AP GOV - COURT CASES

McCulloch v Maryland (1819)

-Federal creates national bank. States try to minimize Fed power by taxing it. Federal clerk refuses to pay tax

-Can Federal government create a bank?

-Can the state tax it?

-Q1 = Yes. Necessary & Proper/Elastic Clause

-Q2 = No. National Supremacy (Article VI)

-National Supremacy (Article VI)

-“The power to tax is the power to destroy”

US v Lopez (1995)

-Federal creates Gun Free School Zone Act by expanding definition of commerce due to sales across state boundaries. Lopez arrested, challenges

-Can Federal government create Act by using Commerce Clause?

-No. Federal overextended the commerce clause via the elastic clause to define commerce. Act has no relevance to commerce

-Federalism (Reserved Powers of States via 10th Amendment) = devolution!

McCulloch v Maryland (1819)

-Federal creates national bank. States try to minimize Fed power by taxing it. Federal clerk refuses to pay tax

-Can Federal government create a bank?

-Can the state tax it?

-Q1 = Yes. Necessary & Proper/Elastic Clause

-Q2 = No. National Supremacy (Article VI)

-National Supremacy (Article VI)

-“The power to tax is the power to destroy”

US v Lopez (1995)

-Federal creates Gun Free School Zone Act by expanding definition of commerce due to sales across state boundaries. Lopez arrested, challenges

-Can Federal government create Act by using Commerce Clause?

-No. Federal overextended the commerce clause via the elastic clause to define commerce. Act has no relevance to commerce

-Federalism (Reserved Powers of States via 10th Amendment) = devolution!

Baker v Carr (1962)

-Tennessee had not changed its district maps since 1900. Rural districts have lower populations but equal representation to urban districts with more people

-Does federal government have authority to regulate districts and the population of each in relation to representation & elections?

-Yes. It is a “justiciable question” meaning the courts can review it. Warned the state to redistrict or have it done by the federal.

-14th Amendment (Equal Protection Clause)

-“One man, One vote”

Shaw v Reno (1995)

-North Carolina redraws district lines to specifically provide advantages to those historically disadvantaged – blacks & other minorities

-Can federal courts expand jurisdiction into regulating districts that were racially gerrymandered?

-Yes. While creating districts are left up to the states and race can be used as a factor it cannot be THE factor for incongruently created districts that exceed reason.

-14th Amendment (Equal Protection Clause)

Marbury v Madison (1803)

-Adams v Jefferson. Adams tries to pack court as he leaves office. Jefferson refuses to fulfill notices issued by Adams and his request the Court order the fulfillment of the notices. Court steps in the middle of Executive and Congressional actions.

-1. Does Marbury have a legal right? 2. Can Marbury seek remedy to get commission? 3. Does SCOTUS have jurisdiction? 4. How is power divided?

-1. Yes – Jefferson acted illegally 2. Yes – all legal matters deserve a legal remedy 3. No. Congress cannot expand the “original jurisdiction” of court through Judiciary Act of 1789, unconstitutional. Marbury must go to elsewhere for remedy. 4. Each branch has powers & checks inherent/natural via Constitution.

-Separation of Powers

-The idea of “Judicial Review,” first discussed in Federalist 78, now cemented as an actual Judicial power. —Judicial Review is not the constitutional connection.

Brown v Board of Ed. (1954)

-Many states utilized the precedent set by Plessy v Ferguson (separate but equal) to create distinct educational/public settings

-1. Can states run separate but equal systems of education?

-2. Does separation mean “inferior?”

-Q1 = No. EP Clause (14th) ignored when educational system was set up with intent to segregate races.

-Q2 = Yes. Nothing was equal between races

-14th Amendment (Equal Protection Clause)

-Unanimous ruling. “Segregation has no place in education.”

Engle v Vitale (1962)

-NY creates nondenominational teacher-led prayer to begin the day and required participation from its students.

-Can school create a teacherled non-denominational prayer?

-No. Even generic prayers are a form of governmental imposition. Government employees (teacher) cannot lead prayer service. Criticism of students may arise after exempting from prayer

-1st Amendment Religion (Establishment Clause) & incorporated via 14th Due Process Clause

Gideon v Wainwright (1963)

-Man is arrested for breaking into a pool hall. He is not provided legal counsel although he cannot afford it

-Should states be compelled to supply attorneys to clients if they cannot afford them and state use one against the accused?

-Yes. All who are accused of crimes should be provided legal counsel at either the federal or state level

-6 th Amendment Right to Counsel & incorporated via 14th Due Process Clause

-Becomes one part of the “Miranda Rights” Warning

McDonald v Chicago (2010)

-Chicago passes a law abridging the right to individual gun ownership. Using DC v Heller decision, Chicago law is challenged

-Can any state create laws that ban the ownership of guns meant for self-defense?

-No. States cannot violate the constitution and individual right to gun ownership protections should be applied to the states via the 14th .

-2nd Amendment & incorporated via 14th Due Process Clause OR selective incorporation if asking about legal doctrine

NYT v United States (1971)

-Pentagon researcher removes classified materials about US involvement in Vietnam and sends items to Post & Times to prove lies and wrongdoing by government. White House attempts to halt publication via “prior restraint” Times and Post are claiming 1st Amendment press rights

-Can the federal government claim “prior restraint” in opposition to “freedom of the press?”

-Yes and No. Government does have the right to prior restraint in cases where national security is in question. However, the government could not prove risk or any compelling interest and therefore, freedom of the press outweighed prior restraint.

-1 st Amendment Freedom of the Press. No incorporation needed because the US is a party in the case.

-Researcher still faced criminal charges for his involvement but Watergate behavior tainted WH position in all trials.

Schenck v United States (1919)

-Anti-WWI protester urges men to not participate in the draft, avoid it and even burn draft cards. Government arrests him for endangering the war effort and national security.

-Can Congress restrict free speech during wartime?

-Yes. Congress can create laws that limit speech, especially during wartime, if the speech or activity harms national security.

-Free speech is not protected in this case. Order v Liberty is in question here…how much order do you want to protect your liberty?

-“Clear & Present Danger” established as speech “test”

Tinker v Des Moines (1969)

-Students protested America’s involvement in the Vietnam War by wearing black arm bands. The school suspended the students for violating policy and to protect all students from possible harmful situations.

-Do free speech rights extend to students in schools?

-Yes. While the school can limit speech, “Students do not lose their rights at the schoolhouse gate.”

-1 st Amendment Free (pure) Speech – do not confuse with symbolic speech from Texas v Johnson (Flag burning)

Wisconsin v Yoder (1972)

-The state required all students 16 and under to attend school by law. Amish community felt that anything beyond 8th grade would not be necessary for their children based on their lifestyle and community

-Can states require families to set aside their religious beliefs and force their children to attend school?

-No. School beyond 8th grade for the Amish community would be contradictory to their values and way of life. Any additional years would not produce appreciable benefits.

-1 st Amendment Religion, Free Exercise, incorporated via 14th Due Process Clause

-Substantive Due Process because although there is a law in place to require compulsory education, the courts are creating an exemption to the rule.

Citizens United v FEC (2010)

-McCain-Feingold (2002) was instituted to take “dark money” out of the federal campaign process that would allow corporations to bypass FEC regulations. Citizens United, and interest group challenged the law as a violation of their free speech

-Can the FEC regulate political speech as it does campaign speech?

-No. Political free speech should be equal to all parties, individuals as well as corporations

-1 st Amendment Speech.

-Corporations are now free to donate and participate in the political process as much as individuals after the court overturned “McCain -Feingold,” limiting contributions, participation by corporations in federal elections.