Download UNIT

ESSENTIAL COURT CASES FOR AP GOVERNMENT
Note: The list of important cases can be endless. What appears below are cases that during the normal course of an AP Government
class one would more than likely discover and/or discuss. What is important for students is that through a discussion of these cases
they understand the relationships of the branches of government, the major principles of our Constitution, and a better understanding
of the policy making process.
TOPIC
CASE
SIGNIFICANCE
Constitutional
Marbury v. Madison (1803)
Court establishes “Judicial Review” concept- affirms the Court’s position as a
Foundations &
coequal branch of government having considerable influence on the politics of
Underpinnings
government and direction of public policy.
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)
Marshall Court defines what is meant by “necessary and proper” and
established the primacy of federal government power over state government.
States cannot tax federal government (enforced Supremacy Clause), Second
Bank of United States permissible under Necessary and Proper/Elastic Clause.
Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)
In regulating a trade dispute between NY and NJ, the Supreme Court took a
broad interpretation of interstate commerce by including navigation.
Barron v. Baltimore (1833)
Case declared that states did not have to uphold the Bill of Rights. Overturned
by doctrine of selective incorporation.
Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)
In ruling that a southern slave was still property when his owner moved to the
North and died, the federal government reinforced the idea that states need to
respect the rights of other states.
United States v. Lopez (1995)
Rehnquist Court decisions in what some call the “devolution federalism” era. For
years Congress had used the interstate commerce clause to encroach into a
United States v. Morrison (2000)
number of areas normally reserved to the states under the 10th Amendment. The
commerce clause does not give Congress unlimited powers more appropriately
reserved to the states. This begins a policy of the reigning in of “creeping
federalism”. In the Lopez case, the majority opinion presents an excellent
overview of the various interpretations and phases of federalism since the
Founding. In Lopez, The Guns-Free School Zones Act of 1990 is declared
unconstitutional. What makes this case significant is that it is the first case since
the 1930’s to set limits to the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause.
In this case commerce does not apply to carrying handguns, especially when it
can not be shown that carrying handguns does not affect the economy on a
large scale. In Morrison, parts of The Violence Against Women Act of 1994
were declared unconstitutional because it was interpreted that Congress was
exceeding its authority under the Commerce Clause.
National Federation of Independent Forcing individuals to pay a penalty for not obtaining health insurance is within
Business v. Sebelius (2012)
Congress’s power to “lay and collect taxes”
ESSENTIAL COURT CASES FOR AP GOVERNMENT
Note: The list of important cases can be endless. What appears below are cases that during the normal course of an AP Government
class one would more than likely discover and/or discuss. What is important for students is that through a discussion of these cases
they understand the relationships of the branches of government, the major principles of our Constitution, and a better understanding
of the policy making process.
Civil Liberties
Gitlow v. New York (1925)
Court nationalizes the Bill of Rights for the first time (“Incorporation Doctrine”).
Expanded freedom of speech by making states responsible for protecting it.
Speech is a “fundamental right” to be incorporated. By the 1960’s, the Court will
apply almost all of the provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states through the
14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
Establishment and development of the “Exclusionary Rule”- illegally obtained
evidence cannot be used against a defendant at trial. Made applicable to the
states in Mapp.
T.L.O v. New Jersey (1984)
Schools are permitted to restrict 4th Amendment rights in order to provide a safe
learning environment. Basis for metal detectors in schools. Establishes
“reasonable suspicion” as the standard for school searches which is lower than
“probable cause” standard used outside of schools.
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)
Landmark rulings dealing with the rights of the accused, government
interrogations, and the right to counsel. In Gideon, it was determined that states
Escobedo v. Illinois (1964)
Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
are required to appoint lawyers when a defendant can not afford oneSelective
Incorporation of the 6th Amendment. In Escobedo, it was determined that
suspects have a right to counsel during police interrogations under the Sixth
Amendment. In Miranda, it was determined that before arresting someone, law
enforcement must read them their “Miranda rights.”
Reynolds v. U.S. (1878)
Religious duty is not a suitable defense when being accused of a
crime…outlawed polygamy (multiple spouses).
Engel v. Vitale (1962)
Establishment Clause and school prayer- Public school policy that permits,
endorses, or encourages prayer violates the 1st Amendment. Prayer in school is
allowed if it is student initiated, student-led, and voluntary.
Abington v. Schempp (1963)
Mandated Bible reading in public schools is unconstitutional.
Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)
Concerned aid to religious schools. Created “Lemon Test” to determine if
funding was in violation of establishment clause
The LEMON TEST:
1) Funding to religious schools must have a specific secular purpose
2) The primary effect must not help or hinder religious education
3) No excessive government entanglements with religion
Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)
Free Exercise Clause- Amish do not need to attend school following 8th grade
due to their established traditions and success in American society.
Oregon v. Smith (1990)
The use of hallucinogenic drugs in religious ceremonies is not protected by the
First Amendment.
ESSENTIAL COURT CASES FOR AP GOVERNMENT
Note: The list of important cases can be endless. What appears below are cases that during the normal course of an AP Government
class one would more than likely discover and/or discuss. What is important for students is that through a discussion of these cases
they understand the relationships of the branches of government, the major principles of our Constitution, and a better understanding
of the policy making process.
Civil Liberties (cont.) Schenck v. United States (1919)
Court establishes the “clear and present danger” doctrine with respect to
subversive and unpopular speech. This is the case in which Justice Holmes
uses the famous “falsely shout fire in a theater and cause a panic” analogy in
drawing the line on the limits of free speech.
West Virginia v. Barnette (1942)
Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)
Bethel School District v. Fraser
(1986)
Morse v. Frederick (2007)
Near v. Minnesota (1931)
New York Times Co. v. United
States (1971)
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988)
Miller v. California (1973)
Reno v. ACLU (1997)
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
(1964)
The freedom of speech clause of the 1st Amendment prohibits public schools
from forcing students to salute the American flag and say the Pledge of
Allegiance.
Protected speech encouraging illegal activities if the illegal activities are not
“imminent.”
Freedom of speech limited in schools if it is clearly disruptive.
Speech can be restricted by schools at off-site sponsored functions (Bong Hits 4
Jesus Case).
Censorship cases (“prior restraint”) - Speech that addresses matters of public
concern may not be censored. The only exceptions would be in matters of high
national security (Times case) and in school-sponsored publications (Hazelwood
case). The rationale for the latter is that school publications are not open public
forums for students to exercise free speech.
Often referred to as the “Miller Test”, the Court stipulated three tests for
determining what is obscene: (1) whether the average person, applying local
community standards, would find that a work, taken as a whole, appeals to a
prurient interest; (2) whether the work depicts in a patently offensive way sexual
conduct specifically defined as “obscene” in law; and (3) whether the work lacks
“serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.” In the Reno v. ACLU case,
the Court struck down provisions of the Communications Decency Act of 1996
which attempted to limit minors’ access to internet pornography. The law which
prohibited “indecent” and “patently offensive” material found on the internet was
too vague and could result in a “chilling effect”.
The Court defined what is meant by libel and slander as it pertains to public
officials and public figures. Individuals must show that false statements were
made and publicized with malice and knowledge of their falsity or with “reckless
disregard of their truth or falsity” This standard makes it very hard for public
figures to win libel suits.
ESSENTIAL COURT CASES FOR AP GOVERNMENT
Note: The list of important cases can be endless. What appears below are cases that during the normal course of an AP Government
class one would more than likely discover and/or discuss. What is important for students is that through a discussion of these cases
they understand the relationships of the branches of government, the major principles of our Constitution, and a better understanding
of the policy making process.
Civil Liberties (cont.) Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)
Landmark symbolic speech cases. In Tinker, student expression (wearing of
armbands) is protected so long as it does not cause a “material disruption or
substantial interference”. In Texas v. Johnson, the burning of a flag (which the
Texas v. Johnson (1989)
Court determined to be only a symbol) in public is protected by the 1st
Amendment.
D.C. v. Heller (2008)
Handguns are protected by the 2nd Amendment for traditionally lawful purposes
(only applies at federal level).
McDonald v. Chicago (2010)
States cannot restrict access to handguns for traditionally lawful purposes.
Incorporates 2nd Amendment.
In Furman, the Court ruled that the death penalty violated the 8th Amendment
Furman v. Georgia (1972)
because of the indiscriminate and inconsistent manner in which it was imposed.
Four years later in Gregg, the Court upheld a state law that “contained sufficient
Gregg v. Georgia (1976)
standards to pass constitutional muster” to eliminate excessive jury discretion in
imposing the death penalty.
Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)
Landmark ruling in which the Court establishes that there is a “penumbra” of
rights. These are civil liberties closely attached to the Bill of Rights. In this case,
the right of consenting adults to use birth control is a privacy right protected
under the 4th, 9th, and 14th Amendments.
Roe v. Wade (1973)
Right to privacy and the abortion issue. These cases show how the Court
established the absolute right to choice (Roe v. Wade) through the present
interpretation which says that the right exists but states may pass restrictions so
Planned Parenthood v. Casey
long as it does not impose an “undue hardship or burden on the mother”
(Planned Parenthood v. Casey).
(1992)
Civil Rights
Plessey v. Ferguson (1896)
Brown v. Board of Education (1954)
Brown v. Board of Education II
(1955)
Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenberg
Schools (1971)
State laws that allow for separate but equal public educational facilities based on
race were constitutional with the Plessey decision. In Brown, it was determined
that separate but equal schools violates the Equal Protection Clause and
Plessey was overturned. In Brown II, it was determined that desegregation of
schools needed to happen with “all deliberate speed.” Brown is also important
because it is the case that sparked the Civil Rights Movement of the 50’s & 60’s,
culminating in the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
In an effort to speed up desegregation with “deliberate speed”, the Court made
court-ordered busing constitutional.
ESSENTIAL COURT CASES FOR AP GOVERNMENT
Note: The list of important cases can be endless. What appears below are cases that during the normal course of an AP Government
class one would more than likely discover and/or discuss. What is important for students is that through a discussion of these cases
they understand the relationships of the branches of government, the major principles of our Constitution, and a better understanding
of the policy making process.
Civil Rights (cont.)
California Regents v. Bakke (1978)
Landmark case that paved the way for issues involving affirmative action. The
Court held that a state university could not admit less qualified applicants solely
Gratz v. Bollinger (2003)
because of their race (quotas). However, a university could adopt an
“admissions program where race or ethnic background is simply one element- to
be weighed fairly against other elements- in the selection process.” The Court
again considered this meaning in Gratz v. Bollinger (2003) deciding that a
college admissions rankings system giving an automatic point increase to all
minorities instead of making individual determinations is unconstitutional.
Baker v. Carr (1962)
Historic “one person- one vote” cases. The Court tied the practice of the
Wesberry v. Sanders (1964)
malapportionment of voting districts to the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th
Reynolds v. Sims (1964)
Amendment.
Shaw v. Reno (1993)
Landmark voting rights case involving racial gerrymandering. Absent the
demonstration of a compelling governmental interest, the 14th Amendment’s
equal protection clause forbids states from racial gerrymandering to ensure
black voting majorities in selected voting districts.
Korematsu v. United States (1944)
Controversial decision that upheld the constitutionality of the Japanese
internment during WWII. The discriminatory practice was justified for national
security reasons. Decades later, the United States government issued a formal
apology for the policy.
Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)
The Court held in a 5–4 decision that the fundamental right to marry is
guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution.
Elections and
Campaign spending is a form of political expression the 1st Amendment protects.
Campaign Finance
Buckley v. Valeo (1976)
The Constitution forbids Congress from limiting individual political campaign
expenditures. However Congress can regulate contributions to candidates and
parties. The decision opened the door for PACs to spend unlimited amounts of
money for campaigning activities so long as they’re not directly coordinated with
a particular campaign.
Bush v. Gore (2000)
A narrow 5-4 majority ruled that Florida’s practice of allowing local election
jurisdictions to establish their own procedures for counting ballots and
determining voter intent is inconsistent with the Constitution’s Equal Protection
and Due Process Clauses. It ruled that Florida’s procedures for manually
recounting presidential votes were not specific enough when presidential
candidate Al Gore demanded a recount of the ballots in the Florida presidential
election. The case handed George W. Bush the presidency in 2000.
ESSENTIAL COURT CASES FOR AP GOVERNMENT
Note: The list of important cases can be endless. What appears below are cases that during the normal course of an AP Government
class one would more than likely discover and/or discuss. What is important for students is that through a discussion of these cases
they understand the relationships of the branches of government, the major principles of our Constitution, and a better understanding
of the policy making process.
Elections and
Citizens United v. FEC (2010)
Campaign spending by unions and corporations is a protected form of speech—
Campaign Finance
This case started SuperPACs.
(cont.)
Congress
Immigration & Naturalization
The requirement that an executive decision must lie before Congress for a
Service v. Chada (1983)
specified period before it takes effect (legislative veto) is unconstitutional.
“Congress cannot take any action that has the force of law unless the president
concurs in that action.” Despite this ruling, Congress has passed a number of
laws containing legislative vetoes, most notably the War Powers Act (1973).
Presidency
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v.
Better known as the “Steel Mill Seizure” case. In April 1952, President Truman
Sawyer (1952)
ordered seizure of the nation's steel mills in order to forestall a strike which, he
claimed, would have seriously harmed the nation during the Korean conflict. The
steel companies did not deny that the government could take over their property
in emergencies. Rather, they claimed that the wrong branch of the government
had proceeded against them; in essence, they sued the president on behalf of
Congress on the basis that the presidential action had violated the constitutional
doctrine of separation of powers. Six members of the Court agreed, and Justice
Hugo Black's majority opinion made a strong case for requiring the president,
even in wartime, to abide by established rules.
A grand jury returned indictments against seven of President Richard Nixon's
closest aides in the Watergate affair. The special prosecutor appointed by Nixon
and the defendants sought audio tapes of conversations recorded by Nixon in
the Oval Office. Nixon asserted that he was immune from the subpoena claiming
"executive privilege," which is the right to withhold information from other
United States v. Nixon (1974)
government branches to preserve confidential communications within the
executive branch or to secure the national interest. The Court held that neither
the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the generalized need for confidentiality
of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute,
unqualified, presidential privilege. The Court granted that there was a limited
executive privilege in areas of military or diplomatic affairs, but gave preference
to "the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of
justice." Therefore, the president must obey the subpoena and produce the
tapes and documents. Nixon resigned shortly after the release of the tapes.
In 1996, Congress passed a law granting the president authority to line item veto
Clinton v. New York City (1998)
certain types of appropriations bills and tax provisions. The Court voided the law
claiming it violated the “separation of powers” concept.