2037: Supreme Court Bracket

2018-08-26T06:21:58Z

Maf: /* NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin, 1937 */

{{comic
| number = 2037
| date = August 24, 2018
| title = Supreme Court Bracket
| image = supreme_court_bracket.png
| titletext = My bracket was busted in the first round; I had Massachusetts v. Connecticut in the final, probably in a case over who gets to annex Rhode Island.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Each court case needs its own explanation, preferably a small paragraph instead of a sentence in parentheses. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

The {{w|Supreme Court of the United States}} is the highest federal court of the United States. A {{w|Bracket (tournament)|tournament bracket}} is a tree diagram that represents the series of games played during a knockout tournament. [[Randall]] suggests that the winners of the 16 listed court cases will file against each other and then again until the final winner is selected. However, many of them were humans who lived too far apart chronologically for that to be possible. For example, over 100 years separated Gibbons v. Ogden from Near v. Minnesota, making a lawsuit between {w|Thomas Gibbons|Thomas Gibbons} and J.M. Near improbable. (Minnesota is a state and could survive indefinitely, but it lost the case.) In fact, {w|Thomas Gibbons|Thomas Gibbons} died in 1826, making it impossible for him to be a party to a lawsuit subsequent to Near v. Minnesota, which was decided in 1931.

Court cases are typically titled as plaintiff versus defendant. Randall is spoofing this idea by imagining famous Supreme Court cases as though they were games in the first round of a single-elimination tournament, similar to college basketball's {{w|NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Tournament|March Madness}}, complete with a ranking bracket. "Sweet 16" in the context of a tournament refers to the stage in a tournament where 16 competitors remain. This comic's concept is thus a word play on "court" (court of law v. basketball court).

The cases are (winners in italics):
====Marbury v. ''Madison'', 1803====
The case {{w|Marbury v. Madison|Marbury v. Madison}} declared a provision of the {{w|Judiciary Act of 1789}} unconstitutional, thus preventing several late-term appointments by outgoing President {{w|John Adams}} from being seated under incoming President {{w|Thomas Jefferson}}. More importantly, the ruling established the principle of {{w|judicial review}} by which the Supreme Court can overturn, on the basis of unconstitutionality, laws passed by {{w|United States Congress|Congress}} and signed into law by the {{w|President of the United States|President}}. For this reason it is considered the single most important decision in American constitutional law.

====''McCulloch'' v. Maryland, 1819====
The case {{w|McCulloch v. Maryland|McCulloch v. Maryland}} established a broad interpretation of the "necessary and proper" clause, specifically finding that Congress could incorporate a Bank of the United States because the purpose was to help carry out Congress' explicit powers under Article I, section 8.

====''Gibbons'' v. Ogden, 1824====
The case {{w|Gibbons v. Ogden|Gibbons v. Ogden}} established that interstate commerce is regulated by the U.S. Congress according to the U.S. Constitution, that interstate navigation is fundamental to interstate commerce, and that therefore the power to regulate interstate navigation in this way rests with the U.S. Congress, not with any state legislature.

On 01 March 1824, the US Supreme Court decided in favor of Thomas Gibbons in his appeal of a case brought against him by Aaron Ogden in an attempt to prevent Gibbons from operating steamboats to transport goods and passengers between New York City, New York and Elizabethtown, New Jersey. The US Supreme Court decision reversed a prior injunction against Gibbons issued by a New York State court deciding that Ogden held exclusive navigational rights by way of having licensed them from two men to whom the New York State Legislature had granted the navigation rights in several acts between 1798 and 1807.

====''Near'' v. Minnesota, Jan 30, 1930 – Jun 1, 1931====
The case {{w|Near v. Minnesota|Near v. Minnesota}} is a landmark United States Supreme Court decision that found that prior restraints on publication violate freedom of the press as protected under the {{w|First Amendment to the United States Constitution}}, a principle that was applied to free speech generally in subsequent jurisprudence. The Court ruled that a Minnesota law that targeted publishers of "malicious" or "scandalous" newspapers violated the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Noteworthy it was later a key precedent in {{w|New York Times Co. v. United States}} (1971), in which the court ruled against the Nixon administration's attempt to enjoin publication of the Pentagon Papers.

====''NLRB'' v. Jones & Laughlin, 1937====
{{w|NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.|National Labor Relations Board v Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation}} was a US labor law case. It declared that the {{w|National Labor Relations Act of 1935}} was constitutional. It effectively preserved the {{w|New Deal}}, which was being pursued by US President {{w|Franklin D. Roosevelt|Roosevelt}} in reaction to the {{w|Great Depression}}. Previous Supreme Court cases, unlike ''NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin'', had invalidated New Deal statutes.

====''Brown'' v. Board of Education, Dec 9, 1952 – May 17, 1954====
The case {{w|Brown v. Board of Education|Brown v. Board of Education}} the Court declared state laws establishing separate public schools for black and white students to be unconstitutional. It stated that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal."

This ruling paved the way for the {{w|Civil rights movement|Civil Rights Movement}}. However, the decision did not spell out any sort of method for ending racial segregation in schools, and the Court's second decision in {{w|Brown v. Board of Education#Brown II|Brown II}} only ordered states to desegregate "with all deliberate speed."

====''Gideon'' v. Wainwright, 1963====
In the case {{w|Gideon v. Wainwright|'''Gideon''' v. Wainwright}} the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that states are required under the {{w|Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Sixth Amendment}} to the U.S. Constitution to provide an attorney or lawyer to defendants in criminal cases who are unable to afford their own attorneys.

====''Griswold'' v. Connecticut, 1965====
ToDo:{{w|Griswold v. Connecticut|Griswold v. Connecticut}}
(right to birth control)

====''Miranda'' v. Arizona, 1966====
ToDo:{{w|Miranda v. Arizona|Miranda v. Arizona}}
(required police to inform suspects of their rights)

====''Loving'' v. Virginia, April 10, 1967 - June 12, 1967====
ToDo: {{w|Loving v. Virginia|Loving v. Virginia}}
(overturned a ban on interracial marriage)

====''Roe'' v. Wade, January 22, 1973====
ToDo: {{w|Roe v. Wade|Roe v. Wade}}
(right to abortion)

====''United States'' v. Nixon, July 8, 1974 - July 24, 1974====
ToDo: {{w|United States v. Nixon|United States v. Nixon}}
(ordered president Nixon to turn over Watergate tapes)

====''Bush'' v. Gore, December 12, 2000=====
ToDo: {{w|Bush v. Gore|Bush v. Gore}}
(disputed 2000 Presidential election)

====''Lawrence'' v. Texas, June 26, 2003====
ToDo:{{w|Lawrence v. Texas|Lawrence v. Texas}}
(invalidated sodomy laws)

====''Massachusetts'' v. EPA, 2007====
ToDo:{{w|Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency|Massachusetts v. EPA}}
(decided that the state of Massachusetts has standing to sue the EPA for not doing enough against global warming)

====''Obergefell'' v. Hodges, June 26, 2015====
ToDo:{{w|Obergefell v. Hodges|Obergefell v. Hodges}}
(allowing same-sex marriage)

The title text refers to a practice of filling out a March Madness bracket, predicting a winner for each game up to the championship. A bracket is "busted" when the result of a game is not as predicted; because future matchups depend on previous results, the whole bracket is worthless at that point. Randall "had Massachusetts v. Connecticut in the final", predicting both parties would win all previous rounds and advance to the final game/case. Because Connecticut lost its first-round case to Griswold, his bracket is busted in the first round.

In the second part of the title text, Randall writes: "I had Massachusetts v. Connecticut in the final, probably in a case over who gets to annex Rhode Island." In fact, there actually was a Supreme Court case ''Massachusetts v. Connecticut'' (summary at [https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/282/660/ Justia.com], full text at [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17012735467934830012&q=Connecticut+v.+Massachusetts&hl=en&as_sdt=2006 Google Scholar]) dealing with water rights on the Connecticut River, which flows between the two states.

==Transcript==
:[A tournament bracket tree is shown with 16 participants each on the left and right side. From both sides toward the middle the brackets reduce to eight, then four, two, and one line where the latter join to a rectangle in the middle.]

:[Left side:]
:Marbury - Madison
:McCulloch - Maryland
:Gibbons - Ogden
:Near - Minnesota
:NLRB - Jones & Laughlin
:Brown - Board of Education
:Gideon - Wainwright
:Griswold - Connecticut

:[Right side:]
:Miranda - Arizona
:Loving - Virginia
:Roe - Wade
:United States - Nixon
:Bush - Gore
:Lawrence - Texas
:Massachusetts - EPA
:Obergefell - Hodges

:[Caption below the frame:]
:Now that we've finished the round of 32, the Supreme court will be moving on to the Sweet 16.

{{comic discussion}}

explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

2037: Supreme Court Bracket