Marbury v. Madison (1803) is a landmark Supreme Court case that defined the separation of power for the judicial branch. Defining the power of the courts to strike down laws and acts of the legislative branch that they deemed unconstitutional.

In McCulloch v. Maryland the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government had the right to establish a national bank and that the states couldn't tax that bank. This expanded the implied powers of the national government. Although all of the other court cases are important, none of them expanded the implied implied powers of the national government.

In Goss v. Lopez the Supreme Court ruled that states that provide free education for all cannot deprive the right to due process from its students. Miranda v. Arizona established that people must be read their rights at the time of an arrest. Engle v. Vitale prohibited prayer in schools. Grutter v. Bollinger allowed colleges to promote diversity. 

The Supreme Court case of Marbury v. Madison (1803) centered around Secretary of State James Madison trying to block the appointment of certain court justices even though they had been approved by the Senate. The Court's ruling established several different precedents, but by far the most important was that the Court had the right to overturn acts of Congress and deem them unconstitutional. This was not a power explicitly given to the Supreme Court in the Constitution, and the decision was highly controversial at the time.

When Dollree Mapp was suspected of criminal activities, the police searched her home. During their search, they found obscene photos and subsequently arrested Mapp. Though she was sent to prison, Mapp appealed her case with the claim that the police violated her fourth amendment rights against unreasonable searches. The Supreme Court ruled in Mapp's favor, stating that evidence obtained when the police violated her fourth amendment rights was invalid. This is known as the exclusionary rule.

Lemon v. Kurtzman established the "Lemon Test," whose three criteria served to determine whether a law was constitutional or not as it related to religion. Engel v. Vitale dealt with prayer in school; Brown v. Board of Education involved the Equal Protection Clause; Near v. Minnesota involved freedom of the press; and Gitlow v. New York involved the Free Speech Clause.

The Supreme Court case, Rostker v. Goldberg (1981), held that the law requiring only men to register for the draft and for military service was constitutionally sound and could stand. The issue arose after President Carter reinstituted the draft in 1980, following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and recommended that women be included as possible draftees.

The Congressional power to regulate interstate commerce has been challenged consistently and often throughout American history. As new technology emerges that allows commerce to be conducted in different ways it is pretty much guaranteed that a court ruling will become necessary to reaffirm Congress’ sole right to regulate interstate commerce. Such as Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) after the invention of the steamboat required a ruling on Congress’ right to regulate interstate commerce along a river.

The Supreme Court case, Miller v. California (1973), centered around the distribution of pornographic material as means to advertise a business. The Court ruling was quite complicated. The Court first ruled that the publishing of extremely obscene material was not protected under the First Amendment, but the Court was uncomfortable undertaking any regulation of any form of expression, so tried to define the legal interpretation of obscenity. Probably the most important factor of it is whether the obscene material has “serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value" (Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973)).

The Simpson-Mazzoli Act, passed in 1986 during the presidency of Ronald Reagan, was designed to reform immigration laws in the United States. It intended to make it more challenging for immigrants to enter the United States illegally and acted to extend legal residence to any immigrant who had arrived illegally prior to 1982, provided they pay back-taxes and demonstrate competent understanding of American society. The success of the act is debated, particularly between liberals and conservatives.