Required Court Cases Flashcards
Marbury v. Madison (1803)
QUESTION:
- Do the plaintiffs have a rights to receive their commissions?
- Can they sue for their commissions in court?
- Does the Supreme Court have the authority to order the delivery of their commissions?
DECISION:
- Supreme Court Judge John Marshall declared Article XIII of the Judiciary Act null and void because it was Unconstitutional
- It conflicted with Article III of the constitution
- In doing this, Madison did not have to send Marbury the commission and the Supreme Court was given the power of judicial review
IMPORTANCE TO AP GOV:
- This was the first time the Supreme Court declared an act of Congress unconstitutional
- It established the principle of judicial review and checks and balances
- Marbury v Madison established the structure and power of the US government
BACKGROUND:
- The commission for the midnight judges that John Adams appointed were signed by John Marshall but never delivered.
- When Jefferson became president, James Madison was his secretary of state and was told not to deliver the commission.
- Marbury sued Madison seeking the Writ of Mandamus, which allows SCOTUS to command an official to perform their duties.
CONSTITUTIONAL APPLICATION:
- Judicial Review (established the court’s power to interpret the Constitution)
- Checks and Balances (allowed the court to check congress and the president)
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)
QUESTION:
- Did Congress have the power to create a national bank?
- Could states tax a federal institution?
DECISION:
- Unanimous decision in favor of McCulloch
- Congress had the implied power to create the federal bank, and states cannot tax the Federal Government
- Ruling established the supremacy of federal law over state law
BACKGROUND:
- Congress created a national bank, which Maryland attempted to tax the branch that operated in Baltimore
- James McCulloch, the cashier of the Baltimore branch, refused to pay the tax and was sued by Maryland
CONSTITUTIONAL APPLICATION:
- Article I, Sec VIII: outlines powers granted to congress, including regulating commerce
- Established that Congress has powers beyond those enumerated in the Constitution, “Necessary and Proper Clause”
Schenck v. United States (1919)
QUESTION:
- Did Schenck’s conviction under the Espionage Act for criticizing the draft violate his First Amendment right to freedom of speech?
DECISION:
- The court ruled that the Espionage Act did not violate the First Amendment
- They stated that the conviction was “an appropriate exercise of Congress” wartime authority
- This case was the first time the “clear and present danger test” was brought up
- Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes stated that our First Amendments rights do not protect speech that could create a clear and present danger
IMPORTANCE TO AP GOV:
- This case connects best with Unit 5 and our First Amendment rights
- It reinforces the idea that the government can suppress media and citizens speech during times of emergency, such as wartime
BACKGROUND:
- During WWI, Congress passed the Espionage Act of 1917 to help prevent information hindering the war effort from being spread
- Charles Schenck was charged under this act for mailing circulars of the military draft
CONSTITUTIONAL APPLICATION:
- This case relates to the Espionage Act of 1917
Brown v. Board of Education (1954)
QUESTION:
- Does the segregation of public education based solely on race violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
DECISION:
- Overturned Plessy v. Ferguson “separate but equal”
- Forced immediate integration of public schools
IMPORTANCE TO AP GOV:
- Landmark decision in the Civil Rights Movement by overturning the “separate but equal” doctrine established by Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), declaring that racial segregation in public schools was unconstitutional
- Reinforced the principle of equality under the law and advanced the cause of civil rights in America
- Marked a turning point in the use of judicial power to shape social policy and civil rights law, making it one of the most significant Supreme Court ruling in U.S. history
BACKGROUND:
- African American students were denied admission into certain schools because of laws permitting segregation
- Thus, multiple lawsuits emerged from many states that challenge racial segregation in public schools
- They argued that this violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause
CONSTITUTIONAL APPLICATION:
- Equal Protection Clause
- Judicial Interpretation of the Constitution
Engel v. Vitale (1962)
QUESTION:
- Does the reading of a nondenominational prayer at the start of the school day violate the “establishment of religion” clause of the First Amendment?
DECISION:
- The Supreme Court ruled that prayer lead by public schools DOES violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment
- This conclusion further propelled America’s focus on enforced secularity and set a precedent for future cases related to school prayer
IMPORTANCE TO AP GOV:
- Highlights the incorporation of the Establishment Clause into the states and schools
- Strong evidence for an FRQ about Freedom of Religion as evidence or as an argument for the importance of the establishment clause
BACKGROUND:
- Parents objected to an optional, nondenominational prayer authorized by New York state
- The parents argued that the prayer was unconstitutional and not protected by the free exercise clause of the First Amendment
CONSTITUTIONAL APPLICATION:
- Establishment Clause of the First Amendment
Baker v. Carr (1962)
QUESTION:
- Did the Supreme Court have jurisdiction over questions of legislative apportionment?
DECISION:
- Federal courts can have jurisdiction over legislative apportionment, which is the way state districts are drawn
- Baker v. Carr made voting more fair by requiring states to draw districts with equal populations, giving everyone’s vote the same weight
IMPORTANCE TO AP GOV:
- This is a landmark court case, and was pivotal to our nations developing voting rights
BACKGROUND:
- Argued over the fact that Tennessee had not redistributed since 1901, which did not account for population shifts
- Rural citizens were overrepresented in voting when compared with urban citizens
- Baker argued that this violated equal protection under the 14th Amendment
CONSTITUTIONAL APPLICATION:
- 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause
- Rules that each person’s vote should count equally and unfair district lines and violate those rights
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)
QUESTION:
- Does the Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel in criminal cases extend to felony defendants in state courts?
DECISION:
- The Supreme Court ruled in a 9-0 vote that all accused in criminal prosecutions had a right to counsel if the defendant is unable to hire counsel though counsel can be waived by the defendant
- This incorporated the 6th amendment to the states
IMPORTANCE TO AP GOV:
- Unit 1 with Habeas Corpus
- Unit 2 with Federalism
- Unit 3 & 5 with Selective Incorporation
BACKGROUND:
- Gideon was accused of breaking and entering and during trial he was denied a state appointed lawyer because according to Florida Law he had a right to one if it was a capital case not felony
- Gideon lost his case and appealed later claiming his right to Habeas Corpus was violated
- It was shot down by the Florida Supreme Court
- Gideon believed that Florida’s law was violating his 6th Amendment right to a public defendant
- Wainwright believed that only capital cases with needy defendants had a right to an appointed lawyer
CONSTITUTIONAL APPLICATION:
- SCOTUS ruled the 6th amendment applied to felony cases in the states, incorporating the 6th amendment’s right for a provision of a lawyer by the state
Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)
QUESTION:
- Does a prohibition against the wearing of armbands in public school, as a form of symbolic protest, violate the students’ freedom of speech protections guaranteed by the First Amendment?
DECISION:
- The Supreme Court ruled that the schools cannot limit student expression as long as it does not disturb regular student activity or infringe the rights of others
- Established the line of extent how much schools can violate students’ speech, especially when it’s on school grounds
IMPORTANCE TO AP GOV:
- Tinker v. Des Moines was a key case in the protection of students’ First Amendment rights in public schools
- Helped establish that students have the right to express themselves, as long as it does not disrupt the educational environment
- The ruling expanded the understanding of free speech in schools and set a precedent for how student expression is treated under the Constitution
BACKGROUND:
- The school censored the students’ expression in wearing a black armband, protesting the Vietnam War, violating their right to freedom of speech, which is connected to the Bill of Rights of the Constitution
CONSTITUTIONAL APPLICATION:
- Judicial Review
- Selective Incorporation
- First Amendment Freedom of Speech
- Due Process Clause
New York Times v. United States (1971)
QUESTION:
- Did the Nixon administration’s efforts to prevent the publication of what it termed “classified information” violate the First Amendment?
DECISION:
- The Supreme Court ruled in favor of New York Times allowing them to go forward with printing the pentagon papers and this case solidified the freedom of press that prevents the government from preventing publication
IMPORTANCE TO AP GOV:
- Reinforced the 1st Amendment Freedom of the Press
BACKGROUND:
- The Nixon Administration attempted to prevent the NY Times and Washington Post from publishing a classified Defense Department study regarding the history of U.S. activities in Vietnam (The Pentagon Papers)
- Nixon argued that prior restraint was necessary to protect national security
- The case was decided together with United States v. Washington Post Co.
CONSTITUTIONAL APPLICATION:
- 1st Amendment Freedom of the Press
Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)
QUESTION:
- Did Wisconsin’s requirement that all parents send their children to school at least until age 16 violate the First Amendment by criminalizing the conduct of parents who refused to send their children to school for religious reasons?
DECISION:
- The Supreme Court ruled that the religious freedom of the children outweighed the states requirement of schooling until age 16
- The decision means that missing government education does not affect the general welfare of society enough to suspend the free exercise clause
IMPORTANCE TO AP GOV:
- Reinforced the protection of religious freedom under the First Amendment
- Highlighted the balance between government interests (like education) and individual liberties
- Set a precedent for cases involving religious exemptions from generally applicable laws, emphasizing the limits of state power over religious practices
BACKGROUND:
- Wisconsin state law states that all children must attend school, public or private, until they are 16 years old
- The Amish students attending school in Wisconsin argued that their faith prohibits schooling beyond 8th grade, claiming protection under the First and Fourteenth Amendments
- Wisconsin defends the requirement by emphasizing the importance of political and governmental knowledge
CONSTITUTIONAL APPLICATION:
- Free Exercise Clause in the First Amendment
Roe v. Wade (1973)
QUESTION:
- Does the Constitution recognize a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy by abortion?
DECISION:
- The court ruled in a 7-2 in favor of Roe, stating that women have a constitutional right to choose abortion before fetal viability
- This case expanded federal judicial power to protect privacy rights but was overturned by Dobbs v Jackson (2022), returning the power to regulate abortion back to the states
IMPORTANCE TO AP GOV:
- Connects to Unit 3, showing how the court protected individual rights, as well as an example of selective incorporation
- This is a foundational case that helps to understand how the court defines liberty and limits the government in personal matters
BACKGROUND:
- Norma McCorvey, known as “Jane Roe”, sued Dallas County District Attorney, Henry Wade, challenging Texas’s law that allowed abortion only to save the mother’s life
- She argued that it was unconstitutional and violated her rights
CONSTITUTIONAL APPLICATION:
- Right to Privacy implied in the 9th Amendment
- 14th Amendment Due Process Clause
Shaw v. Reno (1993)
QUESTION:
- Did the North Carolina residents’ claim, that the State created a racially gerrymandered district, raise a valid constitutional issue under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause?
DECISION:
- Racial gerrymandering violated the Equal Protection Clause
- Race can be considered when redistricting, however, it cannot be the main influence
IMPORTANCE TO AP GOV:
- Significantly impacted the way congressional districts are drawn and the concept of racial gerrymandering
BACKGROUND:
- North Carolina submitted a redistricting plan with consisted of two primarily African-American districts
CONSTITUTIONAL APPLICATION:
- Equal Protection Clause
United States v. Lopez (1995)
QUESTION:
- Is the 1990 Gun-Free School Zones Act, forbidding individuals from knowingly carrying a gun in a school zone, unconstitutional because it exceeds the power of Congress to legislate under the Commerce Clause?
DECISION:
- The Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional as the possession of a gun in a local school zone is not an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, have a substantial effect on interstate commerce
- This led to the changing inn the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990
- It went from being made illegal to possess or discharge a firearm within 1,000 feet of a school
- It was amended after the trial in 1996, adding the requirement that the firearm in question must have moved in or affected interstate or foreign commerce, this is how it has remained since
IMPORTANCE TO AP GOV:
- Highlights the significance of separation of powers clause and the limitations of Commerce Clause
BACKGROUND:
- High school senior Alfonso Lopez was charged under Texas law for carrying a concealed firearm to his high school campus in San Antonio, Texas
- This was later changed to a federal crime under the Gun-Free School Zones Act
CONSTITUTIONAL APPLICATION:
- Commerce Clause in Article I, Section VIII
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010)
QUESTION:
- Did the Supreme Court’s decision in McConnell resolve all constitutional as-applied challenges to the BCRA when it upheld the disclosure requirements of the statute as constitutional?
- Do the BCRA’s disclosure requirements impose an unconstitutional burner when applied to electioneering requirements because they are protected “political speech” and not subject to regulation as “campaign speech”?
- If a communication lacks a clear plea to vote for or against a particular candidate, is it subject to regulation under the BCRA?
- Should a feature length documentary about a candidate for political office be treated like the advertisements at issue in McConnell and therefore be subject to regulation under the BCRA?
DECISION:
- In a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations and unions could spend unlimited amounts on political advocacy, as long as they did not coordinate directly with candidates
- This led to the creation of Super PACs, which raise and spend unlimited amounts of money independently of campaigns
- It also increased the influence of wealthy donors in elections
IMPORTANCE TO AP GOV:
- Explores the balance between free speech and governmental regulation
- Highlights the role of money in politics and its impacts on democratic processes
BACKGROUND:
- Citizens United posted a critical documentary on Hillary Clinton during the 2008 election, leading to controversy over campaign finance laws
CONSTITUTIONAL APPLICATION:
- 1st Amendment Freedom of Speech
McDonald v. Chicago (2010)
QUESTION:
- Did the Second Amendment apply to the states because it is incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges and Immunities or Due Process clauses and thereby made applicable to the states?
DECISION:
- The Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause
- This incorporated the Second Amendment to the states
IMPORTANCE TO AP GOV:
- Incorporated the 2nd Amendment to the states
- Strengthened the concept of selective incorporation, limiting state governments from infringing on individual liberties
BACKGROUND:
- Chicago’s handgun ban
CONSTITUTIONAL APPLICATION:
- 2nd Amendment Right to Bear Arms
- 14th Amendment Due Process Clause
- Selective incorporation
