AP Gov Supreme Court Cases

GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR THERE IS NO WAY I HAVE TO REMEMBER ALL TS BRO

Marbury v Madison

Adams (the president who is a Federalist) is trying to fill the courts with Federalist people (to give Federalists an advantage and Democrat-Republicans such as Jefferson the new president a disadvantage) (since court people have much longer terms than presidents).

Adams delivered most of these commissions but not all by the time he had to leave the office.

Once Adams left office and Jefferson replaced him, he didnt deliver the rest of the commissions to the people who were told they got the job (so basically they didnt officially get the job)

Marbury, one of the judges who was supposed to get the job, didnt get his commission and sued Madison to get his commission using a writ of mandamus (basically a supreme court order for an official to do something that is legally required to do), basically forcing them to give him his commission

Questions to Consider:

Did Marbury have the legal right to his commission?

• yes he did

If yes, is the court ordered writ of mandamus the proper legal means to get the commission?

• yes it is

If yes, does the Court have the authority to grant the writ of mandamus?

• no they dont

Constitutional Issue:

• Jurisdiction clauses in Article 3 of the Constitution

• Original Jurisdiction = the case can be heard by teh supreme court for the first time. MArbury’s case was heard by the supreme court for the first time.

• basically article 3 says supreme court can have original jurisdiction over stuff involving states and foreign people, and article 13 of the judiciary act allows the supreme court to issue writs of mandamus for cases with original jurisdiction

• since the writ of mandamus is legal with article 13 of the judiciary act, but the supreme court did not have original jurisdiction over this case since marbury is a judge and madison is a cabinet secretary (so not a state or foreign country) so therefore article 13 of the judiciary act is unconstitutional and therefore null and void

Impact:

this gave the courts the power of judicial review. the judicial branch became the final interpreter of the constitution

Tinker v Des Moines

first amendment supreme court case (freedom of speech)

Facts:

Mary Beth Tinker and her brother wore black armbands with peace signs to school to protest the Vietnam War. They got suspended.

Legal Question:

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

Result:

Courts said that students do not lose their right to freedom of speech in public schools BUT their speech cannot be disruptive of the learning environment. (so no hate speech or profanity on shirts)

Court created a “substantial disruption test” as a decision-making criterion for how schools could constitutionally limit student speech. if speech was going to get restricted, the school must prove how the speech would “…material and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school”.

Schenck v United States

Facts:

During WW1, Charles Schenck, a socialist, distributed leaflets urging men to resist the military draft. The leaflets argued that the draft violated the 13th Amendment’s prohibition against involuntary servitude.

Legal Question:

Did Schenck’s conviction under the Espionage Act of 1917 for distributing anti-draft leaflets violate his First Amendment right to freedom of speech?

Decision:

The Court agreed that Schenck should be convicted. They said that his speech presented a “clear and present danger”, allowing it to be restricted. “clear and present danger” is comparable to falsely shouting fire in a big crowd.

Impact:

The court established what is known as the “clear and present danger” test when determining if the government can restrict free speech. Speech is not absolutely (limitlessly) protected under the First Amendment, especially in situations where it could incite unlawful actions or threaten national security.

Patriot Act is now LEGAL. (your freedom to speech may be restricted if you are advocating for a terrorist group)

New York vs United States

Facts:

In 1971, the New York Times and the Washington Post obtained and planned to publish portions of the Pentagon Papers (a classified government report with details about the USA’s involvement in the Vietnam War from 1945-1967)

The report revealed that the US government had misled the public about the Vietnam War.

In retaliation, Nixon Administration argued that publishing the Pentagon Papers would harm national security. The court sought a court injunction (a legal order to stop publication) under the Espionage Act of 1917. They claimed that the release of this information could endanger American troops and diplomatic efforts.

Legal Question:

Did the government’s attempt to stop the publication of the Pentagon Papers violate the First Amendment’s freedom of press?

Was prior restraint (government censorship before publication) justified in this case?

• Prior restraint is when speech/publication gets blocked before it ever gets released. Normally, most blocked media gets blocked after it has been released.

• prior restraint is the highest form of censorship and therefore the bar for the government to claim prior restraint is very high because it usually needs a lot of justification.

Decision:

Supreme Court ruled in favor of New York Times and against the US. They said that the bar to allow prior restraint was not met as the release of the information did not result in a DIRECT, IMMEDIATE, AND IRREPARABLE threat to national security.

Impact:

This decision strengthened the power of the press. It also set a high standard for when the government can prohibit publication. Lastly, new organizations received more legal protection to publish stories critical of the government.

Wisconsin v Yoder

Facts:

The State of Wisconsin had a law requiring all children to attend school until age 16. They did this because they believed that education was essential for preparing children to be productive, self-sufficient members of society.

Individuals in the Amish and Mennonite communities typically pulled their children out of school at the age of 14 because they really stress self-sufficiency and have little contact with the rest of the world.

Jonas Yoder, a member of the Old Order Amish religion (and some other people) were prosecuted under the state’s compulsory education law because they pulled their children out of school.

Legal Question:

Did Wisconsin’s legal 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?

• Conflict: whether state’s interest in educating their children outweighs the free exercise of religion

Decision: (7-0) (unanimous, very important)

Court ruled in favor of Yoder. An individual’s interest in the free exercise of religion under the First Amendment outweighed the state’s (lesser than federal Constitution) interest in compelling school attendance beyond 8th grade. The Court said that the values in that law conflicted with the values of the Amish religion. The Court lastly said that missing 2 years of education is not going to cause a major setback in education, which was cited by Wisconsin to justify their law.

Impact:

This strengthened religious freedom (exceptions to state laws can be made on deeply held religious beliefs). This case also set a precedent for homeschooling and religious exceptions to education laws. Lastly, this case limited government power in enforcing compulsory education when it conflicts with religious practice.

Along this this, the Court set specific criteria that must be met for a religious exception.

• Deeply Held Religious Belief: well established, centuries old

• Proven Way of Life: must have alternative paths available and not straight rejection of schooling

• Balancing Religious Beliefs and State Interests: if the state’s interest was stronger (ex. preventing abuse), it could override the excemption

Engel v Vitale

Facts:

The New York Board of Regents (people who manage NY’s education) authorized a short nondenominational (dosent follow any specific religion) voluntary prayer to be said at the start of each day by recognizing their dependance on God. Recited every morning in classrooms.

Legal Issue:

Parents (Engel) sued under the argument that it violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. The parents viewed the school-sponsored prayer as a state-sponsored activity and the government cannot endorse a religion.

Decision:

Court ruled in favor of Engel, striking out the school prayer. The state cannot hold prayers in public schools even if voluntary and the prayer is not tied to a specific religion. The use of a school system to facilitate the recital of a prayer violated the Establishment Clause (breached the idea of separation between “church and state”). It is not appropriate for the government to endorse any particular belief whether directly or indirectly.

Impact:

This case established a precedent for “government neutrality” in religion (reinforcement of the Establishment Clause). This case also defined the role of religion in school (banned teacher or school led prayer but not students from practicing their own faith in groups or individually) (bible club)

Gitlow v New York