AP U.S. Government and Politics
Supreme Court Cases*
You should be able to summarize from memory significant Supreme Court interpretations of the Constitution and the
amendments especially as these interpretations have changed the meaning of the Bill of Rights. Most significant are
the First Amendment freedoms (of religion, speech, press, petition, and assembly) and the due process and equal
protection clauses of the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendment. Included here are the ♫ Supreme’s Greatest Hits! ♫
Study these now to prepare for a game of Court Cases Jeopardy: an exciting chance to win extra points!
Some important facts:
Initially, the Bill of Rights was intended to limit the powers of the national government to prevent infringement upon
individual civil liberties. After the Civil War, the Fourteenth Amendment (ratified in 1868) included guarantees that
“no state shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any
person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny ... equal protection of the law.” This seems to
explicitly apply these guarantees to the states. Nevertheless, this took some time.
Selective Incorporation is a judicial doctrine whereby, most, but not all, of the protections found in the Bill of Rights
are made applicable to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment. At the present time, only the Second, Third, and
Seventh Amendments and the grand jury requirement of the Fifth Amendment have not been applied specifically to
the states.
Mention of the term “selective incorporation” was first set forth in Palko v. Connecticut, 1937:
Although upholding the Connecticut murder conviction of Frank Palko, the Supreme Court established that some
protections found in the Bill of Rights are absorbed into the concept of due process as provided for in the Fourteenth
Amendment because they are so fundamental to our notions of liberty and justice that they cannot be denied by the
states. Important examples include: Freedom of speech, press, assembly and religion (from the 1st Amendment),
Protection against unreasonable searches and seizures (from the 4th Amendment), and Protection against selfincrimination and the right to counsel and trial by an impartial jury in a public and speedy trial (from the 5th, 6th and
7th Amendments).
Before Palko in 1937 there were cases that seem to suggest the idea of selective incorporation (that is without using
that specific term). These include: Gitlow v. New York (1925) and Near v. Minnesota (1931). Both of these are
described in the list below. Other dates relevant to “selective incorporation” and the application of the Bill of Rights
to the States are found on page 365 of the textbook.
Landmark Supreme Court Cases Here are some of the cases that seem most likely to be on the AP exam.
Obviously, you must know the general effects of the most significant decisions which include:
Marbury v. Madison
McCulloch v. Maryland
Gibbons v. Ogden
Plessy v. Ferguson
Gitlow v. New York
Schenck v. US
Brown v. Board of Education
Gideon v. Wainwright
New York Times v. Sullivan
Griswold v. Connecticut
Miranda v. Arizona
Tinker v. Des Moines
Lemon v. Kurtzman
United States v. Nixon
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke
United States v. Virginia Military Institute
If a case is described well in the textbook, the description below will be very brief. Cases with dates after 2005 are not
likely to be on the AP exam, but they can be referred in a Free Response Question. Additional readings on some of
the more recent cases will be posted on BlackBoard.
* To look up all the “Supremes’ Greatest Hits,” you can use: http://www.oyez.org/cases/
Page 1 of 10
Case
Year
Marbury v. Madison
1803
The Marshall Court (1801 – 1835)
In this case Justice Marshall avoided a confrontation with President Jefferson and, by ruling a provision of the Judiciary Act of
1789 to be unconstitutional, established the Court’s power of Judicial Review.
McCulloch v. Maryland
1819
This established the supremacy of national over state legislation. In 1816 the Congress created the Second National Bank and
gave that bank the authority to handle the notes of state chartered banks and thus to monitor them. To preserve the independence
of the state banks, the Maryland legislature passed a law imposing a tax on notes issued by the Second Bank’s Baltimore branch.
The Second Bank challenged this as infringing on the powers of the national government. Jefferson’s administration argued that
the state could impose such a tax. Marshall rejected this saying that the bank had been correctly established (because it was
“necessary and proper”). And, Marshall continued, the states could not tax federal institutions because “the power to tax involves
the power to destroy.”
Gibbons v. Ogden
1824
Usually cited as a precedent whenever the power of the state vs. the power of the federal government to regulate interstate
commerce is questioned. (The Feds usually win, until the 90s.) The case dealt with a steamboat monopoly granted by the state of
New York, which was challenged by a competing ferry service operating between New York and New Jersey. Overall, the
commerce clause has been the single most litigated constitutional issue in the courts. Over the years Commerce Clause
precedents gave Congressional laws enormous reach. The Rehnquist Court scaled back some of these powers with the US v.
Lopez (1995) case, striking down the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990.
Dred Scott v. Sanford
1857
The Taney Court (1836 – 1864)
Judicial review, which was established in Marbury (1803), was used only to overturn state laws that conflicted with constitutional
principles. Not until Dred Scott in 1857 would the Supreme Court void another national law.
Scott was a slave who had lived for a time with his “master,” an army surgeon, in the Free State of Illinois and at Fort
Snelling, then in Wisconsin Territory where slavery had been prohibited. Scott claimed that his residency in a free state and a free
territory had made him free. Seven justices agreed on one point - that Scott remained a slave - but they each wrote separate
opinions. Chief Justice Taney’s is the most influential. In his opinion Taney declared that blacks, slave or free, could not be
citizens and therefore had no right to sue. Also, Taney argued, the Fifth Amendment prohibited taking property without due
process; therefore Congress could not prevent any slaveholder from taking slaves into any territory. Therefore, the Missouri
Compromise - which prohibited slavery in the territories - had never been constitutional.
Ex Parte Milligan
1866
Milligan was sentenced to death by a military commission in Indiana during the Civil War; he had engaged in acts of disloyalty.
Milligan sought release through habeas corpus from a federal court. The question was whether a civil court can have jurisdiction
over a military tribunal? It was held that trials of civilians by presidentially created military commissions are unconstitutional.
Martial law cannot exist where the civil courts are operating.
Slaughter House Cases
1873
The Court ruled that the privileges and immunities clause protected only certain narrow federal rights (such as the right to travel,
to petition Congress, and to vote in national elections), not the protections found in the Bill of Rights.
Minor v. Happersett
1875
The Court rejected the argument made by suffragists that either the privileges and immunities clause, or the equal protection
clause of the 14th Amendment extended the vote to women. The franchise was later extended to women by the 19th Amendment,
ratified in 1920.
Reynolds v. US
1879
A federal law that prohibited polygamy was challenged based on the Free Exercise Clause. Did the law violate the right to the
free exercise of religious beliefs by prohibiting this practice? The Court said no, holding that an individual's religious beliefs are
no defense to the application of a general law to religious conduct.
Plessy v. Ferguson
1896
At issue was Louisiana's law mandating racial segregation: was it a violation of the privileges and immunities and the equal
protection clauses of the 14th Amendment? The justices based their decision on the separate-but-equal doctrine that separate
facilities for blacks and whites we constitutional so long as they were equal. (The phrase, "separate but equal" was not part of the
opinion.) Segregation did not in itself constitute unlawful discrimination. Though dissents do not become law as majority
opinions do, they are important because they document the struggle between different interpretations of the law. Sometimes the
Page 2 of 10
Case
Year
dissent in one case becomes the prevailing viewpoint in a future case that overturns an earlier decision. Justice Harlan wrote a
dissent stating that segregation violated the 14th Amendment because it used the law to sanction inequality among races. In Brown
(1954), Chief Justice Earl Warren also declared that separate facilities violated the Constitution, though he based his argument on
slightly different premises. (See also Brown II)
Lochner v. New York
1905
Using the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment the Court struck down a law limiting working hours. The Lochner
precedent was later used to invalidate key parts of the New Deal. The Court then abandoned the precedent with the 1937 decision
West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parish.
Schenck v. US
1919
This case concerns the First Amendment protection of Freedom of Speech. The decision was written by Oliver Wendell Holmes
and is full of very famous phrases. The decision upheld the convictions of Schenck and another defendant for violation of the
Espionage Act during WWI. The defendants had been convicted of conspiring to “obstruct the recruiting and enlistment services
of the United States.” The most famous phrases that come from this case state that protection of free speech does not include
“falsely shouting fire in a theatre...”. Holmes also wrote that the real question comes down to whether the words spoken present a
“clear and present danger...”.
Gitlow v. New York
1925
The Supreme Court noted that the states were not completely free to limit political expression while upholding the New York
convictions of socialist Benjamin Gitlow for advocating the violent overthrow of the government. In Gitlow, the Court announced
that freedoms of speech and press "were fundamental personal rights and liberties protected by the due process clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment from impairment by the states." Thus, Gitlow was the first step in the judicial development of selective
incorporation, which extends protection of civil liberties from infringement by States.
Near v. Minnesota
1931
This was the first case in which the Supreme Court found that a state law violated freedom of the press as protected by the First
Amendment. Struck down case law imposing prior restraint of articles dealing with public corruption.
Powell v. Alabama
1932
The Court ruled that indigent members of society (in this case, the Scottsboro Boys), when charged with a capital crime, must be
given competent counsel at the expense of the public.
Schechter Poultry v. US
1935
This is called the “sick chicken case” because it involved the Schechter brothers willfully selling diseased chickens. This violated
the New Deal NRA codes. The Court ruled that the chickens in question “had come to roost” in New York and thus were not
involved in interstate commerce when they were sold. The Court held that the NRA attempted to regulate commerce within a
state and the Federal Government could not regulate within a state only between states. Thus, the NRA was declared
unconstitutional. This helped lead to FDR’s threat to “pack the courts” (becoming unnecessary after West Coast Hotel case).
Palko v. Connecticut
1937
Although upholding the Connecticut murder conviction of Frank Palko, the Supreme Court established that some protections
found in the Bill of Rights are absorbed into the concept of due process as provided for in the Fourteenth Amendment because
they are so fundamental to our notions of liberty and justice that they cannot be denied by the states. Important examples include:
Freedom of speech, press, assembly and religion (from the 1st Amendment), Protection against unreasonable searches and
seizures (from the 4th Amendment), and Protection against self-incrimination and the right to counsel and trial by an impartial
jury in a public and speedy trial (from the 5th, 6th and 7th Amendments).
Korematsu v. US
1944
This case upheld the constitutionality of internment as a legitimate exercise of power during wartime. In 1988 Congress decided
to issue a public apology and to pay some money to the 60,000 surviving internees
Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Sawyer
1952
President Truman attempted to forestall a steel strike during the Korean War by seizing the country’s steel mills. The decision
held that Truman had overstepped his executive powers and returned the mills to the owners.
Page 3 of 10
Case
Year
Mapp v. Ohio
1961
The Warren Court (1953 – 1969)*
Dollree Mapp had been sentenced to seven years for position of obscene material in 1957. The police had seized this material
without a search warrant. In this case the Supreme Court applied 4th Amendment protections to the states and said that the states
were required to get search warrants. The Court adopted a rule excluding from a criminal trial evidence that the police obtained
unconstitutionally or illegally. This is called the exclusionary rule. Since 1961 the Court has refused to abandon this ruling. But it
has made some exceptions to it - such as cases in which it has ruled that the police relied “in good faith” on a defective search
warrant.
Engle v. Vitale
1962
Banned organized prayer in public schools as a violation of the First Amendment’s injunction that “Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion.” Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and the separation of church and state.
Hugo Black cited Jefferson’s “wall of separation” for support in dealing with Establishment Clause cases. See also: Everson v.
Board of Ed. (1947) and Abington Township v. Schempp (1963). In Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe (2000) the Court
ruled that students may not use a school's loudspeaker system to offer student-led, student-initiated prayer.
Baker v. Carr
1962
The key question was whether the Court has jurisdiction over questions of legislative apportionment? The Court held that that
legislative apportionment was a justiciable issue. In his opinion, Justice Brennan concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment equal
protection issues which Baker and others raised in this case merited judicial evaluation. This means voters can challenge
apportionment schemes in Federal courts. This case began the establishment of the principle of “one person, one vote,” starting
what has been called “the reapportionment revolution.”
Wesberry v. Sanders
1963
This is a clarification of the decision in Baker v. Carr. Wesberry protested Georgia’s apportionment scheme, claiming the system
diluted his right to vote compared to other Georgia residents, because his district was considerably larger than others in the state.
The Court held that Georgia's apportionment scheme grossly discriminated against voters. Because a single congressman had to
represent two to three times as many people as were represented by congressmen in other districts, the Georgia statute contracted
the value of some votes and expanded the value of others.
Reynolds v. Sims
1964
Baker, Wesberry and Reynolds all have to do with reapportionment of state legislatures. The Court established the doctrine of
“one person, one vote.” Overall, this meant that all citizens’ votes should have approximately equal weight, no matter where they
lived. The court held that the equal protection clause required that “as nearly as is practicable one man's vote” must “be worth as
much as another's.”
Gideon v. Wainwright
1963
Helps lead the way to Miranda v. Arizona in 1966. Gideon was denied a court appointed attorney in a non-capital case. He
defended himself. Eventually he was granted an appeal to the Supreme Court. The Court held that the due process clause of the
5th and 14th amendments meant that a court appointed attorney was constitutionally guaranteed.
Escobedo v. Illinois
1964
Also helps lead the way to Miranda v. Arizona in 1966. Escobedo was given an attorney, but that attorney was not allowed to be
present during questioning. The Court held that the due process clause of the 5th and 14th amendments meant that the defendant’s
attorney was to be present during questioning.
New York Times v. Sullivan
1964
William Brennan wrote this decision that shielded the press from vindictive libel suits. As part of a fund raising effort for the
Civil Rights struggle against lunch counter segregation a group, including Jackie Robinson, took out an ad in the New York
Times on March 29, 1960. There were minor errors in the ad. The police commissioner of Montgomery, Alabama brought a suit
against the Times claiming that readers would connect him to the police activities that were overstated in the ad. In his opinion
Justice Brennan wrote that officials, like Sullivan, had the “high burden” of proving that statements about them were not simply
overstated, but were published with “reckless disregard” for the truth.
Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S.
1964
The Court held that the Commerce Clause allowed Congress to regulate local incidents of commerce, and that the Civil Right Act
of 1964 passed constitutional muster. The Court noted that the applicability of Title II was "carefully limited to enterprises having
*
You should be very familiar with the Warren Court for the AP Gov exam.
Page 4 of 10
Case
Year
a direct and substantial relation to the interstate flow of goods and people. . ." The Court thus concluded that places of public
accommodation had no "right" to select guests as they saw fit, free from governmental regulation.
Griswold v. Connecticut
1965
There is no mention of the right of privacy in the Constitution, in Griswold the Court pulled together elements of the 1st, 3rd, 4th,
5th, 9th, and 14th Amendments to recognize that personal privacy is one of the rights protected by the Constitution.
Connecticut maintained a law, passed in 1879, that made it illegal to use anything to “prevent conception.” The state had
never prosecuted any doctors under the law, but in 1961, acting on a complaint filed against Planned Parenthood, the state
arrested Estelle Griswold, the director of its New Haven clinic. She admitted guilt and was fined $100 for giving contraceptives to
married couples. She appealed to the Supreme Court.
The opinion was written by William O. Douglas. In it Douglas suggested that “specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights
have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance.” In his opinion Douglas
pointed to the amendments above (except the 14th) and suggested that they had “penumbras” that created “zones of privacy.” In
other words, no state could make laws that violated this “zone of privacy” by making it illegal to sell or use contraceptives.
Miranda v. Arizona
1966
Required that arresting officers notify a suspect that “you have the right to remain silent...” (if you watch Law and Order, you
know the rest…) and that the suspect has the right to the presence of an attorney during questioning. Despite recent challenges
(by Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals), in 2000 the Court reaffirmed Miranda in Dickerson v. United States.
Loving v. Virginia
1967
In a unanimous decision, the Court held that distinctions drawn according to race were generally "odious to a free people" and
were subject to "the most rigid scrutiny" under the Equal Protection Clause. Virginia’s anti-miscegenation law, had no legitimate
purpose "independent of invidious racial discrimination." The Court rejected the state's argument that the statute was legitimate
because it applied equally to both blacks and whites. Racial classifications, the Court said, were not subject to a "rational
purpose" test under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Tinker v. Des Moines
1969
Mary Beth Tinker et. al. were suspended from Harding Junior High in 1965 when she and the others wore black armbands to
school to protest the war in Vietnam. The Court held that students were entitled to the First Amendment protections of free
speech and that an armband was protected because it was “symbolic speech.” In a later case, Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1983), the
Court ruled that administrators may edit the content of school newspapers.
Brandenburg v. Ohio
1969
This ruling on free speech created a two-part test: first, speech can be prohibited if it is "directed at inciting or producing
imminent lawless action" and second, it is "likely to incite or produce such action." The Ohio law in question made illegal the
advocacy and teaching of doctrines while ignoring whether or not that advocacy and teaching would actually incite imminent
lawless action.
Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenberg
1971
The Court ordered busing to achieve racial balance in the schools.
The Burger Court (1969 – 1986)
Lemon v. Kurtzman
1971
This is in the text and is the source of the three-part “Lemon Test.” It is important and it is explained in the textbook. The case
deals with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
New York Times v. U.S.
1971
This was the “Pentagon Papers” case. The Nixon administration wanted to block the publication of Pentagon documents on
Vietnam based on national security reasons. The Court ruled that based on the First Amendment, “prior restraint” was not
justified.
Furman v. Georgia
1972
The Court found that Capital Punishment had been applied in a racist manner. The decision did not declare the death penalty
unconstitutional, but issued strict guidelines for its implementation. In Gregg v. Georgia (1976) the Court ruled that the death
penalty “does not invariably violate the Constitution.” The judicious and careful use of the penalty was justified in that it met
contemporary standards of society, served a deterrent or retributive purpose, and was not arbitrarily applied. In Roper v. Simmons
(2005) the Court ruled that it is cruel and unusual punishment to execute persons for crimes they committed before age 18.
Page 5 of 10
Case
Year
Roe v. Wade
1973
Based on precedents like Griswold, Justice Harry Blackman wrote the decision that struck down laws prohibiting abortion during
the first trimester of pregnancy. The Court continued to uphold Roe, while allowing various restrictions (see Webster, Casey, etc.
below).
United States v. Nixon
1974
Days after the House Judiciary committee voted to recommend to the full House that they support impeachment of Richard
Nixon, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that Nixon had no right to claim executive privilege as a justification for refusing to
turn over additional tapes.
Buckley v. Valeo
1976
Buckley has been a major roadblock to campaign finance reform because it protects a rich candidate’s ability to spend his or her
own money as an expression of “free speech.” Thus, there are limits on campaign contributions, but not on candidate spending.
Univ. of Calif. Regents v. Bakke
1978
This decision was a loss for proponents of “affirmative action.” Alan Bakke, a white man, sued UC Davis for rejecting his
application to the medical school while admitting some racial minority candidates with lesser scores on the admission test. An
important, but inconclusive decision. Essentially, the case was decided by Justice Lewis Powell who agreed with four justices that
strict racial quotas for admission to universities were illegal and with the other four justices that race could be used in making
decisions on admission. It is worth noting that five white men were also admitted to the school with lesser test scores. They were
not mentioned in the suit. All five were the sons of large contributors to the school.
New Jersey v. TLO
1985
T.L.O. was a fourteen-year-old, accused of smoking in the bathroom. Principal questioned and searched her purse, finding
marijuana and other paraphernalia. Citing the peculiarities associated with searches at school, the Court abandoned its
requirement that searches be conducted with a "probable cause" that an individual has violated the law, replacing this with a less
strict standard of "reasonableness." The case lessened the Tinker doctrine, giving school officials more latitude.
Edwards v. Aguillard
1987
The Rehnquist Court (1986 – 2005)
Louisiana could not require public schools that taught evolution to teach creationism as “Creation Science.” The law had no
secular purpose and endorsed religion, violating the Establishment Clause. In 1968 (Epperson v. Arkansas) the Court had ruled
states cannot ban teaching of evolution, settling the issue from the Scopes “Monkey Trial.” In 2005 in Kitzmiller et. al. v. Dover,
a federal district court judge in Pennsylvania threw out a policy of teaching “Intelligent Design” in public schools, stating that it is
clearly a religious idea.
Webster v. Reproductive Health Services
1989
The Republican Party platforms of 1980 and 1984 demanded that nominees to the bench “affirm their opposition to abortion.” It
was commonly charged that the Reagan Administration imposed such a commitment as a “litmus test” on all judicial
nominations. Nevertheless, despite the fact that all nominees to the Court refused to make any explicit promise to vote to overturn
Roe, the Reagan Administration finally felt that they had the five votes necessary to overturn. In the meantime, in 1986, the
legislature of Missouri passed a law that restricted assess to abortions. Several doctors sued the state’s attorney general, William
Webster and the restrictive law was overturned in Federal court as a violation of Roe. That decision was then appealed to the
Supreme Court. Thinking that the votes to overturn were on the Court, Reagan’s Solicitor General Charles Fried asked, as a
Friend of the Court, that the Roe decision be overturned. It was close, the Court did uphold most of Missouri’s restrictions, but
did not overturn Roe. In brief the result was to permit the states to impose some restrictions on abortion.
(Employment Division of) Oregon v. Smith
1990
At issue was the use of peyote (a mild hallucinogenic drug) by Native Americans, as part of their traditional worship service. The
Court ruled that the Free Exercise Clause does not apply to laws that are aimed at general behavior rather than at specific
religions.
Planned Parenthood v. Casey
1992
The Court upheld a Pennsylvania law mandating informed consent and a twenty-four hour waiting period before an abortion
could be preformed. Significantly, the judges also reaffirmed (again) the “essential holding” of Roe v. Wade. Thus, women have
a constitutional right to abortion, but states may make “reasonable regulations” on how a woman exercises her right so long as
these regulations do not “unduly burden” the woman.
Page 6 of 10
Case
Year
Texas v. Johnson
1993
William Brennan wrote this decision that affirmed the Constitutional First Amendment protection of protesters to burn the
American Flag. Interestingly, Scalia and Kennedy joined three liberal justices in the 5-4 decision.
Shaw v. Reno
1993
An interesting decision which blocks “racial gerrymandering.” Make sure you understand it. Also see Bush v. Vera (1996).
Vernonia School District v. Acton
1995
As in the TLO case, the Court ruled limiting the right to privacy, giving district the right to randomly drug test school athletes.
Board of Education (of Independent School District #92 of Pottawatomie County) v. Earls (2002) expanded this doctrine to apply
to all students participating in extracurricular activities.
United States v. Virginia Military Institute
1996
Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote this decision, which required VMI to accept women.
Boy Scouts v. Dale
2000
The question: Do the Boy Scouts have a constitutional right to exclude openly gay individuals from their leadership ranks? The
Court held that the Boy Scouts are a private organization and, therefore, they can discriminate.
California Democratic Party v. Jones
2000
This concerned California’s open primaries. Question: Can California open its primary elections so that all voters can select the
nominees or does the US Constitution give political parties a right to choose their candidates in elections that are limited to
registered party members? The court held that political parties have a right to choose candidates in elections that are limited to
registered party members.
Bush v. Gore
2000
This decision is discussed in detail on pages 6 and 7 of the text: read it! In it the Court reversed the judgment of the Supreme
Court of Florida ordering a recount of the state’s votes. Essentially the Court majority held that since there was not one standard
to evaluate ballots the court ordered recount “could not be conducted in compliance with the requirements of equal protection and
due process without substantial additional work.” The dissent suggested that an appropriate remedy would be to remand the case
with instructions to permit the Florida Supreme Court to require recounting with a single standard.
Texas v. Cobb
2001
The facts in this case are: While under arrest for an unrelated offense, respondent confessed to a home burglary, but denied
knowledge of a woman and child's disappearance from the home. He was indicted for the burglary, and counsel was appointed to
represent him. He later confessed to his father that he had killed the woman and child. His father then contacted the police. While
in custody, Cobb waived his rights under Miranda v. Arizona and confessed to the murders. He was convicted of capital murder
and sentenced to death. On appeal to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he argued that his confession should have been
suppressed because it was obtained in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel, which he claimed attached when
counsel was appointed in the burglary case. The appeals court reversed the decision holding that once the right to counsel attaches
to the offense charged, it also attaches to any other offense that is very closely related factually to the offense charged. The
Supreme Court upheld the original verdict because: the Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel is "offense specific." Therefore, it
does not necessarily extend to offenses that are "factually related" to those that have actually been charged.
Kyllo v. US
2001
Danny Kyllo was suspected of growing marijuana, and a thermal-imaging device was used to scan his triplex. Does the use of
such a device to detect relative amounts of heat emanating from a private home constitute an unconstitutional search in violation
of the Fourth Amendment? The Court held (opinion by Scalia) that "[w]here, as here, the Government uses a device that is not in
general public use, to explore details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the
surveillance is a 'search' and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant." The 5-4 decision had an interesting mixture of
three of the more liberal justices and two of the most conservative ones.
Grutter v. Bollinger & Gratz v. Bollinger
2003
Two “affirmative action” cases involving the University of Michigan’s law school and undergrad admissions. The law school
program that used an individualized approach considering race as a factor was upheld. The undergraduate policy of granting
points for race was ruled unconstitutional. Somewhat like the Bakke case, these two cases, when taken together, narrowed the
scope of affirmative action programs, while not striking down the concept entirely.
Page 7 of 10
Case
Year
Lawrence (and Garner) v. Texas
2003
The Court struck down as unconstitutional the Texas law – aimed primarily at homosexuals – that criminalized private sexual
behavior between consenting adults. The ruling was based on the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the right
to privacy. The case overruled Bowers v. Hardwick (1986).
Kelo v. City of New London
2005
The Court held that a city's plan to condemn homes in a residential neighborhood and give the acreage to a private developer for
commercial purposes did not violate the 5th Amendment's requirement that takings of property be for “a public purpose.” The case
expanded government powers under the Takings Clause (eminent domain).
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld†
2006
The Roberts Court (2005 – )‡
Hamdan (bin Laden's former driver) was imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay. He filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in
federal district court to challenge his detention. Before the district court ruled on the petition, he received a hearing from a
military tribunal, which designated him an enemy combatant. Later the district court granted the habeas petition, ruling that
Hamdan must first be given a hearing to determine whether he was a prisoner of war under the Geneva Convention before he
could be tried by a military commission. The Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia reversed the decision,
however, finding that the Geneva Convention could not be enforced in federal court and that the establishment of military
tribunals had been authorized by Congress and was therefore not unconstitutional.
May the rights protected by the Geneva Convention be enforced in federal court through habeas corpus petitions? Was
the military commission established to try Hamdan and others for alleged war crimes in the War on Terror authorized by the
Congress or the inherent powers of the President? Supreme Court (5-to-3 decision, authored by Stevens) held that neither an act
of Congress nor the inherent powers of the Executive laid out in the Constitution expressly authorized the sort of military
commission at issue. The commission had to comply with the ordinary laws of the United States and the laws of war. The Geneva
Convention, as a part of the ordinary laws of war, could therefore be enforced by the Supreme Court, along with the statutory
Uniform Code of Military Justice. Hamdan's exclusion from certain parts of his trial deemed classified by the military
commission violated both of these, and the trial was therefore illegal. (Scalia, Thomas, and Alito dissented. Chief Justice Roberts,
who participated in the case while serving on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, did not take part in the decision.)
Stenberg v. Carhart
2000
Gonzales v. Carhart & Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood
2007
The 2000 case overturned a Nebraska law that prohibited the so-called "partial birth abortion" procedure. The combined 2007
cases challenged the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. The federal law was basically identical to the Nebraska law,
but it was upheld by the new Roberts court, even though the federal law lacks an exception to protect the health of the mother.
Both were 5-4 decisions. The key difference: O’Connor replaced by Alito. However, the 2007 cases did not overturn the Roe
precedent.
FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life
2007
Scaled back some of the restrictions on independent issue ads in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (McCain-Feingold),
though these were previously upheld by the Court in 2003 (McConnell v. FEC)
Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency
2007
Gave the EPA the authority to regulate heat-trapping gasses in auto emissions
Morse v. Frederick
2007
In the “Bong Hits for Jesus” case, the Court allowed school officials to censor and punish student speech that could be interpreted
as celebrating use of illegal drugs
Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1
2007
Limited school districts’ ability to use race to assign students to school for purposes of integration
District of Columbia v. Heller
2008
Overturning the District of Columbia’s handgun ban, the court ruled that the Second Amendment protects the individual right to
own a gun for private use — not only in connection with service in a militia. The 5-to-4 decision left unanswered questions, but
†
‡
Other important recent cases related to detainees and executive power: Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and Rumsfeld v. Padilla, both from 2004.
Please note that most Roberts Court cases are unlikely to appear on the AP Gov exam.
Page 8 of 10
Case
Year
also much room for continued gun regulation, short of an absolute ban. Justice Scalia wrote for the court. Justices Stevens,
Breyer, Souter, and Ginsburg dissented.
Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Company
2009
Elected judges must disqualify themselves from cases involving people who spent exceptionally large sums to put them on the
bench, the Court ruled in a 5-to-4 decision. The first decision to say the Constitution’s due process clause has a role to play in
policing the role of money in judicial elections. Thirty-nine states elect at least some of their judges, and election campaigns,
particularly for state supreme courts, have been increasingly expensive and nasty. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the
majority in a decision that split along familiar ideological lines, said the Constitution required disqualification when an interested
party’s spending had a “disproportionate influence” in a case that was “pending or imminent.”
Safford Unified School District v. Redding
2009
Does the Fourth Amendment prohibit school officials from strip searching students suspected of possessing drugs in violation of
school policy? Are school officials individually liable for damages? The Court held that the student’s Fourth Amendment rights
were violated when school officials searched her underwear for non-prescription painkillers. The Court reiterated that, based on a
reasonable suspicion, search measures used by school officials to root out contraband must be "reasonably related to the
objectives of the search and not excessively intrusive in light of the age and sex of the student and the nature of the infraction."
Here, school officials did not have sufficient suspicion to warrant extending the search to the student’s underwear. The Court also
held that the implicated school administrators were not personally liable because "clearly established law [did] not show that the
search violated the Fourth Amendment." Justice Clarence Thomas argued that the judiciary should not meddle with decisions
school administrators make that are in the interest of keeping their schools safe.
Ricci vs. DeStefano
2009
A ruling in favor of white firefighters will ease pressure on employers whose hiring or promotional policies appear to exclude
minorities. Before, statistics could fuel a lawsuit against an employer whose hiring or promotional standards had a "disparate
impact" on blacks or Latinos. But in, the 5-4 ruling, the Court recalibrated that rule and said that employers should not throw out
the scores from a promotional test "based solely on the racial disparity in the results."
Wyeth vs. Levine
2009
At issue was whether drug makers were shielded from being sued by injured patients. Bush administration lawyers had supported
the drug makers and said that federal regulations trumped state consumer-protection laws. The plaintiff had an arm amputated
after she was injected with a federally approved anti-nausea drug with a history of causing gangrene. The Court rejected the
shield for the drug makers and upheld the consumer's right to sue. In a parallel ruling (Altria Group v. Good), the court said that
federal warning labels did not shield tobacco firms from being sued for falsely advertising "light" cigarettes.
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission 2010
The government cannot limit corporate political spending in candidate elections because such a limit would restrict political
speech. The Supreme Court overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and portions of McConnell v. FEC. By a 5-to-4
vote along ideological lines, the majority held that under the First Amendment corporate funding of independent political
broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited. There, the Court held that political speech may be banned based on the
speaker's corporate identity. This is Stephen Colbert’s favorite case!
McDonald v. Chicago
2010
The Second Amendment, which guarantees an individual right bear arms (see above: DC v. Heller), applies not only to federal
law, but to state and local law as well. The Supreme Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment
right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense applicable to the states. This was also 5-to-4 vote along ideological
lines.
Berghuis v. Thompkins
2010
The Court ruled that criminal suspects seeking to protect their right to remain silent must speak up to invoke it, refining the
court’s landmark 1966 ruling in Miranda v. Arizona. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority in a 5-to-4 decision
that split along familiar ideological lines, did not disturb Miranda’s requirement that suspects be told they have the right to remain
silent. But he said courts need not suppress statements made by defendants who received such warnings, did not expressly waive
their rights and spoke only after remaining silent through hours of interrogation. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in her first major
dissent, said the decision “turns Miranda upside down” and “bodes poorly for the fundamental principles that Miranda protects.”
The decision followed two others that also narrowed and clarified the scope of the Miranda decision. One allowed police officers
to vary the wording of the warning; the other allowed a second round of questioning of suspects who had invoked their rights so
long as two weeks had passed since their release from custody.
Page 9 of 10
Case
Year
FCC v. Fox Television Stations
2011
In 2004, the Federal Communications Commission said that TV stations could be fined for indecency violations in cases when a
vulgarity was broadcast during a live program. Now, the Court argued that the FCC did not give proper notice to broadcasters that
they would be fined for fleeting expletives, so the practice violated due process. Justice Kennedy noted that the Court did not
decide whether the practice violated the First Amendment or that the indecency policy itself was unconstitutional. Only the way
the policy was applied in this case was unconstitutionally vague. The FCC can modify its policy in light of this decision.
Arizona v. United States
2012
The court rejected large parts of Arizona’s controversial immigration law, but unanimously allowed one key provision to stand,
saying federal law did not pre-empt the state’s instruction to its police to check the immigration status of people they detain. By a
5-3 vote, the court ruled that several other important provisions of the law conflicted with federal laws. The majority rejected
provisions that made it a state crime for immigrants not to register with the federal government or to seek or hold jobs without
proper documents, and to make warrantless arrests of some people suspected of being deportable.
National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, [etc.] (The Affordable Care Act Cases)
2012
The court largely upheld President Obama’s health care law, the Affordable Care Act, in a mixed decision. The conservative
Chief Justice, John G. Roberts, joined the majority in upholding much of the law. The Court ruled that the key provision in
question, the so-called individual mandate requiring all Americans to buy insurance or pay a fine, failed to pass constitutional
muster under the Commerce Clause, but the fine amounted to a tax that the government had the power to impose. Thus, the
“mandate” survived the challenge. The decision did significantly restrict one major portion of the law: the expansion of Medicaid.
2013 Supreme Court Summary: Cases heard- Obamacare, DOMA, California Prop 8, Voter ID Laws, Affirmative
Action, Dog Sniffing searches, gene patents.
Click this link to review these cases
http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2013/12/12-major-supreme-court-cases-decided-in-2013/
2014 Supreme Court Summary: Cases heard- Hobby Lobby, Search Warrants for Cell Phones, Aero, IQ Cutoff for
death penalty, Prayer at City Council Meetings,
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/06/19/us/major-supreme-court-decisions-in-2014.html?_r=0
Sources: NY Times; The Oyez Project http://www.oyez.org
Page 10 of 10