AP® U.S. GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS

Supreme Court Cases

Remember: The exam will require you to interpret, compare, and analyze fourteen (14) Supreme Court decisions. You should be able to state the facts of these cases, the issue(s) involved, the holdings (the decision and dissenting opinions), and the reasoning behind each decision listed. Questions on these cases will appear in both sections of the exam and specifically in the SCOTUS comparison free-response question.

For each case, you will be required to know its facts, issue, holding, reasoning, decision, and opinion(s):

• Facts: The relevant events of a case that occurred before courts became involved

• Issue: A legal or Constitutional question the court considers in a case

• Holding: The court’s response to the issue being considered in a case

• Reasoning: The court’s explanation of a holding

• Decision: The outcome of a case that includes a discussion of the facts, issue, holding, and reasoning

• Opinion(s): An analysis of the court’s decision, written by the justices. The majority opinion is agreed upon by more than half of the justices

Facts of the Case

• Charles Baker challenged Tennessee's legislative district apportionment, arguing that it ignored population shifts and economic growth, resulting in unequal representation.

• Tennessee had not redrawn its legislative districts since 1901, leading to rural districts being overrepresented relative to urban districts.

Issue, Holding, and Reasoning

Issue: Does the Supreme Court have jurisdiction over questions of legislative apportionment?

Holding: Yes, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over questions of legislative apportionment.

Reasoning: Issues of legislative apportionment are justiciable and that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires legislative districts to provide fair representation.

Decision and Opinion

6–2 DECISION IN FAVOR OF BAKER

• The Court held that redistricting issues present justiciable questions, allowing federal courts to intervene.

• The majority's opinion established the principle of "one person, one vote".

Facts of the Case

• African American children were denied admission to public schools attended by white children under laws permitting racial segregation. 

• The plaintiffs argued that segregation violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Issue, Holding, and Reasoning

Issue: Does segregation of public schools based on race violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Holding: Yes, racial segregation in public schools violates the Equal Protection Clause.

Reasoning: "Separate but equal" facilities (the standard established under Plessy) are inherently unequal, depriving minority children of equal educational opportunities. Segregation instills a sense of inferiority that affects children's educational and personal growth.

Decision and Opinion

9-0 DECISION IN FAVOR OF BROWN

• The Court declared state laws establishing separate public schools for black and white students to be unconstitutional.

• The majority highlighted the detrimental effects of segregation on children's development and the importance of equal educational opportunities, ordering the integration of public schools "with all deliberate speed" in Brown v. Board of Education II. 

Facts of the Case

• Citizens United, a nonprofit organization, produced a film critical of Hillary Clinton, a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination. 

• They sought to advertise the film during television broadcasts, which was prohibited by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) that restricted "electioneering communications" funded by corporations or unions close to elections.

Issue, Holding, and Reasoning

Issue: Does the prohibition of independent expenditures by corporations and unions for electioneering communications violate the First Amendment's freedom of speech?

Holding: Yes, the prohibition on independent expenditures by corporations and unions for electioneering communications violates the First Amendment.

Reasoning: Political speech is indispensable to a democracy, which is no less true because the speech comes from a corporation. BCRA's restrictions on such expenditures were an unconstitutional restriction on free speech.

Decision and Opinion

5-4 IN FAVOR OF CITIZENS UNITED

• The Court struck down the restrictions on independent expenditures, allowing corporations and unions to spend money on electioneering communications.

• The majority emphasized the importance of protecting political speech and reducing the power of the government to restrict it. 

• Dissenting opinions expressed concern about the influence of corporate money in politics.

Facts of the Case

• The New York State Board of Regents authorized a short, voluntary prayer for recitation at the start of each school day. 

• A group of parents challenged the prayer as a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Issue, Holding, and Reasoning

Issue: Does the recitation of a state-sponsored prayer in public schools violate the Establishment Clause?

Holding: Yes, the recitation of a state-sponsored prayer in public schools violates the Establishment Clause.

Reasoning: Government-directed prayer in public schools breaches the constitutional wall of separation between church and state, regardless of whether the prayer is voluntary or non-denominational.

Decision and Opinion

6-1 IN FAVOR OF ENGEL

• The Court struck down the state-sponsored prayer as unconstitutional.

• The majority emphasized the importance of maintaining a separation between government and religious activities.

Facts of the Case

• Clarence Gideon was charged with felony breaking and entering. 

• Unable to afford an attorney, he requested the court to appoint one for him. The request was denied, and Gideon was convicted. 

• He argued that his Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated.

Issue, Holding, and Reasoning

Issue: Does the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel in criminal cases extend to felony defendants in state courts?

Holding: Yes, the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel applies to state courts through the Fourteenth Amendment.

Reasoning: The right to counsel is fundamental in ensuring a fair trial. 

Decision and Opinion

9-0 IN FAVOR OF GIDEON

• The Court made clear that states must provide attorneys to defendants who cannot afford one in criminal cases and extended the right to counsel to all felony defendants in state courts.

• The majority emphasized the essential role of legal representation in safeguarding justice and fair trials.

Facts of the Case

• William Marbury was appointed as a justice of the peace by President John Adams in the final hours of Adams' administration. 

• The new Secretary of State, James Madison, refused to deliver Marbury's commission.

Issue, Holding, and Reasoning

Issue: Does Marbury have a right to his commission, and can the Supreme Court order its delivery? More broadly, does the Supreme Court have the authority to review acts of Congress and determine whether they are unconstitutional?

Holding: Yes, Marbury has a right to his commission. However, the Supreme Court cannot order its delivery because the provision of the Judiciary Act of 1789 that gave the Court this power is unconstitutional.

Reasoning:  The Constitution grants the judiciary the authority to review legislative and executive acts and declare them unconstitutional (judicial review). The specific provision of the Judiciary Act of 1789 that allowed Marbury to bring his claim directly to the Supreme Court was inconsistent with the Constitution (since it purported to extend the Court’s original jurisdiction beyond that which Article III, Section 2). 

Decision and Opinion

4-0 IN FAVOR OF MADISON

• The Court established the principle of judicial review, strengthening the judiciary's role in government.

• The majority emphasized the importance of judicial review in maintaining effective checks and balances between branches of govenrment.

Facts of the Case

• The state of Maryland imposed a tax on the Second Bank of the United States. 

• James McCulloch, the bank's cashier, refused to pay the tax, arguing that the state did not have the authority to tax a federal institution.

Issue, Holding, and Reasoning

Issue: Can Congress establish a national bank? Can a state tax a federal institution?

Holding: Yes, Congress has the authority to establish a national bank. No, a state cannot tax a federal institution.

Reasoning:  The Necessary and Proper Clause grants Congress the power to pass laws deemed necessary and proper for executing its enumerated powers. The Supremacy Clause establishes that federal laws take precedence over state laws.

Decision and Opinion

6-0 IN FAVOR OF MCCULLOCH AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

• The ruling reinforced federal authority over states and upheld the constitutionality of the national bank.

• The majority stressed the broad interpretation of congressional powers and the supremacy of federal law.

Facts of the Case

• Otis McDonald and other Chicago residents challenged the city's handgun ban.

• McDonald argued that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms should apply to state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment.

Issue, Holding, and Reasoning

Issue: Does the Second Amendment apply to the states because it is incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment's Privileges and Immunities or Due Process clauses and thereby made applicable to the states?

Holding: Yes, the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms applies to state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment.

Reasoning:  The right to keep and bear arms is fundamental to the American scheme of ordered liberty and deeply rooted in the nation's history and traditions. Therefore, it is applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause.

Decision and Opinion

5-4 IN FAVOR OF McDONALD

• The Court held that the Second Amendment applies to the states, thus invalidating Chicago's handgun ban.

• The majority emphasized the fundamental nature of the right to bear arms.

• Dissenting opinions expressed concerns about the implications for state and local gun control laws.

Facts of the Case

• The Nixon Administration attempted to prevent the New York Times and Washington Post from publishing the Pentagon Papers.

• The Pentago Papers were classified documents detailing U.S. involvement in Vietnam. 

• The government argued that prior restraint was necessary to protect national security.

Issue, Holding, and Reasoning

Issue: Did the government's efforts to prevent the publication of the Pentagon Papers violate the First Amendment?

Holding: Yes, the government's attempt to impose prior restraint was unconstitutional.

Reasoning: The government did not meet the heavy burden of proof required for prior restraint. The First Amendment protects the press from censorship, and the publication did not pose an immediate threat to national security.

Decision and Opinion

PER CURIAM (6-3) IN FAVOR OF THE NEW YORK TIMES

• The Court allowed the publication of the Pentagon Papers.

• The per curiam opinion emphasized the critical role of a free press in a democratic society. 

• Several justices wrote concurring and dissenting opinions, discussing the balance between national security and free speech.

Facts of the Case

• Charles Schenck was convicted under the Espionage Act for distributing leaflets urging resistance to the draft during World War I. 

• Schenck argued that his First Amendment rights were violated.

Issue, Holding, and Reasoning

Issue: Does the Espionage Act violate the First Amendment's protection of free speech?

Holding: No, the Espionage Act does not violate the First Amendment.

Reasoning: The "clear and present danger" test: speech creating a clear and present danger of significant evils (such as obstructing the draft) can be restricted.

Decision and Opinion

9-0 IN FAVOR OF THE UNITED STATES

• The Court upheld Schenck's conviction, establishing limits on free speech during wartime.

• The majority emphasized the need to balance free speech with national security interests.

Facts of the Case

• North Carolina residents challenged the state's congressional reapportionment plan, which created a majority-black district that was unusually shaped and non-contiguous.

• The plaintiffs argued that the redistricting was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.

Issue, Holding, and Reasoning

Issue: Did the North Carolina residents' claim that the state created a racially gerrymandered district raise a valid constitutional issue under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Holding: Yes, the residents' claim of racial gerrymandering raised a valid constitutional issue under the Equal Protection Clause.

Reasoning: Although race-conscious redistricting is not per se unconstitutional, the shape of the district in question suggested an effort to segregate voters based on race. This raised an issue that required strict scrutiny to determine whether the redistricting was narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling governmental interest.

Decision and Opinion

5-4 DECISION IN FAVOR OF SHAW

• The Court remanded the case for further proceedings to determine whether the redistricting could survive strict scrutiny.

• The majority emphasized the importance of treating citizens as individuals rather than as members of racial groups. 

• The dissenting opinions argued that the redistricting did not violate the Constitution.

Facts of the Case

• Students wore black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War. 

• The school district suspended the students, prompting a lawsuit claiming a violation of the First Amendment's freedom of speech.

Issue, Holding, and Reasoning

Issue: Does the prohibition of wearing armbands in public schools, as a form of symbolic protest, violate the First Amendment?

Holding: Yes, the prohibition violates the First Amendment.

Reasoning: Students do not shed their constitutional rights at the school gate. The armbands represented pure speech and did not cause substantial disruption to the school environment.

Decision and Opinion

7-2 IN FAVOR OF TINKER

• The Court held that the students' symbolic speech was protected under the First Amendment.

• The majority affirmed that students retain their free speech rights in schools and that symbolic speech is protected so long as it does not cause substantial disruption to the school environment.

Facts of the Case

• Alfonso Lopez, a high school student, was convicted of carrying a concealed handgun onto school premises in violation of the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. 

• Lopez argued that the Act was an unconstitutional exercise of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause.

Issue, Holding, and Reasoning

Issue: Is the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, which prohibits individuals from knowingly carrying a gun in a school zone, unconstitutional because it exceeds the power of Congress to legislate under the Commerce Clause?

Holding: Yes, the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 exceeds the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause and is therefore unconstitutional.

Reasoning: Carrying a gun in a school zone is not an economic activity that might have a substantial effect on interstate commerce.

Decision and Opinion

5-4 IN FAVOR OF LOPEZ

• The Court struck down the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 as an overreach of Congress's commerce power.

• The majority emphasized the limits of the Commerce Clause and the importance of federalism. 

• Dissenting opinions argued that the Act was a valid exercise of congressional power to regulate activities affecting interstate commerce because gun possession in schools would negatively impact education (and the aggregate effects of it would have a negative effect on the national economy) and that the Commerce Clause should have a broader interpretation. 

Facts of the Case

• The state of Wisconsin prosecuted Jonas Yoder and Wallace Miller, members of the Old Order Amish religion, for violating Wisconsin's compulsory school attendance law. 

• This law required all children to attend public or private school until the age of 16. 

• Yoder and Miller refused to send their children to school past the eighth grade, arguing that high school attendance was contrary to their religious beliefs and way of life. 

• They believed that attending high school would expose their children to values and practices that were at odds with their religious faith and community.

Issue, Holding, and Reasoning

Issue: Did Wisconsin's requirement that all parents send their children to school at least until age 16 violate the First Amendment by criminalizing the conduct of parents who refused to send their children to school for religious reasons?

Holding: Yes, Wisconsin's compulsory school attendance law was unconstitutional as applied to the Amish.

Reasoning: The state's requirement to attend school until age 16 would gravely endanger the free exercise of the Amish's religious beliefs. 

Decision and Opinion

7-0 IN FAVOR OF YODER

• the Court found that the state's interest in universal education did not outweigh the fundamental right of the Amish parents to direct the religious upbringing of their children.

• The majority emphasized The importance of the free exercise of religion, noting that compulsory attendance laws must yield to the fundamental rights of parents to guide the religious upbringing of their children.

Note: Some information above has been reproduced from Oyez.org and Justia.com for educational purposes.