Required Court Cases and Documents

Required Supreme Court Cases

1. McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

Background

• In 1816, Congress chartered the Second Bank of the U.S. to help regulate currency and credit.

• Many states opposed the national bank, believing it gave too much power to the federal government.

• Maryland passed a law taxing any bank not chartered by the state. The Bank’s Baltimore branch, led by James McCulloch, refused to pay.

Constitutional Issues

1. Necessary and Proper Clause (Elastic Clause, Article I, Section 8) – Does Congress have the power to create a national bank?

2. Supremacy Clause (Article VI) – Can a state tax a federal institution?

Arguments

• Maryland:

  • The Constitution does not explicitly give Congress the power to create a bank.

  • States have sovereignty and should be able to tax businesses operating within their borders.

• McCulloch/U.S.:

  • The Necessary and Proper Clause allows Congress to create institutions needed to carry out its powers (e.g., coining money, regulating commerce).

  • The Supremacy Clause makes the federal government supreme, so states cannot interfere with legitimate federal operations.

Supreme Court Ruling

• Unanimous (7-0) decision for McCulloch.

• Chief Justice John Marshall ruled that Congress does have implied powers to create a bank under the Necessary and Proper Clause.

• He also ruled that Maryland could not tax the bank, as that would give states power over the federal government, violating the Supremacy Clause.

Impact

• Established broad interpretation of federal power (loose constructionism).

• Strengthened the federal government’s ability to use implied powers.

• Set a precedent for future expansion of federal authority (e.g., New Deal programs, modern regulatory agencies).

Connections

• Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) – Expanded federal power over interstate commerce.

• U.S. v. Lopez (1995) – Limited federal power under the Commerce Clause (contrast case).

2. U.S. v. Lopez (1995)

Background

• In 1990, Congress passed the Gun-Free School Zones Act, making it a federal crime to carry a gun near a school.

• A high school student, Alfonso Lopez, brought a gun to school in Texas and was charged under federal law.

• Lopez argued that Congress overstepped its constitutional authority by regulating guns in schools.

Constitutional Issues

1. Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8) – Does Congress have the power to ban guns in school zones under its authority to regulate interstate commerce?

Arguments

• U.S. Government:

  • Guns in schools affect education, which impacts the economy.

  • People feeling unsafe in schools could hurt economic productivity.

• Lopez:

  • Simply carrying a gun is not an economic activity.

  • If Congress can use the Commerce Clause for this, it can regulate anything.

Supreme Court Ruling

• 5-4 decision for Lopez.

• The Court ruled that the Gun-Free School Zones Act was unconstitutional because carrying a gun is not economic activity and does not significantly impact interstate commerce.

Impact

• First time in decades the Court limited federal power under the Commerce Clause.

• Shifted power back to the states.

• Limited the expansion of federal regulations on non-economic activities.

Connections

• McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) – Expands federal power (contrast case).

• Gonzales v. Raich (2005) – Allowed federal control of marijuana under the Commerce Clause (opposite ruling).

3. Shaw v. Reno (1993)

Background

• North Carolina created a congressional district map with one very oddly shaped districtdesigned to increase Black representation in Congress.

• Five white voters sued, claiming it was racial gerrymandering and violated the Equal Protection Clause.

Constitutional Issues

1. Equal Protection Clause (14th Amendment) – Can race be the primary factor in drawing congressional districts?

Arguments

• Shaw (white voters):

  • Districts drawn based on race violate equal protection.

  • The district’s bizarre shape proves it was drawn solely to group Black voters.

• Reno (Attorney General):

  • The district was created to comply with the Voting Rights Act, which aims to prevent discrimination.

Supreme Court Ruling

• 5-4 decision for Shaw (white voters).

• The Court ruled that race cannot be the dominant factor in drawing district lines.

Impact

• Limited racial gerrymandering while allowing race to be one of many factors.

• Future cases required strict scrutiny for race-based districting.

Connections

• Baker v. Carr (1962) – Courts can review redistricting cases.

• Bush v. Vera (1996) – Struck down another race-based districting plan.

4. Baker v. Carr (1962)

Background

• Tennessee hadn’t redrawn its state legislative districts in 60 years, leading to underrepresentation of urban voters.

• Charles Baker sued, arguing this violated equal representation.

Constitutional Issues

1. Equal Protection Clause (14th Amendment) – Do outdated districts violate equal representation?

Arguments

• Baker (urban voter):

  • Unequal districts dilute votes, violating equal protection.

• Carr (state official):

  • Redistricting is a political issue, not a judicial one.

Supreme Court Ruling

• 6-2 decision for Baker.

• The Court ruled that courts can hear redistricting cases, opening the door for judicial intervention.

Impact

• Established “One person, one vote” doctrine.

• Led to massive redistricting reforms across the U.S.

Connections

• Reynolds v. Sims (1964) – Required equal state legislative districts.

• Shaw v. Reno (1993) – Further clarified districting rules.

5. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010)

Background

• Citizens United, a conservative nonprofit, wanted to release and promote Hillary: The Movie, a film critical of Hillary Clinton, during the 2008 Democratic primaries.

• The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), also known as the McCain-Feingold Act, prohibited corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds for “electioneering communications” within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election.

• The Federal Election Commission (FEC) blocked the film, saying it violated BCRA rules.

• Citizens United sued, arguing that the BCRA’s restrictions violated the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause.

Constitutional Issues

1. First Amendment – Freedom of Speech: Does restricting political spending by corporations and unions violate free speech?

2. Government Regulation vs. Political Influence: Can the government limit independent expenditures to prevent corruption?

Arguments

• Citizens United (Against BCRA):

  • Political speech should not be limited, even when it comes from corporations or unions.

  • Money is speech in the context of elections.

  • The government cannot discriminate against certain speakers (corporations).

• FEC (Defending BCRA):

  • Large corporate donations distort democracy and lead to corruption.

  • BCRA does not limit speech; it only limits how money is spent on political ads.

  • Corporations are not individuals, so they do not have the same rights as people.

Supreme Court Ruling

• 5-4 decision for Citizens United.

• The Court ruled that the First Amendment protects corporate political spending as free speech.

• Overturned parts of BCRA that restricted corporate and union funding for independent political broadcasts.

Impact

• Led to the rise of Super PACs (Political Action Committees that can raise unlimited funds for independent expenditures).

• Dramatically increased corporate and union spending in elections.

• Weakened campaign finance laws, making money a dominant force in U.S. elections.

Connections

• Buckley v. Valeo (1976) – First ruling that money = speech in elections.

• McCutcheon v. FEC (2014) – Further loosened campaign finance restrictions.

6. Marbury v. Madison (1803)

Background

• In the final days of his presidency, John Adams appointed several judges (known as “midnight judges”) to maintain Federalist influence.

• Some commissions, including William Marbury’s, were not delivered before Adams left office.

• Thomas Jefferson, the incoming president, ordered his Secretary of State, James Madison, not to deliver the commissions.

• Marbury sued, asking the Supreme Court to issue a writ of mandamus (a court order forcing an official to act).

Constitutional Issues

1. Judicial Review: Can the Supreme Court declare an act of Congress unconstitutional?

2. Separation of Powers: Does Congress have the authority to give the Supreme Court more power than the Constitution grants?

Arguments

• Marbury:

  • The Judiciary Act of 1789 gave the Supreme Court the power to issue writs of mandamus, so the Court should force Madison to deliver the commission.

• Madison (Jefferson’s side):

  • The law giving the Supreme Court this power exceeded the Court’s constitutional authority.

  • The Constitution does not allow Congress to expand Supreme Court jurisdiction beyond Article III.

Supreme Court Ruling

• Unanimous (4-0) decision for Madison.

• Chief Justice John Marshall ruled that Marbury had a right to his commission but that the Supreme Court could not enforce it because the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional.

• Established judicial review, allowing courts to strike down laws that conflict with the Constitution.

Impact

• Gave the Supreme Court the power to declare laws unconstitutional (judicial review).

• Strengthened the judicial branch by making it an equal check on the legislative and executive branches.

Connections

• McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) – Strengthened federal power (Marshall Court).

• U.S. v. Nixon (1974) – Used judicial review to limit presidential power.

7. New York Times v. U.S. (1971)

Background

• The Pentagon Papers, a classified government report about U.S. involvement in Vietnam, were leaked by Daniel Ellsberg and published by the New York Times and the Washington Post.

• The Nixon administration argued that publishing the documents threatened national securityand tried to block further publication through prior restraint (government censorship before publication).

• The newspapers sued, arguing that the First Amendment protected their right to publish.

Constitutional Issues

1. First Amendment – Freedom of the Press: Can the government prevent the publication of classified information?

2. Prior Restraint: Under what circumstances can the government censor the press?

Arguments

• New York Times & Washington Post:

  • The First Amendment protects press freedom, even when publishing government documents.

  • The government should not prevent publication without clear proof of an immediate danger.

• U.S. Government (Nixon Administration):

  • The Pentagon Papers contained classified military information.

  • Publishing them could endanger national security and military efforts.

Supreme Court Ruling

• 6-3 decision for the New York Times.

• The Court ruled that prior restraint is unconstitutional unless publication poses a direct and immediate threat to national security.

• The Nixon administration failed to prove that the Pentagon Papers endangered national security.

Impact

• Strengthened First Amendment protections for press freedom.

• Established a high standard for government censorship (prior restraint is rarely justified).

• Increased public skepticism of the government’s honesty, particularly in wartime.

Connections

• Schenck v. U.S. (1919) – Allowed government limitations on free speech during wartime (contrast case).

• Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) – Strengthened free speech rights.

Required Foundational Documents

1. Articles of Confederation (1781-1789)

Background

• The first governing document of the U.S. after independence.

• Written by the Second Continental Congress during the Revolutionary War.

• Created a weak central government to avoid tyranny (like British rule).

• Each state maintained its sovereignty and independence.

Key Features

• Unicameral legislature (one-house Congress).

• Each state had one vote, regardless of size.

• No executive or judicial branch (no president or national courts).

• Congress could not tax (had to request money from states).

• No standing army (states provided troops voluntarily).

• 9 out of 13 states needed to approve laws.

• Unanimous approval required to amend the Articles.

Weaknesses

• No power to tax → Government could not raise revenue.

• No power to regulate commerce → States imposed tariffs on each other.

• No executive branch → No enforcement of laws.

• No national court system → No way to settle disputes between states.

• Hard to pass laws → 9/13 states had to agree.

• Weak military → Could not put down rebellions (e.g., Shays’ Rebellion).

Impact

• Led to economic problems, weak national defense, and state conflicts.

• Shays’ Rebellion (1786-87) exposed the government’s inability to respond to crises.

• Led to the Constitutional Convention (1787) to replace the Articles with the U.S. Constitution.

Connections

• Federalist No. 10 – Argues that the Articles were too weak to control factions.

• Constitution – Replaced the Articles by creating a stronger federal government.

2. U.S. Constitution (1787, Ratified 1788)

Background

• Written at the Constitutional Convention (1787) to replace the Articles of Confederation.

• Aimed to create a stronger federal government while protecting individual freedoms.

• Established the framework of U.S. government:

  • Three branches (legislative, executive, judicial) with checks and balances.

  • Bicameral legislature (House and Senate) with representation based on population (House) and equality (Senate).

  • Federalism (shared power between federal and state governments).

Key Features

• Article I – Legislative Branch (Congress makes laws).

• Article II – Executive Branch (President enforces laws).

• Article III – Judicial Branch (Supreme Court interprets laws).

• Article IV – States’ powers and responsibilities.

• Article V – Amendment process.

• Article VI – Supremacy Clause (federal law overrides state law).

• Article VII – Ratification process.

Impact

• Created a flexible but strong federal government.

• Addressed the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation.

• Established checks and balances to prevent tyranny.

Connections

• Federalist No. 51 – Argues for checks and balances.

• Brutus No. 1 – Anti-Federalist opposition to a strong central government.

3. Brutus No. 1 (1787)

Background

• Written by an Anti-Federalist (likely Robert Yates) to oppose the ratification of the Constitution.

• Warned that a strong federal government would threaten individual freedoms.

Key Arguments

• Necessary and Proper Clause & Supremacy Clause give the federal government too much power.

• The national government would overpower states.

• A large republic would be too disconnected from the people.

• The military and taxation powers could lead to tyranny.

• The judicial branch would become too powerful.

Impact

• Influenced the Bill of Rights by pushing for protections of individual freedoms.

• Showed early fears of federal overreach.

Connections

• Federalist No. 10 – Opposes Brutus, arguing that a large republic controls factions.

• Bill of Rights – Added partly in response to Anti-Federalist concerns.

4. Federalist No. 10 (1787) – James Madison

Background

• Written by James Madison to support the ratification of the Constitution.

• Argues that a large republic is the best way to control factions.

Key Arguments

• Factions (political groups) are dangerous because they put their own interests over the public good.

• A large republic dilutes factions, preventing any one group from taking control.

• A direct democracy would lead to mob rule, so a representative democracy is better.

Impact

• Justified the structure of the U.S. government.

• Defended the idea of a strong national government.

Connections

• Brutus No. 1 – Opposes Federalist No. 10, arguing a large republic is bad.

• Federalist No. 51 – Explains checks and balances to further prevent tyranny.

5. Federalist No. 51 (1788) – James Madison

Background

• Written by James Madison to explain the system of checks and balances.

• Defends the separation of powers in the Constitution.

Key Arguments

• Each branch should be independent to prevent corruption.

• Checks and balances keep government power in check.

• “If men were angels, no government would be necessary” → Because people are flawed, government must control itself.

Impact

• Justified the structure of the Constitution.

• Supported by Federalists, criticized by Anti-Federalists.

Connections

• Federalist No. 10 – Argues for a large republic, while No. 51 argues for internal controls.

• Constitution – Establishes checks and balances.

6. Federalist No. 70 (1788) – Alexander Hamilton

Background

• Written by Alexander Hamilton to defend the presidency.

• Argues that a single executive (president) is necessary.

Key Arguments

• A weak executive leads to a weak government.

• A single leader is more decisive than a group (Congress).

• The executive must be accountable to the people.

• A single leader can act quickly in crises (e.g., national security threats).

Impact

• Justified the strong presidency in the Constitution.

• Used today to defend strong executive powers.

Connections

• Brutus No. 1 – Feared a powerful executive could become a king.

• U.S. v. Nixon (1974) – Limited executive power.

7. Declaration of Independence (1776)

Background

• Written by Thomas Jefferson to justify American independence from Britain.

Key Ideas

• Natural Rights (Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness) – Inspired by John Locke.

• Government gets power from the people (popular sovereignty).

• Right to overthrow a government if it becomes tyrannical.

Impact

• Inspired revolutions worldwide (e.g., France, Latin America).

• Established foundations of American democracy.

Connections

• Constitution – Implements many principles from the Declaration.

• Bill of Rights – Protects natural rights.