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

3,608 bytes added ,  15 December 2022
→‎AP US Gov Units / Learning Objectives re. Court Cases
VisualWikitext
 
(5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 5: Line 5:
== AP Gov list of required Landmark Supreme Court cases ==
== AP Gov list of required Landmark Supreme Court cases ==
* cases as listed by College Board for inclusion in AP US Gov exam
* cases as listed by College Board for inclusion in AP US Gov exam
** note that for 2023, Roe v. Wade will NOT be included, as it was overturned by the recent ''Dodd'' (2022) decision
** <u>Note</u>: for 2023,  
** see: [https://apcentral.collegeboard.org/courses/ap-united-states-government-and-politics/exam AP United States Government and Politics Exam – AP Central | College Board]
*** '''''Roe v. Wade''' (1973)'' will NOT be included, as it was overturned by the recent '''''Dobbs''''' (2022) decision
* review of additional cases will yield greater student comprehension and analysis
*** '''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]
=== AP US Gov Units / Learning Objectives re. Court Cases ===
* review of additional cases will yield greater student comprehension and analytical skills for understanding, evaluating and applying constitutional and legal concepts and Court decisions.
 
* '''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 "
{| class="wikitable sortable "
Line 120: 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 154: 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 259: 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 323: 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 398: 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)
|}
|}


Retrieved from "https://school4schools.wiki/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/3713...3721"