AP Gov.: Required SCOTUS Cases

Tinker v. Des Moines

Dealt with the free speech clause of the 1st amendment. Two students wore black armbands to school in protest of the Vietnam War. The school had made a rule that punished those who refused to take off the arm band with suspension. The Supreme Court held that the students have a right to symbolic speech under the 1st amendment and that the rule prohibiting the armbands was unconstitutional.

Schenck v. United States

A Case dealing with the free speech clause of the 1st amendment. A socialist individual was distributing literature speaking out against the government and its participation in the First World War. The pamphlets called for individual to avoid the draft. The court determined that speech such as this created a "clear or present danger" is not protected.

Engel v. Vitale

Dealt with the establishment clause of the 1st amendment. In the state of New York, a law was passed that made a voluntary recitation of a prayer occur at the beginning of the school day. The Supreme Court held that this law was unconstitutional arguing that it breached the wall between church and state.

Brown v. Board of Education

Dealt with the 14th amendment. Students in Kansas were denied entry to certain public schools based upon race. The Supreme Court held that separate but equal is not Constitutional, overturning Plessy v. Ferguson and allowing for the desegregation of public schools.

Wisconsin v. Yoder

Dealt with the free exercise clause of the 1st amendment. Out of adherence to their religious beliefs, a group of Amish families disobeyed a state law requiring their children to attend school until they were 16. The Supreme Court held that the law requiring this of the Amish was unconstitutional, stating that the free exercise clause protects this practice by the Amish

McDonald v. Chicago

Dealt with the second amendment. A city law was passed that made it extremely difficult to acquire a gun under the increased regulations and oversight from the city government. The Supreme Court held that the law was unconstitutional and incorporated individual gun ownership to the states.

Gideon v. Wainwright

Incorporated the right to counsel under the 6th amendment. A man was arrested for an alleged robbery. He could not afford a lawyer and was not provided one by the government. The state argued that its laws do not require their government to provide a lawyer. The Supreme Court held that the law was unconstitutional and that an individual must have a counsel even if he cannot afford one in felony cases such as this.

Marbury v. Madison

Established the Supreme Court's power of Judicial Review. An appointee to the federal court system sued the secretary of state for having refused to deliver his commission and officially give him the position. In the end the appointee did not get his position because the law he used to sue the secretary, the Judiciary Act of 1789, was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

McCulloch v. Maryland

Dealt with the Necessary and Proper Clause and the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. In this case, a state sued the National Bank over refusing to pay state taxes and also argued that the Bank was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court held that the Bank was constitutional under Article 1, Section 8. Additionally, the court determined that the Bank did not have to pay the tax as it was part of the federal government and exempt from state regulation.

Baker v. Carr

Dealt with malapportionment within legislative districts. An individual sued the state of Tennessee arguing that his district was underrepresented and therefore violated his 14th amendment right to equal protection. The Court held in favor of the individual, allowing courts to adjudicate over issues related to districting at the state level. Ultimately, the decision led to the concept of one person, one vote.

NYT v. U.S.

Dealt with the conflict between national security and the free speech/press clause of the 1st amendment. The media began publishing classified information about the Vietnam War. The government sued arguing that this violated the Espionage Act, a law prohibiting free speech/press that threatened national security. The Court held that the publishing of the classified material was protected under the 1st amendment. They stated that the government cannot use prior restraint, or any restraint, to limit free press unless there is a "heavy burden" justifying the limiting of free speech/press.

U.S. v. Lopez

Dealt with states rights and the Commerce Clause of Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. In this case, a student was punished under a federal law punishing guns in school zones. The student fought the conviction arguing that the federal government could not constitutionally enforce a law over state school systems. The government argued that it had this right under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held in favor of the student, stating that the law was too far reaching and an extreme interpretation of the Commerce Clause. This ultimately was a win for states' rights proponents (Devolution).

Shaw v. Reno

Dealt with racial gerrymandering. In the state of North Carolina, districts were made on racial lines. This was done to ensure that two districts would have African American representatives. Residents of the state sued arguing that the Constitution was "color blind" and that this redistricting violated their 14th amendment right to equal protection under the law. The Supreme Court held that the residents' 14th amendment rights were violated and that racial gerrymandering was unconstitutional.

Citizens United v. FEC

Dealt with the campaign process and created the Super-PAC. In this case, a PAC produced a film critiquing a candidate right before a primary election. Under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), the Federal Elections Committee determined that this film could not be showed. The PAC sued. The Supreme Court held in favor of the PAC, arguing that political speech in the form of campaign financing was protected and could not be limited. This made major portions of the BCRA unconstitutional, allowing for the creation of Super-PACS to support candidates financially during a campaign.