AP GOPO Supreme Court Cases

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC) (2010)

• Citizens United argued that the BCRA violated the 1st amendment, claiming it restricted their film Hillary: The Movie

• Challenged the ruling of the 1st amendment.

• Held that laws restricting corporate/Union spending in elections violated the 1st amendment.

• Upheld the BCRA and ruled that it was constitutional since the movie functioned to express advocacy against Clinton.

Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

• Argued that segregation violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment.

• Challenged the segregation of public schools against the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment.

• 9-0 in favor of Brown. Held that separate but equal is inherently unequal and violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment.

• Segregation of public education based on race instills a sense of inferiority that had a hugely detrimental effect on the growth of African American children.

McDonald v. Chicago (2010)

• Lawsuits filed against Chicago and Oak Park, IL challenging gun bans, reasoning that the 2nd amendment should apply to the states.

• Does the 2nd amendment apply to the states?

• 5-4 decision in favor of McDonald. Held that the 14th amendment makes the 2nd amendment for the purpose of self-defense applicable to the states.

• The right to self-defense is among the fundamental rights to liberty that are appropriately applied to the states via the 14th amendment.

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

• Gideon was charged in FL for breaking and entering, but was denied a lawyer as they were only provided for capital cases in FL. Argued that the courts violated his constitutional right to be represented by a counsel.

• Does the 6th amendment right to counsel in criminal cases extend to felony defendants in state courts?

• 9-0 decision in favor of Gideon. Held that the 6th amendments guarantee of a right to assistance of counsel applies to criminal defendants in state courts by way of the 14th amendment.

• Consistent with the Constitution to require state courts to appoint attorneys for defendants who could not afford to retain a counsel on their own.

Engel v. Vitale (1962)

• NY state Board of Regents authorized a short, voluntary prayer for recitation at the start of the day. A group of organizations stated that the prayer violated the Establishment Clause of the 1st amendment.

• Does the reading of a non-denominational prayer at school violate the “establishment of religion” clause of the 1st amendment?

• 6-1 decision in favor in Engel. States cannot hold prayers in public schools, even if participation is not required and the prayer is not tied to any particular religion.

• Violated the Establishment Clause, the policy breached the Constitutional wall of separation between church and state.

Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)

• Yoder, an Old Order Amish, was prosecuted under a Wisconsin law that required all children to attend school until 16. Yoder said that school attendance was against their religious beliefs.

• Did Wisconsin’s requirement that all parents send their children to school until age 16 violate the 1st amendment by criminalizing the conduct of parents who refused to send their children to school for religious reasons?

• 7-0 ruling in favor of Yoder. Held that individuals interests in the free exercise of religion under the 1st amendment outweighed the states interest in compelling school attendance beyond the 8th grade.

• Found that the values and programs of secondary school were “in sharp conflict with the fundamental mode of life mandated by the Amish religion”

New York Times v. United States (1971)

• Nixon administration attempted to prevent the NYT and Washington Post from publishing materials belonging to classified Defense Department study regarding US in Vietnam. Nixon argued that prior restraint was necessary to protect national security.

• Did the Nixon administration’s efforts to prevent the publication of what it termed “classified information” violate the 1st amendment?

• 6-3 decision in favor of the NYT. Held that the vague word “security” should not be used to block the 1st amendment freedom of press.

• Since publication would not cause an inevitable, direct, and immediate event imperiling the safety of American forces, prior restraint was unjustified.

Schenck v. United States (1919)

• During WWI Schenck and Baur distributed leaflets declaring that the draft violated the 13th amendment prohibition against involuntary servitude. Schenck was charged with conspiracy to violate Espionage Act by attempting to cause insubordination in the military and obstruction recruitment.

• Did Schenck’s conviction under the Espionage Act for criticizing the draft violate the 1st amendment right to freedom of speech?

• 9-0 decision in favor of the United States. Held that the Espionage Act did not violate the 1st amendment and was an appropriate exercise of Congress’s wartime authority.

• 1st amendment does not protect speech that approaches creating a clear and present danger of a significant evil that Congress has power to prevent.

Shaw v. Reno (1993)

• US Attorney General rejects a NC Congressional reapportionment palm because the plan created only one black majority district. He ordered another made, but the shape of the 2nd district was extremely gerrymandered.

• Did NC’s second racially gerrymandered district raise a valid constitutional issue under the 14th amendment Equal Protection Clause?

• 5-4 decision in favor of Shaw. Held that redistricting must be void of racial discrimination and ensure compliance with the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

• The court held that the 2nd district shape was bizarre to suggest that its purpose was to separate voters into different districts based on race. Although noble in its intentions, it seemed to exceed what was reasonably necessary to avoid racial imbalances.

Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)

• Tinker (student) wore black armbands to school in protest of the Vietnam war. He was sent home, and the parents used the school, arguing that the district violated the students right to self-expression.

• Does prohibition against wearing of armbands in public school, as a form of symbolic protest, violate the student’s freedom of speech protection?

• 7-2 decision in favor of Tinker. Held that students don’t lose their 1st amendment right to freedom of speech when they walk onto school property.

• Suppression of student’s speech must be accompanied by “material and substantial interference.”

U.S. v. Lopez (1995)

• High School student, Alonzo Lopez, carried a concealed weapon into his Texas high school. He was charged under the federal criminal statute, the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, which forbids knowingly carrying a firearm into school zones.

• Is the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 unconstitutional because it exceeds Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause?

• 5-4 decision in favor of Lopez. Congress may not use the commerce clause to make possession of a gun in a school zone a federal crime.

• The possession of a gun in a school zone is not an economic activity that would have a significant effect on interstate commerce. The law is a criminal statute that has nothing to do with “commerce” or any sort of economic activity. Therefore, Congress exceeded its authority.

Baker v. Carr (1961)

• Charles Baker challenged Tennessee’s reapportionment efforts, stating that they ignored significant population shifts within the state; argued that representation was unequal and unconstitutional.

• Did the Supreme Court have jurisdiction over questions of legislative apportionment?

• 6-2 decision in favor of Baker. Opened the door to equal protection challenges to redistricting and the development of the “one person, one vote” doctrine.

• The majority concluded that the 14th amendment Equal Protection issues was violated in the unequal distribution of district boundaries.

Marbury v. Madison

• Jefferson passed the Judiciary Act of 1789, creating new courts, adding judges, and expanded executive power in appointing justices. Marbury was among the appointed, but was never delivered his commission, preventing him from becoming a valid occupant of the position. He petitioned for a mandate that his commissions be delivered.

• Do the plaintiffs have a right to receive their commissions? Can they use for their commissions in court? Does the Supreme Court have the authority to order the delivery of their commissions?

• 4-0 decision in favor of Marbury. Found that Madison’s refusal to deliver the commission was illegal, but the Supreme Court could not deliver it as it conflicted with the Judiciary Act, making it null and void.

• Established the principal of judicial review - the power to declare a law unconstitutional.

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

• In 1816, Congress changed the second bank of the US. In 1818 the state of Maryland passed legislation to impose taxes on the bank. James McCulloch, a cashier of the Baltimore branch of the bank, refused to pay the tax.

• Did Congress have the authority to establish a national bank? Did the Maryland law unconstitutionally interfere? Questioned the Necessary and Proper Clause and the Supremacy Clause.

• 6-0 decision in favor of McCulloch. Held that Congress has the power to establish a proper clause. Established the supremacy of the US Constitution and federal laws over the state.

• A national bank is considered a reasonable and legitimate extension of the federal government. It is an enumerated power, allowed by the necessary and proper clause. Held that the federal government is supreme and has the final say.