AP Gov Final Review SCOTUS and Foundational Docs Flashcards
Marbury v. Madison - Facts
Before John Adams was defeated by Thomas Jefferson in the 1800 election, he and Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1801 to give the president more control over appointment of judges. Marbury was appointed the Justice of Peace in the District of Columbia, but his commission was not delivered, so he petitioned the Supreme Court to compel the Secretary of State, James Madison, to deliver the documents and then petitioned for a writ of mandamus to compel the delivery of his commissions.
Marbury v. Madison - Holding & Rationale
The Court said Madison’s refusal to deliver the commission was illegal but did not require him to hand over his commission via writ of mandamus. They instead held that the provision of the Judiciary Act of 1789 that enabled Marbury to bring his claim to the Supreme Court was unconstitutional as it conflicted with Article 3, Section 2 of the Constitution.
Marbury v. Madison - Key Word: Judicial Review
The power to declare a law unconstitutional
McCulloch v. Maryland - Facts
Congress chartered The Second Bank of the United States in 1816 and in 1818 the state of Maryland passed legislation to impose taxes on the bank. McCulloch, the cashier at the Baltimore branch refused to pay the tax. The state appeals court held that the Second Bank was unconstitutional because the Constitution didn’t provide textual commitment for the federal government to establish a bank.
McCulloch v. Maryland - Holding & Rationale
The Court held that Congress was in the right to establish the Second Bank of the United States and that Maryland, or even states as a whole, was prohibited from imposing taxation upon the National Government. Supremacy Clause was used in this case in that the Constitution and federal law are supreme and cannot be controlled by the states.
McCulloch v. Maryland - Key Word: Supremacy Clause
The Constitution and federal law are supreme and cannot be controlled by the states.
United States v. Lopez - Facts
Alphonzo Lopez, a high school senior at a Texas high school, carried a concealed weapon into his school. He was charged under Texas law, then state charges were dismissed as federal agents charged him with violating the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 and sentenced to 6 months.
United States v. Lopez - Holding & Rationale
The Court held that the possession of a gun in a local school zone is not an economic activity that might have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. They reasoned that the law is a criminal statute that has nothing to do with commerce or any sort of economic activity.
United States v. Lopez - Key Word: Commerce Clause
Clause under Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution that authorizes Congress to regulate commerce with foreign nations and/or among states.
Baker v. Carr - Facts
Charles Baker and Tennessee citizens alleged that a 1901 law designed to apportion the seats for the state’s General Assembly was virtually ignored. His suit detailed how the state’s reapportionment efforts ignored significant economic growth and population shifts within the state.
Baker v. Carr - Holding & Rationale
The Court held that Federal courts have the power to decide cases to legislative apportionment, or the apportionment of population into state legislative districts (one person, one vote policy) after equal protection (14th Amendment) was questioned within certain states as their distribution of votes wasn’t equal.
Baker v. Carr - Key Word: one person, one vote policy
One person’s voting power must be roughly equivalent to another person’s within the same state.
Shaw v. Reno - Facts
The US Attorney General rejected a North Carolina congressional reapportionment plan because it only created one small black-majority district. 5 North Carolina residents challenged the constitutionality of this district and after a three judge District Court rules that they failed to state a constitutional claim, the residents appealed and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Shaw v. Reno - Holding & Rationale
Even though North Carolina’s reapportionment plan was racially neutral, the district shape was unusual, which expressed the effort to segregate voters to separate districts based on race. This racially gerrymandered district thus violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
Shaw v. Reno - Key Word: (Racial) Gerrymandering
The practice of drawing electoral districts to advantage/disadvantage racial groups.
Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission - Facts
Citizens United made and released a movie about Hillary Clinton (then Senator) and wanted to pay cable companies to make the film free within 30 days of the election. The Federal Election Campaign Act prohibited corporations from using general treasury funds to make electioneering communications (broadcast) that advocated the election or defeat of a candidate. So, Citizens United made an injunction against the FEC stating that the Act was unconstitutional and the District Court denied this injunction.
Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission - Holding & Rationale
The Court held that the 1st Amendment’s Freedom of Speech clause prevents the government from stopping independent funding for political campaigns by corporations and nonprofit organizations such as Citizens United.
Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission - Key Word: Independent Expenditures
The Supreme Court held that individuals, groups, and parties can spend unlimited amounts in campaigns for or against a candidate as long as they operate independently from the candidates.
Brown v. Board of Education - Facts
African American students were denied admission into certain public schools based on racial segregation laws, which they argued violated the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. The lower courts denied this based on the holding of Plessy v Ferguson stating that racially segregated public facilities were legal as long as the facilities for blacks and whites were equal (separate but equal doctrine).
Brown v. Board of Education - Holding & Rationale
The Court held that separate but equal facilities were unequal, thus violating the Equal Protection Clause due to racial segregation showing inferiority in the public school system.
Brown v. Board of Education - Key Word: Separate but Equal
In Plessy v. Fergusen in 1896 used this as a way to legalize racial segregation as long as separate facilities were equal, however it was deemed unconstitutional in Brown v. Board of Education.
Schenck v. United States - Facts
Charles Schenck distributed flyers that criticized the draft stating that it violated the Thirteenth Amendment prohibition against involuntary servitude. This case questioned whether his conviction under the Espionage Act of 1917 violated his First Amendment right to free speech.
Schenck v. United States - Holding & Rationale
The court decided that the Espionage Act did not violate the First Amendment and that the draft was an appropriate exercise of Congress’ wartime authority as the First Amendment doesn’t protect speech that approaches creating a clear and present danger of a significant evil that Congress can prevent (clear and present danger precedent).
Schenck v. United States - Key Word: Clear & Present Danger
This test was adopted by the Supreme Court to determine the circumstances that limits can be places on the First Amendment. It decides that the government cannot interfere with speech unless it presents a clear and present danger that will lead to evil or illegal acts.
Tinker v. Des Moines - Facts
In 1965, students such as Mary Beth Tinker in Des Moines wore black armbands to express support for a truce in the Vietnam war, and were sent home by principles. Them and their families sued the school district for violating their freedom of expression (1st Amendment). The district court released this as they believed the district was reasonable to uphold school discipline.
Tinker v. Des Moines - Holding & Rationale
The question of this case was “should banning students from wearing armbands as a silent opposition to the Vietnam War be a violation of their free speech as represented by the 1st Amendment?” The Court decided yes because students do not lose their right to free speech when they step onto school grounds and the government/school district shall not materially and substantially interfere.
Tinker v. Des Moines - Key Word: Symbolic Speech
Nonverbal, nonwritten forms of communication, such as wearing arm banks and burning draft cards.
New York Times Co. v. United States - Facts
The Nixon Administration tried to prevent the New York Times and Washington Post from publishing materials that belonged to a classified Defense Department study about the history of the US activities in Vietnam. In this case, President Nixon argued that prior restraint was necessary for protecting national security.
New York Times Co. v. United States - Holding & Rationale
The court decided that the Nixon administration’s attempt to prevent this publication violated the First Amendment because it wouldn’t cause any inevitable or direct event which would imperil the safety of American forces, so prior restraint was unjustified.
