BAKER V. CARR(1962)

• Equal protection clause under the 14th amendment

• Charles W. Baker and other Tennessee citizens alleged that a 1901 law designed to

  apportion the seats for the state's General Assembly was virtually ignored, they didn’t do the redistricting therefore violating their equal protection of the laws. Baker's suit detailed how Tennessee's reapportionment efforts ignored significant economic growth and population shifts within the state.

• Question: should the court intervene in this or is it a political question that cannot be touched by them?

• Favor of baker

SHAW V RENO (1993)

• Equal protection clause

• The U.S. Attorney General rejected a North Carolina congressional reapportionment plan because the plan created only one black-majority district. North Carolina submitted a second plan creating two black-majority districts. One of these districts was, in parts, no wider than the interstate road along which it stretched. Five North Carolina residents challenged the constitutionality of this unusually shaped district, alleging that its only purpose was to secure the election of additional black representatives. After a three-judge District Court ruled that they failed to state a constitutional claim, the residents appealed and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.

• Using race-based districting raises a constitutional issue.

Favor shaw because it conflicts with the American value of equality

MARBURY V. MADISON (1803)

• Thomas Jefferson defeated John Adams in the 1800 presidential election. Before Jefferson took office on March 4, 1801, Adams and Congress passed the Judiciary Act
  of 1801, which created new courts, added judges, and gave the president more control over the appointment of judges. The Act was essentially an attempt by Adams and his party to frustrate his successor, as he used the act to appoint 16 new circuit judges and 42 new justices of the peace. The appointees were approved by the Senate, but they would not be valid until their commissions were delivered by the Secretary of State, John Marshall failed to deliver and he assumed that his successor would finish it. William Marbury had been appointed Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia, but his commission was not delivered. Marbury petitioned the Supreme Court to compel the new Secretary of State, James Madison, to deliver the documents. Marbury, joined by three other similarly situated appointees, petitioned for a writ of mandamus compelling the delivery of the commissions.

• Ask the supreme court to issue a writ of mandamus

• Judiciary act was unconstitutional because it conflicted with the constitution because it gave

  too much power to the supreme court

• Court didn’t require to deliver the commission, the court doesn’t have the authority to do it

• Judicial review principle of this case.

ENGEL V. VITALE (1962)

• Students were asked to do a prayer every single day, they were allowed to remain silent if they didn't want to participate in the prayer. However, families from other religions sued the school arguing that this violated their first amendment right.

• Prayer was constitutional because it violates the establishment clause, which prohibits

  the government from establishing a single religion\

• Favor of Engel

• Establishment clause

dissent: did not violate the clause because the prayer was free and the students were free to choose where they recite or not

WISCONSIN V YODER (1972)

• Jonas Yoder and Wallace Miller, both members of the Old Order Amish religion, and Adin Yutzy, a member of the Conservative Amish Mennonite Church, were prosecuted under a Wisconsin law that required all children to attend public schools until age 16. The three parents refused to send their children to such schools after the eighth grade, arguing that high school attendance was contrary to their religious beliefs.

• They were convicted of truancy but their religion establishes that the kids are homeschooled past the age of 14

• The Court held that an individual's interests in the free exercise of religion under the First Amendment outweighed the State's interests in compelling school attendance beyond the eighth grade

• Favor of Yoder

• Free exercise clause of the first amendment and 14th amendment

• Dissent: the majority focused on the parents’ claims rather than the kids’ free exercise claims, that they should ask the kids what they want to do

UNITED STATES V LOPEZ (1995)

• Alfonzo Lopez, a 12th-grade high school student, carried a concealed weapon into his San Antonio, Texas high school. He was charged under Texas law with firearm possession on school premises. The next day, the state charges were dismissed after federal agents charged Lopez with violating a federal criminal statute, the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. The act forbids "any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that [he] knows...is a school zone."

• The argument was that congress never had the authority to pass the act

• In favor of Lopez, the act exceeded congress’ authority under the COMMERCE CLAUSE because carrying a gun is not an economic activity.

• Delegated powers and explicit powers