# AP US Government: 15 Required Supreme Court Cases & Precedents

> Comprehensive analysis of the 15 required AP US Government SCOTUS cases, their constitutional questions, holdings, legal precedents, dissenting viewpoints, and landmark pairings.

- **Canonical URL:** https://flashcards.world/flashcards/sets/8dee84a7-c38f-407d-a6dc-87b4697f9f8b/
- **Markdown URL:** https://flashcards.world/flashcards/sets/8dee84a7-c38f-407d-a6dc-87b4697f9f8b.md
- **Level:** basic
- **Languages:** en → en
- **Total Cards:** 32

## Flashcards (32 Cards)

| # | Front (Term / Prompt) | Back (Definition / Answer) | Example | Multiple-Choice Options |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| 1 | What were the constitutional questions and rulings in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)? | • Constitutional Questions: (1) Does Congress have the authority to charter the Second Bank of the United States? (2) Did the Maryland state tax on the national bank unconstitutionally interfere with federal power? • Ruling: (1) Yes, chartering a bank is a valid exercise of implied powers under the Necessary and Proper Clause. (2) Yes, under the Supremacy Clause, Maryland's tax was unconstitutional ('the power to tax involves the power to destroy'). |  |  |
| 2 | What was the constitutional issue and ruling in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954)? | • Issue: Does racial segregation of public school children based solely on race violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? • Ruling: Unanimous (9–0) decision authored by Chief Justice Earl Warren held that state-mandated racial segregation in public education is unconstitutional. 'Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal' because segregation generates a feeling of inferiority that permanently harms Black children's educational and mental development; explicitly overturned the 'separate but equal' doctrine of *Plessy v. Ferguson* (1896). |  |  |
| 3 | How did the Supreme Court rule on the exclusionary rule in Mapp v. Ohio (1961)? | The Court incorporated the Fourth Amendment's Exclusionary Rule against state governments through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause: any evidence obtained through an illegal, warrantless search in violation of the Fourth Amendment is inadmissible in state criminal trials. |  |  |
| 4 | Compare United States v. Lopez and McCulloch v. Maryland on federal power. | • McCulloch v. Maryland (1819): Broadly expanded federal power by endorsing a flexible interpretation of implied powers under the Necessary and Proper Clause and asserting federal supremacy over state taxes. • United States v. Lopez (1995): Restricted federal power by establishing outer boundaries to the Commerce Clause, preserving traditional state police powers over local education and gun laws. |  |  |
| 5 | Compare Schenck v. United States and Tinker v. Des Moines regarding First Amendment speech. | • Schenck v. United States (1919): Upheld speech restrictions during wartime using the restrictive 'Clear and Present Danger' test where printed leaflets urged insubordination. • Tinker v. Des Moines (1969): Protected political symbolic speech (wearing armbands) in schools, ruling that speech cannot be censored based on discomfort or fear of disruption alone without evidence of material and substantial interference. |  |  |
| 6 | What was the constitutional holding in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010)? | • Holding: (5–4) The Court struck down provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) that prohibited corporations, labor unions, and associations from using general treasury funds for independent political expenditures and broadcast electioneering communications. Held that political spending is protected speech under the First Amendment, and the government cannot restrict independent campaign expenditures based on corporate identity. |  |  |
| 7 | How did District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) set the stage for McDonald v. Chicago (2010)? | In *Heller*, the Court struck down Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban, ruling for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms unconnected with militia service. Because D.C. is a federal enclave, *McDonald* was necessary two years later to incorporate that right against the fifty states. |  |  |
| 8 | What was the constitutional question and ruling in Baker v. Carr (1962)? | • Question: Do federal courts have jurisdiction over constitutional challenges to state legislative redistricting malapportionment under the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause, or is it a non-justiciable 'political question'? • Ruling: (6–2) The Court held that legislative apportionment challenges are justiciable in federal courts under the Equal Protection Clause, paving the way for the 'One Person, One Vote' standard requiring equally populated districts (*Reynolds v. Sims*, *Wesberry v. Sanders*). |  |  |
| 9 | What was the constitutional significance of Gitlow v. New York (1925)? | It marked the historic origin of the Selective Incorporation doctrine. Although Benjamin Gitlow's conviction for publishing a socialist manifesto was upheld, the Court ruled for the first time that First Amendment freedom of speech is protected against state infringement by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. |  |  |
| 10 | What was the constitutional issue and holding in Schenck v. United States (1919)? | • Issue: Did Charles Schenck's criminal conviction under the Espionage Act of 1917 for distributing anti-draft leaflets violate his First Amendment freedom of speech? • Holding: Unanimous Court ruled against Schenck. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes established the 'Clear and Present Danger' test: speech that creates a clear and present danger of bringing about substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent (e.g., obstructing wartime recruitment) is not protected by the First Amendment. |  |  |
| 11 | What was the constitutional issue and ruling in New York Times Co. v. United States (1971) (Pentagon Papers)? | • Issue: Did the Nixon administration's efforts to prevent the publication of classified Defense Department documents (Pentagon Papers) violate First Amendment freedom of the press? • Ruling: (6–3 Per Curiam) The Court rejected the government's request for an injunction, ruling that any system of prior restraint comes to court bearing a 'heavy presumption against its constitutional validity.' The government failed to meet the heavy burden of showing that publication would cause inevitable, direct, and immediate catastrophic harm to national security. |  |  |
| 12 | What was the constitutional question and holding in Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)? | • Question: Does the Sixth Amendment right to counsel in criminal cases extend to indigent defendants charged with felony offenses in state courts? • Holding: Unanimous (9–0). The Supreme Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment right to assistance of counsel is a fundamental and essential right, selectively incorporated against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. States must provide free court-appointed counsel to indigent felony defendants. |  |  |
| 13 | Compare Engel v. Vitale and Wisconsin v. Yoder regarding First Amendment religion clauses. | • Engel v. Vitale (1962): Enforced the **Establishment Clause**, prohibiting government sponsorship or encouragement of religious exercise (school prayer) in public institutions. • Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972): Enforced the **Free Exercise Clause**, prohibiting government from enforcing neutral laws (compulsory school attendance) that unconstitutionally burden sincere religious practices without a compelling state interest. |  |  |
| 14 | Compare Baker v. Carr and Shaw v. Reno regarding congressional redistricting. | • Baker v. Carr (1962): Addressed **malapportionment** (unequal district populations), ruling redistricting justiciable under the Equal Protection Clause and establishing the 'One Person, One Vote' standard. • Shaw v. Reno (1993): Addressed **racial gerrymandering**, ruling that bizarrely shaped majority-minority districts drawn predominantly on racial lines violate the Equal Protection Clause under Strict Scrutiny. |  |  |
| 15 | What was the reasoning behind the dissent in Citizens United v. FEC (2010)? | Justice Stevens dissented (joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor), arguing that corporations are artificial legal entities, not human beings with natural rights; unregulated corporate treasury spending allows wealthy special interests to drown out ordinary citizens' voices and breeds public cynicism and political corruption. |  |  |
| 16 | What was the constitutional question and ruling in Shaw v. Reno (1993)? | • Question: Did North Carolina's creation of a bizarrely shaped, snake-like majority-minority congressional district (District 12) violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? • Ruling: (5–4) The Court held that redistricting plans drawn with race as the predominant factor in an effort to separate voters into districts based on race are subject to Strict Scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause, even if intended to benefit minority voters. Districts must not be bizarrely shaped and must be narrowly tailored. |  |  |
| 17 | What was the original constitutional argument over the Second Amendment resolved in DC v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago? | • Collective Right View: The Second Amendment only protects a state's right to maintain an organized militia (National Guard). • Individual Right View: The Second Amendment protects an individual citizen's right to possess firearms for personal self-defense in the home. • *Heller* (2008) and *McDonald* (2010) decisively established the individual rights interpretation. |  |  |
| 18 | What were the constitutional grounds of Miranda v. Arizona (1966)? | Based on the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The Court held that custodial police interrogation is inherently coercive; law enforcement must inform suspects of their rights before interrogation (right to remain silent, anything said can be used against them, right to an attorney). |  |  |
| 19 | What was the constitutional question and holding in Engel v. Vitale (1962)? | • Question: Does the state-authorized recitation of a voluntary, non-denominational prayer in public schools violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment? • Holding: Yes (6–1). The Court held that government-directed public school prayer breaches the constitutional wall of separation between church and state, even if voluntary and non-sectarian, because state sponsorship inherently exerts indirect coercive pressure on students. |  |  |
| 20 | What was the constitutional question and holding in Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)? | • Question: Does a public school district ban on wearing black armbands in protest of the Vietnam War violate students' First Amendment freedom of speech? • Holding: (7–2) The Court held that wearing armbands constitutes protected symbolic speech. Students do not 'shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.' School officials cannot censor speech unless it causes 'substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities.' |  |  |
| 21 | How did McCulloch v. Maryland define the Necessary and Proper Clause? | Chief Justice Marshall rejected Maryland's narrow interpretation that 'necessary' means strictly indispensable. Instead, 'necessary' means appropriate, convenient, and useful for executing Congress's enumerated powers: 'Let the end be legitimate... and all means which are appropriate... are constitutional.' |  |  |
| 22 | What was the constitutional question and holding in Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)? | • Question: Did Wisconsin's compulsory school attendance law (requiring attendance until age 16) violate the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause for Old Order Amish parents who refused on religious grounds to send children past the 8th grade? • Holding: Unanimous (7–0). The Court held that the state's interest in two additional years of education was outweighed by the Amish community's fundamental religious practice and agrarian way of life protected under the Free Exercise Clause (incorporated via the 14th Amendment). |  |  |
| 23 | What was the holding of Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) and how did Brown v. Board dismantle it? | • Plessy v. Ferguson: Upheld racial segregation on railways under the 'Separate but Equal' doctrine, claiming the 14th Amendment guaranteed political equality, not social equality. • Brown v. Board: Thoroughly dismantled Plessy in public education, ruling that state-imposed separation inherently stamps Black children with a badge of inferiority, making segregated facilities unequal by definition. |  |  |
| 24 | What was the constitutional holding and rationale in Roe v. Wade (1973)? | • Holding: (7–2) The Court held that a woman's constitutional right to choose to have an abortion is protected under the fundamental Right to Privacy implied by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (and Ninth Amendment penumbras). • Framework: Established a trimester framework balancing maternal health and potential human life: complete state non-interference in the 1st trimester; health regulations in the 2nd; state prohibition permitted in the 3rd trimester except when necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother. (Overturned in 2022 by *Dobbs v. Jackson*). |  |  |
| 25 | What was the constitutional question and holding in McDonald v. Chicago (2010)? | • Question: Does the Second Amendment right of an individual to keep and bear arms for self-defense apply to state and municipal governments through the Fourteenth Amendment? • Holding: (5–4) The Court held that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for self-defense (recognized in *District of Columbia v. Heller*, 2008) is a fundamental individual liberty deeply rooted in American history and tradition, selectively incorporated against states and municipalities via the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. |  |  |
| 26 | What was the constitutional question and ruling in Marbury v. Madison (1803)? | • Constitutional Question: Does William Marbury have a right to his judicial commission, and can the Supreme Court issue a writ of mandamus under Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789? • Ruling: Chief Justice John Marshall held that while Marbury was entitled to his commission, Section 13 was unconstitutional because Congress could not expand the Court's original jurisdiction beyond Article III. Established the doctrine of Judicial Review. |  |  |
| 27 | What was the significance of Marbury v. Madison (1803) for American constitutional law? | It established Judicial Review: the supreme authority of the independent federal judiciary to interpret the Constitution and declare acts of Congress, executive actions, and state laws null and void if they violate the US Constitution, making the Court a co-equal branch of government. |  |  |
| 28 | What was the constitutional question and ruling in United States v. Lopez (1995)? | • Question: Does the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 exceed Congress's constitutional authority under the Commerce Clause? • Ruling: (5–4) Yes. Chief Justice William Rehnquist held that carrying a firearm in a local school zone is not an economic activity that substantially affects interstate commerce. Congress cannot use the Commerce Clause to pile inference upon inference, as this would convert federal authority into a general national police power; marked a historic resurgence of judicial federalism. |  |  |
| 29 | Why is Baker v. Carr considered the origin of the 'Reapportionment Revolution'? | Prior to *Baker*, rural legislative districts held equal voting power to urban districts with ten times the population, creating severe rural bias. By declaring legislative apportionment justiciable under Equal Protection, *Baker* triggered a wave of lawsuits forcing all state and federal districts to be redrawn to equal populations ('One Person, One Vote'). |  |  |
| 30 | What was the significance of New York Times Co. v. United States for the freedom of the press? | It established a virtually insurmountable legal barrier against government Prior Restraint (censorship before publication). Even when classified national security documents are leaked, the government cannot halt publication unless it proves direct, immediate, and catastrophic damage to the nation. |  |  |
| 31 | How did Gideon v. Wainwright and McDonald v. Chicago advance the doctrine of Selective Incorporation? | Both cases used the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause to apply provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states: • Gideon incorporated the Sixth Amendment right to counsel for indigent state felony defendants. • McDonald incorporated the Second Amendment individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense against state and local handgun bans. |  |  |
| 32 | Why was the 'Substantial Disruption' standard created in Tinker v. Des Moines crucial for student rights? | It established that public school administrators do not possess unfettered control over student expression. To legally prohibit or punish student speech, school officials must prove that the conduct would 'materially and substantially disrupt the discipline and order of the school,' preventing arbitrary suppression of dissenting opinions. |  |  |

---
Study this deck interactively with FSRS-6 spaced repetition, audio review, and multiple-choice mode at [Flashcards World](https://flashcards.world/flashcards/sets/8dee84a7-c38f-407d-a6dc-87b4697f9f8b/).