Required Court Cases AP Gov

Marbury v. Madison (1803) - Facts

William Marbury was appointed justice of the peace by President John Adams (his attempt to keep federalists in power while Jefferson was inaugurated), but his commission was not delivered before Thomas Jefferson took office. Jefferson’s Secretary of State, James Madison, refused to deliver it.

Marbury v. Madison (1803) - Issue

Does Marbury have a right to his commission, and can the Supreme Court force Madison to deliver it?

Marbury v. Madison (1803) — Holding

The Court ruled Marbury had a right to the commission, but the law allowing the Court to force delivery was unconstitutional.

Marbury v. Madison (1803) — Reasoning

The Judiciary Act of 1789 expanded the Court’s original jurisdiction beyond what Article III allows. The Court established judicial review.

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) - Facts

Maryland taxed the Second Bank of the United States. James McCulloch, a bank employee, refused to pay the tax.

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) - Issue

Can a state tax a federal bank, and does Congress have the power to create a bank?

Maryland argued that the establishment of a national bank was unconstitutional (Article 1 Section 8 did not say that Congress had the power to create a bank)

McCulloch’s lawyers believed the bank was constitutional under Article 1 Section 8’s necessary and proper clause

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) - Holding

Congress can create a bank, and states cannot tax federal institutions so went to McCulloch 6-0.

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) - Reasoning

The Necessary and Proper Clause gives Congress implied powers. The Supremacy Clause prevents states from interfering with federal actions. Demonstrated the power of federalism tipped in favor of the federal government.

Schenk v. U.S. (1919) — Facts

Charles Schenck distributed leaflets urging resistance to the draft during World War I and was arrested under the Espionage Act.

Schenk v. U.S. (1919) — Issue

Is speech urging draft resistance protected by the First Amendment?

Schenk v. U.S. (1919) — Holding

The speech was not protected.

Schenk v. U.S. (1919) — Reasoning

The Court created the “clear and present danger” test; speech that threatens national security can be limited.

Brown v. Board of Education (1954) — Facts

Black students were forced to attend separate schools from white students under “separate but equal” laws.

Brown v. Board of Education (1954) — Issue

Does school segregation violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment?

Brown v. Board of Education (1954) — Holding

Segregation in public schools is unconstitutional.

Brown v. Board of Education (1954) — Reasoning

Separate facilities are inherently unequal and harm minority children.

Baker v. Carr (1961) - Facts

Tennessee had not redrawn legislative districts despite increase in urban population changes compared to rural population, causing unequal representation against urban voters (rural voters would get more say in votes due to very few being in one district compared to many in an urban district).

Baker v. Carr (1961) - Issue

Can federal courts hear cases about legislative redistricting?

The 14th amendment (the equal protection clause) was argued and that all Tennessee citizens were not equally protected under the law, making it justiciable.

Baker v. Carr (1961) - Holding

Yes, redistricting issues are justiciable and the Supreme Court did have the authority to rule on legislative reapportionment, making Baker win 6-2.

Baker v. Carr (1961) - Reasoning

The Court ruled this was an Equal Protection issue, not a political question. This established the foundation for the one person, one vote doctrine so no one person’s vote has more weight than another which also changed the political representation nature across the United States (many states had to redraw their lines). This case also got the Supreme Court more involved in political questions.

Engel v. Vitale (1962) — Facts

A New York public school required students to recite a government-written prayer.

Engel v. Vitale (1962) — Issue

Does school-sponsored prayer violate the Establishment Clause?

Engel v. Vitale (1962) — Holding

Yes, it is unconstitutional.

Engel v. Vitale (1962) — Reasoning

Government cannot sponsor or endorse religious activity in public schools.

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) — Facts

Clarence Gideon was denied a lawyer because he could not afford one and was convicted.

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) — Issue

Does the Sixth Amendment require states to provide attorneys to defendants who cannot afford one?

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) — Holding

Yes, states must provide legal counsel.

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) — Reasoning

The right to an attorney is fundamental and applied to states through the 14th Amendment.

Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) — Facts

Students wore black armbands to protest the Vietnam War and were suspended.

Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) — Issue

Do students retain free speech rights in school?

Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) — Holding

Yes, students have free speech rights if it does not disrupt learning.

Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) — Reasoning

Symbolic speech is protected unless it causes substantial disruption.

New York Times v. U.S. (1971) — Facts

The government tried to stop newspapers from publishing the Pentagon Papers.

New York Times v. U.S. (1971) — Issue

Can the government use prior restraint to stop publication?

New York Times v. U.S. (1971) — Holding

No, prior restraint was unconstitutional.

New York Times v. U.S. (1971) — Reasoning

A free press is essential, and the government failed to prove national security harm.

Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) — Facts

Amish parents refused to send their children to school past 8th grade for religious reasons.

Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) — Issue

Does compulsory education violate free exercise of religion?

Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) — Holding

Yes, the Amish were exempt.

Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) — Reasoning

The state’s interest in education did not outweigh religious freedom.

Shaw v. Reno (1993) - Facts

North Carolina created oddly shaped voting districts to increase minority representation in order to try comply with affirmative action, leading to racial gerrymandering.

Shaw v. Reno (1993) - Issue

Can race be the primary factor in drawing districts?

Shaw’s group believed the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause was violated because the districts were drawn with race in mind. Reno’s group believed that the districts were drawn in favor of black residents who had been subjected to discrimination in the past, making this a good act.

Shaw v. Reno (1993) - Holding

No, extreme racial gerrymandering violates Equal Protection. Congress should be colorblind and not try to manipulate districts even if it is for minority representation, setting a dangerous precedent. This lead to the case being in favor of Shaw (5-4).

Shaw v. Reno (1993) - Reasoning

Districts drawn mainly by race must pass strict scrutiny and has set a precedent for districts; it is hard to accuse these districts but the ruling stands.

U.S. v. Lopez (1995) - Facts

A student, Alfonso Lopez, brought a gun to school and was searched and charged under a federal law banning guns in school zones. The federal government instituted Gun Free School Zones, dropping state charges and installing federal ones.

U.S. v. Lopez (1995) - Issue

Does the Commerce Clause allow Congress to regulate guns in schools?

The federal government does not have any control over gun legislation (it is a state issue). They said that they do, however, under the commerce clause, have the power to create Gun Free School Zones as it can negatively impact commerce. Lopez’s lawyers argued that the federal charges are weak and an overreach of the federal government; should be state jurisdiction and congress has no right passing the zoning law.

U.S. v. Lopez (1995) - Holding

No, the law exceeded Congress’s commerce power so Lopez won 5 - 4.

U.S. v. Lopez (1995) - Reasoning

Gun possession in a school zone is not economic activity affecting interstate commerce. If congress was able to overreach gun management with the commerce clause, they can stretch many more cases. This case shows the court ruling in favor of state power.

McDonald v. Chicago (2010) — Facts

Chicago banned handguns, and residents challenged the ban.

McDonald v. Chicago (2010) — Issue

Does the Second Amendment apply to state and local governments?

McDonald v. Chicago (2010) — Holding

Yes, through selective incorporation.

McDonald v. Chicago (2010) — Reasoning

The right to bear arms is fundamental and protected by the 14th Amendment.

Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission (2010) — Facts

A nonprofit wanted to air a political film critical of Hillary Clinton before an election and was blocked by campaign finance law.

Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission (2010) — Issue

Can the government limit independent political spending by corporations and groups?

Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission (2010) — Holding

No, this violates free speech.

Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission (2010) — Reasoning

Political spending is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment.

How does the judiciary branch decide between social older and individual liberties?

Decides based on content-neutral regulations and not restricting the actual words but where, when, and how it is said; defamation (never protected speech) but a little hard to identify as obscene languages is a moving target (high bar); clear and present danger