4,620
edits
Landmark Supreme Court cases: Difference between revisions
Landmark Supreme Court cases (view source)
Revision as of 19:44, 15 December 2022
, 15 December 2022→AP Gov list of required Landmark Supreme Court cases
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
** see: [https://apcentral.collegeboard.org/courses/ap-united-states-government-and-politics/exam AP United States Government and Politics Exam – AP Central | College Board] | ** see: [https://apcentral.collegeboard.org/courses/ap-united-states-government-and-politics/exam AP United States Government and Politics Exam – AP Central | College Board] | ||
* review of additional cases will yield greater student comprehension and analysis | * review of additional cases will yield greater student comprehension and analysis | ||
=== AP US Gov Units / Learning Objectives re. Court Cases === | |||
2.A. Describe the facts, reasoning, decision, and majority opinion of required Supreme Court cases | * '''Unit 1 Court Cases Learning Objectives (CON)''' | ||
** CON-1: Constitutional Interpretations of Federalism | |||
*** 2.A. Describe the facts, reasoning, decision, and majority opinion of required Supreme Court cases | |||
** CON-2: Federalism reflects the dynamic distribution of power between national and state governments | |||
** CON-3: The republican ideal in the U.S. is manifested in the structure and operation of the legislative branch. | |||
** CON-4: | |||
** CON-5: The design of the judicial branch protects the Supreme Court’s independence as a branch of government, and the emergence and use of judicial review remains a powerful judicial practice. | |||
* '''Unit 3 Civil Liberties and Civil Rights (LOR)''' | |||
** LOR-1: Provisions of the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights are continually being interpreted to balance the power of government and the civil liberties of individuals. | |||
** LOR-2: | |||
** LOR-3: Protections of the Bill of Rights have been selectively incorporated by way of the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause to prevent state infringement of basic liberties. | |||
* Unit | |||
** PRD-1: The Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause as well as other constitutional provisions have often been used to support the advancement of equality. | |||
** PRD-2: The impact of federal policies on campaigning and electoral rules continues to be contested by both sides of the political spectrum. | |||
** PRD-3: | |||
{| class="wikitable sortable " | |||
|+LANDMARK SUPREME COURT CASES (AP US GOV TEST REQUIRED) | |||
!Case | !Case | ||
!Date | !Date | ||
| Line 27: | Line 42: | ||
|1961 | |1961 | ||
|Warren | |Warren | ||
| | |Republicanism (CON-3) | ||
|<nowiki>- "One person one vote" standard</nowiki> | | - | ||
<nowiki>- "One person one vote" standard</nowiki> | |||
- Political Question doctrine | - Political Question doctrine | ||
| Line 36: | Line 52: | ||
Judicial review | Judicial review | ||
| | | | ||
* ruled that the state of Tennessee had ignored a 1901 state law that required redistricting to be adjusted according to census results | * ruled that the state of Tennessee had ignored a 1901 state law that required redistricting to be adjusted according to census results | ||
click EXPAND for more: | click EXPAND for more: | ||
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed"> | <div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed"> | ||
* the state had not drawn new districts since 1901, resulting in overrepresentation of rural over urban citizens | * the state had not drawn new districts since 1901, resulting in overrepresentation of rural over urban citizens | ||
* held that challenges to state districting (gerrymandering) issues were not merely "political questions" and thus subject to Court review | * 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 Court was split on the case and the case had to be re-argued | ||
| Line 55: | Line 71: | ||
|1954 | |1954 | ||
|Warren | |Warren | ||
| | |Equal protection (PRD-1) | ||
|equal protection | | - equal protection | ||
- "separate is not equal" | |||
|Equal protection clause (14th amendment) | |Equal protection clause (14th amendment) | ||
| | | | ||
| Line 71: | Line 88: | ||
|2010 | |2010 | ||
|Roberts | |Roberts | ||
| | |Electoral rules (PRD-2) | ||
|campaign finance law | |campaign finance law | ||
|Free speech clause | |Free speech clause | ||
| Line 118: | Line 135: | ||
|1963 | |1963 | ||
|Warren | |Warren | ||
| | |Civil Liberties (LOR-3) | ||
| - public counsel | | - public counsel | ||
- incorporation case | - incorporation case | ||
| Line 166: | Line 183: | ||
|1803 | |1803 | ||
|Marshall | |Marshall | ||
| | |Judicial review (CON-5) | ||
|Judicial supremacy | |Judicial supremacy | ||
| | | | ||
| Line 209: | Line 226: | ||
|2010 | |2010 | ||
|Roberts | |Roberts | ||
| | |Civil Liberties (LOR-3) | ||
| - right to "keep and bear arms | | - right to "keep and bear arms | ||
<nowiki>- incorporation case</nowiki> | <nowiki>- incorporation case</nowiki> | ||
| Line 226: | Line 243: | ||
|1971 | |1971 | ||
|Burger | |Burger | ||
| | |Civil Liberties (LOR-2) | ||
| - prior restraint | | - prior restraint | ||
- freedom of the press | - freedom of the press | ||
| Line 271: | Line 288: | ||
|1919 | |1919 | ||
|Hughes | |Hughes | ||
| | |Civil Liberties (LOR-2) | ||
|"clear and present danger" | |"clear and present danger" | ||
|<nowiki>- right to speech (1st amendment)</nowiki> | |<nowiki>- right to speech (1st amendment)</nowiki> | ||
| Line 292: | Line 309: | ||
|1993 | |1993 | ||
|Rehnquist | |Rehnquist | ||
| | |Republicanism (CON-3) | ||
|<nowiki>- redistricting and gerrymandering</nowiki> | |<nowiki>- redistricting and gerrymandering</nowiki> | ||
|equal protection | |equal protection | ||
| Line 324: | Line 341: | ||
click EXPAND for more: | click EXPAND for more: | ||
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed"> | <div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed"> | ||
* the court held that the "silent symbol" of the armbands was not disruptive | * the court held that the "silent symbol" of the armbands was not disruptive | ||
* and the conduct of the students did not "materially and substantially interfere" with school operations or discipline | * and the conduct of the students did not "materially and substantially interfere" with school operations or discipline | ||
* and that even if they caused "discomfort and unpleasantness" in those who disagreed with them, the rights of the students | * and that even if they caused "discomfort and unpleasantness" in those who disagreed with them, the rights of the students | ||