Impact of Notable Court Cases - AP Government and Politics

The Congressional power to regulate interstate commerce has been challenged consistently and often throughout American history. As new technology emerges that allows commerce to be conducted in different ways it is pretty much guaranteed that a court ruling will become necessary to reaffirm Congress’ sole right to regulate interstate commerce. Such as Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) after the invention of the steamboat required a ruling on Congress’ right to regulate interstate commerce along a river.

The case of Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire arose when Walter Chaplinsky was arrested for making threatening and offensive comments directed at the general population in New Hampshire. He sued that his arrest was a violation of his First Amendment right to free speech and the case went to the Supreme Court. The court determined that Chaplinsky had forfeited his right to free speech by using “obscene, slanderous, and fighting” language. The case established that there are limits to the First Amendment guarantee of free speech.

The court case Gregg v. Georgia (1976) established that a convicted criminal could be executed under the death penalty without protection from the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment.

The Supreme Court case McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) upheld the Federal government's right to create a national bank. The case is related to the implied powers, or loose constructionist, interpretation of the Constitution. Essentially, this interpretation grants the government powers that are not specifically outlined in the Constitution.

The Supreme Court case, Barron v. Baltimore, occurred in 1833. In this case, the Court established that the Bill of Rights, specifically the Fifth Amendment, did not apply to states.

Engel v. Vitale (1962) established that it was a violation of the First Amendment for a state or an organization to require students in a public school to recite a prayer that favored one religion over another.

The Supreme Court case, Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), was a very important court ruling of the Nineteenth Century. It not only established that Congress could not ban slavery in the territory it also ruled that African-Americans, whether free or enslaved, could not be American citizens and therefore did not even have the right to bring a case before the Supreme Court. It was the intention of the Court, led by Chief Justice Taney, to end the question of slavery expansion into the territories that threatened to divide the United States in two. Ultimately the court case provoked such a vehement reaction in the North, especially among the Republican party, that the differences between the two sides were only further entrenched.

The Supreme Court case, Lawrence v. Texas (2003), established that states have no right to make laws regarding the legality of same-sex relationships. It essentially legalized all forms of same-sex relationships across the nation in one-stroke and perhaps paved the way to the current marriage equality reform that is sweeping across the United States.

The Supreme Court case, New York Times v. Sullivan (1964), involved a police officer (Sullivan) suing the New York Times for publishing inaccurate and misleading information. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the lower courts and found in favor of the New York Times. The case established that, for a libel charge to be brought against a media organization or individual, it had to be proved that the inaccurate comments were not just a mistake, but were deliberately malicious. This greatly expanded the scope of the First Amendment protection of Freedom of the Press.

The Supreme Court case, Wesberry v. Sanders (1964), ruled that each state had to draw its congressional districts so that the were roughly equal in population distribution. The Court ruled that there was sufficient language in the Constitution that each individual should have fair and equal representation to justify the ruling.

In the Supreme Court case, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), reaffirmed that affirmative action was constitutional, particularly as it applies to college admissions, although the court did also rule that setting aside a specific quota for minority students was not permissible. It helped define what exactly constitutes legal affirmative action and what does not.

The Supreme Court case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010), ruled that the First Amendment prohibits the United States government from preventing unions and nonprofit organizations from funding the promotion of their political views. The case centered around the lobby group, Citizens United, and its attempts to publish a propaganda video that was critical of Hillary Clinton.

The Supreme Court case, Tinker v. Des Moines (1969), centered around several school children from the Tinker family who wore black wristbands to school to show solidarity for the end of the Vietnam War. Those students were suspended by the school, and their case eventually came before the Supreme Court of The United States. The Court ruled that schools could not violate the First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and expression of students in public schools unless those rights constituted an overt distraction from educational pursuits.

The Supreme Court case, Rostker v. Goldberg (1981), held that the law requiring only men to register for the draft and for military service was constitutionally sound and could stand. The issue arose after President Carter reinstituted the draft in 1980, following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and recommended that women be included as possible draftees.

When Dollree Mapp was suspected of criminal activities, the police searched her home. During their search, they found obscene photos and subsequently arrested Mapp. Though she was sent to prison, Mapp appealed her case with the claim that the police violated her fourth amendment rights against unreasonable searches. The Supreme Court ruled in Mapp's favor, stating that evidence obtained when the police violated her fourth amendment rights was invalid. This is known as the exclusionary rule.

Lemon v. Kurtzman established the "Lemon Test," whose three criteria served to determine whether a law was constitutional or not as it related to religion. Engel v. Vitale dealt with prayer in school; Brown v. Board of Education involved the Equal Protection Clause; Near v. Minnesota involved freedom of the press; and Gitlow v. New York involved the Free Speech Clause.

The Simpson-Mazzoli Act, passed in 1986 during the presidency of Ronald Reagan, was designed to reform immigration laws in the United States. It intended to make it more challenging for immigrants to enter the United States illegally and acted to extend legal residence to any immigrant who had arrived illegally prior to 1982, provided they pay back-taxes and demonstrate competent understanding of American society. The success of the act is debated, particularly between liberals and conservatives.

Reynolds v. Sims determined “one man, one vote.” The issue in Reynolds was a state (AL) that refused to redistrict its STATE legislative districts (do not confuse these with US Congressional districts) for around half a century. At first blush this may not seem very important, but imagine the following scenario:

Pick a date, let’s say . . . 1800. AL, at this time, is still largely rural (that is most of the population is concentrated outside of the city).

Skip forward 50 years (1850). AL is likely still largely rural

Skip forward another 50 (1900). The civil war is over and gone with, the Industrial Revolution has come and gone, and populations are moving inward to the city

Skip forward another 50 (1950). Populations are now, more than ever, moving inward to the city and (assume) for the first time urbanites (that is, city-dwellers) outnumber the rural occupants—let’s be extreme and say urbanites outnumber the rural folks by a 2:1 ratio.

Now, here’s where redistricting (or the lack thereof) becomes extremely important. Imagine that the AL state legislature refused to redistrict between 1900 and 1950, so the districts of 1900—when urbanites and rural folks were roughly equal—were still the same in 1950—when urbanites outnumbered rural folks 2:1.

Since the districts stayed the same, this means that there are two times as many people voting for one state legislator (in urban areas) as there are in rural areas. Putting this in a more-digestible form, it means that, effectively, every urban voter had half the voting power as every rural voter.

Thus, the Supreme Court held in Reynolds that this ran afoul of the 14th Amendment and established the principle of “one man, one vote”—that each district had to have a roughly equal number of inhabitants.

The Court decided that Richard Nixon did not have the executive privilege to withhold his recordings from Congress regarding the Watergate Scandal. After giving the court edited notes, the Supreme Court found that the President’s privilege is not absolute, and it is presumed in the Constitution – and the Supreme Court is the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution. The President’s executive confidentiality and power were weakened when the Supreme Court demanded the entirety of Nixon’s Watergate tapes.

In this case, the President’s power of appointment, which includes his selection of Supreme Court justices and Cabinet members, was not directly limited until the fallout from this landmark decision when President Nixon resigned.