Ap Gov Required Court Cases Cheat Sheet

Navigating the landscape of United States government and politics requires a strong grasp of landmark Supreme Court cases. These cases, particularly those mandated by the AP Government curriculum, serve as cornerstones for understanding the balance of power, individual rights, and the evolution of constitutional law. This comprehensive cheat sheet will delve into the essential AP Government required court cases, providing concise summaries, key takeaways, and their lasting impact on American society.

Foundational Cases: Establishing Judicial Review and Federal Supremacy

Before diving into the specifics, it's crucial to understand the bedrock principles upon which these cases rest. Two seminal cases, Marbury v. Madison and McCulloch v. Maryland, laid the groundwork for judicial review and federal supremacy, respectively.

Marbury v. Madison (1803): The Birth of Judicial Review

• Background: William Marbury, appointed as a Justice of the Peace by outgoing President John Adams, was denied his commission by the new Secretary of State, James Madison.
• Constitutional Question: Does the Supreme Court have the authority to order Madison to deliver Marbury's commission?
• Holding: The Court, under Chief Justice John Marshall, found that while Marbury was entitled to his commission, the section of the Judiciary Act of 1789 that granted the Supreme Court original jurisdiction in such cases was unconstitutional.
• Impact: Marbury v. Madison established the principle of judicial review, giving the Supreme Court the power to declare laws unconstitutional. This single decision dramatically altered the balance of power, making the judiciary a co-equal branch of government.

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819): Federal Supremacy and Implied Powers

• Background: The state of Maryland attempted to tax the Second Bank of the United States, a national bank chartered by Congress.
• Constitutional Question: Did Congress have the authority to establish a national bank, and could a state tax a federal entity?
• Holding: The Court ruled that Congress did have the power to create the bank under the Necessary and Proper Clause (Article I, Section 8), which grants Congress implied powers beyond those explicitly listed in the Constitution. Furthermore, the Court held that Maryland's tax was unconstitutional, citing the Supremacy Clause (Article VI), which states that federal laws are supreme to state laws.
• Impact: McCulloch v. Maryland solidified the doctrine of federal supremacy and broadened the scope of Congressional power through the interpretation of implied powers. This case has been used to justify numerous expansions of federal authority throughout American history.

First Amendment Freedoms: Defining the Limits of Expression

The First Amendment guarantees fundamental freedoms of speech, religion, press, assembly, and petition. The following cases explore the complexities of these freedoms and their limitations.

Schenck v. United States (1919): The "Clear and Present Danger" Test

• Background: Charles Schenck, a socialist, distributed leaflets urging young men to resist the draft during World War I. He was convicted of violating the Espionage Act of 1917.
• Constitutional Question: Did Schenck's conviction violate his First Amendment right to freedom of speech?
• Holding: The Court upheld Schenck's conviction, establishing the "clear and present danger" test. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. argued that speech is not protected when it presents a clear and present danger to the nation's security.
• Impact: Schenck v. United States demonstrated that freedom of speech is not absolute and can be restricted during times of national emergency. The "clear and present danger" test has been refined and narrowed over time, but it remains a significant precedent for limiting speech that poses an immediate threat.

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969): Student Speech Rights

• Background: Students in Des Moines, Iowa, wore black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War. School officials suspended the students for violating a school policy prohibiting such displays.
• Constitutional Question: Did the school's prohibition of armbands violate the students' First Amendment right to freedom of speech?
• Holding: The Court ruled in favor of the students, holding that their symbolic speech was protected under the First Amendment. The Court stated that students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate," as long as the speech does not substantially disrupt the educational environment.
• Impact: Tinker v. Des Moines established a significant precedent for protecting student speech rights in schools. It affirmed that students have a right to express their views, even if those views are unpopular, as long as the expression does not create a substantial disruption.

Engel v. Vitale (1962): School Prayer and the Establishment Clause

• Background: A New York school district authorized a voluntary prayer to be recited in public schools at the beginning of each day.
• Constitutional Question: Did the school-sponsored prayer violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits government from establishing a religion?
• Holding: The Court ruled that the school-sponsored prayer was unconstitutional. The Court reasoned that by providing the prayer, the state was endorsing religion, which violated the Establishment Clause.
• Impact: Engel v. Vitale significantly strengthened the separation of church and state in public schools. It established that government-sponsored prayer, even if voluntary, is unconstitutional.

Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972): Religious Freedom and Compulsory Education

• Background: Amish families in Wisconsin refused to send their children to school beyond the eighth grade, arguing that high school attendance violated their religious beliefs. Wisconsin law required children to attend school until age 16.
• Constitutional Question: Did Wisconsin's compulsory school attendance law violate the Amish parents' right to freedom of religion under the First Amendment?
• Holding: The Court ruled in favor of the Amish parents, holding that the state's interest in compulsory education was not compelling enough to override the parents' sincerely held religious beliefs. The Court emphasized the long-standing history and unique way of life of the Amish community.
• Impact: Wisconsin v. Yoder affirmed the importance of religious freedom and recognized that individuals' religious beliefs can sometimes outweigh state interests. It set a high bar for government interference with religious practices.

New York Times Co. v. United States (1971): Freedom of the Press and Prior Restraint

• Background: The New York Times and Washington Post obtained copies of the "Pentagon Papers," a classified study of the Vietnam War. The Nixon administration sought a court order to prevent the newspapers from publishing the documents, arguing that their publication would endanger national security.
• Constitutional Question: Did the government's attempt to prevent the publication of the Pentagon Papers violate the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of the press?
• Holding: The Court ruled in favor of the New York Times, holding that the government had not met the heavy burden required to justify prior restraint (censorship before publication). The Court emphasized the importance of a free press and the public's right to know.
• Impact: New York Times Co. v. United States reinforced the principle of freedom of the press and established a high bar for government attempts to censor the media. It underscored the importance of transparency and accountability in government.

Fourteenth Amendment: Equal Protection and Due Process

The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees equal protection under the law and due process of law. These cases explore the application of these principles in various contexts.

Brown v. Board of Education (1954): Desegregation of Schools

• Background: Several cases challenged the "separate but equal" doctrine established in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), arguing that segregated public schools were inherently unequal.
• Constitutional Question: Did state-sponsored segregation in public schools violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
• Holding: The Court unanimously ruled that segregated schools were inherently unequal and violated the Equal Protection Clause. The Court overturned Plessy v. Ferguson, declaring that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal."
• Impact: Brown v. Board of Education marked a turning point in the Civil Rights Movement. It paved the way for the desegregation of schools and other public facilities, dismantling the legal framework of segregation in the United States.

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963): Right to Counsel

• Background: Clarence Earl Gideon was charged with a felony in Florida. He was too poor to afford an attorney and requested that the court appoint one for him. The court refused, and Gideon was convicted.
• Constitutional Question: Does the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel apply to state court defendants through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause?
• Holding: The Court ruled in favor of Gideon, holding that the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel is fundamental and applies to state court defendants through the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court reasoned that an attorney is essential to a fair trial.
• Impact: Gideon v. Wainwright significantly expanded the rights of criminal defendants. It requires states to provide legal counsel to indigent defendants in felony cases, ensuring a fairer and more equitable justice system.

Roe v. Wade (1973): Abortion Rights and the Right to Privacy

• Background: Norma McCorvey (Jane Roe) challenged a Texas law that prohibited abortions except to save a woman's life.
• Constitutional Question: Did the Texas law violate a woman's right to privacy under the Fourteenth Amendment?
• Holding: The Court ruled in favor of Roe, holding that a woman's right to an abortion is protected by the right to privacy, which is implied by the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The Court established a trimester framework, giving states more regulatory power over abortions as the pregnancy progresses.
• Impact: Roe v. Wade established a constitutional right to abortion, sparking a decades-long debate over abortion rights. It remains one of the most controversial and politically charged Supreme Court decisions in American history. It's crucial to note that Roe v. Wade was overturned by Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022), which returned the authority to regulate or ban abortions to individual states.

McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010): Second Amendment and the Right to Bear Arms

• Background: The city of Chicago had a strict handgun ban. Otis McDonald and other Chicago residents argued that the ban violated their Second Amendment right to bear arms.
• Constitutional Question: Does the Second Amendment right to bear arms apply to state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment?
• Holding: The Court ruled in favor of McDonald, holding that the Second Amendment right to bear arms for self-defense is incorporated against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court affirmed the individual right to own firearms for lawful purposes.
• Impact: McDonald v. City of Chicago extended Second Amendment protections to the states, limiting the ability of state and local governments to restrict gun ownership. It reinforced the individual right to bear arms for self-defense.

Rights of the Accused: Ensuring Fair Trials and Protecting Individual Liberties

Several cases address the rights of individuals accused of crimes, ensuring fair trials and protecting against government overreach.

Miranda v. Arizona (1966): Miranda Rights and Self-Incrimination

• Background: Ernesto Miranda was arrested for kidnapping and rape. During police interrogation, he confessed to the crime without being informed of his right to remain silent or his right to an attorney.
• Constitutional Question: Did the police violate Miranda's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and his Sixth Amendment right to counsel by failing to inform him of his rights before interrogation?
• Holding: The Court ruled in favor of Miranda, holding that suspects must be informed of their constitutional rights before being interrogated. These rights, now known as Miranda rights, include the right to remain silent, the right to an attorney, and the warning that anything they say can be used against them in court.
• Impact: Miranda v. Arizona significantly impacted law enforcement procedures. It requires police to inform suspects of their Miranda rights before interrogation, ensuring that confessions are voluntary and not coerced.

Voting Rights and Representation: Ensuring Fair Elections and Equal Representation

These cases address issues related to voting rights, redistricting, and representation in government.

Baker v. Carr (1962): "One Person, One Vote" and Justiciability

• Background: Charles Baker and other Tennessee voters challenged the state's legislative districts, arguing that they were malapportioned and violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The districts had not been redrawn in decades, resulting in significant population disparities between districts.
• Constitutional Question: Did the federal courts have jurisdiction over cases challenging the apportionment of state legislative districts?
• Holding: The Court ruled in favor of Baker, holding that challenges to legislative apportionment were justiciable (capable of being decided by a court) and did not involve a political question that was beyond the Court's reach. The Court paved the way for the "one person, one vote" principle.
• Impact: Baker v. Carr opened the door to federal court intervention in state legislative redistricting. It led to a series of cases that established the "one person, one vote" principle, ensuring that each person's vote carries equal weight.

Shaw v. Reno (1993): Racial Gerrymandering and Equal Protection

• Background: North Carolina created a congressional district that was unusually shaped, allegedly to create a majority-Black district. White voters challenged the district, arguing that it was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.
• Constitutional Question: Did the creation of a congressional district based predominantly on race violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
• Holding: The Court ruled in favor of the white voters, holding that although the district was created to benefit a minority group, its bizarre shape and clear reliance on race as the primary factor in drawing the district lines violated the Equal Protection Clause.
• Impact: Shaw v. Reno placed limits on the use of race in redistricting. It established that while race can be a factor in drawing district lines, it cannot be the predominant factor, and districts must be reasonably compact and contiguous.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010): Corporate Political Spending and Free Speech

• Background: Citizens United, a conservative non-profit organization, produced a film critical of Hillary Clinton and sought to air it on television before the 2008 election. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) argued that the film violated campaign finance laws.
• Constitutional Question: Do corporations and unions have the same First Amendment rights as individuals to spend money on political advertising?
• Holding: The Court ruled in favor of Citizens United, holding that corporations and unions have the same First Amendment rights as individuals to spend money on political advertising. The Court overturned portions of previous campaign finance laws that restricted corporate and union spending, arguing that these restrictions violated the principle of free speech. The Court maintained that independent expenditures do not lead to corruption or the appearance of corruption.
• Impact: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission dramatically altered the landscape of campaign finance. It led to a significant increase in corporate and union spending in elections, and it has been criticized for giving wealthy interests undue influence in politics. It led to the rise of Super-PACs, which can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money to support or oppose political candidates.

Conclusion: Understanding the Enduring Impact of Landmark Cases

These landmark Supreme Court cases are essential for understanding the foundations of American government and the evolution of constitutional law. They demonstrate the Court's role in interpreting the Constitution, protecting individual rights, and shaping public policy. By studying these cases, students can gain a deeper appreciation for the complexities of American democracy and the ongoing struggle to balance individual liberties with the needs of society. Understanding these cases is not just about memorizing facts; it's about grasping the underlying principles and their lasting impact on American life. From the establishment of judicial review to the protection of free speech and the guarantee of equal protection, these cases continue to shape the legal and political landscape of the United States.