AP Gov SCOTUS (Midterm)

CollegeBoard Required

• McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

  • Context: Congress chartered a national bank and Maryland attempted to tax it

  • Constitution: Supremacy clause and Necessary and Proper Clause

  • Ruling: The court ruled that congress has the right to create a bank because it's necessary for Congress to carry out its enumerated powers and the state could not tax an institution of the national government because laws of congress surpass those of state governments.

  • Dissent/Opposing Argument: Maryland argued that as a sovereign state, it had the power to tax any business within its borders

• United States v. Lopez (1995)

  • Context: Congress passed the Gun Free School Zones Act (GFSZA) in an effort to reduce gun violence. 12th grader Alfonso Lopez Jr. was convicted of possession on school grounds and appealed, arguing that congress never had the authority to pass GFSZA.

  • Constitution: Commerce clause

  • Ruling: In the ruling, GFSZA was considered unconstitutional since having a gun in the school zone did not substantially affect interstate commerce, thus making it federal overreach. 

  • Dissent/Opposing Argument: Argued that Congress' commerce power enabled it not only to prohibit guns in schools, but to prohibit them anywhere. Guns are both articles of commerce and articles that can be used to restrain commerce.

• Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010)

  • Context: Citizens United sought an injunction against the Federal Election Commission to prevent the application of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) to its film Hillary: The Movie.

  • Constitution: First Amendment

  • Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Citizens United, striking down key provisions of the McCain-Feingold Act that restricted corporate spending on political campaigns. Determined that corporations have a First Amendment right to engage in political speech and that limiting their spending infringes on this right

  • Dissent/Opposing Argument: Argued that restrictions of speech are justified by legitimate government interest to protect election integrity

• Baker v. Carr (1962)

  • Context: Dramatic population growth in Tennessee but no reapportionment, leading to urban districts being more populous than rural.

  • Constitution: Equal protection clause (14th amendment)

  • Ruling: Supreme court has jurisdiction of legislative apportionment under the equal protection clause.

  • Dissent/Opposing Argument: The federal courts don’t have the authority to review legislative districts because its a political question, non-justiciable

• Shaw v. Reno (1993)

  • Context: Involved a challenge to the creation of a congressional district in North Carolina that was drawn in a very irregular, highly contorted shape to create a minority majority district.

  • Constitution: Equal protection clause (14th amendment)

  • Ruling: Race cannot be the sole reason for drawing a district.

  • Dissent/Opposing Argument: The creation of districts such as the one in question was a reasonable and necessary remedy for past racial discrimination.

Non-CollegeBoard

• Gibbons v. Ogden

  • Context: This case arose out of a dispute between Thomas Gibbons, who held a federal license to operate a steamboat between New Jersey and New York, and Aaron Ogden, who held an exclusive license from the state of New York to operate steamboats between the same two states.

  • Constitution: Commerce clause

  • Ruling: The Federal government had the power to regulate interstate commerce, including the operation of steamboats between states.

• Wickard v. Filburn

  • Context: A farmer was growing wheat for personal use but exceeded the amount allowed under the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 (an act aiming to stabilize wheat prices by reducing supply). Filburn argued that growing wheat for personal consumption did not affect interstate commerce.

  • Constitution: Commerce clause

  • Ruling: Even if Filburn’s wheat was for personal use and not for sale, it still had an economic effect on interstate commerce because, by growing his own wheat, he reduced the amount of wheat he would buy in the market. 

• Gonzales v. Raich

  • Context: This case involved two women, Angel Raich and Diane Monson, who used medical marijuana in California, where state law allowed its use. However, federal law, under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), banned the possession of marijuana. The plaintiffs argued that the federal government’s attempt to prohibit medical marijuana use in states that permitted it violated the Commerce Clause.

  • Constitution: Commerce clause

  • Ruling: The federal government could prohibit the local cultivation and use of medical marijuana, even if it was allowed under state law. The Court reasoned that the production of marijuana, even for personal medical use, could affect the interstate market for marijuana and therefore fell within Congress’s authority to regulate under the Commerce Clause.

• Buckley v. Valeo

  • Context: After the Watergate scandal, the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) was passed, aiming to limit campaign contributions and spending to prevent corruption or the appearance of corruption. The law imposed limits on how much individuals could contribute to political campaigns and how much candidates could spend on their campaigns.

  • Constitution: First Amendment

  • Ruling: limits on individual campaign contributions were constitutional because they were intended to prevent corruption. However, the Court struck down limits on campaign spending by candidates, reasoning that spending money to influence elections is a form of protected free speech under the First Amendment.

• Rucho v. Common Cause

  • Context: This case involved partisan gerrymandering, where North Carolina and Maryland congressional districts were drawn to favor one political party. Plaintiffs argued that extreme partisan gerrymandering violated the Constitution's guarantees of equal protection and the right to vote.

  • Constitution: Equal protection clause (14th amendment)

  • Ruling: Political questions were non-justiciable, there was no manageable standard for courts to apply to determine when gerrymandering had gone too far, and that such issues should be resolved by legislatures, not the judiciary.