd Amendment went beyond federal enclaves to the states. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the D.C. Circuit Court of appeals which determined that guns were “arms” for all intents and purposes of the Second Amendment, and that D.C.’s ban was unconstitutional. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a dissent joined by Justice Stephen Breyer which worked to show that the handgun ban and trigger lock requirement would be considered permissible limitations on the Second Amendment. Furthermore, Justice Stephen Breyer’s dissent examined early municipal fire-safety laws that did not allow the storage of gunpowder and argued for the necessity of gun-control laws for the sake of public safety.