Landmark Supreme Court cases: Difference between revisions

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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|-
|-