AP GOV all required court cases

MEMORIZE (15 cases total)

Wisconsin v yoder (1972)

• rules in favor of yoder

• allows amish children to stop going to school once they reach highschool since it goes against their religion

• freedom/practice of religion > education of the children

• 1st amendment (free exercise)

engles v vitale (1962)

rules in favor of person

school starts ever day with a prayer

• against 1st amendment freedom of religion

Marbury v Madison (1803)

• judicial review

• established the principle that the supreme court and declare something congress does and unconstitutional

Mucholloch v Maryland (1816)

• rules in favor of Mucholloch

• shows that when between federal and state powers federal wins

• federal banks are an implied power

• basically sets prescient that if there is something the fed gov needs to do in order to enact one of the amendments they’re allowed

US v Lopez (1995)

• rules in favor of lopez

• says that federal gov cant make a law about gun regulations (that's up to individual states)

baker v Carr (1962)

• 1:1 voting (for districting)

• rural places cant have more of a say than urban places

• at 1st supreme court argued that they were not involved in districting

• 14th amendment (equal protection clause) - districting was being racially motivated

• issues of reapportionment was justicible

• altered political representation (many states had to also redraw their districts)

• now court is starting to get involved in political questions

Tinker v Des Moines (1965)

• students wore black armbands in agreement to the Vietnam war

• school punished students for wearing them (suspended)

• 1st amendment- protection of free speech

• ruled in favor of the students giving students freedom of speech on school campus

• schools only allowed to punish kids for speaking out if it disrupts learning environment substantial disruption test

Shaw v Reno (1990)

• gerrymandering

• rule in favor of Shaw

• constitution is colorblind

• NC had no black reps (20% of population was black)

• cant draw districts based on race even if it is a minority they are trying to protect/ give more opportunities to

• equal protection clause (14th amendment)- violated

Schenck v US (1917)

• espionage act - trying to prevent people from not joining the army

  • violates freedom of speech

• court ruled in US

  • wasn't just against the war but was encouraging people to not join the army

• establishes that there are types of unprotected speech

  • clear and present danger tests

    • no longer used ^^^

NYT v US (1971)

• freedom of press (1st amendment)

• Nixon get new York times to not print about info found in the pentagon

  • prior restraint- violates freedom of press

• court rules in favor of NYT

McDonald v Chicago (2010)

• McDonald tried to make it

• Chicago had restrictive handgun laws

• violates 14th amendment/ 2nd amendment

  • goes against right to bare arms

  • and against equal protection clause

• Applies ruling in Heler case to be applied at a state level

• sets up selective incorporation

  • applies bill of rights to states

Gideon v Wainwright (1961)

• people entitled to having a lawyer even at state level

• applies 6th amendment and 14th amendment (equal protection clause)

• selective incorporation- now every state has to do this too

Brown v Board of education

• rules against plecey v furgeson

  • gets rid of “separate but equal”/ jim crow laws

• rules in favor of brown

• racial segregation- violation of 14th amendment

• many southern states resisted

citizens united v FEC (2010)

• Hilary Clinton v Obama

• the Court struck down federal limits on corporate and union political spending in candidate elections, arguing it violated the First Amendment. This ruling effectively allowed corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts on independent political advertising, as long as it wasn't coordinated with a candidate's campaign. The case also upheld disclosure requirements for political advertising sponsors. 

• ruled against BCRA (passed in 2002)

  • limited how much money companies/ people could donate to campaigns

  • also made it illegal for companies to engage in communications for 60 days before an election