** page under construction **

AP Gov list of required Landmark Supreme Court cases

  • cases as generally recommended for core study for the AP Gov exam
  • review of additional cases will yield greater student comprehension and analysis
Case Date Court Big Ideas/ Court Doctrine Constitutional Issues Issues / Background / Description / Opinion / Dissent Related Cases

Baker v. Carr

1961 Warren - "One person one vote" standard

- Political Question doctrine

  • Equal protection clause (14th amendment)
  • Judicial review
  • 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:

  • 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
  • the Court was split on the case and the case had to be re-argued
  • dissents:
    • 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"
  • Reynolds v. Sims (1964)
  • Shaw v. Reno , 1993)

Brown v. Board of Education

1954 Warren equal protection Equal protection clause (14th amendment)
  • unanimous ruling held that segregated schools were "inherently unequal" and thus violated the 14th amendment's equal protection clause regarding public school segregation
  • the ruling did not completely overturn Plessy, as Brown applied only to public education, but it became the primary precedent for further challenges to de jure (in law) segregation
  • subsequent cases also addressed de facto (in fact or practice) segregation

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

2010 Roberts campaign finance law Free speech clause (1st amendment)
  • held that "political spending" by organizations is protected speech

click EXPAND for more:

  • the case regarded advertising of a movie during a primary election season that was critical of Hillary Clinton and that violated a 2002 law, Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act that prohibited "electioneering communication" by corporations, non-profits or unions withing 30 days of a primary or 60 days of an election; the law was invalidated by the case

Engel v. Vitale

1962 Warren - prayer in public school

- "separation of Church and State" doctrine

Establishment clause (1st amendment)
  • ruled that official public school prayer (i.e., school-sponsored) violated the 1st amendment prohibition of government sponsored religion

click EXPAND for more:

  • the ruling affirmed the "wall of separation between Church and State," which is from a published letter by President Thomas Jefferson in 1802
  • dissent:
    • Justice Stewart's argued that the Establishment clause prohibited creation of a state- (government) sponsored church and not the non-mandatory practice of religion within a public school

Gideon v. Wainwright

1963 Warren - public counsel

- incorporation case

Right to counsel (6th amendment)
  • Gideon requested but was denied a public attorney (Florida only allowed it for capital offenses)

click EXPAND for more:

  • the unanimous decision held that a state must provide counsel for criminal defendants who can not afford an attorney or who are otherwise incapable of representing themselves (incompetency or illiteracy)
  • Gideon is an incorporation case, as the 6th amendment right to counsel was applied state law via the 14th amendment's Due Process clause
  • Powell v. Alabama (1932: required state-sponsored counsel in capital crimes; it importantly incorporated the 6th amendment right via the 14th amendment's "due process" clause)

for similar cases regarding criminal protections:

  • Massiah v. United States (1964: prohibited use of statements by criminals who had counsel without that attorney present)

Marbury v. Madison

1803 Marshall Judicial supremacy
  • Judicial review
  • Original jurisdiction (Article III, Section 2)
  • "legal remedy" concept [1]
  • unanimous decision that settled a dispute between outgoing Adams and incoming Jefferson administrations over Adams' "midnight appointments", including one to Marbury

click EXPAND for more:

  • 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."[2]
  • note that Marshall's appointment to the Court as Chief Justice was one of Adams' final appointments after having lost the election of 1800

McColluch v. Maryland

1819 Marshall implied powers
  • Supremacy clause (Article VI)
  • Necessary and proper clause
  • Maryland tried to stop the Baltimore branch of the Second National Bank by taxing it

click EXPAND for more:

  • the Court ruled that the National Bank was legitimate and superseded (was over) state law, thus Maryland could not tax it
  • the Court ruled that if the National Bank was legal (constitutional) measures to implement it were also Constitutional via the "necessary and proper clause"
  • additionally, if a federal law was legal it is also "supreme" (Article VI) over state law
  • Marshall's ruling denied 10th amendment reservations of unexpressed powers

McDonald v. Chicago

2010 Roberts - right to "keep and bear arms

- incorporation case

  • Second amendment right to bear arms
  • in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) the Court affirmed the 2nd amendment right to "keep and bear arms" as an individual right by declaring a gun control law of the District of Columbia (DC) law unconstitutional.
  • Since Heller regarded a DC law, which is a federal territory, the ruling was not immediately applicable to state law
  • McDonald applied Heller it to state law via the Due Process clause of the 14th amendment

New York Times v. United States

1971 Burger - prior restraint

- freedom of the press

  • Freedom of the press (1st amendment)
  • the New York Times (NYT) newspaper published the leaked "Pentagon Papers," which were secret reports by the Pentagon regarding the U.S. intervention in Vietnam; the government fought to stop their publication based on national security grounds and that the possession of them by the NYT was illegal

click EXPAND for more:

  • the government was asking for "prior restraint" of further publication of the Papers (there were 7,000 pages, so the NYT started printing selections, upon which time the Government ordered the NYT to halt publication ("prior restraint" = to stop criminal behavior before it is actually done)
  • the Court ruled that the government's need to keep certain secrets (i.e., classified information) was subordinate (less important than) to constitutional protections of the press, even if those secrets were unlawfully released (leaked)
  • the ruling stated that when balanced against the freedom of the press, the government's position for prior restraint "carries a heavy burden of showing justification for the imposition of such a restraint"
  • the Court created a standard for testing the importance of keeping state secrets to the "grave and irreparable danger" standard
  • other issues include, censorship, prior restraint, injunction

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:

  • 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
  • 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)
  • 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)

Schenck v. United States

1919 Hughes "clear and present danger" - right to speech (1st amendment)

- restriction on speech

  • unanimous decision that upheld laws that restricted anti-draft protests/ flyers during WWI were legal restrictions of the right to speech

click EXPAND for more:

  • the court reasoned that the criticisms of the draft were designed to induce others to commit a crime (resisting the draft) and would present a "clear and present danger" to the war efforts
  • created the "clear and present danger" test for laws that limit First Amendment rights to speech and the press
  • Justice Holmes' opinion included the phrase "falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic," which is used to illuminate criminal speech
  • Abrams v. United States (1919: upheld a law that made it illegal to advocate for obstruction to the war efforts)
  • Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969: partially overturned Schenck by creating the "imminent lawless action" standard that was stricter than the "clear and present danger" test)

Shaw v. Reno

1993 Rehnquist - redistricting and gerrymandering equal protection (14th amendment)
  • ruled that redistricting based on race (i.e. creating voting districts based on the race of the inhabitants) must meet the "strict scrutiny" standard (be carefully examined and measured for purpose and effect)

click EXPAND for more:

  • however, the Court held that states must take into account race in adherence to the Voting Rights Act of 1965
  • the case was about a Federal government-ordered redistricting of a North Carolina district that had been gerrymandered to create a black-majority district; at the time, North Carolina was operating under desegregation-era Federal oversight that was to protect minorities; the government ordered the state to create two black-majority districts, the 2nd of which would have been 160 miles long and geographically odd
  • the court ruled that the proposed district was clearly designed only with race in mind, which violated the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause
  • dissenting judges noted that the strict scrutiny therefore applied to districting that advantaged blacks but not other non-racial groups and also that no voter was disenfranchised (not allowed to vote) by the districting plan
  • Miller v. Johnson (1995: addressed racial gerrymandering that had created a "geographic monstrosity" in order to have a black-majority of voters)

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District

1969 Warren - protests in public schools

- public safety (protecting children) v. rights of minors

- "substantial disruption" test

- 1st amendment
  • students who wore armbands to protest the Vietnam War were suspended by the school for violating a rule that was created specifically for this protest

click EXPAND for more:

  • 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 that even if they caused "discomfort and unpleasantness" in those who disagreed with them, the rights of the students
  • the court allowed for circumstances in which student speech might cause disruptions
  • the court created a "substantial disruption" test
  • two justices dissented, including Justice Black who stated that "symbolic speech" was not a protected 1st amendment right and that people do not have a particular right to speak any "where" and "when" they please

United States v. Lopez

1995 Rehnquist validity of Commerce clause based on substantial effect on interstate commerce Commerce clause (Article I, section 8)
  • by 5-4 vote, the Court struck a federal law that banned gun possession within 1,000 feet of a school; Congress justified the law under its powers derived from the Commerce class (power to regulate inter-state commerce), under the theory that guns were commonly sold across state lines

click EXPAND for more:

  • it was the first case since 1937 in which the Court held that the government had exceeded its powers under the Commerce clause
  • Chief Justice Rehnquist set three standards for Federal regulation under the Commerce clause:
  1. the use of interstate channels for commerce
  2. instrumentality of interstate commerce (people or things that inherently engage in interstate commerce, such as an automobile or airplane)
  3. substantial impact on or relation to interstate commerce
  • Justice Breyer's dissent argued that Congress was justified under the Commerce Clause because the economy might be impacted by gun violence that impaired education
  • Wickard v. Filburn (1942: expanded the regulatory power of Congress under the Commerce Clause; the issue of the case regarded whether or not Congress could regulate planting of corn, and the Court decided that since corn is sold across the country, even local planting of it impacts that commerce)
  • United States v. Morrison (2000: similarly ruled that an act of Congress exceeded the powers granted Congress by the Commerce clause, in this case because the part of the law that the Court struck down was not directly related to economic activity)

Wisconsin v. Yoder

1972 Burger - parental rights

- freedom of religion

Free exercise of religion clause (1st amendment)

- incorporation case (via the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause)

  • the Court ruled that the First Amendments protection of the "free exercise" of religion supersedes (is more important than) the public interest in laws that create compulsory (required) school attendance

click EXPAND for more:

  • three Amish families argued that laws forcing their children to attend school past the 8th grade violated their religious belief
  • the court ruled that not educating children past 8th grade created no burden upon society and thereby protecting the individual right to religion is the higher priority
  • in his dissent, Justice Douglas argued that the case regarded parental rights and not the children's exercise of their religion (Justices Steward and Brennan responded that the children were following their parents' religion)
  • Reynolds v. United States (1878: found that religious duty was not a defense against illegal actions; the case regarded a man charged with bigamy (having multiple wives); Davis v. Beason, 1890 ruled that laws against bigamy did not violate the 1st Amendment's Free Exercise clause
  • 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

Major "Courts" (Chief Justices)

Marshall (John), 1801-1835

  • early Republic period
  • established judicial review and federal supremacy

Taney (Roger)

  • prior to the Civil War, Taney defended slave states
  • most important decision: Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)

Fuller (Melville)

White (Edward Douglass)

Taft (William Howard)

Hughes (Charles Evans)

Vinson

Warren (Earl)

Burger

Rehnquist

Roberts

List of Fourteenth Amendment "Incorporation Cases"

14th Amendment incorporation cases

  • the 14th amendment explicitly applied itself to the states
  • thus its "due process" and "equal protection" clauses also apply to the states
  • "incorporation" ("putting into the body") means applying the Bill of Rights and other constitutional protections to state law via the 14th amendment

Selective Incorporation

  • Duncan v. Louisiana (1968) created the

List of Court Doctrines & Tests

  • a "doctrine" is a judicial ruling that services as precedent for other cases
  • "legal test" is a standard that a court may develop in a ruling that is used to decide if a case or action fits in or not to a certain legal category or type of case

Court Doctrines

  • "One person one vote" standard (Baker v. Carr, 1961)
  • Political Question doctrine
  • Strict scrutiny
    • the idea that any limitation on "equal protection of the laws" (14th amendment) must be strictly scrutinized (carefully examined)
    • or that a law must carefully examined and measured for its purpose and effects

Legal Tests & Rules

  • clear and present danger (Schenck v. US , 1919)
    • speech that creates a "clear and present danger" may be prohibited by law
  • "grave and irreparable danger rule "(NY Times v. US, 1971)
    • updated from the "grave and probable danger" rule (Dennis v. US, 1951)
    • the government must show "irreparable" (unfixable) danger in order to justify "prior restraint"
      • "prior restraint" = stopping an action or behavior before it happens, usually referring to halting the publication of something that might pose a harm to national security
  • imminent lawless action standard (Brandenburg v. Ohio, 1969)
    • in order to restrict speech, the government must demonstrate that the speech will produce "imminent lawless action," i.e., an illegal act that will be the direct result of the speech
  • Miller Test (Miller v. California, 1973)
    • modified a previous test for obscenity, "utterly without socially redeeming value"
      • to lacking "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value"
  • substantial disruption test (Tinker v. Des Moines, 1969)
    • a standard for school prohibitions of student speech that may be considered lewd, offensive or disruptive
  • Undue burden standard
    • a law must not create an "undue" (unnecessary) or overly burdensome or that is overly restrictive of fundamental rights

Full list of Landmark Supreme Court cases

Landmark Supreme Court cases: alphabetical

  • Abington School District v. Schempp (1963: religion in schools)
  • Baker v. Carr (1962, racial preferences)
  • Bakke v. Regents of the University of California (1978)
  • Bob Jones University v. US (1983)
  • Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000: freedom of association; banned laws forcing inclusion in a private group; homosexuality)
  • Bowers v. Hardwick (1986: privacy, homosexuality)
  • Brown v. Board of Education (1954, equal protection, overturned Plessy)
  • Buckley v. Valeo (1976)
  • Bush v. Gore (2000: presidential election)
  • Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge (1837)
  • Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831)
  • Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010: campaign finance)
  • Civil Rights Cases of 1883
  • Clinton v. City of New York (1998)
  • Clinton v. Jones (1997)
  • Commonwealth v. Hunt (1842)
  • Cooper v. Aaron (1958, states cannot nullify federal Court rulings)
  • Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819)
  • District of Columbia v. Heller (2008: gun rights upheld)
  • Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)
  • Engel v. Vitale (1962: religion; banned school prayer)
  • Escobeda v. Illinois (1964)
  • Ex parte Endo (1944)
  • Ex parte Milligan (1866)
  • Fletcher v. Peck (1810)
  • Furman v. Georgia (1972)
  • Gibbons v. Ogden (1824: upheld federal interstate commerce / Commerce clause powers)
  • Gideon v. Wainwright (1963: right to state-funded attorney)
  • Gitlow v. New York (1925)
  • Gratz v. Bollinger (2003)
  • Griswald v. Connecticut (1965: "right to privacy; birth control)
  • Grutter v. Bollinger (2003: upheld university diversity policies)
  • Hamdi v. Rumsfield (2004)
  • Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1983: speech; upheld limits on student publications)
  • Heart of Atlanta v. US (1964)
  • Kelo v. City of New London (2005)
  • Korematsu v. United States (1944)
  • Lau v. Nichols (1974)
  • Lawrence v. Texas (2003: right to privacy; banned anti-sodomy law; homosexuality)
  • Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)
  • Lochner v. New York (1905)
  • Loving v. Virginia (1967: equal protection; banned miscegenation laws)
  • Mapp v. Ohio (1961: probable cause, due process; evidence obtained illegally cannot be used in criminal court)
  • Marbury v. Madison (1803: judicial review)
  • Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018: free exercise of religion, right to discriminate based on religious belief)
  • McCulloch v. Maryland (1819: Supremacy clause, upheld implied powers)
  • McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010: gun rights; applied Heller decision to states)
  • McGirt v. Oklahoma (2020, tribal reservation rights)
  • Miller v. California (1973)
  • Miranda v. Arizona (1966: due process; informed rights before questioning)
  • Muller v. Oregon (1908)
  • Munn v. Illinois (1876)
  • Murray v. Curlett (MD) (1963
  • National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012: updheld Obamacare by deciding that the requirement to purchase health care was a tax and not a governmental edict)
  • NRLB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp (1937)
  • New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985: public safety over rights of minors)
  • New York Times v. Sullivan (1964: rights of press; "actual malice" requirement in libel)
  • New York Times v. U.S. (1971)
  • Northern Securities Co. v. U. S. (1904)
  • Obergefell v. Hodges (2015: same-sex marriage)
  • Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)
  • Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)
  • Pollock v. The Farmers' Loan and Trust Co. (1895)
  • Roe v. Wade (1973: right to privacy; abortion)
  • Roper v. Simmons (2005: execution is cruel & unusual punishment for minors)
  • Schenck v. US (1919: )
  • Schechter v. U. S. (1936)
  • Scott v. Sanford (1857)
  • Shaw v. Reno (1993)
  • Shelby County v. Holder (2013: voting rights)
  • Terry v. Ohio (1969: probably clause/ reasonable search justified without warrant in certain circumstances)
  • Texas v. Johnson (1989: symbolic speech protection in burning of flag)
  • Tinker v. Des Moines (1969: rights of minors; search & seizure)
  • U.S. v. American Library Association (2003)
  • U. S. v. E. C. Knight Co. (1895)
  • U.S. v. Nixon (1974: executive privilege)
  • United States v. Windsor (2013: same-sex marriage)
  • Van Order v. Perry (2005)
  • Wabash, St. Louis, and Pacific Railway Co. v. Illinois (1886)
  • West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943)
  • West Coast Hotel v. Parrish (1937)
  • Zelma v. Simmons-Harris (2002, religion, school vouchers)

Landmark Supreme Court cases: by date & historical era

Landmark Supreme Court cases: by topic

  1. Marshall invoked (referenced) the ancient Roman legal maxim ubi jus, ibi remedium for "where there is a legal right, there is a legal remedy"
  2. Note that Hamilton did not envision Judicial review, instead arguing that the Congress must avoid unconstitutional unto itself.
  3. 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)