Jump to content

Landmark Supreme Court cases: Difference between revisions

Landmark Supreme Court cases (view source)

Revision as of 20:06, 15 December 2022

20,137 bytes removed ,  15 December 2022
→‎Other Court Cases commonly assigned by AP US Government teachers
VisualWikitext
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, '''''Roe v. Wade''' (1973)'' will NOT be included, as it was overturned by the recent '''''Dodd''''' (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]
** 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  
Line 102: Line 102:
*[[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 136: Line 126:


*[[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 241: Line 207:
</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 412: Line 354:
!Issues / Background / Description / Opinion / Dissent
!Issues / Background / Description / Opinion / Dissent
!Related Cases
!Related Cases
|-
|
=== Baker v. Carr ===
|1961
|Warren
|Republicanism (CON-3)
| -
<nowiki>- "One person one vote" standard</nowiki>
- 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:
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed">
* 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"
</div>
|
* Reynolds v. Sims (1964)
* Shaw v. Reno , 1993)
|-
|
=== Brown v. Board of Education ===
|1954
|Warren
|Equal protection (PRD-1)
| - equal protection
-  "separate is not equal"
|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
|
*[[wikipedia:Cooper_v._Aaron|Cooper v. Aaron]] (1958: affirmed Brown and enforced desegregation)
*[[wikipedia:Swann_v._Charlotte-Mecklenburg_Board_of_Education|Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education]] (1971: busing to promote racial integration in schools)
*[[wikipedia:Milliken_v._Bradley|Milliken v. Bradley]] (1974: "busing"; distinguished between ''de jure'' and ''de facto'' segregation)
|-
|
=== Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ===
|2010
|Roberts
|Electoral rules (PRD-2)
|campaign finance law
|Free speech clause
(1st amendment)
|
* held that "political spending" by organizations is protected speech
click EXPAND for more:
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed">
* 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
</div>
|
*[[wikipedia:McCutcheon_v._FEC|McCutcheon v. FEC]] (2014: expanded campaign finance limits but did not end them)
|-
|
=== Engel v. Vitale ===
|1962
|Warren
|Civil Liberties (LOR-2)
|  ''Can public schools conduct prayer?'' 
- 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:
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed">
* 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 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
</div>
|
*[[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)
|-
|-
|
|
Line 505: Line 364:
|
|
|
|
|-
|
=== Gideon v. Wainwright ===
|1963
|Warren
|Civil Liberties (LOR-3)
| - 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:
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed">
* 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
</div>
|
*[[wikipedia:Powell_v._Alabama|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:
*[[wikipedia:Massiah_v._United_States|Massiah v. United States]] (1964: prohibited use of statements by criminals who had counsel without that attorney present)
*[[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)
|-
|-
|
|
Line 552: Line 387:
(1st amendment)
(1st amendment)
|<< to do
|<< to do
|
|-
|
=== Marbury v. Madison ===
|1803
|Marshall
|Judicial review (CON-5)
|Judicial supremacy
|
* Judicial review
* 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>
|
* 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:
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed">
* 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''."<ref>Note that Hamilton did not envision Judicial review, instead arguing that the Congress must avoid unconstitutional unto itself.</ref>
* note that Marshall's appointment to the Court as Chief Justice was one of Adams' final appointments after having lost the election of 1800
</div>
|
* [[wikipedia:Hylton_v._United_States|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>
|-
|
=== McColluch v. Maryland ===
|1819
|Marshall
|Federalism
(CON-2)
|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:
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed">
* 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
</div>
|
|-
|
=== McDonald v. Chicago ===
|2010
|Roberts
|Civil Liberties (LOR-3)
| - right to "keep and bear arms
<nowiki>- incorporation case</nowiki>
|
* 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
|
* [[wikipedia:District_of_Columbia_v._Heller|Heller v. District of Columbia]] (2008)
* [[wikipedia:People_v._Aguilar|People v. Aguilar]] (2013: upheld individual right to keep and bear arms)
|-
|
=== New York Times v. United States ===
|1971
|Burger
|Civil Liberties (LOR-2)
| - 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:
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed">
* 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''
</div>
|
|
|-
|-
Line 658: Line 412:
* [[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)
* [[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)
* Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (pending as of April 2022)
|-
|
=== Schenck v. United States ===
|1919
|Hughes
|Civil Liberties (LOR-2)
|"clear and present danger"
|<nowiki>- right to speech (1st amendment)</nowiki>
- 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:
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed">
* 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
</div>
|
* [[wikipedia:Abrams_v._United_States|Abrams v. United States]] (1919: upheld a law that made it illegal to advocate for obstruction to the war efforts)
* [[wikipedia:Brandenburg_v._Ohio|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
|Republicanism (CON-3)
|<nowiki>- redistricting and gerrymandering</nowiki>
|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:
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed">
* 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
</div>
|
* 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
|Civil Liberties (LOR-2)
|''Can public schools regulate student speech?''<nowiki>- protests in public schools</nowiki>
- public safety (protecting children) v. rights of minors
- "substantial disruption" test
|Free speech clause
(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:
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed">
* 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
</div>
|
* [[wikipedia:West_Virginia_State_Board_of_Education_v._Barnette|West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette]] (1943: outlawed rules or laws that force students to say the Pledge of Allegiance or to salute the flag)
* [[wikipedia:Miller_v._California|Miller v. California]] (1973: created the "Miller Test" for obscene materials, which may be legally banned)
|-
|
=== United States v. Lopez ===
|1995
|Rehnquist
|Federalism (CON 2)
|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:
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed">
* 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:
# the use of interstate channels for commerce
# instrumentality of interstate commerce (people or things that inherently engage in interstate commerce, such as an automobile or airplane)
# 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
</div>
|
* [[wikipedia:Wickard_v._Filburn|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)
* [[wikipedia:United_States_v._Morrison|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
|Civil Liberties (LOR-2)
|''Can a state force parents who object on religious grounds to send their children to school?''
<nowiki>- parental rights </nowiki>
- 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:
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed">
* 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)
</div>
|
* [[wikipedia:Reynolds_v._United_States|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
|}
|}


Retrieved from "https://school4schools.wiki/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/3715"