Supreme Court Cases - 15 Key Decisions (AP Government and Politics)

Background information for U.S. v Lopez

- Alfonzo Lopez, a 12th grade high school student, carried a concealed weapon into his San Antonio, Texas high school. He was charged under Texas law with firearm possession on school premises. The next day, the state charges were dismissed after federal agents charged Lopez with violating a federal criminal statute, the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. The act forbids "any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that [he] knows...is a school zone." - Lopez was found guilty following a bench trial and sentenced to six months' imprisonment and two years' supervised release.

Background information for Marbury v Madison

- Before Thomas Jefferson took office in 1801, John Adams and Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1801, which formed new courts, added judges, and gave the president more control over appointment of judges. - Adams used this act to upset Jefferson; he appointed new circuit judges and 42 new justices of the peace. The appointees were approved by the Senate but would not be considered valid until their commissions were delivered by the Secretary of State. - William Marbury, the appointed Justice of the Peace for D.C., did not have his commission delivered. - As such, Marbury petitioned the Supreme Court to compel James Madison, the new secretary, to deliver the documents.

Background information for Baker v Carr

- Charles W. Baker and other Tennessee citizens alleged that a 1901 law designed to apportion the seats for the State's General Assembly was virtually ignored. - Baker's suit detailed how Tennessee's reapportionment efforts ignored significant economic growth and population shifts within the state.

Results/Verdict of Brown v Board of Education? (Majority Decision and Reasoning)

- Chief Justice Earl Warren delivered the opinion of the unanimous Court. The Supreme Court held that "separate but equal" facilities are internally unequal and violate the protections of the 14th Amendment. - The Court reasoned that the segregation of public educated based on race instilled a sense of inferiority that had a hugely detrimental effect on the education and personal growth of African American children. Warren based much of his opinion on social science studies rather than court precedent. - The decision also used language that was accessible to non-lawyers because Warren thought its was necessary for all Americans to understand the logic.

Background information for Citizen's United v Federal Election Commission (FEC)

- Citizens United sought an injunction against the Federal Election Commission in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to prevent the application of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) to its film Hillary: The Movie. The Movie expressed opinions about whether Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton would make a good president. - In an attempt to regulate "big money" campaign contributions, the BCRA applies a variety of restrictions to "electioneering communications." Section 203 of the BCRA prevents corporations or labor unions from funding such communication from their general treasuries. Sections 201 and 311 require the disclosure of donors to such communication and a disclaimer when the communication is not authorized by the candidate it intends to support. - Citizens United argued that: 1) Section 203 violates the First Amendment on its face and when applied to The Movie and its related advertisements, and that 2) Sections 201 and 203 are also unconstitutional as applied to the circumstances. - The United States District Court denied the injunction. Section 203 on its face was not unconstitutional because the Supreme Court in McConnell v. FEC had already reached that determination. The District Court also held that The Movie was the functional equivalent of express advocacy, as it attempted to inform voters that Senator Clinton was unfit for office, and thus Section 203 was not unconstitutionally applied. Lastly, it held that Sections 201 and 203 were not unconstitutional as applied to the The Movie or its advertisements. The court reasoned that the McConnell decision recognized that disclosure of donors "might be unconstitutional if it imposed an unconstitutional burden on the freedom to associate in support of a particular cause," but those circumstances did not exist in Citizen United's claim.

Background information for Gideon v Wainwright

- Clarence Earl Gideon was charged in Florida state court with felony breaking and entering. When he appeared in court without a lawyer, Gideon requested that the court appoint one for him. - According to Florida state law, however, an attorney may only be appointed to an indigent defendant in capital cases, so the trial court did not appoint one. Gideon represented himself in trial. He was found guilty and sentenced to five years in prison. - Gideon filed a habeas corpus petition in the Florida Supreme Court, arguing that the trial court's decision violated his constitutional right to be represented by counsel. - The Florida Supreme Court denied habeus corpus relief.

Background information for Schenck v U.S.

- During World War I, socialists Charles Schenck and Elizabeth Baer distributed leaflets declaring that the draft violated the 13th amendment prohibition against involuntary servitude. - The leaflets urged the public to disobey the draft, but advised only peaceful action. Schenck was charged with conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act of 1917 by attempting to cause insubordination in the military and to obstruct recruitment. - Schenck and Baer were convicted of violating this law and appealed on the grounds that the statute violated the 1st Amendment.

Background information for McCulloch v Maryland

- In 1816, Congress chartered the Second National Bank. In 1818, the state of Maryland passed legislation to impose taxes on the bank. James W. McCulloch, the cashier of the Baltimore branch of the bank, refused to pay the tax. - The state appeals court held that the Second National Bank was unconstitutional because the Constitution did not provide a textual commitment for the federal government to charter a bank.

Background information for Roe v Wade

- In 1970, Jane Roe (a fictional name used in court documents to protect the plaintiff's identity) filed a lawsuit against Henry Wade, the district attorney of Dallas County, Texas, where she resided, challenging a Texas law making abortion illegal except by a doctor's orders to save a woman's life. - In her lawsuit, Roe alleged that the state laws were unconstitutionally vague and abridged her right of personal privacy, protected by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

Background information for Tinker v Des Moines

- In December 1965, a group of students in Des Moines held a meeting in the home of 16-year-old Christopher Eckhardt to plan a public showing of their support for a truce in the Vietnam war. They decided to wear black armbands throughout the holiday season and to fast on December 16 and New Year's Eve. - The principals of the Des Moines school learned of the plan and met on December 14 to create a policy that stated that any student wearing an armband would be asked to remove it, with refusal to do so resulting in suspension. - On December 16, Mary Beth Tinker and Christopher Eckhardt wore their armbands to school and were sent home. The following day, John Tinker did the same with the same result. The students did not return to school until after New Year's Day, the planned end of the protest. - Through their parents, the students sued the school district for violating the students' right of expression and sought an injunction to prevent the school district from disciplining the students. - The district court dismissed the case and held that the school district's actions were reasonable to uphold school discipline. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the decision without opinion.

Results/Verdict of McCulloch v Maryland (Majority Decision and Reasoning)

- In a unanimous decision, the Court held that Congress had the power to incorporate the bank and that Maryland could not tax instruments of the national government employed in the execution of constitutional powers. - Pursuant to the Necessary and Proper Clause (Article I, Section 8), Marshall noted that Congress possessed powers not explicitly outlined in the Constitution. He redefined "necessary" to mean "appropriate and legitimate," covering all methods for furthering objectives covered by enumerated powers. - Marshall also held that while the states retained the power of taxation, the Constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof are supreme and cannot be controlled by the states.

Results/Verdict for Gideon v Wainwright (Majority Decision and Reasoning)

- In a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Hugo L. Black, the Court held that it was consistent with the Constitution to require state courts to appoint attorneys for defendants who could not afford to retain counsel on their own. - The Court reasoned that the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of counsel is a fundamental and essential right made obligatory upon the states by the Fourteenth Amendment. The Sixth Amendment guarantees the accused the right to the assistance of counsel in all criminal prosecutions and requires courts to provide counsel for defendants unable to hire counsel unless the right was competently and intelligently waived.

Results/Verdict for Engel v Vitale (Majority Decision and Reasoning)

- In an opinion authored by Hugo L. Black, the Court held that respondent's decision to use its school system to facilitate recitation of the official prayer violated the Establishment Clause. - Specifically, the policy breached the constitutional wall of separation between church and state. - The Court ruled that the constitutional prohibition of laws establishing religion meant that government had no business drafting formal prayers for any segment of its population to repeat in a government-sponsored religious program. The Court held that respondent's provision of the contested daily prayer was inconsistent with the Establishment Clause. - Justice Douglas concurred in the judgment on the ground that the state's financing a religious exercise violated the First Amendment.

Results/Verdict of Baker v Carr? (Majority Decision and Reasoning)

- In an opinion which explored the nature of "political questions" and the appropriateness of Court action in them, the Court held that there were no such questions to be answered in this case and that legislative apportionment was a justiciable issue. - In his majority opinion, Justice Brennan provided past examples in which the Court had intervened to correct constitutional violations in matters pertaining to state administration and the officers through whom state affairs are conducted. Brennan concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection issues which Baker and others raised in this case merited judicial evaluation.

Minority reasoning for Shaw v Reno

- In his dissent, Justice White argued that the Court had ignored the importance of showing "cognizable harm," also known as proof that any sort of "harm" had even occurred. In order for White voters in North Carolina to even file suit against the state and federal government, they had to have been harmed. The White North Carolina voters could not show that they were disenfranchised as a result of the second, oddly shaped majority-minority district, Justice White wrote. Their individual voting rights had not been impacted. He argued that drawing districts based on race in order to increase minority representation could serve an important government interest. - Dissents from Justices Blackmun and Stevens echoed Justice White. The Equal Protection Clause should only be used to protect those who have been discriminated against in the past, they wrote. White voters could not fall into that category. By ruling in this manner, the Court actively overturned a past ruling on the applicability of the Equal Protection Clause. - Justice Souter noted that the Court seemed to be suddenly applying strict scrutiny to a law that aimed to increase representation amongst a historically discriminated group.

Results/Verdict for New York Times v U.S. (Majority Decision and Reasoning)

- In its per curiam opinion the Court held that the government did not overcome the "heavy presumption against" prior restraint of the press in this case. - Justices Black and Douglas argued that the vague word "security" should not be used "to abrogate the fundamental law embodied in the First Amendment." - Justice Brennan reasoned that since publication would not cause an inevitable, direct, and immediate event imperiling the safety of American forces, prior restraint was unjustified.

Background information for New York Times v U.S.

- In what became known as the "Pentagon Papers Case," the Nixon Administration attempted to prevent the New York Times and Washington Post from publishing materials belonging to a classified Defense Department study regarding the history of United States activities in Vietnam. - The President argued that prior restraint was necessary to protect national security. This case was decided together with United States v. Washington Post Co.

Results/verdict for Roe v Wade (Majority Decision and Reasoning)

- Inherent in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is a fundamental "right to privacy" that protects a pregnant woman's choice whether to have an abortion. However, this right is balanced against the government's interests in protecting women's health and protecting "the potentiality of human life." The Texas law challenged in this case violated this right. - Justice Harry Blackmun delivered the opinion for the 7-2 majority of the Court. - First, the Court considered whether the case was moot, concluding that it was not. When the subject of litigation is "capable of repetition yet evading review," a case need not be dismissed as moot. Pregnancy is a "classic justification for a conclusion of nonmootness." - The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects against state action the right to privacy, and a woman's right to choose to have an abortion falls within that right to privacy. A state law that broadly prohibits abortion without respect to the stage of pregnancy or other interests violates that right. Although the state has legitimate interests in protecting the health of pregnant women and the "potentiality of human life," the relative weight of each of these interests varies over the course of pregnancy, and the law must account for this variability. - In the first trimester of pregnancy, the state may not regulate the abortion decision; only the pregnant woman and her attending physician can make that decision. In the second trimester, the state may impose regulations on abortion that are reasonably related to maternal health. In the third trimester, once the fetus reaches the point of "viability," a state may regulate abortions or prohibit them entirely, so long as the laws contain exceptions for cases when abortion is necessary to save the life or health of the mother.

Background information for Wisconsin v Yoder

- Jonas Yoder and Wallace Miller, both members of the Old Order Amish religion, and Adin Yutzy, a member of the Conservative Amish Mennonite Church, were prosecuted under a Wisconsin law that required all children to attend public schools until age 16. - The three parents refused to send their children to such schools after the eighth grade, arguing that high school attendance was contrary to their religious beliefs.

Results/Verdict for Tinker v Des Moines (Majority Decision and Reasoning)

- Justice Abe Fortas delivered the opinion of the 7-2 majority. - The Supreme Court held that the armbands represented pure speech that is entirely separate from the actions or conduct of those participating in it. - The Court also held that the students did not lose their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech when they stepped onto school property. In order to justify the suppression of speech, the school officials must be able to prove that the conduct in question would "materially and substantially interfere" with the operation of the school. - In this case, the school district's actions evidently stemmed from a fear of possible disruption rather than any actual interference. - In his concurring opinion, Justice Potter Stewart wrote that children are not necessarily guaranteed the full extent of First Amendment rights. - Justice Byron R. White wrote a separate concurring opinion in which he noted that the majority's opinion relies on a distinction between communication through words and communication through action.

Minority reasoning for U.S. v Lopez

- Justice Breyer, joined by Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg, states that in his view "the statute falls well within the scope of the commerce power as this Court has understood that power over the last half century". He cites Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) and Wickard v. Filburn (1942) as precedent for granting Congress the authority to regulate local activity if said activity has a substantial effect on interstate commerce. He states that Congress has a "rational basis" for determining that possessing a firearm has a substantial effect on interstate commerce through its effect on education, and thus the statute should be upheld under the authority of Congress to regulate interstate commerce. - In his dissent Justice Stevens states that firearms can have a dampening effect on the ability to practice commerce. Because of their negative effects, Stevens believes that Congress has the power to prohibit their possession "at any location". - Justice Souter thought the majority created an overly narrow definition of economic activity, which put excessive restrictions on the ability of the legislature to exercise their authority under the Commerce Clause.

Minority reasoning for Roe v Wade

- Justice Byron White lambasted the Court's decision as arbitrary at best, and "an exercise of raw judicial power." Finding Blackmun's framework contradictory, White wrote: "If the state had an interest in protecting the potential life of the fetus" -- which, he believed, the state did -- "that interest existed, and was equally strong, throughout the pregnancy." White -- and also, separately, William Rehnquist -- criticized the Court for extending constitutional protections to a right not found in the Constitution, and for overturning statutes he felt were no more restrictive than many in place at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, one of the main amendments used by the majority to locate the right to privacy. "The Court apparently values the convenience of the pregnant mother more than the continued existence and development of the life or potential life that she carries," wrote White. "Regardless of whether I might agree with that marshaling of values, I can in no event join the Court's judgment because I find no constitutional warrant for imposing such an order of priorities on the people and legislatures of the States."

Baker v Carr minority reasoning?

- Justice Felix Frankfurter, who had written the plurality opinion in Colegrove v Green (1946), believed that case should have governed the outcome in Baker. The case had stood for the importance of "avoiding federal judicial involvement in matters traditionally left to legislative policy making." It was the job of legislators, and not judges, he believed, to decide the role numerical equality should play in the drawing up of legislative districts. Frankfurter also noted the difficulty of granting relief in such a case (which the majority, by remanding the case to the district court, had not done). A case involving the "structure and organization" of a state government was a clear example of one to which the political-question doctrine applied, in Frankfurter's view. - Justice Harlan's dissent asserted that the plaintiffs had failed to state a valid constitutional claim for which relief could be granted because the Equal Protection Clause did not require that all votes for a state legislature be weighed equally.

Minority reasoning for Tinker v Des Moines

- Justice Hugo L. Black wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the First Amendment does not provide the right to express any opinion at any time. Because the appearance of the armbands distracted students from their work, they detracted from the ability of the school officials to perform their duties, so the school district was well within its rights to discipline the students. - In his separate dissent, Justice John M. Harlan argued that school officials should be afforded wide authority to maintain order unless their actions can be proven to stem from a motivation other than a legitimate school interest.

Minority reasoning for McDonald v Chicago

- Justice John Paul Stevens dissented. He disagreed that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment against the states. He argued that owning a personal firearm was not a "liberty" interest protected by the Due Process Clause. - Justice Stephen G. Breyer, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, also dissented. He argued that there is nothing in the Second Amendment's "text, history, or underlying rationale" that characterizes it as a "fundamental right" warranting incorporation through the Fourteenth Amendment.

Minority reasoning in Citizen's United v Federal Election Commission (FEC)

- Justice Stevens argued that corporations are not members of society and that there are compelling governmental interests to curb corporations' ability to spend money during local and national elections.

Engel v Vitale minority reasoning?

- Justice Stewart dissented, arguing that no "official religion" was established by permitting those who want to say a prayer to say it.

Background information for McDonald v Chicago

- Several suits were filed against Chicago and Oak Park in Illinois challenging their gun bans after the Supreme Court issued its opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller. In that case, the Supreme Court held that a District of Columbia handgun ban violated the Second Amendment. - There, the Court reasoned that the law in question was enacted under the authority of the federal government and, thus, the Second Amendment was applicable. Here, plaintiffs argued that the Second Amendment should also apply to the states. The district court dismissed the suits. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed.

Results/Verdict for Shaw v Reno (Majority Decision and Reasoning)

- The Court held that although North Carolina's reapportionment plan was racially neutral on its face, the resulting district shape was bizarre enough to suggest that it constituted an effort to separate voters into different districts based on race. The unusual district, while perhaps created by noble intentions, seemed to exceed what was reasonably necessary to avoid racial imbalances. - After concluding that the residents' claim did give rise to an equal protection challenge, the Court remanded - adding that in the absence of contradictory evidence, the District Court would have to decide whether or not some compelling governmental interest justified North Carolina's plan.

Results/verdict for Wisconsin v Yoder (Majority Decision and Reasoning)

- The Court held that individual's interests in the free exercise of religion under the First Amendment outweighed the State's interests in compelling school attendance beyond the eighth grade. - In the majority opinion by Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, the Court found that the values and programs of secondary school were "in sharp conflict with the fundamental mode of life mandated by the Amish religion," and that an additional one or two years of high school would not produce the benefits of public education cited by Wisconsin to justify the law. - Justice William O. Douglas filed a partial dissent but joined with the majority regarding Yoder. Justices Lewis Powell and William Rehnquist took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

Results/Verdict of Schenck v U.S.? (Majority Decision and Reasoning)

- The Court held that the Espionage Act did not violate the 1st Amendment and was an appropriate exercise of Congress' Wartime Authority. - Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes concluded that Courts owed greater deference to the government during wartime, even when constitutional rights were at stake. Articulating for the first time the "clear and present danger test," Holmes concluded that the 1st Amendment does not protect speech that approaches creating a clear and present danger that Congress can protect. - Holmes reasoned that the widespread dissemination of the leaflets was sufficiently likely to disrupt the conscription process. Famously, he compared the leaflets to falsely shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, which is not permitted under the 1st Amendment.

Background information for Engel v Vitale

- The New York State Board of Regents authorized a short, voluntary prayer for recitation at the start of each school day. - A group of organizations joined forces in challenging the prayer, claiming that it violated the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment. The New York Court of Appeals rejected their arguments.

Ruling/Verdict for Citizen's United v Federal Election Commission (FEC) (Majority Decision and Reasoning)

- The Supreme Court overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and portions of McConnell v. FEC. (In the prior cases, the Court had held that political speech may be banned based on the speaker's corporate identity.) By a 5-to-4 vote along ideological lines, the majority held that under the First Amendment corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited. - Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justices Antonin G. Scalia, Samuel A. Alito, and Clarence Thomas. Justice John Paul Stevens dissented, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor. - The majority maintained that political speech is indispensable to a democracy, which is no less true because the speech comes from a corporation. The majority also held that the BCRA's disclosure requirements as applied to The Movie were constitutional, reasoning that disclosure is justified by a "governmental interest" in providing the "electorate with information" about election-related spending resources. - The Court also upheld the disclosure requirements for political advertising sponsors and it upheld the ban on direct contributions to candidates from corporations and unions. - In a separate concurring opinion, Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Justice Alito, emphasized the care with which the Court handles constitutional issues and its attempts to avoid constitutional issues when at all possible. Here, the Court had no narrower grounds upon which to rule, except to handle the First Amendment issues embodied within the case. Justice Scalia also wrote a separate concurring opinion, joined by Justices Alito and Thomas in part, criticizing Justice Stevens' understanding of the Framer's view towards corporations.

Ruling/Verdict for McDonald v Chicago (Majority Decision and Reasoning)

- The Supreme Court reversed the Seventh Circuit, holding that the Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense applicable to the states. - With Justice Samuel A. Alito writing for the majority, the Court reasoned that rights that are "fundamental to the Nation's scheme of ordered liberty" or that are "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition" are appropriately applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. - The Court recognized in Heller that the right to self-defense was one such "fundamental" and "deeply rooted" right. The Court reasoned that because of its holding in Heller, the Second Amendment applied to the states. Here, the Court remanded the case to the Seventh Circuit to determine whether Chicago's handgun ban violated an individual's right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. - Justice Alito, writing in the plurality, specified that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller. He rejected Justice Clarence Thomas's separate claim that the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment more appropriately incorporates the Second Amendment against the states. Alito stated that the Court's decision in the Slaughterhouse Cases -- rejecting the use of the Privileges or Immunities Clause for the purpose of incorporation -- was long since decided and the appropriate avenue for incorporating rights was through the Due Process Clause. - Justice Antonin Scalia concurred. He agreed with the Court's opinion, but wrote separately to disagree with Justice John Paul Stevens' dissent. Justice Clarence Thomas concurred and concurred in the judgment. He agreed that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment against the states, but disagreed that the Due Process Clause was the appropriate mechanism. Instead, Justice Thomas advocated that the Privileges or Immunities Clause was the more appropriate avenue for rights incorporation.

Background information for Shaw v Reno

- The U.S. Attorney General rejected a North Carolina congressional reapportionment plan because the plan created only one black-majority district. North Carolina submitted a second plan creating two black-majority districts. - One of these districts was, in parts, no wider than the interstate road along which it stretched. Five North Carolina residents challenged the constitutionality of this unusually shaped district, alleging that its only purpose was to secure the election of additional black representatives. - After a three-judge District Court ruled that they failed to state a constitutional claim, the residents appealed and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Minority reasoning for New York v U.S.

- The dissenters — Chief Justice Warren E. Burger and Justices Harry A. Blackmun and John Marshall Harlan II — each filed separate opinions. They contended (in greater or lesser detail) that the case had been resolved far too quickly to consider and resolve fully the critically important legal issues at stake, especially the needs and prerogatives of the executive.

Ruling/Verdict for U.S. v Lopez (Majority Decision and Reasoning)

- The possession of a gun in a local school zone is not an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. The law is a criminal statute that has nothing to do with "commerce" or any sort of economic activity. - Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote for the majority, joined by O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas. The court held that the Gun-Free School Zones act of 1990 "[..] exceeds the authority of Congress '[to] regulate Commerce ... among the several States ....'". The Court acknowledged that the Commerce Clause grants Congress the power to regulate "three broad categories of activity", and stated that if the act were to stand, it must be under the power of Congress to regulate activities which substantially affect commerce. The Court reviews the long history of the court upholding congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to regulate economic activity, while emphasizing that even the most expansive of these past decision does not approach the degree of removal from economic activity of bringing a gun into a school zone. - In response to this, Rehnquist notes that "[the act] is a criminal statute that by its terms has nothing to do with 'commerce' or any sort of economic enterprise, however broadly one might define those terms". The Court recognized that the Commerce Clause grants Congress the authority to regulate aspects of interstate commerce that also affect the education system, however they thought extending this authority to the issue under review in U.S. v. Lopez would "convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the sort retained by the States". The majority found this to be an unacceptable expansion of Congress' powers under the Commerce Clause.

Background information for Brown v Board of Education

- This case was the consolidation of cases arising in Kansas, South Carolina, Virginia, Delaware, and D.C. relating to the segregation of public schools on the base of race. - In each of the cases, African American students had been denied admittance to certain public schools based on laws allowing public education to be segregated by race. - They argued that such segregation violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The plaintiffs were denied relief in the lower courts based on Plessy v Ferguson, which held that racially segregated public facilities were legal so long as the facilities for blacks and whites were equal. - This was known as the "separate but equal" doctrine.

Results/Verdict of Marbury v Madison (Majority Decision and Reasoning)

- While the court did find that Madison's holding of the commissions was illegal, they did not issue a writ of mandamus for them. - Instead, the court held that the provision of the Judiciary Act of 1789 enabling Marbury to bring his claim to the court was unconstitutional, since it purported to extend the Court's original jurisdiction past what Article III, Section 2 established. - Chief Justice John Marshall said a writ of mandamus was the correct remedy, but didn't issue one. - Marshall reasoned that the Judiciary Act of 1789 conflicted with the Constitution. Congress did not have power to modify the Constitution through regular legislation because Supremacy Clause places the Constitution before the laws.

What part of the Constitution does Baker v Carr involve?

14th Amendment (Equal protection clause)

What part of the Constitution does Brown v Board of Education involve?

14th Amendment (Equal protection clause)

What part of the Constitution does Shaw v Reno involve?

14th Amendment (Equal protection clause)

What part of the Constitution does McDonald v Chicago involve?

14th Amendment (equal protections clause and due process clause used for incorporation of the 2nd Amendment to the states)

What part of the Constitution does Roe v Wade involve?

14th Amendment (implied right to privacy in combination with equal protection of the laws), also somewhat 9th amendment (again, right to privacy)

What year did Marbury v Madison occur?

1803

What year did McCulloch v Maryland occur?

1819

What year did Schenck v U.S. occur?

1919

What year did Brown v Board of Education occur?

1954

What year did Baker v Carr occur?

1961

What year did Engel v Vitale occur?

1962

What year did Gideon v Wainwright occur?

1963

What year did Tinker v Des Moines occur?

1969

What year did New York Times v U.S. occur?

1971

What year did Wisconsin v Yoder occur?

1972

What year did Roe v Wade occur?

1973

What year did Shaw v Reno occur?

1993

What year did U.S. v Lopez occur?

1995

What part of the Constitution does Engel v Vitale involve?

1st Amendment (Establishment clause)

What part of the Constitution does Wisconsin v Yoder involve?

1st Amendment (Freedom exercise clause)

What part of the Constitution does Citizens United v Federal Elections Commission involve?

1st Amendment (free speech clause, in relation to free speech being money spending)

What part of the Constitution does Schenck v U.S. involve?

1st Amendment (freedom of speech)

What part of the Constitution does Tinker v Des Moines involve?

1st Amendment (freedom of speech)

What part of the Constitution does New York Times v U.S. involve?

1st Amendment (freedom of the press)

What year did Citizen's United v Federal Election Commission (FEC) occur?

2010

What year did McDonald v Chicago occur?

2010

What was the ruling (number of votes) in Citizen's United v Federal Election Commission (FEC)?

5-4 decision for Citizens United

What was the ruling (number of votes) in McDonald v Chicago?

5-4 decision for McDonald

What was the ruling (number of votes) in Shaw v Reno?

5-4 decision for Shaw

What was the ruling (number of votes) in U.S. v Lopez?

5-4 decision for U.S.

What was the ruling (number in votes) for Engel v Vitale?

6-1 decision for Engel

What was the ruling (number of votes) for Baker v Carr?

6-2 decision for Baker

What was the ruling (number of votes) in New York Times v U.S.?

6-3 ruling for New York Times

What part of the Constitution does Gideon v Wainwright involve?

6th Amendment (right to counsel), 14th Amendment (Incorporation of 6th Amendment to the states)

What was the ruling (number of votes) for Tinker v Des Moines?

7-2 decision for Tinker

What was the ruling (number of votes) for Roe v Wade?

7-2 ruling for Jane Roe

What part of the Constitution does U.S. v Lopez involve?

Article I, Section 8 (commerce clause)

What part of the Constitution does McCulloch v Maryland involve?

Article I, Section 8 (necessary and proper clause)

What part of the Constitution does Marbury v Madison involve?

Article III, Section 2 (Powers of the Supreme Court)

Overall, what did Wisconsin v Yoder establish?

It established further protection of religious rights guaranteed in the 1st Amendment.

Overall, what did Marbury v Madison establish?

It established judicial review ("review by the US Supreme Court of the constitutional validity of a legislative act").

Overall, what did Citizen's United v Federal Election Commission (FEC) establish?

It established that "that the free speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political communications by corporations, including nonprofit corporations, labor unions, and other associations."

Overall, what did Gideon v Wainwright establish?

It established that Sixth Amendment's guarantee of a right to assistance of counsel applies to criminal defendants in state court by way of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Overall, what did Engel v Vitale establish?

It established that prayers could not be drafted/recited in schools (or other government "agencies") because doing so violated the Establishment Clause of the Constitution (of not having any established or preferred religion by the government).

Overall, what did Shaw v Reno establish?

It established that redistricting based on race must be held to a standard of strict scrutiny under the equal protection clause.

Overall, what did Baker v Carr establish?

It established that redistricting qualifies as a justiciable question, thus enabling federal courts to hear redistricting cases.

Overall, what did Tinker v Des Moines establish?

It established that students have the right to free speech in public schools. (Students do not lose their rights at the school doors.)

Overall, what did McDonald v Chicago establish?

It established that the 2nd Amendment and the rights included in it are applicable to the states, not just the national government.

Overall, what did U.S. v Lopez establish?

It established that the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 was unconstitutional because the U.S. Congress, in enacting the legislation, had exceeded its authority under the commerce clause of the Constitution.

Overall, what did Schenck v U.S. establish?

It established the clear and present danger doctrine.

Overall, what did Roe v Wade establish?

It established the right to an abortion as well as "re-establishing" the right to privacy under the Constitution.

Overall, what did McCulloch v Maryland establish?

It further established the enumerated powers of Congress and established the supremacy of the national government and its laws to the states.

Overall, what did New York Times v U.S. establish?

It officially "established" (court) defense of the First Amendment right of free press against prior restraint by the government.

Overall, what did Brown v Board of Education establish?

It overturned Plessy v Ferguson and established that racial segregation (in public schools) was not constitutional.

What court did New York Times v U.S. occur under?

The Burger Court

What court did Roe v Wade occur under?

The Burger Court

What court did Wisconsin v Yoder occur under?

The Burger Court

What court did Marbury v Madison occur under?

The Marshall Court

What court did McCulloch v Maryland occur under?

The Marshall Court

What court did Shaw v Reno occur under?

The Rehnquist Court

What court did U.S. v Lopez occur under?

The Rehnquist Court

What court did Citizen's United v Federal Election Commission (FEC) occur under?

The Roberts Court

What court did McDonald v Chicago occur under?

The Roberts Court

What court did Baker v Carr occur under?

The Warren Court

What court did Brown v Board of Education occur under?

The Warren Court

What court did Engel v Vitale occur under?

The Warren Court

What court did Gideon v Wainwright occur under?

The Warren Court

What court did Tinker v Des Moines occur under?

The Warren Court

What court did Schenck v U.S. occur under?

The White Court

What was the ruling (number of votes) for Brown v Board of Education?

Unanimous decision for Brown

What was the ruling (number in votes) for Gideon v Wainwright?

Unanimous decision for Gideon

What was the ruling (number of votes) for McCulloch v Maryland?

Unanimous decision for McCulloch

What was the ruling (number of votes) for Schenck v U.S.?

Unanimous decision for U.S.

What was the ruling (number of votes) in Wisconsin v Yoder?

Unanimous decision for Yoder

What was the ruling (number of votes) for Marbury v Madison?

Unanimous for Marbury