Upgrade to remove ads
AP Gov Supreme Court Cases 23-40
Terms in this set (18)
Marbury v. Madison 1803
1. Marbury and several others were appointed to government posts created by Congress in the last days of John Adams's presidency, but these last-minute appointments were never fully finalized.
2. Is Marbury entitled to his appointment?
3. In a unanimous decision 4-0 for Marbury, the Court ruled Marbury was entitled to his position but was unable to give it to him because the legislature conflicted with the Constitution.
McCulloch v. Maryland 1819
1. 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.
2. Did Congress have the authority to establish the bank? Did the Maryland law unconstitutionally interfere with congressional powers?
3. In a unanimous decision 7-0, 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.
Gibbons v. Ogden 1824
1. New York state law gave individuals rights to operate steamboats on state jurisdiction. Some states required out of state boats to pay huge fees to operate in their jurisdiction. Thomas Gibbons challenged this authority.
2. Did the State of New York exercise authority in a power given to the regulation of interstate commerce?
3. The unanimous Court 6-0 found that New York's licensing requirement for out-of-state operators was inconsistent with a congressional act regulating the coasting trade.
Barron v. Baltimore 1833
1. Barron was a co-owner of a wharf in Baltimore's harbor, but large amounts of sand accumulated. depriving Barron of his deep waters. He sued the city to recover a portion of his losses.
2. Does the Fifth Amendment deny the states as well as the national government the right to take private property for public use without justly compensating the property's owner?
3. Chief Justice Marshall announced the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction in this case as the 5th Amendment was not applicable to the states. 7-0
Plessy v. Ferguson 1896
1. Louisiana had separate railway cars for blacks and whites. Plessy, who was 7/8 Caucasian, sat in the whites and was arrested.
2. Is Louisiana's law mandating racial segregation on its trains an unconstitutional infringement on both the privileges and immunities and the equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment?
3. In a 7-1 decision for Ferguson, the Court upheld state imposed racial segregation. Based decision on separate but equal doctrine.
Korematsu v. United States 1944
1. Citizens of Japanese ancestry could be excluded from areas deemed critical to national defense and potentially vulnerable to espionage, according to Executive Order 9066.
2. Did the President and Congress go beyond their war powers by implementing exclusion and restricting the rights of Americans of Japanese descent?
3. The Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that the need to protect against espionage outweighed Korematu's rights.
Brown v. Board of Education 1954 and 1955
1. African American minors had been denied admittance to certain public schools based on laws allowing public education to be segregated by race. They argued that such segregation violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
2. Does the segregation of public education based solely on race violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
3. The Court ruled 9-0 that separate but equal educational facilities for racial minorities is inherently unequal violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Baker v. Carr 1962
1. 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.
2. Did the Supreme Court have jurisdiction over questions of legislative apportionment?
3. In a 6-2 decision for Baker, the Court ruled that State reapportionment claims are justifiable in federal court.
Reynolds v. Sims 1964
1. Sims, Vann, and McConnell challenged the apportionment of state legislature in Alabama.
2. Did Alabama's apportionment scheme violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause by mandating at least one representative per county and creating as many senatorial districts as there were senators, regardless of population variances?
3. In an 8-1 decision, the Court ruled States were required to "honest and good faith" efforts to construct districts as nearly of equal population as practicable.
Shaw v. Reno 1993
1. 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.
2. Did the North Carolina residents' claim, that the State created a racially gerrymandered district, raise a valid constitutional issue under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause?
3. In a 5-4 decision for Shaw, although the reapportionment plan was racially neutral, the resulting district shape was bizarre enough to suggest that it constituted an effort to separate voters into different districts based on race.
Buckley v. Valeo 1976
1. Congress set limits on the amount of money an individual could contribute to a single campaign and it required reporting of contributions above a certain threshold amount.
2. Did the limits placed on electoral expenditures by the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, and related provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, violate the First Amendment's freedom of speech and association clauses?
3. In a 7-2 decision, the Court ruled that setting limits violated the First Amendment (free speech)
Citizens United v. FEC 2010
1. 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.
2. Should a feature length documentary about a candidate for political office be treated like the advertisements at issue in McConnell and therefore be subject to regulation under the BCRA?
3. The Court ruled in a 5-4 decision for Citizens United that the First Amendment corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited.
University of California Regents v. Bakke 1978
1. Bakke contended, first in the California courts, then in the Supreme Court, that he was excluded from admission solely on the basis of race.
2. Did the University of California violate the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, by practicing an affirmative action policy that resulted in the repeated rejection of Bakke's application for admission to its medical school?
3. The Court ruled 8-1 for Bakke that Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides Bakke a cause of action.
Gratz v. Bollinger 2003
1. The University of Michigan denied two qualified applicants, and admitted that it uses race as a factor and admits all qualified applicants who are of black, Hispanic, or Native American descent.
2. Does the University of Michigan's use of racial preferences in undergraduate admissions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
3. In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the Court held that the University of Michigan's use of racial preferences in undergraduate admissions violates both the Equal Protection Clause and Title VI.
Grutter v. Bollinger 2003
1. Grutter, a white female, was denied admission into The University of Michigan's Law Program. UM admitted to using race as an admitting factor.
2. Does the University of Michigan Law School's use of racial preferences in student admissions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
3. In a 5-4 decision, because the Law School conducts highly individualized review of each applicant, no acceptance or rejection is based automatically on a variable such as race.
Palko v. Connecticut 1937
1. Palko was charged with first degree murder, but was convicted with second degree murder. A second trial found Palko guilty of first degree murder and sentenced him to death.
2. Does Palko's second conviction violate the protection against double jeopardy guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment because this protection applies to the states by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause?
3. The Court ruled 8-1 that protection against double jeopardy was not a fundamental right, and Palko died on the electric chair.
California v. Greenwood 1988
1. Police suspected Greenwood of dealing drugs, but couldn't obtain a warrant to search his home. They searched his garbage and uncovered evidence, and Greenwood was arrested on felony charges.
2. Did the warrantless search and seizure of Greenwood's garbage violate the Fourth Amendment's search and seizure guarantee?
3. The Court ruled 6-2 that there is no reasonable expectation to privacy for trash on the streets.
Francis v. Resweber 1947
1. Francis was convicted of murder and was sentenced to death by electrocution. The electric current did not kill him, and he tried to prevent the second execution attempt.
2. Does the second attempted execution deny Francis due process of law because of double jeopardy guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment and because of cruel and unusual punishment of the Eighth Amendment?
3. In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled equipment failure does not bring due process into play.
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE...
Constitutional Law: Civil Rights Cases
Civil Rights Chapter 5
OTHER SETS BY THIS CREATOR
N309 Global Health Test #1
AP Gov Supreme Court Cases 1-22
Canterbury Tales, THE WIFE OF BATH