Appendix A: Required Supreme Court Cases and Enduring
Understandings
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)
Connection to Enduring Understanding: EU 1.F: Federalism reflects the dynamic distribution of
power between national and state governments.
U.S. v. Lopez (1995)
Connection to Enduring Understanding: EU 1.F: Federalism reflects the dynamic distribution of
power between national and state governments.
Engel v. Vitale (1962)
Connection to Enduring Understanding: EU 2.A: Provisions of the Bill of Rights are continually
being interpreted to balance the power of government and the civil liberties of individuals.
Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)
Connection to Enduring Understanding: EU 2.A: Provisions of the Bill of Rights are continually
being interpreted to balance the power of government and the civil liberties of individuals.
Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)
Connection to Enduring Understanding: EU 2.A: Provisions of the Bill of Rights are continually
being interpreted to balance the power of government and the civil liberties of individuals.
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969)
Connection to Enduring Understanding: EU 2.A: Provisions of the Bill of Rights are continually
being interpreted to balance the power of government and the civil liberties of individuals.
New York Times Company v. U.S.(1971)
Connection to Enduring Understanding: EU 2.A: Provisions of the Bill of Rights are continually
being interpreted to balance the power of government and the civil liberties of individuals.
Schenck v. U.S. (1919)
Connection to Enduring Understanding: EU 2.A: Provisions of the Bill of Rights are continually
being interpreted to balance the power of government and the civil liberties of individuals.
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)
Connection to Enduring Understanding: EU 2.B: The due process clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment has been interpreted through judicial review to selectively protect or restrict
individual liberty.
Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
Connection to Enduring Understanding: EU 2.B: The due process clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment has been interpreted through judicial review to selectively protect or restrict
individual liberty.
Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)
Connection to Enduring Understanding: EU 2.B: The due process clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment has been interpreted through judicial review to selectively protect or restrict
individual liberty.
Roe v. Wade (1973)
Connection to Enduring Understanding: EU 2.B: The due process clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment has been interpreted through judicial review to selectively protect or restrict
individual liberty.
Gitlow v. New York (1925)
Connection to Enduring Understanding: EU 2.B: The due process clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment has been interpreted through judicial review to selectively protect or restrict
individual liberty.
McDonald v. Chicago (2010)
Connection to Enduring Understanding: EU 2.B: The due process clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment has been interpreted through judicial review to selectively protect or restrict
individual liberty.
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)
Connection to Enduring Understanding: EU 2.C: Since its enactment, the Fourteenth
Amendment has often been cited to support the advancement of equality.
Brown v. Board of Education, I (1954)
Connection to Enduring Understanding: EU 2.C: Since its enactment, the Fourteenth
Amendment has often been cited to support the advancement of equality.
Brown v. Board of Education, II (1955)
Connection to Enduring Understanding: EU 2.C: Since its enactment, the Fourteenth
Amendment has often been cited to support the advancement of equality.
Buckley v. Valeo (1976)
Connection to Enduring Understanding: EU 4.E: Federal policies on campaigning and the
various forms of contemporary elections have benefits and drawbacks.
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC) (2010)
Connection to Enduring Understanding: EU 4.E: Federal policies on campaigning and the
various forms of contemporary elections have benefits and drawbacks.
Marbury v. Madison (1803)
Connection to Enduring Understanding: EU 5.C: The design of the judicial branch protects its
independence, allowing for the exercise of judicial review and the development of the Court as a
coequal branch of government.
Baker v Carr (1962)
Wolf v Colorado (1949) 4TH Amendment – No unreasonable searches or seizures of private property
Gibbons v Ogden (1824)
Gitlow v. New York (1925)
New York Times v. Sullivan (1964)