AP Government SCOTUS Cases (copy)

i h8 gov

Engel v Vitale (1962)

Engel v Vitale (1962)

The New York State Board of Regents authorized a short (optional) nondenominational prayer at the start of every school day, which parents brought to court and argued that this violated the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment. The court ultimately ruled that under the Establishment Clause, the state cannot hold prayers in public schools, even if participation is not required and the prayer is not tied to a particular religion.

Wisconsin v Yoder (1972)

Wisconsin required parents to send their children to school until they turned 16, causing Amish parents to be prosecuted when they stopped sending their children to school after 8th grade for religious purposes. In unanimous decision, the Court stated that under the Free Exercise Clause of the 1st Amendment, the free exercise of religion outweighed the State's interests in compelling school attendance past 8th grade.

Tinker v Des Moines School District (1968)

A group of high school students decided to wear black armbands to school in a form of public support for the truce in the Vietnam War. When the principals of the Des Moines school learned of the plan they met to create a policy that stated that any student wearing an armband would be asked to remove it and the refusal to do so would result in suspension. When three students came to school with the armbands they were sent home, causing them to sue the school district for violating their rights to expression. The Supreme Court held that the armbands represented pure speech and that students did not lose their 1st Amendment rights to freedom of speech when they stepped onto school property.

NY Times v US (1971)

The "Pentagon Papers" was a highly classified study ordered by the Secretary of Defense about America's involvement in the Vietnam War. When a Former Marine Corps officer realized that the war could not be won, he thought Americans should have access to the information in the Pentagon Papers and leaked them to the NY Times. The Nixon administration obtained a restraining order to stop any more publication of the papers, to which the Supreme Court decided that the Nixon Administration could not block the release of the papers as they were meant to inform the American public. Additionally, the Nixon administration's efforts to prevent the publication of what it termed "classified information" violated the Freedom of the Press in the 1st Amendment.

Schenck v US (1919)

Charles Schenck was an active Socialist and distributed leaflets encouraging the public to disobey the draft with peaceful action, causing him to be charged with conspiracy in violation of the Espionage Act of 1917 by causing insubordination in the military. The Supreme Court ruled that Schenck's speech created clear and present danger because he was disrupting the conscription process. It also held that the Espionage Act did not violate the First Amendment and was an appropriate exercise of Congress' wartime authority and concluded that the First Amendment does not protect speech that approaches creating a clear and present danger.

Gideon v Wainwright (1963)

Clarence Earl Gideon was convicted of breaking and entering and charged with intent to commit a misdemeanor but was denied access to free legal counsel by the state. Gideon filed a petition to the Supreme Court raising the question of whether the sixth amendment's right to counsel in criminal cases extended to criminal defendants at the state level. The Supreme Court unanimously decided that the Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment applied the 6th amendment's guarantee of free legal counsel in criminal cases to the states

McDonald v Chicago (2010)

Several suits were filed against Chicago and Oak Park in Illinois challenging their gun bans after the Supreme Court issued its opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller that a District of Columbia handgun ban violated the Second Amendment. There, the Court reasoned that the law in question was enacted under the authority of the federal government and, thus, the Second Amendment was applicable. In McDonald v Chicago, plaintiffs argued that the Second Amendment should also apply to the states. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees "the right of the people to keep and bear arms," applied to the state and local governments.

McCulloh v Maryland (1819)

The Supreme Court upheld the power of the national government when the federal government established a bank in Maryland and the state tried to tax it. The court denied the right of a state to tax the federal bank, using the Constitution's supremacy clause in Article 6. The Court's broad interpretation of the necessary and proper act clause paved the way for later rulings upholding expansive federal powers

U.S. v Lopez (1995)

Alfonzo Lopez, a 12th grade high school student, carried a concealed weapon into his San Antonio, Texas high school. He was charged under Texas law with firearm possession on school premises. The next day, the state charges were dismissed after federal agents charged Lopez with violating a federal criminal statute, the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. The Supreme Court declared that the Gun Free School Zones Act exceeded Congress's Interstate Commerce Clause power and was therefore unconstitutional. This was the first federal law declared to exceed commerce clause since the 1930s.

Brown v Board of Education (1954)

The Supreme Court ruled that segregated education is inherently unequal and unlawful due to 14th amendment Equal Protection Clause

Citizens United v FEC (2010)

A 2010 decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that independent expenditures and donating money to political campaigns are free speech protected by the 1st Amendment and so cannot be limited by federal law. This led to the creation of SuperPACs & massive rise in amount of third party electioneering.

Baker v Carr (1962)

Established the principle of "one person, one vote" and made such patterns of representation illegal. The Court asserted that the federal courts had the right to tell states to reapportion their districts for more equal representation. Essentially stated that courts could hear cases alleging electoral boundaries that were unfair due to the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Shaw v Reno (1993)

The U.S. Attorney General rejected a North Carolina congressional reapportionment plan because the plan created only one black-majority district. North Carolina submitted a second plan creating two black-majority districts. One of these districts was, in parts, no wider than the interstate road along which it stretched. Five North Carolina residents challenged the constitutionality of this unusually shaped district, alleging that its only purpose was to secure the election of additional black representatives. The Court held that although North Carolina's reapportionment plan was racially neutral on its face, the resulting district shape was bizarre enough to suggest that it constituted an effort to separate voters into different districts based on race. The unusual district, while perhaps created by noble intentions, seemed to exceed what was reasonably necessary to avoid racial imbalances. Under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, redistricting based on race must be held to strict scrutiny (the government must have a "compelling government interest for any law that singles out race or ethnicity")

Marbury v Madison (1803)

Thomas Jefferson defeated John Adams in the 1800 presidential election. Before Jefferson took office, Adams and Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1801, which created new courts, added judges, and gave the president more control over appointment of judges. William Marbury had been appointed Justice of the Peace, but his commission was not delivered. Marbury petitioned the Supreme Court to compel the new Secretary of State, James Madison, to deliver the documents. The Court found that Madison's refusal to deliver the commission was illegal, but held that the provision of the Judiciary Act of 1789 enabling Marbury to bring his claim to the Supreme Court was itself unconstitutional, since it purported to extend the Court's original jurisdiction beyond that which Article III, Section 2, established. This case establishes the Supreme Court's power of Judicial Review.

Articles of Confederation

POWER TO THE STATES unless specifically said otherwise

States wanted to maintain sovereignty/power, so they intentionally created a weak government that lacked the ability to tax.

First Constitution failed; no ability to tax; no President or Executive; no central government as each state maintained sovereignty; One vote per state in Congress; all states to change the doc.

Declaration of Independence

natural rights, popular sovereignty, social contract are the foundation of governmental power.

"All men are created equal"

"People have unalienable rights: Life, Liberty, pursuit of happiness"

The purpose of government is to protect the inalienable rights - that is the social contract

The people form governments - popular sovereignty, people have power.

Federalist No. 10

Factions are a threat to the republic because majority factions will tyrannize minorities.

WAYS TO CONTROL: stop them from forming (might destroy liberty) or limit their effects

Have a large republic to control the negative effects of factions

US Constitution

POWER TO FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

legislative powers are given to congress

guarenteed bill of rights

bicameral legislature, enumerated powers of congress, necessary and proper clause, supremacy clause (fed law supreme)

Defines branches of government, process for amending constitution

Brutus No. 1

Constitution threatens states

Against ratifying constitution. Power should be held by the people, small local governments.

Argues that the necessary and proper and supremacy clause gives the fed gov. "Absolute and uncontrollable power"

Argues against the supremacy clause because states should be supreme to national gov

The power to tax is the "engine of tyranny"

Federalist No. 51

Separation of powers and checks and balances guards against tyranny; different powers given to state and fed (federalism)

Federalist No. 78

Independent judiciary - as long as well behaved, they serve for life and paid without interference from others so they can keep their focus on their job. Necessary to keep them independent and unreliant on popular will

Letter from a Birmingham Jail by MLK

Demand of the fulfillment of the declaration, constitution and 14th amendment equal protection clause or EVERYONE

In favor of civil disobedience and nonviolent direct action

14th Amendement

All persons born or naturalized in the US, and subject to the jurisdiction therof, are citizens of the US and of the state wherein they reside