A+ Club Lesson Planner & Study Guide

Landmark Supreme Court cases: Difference between revisions

Page Discussion

Landmark Supreme Court cases (view source)

Revision as of 21:10, 15 December 2022

6,241 bytes added ,  15 December 2022
→‎AP US Gov Units / Learning Objectives re. Court Cases
VisualWikitext
 
(8 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 4: Line 4:
[[Category:AP US Government & Politics]]
[[Category:AP US Government & Politics]]
== AP Gov list of required Landmark Supreme Court cases ==
== AP Gov list of required Landmark Supreme Court cases ==
* cases as generally recommended for core study for the AP Gov exam
* cases as listed by College Board for inclusion in AP US Gov exam
* review of additional cases will yield greater student comprehension and analysis
** <u>Note</u>: for 2023,
{| class="wikitable sortable  
*** '''''Roe v. Wade''' (1973)'' will NOT be included, as it was overturned by the recent '''''Dobbs''''' (2022) decision
|+
*** '''Lemon v. Kurtzman''' (1971 will NOT be included, as it was overturned by the recent '''''Kennedy''''' (2022) decision
*** 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 analytical skills for understanding, evaluating and applying constitutional and legal concepts and Court decisions.
 
{| class="wikitable sortable "
|+LANDMARK SUPREME COURT CASES (AP US GOV TEST REQUIRED)
!Case
!Case
!Date
!Date
!Court
!Court
!AP Unit 1 Objective
!Issues /  Doctrine
!Issues /  Doctrine
!Constitutional Issues
!Constitutional Issues
Line 20: Line 26:
|1961
|1961
|Warren
|Warren
|<nowiki>- "One person one vote" standard</nowiki>
|Republicanism (CON-3)
| -
<nowiki>- "One person one vote" standard</nowiki>


- Political Question doctrine
- Political Question doctrine
Line 28: Line 36:


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 47: Line 55:
|1954
|1954
|Warren
|Warren
|equal protection
|Equal protection (PRD-1)
| - equal protection
-  "separate is not equal"
|Equal protection clause (14th amendment)
|Equal protection clause (14th amendment)
|
|
Line 62: Line 72:
|2010
|2010
|Roberts
|Roberts
|Electoral rules (PRD-2)
|campaign finance law
|campaign finance law
|Free speech clause
|Free speech clause
Line 78: Line 89:
|1962
|1962
|Warren
|Warren
|Civil Liberties (LOR-2)
|  ''Can public schools conduct prayer?''   
|  ''Can public schools conduct prayer?''   
- prayer in public school
- prayer in public school
Line 92: Line 104:
*[[wikipedia:Abington_School_District_v._Schempp|Abington School District v.  Schempp]] (1963: banned public school-sponsored Bible reading)
*[[wikipedia:Abington_School_District_v._Schempp|Abington School District v.  Schempp]] (1963: banned public school-sponsored Bible reading)
*[[wikipedia:Wallace_v._Jaffree|Wallace v. Jaffree]] (1985: banned school-sponsored prayer but allowed for school-sponsored moment of silence for individual meditation)
*[[wikipedia:Wallace_v._Jaffree|Wallace v. Jaffree]] (1985: banned school-sponsored prayer but allowed for school-sponsored moment of silence for individual meditation)
|-
|
=== Ex parte Milligan ===
|1866
|
|''Can a military court try a citizen?''
|
|
|
|-
|-
|
|
Line 106: Line 109:
|1963
|1963
|Warren
|Warren
|Civil Liberties (LOR-3)
| - public counsel
| - public counsel
- incorporation case
- incorporation case
Line 124: Line 128:


*[[wikipedia:Miranda_v._Arizona|Miranda v. Arizona]] (1966: self-incrimination protections; incorporation of 5th amendment; see also [[wikipedia:Berghuis_v._Thompkins|Berghuis v. Thompkins]] 2010)
*[[wikipedia:Miranda_v._Arizona|Miranda v. Arizona]] (1966: self-incrimination protections; incorporation of 5th amendment; see also [[wikipedia:Berghuis_v._Thompkins|Berghuis v. Thompkins]] 2010)
|-
|
=== Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US ===
|1964
|Warren
|
|Commerce clause
equal protection
|(1964: court ruled that the Commerce Clause gave Congress the power to prohibit racial discrimination in "public accommodations", i.e. businesses open to the public)
|
|-
|
=== Lemon v. Kurtzman ===
|1971
|Burger
|''Can a state fund teach pay for religious schools?''
- government entanglement with religion
- "Lemon Test": to assess secular (non-religious) purpose
|Establishment clause
(1st amendment)
|<< to do
|
|-
|-
|
|
Line 151: Line 133:
|1803
|1803
|Marshall  
|Marshall  
|Judicial review (CON-5)
|Judicial supremacy
|Judicial supremacy
|
|
Line 172: Line 155:
|1819
|1819
|Marshall
|Marshall
|Federalism
(CON-2)
|implied powers  
|implied powers  
|
|
Line 191: Line 176:
|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 207: Line 193:
|1971
|1971
|Burger
|Burger
|Civil Liberties (LOR-2)
| - prior restraint
| - prior restraint
- freedom of the press
- freedom of the press
Line 222: Line 209:
</div>
</div>
|
|
|-
|
=== Roe v. Wade ===
|1973
|Burger
|right to privacy
|
* due process (14th amendment
* 9th amendment reservation of the rights of the people
|
* the court ruled that the Fourteenth amendment's "Due Process" clause creates a "right to privacy" that protects a woman's right to have an abortion
click EXPAND for more:
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed">
* the court reasoned that the "due process" clause provides protection against excessive government restrictions of "personal liberty"
* the ruling struck down laws that banned abortion but still allowed some regulation of abortion, such as time limits on the age of the fetus and its "viability" for birth (which it deemed was in the 3rd trimester and so allowed for bans on abortion on it).
* dissent:
** Justice White argued that the Court has no standing to choose between a mother and an unborn child and said that in the decision the Court had exceeded it's powers of judicial review; he felt it was a political and not judicial question
** Justice Rehnquist argued that the Court had invented a right that the writers of the 14th Amendment had not intended, as when it was adopted in 1868 there were 36 state or territory laws limiting abortion
</div>
|
* [[wikipedia:Griswold_v._Connecticut|Griswold v. Connecticut]] (1965: held that laws banning contraception violated the right to marital privacy (in marriages) and that that right to privacy was implicit in the 1st, 3rd, 4th & 5th amendments)
* [[wikipedia:Planned_Parenthood_v._Casey|Planned Parenthood v. Casey]] (1992: held that laws restricting abortion, such as mandatory waiting periods, spousal or parental notice, etc.  had to meet the "undue burden standard" of creating undue or burdensome restrictions on individual rights)
* Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (pending as of April 2022)
|-
|-
|
|
Line 250: Line 214:
|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 270: Line 235:
|1993
|1993
|Rehnquist
|Rehnquist
|Republicanism (CON-3)
|<nowiki>- redistricting and gerrymandering</nowiki>
|<nowiki>- redistricting and gerrymandering</nowiki>
|equal protection
|equal protection
Line 283: Line 249:
</div>
</div>
|
|
* Miller v. Johnson (1995: addressed racial gerrymandering that had created a "geographic monstrosity" in order to have a black-majority of voters)
* [[wikipedia:Miller_v._Johnson|Miller v. Johnson]] (1995: addressed racial gerrymandering that had created a "geographic monstrosity" in order to have a black-majority of voters)
|-
|-
|
|
Line 289: Line 255:
|1969
|1969
|Warren
|Warren
|Civil Liberties (LOR-2)
|''Can public schools regulate student speech?''<nowiki>- protests in public schools</nowiki>
|''Can public schools regulate student speech?''<nowiki>- protests in public schools</nowiki>


Line 300: Line 267:
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
Line 315: Line 282:
|1995
|1995
|Rehnquist
|Rehnquist
|Federalism (CON 2)
|validity of Commerce clause based on substantial effect on interstate commerce
|validity of Commerce clause based on substantial effect on interstate commerce
|Commerce clause (Article I, section 8)
|Commerce clause (Article I, section 8)
Line 336: Line 304:
|1972
|1972
|Burger
|Burger
|Civil Liberties (LOR-2)
|''Can a state force parents who object on religious grounds to send their children to school?''  
|''Can a state force parents who object on religious grounds to send their children to school?''  
<nowiki>- parental rights </nowiki>
<nowiki>- parental rights </nowiki>
Line 355: Line 324:


* while not directly related to other cases, Yoder has been used as a basis for the parental right to homeschool or find alternatives to traditional schooling for children
* while not directly related to other cases, Yoder has been used as a basis for the parental right to homeschool or find alternatives to traditional schooling for children
|}
== AP US Gov Units / Learning Objectives re. Court Cases ==
In the above table, Landmark cases include categories for AP US Gov units and "Learning Objectives". These include:
* '''Unit 1 Court Cases Learning Objectives (CON)'''
** CON = "Constitutionalism"
** CON-2: Federalism reflects the dynamic distribution of power between national and state governments
*** 2.A. Describe the facts, reasoning, decision, and majority opinion of required Supreme Court cases
*** 2.B. Explain how the appropriate balance of power between national and state governments has been interpreted differently over time.
** CON-3: The republican ideal in the U.S. is manifested in the structure and operation of the legislative branch.
*** CON-3 C. Explain how congressional behavior is influenced by election processes, partisanship, and divided government.
** 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.
*** CON-5 A. Explain the principle of judicial review and how it checks the power of other institutions and state governments.
* '''Unit 3 Civil Liberties and Civil Rights (LOR)'''
** LOR = "Liberty and Order"
** LOR-2: 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.C. Explain the extent to which the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the First and Second Amendments reflects a commitment to individual libertY
** 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.
** PRD = "(civic) Participation in a Representative Democracy"
** 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:
== Other Court Cases commonly assigned by AP US Government teachers ==
{| class="wikitable sortable "
|+LANDMARK SUPREME COURT CASES (AP US GOV TEST REQUIRED)
!Case
!Date
!Court
!AP Unit 1 Objective
!Issues /  Doctrine
!Constitutional Issues
!Issues / Background / Description / Opinion / Dissent
!Related Cases
|-
|
=== Ex parte Milligan ===
|1866
|Chase
|n/a
|''Can a military court try a citizen?''- prohibited use of military tribunals when civilian courts are available
|''habeas corpus''(note that "ex parte" means "on behalf of", thus for a court in which a party to a suit is absent or not notified)
| - During the Civil War, the Lincoln administration tried northern dissenters in military courts
- Decision: "marial rule can never exist when the courts are open" and martial law operates only under "military operations, where war really prevails"
|
* [[wikipedia:Ex_parte_Merryman|Ex parte Merryman]] (1861 regarding suspemsion of habeas corpus)
* [[wikipedia:Ex_parte_Quirin|Ex parte Quirin]] (1942 regarding military trial of German spies in the U.S.)
|-
|
=== Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US ===
|1964
|Warren
|n/a
|''Can a public accommodation (a business or other publicly available service) discriminate by race?''- racial discrimination
- upheld Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
|Commerce clause
equal protection
| - prior desegregation cases focused on public facilities (buses, school), but this case involved a private entity, a motel. However, since a motel is a "public accommodation," i.e. open to the public, the Court upheld the terms of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that prohibited discrimination based on race, religion or national origin.
|
* ''[[wikipedia:Katzenbach_v._McClung|Katzenbach v. McClung]] (1964; upheld federal laws prohibiting racial discrimination in restraurants''
|-
|
=== Lemon v. Kurtzman ===
|1971
|Burger
|n/a
- this case was overturned in 2022 by [[wikipedia:Kennedy_v._Bremerton_School_District|Kennedy v. Bremerton School District]]) and so is no longer U.S. law and not on the AP US Gov test)
|''Can a state fund teach pay for religious schools?''
- government entanglement with religion
- "Lemon Test": to assess secular (non-religious) purpose
|Establishment clause
(1st amendment)
| - consolidated with a Rhode Island case that similarly tested validity of state compensation for religious school teachers
- the "Lemon Test" resulted from this case, although ''Kennedy'' (2022) instructed lower courts to ignore the Lemon Test standard.
- the Lemon Test proposed a "standard" for measuring legislative violation of the Establishment clause , including that the law must
# have a secular purpose
# neither advance nor inhibit religion
# not create "excessive government entanglement" with religion, as measured by 1. nature and purpose of the institution; 2) nature of the state aid; 3) resulting relationship between the government and the religious institution
|
|-
|
=== Roe v. Wade ===
|1973
|Burger
|n/a
- this case was overturned by ''[[wikipedia:Dobbs_v._Jackson_Women's_Health_Organization|Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization]] (2022)'' and thus removed from the AP Gov Test in 2022 due to ''Dobbs'' decision)
| - right to privacy
- right to abortion
- state regulation of abortion
|
* due process (14th amendment
* 9th amendment reservation of the rights of the people
|
* the court ruled that the Fourteenth amendment's "Due Process" clause creates a "right to privacy" that protects a woman's right to have an abortion
click EXPAND for more:
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed">
* the court reasoned that the "due process" clause provides protection against excessive government restrictions of "personal liberty"
* the ruling struck down laws that banned abortion but still allowed some regulation of abortion, such as time limits on the age of the fetus and its "viability" for birth (which it deemed was in the 3rd trimester and so allowed for bans on abortion on it).
* dissent:
** Justice White argued that the Court has no standing to choose between a mother and an unborn child and said that in the decision the Court had exceeded it's powers of judicial review; he felt it was a political and not judicial question
** Justice Rehnquist argued that the Court had invented a right that the writers of the 14th Amendment had not intended, as when it was adopted in 1868 there were 36 state or territory laws limiting abortion
</div>
|
* [[wikipedia:Griswold_v._Connecticut|Griswold v. Connecticut]] (1965: held that laws banning contraception violated the right to marital privacy (in marriages) and that that right to privacy was implicit in the 1st, 3rd, 4th & 5th amendments)
* [[wikipedia:Planned_Parenthood_v._Casey|Planned Parenthood v. Casey]] (1992: held that laws restricting abortion, such as mandatory waiting periods, spousal or parental notice, etc.  had to meet the "undue burden standard" of creating undue or burdensome restrictions on individual rights)
* Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (pending as of April 2022)
|}
|}


== Fourteenth Amendment "Incorporation Cases" ==
== Fourteenth Amendment "Incorporation Cases" ==
=== Incorporation meaning ===
* "Incorporation" refers to application of the rights and protections of the Bill of Rights to state law
* "Incorporation" refers to application of the rights and protections of the Bill of Rights to state law
** in- = into + corp = body + -tion (makes a noun)
** in- = into + corp = body + -tion (makes a noun)
** = "put into the body"  
** = "put into the body"
* the anti-Federalists (viz. Brutus) argued that the Constitution did not protect the rights of the citizens
* the anti-Federalists (viz. Brutus) argued that the Constitution did not protect the rights of the citizens
** thus the agreement was made that upon adoption of the Constitution it would be amended to include certain protections
** thus the agreement was made that upon adoption of the Constitution it would be amended to include certain protections
** the Bill of Rights (BOR) added these protections by limiting or prohibiting certain actions by the new federal government
** the Bill of Rights (BOR) added these protections by limiting or prohibiting certain actions by the new federal government
*** thus the language of the BOR, "''Congress shall make no law...''" or "...''shall not be violated''"  
*** thus the language of the BOR, "''Congress shall make no law...''" or "...''shall not be violated''"
** it was understood by all the Founders that, except for where explicitly stated in the Constitution regarding the states, the Constitution and its amendments applied to the federal and not to the state governments
** it was understood by all the Founders that, except for where explicitly stated in the Constitution regarding the states, the Constitution and its amendments applied to the federal and not to the state governments
* in 1833, the Supreme Court ruled that the Bill or Rights does not apply to the states
** ''Barron v. Baltimore'' (1833)
* following the Civil War, the Constitution was amended three times in order to  
* following the Civil War, the Constitution was amended three times in order to  
*# abolish slavery (13th Amendment)
*# abolish slavery (13th Amendment)
*# provide to the former slaves citizenship and equal protection under the laws (14th Amendment)
*# provide to the former slaves citizenship and equal protection under the laws (14th amendment)
*## and also to make arrangements for re-entry of rebellious states back into the Union  
*## and also to make arrangements for re-entry of rebellious states back into the Union
*# secure the vote of former male slaves (15th Amendment)
*# secure the vote of former male slaves (15th amendment)
* the Fourteenth amendment, then, explicitly applied to the federal and all state governments
 
=== Fourteenth amendment ===
* the '''Fourteenth amendment''' explicitly applied to the federal and all state governments
** given this national aspect, any case reviewed by the Courts regarding the 13-15th amendments was applicable to the states
** given this national aspect, any case reviewed by the Courts regarding the 13-15th amendments was applicable to the states
** it was through the 14th amendment's "due process" and "equal protection" clauses that, over time, the Courts applied other rights and protections from the BOR to the states, such as
** it was through the 14th amendment's "due process" and "equal protection" clauses that, over time, the Courts applied other rights and protections from the BOR to the states, such as
Line 379: Line 464:
**** note that the 14th amendment "due process" clause explicitly repeats the 5th amendment language
**** note that the 14th amendment "due process" clause explicitly repeats the 5th amendment language
* thus Court cases that apply the BOR protections to state laws are called "incorporation cases"
* thus Court cases that apply the BOR protections to state laws are called "incorporation cases"
=== Select list of Landmark incorporation cases ===
* see this Wikipedia article that lists incorporation cases per each of the Bill of Rights:[[wikipedia:Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights#Specific_amendments|Incorporation of the Bill of Rights]]


== 14th Amendment "privileges or immunities," "due process" & "equal protection" clauses ==
== 14th Amendment "privileges or immunities," "due process" & "equal protection" clauses ==
Retrieved from "https://school4schools.wiki/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/3709...3721"