AP Gov Required Cases

McCulloch vs. Maryland

1. Facts: Several States, including Maryland, passed laws to tax the BUS

2. Constitutional Issue: 1. Did congress have the power to establish a national bank 2. Can a state tax the federal government

3. Holding: Congress may establish a national bank. States may not tax the federal government

4. Reasoning: 1. As a result of the Elastic clause, congress has implied powers and is not limited to its expressed powers 2. The supremacy clause asserts that the federal government is superior to state government when the two conflict

5. Big Picture: Federalism case; expansion of federal power

US vs. Lopez: 

1. Facts: A student in texas brought an unloaded gun to school and was charged with violating the federal gun-free school zones act of 1990. Which banned intentionally carrying a gun in a school zone

2. Constitutional Issue: Did the Gun-free school zones act of 1990 unconstitutionally exceed congress’s authority to legislate under the commerce clause

3. Holding: The gun free school zones act of 1990 in unconstitutional 

4. Reasoning: Possession of a gun in a school zone does not substantially affect interstate commerce. The commerce clause does not grant congress unlimited power.

5. Big Picture: Congress’s power is reduced for the first time in forever, win for state power.

Baker vs. Carr:

1. Facts: Tennessee Resident alleged that state congressional redistricting didn’t take into account population shifts, therefore one person’s vote wasn’t necessarily equal to another person's vote

2. Constitutional Issue: Does the federal judiciary have jurisdiction over questions of redistricting 

3. Holding: Redistricting claims raise non-political questions and therefore are justiciable (able to be heard) in federal court

4. Reasoning: People have a right to challenge unequal apportionment and redistricting plans that may violate the equal protection clause

5. Big Picture:  Led to “one person, one vote” principle of voting equality in house elections and the ban on malapportionment 

Shaw vs. Reno:

1. Facts: North carolina created a bizarrely shaped majority minority district for the purpose of increasing black representation in congress to comply with the voting rights act of 1965

2. Constitutional Issue: Can state residents challenge in federal court congressional districts that are racially gerrymandered. 

3. Holding: Residents may challenge majority-minority district if race was the only factor used in creating the district

4. Reasoning: Drawing a congressional district based only on race violated the equal protection clause and opposes the colorblind ideal of US law

5. Big Picture: Race could not be the sole reason for changing a district

Marbury vs. Madison:

1. Facts: William marbury was appointed as justice of the peace in DC by Adams, but didn’t receive his commission, so he petitioned the supreme court to compel the secretary of state, James madison, to deliver his commision

2. Constitutional Issue: 1. Does marbury have the right to his commission? 2. Does the supreme court have the authority to order the delivery of the commision?

3. Holding: Marbury was entitled to his commission. However, the court was unable to grant it because the relevant portion of the judiciary act of 1789 allowing Marbury to sue conflicted with the constitution and was therefore null and void

4. Reasoning: Congress couldn't pass legislation that supersedes the constitution because supremacy clause places the constitution above laws 

5. Big Picture: Established judicial review, empowering the supreme court to declare legislative and executive actions unconstitutional 

Engel vs. Vitale:

1. Facts: Public Schools in NY began school days by inviting students to recite a nondenominational prayer each morning

2. Constitutional Issue: Does reciting a nondenominational prayer in public schools violate the first amendment’s establishment clause?

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

4. Reasoning: Public school sponsorship of religious activities violates the first amendments establishment clause

5. Big Picture: Public places like schools can’t endorse any prayers whether or not it is nondenominational

Wisconsin vs. Yoder:

1. Facts: A Wisconsin law that mandated school attendance until age 16. Amish families refused for religious reasons to send their children to high school once they finished 8th grade

2. Constitutional Issue: Did wisconsin’s law mandating school attendance violate the free exercise clause by criminalizing the action of parents who refused to send their children to school for religious reasons

3. Holding: Wisconsin may not compel amish students to attend public school beyond 8th grade

4. Reasoning: Individual’ interest in free exercise of religion outweighs the state’s interest in compelling school attendance beyond 8th grade

5. Big Picture:  established the precedent that an individual's religious interests supersede a state's interests in compulsory education

Schenk vs. United States:

1. Facts: Charles Schneck distributed leaflets opposing the military draft. He was arrested for violating the espionage act by attempting to cause insubordination in the military and obstruct recruitment 

2. Constitutional Issue: Did Schenck’s conviction under the espionage act violate his first amendment free speech rights?

3. Holding:No. The espionage act was an appropriate exercise of congress’ wartime authority

4. Reasoning: Speech creating a “clear and present danger” was not protected by the first amendment’s free speech clause and could be limited

5. Big Picture: Established the precedent that there may be time, place, and manner restrictions to speech

Tinker vs. Des Moines:

1. Facts: Students were suspended from public school for wearing black armbands as a symbol to protest the vietnam war. 

2. Constitutional Issue: Does a prohibition against wearing black armbands as a form of political protest in public school violate the students freedom of speech guaranteed by the first amendment

3. Holding: Yes, students have free speech rights at school

4. Reasoning: The students right of political, symbolic speech based on the first amendments free speech clause overrode the school administrators’ concern for potential disorder

5. Big Picture: It cemented students free speech rights at school

New York Times vs. US:

1. Facts: The nixon administration attempted to stop the publication of the pentagon papers, a classified study of US activities in vietnam, by the New York Times and Washington Post

2. Constitutional Issue: Did the Nixon administration’s attempt to block publication of classified information violated the first amendment’s freedom of the press 

3. Holding: The government did not have the right to block publication of the pentagon papers

4. Reasoning: Because of the first amendment’s freedom of press, there is a heavy presumption against the constitutional validity of government claims of prior restraint

5. Big Picture: The government can’t really interfere with the press

McDonald vs. Chicago:

1. Facts: Residents of chicago were invariably denies licenses for handguns, creating an effective ban on handguns

2. Constitutional Issue: Does the second amendment’s right to bear arms apply to the states through the 14th amendment

3. Holding: The right to bear arms for the purpose of self-defense applies to the states

4. Reasoning: The second amendment establishes an individual right to bear arms for self-defense through the 14th amendment’s due process clause applies to states

5. Big Picture: Changed the interpretation of the 2nd amendment to make it a full right un connected to militia service

Gideon vs. Wainwright:

1. Facts: Clarence Earl Gideon was charged with a felony and requested that the state court appoint a lawyer for him. The court denied his request because according to florida state law, attorneys would only be appointed for a person in a capital case

2. Constitutional Issue: Does the 6th amendment’s right to counsel apply to felony defendants in state court

3. Holding: States must provide attorneys for defendants who can’t afford one

4. Reasoning: The 6th amendment’s guarantee to the right of counsel extends procedural due process protections to defendants in state court through the 14th amendment 

5. Big Picture: All states are mandated to provide lawyers to those who need them

Brown vs. Board of Education:

1. Facts: Black students in several states were denied admittance to certain public schools based on race

2. Constitutional Issue: Does the segregation of public schools based solely on race violate the 14th amendment

3. Holding: Racial segregation of public school allowed by the “separate but equal clause” principle of plessy v. ferguson is unconstitutional 

4. Reasoning:  Violation of the EPC of the 14th amendment

5. Big Picture: ended segregation in public schools

Citizens United vs. FEC:

1. Facts: BCRA banned corporations and unions from independent political spending within 60 days of a general or 30 days of a primary election. During the 2008 primaries, Citizens United, a conservative NPO was prevented by the FEC from showing its movie

2. Constitutional Issue: 1. Can political speech of corporations, labor unions and associations be banned? 2. Can direct contributions by corporations labors unions, and associations be banned ?

3. Holding: Corporations are people, therefore corporate funding of independent political expenditures cannot be limited. Corporations, unions, and associations can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money in the form of independent expenditures. Led directly to the formation of independent-expenditure-only committees aka Super Pacs. Struck down parts of BCRA, including the ban on soft money and limitations on timing of political ads

4. Reasoning: Based on the first amendment’s free speech clause, corporations have the right to engage in political speech

5. Big Picture: The ruling effectively freed corporations and nonprofit organizations to spend money on electioneering communications and to directly advocate for the election or defeat of candidates.