Landmark Supreme Court cases: Difference between revisions

From A+ Club Lesson Planner & Study Guide
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
Line 4: Line 4:
[[Category:AP US Government & Politics]]
[[Category:AP US Government & Politics]]
== Short list of Landmark Supreme Court cases ==
== Short list of Landmark Supreme Court cases ==
* cases as generally recommended for minimual study of the AP Gov exam
* cases as generally recommended for core study for the AP Gov exam
* review of additional cases will yield greater student comprehension and analysis
{| class="wikitable sortable"
{| class="wikitable sortable"
|+
|+
Line 25: Line 26:
|equal protection (14th amendment)
|equal protection (14th amendment)
|judicial review
|judicial review
| - held that the state of Tennessee had ignored a 1901 state law that required redistricting to be adjusted according to census results;  
|  
the state had not drawn new districts since 1901, resulting in overrepresentation of rural over urban citizens
* held that the state of Tennessee had ignored a 1901 state law that required redistricting to be adjusted according to census results;
- the court held that challenges to state districting (gerrymandering) issues were not merely "political questions" and thus subject to Court review
 
- the Court was split on the case and the case had to be re-argued  
* the state had not drawn new districts since 1901, resulting in overrepresentation of rural over urban citizens - the court held that challenges to state districting (gerrymandering) issues were not merely "political questions" and thus subject to Court review  
* the Court was split on the case and the case had to be re-argued  
| - Justice Brennan argued that redistricting is a political question and should be left up to the states
| - Justice Brennan argued that redistricting is a political question and should be left up to the states
- Justice Frankfurter held that the decision was "judicial overreach"
- Justice Frankfurter held that the decision was "judicial overreach"
Line 40: Line 42:
|Marshall  
|Marshall  
|Judicial supremacy
|Judicial supremacy
|<nowiki>- federalism</nowiki>
| - original jurisdiction (Article III, Section 2)
|"legal remedy" concept <ref>Marshall invoked (referenced) the ancient Roman legal maxim ''ubi jus, ibi remedium'' for "where there is a legal right, there is a legal remedy"</ref>
|
* settled a dispute between outgoing Adams and incoming Jefferson administrations over Adams' "midnight appointments", including one to Marbury
 
* ruled that Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1793 was illegal under the Constitution, thus establishing "judicial review"
 
* created the power of the Courts to invalidate statutory laws based upon their "constitutionality" - Marbury lost his case, as the Court ruled that any legal remedy due to him was from an invalid law


- constitutional interpretation by the Court
* Marshall quoted Federalist No. 78 by Hamilton, "''...  that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void''."<ref>Note that Hamilton did not envision Judicial review, instead arguing that the Congress must avoid unconstitutional unto itself.</ref>
|affirmed concept of "legal remedy"<ref>Marshall invoked (referenced) the ancient Roman legal maxim ''ubi jus, ibi remedium'' for "where there is a legal right, there is a legal remedy"</ref>
|none (unanimous decision)
|
* Hylton v. United States (1796)<ref>In this case the Court upheld a challenge to a law's constitutionality, in that a tax on carriages did not violate the Constitution. ''Marbury'' was not decided on this precedent, however, Chief Justice Roberts cited ''Hylton'' in ''National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius'' (2012)</ref>
|-
|-
| - settled a dispute between outgoing Adams and incoming Jefferson administrations over Adams' "midnight appointments", including one to Marbury
|
- ruled that the Judiciary Act of 1793 is illegal under the constitution, thus establishing "judicial review"
|
- created the power of the Courts to invalidate statutory laws based upon their "constitutionality"
|
- Marbury lost his case, as the Court ruled that any legal remedy due to him was from an invalid law
|
|
|
|
|
|
|-
|-
|none
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|-
|-

Revision as of 19:38, 27 April 2022

** page under construction **

Short list of Landmark Supreme Court cases[edit | edit source]

  • cases as generally recommended for core study for the AP Gov exam
  • review of additional cases will yield greater student comprehension and analysis
Case Date Court Big Ideas/ Court Doctrine Constitutional Issues Constitutional Issues Issues / Background / Description / Opinion Dissent (if relevant) Related Cases
Baker v. Carr 1961 Warren
  • "One person one vote" standard
  • Political Question doctrine
 equal protection (14th amendment) judicial review
  • held that the state of Tennessee had ignored a 1901 state law that required redistricting to be adjusted according to census results;
  • the state had not drawn new districts since 1901, resulting in overrepresentation of rural over urban citizens - the court held that challenges to state districting (gerrymandering) issues were not merely "political questions" and thus subject to Court review
  • the Court was split on the case and the case had to be re-argued
 - Justice Brennan argued that redistricting is a political question and should be left up to the states

- Justice Frankfurter held that the decision was "judicial overreach"

  • Reynolds v. Sims (1964)
  • Shaw v. Reno , 1993)
Marbury v. Madison 1803 Marshall Judicial supremacy - original jurisdiction (Article III, Section 2) "legal remedy" concept [1]
  • settled a dispute between outgoing Adams and incoming Jefferson administrations over Adams' "midnight appointments", including one to Marbury
  • ruled that Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1793 was illegal under the Constitution, thus establishing "judicial review"
  • created the power of the Courts to invalidate statutory laws based upon their "constitutionality" - Marbury lost his case, as the Court ruled that any legal remedy due to him was from an invalid law
  • Marshall quoted Federalist No. 78 by Hamilton, "... that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void."[2]
 none (unanimous decision)
  • Hylton v. United States (1796)[3]


Full list of Landmark Supreme Court cases[edit | edit source]

Landmark Supreme Court cases: alphabetical[edit | edit source]

Landmark Supreme Court cases: by date & historical era[edit | edit source]

Landmark Supreme Court cases: by topic[edit | edit source]

  1. ↑ Marshall invoked (referenced) the ancient Roman legal maxim ubi jus, ibi remedium for "where there is a legal right, there is a legal remedy"
  2. ↑ Note that Hamilton did not envision Judicial review, instead arguing that the Congress must avoid unconstitutional unto itself.
  3. ↑ In this case the Court upheld a challenge to a law's constitutionality, in that a tax on carriages did not violate the Constitution. Marbury was not decided on this precedent, however, Chief Justice Roberts cited Hylton in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012)
Retrieved from "https://school4schools.wiki/w/index.php?title=Landmark_Supreme_Court_cases&oldid=2836"