AP Case Review Chart

Name: _____________________________ Unit: _____________ Date: ___________________

CITATION McCulloh v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316, (1819) FACT ISSUE Did Congress have the authority to establish the bank? Did the Maryland law unconstitutionally interfere with congressional powers? RULING RATIONALE CONCLUSION Writing for the Court, Chief Justice Marshall noted that Congress possessed unenumerated powers not explicitly outlined in the Constitution. Marshall also held that while the states retained the power of taxation, "the constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof are supreme. . .they control the constitution and laws of the respective states, and cannot be controlled by them.

CITATION

FACT The case began on March 2, 1801, when an obscure Federalist, William Marbury, was designated as a justice of the peace in the District of Columbia. Marbury and several others were appointed to government posts created by Congress in the last days of John Adams's presidency, but these lastminute appointments were never fully finalized. The disgruntled appointees invoked an act of Congress and sued for their jobs in the Supreme Court.

ISSUE 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 get the relief he requests?

RULING

RATIONALE

CONCLUSION

CITATION Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1, (1824)

FACT A New York state law gave two individuals the exclusive right to operate steamboats on waters within state jurisdiction. Laws like this one were duplicated elsewhere which led to friction as some states would require foreign (out-of-state) boats to pay substantial fees for navigation privileges. In this case a steamboat owner who did business between New York and New Jersey challenged the monopoly that New York had granted, which forced him to obtain a special operating permit from the state to navigate on its waters.

ISSUE

RULING

RATIONALE

CONCLUSION

CITATION Barron v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833)

FACT

ISSUE

RULING

RATIONALE

CONCLUSION No. The Court announced its decision in this case without even hearing the arguments of the City of Baltimore. Writing for the unanimous Court, Chief Justice Marshall found that the limitations on government articulated in the Fifth Amendment were specifically intended to limit the powers of the national government. Citing the intent of the framers and the development of the Bill of Rights as an exclusive check on the government in Washington D.C., Marshall argued that the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction in this case since the Fifth Amendment was not applicable to the states.

CITATION

FACT ISSUE The Board of Regents for the Does the State of New York reading of a authorized a short, voluntary nondenominatio prayer for recitation at the nal prayer at the start of each school day. This start of the was an attempt to defuse the school day politically potent issue by violate the taking it out of the hands of "establishment local communities. The of religion" blandest of invocations read clause of the as follows: "Almighty God, First we acknowledge our Amendment? dependence upon Thee, and beg Thy blessings upon us, our teachers, and our country."

RULING

RATIONALE

CONCLUSION

CITATION

FACT

ISSUE 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"?

RULING

RATIONALE

CONCLUSION Yes. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Burger articulated a three-part test for laws dealing with religious establishment. To be constitutional, a statute must have "a secular legislative purpose," it must have principal effects which neither advance nor inhibit religion, and it must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion." The Court found that the subsidization of parochial schools furthered a process of religious inculcation, and that the "continuing state surveillance" necessary to enforce the specific provisions of the laws would inevitably entangle the state in religious affairs. The Court also noted the presence of an unhealthy "divisive political potential" concerning legislation which appropriates support to religious schools. 6

CITATION Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe 530 U.S. 290 (2000)

FACT

ISSUE Does the Santa Fe Independent School District's policy permitting student-led, studentinitiated prayer at football games violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?

RULING

RATIONALE

CONCLUSION

CITATION

FACT

ISSUE 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?

RULING

RATIONALE

CONCLUSION The Court found such a violation. The required activities encroached on both the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment since the readings and recitations were essentially religious ceremonies and were "intended by the State to be so." Furthermore, argued Justice Clark, the ability of a parent to excuse a child from these ceremonies by a written note was irrelevant since it did not prevent the school's actions from violating the Establishment Clause.

CITATION

FACT During World War I, Schenck mailed circulars to draftees. The circulars suggested that the draft was a monstrous wrong motivated by the capitalist system. The circulars urged "Do not submit to intimidation" but advised only peaceful action such as petitioning to repeal the Conscription Act. Schenck was charged with conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act by attempting to cause insubordination in the military and to obstruct recruitment.

ISSUE Are Schenck's actions (words, expression) protected by the free speech clause of the First Amendment?

RULING

RATIONALE

CONCLUSION

CITATION Roth v. United States 354 U.S. 476 (1957)

FACT

ISSUE

RULING

RATIONALE

CONCLUSION

Did either the federal or California's obscenity restrictions, prohibiting the sale or transfer of obscene materials through the mail, impinge upon the freedom of expression as guaranteed by the First Amendment?

10

CITATION

FACT

ISSUE Does a prohibition against the wearing of armbands in public school, as a form of symbolic protest, violate the First Amendment's freedom of speech protections?

RULING

RATIONALE

CONCLUSION The wearing of armbands was "closely akin to 'pure speech'" and protected by the First Amendment. School environments imply limitations on free expression, but here the principals lacked justification for imposing any such limits.The principals had failed to show that the forbidden conduct would substantially interfere with appropriate school discipline.

11

CITATION Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989)

FACT In 1984, in front of the Dallas City Hall, Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag as a means of protest against Reagan administration policies. Johnson was tried and convicted under a Texas law outlawing flag desecration. He was sentenced to one year in jail and assessed a $2,000 fine. After the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the conviction, the case went to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

RULING

RATIONALE

CONCLUSION

12

CITATION FACT Coates v. City of Cincinnati, 402 U.S. 611 (1971)

ISSUE

RULING

RATIONALE

CONCLUSION

13

CITATION FACT Smith v. Collin , 439 U.S. 916 (1978)

ISSUE

RULING

RATIONALE

CONCLUSION

14

CITATION CHICAGO V. MORALES (97-1121) 527 U.S. 41 (1999)

FACT

ISSUE

RULING

RATIONALE

CONCLUSION

15

CITATION FACT United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)

ISSUE

RULING

RATIONALE

CONCLUSION

16

CITATION FACT Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961)

ISSUE

RULING

RATIONALE

CONCLUSION

17

CITATION Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)

FACT

ISSUE

RULING

RATIONALE

CONCLUSION

18

CITATION Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967)

FACT

ISSUE

RULING

RATIONALE

CONCLUSION

19

CITATION FACT Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1972)

ISSUE

RULING

RATIONALE

CONCLUSION

20

CITATION Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 (1964)

FACT

ISSUE

RULING

RATIONALE

CONCLUSION

21

CITATION Gideon v. Wainright, 372 U.S. 335 (1964)

FACT

ISSUE

RULING

RATIONALE

CONCLUSION

22

CITATION Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, (1966)

FACT

ISSUE

RULING

RATIONALE

CONCLUSION

23

CITATION FACT Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466 (2004)

ISSUE

RULING

RATIONALE

CONCLUSION

24

CITATION Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976)

FACT

ISSUE

RULING

RATIONALE

CONCLUSION

25

CITATION Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002)

FACT

ISSUE

RULING

RATIONALE

CONCLUSION

26

CITATION FACT Cruzan v. Missouri Department of Health, 497 U.S. 261 (1990)

ISSUE

RULING

RATIONALE

CONCLUSION

27

CITATION FACT United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995)

ISSUE

RULING

RATIONALE

CONCLUSION

28

CITATION FACT United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974)

ISSUE

RULING

RATIONALE

CONCLUSION

29

CITATION Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976)

FACT

ISSUE

RULING

RATIONALE

CONCLUSION

30

CITATION Clinton v. New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998)

FACT

ISSUE

RULING

RATIONALE

CONCLUSION

31

CITATION Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000)

FACT

ISSUE

RULING

RATIONALE

CONCLUSION

32

33