AP Case Review Chart

8/4/2019 AP Case Review Chart

1/33

AP Case Review ChartName: _____________________________ Unit: _____________ Date: ___________________

CITATION FACT ISSUE RULING RATIONALE CONCLUSION

McCulloh v.

Maryland, 17 U.S.

316, (1819)

Did Congress have theauthority to establish

the bank? Did theMaryland lawunconstitutionallyinterfere withcongressional powers?

Writing for the Court,Chief Justice

Marshall noted thatCongress possessedunenumerated powersnot explicitly outlinedin the Constitution.Marshall also heldthat while the statesretained the power oftaxation, "theconstitution and the

laws made inpursuance thereof aresupreme. . .theycontrol theconstitution and lawsof the respectivestates, and cannot becontrolled by them.

1


2/33


The case began on March 2,1801, when an obscureFederalist, William Marbury,was designated as a justice ofthe peace in the District ofColumbia. Marbury and

several others wereappointed to governmentposts created by Congress inthe last days of John Adams'spresidency, but these last-minute appointments werenever fully finalized. Thedisgruntled appointeesinvoked an act of Congressand sued for their jobs in the

Supreme Court.

Is Marbury entitled tohis appointment? Is hislawsuit the correct wayto get it? And, is theSupreme Court theplace for Marbury to

get the relief herequests?

2


3/33


Gibbons v. Ogden, 22U.S. 1, (1824)

A New York state law gavetwo individuals the exclusiveright to operate steamboatson waters within statejurisdiction. Laws like thisone were duplicated

elsewhere which led tofriction as some states wouldrequire foreign (out-of-state)boats to pay substantial feesfor navigation privileges. Inthis case a steamboat ownerwho did business betweenNew York and New Jerseychallenged the monopolythat New York had granted,

which forced him to obtain aspecial operating permitfrom the state to navigate onits waters.

3


4/33


Barron v. Mayor andCity Council ofBaltimore,

32 U.S. 243 (1833)

No. The Courtannounced itsdecision in this casewithout even hearingthe arguments of theCity of Baltimore.

Writing for theunanimous Court,Chief JusticeMarshall found thatthe limitations ongovernmentarticulated in theFifth Amendmentwere specificallyintended to limit the

powers of thenational government.Citing the intent ofthe framers and thedevelopment of theBill of Rights as anexclusive check onthe government inWashington D.C.,Marshall argued that

the Supreme Courthad no jurisdiction inthis case since theFifth Amendmentwas not applicable tothe states.

4


5/33


The Board of Regents for theState of New Yorkauthorized a short, voluntaryprayer for recitation at thestart of each school day. This

was an attempt to defuse thepolitically potent issue bytaking it out of the hands oflocal communities. Theblandest of invocations readas follows: "Almighty God,we acknowledge ourdependence upon Thee, andbeg Thy blessings upon us,our teachers, and our

country."

Does thereading of anondenominational prayer at thestart of the

school dayviolate the"establishmentof religion"clause of theFirstAmendment?

5


6/33


Did the RhodeIsland andPennsylvaniastatutes violate

the FirstAmendment'sEstablishmentClause by makingstate financial aidavailable to"church-related

educationalinstitutions"?

Yes. Writing for themajority, Chief JusticeBurger articulated athree-part test for lawsdealing with religious

establishment. To beconstitutional, a statutemust have "a secularlegislative purpose," itmust have principaleffects which neitheradvance nor inhibitreligion, and it must notfoster "an excessivegovernment

entanglement withreligion." The Courtfound that thesubsidization of parochialschools furthered aprocess of religiousinculcation, and that the"continuing statesurveillance" necessaryto enforce the specific

provisions of the lawswould inevitably entanglethe state in religiousaffairs. The Court alsonoted the presence of anunhealthy "divisivepolitical potential"concerning legislationwhich appropriatessupport to religious

schools.6


7/33


Santa Fe

IndependentSchool Dist. v.

Doe

530 U.S. 290 (2000)

Does the SantaFe IndependentSchool District'spolicy permittingstudent-led, student-

initiated prayer atfootball games violatethe EstablishmentClause of the FirstAmendment?

7


8/33


Did thePennsylvania law andAbington's policy,requiring publicschool students toparticipate in

classroom religiousexercises, violate thereligious freedom ofstudents as protectedby the First andFourteenthAmendments?

The Court found sucha violation. Therequired activitiesencroached on boththe Free Exercise

Clause and theEstablishment Clauseof the FirstAmendment since thereadings andrecitations wereessentially religiousceremonies and were"intended by the Stateto be so."

Furthermore, arguedJustice Clark, theability of a parent toexcuse a child fromthese ceremonies by awritten note wasirrelevant since it didnot prevent theschool's actions fromviolating the

EstablishmentClause.

8


9/33


During World War I,Schenck mailed circulars todraftees. The circularssuggested that the draft wasa monstrous wrong

motivated by the capitalistsystem. The circulars urged"Do not submit tointimidation" but advisedonly peaceful action such aspetitioning to repeal theConscription Act. Schenckwas charged with conspiracyto violate the Espionage Actby attempting to cause

insubordination in themilitary and to obstructrecruitment.

Are Schenck'sactions (words,expression)protected by the freespeech clause of the

First Amendment?

9


10/33


Roth v. United States

354 U.S. 476 (1957)

Did either thefederal orCalifornia'sobscenity

restrictions,prohibiting thesale or transferof obscenematerialsthrough themail, impingeupon thefreedom ofexpression as

guaranteed bythe First

Amendment?

10


11/33


Does a prohibitionagainst the wearing ofarmbands in publicschool, as a form ofsymbolic protest,

violate the FirstAmendment's freedomof speech protections?

The wearing ofarmbands was"closely akin to 'purespeech'" andprotected by the First

Amendment. Schoolenvironments implylimitations on freeexpression, but herethe principals lackedjustification forimposing any suchlimits.The principalshad failed to showthat the forbidden

conduct wouldsubstantially interferewith appropriateschool discipline.

11


12/33


Texas v. Johnson,491 U.S. 397(1989)

In 1984, in front of theDallas City Hall, GregoryLee Johnson burned anAmerican flag as a means ofprotest against Reaganadministration policies.

Johnson was tried andconvicted under a Texas lawoutlawing flag desecration.He was sentenced to oneyear in jail and assessed a$2,000 fine. After the TexasCourt of Criminal Appealsreversed the conviction, thecase went to the SupremeCourt.

12


13/33


Coates v. City ofCincinnati, 402U.S. 611 (1971)

13


14/33


Smith v. Collin , 439U.S. 916 (1978)

14


15/33


CHICAGO V.MORALES(97-1121) 527U.S. 41 (1999)

15


16/33


United States v.

Miller, 307

U.S. 174 (1939)

16


17/33


Mapp v. Ohio, 367U.S. 643 (1961)

17


18/33


Griswold v.

Connecticut,381 U.S. 479(1965)

18


19/33


Katz v. United States,

389 U.S. 347(1967)

19


20/33


Roe v. Wade, 410U.S. 113 (1972)

20


21/33


Escobedo v. Illinois,378 U.S. 478(1964)

21


22/33


Gideon v. Wainright,372 U.S. 335(1964)

22


23/33


Miranda v. Arizona,384 U.S. 436,(1966)

23


24/33


Rasul v. Bush, 542U.S. 466 (2004)

24


25/33


Gregg v. Georgia,428 U.S. 153(1976)

25


26/33


Atkins v. Virginia,536 U.S. 304(2002)

26


27/33


Cruzan v. Missouri

Department of

Health, 497

U.S. 261 (1990)

27


28/33


United States v.

Lopez, 514 U.S.549 (1995)

28


29/33


United States v.

Nixon, 418 U.S.683 (1974)

29


30/33


Buckley v. Valeo, 424U.S. 1 (1976)

30


31/33


Clinton v. New York,

524 U.S. 417(1998)

31


32/33


Bush v. Gore, 531U.S. 98 (2000)

32


33/33

33

Documents

AP Case Review Chart