SCOTUS Cases

FACTS of McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

The U.S. government created a national bank, and the state of Maryland began to tax it.

CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE of McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

Necessary & Proper ("Elastic") Clause AND Supremacy Clause

HOLDING of McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

SCOTUS ruled in favor of U.S./the FEDERAL government

DECISION SIGNIFICANCE of McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

Enforced both the Elastic and Supremacy Clauses and shifted the balance of federalism away from the states towards the national government.

FACTS of United States v. Lopez (1995)

A high school student brought a gun and ammo to school, breaking the Gun Free School Zones Act passed by Congress.

CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE of United States v. Lopez (1995)

Commerce Clause

HOLDING of United States v. Lopez (1995)

SCOTUS ruled in favor of the Lopez/the STATE government

DECISION SIGNIFICANCE of United States v. Lopez (1995)

Shifted the balance of federalism away from the federal government and towards the states

FACTS of Baker v. Carr (1962)

Baker, a citizen of Tennessee, sued when the state did not update their Congressional districts, thus diluting urban votes and increasing the weight of rural votes.

CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE of Baker v. Carr (1962)

Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment

HOLDING of Baker v. Carr (1962)

SCOTUS ruled in favor of the citizen Baker

DECISION SIGNIFICANCE of Baker v. Carr (1962)

Enforced the "one person, one vote" doctrine and opened the door for future cases regarding Congressional districting

FACTS of Shaw v. Reno (1993)

North Carolina created an oddly shaped, majority-minority Congressional district to increase African American representation. A group of white voters sued claiming it created an unfair, race-based advantage.

CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE of Shaw v. Reno (1993)

Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment

HOLDING of Shaw v. Reno (1993)

SCOTUS ruled in favor of Shaw (the group of white voters)

DECISION SIGNIFICANCE of Shaw v. Reno (1993)

Majority-minority districts may be constitutionally challenged by voters if race is the ONLY factor used in creating the district (gerrymandering)

FACTS of Marbury v. Madison (1803)

After taking office, President Jefferson refused to give federal judge appointments to those that had been approved under the previous President Adams. Marbury, one of the appointees, requested the Supreme Court issue a writ of mandamus to force the promised positions be awarded.

CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE of Marbury v. Madison (1803)

Under Article III and the Judiciary Act of 1789, is the Supreme Court authorized to submit writs of mandamus and enforce the positions?

HOLDING of Marbury v. Madison (1803)

SCOTUS ruled in favor of Marbury (the appointed judge), BUT also did not award the position as this action was deemed to be outside of the Court's authority

DECISION SIGNIFICANCE of Marbury v. Madison (1803)

Established the principle of judicial review, empowering the Supreme Court to declare an act of the Legislative or Executive Branch unconstitutional

FACTS of Engel v. Vitale (1962)

The New York school board created a non-denominational, voluntary prayer at its public schools each morning. Parent Engel sued, claiming it was a government establishment of religion.

CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE of Engel v. Vitale (1962)

Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment freedom of religion

HOLDING of Engel v. Vitale (1962)

SCOTUS ruled in favor of the parent Engel

DECISION SIGNIFICANCE of Engel v. Vitale (1962)

Public schools may not sponsor religious activities led by school officials. Created a precedent for strong separation of religion and public schools.

FACTS of Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)

A Wisconsin state law mandated all children attend school until age 16. Amish families sued, claiming their religion ends education for children after the 8th grade.

CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE of Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)

Free Exercise Clause of the 1st Amendment freedom of religion

HOLDING of Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)

SCOTUS ruled in favor of Yoder (the Amish families)

DECISION SIGNIFICANCE of Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)

Enforced free exercise of religion over governmental interests

FACTS of Schenck v. United States (1919)

Anti-war activist Schenck distributed paper leaflets encouraging Americans to disobey the draft for WWI, and was arrested for sedition

CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE of Schenck v. United States (1919)

1st Amendment freedom of speech

HOLDING of Schenck v. United States (1919)

SCOTUS ruled in favor of the U.S. government

DECISION SIGNIFICANCE of Schenck v. United States (1919)

Speech creating a "clear and present danger" was not protected by the First Amendment and could be limited by the government in times of crisis (however, this precedent was eventually overturned for a less-strict standard)

FACTS of Tinker v. Des Moines School District (1969)

A group of public school students organized wearing black armbands in protest of the Vietnam War. The school created a rule banning wearing armbands, and the students were suspended for doing so.

CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE of Tinker v. Des Moines School District (1969)

1st Amendment freedom of speech

HOLDING of Tinker v. Des Moines School District (1969)

SCOTUS ruled in favor of Tinker (the students)

DECISION SIGNIFICANCE of Tinker v. Des Moines School District (1969)

Increased protection of student speech as long as it is not affect school operations or disrupt the learning environment.

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

President Nixon attempted to use prior restraint prevent the New York Times newspaper from publishing the Pentagon Papers that revealed information about U.S. activities in the Vietnam War.

CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE of New York Times Co. v. United States (1971)

1st Amendment freedom of the press

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

SCOTUS ruled in favor of New York Times

DECISION SIGNIFICANCE of New York Times Co. v. United States (1971)

Bolstered the freedom of the press protections of the First Amendment and raised to bar for the use of "prior restraint"

FACTS of McDonald v. Chicago (2010)

The city of Chicago passed strict regulations on hand gun ownership. A citizen, McDonald, sued following multiple break ins of his home, citing the need for self-defense.

CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE of McDonald v. Chicago (2010)

2nd Amendment right to bear arms AND Selective Incorporation via the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment

HOLDING of McDonald v. Chicago (2010)

SCOTUS ruled in favor of the citizen McDonald

DECISION SIGNIFICANCE of McDonald v. Chicago (2010)

The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for self-defense is applicable to the STATES under the doctrine of selective incorporation

FACTS of Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

After being charged for felony breaking and entering in Florida, Gideon requested an attorney but was denied one by the state court. After representing himself in the trial, he lost and was sentenced to five years prison

CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE of Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

6th Amendment right to an attorney AND Selective Incorporation via the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment

HOLDING of Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

SCOTUS ruled in favor of the citizen Gideon

DECISION SIGNIFICANCE of Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

The Sixth Amendment right to an attorney is applicable to STATE courts under the doctrine of selective incorporation

FACTS of Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

During the Jim Crow Era, all schools were segregated by race under the concept of "separate but equal," established by the 1896 case Plessy v. Ferguson. An African-American parent, Brown, sued because his daughter had to travel further away to a school of lesser quality than the nearby white school.

CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE of Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment

HOLDING of Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

SCOTUS ruled in favor of the citizen Brown

DECISION SIGNIFICANCE of Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

Race-based school segregation is unconstitutional, and the precedent of "separate but equal" was overturned. Helped kickstart the Civil Rights Movement to end segregation in ALL public spaces.

FACTS of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010)

The interest group Citizens United paid for an anti-Hillary Clinton television ad, breaking part of the Bi-Partisan Campaign Reform Act. The group challenged the law.

CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010)

1st Amendment freedom of speech

HOLDING of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010)

SCOTUS ruled in favor of Citizens United

DECISION SIGNIFICANCE of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010)

Political spending by corporations, associations, and labor unions is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment. Led to the creation of Super PACs and increased money in politics.