SCOTUS Cases AP Gov

McCulloch v. Maryland BS

Congress chartered a national bank (the second bank of the U.S.) This bank intended to establish branches among several states, including Maryland  Maryland state legislature passes a law that says any bank in Maryland that was not chartered by Maryland would be subject to a $15,000 year tax James McCulloch, who ran the Maryland branch, refused to pay the tax

McCulloch v. Maryland CP/Q

Did Congress have the authority under the Constitution to commission a national bank? If so, did the state of Maryland have the authority to tax a branch of the national bank operating within its borders?

Elastic and Supremacy Clauses 

McCulloch v. Maryland Rlg

In favor of McCulloch

• Bank was constitutional on account of the authority of the elastic/N+P clause 

• Maryland could not tax bank because of supremacy clause 

• Federalism: 

  • NATIONAL over STATE

U.S. v. Lopez BS

• In 1995, high school student Alfonso Lopez was arrested with federal charges for carrying a gun during school. 

• Congress in 1990 passed the Gun Free School Zones Act outlawed carrying a gun in a school zone. 

• Alfonso argued that the GFSZA was unconstitutional. 

U.S. v. Lopez CP/Q

Is the GFSZA unconstitutional because it exceeds the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause?

U.S. v. Lopez Rlg

In favor of Lopez

• The GFSZA exceeds the power of Congress under the commerce clause. Carrying a firearm in a school zone is not counted as economic activity and could not impact interstate commerce, so Congress cannot regulate it. 

*Commerce clause creates implied powers. Commerce clause itself is enumerated but when it is used, it is implied. 

Engel v. Vitale BS

• New York Board of Regents had composed a non denominational prayer to be recited by school children after the pledge of allegiance (children could opt out of prayer with parent permission)

• Group of parents led by Stephen Engel (Jewish) challenged the practice claiming it violates the first amendment.

Engel v. Vitale CP/Q

Did the Board of Regents’ voluntary non denominational (not a certain faith) prayer violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment?

• First Amendment Establishment Clause

Engel v. Vitale Rlg

Separation of church and state; pressuring people to do something that has to do with a religion that not everyone may not follow violates the idea of having no law respecting an establishment of religion 

In favor of Individual Liberties (for first amendment cases it’s social order versus individual liberties)

• Established groundwork for many subsequent cases regarding schools and religious activities 

Wisconsin v. Yoder BS

• Three Amish/Mennonite families in Wisconsin removed their children from public schools after 8th grade (thought their vocational training would be better and were worried about the worldly views in schools against their religion)

• Wisconsin had a compulsory education law which mandated that children be educated up to 16 years old 

  • The Amish kids were not 16 yet 

Wisconsin v. Yoder CP/Q

Under what conditions does the state’s interest in promoting compulsory education override parents’ first amendment right to free exercise of religion?

Wisconsin v. Yoder Rlg

In favor of Yoder 

The state’s interest in educating children should not trump the ability of Amish families to exercise their religion freely. 

Wisconsin was violating Yoder and families’ right to free exercising of their religion (free exercise clause: right to exercise religion).

• Sending their children to school for longer would be a threat to their religion and way of life 

Individual Liberties

Tinker v. Des Moines BS

• Five students wanted to wear black armbands to protest the Vietnam War in school

• Staff heard and barred them and everyone else from doing so

• Tinker kinds and one other decided to wear their armbands to their schools 

• They were punished; Tinker parents sued

• Case made its way to the SCOTUS based on the idea that the freedom of speech was violated 

Tinker v. Des Moines CP/Q

Does a prohibition against the wearing of armbands in public school, as a form of symbolic speech, violate the students’ freedom of speech protections guaranteed by the first amendment?

Tinker v. Des Moines Rlg

In favor of Tinker

School violates symbolic free speech. Schools cannot hinder freedom of speech based on the first amendment. 

Created the “Tinker Test” stating schools may only censor students causing a “material and substantial disruption” in the operation of the school. 

Symbolic Speech: speaking through the symbol 

Individual Liberties

New York Times v. U.S. BS

• Vietnam War (1971) was becoming increasingly unpopular 

• Espionage Act made hurting war efforts or weakening national defense illegal (including the willful receiving of information from another person) 

• Daniel Ellsberg leaked Pentagon Papers about Pentagon decision making

  • The papers were picked up by NYT and Washington Post

• The U.S. government asked for prior restraint and did not want the publishing of the papers

• NYT sued U.S. 

New York Times v. U.S. CP/Q

Did the government’s efforts to prevent two newspapers from publishing classified information given to them by a government leaker violate the First Amendment protection of freedom of the press? 

Free Press

Prior Restraint (not in Cons.) 

Espionage Act

New York Times v. U.S. Rlg

In favor of New York Times

Newspapers should have the freedom to publish news “whatever the source, without injunctions, and without prior restraint” 

Prior Restraint: unconstitutional process by which the government can suppress the publication of news that could potentially put national security in jeopardy. 

This ruling strengthened the power of the first amendment freedom of press and stated that prior restraint could not be practiced by the Nixon administration.

Schenck v. U.S. BS

Schenck and Baer, two socialists, were arrested after handing out leaflets saying WWI draft is unconstitutional and that it broke the 13th amendment He is saying the draft is slavery; involuntary servitude  Leaflets apparently urged people to disobey the draft  Congress passed the Espionage Act of 1917  If hurt war effort/go against U.S. in time of war/ weakens national defense = criminal offense/jail time/punishable crime Both Schneck and Baer were charged and convicted of conspiracy of violating the Espionage Act and afterwards both appealed on the grounds of violations of the first amendment

Schenck v. U.S. CP/Q

Did Schenck’s conviction under the Espionage Act for criticizing the draft violate his first amendment free speech rights?

Schenck v. U.S. Rlg

The first amendment’s freedom of speech could be limited on the basis of “clear and present danger”.  The ruling upheld the Espionage Act of 1917; the ruling was in the plaintiff’s favor.  Clear and Present Danger  First amendment could potentially be limited based on presumption that it presents clear and present danger to those surrounding.  Free speech is not absolute  In favor of Social Order

Gideon v. Wainwright BS

• Clarence Earl GIdeon accused of breaking and entering restaurant 

• Could not afford lawyer

• Florida law did not require to provide lawyer 

  • Only had to in death penalty cases

• Gideon did not have a lawyer and was found guilty 

• Gideon felt this violated his right to a lawyer, as guaranteed by the 6th amendment 

Gideon v. Wainwright CP/Q

6th amendment guaranteeing a lawyer  14th amendment due process clause  Does the sixth amendment’s right to counsel in criminal cases extend to defendants in state courts, even in cases in which the death penalty is not at issue?

Gideon v. Wainwright Rlg

Unanimous decision in favor of Gideon  Yes.  Determined that due process clause included the sixth amendment Sixth amendment selectively incorporated to states  The case was re heard, and Gideon won

Roe v. Wade BS

revolves around Jane Roe, a Texan woman who wanted to get an abortion but was denied to get one by a Texan law

Roe v. Wade CP/Q

right to privacy which is indirectly stated in the 1st, 4th, 9th, and 14th amendment

Roe v. Wade Rlg

1965 Griswold v. Connecticut: opens up access to birth control for married couples based upon the right of privacy (using 14th amendment due process clause to selectively incorporate the right of privacy to the states).

Ruling in Roe v. Wade is to selectively incorporate the right to abortion by exapnding the right to privacy given in Griswold v. Connecticut. Providing privacy to medical decisions.

The Court held that a woman's right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy (recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut) protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision gave a woman total autonomy over the pregnancy during the first trimester and defined different levels of state interest for the second and third trimesters.

Trimester Framework -

1) safe for mother, only very minimal requirements and restrictions

2) states could choose to impose more restrictions 3) fetus is fully viable; has rights unless life of mother is at risk or fetus is unviable

McDonald v. Chicago BS

In 1982, Chicago adopted a handgun ban. Most residents were banned from having handguns because you had to register a handgun to own it (very complicated).  Otis McDonald and other residents sued the city because they argued that the law violated the Constitution.  McDonald et. al. argued that due to the  14th Amendment’s Privileges and Immunities and Due Process Clauses, the 2nd  amendment applies to state and local governments (SELECTIVE INCORPORATION).  Therefore, they have the right to bear arms

McDonald v. Chicago CP/Q

DOes the Second Amendment apply to the state and local governments?  Can Chicago regulate guns?  14th Amendment: DP and P+Is Second Amendment: bear arms  Key Terms:  Selective incorporation: SCOTUS determining which parts of the Bill of Rights apply to the states --- a long, step by step process

McDonald v. Chicago Rlg

In favor of Otis McDonald 

• The 2nd amendment applies to state and local government 

Brown v. Board of Education BS

The Supreme Court affirmed the legality of segregation in public facilities in Plessy v. Ferguson > Separate but Equal, provided legal foundation for Jim Crow laws that allowed racial segregation  By the 1950s, many public facilities had been segregated by race  Linda Brown: young African American student in Topeka, Kansas  Tried to gain admission to Sumner School but board of education of Topeka Kansas said no because of her race

Brown v. Board of Education CP/Q

Does segregation of public schools by race violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment?  14th Amendment - equal protection clause Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

Brown v. Board of Education Rlg

In favor of Brown  Segregation in public schools violates the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, overturned Plessy  CIVIL RIGHTS

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission BS

McCain-Feingold (BCRA - Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act) Limited soft money contributions by corporations and labor unions hard money ban Citizens United (non-profit) Hilary the Movie Seen as a soft money violation of McCain-Feingold

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission CP/Q

-Does a law that limits the ability of corporations and labor unions to spend their own money to advocate the election or defeat of a candidate violate the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech? 1st Amendment (freedom of Speech)

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission Rlg

YES! McCain-Feingold is ruled unconstitutional Limiting soft money donations is a violation of the 1st Amendment and the right of free speech.  Impact SuperPacs are created (Cannot give hard money contributions, can’t coordinate with candidate) - upheld hard money ban and remove soft money limits

Baker v. Carr BS

Tennessee state legislative districts had not been redrawn in 60 years Despite the decennial (10 years) census Many people moved from rural to urban areas resulting in rural areas having outsized voting power These district lines get challenged in court  State Legislature not Congress District Lines

Baker v. Carr CP/Q

Do federal courts have the power to decide cases about the apportionment of population into state legislative districts? 14th Amendment: Equal Protection Issue

Baker v. Carr Rlg

Yes.  The SCOTUS said that lower courts (appellate and district courts) can decide if district lines are unconstitutional  HOWEVER - the SCOTUS itself would not decide if lines were constitutional because they thought the question was political (PUNT) One person (man) one vote Courts need to use this legal principle to decide if district lines are constitutional

Shaw v. Reno BS

• Voting Rights Act of 1965

  • Preclearance

    • States with a history of racial voting suppression have to get new voting laws approved by the Department of Justice 

    • OR new congressional district lines after the census 

• So, North Carolina needed to make an additional majority-minority congressional district so they used a highway to make the district contiguous 

• A group of white voters sue over the oddly shaped congressional district saying that they were being discriminated against 

Shaw v. Reno CP/Q

Did North Carolina residents’ claim that the 1990 redistricting plan discriminated on the basis of race raise a valid constitutional issue under the 14th amendment’s equal protection clause? 14th amendment: equal protection clause

Shaw v. Reno Rlg

Yes.  Cannot only use race when making congressional lines  Once again the supreme court will not decide on these specific lines, and will send it back to lower courts! (PUNT)

Marbury v. Madison BS

Adams appoints midnight judges; Marbury is one of them  To build court system and clarify the role of the courts, Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1789 This law authorized the SCOTUS to “issue writs of mandamus”  A writ of mandamus is a command by a superior court to a public official or lwoer court to perform a special duty because he wants his commission Marbury appiiotned justice of peace of DOC did not recieve commission. Marbury sued James Madison and asked the SCOTUS to issue a writ of mandamus requiring Madison to deliver the commission.

Marbury v. Madison CP/Q

Does Marbury have a right to his commission and can he sue the federal government for it? Does SCOTUS have the authority to order the writ of mandamus?

Marbury v. Madison Rlg

No.  Established judicial review  Court unanimously decided not to require Madison to deliver the commission to Marbury  They said Judiciary Act of 1789 conflicted with the Constitution because it gave the Supreme Court more authority than it was given in Article III. Judiciary Act of 1789 authorized the SCOTUS to issue writs of mandamus.  By striking down part of the Act, the Supreme Court established judicial review.  Therefore Judicial Review is established!