AP Gov SCOTUS Cases

Marbury vs. Madison (1803)

Marbury vs. Madison (1803)

Facts: To dilute Jefferson’s power before he took office, the federalist-saturated Congress created a bunch of new courts a judgeships and Adams packed these new establishments full of federalist judges. When Jefferson took office, he ordered to leave the undelivered commissions to these judges undelivered. One of the judges who did not receive his commission sued and wanted the Supreme Court to make Jefferson pay him.

Principle: The jurisdiction clauses in Article 3 of the Constitution and judicial review

Argument Questions:

• Does the judge have the legal right to his commission?

• If yes, is the court-order writ of mandamus the proper legal means to get it?

• If yes, does the Court have the authority to grant the writ?

Decision: Yes, the judge did have the right to his commission. Yes, the writ of mandamus is the proper legal means to get it. No, the court does not have the right to grant the writ. The Judiciary Act of 1789 gave the court the right to issue the writ, but the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court said that Article 13 of the act conflicted with the Constitution.

McCulloch vs. Maryland (1819)

A vs. B Argument:

• A - establishment of a national bank was unconstitutional because Article 1, Section 8 did not give Congress the power to create a bank

• B - the Necessary and Proper Clause supported the creation of a bank

Decision: The bank was constitutional because of the Necessary and Proper Clause. Federal laws have supremacy over state laws.

United States vs. Lopez (1995)

Facts: A high school senior carried a pistol and bullets to school and was subsequently arrested because, under Texas law, it was illegal to have a gun on school property. The day after, all state charges were dropped because the senior was found guilty of breaking a federal law that prohibited guns on school properties.

Principle: Congress has the ability to regulate commerce among the states (Commerce Clause).

A vs. B Argument:

• A - Guns in school are related to interstate commerce because guns lead to gun violence. This discourages people from traveling to those areas, which affects the commerce in those places.

• B - Gun regulation on school property is a power specifically reserved for the states.

Decision: Congress had no right to pass the gun laws, and using the Commerce Clause as an excuse was tyrannical.

Baker vs. Carr (1962)

Facts: Tennessee had not redrawn its congressional districts in over 60 years. In that time, its urban population had grown much faster than its rural population, so the apportionment of its districts meant that rural voters had much more voting power than urban voters. The Supreme Court had not done anything about it because they believed it was a political issue, not a justice issue.

Principle: Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment

Argument: By refusing to redraw the districts, all citizens in Tennessee were not represented equally.

Decision: Issues of reapportionment were justiciable, so the Supreme Court did have a responsibility to do something.

Shaw vs. Reno (1990)

Facts: None of North Carolina’s representatives were black at the time, which was a problem because 20% of the state’s population was black. To fix this, NC redrew an oddly shaped district to create a black majority.

Principle: Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment

A vs. B Argument:

• A - The Equal Protection Clause was violated because the district was drawn only with race in mind.

• B - The clause was not violated because the district was drawn with the intention of helping black residents receive representation.

Decision: While these districts may have been drawn with noble intentions, districts drawn only based on race were unconstitutional because it set a dangerous precedent.