Help
Options
Didn't know it?
click below
click below
Knew it?
click below
click below
Don't Know
Remaining cards (0)
Know
retry
shuffle
restart
0:00
Embed Code - If you would like this activity on your web page, copy the script below and paste it into your web page.
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Supreme Court Cases
AP Government Exam Review
| Term | Definition |
|---|---|
| McCulloch vs Maryland (1819) | Congress created the Second National Bank of the US. Branch in Maryland. Maryland tried to tax the National Bank. |
| McCulloch vs Maryland (1819) Clause/Reasoning | Constitutional Clause: Could be Commerce Clause or Supremacy Clause (also involved the Necessary and Proper Clause); Banking is a part of regulating interstate commerce; the necessary and proper clause allows Congress to extend commerce power banking. |
| US vs Lopez (1995) | Gun Free School Zone Act which Congress justified based on their power to regulate interstate trade (Commerce Clause) |
| US vs Lopez (1995) Reasoning | the law was unconstitutional because mere gun possession was not an economic activity-hence it did not have a substantial impact on Interstate Trade |
| Engle vs Vitale (1962) | NY State Government ordered the reciting of a government created prayer at the beginning of each public school day. |
| Engle vs Vitale (1962) Clause/Reasoning | a violation of the Establishment Clause because the government was requiring a specific government created prayer and because it was being imposed on young children-who would not be likely to exercise their right not to participate. |
| Wisconsin vs Yoder (1972) | Wisconsin law that required school attendance to age 16. Amish families refused to follow the law-saying their religion supports only attending through the 8th grade |
| Wisconsin vs Yoder (1972) Clause | Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment |
| Wisconsin vs Yoder (1972) Reasoning | The interest that the state had in making a small number of students go to school for two more years was minimal-not legitimate-hence the Yoder’s freedom to exercise their religion outweighed the interest of the state. |
| Tinker vs Des Moines (1969) | students wore black armbands to protest the Vietnam War. When they refused to remove them-they were suspended |
| Tinker vs Des Moines (1969) Clause | Freedom of Speech in the First Amendment |
| Tinker vs Des Moines (1969) Reasoning | the wearing of the armbands was political speech-it can only be limited by the school if they can prove that wearing the armbands would cause a material and substantial disruption to operation of the school (less political speech=less protection) |
| Schenck vs US (1919) | Schenck was protesting the draft during WWI. He was convicted of violating the Espionage Act of 1917 |
| Schenck vs US (1919) Clause/Reasoning | Freedom of speech in the First Amendment; the court established the “Clear and Present Danger” doctrine. In which political speech can only be limited in the name of national security if the speech in question would cause a clear and present danger |
| New York Times vs United States (1971) | The New York Times had received stolen, classified defense department documents which it was going to publish. The US government tried to prevent their publication. (Prior Restraint) |
| New York Times vs United States (1971) Clause/Reasoning | Freedom of the Press in the 1st Amendment; political press can only be suppressed for national security if there is clear-inevitable- direct threat to national security. the reports were about past activities-SCOTUS ruled in favor of the New York Times |
| Gideon vs Wainwright (1963) | Gideon was convicted of a felony-but he had been denied a free lawyer-so he sued saying his 6th amendment right to lawyer had been violated |
| Gideon vs Wainwright (1963) Clause/Reasoning | Due Process Clause 14th Amendment; the right to a lawyer is a fundamental liberty-as it is essential in order to receive a fair trial. Hence the government (including state governments) must provide a free lawyer to those who cannot afford one |
| Roe vs Wade (1973) | a Texas women was denied access to an abortion procedure to terminate her pregnancy because of a Texas law outlawing abortion |
| Roe vs Wade (1973) Clause/Reasoning | Due Process Clause 14th Amendment; a woman’s right to an abortion, based on the right to privacy (9th amendment reserved right) was a fundamental liberty because women have the right to control their bodies without interference from government |
| McDonald vs Chicago (2010) Clause/Reasoning | Due Process Clause 14th Amendment; SCOTUS ruled that the right to self defense was a fundamental liberty-hence the city’s handgun ban was unconstitutional. Applied the second amendment to the states through the Due Process Clause |
| McDonald vs Chicago (2010) | Chicago passed a city wide handgun ban. McDonald argued that this took away his second amendment right to self defense (because handguns are the best weapon for self defense) |
| Brown vs Board of Education (1954) | Linda Brown was denied access to a school (all-white) that was within walking distance of her house and was assigned to a school (all black) several miles away. |
| Brown vs Board of Education (1954) Clause | Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment |
| Brown vs Board of Education (1954) Reasoning | ruled that segregated schools were unequal-violated the Equal Protection Clause. the court overturned the “separate but equal” doctrine. seen as the beginning of the civil rights movement because the decision was used to overturn Jim Crow laws. |
| Citizens United v FEC (2010) | CU released a movie critical of Candidate Hillary Clinton and was barred from distributing the movie-it violated part of the Bi-Partisan Campaign Reform act (banned this type INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURE/Electioneering Communications close to elections. |
| Citizens United vs FEC (2010) Reasoning | argued that this type of independent expenditure cannot create “quid pro quo” corruption because it is not coordinated with a campaign or political party. So there cannot be any actual corruption because the candidate does know about the spending. |
| Citizens United vs FEC (2010) Reasoning | The court also ruled that preventing the perception of corruption was not a legitimate reason for restricting free speech. (made any limit on independent expenditure unconstitutional |
| Citizens United vs FEC (2010) Clause | Freedom of Speech in the First Amendment; led to the creation of super PACs |
| Baker vs Carr (1961) | In the state of Tennessee rural Congressional districts, which had small populations were numerous. Whereas urban Congressional districts with much larger populations were fewer in number. |
| Baker vs Carr (1961) Clause | Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment |
| Baker vs Carr (1961) Reasoning | ruled that these smaller and more numerous districts could be challenged as violating the equal protection clause-as the votes in small population districts were weighted more than votes in the larger population districts; “one person, one vote” rule |
| Shaw vs Reno (1993) | district in NC was racially gerrymandered to create a majority-minority district which would be dominated by black voters. Because the district had an unusual shape it was obvious that the only reason for the district was to racial gerrymandering. |
| Shaw vs Reno (1993) Clause | Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment |
| Shaw vs Reno (1993) | SCOTUS ruled that districts created solely for the purpose of racial gerrymandering violated the equal protection clause, because-in that district the votes of black voters were weighted more than that of white voters |
| Marbury vs Madison (1803) Clause | Article 3, Section 2 of the Constitution (creates/carlifies the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court-which includes “Constitutional Questions”) |
| Marbury v Madison (1803) | John Adams appointed Marbury to a judicial position in DC. Secretary of State-James Madison refused to deliver appointment (preventing it) Marbury sued to get SCOTUS to issue a Writ of Mandamus (court order requires a gov’t official to fulfill their duty) |
| Marbury v Madison (1803) Reasoning | In ruling that the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional (because Congress cannot change the Constitution through legislation)-this decision established/clarified the SCOTUS power of Judicial Review. |
Created by:
rcooke
Popular Social Studies sets