ap gov court cases second amendment + Commerce Clause and Federal Power

Nix v. Williams (1984)

Case details: Inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule.

Relevant Background: Police questioned a murder suspect in violation of his right to counsel, and he led them toward information about the victim's location. Investigators independently searched for the victim.

Constitutional Issue: Can evidence obtained through an unconstitutional method still be admitted if police would inevitably have discovered it legally?

Ruling: Yes. The Court allowed the evidence because the victim's body would have been inevitably discovered through lawful means.

How it is implemented/how it changed things: Established the inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule.

Mapp v. Ohio (1961)

Case details: The exclusionary rule and unreasonable searches.

Relevant Background: Police searched Dollree Mapp's home and found materials used to prosecute her, despite serious problems with the warrant used for the search.

Constitutional Issue: Does the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches apply to the states, including its exclusionary rule?

Ruling: Yes, through the Fourteenth Amendment.

How it is implemented/how it changed things: Evidence obtained through unconstitutional searches generally cannot be used by prosecutors in state criminal trials, subject to exceptions.

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

Case details: Right to an attorney.

Relevant Background: Clarence Gideon was charged with a felony in Florida and could not afford a lawyer. The court refused to appoint one.

Constitutional Issue: Does the Sixth Amendment require states to provide attorneys to defendants who cannot afford them in serious criminal cases?

Ruling: Yes. The right to counsel is fundamental and applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.

How it is implemented/how it changed things: Required states to provide lawyers to indigent defendants charged with felonies. Later decisions extended appointed-counsel protections to certain misdemeanor cases involving imprisonment.

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

Case details: Self-incrimination and police interrogation.

Relevant Background: Ernesto Miranda confessed during police questioning without being adequately informed of his rights.

Constitutional Issue: Must suspects be informed of their constitutional rights before custodial interrogation?

Ruling: Yes. Before custodial interrogation, police must advise suspects of their rights, including the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney.

How it is implemented/how it changed things: Created the Miranda warnings. Statements obtained through custodial interrogation without adequate warnings generally cannot be used in the prosecution's case-in-chief, subject to exceptions.

Harmelin v. Michigan (1991)

Case details: Mandatory sentences and the Eighth Amendment.

Relevant Background: Harmelin received a mandatory life sentence without parole for possessing a large quantity of cocaine.

Constitutional Issue: Does a mandatory life sentence without parole for a serious drug offense violate the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment?

Ruling: The Court upheld the sentence. The case rejected a broad proportionality challenge to the sentence in these circumstances.

How it is implemented/how it changed things: Demonstrated that the Eighth Amendment permits severe sentences for serious crimes, although later cases recognize limits on certain sentences, especially for juveniles

Roe v. Wade (1973)

Case details: Abortion rights and constitutional privacy.

Relevant Background: Texas prohibited most abortions except when necessary to save the pregnant person's life.

Constitutional Issue: Does the Constitution protect a right to choose an abortion?

Ruling: The Court recognized a constitutional right to abortion under the right to privacy, grounded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of liberty.

How it is implemented/how it changed things: Limited government restrictions on abortion through a trimester framework that was later replaced by the viability framework in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Roe was overturned by Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization in 2022.

Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022)

Case details: Overturning the federal constitutional right to abortion recognized in Roe.

Relevant Background: Mississippi passed a law banning most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy, challenging the earlier abortion-rights framework.

Constitutional Issue: Does the Constitution protect a right to abortion?

Ruling: No. The Supreme Court held that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion and overturned Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

How it is implemented/how it changed things: Returned primary authority over abortion regulation to elected representatives at the federal and state levels, subject to other applicable constitutional protections and laws.

United States v. Lopez (1995)

Case details: Federal power under the Commerce Clause.

Relevant Background: A high school student carried a gun into school and was charged under the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act.

Constitutional Issue: Does Congress have authority under the Commerce Clause to prohibit guns near schools?

Ruling: No. The Court held that the law exceeded Congress's commerce power.

How it is implemented/how it changed things: Limited Congress's ability to regulate noneconomic activities under the Commerce Clause and reinforced the division of power between the federal government and states.