AP Gov required cases 1-7

Facts of the case of McCulloch V. Maryland

In 1816, Congress

chartered the second bank

of the United States, a

federal bank. The bank

tried to establish branches

in many states, such as

Maryland and Baltimore.

Maryland's legislature,

opposed the branch and

passed a law to have any

unchartered bank pay a

$15,000 yearly tax. John

McCulloch, the cashier of

the Baltimore Branch,

opposed the tax and

refused to pay it, causing

the case to be taken to the

Supreme Court.

Arguments of McCulloch V. Maryland

Maryland used Article

1 Section 8 to argue that that the creation of the

National bank was

Unconstitutional since

it did not mention it at

all. McCulloch's

counsel argued using the the same article and

section, claiming it had

the necessary and

proper clause for

Congress to have such

Power even if its not

explicitly stated

through implied

powers.

Courts decision of McCulloch V. Maryland

The decision was 6-0

in favor of McCulloch. Chief Justice John

Marshal argued that

the bank was

constitutional.

significance of McCulloch V. Maryland

It established the supremacy of of national laws over state

Laws. which still applies

today. This

case exemplified federalism,

and even today is used as an

example between the balance of

power between states and the the federal government

Chief Justice of McCulloch V. Maryland

John Marshal

Year of McCulloch V. Maryland

1819

Facts of The United States v. Lopez

In San Antonio, Texas,

Alfonso Lopez, a

highschooler, took a 38

Caliber pistol and bullets

To school. Under Texas

law, he was arrested and

sent to jail, since it was

illegal to take a gun onto

school property. The next

day the state charges were

dropped due to there also

being a federal law that

prohibited guns on school

property, causing federal

charged to be brought

against Lopez. He was

found guilty and served 6

months in prison.

Consituional Principal of The United States v. Lopez

Federal Congress

passed legislation that

banned guns, despite

gun legislation being a

state issue. Congress

Was able to this on

the authority of the

Commerce clause in

Article 1, section 8,

which allowed

Congress to regulate

commerce among the

States. The United

States lawyers argued

that guns on school

property have to do

with interstate

commerce. Lopez’s

lawyers argued that

such regulation is

state legislation and

the relation between

the Commerce clause

and gun violence was

a federal overreach.

Courts Decison of The United States v. Lopez

The court ruled 5-4 in favor of lopez

Significance of The United States v. Lopez

This case demonstrated the

balance between federalism

and the balance of power

Between state and federal

governments. This case clearly

shows the result of the

supreme court siding with state

power over federal power.

Chief Justice of The United States v. Lopez

William H. Rehnquist

Year of The United States v. Lopez

1995

Facts of Baker v. Carr

At the time of the case,

Tennessee had not

redrawn its legislative

Districts in over 60 years.

During that time, the

State’s urban population

Was growing faster than

Its rural population,

But since the districts

had not been changed,

rural voters had more

voting powers compared to urban voters. This was

mainly caused by the

Supreme court previously

deciding that such issues

were not justiciable.

Constituional Principal of Baker v. Carr

The 14th amendment,

and in specific the

Equal Protection

Clause. On the

premise that the 14th

amendment had to

with state

infringement upon

liberty, the argument

was that the people of

Tennessee were not

equally protected

under the law,

meaning the issue was

justiciable.

Courts decision of Baker v. Carr

The court decided that

issues of

reapportionment were

Justiciable. This meant

that the Supreme Court

had authority to rule

on the questions of

legislative

reapportionment

Signficiance of Baker v. Carr

The case established the

framework of the one person vote, one person doctrine. It It fundamentally changed

political

representation all across the

Nation, causing many states t to re-draw their districts. It als involved the Supreme court

in a kind of issue it

previously

did not have such authority

over. This case still matters

today because as it did then

it ensures equal voter

representation across the

states.

Chief Justice of Baker v. Carr

Earl Warren

year of Baker v. Carr

1962

Facts of Shaw v. Reno

In 1990, North Carolina

had no black

representatives, despite

20% of the population

being black. North

Carolina drew up one

district that was a

majority black, upon

review, they were told to

create a second majority

black district. this district

was considered gerry-

mandering, in this case

specifically it was racial

gerry-mandering in which

a district is drawn to

favor one racial group

over another.

Consitutional principale of Shaw v. Reno

This case was

argued under the

equal protections

clause of the 14th

Amendment. Shaws

side argued that the

clause was violated

due to districts being

drawn with a single

race in mind. Reno’s

side argued that the

clause was not

violated because

the districts were

drawn with the

purpose of helping

marginalized Black

residents.

courts Decison of Shaw v. Reno

The court ruled against

Reno and the Justice

Department. They argued

that even if the districts

were drawn with the

intention of helping

victims of racial

discrimination, any

district drawn in favor

of one single race was

unconstitutional because

it set a dangerous

precedent.

Cheif Justice of Shaw v. Reno

William H. Rehnquist

year of Shaw v. Reno

1993

significance of Shaw v, Reno

This case set an important

precedent for future cases

On the issue of racial

Gerry-mandering. Even

today,

such racial favoring when

districts are drawn up is not

allowed, despite the case

being

challenged various times.

Even today it

matters because it prevents

one race, especially the

majority race of

state/district,

from having total

representation.

Facts of Marbury V Madison

Federalist President John

Adams lost the election of

1800 to Democratic

Republican Thomas

Jefferson. Before

the very end of his

presidency

Addams, with a federalist

dominated congress, filled

the federal judiciary with

Federalist judges who

would likely cause conflict

with Jefferson. Jefferson

ordered any undelivered

commissions to remain

undelivered. William

Marbury, a judge who had

not received his

Commission sued

Jefferson and the Supreme

court using a writ of

mandamus.

Constituional principal of Marbury V Madison

The constitutional

Principale was the

Jurisdiction clause in

Article 3 of the

Constitution. The

Supreme court had

original jurisdiction

and appellate

jurisdiction. This

meant it could hear

certain cases for the

first time and hear

appeals from lower

federal courts. Article

Three of the

Constitution states

that the Supreme

Court only has

original

Jurisdiction in cases

Relating to states and

foreign ambassadors

courts decision of Marbury V Madison

The court ruled that

Marbury did have a legal

right to his commission.

Furthermore, the court

ruled that the writ of

mandamus was the

proper legal means to

gain the commission.

However, the court,

specifically John

Marshal, ruled that the

Supreme court did not

have the authority to

grant the writ of

mandamus. Marbury

believed that the court

could grant it because of

the judiciary act of 1789,

that allowed such power

in original jurisdiction

cases. John Marshal,

however argued that

article 13 of the Judiciary

act opposed with article

3 of the constitution, and

because Marbury and

Madison were neither

states or ambassadors,

meaning article

13 of the judiciary act

was unconstitutional

null and void.

signficance of Marbury V Madison

Due to Marshall's decision

the

landmark case gave the

Supreme court the power of

judicial review. This meant

The Judicial branch was the fina final interpreter of the

constitution.

Even more so, it meant that th the Judicial Branch is

responsible in making sure

any law passed by Congress

is constitutional, which

remains crucial to our

democracy today.

cheif Justice of Marbury V Madison

John Marshal

year of of Marbury V Madison

1803

Facts of Engel v. Vitale

Before the time of the case,

the New York Board of

Regents created a non-

denominational prayer for

school children to recite

during the pledge of

allegiance. With written

permission of their

parents children could

even opt out of it. Led by

Steven Engel, a number of

parents opposed the

prayer.

consituional principale of Engel v. Vitale

Engel and the group of

        parents believed the 

        prayer to be a 

        violation of the First

        Amendments

        Establishment clause, 

        though the prayer 

        was apart of New

        York's state law. 

        However, the 14th 

        Amendment applied

        the First Amendment 

        to the states and the

        federal government.

courts Decison of Engel v. Vitale

In a 6-1 decision the

Court ruled that the

state sponsored prayer

violated the

establishment clause of

the first amendment.

significance of Engel v. Vitale

chief Justice of Engel v. Vitale

Earl Warren

year of Engel v. Vitale

1962

facts of Wisconsin v Yoder

3 amish families from

Wisconsin took their

Children out of public

Schools after they

finished 8th grade.

However, the state of

Wisconsin had a

compulsory education

law that required every

child to be educated up to

16 years old. This caused

the parents to be fined $5

dollars each.

consitional principale of Wisconsin v Yoder

The constitutional

principle at stake, as

argued by Jones

Yoder and the other

parents, was that

compulsory

education law violated

their first amendment

right. However,

the state of Wisconsin

argued that they had

a compelling interest

in educating the

children within the

state, which they

claimed overruled the

Amish’s right to

free exercise.

courts decison of Wisconsin v Yoder

The court ruled in favor

of Yoder, arguing that

the states interest in

Educating children did

Not overrule the amish’s

Ability to freely exercise th their religion.

signficance of Wisconsin v Yoder

This case set the precedent

for

future cases regarding

conflicts between a state’s

interest

and the free exercise of

religion.

This case is still relevant

today

because it is the reason

homeschooling is allowed,

and

demonstrated that a states

interest cannot interfere

or overrule an individuals

religious beliefs.

year of of Wisconsin v Yoder

1972

cheif Justice of Wisconsin V. Yoder

Warren E. Burger