AP US Government and Politics 2026 Exam Required SCOTUS Cases

In chronological order, complete with relevant articles or amendments of the Constitution, the decision, the precedent, and any relevant terms.

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

Case: President Adams appointed a slew of Federalist judges on the way out of his presidency (“midnight judges,” “Judiciary Act of 1801”). The new Secretary of State James Madison chose not to deliver some of these commissions. Marbury sued Madison and demanded a writ of mandamus (officials must do their legal duty).

Constitutional Principle(s): Jurisdiction clauses in Article III of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has both appellate and original jurisdiction; does it have original jurisdiction here?

Question(s):

1. Does Marbury have the legal right to his commission?

2. If yes, is the court-ordered writ of mandamus the proper legal means to get the commission?

3. If yes, does the Court have the authority to grant the writ of mandamus?

Decision: Yes, yes, and no. Article 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 (allowing SCOTUS to give writs of mandamus in original jurisdiction cases) is unconstitutional.

Precedent (Why it Matters): Explicitly establishes “judicial review:” SCOTUS is the be all and end all on constitutionality.

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

Case: Congress chartered the Second Bank of the United States in 1816. Maryland passed a law saying that any non-Maryland bank was subject to a tax. The chairman of the federal bank there refused to pay this tax.

Constitutional Principle(s): Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution, Necessary and Proper Clause, explicit vs. implied powers.

Question(s):

1. Did Congress have the authority to establish the bank?

2. Did the Maryland law unconstitutionally interfere with congressional powers?

Decision: Yes and yes. The bank was constitutional, the tax was unconstitutional.

Precedent (Why it Matters): National laws have supremacy over state laws, changed the balance of federalism.

Schenck v. United States (1919)

Case: Congress passed the Espionage Act in 1917 to outlaw hinderances to military recruitment. Schenck published and distributed pamphlets comparing the war draft to involuntary servitude and encouraging people to dodge the draft. Schenck was arrested and convicted. Schenck sued.

Constitutional Principle(s): First Amendment right to free speech.

Question(s): Did Schenck's conviction under the Espionage Act for criticizing the draft violate his First Amendment right to freedom of speech?

Decision: No. Schenck’s words were actively encouraging men to avoid the draft, which is not protected speech.

Precedent (Why it Matters): Created a clear standard for unprotected speech, in which more restrictions applied during wartime due to context. “Clear and Present Danger Test” created. (No longer in use - replaced by the Brandenburg Test)

Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

Case: Technically a series of cases about racial segregation in schools. Plessy v. Ferguson established “separate but equal” doctrine allowing racial segregation in public facilities, but a black family wanted to enroll their daughter in a white school and were denied, forcing them to bus their daughter to a much more distant black school.

Constitutional Principle(s): The 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.

Question(s): Does the segregation of public education based solely on race violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Decision: Yes. Even with equal funding, separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.

Precedent (Why it Matters): Overturned “separate but equal doctrine.” Massive judicial victory for the civil rights movement. Paved the way for the desegregation of schools.

Baker v. Carr (1962)

Case: The state of Tennessee had not redrawn legislative districts in 60+ years. Changes in population meant that rural voters had much more voting power than urban voters per person. SCOTUS had already decided that redistricting issues were a political question so they could not rule on them.

Constitutional Principle(s): Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Question(s): Did the Supreme Court have jurisdiction over questions of legislative apportionment?

Decision: Yes. They were justiciable.

Precedent (Why it Matters): Established the “one person, one vote” doctrine. Altered the nature of political representation - many states had to redraw districts after this. SCOTUS is now involved in previously-deemed political questions - “political question” doctrine created.

Engel v. Vitale (1962)

Case: New York Board created a nondenominational school prayer that students could choose to opt out of. A group of parents claimed that the prayer’s creation and use was a violation of their children’s First Amendment rights.

Constitutional Principle(s): First Amendment’s Establishment Clause (14th Amendment sort of involved for justification as to why a state action could be considered a federal infraction).

Question(s): Does the reading of a state sponsored prayer at the beginning of school violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment?

Decision: Yes. The prayer counts as support/influence towards a particular belief (in a God).

Precedent (Why it Matters): Established groundwork for subsequent cases regarding schools and religious activities.

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

Case: Clarence Earl Gideon was arrested and sent to trial for a crime, but in the state he was tried, Gideon was not entitled to a lawyer, even though he was too poor to afford one. Gideon appealed the decision.

Constitutional Principle(s): The Sixth Amendment right to counsel. (14th Amendment sort of involved for justification as to why a state action could be considered a federal infraction.)

Question(s): Does the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel in criminal cases extend to felony defendants in state courts?

Decision: Yes. The Sixth Amendment applies via the 14th’s Equal Protection Clause.

Precedent (Why it Matters): Sixth Amendment has been selectively incorporated. States were required to fund and train public defense lawyers for cases where one is necessary.

Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)

Case: Following Senator Robert Kennedy’s call for a Christmas truce in the Vietnam War, an activist family and friends sent their children to school with black armbands to support the truce. Their school wrote a policy threatening suspension for wearing the armbands, and when the students would not take them off, they were suspended. The family sued.

Constitutional Principle(s): First Amendment’s protection of free speech.

Question(s): 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?

Decision: Yes.

Precedent (Why it Matters): The court created the Substantial Disruption Test as criterion for how school administrators could constitutionally limit student speech, setting the precedent for school free speech cases.

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

Case: President Nixon had commissioned a top secret inquiry into the US involvement in the Vietnam War. This report (“Pentagon Papers”) was leaked to the New York Times and the Washington Post,. The Nixon administration ordered the paper not to publish the documents before they were printed (“prior restraint”).

Constitutional Principle(s): First Amendment protection of the freedom of the press.

Question(s): Did the Nixon administration's efforts to prevent the publication of what it termed "classified information" violate the First Amendment?

Decision: Yes. Prior restraint cases are very difficult to pass as non-violations (though there are exceptions).

Precedent (Why it Matters): Gave the free press an edge against censorship.

Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)

Case: Three Amish families removed their children from school after the eighth grade for homeschooling and vocational training. The families were concerned about ideas antithetical to their religion. Wisconsin law stated that children must attend school until 16, so the parents were fined. The parents sued for violations of their First Amendment rights.

Constitutional Principle(s): First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause

Question(s): 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?

Decision: Yes. State interests do not trump right to exercise religion freely.

Precedent (Why it Matters): Set the precedent for future cases involving the Free Exercise Clause (and the homeschooling movement got a major boost.)

Shaw v. Reno (1993)

Case: North Carolina created a majority-black district during reapportionment after the 1990 census. The Justice Department said they could make another one. It ended up in a very strange shape, connecting multiple towns across geographical barriers in a nonsensical way. Shaw claimed that this was an example of racial gerrymandering.

Constitutional Principle(s): Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Question(s): Did the North Carolina residents' claim, that the State created a racially gerrymandered district, raise a valid constitutional issue under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause?

Decision: Yes. Even if the districts were drawn with the intention of positively lifting up a marginalized group, districts drawn based only on race are unconstitutional and set a dangerous precedent.

Precedent (Why it Matters): Set the precedent for cases with racial gerrymandering.

United States v. Lopez (1995)

Case: A high school senior carries a pistol and bullets to school. He was arrested and jailed, but the state charges were dropped the next day, and new federal charges were added, because Lopez violated the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990. He was found guilty and sentenced to 6 months in prison.

Constitutional Principle(s): Commerce Clause of Article I Section 8 (interstate commerce regulation). Congress’ argument was gun violence in schools = negative impact on learning environment and appeal of that town, both of which affect commerce.

Question(s): 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?

Decision: Yes. This was an overreach and the precedent of the law would give Congress too much power.

Precedent (Why it Matters): Tipped the balance of federalism in favor of the states.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010)

Case: Bipartisan Campaign Finance Act (BCRA) made it illegal for corporations or non-profits to engage in electioneering communications for 60 days before an election or 30 days before a primary. A close contest for party nomination for the 2008 Democratic primary between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton resulted in a conservative group called Citizens United making a film that leveled many accusations against Clinton. It was released during the forbidden period.

Constitutional Principle(s): First Amendment freedom of speech. (Corporations in this case fall under the definition of “groups of persons” and therefore retain certain rights.)

Question(s): Was BCRA’s prohibition against electioneering communication by corporations a violation of the First Amendment’s protection of the freedom of speech?

Decision: Yes. Limitations put upon corporations for running political advertisements were not materially different from government censorship of speech toward individuals.

Precedent (Why it Matters): Answered (for now) the perennial question: Is it fair for those with the most money to have the loudest voices? Yes, provided that there is no direct collaboration with the candidate.

McDonald v. Chicago (2010)

Case: McDonald wanted to purchase a handgun for protection, but Chicago law prohibited it.

Related Case: DC v. Heller

Constitutional Principle(s): Second Amendment and the right to bear arms. (14th Amendment sort of involved for justification as to why a state action could be considered a federal infraction.)

Question(s): 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?

Decision: Yes. Chicago’s gun laws were a violation of Second Amendment rights.

Precedent (Why it Matters): Expanded selective incorporation from DC v. Heller to the states, not just federal territories. States had to rewrite gun laws to fall in line with new decision.