AP Gov. Supreme Court Case

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

This case established the principle of judicial review, which is the power of the federal courts to determine the constitutionality of laws passed by the legislative and orders issued by the executive. It established the Constitution as the supreme law of the land and SCOTUS as the final authority for interpreting it.

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

The Elastic Clause gives Congress the authority "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper" and the national bank was deemed "necessary and proper".
The state could not tax the Bank of the U.S. because "the constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof are supreme".

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

This case established the power dynamic between the states and federal government in favor of the national government. Further, the case opened the door to the expansion of federal power through the implied powers of the Elastic Clause.

Schenck v. U.S. (1919)

The Court ruled unanimously for U.S. that, no, his free speech rights were not violated. In the context of World War I, the Espionage Act's criminalization of speech dangerous to the operation of the military was not a violation of the 1st Amendment.

Schenck v. U.S. (1919)

This case established the "clear and present danger" test, which states that the Constitution does not protect speech that incites violence or chaos (ex: yelling fire in a crowded movie theatre). Under this test, the government typically won, and speakers usually lost until the Court abandoned this test in favor of rulings more protective of free speech rights.

Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

Does segregation of public schools by race violate the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment?

Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

This decision overturned the Plessy "separate but equal" doctrine and began the process of dismantling segregation in this case, the Court charged local school authorities with the responsibility to desegregate schools "with all deliberate speed". While this case was critical in beginning the process to end segregation, it was just the first step to a longer process carried throughout the 1960s and 1970s with the Civil Rights Movement.

Baker v. Carr (1962)

Do federal courts have the power to decide cases about the apportionment of population into state legislative districts?

Baker v. Carr (1962)

This case established the precedent that would allow federal courts to rule on the constitutionality of legislative redistricting. It set up the idea of "one man, one vote"; no singular vote should be weighted heavier than another in a democracy. This was a change from the Court's deference to the states on the issue in the past.

Engel v. Vitale (1962)

Does the recitation of a prayer in public schools violate the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment?

Engel v. Vitale (1962)

In a 6-1 decision in favor of the parents, the Court ruled on the grounds that the school-sponsored prayer was an unconstitutional violation of the Establishment Clause since it was a religious activity composed by government officials and used as part of a government program to advance religious beliefs. The majority argued that preventing government from sponsoring prayer does not indicate hostility toward religion.

Engel v. Vitale (1962)

1st Amendment (Establishment Clause)

Engel v. Vitale (1962)

This case was significant in further defining the legal limits to government involvement with religion by setting up a precedent that the Establishment Clause referred to broad government activity regarding religion not just official establishment of a state-sponsored church.

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

Does the 6th Amendment's right to counsel in criminal cases extend to defendants in state courts, even in cases in which the death penalty is not at issue?

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

This case overturned the precedent set by Betts v. Brady (1942), which ruled that the 14th Amendment did not require states to provide counsel to the poor in non-death penalty cases. The opinion of this case expanded the right to an attorney for the poor beyond capital cases. A later case, Argersinger v. Hamlin (1972) will further extend the right to an attorney to misdemeanor cases that involve imprisonment.

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

In a unanimous decision the Court determined that the 6th Amendment's right to counsel in felony criminal cases is a fundamental right essential to a fair trial. They also agreed that the protection was so important that it would apply to state courts as well as federal courts.

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District (1969)

Does a prohibition against the wearing of armbands in public school, as a form of symbolic speech, violate the students' freedom of speech protections guaranteed by the 1st Amendment?

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District (1969)

In a 7-2 decision for the students, the Court ruled that the prohibition of wearing the arm bands violated the students' free speech rights. The majority argued that students retain their constitutional right to freedom of speech while in public schools, that "it can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate". The Court further reasoned that while students do have free speech at school, it is not absolute. The school may limit student speech that would cause a "material and substantial disruption" to the disciplinary and educational function of a school. In this particular case, wearing a black armband would not substantially disrupt these functions of the school.

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District (1969)

This case was important in extending free speech rights to students in public schools, with the primary limitation being that said speech could not impede the learning environment.

New York Times v. U.S. (1971)

Did the government's efforts to prevent two newspapers from publishing classified information given to them by a government leaker violate the 1st Amendment protection of freedom of the press?

New York Times v. U.S. (1971)

This case involved both the 1st Amendment (Freedom of the Press) and Article II of the Constitution (Executive Branch)

New York Times v. U.S. (1971)

In a 6-3 decision for the paper, the Court ruled via a per curiam opinion that "any system of prior restraint comes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity" with the government required to "show justification for such restraint", which "the Government had not met".

New York Times v. U.S. (1971)

This case further extended the freedom of the press by limiting the ability of the executive branch to claim national security as cause to hide information from the public.

Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)

Under what conditions does the state's interest in promoting compulsory education override parents' 1st Amendment right to free exercise of religion?

Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)

This involved both the 1st Amendment's Free Exercise Clause and the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause

Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)

The Court ruled unanimously (7-0) for the parents. The Court held that the Free Exercise clause of the 1st Amendment prevented the state from forcing the Amish and Mennonite parents to send their children to formal secondary school beyond the age of 14. An additional two years of high school (to the required age of 16) would not have provided substantial enough educational benefits that could constitute a "compelling government interest". The justices also noted that nothing in the decision of this case disallowed states from setting compulsory attendance laws for non-Amish people or reasonable standards for church-sponsored schools.

Roe v. Wade (1973)

The Court ruled in a 7-2 decision for the woman. According to the majority, the "liberty" protected by the 14th Amendment due process clause includes a fundamental right to privacy. Further, the 9th Amendment's reservation of rights is broad enough to include abortion. The word "person" in the 14th Amendment does not include the unborn, which will set up a framework laying out constitutional state regulations on abortions. In the first trimester, abortion cannot be prohibited, as the woman's right to privacy outweighs the state's interest in regulating the decision. In the second and third trimesters, regulations should focus on protecting the health of the mother, although the closer to term, a state may prohibit abortions unless necessary to preserve the life and health of the mother.

Roe v. Wade (1973)

This case protected the right of women to secure abortion nationally up to the first trimester of pregnancy. This decision is highly contested. On one hand, it can be seen as a victory for the women's rights movement, which fought for the reproductive rights of women, seeing them as fundamental to female empowerment and independence. On the other hand, pro-life groups see the decision as overextending the power of the courts with the result of endangering the lives of the unborn.

Roe v. Wade (1973)

Does the U.S. Constitution protect the right of a woman to obtain an abortion?

Roe v. Wade (1973)

This case involves the following amendments:
4th Amendment (right to privacy)
9th Amendment (unenumerated rights are still protected)
14th Amendment (due process clause)

Shaw v. Reno (1993)

Did the North Carolina residents' claim that the 1990 redistricting plan discriminated on the basis of race raise a valid constitutional issue under the 14th Amendment Equal Protection clause?

Shaw v. Reno (1993)

The Court ruled in a 5-4 decision for the white voters. The justices said that any classifications based on race were "undesirable to a free society". Drawing districts to advance the perceived interests of one racial group may lead elected officials to see their obligation as representing only members of that group, rather than their full constituency. If a redistricting map cannot be rationally understood as anything other than an effort to divide voters based on their race, voters may challenge such a district under the Equal Protection Clause.

Shaw v. Reno (1993)

This case used the following amendments:
14th Amendment (Equal Protection clause)
15th Amendment (right to vote cannot be abridged due to race)

Shaw v. Reno (1993)

This case extended the Equal Protection clause interpretation to cover majority groups similarly to that of groups that had been historically discriminated against in an attempt to make the Constitution "color-blind". This approach to the 14th Amendment has also been the grounds for challenging affirmative action programs in other sectors of society (i.e.: workplace and schools).

U.S. v. Lopez (1995)

Did Congress have the power to pass the Gun Free School Zones Act?

U.S. v. Lopez (1995)

The majority argued that the Gun Free School Zones Act exceeds Congress's authority under the Commerce Clause because carrying a gun in a school zone is not an economic activity. The Constitution created a national government with only limited, delegated powers. To claim that any kind of activity is commerce means that the power of Congress would be unlimited.

U.S. v. Lopez (1995)

This case involved the following parts of the Constitution:
Article I, Section 8 (Commerce Clause)
Article I, Section 8 (Elastic Clause)
10th Amendment (reserved powers)

U.S. v. Lopez (1995)

This case dramatically decreased the power of Congress to regulate state behaviors through the Commerce Clause. Up to this case, the federal government relied on the broad interpretation of interstate commerce activity to mandate state compliance with national regulations, such as civil rights legislation. This case was a win for states rights' advocates.

Citizens United v. FEC (2010)

Does a law that limits the ability of corporations and labor unions to spend their own money to advocate the election or defeat of a candidate violate the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech?

Citizens United v. FEC (2010)

The Court ruled in favor of the Super PAC arguing that the 1st Amendment prohibits limits on corporate funding of independent broadcasts in candidate elections. The government's rationale for the limits of corporate spending—to prevent corruption—was not persuasive enough to restrict political speech. Corporations have free speech rights and their political speech cannot be restricted any more than that of individuals. The Court did not, however, strike down parts of the BCRA (Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act - aka McCain Feingold) that require disclosures about who is responsible for the ad and whether it was authorized by a candidate.

Citizens United v. FEC

This case involved the 1st Amendment (Free Speech) and the precedent set by Buckley v. Valeo.

Citizens United v. FEC (2010)

This case was instrumental in the growth of independent expenditures in elections. As long as ads are unaffiliated directly with a campaign, independent groups can funnel unlimited amounts of money into influencing voters. This has led to elections, even at the local and state levels, becoming more and more expensive.

McDonald v. Chicago (2010)

Does the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms apply to state and local governments through the 14th Amendment?

McDonald v. Chicago (2010)

This case involves the following 2 amendments:
2nd Amendment (right to bear arms)
14th Amendment (due process clause)

McDonald v. Chicago (2010)

This case incorporated the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms to the states and is the most recent example of the selective incorporation doctrine of the Supreme Courts. This means that state governments cannot severely limit or infringe on private citizens' right to own firearms through local and state legislation. This case opens the door to more cases dismantling gun control legislation across the nation.

McDonald v. Chicago (2010)

The Court ruled that the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense is fully applicable to the states under the 14th Amendment. Four of the five majority judges attempted to apply the 2nd Amendment against state and local governments in a way that "does not imperil every law regulating firearms".