AP Gov Court Cases

McCulloch v Maryland (1819)

This case began when Maryland tried to tax the Second Bank of the United States, and McCulloch, a bank employee, refused to pay. The state sued to enforce the tax, arguing the bank was operating within its borders. The Court ruled 7–0 that Congress had the power to create a national bank and that Maryland could not tax it. The decision relied on the Necessary and Proper Clause (Article I, Section 8) and the Supremacy Clause (Article VI). McCulloch argued that federal laws are supreme and include implied powers, while Maryland argued states should be able to tax businesses within their borders.

Marbury v Madison (1803)

This case began when William Marbury sued Secretary of State James Madison for refusing to deliver his judicial commission. Marbury argued the government was unlawfully withholding his appointment after it had already been signed. The Court ruled that Marbury did not receive his commission, but more importantly established judicial review. The decision was 4–0. The Court found that Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 conflicted with Article III of the Constitution, which defines the Court’s original jurisdiction, so it was unconstitutional. Marbury argued he had a legal right to the commission, while Madison’s side argued the Court could not expand its own power beyond what the Constitution allows.

US v Lopez (1995)

This case started when a student, Alfonso Lopez, was charged under a federal law for bringing a gun to school. Lopez argued the law itself was unconstitutional, leading to the federal government prosecuting him. The Court ruled 5–4 that the Gun-Free School Zones Act was unconstitutional because it exceeded Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8). Lopez argued that carrying a gun near a school is not interstate commerce, while the government argued that guns in schools affect education and therefore the national economy.

Engel v Vitale (1963)

This case began when parents sued a New York school district for requiring students to recite a state-written prayer. They argued the government was promoting religion in public schools. The Court ruled 6–1 that school-sponsored prayer violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The reasoning was that even voluntary, non-denominational prayer amounts to government endorsement of religion. Engel argued that public schools should not promote religion, while the state argued the prayer was optional and not tied to a specific faith.

Wisconsin v Yoder (1972)

This case began when Amish families were prosecuted for refusing to send their children to school past 8th grade. Wisconsin sued to enforce compulsory education laws. The Court ruled 7–0 that Amish families could remove their children from school after 8th grade, citing the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The Court found that the state’s interest in education did not outweigh religious freedom. Yoder argued schooling violated religious beliefs, while Wisconsin argued education is necessary for good citizenship.

Tinker v Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969)

This case began when students were suspended for wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War. Their families sued the school district for violating their free speech rights. The Court ruled 7–2 that students wearing armbands were protected by the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. The Court reasoned that speech is protected unless it causes substantial disruption. Tinker argued symbolic protest is protected speech, while the school argued it needed to maintain order.

New York Times Co. v US

This case began when the government tried to block newspapers from publishing classified documents about the Vietnam War. The New York Times challenged the government’s attempt at censorship. The Court ruled 6–3 that the government could not block publication, citing the Free Press Clause of the First Amendment. The Court rejected prior restraint unless there is clear, immediate danger. The New York Times argued for press freedom, while the government argued publication threatened national security.

Schneck v US

This case began when Charles Schenck was arrested for distributing leaflets urging resistance to the draft during World War I. The government prosecuted him under the Espionage Act. The Court ruled 9–0 that speech can be limited under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment if it creates a “clear and present danger.” Schenck argued his speech was protected, while the government argued his actions interfered with the war effort.

Gideon v Wainwright (1963)

This case began when Clarence Gideon was charged with a felony and denied a court-appointed lawyer because he could not afford one. He sued the state, arguing his rights were violated. The Court ruled 9–0 that states must provide attorneys to defendants in felony cases, using the Sixth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause. Gideon argued a fair trial requires legal representation, while Florida argued states were not required to provide lawyers.

Miranda v Arizona (1966)

This case began when Ernesto Miranda confessed to a crime after police interrogation without being informed of his rights. He argued the confession should not be used in court. The Court ruled 5–4 that suspects must be informed of their rights, citing the Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause. Miranda argued his confession was coerced, while Arizona argued it was voluntary.

Brown v Board of Education (1954)

This case began when African American students were denied admission to white public schools. Their families sued the school boards for racial discrimination. The Court ruled 9–0 that segregation violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court found that “separate but equal” is inherently unequal. Brown argued segregation harmed students, while the Board argued facilities were equal.

Baker v Carr (1962)

This case began when voters sued Tennessee over unfair legislative districts that had not been redrawn for decades. They argued their votes were being diluted. The Court ruled 6–2 that federal courts can hear redistricting cases, citing the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Baker argued districts were unequal, while Tennessee argued courts should not decide political questions.

Shaw v Reno (1993)

This case began when voters challenged oddly shaped congressional districts drawn to increase minority representation. They argued the districts were based primarily on race. The Court ruled 5–4 that racial gerrymandering can violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Shaw argued the districts were discriminatory, while Reno argued they helped minority voters.

Roe v Wade (1973)

This case began when a woman challenged a Texas law that banned most abortions. She argued the law violated her constitutional rights. The Court ruled 7–2 that abortion is protected under a right to privacy derived from the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause. Roe argued for personal liberty, while Texas argued states should regulate abortion.

McDonald v Chicago (2010)

This case began when Otis McDonald challenged Chicago’s handgun ban. He argued it violated his constitutional rights. The Court ruled 5–4 that the Second Amendment applies to states through the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause. McDonald argued gun ownership is a fundamental right, while Chicago argued for local control.

Citizen United v Federal Election Commission (2010)

This case began when a nonprofit wanted to air a political film close to an election but was restricted by federal law. The organization sued, arguing its free speech rights were violated. The Court ruled 5–4 that corporations can spend unlimited money on elections, citing the First Amendment Free Speech Clause. Citizens United argued political spending is speech, while the FEC argued limits prevent corruption.

Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022)

This case began when Mississippi passed a law banning most abortions after 15 weeks, which conflicted with Roe v. Wade. The state was sued for violating constitutional protections. The Court ruled 6–3 (5–4 on reasoning) to overturn Roe, stating abortion is not protected by the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause. Dobbs argued states should decide, while the opposing side argued precedent and individual rights should be maintained.