Supreme Court Cases

Question 1

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

facts

Answer 1

Congress tried to create the “Bank of the United States” (a federal bank). The bank tried to create other branches in various states…including Maryland. Since the state of Maryland wasn’t happy abt this, they tried to tax the bank (basically tried to tax it out of existence). The tax was so huge, the head of the bank sued.

Question 2

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

holding

Answer 2

• Congress can’t establish a national bank
• States can not tax the federal gov

Question 3

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

Constitutional Principle

Answer 3

• Necessary and proper clause
• Supremacy clause

Also: implied powers and expressed powers

Question 4

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

impact

Answer 4

• federalism (now in the balance of the federal government)
• expanded the power of the federal government

Question 5

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

decision

Answer 5

It was 6-0 in favor of McCulloch. Chief justice John Marshall stated that the bank was unconstitutional within the necessary and proper clause. It established the precedent that when state and federal laws come into conflict, the federal laws win

Question 6

United States v. Lopez (1995)

facts

Answer 6

Alonso Lopez was arrested for bringing a unloaded gun to school, violating the Gun Free Zones Act (fed. law). His state charges were dropped and the federal ones were brought on

this is a federalism case

Question 7

United States v. Lopez (1995)

holding

Answer 7

• not everything is under the commerce clause

Question 8

United States v. Lopez (1995)

Constitutional Principle

Answer 8

10th amendment creates a federal system that protects state power. The commerce clause doesn’t grant congress unlimited power

Question 9

United States v. Lopez (1995)

impact

Answer 9

• shrank federal power
• federalism case

Question 10

United States v. Lopez (1995)

decision

Answer 10

federal law is unconstitutional because possession of a gun doesn’t affect interstate commerce

Question 11

Engel v. Vitale (1962)

facts

Answer 11

In New York, there was a prayer(non denominal) being said after the pledge of allegiance. The kids wouldn’t have to do it as long as they had written consent from their parents.

Question 12

Engel v. Vitale (1962)

holding

Answer 12

States cannot hold prayers in public schools, even if participation is voluntary and the prayer isn’t tied to a specific religion

Question 13

Engel v. Vitale (1962)

Constitutional principle

Answer 13

1st amendment establishment clause

Question 14

Engel v. Vitale (1962)

impact

Answer 14

• court ruled in individual liberties
• Precedent for further cases involving religion in schools
• Separation of church and state

Question 15

Engel v. Vitale (1962)

decsion

Answer 15

6-1, the prayer did violate the establishment clause of the first amendment

Question 16

Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)

facts

Answer 16

Amish parents didn’t want to send their kids to school past 8th grade, which was against Wisconsion law

Question 17

Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)

holding

Answer 17

requiring the kids to be sent to school past 8th was unconstitutional. It was the individuals free exercise clause was more powerful than the federal interest in school attendance

Question 18

Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)

Constitutional principle

Answer 18

Free exercise clause of the 1st amendment

Question 19

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commissions

Answer 19

• Facts: The bipartisan campaign reform act of 2002 banned companies from political spending and direct contributions to campaigns or parties
• Principle: first amendment freedom of speech - whether companies are considered to be “people”. If they are “people” then their first amendment right was violated.
• Holding: it (the movie) was considered a form of political speech which is protected under the 1st amendment

led to super pacs

Question 20

Baker v. Carr

Answer 20

• facts: Tennessee didn’t redraw their districts in a long time, which lead them not being accurate relative to population
• Principle: The 14th amendment’s equal protection clause the case was heard
• Holding and issue: they weren’t sure if SCOTUS should hear the case in the first place, but they did due to the issue violating the equal protections clause

Question 21

Shaw v. Reno

Answer 21

• facts: in NC there weren’t any black reps in congress, so they added a black district. To make the district it had to be severely gerrymandered
• issue: whether racial gerrymandering took place and if the district violated the Equal Protections Clause
• Principle and holding: the district was indeed gerrymandered which technically violated the equal protections clause. BUT racial gerrymandering was ok as long as race isnt the only factor

Question 22

McDonald v. Chicago

Answer 22

• facts: chicago basically banned hanguns
• Principle: 2nd amendment right to bear arms was incorporated via the 14th amendment
• Holding: the 2nd amendment applies to the states