Required Supreme Court Cases
AP United States Government and Politics
Mr. Moon, 2022
Marbury v. Madison, 1803
During the chaotic transition between J. Adams and T. Jefferson, “commissions” for federal judges were misplaced/destroyed. Marbury sued to get Jefferson and Madison to deliver the commissions so that he, and others, could start their jobs. Congress had created the Judiciary Act that allowed federal courts to issues directives called “writs of mandamus”. Marbury wants such a writ, forcing Jefferson to hand over the commission. Jefferson answered with “make me”.
Marbury v. Madison, 1803
Outcome and Majority Ruling:
Marbury deserved the commission, but the court could not deliver it. The “writs of mandamus” were not constitutional because Congress had given the court too much power. The court could determine “review” powers to interpret the correctness of laws, establishing the power of judicial review.
Marshall Court 5-0
McCulloch v. Maryland, 1819
State governments were angry with the establishment of a US national bank. They felt that it would be an unfair form of competition with smaller state banks. Maryland attempted to level the playing field by taxing transactions of the Baltimore branch of the US bank. McCulloch, a federal bank clerk, refused to pay the state taxes.
McCulloch v. Maryland, 1819
Outcome and Majority Ruling:
The court held that Congress could use implied powers to create a national banking system and that states could not negate that authority.
Affirmed the Supremacy Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause
Marshall Court 6-0
Schenck v. United States
Schenck was arrested during WWI for protesting the draft. The government claimed that he was endangering the war effort while he claimed free speech rights.
Schenck v. United States
Outcome and Majority Ruling:
Free speech can be limited in times of war if the security of the nation is placed at risk.
White Court 9-0
Brown v. Board of Education, 1954
The NAACP uses Linda Brown’s school segregation case, along with several others, to finally challenge the “separate but equal” logic. Can separate ever be equal?
Brown v. Board of Education, 1954
Outcome and Majority Ruling:
The 1896 decision of Plessy is overturned, separate is inherently unequal
Warren Court 9-0
Baker v. Carr, 1962
Tennessee, like other southern states, delays redistricting decisions for decades, effectively keeping the growing minority areas of cities from having chances of winning elections. Baker sues the state, represented by Carr. Can the federal courts rule on how states create voting districts?
Baker v. Carr, 1962
Outcome and Majority Opinion:
The issue of voting districts could be ruled upon by the federal courts. The 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause applied to Tennessee and minorities were not begin given equal voting rights.
Warren Court 6-2 (Brennan writing for the majority)
Engel v. Vitale, 1962
Public schools kept trying to adapt to limits on school led prayers by using readings from the Bible, etc. The New York school system attempted to create a non-denominational and voluntary prayer for all schools to use at the start of the day. Did this violate the Establishment Clause?
The Engel family felt that it did and sued their school district (Vitale).
Engel v. Vitale, 1962
Outcome and Majority Opinion:
The prayer, even if non-denominational and voluntary, was still an attempt by the state to establish religious practices for the public. This violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause.
Warren Court 6-1
Gideon v. Wainwright, 1963
Clarence Gideon was convicted of “minor” crimes in a Florida state court. Because of the minor status of the crimes, Florida did not provide Gideon with counsel. From prison, Gideon requested a Writ of Certiorari from the Supreme Court, claiming the loss of the right to counsel, regardless of the status of the court.
Gideon v. Wainwright, 1963
Outcome and Majority Opinion:
The right to counsel found in the Bill of Rights applied to states via the 14th Amendment. If the prosecution gets an attorney, the defendant should get one also.
Warren Court 9-0 (Black writing for the Court)
Tinker v. Des Moines Schools, 1969
As part of national protests against the Vietnam War, the Tinker siblings wore peace armbands to school. Prior to the event, the school principal told the students that the armbands were not permitted and then the Tinkers were suspended for violating the warning. Do free speech rights exist for minors in public schools?
Tinker v. Des Moines Schools, 1969
Outcome and Majority Opinion:
The armbands represented a form of political free speech and those rights exist for students. The wearing of armbands did not disrupt the ability of the schools to conduct the school day.
Warren Court 7-2
New York Times v. United States, 1971
Daniel Ellsberg, a researcher, copied Defense Department files that were classified and gave the documents to members of the press. The documents disclosed lies that the government had committed at the start of the Vietnam War. The NY Times began to print the documents and the Nixon administration applied a restraining order. Could classified and stolen document be prior restrained? The NY Times and Washington Post claimed an immediate need for a decision since the papers had been partially printed.
New York Times v. United States, 1971
Outcome and Majority Opinion:
Since the documents did not “cause an inevitable, direct, and immediate event imperiling the safety of American forces,” prior restraint was not justified.
Burger Court 6-3
Wisconsin v. Yoder, 1972
Amish parents were prosecuted for refusing to send their children to high school, claiming that their religious beliefs were in conflict with the teachings in Wisconsin high schools. Did school attendance laws override religious exercise claims?
Wisconsin v. Yoder, 1972
Outcome and Majority Opinion:
Free exercise rights outweigh school requirements when the school requirements are in “sharp conflict with the mode of life mandated by the religion”.
Burger Court 7-0
Roe v. Wade, 1973
Roe, a Texas resident, sought to terminate her pregnancy by abortion. Texas law prohibited abortions except to save the pregnant woman’s life. At the time, some states allowed abortions, but most, like Texas, did not. Were abortions protected and private medical decisions or were they subject to the controls of a state?
Roe v. Wade, 1973
Outcome and Majority Opinion:
The right to choice during the first trimester of a pregnancy was a protected private medical decision under the 14th Amendment’s Due Process clause.
Burger Court 7-2 (Blackmun writing for the Court)
Shaw v. Reno, 1993
A federal judge challenged North Carolina gerrymandering efforts due to the apparent racially biased gerrymandering. Could federal courts rule on such cases since the Constitution gives states the rights to run elections?
Shaw v. Reno, 1993
Outcome and Majority Opinion:
Yes, the federal courts could rule. Bizarre districts could be contested. States must avoid racial imbalances in voting districts.
Rehnquist Court 5-4
United States v. Lopez, 1995
Alfonzo Lopez was charged for bringing a gun to a San Antonio school. The charges were federal under the Gun Free Schools Zone Act of 1990. Did Congress go too far in creating the act using Commerce Clause powers over interstate trade?
United States v. Lopez, 1995
Outcome and Majority Opinion:
The gun zone act did not have relevance to commerce and Congress did not have the authority to create such a law. This is an example of the principal of devolution of powers of the federal government.
Rehnquist Court 5-4
McDonald v. Chicago, 2010
Mr. McDonald challenged restrictive gun laws passed by local communities. The communities claimed to be protecting the public from escalating amounts of gun violence. McDonald claimed that federal, local, and state governments could not remove 2nd Amendment rights.
McDonald v. Chicago, 2010
Outcome and Majority Opinion:
Through selective incorporation, the 14th Amendment makes 2nd Amendment rights apply to states. States must respect those federal rights. State limits cannot infringe on federal rights to bear arms.
Roberts Court 5-4
Citizens United v. FEC, 2010
The FEC ruled against a campaign group’s showing of an anti-Hillary Clinton film, claiming the sponsorship of the film violated campaign finance rules under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. Citizens United sued, claiming free speech rights.
Citizens United v. FEC, 2010
Outcome and Majority Opinion:
Corporate funding of campaign items like broadcasts cannot be limited by the FEC. Political rights to free speech apply to corporations. Direct contributions to specific candidates can be limited, but not contributions to issues.
Roberts Court 5-4