AP Government Exam Prep - Landmark Supreme Court Cases

Relates to a foundational document.
Connects to Federalist No. 78.
Establishes judicial review.
Example of judicial activism, as the Supreme Court declared laws unconstitutional without clear constitutional authorization.

Judicial activism and restraint exist on a spectrum.
Restraint is harder to define.
School prayer case illustrates the spectrum.
Establishment Clause: Government cannot establish an official religion.
State-sanctioned prayer raises the question of violating the Establishment Clause.
Redistricting cases may not have a justiciable question in the Constitution.

Understanding the facts of civil liberties and civil rights cases is crucial.
The state had a school-sanctioned prayer, but students were not required to participate.
The Supreme Court ruled that it still violates the Establishment Clause due to peer pressure and religious action sanctioning.
Establishment Clause: Government establishes religion.
Free Exercise Clause: Individuals exercise religion.
One can freely exercise their religion and create their own, but it might cause social problems.

Education up to the 8th grade is being given, but state law mandates up to age 16.
The Supreme Court deemed this an acceptable use of the Free Exercise Clause, as education was still being provided.
If the parents were not providing education at all, the ruling might have been different.

Symbolic speech is a civil liberty but not explicitly stated in the Constitution.
Supreme Court has expanded the interpretation to include symbolic speech, leaning towards activism.

Important Facts: Students wore armbands to school and were suspended.
The Supreme Court ruled in their favor.
The Supreme Court establishes symbolic speech.
Key point: the speech was non-disruptive.
Comparison of freedom of speech cases hinges on whether the speech is disruptive.

Restriction based on the "clear and present danger" test.
Judicial activism: The Supreme Court set a standard to block the action.
Schenck urged people not to report to the draft during World War I.
The court ruled this created a clear and present danger to the war effort.
Speech equivalent to yelling fire in a crowded theater is a clear and present danger and is disruptive.
Disruptive speech is generally not allowed.

The case involves a newspaper, thus relating to freedom of the press.
Prior restraint is the standard.
The government cannot restrict speech in a newspaper unless it proves a heavy presumption against national security.
To stop a publication, the government must prove that publishing it will result in imminent harm (e.g., someone's death).
If mainstream media possesses classified documents, the court may rule it as acceptable due to the government's failure to protect them adequately.
Possession is nine-tenths of the law.

The College Board considers this case under the legal doctrine of selective incorporation.
Guideline for selective incorporation: Two amendments must be at play.
In McDonald v. City of Chicago, the Second Amendment right to bear arms is at play, along with the Fourteenth Amendment.
A city or state government infringes on a civil liberty.
The Fourteenth Amendment states that no state shall stomp on a citizen's life, liberty, or property.
Selective Incorporation: Rights apply to the states.
Cities and states previously argued that the U.S. Constitution only applied to the U.S. government.
Before this doctrine, states could infringe upon rights (e.g., gun rights) that the federal government could not.
This doctrine applies to any right in the Bill of Rights where a state tries to claim it doesn't apply to them.

Expensive case due to financial implications for taxpayers.
The Supreme Court ruled that states must provide an attorney if the defendant cannot afford one.
This is judicial activism, as it requires states to spend tax dollars on public defenders.
The accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Holding: To ensure rights are protected, the federal and state governments must provide attorneys.
Two amendments are at play.
Case can be used for gun rights or right to an attorney.
Significant as the right applies to the states.

Involves the Equal Protection Clause and school segregation.
School segregation violates the equal protection clause.
Activism: Overturned years of precedent of "separate but equal."
Ruled that "separate is inherently not equal," pushing a policy.
Clear justiciable question: Violates or does not violate the Equal Protection Clause.

Most politically expensive case.
Involves the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Act, which put restrictions on spending money in elections.
The Supreme Court ruled that spending money constitutes speech.
Restricting spending money restricts speech; therefore, campaign finance laws are unconstitutional.
Can be used as a Supreme Court essay to compare to similar cases like Tinker v. Des Moines.
Issue of symbolic speech.
Concerns data essays as elections become more expensive, and politicians spend more time begging for money.
Bernie Sanders meme about asking for financial support referenced.