4,993
edits
Landmark Supreme Court cases: Difference between revisions
→Short list of Landmark Supreme Court cases
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 | * 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 | ||
| | | | ||
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 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 | ||
|< | | - 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 | |||
* 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> | |||
|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> | |||
|- | |- | ||
| | | | ||
| | |||
| | |||
| | |||
| | |||
| | |||
| | |||
| | |||
| | |||
|- | |- | ||
| | | | ||
| | |||
| | |||
| | |||
| | |||
| | |||
| | |||
| | |||
| | | | ||
|- | |- | ||