Required Cases

Question 1

Marbury v. Madison Summary

Answer 1

Before John Adams’ term ended, he appointed Marbury to a federal court, however, his appointments were not confirmed until their commissions were delivered. Marbury’s commission was not delivered.

Question 2

Marbury v. Madison Principle

Answer 2

Judicial review.

Question 3

Marbury v. Madison Holding

Answer 3

The Court held that a clause of the Judiciary Act which enabled Marbury to bring his case to court was unconstitutional. This established the power of judicial review, the ability of the Supreme Court to declare a law of Congress unconstitutional.

Question 4

McCulloch v. Maryland Summary

Answer 4

Maryland imposed a tax on the Second Bank of the US, and McCulloch, a cashier at the Baltimore branch, refused to pay. The state court ruled the bank unconstitutional and that the federal government did not have the power to charter one.

Question 5

McCulloch v. Maryland Principle

Answer 5

Necessary and proper clause and supremacy clause.

Question 6

McCulloch v. Maryland Holding

Answer 6

The Court held that Congress is not limited by its expressed powers but through its implied powers had the ability to charter a bank, because it was necessary and proper to the good of the nation. Maryland also could not tax the bank because national law was supreme to state law.

Question 7

US v. Lopez Summary

Answer 7

Lopez brought a gun within a school zone, violating the Gun-Free School Zones Act, which stated individuals could not possess firearms within school zones based on the commerce clause.

Question 8

US v. Lopez Principle

Answer 8

Commerce clause.

Question 9

US v. Lopez Holding

Answer 9

The Court held that the act was unconstitutional because possessing a firearm in a school zone did not substantially affect interstate commerce. The commerce clause did not grant Congress unlimited power.

Question 10

Citizens United v. FEC Summary

Answer 10

Citizens United was prohibited from showing an anti-Hillary Clinton movie because it violated the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which banned corporations from independent political spending and direct contributions to campaigns or political parties.

Question 11

Citizens United v. FEC Principle

Answer 11

Free speech.

Question 12

Citizens United v. FEC Holding

Answer 12

The Court held that corporations should be considered people and that funding campaigns was a form of political speech, which is protected by the free speech portion of the 1st Amendment.

Question 13

Shaw v. Reno Summary

Answer 13

North Carolina residents challenged an unusually shaped district that they believed served only to ensure the election of an African-American representative.

Question 14

Shaw v. Reno Principle

Answer 14

Equal protection clause.

Question 15

Shaw v. Reno Holding

Answer 15

The Court held that because the district was so clearly irregularly shaped, there was an apparent effort to separate voters racially, and thus, racial gerrymandering was unconstitutional.

Question 16

Baker v. Carr Summary

Answer 16

Baker argued that Tennessee’s districts were not based on the changing population, thereby devaluing the votes of some residents. A district court held that it did not have the authority to hear cases related to legislative reapportionment.

Question 17

Baker v. Carr Principle

Answer 17

Equal protection clause, one person, one vote doctrine.

Question 18

Baker v. Carr Holding

Answer 18

The Court held that because the case addressed issues related to the equal protection clause, courts did have the authority to hear the case. This established the one person, one vote doctrine.

Question 19

Tinker v. Des Moines Summary

Answer 19

Students wore black armbands in protest of the Vietnam War, despite warnings from their schools, and were sent home. The students sued their school district for violating their freedom of expression.

Question 20

Tinker v. Des Moines Principle

Answer 20

Free speech, aka symbolic speech.

Question 21

Tinker v. Des Moines Holding

Answer 21

The Court held that students maintained their free speech rights at school and that the armbands were symbolic speech, a form of free speech protected by the 1st Amendment. Schools could only limit speech that substantially interfered with school operations.

Question 22

Brown v. the Board of Education Summary

Answer 22

Brown filed a suit against the Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, after his daughter was denied entry to an all-white school. He claimed that schools for black children were not equal to those for white children, and segregation violated the equal protection clause.

Question 23

Brown v. the Board of Education Principle

Answer 23

Equal protection clause.

Question 24

Brown v. the Board of Education Holding

Answer 24

The Court held that racial segregation in public schools was unconstitutional as “separate but equal [was] inherently unequal.”

Question 25

Gideon v. Wainwright Summary

Answer 25

Gideon requested a court-appointed lawyer in his criminal trial but was denied because of a Florida law that an attorney could only be appointed in capital cases Gideon filed a habeas corpus suit, claiming that his right to representation was violated.

Question 26

Gideon v. Wainwright Principle

Answer 26

Right to counsel, selective incorporation.

Question 27

Gideon v. Wainwright Holding

Answer 27

The Court held that because the 6th Amendment’s right to counsel was fundamental, it should be incorporated into the states via the 14th Amendment.

Question 28

Engle v. Vitale Summary

Answer 28

The New York Board of Regents authorized a voluntary prayer at the beginning of each day. Several organizations filed suits against the board, claiming the prayer violated the Constitution.

Question 29

Engle v. Vitale Principle

Answer 29

Establishment clause.

Question 30

Engle v. Vitale Holding

Answer 30

The Court held that states could not hold prayers in public schools because prayers were religious activities, and having them occur in public schools—which are government funded—would violate the establishment clause.

Question 31

New York Times v. US Summary

Answer 31

The Nixon Administration tried to prevent the New York Times from publishing material that belonged to a Defense Department study about US intervention in Vietnam. President Nixon stated that it was necessary for national security to prohibit it before publication, also known as prior restraint.

Question 32

New York Times v. US Principle

Answer 32

Free press.

Question 33

New York Times v. US Holding

Answer 33

The Court held that the freedom of the press was guaranteed by the 1st Amendment, and even for the purposes of national security, prior restraint was unconstitutional.

Question 34

Schenck v. US Summary

Answer 34

Schenck distributed leaflets encouraging the public to disobey the draft, arguing that it violated the 13th Amendment because it relied on involuntary servitude. Schenck was charged with violating the Espionage Act, but appealed on the grounds of the 1st Amendment.

Question 35

Schenck v. US Principle

Answer 35

Free speech.

Question 36

Schenck v. US Holding

Answer 36

The Court held that the free speech clause does not allow for speech that presented a “clear and present danger.”

Question 37

Wisconsin v. Yoder Summary

Answer 37

Yoder, among other Amish parents, refused to send their children to school beyond 8th grade due to their belief that high school endangered their religious salvation. Yoder was fined.

Question 38

Wisconsin v. Yoder Principle

Answer 38

Free exercise clause.

Question 39

Wisconsin v. Yoder Holding

Answer 39

The Court held that the requirement to send children to school beyond the 8th grade was unconstitutional. It stated that an individual’s interest in the free exercise of religion was more powerful than a federal interest in sending children to school beyond the 8th grade.

Question 40

McDonald v. Chicago Summary

Answer 40

Several suits were filed against a Chicago ban on handguns, arguing that the ban violated the 2nd Amendment, particularly after the Supreme Court ruled that a similar DC handgun ban violated the 2nd Amendment.

Question 41

McDonald v. Chicago Principle

Answer 41

Right to bear arms, selective incorporation.

Question 42

McDonald v. Chicago Holding

Answer 42

The Court held that because the right to self-defense was fundamental, the ban was unconstitutional and the 2nd Amendment should be incorporated into the states through the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause.