EXAM PREP: required court cases overview
Case | Precedent and Constitutional Reasoning | Relevant Vocabulary / Key Terms |
---|---|---|
Case about Checks and Balances and Separation of Powers | ||
Marbury v. Madison (1803) | Used the Judicial Branch’s inherent power from Article III of the Constitution to establish judicial review as constitutional affirming checks and balances and separation of powers | Judicial Review |
Cases about Federalism | ||
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) | Used the supremacy clause from Article VI of the Constitution to affirm the supremacy of the federal government and the US Constitution over the states and state laws | Elastic Clause (Necessary and Proper Clause) -- established implied power doctrine (vs. just enumerated powers), which strengthened the federal government |
United States v. Lopez (1995) | Congress may not use the commerce clause, Article I Section 8, to make possession of a gun in a school zone a federal crime | Commerce Clause devolution |
Cases about the Bill of Rights, balance between power of government and individual liberties | ||
Engel v. Vitale (1962) | School sponsorship of religious activities violates the establishment clause in the 1st amendment | 1st Amendment; religionestablishment clause |
Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) | Forcing Amish students to attend school past 8th grade violates the free exercise clause of the 1st amendment | 1st Amendment; religionfree exercise clausehome school |
Tinker v. Des Moines School District (1969) | Public school students retain 1st amendment freedom of speech/expression while on campus, as long as it doesn’t “disrupt the learning environment” | 1st Amendment, Free Speechsymbolic speech captive audience doctrine |
New York Times v. United States (1971) | Ensures freedom of press clause of the 1st amendment by limiting prior restraint except in most extreme cases of national security | 1st Amendment, free pressprior restraint is limited“Pentagon Papers” |
Schenk v. US (1919) | Speech that represents a “clear and present danger” is not protected speech under the freedom of speech clause in the 1st amendment | 1st Amendment, Free Speech“clear and present danger”“yelling ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater” - not all speech is protected |
Cases about Selective Incorporation via the 14th amendment’s due process clause | ||
Gitlow v. New York (1925) | The first case that used the selective incorporation doctrine, using the due process clause of the 14th amendment to extend the Bill of Rights protections to states | selective incorporation |
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) | Used the 6th amendment to decide that those who cannot afford an attorney will be provided with one, incorporated to the states via the due process clause of the 14th amendment. | selective incorporation 6th AmendmentRight to counsel |
Roe v. Wade (1973) | Used the 4th amendments right to privacy to rule that states could not prevent women from having abortions, incorporated to the states via the due process clause of the 14th amendment. | penumbras (HINT: Griswold v. Connecticut, a case about contraception, that originally established penumbras, or “zones of privacy” inherent in the Bill of Rights)right to privacy / abortion |
McDonald v. Chicago (2010) | The 2nd amendment prevents states from limiting gun ownership for self-protection, incorporated to the states via the due process clause of the 14th amendment. | 14th Amendment due process clausePrivileges and Immunities Clause2nd amendment |
Cases about the 14th amendment’s equal protection clause supports equality of individuals | ||
Brown v. Board of Education (1954) | School segregation violates the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment - overturned Plessy v. Ferguson’s separate but equal doctrine | 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause |
Cases about campaigning, election rules, and redistricting | ||
Baker v. Carr (1961) | Used the equal protection clause in the 14th amendment to apply to redistricting - established “one person one vote” doctrine | “the political thicket” (i.e. the political question and the role of the SCOTUS)gerrymandering (though this is secondary)“one man, one vote” |
Shaw v. Reno (1993) | Used equal protection clause in the 14th amendment to prohibit states from racial gerrymandering | 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause Section V of the Voting Rights Act (pre-clearance clause)racial gerrymandering vs. communities of interestmajority-minority district |
Citizen United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) | Political spending by corporations and organizations is protected speech under the 1st amendment and cannot be limited by government | 1st Amendment Free Speech(Used Buckley v. Valeo - campaign donations were protected expression and cannot be limited by the government) |
mcculloch v maryland
necessary and proper clause — national bank
federal law > state law
us v lopez
interstate commerce clause — guns in schools
state law < federal law to some extent
baker v carr
reapportionment — unequal voting districts in tn
reapportionment is justiciable, some political issues are
shaw v reno
no gerrymandering based solely on race
colorblind interpretation of constitution
marbury v madison
gave scotus power of judicial review
engel v vitale
establishment clause — prayer in schools
selectively incorporated to states (under 14th)
gvmt cannot condone any religious exercise (establishmetn clause)
wisconsin v yoder
exercise clause — amish people
tinker v des moines
free speech — school vietnam war protest
schenk v us
wartime free speech — wwi anti-draft pamphlets
established clear and present danger doctrine (fire in a theateR)
new york times v us
freedom of the press, fed gov overreach— pentagon papers
prior restraint (gvmt tried to stop publication beforehand as a matter of “national security”)
mcdonald v chicago
2nd amendment, selective incorporation
gideon v wainwright
selectively incorporated right to counsel to state cases
roe v wade
(implied) right to privacy → right to abortion
brown v board
overturned plessy v ferguson’s “separate but equal” doctrine, enforced 14th amendment equal protection clause, outlawed segregation in schools
citizens united v fec
free speech → speech = $
corporations/nonprofits/unions can spend as much money on campaigns as they want as long as they don’t coordinate w campaigns
Case | Precedent and Constitutional Reasoning | Relevant Vocabulary / Key Terms |
---|---|---|
Case about Checks and Balances and Separation of Powers | ||
Marbury v. Madison (1803) | Used the Judicial Branch’s inherent power from Article III of the Constitution to establish judicial review as constitutional affirming checks and balances and separation of powers | Judicial Review |
Cases about Federalism | ||
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) | Used the supremacy clause from Article VI of the Constitution to affirm the supremacy of the federal government and the US Constitution over the states and state laws | Elastic Clause (Necessary and Proper Clause) -- established implied power doctrine (vs. just enumerated powers), which strengthened the federal government |
United States v. Lopez (1995) | Congress may not use the commerce clause, Article I Section 8, to make possession of a gun in a school zone a federal crime | Commerce Clause devolution |
Cases about the Bill of Rights, balance between power of government and individual liberties | ||
Engel v. Vitale (1962) | School sponsorship of religious activities violates the establishment clause in the 1st amendment | 1st Amendment; religionestablishment clause |
Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) | Forcing Amish students to attend school past 8th grade violates the free exercise clause of the 1st amendment | 1st Amendment; religionfree exercise clausehome school |
Tinker v. Des Moines School District (1969) | Public school students retain 1st amendment freedom of speech/expression while on campus, as long as it doesn’t “disrupt the learning environment” | 1st Amendment, Free Speechsymbolic speech captive audience doctrine |
New York Times v. United States (1971) | Ensures freedom of press clause of the 1st amendment by limiting prior restraint except in most extreme cases of national security | 1st Amendment, free pressprior restraint is limited“Pentagon Papers” |
Schenk v. US (1919) | Speech that represents a “clear and present danger” is not protected speech under the freedom of speech clause in the 1st amendment | 1st Amendment, Free Speech“clear and present danger”“yelling ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater” - not all speech is protected |
Cases about Selective Incorporation via the 14th amendment’s due process clause | ||
Gitlow v. New York (1925) | The first case that used the selective incorporation doctrine, using the due process clause of the 14th amendment to extend the Bill of Rights protections to states | selective incorporation |
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) | Used the 6th amendment to decide that those who cannot afford an attorney will be provided with one, incorporated to the states via the due process clause of the 14th amendment. | selective incorporation 6th AmendmentRight to counsel |
Roe v. Wade (1973) | Used the 4th amendments right to privacy to rule that states could not prevent women from having abortions, incorporated to the states via the due process clause of the 14th amendment. | penumbras (HINT: Griswold v. Connecticut, a case about contraception, that originally established penumbras, or “zones of privacy” inherent in the Bill of Rights)right to privacy / abortion |
McDonald v. Chicago (2010) | The 2nd amendment prevents states from limiting gun ownership for self-protection, incorporated to the states via the due process clause of the 14th amendment. | 14th Amendment due process clausePrivileges and Immunities Clause2nd amendment |
Cases about the 14th amendment’s equal protection clause supports equality of individuals | ||
Brown v. Board of Education (1954) | School segregation violates the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment - overturned Plessy v. Ferguson’s separate but equal doctrine | 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause |
Cases about campaigning, election rules, and redistricting | ||
Baker v. Carr (1961) | Used the equal protection clause in the 14th amendment to apply to redistricting - established “one person one vote” doctrine | “the political thicket” (i.e. the political question and the role of the SCOTUS)gerrymandering (though this is secondary)“one man, one vote” |
Shaw v. Reno (1993) | Used equal protection clause in the 14th amendment to prohibit states from racial gerrymandering | 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause Section V of the Voting Rights Act (pre-clearance clause)racial gerrymandering vs. communities of interestmajority-minority district |
Citizen United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) | Political spending by corporations and organizations is protected speech under the 1st amendment and cannot be limited by government | 1st Amendment Free Speech(Used Buckley v. Valeo - campaign donations were protected expression and cannot be limited by the government) |
mcculloch v maryland
necessary and proper clause — national bank
federal law > state law
us v lopez
interstate commerce clause — guns in schools
state law < federal law to some extent
baker v carr
reapportionment — unequal voting districts in tn
reapportionment is justiciable, some political issues are
shaw v reno
no gerrymandering based solely on race
colorblind interpretation of constitution
marbury v madison
gave scotus power of judicial review
engel v vitale
establishment clause — prayer in schools
selectively incorporated to states (under 14th)
gvmt cannot condone any religious exercise (establishmetn clause)
wisconsin v yoder
exercise clause — amish people
tinker v des moines
free speech — school vietnam war protest
schenk v us
wartime free speech — wwi anti-draft pamphlets
established clear and present danger doctrine (fire in a theateR)
new york times v us
freedom of the press, fed gov overreach— pentagon papers
prior restraint (gvmt tried to stop publication beforehand as a matter of “national security”)
mcdonald v chicago
2nd amendment, selective incorporation
gideon v wainwright
selectively incorporated right to counsel to state cases
roe v wade
(implied) right to privacy → right to abortion
brown v board
overturned plessy v ferguson’s “separate but equal” doctrine, enforced 14th amendment equal protection clause, outlawed segregation in schools
citizens united v fec
free speech → speech = $
corporations/nonprofits/unions can spend as much money on campaigns as they want as long as they don’t coordinate w campaigns