AP Government:
Case Study Booklet
Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
Context of the Case: Mapp was suspected to have a dangerous bomber in her
house. They decided they needed to search her house, but she refused because
they didn’t have a warrant. They came back with a sheet of paper that was a
“warrant”. No bomber was found, but pornographic material was found in a
trunk. She was arrested for obscene material.
Questions Before the Court: Was the search without a proper warrant a
violation of Mapp’s 4th amendment rights?
Court’s Decision: 5-3 (in favor of Mapp)
Implications: Search with a warrant or reason is unconstitutional, regardles of
reasoning.
Amendments: Amendment 4- unreasonable searches
Miami Herald v. Tornillo (1974)
Context of Case: Tornillo was a candidate for Florida’s House of
Representatives in Dade County. The Miami Herald published editorials, criticizing
Tornillo. He then responded to the criticism and wanted it published in the Miami
Herald, but they refused. However, the Florida Statute section states that any
political candidate criticized by any newspaper have the right to have their
responses to the criticism published in a newspaper. Tornillo sued.
Question(s) Before the Court: Was Tornillo’s 1st amendment rights
violated?
Court’s Decision: 9-0 in favor of Miami Herald
Implications: Newspapers may decide if they want your editorials or critiques
in their newspaper, because it is not a federal-owned business, but a privatelyowned business.
Amendments: Amendment 1- free speech/press; Amendment 14-equal
protection
Dred Scott v. Sanford
(1856)
Context of the Case: Scott was a slave from Missouri. However, he and his
master resided in a free state, Illinois, and on Wisconsin Territory, from 18331843. Scott stated that he was a free man since he resided on territory where
slavery was banned.
Question(s) Before the Court: Was Dred Scott a free man or a
slave?
Court’s Decision: 7-2 (in favor of Sanford)
Implication: This does not apply to today; however, slavery did not
end until 1865, therefore giving birth to the 13th, 14th, and 15th
amendments. Blacks were not considered legal citizens therefore they
could not declare civil liberties and rights because they were slaves.
Amendments: Amendment 5- citizens of a state unless nationalized
by Congress; Amendment 13-slaves freed; Amendment 14- slaves are
citizens
NY Times v. Sullivan (1963)
Context of the Case: this case concerns a full-page ad in the New York Times
which alleged that the arrest of the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. for perjury in
Alabama was part of a campaign to destroy King's efforts to integrate public
facilities and encourage blacks to vote. L. B. Sullivan, the Montgomery city
commissioner, filed a libel action against the newspaper and four black ministers
who were listed as endorsers of the ad, claiming that the allegations against the
Montgomery police defamed him personally. Under Alabama law, Sullivan did not
have to prove that he had been harmed; and a defense claiming that the ad was
truthful was unavailable since the ad contained factual errors. Sullivan won a
$500,000 judgment.
Question(s) before the Court: Did Alabama's libel law, by not requiring
Sullivan to prove that an advertisement personally harmed him and dismissing the
same as untruthful due to factual errors, unconstitutionally infringe on the First
Amendment's freedom of speech and freedom of press protections?
Court’s Decision: 9-0 (in favor of NY Times)
Implication:
Amendment: Amendment 1: free speech
Marbury v Madison (1803)
Context of the Case: William Marbury was set to be justice of the peace
in the District of Columbia. They were appointed during the last days of
John Adam’s presidency, but the jobs were never finalized. It was
decided that Madison and Adams were in the wrong, however the law
in which Marbury sued under was unconstitutional.
Question before the Court: Is Marbury entitled to his appointment? Is
his lawsuit the correct way to get it? And, is the Supreme Court the
place for Marbury to the relief he requests?
Implications: The case established the Supreme Court’s power of
judicial review.
Court’s Ruling: 6 votes for Madison, 0 for Marbury.
Amendment(s): Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789
NAACP v Alabama (1957)
Context of the Case: As part of its strategy to enjoin the NAACP from
operating, Alabama required it to reveal to the State's Attorney General
the names and addresses of all the NAACP's members and agents in the
state.
Question(s) before the Court: Did Alabama's requirements violate the
Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Court’s Decision: 9-0
Implication:
Amendment: Amendment 14
Red Lion Broadcasting Co.
v.
FCC (1968)
Context of the Case: The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC)
fairness doctrine requires radio and television broadcasters to present
a balanced and fair discussion of public issues on the airwaves. The
doctrine is composed of two primary requirements concerning personal
attacks in the context of public issue debates and political editorializing.
The FCC conditioned its renewal of broadcast licenses on compliance
with its regulations.
Question(s) before the Court: Do the FCC's fairness doctrine
regulations, concerning personal attacks made in the context of public
issue debates and political editorializing, violate the First Amendment's
freedom of speech guarantees?
Court’s Decision: 7-0 (in favor of
Implication: Due to the fairness doctrine, yes. It “enhances” rather
than deprive.
Amendment: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly
School District of Abington
Township, Pa v. Schempp (1962)
Context of the Case: At the beginning of the school day, students who
attended public schools in the state of Pennsylvania were required to read at
least ten verses from the Bible. After completing these readings, school
authorities required all Abington Township students to recite the Lord's Prayer.
Students could be excluded from these exercises by a written note from their
parents to the school.
Question(s) before the Court: Did the Pennsylvania law and Abington's
policy, requiring public school students to participate in classroom religious
exercises, violate the religious freedom of students as protected by the First and
Fourteenth Amendments?
Court’s Decision: 8-1 (in favor of Schempp)
Implication: Religious practices against students’ will is unconstitutional
and a violation of their 1st amendment rights.
Amendment: Amendment 1: Religious Freedom
Gregg v. Georgia (1972)
Context of the case: A Jury found Gregg guilty of armed robbery and
murder, and was sentenced to death. He argued that was cruel and unusual
punishment.
Question(s) Before the Court: Is sentencing a death sentence prohibited
under the amendments 8 and 14 as “cruel and unusual punishment”?
Court’s Ruling: 7-2 vote (in favor of Georgia)
Implications: Based on states holding the punishment of death, is not “cruel
and unusual”. This case is similar to the Troy Davis case.
Amendments: Amendment 8 – cruel and unusual punishment, and
Amendment 14- equal protection clause.
Miranda v. Arizona (1965)
Context of the Case: The Court was called upon to consider the
constitutionality of a number of instances, ruled on jointly, in which defendants
were questioned "while in custody or otherwise deprived of [their] freedom in
any significant way. Miranda was arrested for murder, rape, and burglary. During
interrogation he confessed to the crimes but wasn’t aware that he had the “right
to remain silent; anything he says can and will be used against him.”
Question(s) before the Court: Does the police practice of interrogating
individuals without notifying them of their right to counsel and their protection
against self-incrimination violate the Fifth Amendment?
Court’s Decision: 5-4 (in favor of Miranda)
Implication: Rights must be read during arrest and prior to interrogation.
Amendment: Amendment 5: self-incrimination
Hazelwood School District v.
Kuhlmeir (1988)
Context of the Case: The Spectrum, the school-sponsored newspaper of
Hazelwood East High School, was written and edited by students. In May 1983,
Robert E. Reynolds, the school principal, received the pages proofs for the May 13
issue. Reynolds found two of the articles in the issue to be inappropriate, and
ordered that the pages on which the articles appeared be withheld from
publication. Cathy Kuhlmeier and two other former Hazelwood East students
brought the case to court.
Question(s) before the Court: Did the principal's deletion of the articles
violate the students' rights under the First Amendment?
Court’s Decision: 5-3 (in favor of Hazelwood)
Implication: Schools have the right to limit free speech because it
affects the schoolenvironment.
Amendment: Amendment 1: Free speech
Engel v. Vitale (1961)
Context of the Case: The Board of Regents for the State of New York
authorized a short, voluntary prayer for recitation at the start of each
school day. This was an attempt to defuse the politically potent issue by
taking it out of the hands of local communities.
Question(s) before the Court: Does the reading of a
nondenominational prayer at the start of the school day violate the
"establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment?
Court’s Decision: 6-1 (in favor of Engle)
Implication: Requiring children to pray in school or practice any other
religious practice against their will is a unconstitutional and a violation
of their 1st amendment rights.
Amendment: Amendment 1: Religious freedoms
Brown v. Board of EducationTopeka (1952)
Context of the Case: Black children were denied admission to public schools
attended by white children under laws requiring or permitting segregation
according to the races. The white and black schools approached equality in terms
of buildings, curricula, qualifications, and teacher salaries.
Question(s) before the Court: Does the segregation of children in public
schools solely on the basis of race deprive the minority children of the equal
protection of the laws guaranteed by the 14th Amendment?
Court’s Decision: 9-0 (in favor of Brown)
Implication: Schools are integrated
Amendment: Amendment 14: Equal protection
Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)
Context of the Case: The cases involved controversies over laws in
Pennsylvania and Rhode Island. In Pennsylvania, a statute provided financial
support for teacher salaries, textbooks, and instructional materials for secular
subjects to non-public schools. The Rhode Island statute provided direct
supplemental salary payments to teachers in non-public elementary schools. Each
statute made aid available to "church-related educational institutions."
Question(s) before the Court: Did the Rhode Island and Pennsylvania
statutes violate the First Amendment's Establishment Clause by making state
financial aid available to "church- related educational institutions"?
Court’s Decision: 8-0 (in favor of lemon)
Implication: Today, religion must not be a reason for increased aid
and salaries in the education system, but secular as well. Religion may
not be favored.
Amendments: Amendment 1: Establishment of religion
Plessy v. Ferguson (1895)
Context of the Case: The state of Louisiana enacted a law that required
separate railway cars for blacks and whites. In 1892, Homer Adolph
Plessy--who was seven-eighths Caucasian--took a seat in a "whites
only" car of a Louisiana train. He refused to move to the car reserved
for blacks and was arrested.
Question(s) before the Court: Is Louisiana's law mandating racial
segregation on its trains a violation of Plessy’s equal protection rights
according to the 14th amendment?
Court’s Decision: 7-0 (in favor of Ferguson)
Implications: At this time, they were saying that blacks only had rights
based on being involved in America’s courts and law, not any social
rights, for blacks were an ‘inferior race’ to whites.
Amendments: Amendment 14: Equal protection
Court’s Decision:
Implication:
Amendment: