Required Supreme Court Cases for AP Government

Cases Involving Federalism

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

• Background:

  • In 1816, Congress chartered the Second Bank of the United States to help stabilize the nation's finances. However, many states opposed the Bank, claiming it gave the federal government too much power. Maryland passed a law imposing taxes on the bank. James McCulloch, a cashier at the Baltimore branch, refused to pay the tax. Maryland courts initially ruled against McCulloch, arguing that the Bank was unconstitutional.

  • Key Question: Could Congress establish a national bank, and could Maryland tax it?

• Constitutional Basis:

  • Necessary and Proper Clause (Article I, Section 8): This clause gives Congress the power to make laws necessary to carry out its enumerated powers, such as regulating commerce, coining money, and borrowing money.

  • Supremacy Clause (Article VI): Establishes that federal law overrides state law when the two conflict.

• Decision:

  • The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of McCulloch. The Court, led by Chief Justice John Marshall, held that Congress had implied powers under the Necessary and Proper Clause to establish the Bank. Additionally, Maryland could not tax the federal bank, as doing so would undermine the authority of the federal government, violating the Supremacy Clause.

• Impact:

  • Expansion of Federal Power: This case set a precedent for a broad interpretation of federal powers, strengthening the national government over the states.

  • Doctrine of Implied Powers: Solidified the principle that Congress can take actions not explicitly listed in the Constitution if they are necessary to fulfill its enumerated powers.

United States v. Lopez (1995)

• Background:

  • Alfonzo Lopez, a high school senior in Texas, carried a concealed handgun to school. He was charged under the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, which prohibited firearms in school zones. The Act was based on Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce. Lopez challenged the charges, arguing that the Act exceeded Congress's constitutional authority.

• Constitutional Basis:

  • Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8): Grants Congress the power to regulate commerce among the states. The federal government argued that guns in school zones could indirectly affect interstate commerce by harming education and the economy.

• Decision:

  • In a 5-4 ruling, the Court struck down the Gun-Free School Zones Act, holding that carrying a gun in a local school zone did not substantially affect interstate commerce. This case marked the first time in decades that the Supreme Court limited Congress's power under the Commerce Clause.

• Impact:

  • Reassertion of State Sovereignty: The ruling emphasized the importance of the Tenth Amendment, which reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states or the people.

  • Limits on Federal Power: Demonstrated that Congress's use of the Commerce Clause has limits and cannot be used to justify regulation of non-economic activities.

Cases Involving the First Amendment

Engel v. Vitale (1962)

• Background:

  • The New York State Board of Regents authorized a voluntary, non-denominational prayer to be recited in public schools. The prayer was challenged by a group of parents, who argued that it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

• Constitutional Basis:

  • Establishment Clause: Prohibits the government from establishing an official religion or unduly favoring one religion over another.

• Decision:

  • The Court ruled 6-1 that school-sponsored prayer in public schools was unconstitutional, even if the prayer was voluntary and non-denominational.

• Impact:

  • Strict Separation of Church and State: Established that any government endorsement of religion in public schools violates the First Amendment.

  • Precedent for Future Cases: Used to challenge other instances of religious activities in public institutions.

Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)

• Case Summary: Jonas Yoder and other Amish parents refused to send their children to public high school after the 8th grade, citing their religious beliefs. The Amish faith promotes simplicity and separation from modern society, and they believed that further schooling would expose their children to values conflicting with their religion.Wisconsin law required all children to attend school until the age of 16, and the parents were charged for violating this law.

Constitutional Issue:

• 1st Amendment – Free Exercise Clause:

  • Does Wisconsin’s compulsory school attendance law violate the Amish parents' First Amendment right to freely exercise their religion?

• Balancing Interests:

  • The Court needed to weigh the state’s interest in ensuring universal education against the individual religious liberties guaranteed by the First Amendment.

Holding and Constitutional Principles:

• Supreme Court Decision:

  • The Court ruled 7-0 in favor of Yoder, finding Wisconsin’s law unconstitutional as applied to the Amish.

• Reasoning:

  • The requirement to send children to school beyond the 8th grade placed a substantial burden on the Amish community’s religious practices.

  • The state’s interest in educating children, while important, was not compelling enough to override the religious rights of the Amish.

• Key Constitutional Principle:

  • The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment protects individuals from government actions that substantially interfere with their sincerely held religious beliefs, as long as those practices do not violate public order or safety.

Impact and Significance:

• Religious Liberty:

  • Expanded the scope of the Free Exercise Clause by prioritizing individual religious freedom over general state interests in certain contexts.

• Standard of Review:

  • Introduced the concept that laws affecting religious practices must pass strict scrutiny: the government must show a compelling interest and prove the law is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.

• Education Exceptions:

  • Highlighted the limits of compulsory education laws and recognized alternative forms of education consistent with religious beliefs.

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District(1969)

• Background:

  • During the Vietnam War, Mary Beth Tinker and other students wore black armbands to school to protest the war. The school suspended them, claiming that the armbands disrupted the learning environment. The students sued, arguing that their First Amendment rights had been violated.

• Constitutional Basis:

  • Freedom of Speech: The First Amendment protects not only spoken or written words but also symbolic speech, such as protests and demonstrations.

• Decision:

  • The Court ruled 7-2 in favor of the students, stating that their symbolic speech was protected as long as it did not disrupt the educational process.

• Impact:

  • Student Rights: Established that students do not lose their First Amendment rights when they enter school.

  • Limitations: Schools can still regulate speech if it materially disrupts the learning environment or infringes on the rights of others.

New York Times Co. v. United States (1971)

• Background:

  • The Nixon administration sought to prevent the New York Times and Washington Post from publishing the Pentagon Papers, a classified study detailing U.S. involvement in Vietnam, citing national security concerns.

• Constitutional Basis:

  • Freedom of the Press: The First Amendment protects the press from government censorship, including prior restraint (preventing publication in advance).

• Decision:

  • The Court ruled 6-3 against the government, emphasizing a "heavy presumption against prior restraint." The publication of the Pentagon Papers was protected under the First Amendment, as the government failed to prove that it would cause a direct and immediate threat to national security.

• Impact:

  • Press Freedom: Strengthened protections against government censorship and reinforced the principle of transparency in democratic governance.

Schenck v. United States (1919)

Case Summary:

• Facts:
  Charles Schenck and Elizabeth Baer, members of the Socialist Party, distributed leaflets urging men to resist the military draft during World War I. The leaflets argued that the draft violated the 13th Amendment’s prohibition of involuntary servitude.
  Schenck was charged under the Espionage Act of 1917, which prohibited attempts to interfere with military operations, including the draft. He argued that the Act violated his First Amendment right to free speech.

Constitutional Issue:

• First Amendment – Freedom of Speech:

  • Did Schenck’s conviction under the Espionage Act for encouraging draft resistance violate his First Amendment right to free speech?

• Government Authority in Wartime:

  • The Court examined whether the government could limit speech during times of war, balancing individual liberties with national security.

Holding and Constitutional Principles:

• Supreme Court Decision:

  • The Court unanimously upheld Schenck’s conviction, ruling that the Espionage Act did not violate the First Amendment.

• Reasoning:

  • Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, writing for the Court, established the "clear and present danger" test, stating that speech is not protected if it creates a clear and present danger of significant harm that Congress has a right to prevent.

  • The Court concluded that Schenck’s actions posed a clear and present danger to national security by obstructing the draft during wartime.

Key Constitutional Principle:

• Limitation on Free Speech:

  • While the First Amendment protects free speech, it is not absolute. Speech that incites illegal actions or poses a significant threat to public safety can be restricted.

  • The Court emphasized that the context of speech matters—what might be permissible during peacetime may not be acceptable during wartime.

Cases Involving Selective Incorporation

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

Case Summary:

• Clarence Earl Gideon was charged with felony breaking and entering in Florida. He could not afford an attorney and requested a court-appointed lawyer.

• Florida law only provided court-appointed attorneys for defendants in capital cases, so Gideon was forced to represent himself and was convicted.

• Gideon filed a habeas corpus petition arguing that his Sixth Amendment right to counsel had been violated.

Constitutional Issue:

• Sixth Amendment: Does the right to counsel apply to defendants in state courts?

• Fourteenth Amendment – Selective Incorporation: Should the right to counsel, a federal protection, be incorporated to apply to states?

Holding and Constitutional Principle:

• The Supreme Court unanimously held that the Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel applies to state court defendants through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.

• Legal representation was deemed a fundamental right essential to a fair trial, making it applicable to states.

Significance:

• Expanded the rights of indigent defendants and reinforced the principle of selective incorporation.

• Marked a key development in ensuring fair trials across all states.

Roe v. Wade (1973)

Case Summary:

• "Jane Roe" (Norma McCorvey) challenged a Texas law prohibiting abortions unless the mother’s life was in danger. She argued the law infringed on her constitutional rights.

Constitutional Issue:

• Does the Constitution protect a woman’s right to have an abortion under the right to privacy?

• How does this right balance against the state’s interest in regulating abortions?

Holding and Constitutional Principle:

• The Supreme Court held that a woman’s decision to have an abortion falls under the right to privacy protected by the Fourteenth Amendment (previously clarified in Griswold v. Connecticut).

• The Court established a trimester framework:

  • First Trimester: States cannot regulate abortions.

  • Second Trimester: States can regulate abortions in the interest of maternal health.

  • Third Trimester: States may prohibit abortions, except when the mother’s life or health is at risk.

Significance:

• Struck down many state laws restricting abortion, establishing a legal precedent for reproductive rights.

• Sparked ongoing political and social debate, often dividing public opinion along partisan lines.

McDonald v. Chicago (2010)

Case Summary:

• After the Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), which struck down a federal handgun ban, McDonald and others challenged Chicago’s handgun ban, arguing it violated their Second Amendment rights.

• The issue was whether the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments through the process of selective incorporation.

Constitutional Issue:

• Does the Second Amendment right to bear arms, recognized in Heller as an individual right, apply to states through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause?

Holding and Constitutional Principle:

• In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment is applicable to states through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.

• The Court emphasized that the right to bear arms for self-defense is fundamental and deeply rooted in American history and tradition.

Significance:

• Incorporated the Second Amendment, limiting state and local governments from enacting overly restrictive gun control laws.

• Marked a significant victory for proponents of gun rights, building on the precedent set by Heller.

Cases Involving the Equal Protection Clause

Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

Case Summary:

• The case consolidated several lawsuits against public school segregation, primarily focusing on the experience of African American students who were denied admission to public schools due to state segregation laws.

• These laws were based on the precedent set in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), which upheld segregation under the doctrine of "separate but equal."

• The plaintiffs argued that racial segregation violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Constitutional Issue:

• Does racial segregation in public education violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

• Does "separate but equal" create equality, or is it inherently discriminatory?

Holding and Constitutional Principle:

• The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that racial segregation in public schools is unconstitutional.

• Key principles:

  • "Separate but equal is inherently unequal": The Court concluded that segregation inherently denies African American children equal educational opportunities.

  • Overruled Plessy v. Ferguson, declaring that segregation in public education violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.

Judicial Review and Stare Decisis:

• Judicial Review: This case illustrates the power of the Supreme Court to overturn previous decisions (Plessy v. Ferguson) when they are inconsistent with constitutional principles.

• Stare Decisis: While courts often rely on previous rulings for interpretation, this case demonstrates that the principle is not absolute and can be overturned when past decisions are deemed fundamentally flawed.

Enforcement Challenges:

• The Court’s ruling required states to desegregate schools “with all deliberate speed.”

• Despite the decision, many states resisted implementing desegregation, leading to prolonged legal battles and federal intervention.

• A follow-up case (Brown II) in 1955 clarified the need for immediate desegregation, but progress was slow due to political and social resistance, highlighting the limits of judicial enforcement.

Cases Involving Federal Policy

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010)

Case Summary:

• The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002 restricted corporations and unions from directly funding “electioneering communications” (such as advertisements) that mentioned candidates close to an election.

• In 2008, Citizens United, a nonprofit organization, created a documentary critical of Hillary Clinton during her presidential campaign.

• The Federal Election Commission (FEC) prohibited the airing of the film, citing BCRA restrictions, which prompted Citizens United to challenge the law as a violation of free speech.

Constitutional Issue:

• Does the restriction on independent political expenditures by corporations and nonprofits under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act violate the First Amendment?

• Can corporations and other entities be treated as individuals with the same free speech rights?

Holding and Constitutional Principle:

• The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of Citizens United, holding that:

  • Corporations and unions are “people” under the law, and their political spending constitutes protected speech under the First Amendment.

  • Restrictions on independent political expenditures (as long as they are not directly coordinated with campaigns) are unconstitutional.

  • The Court argued that limiting political speech by corporations would suppress an important avenue of public debate, as corporations often have resources necessary to express views effectively.

Cases Involving Districting and Representation

Baker v. Carr (1962)

Case Summary:

• Charles Baker sued Joe Carr, the Tennessee Secretary of State, claiming that the state's legislative districts had not been reapportioned to reflect the population changes since 1901. Baker argued that the state's failure to adjust the apportionment violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, since rural areas were overrepresented in relation to urban areas.

• Tennessee's legislature had not reapportioned districts to account for significant population shifts, meaning that the weight of individual votes in rural districts was greater than in urban districts.

Constitutional Issue:

• The primary constitutional question was whether the Supreme Court had the authority to hear cases regarding legislative apportionment and redistricting, or if such matters were purely political questions that the Court should not address.

• The case raised issues under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, specifically whether voters in more populous areas were being denied equal protection by the overrepresentation of rural districts.

Holding and Constitutional Principle:

• The Supreme Court ruled 6-2 that the Court did have jurisdiction to hear the case, and that redistricting cases could be addressed under the Equal Protection Clause.

  • The Court determined that issues of malapportionment (unfair district representation) could be justiciable, marking a shift in the Court’s approach to political questions.

  • The case established that “one person, one vote” was a standard for legislative redistricting, which meant that legislative districts should be roughly equal in population.

Shaw v. Reno (1993)

Case Summary:

• Shaw v. Reno involved a challenge to the creation of a district in North Carolina that was unusually shaped and was drawn with the intention to create a majority-minority district in which African-American voters would have the power to elect a representative of their choice.

• The plaintiffs, a group of white North Carolina residents, argued that the district was drawn in a strange, almost absurd shape with the primary purpose being racial gerrymandering, and that it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Constitutional Issue:

• The constitutional issue was whether racial gerrymandering (i.e., creating districts based on race alone) violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

• Specifically, the Court had to decide whether drawing legislative districts based predominantly on race was constitutional.

Holding and Constitutional Principle:

• The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the district in question was unconstitutional because it was drawn in an unusually irregular shape, suggesting that race was the predominant factor in its design.

  • The Court stated that while race could be considered in redistricting, race cannot be the sole or predominant factor in drawing district lines.

  • The Court ruled that such districts could be challenged under the Equal Protection Clause if they were drawn with racial considerations being the dominant factor, regardless of whether they were created to increase minority representation.

  • Majority-minority districts can be constitutionally challenged if race was the sole or dominant consideration in their creation.

Cases Involving Judicial Review

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

• Background:

  • In the final days of his presidency, John Adams appointed several judges under the Judiciary Act of 1801. When Thomas Jefferson took office, his Secretary of State, James Madison, refused to deliver the commissions. William Marbury, one of the appointees, petitioned the Supreme Court to compel Madison to deliver the commissions.

• Constitutional Basis:

  • Judiciary Act of 1789: Allowed Marbury to bring his case directly to the Supreme Court. The case questioned whether this provision was constitutional.

• Decision:

  • The Court, led by Chief Justice John Marshall, ruled that Marbury had a right to his commission, but the Court lacked the authority to enforce it because the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional. This decision established the principle of judicial review, allowing courts to strike down laws that violate the Constitution.

• Impact:

  • Judicial Power: Cemented the judiciary's role as a co-equal branch of government with the power to check the legislative and executive branches.