AP Government Required Cases

Marbury v. Madison (1803) - Facts

-At the end of Adams Admin (who was a Federalist and beg. of Jefferson's (a Democratic-Republican), Adams appoints a ton of Federalist judges. Didn't pass out official orders in time for them to be sworn in.

-Would-be judge who did not receive his order/ position sued Jefferson Administration *by going directly to Supreme Court.

Marbury v. Madison (1803) - Constitutional Principle/Clause

Article III of the Constitution - Judicial Review

Marbury v. Madison (1803) - Majority Opinion/Decision

The plaintiff had taken his case directly to the SCOTUS because he was following the instructions of Congress in the Judiciary Act of 1789. He had a great case and was in the right- he should have gotten his commission. HOWEVER, the Act conflicted with the Constitution, which laid out the circumstances in which the SCOTUS had original jurisdiction, so the Act was invalid. **Established the principle of judicial review.**

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) - Facts

Congress established a national bank, though the Constitution did not explicitly empower them to do so. A state opposed the bank and attempted to tax it just like it was a private bank, in part to interfere with its operation. TWO questions: Did Congress have the authority to establish this bank? If so, did a state have the power to tax it?

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) - Constitutional Principle/Clause

Necessary and Proper (1st question), Supremacy (2nd question)

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) - Majority Opinion/Decision

1) The Congress DID have the power to establish the bank. The Constitution empowered Congress to borrow money, tax, coin money, etc. AND they have all powers "necessary and proper" to carry out those jobs. **Established that Congress/Fed gov't has "implied powers** 2) States can't interfere w/ the Federal gov't when it's doing its constitutionally permitted job (Supremacy Clause)

Schenck v. United States (1919) - Facts

A socialist distributed propaganda meant to discourage participation in WWI. Was convicted of the Espionage Act because his actions could harm the war effort and thus, national security.

Schenck v. United States (1919) - Constitutional Principle/Clause

1st Amendment: Free Speech

Schenck v. United States (1919) - Majority Opinion/Decision

The speech was NOT protected by the First Amendment because in the context of the ongoing war, it was just too dangerous. The gov't was permitted to restrict such speech.

Brown v. Board of Education (1954) - Facts

Parents of African-American students in several states, including Kansas, attempted to enroll their students in schools assigned to white students. Those schools refused to enroll the students in line with required or permitted segregation policies per those state laws.

Brown v. Board of Education (1954) - Constitutional Principle/Clause

14th Amendment- Equal Protection

Brown v. Board of Education (1954) - Majority Opinion/Decision

The previous standard which allowed "separate but equal" public facilities was overturned. Segregated schools are inherently unequal. In this context, Black students receive the message, via segregation policies, that they are considered inferior to white students. This has a negative affect on their self-esteem and likelihood of success in school.

Engel v. Vitale (1962) - Facts

A New York school district required a prayer written and approved by the state school department to be read aloud daily. Students could choose whether to participate, but did have to be present. Parents of Jewish and nonreligious students sued the district.

Engel v. Vitale (1962) - Constitutional Principle/Clause

1st Amendment- Establishment Clause

Engel v. Vitale (1962) - Majority Opinion/Decision

The prayer was officially sanctioned and led by public school teachers, i.e. gov't employees. Despite the voluntary nature of the prayer, people would feel compelled to participate rather than draw attention to themselves. Finally, the prayer preferenced a monotheistic god addressed by the prayer. All of this meant the practice was a violation of the separation of church and state.

Baker v. Carr (1962) - Facts

While the urban parts of Tennessee had grown over six decades and the rural populations had shrunken, no redistricting had taken place, resulting in urban areas being underrepresented and rural areas overrepresented. Residents of an urban district sued the state for devaluing their vote and privileging the rural (and whiter) vote. The Court was unsure whether it was proper for it to be involved in such a political question.

Baker v. Carr (1962) - Constitutional Principle/Clause

14th Amendment- Equal Protection

Baker v. Carr (1962) - Majority Opinion/Decision

This question DOES have a political dimension: those in the legislature with power over redistricting were benefiting politically by not doing it. However, those residents in urban areas were not receiving equal representation, so the court asserted its power and sided with them. The districts had to be redrawn. ***Is an example of when the Court may have a receive to deal w/ a political issue and established the "one man- one vote principle" was sacred.

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) - Facts

Gideon was arrest and tried for robbing a pool hall/bar. The judge refused his request for an attorney to be provided because 1) he should be able to defend himself and 2) the state only provided attorneys in capital cases (when someone's life is at risk). Gideon did his best but was convicted. He felt his trial had been unfair without having had legal representation.

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) - Constitutional Principle/Clause

Sixth Amendment right to an attorney **via the 14th Amendment protection due process from the states**

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) - Majority Opinion/Decision

Because the 14th Amendment requires states to provide due process before taking someone's liberty, the Sixth Amendment's right to an attorney applies to states just as it does to the federal gov't in any relatively serious case. The state must provide an attorney if the accused cannot afford one. This is a selective incorporation case.

Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) - Facts

Some middle and high school students wore black arm bands to school to protest the Vietnam War. School administrators objected and suspended the students until they would return without the bands. The students sued the school district for banning their symbolic speech.

Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) - Constitutional Principle/Clause

1st Amendment- Free Speech

Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) - Majority Opinion/Decision

Schools CAN ban disruptive speech or conduct. HOWEVER, the students' symbolic speech was NOT disruptive, so school was unjustified in suspending them.

New York Times Co v. United States (1971) - Facts

The NYT and other newspapers received copies of a classified report outlining all of the lies the US gov't had been telling the public about the Vietnam war for decades and began to print them (known as "The Pentagon Papers". The Nixon Administration ordered them to stop, arguing that publishing the papers endangered the nation.

New York Times Co v. United States (1971) - Constitutional Principle/Clause

1st Amendment- Free Speech

New York Times Co v. United States (1971) - Majority Opinion/Decision

1) There's no proof of real, specific danger that will result from the papers being published. 2) The standard for allowing the government to censor the press is EXTREMELY high, and such a broad claim about "danger" does not justify prior restraint (censorship before something is published).

Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) - Facts

Many Amish and Mennonite families believe that education and training teens at home to live as adults in their community, according to religions values, is a critically important part of their religious practice. Attending secular high school is improper, corrupting, and endangers the Amish and Mennonite religion and way of life. The state attempted to force the families to comply with the truancy laws the same as everyone else.

Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) - Constitutional Principle/Clause

1st Amendment- Free Exercise

Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) - Majority Opinion/Decision

The families/communities in question are law-abiding and self-sufficient, and kids missing out on two more required years of high school doesn't prevent them from being so. In light of this, the state's interest in educating students in schools until 16 is not necessary enough to infringe on the families' religious practices.

Roe v. Wade (1973) - Facts

A Texas resident wanted to obtain an abortion and couldn't get one in the state. She argued that it was not the state's place to ban abortions.

Roe v. Wade (1973) - Constitutional Principle/Clause

A "right to privacy" is implied by the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment, as well as a reading of some other rights in the Bill of Rights in combination.

Roe v. Wade (1973) - Majority Opinion/Decision

Substantive due process prohibits the government from arbitrarily banning things without a compelling government interest, and even then, it must be as minimally restrictive as possible. The "right to privacy" implied by the due process clause and other rights means women have the right to make their own medical decisions rather than the government.

Shaw v. Reno (1993) - Facts

In 1990, North Carolina had zero Black members representing the state in Congress despite having a population that was 20% Black. In the interest of ensuring there would be at least one Black Congressperson, the legislature gerrymandered a majority-Black district into existence. They had to clear their redistricting plan w/ the federal government per the Voting Rights Act due to the state's history of racial oppression in voting. The federal gov't said they should gerrymander one more Black district. Some white people complained.

Shaw v. Reno (1993) - Constitutional Principle/Clause

14th Amendment- Equal Protection clause

Shaw v. Reno (1993) - Majority Opinion/Decision

Even if the purpose is to benefit an oppressed group, racial gerrymandering is unconstitutional and violates the rights of the majority race under the Equal Protection clause. Precedent-- racial gerrymandering not allowed, no comment on partisan gerrymandering.

United States v. Lopez (1995) - Facts

A high school student in San Antonio violated the federal "Gun-Free School Zones Act" and was convicted of bringing a gun to school. His attorneys argued that the Act itself is unconstitutional.

United States v. Lopez (1995) - Constitutional Principle/Clause

Commerce clause, Tenth Amendment

United States v. Lopez (1995) - Majority Opinion/Decision

Bringing guns into schools is not at all related to interstate commerce The Congress can't just regulate anything it wants and call it "commerce". States have the power to ban guns in schools per the Tenth Amendment, which reserves "other powers" to the states, the federal government does not.

McDonald v. Chicago (2010) - Facts

McDonald wanted a gun for personal safety but the process of getting one in Chicago made it basically impossible and effectively banned handguns within the city in the interest of reducing gun violence.

McDonald v. Chicago (2010) - Constitutional Principle/Clause

Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms **via the 14th Amendment protection due process from the states**

McDonald v. Chicago (2010) - Majority Opinion/Decision

In an earlier case, DC v. Heller, it was established that the 2nd Amendment protects the individual right to bear arms. The 14th Amendment right to due process means that states cannot infringe on "fundamental rights" without demonstrating a very good reason and those restrictions must be as minimal as possible. Because the rights to bear arms and to self-protection are fundamental, states cannot ban individual gun ownership any more than the federal government can. This is a selective incorporation case.

Citizens United v. FEC (2010) - Facts

A political organization fundraised, produced an anti-Hillary Clinton "film", and paid to broadcast it leading up the 2008 presidential primary election (when Clinton was running against Obama for the Dem. nomination). The federal McCain-Feingold Act (AKA Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 or "BCRA") included a limit on campaign spending and advertising for or against candidates within a short window before primaries and general elections and prevented the showing of the film and advertisements for the film.

Citizens United v. FEC (2010) - Constitutional Principle/Clause

1st Amendment- Free Speech

Citizens United v. FEC (2010) - Majority Opinion/Decision

1) Political expenditures are "speech". 2) Corporations such as political organizations or unions have protected free speech rights. The limits on such spending per the BCRA were unconstitutional limits on political speech. The decision allowed a flood of money to be spent by organizations as long as they operate independent of official campaigns tied to candidates, often with little or no disclosure of who donated the money or how it is being spent.