COURT CASES I NEED TO KNOW FOR UNIT 3 AP GOV

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

Major facts and issues

• Congress created the Second Bank of the United States.

• Maryland tried to tax the bank, arguing that the federal government did not have the constitutional authority to create it.

• Issue: Could Congress create a national bank, and could a state tax it?

2. Holding and majority reasoning

• The Court ruled that Congress could create the bank and Maryland could not tax it.

• Chief Justice John Marshall reasoned that Congress has implied powers under the Necessary and Proper Clause to carry out its enumerated powers. Allowing Maryland to tax the bank could give states control over the federal government.

3. Constitutional principle

• Necessary and Proper Clause: Congress has implied powers.

• Supremacy Clause: Federal law takes precedence over conflicting state law.

4. Dissenting opinion

- There was no dissent. The decision was unanimous.

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

United States v. Lopez (1995)

Major facts and issues

• A high school student brought a gun into a school zone and was charged under the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act.

• Issue: Did Congress have the power to ban gun possession near schools under the Commerce Clause?

2. Holding and majority reasoning

• The Court ruled that Congress exceeded its constitutional authority.

• Possessing a gun near a school was not an economic activity that substantially affected interstate commerce. Congress could not use the Commerce Clause to regulate every local issue.

3. Constitutional principle

- Commerce Clause and federalism: Congress has limited enumerated powers, and powers not granted to the federal government are generally reserved to the states or the people.

4. Dissenting opinions

• Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer dissented.

• They argued that gun violence near schools harms education and the economy, which can affect interstate commerce. They believed Congress had sufficient authority to pass the law.

Congress may not use the commerce clause to make possession of a gun in a school zone a federal crime

Engel v. Vitale (1962)

Major facts and issues

• New York public schools encouraged students to recite a state-written prayer at the beginning of the school day.

• The prayer was voluntary.

• Issue: Did school-sponsored prayer violate the Establishment Clause?

2. Holding and majority reasoning

• The Court ruled that school-sponsored prayer was unconstitutional, even if students were not required to participate.

• The government cannot compose or officially sponsor prayers in public schools.

3. Constitutional principle

• Establishment Clause: The government may not establish or sponsor religion.

• The First Amendment's protection against establishment of religion applies to state governments through the Fourteenth Amendment.

4. Dissenting opinions

• Justices Potter Stewart and others in dissent argued that the voluntary prayer did not establish an official religion or force students to participate.

• They believed the prayer did not violate the Constitution.

School sponsorship of religious activities violates the establishment clause

Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)

1. Major facts and issues

• Amish parents refused to send their children to school after eighth grade because additional formal education conflicted with their religious beliefs and way of life.

• Wisconsin required children to attend school until age 16.

• Issue: Did requiring Amish children to attend school violate their parents' religious freedom?

2. Holding and majority reasoning

• The Court ruled in favor of the Amish parents.

• The state had not shown that requiring two additional years of schooling was necessary enough to outweigh the parents' sincere religious beliefs and the Amish community's way of life.

3. Constitutional principle

• Free Exercise Clause: Protects individuals' right to practice their religion.

• Religious liberty may outweigh certain state interests when the government cannot demonstrate a sufficiently strong justification.

4. Dissenting opinion

• Justice William O. Douglas partially dissented.

• He argued that the children's own wishes should also have been considered instead of focusing primarily on their parents' religious beliefs.

Compelling Amish students to attend school past the eighth grade violates the free exercise clause

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969)

1. Major facts and issues

• Students wore black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War.

• School officials suspended them for violating a policy against wearing the armbands.

• Issue: Did the school's punishment violate students' First Amendment rights?

2. Holding and majority reasoning

• The Court ruled in favor of the students.

• Students do not lose their constitutional rights at school. The school could restrict expression only if it had evidence that the expression would cause a material and substantial disruption of school activities or interfere with others' rights.

3. Constitutional principle

• First Amendment freedom of speech and expression.

• Students retain constitutional rights in public schools, subject to appropriate limits.

4. Dissenting opinions

• Justices Hugo Black and John Marshall Harlan II dissented.

• Black argued that the Court was interfering with school officials' authority to maintain discipline.

• Harlan believed school officials should generally be allowed to act unless they were clearly motivated by a desire to suppress a particular viewpoint.

Public school students have the right to wear black armbands in school to protest the Vietnam War

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

1. Major facts and issues

• The New York Times and Washington Post published classified documents known as the Pentagon Papers, which revealed information about U.S. involvement in Vietnam.

• The federal government tried to stop further publication, citing national security.

• Issue: Could the government prevent newspapers from publishing the documents?

2. Holding and majority reasoning

• The Court ruled in favor of the newspapers.

• The government had not met the heavy burden required to justify prior restraint. It failed to demonstrate that stopping publication was constitutionally justified.

3. Constitutional principle

• First Amendment freedom of the press.

• Prior restraint: The government generally cannot prevent publication in advance without an exceptionally strong constitutional justification.

4. Dissenting opinions

• Justices Harlan, Blackmun, and Chief Justice Burger dissented.

• They argued that the Court acted too quickly and that the government should have had more time to demonstrate the potential national security risks.

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

Schenck v. United States (1919)

Major facts and issues

• Charles Schenck distributed leaflets opposing the military draft during World War I.

• He was convicted under the Espionage Act.

• Issue: Did punishing his anti-draft speech violate the First Amendment?

2. Holding and majority reasoning

• The Court unanimously upheld Schenck's conviction.

• Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. reasoned that speech could be restricted when, in the circumstances, it created a clear and present danger of bringing about harms Congress had the authority to prevent.

3. Constitutional principle

• First Amendment freedom of speech: Speech is not absolutely protected in every circumstance.

• Important modern clarification: The Schenck test was later superseded by the more speech-protective standard established in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), which generally requires advocacy directed toward and likely to produce imminent lawless action.

4. Dissenting opinion

- There was no dissent. The decision was unanimous.

Speech creating a “clear and present danger” is not protected by the First Amendment

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

Major facts and issues

• Clarence Gideon was charged with a felony in Florida and could not afford an attorney.

• The state refused to appoint one because Florida only provided appointed counsel in certain cases.

• Issue: Did the Constitution require states to provide attorneys to defendants who could not afford them?

2. Holding and majority reasoning

• The Court unanimously ruled in Gideon's favor.

• The right to legal counsel is fundamental to a fair trial. An indigent defendant facing a serious criminal charge cannot receive a fair trial without access to an attorney.

3. Constitutional principle

• Sixth Amendment: Guarantees the right to assistance of counsel in criminal prosecutions.

• Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause: Applies this right to state criminal proceedings through selective incorporation.

4. Dissenting opinion

- There was no dissent. The decision was unanimous

Guaranteed the right to an attorney for the poor or indigent

Roe v. Wade (1973)

1. Major facts and issues

• Texas law prohibited most abortions except when necessary to save the pregnant woman's life.

• A woman identified as Jane Roe challenged the law.

• Issue: Did the Constitution protect a woman's decision to have an abortion?

2. Holding and majority reasoning

• The Court ruled that the constitutional right to privacy, derived from the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of liberty, protected abortion decisions, subject to limits that varied during pregnancy.

• The Court established a framework balancing the pregnant woman's interests with the state's interests in maternal health and potential life.

3. Constitutional principle

• Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause: The Court interpreted the constitutional concept of liberty to protect certain private decisions.

• Important current-status note: Roe was overturned by Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022). It is no longer controlling precedent, and abortion regulation is now largely left to elected governments, subject to other applicable constitutional limits.

4. Dissenting opinions

• Justices Byron White and William Rehnquist dissented.

• They argued that the Constitution did not explicitly guarantee a right to abortion and that the Court had improperly limited the authority of state legislatures to regulate abortion.

Extended the right of privacy to a woman’s decision to have an abortion

McDonald v. Chicago (2010)

1. Major facts and issues

• Chicago had strict restrictions on handgun ownership.

• Residents challenged the restrictions after the Court had recognized an individual Second Amendment right to possess firearms for self-defense in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008).

• Issue: Did the Second Amendment right apply to state and local governments?

2. Holding and majority reasoning

• The Court ruled that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for self-defense applies to the states.

• The majority concluded that the right is fundamental to the American system of ordered liberty and therefore applies to state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment.

3. Constitutional principle

• Second Amendment: Protects the right to keep and bear arms.

• Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause: Incorporates this right against state and local governments.

4. Dissenting opinions

• Justices Stevens and Breyer dissented, with Breyer joined by Ginsburg and Sotomayor.

• Stevens argued that the majority incorrectly treated the right as fundamental for incorporation.

• Breyer argued that the Constitution did not require applying the Second Amendment to the states in this way and that governments should retain flexibility to address gun violence.

The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for self-defense is applicable to the states

Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

1. Major facts and issues

• Black students were required to attend segregated public schools under state laws.

• Families challenged these policies, arguing that separating students by race violated the Constitution.

• Issue: Did racial segregation in public schools violate the Equal Protection Clause?

2. Holding and majority reasoning

• The Court unanimously ruled that racial segregation in public schools was unconstitutional.

• Even if school facilities were claimed to be equal, separating children by race created inequality and denied Black students equal educational opportunities.

3. Constitutional principle

• Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause: States must provide equal protection of the laws.

• The decision rejected the application of the separate but equal doctrine to public education.

4. Dissenting opinion

- There was no dissent. The decision was unanimous.

Race-based school segregation violates the equal protection clause

12. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010)

1. Major facts and issues

• Citizens United, a nonprofit organization, wanted to distribute a film critical of presidential candidate Hillary Clinton close to the 2008 Democratic primary.

• Federal law restricted certain corporate-funded election communications.

• Issue: Could the government prohibit corporations and unions from spending their own money independently to support or oppose political candidates?

2. Holding and majority reasoning

• The Court ruled that the government could not prohibit independent political expenditures by corporations and unions on that basis.

• The majority reasoned that independent political spending is a form of political expression protected by the First Amendment and that the government generally cannot restrict speech based on the speaker's corporate identity.

3. Constitutional principle

• First Amendment freedom of speech: Protects political expression, including independent expenditures by corporations and unions.

• The decision did not eliminate the distinction between independent expenditures and direct contributions to candidates.

4. Dissenting opinions

• Justice John Paul Stevens dissented, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor.

• Stevens argued that corporations are different from individual voters and that unrestricted corporate election spending could undermine democratic representation and the integrity of elections.

Political spending by corporations, associations, and labor unions is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment

Baker v. Carr (1961)

1. Major facts and issues

• Tennessee had not updated its legislative districts for decades, even though its population had shifted significantly.

• Voters argued that outdated districts gave some voters more representation than others.

• Issue: Could federal courts hear challenges to legislative districting under the Equal Protection Clause?

2. Holding and majority reasoning

• The Court ruled that the case could be heard by federal courts.

• The majority determined that challenges to legislative apportionment were not automatically political questions beyond the courts' authority. Courts could review claims that districting violated the Constitution.

3. Constitutional principle

• Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause: Provides a basis for challenging unequal representation.

• Judicial review: Federal courts can decide whether legislative districting violates the Constitution.

• The case paved the way for the one person, one vote principle, which was developed in later cases.

4. Dissenting opinions

• Justice Felix Frankfurter argued that the dispute was a political question that should be resolved by elected officials rather than federal courts.

• Justice John Marshall Harlan II also dissented, arguing that the Constitution did not provide a sufficient basis for the Court's intervention.

Opened the door to equal protection challenges to redistricting and the development of the “one person, one vote” doctrine by ruling that challenges to redistricting did not raise “political questions” that would keep federal courts from reviewing such challenges

Shaw v. Reno (1993)

1. Major facts and issues

• North Carolina created a congressional district with an unusual, elongated shape to increase Black representation, following concerns about compliance with the Voting Rights Act.

• White voters challenged the district, arguing that its design relied too heavily on race.

• Issue: Could a district drawn primarily on racial grounds violate the Equal Protection Clause?

2. Holding and majority reasoning

• The Court ruled that the voters' equal protection claim could proceed.

• The majority reasoned that an unusually shaped district could raise constitutional concerns if race was the predominant factor in drawing its boundaries and the use of race could not survive strict scrutiny.

3. Constitutional principle

• Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause: Government must justify racial classifications under strict scrutiny.

• Racial gerrymandering: Drawing district boundaries predominantly based on race can violate equal protection, even when the goal is to increase minority representation.

4. Dissenting opinions

• Justices Byron White, Harry Blackmun, and John Paul Stevens dissented.

• They argued that the Court should not have allowed the challenge to proceed on the basis of the district's unusual shape and that the state's efforts to comply with the Voting Rights Act deserved greater deference.

Legislative redistricting must be conscious of race and ensure compliance with the Voting Rights Act of 1965

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

1. Major facts and issues

• President John Adams appointed William Marbury as a justice of the peace near the end of his presidency, but Marbury's commission was not delivered before Thomas Jefferson took office.

• Marbury asked the Supreme Court to order Secretary of State James Madison to deliver the commission.

• Issue: Could the Supreme Court issue this order under the Judiciary Act of 1789, and was that law consistent with the Constitution?

2. Holding and majority reasoning

• The Court ruled that Marbury was entitled to his commission but that the Supreme Court could not issue the requested order under the relevant part of the Judiciary Act.

• Chief Justice John Marshall reasoned that the provision improperly expanded the Court's original jurisdiction beyond the limits established by Article III of the Constitution.

3. Constitutional principle

• Judicial review: Federal courts can declare laws or government actions unconstitutional.

• Supremacy of the Constitution: The Constitution takes precedence over conflicting ordinary laws.

• The decision established judicial review as a central power of the Supreme Court.

4. Dissenting opinion

- There was no dissent. The decision was unanimous.

Established the principle of judicial review empowering the Supreme Court to nullify an act of the legislative or executive branch that violates the Constitution