AP GOV National Judiciary - Supreme Court Cases

Marbury v. Madison, 1803 **

(Design of Supreme Court and Judicial Review)

S: (1801) President john Adams had issued William Marbury a commission as justice of peace. Though, the new secretary of state, James Madison, refused to deliver it.

C: Does the court have the authority to order the delivery of a commission and can a federal judge even bring the case to court?

O: Although legally, the commission should have been delivered, the Judiciary Act which enabled Marbury to bring the case to court was unconstitutional.

T: 1803, Marshall Court

U: Article III, Section 2, which deals with the judicial powers of the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary.

S: Established the principal of judicial review, empowering the Supreme Court to nullify any act of the other two branches that violates the constitution.

McCulloch v. Maryland, 1819 **

(Federalism)

S: (1818) The state of Maryland approved legislation to impose taxes on the Second National Bank. James McCulloch, being a federal cashier, refused to pay the taxes. Maryland filed a suit against McCulloch in an effort to collect the taxes.

C: Did Congress have the implied power to create a bank? And, could states tax a federal entity?

O: Based on the Necessary and Proper Clause, Congress is not limited by its express powers.

T: 1819, Marshall Court

U: Necessary and Proper Clause, Supremacy Clause

S: Established supremacy of the US Constitution and federal laws over state laws.

US vs. Lopez, 1995 **

(Federalism)

S: Alphonso Lopez was arrested for carrying a concealed weapon into his high school. He was charged under the Gun-Free School Zone Act, a congressional law that banned people from bringing guns to school zones.

C: What is the relevance behind the commerce clause, and did the Gun-Free School Zone Act exceed the power allowed by the clause?

O: The laws was considered unconstitutional since having a gun in the school zone did not substantially affect interstate commerce, a provision in the commerce clause.

T: 1995, Rehnquist Court

U: Commerce Clause

S: Introduced a new phase of federalism that recognized the importance of state sovereignty and local control.

Engel vs. Vitale, 1962 **

(First Amendment)

S: A group of parents that included Steven Engel objected to a prayer being read at their child’s school, and sued the school board President, William Vitale.

C: Had the prayer violated the Establishment Clause of the Constitution which states that a law cannot be made “respecting an establishment of religion?”

O: States could not hold prayers in public schools EVEN IF it was voluntary and the prayer did not adhere to a specific religion.

T: 1962, Warren Court

U: Establishment Clause

S: School sponsorship of religious activities was a violation of the first amendment.

Wisconsin vs. Yoder, 1972 **

(First Amendment)

S: Wisconsin law stipulated that all children had to attend school until age 16, but the Yoder family believed that further education for their children would damage their religious beliefs.

C: By requiring parents to send their children to school, did Wisconsin violate the free exercise clause which denotes that right to exercise religion freely?

O: The requirement to send children to school beyond the eight grade was unconstitutional.

T: 1972, Warren Court

U: Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment

S: Individual’s interest in the free exercise of religion was more powerful than a federal interest in sending children to school beyond the eight grade.

Employment Division , Oregon vs. Smith, 1990

(First Amendment)

S: Two counselors for a private drug rehabilitation organization ingested a hallucinogen as part of their religious ceremonies as members of the Native American Church. As a result, the organization filed the counselors. The counselors filed a claim for unemployment compensation.

C: Can a state deny unemployment benefits to a worker fired for using illegal drugs for religious purposes?

O: Individual’s religious beliefs do not excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that government is free to regulate.

T: 1990, Rehnquist Court

U: Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment

S: Generally applicable laws not targeting specific religious practices do not violate the free exercise clause of the first amendment.

Schenk vs. United States, 1919 **

(First Amendment)

S: Socialist Charles Schenk distributed leaflets declaring that the WWI draft violated the 13th Amendment prohibition against involuntary servitude. The leaflets urged the public to disobey the draft.

C: Had the Esponiage Act violated the First Amendment and what are the limits on how Congress can exercise its wartime authority?

O: The Espionage Act did not violate the First Amendment and it was an appropriate exercise of Congressional wartime authority.

T: 1919, White Court

U: Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment

S: Limited the First Amendment as the free speech clause does not allow for advocacy of unlawful behavior.

Brandenburg vs. Ohio, 1969

(First Amendment)

S: Brandenburg a leader of the KKK gave a speech at the Klan rally. Because of this speech he was convicted of advocating violence under the Ohio Criminal Syndication State.

C: Can a state forbid the use of forceful speech and does it violate the first amendment?

O: The Ohio law violated Brandenburg’s right to free speech.

T: 1969, Warren Court

U: Right of free speech in the First Amendment

S: A state may not forbid speech advocating the use of force unless this advocacy is directed to inciting imminent lawless action.

Tinker vs. Des Moines School District, 1969 **

(First Amendment)

S: A group of students decided to wear armbands in order to protest the Vietnam War. Mary Beth Rinker decided to wear the armbands despite warnings from school admin. She was sent home after wearing the armbands to school.

C: Did symbolic protest violate the freedom of speech clause of the first amendment?

O: Students did have free speech rights, and in order to justify the suppression of speech, the speech must substantially interfere with school operations.

T: 1969, Warren Court

U: Freedom of Speech Clause of the First Amendment

S: Students’ right of symbolic speech was more powerful than the potential disorder it may cause.

NY Times vs. US, 1971 **

(First Amendment)

S: The Nixon Administration tried to prevent The NY Times from publishing material that belonged to a Defense Department study about US intervention in Vietnam. President Nixon stated that it was necessary to national security to prohibit it before publication.

C: Was the Nixon Administration’s prior restraint constitutional and is the preventing of the publication of material a violation of the 1st Amendment’s freedom of the press?

O: The federal government did not meet the burden of proof required for prior restraint and therefore could not censor the New York Times.

T: 1971, Warren Court

U: First Amendment’s protection of freedom of the press

S: Bolstered the freedom of the press, establishing a “heavy presumption against prior restraint” even in cases involving national security.

Gideon vs. Wainwright, 1962 **

(Selective Incorporation)

S: Gideon was charged in the r state of Florida on a felony. During his trial, Gideon requested that he reduce a court-appointed lawyer: however, in accordance with Florida state law one could only obtain an attorney in capital crime cases. He then filed a habeus corpus suit stating that the court misrepresented him.

C: Did the right to counsel in the sixth amendment also apply to felony defendants in state courts?

O: The sixth amendment’s right to counsel applies to state court defendants via the fourteenth amendment.

T: 1963, Warren Court

U: Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of the right to counsel in criminal cases and the fourteenth amendment’s due process clause

S: Incorporated the right of counsel into the states, guaranteeing the right to an attorney for the poor or indigent in a state felony case.

Heart of Atlanta Motel vs. US, 1964

(Civil Rights)

S: The motel refused to rent motel rooms to black patrons, in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title II of the Act forbade discrimination in all public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce.

C: Did Congress exceed its Commerce Clause powers by depriving places of public accommodations of the right to choose their own customers?

O: The government could enjoin the motel from discriminating on the basis of race under the commerce clause.

T: 1964, Warren Court

U: Commerce Clause

S: Places of public accommodation had no right to select guests as they say fit, free from government regulation.

Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka, 1954 **

(Civil Liberties)

S: Relating to the racial segregation of schools, African American students had been denied admittance to public schools because of segregation laws, and many argued that this was a violation of the Constitution.

C: Does the “separate but equal” doctrine, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities?

O: Separate but equal is inherently unequal, and therefore racial segregation of public schools is unconstitutional.

T: 1954, Warren Court

U: Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

S: The desegregation of public schools meant that the Court is allowed reverse previous rulings based on the premise of judicial review.

Griswold vs. Connecticut, 1965

(Civil Liberties)

S: Previously, Connecticut passed a law that banned the use of any drug furthering contraception. Griswold was arrested after opening a birth control clinic on the basis of violating the law. He planned to use the clinic to challenge the constitutionality of the statute under the 14th Amendment.

C: Does the Constitution protect the right of marital privacy against the state restrictions on a couple’s ability to be counseled in the use of contraceptives?

O: Overruled the law as an invasion of the right to privacy, specifically marital right to privacy.

T: 1965, Warren Court

U: Right to Privacy (amendments 1,3-5,9)

S: The Constitution did in fact protect the right of marital privacy against state restrictions on contraception.

Obergefell vs. Hodges, 2015

(Civil Rights)

S: Obergefell legally married to a male partner who suffered from an illness and died months after litigation began. Due to Ohio law, plaintiffs believed that state officials would refuse to recognize the marriage at the time of the partner’s death.

C: Did Ohio’s refusal to recognize marriages from other jurisdictions violate the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of due process and equal protection?

O: 14th Amendment requires all states to license marriages between same-sex couples and to recognize all marriages that were lawfully performed out of state.

T: 2015, Roberts Court

U: Equal Protection and Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment

S: Extended legal marriage recognition to same-sex couples throughout the United States.

McDonald vs. Chicago, 2009 **

(Selective Incorporation)

S: Chicago passed a handgun ban law, and several suits were filed against the city challenging the ban after another case. In that case, the Court had held that a DC handgun ban violated the Second Amendment. There, since the law was enacted by the federal government, the Second Amendment was applicable.

C: Does the 2nd Amendment’s right to bear arms also apply to the states?

O: The handgun ban was unconstitutional.

T: 2010, Roberts Court

U: Second Amendment

S: Because the right to self-defense was fundamental, the 2nd Amendment was incorporated to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause.

Baker vs. Carr, 1962 **

(Districting & Representation)

S: Baker stated that a 1901 law that detailed the apportionment for Tennessee’s General Assembly had been ignored, and stated that reapportionment did not take into account change that the state had gone through.

C: Does the Supreme Court, as a unit, have the authority to hear cases that related to legislative apportionment?

O: Because of the Fourteenth Amendment issues that the case seemed to address, the SCOTUS did have the authority to hear this case.

T: 1962, Warren Court

U: Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

S: This case opened the door to more challenges to unfair redistricting by way of the Equal Protection Clause.

Shaw vs. Reno, 1993 **

(Districting & Representation)

S: Several North Carolina residents challenged a proposal, unusually shaped district. They believed that the only purpose of the district was that it would definitely elect African-American representatives.

C: Did racial gerrymandering take place with this district and does the district raise an Equal Protection Clause question?

O: Because the district was shaped in such a clearly odd way, it was enough proof that there was an apparent effort to separate votes racially.

T: 1993, Rehnquist Court

U: Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

S: Majority-minority districts can be constitutionally challenged if race was the sole factor in their creation.

Shelby County vs. Holder, 2013

(Civil Rights)

S: Shelby County challenged the constitutionality of Section 4(b) and Section 5. They argued that the coverage formula was out dated and no longer reflective of current voting conditions, infringing states’ rights.

C: Does the renewal of Section 5 under the constraints of section 4(b) exceed Congress’ authority under amendments 14-15 and violate the tenth?

O: The court struck down section 4(b) as unconstitutional. It was also stated that Congress could draft a new coverage formula based on content needs, and that section 5 could not be enforced.

T: 2013, Roberts Court

U: Fifteenth Amendment

S: Critics of the ruling said it would make it harder for balconies voters in the states affected by the Voting Act.

Citizens United vs. FEC, 2010 **

(Federal Policy)

S: The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act had previously banned corporations from independent political spending and direct contributions to campaigns or political parties. In 2005, Citizens United was not allowed to show an Anti-Hillary movie.

C: Did the BCRA apply to nonprofits, or did the First Amendment protect such political speech?

O: Corporations should be considered people and therefore their funding of independent political expenditures cannot be limited.

T: 2010, Roberts Court

U: First Amendment Free Speech Clause

S: Led to the development of super PACs and a significant increase in the amount of money contributed to political campaigns.