AP Gov Unit 6 Test

1. Barron v. Baltimore (1833)
Background: John Barron owned a profitable wharf in Baltimore harbor. The city, while engaging in road construction projects, diverted streams that created sediment deposits around his wharf, making it too shallow for most vessels. This severely damaged Barron's business, and he sued the city for violating his Fifth Amendment rights.

Question Posed: Does the bill of rights apply to state governments?

Conclusion/Ruling:

-        the Bill of Rights only applied to actions by the federal government, not to state governments.

-        In favor of government

Takeaway/Lasting Impact: Established that the Bill of Rights originally only restricted federal government actions, not state actions.

2. Gitlow v. New York (1925)
Background: Benjamin Gitlow, a socialist, was arrested and convicted under New York's Criminal Anarchy Law for publishing and distributing the "Left Wing Manifesto." The document advocated for the violent overthrow of the government through communist revolution.

Question Posed: Does the First Amendment's free speech protection apply to state governments through the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion/Ruling:

-        The Court upheld Gitlow's conviction but, established that the First Amendment's free speech protections could be applied to state governments through the 14th Amendment

-        In favor of government

Takeaway/Lasting Impact: This case marked the beginning of the incorporation doctrine, establishing that certain protections in the Bill of Rights could be applied to states through the 14th Amendment's due process clause.

3. Engel v. Vitale (1962)
Background: New York State schools had adopted a state-composed, voluntary prayer to be recited each morning. Parents complained and sued.

Question Posed: Does the reading of a state-composed prayer in public schools violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?

Conclusion/Ruling: The Court ruled 6-1 that the state-sponsored prayer in public schools violated the Establishment Clause, even if the prayer was denominationally neutral and students could choose not to participate.

Takeaway/Lasting Impact: Established state-sponsored prayer in public schools is unconstitutional, setting a strong precedent for the separation of church and state in public education.

4. Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)
Background: Both Pennsylvania and Rhode Island adopted statues that provided for the state to pay for aspects of private, religious education.

Question Posed: When does government involvement with religion violate the First Amendment's Establishment Clause?

Conclusion/Ruling: The Court established the three-part "Lemon Test" to evaluate government actions involving religion: 1) Must have a secular purpose, 2) Must not primarily advance or inhibit religion, 3) Must not create excessive government entanglement with religion.

Takeaway/Lasting Impact: Created the influential "Lemon Test" for evaluating Establishment Clause cases, though its influence has diminished in recent years.

5. Schenck v. U.S. (1919)
Background: During WWI, Charles Schenck, a Socialist Party leader, distributed leaflets encouraging draft resistance. He was arrested under the Espionage Act for attempting to cause insubordination in the military and obstruct recruitment.

Question Posed: Does the First Amendment protect speech that presents a "clear and present danger" to national security?

Conclusion/Ruling: The Court unanimously upheld Schenck's conviction, establishing that free speech can be limited during wartime. Justice Holmes introduced the "clear and present danger" test.

Takeaway/Lasting Impact: Established that free speech is not absolute and introduced the "clear and present danger" test.

6. Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)
Background: Clarence Brandenburg, a Ku Klux Klan leader, gave a speech at a KKK rally suggesting possible "revengeance" against the government. He was convicted under Ohio's Criminal Syndicalism law, which prohibited advocating violence for political change.

Question Posed: Does speech advocating violent political reform receive First Amendment protection?

Conclusion/Ruling: The Court established the "Brandenburg Test": Speech advocating illegal conduct is protected unless it is directed to inciting imminent lawless action and is likely to produce such action.

Takeaway/Lasting Impact: Replaced the "clear and present danger" test with the more speech-protective "Brandenburg Test," which remains the standard for evaluating inflammatory speech.

7. Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)
Background: Three students wore black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War. School officials suspended them until they agreed to remove the armbands.

Question Posed: Does the First Amendment protect students' right to express political views in public schools?

Conclusion/Ruling: students don't "shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate." Schools can only restrict student expression that would substantially disrupt school operations.

Takeaway/Lasting Impact: Established strong protections for student political expression in schools, creating the "substantial disruption" test for evaluating school speech restrictions.

8. Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
Background: Police forcibly entered Mapp's home without a valid warrant, claiming to be looking for a bombing suspect. They found allegedly obscene materials and arrested her. The police never produced a warrant during her trial.

Question Posed: Should evidence obtained through illegal searches be admissible in state courts?

Conclusion/Ruling: The Court applied the exclusionary rule to state courts, requiring that evidence obtained through illegal searches be excluded from trial.

Takeaway/Lasting Impact: Incorporated the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule to the states, fundamentally changing law enforcement practices and protecting against illegal searches.

9. Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
Background: Miranda was arrested and confessed to crimes during police interrogation without being informed of his rights to remain silent and to have an attorney present.

Question Posed: Must law enforcement officers inform suspects of their constitutional rights before custodial interrogation?

Conclusion/Ruling: The Court required police to inform suspects of their rights before custodial interrogation (Miranda Rights): right to remain silent, right to an attorney, and warning that statements can be used against them.

Takeaway/Lasting Impact: Created the requirement for "Miranda warnings," fundamentally changing police procedure and becoming a staple of American criminal justice and popular culture.

10. Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)
Background: Gideon was charged with breaking into a poolroom in Florida. Being indigent, he requested a court-appointed lawyer but was denied. He was forced to defend himself, found guilty, and sentenced to five years in prison.

Question Posed: Does the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel require states to provide attorneys for criminal defendants who cannot afford them?

Conclusion/Ruling: The Court unanimously ruled that states must provide lawyers for criminal defendants who cannot afford them, as the right to counsel is fundamental to a fair trial.

Takeaway/Lasting Impact: Established that states must provide public defenders for indigent defendants in criminal cases, significantly expanding access to legal representation.

11. District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)
Background: Heller, a D.C. special police officer, challenged the city's strict gun control law that effectively banned handgun possession in homes. The law required other firearms to be disassembled or trigger-locked.

Question Posed: Does the Second Amendment protect an individual's right to own firearms unconnected with service in a militia?

Conclusion/Ruling: the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms for lawful purposes, such as self-defense in the home.

Takeaway/Lasting Impact: First Supreme Court case to definitively establish an individual right to gun ownership, independent of militia service.

12. Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)
Background: Griswold, director of Planned Parenthood in Connecticut, was arrested for providing contraception advice to married couples, violating a state law prohibiting the use of contraceptives.

Question Posed: Does the Constitution protect the right of marital privacy against state restrictions on contraception?

Conclusion/Ruling: a constitutional right to privacy in the "penumbras" and "emanations" of other constitutional protections, striking down the contraception law.

Takeaway/Lasting Impact: Established a constitutional right to privacy, laying the groundwork for future reproductive rights cases including Roe v. Wade.

13. Roe v. Wade (1973)
Background: "Jane Roe" challenged Texas laws criminalizing abortion except to save the mother's life. She claimed the laws violated her constitutional right to privacy.

Question Posed: Does the Constitution protect a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy?

Conclusion/Ruling: the right to privacy encompasses a woman's right to abortion, while allowing for state regulation after the first trimester.

Takeaway/Lasting Impact: Established constitutional protection for abortion rights and created the trimester framework for regulating abortion

14. Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022)
Background: Mississippi passed a law banning most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy, challenging the viability standard established in Roe v. Wade and upheld in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

Question Posed: Is there a constitutional right to abortion, and should Roe and Casey be overturned?

Conclusion/Ruling: The Court overturned Roe and Casey, holding that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion, returning the issue to state legislatures.

Takeaway/Lasting Impact: Eliminated federal constitutional protection for abortion rights, allowing states to ban or severely restrict abortion access.

15. New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen (2022)
Background: Two individuals and a firearms advocacy organization challenged New York's restrictive licensing regime for carrying handguns in public, which required showing "proper cause" beyond general self-defense needs.

Question Posed: Does New York's requirement that applicants for concealed carry permits show "proper cause" violate the Second Amendment?

Conclusion/Ruling: New York's "proper cause" requirement violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments, establishing that the right to bear arms extends outside the home.

Takeaway/Lasting Impact: Significantly expanded Second Amendment protections and established a new test requiring gun regulations to be consistent with historical tradition.

16. Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022)
Background: Joseph Kennedy, a high school football coach, was suspended for praying on the field after games. The school district argued his actions violated the Establishment Clause.

Question Posed: Does a public school employee's prayer during school events violate the Establishment Clause?

Conclusion/Ruling: the coach's prayers were protected by the First Amendment, and the school district violated his rights by trying to stop them.

Takeaway/Lasting Impact: Significantly modified the approach to Establishment Clause cases, moving away from the Lemon test and allowing more religious expression in public schools.

17. Bethel School District v. Fraser (1987)
Background: Matthew Fraser, a high school student, gave a speech nominating a classmate for student government using sexual innuendos and explicit metaphors.

Question Posed: Does the First Amendment prevent public schools from prohibiting vulgar and lewd speech in school settings?

Conclusion/Ruling: schools can prohibit vulgar, lewd, or plainly offensive speech, distinguishing it from the political speech protected in Tinker.

Takeaway/Lasting Impact: Limited Tinker by establishing that students' First Amendment rights in school are not automatically parallel to adults' rights in other settings.

18. Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988)
Background: A school principal removed two articles from the school newspaper about divorce and teen pregnancy. Student journalists claimed this violated their First Amendment rights.

Question Posed: Do educators' decisions to censor school-sponsored student publications violate students' First Amendment rights?

Conclusion/Ruling: schools can censor school-sponsored student expression if the censorship is "reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns."

Takeaway/Lasting Impact: Further limited student speech rights by giving schools broad authority to regulate school-sponsored student expression.

19. Morse v. Frederick (2007)
Background: During a school-supervised event, student Joseph Frederick displayed a banner reading "BONG HiTS 4 JESUS."

Question Posed: Can schools restrict student speech that appears to promote illegal drug use?

Conclusion/Ruling: schools may restrict student speech that can reasonably be interpreted as promoting illegal drug use.

Takeaway/Lasting Impact: Created another exception to Tinker, allowing schools to restrict student speech promoting illegal drug use.

20. Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. (2021)
Background: A student posted a vulgar Snapchat message expressing frustration about not making the varsity cheerleading team. The school suspended her from the junior varsity team for a year.

Question Posed: Can public schools regulate off-campus student speech on social media?

Conclusion/Ruling: the school violated the student's First Amendment rights, limiting schools' ability to regulate off-campus speech.

Takeaway/Lasting Impact: Established that schools have limited authority to regulate off-campus student speech, particularly on social media.

21. Carpenter v. United States (2018)
Background: Police obtained cell phone location data without a warrant to place Timothy Carpenter near several robbery locations.

Question Posed: Does the government's acquisition of cell phone location records constitute a search requiring a warrant under the Fourth Amendment?

Conclusion/Ruling: The Court ruled that accessing historical cell phone location records constitutes a search requiring a warrant under the Fourth Amendment.

Takeaway/Lasting Impact: Extended Fourth Amendment protections to digital data, requiring warrants for cell phone location data.

22. Roper v. Simmons (2005)
Background: Christopher Simmons was sentenced to death for a murder committed when he was 17. The case challenged the constitutionality of executing juvenile offenders.

Question Posed: Does the execution of minors constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment?

Conclusion/Ruling: executing individuals for crimes committed as minors is unconstitutional.

Takeaway/Lasting Impact: Abolished the death penalty for juvenile offenders, reflecting evolving standards of decency.

23. Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)
Background: Pennsylvania enacted abortion restrictions including informed consent, 24-hour waiting period, and spousal notification requirements. Planned Parenthood challenged these restrictions.

Question Posed: Should Roe v. Wade be overturned, and what standard should govern abortion regulations?

Conclusion/Ruling: upheld Roe's central holding but replaced the trimester framework with an "undue burden" test for evaluating abortion regulations.

Takeaway/Lasting Impact: Created the "undue burden" standard for abortion regulations and established that states could regulate abortion from the beginning of pregnancy

24. Carson v. Makin (2022)
Background: Maine's tuition assistance program for rural areas without public schools excluded religious schools. Families challenged this exclusion as discriminatory.

Question Posed: Can a state exclude religious schools from a program that provides tuition assistance for private education?

Conclusion/Ruling: excluding religious schools from the tuition program violated the Free Exercise Clause.

Takeaway/Lasting Impact: Further expanded religious schools' access to public funding, continuing the Court's trend of greater accommodation for religious institutions.

25. McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010)
Background: After the Heller decision, Chicago residents including Otis McDonald challenged the city's effective ban on handgun possession. The case addressed whether the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms applied to state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment.

Question Posed: Does the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms apply to state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause?

Conclusion/Ruling: the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is incorporated under the Fourteenth Amendment, making it applicable to state and local governments.

Takeaway/Lasting Impact:

·        Incorporated the Second Amendment to the states

·        Built upon District of Columbia v. Heller by ensuring state and local governments must respect individual gun rights

·        Established that states and cities must respect the individual right to keep and bear arms, while still allowing for reasonable regulations

26. NY Times v. United States (1971) - "The Pentagon Papers Case"
Background: The New York Times and Washington Post obtained and began publishing classified Defense Department documents (The Pentagon Papers) about the Vietnam War. The Nixon administration sought prior restraint to prevent further publication, claiming national security concerns.

Question Posed: Can the government prevent newspapers from publishing classified information under the First Amendment's freedom of the press?

Conclusion/Ruling: the Court ruled against the government, stating that it failed to meet the "heavy burden" required to justify prior restraint of the press.

Takeaway/Lasting Impact:

·        Established that the government bears a "heavy burden" to justify prior restraint of publication

·        Created the precedent that "security" alone isn't enough to stop publication

27. Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)
Background: Amish parents refused to send their children to school after 8th grade, violating Wisconsin's compulsory education law requiring attendance until age 16. They argued it violated their religious beliefs and way of life.

Question Posed: Does requiring Amish children to attend school until age 16 violate their First Amendment right to free exercise of religion?

Conclusion/Ruling: ruled in favor of the Amish parents, holding that the state's interest in universal education had to be balanced against the fundamental right to free exercise of religion.

Takeaway/Lasting Impact:

·        Established that religious beliefs can override certain state regulations

·        Created a balancing test between state interests and religious rights

·        Set precedent for religious exemptions from generally applicable laws

28. Sherbert v. Verner (1963)
Background: Adell Sherbert, a Seventh-day Adventist, was fired for refusing to work on Saturdays (her Sabbath). She was denied unemployment benefits because she wouldn't accept jobs requiring Saturday work.

Question Posed: Does denying unemployment benefits to someone who refuses work for religious reasons violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment?

Conclusion/Ruling: denying benefits violated Sherbert's First Amendment rights, establishing the "Sherbert Test" for religious freedom cases.

Takeaway/Lasting Impact:

·        Established the "Sherbert Test" for evaluating Free Exercise claims:

1.     Is the religious belief sincere?

2.     Does the law burden religious practice?

3.     Does the government have a compelling interest?

4.     Is the law the least restrictive means of achieving that interest?

·        Remains influential in certain contexts and was partially restored by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)