In one of the more controversial decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court, Korematsu v. United States constitutionally allowed for the internment of Japanese-Americans and the restriction of Japanese-Americans from militarily sensitive areas. In the view of the court, the 1944 decision read that the rights of the petitioner, Korematsu, were outweighed by the need for extended national security during wartime. The Supreme Court was years away at this point from the shifts in judicial review that would contribute to the Civil Rights Era. 

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall is credited with imbuing the Supreme Court with power in this landmark decision and powerful argument. Cementing the U.S. Constitution as the supreme law of the land, John Marshall also established the Supreme Court as overseer of the Constitution. This ability to interpret the language within the Constitution, also called judicial review or oversight, rebalanced the power amongst the three branches of government.

This Supreme Court case, Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), involves the right of counsel. Gideon had been charged with a crime in Florida, but could not pay the state court fees for his own legal representation– when one cannot pay court fees and thusly has them waived, they appear informa pauperis. The Supreme Court unanimously agreed that this was a violation of Gideon’s right to counsel, and he had deserved and was owed that right when he had been initially forced to represent himself in court.

Originally, the 5^th Amendment only applied at the federal level and not the state level. It wasn’t until the addition of the 14^th Amendment, which contains the Due Process Clause, that the 5^th Amendment became all-encompassing. In Barron v. Baltimore, the Supreme Court’s decision to let the lower court’s ruling stand meant that the 5^th Amendment did not directly apply. Barron’s plea to be compensated for land and property value lost due to Baltimore’s expansion was denied.

Griswold, the head of Planned Parenthood in Connecticut, was charged with a crime under state law when she provided birth control to married couples. When the Supreme Court ruled that couples had the right to privacy, it invalidated the section of Connecticut law that Griswold had been charged under. While the subject matter continues to be controversial, the resulting Constitutional definition of privacy was a titanic legal precedent.

This Supreme Court decision was a massive victory for journalists in the court system, as it established the requirement for actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth to be proven in order for a libel case against public officials to be proven. Beyond the individual freedom of speech, the case also bolstered the freedom of the press in the 1st Amendment. Even though Sullivan had won  from the state court, the burden of proof was the lacking piece there that the Supreme Court had to consider.

South Dakota would not receive highway funds if they did not raise the legal drinking age from 19 to 21. Is it permissible for the federal government to place conditions or "strings" on federal funds? In South Dakota v. Dole, it was concluded that yes, the Congressional power to spend money allows Congress to set the rules and place conditions on federal grants.  

Plessy v. Ferguson established the "separate but equal" doctrine in 1896. The court case established the practice of racial segregation in public facilities, which would be "separate, but equal." This doctrine was finally overturned by Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. 

This is another relatively difficult question. That said, there are a few clues that should have pointed you in the right direction. The correct answer is “violation of separation of powers.” The reasoning is fairly elemental, although the case may involve several positions with which you are not familiar. In essence, Congress delegated to the Comptroller General the ability to immediately slash the budget in the event that a level of the federal deficit were exceeded (this, of course, is somewhat oversimplified). Although the Comptroller General was subject to impeachment by Congress, the Court held that the Comptroller General’s ability to slash funds intruded on the rights of the Executive Branch, and thus was a violation of the separation of powers doctrine.

This is a difficult question. The Supreme Court struck down the legislative or one-house veto in INS v. Chadha. Mr. Chadha’s story is both sad an incredibly interesting. Chadha was born in Kenya (when it was a British colony) to Indian parents, and then traveled to the US on a visa. Neither Kenya, nor India (nor Britain) recognized him as a citizen, and he clearly was not a citizen of the US. Unfortunately for him, when his visa expired, he couldn’t get a renewal (because no country claimed him as a citizen), at which point the INS began deportation proceedings against him (although your guess is as good as mine as to where he was going to be deported). After Chadha objected, the INS stayed his deportation and alerted the House of Representatives. The House, however, used the “legislative veto” to override the stay and directed the INS to deport him. The case goes all the way to the Supreme Court, and SCOTUS strikes the legislative veto as unconstitutional—a violation of separation of powers.