SCOTUS Cases

Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) – Facts

Students wore black armbands to protest the Vietnam War and were suspended.

Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) – Question

Does prohibiting symbolic speech in schools violate the First Amendment?

Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) – Provision

First Amendment (freedom of speech).

Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) – Ruling

Yes. The Court ruled that students do not lose their First Amendment rights at school.

Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) – Arguments (Petitioner)

Argued that the suspension violated students’ free speech rights.

Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) – Arguments (Respondent)

Argued that the armbands disrupted learning and school order.

Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) – Impact

Established that student speech is protected unless it causes substantial disruption.

Engel v. Vitale (1962) – Facts

A New York public school began the day with a voluntary prayer written by the state.

Engel v. Vitale (1962) – Question

Does the recitation of prayer in public schools violate the Establishment Clause?

Engel v. Vitale (1962) – Provision

First Amendment (Establishment Clause).

Engel v. Vitale (1962) – Ruling

Yes. The Court ruled that government-written prayers in public schools violate the Establishment Clause.

Engel v. Vitale (1962) – Arguments (Petitioner)

Argued that the school prayer promoted religion and violated separation of church and state.

Engel v. Vitale (1962) – Arguments (Respondent)

Argued that participation was voluntary and not an official establishment of religion.

Engel v. Vitale (1962) – Impact

Banned school-sponsored prayer, reinforcing separation of church and state.

Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) – Facts

Amish families were fined for refusing to send their children to school past 8th grade.

Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) – Question

Does Wisconsin’s compulsory school attendance law violate the Free Exercise Clause?

Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) – Provision

First Amendment (Free Exercise Clause).

Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) – Ruling

Yes. The Court held that religious beliefs outweighed the state’s interest in education past 8th grade.

Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) – Arguments (Petitioner)

Argued that mandatory education protects civic responsibility and future opportunity.

Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) – Arguments (Respondent)

Argued that the law interfered with deeply held religious practices.

Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) – Impact

Expanded Free Exercise protections for religious communities.

Shaw v. Reno (1993) – Facts

North Carolina created a bizarrely shaped majority-Black congressional district.

Shaw v. Reno (1993) – Question

Did the racial gerrymandering of districts violate the Equal Protection Clause?

Shaw v. Reno (1993) – Provision

Fourteenth Amendment (Equal Protection Clause).

Shaw v. Reno (1993) – Ruling

Yes. The Court ruled that race cannot be the predominant factor in drawing districts.

Shaw v. Reno (1993) – Arguments (Petitioner)

Argued that using race as a basis for districting violated equal protection.

Shaw v. Reno (1993) – Arguments (Respondent)

Argued that the district was meant to ensure minority representation.

Shaw v. Reno (1993) – Impact

Limited racial gerrymandering; race-based districts face strict scrutiny.

Baker v. Carr (1962) – Facts

Tennessee had not redrawn legislative districts in decades, causing unequal representation.

Baker v. Carr (1962) – Question

Do federal courts have the authority to rule on legislative apportionment cases?

Baker v. Carr (1962) – Provision

Fourteenth Amendment (Equal Protection Clause).

Baker v. Carr (1962) – Ruling

Yes. The Court held that redistricting issues are justiciable under the Equal Protection Clause.

Baker v. Carr (1962) – Arguments (Petitioner)

Argued that unequal districts diluted votes, violating equal protection.

Baker v. Carr (1962) – Arguments (Respondent)

Argued that redistricting is a political question not for courts to decide.

Baker v. Carr (1962) – Impact

Established the “one person, one vote” principle and allowed courts to review redistricting.

Schenck v. United States (1919) – Facts

A socialist distributed leaflets urging resistance to the WWI draft.

Schenck v. United States (1919) – Question

Did Schenck’s conviction under the Espionage Act violate free speech?

Schenck v. United States (1919) – Provision

First Amendment (freedom of speech).

Schenck v. United States (1919) – Ruling

No. The Court ruled that speech creating a “clear and present danger” is not protected.

Schenck v. United States (1919) – Arguments (Petitioner)

Argued that distributing anti-draft materials was protected speech.

Schenck v. United States (1919) – Arguments (Respondent)

Argued that the speech threatened national security and the war effort.

Schenck v. United States (1919) – Impact

Created the “clear and present danger” test, limiting free speech in wartime.

United States v. Lopez (1995) – Facts

A student was charged for bringing a gun to school under the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act.

United States v. Lopez (1995) – Question

Did Congress exceed its power under the Commerce Clause by regulating guns in schools?

United States v. Lopez (1995) – Provision

Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8).

United States v. Lopez (1995) – Ruling

Yes. The Court ruled that gun possession in schools is not economic activity under the Commerce Clause.

United States v. Lopez (1995) – Arguments (Petitioner)

Argued that the law overstepped Congress’s commerce power.

United States v. Lopez (1995) – Arguments (Respondent)

Argued that guns in schools affect the national economy and safety.

United States v. Lopez (1995) – Impact

Limited Congress’s commerce power; reinforced state authority.

McDonald v. Chicago (2010) – Facts

Chicago banned handgun ownership, similar to the D.C. law struck down in Heller.

McDonald v. Chicago (2010) – Question

Does the Second Amendment apply to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment?

McDonald v. Chicago (2010) – Provision

Second Amendment; Fourteenth Amendment (Due Process Clause).

McDonald v. Chicago (2010) – Ruling

Yes. The Court held that the Second Amendment is incorporated against the states.

McDonald v. Chicago (2010) – Arguments (Petitioner)

Argued that the right to bear arms is fundamental and applies to the states.

McDonald v. Chicago (2010) – Arguments (Respondent)

Argued that local governments should control firearm regulation.

McDonald v. Chicago (2010) – Impact

Incorporated the Second Amendment to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment.