​​AP GOV SCOTUS Cases

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

Background information: Jefferson directed his secretary of state, James Madison, to withhold the commission for Marbury's "Midnight Appointment" (John Adams), and William Marbury petitioned the Supreme Court to issue a writ of mandamus to compel Madison to act.

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

Constitutional question/application:

Do the plaintiffs have a right to receive their commissions?

Can they sue for their commissions in court?

Does the Supreme Court have the authority to order the delivery of their commissions?

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

Court's reasoning: the Court was unable to grant a writ of mandamus (Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 conflicted with Article III Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution)

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

Precedent set: Judicial review - "review by the US Supreme Court of the constitutional validity of a legislative act"

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

Background information: James W. McCulloch, the cashier of the Baltimore branch of the bank, refused to pay the tax (issued by Maryland to pay for the 2nd BUS). The state appeals court held that the Second Bank was unconstitutional because the Constitution did not provide a textual commitment for the federal government to charter a bank.

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

Constitutional question/application:

Did Congress have the authority to establish the bank?

Did the Maryland law unconstitutionally interfere with congressional powers?

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

Court's reasoning:

Chief Justice Marshall noted that Congress possessed powers not explicitly outlined in the U.S. Constitution (Necessary and Proper Clause [Art. I, Section 8])

States retained the power of taxation but the Constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof are supreme and cannot be controlled by the states

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

Precedent set: the Court held that Congress had the power to incorporate the bank and that Maryland could not tax instruments of the national government employed in the execution of constitutional powers.

Schenck v. United States (1919)

Background information: Charles Schenck and Elizabeth Baer mailed fliers to draftees during WWI urging them to protest the draft peacefully

Schenck v. United States (1919)

Constitutional question/application:

Freedom of Speech (Amendment I) [Did Schenck's conviction under the Espionage Act for criticizing the draft violate his First Amendment right to freedom of speech?]

Schenck v. United States (1919)

Court's reasoning: Oliver Wendel Holmes wrote in the opinion that such speech was not protected during wartime because it would create a clear and present danger (courts owed greater deference to the government during wartime, even when constitutional rights were at stake)

Schenck v. United States (1919)

Precedent set: Restriction of freedom of speech during wartime should it pose a "clear and present danger"

Brown v. Board (1954)

Background information: Consolidation of cases arising in Kansas, South Carolina, Virginia, Delaware, and Washington D.C. relating to the segregation of public schools on the basis of race. African American students had been denied admittance to certain public schools based on laws allowing public education to be segregated by race.

Brown v. Board (1954)

Constitutional question/application: segregation violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

Brown v. Board (1954)

Court's reasoning: The Court reasoned that the segregation of public education based on race instilled a sense of inferiority that had a hugely detrimental effect on the education and personal growth of African American children.

Brown v. Board (1954)

Precedent set: Separate but equal educational facilities for racial minorities is inherently unequal violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

Baker v. Carr (1962)

Background information: Charles W. Baker and other Tennessee citizens alleged that a 1901 law designed to apportion the seats for the state's General Assembly was virtually ignored.

Baker v. Carr (1962)

Constitutional question/application: Did the Supreme Court have jurisdiction over questions of legislative apportionment?

Baker v. Carr (1962)

Court's reasoning: Justice Brennan provided past examples in which the Court had intervened to correct constitutional violations in matters pertaining to state administration and the officers through whom state affairs are conducted. Brennan concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection issues which Baker and others raised in this case merited judicial evaluation.

Baker v. Carr (1962)

Precedent set: the Court held that there were no such questions to be answered in this case and that legislative apportionment was a justiciable (subject to trial in a court of law) issue.

Engel v. Vitale (1962)

Background information: The New York State Board of Regents authorized a short, voluntary prayer for recitation at the start of each school day. A group of organizations joined forces in challenging the prayer

Engel v. Vitale (1962)

Constitutional question/application: Does the reading of a nondenominational prayer at the start of the school day violate the "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment?

Engel v. Vitale (1962)

Court's reasoning: In an opinion authored by Hugo L. Black, the Court held that respondent's decision to use its school system to facilitate recitation of the official prayer violated the Establishment Clause. Specifically, the policy breached the constitutional wall of separation between church and state.

Engel v. Vitale (1962)

Precedent set: The state cannot hold prayers in public schools, even if participation is not required and the prayer is not tied to a particular religion.

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

Background information: Clarence Earl Gideon was charged in Florida state court with felony breaking and entering. Gideon represented himself in trial, was found guilty, and sentenced to five years in prison. Gideon filed a habeas corpus petition in the Florida Supreme Court, arguing that the trial court's decision violated his constitutional right to be represented by counsel.

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

Constitutional question/application: Does the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel in criminal cases extend to felony defendants in state courts?

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

Court's reasoning: The Court reasoned that the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of counsel is a fundamental and essential right made obligatory upon the states by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

Precedent set: The Sixth Amendment's guarantee of a right to the assistance of counsel applies to criminal defendants in state court by way of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Tinker v. Des Moines... (1969)

Background information: On December 16, Mary Beth Tinker and Christopher Eckhardt wore their armbands to school (to support a Vietnam truce) and were sent home. John Tinker did the same with the same result. The students did not return to school until after New Year's Day, the planned end of the protest.

Tinker v. Des Moines... (1969)

Constitutional question/application: Does a prohibition against the wearing of armbands in public school, as a form of symbolic protest, violate the students' freedom of speech protections guaranteed by the First Amendment?

Tinker v. Des Moines... (1969)

Court's reasoning: In order to justify the suppression of speech, the school officials must be able to prove that the conduct in question would "materially and substantially interfere" with the operation of the school.

Tinker v. Des Moines... (1969)

Precedent set: The Supreme Court held that the armbands represented pure speech that is entirely separate from the actions or conduct of those participating in it.

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

Background information: Nixon Administration attempted to prevent the NYT and the Washington Post from publishing materials belonging to a classified Defense Department study regarding the history of the United States activities in Vietnam.

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

Constitutional question/application: Did the Nixon administration's efforts to prevent the publication of what it termed "classified information" violate the First Amendment?

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

Court's reasoning: Justice Brennan reasoned that since publication would not cause an inevitable, direct, and immediate event imperiling the safety of American forces, prior restraint was unjustified.

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

Precedent set: The vague word "security" should not be used "to abrogate the fundamental law embodied in the First Amendment."

Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)

Background information: Three parents refused (Jonas Yoder and Wallace Miller, both members of the Old Order Amish religion, and Adin Yutzy, a member of the Conservative Amish Mennonite Church) to send their children to such schools after the eighth grade, arguing that high school attendance was contrary to their religious beliefs.

Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)

Constitutional question/application: Did Wisconsin's requirement that all parents send their children to school at least until age 16 violate the First Amendment by criminalizing the conduct of parents who refused to send their children to school for religious reasons?

Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)

Court's reasoning: The Court held that individual's interests in the free exercise of religion under the First Amendment outweighed the State's interests in compelling school attendance beyond the eighth grade.

Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)

Precedent set: The Court found that the values and programs of secondary school were "in sharp conflict with the fundamental mode of life mandated by the Amish religion," and that an additional one or two years of high school would not produce the benefits of public education cited by Wisconsin to justify the law.

Roe v. Wade (1973)

Background information: Jane Roe, in 1970, filed a lawsuit against Henry Wade, the district attorney of Dallas County, Texas, where she resided, challenging a Texas law making abortion illegal except by a doctor's orders to save a woman's life.

Roe v. Wade (1973)

Constitutional question/application: Does the Constitution recognize a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy by abortion?

Roe v. Wade (1973)

Court's reasoning: The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects against state action the right to privacy, and a woman's right to choose to have an abortion falls within that right to privacy.

Roe v. Wade (1973)

Precedent set: In the first trimester of pregnancy, the state may not regulate the abortion decision; only the pregnant woman and her attending physician can make that decision. In the second trimester, the state may impose regulations on abortion that are reasonably related to maternal health. In the third trimester, once the fetus reaches the point of "viability," a state may regulate abortions or prohibit them entirely, so long as the laws contain exceptions for cases when abortion is necessary to save the life or health of the mother.

Shaw v. Reno (1933)

Background information: North Carolina submitted a plan creating two black-majority districts. One of these districts was, in parts, no wider than the interstate road along which it stretched. Five North Carolina residents challenged the constitutionality of this unusually shaped district, alleging that its only purpose was to secure the election of additional black representatives.

Shaw v. Reno (1933)

Constitutional question/application: Did the North Carolina residents' claim, the State created a racially gerrymandered district, raise a valid constitutional issue under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause?

Shaw v. Reno (1933)

Court's reasoning: The Court held that although North Carolina's reapportionment plan was racially neutral on its face, the resulting district shape was bizarre enough to suggest that it constituted an effort to separate voters into different districts based on race

Shaw v. Reno (1933)

Precedent set: The Supreme Court agreed, ruling that race cannot be the predominant factor in creating districts

U.S. v. Lopez (1995)

Background information: Alfonzo Lopez, a 12th grade high school student, carried a concealed weapon into his San Antonio, Texas high school. He was charged under Texas law with firearm possession on school premises. The next day, the state charges were dismissed after federal agents charged Lopez with violating a federal criminal statute, the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990.

U.S. v. Lopez (1995)

Constitutional question/application: Is the 1990 Gun-Free School Zones Act, forbidding individuals from knowingly carrying a gun in a school zone, unconstitutional because it exceeds the power of Congress to legislate under the Commerce Clause?

U.S. v. Lopez (1995)

Court's reasoning: The possession of a gun in a local school zone is not an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, have a substantial effect on interstate commerce.

U.S. v. Lopez (1995)

Precedent set: Congress may not utilize Commerce Clause to make firearm possession in a school zone a federal crime

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010)

Background information: Citizens United argued that the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act [BCRA] violated the First Amendment on its face and when applied to "The Movie" (media expressing opinions about whether Hillary Clinton would make a good president)

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010)

Constitutional question/application: The 1st Amendment - Right To Free Speech

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010)

Court's reasoning: The majority maintained that political speech is indispensable to a democracy, which is no less true because the speech comes from a corporation.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010)

Precedent set: The majority held that under the First Amendment corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited

McDonald v. Chicago (2010)

Background information: Plaintiff (McDonald) argued that regulations on gun control in Chicago violated the 14th Amendment

McDonald v. Chicago (2010)

Constitutional question/application: Does the Second Amendment apply to the states because it is incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment's Privileges and Immunities or Due Process clauses and thereby made applicable to the states?

McDonald v. Chicago (2010)

Court's reasoning: the Court reasoned that rights that are "fundamental to the Nation's scheme of ordered liberty" or "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition" are appropriately applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.

McDonald v. Chicago (2010)

Precedent set: The Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense applicable to the states.