AP GOV REQUIRED SCOTUS CASES

U.S. v. Lopez

• Facts:

• Issue:

• Holding:

• Reason:

Baker v. Carr

• Facts: Citizens claimed that the state's electoral districts were unequal in population, resulting in unfair representation in the state legislature.

• Issue: does SCOTUS have jurisdiction over legislative appointment constitutionality?

• Holding: Yes, reapportionment claims are justiciable in federal court

• Reasoning: Legislative apportionment is a justiciable issue. SCOTUS said all citizens have equal representation, as mandated by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

• establishes one person one vote

Shaw v. Reno

• Facts: SCOTUS addressed the constitutionality of a congressional district drawn to ensure the election of African American representatives.

• Issue: Did NC residents claim that the state created a racially gerrymandered district raise valid consitutional issue under Equal Protection Clause (14th Amendment)

• Holding:

• Reasoning

Engel v. Vitale

• Facts: New York schools recitation of a short, voluntary prayer

• Issue: Does the reading of a non-denominational prayer at school violate the Establishment Clause of the 1st amendment?

• Holding: Yes, prayer in public schools violates the Establishment Clause. The state cannot hold prayers even if participation prayer schools isn’t required and non-denominational.

• Reasoning: Neither a non-denominational nor voluntary character saves it from unconstitutionality.

Wisconson v. Yoder

• Facts: Amish refused to send kids to school after 8th grade, citing it against their relgious beliefs.

• Issue: did Wisconsin’s requirement that all parents send their kids to school until age 16 violate free exercise clause of 1st amendment by criminalizing parents who refused to send their kids to school for religious reasons

• Holding: Yes, law violated 1st amendment

• Reasoning: individuals interest in free exercise of religion outweighs benefit of 2 more years of schooling

Tinker v. Des Moine

• Facts: Students wore black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War, which led to their suspension for violating a school policy.

• Issue: does prohibiting wearing armbands in public school, as symbolic speech, violate freedom of speech (1st amendment)

• Holding: Yes, school cannot violate freedom of speech unless it causes substantial disruption

• Reasoning: Students do not lose 1st amendment rights upon entering school building. To justify limiting speech it must substantially and materially interfere with operation of school.

Schenck v. U.S.

• Facts: flyers were distributed claiming the draft violated 13th amendment.

• Issue: Did Schenck’s conviction under espionage act violate freedom of speech?

• Holding: No, Espionage Act was an appropriate use of Congress’ wartime authority

• Reasoning: interfering with US governement protecting the people, therfore dangerous speech, therefore unprotected

NY Times v. U.S.

• Facts: Nixon Admin attempted to prevent NYT from publishing the “pentagon papers” exposing the Vietnam war.

• Issue: Did Nixon’s admin attempt to prevent publication violate the 1st amendment

• Holding: Yes

• Reasoning: prior restraint, to justify prior restraint speech must cause an inevitable direct and immediate event imperilling the safety of Americans

McDonald v. Chicago

• Facts: D.C. v. Heller - handgun ban violates 2nd amendment. This should also apply to states, not just to territories.

• Issue: does D.C. v. Heller apply to the states

• Holding: Yes, the 14th amendment maeks the 2nd amendment apply to states

• Reasoning: right to bear arms is deeply rooted in America’s history and tradition

Gideon v. Wainwright

• Facts: Gideon not appointed counsel due to Florida law. Gideon argued FL violated his right to be represented and violated habeas corpus.

• Issue: does 6th amendment right to counsel in criminal cases extend to felony defendents in state court?

• Holding: Yes, 6th amendment applies by way of 14th amendment

• Reasoning: right to counsel (6th amendment) is a fundamental and essential right made obligatory to states by way of 14th.

Brown v. Board of Education

• Facts:

• Issue:

• Holding:

• Reasoning