AP Gov Required Supreme Court Cases

Marbury v. Madison (1803) (what did it establish)

Established the principle of judicial review; the Supreme Court declared a portion of the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional and asserted the court's authority to review federal laws and actions for constitutionality.

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) (Provision, facts, question, holding, reasons)

Provision: Necessary and Proper Clause and Supremacy Clause
Facts: Maryland taxed the Second Bank of the United States, and McCulloch, a bank cashier, refused to pay.
Question: Did Congress have the authority to create the national bank, and could a state tax it?
Holding: Congress had the power to create the bank, and Maryland could not tax it.
Reasons: The Necessary and Proper Clause gives Congress implied powers beyond enumerated ones, and under the Supremacy Clause, states cannot interfere with valid federal actions.

Schenck v. United States (1919) (Provision, facts, question, holding, reasons)

Provision: First Amendment freedom of speech.

Facts: During WWI, Charles Schenck distributed leaflets urging men to resist the draft, claiming it violated the 13th Amendment’s ban on involuntary servitude. He was charged under the Espionage Act for interfering with recruitment.

Question: Did the Espionage Act violate Schenck’s right to free speech?

Holding: No. The Court upheld his conviction.

Reasons: Speech that presents a “clear and present danger” of substantive evil can be restricted. In wartime, speech likely to obstruct military efforts is not protected.

Brown v. Board of Education (1954) (Provision, facts, question, holding, reasons)

Provision: Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause
Facts: Black students were forced to attend segregated public schools.
Question: Does racial segregation in public schools violate the Equal Protection Clause?
Holding: Yes.
Reasons: “Separate but equal” is inherently unequal in public education; segregation harms minority students and violates equal protection.

Baker v. Carr (1962) (Provision, facts, question, holding, reasons)

Provision: Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause

Facts: Charles Baker, a Tennessee resident, argued that legislative districts had not been redrawn in 60 years, leading to unequal representation—rural districts had far fewer people than urban ones but the same number of representatives. The state claimed redistricting was a “political question” outside judicial review.

Question(s): Does the SC (federal court) have the right to hear cases about legislative apportionment, or is it a matter of politics? Does Baker have standing to bring this case to Court? (is he harmed by the law?) Is redistricting a justiciable issue?

Holding: The Court ruled in favor of Baker.

Reasons: The Court held that redistricting issues are justiciable under the Equal Protection Clause. Unequal representation violated the “one person, one vote” principle because it diluted urban votes. This case opened the door for federal courts to review and intervene in redistricting cases involving constitutional rights.

Engel v. Vitale (1962) (Provision, facts, question, holding, reasons)

Provision: Establishment Clause of the First Amendment

Facts: The New York State Board wrote a voluntary, non-denominational prayer for public schools. It was required to be given by teachers, but optional for students. Some parents sued, claiming it violated the Establishment Clause.

Question: Does school-sponsored prayer in public schools violate the Establishment Clause?

Holding: Yes. The Court ruled that even voluntary, non-denominational prayer led by government officials in public schools is unconstitutional.

Reasons: By promoting prayer at public schools and having teachers read the prayers, the government endorsed religion, which violates the principle of the Establishment Clause and the historical intent of the First Amendment.

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) (Provision, facts, question, holding, reasons)

Provision: Sixth Amendment right to counsel, incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment
Facts: Clarence Gideon was denied a lawyer in a felony case because he could not afford one.
Question: Does the Constitution require states to provide attorneys to criminal defendants who cannot afford one?
Holding: Yes.
Reasons: The right to counsel is fundamental to a fair trial, so states must provide lawyers in felony cases.

Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) (Provision, facts, question, holding, reasons)

Provision: First Amendment freedom of speech and expression, symbolic speech

Facts: Students wore black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War and were suspended for violating a new school policy banning the armbands.

Question: Does prohibiting students from wearing armbands violate their free speech rights?

Holding: Yes. The Court ruled in favor of the students.

Reasons: Students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” The armbands were symbolic speech and caused minimal disruption; the school acted out of fear, not necessity.

NYTimes Co. v. United States (1971) (Provision, facts, question, holding, reasons)

Provision: First Amendment freedom of the press
Facts: The Nixon administration tried to stop the New York Times and Washington Post from publishing the Pentagon Papers.
Question: Could the government use prior restraint to stop publication?
Holding: No.
Reasons: Prior restraint is presumed unconstitutional, and the government failed to show sufficient direct, immediate, and irreparable harm.

Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) (Provision, facts, question, holding, reasons)

rovision: Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment

Facts: Wisconsin required children to attend school until age 16. Amish parents, citing religious beliefs, refused to send their children to high school after 8th grade and were fined under the law.

Question: Did Wisconsin’s compulsory school attendance law violate the Free Exercise Clause by criminalizing the conduct of parents for religious reasons?

Holding: Yes, the law violated the Free Exercise Clause.

Reasons: The Court ruled that the Amish families’ religious beliefs and way of life outweighed the state’s interest in compulsory education. Forcing school attendance would substantially interfere with their religious practices. The state’s interest in universal education was not compelling enough to override this freedom. (liberty v. order)

Shaw v. Reno (1993) (Provision, facts, question, holding, reasons)

Provision: Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause

Facts: NC created two majority-minority congressional districts after the 1990 census, one of which was extremely irregular in shape and stretched for miles along a highway. White residents sued, arguing the plan was racially gerrymandered.

Question: Did the creation of a racially gerrymandered district violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Holding: Yes. The Court ruled against North Carolina.

Reasons: The bizarre shape of the 12th District suggested race was the predominant factor in drawing district lines, which violated the Equal Protection Clause. While race can be one factor in redistricting, it cannot be the sole or overriding factor, even if complying with the VRA. The decision emphasized that racial classifications in redistricting are subject to strict scrutiny.

United States v. Lopez (1995) (Provision, facts, question, holding, reasons)

Provision: Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8) and 10th Amendment reserved powers. Discussed federalism

Facts: High school student Alfonso Lopez was charged under the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act for bringing a gun to school, as well as the state law disallowing guns in school. 

Question: Does the Gun-Free School Zones Act exceed Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause?

Holding: Yes. The law was unconstitutional.

Reasons: Possessing a gun in a school zone is not an economic activity that substantially affects interstate commerce. The ruling limited federal power and reinforced the principle of state sovereignty. First time SC sided with states in 60 years.

McDonald v. Chicago (2010) (Provision, facts, question, holding, reasons)

Provision: Due Process Clause of 14th Amendment (also 2A but irrelevant for Big)

Facts: Otis McDonald, a Chicago resident, wanted a handgun for self-defense in his home but was prohibited by a citywide handgun ban. After the D.C. v. Heller decision recognized an individual right to bear arms in federal areas, McDonald sued to apply the same protection to states and cities.

Question: Does the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms apply to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause?

Holding: Yes. The Court struck down Chicago’s handgun ban.

Reasons: The Court held that the Second Amendment is a fundamental right incorporated to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Using selective incorporation, the Court extended Heller’s precedent to cities, emphasizing that self-defense is a deeply rooted right in American history and tradition.

Citizens United v. FEC (2010) (Provision, facts, question, holding, reasons)

Provision: First Amendment freedom of speech
Facts: Citizens United wanted to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton close to an election, but campaign finance law restricted it.
Question: Can the government limit independent political spending by corporations and unions?
Holding: No.
Reasons: Independent political spending is protected speech under the First Amendment, so corporations and unions may spend unlimited money independently of campaigns.

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) (Provision, facts, question, holding, reasons) NOT REQUIRED*

Provision: Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause
Facts: Homer Plessy challenged a Louisiana law requiring segregated railroad cars.
Question: Did racial segregation violate equal protection?
Holding: No, according to the Court at the time.
Reasons: The Court said segregation was constitutional under the “separate but equal” doctrine. This was later overturned by Brown v. Board.