20.4 Practical Applications in Supreme Court Decisions

Supreme Court decisions shape our understanding of the Constitution. From Marbury v. Madison establishing judicial review to Brown v. Board of Education ending school segregation, these rulings reflect different interpretive approaches.

The Court's choices in applying originalism, living constitutionalism, or other methods have far-reaching effects. These decisions impact individual rights, the balance of power between branches, and how we tackle contemporary constitutional controversies.

Landmark Supreme Court Cases

Establishing Judicial Review and Textualist Interpretation

Top images from around the web for Establishing Judicial Review and Textualist Interpretation

• 

  The Supreme Court | American Government View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Tribunal Supremo de los Estados Unidos - Supreme Court of the United States - abcdef.wiki View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Federalism Today | Boundless Political Science View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  The Supreme Court | American Government View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Tribunal Supremo de los Estados Unidos - Supreme Court of the United States - abcdef.wiki View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 3

Top images from around the web for Establishing Judicial Review and Textualist Interpretation

• 

  The Supreme Court | American Government View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Tribunal Supremo de los Estados Unidos - Supreme Court of the United States - abcdef.wiki View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Federalism Today | Boundless Political Science View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  The Supreme Court | American Government View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Tribunal Supremo de los Estados Unidos - Supreme Court of the United States - abcdef.wiki View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 3

• Marbury v. Madison (1803) established the principle of judicial review
  • Focused on the plain meaning of the words in Article III
  • Affirmed the Supreme Court's power to declare legislative acts unconstitutional
  • Set a precedent for the judiciary's role in interpreting and enforcing the Constitution

Inferring Implied Powers through Structuralist Interpretation

• McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) demonstrated a structuralist approach to constitutional interpretation
  • Inferred the existence of implied powers from the overall structure and purpose of the Constitution
  • Upheld Congress's power to establish a national bank, even though not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution
  • Recognized the federal government's supremacy over the states in areas of constitutional authority

Interpreting Individual Rights through Natural Law and Living Constitutionalism

• Lochner v. New York (1905) showcased a natural law approach to interpreting individual rights
  • Interpreted the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment to protect a fundamental right to freedom of contract
  • Struck down a New York law limiting bakers' working hours as an unconstitutional interference with this right
  • Exemplified the Court's willingness to read unenumerated rights into the Constitution based on natural law principles
• Brown v. Board of Education (1954) employed a living constitutionalist approach to interpreting the Equal Protection Clause
  • Adapted the meaning of the clause to changing social and moral norms regarding racial segregation
  • Overturned the "separate but equal" doctrine established in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)
  • Recognized that segregated schools were inherently unequal and violated the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection

Applying Originalism to Second Amendment Interpretation

• District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) exemplified an originalist approach to constitutional interpretation
  • Focused on the original public meaning of the Second Amendment at the time of its adoption
  • Held that the amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense
  • Struck down a D.C. law banning handgun possession and requiring firearms to be kept unloaded and disassembled

Reasoning Behind Interpretive Methods

Textual Clarity and Ambiguity

• The Court's choice of interpretive method often reflects the nature of the constitutional provision at issue and the specific legal question presented
  • In cases involving clear and unambiguous constitutional text (Marbury v. Madison), the Court may employ a textualist approach
  • When the text is open-ended or ambiguous (McCulloch v. Maryland), the Court may look to the overall structure and purpose of the Constitution

Individual Rights and Evolving Norms

• In cases involving individual rights, the Court may draw on different interpretive approaches
  • Natural law principles (Lochner v. New York) emphasize fundamental rights derived from reason and justice
  • Evolving social norms (Brown v. Board of Education) recognize the need for constitutional adaptation to changing circumstances

Judicial Ideology and Jurisprudence

• The Court's interpretive choices may also reflect the ideological and jurisprudential commitments of individual justices
  • Originalist approach in District of Columbia v. Heller aligned with the conservative majority's view of the Second Amendment
  • Living constitutionalist approach in Brown v. Board of Education reflected the Warren Court's commitment to civil rights and social justice

Consequences of Interpretive Choices

Scope and Stability of Constitutional Rights and Powers

• The Court's interpretive choices can have far-reaching effects on the scope and content of constitutional rights and powers
  • Textualist and originalist approaches (Marbury v. Madison, District of Columbia v. Heller) tend to constrain the Court's discretion and produce more stable and predictable outcomes
    • May limit the adaptability of constitutional law to changing circumstances
  • Structuralist and living constitutionalist approaches (McCulloch v. Maryland, Brown v. Board of Education) allow for greater flexibility and responsiveness to contemporary needs
    • May lead to more expansive and potentially controversial interpretations of constitutional provisions

Separation of Powers and Institutional Dynamics

• The Court's interpretive choices can shape the balance of power between the branches of government
  • Marbury v. Madison's establishment of judicial review positioned the judiciary as a check on legislative and executive power
  • McCulloch v. Maryland's recognition of broad congressional powers expanded the scope of federal authority relative to the states

Impact on Individual Rights and Liberties

• Interpretive choices can have significant impacts on individual rights and liberties
  • Brown v. Board of Education's living constitutionalist approach paved the way for the expansion of civil rights and racial equality
  • District of Columbia v. Heller's originalist interpretation recognized an individual right to bear arms, shaping the contours of Second Amendment jurisprudence

Interpretive Theories for Contemporary Controversies

Enumerated Powers and Federalism

• Textualism and originalism can be applied to controversies involving the scope of enumerated powers
  • Debates over the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate hinge on the interpretation of Congress's commerce and taxing powers
  • Disputes over the limits of federal power relative to the states (marijuana legalization, sanctuary cities) often invoke originalist arguments about the Tenth Amendment and federalism

Executive Authority and Separation of Powers

• Structuralist approaches may be relevant to disputes over the separation of powers
  • Questions about the limits of executive authority in areas like foreign policy (treaty-making, war powers) and national security (surveillance, detention) often turn on the interpretation of the Constitution's allocation of powers between the branches
  • Controversies over the scope of executive privilege and congressional oversight (subpoenas, impeachment) may draw on structuralist arguments about checks and balances

Unenumerated Rights and Social Change

• Natural law and living constitutionalist theories can inform debates over unenumerated rights
  • The right to privacy (Griswold v. Connecticut, Roe v. Wade) and the recognition of same-sex marriage (Obergefell v. Hodges) have been grounded in evolving conceptions of liberty and equality
  • Disputes over the scope of substantive due process (assisted suicide, parental rights) often invoke natural law arguments about fundamental rights and human dignity

First Amendment Freedoms

• Interpretive theories can shape approaches to the First Amendment
  • The application of free speech protections to campaign finance regulation (Citizens United v. FEC) and commercial speech (Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission) may depend on originalist or living constitutionalist understandings of the First Amendment's scope
  • The interpretation of the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses (Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue) often involves competing visions of religious liberty and church-state separation

Practical Consequences for High-Profile Controversies

• The choice of interpretive theory can have significant practical consequences for the resolution of high-profile constitutional controversies
  • Disputes over abortion rights (Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt) often pit originalist arguments about the lack of a textual basis for the right to privacy against living constitutionalist arguments about women's autonomy and equality
  • Controversies over affirmative action (Grutter v. Bollinger, Fisher v. University of Texas) may turn on competing interpretations of the Equal Protection Clause and the permissibility of race-conscious policies
  • Debates over the scope of presidential powers (Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, Trump v. Vance) often involve structuralist arguments about the separation of powers and the limits of executive authority