APUSH Exam Review
LANDMARK SUPREME COURT CASES
Marbury v. Madison
 1803
 John Marshall 
 “Midnight Judges”
 Judicial Review
Established
Fletcher v. Peck
 1810
 John Marshall
 First Supreme Court case to rule
a state law unconstitutional
 Yazoo River land case from GA
legislature
 Protects legal contracts
McCulloch v. Maryland
 1819
 John Marshall
 States cannot tax the
federal government
 Loose Construction
 Necessary & Proper
Clause
 Implied Powers
 Federalist
Influence??? 
• “the power to tax involves the
power to destroy”
• “the power to create implies a
power to preserve”
Dartmouth College v. Woodward
 1819
 John Marshall
 State of NH wants to
remove trustees from
Dartmouth
 Court rules to protect
University charter b/c
it is a contract
 Later protects
business from state
interference but also
restricts regulation

Alumnus Daniel Webster reportedly
brought tears to Marshall’s eyes with his
eloquent words about Dartmouth
Cohens v. Virginia
 1821
 John Marshall
 Illegal Lotto tickets sold in VA
 The Supreme Court has the power to
review the decisions of state courts.
 How does this give more power to
the federal government?
Gibbons v. Ogden
 1824
 John Marshall
 The “Steamboat Case” – ferry b/w NY & NJ
 Congress (Federal Gov’t) held the right to
regulate interstate commerce not
individual states.
Cherokee Nation v. Georgia - 1831
Worcester v. Georgia - 1832
 Both John Marshall
 Both cases deal with
sovereignty of Indian
Tribes in the U.S.
 Cherokee: Tribes are
dependent nations
within the U.S. like a
“ward to its guardian"
 Worcester: basis for
the Trail of Tears in
1838

 "John Marshall has made his
decision; now let him enforce it!“
 Alleged words of President Andrew
Jackson
Prigg v. Pennsylvania
 1842
 Roger Taney 
 Fugitive Slave Case
 Federal Fugitive
Slave Act takes
precedence over a PA
law protecting
escaped slaves
Dred Scott v. Sanford
 1857
 Roger Taney
 Three rulings in the
Popular sovereignty also unconstitutional
Dred Scott Case:
1. Slaves did not have
rights of citizens
2. Scott had no claim to
freedom b/c he was
living in MO
3. MO Compromise was
unconstitutional. Why?
Dred Scott
Plessy v. Ferguson
 1896
 Melville Fuller 
 Homer Plessy & an
Louisiana Train Car
 “one drop rule”
 Est. “separate but equal”
 Legalized segregation in the
United States
The Insular Cases
Does the Constitution follow the flag?
 1901 – 1903
 Melville Fuller
 Necessary b/c of what “splendid little war”?
 Deals with Constitutional status of Puerto Rico,
the Philippines, & other island territories
controlled by the U.S.
 Do citizenship & the benefits thereof apply to
territorial residents?
 Full constitutional rights do not automatically
apply to residents of newly acquired territories
Muller v. Oregon
 1908
 Melville Fuller
 Supreme Court upheld Oregon law limiting
the number of hours a woman could work in
one day
 Set precedent that progressive reforms could
effectively target long work hours & poor
conditions
 Basically overturns Lochner v. New York
 Lochner v. New York – Court rejects limits on single day
work hours
Schenck v. United States
 1919
 Edward D. White
convicted of violating the
WWI era Espionage Act of
1917
 Court rules the
circumstances of
wartime permit greater
restrictions on free
speech than would be
allowable during
peacetime.

 Socialist Schenck
• Associate Justice
Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.
“Clear & present danger”
majority opinion
Korematsu v. United States
 1944
 Harlan F. Stone
 Constitutionality of WWII Japanese
Internment Camps
 Supreme Court rules Executive Order
9066 is constitutional b/c the need to
protect against espionage outweighed
the individual rights, of Japanese
Americans.
 Similarities to the Schenck case?
The Warren Court
 Chief Justice Warren (1953 –
1969) greatly expanded
individual freedoms
 Earl Warren 
 Brown v. Board of
Education, perhaps most
significant ruling.
 Required criminal courts to provide
free legal counsel
(Gideon v. Wainwright)
 Right to a lawyer during
questioning
 People must be read their
Miranda rights before
questioning
(Miranda v. Arizona - 1966)
EQ: How did the Warren Court expand
the individual rights of American
citizens?
Brown v. Board of Education
 1954
 Earl Warren
Future Justice Thurgood Marshall argues
before the court on behalf of the NAACP
 Epochal Supreme
Court ruling strikes
down “separate but
equal” overturning
Plessy v. Ferguson
 Court orders state
compliance “with all
deliberate speed”
"separate educational facilities are
inherently unequal.“ – unanimous decision
of the Warren Court
Mapp v. Ohio
 1961
 Earl Warren 
 Evidence gained
without a legitimate
search warrant is not
permissible in court
 4th Amendment cited protection from
“unreasonable
searches & seizures”
Gideon v. Wainwright
 1963
 Earl Warren
 Per the 6th Amendment, state
courts must provide legal counsel
in criminal cases for defendants
who cannot afford to retain a
lawyer.
Miranda v. Arizona
 1966
 Earl Warren
Ernesto Miranda
 Criminal suspects must
be informed of their
“right to remain silent” &
the right to an attorney
 Any evidence before a
suspect is informed of
these rights is
impermissible
“Miranda Rights”
Tinker v. Des Moines
 1969
 Earl Warren
 Ruling defined the
constitutional rights
of students in U.S.
public schools
speech when it is
shown to be harmful
to the educational
process

 Schools can only limit
Tinker siblings
Court’s ruling leads to the “Tinker Test”
Roe v. Wade
 Warren Burger
 1973
 Perhaps the most
controversial Supreme Court
case in U.S. History
 Ignites religious, moral, &
philosophical debates that
still occur to this day
 Ruling disallows many
state restrictions on
abortion
 Roe v. Wade effectively
legalizes most early term
abortions in the U.S.
United States v. Nixon
 1974
 Warren Burger
 At the height of the Watergate investigation the
Supreme Court rules no person (even the President)
is above the law
 The President cannot claim executive privilege
and withhold evidence that is relevant in a
criminal trial.
 The Supreme Court rejects President Nixon's
claim to "an absolute, unqualified Presidential
privilege of immunity from judicial process under
all circumstances."
California v. Bakke
 1978
 Warren Burger
 In 1978 Allan Bakke 
applied to University of
California at Davis
medical school. The
school had a quota –
based affirmative-action
plan that reserved 16 out
of 100 spots for
minorities.
 Bakke sued for
admission arguing that
he had been
discriminated against
based on his race.
Reverse Discrimination???
In a 5 to 4 ruling the Supreme Court
held that quotas were illegal and
Bakke was admitted but…race could
still be used as one of many factors
for admission