Show Menu
Cheatography

AP US GOV - SCOTUS Cheat Sheet (DRAFT) by

Supreme Court Cases - AP US GOV

This is a draft cheat sheet. It is a work in progress and is not finished yet.

Shaw v. Reno (1993)

Facts
After the 1990 census, North Carolina qualified to have a 12th district and drew it in a distinct snake-like manner in order to create a Black majority district. 5 North Carolina residents challenged the consti­tut­ion­ality of the district arguing it was racial gerrym­and­ering and violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
Decision
NC reappo­rti­onment plan was uncons­tit­uti­onal. The proposed district was so odd that there was no compelling explan­ation for its shape other than separating voters by race. Although district plans may take racial consid­era­tions into account, race cannot be the predom­inant factor in drawing districts.
Key Principle
Equal Protection

Wisconsin v Yoder

Facts
Three Amish families from Wisconsin took their kids out of school after 8th grade. This broke the compulsory education law because kids have to go to school until they are 16 years old. Yoder and other parents sued claiming that Wisconsin violated their free exercise of religion.
Decision
By a unaminous decision, it was decided that school cannot overide freedom of religion.
Key Principle
1A free exercise of religion

McDonald v Chicago 2010

Facts
Had hunting guns but wanted a hand gun because crime was bad in his neighb­orhood and he had been robbed five times. Hunting guns were ineffe­ctive for self defense, but hand guns were. Due to Chicago gun laws he could not get one so he sued Chicago.
Ruling
The supreme court sided with McDonald, and stated that the 14th amendment makes the second amendment applicable to the states.
Principal
a2 right to bare arms is applicable to the States.

Baker v Carr

Facts
The city population has grown a lot but the rural areas were very sparse. Baker sued Tennessee secretary of state for more equal repres­ent­ation.
Ruling
The Supreme Court has jurisd­iction over questions of legisl­ative apport­ion­ment.
Principle
14th amendment equal protection clause.
 

Engel v. Vitale (1962)

Facts
New York State Board of Regents authorized a short, voluntary prayer at the start of each school day. A group of organi­zations challenged the prayer claiming it violated the Establ­ishment Clause.
Decision
State cannot hold prayers in public schools, even if partic­ipation is not required.
Key Principle
Establ­ishment Clause of 1A

Tinker v Des Moines

Facts
Students from the Tinker family wore arm bands to protest aggainst the Vietnam War, but were suspended due to it being political. The parents sued and claimed that it was a violation of 1A freedom of Speach.
Decision
The court aggreed that it was a violation of 1A rights. They created substa­ntial disruption tests for future decisi­sons.
Key Principle
1A freedom of speech

Schenck vs United States

Facts
During WW1, Schenck distri­buted leaflets claiming that the draft violates the third amendment, and he encourage people to refuse to the draft. This caused him to break the espionage Act of 1917. He believed his first amendment rights were violated.
Decision
Schenck's rights were not violated because the first amendment does not protect speech that leads to present danger. Unanimous vote
Principle
1a freedom of speech

Gideon v Wainwrite

Facts
In Florida, the only time they gave the defendant a lawyer was when they commited a capital offense. So he did not get a lawyer and was put into jail. So he appealed because his sixth amendment rights are violated (right to an attorny.
Ruling
unaminous decision that Gideon should of had a lawyer
Principle
a6 right to attourney.

US v Lopez

Facts
Lopez brought a gun to school and was charged for his crime. Then the crime was charged federally. They challanged that because bringing a gun to school has nothing to do with the commerce clause.
Ruling
Possesion of a gun at school is in no sense an economic activity that affects inter state commerce. Federal Government had over stepped its bounds.
Principle
Commerce clause, federa­lism.
 

Marbury v. Madison

Facts
At the end of President John Adams’ term, Marbury did not receive docs to finalize his commission as Justice of the Peace. President Thomas Jeffer­son's new admini­str­ation refused to deliver the docs. Marbury sued Madison (the Sec of State) and asked the Supreme Court to issue a writ to force delivery.
Decision
The Court found that Madison’s refusal to deliver the commission was illegal, but did not force Madison to deliver docs. Instead, the Court held that the provision of the Judiciary Act of 1789 enabling Marbury to bring his claim to the Supreme Court was itself uncons­tit­uti­onal. Marshall establ­ished the principle of judicial review - the power to declare a law uncons­tit­uti­onal.
Key Principle
Judicial Review

New York Times v US

Facts
NY Times published pentagon papers which exposed government lies regarding the Vietnam War. Nixon try to bar further public­ation based on prior restraint.
Decision
6-3. Government could not use prior restraint because it was uncons­tit­utional use of using it.
Principle
1a freedom of press

Brown v board of ed.

Facts
Challenged separate but equal in schools.
Decision
Separate but equal facilities are unequal.
Principal
A14 equal protection clause

McCullough v Maryland

Facts
US Government set up a national bank, which made the state of Maryland mad because Maryland banks now must compete against the national bank. So they put a big tax on the National bank. McCull­ough, the bank cashier, refused to pay the tax and was fined for 2500 dollars. He appealed
Ruling
US can put the bank in Maryland, and states cannot tax national govern­ment.
Principle
Necessary and proper clause, supremacy clause.

Citizens United v FEC

Facts
Citizens United sued because a movie against Hillary Clinton could not be released due to Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA). So they sued to change this.
Ruling
It was uncons­tit­utional because it violated the people's First amendment right. Applied bill of rights to a corpor­ation
Principle
1a freedom of speach,