Ap Government Court Cases Cheat Sheet

Navigating the intricate landscape of AP Government court cases can feel like traversing a legal maze. Understanding landmark Supreme Court decisions is crucial, not just for acing the AP exam, but also for grasping the fundamental principles that shape American democracy. This cheat sheet is designed to be your guide, breaking down key cases into digestible summaries that highlight their significance and lasting impact.

Foundational Cases: Establishing Judicial Review & Federal Power

These cases laid the groundwork for the Supreme Court's role and the balance of power between the federal government and the states.

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

• Background: In the waning days of his presidency, John Adams appointed numerous Federalist judges. When James Madison, the new Secretary of State under President Thomas Jefferson, refused to deliver one of these commissions to William Marbury, Marbury sued.
• Constitutional Question: Does the Supreme Court have the authority to force the executive branch to deliver a commission, and does the Court have the power to declare a law unconstitutional?
• Holding: The Court held that while Marbury was entitled to his commission, the section of the Judiciary Act of 1789 that gave the Supreme Court original jurisdiction in such cases was unconstitutional.
• Impact: This case established the principle of judicial review, the power of the Supreme Court to declare laws unconstitutional. It solidified the Court's role as the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution and a co-equal branch of government.

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

• Background: The state of Maryland attempted to tax the Second Bank of the United States, a national bank chartered by Congress.
• Constitutional Questions: Does Congress have the power to create a national bank, and can a state tax a federal institution?
• Holding: The Court ruled that Congress did have the power to create the bank under the Necessary and Proper Clause (Article I, Section 8) and that Maryland could not tax the bank because the power to tax is the power to destroy.
• Impact: This case affirmed the implied powers of Congress and the supremacy of federal law over state law when there is a conflict. It broadened the scope of Congressional power and solidified the principle of federalism.

Federalism & States' Rights: Defining the Boundary

These cases delve into the ongoing tension between federal authority and the rights reserved to the states.

Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)

• Background: A New York state law granted a monopoly to operate steamboats on state waters. Ogden had a license under this law, while Gibbons operated steamboats between New York and New Jersey without a New York license.
• Constitutional Question: Does the federal government have the power to regulate interstate commerce, and does that power extend to navigation?
• Holding: The Court held that the federal government's power to regulate interstate commerce, granted by the Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8), extended to navigation and that the New York law was therefore unconstitutional.
• Impact: This case significantly expanded the definition of interstate commerce, giving the federal government broad authority to regulate economic activity that crosses state lines.

United States v. Lopez (1995)

• Background: A student was convicted under the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, which made it a federal crime to possess a firearm in a school zone.
• Constitutional Question: Does the Commerce Clause allow Congress to regulate the possession of a gun in a school zone?
• Holding: The Court held that the Gun-Free School Zones Act was unconstitutional because possessing a gun in a school zone is not an economic activity that substantially affects interstate commerce.
• Impact: This case marked a limitation on the Commerce Clause power, reaffirming that there are limits to federal authority and that some areas of regulation are reserved to the states.

Printz v. United States (1997)

• Background: The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act required state and local law enforcement officials to conduct background checks on prospective handgun purchasers.
• Constitutional Question: Can the federal government compel state law enforcement officials to perform federal tasks?
• Holding: The Court held that the Brady Act provision requiring state and local law enforcement officials to conduct background checks was unconstitutional because it violated the principle of state sovereignty.
• Impact: This case reinforced the Tenth Amendment, which reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states, and limited the federal government's ability to commandeer state resources.

Individual Rights & Liberties: Protecting Freedoms

These cases are central to understanding the protections afforded to individuals under the Bill of Rights.

Schenck v. United States (1919)

• Background: Charles Schenck was convicted of violating the Espionage Act of 1917 for distributing leaflets urging men to resist the draft during World War I.
• Constitutional Question: Did Schenck's conviction violate his First Amendment right to freedom of speech?
• Holding: The Court held that Schenck's speech was not protected because it presented a "clear and present danger" to the nation's war effort.
• Impact: This case established the "clear and present danger" test, which allowed the government to restrict speech that posed an immediate threat to national security. This test has been modified over time but remains a key precedent in free speech jurisprudence.

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969)

• Background: Students wore black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War and were suspended.
• Constitutional Question: Did the school's prohibition of the armbands violate the students' First Amendment right to freedom of speech?
• Holding: The Court held that the students' wearing of armbands was protected symbolic speech under the First Amendment because it was not disruptive to the school environment.
• Impact: This case established that students have First Amendment rights at school, as long as their expression does not substantially disrupt the educational process. It's a landmark case for student free speech rights.

Engel v. Vitale (1962)

• Background: A New York school district authorized a voluntary prayer to be recited at the beginning of each school day.
• Constitutional Question: Did the school-sponsored prayer violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits government establishment of religion?
• Holding: The Court held that the school-sponsored prayer was unconstitutional because it violated the Establishment Clause.
• Impact: This case established a strict separation of church and state in public schools and has been a cornerstone of Establishment Clause jurisprudence.

Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)

• Background: Amish parents were prosecuted for violating a Wisconsin law that required children to attend school until age 16, as they refused to send their children to school after the eighth grade.
• Constitutional Question: Did the Wisconsin law violate the Amish parents' First Amendment right to freedom of religion?
• Holding: The Court held that the Wisconsin law violated the Amish parents' right to freely exercise their religion because requiring them to send their children to school after the eighth grade would undermine their religious beliefs and way of life.
• Impact: This case balanced the state's interest in education with individuals' right to religious freedom and established a high bar for state interference with religious practices.

McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010)

• Background: Chicago had a handgun ban. McDonald argued that the ban violated his Second Amendment right to bear arms.
• Constitutional Question: Does the Second Amendment right to bear arms apply to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment?
• Holding: The Court held that the Second Amendment right to bear arms for self-defense is applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause.
• Impact: This case incorporated the Second Amendment, meaning that states cannot infringe on the right to bear arms. It followed the precedent set in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), which established an individual right to bear arms.

Mapp v. Ohio (1961)

• Background: Police searched Mapp's home without a warrant and found obscene materials, which were used to convict her.
• Constitutional Question: Can evidence obtained through an illegal search and seizure be admitted in a state criminal trial?
• Holding: The Court held that illegally obtained evidence cannot be admitted in a state criminal trial, a principle known as the exclusionary rule.
• Impact: This case applied the exclusionary rule to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, protecting individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures by state law enforcement.

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

• Background: Ernesto Miranda was arrested and interrogated without being informed of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and his Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
• Constitutional Question: Are statements obtained during police interrogation admissible in court if the suspect was not informed of their constitutional rights?
• Holding: The Court held that suspects must be informed of their constitutional rights, including the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney, before being interrogated.
• Impact: This case established the Miranda rights, which police are required to read to suspects upon arrest, protecting individuals from self-incrimination during police questioning.

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

• Background: Clarence Gideon was charged with a felony in Florida and requested a court-appointed attorney because he could not afford one. The court denied his request.
• Constitutional Question: Does the Sixth Amendment right to counsel apply to state criminal trials through the Fourteenth Amendment?
• Holding: The Court held that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel is fundamental and applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, meaning that states must provide attorneys to indigent defendants in criminal cases.
• Impact: This case ensured that all defendants, regardless of their ability to pay, have the right to legal representation in criminal trials.

Equal Protection & Civil Rights: Striving for Equality

These cases deal with the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause and its application to various forms of discrimination.

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

• Background: A Louisiana law required separate railway cars for white and Black passengers. Homer Plessy, who was one-eighth Black, was arrested for refusing to sit in the "colored" car.
• Constitutional Question: Did the Louisiana law violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause?
• Holding: The Court held that the Louisiana law was constitutional, establishing the "separate but equal" doctrine, which allowed segregation as long as facilities were equal in quality.
• Impact: This case legitimized segregation in the United States for nearly 60 years, leading to widespread discrimination against African Americans in public facilities, education, and other areas of life.

Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

• Background: A group of African American students were denied admission to public schools based on their race.
• Constitutional Question: Does segregation of public schools based on race violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
• Holding: The Court held that segregation in public schools is inherently unequal and violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, overturning the "separate but equal" doctrine established in Plessy v. Ferguson.
• Impact: This case was a landmark victory for the Civil Rights Movement, leading to the desegregation of public schools and paving the way for further advancements in civil rights.

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978)

• Background: Allan Bakke, a white man, was denied admission to the University of California medical school, which had a special admissions program that reserved a certain number of spots for minority applicants.
• Constitutional Question: Did the University of California's special admissions program violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
• Holding: The Court held that while affirmative action programs are constitutional, the University of California's quota system was unconstitutional because it discriminated against white applicants.
• Impact: This case established that race can be a factor in college admissions, but quotas are not permissible. It attempted to strike a balance between promoting diversity and preventing reverse discrimination.

Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)

• Background: Barbara Grutter, a white woman, was denied admission to the University of Michigan Law School. She argued that the law school's affirmative action policy discriminated against her.
• Constitutional Question: Does the University of Michigan Law School's use of race as a factor in admissions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
• Holding: The Court held that the law school's affirmative action policy was constitutional because it was narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling interest in diversity and did not use a quota system.
• Impact: This case reaffirmed that race can be a factor in college admissions as long as it is used in a holistic review process and does not amount to a quota.

Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)

• Background: Several same-sex couples sued their respective states for denying them the right to marry.
• Constitutional Question: Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex, and does it require a state to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another state?
• Holding: The Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees the right to marry to same-sex couples.
• Impact: This case legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, marking a major victory for the LGBTQ+ rights movement.

Voting Rights & Representation: Shaping Democracy

These cases focus on the right to vote and the structure of representative government.

Baker v. Carr (1962)

• Background: Tennessee's legislative districts had not been redrawn for over 60 years, resulting in significant population disparities between districts. Voters in more populated districts argued that their votes were being diluted.
• Constitutional Question: Did the federal courts have jurisdiction to hear a case challenging the apportionment of state legislative districts?
• Holding: The Court held that the federal courts did have jurisdiction to hear such cases because they involved a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
• Impact: This case opened the door for federal court intervention in state legislative redistricting, leading to the principle of "one person, one vote," which requires that legislative districts be roughly equal in population.

Reynolds v. Sims (1964)

• Background: This case involved challenges to the apportionment of state legislative districts in Alabama.
• Constitutional Question: Did the apportionment of the Alabama legislature violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
• Holding: The Court held that both houses of a state legislature must be apportioned on a population basis, solidifying the "one person, one vote" principle.
• Impact: This case further strengthened the principle of equal representation and led to significant changes in the way state legislatures are structured.

Shaw v. Reno (1993)

• Background: North Carolina created a congressional district that was unusually shaped, allegedly to create a majority-minority district and ensure the election of a Black representative.
• Constitutional Question: Did the creation of this district violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
• Holding: The Court held that while race can be a factor in drawing district lines, districts cannot be so irregularly shaped that they are clearly designed to segregate voters by race.
• Impact: This case raised questions about the use of race in redistricting and established that race cannot be the predominant factor in drawing district lines.

Bush v. Gore (2000)

• Background: The 2000 presidential election between George W. Bush and Al Gore was extremely close, and the outcome hinged on the results in Florida. A recount was ordered by the Florida Supreme Court.
• Constitutional Question: Did the Florida Supreme Court's order for a recount violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution?
• Holding: The Court held that the Florida Supreme Court's recount order violated the Equal Protection Clause because the lack of uniform standards for recounting ballots would lead to unequal treatment of voters. The Court also held that the recount violated Article II because the Florida Supreme Court's actions effectively changed the state's election law after the election had already taken place.
• Impact: This case effectively ended the recount and resulted in George W. Bush winning the presidency. It was highly controversial and raised questions about the Court's role in resolving political disputes.

Shelby County v. Holder (2013)

• Background: The Voting Rights Act of 1965 required certain states with a history of voting discrimination to obtain federal pre-clearance before making changes to their voting laws. Shelby County, Alabama, challenged the constitutionality of this pre-clearance requirement.
• Constitutional Question: Does the pre-clearance requirement of the Voting Rights Act violate the Tenth Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
• Holding: The Court held that the formula used to determine which states were subject to pre-clearance was unconstitutional because it was based on outdated data and no longer reflected current conditions.
• Impact: This case effectively weakened the Voting Rights Act, leading to concerns about voter suppression and discrimination in states that were previously subject to pre-clearance.

Contemporary Issues: Courts in Modern America

These cases reflect current legal and social debates and their impact on constitutional law.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010)

• Background: Citizens United, a conservative non-profit organization, wanted to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton before the 2008 election. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) argued that the film violated campaign finance laws.
• Constitutional Question: Do campaign finance restrictions on corporations and unions violate the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech?
• Holding: The Court held that corporations and unions have the same First Amendment rights as individuals and that the government cannot restrict their independent political spending in candidate elections.
• Impact: This case significantly altered campaign finance law, leading to the rise of Super PACs and increased corporate and union spending in elections. It remains a highly controversial decision.

National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012)

• Background: This case challenged the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), also known as Obamacare.
• Constitutional Question: Did Congress have the power to enact the individual mandate, which required most Americans to purchase health insurance, and did Congress exceed its authority under the Spending Clause by conditioning states' receipt of Medicaid funds on their expansion of Medicaid coverage?
• Holding: The Court held that the individual mandate was constitutional under Congress's power to tax but that the condition on Medicaid funding was unconstitutionally coercive.
• Impact: This case upheld the Affordable Care Act, a landmark piece of healthcare legislation, but also limited Congress's power under the Spending Clause.

Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt (2016)

• Background: Texas passed a law requiring abortion providers to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital and requiring abortion clinics to meet the standards of ambulatory surgical centers.
• Constitutional Question: Did these Texas regulations place an undue burden on a woman's right to an abortion, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment?
• Holding: The Court held that the Texas regulations did place an undue burden on a woman's right to an abortion because they did not provide any significant health benefits and made it more difficult for women to access abortion services.
• Impact: This case reaffirmed the "undue burden" standard for abortion regulations and struck down laws that significantly restrict access to abortion services without providing any real health benefits.

Tips for Remembering Cases

• Create flashcards: Include the name of the case, the year, the constitutional question, the holding, and the impact.
• Use mnemonics: Develop memorable phrases or acronyms to help you recall key details.
• Connect cases to current events: Understanding how these cases relate to contemporary issues can make them more relevant and easier to remember.
• Practice writing essays: Answering practice AP Government free-response questions will help you apply your knowledge of these cases.
• Review regularly: Consistent review is key to retaining information.

By understanding these landmark AP Government court cases, you'll be well-equipped to analyze the complexities of American government and its impact on your life. Good luck with your studies! Remember to focus on the why behind the rulings, not just the what. The why will help you understand the enduring significance of these cases.