AP GOV Summer Assignment Test

Brief Description and Main Idea in Bold.

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

The Court agreed with the first question, that Marbury had the legal entitlement to his commission. The Court also agreed that the writ of mandamus was the proper legal means to receive it. Regarding the third question, however, the Court decided that they do not have the authority to grant a writ of mandamus. Article 3 of the Constitution does not mention anything on a writ of mandamus; Marbury only thought the court could do so under the Judiciary Act of 1789. The Supreme Court Justice (John Marshall) justified his no by saying that Section 13 of the Judiciary Act is unconstitutional. This decision on the third question essentially gave the Supreme Court the power of Judicial Review, giving the judicial branch final interpretation of the Constitution and allowing it to review laws based on their constitutionality.

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

The Court had a unanimous decision in favor of XYZ in the argument that the bank was constitutional on account of the authority of the Necessary and Proper Clause. The law is not prohibited in the Constitution, and it doesn’t go against its values, so it is therefore allowed. This case established the supremacy of national laws over state laws. This matters because it demonstrates the balance of power between the federal government and the state (federalism). It set an example of how to handle the balance of power for future reference.

Schenck v. United States (1919)

The Court ruled against XYZ in a unanimous decision that his First Amendment rights were not violated since he wasn’t just protesting the draft; he was encouraging men to avoid it. This wasn’t protected speech since it was told in a way of causing harm to others by using one's words. This decision was significant in its way of setting a clear standard and greater authority for the government in silencing speech during wartime. This clear and present danger test is no longer used, however. The Brandenburg test sets a much higher standard for the government to reach before choosing to silence speech. 

Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

The Court ruled for XYZ in a unanimous decision, which led to the overturning of the Plessy v. Ferguson doctrine. Part of this reasoning was the effects segregation has on a child's mind and heart due to the feeling of inferiority the separation generates, agreeing that it was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, stating that the idea of separation, regardless of equality of facilities, was inherently unequal. Southern states, however, still resisted this integration due to its vagueness. This case has its significance due to it being a success for the civil rights movement since it acknowledged the equality of black and white Americans. As great as this was in theory, integration still took its time and was not immediate. 

Mapp v. Ohio (1961)

The Court ruled 6-3 in favor, with their reasoning being the 4th amendment, where the police did not have a valid warrant, meaning they could not use any of the evidence they found the day of the search against XYZ. This led to the expansion of a law called the Exclusionary Rule that stated one couldn’t use evidence if the police got it illegally, saying that the 14th Amendment gave the Court the authority to do so. The overall significance of this case was that it strengthened protections given to individuals under the Fourth Amendment, giving the reassurance that all evidence presented in court must be obtained through lawful means.

Engel v. Vitale (1962)

The Court ruled 6-1 in favor, claiming that it did violate the First Amendment, saying that the government should remain neutral on the prayers an American can say. This relates to Thomas Jefferson's “wall of separation between church and state,” which explained his view of the First Amendment. This case was significant because it was a demonstration of the Court ruling in favor of individual liberties over social order. It also mattered because it set the precedent for coming cases regarding schools and religion. It overall affected the relationship between the government and religion.

Baker v. Carr (1962)

The Court decided that issues regarding reapportionment were questions the Supreme Court had authority to rule. This case was significant because it established the one person, one vote doctrine, where states were required to apportion their representatives in a way that represented all people equally (14th Amendment/Equal Protection Clause) so that no votes could be counted any more than any other vote. It also revised the essence of political representation across the US. Lastly, it got the Supreme Court involved in political questions.

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

The Court ruled unanimously in XYZ’s favor, arguing that the 6th Amendment’s guarantee of a free lawyer does apply to the states through the 14th Amendment’s due process clause. This case is significant because, through it, the 6th Amendment was integrated to the states (known as selective incorporation, how the Court applies the liberties and protections of the Bill of Rights to the state governments). Secondly, this decision led to states being required to fund tons of public defense lawyers to be called upon for clients in situations such as XYZ’s; that system has grown even today.

Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)

In a 7-2 decision, the Court did agree with the XYZs that this was a violation of a student’s right to free speech; while restrictions are allowed on some occasions, this was not one of them. The Court even created a “substantial disruption test” as a decision-making criterion for how school administrators could constitutionally limit a student's speech. In this case, it did not pass that test, so it was deemed a violation of the students' First Amendment protection of free speech rights. A majority opinion stated that neither students nor teachers should get rid of their constitutional rights at school. This case matters because it set the precedent for the freedom of speech on school grounds.

New York Times v. United States (1971)

The Court ruled in favor of the XYZ, saying that the Nixon administration’s restraining order was unconstitutional, which allowed the paper to continue printing (the First Amendment’s protection of the freedom of the press). A majority opinion stated that whenever a case involving the freedom of the press comes before the court, the bar to clear for prior restraint is very high. Prior restraint, however, can be used if it truly is a matter of national security, but in this case XYZ just didn’t want to be exposed for his lies. This case is significant because the decision is considered a victory for the free press against censorship, and the decision made it hard to censor the free press despite its vagueness ever since. 

Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)

The Court ruled for a unanimous decision in favor of XYZ, agreeing with their argument that the state's interest should not trump the Amish families' right to exercise religion freely (First Amendment rights to the free exercise of religion). The majority opinion was that despite how strong a state's interest is in universal compulsory education, it doesn’t exclude other interests. This case is significant because it sets the tone for future cases involving the clash between state interest and the exercise of religion; it also popularized homeschooling.

Shaw v. Reno (1993)

The Court ruled in favor of XYZ and against XYZ and the Justice Department since, regardless of their noble intentions, districts drawn only on race were unconstitutional because it set a dangerous precedent, so the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was violated by these strange districts. This case was significant because it set the precedent for future racial gerrymandering cases, saying that districts cannot be drawn only with the intent to gather those of the same race into voting districts.

United States v. Lopez (1995)

The Court sided with XYZ in a 5-4 decision, with the majority opinion being that if Congress can use the Commerce Clause (Commerce Clause of Article 1 Section 8), to regulate weapons on school property, there's nothing Congress can't regulate. This case matters because it's a case focused on federalism and the court ruling for state over federal.

Citizens United v. FEC (2010)

The Court ruled 5-4 in favor of XYZ, arguing that the limitations on corporations running political ads and communications were not different from government censorship of speech towards individuals (First Amendment Freedom of Speech). This case is significant because the Court essentially decided that it was fair for those with the most money to have the loudest voices. So now organizations can put in as much money as they desire as long as they don’t directly collaborate with the candidate. And the candidates in these cases do not owe the ones spending money on their behalf any favors. This decision is still debated.

McDonald v. Chicago (2010)

The Court ruled in favor of XYZ, agreeing that Chicago’s gun laws were a violation of citizens’ Second Amendment Rights. This case matters because it applied the ruling of the Heller case (restrictive gun ownership laws were unconstitutional) to the states, which is a process known as selective incorporation. This led to any state or city with similar restrictive gun laws to rewrite their laws. 

Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)

In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled in favor of XYZ, saying that the 14th Amendment required that states license marriage for same-sex couples as well as recognize marriages performed in other states. The Court reversed the ruling of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld state bans on same-sex marriage. This case is significant because it legalized same-sex marriage in all 50 states and territories of the United States, which doubled the number of those partnerships in the US. Legally, the couples became eligible for state and federal benefits tied to marriage, which were previously only open to opposite sex marriage.