Notable Court Cases - AP Government and Politics

The Warren Court did establish the right to privacy through its 1965 decision in the case of Griswold v. Connecticut, but Warren had retired by 1973 when the court, led by Chief Justice Warren Burger, made the landmark Roe v. Wade decision.

Clarence Gideon was charged by the State of Florida with grand larceny, but was specifically denied an attorney by the court. Gideon appealed to the Supreme Court on his own from prison with a pencil and prison stationary, and the Supreme Court appointed him an attorney so that his case could be heard. The Supreme Court held that under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, all states must provide counsel to those who could not afford it in all such criminal cases.

The Supreme Court case of Marbury v. Madison (1803) centered around Secretary of State James Madison trying to block the appointment of certain court justices even though they had been approved by the Senate. The Court's ruling established several different precedents, but by far the most important was that the Court had the right to overturn acts of Congress and deem them unconstitutional. This was not a power explicitly given to the Supreme Court in the Constitution, and the decision was highly controversial at the time.

The Supreme Court case, Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), centered around a Connecticut law that prevented anyone from using any drug to prevent conception. The Supreme Court ruled against the state of Connecticut and decided that the government had no right to regulate contraception because it violated the rights to individual and marital privacy—a right not explicitly stated in the Constitution, but one the Court inferred from other protections established in the Constitution.

The Supreme Court case, Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), was an extremely important case in the build-up to the Civil War. It was presided over by Chief Justice Roger Taney, who delivered the verdict that not only could Scott not sue in a Federal court, due to his being black and thus not being a citizen, but also that the government had no right to regulate the extension of slavery into the territories. Not surprisingly, the verdict inspired widespread outrage among abolitionist parties in the North and furthered the divide between the North and the South.

The Supreme Court case Korematsu v. United States (1944) upheld the right of the United States government to forcibly intern Japanese citizens and American citizens of Japanese descent during World War Two. The majority ruling found that the need to protect the nation during a time of war from espionage and treason outweighed the individual rights of Japanese citizens and American citizens of Japanese descent.

The Supreme Court case, Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), relates to the Congressional power to exclusively regulate interstate commerce. Specifically it states that this power, granted to Congress in the Constitution, included the power to regulate commerce along rivers.

Mapp v. Ohio (1961) ruled that state law agencies could not use any evidence in state courts that had been collected in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s protection against "unreasonable searches and seizures."

In the Supreme Court case Gideon v. Wainwright, the Supreme Court ruled that the state governments were legally bound by the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to provide legal counsel to a defendant who could not afford one. In doing so, they overturned a previous Supreme Court ruling in Betts v. Brady, which had stated that these rights did not always apply at the state level.

In 1816, Congress wanted to create a national bank in the United States. However, many states disagreed with this decision because creating a national bank led to economic depression. Thus, Maryland passed laws placing a tax on the bank, but a cashier with the bank (James McCulloch) refused to pay the tax. When this case reached the Supreme Court, the Court decided that although the Constitution did not explicitly allow Congress to create a national bank, it did allow Congress to "make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers," a clause found in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. This is known as the "necessary and proper" clause, allowing the federal government to create the bank.

Marbury v. Madison created judicial review. Miranda v. Arizona created Miranda rights. Both Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education involved the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Second Amendment protects the right of Americans to carry guns, so you have to determine which of these cases is related to gun rights. The Supreme Court case, District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), reaffirmed that an individual has the right to carry a weapon for self defense in their home, stating also that an individual has the right to carry a weapon in a federal enclave so long as it is within the law for them to do so.

All of these Courts are named after the Supreme Court Justice who was in charge at the time (as is the custom). The Warren Court, under Chief Justice Earl Warren (1953–1969) is generally considered to be the most famous for its liberal decisions. It was the Court during the Civil Rights Era and was active in the promotion of civil liberties and the extension of civil rights.

The Supreme Court case of Cooper v. Ohio (1958) revolved around the issue of segregation in the South, particularly the attempts by some Southern authorities to continue segregation even after the landmark ruling of Brown v. Board of Education. In Cooper v. Aaron, the Supreme Court ruled that the States were bound by the decisions of the Supreme Court and could not nullify the decisions of the Federal courts.

The Supreme Court case Barron v. Baltimore (1833) stated that the Bill of Rights does not specifically apply to the State governments and that the Court can find no constitutional reason to make it so. However, the Supreme Court case Gitlow v. New York (1925) held that the First Amendment applies equally to the State and Federal governments.

In McCulloch v. Maryland, the U.S. Supreme Court held that federal laws have supremacy over state laws, and that therefore the State of Maryland had no authority to interfere with or oppose the operations of a bank established by Congress.

In Citizens United v. FEC, the Supreme Court defended the political speech and political contribution rights of corporations, unions, and not-for-profit organizations.

The 1973 companion cases of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton involved the principles of a woman's rights to privacy and to make decisions concerning her own health, as well as the state's legitimate interests in protecting women's health and the potentiality of human life. In those cases, the Supreme Court extended the right of privacy to a woman's decision to have an abortion. The right of spousal consent in the areas of birth and abortion was dealt with in the 1992 case, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, where the Supreme Court overturned a state law requiring spousal awareness prior to abortions.

Brown v. Board is the correct answer. It was in this case that Chief Justice Warren declared unconstitutional segregation in public education. The language “with all deliberate speed” became nearly as famous as the case itself.

One precautionary note before continuing to the incorrect answers: technically speaking, there are TWO Brown v. Board cases—the first in 1954 (Brown I) the second in 1955 (Brown II). Brown I is the case that says segregation in public schools is unconstitutional. Brown II answers the question of “how fast should we remedy this problem” with “with all deliberate speed.” This is a hyper-technical distinction, but a relevant one nonetheless.

Although Plessy v. Ferguson may sound correct (hopefully it sounds familiar), it is not the correct answer. Brown v. Board actually overturns (that is, says it is incorrect) Plessy. More specifically, Plessy held that, so long as segregation was “separate but equal,” it was OK—that is constitutional. Brown directly contradicts that, saying “The ‘separate but equal’ doctrine adopted in Plessy v. Ferguson has no place in the field of public education.”

Gibbons is incorrect as it is a case dealing with Congress’ ability to regulate commerce.

Citizens United is incorrect as it is a case dealing with the interplay between the First Amendment and election contributions.

Ex parte Milligan is a case dealing with the suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War.

Gideon v. Wainwright \[somewhat\] famously incorporated the 6th Amendment's guarantee of representation even to those who cannot afford it (so-called indigent ("poor") counsel). There's also a movie about this case called "Gideon's Trumpets."

The answer, "the right to be represented by the best . . ." may sound tempting, but it is not true. The state must provide you with counsel if you cannot afford it (if you want it, that is), but there's no requirement that your representation be the best.

The other answers are different Amendments that were not relevant to the case.