APPC supreme court cases

all required SC cases, and some that lead up to the cases

Background of Engel v. Vitale

A voluntary prayer was drafted in New York, students could choose not to participate. Engel and others (jewish parents) decided to sue the school district

Constitutional Issue in Engel v. Vitale

Establishment Clause

What is the establishment clause?

A clause in the first amendment that says the government is prohibited from establishing a religion

Decision in Engel v. Vitale

Court ruled that school prayer violated the Establishment Clause. The prayer was drafted by government officials and used in a government entity (public school), meaning it was established by the central government

Significance of Engel v. Vitale

This case is the first time the court ruled that schools could not sponsor or recite prayers

Summary of Engel v. Vitale

School sponsorship of religious activities violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment

Background of Wisconsin v. Yoder

Wisconsin implemented a law requiring attendance at school until the age of 16, and convicted 3 members of the Old Order Amish and Mennonite communities for not attending school. All students stopped attending after 8th grade, as it was under their religious beliefs.

Constitutional Issue of Wisconsin v. Yoder

Free Exercise Clause

Due Process Clause

What is the Free Exercise Clause?

A clause in the first amendment stating that the government is prohibited from making laws that limit an individual’s religious exercise

Decision in Wisconsin v. Yoder

The court ruled that the first amendment’s Free Exercise Clause prevented states from forcing respondents to send their children to school beyond the age of 14

Significance of Wisconsin v. Yoder

This case established the idea that an individual’s right to exercise their religious beliefs takes priority over state interest

Summary of Wisconsin v. Yoder

Forcing children to follow compulsory education that is against their individual religious beliefs violates the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment

Background of Schenck v U.S

The U.S implemented a mandatory draft for all men during WWI, and Schenck posted a pamphlet against the draft. He claimed that the draft was unconstitutional, but was convicted for violating the Espionage Act of 1917

Constitutional Issues in Schenck v. U.S

Freedom of Speech

The Espionage Act

What is the Espionage Act of 1917?

An act prohibiting obtaining information, recording pictures, or copying descriptions of information that could be considered a danger towards the national defense or considered an advantage of any foreign nation

Decision in Schenck v. U.S

The court ruled in favor of the U.S, saying that the government may limit rights in times of war. Under certain circumstances an individual’s freedom of speech can be limited if it creates a clear and present danger, and panic

Why was Schenck convicted under the Espionage Act?

The act made it a violation to obstruct military recruiting during times of war, which is what Schenck aimed to do. Additionally, Schenck at times used firey language that could be considered an attack on the nation

Significance of Schenck v. U.S

This case created the precedent that the government can limit ones free speech if, and only if, it is a clear and present danger to society

Summary of Schenck v. U.S

The government is able to limit an individual’s freedoms and rights if their actions are harmful to the nation and its citizens

Background of Tinker v. Des Moines

Five teenage students decided to wear 2-inch, black armbands to show their opposition to the Vietnam War. The school district made it so that any student wearing a black armband would be suspended, and 3 students were sent home. The students were not able to come home until they took off the armband.

Constitutional issue in Tinker v. Des Moines

Freedom of Speech

Decision in Tinker v. Des Moines

The court ruled in favor of the students, saying that the armbands were a silent and peaceful protest against the Vietnam War. The armbands were not disruptive to the students’ class and the education of the school

Significant of Tinker v. Des Moines

This case solidified the idea that rights are given to all citizens, even when the citizen is a student

Summary of Tinker v. Des Moines

Unless their actions are disruptive to the educational process of the school, a student’s Freedom of Speech cannot be limited by any administration or rule

Background of New York Times v. U.S

During the Vietnam War, Daniel Ellsberg illegally copied 7,000 classified documents and leaked the papers to press organizations. The papers contained information about the decision-making plans that U.S had in the war, and the contradictions between President LBJ’s actions and his public remarks. After two papers were published, President R. Nixon called for the NYT to stop publications, but they refused. The NYT was suspended from publishing the papers, but more corporations continued to publish them.

Constitutional Issue in New York Times v. U.S

Freedom of Speech

Decision in New York Times v. U.S

The court ruled in favor of the newspapers, deciding that the government cannot trump the press. The press has the right to discuss grievances about the government— the newspapers were not doing any harm to the national security of the nation

Significance of New York Times v. U.S

The case solidified that the press would forever be able to censure the government. The press is able to bear and expose the secrets the government holds.

Summary of New York Times v. U.S

The press is constitutionally given the freedom to discuss grievances and expose the secrecy of the government freely

Background of D.C v. Heller

D.C passed a law requiring a special license to own a handgun and it to be stored unloaded or with a trigger lock. After Heller applied for a license and was denied, he decided to sue

Constitutional Issue in D.C v. Heller

The right to bear arms

What amendment discussed The Right to Bear Arms?

The Second Amendment

Decision in D.C v. Heller

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Heller. It established the standard that the right to bear arms was an individual right. Although the government could place reasonable restrictions, overall, people maintain an individual right to possess a firearm

Why did D.C v. Heller not apply throughout the whole country?

The decision was made in D.C, which is a federal district. The ruling only applied within Washington D.C

Significance of D.C v. Heller

This case was the first time the SC analyzed the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, ruling that it is in fact an individual’s right to own a firearm

Summary of D.C v. Heller

The right to bear arms is an individual right

Background of McDonald v. Chicago

A band in Chicago required that anyone who wanted a handgun had to be registered. The registration process was lengthy, costly, and hard for people to get, but those without an unregistered weapon would bs committing a crime. McDonald and followers sued the government.

Constitutional Issue in McDonald v. Chicago

The right to bear arms

14th Amendment

Decision in McDonald v. Chicago

The court decided that the 14th amendment extends the 2nd Amendment’s right to bear arms to the states. The right to bear arms as an individual right now applied to every state in the nation

Significant of McDonald v. Chicago

This case significant because it established the idea that the right to self defense is an individual right and is applied to the states, not just the federal government.

What was not written into law, but discussed, in McDonald v. Chicago?

It was discussed that the government can restrict other weapons that are NOT handguns if, and only if, it is in the best interest of the whole nation

Summary of McDonald v. Chicago

The Second Amendment’s right to bear arms applies to states under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Background of Mapp v. Ohio

Three policer officers arrived at a woman’s house (Dollree Mapp) after receiving a tip that there was a fugitive hidden on the premises. Mapp refused to let the officers in. The officers entered without permission, showing Mapp a piece of paper and claiming that it was a warrant. Mapp was arrested with pornography charges after officers found indecent material in her house (which was illegal in Ohio, at the time). Mapp appealed her case to SCOTUS

Constitutional Issues in Mapp v. Ohio

The 14th Amendment

The 4th Amendment

What does the 4th Amendment protect U.S citizens from?

The amendment protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government

Decision in Mapp v. Ohio

The court decided to selectively include the Exclusionary Rule into federal courts. The reasoning behind this is that there was an unclear line of when to exclude illegally obtained evidence and when to include it.

What does the Exclusionary Rule prevent?

This rule prevents the government from using most evidence gathered (that was in violation of the U.S Constitution) in a court of law

Significance of Mapp v. Ohio

This case is significant because it was established that the right to self defense is an individual right that is applied to the states, not just the federal government

Summary of Mapp v. Ohio

The Second Amendment’s right to bear arms applies to all states under the Fourteenth Amendment

Background of Miranda v. Arizona

A man, Ernesto Mirando was arrested and accused of kidnapping and rape. Miranda signed a confession that vaguely reference his rights from the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. Miranda was found guilty, but appealed his case to SCOTUS, arguing that he did not know his legal rights

Constitutional issue in Miranda v. Arizona

The Fifth Amendment

What does the 5th Amendment protect criminal defendants from?

This amendment protects criminal defendants from having to testify if they may incriminate themselves through testimony (Double Jeopardy). This includes having the right to “please the fifth”

Decision in Miranda v. Arizona

The courts ruled that a person is subject to great psychological pressures in interrogation, and the every person needs to know their constitutional right to stay silent. Miranda was under pressure and decided to sign the confession, even when not knowing his given rights… his conviction was overruled

Significance of Miranda v. Arizona

This case is significant because it established the process is reading a convicted person’s Miranda Rights, creating a standard practice for police procedures and ensuring that people know their own individual rights

Summary of Miranda v. Arizona

Arresting police officers or law enforcement officials are required to read a suspect their Miranda Rights

Background of Gideon v. Wainwright

A man, Clarence E. Gideon, was convicted of breaking into a pool room and stealing alcohol and some change. Gideon did not have enough money to pay an attorney on court, and was therefore forced to be his own attorney. Gideon was found guilty, and while in prison, he started studying law and the U.S Constitution. After reading his rights in the 6th Amendment, Gideon petitioned SCOTUS to hear his case, arguing that his 6th Amendment right was violated

Constitutional issue in Gideon v. Wainwright

6th Amendment

Equal Protection Clause

What rights of criminal defendants are given in the 6th Amendment, in relation to Gideon v. Wainwright?

This amendment gives the right to a lawyer or attorney to defend oneself in court

What is the Equal Protection Clause?

This clause, found in the 14th Amendment, creates the precedent that the government may not deny any person (regardless of age, race, sexual orientation, or sex) equal protection of its governing laws

Decision in Gideon v. Wainwright

The court ruled that any person brought into court who is not able to pay for a lawyer, cannot be assured a fair trial. Therefore, all states need to appoint an attorney or lawyer to the accused for their trials in order to ensure that all people have their 6th Amendment right to an attorney

Significance of Gideon v. Wainwright

This case is significant because all states are now required to appoint an attorney to the accused who are not able to hire one themselves. This ensures that every person gets a fair trial

Summary of Gideon v. Wainwright

All states are required to appoint an attorney to the accused who are not able to hire one themselves.

Background of Plessy v. Ferguson

In New Orleans, a man named Homer Plessy deliberately entered a whites-only train car as a partially-black man. Plessy, however, was perceived as a white man, but only when he mentioned his race was he told to leave the train car. Plessy refused, and was arrested for violating the segregation laws implemented in New Orleans.

Constitutional Issue in Plessy v. Ferguson

Equal Protection Clause

Decision in Plessy v. Ferguson

The court ruled that segregation laws were not violating any constitutional tights, as long as there were equal facilities for both white and black people (ex. if there was a white-only bathroom, there would have to be a black-only restroom, too).

Significant of Plessy v. Ferguson

This case is significant because it created the idea of “Separate But Equal” and allowed Jim Crow laws to be implemented into federal statute

Summary of Plessy v. Ferguson

Segregation between races is constitutional as long as there are equal facilities for each race

Background of Brown v. Board of Education

Linda Brown, a young African-American student, attempted to gain admission into the Sumner School in Kansas, but her application was denied by the Board of Education of Topeka because of her race— The Sumner School was for white children only. Linda Brown’s parents and others decided to sue the BoE, and the case made its way up to the SC

Constitutional Issue in Brown v. Board of Education

Equal Protection Clause

Decision in Brown v. Board of Education

The court ruled unanimously in favor of Linda Brown, ruling that segregation in public schools violates the 14th Amendment, and has no place in the constitution. Access to education was a right in which should be available to everybody, and segregating schools denied that right

Significance of Brown v. Board of Education

This case is significant because it abolished the idea of “Separate but Equal” and got rid of the Jim Crow Laws that were in place for decades. Because of this case, all children were allowed to go to the same schools to have the same education. This case also created precedents for future Civil Rights cases

What decision did Brown v. Board of Education overrule?

Brown v. Board of Education overruled the decision in Plessy v. Ferguson, which stated that separate-but-equal facilities were constitutional

Summary of Brown v. Board of Education

The idea of “Separate but Equal”, along with segregation laws, has no place in the constitution

Background in Roe v. Wade

An unmarried woman in Texas, under the pseudonym Jane Roe, wanted to terminate her pregnancy. However, Texas law made it a felony to abort a child unless it was against the best interest of the mother (i.e. the mother or baby will be harmed).  Roe and her attorneys filed a lawsuit against Texas and the case made its way up to the SC.

Constitutional Issue in Roe v. Wade

Due Process Clause

The 9th Amendment

What does the 9th Amendment ensure?

This Amendment ensures that the rights of citizens will be protected whether these rights are listed or not. Rights that are not explicitly written have an opportunity for interpretation

Decision in Roe v. Wade

The SC ruled the Texas rule against abortion as unconstitutional, as it violated both the 9th and 14th Amendments.  As per the Due Process Clause, the government cannot deprive anyone of any life or liberties, and abortion is a right/liberty. 

What was the three-trimester precedent created in Roe v. Wade?

In the first trimester, states cannot regulate or prohibit abortions. 

In the second trimester, states can regulate, but not prohibit, abortions.  There is more danger to have an abortion for the mother

In the third trimester, states can regulate and prohibit abortion if under the best intent for the mother and baby. There is significant danger to go through with an abortion at this stage

Significance of Roe v. Wade

This case is significant because it created the precedent that all abortions are legal and that the Constitution protects the right to an abortion.  In the 5 decades Roe v. Wade affected, many women were able to have protected, safe, and sanitary abortions 

Summary of Roe v. Wade

The right to an abortion is protected under the Constitution, and no state or federal law can prohibit this right (under certain circumstances)

Background of McCulloch v. Maryland

In 1819, Maryland attempted to close a branch of the national bank by passing a law that forced all non-state banks to pay taxes.  James McCulloch, the administrative officer of the branch, refused to pay the tax.  Maryland sued McColloch, arguing that Maryland had the power to tax any business, and that Congress does not have the power to create a national bank

Constitutional Issues in McCulloch v. Maryland

Necessary and Proper Clause

Supremacy Clause

10th Amendment

What is the Necessary and Proper Clause?

This clause, as discussed in Article I in the Constitution, gives Congress the power to make all laws that are necessary and proper. If Congress has good reason for making a law, and it is constitutional, it can create the law.

What is the Supremacy Clause?

This Clause, as discussed in Article IV of the Constitution, establishes that federal law takes precedence over any state law or state constitution.

Where does the 10th Amendment give all power that is not enumerated in the Constitution?

The 10th Amendment gives the states all laws that are not specifically given to the federal government (or prohibited from the states).

Decision in McCulloch v. Maryland

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of the bank, determining that Congress had the power to create a national bank under the Necessary and Proper Clause.  The Court also established that Maryland could not tax the Bank of the United States, as the power to tax the national bank would interfere with Congress’s established power

Significance of McCulloch v. Maryland

This case is significant because it was the first case that discussed the power of the federal government under the Necessary and Proper Clause.  

Summary of McCulloch v. Maryland

Congress has the power to create a National Bank under the Necessary and Proper Clause, and states are not able to tax national entities based on the Supremacy Clause.

Background of Marbury v. Madison

William Marbury was appointed justice in Washington D.C., but did not receive his commission.  Marbury sued James Madison and asked the Supreme Court to issue a writ of mandamus to force Madison to deliver the commission

Constitutional Issues in Marbury v. Madison

Article III, Sect 2, Clause 2

Judiciary Act of 1789

What was established in Article III, Sect 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution?

This Clause established that “In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction.. [and] appellate jurisdiction…”

What did The Judiciary Act of 1789 establish, in relation of Marbury v. Madison?

The Judiciary Act of 1789 established that the SC was able to issue writs of mandamus to people that are holding office under the authority of the United States.

Decision in Marbury v. Madison

The court unanimously decided to not require Madison to deliver the commission to Marbury, saying that the Judiciary Act of 1789 conflicted with the Constitution because it gave the Supreme Court more authority than it was given in Article III.  The SC did not have the power to issue a writ of mandamus.

Significance of Marbury v. Madison

This case is significant because it established the idea of Judicial Review and the idea that The Supreme Court is the chief interpreter of the Constitution

Summary of Marbury v. Madison

The Judiciary act of 1789 violates the Supreme Court’s enumerated powers under Article III.  The Supreme Court has the same amount of power as the executive and legislative branches, and is the final authority for interpreting the Constitution.

Background of Baker v. Carr

In the late 1950s, the state of Tennessee was still using the same electoral districts from the 1900 census, never going through the redistricting process over the decades.  The population of the state changed substantially through the years, and urban cities, which were not as dense as they were in 1900, were underrepresented.  Charles Baker sued the state officials responsible for supervising the election, but the lower courts decided that the courts were not able to discuss matters that were about redistricting.

Constitutional Issue in Baker v. Carr

Article III, sec 2-  “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority…”

Decision in Baker v. Carr

The SC ruled in favor of Baker, deciding that the courts could take the case, as they have the authority to enforce the requirement of equal protection of the law against state officials.  The Court did not decide to force Tennessee's redistricting but gave the District Court the case

Significance of Baker v. Carr

This case is significant because it created the precedent that the Supreme Court (and any other court) can hear cases about redistricting.

Summary of Baker v. Carr

Federal courts have the authority to enforce equal protection of the law against state officials, therefore, the courts have the power to hear redistricting cases.