APUSH - SUPREME COURT STUDY GUIDE 2025

0.0(0)
studied byStudied by 0 people
learnLearn
examPractice Test
spaced repetitionSpaced Repetition
heart puzzleMatch
flashcardsFlashcards
Card Sorting

1/7

encourage image

There's no tags or description

Looks like no tags are added yet.

Study Analytics
Name
Mastery
Learn
Test
Matching
Spaced

No study sessions yet.

8 Terms

1
New cards

Mapp v. Ohio

police enter a home without a warrant and find incriminating evidence. The court ruled it was an illegal search because no search warrant had been obtained.

2
New cards

Engle v. Vitale

Ruled that school prayer violates the first amendment.

3
New cards

Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US

Ruled that Congress could regulate private businesses because of the Constitution's commerce clause. In this particular case, the motel was not allowed to deny service to people because of their race.

4
New cards

New Jersey v. TLO

The court ruled that a search of a high school girls locker and belongings was constitutional because she was on school grounds where her privacy rights are limited.

5
New cards

New York Times v. US

President Nixon tried to block the New York Times from printing a story about an embarrassing internal government study regarding the Vietnam War. Nixon believed national security was at stake but the court allowed publication and enhanced freedom of the press.

6
New cards

Bush v. Gore

a close presidential election in 2000 triggered a recount in Florida; the recount was deemed unconstitutional as it was perceived as not giving equal weight to each vote and thus violated the 14th amendment’s equality clause

7
New cards

Tinker v. Des Moine

students wore black armbands to protest the Vietnam War and were suspended. The court ruled that protests by students are constitutionally protected free speech so long as the protests do not interfere with the educational process

8
New cards

US v. Nixon

President Nixon claimed he need not turn over White House recordings regarding the Watergate scandal but the Supreme Court decided that his executive privilege cannot interfere with due process of law.