Question

marbury v madison (1803)
established the principle of judicial review, in other words, the power to declare a law written by the legislative branch and executive orders and actions as unconstitutional
mcculloch v maryland (1819)
dred scott v sandford (1857)
equal but separate accommodations for whites and blacks imposed by louisiana do not violate the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment; the majority upheld state - imposed racial segregation. justice brown conceded that the 14th amendment intended to establish absolute equality for the races before the law, but held that separate treatment did not imply the inferiority of african americans
establish separate but equal doctrine
plessy v ferguson (1896)
brown v board (1954)
the majority held that “a negro, whose ancestors were imported into the u.s., and sold as slaves,” whether enslaved or free, could not be an american citizen and therefore did not have standing to sue in federal court. because the court lacked jurisdiction, taney dismissed the case on procedural grounds. taney further held that the missouri compromise of 1820 was unconstitutional and foreclose congress from freeing slaves within federal territories. the opinion showed deference to the missouri courts, which held that moving to a free state did not render scott emancipated. finally, taney ruled that slaves were property under the fifth amendment, and that any law that would deprive a slave owner of that property was unconstitutional. this case was overturned by the 13th and 14th amendments
established the principle that “separate but equal” educational facilities for racial minorities are inherently unequal and thus violate the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment. overturned plessy v ferguson
did congress have the authority to establish the bank? yes, under the necessary and proper clause. can the states tax the federal government? no, because of the supremacy clause (article 6). did the maryland tax unconstitutionally interfere with congressional powers? yes,

Explanation:

To solve this, we match each Supreme Court case with its description:

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

The description about Congress’s authority to establish the bank (under the Necessary and Proper Clause), state taxation of federal government (denied due to Supremacy Clause) applies here. So:
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) → “Did Congress have the authority to establish the bank? Yes, under the necessary and proper clause. Can the States tax the federal government? No, because of the Supremacy Clause (article 6). Did the Maryland tax unconstitutionally interfere with congressional powers? Yes.”

Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)

The description about a negro (Scott) not being a citizen, Missouri Compromise unconstitutionality, and slaves as property under the Fifth Amendment matches. So:
Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) → “The majority held that ‘a negro, whose ancestors were imported into [the U.S.] and sold as slaves,’ whether enslaved or free, could not be an American citizen... (full description as given).”

Brown v. Board (1954)

The description about “separate but equal” educational facilities being unequal and violating the Equal Protection Clause (overturning Plessy v. Ferguson) applies. So:
Brown v. Board (1954) → “Established the principle that ‘separate but equal’ educational facilities for racial minorities are inherently unequal and thus violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Overturned Plessy v. Ferguson.”

Final Matches:

• McCulloch v. Maryland (1819): Did Congress have the authority to establish the bank? Yes, under the necessary and proper clause. Can the States tax the federal government? No, because of the Supremacy Clause (article 6). Did the Maryland tax unconstitutionally interfere with congressional powers? Yes.
• Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857): The majority held that “a negro, whose ancestors were imported into [the U.S.] and sold as slaves,” whether enslaved or free, could not be an American citizen... (full description).
• Brown v. Board (1954): Established the principle that “separate but equal” educational facilities for racial minorities are inherently unequal and thus violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Overturned Plessy v. Ferguson.

(Note: The first two cases’ descriptions were already partially matched, and the above completes the remaining matches for McCulloch, Dred Scott, and Brown based on their historical rulings.)

Answer:

To solve this, we match each Supreme Court case with its description:

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

The description about Congress’s authority to establish the bank (under the Necessary and Proper Clause), state taxation of federal government (denied due to Supremacy Clause) applies here. So:
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) → “Did Congress have the authority to establish the bank? Yes, under the necessary and proper clause. Can the States tax the federal government? No, because of the Supremacy Clause (article 6). Did the Maryland tax unconstitutionally interfere with congressional powers? Yes.”

Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)

The description about a negro (Scott) not being a citizen, Missouri Compromise unconstitutionality, and slaves as property under the Fifth Amendment matches. So:
Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) → “The majority held that ‘a negro, whose ancestors were imported into [the U.S.] and sold as slaves,’ whether enslaved or free, could not be an American citizen... (full description as given).”

Brown v. Board (1954)

The description about “separate but equal” educational facilities being unequal and violating the Equal Protection Clause (overturning Plessy v. Ferguson) applies. So:
Brown v. Board (1954) → “Established the principle that ‘separate but equal’ educational facilities for racial minorities are inherently unequal and thus violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Overturned Plessy v. Ferguson.”

Final Matches:

• McCulloch v. Maryland (1819): Did Congress have the authority to establish the bank? Yes, under the necessary and proper clause. Can the States tax the federal government? No, because of the Supremacy Clause (article 6). Did the Maryland tax unconstitutionally interfere with congressional powers? Yes.
• Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857): The majority held that “a negro, whose ancestors were imported into [the U.S.] and sold as slaves,” whether enslaved or free, could not be an American citizen... (full description).
• Brown v. Board (1954): Established the principle that “separate but equal” educational facilities for racial minorities are inherently unequal and thus violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Overturned Plessy v. Ferguson.

(Note: The first two cases’ descriptions were already partially matched, and the above completes the remaining matches for McCulloch, Dred Scott, and Brown based on their historical rulings.)