AP Gov Supreme Court Cases

**questions about the cases**

justice of peace did not earn his commission and petitioned to the supreme court

Marbury vs. Madison

Facts: William was appointed as justice of the peace in D.C. by Adams but didn’t receive his commission, so he petitioned the Supreme Court to compel the Secretary of State to deliver his commission.

Issue:

1. Does the judge have a right to his commission?

2. Does the Supreme Court have the authority to order the delivery of the commission?

Holding: the judge was entitled to his commission. However, the court was unable to grant it because the relevant portion of the Judiciary Act of 1789 allowing the judge to sue conflicted with the Constitution and was therefore null and void.

Reasoning: Congress couldn’t pass legislation that supersedes the Constitution because the Supremacy Clause places the Constitution above laws.

Big Picture/Impact: established judicial review, empowering the Supreme Court to declare legislative and executive actions unconstitutional.

Marbury vs. Madison

Facts: 

-North Caroline 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.

• Voting Rights Act of 1965: required many states to obtain federal approval of changes to any electoral procedures, including reapportionment & redistricting

• North Carolina submitted its redistricting plan to the justice dept for approval

  • Initial plan is rejected because black voters were underrepresented

Issue: Can state residents challenge in federal court congressional districts that are racially gerrymandering?

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

Reasoning: Drawing a congressional district based only on race violated the equal protection clause and opposes the “colorblind” ideal of U.S. law.

Big Picture/Impact:

-Race can be a factor but not the only factor

-Districts cannot be drawn based only on race

Shaw vs. Reno

North Caroline created bizarre majority-minority district to increase black representation to comply with Voting Rights Act

Shaw vs. Reno

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.
Issue: did the gun-free school zones act of 1990 unconstitutionally exceed Congress’s authority to legislate under the commerce clause?

Holding: the gun free school zones act of 1990 is unconstitutional

Reasoning

-”the possession of a gun in a local school zone is in no sense an economic activity”

possession of a gun in a school zone does not substantially affect interstate commerce

-commerce clause does not grant congress endless power

-some powers are reserved to the states via the tenth amendment

Big Picture

-win for conservatives

-win for states’ rights

-doesn’t change the broad interpretation of the commerce clause

-not everything affects interstate commerce

-Congress passed a new version of the gun-free school zones act

-example of how Congress can limit the impact of court rulings

US vs. Lopez

a student in Texas brings unloaded gun to school and is charged for violating GFSZA

US vs. Lopez

Facts: Tennessee residents 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

Issue: Does the Federal Judiciary have jurisdiction over questions of redistricting?

• Jurisdiction: the legal authority to see a case

Holding: Redistricting claims raise non-political questions and therefore are justiciable [able to be heard] in federal court

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

Big Picture/Impact: 

-Overturns earlier precedent - apportionment is a political issue

-“One person, one vote” principle of voting equality in house elections and the ban on malapportionment

Dissenting Opinion - Voting Rights & Power of the Court:

-redistricting was a political opinion that should be left to state legislatures, not Congress or political courts.

-should’ve stuck with judicial restraint and courts should not involve themselves in these matters

-political question = political solutions

Baker vs. Carr

tennessee residents alleged that state congressional redistricting didn’t take population shifts into account so one person’s vote wasn’t equal to another’s

Baker vs. Carr

Facts: several states (including Maryland) passed laws to tax the bank of the united states
Issue: 

1. Did Congress have the power to establish a national bank?

2. Can a state tax the Federal Government?
   Holding: 

- Congress may establish a national bank

- states may not tax the Federal Government
Reasoning: 

1. As a result of the Necessary and Proper Clause, Congress has implied powers and is not limited to its expressed powers

• Necessary and Proper Clause: Congress can make laws “necessary and proper” for carrying out their enumerated powers

2. The Supremacy Clause asserts that the Federal Government is superior to state governments when the two conflict

3. Big Picture: Federalism case: expansion of federal power

McCulloch vs. Maryland

several states passed laws to tax the bank of the US

McCulloch vs. Maryland