ap us government & politics - supreme court cases

mcculloh v. maryland (1819)

• constitutional question– 

  1. does the federal government have implied powers and supremacy under the necessary and proper (elastic) clause and the supremacy clause?

• decision– 

  1. 6:0 for mcculloch (yes)

• facts–

  1. in 1816, congress charted the second bank of the u.s., which created branches in several states, including baltimore, maryland, where mcculloch was chief cashier

  2. maryland recognized its authority over everything in its borders and passed a law requiring banks not chartered by them to pay a $15,000 tax

  3. mcculloch refused to pay it and the case went to the supreme court

  4. the dispute centered on two central questions:

     1. can congress make a bank?

     2. can a state levy a tax on federal institutions?

• reasoning–

  1. can congress make a bank?

     1. article 1, section 8 did not contain an expressed power for congress to create a bank

        1. however, it did contain the phrases “coin money,” “borrow money,” “collect taxes,” determine “laws on bankruptcies,” and “punish counterfeiting”

     2. banking was therefore a part of the federal government’s business and it was constitutional under the necessary and proper clause

  2. can a state levy a tax on federal institutions?

     1. the court declared that “the power to tax involves the power to destroy”

        1. broadened what congress could do, denoting its implied powers in the constitution

     2. emphasized that constitutional federal law will override state law

• since mcculloch v. maryland–

  1. the federal government has used its powers implied in the necessary and proper clause to play a role in other matters, such as education, health, welfare, disaster relief, and economic planning

  2. gibbons v. ogden (1824):

     1. a dispute between new york and the federal government over navigation rights on the hudson river

     2. the court used the commerce clause from article 1, section 8 to certify congress’ authority over most commercial activity as well

united states v. lopez (1995)

• constitutional question– 

  1. does congress have the authority under the commerce clause to outlaw guns near schools?

• decision– 

  1. 5:4 for lopez (no)

• before united states v. lopez–

  1. gibbons v. ogden (1824) broadened the authority of the federal government to control commerce

• facts–

  1. in 1990, congress passed the gun-free school zones act in hopes of preventing gun violence at or near schools

  2. in 1992, senior alfonso lopez carried a handgun and bullets into a high school

     1. on an anonymous tip, school authorities confronted him and reported the infraction to the federal police

     2. lopez was tried and sentenced in federal court for violating the statue

  3. lopez argued that the federal government has no right to regulate specific behavior at a state-run school

  4. the united states argued that the connections of guns and drug dealing put the area under federal jurisdiction and congress’ commerce power

• reasoning–

  1. the court sided with lopez, refusing to let congress invoke the commerce clause

     1. thought that congress had stretched its commerce power too far

  2. said that the authority regulating guns and where firearms can be legally carried should stay with the states

• since united states v. lopez–

  1. congress revised the federal gun-free school zones act in 1994

     1. would tie more clearly to interstate commerce

     2. that law withholds federal funding for schools that no not adopt a zero-tolerance law for guns in school zones

  2. the supreme court continues to challenge the commerce clause

     1. united states v. morrison (2000):

        1. congress passed the violence against women act in 1994 under the commerce clause on the basis that domestic violence costs the taxpayers in the form of health care, criminal justice expenses, etc.

        2. the court stated that the commerce clause was inappropriately used to legislate domestic violence and struck down parts of the act

           1. crimes of domestic violence were not economic in nature

           2. the 14th amendment did not give congress the authority to pass the law as a civil rights remedy, which is under state jurisdiction

baker v. carr (1962)

• constitutional question– 

  1. can the supreme court render judgment on the constitutionality of legislative districts?

• decision– 

  1. 6:2 for baker (yes)

• before baker v. carr–

  1. in 1946, the court decided in colegrove v. green that if a state legislature was not dividing up congressional districts fairly, it was the people’s duty to force the legislature’s hand or to vote the legislatures out of office

  2. the supreme court held that the districts were constitutional, since no law required districts to be compact and equal in population

• facts–

  1.  a tennessee law from 1901 laid out guidelines for redrawing state legislative boundaries, and the state constitution required redistricting every 10 years based on census reports

     1. however, the legislature failed to redraw the state’s districts in over 60 years

  2. over the years, urban populations were growing faster than rural populations

     1. as a result, rural voters had more power than urban voters since redistricting to account for the changes did not occur

  3. in 1959, charles bakers and others sued tennessee secretary of state, arguing that because the votes were not equal, the 14th amendment’s equal protection clause was violated

• reasoning–

  1. baker wanted the question to be whether tennessee’s outdated districts violated the 14th amendment, but the supreme court instead addressed whether the issue was a legislature question or a jurisdiction one 

  2. decided that the issue was justiciable and that the supreme court can intervene when states do not follow constitutional ideas when creating political borders since that can lead to the democratic ideals of equal voices being violated

  3. the court developed a set of 6 criteria for determining whether something is political or justiciable

     1. it gave no judgement whatsoever on tennessee’s outdated districts and left it to the lower districts

  4. established the “one person-one vote” principle that greatly expanded democratic participation and the voting rights of minorities

     1.  “one person-one vote” principle →  a principle that asserts each individual's vote should carry equal weight in the electoral process, ensuring fairness and equality in democratic representation

• since baker v. carr–

  1. all states had to redraw legislative boundaries as a result of the ruling since each person's vote had to be weighted equally

  2. in the 1964 case of reynolds v. sims, the supreme court reaffirmed its role in apportionment issues

shaw v. reno (1993)

• constitutional question– 

  1. does a congressional district, designed for the purpose of assuring a majority black population, violate the 14th amendment's equal protection clause?

• decision– 

  1. 5:4 for shaw (yes)

• before shaw v. reno–

  1. in the late 1950s, the city of tuskegee contained a large black population and constituted the majority of voters 

  2. in response to this trend, the state legislature passed special legislation to alter the city’s borders

     1. what resulted was a 28-sided city border that placed black neighborhoods outside of city lines

  3. charles gomillion sued tuskegee mayor phil lightfoot

     1. in gomillion v. lightfoot, the supreme court decided the state violated the litigants’ 15th amendment right to vote

• facts–

  1. the justice department had stated that using race as a basis for creating districts was okay in interests of fairness

     1. meaning majority-minority districts with more blacks than whites is okay

  2. north carolina submitted a new map of congressional districts for review

     1. they only had one majority-minoirty district and had to redraw a second one in

     2. because no black legislators were elected yet, north carolina created two districts with black majorities that were oddly shaped

  3. north carolina’s republican party and five white voters (including shaw) sued and argued that the effort resulted from separating citizens into classes to form districts

• reasoning–

  1. the court ruled for sure because only race was used a factor to explain the highly irregular district shape and its lack of other characteristics, including geography

  2. it violated the “colorblind” ideals of united states, separating citizens into classes without compelling state interests and violating the 14th amendment

marbury v. madison (1803)

• constitutional question–

  1. can an appointed judge sue for his appointment, and does the supreme court have the authority to hear and implement this request?

• decision–

  1. 4:0 (yes and no)

• facts–

  1.  near the end of john adam’s term, he appointed several “midnight” judges with senate approvals as his final act as president

  2. john marshall has most of the commissions (notice of appointments) to the judges except 17 (including marbury), which marshall left for the next administration

  3. when jefferson took office, he reappointed some of the judges, but refused some like marbury, whose commission was held by secretary of state james madison under jefferson’s orders

  4. marbury brought the case to the supreme court because he wanted to force madison and jefferson to give him his commission through a writ of mandamus (a court order mandating a federal official to do their job)

     1. did this under the new judiciary act of 1789

• reasoning–

  1. yes:

     1. ruled that an appointed judge with a signed commission could sue if they were denied the job

  2. no:

     1. ruled that the law entitling marbury to the commission and the job, section 13 of the judiciary act, was unconstitutional when it decided that the supreme court had original rather than appellate jurisdiction

     2. congress could not define the court’s authority outside the bounds of the constitution

     3. they instituted the practice of judicial review by asserting its powers and checking congress

• since marbury v. madison–

  1. marshall declared that congress would not have the power to make law on any subject it wanted and would void any such congressional act contradicting the constitution, and he did just that

  2. judicial review or striking down acts of congress became rare after this case

     1. not until the dress scott case did they strike down a law

     2. during the industrial era and the 1900s, the court used judicial review more often

engel v. vitale (1962)

• constitutional question–

  1. does allowing a state-created, nondenominational prayer voluntarily recited in public schools violate the first amendment’s establishment clause?

• decision–

  1. 6:1 for engel (yes)

• before engel v. vitale–

  1. many public schools across the united states started the school day with a prayer

  2. in the 1950s, new york tried to standardize prayer in public schools by coming up with a common nondenominational prayer that would satisfy most religions

     1. teachers were required to recite this player and students were allowed to stand mute (or leave with written permission)

• facts–

  1. in 1959, the parents of 10 students filed a suit against the local school board because the official prayer was contrary to their beliefs, religions, or practices

  2. lead plaintiff stephen engel argued that the prayer violated the establishment clause

• reasoning–

  1. because a public institution created a prayer for public schools with mandatory attendance, the regents board made religion its business, violating establishment clause

  2. the establishment clause applies to the states through the 14th amendment

• since engel v. vitale–

  1. the court since ruled against student-led prayer at official public school events

  2. alabama provided that schools give a moment of silence at the beginning of the school day for prayer or meditation

     1. the court said this constituted an establishment of religion, but left open the possibility that an undefined, occasional moment of silence can be constitutional

wisconsin v. yonder (1972)

• constitutional question–

  1. does a state’s compulsory school law for children age 16 and younger violate the first amendment’s free exercise clause for parents whose religious beliefs and customs dictate they keep their children out of school after a certain age?

• decision–

  1. 7:0 for yonder (yes)

• facts–

  1. wisconsin law required students up to age 16 to go to school

  2. amish parents had teens they did not send to school and they were fined

  3. amish parents appealed to wisconsin supreme court, which sided with them, arguing that their religion prevented them from sending their children to school at a certain age

     1. amish teens were supposed to be learning a trade

     2. parents were worried that their children might be exposed to things that would make them diverge from their religion

  4. wisconsin officials appealed to the supreme court to try and keep the law 

• reasoning–

  1. the supreme court found that making the amish attend schools would expose them to attitudes and values contrary to their beliefs

     1. it could interfere with amish teens’ religious development and integration into amish society

     2. stopping schooling and continuing informal vocational education did not make them burdens to society

  2. the free exercise clause overrode the state’s efforts to promote health and safety through a full education

tinker v. des moines independent community school district (1969)

• constitutional question–

  1. does a public school ban on students wearing armbands in symbolic, political protest violate a student’s 1st amendment freedom of speech?

• decision–

  1. 7:2 for tinker (yes)

• facts–

  1.  mary beth tinker and john tinker, with other students, panned to protest the united states’ involvement in the vietnam war by wearing black armbands and fasting for 2 days

  2. school administrators heard of the plan and thought it would disrupt the learning environment

     1. they created a ban of it, causing the tinkers to get suspended

  3. the tinkers and the others sued on free speech grounds and appealed to the supreme court

• reasoning–

  1.  the supreme court ruled in favor of the students who challenged the suspension, holding that the ban violated the 1st amendment

  2. the suspension failed the time, place, and manner test as it was intended to quiet students’ anti-war message to avoid disruptions

     1. the students’ rights to political, symbolic speech overrode the school’s concern for potential disorder, which did not even happen

• since tinker v. des moines independent community school district–

  1. the tinkers’ case concerned political speech

  2. matt fraser gave an introductory student council election speech for a friend, which had sexual and inappropriate language that led to the school to suspend him

     1. fraser challenged the suspension

        1. in bethel school district v. fraser (1986), the court upheld the school’s punishment

     2. unlike tinker, the speech in this case had no real political value and was designed to entertain an audience of high school students

  3. in alaska, during a gathering outside the school to cheer on olympic torch runners, a student flashed a sign that read “BONG HITS 4 JESUS”

     1. the student was suspended and lost the appeal

     2. in morse v. frederick (2007), the court ruled that even though the event took place off of school grounds, it was school-sponsored, thus giving authority to school officials to decide as his sign promoted illegal drug use

schenck v. united states (1919)

• constitutional question–

  1. does the government’s prosecution and punishment for expressing opposition to the military draft during wartime violate the first amendment’s free speech clause?

• decision–

  1. 9:0 for united states (no)

• facts–

  1. during world war 1, the 1917 sedition and espionage acts banned publications that criticized the government, advocated treason or insurrection, or incited disloyal behavior in the military

  2. charles schenck was prosecuted by the united states after giving out pamphlets that criticized the draft, saying it amounted to involuntary servitude, denied by the 13th amendment

     1. the government was concerned at the time about the socialist party, german americans, and those who questioned america’s military draft and war effort

  3. schenck appealed

• reasoning–

  1.  the supreme court created a distinction between speech that communicated honest opinion and speech that incited unlawful action and therefore, represented a “clear and present danger”

     1. clear and present danger → a legal standard measuring if speech is so dangerous to society that the government can restrict it, balancing free speech with national security

        1. balances between the competing demands of free expression and a government needing to protect a free society

  2. they upheld the government’s right to convict citizens for certain speech

     1. recognized that schenck’s pamphlets could have been published another time but not during wartime

• since schenck v. united states–

  1. in following supreme court cases, the clear and present danger standard did not prevent all forms of speech nor was the claim always a justification for criminal charges

new york times co. v. united states (1971)

• constitutional question–

  1. can the executive branch block the printing of reporter-obtained classified government information in an effort to protect national secrets without violating the 1st amendment’s free press clause?

• decision–

  1. 6:3 for new york times (no)

• before new york times co. v. united states–

  1. near v. minnesota (1931) → a supreme court selective incorporation case that ruled a state law preventing the printing of radical propaganda violated the freedom of the press

• facts–

  1. daniel ellsberg released the pentagon papers, which showed the government’s deception in vietnam to the new york times and the washington post

  2. these papers questioned the government’s credibility and prevented the president’s ability to manage the war

     1. president nixon petitioned the court to order the new york times to refrain from printing in the name of national security and the court issued an injunction

  3. the new york times appealed 

• reasoning–

  1. the supreme court ruled that the nixon administration violated the freedom of press

     1. ruled on the newspaper’s right to print these documents, not on ellsberg’s right to leak them (and was later indicted under the 1917 espionage act in his own trial)

  2. the ruling assured that national security does not justify censorship in advance and the doesn’t have sole power of prior restraint on publications

mcdonald v. chicago (2010)

• constitutional question–

  1. does the 2nd amendment apply to the states, by way of the 14th amendment, and thus prevent states or their political subdivisions from banning citizen ownership of handguns?

• decision–

  1. 5:4 for mcdonald (yes)

• before mcdonald v. chicago–

  1. the 2nd amendment prevents the federal government from forbidding people to keep and bear arms 

  2. in district of columbia v. heller, the court struck down a d.c. law restricting handguns and held that people have the right to own guns regardless of militia membership

     1. however, it only applied to the federal government and did not incorporate states

• facts–

  1. chicago required all gun owners to register guns, yet the city invariably refused to allow citizens to register handguns, creating an effective ban

  2. otis mcdonald and other citizens challenged chicago’s laws

     1. argued how the city laws rendered people like mcdonald defenseless in crime-ridden neighborhoods

     2. the attorneys attempted to make the heller decision apply to states via the 14th amendment’s due process clause

• reasoning–

  1. the supreme court applied the 2nd amendment to the states via the 14th amendment’s due process clause

  2. argued that, based on heller, the right to individual self-defense was at the heart of the 2nd amendment

• after mcdonald v. chicago–

  1. the heller and mcdonald decisions partially govern gun policy in the united states, but the supreme court has done little to define gun rights and limits since

     1. it declined to hear cases on assault weapons bans and has declined to rule on a restrictive limitation on who may carry concealed guns

  2. congressional members are often at odds over gun policy

     1. after each nationally notable mass shooting, the debate arises again, but little national law changes

     2. republicans defend citizens’ rights to own and carry guns

     3. democrats tend to seek stronger restrictions on sale, ownership, and public possession

gideon v. wainwright (1963)

• constitutional question–

  1. does a state’s prosecution of a criminal defendant without counsel constitute a violation of the 6th amendment’s right to counsel?

• decision–

  1. 6:0 for gideon (yes)

• facts–

  1.  gideon was arrested for stealing coins and drinks from a cigarette machine

     1. he came to trial expecting an appointed lawyer because other states had given him one before, but florida did not

  2. the supreme court had already ruled that states must give counsel to poor defendants facing death penalty or those with special circumstance such as illiteracy

  3. in prison, gideon appealed

     1. his attorney argued that the 14th amendment’s due process clause requires states to follow the 6th amendment

• reasoning–

  1. the supreme court reasoned that a basic principle of the american government was that every defendant should have a fair chance at trial, and not having an attorney did not make it fair

  2. also, they stated that there was no logical difference between a capital offence, which would have given gideon a lawyer, and a noncapital offense

roe v. wade (1973)

• constitutional question–

  1. does texas’s anti-abortion statue violate the due process clause of the 14th amendment and a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion?

• decision–

  1. 7:2 for roe (yes)

• facts–

  1. norma mccorvey sought an abortion, but texas did not allow an abortion unless the mother’s life was at stake

     1. her name was labeled “jane roe” to protect her identity during supreme court hearings

  2. ACLU filed suit

• reasoning–

  1. the supreme court ruled that abortion was under a right to privacy found in griswold

     1. it was not the government’s decision to determine a pregnant woman’s medical decision

  2. meanwhile, the state stood by its legal authority to regulate health, morals, and welfare under the police powers doctrine, while much of the public argued the procedure violated a moral code

     1. roe relied largely on the 14th amendment’s due process clause, arguing that the state violated her broadly understood liberty by denying the abortion

• since roe v. wade–

  1. the supreme court has addressed a series of cases on abortions and the issue of abortion inevitable comes up at election times

  2. in planned parenthood v casey, the court outlawed a pennsylvania law designed to discourage women from getting an abortion or expose abortion patients via public records

     1. it also did not uphold the “informed consent” portion of the law that required the aborting woman (mother), married or unmarried, to inform and secure consent from the father

     2. however, the casey decision did uphold such state requirements as a waiting period, providing information on abortion alternatives, and requiring parental (or judge’s) consent for pregnant teens

  3. today, roe v. wade is overturned with dobbs v. jackson women’s health organization (2022)

     1. abandoned nearly 50 years of precedent and marked the first time in history that the supreme court has taken away a fundamental right

     2. since the court’s decision in dobbs, more than a dozen states have banned abortion outright, forcing people to travel hundreds or thousands of miles to access abortion care or to carry pregnancies against their will, a violation of their human rights

brown v. board of education of topeka, kansas (1954)

• constitutional question–

  1. do state school segregation laws violate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment?

• decision–

  1. 9:0 for brown (yes)

• before brown v. board of education–

  1. in 1896, the case of plessy v. ferguson established the “separate but equal” doctrine

  2. the court said that as long states provided separate but equal facilities, they were in compliance with the constitution

• facts–

  1. linda brown’s parents and several other african american parents filed suit against the local school board in hopes of overturning the state’s segregation laws

  2. the NAACP filed similar cases in other states and the supreme court took all of these cases at once under the name of brown v. board of education

• reasoning–

  1. the petitioners cited research that showed segregation damaged black children’s psyches and instilled feelings of inferiority and argued schools’ inequality (in economics, area, etc.) created a separation, that was inherently unequal 

  2. the supreme court agreed with the petitioners and overruled plessy and struck down segregation

• since brown v. board of education–

  1. the brown decision did not determine a timeline for when this change would happen or how it would happen

     1. so, the court invited the litigants to return and present arguments

  2. in brown ii, the supreme court determined that segregated school systems should desegregate as fast as they can and that the lower federal courts would determine if that standard was meet

     1. that is, black parents could take local districts to the united states district courts to press for integration

  3. it took a decade before any substantial integration took place in the deep south and a generation before enrollments were proportional to the population of the school district

citizens united v. federal elections commission (2010)

• constitutional question–

  1. does the 2002 bipartisan campaign reform act’s (mccain-feingold act) donation disclosure requirement violate the 1st amendment’s free speech clause, and is a negative political documentary that never communicates an expressed plea to vote for or against a candidate subject to the BCRA?

• decision–

  1. 5:4 for citizens united (no and yes)

• before citizens united v. federal election commission (FEC)–

  1. buckley v. valeo (1976) upheld the limits on campaign

  2. contributions from individuals ($1,000) and PACs ($5,000) but ruled that candidates could contribute unlimited funds from their own money to their campaigns

     1. also ruled that there was no limit on total revenue or expenditures for campaigns

• facts–

  1. BCRA prevented corporations or nonprofits from creating ads 60 days before general election

  2. in 2008, conservative citizens united created a documentary that criticized Hillary Clinton and meant to hurt her reputation

  3. BCRA prevented the documentary’s publishing, so citizens united appealed to the supreme court

• reasoning–

  1. the court ruled part of the BCRA violated the 1st amendment’s free speech clause and corporations, labor unions, and other organizations could use funds from their treasuries to endorse or denounce a candidate at any time, provided ads are not coordinated with any candidate

  2. they reasoned further that just because a PAC or any entity entitled to free speech supports a candidate via advertising, that candidate does not necessarily owe anything to that PAC

     1. there’s no assumption that the donation is buying a favor from the candidate, which in any event is already criminal and punishable by statute

• since citizens united v. federal election commission (FEC)–

  1. in 2014, in mccutcheon v. FEC, the supreme court ruled that the limit on how much a donor can contribute over a two-year election cycle was unconstitutional

  2. to stay within that limit, donors who could afford to give the maximum amount to a number of candidates would have to rule out some candidates and causes they might also wish to support

     1. in that way, the court ruled, their freedom of expression was unconstitutionally limited