Supreme Court Decisions

Scenarios, Simulations, and Activities for Understanding and Evaluating 14 Landmark Court Cases (Grades 7-12)

Jeffrey D. Stocks

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2021
• ISBN:
  9781000503678
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

The rich history of the U.S. Supreme Court affects everyone—so why just lecture about the landmark court decisions when you can engage students in the cases that changed the course of history? In Supreme Court Decisions, students will make predictions, use their knowledge of the Constitution, gain the perspective of people living during a historic period of time, and judge a case for themselves.The book takes students through 14 landmark cases including Dred Scott v. Sanford, Plessy v. Ferguson, Brown v. Board of Education, Mapp v. Ohio, Miranda v. Arizona, and more. Students will find cases such as New Jersey v. T.L.O. particularly interesting because of their continuing effect on and relevance to students in school today.Because these cases are sure to evoke different emotions and spark lively discussions among your students, the book also includes activities that will help you direct this energy into meaningful learning experiences. Your students will find the lessons in Supreme Court Decisions interesting, enjoyable, and engaging. Grades 7-12

CASE 1:

THE POWER TO DESTROY

MCCULLOCH V. MARYLAND (1819)

DOI: 10.4324/9781003238379-1

FOR THE TEACHER

Quick Reference

The Issue: Maryland state officials, unhappy with the existence of the U.S. bank, a competitor to their own chartered banks, levied a state tax against the federal bank. The bank’s cashier refused to pay the tax and was subsequently fined by the state of Maryland.

The Players:

James McCulloch—cashier of the Baltimore branch of the Bank of the United States.

Daniel Webster—McCulloch’s attorney.

John Marshall—Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

The Ruling: The court ruled in favor of McCulloch, with Marshall arguing that if a state is allowed to tax the federal government, then it is supreme over the federal government. Thus, it must not be allowed to do so. Or, as he wrote, “… the power to tax involves the power to destroy.”

Significance: This case firmly established the supremacy of the national government over the states.

Background

The early landmark cases of the Supreme Court were sweeping in nature and laid the foundation for the practical concept of the application of the U.S. Constitution. Marbury v. Madison (1803), for example, solidified the court’s role in determining the constitutionality of law. That precedent having been set, the Supreme Court settled one constitutional dispute after another. McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) is important for several reasons. On its face, it established the dominance of the national government in the federalist system. In the court’s ruling, Chief Justice John Marshall noted that a state could not tax a national entity because “the power to tax involves the power to destroy.”

On another level, however, this case showcased the power wielded by the president through lifetime appointments to the federal bench. The Federalist Party idea of a strong national government found life not through the democratic process, but through judicial fiat (creating law instead of interpreting it). The Federalist Party was all but dead by 1819, but its ideas of a strong judiciary, powerful central government, and flexible constitution lived on through Supreme Court Justices like John Marshall. The court asserted its own power (not listed in the Constitution) to interpret the Constitution in Marbury v. Madison (1803). It solidified the supremacy of the national government over state governments in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819). Finally, in Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), the court validated the idea that the Constitution is not limited to what is specifically written, but that elements may be inferred by the court. Each of these ideas had been championed by the Federalist Party before its demise, and were at odds with the beliefs of the Democratic-Republicans who presided during this time.

SECTION 1 THE POWER TO DESTROY

June 21, 1819

Dear Robert,

It has been two years, brother, since our last correspondence and I pray this letter finds you healthy. Alas, I have not attended to my letter writing as I promised. I fear these many months have proven most stressful.

Please do not fret over the family, as Emma and Little John are healthy and causing much good-natured havoc around town. Baltimore is growing too, but I fear its havoc is not as good-natured.

Who would have known that my principal woes would have come in the form of assuming the duties of Cashier of the Baltimore branch of the Bank of the United States? I fear my illustrious rise in this institution has only caused me grief, for now I have attained the title Common Criminal! Indeed, I have been convicted by the state of Maryland and am to pay a fine in the sum of two thousand five hundred dollars. I will have to sell my house to pay such a hefty ransom!

And, what did I do to earn this debt to the state? What evil doing brought such woe upon me? Surely you guess that I have embezzled funds, defrauded depositors, or falsified audits. Certainly not! (These petty offenses don’t summon the wrath of a $2,500 fine.) What I did was to endeavor to faithfully fulfill the requirements of my position. Thus, when the State of Maryland presented the bank with a tax bill of $15,000, I naturally refused to pay.

Mind you, Robert, this is the Bank of the United States chartered by Congress. The State of Maryland then has the audacity to tax the United States government! Maryland claims to be a sovereign state, but I suspect it is trying to eliminate the competition to its own state-chartered banks.

I tell you that I did not take my conviction and shunting to the criminal class lying down. I have appealed my conviction through the Maryland courts and now await my day before the Supreme Court of the United States! I shall inform you immediately upon news of the ruling.

Until then, I remain your humble brother and servant,

James

Discussion Questions:

1. What is the major issue to be settled by the case?
2. What are the facts relevant to the case?
3. Why do you think the state of Maryland taxed the bank?
4. How do you think the Supreme Court ruled?
5. You be the judge: Should James be forced to pay the fine? Why or why not?

SECTION 2: THE ACTUAL CASE MCCULLOCH V. MARYLAND (1819)

The establishment of the Bank of the United States was a major source of controversy at the time of its charter in 1791. It was to serve as a place where the national government could deposit funds, issue currency, collect taxes, and so forth. Proponents of the bank, such as Alexander Hamilton, argued that even though the U.S. Constitution did not specifically state that such a bank could be created, it didn’t state that a bank could not be created either. This argument is said to favor a loose interpretation of the Constitution.

Opponents of the bank, including Thomas Jefferson, argued that because the Constitution did not specifically give Congress the power to create a bank, then it was forbidden from doing so. This position requires a strict interpretation of the Constitution.

The matter came to a head in 1817 when Maryland (a state that opposed the creation of the Bank of the United States) levied a tax of $15,000 against the bank’s branch in Baltimore. James McCulloch, the cashier of the bank, refused to pay the tax and was convicted in state court and fined $2,500. McCulloch appealed the decision all the way to the Supreme Court (Mikula & Mabunda, 1999).

Maryland’s lawyers argued that, because the federal government had the authority to tax state banks, Maryland, as a sovereign state, had the authority to tax the federal bank. They also argued that because the Constitution did not specifically give Congress the power to charter a bank, then the bank itself was unconstitutional.

McCulloch’s lawyers, one of whom was Daniel Webster, argued that Congress’ creation of a national bank was “necessary and proper,” as is implied in the Constitution but not specifically stated. He also argued that Maryland’s tax hindered the function of federal government (Mikula & Mabunda, 1999).

THE RULING

First, the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John Marshall, struck a blow to those with a strict view of the Constitution. Marshall stated that the Constitution gives Congress the power to “lay and collect Taxes; … to borrow Money; … to regulate Commerce …” among other things. (These are known as enumerated powers because they are specifically listed in the Constitution.) But, the Constitution also gives Congress the power to make “all Laws which shall be necessary and proper, for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers …” So, even though the Constitution doesn’t specifically mention a bank, Marshall argued that the creation of a bank was a necessary and proper function of Congress.

Second, he argued that the states had no authority to tax any institution or function of the federal government. He stated that “the power to tax involves the power to destroy …” and that the “American people … did not design to make their government dependent upon the states …” (McCulloch v. Maryland [1819]).

THE AFTERMATH

Thus, the conviction of James McCulloch was overturned by the Supreme Court. Perhaps more important, however, the legitimacy of the implied powers became the law of the land and paved the way for a much more flexible, expanding Constitution. However, the argument didn’t end here. Elements of this argument between strict and loose interpreters of the Constitution have found their way into the Nullification Crisis, the Civil War, and even into present-day political arguments regarding presidential power, illegal immigration, education, and most notably, reproductive rights.

MAKING IT CURRENT

In the structure of the U.S. military, the National Guard typically is under the command of the governor of the state. However, the U.S. President also has the authority to call National Guard troops to active duty. Do you think it would be legal for the governor of a state to order National Guard troops to resist the orders of a federal court? (This happened in 1957.) How would it be resolved? How does this apply to McCulloch v. Maryland?

CASE 2:

THE STEAMBOAT CONTROVERSY

GIBBONS V. OGDEN (1824)

DOI: 10.4324/9781003238379-2

FOR THE TEACHER

Quick Reference

The Issue: The state of New York required a state license to operate a ferry—in this case, to operate between New York and New Jersey. However, the federal government issued licenses to operate in interstate waters. This put the federal and state governments at odds as to which entity had the authority to grant such licenses.

The Players:

Thomas Gibbons—Operated a ferry licensed by the United States.

Aaron Ogden—Operated a ferry licensed by the s...