ap gov Supreme Court

Marbury v Madison

Background: William Marbury was appointed a judge by John Adams, but his commission wasn’t delivered before Thomas Jefferson took office. Jefferson’s Secretary of State, James Madison, refused to deliver it.
Issue: Does Marbury have a right to his commission, and can the Court force Madison to deliver it? (Judiciary Act vs. Constitution)
Holding: Marbury deserved the commission, BUT the Court couldn’t enforce it because the law giving them that power was unconstitutional.
Reasoning: The Judiciary Act expanded the Court’s original jurisdiction beyond what the Constitution allows.
Implications: Established judicial review—the Supreme Court can declare laws unconstitutional.

Mcculloh v Maryland

Background: Maryland taxed the Second Bank of the U.S. James McCulloch refused to pay.
Issue: Can Congress create a national bank? Can a state tax it?
Holding: Bank is constitutional; Maryland cannot tax it.
Reasoning:

• Necessary and Proper Clause allows implied powers

• Supremacy Clause → federal > state
  Implications: Expanded federal power significantly.

US v Lopez

Background: Lopez brought a gun to school and was charged under a federal law.
Issue: Does the Commerce Clause allow Congress to regulate guns in schools?
Holding: No.
Reasoning: Carrying a gun in school is not economic activity affecting interstate commerce.
Implications: Limited federal power; reinforced state authority.

Baker v Carr

Background: Tennessee districts were unevenly populated but not redrawn.
Issue: Can federal courts hear redistricting cases?
Holding: Yes.
Reasoning: Violates 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause.
Implications: Led to “one person, one vote” principle.

Shaw v Reno

Background: North Carolina created oddly shaped majority-Black districts.
Issue: Is race-based redistricting constitutional?
Holding: Sometimes unconstitutional.
Reasoning: If race is the primary factor, it may violate Equal Protection.
Implications: Limited racial gerrymandering.

Citizens United v FEC

Background: A nonprofit wanted to air a political film critical of Hillary Clinton.
Issue: Can the government limit corporate political spending?
Holding: No.
Reasoning: Political spending = free speech (1st Amendment).
Implications: Increased role of money (especially corporate) in politics.

Brown v Board

Background: Black students were forced to attend separate schools.
Issue: Does segregation violate Equal Protection?
Holding: Yes.
Reasoning: “Separate but equal” is inherently unequal.
Implications: Ended legal segregation in schools; major civil rights milestone.

Engel v Vitale

Background: Public schools required a daily prayer.
Issue: Does school-sponsored prayer violate the Constitution?
Holding: Yes.
Reasoning: Violates Establishment Clause (1st Amendment).
Implications: Reinforced separation of church and state.

Wisconsin v Yonder

Background: Amish families refused to send kids to school past 8th grade.
Issue: Does compulsory education violate religious freedom?
Holding: Yes (in this case).
Reasoning: Protected by Free Exercise Clause.
Implications: Strengthened religious liberty rights.

Schenck vs US

Background: Schenck distributed anti-draft pamphlets during WWI.
Issue: Is this protected speech?
Holding: No.
Reasoning: “Clear and present danger” test—speech can be limited if dangerous.
Implications: Limited free speech during wartime.

NY Times v US

Background: Government tried to stop publication of Pentagon Papers.
Issue: Can the government censor the press before publication?
Holding: No.
Reasoning: Prior restraint is unconstitutional unless extreme justification.
Implications: Strong protection for press freedom.

Tinker v Des Moines

Background: Students wore armbands to protest Vietnam War.
Issue: Do students have free speech rights in school?
Holding: Yes.
Reasoning: Protected unless it causes substantial disruption.
Implications: Expanded student rights.

14 dp

Gideon v. Wainwright

Background: Gideon couldn’t afford a lawyer and was denied one.
Issue: Must states provide attorneys?
Holding: Yes.
Reasoning: 6th Amendment applied to states via 14th Amendment.
Implications: Guaranteed right to counsel.

McDonald v. Chicago

Background: Chicago banned handguns.
Issue: Does the 2nd Amendment apply to states?
Holding: Yes.
Reasoning: Incorporated via 14th Amendment.
Implications: Expanded gun rights at the state level.