AP Government Landmark Court Cases

AP Government landmark cases

Marbury v. Madison

Issue: John Adams nominated multiple judgeship positions as midnight appointments, William Mar bury was one of the last and he didn't receive his commission before Jefferson became president, so Jefferson's new secretary of state with held his appointment.

Decision: Court ruled in a unanimous 4-0 vote that Jefferson, was wrong to prevent William Marbury from taking office as justice. However, it also ruled that the court had no jurisdiction in the case and could not force Jefferson and Madison to seat Marbury.

Doctrine: Established the principle of judicial review

Supporting Opinion Reasoning: Majority reasoning says that if both the law and the constitution apply to an issue the court must decide which of these conflicting rules governs the case, as is the essence of judicial duty.

McCuloch v. Maryland (1819)

Issue: Congress chartered the Second Bank of the United States and Maryland tried to pass legislation to impose tax on the bank.

Decision: In a unanimous 7-0 decision, court held congress had the power to create the bank and that Maryland could not tax the national government.

Supporting Opinion Reasoning: The majority opinion reasoning stated that the necessary and proper clause gave Congress the power to create the bank and while states can tax, the constitution and laws made in pursuance of are supreme.

Doctrine: This established the doctrine of federal law is supreme over state law.

Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

Issue: In 1896, plessy v Ferguson established the doctrine separate but equal. In 1951, Oliver Brown filed a suit against the Board of Education in Topeka Kansas after his daughter Linda Brown was denied entrance to Topeka's all-white elementary schools. Brown claimed the black and white schools were not equal and that they violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

Decision: In a unanimous vote 9-0, they ruled against segregated schools reversing plessy v ferguson.

Supporting Opinion Reasoning: The supporting opinion reasoned that "in the field of public education the doctrine of 'separate but equal' has no place. Schools must be desegregated because the plaintiffs were being deprived equal protection of the laws guaranteed in the 14th amendment.

Doctrine: Established the doctrine separate is not equal.

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

Issue: Clarence Earl Gideon was charged in Florida state court with felony breaking and entering, he requested the court appoint him a lawyer, but they did not because florida law states that tey only appoint lawyers to defendants in capital cases (usually first degree murder or capital murder). He was found guilty and he sued.

Decision: The supreme court ruled in favor of Gideon with a unanimous 9-0 vote and he was released from jail.

Supporting Opinion Reasoning: the Constitution states in the 6th amendment that guarantee of counsel is a fundamental and essential right, and only giving it to certain defendants violates the fourteenth amendment, that makes rights equal for all.

Doctrine: States are required to provide legal counsel to indigent defendents with a felony charge.

Tinker v Des Moines School District (1969)

Issue: In 1965 a group of students in Des Moines, Iowa held a meeting planning to wear black arm bands to school throughout the holiday season to show support for a truce in the vietnam war. The principals learned of this and created a policy that any student wearing an armband would be suspended if they refuse to remove it. Mary Beth Tinker and John Tinker were sent home from dec 16 to new years day when the protest ended. They sued claiming the school violated their right to free expression.

Decision: The court decided that prohibiting the arm bands violated the student's 1st amendment rights in a 7-2 vote.

Supporting opinion Reasoning: The court held the bands were free speech and that students do not lose their right to fee speech when the step onto school property. In order to justify the suppression of free speech the school would have to prove the bands "materially and substantially interfere" with the operation of the school, and they could not.

Dissenting opinion reasoning: Argued the First amendment does not provide the right to express any opinion at any time and that the appearance of the armbands distracted both students and faculty so the school was well within their rights to discipline the students.

Doctrine: public school officials cannot sensor student expression unless it substantially disrupts school activities or invades the rights of others.

Roe v Wade (1973)

Issue: Jane Roe (fake name) filed a lawsuit against Henry Wade, he district attorney of the Dallas County in Texas where she lived, challenging a Texas law that made abortion illegal except by a doctor's order to save a woman's life. She claimed it violated her right to privacy.

Decision: The court ruled in favor of Roe 7-2 that the right to privacy outwighs the potentiality of human life at certain parts of the preganancy. In the first trimester, the state may not regulate abortions, In the second trimester, the state may impose regulations reasonable to maternal health, and in the third trimester the state may regulate abortions and prohibit them entirely as long as the law contains exceptions to save the life of the mother.

Supporting Opinion Reasoning: The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the right to privacy and a woman's right to choose an abortion falls within that, blanket laws prohibiting abortion violate that right.

Dissenting Opinion Reasoning: The state's interest in the potentiality of human life can outweigh the health of pregnant women and their right to privacy in situations where they want an abortion.

term-14

Doctrine: Right to an Abortion

United States v. Lopez (1995)

Issue: Alfonzo Lopez carried a concealed weapon to his San Antonio Texas High school and was charged under texas law with firearm possession on school premises, then those charges were dismissed after federal agents charged Lopez with violating a federal criminal Statue,(the gun-free school zones act of 1990). The question is is it federal or state jurisdiction, lopez argued state because congress did not have the right to pass the act because it is unconstitutional because it exceeds the power of congress to legislate because congress claimed the power was given to them under the commerce clause.

Decision: Court agreed it was unconstitutional., in a 5-4 vote the court said that the possession of a gun in a local school zone is not an economic activity that would have substantial effect on interstate commerce, it has nothing to do with commerce.

supporting opinion reasoning: while congress is given the right to regulate interstate commerce, posession of a gun in a school zone is not an economic activity, it is still a criminal act but it should be handled at the local level, therefore, the 1990 gun-free school zones act infringed on states powers

dissenting opinion reasoning: argued that Congress could regulate handgun posession under the Commerce clause because gun violence could have a significant effect on interstate commerce by impairing educational environments.

Doctrine: Commerce clause of Constitution does not give Congress the power to regulate guns near state-operated schools

New York Times Company v U.S. (1971)

Issue: "The pentagon papers case," The Nixon Administration attempted to prevent the New York Times and Washington Post from publishing materials belonging to a classified defense department study regarding the history of united states activities in vietnam. These papers showed that Lyndon Johnson had lied to congress and the american people about the extent of military action in Southeast Asia. President argued restraint was necessary to protect national security.

Decision: In a 6-3 vote the court ruled the U.S. governmnet did not meet the burden of showing justification for the enforcement of prior restraint.

Supporting Opinion Reasoning: the first amendment supports the view that the press must be allowed to publish news without censorship, injunctions, or prior restraint. And the publication of a the papers would not endanger current military personnel by revealing locations or movement.

Dissenting Opinion Reasoning: Claims the press loses their right to free press when the governments ability to function effectively is disrupted, and claimed that the first amendment is not an absolute.

Doctrine: established a heavy presumption against prior restraint even in cases involving national security.

BAKER V CARR, 1961

The issue: Did the Supreme Court have jurisdiction over questions of legislative apportionment?

The decision: State reapportionment claims are justifiable in federal court

The vote count: 6-2 decision for Baker

Majority opinion: the right of the court to intervene is within the reach of judicial protection under the fourteenth amendment

Dissenting opinion: did not believe that there was a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and that the complaint should have been dismissed because it is not an issue the court should decide

The doctrine established: The federal courts have a right to intervene on matters concerning state reapportionment claims

ENGEL V VITALE, 1962

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

The decision: The state cannot hold prayers in public schools, even if participation is not required and the prayer is not tied to a particular religion.

The vote count: 6-1 decision for Engel

The majority opinion: respondent's decision to use its school system to facilitate recitation of the official prayer violated the Establishment Clause.

The dissenting opinion: argument that no "official religion" was established by permitting those who want to say a prayer to say it.

The doctrine established: voluntary prayer in school violated the First Amendment

WISCONSIN V YODER, 1972

The issue: Did Wisconsin's requirement that all parents send their children to school at least until age 16 violate the First Amendment by criminalizing the conduct of parents who refused to send their children to school for religious reasons?

The decision: The Court held that an individual's interests in the free exercise of religion under the First Amendment outweighed the State's interests in compelling school attendance beyond the eighth grade.

The vote count: Unanimous decision for Yoder

The majority opinion: the Court found that the values and programs of secondary school were "in sharp conflict with the fundamental mode of life mandated by the Amish religion," and that an additional one or two years of high school would not produce the benefits of public education cited by Wisconsin to justify the law.

The dissenting opinion: none

The doctrine established: Interpreted the Free Exercise Clause in a way to balance state educational interests and religious freedom

SCHENCK V UNITED STATES, 1919

The issue: Did Schenck's conviction under the Espionage Act for criticizing the draft violate his First Amendment right to freedom of speech?

The decision: The Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment does not shield advocacy urging conduct deemed unlawful under the Espionage Act

The vote count: unanimous decision for united states

The majority opinion: concluded that courts owed greater deference to the government during wartime, even when constitutional rights were at stake.

The dissenting opinion: none

The doctrine established: Lessened the strength of the First Amendment during times of war.

MCDONALD V CHICAGO, 2010

The issue: Does the Second Amendment apply to the states because it is incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment's Privileges and Immunities or Due Process clauses and thereby made applicable to the states?

The decision: The Supreme Court reversed the Seventh Circuit, holding that the Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense applicable to the states.

The vote count: 5–4 decision for Otis McDonald

The majority opinion: reasoned that rights that are "fundamental to the Nation's scheme of ordered liberty" or that are "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition" are appropriately applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.

The dissenting opinion: The Second Amendment only protects an individual’s right to bear arms in the context of military service and does not limit the government’s authority to regulation civilian firearms.

The doctrine established: The Second Amendment is applicable to the states and incorporated in the Fourteenth Amendment.

SHAW V RENO, 1993

The issue: Did the North Carolina residents' claim, that the State created a racially gerrymandered district, raise a valid constitutional issue under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause?

The decision: 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 vote count: 5–4 decision for shaw

The majority opinion: If legislation is facially race-neutral but is clearly a separation of voters by race without sufficient justification, then a challenge to that legislation under the Equal Protection Clause is valid and should survive a motion to dismiss.

The dissenting opinion: The white voters who brought the suit could not prove they had been injured in any way by the redistricting plan, and the redistricting plan was an attempt to equalize treatment by providing minority voters with an effective voice in the political process, not an attempt to strip voting power from a particular group.

The doctrine established: Claims of racial redistricting must be held to a standard of strict scrutiny

CITIZENS UNITED V FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION (FEC), 2010

The issue: 1) Did the Supreme Court's decision in McConnell resolve all constitutional as-applied challenges to the BCRA when it upheld the disclosure requirements of the statute as constitutional? 2) Do the BCRA's disclosure requirements impose an unconstitutional burden when applied to electioneer requirements because they are protected "political speech" and not subject to regulation as "campaign speech"? 3) If a communication lacks a clear plea to vote for or against a particular candidate, is it subject to regulation under the BCRA? 4) Should a feature-length documentary about a candidate for political office be treated like the advertisements at issue in McConnell and therefore be subject to regulation under the BCRA?

The decision: No. No. Yes. Yes (to above questions)

The vote count: 5–4 decision for Citizens United

The majority opinion: under the First Amendment corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited. The majority maintained that political speech is indispensable to a democracy, which is no less true because the speech comes from a corporation. The majority also held that the BCRA's disclosure requirements as applied to The Movie were constitutional, reasoning that disclosure is justified by a "governmental interest" in providing the "electorate with information" about election-related spending resources

The dissenting opinion: the Court had no narrower grounds upon which to rule, except to handle the First Amendment issues embodied within the case. Also, corporations are not members of society and that there are compelling governmental interests to curb corporations' ability to spend money during local and national elections.

The doctrine established: The First Amendment protects the right to free speech, despite the speaker’s corporate identity.