Politics Cases

Constituiton , Federalism and Congress Now

Marbury v Madison 1803

The Supreme court established that it can strike down laws that go against the Constituiton . This is called Judicial review

Use it for: Supreme court power , checks and balances , judicial review

The supreme court is powerful because it can stop congress from making unconstituitonal laws

McCulloh v Maryland (1819)

The supreme court said congress could create a national bank , even though the Constituiton did not mention this power . This confirmed that Congress has Implied Powers

Use it for: Federalism, Congress powers , Necessary and Proper clause

Argument it supports- The federal government can have powers beyond those directly written in the Constituiton

Wickard v Filburn 1942

The Supreme court allowed Congress to limit how much wheat a farmer grew , even when it was for himself

Use it for , Federalism , Commerce clause , Congress powers

Congress has Powers to control economic activity , even when it appears local

United states V Lopez 1995

The supreme court struck down a federal law banning guns near schools becase congress had gone beyond its constituitonal powers

Use it for : Federalism , limits on congress , judicial review

Bond v United states 2011 and 2014

In 2011 the court allowed Carol Bond to challenge a federal law , in 2014 it ruled that the federal chemical weapons law did not apply to her local offence

Use it for- Federalism , Federal government powers

The supreme court can limit how federal laws are applied to matters normally handled by the states

Worcester v Georgia 1832

The supreme court ruled that Georgia could not enforce its laws in Cherokee territory in the way it had attempted.

However the ruling failed to prevent the later forced removal of many cherokee people

Use it for: Federalism , state powers

The Supreme Court can limit state power but its decisions may be difficult to enforce

Presidential power and Checks and Balances NOW

United states v Nixon 1974

During watergate , President Nixon refused to hand over secret white house recordings , THe supreme court ordered him to release them voting 8-0

Use it for , Checks and balances , Presidential accountability , supreme court power

Shows the President is not above the law and the Supreme court can limit presidential power

Trump v United States 2024

The supreme court ruled that presidents receive strong protection from criminal prosecution,

Use it for : Presidential power , checks and balances and executive accountability

The supreme court can also strengthen presidential power rather than restrict it

First Amendment - Freedom of Speech and Religion NOW

Engel v Vitale (1962)

The supreme court ruled 6-1 that public schools cannot organise official prayers because this breaks the first amendment

Use it for - Freedom of religion , First amendment

The supreme court protects religious freedom by stopping the government from promoting religion in public schools

West Virgina v Barnette 1943

The supreme court ruled 6-3 that schools cannot force students to salute the American flag or say the Pledge of Allegiance

Use it for - Freedom of speech , First amendment ,

Freedom of speech also means you cannot be forced to express something you disagree with

Schenck v United States 1919

The supreme court upheld the punishment of a man who distributed leaflets opposing military conscriptiuon during ww1 , It used the idea of clear and present danger

Later cases gained more stronger protection involving political speech

Use it for: Limits on free speech , National security , Government wartime powers

Freedom of speech is not unlimited , especially when the government argues National security is at risk

Tinker v Des Moines 1969

The supreme court ruled 7-2 that students could were black armbands to school to protest against the vietnam war , as their peaceful protest did not seriously disrupt schools

Use it for : Freedom of speech , Individual liberties

Students still have freedom of speech at school, provided they do not cause serious disruption

Texas V Johnson 1989

The Supreme court ruled 5-4 that burning the American flag during a protest was protected by the First amendment

Use it for - Freedom of speech , First amendment

Freedom of speech can protect political opinions even when people find it offensive

United States V Alvarez 2012

The supreme court ruled 6-3 that a law punishing someone for falsely claiming military honours broke the first amendment

Use it for: Freedom of speech, limits on government power, individual liberties.

Argument it supports: Freedom of speech can protect even some false statements.

New York Times v Sullivan (1964)

The supreme court ruled that public officials must meet a high standard to win defamtion cases about their official conduct

They must show the statement was knowingly false or made with reckless disregard for the truth

Use it for: Freedom of the press, political criticism, First Amendment.

Argument it supports: The press must have strong protection when criticising government officials.

Citizens United v FEC (2010)

The Supreme Court ruled 5–4 that corporations and unions could spend money independently on political campaigns as a form of protected political speech.

Use it for: Freedom of speech, campaign finance, elections, pressure groups.

Argument it supports: Freedom of speech protections can also increase the influence of wealthy organisations in elections.

Privacy, personal freedom and individual rights NOW

Griswold v Connecticut (1965)

The Supreme Court ruled 7–2 that married couples had constitutional protection for their private decisions about contraception.

Use it for: Privacy rights, civil liberties, loose constitutional interpretation.

Argument it supports: The Supreme Court can protect rights that are not directly written in the Constitution.

Miranda v Arizona (1966)

The Supreme Court ruled 5–4 that police must inform suspects of important rights, including the right to remain silent, before questioning them in custody.

Use it for: Fifth Amendment, rights of suspects, civil liberties.

Argument it supports: The Supreme Court protects individuals from unfair treatment by the police.

Olmstead v United States (1928)

The Supreme Court ruled 5–4 that police wiretapping telephone calls without physically entering someone's property did not break the Fourth Amendment in that case. This approach was later overturned.

Use it for: Privacy rights, Fourth Amendment, changing Supreme Court interpretations.

Argument it supports: The Supreme Court's understanding of privacy can change over time.

Riley v California (2014)

The Supreme Court ruled 9–0 that police generally need a warrant to search information on someone's mobile phone after arresting them.

Fourth Amendment, privacy, technology, civil liberties.

Argument it supports: The Supreme Court can adapt constitutional rights to protect people using modern technology.

Roe v Wade (1973)

The Supreme Court ruled 7–2 that the Constitution protected abortion rights, subject to certain restrictions. This decision was later overturned in 2022.

Use it for: Privacy, civil rights, Supreme Court influence on policy.

The Supreme Court can establish major constitutional protections that affect the entire country.

Dobbs v Jackson (2022) (This was what overturned Roe vs Wade)

The Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution does not protect abortion rights, overturning Roe v Wade. This gave elected governments, particularly states, much more control over abortion laws.

Use it for: Civil rights, federalism, judicial activism and restraint.

Argument it supports: The Supreme Court can reverse earlier decisions and change the rights people have.

District of Columbia v Heller (2008)

The Supreme Court ruled 5–4 that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for lawful purposes such as self-defence in the home, although restrictions can still apply.

Use it for: Second Amendment, constitutional interpretation, individual rights.

Argument it supports: The Supreme Court decides how constitutional rights are interpreted and what limits government can place on them.

Brown V Board of Education 1954

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that racially segregated public schools were unconstiutional because seperate schools were not equal

Use it for: Racial equality, Fourteenth Amendment, civil rights, judicial activism.

Argument it supports: The Supreme Court can protect minority rights and challenge racial discrimination.

Students for Fair Admissions v Harvard (2023)

The Supreme Court ruled against Harvard's use of race in university admissions, greatly restricting race-conscious admissions policies.

Use it for: Fourteenth Amendment, racial equality, affirmative action.

The Supreme Court can change how equality laws are interpreted and applied.

Obergefell v Hodges (2015)

The Supreme Court ruled 5–4 that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry throughout the USA.

Use it for: Fourteenth Amendment, equality, civil rights, federalism.

Argument it supports: The Supreme Court can expand individual rights even when some state governments disagree.

Bush v Gore (2000)

The Supreme Court ruled 5–4 to stop the disputed Florida election recount, effectively securing George W. Bush's presidential election victory.

Use it for: Elections, Supreme Court power, judicial activism.

Argument it supports: The Supreme Court can have a major influence on political outcomes, including presidential elections.