AP Exam Review: Must Know Court Cases

Background on Engel v. Vitale (1962)

A landmark Supreme Court case that ruled it unconstitutional for state officials to compose an official school prayer and encourage its recitation in public schools, as it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The case arose when New York schools promoted a voluntary morning prayer, leading to a legal challenge. The case resulted in a ruling of 6-1 by the Supreme Court because implementing prayer in public schools is unconstitutional, reflecting upon the idea of separation of church and state. This case set a significant precedent regarding the role of religion in public education and government institutions.

Constitutional Principle of Engel v. Vitale (1962)

First Amendment - Freedom of Religion, Establishment Clause

==> Meant to not allow the government to show any favoritism towards a particular religion(s) or establish anything in regards to religion. This principle ensures that government remains neutral in religious matters, preventing endorsements or support for any religious practices.

Background on Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)

A Supreme Court case that addressed the rights of Amish parents to refuse compulsory schooling for their children beyond the eighth grade, citing their religious beliefs. The Court held that forcing school attendance would violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, affirming parental rights in the context of religious freedom. The case resulted in a ruling of 7-0, in which two judges chose not to participate in, by the Supreme Court because it recognized the importance of religious beliefs in family decisions and the limits of state intervention in education.

Constitutional Principle of Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)

First Amendment - Freedom of Religion, Free Exercise Clause

==> This clause protects individuals' rights to practice their religion without government interference, allowing parents to make educational choices based on their beliefs.

==> 14th amendment, Due Process was implemented afterwards to reinforce state laws and ensure that states uphold the same protections of religious freedom against infringement.

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

A landmark Supreme Court case that addressed the rights of students to express themselves through symbolic speech in public schools, specifically in relation to wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War. The Court ruled that students do not lose their First Amendment rights at the school gate, establishing the precedent that student expression is protected as long as it does not disrupt the educational environment. The case resulted in a ruling of 7-2 decision by the Supreme Court because they recognized that the armbands meant no harm but were a representation of pure speech and political expression, affirming the importance of free speech rights for students in educational settings.

Constitutional Principle of Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)

First Amendment - Rights to Free Speech and Expression

==> This principle protects students' rights to engage in symbolic speech in school as long as it does not disrupt the educational process, affirming that they retain their First Amendment rights while on school grounds.

Background on New York Times Co. v. United States (1991)

A pivotal Supreme Court case concerning the First Amendment rights of freedom of the press, which dealt with the government's attempt to prevent the publication of classified documents known as the Pentagon Papers. The Court ruled that prior restraint on publications is unconstitutional, emphasizing the importance of a free press in a democratic society. It revolved around the “Pentagon Papers” which are external documents detailing the United States political and military involvement in Vietnam, highlighting the importance of transparency and accountability in government actions. It revealed truths about the Vietnam War and disagreements with the Nixon administration. This led Nixon administration to file a lawsuit but lost due to prior restraint and people’s rights to freely express their opinions as long as it’s appropriate. Thus, resulting in a 6-3 decision by the court case in which the allowed the continuation of publications about the government contrast ONLY if they’re failing to follow through the necessary tasks of a government.

Constitutional Principle of New York Times Co. v. United States (1991)

First Amendment - Freedom to Press (prior restraint)

==> This principle affirms the right of the press to publish information without government interference, establishing that prior restraint is unconstitutional except under extraordinary circumstances.

Background on Schenck v. United States (1919)

A significant Supreme Court case that established the "clear and present danger" test, addressing the limits of free speech under the First Amendment. It involved Charles Schenck, who was charged for distributing anti-draft pamphlets during World War I, leading the Court to uphold his conviction on the grounds that his actions posed a threat to national security. Information about war efforts were being shared which was deemed a danger during wartime, thus limiting speech that could compromise the nation's military efforts. The Supreme Court ruled at a 9-0 unanimous decision upholding the conviction, stating that free speech is not absolute and can be restricted during wartime. This case defined the limits of free speech, particularly in wartime, emphasizing that speech that poses a clear and present danger to national security can be restricted.

Constitutional Principle of Schenck v. United States (1919)

First Amendment - Rights to Freedom of Speech - clear and present danger test

==> This principle establishes that free speech is not absolute and can be limited when it poses a clear and present danger to national security, particularly during wartime.

Background on McDonald v. Chicago (2010)

A landmark Supreme Court case that incorporated the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. It involved a challenge to Chicago's handgun ban, with the Court ruling that the right to bear arms for self-defense is fundamental. Thus, the case resulting in a 5-4 decision by the Supreme Court where they concluded that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments, thereby reaffirming individual rights to firearm ownership. This idea was also reinforced by the 14th amendment Due Process Clayse, which ensures that states cannot infringe upon the fundamental rights of individuals.

Constitutional Principle of McDonald v. Chicago (2010)

Second Amendment - Right to Bear Arms - incorporated to states about gun rights/control + also followed by the incorporation of the 14th amendment due process clause

==> This principle affirms that the Second Amendment, which protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, is applicable to state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, ensuring that fundamental rights cannot be violated by states.

Background on Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

A significant Supreme Court case that established the right to counsel for defendants in criminal cases under the Sixth Amendment, requiring states to provide legal representation to those who cannot afford an attorney. This landmark ruling expanded the rights of the accused and reinforced the principle of fair trial in the United States. This case arose when Clarence Earl Gideon was charged with a felony and denied a court-appointed attorney. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the right to counsel is a fundamental right essential to a fair trial. Therefore, resulting in a unanimous 9-0 decision by the Supreme Court in which it guarantees anyone in trial (whether the defendant or plaintiff) has the right to legal representation.

Constitutional Principle of Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

Sixth Amendment - Right to Counsel - reinforced for state courts ensuring legal representation for defendants, affirming fair trial rights. + incorporation of 14th amendment due process clause

==> This principle ensures that the right to legal counsel is a fundamental right that must be provided to defendants in state courts, reinforcing the fair trial guarantees under the Sixth Amendment and applied through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause.

Background on Roe v. Wade (1973)

A landmark Supreme Court case that established a woman's legal right to have an abortion under the right to privacy, recognized through the Fourteenth Amendment. This ruling created a framework for regulating abortion access, balancing a woman's right to choose with the state's interests in protecting prenatal life. The case came about when Roe specifically sued Henry Wade as she argued that Texas laws were a violation to women’s constitutional rights to privacy. The case was issued by the Supreme Court in a 7-2 decision, which concluded that the right to privacy extends to a woman's decision to have an abortion, thus striking down many state laws that restricted access to abortion. This forced states, specifically Texas state, to change their laws to avoid being a violation to people’s rights to privacy—this case being women.

Constitutional Principle of Roe v. Wade (1973)

Fourteenth Amendment - Right to Privacy - protects a woman's autonomy in reproductive choices, balancing individual rights with state interests.

==> This principle asserts that the right to privacy, as recognized in the Fourteenth Amendment, includes a woman's right to choose an abortion, ensuring that government does not unduly interfere with personal reproductive decisions.

==> Protects women’s rights to choose to have an abortion if they want and believe it’s what’s right for themselves

Background on Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

A pivotal Supreme Court case that declared racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional, overturning the "separate but equal" doctrine established in Plessy v. Ferguson. This case was a significant victory for the Civil Rights Movement, as it affirmed that segregated schools were inherently unequal, thus advancing the cause of educational equity. Thus, the court case ruled an unanimous decision of 9-0 where it ruled that racial segregation in public schools is unconstitutional and unjust, as the idea of pursuing “separate but equal” educational facilities wasn’t truly equal, fundamentally denying Black children equal educational opportunities. By overturning the idea of “separate but equal” it would reinforce actually pursuing equality among all people, regardless of their race.

Constitutional Principle of Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

14th Amendment, Equal Protection Clause - prohibits racial segregation in public education, ensuring all students have equal access to educational opportunities.

==> This principle affirms that the government cannot deny any individual equal protection under the law, specifically in the context of public education, promoting racial equality and dismantling systemic discrimination.

Background on Marbury v. Madison (1803)

The landmark Supreme Court case that established the principle of judicial review, allowing the Court to invalidate laws that conflict with the Constitution. This case arose when William Marbury petitioned the Court for a writ of mandamus to compel Secretary of State James Madison to deliver his commission as a justice of the peace. The case was issued an opinion by Chief Justice John Marshall, who declared that the Court had the power to review acts of Congress and determine their constitutionality, thus reinforcing the judiciary's role in upholding the Constitution. This case established the judiciary's authority to review legislative and executive actions, ensuring that laws align with the Constitution. In a 4-2 decision by the Supreme Court, they ruled that Marbury had a right to his commission, but the Court could not grant the writ in regards to Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 interfered with Article III, Section 2 of the US Constitution. The court believed that Madison’s refusal to deliver the commission was illegal even though Madison was exactly ordered to hand over Marbury’s commission via writ of mandamus. Thus, the result of the court case ruled an establishment of judicial review, giving the Supreme Court the authority to strike down any law that makes a violation towards the constitution. 

Constitutional Principle of Marbury v. Madison (1803)

Judicial Review - the authority of the Supreme Court to invalidate laws or actions that are unconstitutional, ensuring that all legislative and executive actions align with the Constitution.

==> This principle establishes the judiciary as a check on the legislative and executive branches, safeguarding the Constitution's supremacy in the American legal system.

Background on McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

The Supreme Court case that confirmed Congress's implied powers under the Necessary and Proper Clause, allowing for a national bank, and asserting that states cannot tax federal institutions. In 1816, the Congress temporarily used the Second Bank of the US to endure such reasons. Though, in many cases, the Second Bank of the US isn’t used as much because it is a federally chartered bank. While Maryland (the state) didn’t really like the Second Bank of the US nor support the national bank, it led Maryland to pass a legislation in 1818 to impose taxes on the bank as well as anyone working for the bank. However, McCulloch denied to pay the taxes Maryland enforced, leading Maryland to sue McCulloch for claiming that Congress didn’t have the constitutional power to form a national bank along with the states having the power to tax institutions at any time. The court case then resulted in a 7-0 decision upholding the constitutionality of the national bank and denying states the power to tax federal entities through the Necessary and Proper Clause. This landmark case established that Congress has implied powers, reinforcing federal authority over state actions regarding federal entities.

Constitutional Principle of McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

Implied Powers - the authority of Congress to create laws and institutions not explicitly outlined in the Constitution, allowing for flexibility in governance to adapt to changing needs. This principle confirms federal supremacy over state actions, particularly regarding federal institutions.

==> This clause allows Congress to expand its authority beyond what is explicitly stated in the Constitution, empowering it to adapt to new challenges and responsibilities.

Necessary and Proper Clause - Enumerated Powers

==> the clause in the Constitution that grants Congress the power to pass all laws necessary and proper for carrying out its enumerated powers, thereby enabling the federal government to function effectively.

Supremacy Clause

==> the constitutional provision stating that federal law takes precedence over state law, ensuring a unified legal framework across the United States.

Background on United States v. Lopez (1995)

The Supreme Court case that limited Congress's power under the Commerce Clause by ruling that the Gun-Free School Zones Act exceeded federal authority, as it did not pertain to interstate commerce. This decision marked a significant moment in affirming state sovereignty and the boundaries of federal legislative power. The situation came about in 1992 when a 12th grade high school student, Alfonzo Lopez, intentionally brought a weapon into his San Antonio, Texas high school. Due to the immediate threat he was brought onto school grounds simply for carrying a weapon (or in this case a gun) into school caused Lopez to be charged and arrested under Texas law with firearm possession on school grounds. The following day, however, the state’s charges on Alfonzo Lopez were removed after the federal agents charged Lopez instead for a violation to the federal criminal statute. This was otherwise known as the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 in which banned “any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that they know…is a school zone.” Thus, this determined Lopez to be guilty of this bench trial and was immediately sentenced to six months of jail time and two years of supervised release. Though, due to arguments that came about on both sides, it led for the situation to be handled within the US Supreme Court. The court case concluded with a ruling of a 5-4 decision in which the court agreed that the possession of a gun in a local school zone wasn’t an appropriate behavior and thus substantially affects interstate commerce. This case limited Congress's authority under the Commerce Clause by ruling that firearms in school zones do not significantly affect interstate commerce, reinforcing state powers.

Constitutional Principle for United States v. Lopez (1995)

Commerce Clause (A.I, Section 8) - Reinforce ideas on federalism and the separation of powers between the federal and state governments

==> the decision limited Congress's power to regulate local activities, emphasizing boundaries under the Commerce Clause.

**Limits on Commerce Clause authority - the principle impacting Congress's ability to regulate activities that do not substantially affect interstate commerce. The case established that not all issues can be regulated under the Commerce Clause, reinforcing state powers.

Background on Baker v. Carr (1961)

In Baker v. Carr (1961), the Supreme Court addressed the issue of legislative redistricting and its relationship to the Equal Protection Clause. This case established the principle of "one person, one vote," ensuring that electoral districts are of roughly equal population to guarantee fair representation. The case came about when resident of Tennessee, Charles Baker, alongside other Tennessee citizens reported a lawsuit against the Secretary of State of Tennessee, Joe Carr. They had accused Carr of violating the 1901 law that was created to apportion the seats for the state’s General Assembly to be neglected. Baker had argued that the legislative districts of Tennessee needed to be redrawn as they hadn’t been worked with since 1901 and have only had major population shifts from rural to urban areas. Baker claimed that this prevented Tennessee from economically growing significantly and population shifts within the state. Thus, as a result of the lack of reapportionment it led to an unfair imbalance in representation because rural districts consisted of greater political power than urban districts. Though Baker had argued against this, the states “defended” themselves by stating that redistricting was only a “political question” in which the courts had no power to interfere with. These issues within the case led to there being a Supreme court case. The case concluded at a ruling f 6-2 decision by the Supreme Court. Baker v. Carr addressed legislative redistricting and the Equal Protection Clause, leading to the "one person, one vote" principle.

Constitutional Principle of Baker v. Carr (1961)

14th amendment, Equal Protection Clause - Federal Court ability to review issues & Right to Equal Representation

==> This decision established that federal courts have the authority to review state legislative redistricting cases, reinforcing the importance of equal representation in voting.

==> Helped expand the idea of “one person, one vote” to protect minority groups voting rights

==> The principle of "one person, one vote" mandates that electoral districts must be roughly equal in population, ensuring fair representation.

Background on Shaw v. Reno (1993)

The case involved a challenge to a North Carolina congressional redistricting plan that created a majority-black district. The plaintiffs argued that the redistricting was racially discriminatory and violated the Equal Protection Clause. The situation was issued after the 1990 census, when North Carolina was was required to create a new redistricting place for congressional districts to illustrate population changes and/or growth. Once the state had sent their plan, the US Department of Justice immediately rejected it. The reason for its rejection was because of the singular-majority Black district they included. Thus, the state of North Carolina altered the plan by redrawing the map with a second majority Black district. This grouped Black voters in an odd manner as the map had shaped the groups unclearly. In fact, one of these districts was wider than the interstate road as it stretched over 160 miles apart (in parts too). This led five North Carolina residents alongside Ruth Shaw (who formed the group) to challenge and sue the constitutionality of these unusually shaped districts, arguing that this only allowed for an additional Black representative in the election. Shaw claimed that the new redistricting plan was racially gerrymandered and simply violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Thus, once a three-judge District Court ruled that there was failure in constitutionally stating a claim, the resident appealed and led the situation to be overseen under the Supreme Court. This concluded in a ruling of 5-4 in which the court decided that though the state of North Carolina reapportionment plan was racially “normal” in their eyes, the new plan and its district shape was enough to suggest that it constituted an effort other than separate voters into different districts based on their race. The case addressed issues of racial gerrymandering and the Equal Protection Clause, leading to a Supreme Court ruling that districts drawn primarily based on race may violate the Constitution.

Constitutional Principle of Shaw v. Reno (1993)

14th amendment, Equal Protection Clause - Racial Gerrymandering & Reapportionment (strict scrutiny applied onto racial gerrymandering)

==> The constitutional principle of Shaw v. Reno (1993) addressed racial gerrymandering, ruling that redistricting based on race must be held to a standard of strict scrutiny to ensure equal protection under the law.

Background on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010)

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) addressed the issue of campaign finance, specifically ruling that corporations and unions could spend unlimited money on political campaigns under the First Amendment. The case came about when Citizens United, a nonprofit corporation, challenged the federal law prohibiting independent expenditures for political advocacy. It was found that the US District Court for the District of Columbia tended to avoid adding the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) to its film Hillary: The Movie because it communicated several impressions debating if Senator Hilary Rodham Clinton would make for a good president or not. There were disagreements by the United States District which led for a court case to be held in regards to the movie as it was a form of free expression of protest, trying to inform about an unconstitutional act. Thus, the case resulting in a 5-4 unanimous decision, ruling in favor of the Citizens United and determined that political spending is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment, leading to significant implications for campaign finance in the United States.

Constitutional Principle of Citizens United v. FEC (2010)

First Amendment - Free Speech

==> This ruling reinforced the notion that political spending is a form of protected speech, enabling corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts on political campaigns.

==> The Supreme Court's decision established that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited, as it violates free speech protections under the First Amendment.

Selective Incorporation

The legal doctrine that applies the protections of the Bill of Rights to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, ensuring that states cannot infringe on individual rights.

Example Court cases involving Selective Incorporation

Gideon v. Wainwright (right to counsel), Gitlow v. New York, Mapp v. Ohio (exclusionary rule), Miranda v. Arizona , McDonald v. Chicago (2nd amendment), Engel v. Vitale…etc

==> These court cases demonstrate how the Supreme Court greatly included certain rights from the BOR into the states, ensuring that these protections apply to both federal and state governments and individuals, reflecting the principle of national supremacy in protecting civil liberties.