Course outline
Module 1
Module 1: Marbury v. Madison and Judicial Review
Marbury v. Madison and Judicial Review
Knowledge check
Q1. In Marbury v. Madison (1803), what was the central issue the Supreme Court had to decide?
- A. Whether Congress could declare war without presidential approval
- B. Whether the Court could order delivery of a commission that the Secretary of State had failed to deliver, and whether the relevant section of the Judiciary Act of 1789 was constitutional ✓
- C. Whether states could refuse to enforce federal tariffs
- D. Whether the President could remove federal judges from office
Why: William Marbury sued Secretary of State James Madison to deliver his commission as a justice of the peace. The Court had to decide whether it could issue a writ of mandamus under Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, and whether that provision was consistent with the Constitution.
Q2. Who was the Chief Justice of the United States who wrote the opinion in Marbury v. Madison?
- A. John Jay
- B. John Marshall ✓
- C. Roger B. Taney
- D. Oliver Ellsworth
Why: John Marshall, who had also served as Secretary of State under President John Adams, wrote the unanimous opinion establishing the principle of judicial review.
Q3. What is the principle of judicial review established in Marbury v. Madison?
- A. The power of federal courts to review and strike down laws that conflict with the Constitution ✓
- B. The power of the President to veto judicial decisions
- C. The right of citizens to vote on constitutional amendments
- D. The authority of Congress to impeach Supreme Court justices
Why: Marshall held that it is the duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, and that when a statute conflicts with the Constitution, the Constitution, as the supreme law, must prevail and the statute must be disregarded.
Q4. Why did the Supreme Court ultimately refuse to order Madison to deliver Marbury's commission?
- A. Because Marbury had waited too long to file his suit
- B. Because the Court concluded that Section 13 of the Judiciary Act expanded its original jurisdiction beyond what Article III of the Constitution allowed ✓
- C. Because the Secretary of State was immune from lawsuits
- D. Because the commission had already been delivered to another person
Why: Marshall found that Congress had given the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, which Article III does not permit. Since the statute conflicted with the Constitution, the Court declined to use it, even though this meant denying Marbury relief.
Q5. What was the outcome for William Marbury in the case?
- A. He received his commission and was sworn in as a justice of the peace
- B. He was awarded monetary damages from the government
- C. He was denied his commission, though the Court held that he was legally entitled to it ✓
- D. The case was dismissed because Marbury withdrew his claim
Why: Marshall agreed Marbury had a legal right to the commission, but the Court lacked jurisdiction to order its delivery, so the petition was dismissed and Marbury did not receive the position.
Module 2
Module 2: Brown v. Board of Education and School Desegregation
Brown v. Board of Education and School Desegregation
Knowledge check
Q1. What was the central holding of Brown v. Board of Education (1954)?
- A. Public schools could remain separate as long as facilities were equal
- B. State-enforced racial segregation in public schools violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment ✓
- C. Federal courts lack authority to order changes to state school systems
- D. School districts must hire teachers in proportion to the local population
Why: The Supreme Court unanimously held that segregated public schools were inherently unequal and violated the Equal Protection Clause, overturning the 'separate but equal' doctrine established in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) for public education.
Q2. Which earlier Supreme Court decision established the 'separate but equal' doctrine that Brown v. Board later overturned?
- A. Marbury v. Madison (1803)
- B. Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)
- C. Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) ✓
- D. Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)
Why: Plessy v. Ferguson upheld Louisiana's law requiring racially separate railway cars under the doctrine of 'separate but equal,' a principle that was applied to public schools until Brown rejected it in 1954.
Q3. Which NAACP lawyer led the legal team that argued Brown v. Board of Education and later became a Supreme Court Justice?
- A. Thurgood Marshall ✓
- B. Earl Warren
- C. Charles Hamilton Houston
- D. Robert H. Jackson
Why: Thurgood Marshall directed the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund's litigation strategy in Brown and later served as the first African American Justice on the Supreme Court, from 1967 to 1991.
Q4. Who was the Chief Justice of the United States when the unanimous Brown decision was announced?
- A. Fred Vinson
- B. Harlan Fiske Stone
- C. Earl Warren ✓
- D. William Howard Taft
Why: Earl Warren, who had been appointed Chief Justice in 1953, wrote the unanimous opinion in Brown, emphasizing that separate educational facilities are inherently unequal, and he sought unanimity to present a united Court.
Q5. What did the Court's follow-up decision, commonly called Brown II (1955), require?
- A. Immediate integration of all schools nationwide within one year
- B. Desegregation 'with all deliberate speed' under oversight of local federal district courts ✓
- C. The creation of new federally funded private schools for Black students
- D. The dismissal of all cases pending in state courts
Why: Brown II directed lower federal courts to supervise desegregation and required that it proceed 'with all deliberate speed,' a vague standard that allowed significant delay and resistance in many Southern states.
Module 3
Module 3: Miranda v. Arizona and the Rights of the Accused
Miranda v. Arizona and the Rights of the Accused
Knowledge check
Q1. In which year was the Supreme Court decision in Miranda v. Arizona issued?
- A. 1954
- B. 1966 ✓
- C. 1973
- D. 1981
Why: Miranda v. Arizona was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1966, establishing that suspects must be informed of their rights before custodial interrogation.
Q2. What was the name of the defendant whose case led to the Miranda decision?
- A. Ernesto Miranda ✓
- B. Clarence Earl Gideon
- C. Mary Ann Escobedo
- D. Dollree Mapp
Why: Ernesto Miranda was the defendant, arrested in Arizona for kidnapping and rape. He confessed during police interrogation without being informed of his right to counsel or his right to remain silent.
Q3. Which constitutional amendment is the primary basis for the Miranda warnings?
- A. First Amendment
- B. Fourth Amendment
- C. Fifth Amendment ✓
- D. Eighth Amendment
Why: The Court grounded the warnings in the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, which protects individuals from being compelled to be witnesses against themselves.
Q4. Which of the following is NOT one of the core rights included in the Miranda warnings?
- A. The right to remain silent
- B. The right to an attorney during questioning
- C. The right to a speedy trial ✓
- D. The warning that statements can be used in court
Why: The core Miranda warnings cover the right to remain silent, that anything said can be used against the suspect, the right to an attorney, and the right to an appointed attorney if one cannot be afforded. A speedy trial right comes from the Sixth Amendment and is not part of the warnings.
Q5. What is the consequence if police fail to properly give Miranda warnings before a custodial interrogation?
- A. The officers are automatically charged with a crime
- B. The defendant is acquitted of all charges
- C. Statements obtained during the interrogation are generally inadmissible as evidence at trial ✓
- D. The case is dismissed with prejudice
Why: Under the exclusionary rule applied in Miranda, statements obtained from custodial interrogation without proper warnings and a valid waiver are generally excluded from the prosecution's case-in-chief, though exceptions exist.
Module 4
Module 4: Roe v. Wade and the Right to Privacy
Roe v. Wade and the Right to Privacy
Knowledge check
Q1. In which year did the U.S. Supreme Court decide Roe v. Wade?
- A. 1963
- B. 1973 ✓
- C. 1984
- D. 1992
Why: Roe v. Wade was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1973, recognizing a constitutional right to abortion under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause.
Q2. Which constitutional amendment's Due Process Clause was central to the Court's reasoning in Roe v. Wade?
- A. First Amendment
- B. Fifth Amendment
- C. Fourteenth Amendment ✓
- D. Nineteenth Amendment
Why: The Court located a right to privacy within the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which it applied to state restrictions on abortion.
Q3. Which earlier Supreme Court case first recognized a constitutional right to privacy within marriage, later cited in Roe v. Wade?
- A. Brown v. Board of Education
- B. Griswold v. Connecticut
- C. Miranda v. Arizona
- D. Marbury v. Madison
Q4. Roe v. Wade divided pregnancy into trimesters when establishing its framework. What was the general approach to state regulation during the third trimester?
- A. States could ban abortion entirely at any stage.
- B. States could regulate or prohibit abortion after viability, except where needed to protect the mother's life or health. ✓
- C. States had no authority to regulate abortion at any stage.
- D. Abortion was only permitted in the first trimester with no exceptions.
Why: Roe allowed states to regulate and even prohibit abortion in the third trimester, after fetal viability, but required exceptions to protect the pregnant woman's life or health.
Q5. In 2022, which Supreme Court decision overruled Roe v. Wade?
- A. Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization ✓
- B. Planned Parenthood v. Casey
- C. Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt
- D. Gonzales v. Carhart
Why: Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022) overruled Roe and Casey, holding that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion and returning the authority to regulate abortion to the states.
Module 5
Module 5: Gideon v. Wainwright and the Right to Counsel
Gideon v. Wainwright and the Right to Counsel
Knowledge check
Q1. In Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), what constitutional right did the Supreme Court hold applies to state criminal defendants who cannot afford a lawyer?
- A. The right to a speedy trial
- B. The right to counsel appointed at state expense ✓
- C. The right against self-incrimination
- D. The right to a jury of one's peers
Why: Gideon v. Wainwright held that the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of counsel applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, requiring states to appoint attorneys for indigent defendants in felony cases.
Q2. Who was the petitioner in Gideon v. Wainwright?
- A. Clarence Earl Gideon, a man charged with breaking and entering in Florida ✓
- B. Ernesto Miranda, a man arrested for kidnapping in Arizona
- C. Clarence Darrow, a lawyer arguing before the Court
- D. Linda Brown, a student denied admission to a school in Kansas
Why: Clarence Earl Gideon was charged in Florida with breaking and entering a poolroom. He could not afford a lawyer, and when the court denied his request for appointed counsel, he wrote the Supreme Court a handwritten petition.
Q3. Why was Clarence Gideon denied a lawyer at his original trial in Florida?
- A. He waived his right to counsel in writing
- B. Florida law at the time only required appointed counsel in capital cases, so the court refused to appoint one for his non-capital felony ✓
- C. No lawyers were available in his county
- D. He had already been convicted of the same crime in another state
Why: Under the rule from Betts v. Brady (1942), states needed to appoint counsel only in special circumstances such as capital cases. Because Gideon's charge was non-capital, Florida courts did not provide him a lawyer.
Q4. Which earlier Supreme Court case Gideon v. Wainwright overruled?
- A. Marbury v. Madison
- B. Plessy v. Ferguson
- C. Betts v. Brady ✓
- D. Miranda v. Arizona
Why: Gideon overruled Betts v. Brady (1942), which had held that the right to appointed counsel in state courts depended on the special circumstances of each case rather than being a fundamental right applicable to all.
Q5. Who wrote the opinion of the Court in Gideon v. Wainwright?
- A. Chief Justice Earl Warren
- B. Justice Hugo Black ✓
- C. Justice Felix Frankfurter
- D. Justice William Brennan
Why: Justice Hugo Black wrote the unanimous opinion of the Court, stating that lawyers in criminal courts are necessities, not luxuries, and that a fair trial is impossible without counsel for those who cannot afford one.
Module 6
Module 6: Plessy v. Ferguson and the Doctrine of Separate but Equal
Plessy v. Ferguson and the Doctrine of Separate but Equal
Knowledge check
Q1. In what year was the Supreme Court decision in Plessy v. Ferguson issued?
- A. 1857
- B. 1896 ✓
- C. 1915
- D. 1954
Why: Plessy v. Ferguson was decided by the Supreme Court in 1896. It upheld state laws requiring racial segregation on railroads under the doctrine of 'separate but equal.'
Q2. Homer Plessy was arrested for violating which type of state law?
- A. A law banning interracial marriage
- B. A law requiring separate railway cars for Black and white passengers ✓
- C. A law restricting voting rights
- D. A law prohibiting public schools for Black children
Why: Plessy, who was one-eighth African American, deliberately sat in a whites-only railway car in Louisiana to challenge the 1890 Separate Car Act, which mandated racially separated accommodations.
Q3. What legal principle did the Supreme Court establish in Plessy v. Ferguson?
- A. Racial segregation violated the Equal Protection Clause
- B. Separate facilities for different races were constitutional as long as they were equal ✓
- C. States could not require racial separation in public transportation
- D. Federal law overrode all state segregation statutes
Why: The Court held that segregation did not inherently imply inferiority and that separate facilities were permissible under the Fourteenth Amendment if they were equal. This became known as the 'separate but equal' doctrine.
Q4. Which justice wrote the lone dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson, famously declaring that 'Our Constitution is color-blind'?
- A. Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.
- B. Earl Warren
- C. John Marshall Harlan ✓
- D. Roger Taney
Why: Justice John Marshall Harlan was the sole dissenter. He argued that the Constitution does not permit classifications based on race and predicted that the decision would be as harmful as the Dred Scott decision.
Q5. Plessy v. Ferguson was ultimately overturned by which landmark 1954 decision?
- A. Brown v. Board of Education ✓
- B. Miranda v. Arizona
- C. Loving v. Virginia
- D. Gideon v. Wainwright
Why: Brown v. Board of Education declared state-sponsored segregation in public schools unconstitutional, rejecting the separate but equal doctrine in education and effectively undermining Plessy's foundation.
Module 7
Module 7: Donoghue v. Stevenson and the Modern Law of Negligence
Donoghue v. Stevenson and the Modern Law of Negligence
Knowledge check
Q1. In Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932), what did the plaintiff, May Donoghue, claim to have found in her bottle of ginger beer?
- A. A dead snail
- B. A decomposed snail ✓
- C. A broken glass fragment
- D. An insect larva
Why: Donoghue claimed she found the decomposed remains of a snail in a bottle of ginger beer bought for her by a friend at a café in Paisley, Scotland. The discovery of the decomposed snail was central to the case.
Q2. Who delivered the famous 'neighbour principle' in Donoghue v. Stevenson?
- A. Lord Atkin ✓
- B. Lord Macmillan
- C. Lord Buckmaster
- D. Lord Wright
Why: Lord Atkin, in his majority speech in the House of Lords, articulated the neighbour principle: you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions that you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour, meaning persons so closely affected that you ought reasonably to have them in contemplation.
Q3. Which legal principle did Donoghue v. Stevenson establish as the foundation of modern negligence law?
- A. Strict liability for defective goods
- B. Vicarious liability of employers
- C. A general duty of care owed to those foreseeably affected by one's actions ✓
- D. Contributory negligence as a complete defence
Why: The case established a general duty of care in negligence, moving beyond the limited categories of duty recognised previously. This general principle underpins much of modern tort law.
Q4. Why was the defendant, Mr. Stevenson, not in a direct contractual relationship with Mrs. Donoghue?
- A. She had bought the drink for herself and he was not involved
- B. A friend had bought the ginger beer for her, so she had no contract with the manufacturer ✓
- C. The ginger beer was a free sample
- D. The bottle was bought from a different retailer entirely
Why: A friend purchased the ginger beer for Mrs. Donoghue at the café, so she had no contract with the manufacturer, Mr. Stevenson. This lack of privity meant she needed to establish a claim in tort rather than contract, which is why the case was so significant.
Q5. Donoghue v. Stevenson was decided by which court, and in what year?
- A. The Court of Session, 1928
- B. The House of Lords, 1932 ✓
- C. The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, 2005
- D. The Court of Appeal, 1950
Why: The case was decided by the House of Lords, then the highest court of appeal in Scotland and the United Kingdom, in 1932, by a 3-2 majority in favour of Mrs. Donoghue.