Question

1. case research & classification – 50–75 min

use your chromebook or textbook to research each supreme court case below. for each case, identify the main issue, summarize the decision, decide if it shows judicial activism or judicial restraint, and explain why.

supreme court case	year	issue / question	court’s decision	activism or restraint	why?
plessy v. ferguson	1896
roe v. wade	1973
korematsu v. united states	1944
obergefell v. hodges	2015
schenck v. united states	1919
dred scott v. sandford	1857
miranda v. arizona	1966
gideon v. wainwright	1963
lochner v. new york	1905

Explanation:

Each case is analyzed to identify its core legal question, the Supreme Court's ruling, and whether it reflects judicial activism (court shaping policy beyond existing law) or restraint (deferring to legislative/executive or precedent):

1. Brown v. Board of Education: Challenged racial segregation in public schools as violating equal protection. The court overturned the "separate but equal" precedent. This is activism as it rejected long-standing precedent to advance civil rights.
2. Plessy v. Ferguson: Addressed whether racial segregation in public transit was constitutional. The court upheld "separate but equal" doctrine. This is restraint as it deferred to state segregation laws and limited interpretation of equal protection.
3. Roe v. Wade: Questioned if a woman's right to abortion was protected by privacy rights. The court established a constitutional right to abortion with trimester-based limits. This is activism as it found a new unenumerated right not explicitly in the Constitution.
4. Korematsu v. United States: Challenged the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII as a violation of equal protection. The court upheld the internment order. This is restraint as it deferred to executive/legislative wartime actions.
5. Obergefell v. Hodges: Addressed if same-sex couples had a constitutional right to marry. The court ruled same-sex marriage is protected by due process and equal protection clauses. This is activism as it expanded marriage rights beyond existing state laws and precedent.
6. Schenck v. United States: Questioned if anti-draft speech during WWI violated the Espionage Act. The court established the "clear and present danger" test, upholding the conviction. This is restraint as it deferred to congressional wartime legislation.
7. Dred Scott v. Sandford: Addressed if enslaved people could be U.S. citizens and if Congress could ban slavery in territories. The court ruled enslaved people were not citizens and Congress could not restrict slavery in territories. This is activism as it expanded slavery protections beyond existing law and struck down congressional legislation.
8. Miranda v. Arizona: Questioned if police must inform suspects of their constitutional rights during interrogation. The court established the Miranda warning requirement. This is activism as it created a new procedural rule to protect suspect rights not explicitly outlined in the Constitution.
9. Gideon v. Wainwright: Addressed if indigent defendants in state courts have a right to court-appointed counsel. The court ruled this right is required under the Sixth Amendment. This is activism as it expanded the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel to state courts, overturning precedent.
10. Lochner v. New York: Challenged a state law limiting bakers' work hours as violating due process. The court struck down the law, finding it violated "liberty of contract." This is activism as it used substantive due process to strike down a state economic regulation, overriding legislative policy.

Answer:

Supreme Court Case	Year	Issue / Question	Court's Decision	Activism or Restraint?	Why?
Plessy v. Ferguson	1896	Is racial segregation in public transit constitutional?	Upheld "separate but equal" doctrine; segregation is constitutional.	Judicial Restraint	Deferred to state segregation laws and narrow equal protection interpretation.
Roe v. Wade	1973	Does a woman have a constitutional right to abortion?	Ruled a woman's right to abortion is protected by implied privacy rights in the 14th Amendment; established trimester-based limits.	Judicial Activism	Identified an unenumerated constitutional right not explicit in the text.
Korematsu v. United States	1944	Is Japanese American internment during WWII constitutional?	Upheld the internment order as a wartime military necessity.	Judicial Restraint	Deferred to executive and legislative wartime authority.
Obergefell v. Hodges	2015	Do same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry?	Ruled same-sex marriage is protected by the 14th Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses; required all states to recognize same-sex marriages.	Judicial Activism	Expanded marriage rights beyond existing state laws and precedent.
Schenck v. United States	1919	Does anti-draft speech during WWI violate the Espionage Act?	Upheld the conviction; established the "clear and present danger" test for unprotected speech.	Judicial Restraint	Deferred to congressional wartime legislation.
Dred Scott v. Sandford	1857	Can enslaved people be U.S. citizens, and can Congress ban slavery in territories?	Ruled enslaved people are not U.S. citizens; Congress cannot restrict slavery in federal territories.	Judicial Activism	Struck down congressional legislation and expanded slavery protections beyond existing law.
Miranda v. Arizona	1966	Must police inform suspects of their constitutional rights during interrogation?	Ruled suspects must be informed of their 5th and 6th Amendment rights (Miranda warning) before custodial interrogation.	Judicial Activism	Created a new procedural rule to protect suspect rights not explicitly in the Constitution.
Gideon v. Wainwright	1963	Do indigent state defendants have a right to court-appointed counsel?	Ruled the 6th Amendment's right to counsel applies to state courts via the 14th Amendment; indigent defendants must be provided counsel.	Judicial Activism	Expanded the Sixth Amendment's scope to state courts, overturning precedent.
Lochner v. New York	1905	Is a state law limiting bakers' work hours constitutional?	Struck down the law; ruled it violates the 14th Amendment's substantive due process right to "liberty of contract."	Judicial Activism	Used substantive due process to override state economic regulation and legislative policy.