Required SCOTUS Comparison Cases - Cheat Sheet

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

Facts: Marbury was denied a commission by Madison.
Issue: Supreme Court's authority to issue a writ of mandamus.
Holding: The Court does not have the authority to issue writs of mandamus under the Judiciary Act of 1789.
Rationale: The Constitution is supreme, and the Judiciary Act conflicted with it.
Decision: Denied Marbury's request.
Established judicial review.

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

Facts: Maryland taxed the Second Bank of the United States.
Issue: Congress's authority to establish a national bank, and state's power to tax it.
Holding: Congress can establish a national bank; states cannot tax federal institutions.
Rationale: Necessary and Proper Clause; federal laws are supreme.
Decision: Upheld the national bank, struck down the Maryland tax.
Established federal supremacy and broad interpretation of the Necessary and Proper Clause.

Schenck v. United States (1919)

Facts: Schenck distributed leaflets opposing the draft during World War I.
Issue: Whether Schenck's actions were protected by the First Amendment.
Holding: The Espionage Act does not violate the First Amendment during wartime.
Rationale: Speech that creates a clear and present danger is not protected.
Decision: Upheld Schenck's conviction.
Introduced the "clear and present danger" test.

Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

Facts: Black children denied admission to public schools based on segregation laws.
Issue: Whether segregation in public education violates the Equal Protection Clause.
Holding: "Separate but equal" facilities are inherently unequal and unconstitutional.
Rationale: Segregation generates feelings of inferiority.
Decision: Ruled segregation in public schools unconstitutional, overturning Plessy v. Ferguson.
Ended legal segregation in public schools.

Engel v. Vitale (1962)

Facts: New York authorized a voluntary prayer at the start of the school day.
Issue: Whether the prayer violated the Establishment Clause.
Holding: State-sanctioned prayer in public schools violates the Establishment Clause.
Rationale: Government cannot sponsor religious exercises in public schools.
Decision: Ruled the school prayer unconstitutional.
Reinforced the separation of church and state in public education.

Baker v. Carr (1962)

Facts: Baker challenged Tennessee's outdated legislative apportionment.
Issue: Whether federal courts have jurisdiction over state legislative apportionment.
Holding: Federal courts have jurisdiction; apportionment can violate the Equal Protection Clause.
Rationale: Equal protection means individuals' votes should carry equal weight.
Decision: Federal courts can hear challenges to state legislative apportionment.
Sets up the principle of "one person, one vote."

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

Facts: Gideon was denied a court-appointed attorney in a felony case.
Issue: Whether the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel extends to felony defendants in state courts.
Holding: The Sixth Amendment right to counsel applies to state courts through the Fourteenth Amendment.
Rationale: A fair trial requires the assistance of counsel.
Decision: State courts must provide counsel to defendants who cannot afford it.
Expanded rights of accused persons.

Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)

Facts: Students suspended for wearing armbands in protest of the Vietnam War.
Issue: Whether the suspension violated their First Amendment rights.
Holding: The suspension violated students' First Amendment rights.
Rationale: Students don't lose their rights at the schoolhouse gate.
Decision: Ruled in favor of the students.
Set a precedent for student speech in public schools.

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

Facts: The Nixon Administration sought to prevent the publication of a classified study about the Vietnam War.
Issue: Whether preventing the newspapers from publishing classified information violated the First Amendment.
Holding: The government's attempts to restrict the newspapers were unconstitutional.
Rationale: Any system of prior restraint comes with a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity.
Decision: Ruled that the government could not impose a prior restraint on the publication.
Protected freedom of the press.

Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)

Facts: Amish challenged a Wisconsin law requiring school attendance until age 16.
Issue: Whether the law violated the First Amendment by impinging on the freedom of religion and parental rights.
Holding: A state's compulsory school attendance law infringes on the First Amendment's freedom of religion and parental rights.
Rationale: The Free Exercise Clause protects citizens' right to practice their religion without government interference.
Decision: Ruled that the Wisconsin law was unconstitutional as applied to the Amish community.
Highlighted the importance of accommodating religious beliefs in U.S. law.

Shaw v. Reno (1993)

Facts: Shaw challenged a North Carolina redistricting plan for creating a bizarrely-shaped district along racial lines.
Issue: Whether the North Carolina redistricting plan violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause by creating a racially gerrymandered district.
Holding: The creation of a racially gerrymandered district violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.
Rationale: Overemphasis on race in redistricting violates the Equal Protection Clause.
Decision: Ruled that the racially gerrymandered district was unconstitutional.
Significant in addressing racial gerrymandering.

United States v. Lopez (1995)

Facts: Lopez brought a concealed weapon to school, challenging the constitutionality of the Gun-Free School Zones Act under the Commerce Clause.
Issue: Whether the Gun-Free School Zones Act exceeded Congress's power under the Commerce Clause.
Holding: The Gun-Free School Zones Act exceeds Congress's power under the Commerce Clause.
Rationale: Activities that do not substantially affect interstate commerce fall outside Congress's authority under the Commerce Clause.
Decision: Ruled that the Gun-Free School Zones Act was unconstitutional.
Marked a significant limitation on Congress's powers under the Commerce Clause.

McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010)

Facts: McDonald challenged Chicago's handgun ban, arguing for the application of the Second Amendment's protection of the right to keep and bear arms to the states.
Issue: Does the Second Amendment apply to the states, thereby restricting states' abilities to set gun control laws?
Holding: The Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause.
Rationale: The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is fundamental to the American scheme of ordered liberty and is deeply rooted in the nation's history and tradition.
Decision: Ruled that the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms for self-defense in one's home is applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
Affirmed that the right to keep and bear arms is applicable to the states.

Citizens United v. FEC (2010)

Facts: Citizens United, a nonprofit organization, produced a critical film about Hillary Clinton, challenging the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act's restrictions on corporate funding of independent political broadcasts.
Issue: Did the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act's restrictions on corporate funding of independent political broadcasts violate the First Amendment's free speech clause?
Holding: The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act's restrictions on corporate funding of independent political broadcasts are unconstitutional and violate the First Amendment's free speech clause.
Rationale: The First Amendment's freedom of speech clause prevents the government from limiting political speech based on a speaker's corporate identity.
Decision: Ruled that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited under the First Amendment.
Significantly altered the landscape of campaign finance, allowing for increased corporate and union political spending in elections.

McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010)

Facts: McDonald challenged Chicago's handgun ban.

Issue: Does the Second Amendment apply to the states?

Holding: The Second Amendment applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.

Rationale: The right to bear arms is fundamental.

Decision: Ruled Chicago's handgun ban unconstitutional.

Affirmed the right to bear arms applies to states.

Citizens United v. FEC (2010)

Facts: Citizens United challenged campaign finance restrictions.

Issue: Do restrictions on corporate political spending violate free speech?

Holding: Restrictions on corporate political spending violate the First Amendment.

Rationale: The First Amendment prevents limiting political speech based on corporate identity.

Decision: Ruled that corporate funding