AP Gov Landmark Cases

studied byStudied by 36 people
5.0(1)
Get a hint
Hint

Marbury v. Madison date

1 / 69

70 Terms

1

Marbury v. Madison date

1803

New cards
2

Marbury v. Madison laws

  • Article III

  • Judiciary Act of 1789, Section 2

New cards
3

Marbury v. Madison central question

Does SCOTUS have authority to issue a writ under the Judiciary Act of 1789?

New cards
4

Marbury v. Madison reason

William Marbury sued Secretary of State Madison asking Court for a write of mandamus to obtain his commission as a federal judge

New cards
5

Marbury v. Madison ruling

Marbury is entitled to his commission BUT the Court cannot issue one because Sect. 2 of Judiciary Act of 1789 is unconstitutional. Judicial Review of acts of Congress and President is affirmed. SCOTUS a co-equal branch of government

New cards
6

McCulloch v. Maryland date

1819

New cards
7

McCulloch v. Maryland laws

Necessary and Proper Clause Article 1, Section 8

New cards
8

McCulloch v. Maryland central question

  • Is it constitutional for Congress to establish a bank?

  • Is it constitutional for Maryland to tax a federal entity?

New cards
9

McCulloch v. Maryland reason

  • McCulloch (cashier) refuses to pay tax Maryland puts on Second Bank of the US

  • Maryland says the bank is unconstitutional because the Constitution does not say that federal gov is allowed to create a bank

New cards
10

McCulloch v. Maryland ruling

Congress can make another bank and Maryland cannot tax national government institutions as they’re carrying out constitutional powers. Congress allowed to do all this under the Necessary and Proper Clause. States still allowed to tax just not on tools established to carry out the Constitution.

New cards
11

US v. Lopez date

1995

New cards
12

US v. Lopez laws

Commerce Clause Article 1 Section 8

New cards
13

US v. Lopez central question

  • Is the Gun-Free School Zones Act 1990 unconstitutional because Congress passed the act under the Commerce Clause?

New cards
14

US v. Lopez reason

High schooler Lopez charged with federal crime for having gun on school grounds due to Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990

New cards
15

US v. Lopez ruling

SCOTUS rules the GFSZA unconstitutional; having a gun in a school zone isn’t an activity that pertains to business/would affect interstate commerce. Therefore, the Congress cannot pass the law under the Commerce Clause

New cards
16

McDonald v. Chicago date

2010

New cards
17

McDonald v. Chicago laws

2nd Amendment and 14th Amendment

New cards
18

McDonald v. Chicago central question

Does the 2nd Amendment apply to the states because of the 14th Amendment?

New cards
19

McDonald v. Chicago reason

NRA filed suits against Chicago and Oak Park that challenged their gun bans because SCOTUS ruled in DC v. Heller that handgun bans were against the second amendment because it was enforced by the federal government

New cards
20

McDonald v. Chicago ruling

The 14th Amendment allows the 2nd Amendment to be applicable to the states. Citing the previous DC v. Heller decision and its use of the Due Process Clause in the 14th Amendment as a means of incorporating the states into the 2nd Amendment.

New cards
21

Citizens United v. FEC date

2010

New cards
22

Citizens United v. FEC laws

1st Amendment (Freedom of Speech)

New cards
23

Citizens United v. FEC central question

  • Does limiting independent political spending violate the 1st Amendment?

  • Is a limit on independent political spending necessary to protect from corruption?

New cards
24

Citizens United v. FEC reason

Citizens United (conservative nonprofit) attempts to air a film criticizing Hillary Clinton soon before the primaries, the FEC stops them based upon federal election laws (bipartisanly unpopular)

New cards
25

Citizens United v. FEC ruling

SCOTUS ruled in favor of Citizens United, stating that limits on independent political spending were both unnecessary for preventing corruption and a violation of the first amendment. Corporations, unions, and special interest groups and Super PACS were now allowed to spend an unlimited amount of money on political campaigns provided that they don’t coordinate with any candidate’s campaign.

New cards
26

New York Times v. United States date

1971

New cards
27

New York Times v. United States laws

First Amendment (freedom of the press)

New cards
28

New York Times v. United States central question

Did the Nixon’s administration’s efforts to prevent the publication of what it deemed, “classified information”, violate the first amendment and the freedom of the press?

New cards
29

New York Times v. United States reason

Nixon administration wanted to keep NYT and WaPo from publishing news story using classified documents about American activity during the Vietnam War, argued it would protect national security and that prior restraint was necessary

New cards
30

New York Times v. United States ruling

The Court ruled that prior restraint violated the first amendment in this case, as there was no immediate threat as a result of this information. The burden is on the government to demonstrate that reporting of information in the public interest is a threat to national security.

New cards
31

Baker v. Carr date

1962

New cards
32

Baker v. Carr laws

14th amendment, equal protection clause

New cards
33

Baker v. Carr central question

Does the Supreme Court have authority over questions of legislative apportionment?

New cards
34

Baker v. Carr ruling

Tennessee legislature violated state law, and equal protection clause under the 14th Amendment meant that the Court could rule on cases pertaining to apportionment in states.

New cards
35

Baker v. Carr reason

Baker said that the Tennessee district boundaries hadn’t been drawn every 10 years as it was supposed to be; his district grew but had no increased representation

New cards
36

Shaw v. Reno date

1993

New cards
37

Shaw v. Reno laws

14th Amendment Equal Protection clause

New cards
38

Shaw v. Reno central question

Was the creation of a racially gerrymandered district a violation of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause?

New cards
39

Shaw v. Reno ruling

SCOTUS decided that it was unconstitutional for there to be a racially gerrymandered district.  The shape of the district was strange enough to warrant accusation that the district was drawn in such a way to partition voters based on race.

New cards
40

Shaw v. Reno reason

US Attorney General rejects NC reapportionment plan, would’ve made only 1 majority black district; new plan had district 12 with 2 majority black districts

New cards
41

Schenck v. United States date

1919

New cards
42

Schenck v. United States laws

The First Amendment - freedom of speech

New cards
43

Schenck v. United States central question

Did charging Schenck and Baer under the Espionage Act for speaking out against the draft violate their First Amendment rights?

New cards
44

Schenck v. United States ruling

Unanimously decided in favor of the U.S. that the Espionage Act was under the powers of Congress during wartime despite constitutional rights being violated.  Ruling establishes the “clear and present danger” test.

New cards
45

Schenck v. United States reason

Schenck and Baer charged for violating Espionage Act by urging public that draft was violating 13th Amendment

New cards
46

Tinker v. Des Moines date

1969

New cards
47

Tinker v. Des Moines laws

1st Amendment - freedom of speech

New cards
48

Tinker v. Des Moines central question

Does the 1st Amendment speech protections apply to students in public school? (Can students wear black armbands to school as protest, without punishment?)

New cards
49

Tinker v. Des Moines ruling

Court decides 7-2 that the 1st Amendment protects student speech in public school so long as that speech does not disrupt the learning of the other students.

New cards
50

Tinker v. Des Moines reason

Students wore black armbands to school in protest of Vietnam War, rule created to ban bands, 3 students suspended

New cards
51

Engel v. Vitale date

1962

New cards
52

Engel v. Vitale laws

The First Amendment - establishment clause

New cards
53

Engel v. Vitale central question

Does the reading of a nondenominational prayer at the start of the school day violate the "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment?

New cards
54

Engel v. Vitale ruling

The state cannot hold prayers in public schools, even if participation is not required and the prayer is not tied to a particular religion.  Establishes the doctrine of separation of church and state.

New cards
55

Engel v. Vitale reason

NY Board recommended voluntary non-denominational prayer at the beginning of each school day, several organizations challenged the rules

New cards
56

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka date

1954

New cards
57

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka laws

14th Amendment - equal protection clause

New cards
58

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka central question

Central Question: Does the racial segregation of public schools violate the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment?

New cards
59

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka ruling

“Separate but equal” schools are inherently unequal and violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment

New cards
60

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka reason

Plessy v. Ferguson upheld separate but equal doctrine, people argued that segregated schools violated equal protection clause and consolidated under Brown

New cards
61

Wisconsin v. Yoder date

1972

New cards
62

Wisconsin v. Yoder laws

First Amendment - free exercise of religion

New cards
63

Wisconsin v. Yoder central question

Did this Wisconsin law violate the First Amendment - free exercise of religion clause - by punishing people for following their religious beliefs?

New cards
64

Wisconsin v. Yoder ruling

The courts said that the individual interest of religious freedom outweigh that of states interest to force attendance until 16. Unanimous consent in favor of the plaintiff. 7-0

New cards
65

Wisconsin v. Yoder reason

Amish parent claimed that law forcing children to attend school until 16 went against religious beliefs, fined for removing children after 8th grade

New cards
66

Gideon v. Wainwright date

1963

New cards
67

Gideon v. Wainwright laws

Sixth Amendment - rights of the accused, and Fourteenth Amendment - due process

New cards
68

Gideon v. Wainwright central question

Does the Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel in criminal cases extend to felony defendants in state courts?

New cards
69

Gideon v. Wainwright ruling

The Supreme Court found that the Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel applied to criminal defendants in state courts through the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court reasoned that the Sixth Amendment is a fundamental and essential right made obligatory upon the states by the Fourteenth Amendment

New cards
70

Gideon v. Wainwright reason

Gideon charged with breaking and entering, appeared in court without lawyer, found guilty and sentence to 5 yrs in prison

New cards

Explore top notes

note Note
studied byStudied by 18 people
... ago
5.0(1)
note Note
studied byStudied by 4 people
... ago
4.0(1)
note Note
studied byStudied by 11 people
... ago
5.0(1)
note Note
studied byStudied by 5 people
... ago
5.0(1)
note Note
studied byStudied by 20 people
... ago
5.0(1)
note Note
studied byStudied by 22 people
... ago
5.0(1)
note Note
studied byStudied by 12 people
... ago
5.0(1)
note Note
studied byStudied by 35255 people
... ago
4.8(98)

Explore top flashcards

flashcards Flashcard (24)
studied byStudied by 2 people
... ago
5.0(1)
flashcards Flashcard (59)
studied byStudied by 10 people
... ago
5.0(2)
flashcards Flashcard (65)
studied byStudied by 27 people
... ago
4.0(3)
flashcards Flashcard (75)
studied byStudied by 6 people
... ago
5.0(2)
flashcards Flashcard (20)
studied byStudied by 43 people
... ago
5.0(1)
flashcards Flashcard (31)
studied byStudied by 22 people
... ago
5.0(2)
flashcards Flashcard (20)
studied byStudied by 4 people
... ago
5.0(3)
flashcards Flashcard (88)
studied byStudied by 73 people
... ago
5.0(2)
robot