2026 AP gov supreme court cases

unit 1 (1819): McCulloch v. MY’s background

The U.S. gov chartered the 2nd B.U.S. MY, seeking to protect its local state banks, passed a law imposing an aggressive tax on any bank operating within its borders that was not chartered by the state legislature. McCulloch refused to pay the state tax and was fined.

unit 1 (1819): McCulloch v. MY’s constitutional question (2)

1. Does Congress have the implied constitutional authority to establish a national bank?

2. Can a state constitutionally tax the national bank? (federal)

unit 1 (1819): McCulloch v. MY’s court’s ruling

In favor of McCulloch, the Court ruled that Congress did have the power to create the national bank under the Necessary and Proper Clause (Elastic Clause). Marshall ruled that states cannot tax federal entities because "the power to tax involves the power to destroy", making MY’s tax a violation of the Supremacy Clause.

unit 1 (1819): McCulloch v. MY’s significance

it expanded national power by establishing that Congress has implied under the necessary and proper clause and that states cannot interfere with constitutional federal actions.

unit 1 (1995): US v. Lopez’s background

Lopez, carried a concealed handg*n into his school. He was charged with violating the federal g*n-free school zones act of 1990, which banned individuals from knowingly possessing firearms in a school zone. Lopez argued that the federal law was unconstitutional because Congress did not have the authority under the Constitution to regulate public schools. The federal gov argued it had the power under the Commerce Clause.

unit 1 (1995): US v. Lopez’s constitutional question

Does the g*n-free school zones act of 1990 exceed Congress's constitutional authority under the Commerce Clause?

unit 1 (1995): US v. Lopez’s court’s ruling

In favor of Lopez, the Court ruled that possession of a gun in a local school zone is completely unrelated to economic activity or interstate commerce. Therefore, Congress had overstepped its constitutional boundaries. The Court stated that if gun possession in a school zone counted as commerce, then there would be no limit to federal power, destroying the principle of federalism.

unit 1 (1995): US v. Lopez’s significance

It marked a major shift in constitutional law, placing the first major limit on Congress’s use of the Commerce Clause. It affirmed that certain powers belonged exclusively to the states, not the national government.

unit 2 (1803): Marbury v. Madison background

In final hours of Fed. President John Adam’s term, he made a last-minute "midnight appointments" to save party influence. However, Marbury's judicial commission was not delivered before Thomas Jefferson took office so he petitioned the SC to issue writs of mandamus (court order forcing official to act), citing Judiciary Act of 1789

unit 2 (1803): Marbury v. Madison’s constitutional question

Does the Supreme Court have the authority under Article III of the Constitution to invalidate an act of Congress?

unit 2 (1803): Marbury v. Madison’s court’s ruling

In favor of Madison, the Court ruled it couldn’t issue the writ because the portion of the Judiciary Act of 1789 that expanded the Court's original jurisdiction contradicted Article III. Because the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, any law conflicting with it is void.

unit 2 (1803): Marbury v. Madison’s significance

It established the principle of judicial review. This gave the SC the ultimate authority to interpret the Constitution and declare acts of Congress or executive actions unconstitutional, cementing the judiciary as a co-equal branch of gov (since it was at first considered weak due to no power of the purse and sword)

unit 2 (1961): Baker v. Carr’s background

Baker sued Carr, TN secretary of state, arguing that the state's failure to redraw legislative districts since 1901 census left rapidly growing urban areas severely underrepresented compared to rural areas, which violated the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.

unit 2 (1961): Baker v. Carr’s constitutional question

Do federal courts have the jurisdiction to hear constitutional challenges to state legislative redistricting?

unit 2 (1961): Baker v. Carr’s court’s ruling

In favor of Baker, the Court ruled that legislative apportionment is a justiciable issue, not a purely political one. Because the unequal districts directly affected voters' rights to equal treatment under the law, federal courts have the authority to review state redistricting practices under the 14th Amendment.

unit 2 (1961): Baker v. Carr’s significance

It opened the door for federal judicial review of state redistricting processes and established the famous "one person, one vote" principle.

unit 2 (1993): Shaw v. Reno’s background

After NC created a bizarrely shaped majority-minority congressional district to increase Black representation following the 1990 census, a Shaw and a group of white voters sued, arguing that the race-based redistricting violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

unit 2 (1993): Shaw v. Reno’s constitutional question

Does a state’s congressional redistricting plan that create a bizarrely shaped majority-minority district, drawn predominantly or solely along racial lines violate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment?

unit 2 (1993): Shaw v. Reno’s court’s ruling

In favor of Shaw, the Court ruled  that while the state's intent to comply with the Voting Rights Act was noble, the district's bizarre shape was so unusual that it could only be explained as an effort to separate voters based on race. The Court held that redistricting plans that are unexplainable on grounds other than race must be held to "strict scrutiny" under the Equal Protection Clause.

unit 2 (1993): Shaw v. Reno’s significance

It limited the use of racial gerrymandering, ruling that race cannot be the predominant factor when drawing legislative boundaries, even if done with the intention of helping minority groups.

unit 3 (1833): Barron v. Baltimore’s background

Wharf owner Barron sued the city of Baltimore after municipal construction projects diverted water and accumulated sediment, making the harbor too shallow for ships and ruining his business, claiming a Fifth Amendment violation

unit 3 (1833): Barron v. Baltimore’s constitutional question

Does the 5th Amendment restrict the power of state and local governments, or is it limited strictly to the national government?

unit 3 (1833): Barron v. Baltimore’s court’s ruling

The SC ruled that Bill of Rights only restricts to national government, not state and local governments

unit 3 (1833): Barron v. Baltimore’s court’s significance

The Bill of Rights only restricted to national government

unit 3 (1925): Gitlow v. NY’s background

Gitlow, a socialist, was arrested and convicted under a state criminal anarchy law for publishing and distributing a manifesto that advocated for the violent overthrow of the US gov.

unit 3 (1925): Gitlow v. NY’s constitutional question

Does the 1st Amendment's protection of free speech prevent states from punishing speech that advocates the violent overthrow of the government?

unit 3 (1925): Gitlow v. NY’s court’s ruling

In favor of NY, the SC upheld Gitlow’s conviction for publish the manifesto that advocated in overthrowing the government.

unit 3 (1925): Gitlow v. NY’s significance

It officially launched the incorporation doctrine, ruling for the first time that the 1st Amendment's protections of free speech and free press apply to state governments, not just the federal government.

unit 3 (1954): Brown v. Board of Education’s background

Black students in multiple states were denied admission to public schools based on state laws allowing or requiring segregation by race. Brown argued that this segregation system violated the Equal Protection Clause, but local courts upheld the policy under the "separate but equal" doctrine established by Plessy v. Ferguson

unit 3 (1954): Brown v. Board of Education’s constitutional question

Does the segregation of public education based solely on race violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment?

unit 3 (1954): Brown v. Board of Education’s court’s ruling

In favor of Brown, the Court ruled that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal." Racial segregation in public schools deprives minority children of equal educational opportunities and creates a sense of inferiority that severely harms their personal and educational development.

unit 3 (1954): Brown v. Board of Education’s significance

It overturned the legal precedent of Plessy v. Ferguson for public schools and sparked the modern Civil Rights Movement. It established that state-enforced racial segregation is unconstitutional, shifting the interpretation of the 14th Amendment to actively protect civil rights moving forward.

unit 3 (1962): Engel v. Vitale’s background

The NY State Board authorized a short, voluntary, nondenominational prayer to be recited by public school students at the start of each school day. A group of parents, led by Engel, sued the school board president Vitale, arguing that the official prayer violated their religious beliefs and the separation of church and state.

unit 3 (1962): Engel v. Vitale’s constitutional question

Does the recitation of a state-mandated, nondenominational prayer in public schools violate the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment?

unit 3 (1962): Engel v. Vitale’s court ruling

In favor of Engel, the Court ruled that public schools cannot sponsor or lead prayer, even if the prayer is denominationally neutral and students are allowed to remain silent or leave the room. The state cannot use its public school system to facilitate or endorse religious activities.

unit 3 (1962): Engel v. Vitale’s significance

It established a precedent strictly limiting gov-sponsored religious activities in public institutions. It reinforced the Establishment Clause by clarifying that the gov must remain neutral regarding religion.

unit 3 (1963): Gideon v. Wainwright’s background

Gideon was charged in a FL court with breaking and entering into a poolroom. Because he was poor, he requested that the court appoint him a defense attorney. The judge denied his request because FL law only provided free counsel to defendants facing the death penalty. Gideon represented himself, was found guilty, and sentenced to five years in prison.

unit 3 (1963): Gideon v. Wainwright’s constitutional question

Does the 6th Amendment's right to counsel in criminal cases extend to poor defendants in state courts?

unit 3 (1963): Gideon v. Wainwright’s court’s ruling

In favor of Gideon, the Court ruled that the right to counsel is a fundamental right essential to a fair trial. Through the doctrine of selective incorporation via the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause, states must provide an attorney to any criminal defendant accused of a felony who cannot afford one.

unit 3 (1963): Gideon v. Wainwright’s significance

It expanded the rights of the accused and fundamentally reshaped the American criminal justice system. It led to the creation of the public defender system across the US, ensuring that a defendant's financial status does not entirely dictate their ability to receive a fair trial and proper legal defense.

unit 3 (1969): Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District’s background

A group of students in Des Moines, wore black armbands to school to show their opposition to the Vietnam War and support for a truce. Learning of the plan, the school district adopted a policy that anyone wearing an armband would be asked to remove it, and refusal would result in suspension. Tinker and other students refused to take them off, and were suspended and argued it violated their 1st Amendment right.

unit 3 (1969): Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District’s constitutional question

Does a prohibition against the wearing of armbands in public school, as a form of symbolic protest, violate the 1st Amendment's freedom of speech?

unit 3 (1969): Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District’s court’s ruling

In favor of Tinker, the Court ruled that students do not lose their constitutional rights on school grounds. The Court held that schools can only censor student speech if it causes a "substantial and material disruption" to the educational environment, which the armbands did not.

unit 3 (1969): Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District’s significance

It established that symbolic speech is fully protected under the 1st Amendment. It cemented the constitutional rights of students within public schools, creating the "substantial disruption" that must be evident not because of potential before schools suppress student expression.

unit 3 (1971): New York Times (NYT) v. US’s background

During the Vietnam War, Ellsberg leaked a classified study—the "Pentagon Papers"—to the NY Times and the Washington Post which revealed that the US gov. had systematically lied to the public and Congress about the scope of the war. The Nixon administration attempted to block publication, claiming it was a threat to national security.

unit 3 (1971): NYT v. US’s constitutional question

Did the Nixon administration's efforts to prevent the publication of what it termed "classified information" violate the 1st Amendment's freedom of the press?

unit 3 (1971): NYT v. US’s court’s ruling

In favor of NYT, the Court ruled that the gov had not met the heavy burden required to justify prior restraint (censorship before publication). The Court found that the vague use of the term "security" should not be used to abridge the fundamental right of a free press to inform the public.

unit 3 (1971): NYT v. US’s significance

It set a high bar for gov censorship, establishing that the gov almost never has the right to block the publication of news material unless it can prove immediate, inevitable, and catastrophic danger to the nation.

unit 3 (1972): Wisconsin (WI) v. Yoder’s background

WI law required all children to attend public or private school until the age of 16. The Yoder’s refused to send their children to public school after the eighth grade, arguing that high school attendance was contrary to their religious beliefs and endangered their community's agrarian, faith-based way of life. They were convicted of violating the state's compulsory education law.

unit 3 (1972): Wisconsin v. Yoder’s constitutional question

Did WI’s compulsory school attendance law violate the Amish parents' 1st Amendment rights under the Free Exercise Clause?

unit 3 (1972): Wisconsin v. Yoder’s court’s ruling

In favor of Yoder, the Court ruled that an individual's fundamental interest in the free exercise of religion outweighed the state's legitimate interest in compelling school attendance.

unit 3 (1972): Wisconsin v. Yoder’s significance

It strengthened the Free Exercise Clause, establishing that religious freedom can override neutral state laws.

unit 3 (2010): McDonald v. Chicago’s background

Following the SC’s ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own a handgun for self-defense at the federal level, resident Otis McDonald and others sued the City of Chicago to challenge its strict handgun ban, asking the Court to apply that right to state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause.

unit 3 (2010): McDonald v. Chicago’s constitutional question

Does the 2nd Amendment apply to state and local governments through the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause?

unit 3 (2010): McDonald v. Chicago’s court’s ruling

In favor of Mcdonald, The Court ruled that the 14th Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. The majority concluded that the right to self-defense is a "fundamental" right,  meaning states and cities cannot pass absolute bans on handguns.

unit 3 (2010): McDonald v. Chicago’s significance

It successfully executed the selective incorporation of the 2nd Amendment. Moving forward, state and local gun control laws became subject to federal constitutional scrutiny, limiting the power of local governments to infringe upon an individual's right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

unit 5 (2010): Citizen United v. Federal Election (FEC)’s background

The case began when the conservative nonprofit group Citizens United produced a critical film about Hillary Clinton in 2008 and challenged provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) that banned corporations from funding electioneering communications close to an election.

unit 5 (2010): Citizen United v. FEC’s constitutional question

Does restricting independent political expenditures by corporations and unions violate the First Amendment's freedom of speech?

unit 5 (2010): Citizen United v. Federal Election FEC’s court’s ruling

In favor of citizen united, the Court ruled that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts cannot be limited under the 1st Amendment. The Court maintained that political speech is indispensable to democracy, and this protection applies to corporations just as it does to individuals.

unit 5 (2010): Citizen United v. Federal Election FEC’s significance

It fundamentally changed American politics by treating money as a form of protected speech. By ruling that corporations and unions can spend unlimited amounts of money on political campaigns—as long as they do not coordinate directly with candidates.