COURT CASES FOR AP US GOV AND POL!! (Not all are required)

Essential Supreme Court Cases and Foundational Jurisprudence

Marbury v. Madison ($1803$) is a landmark case that established the principle of judicial review, granting the Supreme Court the authority to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional. This power is rooted in Article $3$ of the Constitution and the Supremacy Clause.
McCulloch v. Maryland ($1819$) further defined federal power by establishing the supremacy of the national government over state governments. This decision relied on the Supremacy Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause, confirming that states cannot tax federal entities.
Schenck v. United States ($1919$) addressed the limits of the $1^{st}$ Amendment freedom of speech, establishing the "clear and present danger" test. This case demonstrated that speech could be limited based on context, particularly during wartime.

Brown v. Board of Education ($1954$) was pivotal in the civil rights movement, as it mandated the desegregation of schools and set a precedent outlawing de jure segregation. It was decided based on the $14^{th}$ Amendment Equal Protection Clause, famously overturning Plessy v. Ferguson ($1896$), which had previously upheld the "separate but equal" doctrine.

Baker v. Carr ($1962$) addressed redistricting, which was formerly considered a political and non-justiciable question. The Court ruled that such matters were indeed justiciable, extending court jurisdiction over political questions under the $14^{th}$ Amendment Equal Protection Clause and Article $3$, Section $2$ . This case overturned Colegrove v. Greene ($1946$), which had previously kept political questions separate from court intervention.

Engel v. Vitale ($1962$) strengthened the Establishment Clause of the $1^{st}$ Amendment by ruling that the government cannot intervene in religion by composing or requiring prayers in public schools.
Gideon v. Wainwright ($1963$) extended the right to an attorney to all defendants in all criminal cases through the $6^{th}$ Amendment right to counsel and the $14^{th}$ Amendment Due Process Clause. This overturned Betts v. Brady ($1942$), which had held that the right to counsel was not universally applicable to all state defendants.
Tinker v. Des Moines ($1969$) affirmed that students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate, extending $1^{st}$ Amendment free speech protections to include symbolic speech in schools.

Constitutional Limits and Corporate Speech

New York Times Co. v. United States ($1971$) established a very high bar for prior restraint, also known as censorship, thereby strengthening the freedom of the press under the $1^{st}$ Amendment. Wisconsin v. Yoder ($1972$) prioritized individual religious free exercise rights over government authority, specifically allowing Amish families to opt-out of high school attendance based on their faith, grounded in the $1^{st}$ Amendment Free Exercise Clause.
Shaw v. Reno ($1993$) applied a "colorblind" view to gerrymandering, ruling that racial redistricting, even if intended to help minorities, must be held to a standard of strict scrutiny under the $14^{th}$ Amendment Equal Protection Clause and the $15^{th}$ Amendment.

United States v. Lopez ($1995$) marked a significant shift by placing limits on Congress's use of the Commerce Clause under Article $1$, Section $8$. The Court ruled that Congress could not use the clause to regulate gun possession near schools, as it did not sufficiently impact interstate commerce.

McDonald v. Chicago ($2010$) utilized the doctrine of selective incorporation to apply the $2^{nd}$ Amendment right to bear arms to the states through the $14^{th}$ Amendment Due Process Clause. Citizens United v. FEC ($2010$) transformed campaign finance by preventing the government from restricting independent political expenditures by corporations and unions, classifying such spending as protected free speech under the $1^{st}$ Amendment. This decision overturned Austin v. Michigan State Chamber of Commerce ($1990$), which had previously allowed restrictions on corporate political spending.

Evolving Protections of Privacy and Reproductive Rights

Roe v. Wade ($1973$) significantly increased abortion rights by establishing that the right to privacy, implied by the $14^{th}$ Amendment Due Process Clause, protected a woman's choice to have an abortion. However, this precedent was overturned by Dobbs v. Jackson ($2022$), where the Court ruled that the right to privacy was not explicitly stated in the Constitution and that the authority to regulate abortion must be returned to the people and their elected representatives. Griswold v. Connecticut ($1965$) served as a precursor to Roe, ruling that the Constitution protects the right to marital and reproductive privacy. While not explicitly stated, this right was found in the "penumbras" and emanations of the $1^{st}$, $3^{rd}$, $4^{th}$, $9^{th}$, and arguably the $14^{th}$ Amendments.

Planned Parenthood v. Casey ($1992$) reaffirmed the core holdings of Roe v. Wade but shifted the legal standard for evaluating abortion restrictions from "strict scrutiny" to "undue burden." Under this standard, abortion is permitted if the pregnancy poses a significant and "insane" difficulty or life-threatening risk to the woman. Prior to these developments, Early cases like Near v. Minnesota ($1931$) protected freedom of the press by striking down state censorship laws and incorporating the $1^{st}$ Amendment freedom of the press to the states.

Criminal Justice and the Rights of the Accused

Mapp v. Ohio ($1961$) established the exclusionary rule, meaning evidence obtained unconstitutionally (in violation of the $4^{th}$ Amendment) cannot be used in a court of law. In this instance, material found in Mapp's house was deemed inadmissible despite its nature.
Miranda v. Arizona ($1966$) established the "Miranda rights," which include the right to remain silent and the protection against self-incrimination under the $5^{th}$ Amendment, as well as the right to a provided attorney, which links back to the Gideon v. Wainwright precedent.
Escobedo v. Illinois ($1964$) further reinforced the $6^{th}$ Amendment right to counsel by ruling that a suspect's right to see their lawyer cannot be denied during interrogation.

Gregg v. Georgia ($1976$) addressed whether the death penalty constituted "cruel and unusual punishment" under the $8^{th}$ Amendment. The Court decided that the death sentence was constitutional and did not per se violate the amendment. In recent developments, Case v. Montana ($2025$) created an exception to the $4^{th}$ Amendment warrant requirement, allowing police to enter a residence without a warrant if they have a "reasonable basis" or "probable cause" to believe an occupant is seriously injured or facing imminent harm.

Civil Rights, Gender Equality, and LGBTQ+ Jurisprudence

The history of the Court includes highly controversial decisions such as Dred Scott v. Sandford ($1857$), which ruled that slaves were property rather than citizens under Article $3$. Improvements in civil rights are seen in Smith v. Allwright ($1944$), which struck down all-white primaries as unconstitutional under the $14^{th}$ Amendment, and Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections ($1966$), which declared poll taxes unconstitutional. Harper overruled Breedlove v. Suttles ($1937$), which had previously upheld Georgia's poll tax. In gender law, Bradwell v. Illinois ($1872$) originally upheld a state's right to bar women from practicing law, describing them as "delicate, peculiar little creatures" and creating a "gilded cage" for women. However, Reed v. Reed ($1971$) later ruled that arbitrary gender discrimination was unconstitutional under the $14^{th}$ Amendment.

Craig v. Boren ($1976$) established the "medium scrutiny" (intermediate scrutiny) standard for sex discrimination. This case involved a challenge by men who were barred from buying beer at an age when women were permitted to do so. This and Frontiero v. Richardson ($1973$), which dealt with military spouse benefits, were weaponized by Ruth Bader Ginsburg as precedents to ensure equal treatment for both sexes. LGBTQ+ rights saw a shift from Bowers v. Hardwick ($1886$), which ruled that consensual sodomy was not constitutionally protected, to Lawrence v. Texas ($2003$), which overturned Bowers and protected such acts under the $14^{th}$ Amendment Due Process Clause. Obergefell v. Hodges ($2015$) finally protected same-sex marriage nationwide, overriding state measures like Proposition $8$ that attempted to ban it.

Standards for Speech, Obscenity, and Religious Liberty

Texas v. Johnson ($1989$) strengthened political speech by ruling that flag burning is a constitutionally protected form of expression. Conversely, Miller v. California ($1973$) limited speech by establishing the "Miller test" for obscenity. To be considered obscene, the material must: ($1$) appeal to a prurient interest in sex; ($2$) be patently offensive; and ($3$) lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. Bethel School District v. Fraser ($1986$) further limited speech in schools by ruling that obscene or lewd speech by students is unconstitutional. Roth v. United States ($1957$) also limited speech regarding obscenity, tying into the later Miller and Bethel precedents.

In terms of defamation, New York Times v. Sullivan ($1964$) ruled that libel (written defamation) against public officials is only unconstitutional if made with "actual malice"—published with purposeful disregard for the truth. Legal matters involving religion often refer to the Lemon v. Kurtzman ($1971$) case, which established the "Lemon test" for the Establishment Clause. The test requires three criteria: a secular purpose, a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion, and no excessive entanglement between government and religion. Recent litigation includes Mahmoud v. Taylor ($2025$), which ruled that parents have a religious right to opt their children out of lessons on gender and sexuality, tying back to the free exercise principles in Wisconsin v. Yoder.

Modern Challenges and Ongoing Litigation

Gitlow v. New York ($1925$) was the first historic case of selective incorporation, applying the $1^{st}$ Amendment to the states, though it ruled states could still punish dangerous political speech advocating for the violent overthrow of government. Affirmative action was addressed in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke ($1978$), which ruled that rigid racial quotas were unconstitutional but that affirmative action as a general practice was permissible. Adarand Constructors v. Pena ($1995$) established that all racial classifications by federal, state, or local governments must be analyzed under "strict scrutiny."

Contemporary issues continue to reach the courts, such as Chiles v. Salazar ($2026$), which deemed conversion therapy bans unconstitutional under the $1^{st}$ Amendment freedom of speech. The ongoing case of Little v. Hecox investigating whether it is constitutional to ban transgender women from sports involves the $14^{th}$ Amendment Equal Protection Clause and the LGBTQ+ rights movement, with a decision still pending. Additionally, Gibbons v. Ogden ($1824$) remains a baseline for federal power, establishing that Congress can regulate interstate navigation under the Article $8$, Section $1$ Commerce Clause.