AP US Government and Politics: Unit III Court Cases

0.0(0)
studied byStudied by 1 person
0.0(0)
full-widthCall with Kai
learnLearn
examPractice Test
spaced repetitionSpaced Repetition
heart puzzleMatch
flashcardsFlashcards
GameKnowt Play
Card Sorting

1/8

flashcard set

Earn XP

Description and Tags

Might not apply to your class.

Study Analytics
Name
Mastery
Learn
Test
Matching
Spaced
Call with Kai

No study sessions yet.

9 Terms

1
New cards

McDonald V. Chicago (2010)

Pretext: The city of Chicago had prohibitive gun laws that prevented most private handgun ownership; some argued this violated their Second Amendment rights.
Summary: The case reviewed whether or not the Second Amendment’s influence could extend to state and local government, not just federal jurisdiction.
Constitutional Issue: Does the Second Amendment apply to the states through the Due Process clause?
Decision: The court ruled that the city’s laws were unconstitutional and the citizens reserve the right to bear arms.

2
New cards

Plessy V. Ferguson (1896)

Pretext: Homer Plessy challenged a Louisiana law that required railway cars be segregated.
Summary: The Court evaluated whether or not racial segregation violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
Constitutional Issue: Does racial segregation violate the 14th Amendment?
Decision: The court found that as long as conditions were equal between spaces, then they could be kept segregated, hence “separate but equal.”

3
New cards

Brown V. Board (1954)

Pretext: Black students were forced to attend separate schools from white students.
Summary: The Court examined whether or not segregated schools were constitutional
Constitutional Issue: Does segregation in public schooling violate the equal protection clause?
Decision: Yes. Segregated schools were not equal and were deemed unconstitutional.

4
New cards

New York Times Co. V. United States (1971)

Pretext: The Nixon administration tried to stop newspapers from publishing the Pentagon Papers.
Summary: This case put freedom of speech against national security.
Constitutional Issue: Does prior restraint violate the First Amendment?
Decision: Yes. The government cannot block speech because it violated the First Amendment.

5
New cards

Gideon V. Wainwright (1963)

Pretext: Clarence Gideon was denied representation since he couldn’t afford it.
Summary: The Court reviewed whether or not states must provide attorneys for defendants who could not afford one.
Constitutional Issue: Does the Sixth Amendment require states to provide legal counsel in criminal cases?
Decision: Yes. States have to provide legal counsel to defendants who cannot afford one.

6
New cards

Engle V. Vitale (1962)

Pretext: A New York school required students to say a government-written prayer.
Summary: The Court reviewed whether or not the school-led prayer violates religious freedom.
Constitutional Issue: Does public school prayer violate the Establishment Clause?
Decision: Yes. Government-sponsored prayer in public schools violates the Establishment Clause.

7
New cards

Yoder V. Wisconsin (1972)

Pretext: Amish parents refused to send their children to public school for religious reasons.
Summary: The Court looked at state laws on education and religious freedom.
Constitutional Issue: Does compulsory education violate the Free Exercise Clause?
Decision: Yes. Families could be found exempt from compulsory education if they have valid reasons not to attend school.

8
New cards

Tinker V. Des Moines (1969)

Pretext: Students were suspended from school for wearing black armbands to protest the war in Vietnam.
Summary: The Court reviewed the rights of symbolic speech.
Constitutional Issue: Do students lose first amendment rights when under school supervision?
Decision: No. Students may express themselves as long as it does not disrupt learning.

9
New cards

Schenck V. United States (1919)

Pretext: Charles Schenck distributed leaflets encouraging people to dodge the draft.
Summary: The Court questioned the limits of free speech during wartime.
Constitutional Issue: Can the government limit speech if it could pose a danger to national security?
Decision: Yes. Speech that poses a “clear and present danger” is not protected.