AP Gov. & Politics: Required Court Cases

Question 1

Marbury v. Madison

Judicial - 1803

Answer 1

• Under: Marshall court
• Facts: President John Adams issued William Marbury a commission as justice of the peace. The secretary of state, Madison, refused to deliver it & Marbury sued to obtain it.
• Majority Decision: Madison’s refusal to deliver the commission was illegal, however, the Supreme Court did not order Madison to deliver it via a writ of mandamus.
• Dissent: The decision was unanimous.
• Constitutional Principle: Jurisdiction clause in Article III of the Constitution
• Significance: Established the principle of judicial review

Question 2

McCulloh v. Maryland

Federalism - 1819

Answer 2

• Under: Marshall Court
• Facts: Congress chartered the Second Bank of the United States. In 1818, the state of Maryland passed legislation to impose taxes on the bank. James McCulloh, the cashier of the Baltimore branch, refused to pay the tax. The state Appeals Court held that chartering the bank was unconstitutional because the Constitution did not provide the textual commitment for the federal government to do so.
• Majority Decision: Congress did have the power to incorporate the bank and Maryland could not tax institutions of the federal government.
• Dissent: It was a unanimous decision.
• Constitutional Principle: the Necessary & Proper clause.
• Significance: Established (1) the Constitution grants implied powers to Congress (2) state action may not impede valid Constitutional exercises of power by the federal government

Question 3

Schenck v. United States

Gov. Power vs. Individual Liberty - 1919

Answer 3

• Under: Wendell Holmes Jr. Court
• Facts: During World War I, socialists Charles Schenck and Elizabeth Baer distributed leaflets declaring that the draft violated the Thirteenth Amendment prohibition against involuntary servitude. They urged the public to disobey the draft. Schenck was charged with conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act of 1917 by attempting to cause insubordination and obstruct recruitment. Schenck and Baer convicted on grounds of the First Amendment.
• Majority Decision: The Espionage Act did not violate the First Amendment and was an appropriate exercise of Congress’ wartime authority.
• Dissent: It was a unanimous decision.
• Constitutional Principle: Decided on the principle of the freedom of speech listed in the First Amendment.
• Significance: Established the “Clear and Present Danger” test to determine when a state could constitutionally limit an individual’s free speech rights.

Question 4

Brown v. Board of Education

Civil Rights - 1954

Answer 4

• Under Warren court
• Facts: African American students had been denied admittance to certain public schools based on laws allowing public education to be segregated by race. The plaintiffs were denied relief by lower courts (who interpreted the case with the precedent of the “separate but equal” doctrine of Plessy v. Ferguson) and appealed to the Supreme Court.
• Majority Decision: Separate but equal facilities are inherently unequal and violate the protections of the 14th Amendment. Segregation based on race instilled a sense of inferiority that was detrimental to the education and personal growth of African American children.
• Dissent: It was a unanimous decision.
• Constitutional Principle: Equal protection clause

Question 5

Engel v. Vitale

Gov. Power vs. Individual Liberty - 1962

Answer 5

• **Under: **Warren court
• Facts: New York schools required prayer and the pledge of allegiance daily. A parent sued on behalf of their child due to the first amendment right to choose not to say either on secular grounds.
• Majority Decision: School-sponsored prayer violates the first amendment right to free exercise (agnosticism/atheism is a practice as well).
• Dissent: Justice Stewart argued that the establishment clause was only intended to prohibit state-sponsored places of worship.

Question 6

Baker v. Carr

Equality/Voting - 1962

Answer 6

• Under: Warren court
• Facts: Charles W. Baker and other Tennessee citizens alleged that a 1901 law designed to apportion the seats for the state’s General Assembly was virtually ignored. Baker’s suit detailed how Tennessee’s reapportionment efforts ignored significant economic growth and population shifts within the state.
• **Majority Decision: **Held that federal courts do have jurisdiction over reapportionment issues, however, sent the case to lower courts for a final resolution.
• Dissent: Legislators, not judges, have jurisdiction over legislative apportionment. The equal protection clause does not require all votes for a legislature be given equal weight.
• Constitutional Principle: Equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.
• Significance: Established the principle of “one man, one vote”

Question 7

Gideon v. Wainwright

Selective Incorporation - 1963

Answer 7

• Under: Warren court
• Facts: Gideon committed the felony of thievery and was going to be tried but could not afford a lawyer. Florida law declared that the state may only appoint a lawyer to a defendant in capital cases, and thus, he was not entitled to representation in court. He acted as his own lawyer and was convicted.
• Majority Decision: The sixth amendment provision of a lawyer does apply to states under the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause.
• Dissent: It was a unanimous decision.
• Constitutional Principle: Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment; 6th Amendment

Question 8

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District

Gov. Power vs. Individual Liberty - 1969

Question 9

New York Times v. United States

Gov. Power vs. Individual Liberty - 1971

Question 10

Wisconsin v. Yoder

Gov. Power vs. Individual Liberty - 1971

Question 11

Shaw v. Reno

Equality/Voting - 1993

Question 12

United States v. Lopez

Federalism - 1995

Question 13

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

Campaign Finance - 2010

Answer 13

• Under: Roberts court
• Facts: Citizens United sought an injunction against the Federal Election Commission in the U.S District Court for the District of Columbia to prevent the application of the partisan Campaign Reform Act to its film “Hillary: The Movie” which expressed opinions about whether or not Senator Hillary Clinton would make a good president.
• Majority Decision: Independent spending limits violate the First Amendment right to free speech; McConnell v. FEC had set a precedent for this ruling.
• Dissent: Court’s ruling threatened to undermine integrity of elected institutions and that the majority had misunderstood the interests that section 2-3 was designed to serve.
• Constitutional Principle: Free Speech clause of the First Amendment
• Significance: Ushered in massive increases in political spending from external groups

Question 14

McDonald v. Chicago