supreme court case study 6 answers

Landmark Supreme Court Cases

Let's learn about some landmark Supreme Court cases and think about how they impacted American law and society!

Landmark Cases Video 1

Download the video viewing guide to get more out of viewing the video.

Landmark Cases Video 2

Landmark cases video 3, landmark cases video 4, showing what you know.

A case study collection to help students demonstrate understanding of the impact of landmark Supreme Court Cases on American law and society.

This will open in your browser as a Word document. Right click to save to your desktop.

A reading activity to help students demonstrate understanding of the impact of Marbury v. Madison (1803) on American law and society.

A reading activity to help students understand aspects of the state and federal trial process and its impact on American society.

A reading and graphic organizart activity to help students demonstrate understanding of Article III and the court system on American law and society.

Helpful Resources

Vocabulary Practice Concept Circle

• Landmark Cases (Bill of Rights Institute)
• Landmark Cases (StreetLaw)
• Landmark Cases (US Courts)
• Landmark Library (iCivics)
• Landmark Cases Gallery Walk (CPALMS)
• Supreme Decision (iCivics)

Skip to main navigation

• Email Updates
• Federal Court Finder

Supreme Court Landmarks

Participate in interactive landmark Supreme Court cases that have shaped history and have an impact on law-abiding citizens today.

Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser (1987) Holding:  Students do not have a First Amendment right to make obscene speeches in school.

Matthew N. Fraser, a student at Bethel High School, was suspended for three days for delivering an obscene and provocative speech to the student body. In this speech, he nominated his fellow classmate for an elected school office. The Supreme Court held that his free speech rights were not violated.

*This case relates to students.

Board of Education of Independent School District #92 of Pottawatomie County v. Earls (2002) Holding:  Random drug tests of students involved in extracurricular activities do not violate the Fourth Amendment.

In Veronia School District v. Acton (1995), the Supreme Court held that random drug tests of student athletes do not violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures. Some schools then began to require drug tests of all students in extracurricular activities. The Supreme Court in Earls upheld this practice.

Brown v. Board of Education (1954) Holding:  Separate schools are not equal.

In  Plessy v. Ferguson  (1896), the Supreme Court sanctioned segregation by upholding the doctrine of "separate but equal." The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People disagreed with this ruling, challenging the constitutionality of segregation in the Topeka, Kansas, school system. In 1954, the Court reversed its Plessy decision, declaring that "separate schools are inherently unequal." Learn more about this case.

Honor the important figures involved in the related cases  Brown v. Board of Education  and Mendez v. Westminster  using a readers theater presentation. 

Cooper v. Aaron (1958) Holding:  States cannot nullify decisions of the federal courts.

Several government officials in southern states, including the governor and legislature of Alabama, refused to follow the Supreme Court's Brown v. Board of Education decision. They argued that the states could nullify federal court decisions if they felt that the federal courts were violating the Constitution. The Court unanimously rejected this argument and held that only the federal courts can decide when the Constitution is violated.

Engel v. Vitale (1962) Holding : School initiated-prayer in the public school system violates the First Amendment.

In the New York school system, each day began with a nondenominational prayer acknowledging dependence upon God. This action was challenged in Court as an unconstitutional state establishment of religion in violation of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court agreed, stating that the government could not sponsor such religious activities.

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) Holding:  Indigent defendants must be provided representation without charge.

Gideon was accused of committing a felony. Being indigent, he petitioned the judge to provide him with an attorney free of charge. The judge denied his request. The Supreme Court ruled for Gideon, saying that the Sixth Amendment requires indigent criminal defendants to be provided an attorney free of charge.

Learn more about this case.

Goss v. Lopez (1975) Holding:  Students are entitled to certain due process rights.

Nine students at an Ohio public school received 10-day suspensions for disruptive behavior without due process protections. The Supreme Court ruled for the students, saying that once the state provides an education for all of its citizens, it cannot deprive them of it without ensuring due process protections.

Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) Holding:  Colleges and universities have a legitimate interest in promoting diversity.

Barbara Grutter alleged that her Equal Protection rights were violated when the University of Michigan Law School's attempt to gain a diverse student body resulted in the denial of her admission's application. The Supreme Court disagreed and held that institutions of higher education have a legitimate interest in promoting diversity.

Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988) Holding:  Administrators may edit the content of school newspapers.

The principal of Hazelwood East High School edited two articles in the school paper The Spectrum that he deemed inappropriate. The student authors argued that this violated their First Amendment right to freedom of speech. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that administrators can edit materials that reflect school values.

*This case relates to students. Learn more about this case.

Mapp v. Ohio (1961) Holding:  Illegally obtained material cannot be used in a criminal trial.

While searching Dollree Mapp's house, police officers discovered obscene materials and arrested her. Because the police officers never produced a search warrant, she argued that the materials should be suppressed as the fruits of an illegal search and seizure. The Supreme Court agreed and applied to the states the exclusionary rule from Weeks v. United States(1914).

Marbury v. Madison (1803) Holding:  Established the doctrine of judicial review.

In the Judiciary Act of 1789, Congress gave the Supreme Court the authority to issue certain judicial writs. The Constitution did not give the Court this power. Because the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, the Court held that any contradictory congressional Act is without force. The ability of federal courts to declare legislative and executive actions unconstitutional is known as judicial review.

Teach students the significance of Marbury v. Madison which establishes the concept of judicial review.

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) Holding:  The Constitution gives the federal government certain implied powers.

Maryland imposed a tax on the Bank of the United States and questioned the federal government's ability to grant charters without explicit constitutional sanction. The Supreme Court held that the tax unconstitutionally interfered with federal supremacy and ruled that the Constitution gives the federal government certain implied powers.

Miranda v. Arizona (1966) Holding:  Police must inform suspects of their rights before questioning.

After hours of police interrogations, Ernesto Miranda confessed to rape and kidnapping. At trial, he sought to suppress his confession, stating that he was not advised of his rights to counsel and to remain silent. The Supreme Court agreed, holding that police must inform suspects of their rights before questioning.

New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985) Holding : Students have a reduced expectation of privacy in school.

A teacher accused T.L.O. of smoking in the bathroom. When she denied the allegation, the principal searched her purse and found cigarettes and marijuana paraphernalia. A family court declared T.L.O. a delinquent. The Supreme Court ruled that her rights were not violated since students have reduced expectations of privacy in school.

New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) Holding : In order to prove libel, a public official must show that what was said against them was made with actual malice.

The New York Times was sued by the Montgomery, Alabama police commissioner, L.B. Sullivan, for printing an advertisement containing some false statements. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of the newspaper saying the right to publish all statements is protected under the First Amendment.

Roper v. Simmons (2005) Holding : It is cruel and unusual punishment to execute persons for crimes they committed before age 18. 

Matthew Simmons was sentenced to death for the murder of a woman when he was 17 years of age. In the 1988 caseThompson v. Oklahoma, the Supreme Court ruled that executing persons for crimes committed at age 15 or younger constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Roper argued that "evolving standards of decency" prevented the execution of an individual for crimes committed before the age of 18. A majority of the Supreme Court agreed with Roper, and held that to execute him for his crime would violate the Eighth Amendment.

Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe (2000) Holding:  Students may not use a school's loudspeaker system to offer student-led, student-initiated prayer. 

Before football games, members of the student body of a Texas high school elected one of their classmates to address the players and spectators. These addresses were conducted over the school's loudspeakers and usually involved a prayer. Attendance at these events was voluntary. Three students sued the school arguing that the prayers violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. A majority of the Court rejected the school's argument that since the prayer was student initiated and student led, as opposed to officially sponsored by the school, it did not violate the First Amendment. The Court held that this action did constitute school-sponsored prayer because the loudspeakers that the students used for their invocations were owned by the school.

Terry v. Ohio (1968) Holding:  Stop and frisks do not violate the Constitution under certain circumstances.

Observing Terry and others acting suspiciously in front of a store, a police officer concluded that they might rob it. The officer stopped and frisked the men. A weapon was found on Terry and he was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon. The Supreme Court ruled that this search was reasonable.

Texas v. Johnson (1989) Holding:  Even offensive speech such as flag burning is protected by the First Amendment.

To protest the policies of the Reagan administration, Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag outside of the Dallas City Hall. He was arrested for this act, but argued that it was symbolic speech. The Supreme Court agreed, ruling that symbolic speech is constitutionally protected even when it is offensive. Learn more about this case.

Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) Holding : Students do not leave their rights at the schoolhouse door.

To protest the Vietnam War, Mary Beth Tinker and her brother wore black armbands to school. Fearing a disruption, the administration prohibited wearing such armbands. The Tinkers were removed from school when they failed to comply, but the Supreme Court ruled that their actions were protected by the First Amendment.

Learn more about this case.  Teach students the significance of Tinker v. Des Moines which examines student's First Amendment rights. 

U.S. v. Nixon (1974) Holding:  The President is not above the law.

The special prosecutor in the Watergate affair subpoenaed audio tapes of Oval Office conversations. President Nixon refused to turn over the tapes, asserting executive privilege. The Supreme Court ruled that the defendants' right to potentially exculpating evidence outweighed the President's right to executive privilege if national security was not compromised.

Zelma v. Simmons-Harris (2002) Holding:  Certain school voucher programs are constitutional.

The Ohio Pilot Scholarship Program allowed certain Ohio families to receive tuition aid from the state. This would help offset the cost of tuition at private, including parochial (religiously affiliated), schools. The Supreme Court rejected First Amendment challenges to the program and stated that such aid does not violate the Establishment Clause.

DISCLAIMER: These resources are created by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts for educational purposes only. They may not reflect the current state of the law, and are not intended to provide legal advice, guidance on litigation, or commentary on any pending case or legislation.

• Location, Hours & Parking
• Transportation Grants

• Our Mission
• Board and Officers
• Teacher Advisory Council
• The Courthouse
• The Federal Courts
• Photo Gallery Tour
• Schedule a Tour
• Summer Teacher Institute
• Student Art Competition 2024
• The Supreme Court and My Hometown
• Bill of Rights Day 2024 Contest
• Citizenship in the Nation for Scouts
• Girl Scout Day at the Courthouse
• Tinker v. Des Moines Exhibit
• Program Photos
• Constitution Day, September 17
• Democracy Badge for Girl Scouts
• Inside Government Badge for Girl Scouts
• Judicial Learning Center Tenth Anniversary
• Stories of the First Amendment Teacher Event
• Alexander Hamilton Exhibit
• Homeschool Educator Institute
• Law Day 2014 Lecture: Freedom Summer
• Freedom Summer Traveling Exhibition
• Student Center Landing Page
• The Role of the Federal Courts
• Organization of the Federal Courts
• How Courts Work
• Landmark Cases
• Educator Center Main Page
• Online Learning Resources
• Comparing State and Federal Courts
• Law Day Lessons and Activities
• The Power of Judicial Review

Article III of the U.S. Constitution describes the powers and duties of the judicial branch.  Nowhere does it mention the power of the courts to review actions of the other two branches, and possibly declare these actions unconstitutional.  This power, called Judicial Review , was established by the landmark decision in Marbury v. Madison , 1803.

“ It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is…If two laws conflict with each other, the Courts must decide on the operation of each.  So, if a law be in opposition to the Constitution… the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty .” Chief Justice Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, 1803  

• Facts about Judicial Review
• Possible Subjects of Judicial Review
• No law or action can contradict the U.S. Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land.
• The court can only review a law that is brought before it through a law suit.
• State courts also have the power to review state laws or actions based upon their state constitutions.
• Legislative actions (laws made by congress)
• Executive actions (treaties, executive orders issued by the president, or regulations issued by a government agency)
• State and local laws

Case Studies

Marbury v. madison , 1803.

• Case History

When President John Adams did not win a second term in the 1801 election, he used the final days of his presidency to make a large number of political appointments.  When the new president (Thomas Jefferson) took office, he told his Secretary of State (James Madison), not to deliver the official paperwork to the government officials who had been appointed by Adams.  Thus the government officials, including William Marbury, were denied their new jobs.  William Marbury petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus , to force Madison to deliver the commission.

Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 (a law written by Congress), gave the Supreme Court the authority to issue writs of mandamus to settle disputes such as the one described here.  This power to force actions of government officials went above and beyond anything mentioned in Article III of the Constitution.

Therefore, in addition to deciding whether or not William Marbury had a right to his job, the U.S. Supreme Court also had to decide whether or not Section 13 of the Judiciary Act was in violation of the Constitution (the birth of Judicial Review ).

This case did not reach the U.S. Supreme Court the way most issues do.  Most cases reach the Supreme Court as the court of last resort, when the Justices are asked to review a decision of a lower court.  In this case, William Marbury petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court directly due to the provision in Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789.  Note:  The power to directly accept petitions such as these is not granted to the Supreme Court in the Constitution.

What Do You Think The U.S. Supreme Court Decided?

Though the Justices agreed that William Marbury had a right to his job, they also ruled that issuing the writ of mandamus to force that to happen did not fall under their jurisdiction as stated in the Constitution. The Supreme Court opinion explained that it is within their power and authority to review acts of Congress, such as the Judiciary Act of 1789, to determine whether or not the law is unconstitutional. By declaring Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional, the U.S. Supreme Court established the doctrine of Judicial Review.

The Supreme Court said “ The Constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and, like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it. If the (first) part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law .” by author of opinion, Chief Justice John Marshall.

• The Oyez Project
• The opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court
• The official version of the opinion can be found in the U.S. Reports at your local law library. Marbury v. Madison , 5 U.S. 137 (1803)

Ladue v. Gilleo, 1994

In 1990, Margaret Gilleo placed a sign in the yard of her home in Ladue, Missouri. The sign said “Say No to War in the Persian Gulf, Call Congress Now.” The city of Ladue had a law against yard signs, and told Ms. Gilleo to take her signs down. Ms. Gilleo sued the city of Ladue for violating her 1 st Amendment rights.

Was Ladue’s law against signs unconstitutional?

Margaret Gilleo sued the city of Ladue in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. The court ruled in her favor and stopped Ladue from enforcing the law. Ladue appealed the decision, and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals also found in Ms. Gilleo’s favor. The city of Ladue then asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case.

The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower courts. Ladue’s law against yard signs violated the 1 st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The 1 st Amendment protects political speech, and banning yard signs takes away the main avenue by which people traditionally express their personal political views. The value of protecting personal political speech is more important than Ladue’s desire to keep the city free of clutter.

The Supreme Court said “ They may not afford the same opportunities for conveying complex ideas as do other media, but residential signs have long been an important and distinct medium of expression .” by author of opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens.

• The official version of the opinion can be found in the U.S. Reports at your local law library. Ladue v. Gilleo , 512 U.S. 43 (1994)

Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 1966

Annie Harper was not allowed to register to vote in Virginia because she wasn’t able to pay the state’s poll tax. Virginia law required voters to pay $1.50 tax to register, with the money collected going to public school funding. Ms. Harper sued the Virginia Board of Elections, claiming the poll tax violated her 14 th Amendment right to equal protection. Note: The 24 th Amendment to the Constitution already banned poll taxes in federal elections, but not in state elections.

Was the Virginia law requiring a tax to vote in a state election unconstitutional?

The U.S. District Court dismissed Ms. Harper’s suit in favor of the Board of Elections. She then asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case.

The Supreme Court declared the Virginia poll tax law unconstitutional. By making it more difficult for poor people to vote, the state was violating the 14 th Amendment guarantee of equal protection. Voting is a fundamental right, and should remain accessible to all citizens. The amount of wealth someone has should have no bearing on their ability to vote freely.

The Supreme Court said “ We conclude that a State violates the …(Constitution).. …whenever it makes the affluence of the voter or payment of any fee an electoral standard. Voter qualifications have no relation to wealth nor to paying or not paying this or any other tax …. Wealth or fee paying has, in our view, no relation to voting qualifications; the right to vote is too precious, too fundamental to be so burdened or conditioned. ” by author of opinion, Justice William O. Douglas

• The official version of the opinion can be found in the U.S. Reports at your local law library. Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections , 383 U.S. 663 (1966)

FREE AP Government Resources! 

1. marbury v. madison (1803), 2. mcculloch v. maryland (1819), 3. schenck v. u.s (1919), 4. brown v. board of education (1954), 5. baker v. carr (1962), 6. engel v. vitale (1962), 7. gideon v. wainwright (1963), 8. tinker v. des moines (1969), 9. new york times v. u.s (1969), 10. wisconsin v. yoder (1972), 11. roe v. wade (1973), 12. shaw v. reno (1993), 13. u.s. v. lopez (1995), 14. mcdonald v. chicago (2010), 15. citizens united v. fec (2010), final thoughts.

Published March 13, 2024

15 Supreme Court Cases You HAVE To Know For the AP Government Exam

Preparing for your AP Government exam can be a daunting task, but with the right AP resources and study strategies, you can conquer it with confidence. Whether you're diving into AP test prep a few months in advance or looking for AP study guides to streamline your review sessions, understanding landmark Supreme Court cases is crucial. But don't worry, we're here to help! In this AP guide, we'll navigate through 15 Supreme Court cases crucial for your AP exam study guides. Each case discussed in this article has been carefully selected to enhance your understanding of U.S. history and government, making them indispensable for your AP test review.

To support your last-minute AP test prep, we've compiled essential AP resources and AP study notes. These tools are designed to help streamline your studying process, offering clear, concise, and relevant information that aligns with your AP test study guides.

The ULTIMATE AP Government Study Guide : A comprehensive review tool covering key topics and cases, perfect for anyone looking for effective AP study guides.

AP Government Flashcards : Handy for memorizing key facts, dates, and legal principles, these flashcards are an essential part of any AP resources kit.

Our Favorite YouTube channel for all things AP Gov - Heimler’s : complements online AP notes and AP study guides.

As you delve into each Supreme Court case, from Marbury v. Madison to Citizens United v. FEC, consider utilizing AP flashcards to remember crucial dates and outcomes. Engage with online AP notes to reinforce your understanding and participate in AP test review sessions to discuss these cases' implications. By incorporating these strategies into your AP test study guides, you'll be better prepared to tackle the AP government exam with confidence.

Remember, the key to AP test prep success is utilizing a variety of AP resources, including AP study guides, AP flashcards, and AP exam study guides. By doing so, you'll ensure a well-rounded review and a deeper understanding of the material. Good luck on your AP Government exam!

Marbury v. Madison (1803) is a foundational Supreme Court case establishing the concept of judicial review, which allows the Supreme Court to invalidate laws and government actions that conflict with the Constitution. For your AP Government exam, it's essential to know the year of the decision, the key figures involved (William Marbury, James Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall), and the principle of judicial review itself. Understand the background of the case, where Marbury was denied his commission as a justice of the peace and sought a remedy directly from the Supreme Court.

To effectively study this case, create a detailed timeline from the appointment of Marbury to the Supreme Court's decision. Make sure to understand the legal terms and the specific questions the court was answering. Focus on Chief Justice Marshall’s reasoning and how he established the court's role in interpreting the Constitution. Practice explaining the significance of the case in your own words to ensure you grasp its impact on the American legal system and the balance of power in the federal government. Engaging in discussions, using flashcards for key facts, and reviewing how this case has been applied in other contexts can deepen your understanding and help solidify this crucial piece of U.S. legal history for your exam.

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) is a pivotal Supreme Court case that reinforced the powers of the federal government. It revolved around whether the state of Maryland had the authority to tax the Second Bank of the United States, leading to broader questions about the power of federal institutions and states' rights. For your AP Government exam, key points to remember include the year of the case, the main conflict (state versus federal power), and the outcome: the Supreme Court, under Chief Justice John Marshall, ruled that Congress had implied powers under the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution, and states could not interfere with federal institutions, epitomized by the phrase "the power to tax involves the power to destroy."

To study for this case, break down the arguments presented by both sides and understand the legal reasoning behind the Court's decision. Make note cards with important terms and concepts, like "implied powers," "Necessary and Proper Clause," and "federal supremacy." Review how this case fits into the larger framework of federalism in U.S government. Discussing the case with classmates or in study groups can help you see different viewpoints and understand the broader implications of the ruling. Finally, look at how this case has been referenced in subsequent Supreme Court decisions to understand its lasting impact on American government and law.

Schenck v. United States (1919) is an important Supreme Court case for understanding the limits of free speech, particularly during wartime. In this case, Charles Schenck was convicted under the Espionage Act for distributing pamphlets that opposed the draft during World War I. The Supreme Court, led by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, upheld his conviction, introducing the famous "clear and present danger" test to determine when speech could be limited.

For your AP Government exam, focus on the year of the case, the context of World War I, the main parties involved (Charles Schenck and the United States), and the significant outcome concerning the First Amendment. Understand the rationale behind the decision, especially the concept of "clear and present danger" as a standard for limiting speech. This case illustrates the tension between civil liberties and national security, a recurring theme in U.S. government.

To study Schenck v. United States, outline the arguments presented by both sides and the Court's reasoning. Create flashcards with key terms and details, like the Espionage Act, "clear and present danger," and the impact of the ruling on First Amendment rights. Discuss the case with peers to explore different perspectives and its implications in various historical contexts. Review how this decision has been referenced or challenged in subsequent Supreme Court cases to understand its lasting influence. Engaging with the material in multiple formats will help solidify your understanding of this landmark case and its place in American legal and social history.

Brown v. Board of Education (1954) is a landmark Supreme Court case that declared racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional, overturning the "separate but equal" doctrine established by Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896. This case is crucial for your AP Government exam because it highlights the struggle for civil rights and the role of the judiciary in addressing social injustice. Key facts to remember include the year of the decision, the context of the Civil Rights Movement, the plaintiffs (Oliver Brown and others), and the unanimous decision led by Chief Justice Earl Warren that segregation in public schools creates a sense of inferiority among African-American children.

To study for this case, focus on the background of segregation in the United States, the legal arguments made by both sides, and the social and political implications of the Court's decision. Create a timeline that links Brown v. Board of Education with other civil rights milestones. Use flashcards to remember significant terms, names, and concepts associated with the case, such as "separate but equal," "Jim Crow laws," and "de jure segregation." Discuss the case in study groups to explore its impacts and the legal reasoning behind the Court's decision. Review how this case has influenced subsequent civil rights legislation and court decisions to understand its lasting legacy. Engaging with the material in various ways will help ensure a deeper understanding of this pivotal moment in American history for your exam.

Baker v. Carr (1962) is a landmark Supreme Court case that transformed the landscape of American politics by addressing the issue of electoral districting, often summarized by the phrase "one person, one vote." The case emerged from Tennessee, where Charles W. Baker filed a lawsuit arguing that the state's apportionment (the way voting districts were drawn) ignored significant population shifts, thus diluting the voting power of certain regions, particularly urban areas. The Supreme Court's decision, led by Chief Justice Earl Warren, ruled that federal courts could hear cases on state apportionment and that unequal representation violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.

For your AP Government exam, important facts to remember about Baker v. Carr include the year of the decision (1962), the key legal question (whether federal courts can rule on state apportionment issues), and the major outcome (affirmation that federal courts can address legislative redistricting issues). This case set the stage for subsequent rulings that would further shape American electoral processes, emphasizing the importance of equal representation.

To study for this, start by understanding the background of the case and the legal arguments presented by both sides. Use diagrams to visualize how apportionment works and how it was being challenged. Make flashcards detailing the key figures, legal principles, and impacts of the ruling. Discuss the case's significance in relation to the civil rights movement and its effect on subsequent electoral reforms. Review how the "one person, one vote" principle has been applied and challenged in later cases. Engaging with the material in a variety of ways will help you grasp the enduring significance of Baker v. Carr in American political and legal history.

​​Engel v. Vitale (1962) is a critical Supreme Court case that examined the role of religion in public schools, ultimately reshaping the relationship between religion and government in the United States. The case arose when a public school in New York implemented a voluntary, non-denominational prayer at the start of each school day, leading to a lawsuit by a group of parents, including Steven Engel, arguing that this violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits the government from establishing an official religion.

For your AP Government exam, it's important to remember the year of the decision (1962), the main issue (prayer in public schools), and the outcome (the Supreme Court ruled that government-directed prayer in public schools, even if non-denominational and voluntary, violates the First Amendment). This case underscores the principle of the separation of church and state, a foundational concept in American government.

To effectively study Engel v. Vitale, outline the background and the arguments from both sides, focusing on how this case illustrates the application of the Establishment Clause. Create flashcards to memorize the key facts, terms, and impacts of the ruling. Review how this decision has influenced subsequent cases involving religion in public life. Discuss the case's implications with classmates to explore different perspectives and understand its significance in the broader context of civil liberties and government powers. Understanding Engel v. Vitale will help you grasp the complex interplay between religion and public policy in U.S. history.

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) is a crucial Supreme Court case for understanding the rights of defendants in the American legal system. The case centers around Clarence Earl Gideon, who was charged with a felony in Florida. Gideon requested a court-appointed attorney, arguing that he could not afford one, but was denied based on state law which only provided attorneys for capital cases. After being convicted, Gideon appealed to the Supreme Court, which unanimously ruled that the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of counsel is a fundamental right essential to a fair trial and, as such, applies to state courts through the Fourteenth Amendment.

For your AP Government exam, remember the year of the decision (1963), the key constitutional question (whether the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel applies to state court defendants in felony cases), and the ruling's impact (extending the right to counsel to all criminal defendants in state courts). This case highlights the importance of due process and the rights of individuals within the American justice system.

To study Gideon v. Wainwright, outline the events leading up to Gideon's arrest and subsequent trial, focusing on the constitutional issues at stake. Create flashcards with key terms, such as "Sixth Amendment," "right to counsel," and "Fourteenth Amendment." Discuss the implications of the ruling on the American legal system and its significance in ensuring fair trials for all individuals, regardless of economic status. Review subsequent cases influenced by Gideon's precedent to understand its lasting impact. Engaging with the case from multiple angles will deepen your understanding and help you remember its significance for your exam.

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969) is a significant Supreme Court case that established the standard for evaluating the freedom of speech in schools. The case originated when Mary Beth Tinker and her siblings wore black armbands to their public school as a form of protest against the Vietnam War. The school suspended them, leading to a lawsuit that argued the suspension violated their First Amendment rights. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Tinkers, stating that students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."

For your AP Government exam, it's important to remember the year of the case (1969), the main parties involved (the Tinker family and the Des Moines school), and the principle established that students have free speech rights in school settings, as long as their speech does not disrupt the educational process. This case underscores the balance between authority and individual rights and the application of the First Amendment in educational environments.

To study Tinker v. Des Moines, examine the background leading up to the case, including the social and political climate of the 1960s. Create flashcards that define key legal terms and details, such as "symbolic speech" and "material and substantial disruption." Discuss with peers or in study groups to explore different viewpoints and the broader implications of the case on student rights and school policies. Review how this case has been applied in subsequent legal disputes involving student speech to understand its continuing impact. Engaging with the material through various methods will help solidify your understanding of the case's significance in American legal and educational history.

New York Times v. United States (1971), commonly known as the "Pentagon Papers Case," is a crucial Supreme Court case for understanding the balance between national security and the freedom of the press. The controversy arose when the New York Times started publishing the Pentagon Papers, classified documents detailing U.S. strategy in the Vietnam War. The Nixon Administration argued that publishing these documents posed a security risk and sought to stop their publication. However, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the newspapers, holding that the government had not met the heavy burden required to justify a prior restraint on speech under the First Amendment.

For your AP Government exam, key facts to remember about this case include the year (1971), the central conflict (freedom of the press versus government secrecy), and the outcome (a reaffirmation of the press's right to publish information significant to public interest without prior restraint). This case is pivotal for its role in shaping the modern understanding of the First Amendment and its protections for the press.

To study New York Times v. United States, start by understanding the context of the Vietnam War and why the Pentagon Papers were significant. Outline the arguments made by both sides in the case and the Supreme Court's reasoning. Make flashcards to remember the key legal terms and principles, such as "prior restraint" and "First Amendment." Discuss the case's implications for journalism and government transparency with classmates to explore different perspectives. Review how this decision has been applied and referenced in later freedom of the press cases to grasp its lasting impact. By approaching the case from multiple angles, you can gain a comprehensive understanding of its significance and be better prepared for your exam.

Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) is a landmark Supreme Court case that addressed the balance between individual religious freedoms and state educational requirements. The case originated when three Amish families in Wisconsin were prosecuted under a state law requiring all children to attend public school until age 16. The families argued that this law conflicted with their religious beliefs and practices, which dictated that children should not attend school past the eighth grade. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Yoder family, stating that their First Amendment right to free exercise of religion outweighed the state's interest in mandating school attendance beyond the eighth grade.

For your AP Government exam, important points to remember include the year of the decision (1972), the central issue (the conflict between religious freedom and state laws on education), and the outcome (recognition of the Amish community's right to limit their children's schooling based on religious beliefs). This case highlights the importance of religious liberties and the limitations of state power in infringing upon these freedoms.

To study Wisconsin v. Yoder, focus on understanding the background of the Amish community and their reasons for opposing extended public schooling. Create flashcards with key legal terms and principles, such as "free exercise of religion," "compelling state interest," and "First Amendment." Analyze the court's reasoning and how it balanced the interests of religious freedom against the state's educational goals. Discuss the case with peers to explore different viewpoints and its broader implications on religious and educational rights. Review how this decision has influenced subsequent cases involving religious freedoms and state regulations. By exploring these various elements, you will develop a comprehensive understanding of Wisconsin v. Yoder and its significance in American legal history.

Roe v. Wade (1973) is a pivotal Supreme Court case that significantly impacted American society and law by addressing the issue of abortion rights. The case was brought by "Jane Roe" (a pseudonym for Norma McCorvey), who challenged Texas laws criminalizing most abortions, arguing that they were unconstitutional. The Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision, ruled that the right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion. However, the Court also held that this right must be balanced against the state's interests in regulating abortions: protecting women's health and protecting the potentiality of human life. The decision led to the establishment of the trimester framework, which set different levels of state interest for each stage of pregnancy.

For your AP Government exam, essential facts to remember include the year of the decision (1973), the constitutional basis for the ruling (the right to privacy under the 14th Amendment), and the outcome (the establishment of a woman's right to choose an abortion within the first trimester, with increasing state regulation possible in later stages of pregnancy). This case is crucial for understanding shifts in social policies, individual rights, and the role of the state.

To study Roe v. Wade, outline the legal arguments presented by both sides and the Supreme Court's reasoning. Create flashcards with key terms and concepts, such as "right to privacy," "Due Process Clause," and "trimester framework." Discuss the case's broader implications on American society, politics, and health care with classmates to explore different perspectives. Review how this decision has been challenged, reaffirmed, or modified in subsequent Supreme Court cases to understand its lasting impact, and how it has been overturned by Dobbs v. Jackson.

Shaw v. Reno (1993) is an essential Supreme Court case for understanding the complexities of racial gerrymandering and the interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in the context of electoral districting. The case arose after the U.S. Department of Justice rejected North Carolina's initial congressional redistricting plan for failing to create a majority-black district. The state submitted a new plan creating two majority-black districts, but one of them was unusually shaped, leading white residents to challenge the plan as racially discriminatory.

For your AP Government exam, remember the year of the case (1993), the main issue (whether racial considerations in redistricting, leading to oddly shaped electoral districts, violate the Equal Protection Clause), and the outcome (the Supreme Court ruled that redistricting based primarily on race must be held to a standard of strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause). This case underscored the tension between preventing racial discrimination and avoiding racial segregation in voting practices.

To study Shaw v. Reno, focus on the background and political context of the case, understanding the balance between enhancing minority representation and avoiding racial segregation. Make flashcards detailing key concepts such as "racial gerrymandering," "Equal Protection Clause," and "strict scrutiny." Discuss with classmates the implications of this ruling on redistricting and minority representation in Congress to explore different viewpoints. Review how this decision has influenced subsequent legal standards and cases related to redistricting and race. Engaging with the material through different methods, such as case summaries, scholarly articles, and class discussions, will deepen your understanding of Shaw v. Reno's significance in American legal and political history.

U.S. v. Lopez (1995) marks a significant moment in Supreme Court history, primarily because it was the first case in decades where the Court limited the power of the Congress under the Commerce Clause. The case began when Alfonso Lopez, a high school student, was charged under the Federal Gun-Free School Zones Act for carrying a concealed weapon into his Texas high school. Lopez argued that the federal law, which banned guns in school zones, exceeded Congress's authority under the Commerce Clause, which allows Congress to regulate interstate commerce.

For your AP Government exam, important details to remember include the year of the decision (1995), the central legal question (whether the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 exceeded Congress's power under the Commerce Clause), and the outcome (the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Lopez, stating that carrying a gun in a school zone did not significantly affect interstate commerce and therefore was beyond the scope of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause). This case is critical for understanding the limits of federal power and the balance of authority between state and federal governments.

To study U.S. v. Lopez, start by understanding the background of the Commerce Clause and its previous interpretations by the Court. Create flashcards highlighting key legal terms and principles, such as "Commerce Clause," "federalism," and "Gun-Free School Zones Act." Discuss the implications of the ruling on federal regulatory powers and its impact on the balance between state and federal authority with classmates. Review how this decision has been referenced in subsequent cases to understand its lasting impact on federalism and congressional authority. Engaging with a variety of study materials and viewpoints will help you grasp the significance of U.S. v. Lopez and its place in American legal history.

McDonald v. Chicago (2010) is a pivotal Supreme Court case that marked a significant moment in the interpretation of the Second Amendment and the application of constitutional rights at the state level. The case arose after Otis McDonald, a resident of Chicago, challenged the city's stringent handgun ban, arguing that it violated his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. This case followed the landmark District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) decision, which had recognized an individual's right to own firearms under the Second Amendment but applied only to federal enclaves.

For your AP Government exam, it's crucial to remember the year of the decision (2010), the main legal question (whether the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, making it applicable to the states), and the outcome (the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment does apply to the states, thereby extending the Heller decision's protections to include state and local governments). This case is vital for understanding the evolving interpretation of the Bill of Rights and the concept of "selective incorporation."

To study McDonald v. Chicago, focus on the legal background provided by the Heller decision and how McDonald sought to expand those rights to the state level. Make flashcards with key terms and concepts, such as "Second Amendment," "selective incorporation," and "Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." Discuss the case's broader implications for gun control laws and individual rights with peers to explore different viewpoints. Review subsequent legal challenges and discussions surrounding gun rights and regulations to understand the decision's ongoing impact. By examining various resources and engaging in thoughtful discussion, you will deepen your understanding of McDonald v. Chicago's significance in American legal and social history/

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) is a landmark Supreme Court case that significantly changed campaign finance laws in the United States. The case arose when Citizens United, a nonprofit corporation, was prevented from airing a film critical of Hillary Clinton close to the 2008 Democratic primaries due to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), which restricted "electioneering communications" by corporations and unions. Citizens United challenged these restrictions, arguing that they violated the First Amendment's free speech protections.

For your AP Government exam, essential facts to remember about this case include the year of the decision (2010), the main legal question (whether the BCRA's restrictions on corporate and union spending on electioneering communications violate the First Amendment), and the outcome (the Supreme Court ruled that corporations and unions can spend unlimited amounts of money on political campaigns, asserting that such spending is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment). This case is crucial for understanding the intersection of free speech, campaign finance, and political influence.

To study Citizens United v. FEC, start by understanding the background of campaign finance laws in the U.S. and how this decision changed them. Create flashcards with key terms and principles, such as "electioneering communications," "Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act," and "corporate speech." Discuss the implications of the ruling on political campaigns, electoral integrity, and public perception of democracy with classmates to explore different perspectives. Review how this decision has influenced subsequent elections and the creation of Super PACs to grasp its lasting impact. Engaging with the material through diverse methods and perspectives will help you better understand the significance of Citizens United v. FEC in American political and legal history.

As you gear up for your AP Government exam, remember that these 15 landmark Supreme Court cases are not just names and dates to memorize—they are the vibrant, living history of American democracy in action. Each case represents a pivotal moment in the ongoing journey toward justice, equality, and the balance of power. By studying these cases, you're not only preparing to ace your exam; you're gaining a deeper understanding of the principles that shape our nation and the rights we hold dear. So, take a deep breath, embrace the challenge, and dive into your studies with enthusiasm and curiosity. Remember, your effort now is not just for a grade—it's a step toward becoming an informed and engaged citizen. Good luck on your AP Government exam, and remember, we're rooting for you every step of the way!

Everything You Need to get a 5 on AP Physics C: Mechanics

This guide will explore a selection of our best AP Physics C: Mechanics exam tips and advice designed to assist you in achieving a coveted score of 5 on the AP Physics C: Mechanics exam. I will dissect these valuable tips and resources throughout this article, empowering you to approach your preparation with confidence and learn how to pass the AP Physics C: Mechanics exam. With the proper methods and the support of these AP Physics C test tips, attaining success in the AP Physics C: Mechanics exam is entirely attainable! Let's set you on the path to excellence and show you the best way to stu...

AP Exam Schedule 2024

It's officially that time of the year again - the AP Exam Schedule 2024 is out, and while it seems far away, NOW is the time to start planning. AP exams are a great way to get ahead of the college curve, but they can also be tough and require a lot of studying! As someone who has taken her fair share of AP exams, a word of advice... it's important to start studying early and keep reviewing small chunks of AP study guides throughout the school year.  Here are the 2024 AP Exam dates : 2024 AP Test Schedule | Week 1 Week 1 8 AM Local Time 12 PM Local Time Monday, May 6, 2024 AP United States ...

Everything You Need to get a 5 on AP Human Geography

Getting a 5 on the AP Human Geography exam can feel like an uphill mountain to climb, but with the right strategies, resources, and AP Human Geography exam tips it’s definitely possible! I took AP Human Geography not too long ago and got a 5! In this article, I’ll break down all my tips on how to pass the AP Human Geography exam, including tips for writing FRQs, understanding what human geography is all about, last-minute review resources, and some general tips! How hard is the AP human geography exam? Although many underclassmen take this to be their first AP class, the AP Human Geography exa...

47 landmark Supreme Court cases that changed American life as we knew it

• The US Supreme Court was formed in 1789. It's gone from five seats to 10, and is now fixed at nine.
• Some of its decisions have empowered women, helped protect the environment, or guaranteed the right to expression.
• Others have strengthened racist laws, enabled forced sterilization, and allowed unequal schooling.

The US Supreme Court, the court of last resort, has undeniably changed the country.

It makes fewer than 100 decisions every year that have sweeping effects on American life.

Some have changed race relations for the better, empowered women, given the press freedom to operate, guaranteed a person's right to expression, or reiterated that the president is not above the law.

Not every decision has aged well. Other decisions have enforced slavery or created uneven schooling in the US. Last year, the court overturned a landmark case that legalized abortion in 1973.

Just before the nation's highest court entered summer recess at the end of June this year, the conservative majority on the Supreme Court issued two highly-anticipated rulings — one ending affirmative action at colleges and universities and another striking down President Joe Biden's student-loan forgiveness plan .

Here are 47 of the most important cases the Supreme Court has decided.

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

The case: Before President Thomas Jefferson took office in 1801, lame duck John Adams and Congress created new courts and appointed dozens of judges , including William Marbury as Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia. But the new administration's Secretary of State James Madison wouldn't validate the appointment. So Marbury sued.

The decision: The justices ruled unanimously that Madison's refusal was illegal, and that the law Marbury had sued under was also unconstitutional. More importantly, this ruling held that the Supreme Court had the power of "judicial review" to decide whether a law or executive action is constitutional. This essentially gave the high court the legal authority for every decision it would make in the future.

Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)

The case : In 1808, New York state gave Aaron Ogden a 20-year license to operate his steamboats on waters within the state . Thomas Gibson, another steam boat operator and Ogden's former business partner, was also working in the area, with a license from the federal government. Ogden claimed Gibbons was undercutting his business by unfairly competing. He wanted Gibbons to stop operating, and argued his license was enforceable, even though it was on interstate waters. Gibbons argued that the US Constitution gave Congress power over interstate commerce.

The decision : The Supreme Court unanimously held states cannot interfere with Congress's ability to regulate commerce. State laws had to yield to constitutional acts by Congress, so the court ruled in Gibbon's favor . It was an important early decision finding that federal governments had the ability to determine interstate commerce.

Worcester v. Georgia (1832)

The case : In 1828, Georgia passed laws prohibiting anyone except Native Americans from living on Native American land. Samuel Worcester, a missionary, was living on Native American land and refused to apply for a license. He was arrested and appealed, arguing his removal was a violation of his constitutional rights, as Georgia had no jurisdiction on Native American land.

The decision : The Supreme Court held, 5-1 , that the Cherokee Nation was a sovereign "distinct community." It struck down the Georgia law prohibiting white people living on Native American land. The case was important because it set out the relationship between tribes, states, and the federal government. It meant that interaction with Native American states became a federal process, and provided some sovereignty when interacting  with the US government.

But it wasn't always enforced. Then-President Andrew Jackson said, "John Marshall has issued his decision. Let him enforce it ."

Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge (1837)

The case : In 1785, Massachusetts gave the Charles River Bridge Company a charter to build a bridge between Boston and Cambridge . In exchange for covering the costs of building and maintaining it, the company could collect tolls until the charter ended.

But in 1828, a second company was authorized to build a competing bridge that would be free to the public, Charles River Bridge sought an injunction to prevent the second bridge from being built.

The decision : The Supreme Court held 5-2 that the authority given to Charles River never granted them a monopoly, and that general welfare would be enhanced with a second bridge. The court said the responsibility of government was to promote the happiness and prosperity of the community.

Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)

The case : This case arose from a suit brought by a slave in Missouri named Dred Scott . Scott had lived for a time in the free state of Illinois. When his master died in 1849, he sued the widow, arguing his time in the slave-free state made him a free man .

The decision : The Supreme Court held 7-2 that since Scott's ancestors were imported into the US and sold as slaves, he could not be an American citizen. Since he wasn't a citizen, he had no jurisdiction to sue, which also meant that black people living free in the north were barred from federal courts.  The court also held that under the Fifth Amendment, slaves were property, and any law that deprived a slave-owner of their property was unconstitutional.

The decision is thought to be one of the factors that led to the Civil War.

Munn v. Illinois (1877)

The case : In 1871, Illinois passed legislation that set the maximum rate private companies could charge for storing and transporting agricultural goods. Munn, a grain warehouse, charged too much and was found guilty of violating the law . It appealed, arguing the regulation was an unconstitutional removal of property.

The decision : The Supreme Court held 7-2 that the law was constitutional, and that the state can regulate private industries when it affects the public. Since storage facilities were devoted to the public, they could be regulated. This case allowed states to regulate businesses within their borders. It was important because it showed how private enterprises could be publicly regulated.

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

The case : Homer Plessy, who was black under Louisiana law of the time, boarded a train and sat in a car that was reserved for white passengers . When he refused to move, he was arrested. Plessy argued that the Separate Car Act, which required all railroads to provide equal but separate accommodation, was violating his rights under the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause.

The decision : The Supreme Court held 7-1  that "separate but equal" accommodations for whites and blacks did not violate the 14th Amendment.

Justice John Marshall Harlan, known as the " great dissenter ," wrote that the Constitution was color-blind, and the US had no class system. "T here is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens; there is no caste here. Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens," he wrote. Despite his dissent, the decision solidified the "separate but equal" doctrine for the next six decades.

Lochner v. New York (1905)

The case : In 1897, New York passed a labor law limiting the working week for bakers to 60 hours. Joseph Lochner, a Bavarian baker, was fined twice, because his employees worked more than 60 hours. Lochner appealed, arguing the law was unconstitutional.

The decision : The Supreme Court held 5-4 that the New York law was unconstitutional. The court said the law interfered with the contract between an employer and and his employees.

This decision was widely condemned . For the next three decades, the court struck down minimum wage laws, rights to organize, and child safety laws using Lochner as precedent, before reversing course and allowing such laws.

Abrams v. United States (1919)

The case : In New York, five Russian anti-war activists were arrested under the 1917 Espionage Act for printing and distributing 5,000 leaflets that criticized the US's role in World War I. They also advocated for a general strike, and had put out a call to arms if the US intervened in Russia. They were sentenced to prison for up to 20 years. They appealed.

The decision : The Supreme Court held 7-2 that the Espionage Act was valid, and that it was a crime to willfully publish " disloyal " language about US politics, arguing that such speech was not protected by the First Amendment.

One of the most important things to come out of this case is Justice Holmes' dissenting opinion. He argued that the government should only regulate people's expression when it was required to save the country.

Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Mellon (1923)

The case : The 1921 Maternity Act gave states money for programs aimed to help mothers and their infants. A woman named Frothingham thought the act would lead to an increase in her taxes, so she tried to sue the federal government. The issue was whether a taxpayer had standing to sue, when the only injury was going to be an increase in taxes .

The decision : The Supreme Court unanimously held she did not have standing because the injury was too small and indeterminable. It led to the legal concept of a "particularized" injury , which needs to be traced to a legal violation. Without this decision, it would be a lot easier to take a suit to court.

Buck v. Bell (1927)

The case : A young woman named Carrie Buck was diagnosed with "feeble mindedness," and committed to a state institution after she was raped by her foster parent's nephew, and had his child. Her mother had also been diagnosed as feeble minded. Under the 1924 Virginia Eugenical Sterilization Act , she was to be sterilized against her will, since she was seen as unfit to procreate. Buck's appointed guardian sued, hoping to have the Supreme Court find sterilization constitutional .

The decision : The Supreme Court held 8-1 that there was nothing in the Eighth or 14th Amendments that said Carrie Buck could not be sterilized.

In his opinion, Justice Oliver Holmes wrote, "It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from breeding their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting Fallopian tubes … Three generations of imbeciles are enough."

After this case, sterilizations did not cease until the 1960s, and more than 60,000 people were sterilized without their consent. The case has never been overturned.

Near v. Minnesota (1931)

The case : The 1925 Public Nuisance Bill, also known as the "Minnesota gag law," allowed judges to close down newspapers that were deemed obscene or slanderous . In 1927, the Saturday Press, a newspaper based in Minneapolis, began to publish articles attacking several public officials. One of them accused a politician named Floyd B. Olson of being a pawn to a conspiracy. Olson filed a complaint. A judge, using the 1925 law, issued a temporary restraining order against the newspaper. The newspaper appealed under the First Amendment's right to a free press.

The decision: The Supreme Court held 5-4 that the Public Nuisance law was unconstitutional. Chief Justice Hughes wrote, "This statute ... raises questions of grave importance transcending the local interests involved in the particular action. It is no longer open to doubt that the liberty of the press and of speech is within the liberty safeguarded by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from invasion of state action."

The case stopped journalists from being censored , and enabled the press to fulfill its role as watchdog, including the printing of the Pentagon Papers in 1971.

Wickard v. Filburn (1942)

The case : The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, enacted to stabilize agricultural prices after the Great Depression, restricted how much wheat could be grown , to avoid another recession. The Department of Agriculture fined Roscoe Filburn, a wheat farmer in Ohio, for growing too much. He sued, arguing Congress didn't have the authority, since he'd never planned to sell all of the wheat. The issue was whether Congress had the authority to regulate local wheat production.

The decision : The Supreme Court unanimously held that Congress had the power to regulate activities in the industry, and within states, when the activities had substantial effects on interstate commerce. So, even though Filburn's wheat wasn't all going to make it into the market, growing it still altered supply and demand in a national market .

This case led to the federal government having more power to regulate the economy , and also enabled federal regulation of things like workplace safety and civil rights. Not everyone has been in favor of this case. Notably, the late Justice Antonia Scalia used to laugh at it .

Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

The case: In the 1950s, Linda Brown had to take a dangerous route to school, because the only school that was closer was for white students . Her father, Oliver Brown, believed this was a breach of the 14th Amendment, which says, "no state can deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Brown, along with a dozen other parents, challenged the segregation policy on behalf of their 20 children.

The decision: The Supreme Court unanimously held that separate educational facilities were inherently unequal. A second decision called for lower courts and school boards to proceed with desegregation. This decision knocked down the doctrine of "separate but equal" from Plessy v. Ferguson, which had allowed mixed race schools, transportation, and facilities to exist as long as they were "equal."

The Atlantic described Chief Justice Earl Warren's "ringing opinion" as "the belated mid course correction that began America's transformation into a truly multiracial world nation."

Mapp v. Ohio (1961)

The case : When Ohio police thought a suspected bomber was hiding out in Dollree Mapp's house, they forced their way in without a warrant. When Mapp asked where the warrant was, they held up a piece of paper. In their search of her house, they found pornographic materials. They arrested Mapp and later convicted her for being in possession of obscene materials. She appealed.

The decision : The Supreme Court held 6-3 that any violation of the Fourth Amendment's right against unlawful searches and seizures made evidence inadmissible in court. Justice Clark wrote in his majority opinion that " the exclusionary rule ," which prohibits the use of illegally obtained evidence in criminal trials, was essential.

This case has led to the redefining of the rights of people being accused and limits how police can obtain evidence.

Engel v. Vitale (1962)

The case: In New York, schools  adopted a daily prayer after it was required by state law. Some parents argued it was a violation of individuals' rights, but the school board said it wasn't, since students could opt out. Five families led by parent Steven Engel disagreed, and sued on the basis that it violated the religion clause of the First Amendment.

The decision: The Supreme Court held 6-1 that reading an official prayer at school violated the constitution, because it was an " establishment of religion ." Justice Hugo Black wrote for the majority: "It is a matter of history that this very practice of establishing governmentally composed prayers for religious services was one of the reasons which caused many of our early colonists to leave England and seek religious freedom in America."

The case meant any state-enforced prayer, or reading of the bible in a public school would be suspected . It also was a key case showing the enforcement of separation between church and state.

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

The case : Clarence Earl Gideon was charged with breaking and entering a pool hall. He requested a lawyer to defend him, but Florida's state court rejected him. After defending himself poorly Gideon went to prison. Giddeon appealed, and the issue was whether the right to counsel extended to felony defendants in state courts.

The decision : The Supreme Court held unanimously that state courts were required to appoint attorneys for those who could not afford their own counsel.

The US justice system would not be what it is today without this decision. The decision affirms that " lawyers in criminals courts are necessities, not luxuries ." However, the quality of criminal defense services varies across the country.

Reynold v. Sims (1964)

The case: This case stemmed from the apportionment scheme in Alabama . Under the 14th Amendment, each voter's intentions are meant to have equal weight, but in Alabama, legislative districts were no longer accurately representing the amount of people who lived in them, especially in the cities, where populations had grown rapidly. The issue was whether this breached the "equal protection clause" in the 14th Amendment.

The decision: The Supreme Court held 8-1 that Alabama's apportionment scheme had breached the 14th Amendment . The justices ruled that the right to vote is a fundamental right, and equal participation is crucial. Chief Justice Warren wrote for the majority: "legislators represent people, not trees or acres."

This decision made the government more democratic .

Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US (1964)

The case: The Heart of Atlanta Motel in Georgia refused to provide accommodation for black people, but the Civil Rights Act of 1964 banned the practice . Two hours after the act was passed, the motel asked the court to stop the enforcement of a clause in Title II, which forbid racist discrimination by public accommodation providers. The motel argued it exceeded Congress's power.

The decision: The Supreme Court held unanimously that the act was not exceeding Congress's power. It reasoned that discrimination by businesses had a big impact on black people traveling, even when it was a small business, since negative effects could be far-reaching when added up. It was especially the case here, since 75% of the guests staying at the motel came from out of state.

This was the first case to challenge the Civil Rights Act, and by upholding it, the act was legitimatized and strengthened. The law would go on to be used to dismantle many other forms of racist discrimination .

New York Times v. Sullivan (1964)

The case: This case was about an advertisement titled "Heed Their Rising Voices" that was published in The New York Times in 1960. The ad was looking for donations to defend Martin Luther King Jr. and criticized the Montgomery police. The ad had factual errors, and L.B. Sullivan, a Montgomery city commissioner, sued The Times for defamation, though he wasn't mentioned. In Alabama, Sullivan won and The Times was ordered to pay $500,000. The paper appealed.

The decision : The Supreme Court held unanimously that while regular defamation requires that a defendant knows a statement is false or reckless, when it's a public figure, the defendant must act with "actual malice" — meaning they must know it was false or have a "reckless disregard" for the truth.

This decision strengthens the freedom of the American press, which has the strongest protections in the world , ensuring debate on public issues is robust and open .

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

The case: In 1963, police obtained a written confession from Ernesto Miranda that said he had kidnapped and raped a woman. However, they had not advised Miranda of his right to have an attorney present during the interrogation. Miranda appealed on the basis that his confession had been gained unconstitutionally .

The decision : The Supreme Court held 5-4 that law enforcement must advise suspects of their right to remain silent, their right to an attorney, and that anything they say can and will be used against them in a court of law. Evidence could not be used in a trial unless the warnings had been given and knowingly waived.

Police work, and the well-known "you have the right to remain silent" would not be so firmly entrenched into society (or TV shows and movies) without this decision . People know their rights, and police know they have to read them to suspects.

Loving v. Virginia (1967)

The case : Mildred Jeter, a black woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, were from Virginia, where inter-racial marriage was illegal. In 1958, they got married in D.C. and then returned home. On their return, they were charged with breaking the law and sentenced to one year in prison. A judge suspended their sentence as long as they didn't return to the state together for 25 years. Loving wrote to then-Attorney General Robert Kennedy and asked for his help, and he referred them to the ACLU, which helped them sue.

The decision : In a unanimous decision , the Supreme Court held that the law was unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment. Chief Justice Warren wrote, "Under our constitution the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the state."

In a watershed moment for civil rights, the case found that people of any race, anywhere in the US, can get married, striking down laws banning inter-racial marriage in 16 states. The case was later cited in same-sex marriage cases .

Terry v. Ohio (1968)

The case : In 1963, three men were suspiciously walking back and forth in a block in Cleveland, Ohio, and a detective thought they were preparing to rob a store . He approached them, identified himself, then frisked them and found two concealed guns. One of the men was convicted for having the gun. The man appealed. The issue was whether police frisking violated the Fourth Amendment.

The decision : The Supreme Court held 8-1 that the search was reasonable since the men were acting suspiciously, warranting inquiry. If circumstances justify a belief that an individual is armed and dangerous, the justices ruled, the officer may pat down the outside of an individual's clothing.

Justice William O. Douglas, the lone dissenter, did not think the standard for search and seizures should have been lowered from "probable cause" to "reasonable suspicion." He wrote : " Yet if the individual is no longer to be sovereign, if the police can pick him up whenever they do not like the cut of his jib, if they can 'seize' and 'search' him in their discretion, we enter a new regime. The decision to enter it should be made only after a full debate by the people of this country."

This case opened up the police's ability to investigate activity they deem suspicious.

Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)

The case : Clarence Brandenburg was arrested after making racist remarks and claiming the government was suppressing the "Caucasian race" to a gathering of Ku Klux Klan members in a field in Ohio. He also mentioned action might need to be taken, and was filmed by media he had invited to the gathering. The state law criminalized advocating violence as a means of accomplishing political reform, and he was sentenced to up to 10 years prison . The issue was whether speech advocating for violence was protected by the First Amendment.

The decision : The Supreme Court held per curiam , which means in the name of the court rather than the judges, that his freedom of speech had been violated. It found that speech may only be outlawed when it is directly inciting " imminent lawless action ." It also found that abstract discussions are not the same as actual preparation to engage in violence. This case broadened protections for political dissent.

Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp. (1971)

The case: Ida Phillips applied for a job at the Martin Marietta Corporation, a missile plant in Orlando. She had seven children, and the business had a hiring policy excluding mothers with pre-school children, believing them to be unreliable. Phillips alleged she'd been denied employment because of her sex. The issue was whether this was discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The case was complicated , because the company hired women for the job, just not women with young children.

The decision: The Supreme Court unanimously held that it was discriminatory, since it was based on the sex of the applicant, even if it was about motherhood.

However, it did send the case back to lower courts to give the corporation a chance to present evidence about the impeded ability of mothers with young children. And the judges were uneasy about the idea that both sexes were equally equipped to do all jobs. Justice Hugo Black asked Phillips' lawyer , "Does the law require that the employer give the woman a job of digging ditches and things of that kind?"

All nine justices at the time were men.

Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)

The case : In Wisconsin, children were required by law to attend school until they were 16. But three Amish families refused to send their children to school after eighth grade, when most children are 14, resulting in $5 fines from the state. (Amish families think the content of secondary and higher education conflicts with their life of austerity .) They argued the compulsory attendance violated their rights under the First Amendment, specifically the Free Exercise Clause.

The decision : The Supreme Court held unanimously that the Amish families' right to religious freedom was not overridden by the state's interest in education. It held that sending the children to high school would threaten the Amish way of life. Freedom of religion was seen as more important than the state's interest in education, and this case created an exception for Amish people, and others in similar situations .

The justices agreed overall on the ruling, but Justice William O. Douglas filed a partial dissent arguing that the children's viewpoint wasn't being considered, worried that they may miss out on an education if they're not asked whether they want to go to high school.

Roe v. Wade (1973)

The case : This case stemmed from a Texas law that said abortion was illegal unless, by doctor's orders, it was to save a woman's life. An anonymous plaintiff called Jane Roe (who was later identified as Norma McCorvey) filed against the Dallas County district attorney, arguing the law was unconstitutional .

The decision : The Supreme Court held 7-2 that overly restrictive legislation around abortion was unconstitutional. Based on a right to privacy in the 14th Amendment, the state was not allowed to regulate a woman's decision.

This case overruled any laws that made abortion illegal before a fetus was viable, giving women more power when it comes to their bodies and having children. It made access to abortion a constitutional right .

San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez (1973)

The case: In the late 1960s, schools in Texas could use local property taxes to boost revenue. So schools that were based in poorer areas had less revenue, because the property taxes were lower. A class-action suit was filed on behalf of children living in poorer areas. The issue here was whether the system violated the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause.

The decision: The Supreme Court held 5-4 that there is no constitutional right to an equal education. The opinion said it should not be unconstitutional, because " burdens or benefits " fall unevenly, depending on the wealth of the areas in which citizens live.

In Time Magazine's list of the worst Supreme Court cases since 1960 , the editors concluded this case enforced the idea that discrimination against the poor did not violate the Constitution, and education wasn't a fundamental right.

United States v. Nixon (1974)

The case : This case was triggered by the Watergate scandal , when a special prosecutor asked for tapes that President Richard Nixon had recorded in the White House. He refused, saying he had "executive privilege" that allowed him to withhold sensitive information in order to maintain confidential communications and to maintain national security. Nixon released edited versions, but not the complete tapes, leading to Nixon and the prosecutor both filing petitions to be heard in the Supreme Court.

The decision : The Supreme Court held unanimously that while there was limited executive privilege for military or diplomacy reasons, it wasn't enough in this case. Nixon had to hand over the tapes. The case led to Nixon's resignation, and also ensures that the president does not have unlimited privilege to withhold information from other branches of government. " Not even the president is above the law ," Harvard constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe said.

O'Conner v. Donaldson (1975)

The case: After Kenneth Donaldson told his parents he thought his neighbor was poisoning his food, he was examined and diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia . Against his will, he was committed to a state hospital for the next 15 years. During that time, two different people volunteered to be responsible for him, but the hospital refused to release him. He sued, saying the hospital staff had " intentionally and maliciously deprived him of his right to liberty."

The decision: The Supreme Court held unanimously that mental patients could not be confined in institutions against their will, if they weren't dangerous and were capable of surviving in society. In the opinion, Justice Potter Stewart wrote: "May the state fence in the harmless mentally ill solely to save its citizens from exposure to those whose ways are different? One might as well ask if the state, to avoid public unease, could incarcerate all who are physically unattractive or socially eccentric."

The decision established the legal threshold for people posing a danger to themselves or others.

Buckley v. Valeo (1976)

The case : This was a case about freedom of speech, in particular about spending limits by, or for, candidates running for office. Sen. James L. Buckley, and a coalition of groups, filed a suit arguing that the Federal Election Campaign Act, which limited spending and required spending disclosures, weren't constitutional.

The decision : The court held per curiam that independent spending was a form of political speech protected by the First Amendment. However, it also concluded that contributions could be capped. This is an important decision for campaign spending. It helped lead the way to the rising of political action committees, or PACs. It also led to the enforcement of reporting campaign spending.

First National Bank of Boston v. Belloti (1978)

The case : Several plaintiffs, including the First National Bank of Boston, wanted to challenge a proposed increase on personal income taxes for high-wage earners in Massachusetts. The plaintiffs wanted to pay for advertising to criticize it, but they could only spend money if they were "materially affected," based on a Massachusetts law, which restricted what corporations could spend in politics. Attorney General Francis Bellotti said the bank wasn't materially affected. The plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of the provision.

The decision : The Supreme Court held 5-4 that the Massachusetts law was unconstitutional . The court concluded that the First Amendment protected corporations , since they were made up of shareholders who decided their corporation should engage on public issues. This case opened the door to Citizens United .

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978)

The case: Allan Bakke, a 35-year-old Vietnam war veteran, was rejected from medical school at the University of California twice. Every year, the school accepted 100 people, and 16 of those accepted were from "minority groups." He argued his rejections were due to "reverse racism", since his grades were better than the 16 people who got in on minority seats.

The decision: The Supreme Court held 5-4 that Bakke should be admitted. However, it also said race could be taken into account to promote diversity on campuses.

Six different justices wrote opinions. In one opinion, Justice Harry Blackmun wrote: "In order to get beyond racism, we must first take account of race. There is no other way. And in order to treat some persons equally, we must treat them differently."

Since this case, despite affirming that race could be taken into account, the percentage of black freshman in the US has not changed . A 2017 analysis found they make up 6% of freshmen, but are 15% of college-age Americans.

Strickland v. Washington (1984)

The case: David Washington was sentenced to death after he pleaded guilty to murder . But this case arose out of what his lawyer didn't do during the trial. His lawyer failed to call any character witnesses or get a psychiatric evaluation. Washington appealed, arguing his counsel's assistance was constitutionally ineffective.

The decision: The Supreme Court held 8-1 that ineffective counsel only violated the Sixth Amendment when the performance was deficient. For this, counsel assistance had to fall below an objective reasonableness standard, and there needed to be a "reasonable probability" the result would have been different had counsel not failed.

Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote in dissent: "My objection to the performance standard adopted by the Court is that it is so malleable that, in practice, it will either have no grip at all or will yield excessive variation ... To tell lawyers and the lower courts that counsel for a criminal defendant must behave 'reasonably' and must act like 'a reasonably competent attorney' is to tell them almost nothing."

This case makes it difficult for defendants to prove ineffective assistance claims , since they need to show that it's outside the range of professional competence and that the client was prejudiced by it.

Chevron USA Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council (1984)

The case : In 1977, Congress added an amendment to the Clean Air Act, requiring states to establish programs to reduce power plant pollution. In the amendment, entire power plants were treated as a single unit within a "bubble", even if they had multiple smoke stacks. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) thought the bubble interpretation dulled the law, and sued the EPA.

The decision : The Supreme Court held unanimously that the bubble policy was valid. It found that if the law is clear then agencies must follow it, and when a a law does not have a clear meaning, the courts should defer to the federal agency's interpretation of the law.

This is one of the most cited Supreme Court decisions of all time, and this standard became known as the " Chevron Defense ."

Texas v. Johnson (1989)

The case : During a protest in 1984 against then-President Ronald Reagan and local corporations in Dallas, Gregory Johnson covered the American flag in kerosene then lit it on fire , offending witnesses. He was arrested and charged with desecrating a venerated object, which was banned under Texas law. He was sentenced to one year in prison and ordered to pay $2,000. He appealed, on the basis that the law was in breach of his First Amendment rights.

The decision : The Supreme Court held 5-4 that burning the flag was protected under the First Amendment. In the majority opinion, Justice Brennan wrote: "if there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable ... We do not consecrate the flag by punishing its desecration, for in doing so we dilute the freedom that this cherished emblem represents."

Despite former President George H. Bush proposing to add an anti flag burning amendment to the constitution, this case still protects unpopular political expression in the US today.

Michael H. v Gerald D. (1989)

The case : A man, for the purposes of the case named Michael , had an affair with a woman who later had a child. Blood tests indicated he was the father. He wanted visitation rights, but under California law, the child is presumed to be from the marriage, and another person can only challenge that within the child's first two years of life. Michael was too late, and sued. The issue was whether the California law violated the man's chance to establish paternity.

The decision : The Supreme Court held 5-4 that a biological father does not have a fundamental right to obtain parental rights, after the presumed father had acted in a responsible way for the child. A woman's husband is to be presumed father of her children, regardless of anyone else's claim.

Cruzan v. Director of the Missouri Department of Health (1990)

The case : In 1983, Nancy Cruzan, a 25-year-old woman, was in a car crash that resulted in her falling into a vegetative state. She was on life support for five years, and had no chance of recovery, but doctors estimated she could have lived on life support for another 30 years. Her parents asked for her to be disconnected, but the hospital refused without a court order. Before the car crash, Nancy had said she would not want to live if she were sick or injured and could not live "at least halfway normally." Her parents asked for a court order to remove her from life support.

The decision : The Supreme Court held 5-4 that there was a right to die, but the state had the right to stop the family, unless there was "clear and convincing" evidence that it was her wish to die.

This was the first time the court had ruled on a right-to-die case. It didn't set national guidelines, and left it to be decided on a state-by-state basis. In the month after the case, 300,000 requests were made for advance-directive forms , so people could make it known in advance what should happen to them if they became incapacitated.

Lawrence v. Texas (2003)

The case : Police entered a private residence on a false report about a weapons disturbance, and found Lawrence and Garner engaging in a consensual sexual act. They were arrested and convicted under Texas law, which forbid two people of the same sex to have sex. The issue for this case was whether the 14th Amendment protected them.

The decision : The Supreme Court held 6-3 that the Texas law violated their right to liberty, under the " Due Process Clause ," which allowed them to engage in their conduct without government intervention.

This was seen as a victory for LGBT rights, removing what one law professor called " the reflexive assumption of gay people's inferiority ," and overturning 14 state laws across the US.

Georgia v. Randolph (2006)

The case : After a fight at home between a separated couple, a woman called the police and told them to come in , then showed them cocaine she said her husband was using. The husband was later charged with possession, even though he had told the police they couldn't come in. The issue was whether the police can search a home without a warrant when one person gives consent, but the other refuses.

The decision : The Supreme Court held 5-3 that in at least a few circumstances the right to search and enter is not valid if one of the occupants says they can't, ruling in the husband's favor .

This case narrows the scope for when police can enter and search homes without warrants. They can still enter to protect someone from harm or to chase a fleeing suspect, for example.

Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (2007)

The case : This case came about in 1999, when Massachusetts, 11 other states, and several environmental organizations petitioned for the EPA to start regulating carbon dioxide coming out of new motor vehicles, since it was a pollutant. The EPA denied the petition, saying it did not have the legal authority to regulate it.

The decision : The Supreme Court held 5-4 that the EPA had the right to regulate heat-trapping gases coming from automobiles, and that the Clean Air Act's definition of air pollutant had been written with sweeping language so that it would not become obsolete.

According to James Salzman , a professor of law and environmental policy at Duke University, the majority's acknowledgement of climate change science put this case on the legal map. And since it made it almost impossible for the EPA not to regulate, the decision sent a message to other agencies that they also had to deal with climate change.

District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)

The case: Richard Heller, a security guard who lived in D.C. and carried a gun for work, was not allowed to have a gun at home , due to the city's laws. He thought the laws were too restricting and made it impossible to defend himself. Heller, along with five others, sued, arguing it was a violation of the Second Amendment. They were funded by Robert Levy , a libertarian lawyer from the Cato Institute.

The decision: The Supreme Court held 5-4 that the Second Amendment guaranteed an individual's right to possess a firearm at home for self-defense. It was the first time in 70 years the Supreme Court ruled on the Second Amendment.

In 2019, former-Justice John Paul Stevens said it was the worst decision during his 34-year tenure, representing "the worst self-inflicted wound in the Court's history." He said an amendment should be added to the Constitution to overrule the case, to stop gun massacres like what had happened in Las Vegas or  Sandy Hook .

Citizens United v. FEC (2010)

The case : A non-profit organization called Citizens United made a disparaging film about Hilary Clinton and they wanted to run an advertisement for it during the 2008 election. But the Federal Election Campaign Act banned corporations and unions from spending money to advocate during elections. So Citizens United couldn't show the film since it mentioned Clinton, who was a presidential candidate at the time. Citizens United argued the ban was unconstitutional.

The decision : The Supreme Court held 5-4 that corporations and unions can spend as much as they like to convince people to vote for or against political candidates, as long as the spending is independent of the candidates. The ruling gave corporations protections under the First Amendment's right to free speech.

Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in dissent of the ruling, that it was "a rejection of the common sense of the American people," and a threat to democracy.

The decision changed how politics works in the US. In the 2014 senate elections, outside spending had more than doubled to $486 million since 2010.

National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012)

The case : President Barack Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law in 2010 to increase the number of Americans covered by health insurance, and to decrease the cost of healthcare. Twenty-six states, several people, and the National Federation of Independent Business sued to overturn the law. The first issue was whether it was legal to require people to purchase health insurance with an individual mandate. The second was whether a provision forcing states to cover more people or lose federal funding was unconstitutionally coercive.

The decision : The Supreme Court held 5-4 that the individual mandate was legitimate, because it was in essence a tax , and struck down the provision that would withhold funds for states which did not expand the program.

It wasn't without dissent, though. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that the decision was a " vast judicial overreaching ," which would create a "debilitated, inoperable version of health care regulation."

Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)

The case : James Obergefell and John Arthur, a couple from Ohio, got married in Maryland. In Ohio, same-sex marriage was not allowed on death certificates. Arthur was chronically ill and wanted to have Obergefell on his death certificate. Along with three couples from Kentucky, Michigan, and Tennessee, they sued their states, claiming they were in breach of the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment , which says, "no state shall ... deny to any citizen within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The decision : The Supreme Court held 5-4 that the 14th Amendment guarantees the right to marry , including same-sex marriages. Every state in the US now legally recognizes same-sex marriage. Before this case, 13 states still had a ban on gay marriage.

Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022)

The case:  In March 2018, the Jackson Women's Health Organization, Mississippi's only abortion clinic since 2006, sued the state for enacting a law that banned abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. The lawsuit argued that the rule was unconstitutional due to the precedent set by the Supreme Court, including Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Dobbs refers to Dr. Thomas E. Dobbs, the state's Department of Health officer, but he had little to do with the overall case.

The decision: The Supreme Court held 6-3 to uphold the Mississippi law. However, on top of the ruling, five of the justices in the majority opinion also ruled to overturn Roe, repealing a landmark case that made abortion legal in the US for nearly five decades. Chief Justice John Roberts was the only member of the court's conservative majority who believed the court should not have outright overruled Roe.

Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (2023) Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina (2023)

The case:  Students for Fair Admissions, a nonprofit led by conservative activist Edward Blum, accused the University of North Carolina of discriminating against Asian and white applicants and violating the Constitution's equal protection clause by considering race in its admissions. SFFA also sued Harvard University, claiming the university discriminated against Asian applicants and violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The nonprofit brought the cases to the Supreme Court in October 2022 , urging the court to overturn Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), which upheld affirmative action.

The decision: On June 29, the Supreme ruled 6-3 against the admissions processes at Harvard and the University of North Carolina, deeming it unconstitutional to consider race in college applications. Chief Justice John Roberts said universities have "concluded, wrongly, that the touchstone of an individual's identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned but the color of their skin. Our constitutional history does not tolerate that choice."

• Main content

Judicial Review

Lesson plan.

If Marbury was right, then why didn't he get the writ? This lesson explores the case that established the power the Supreme Court has today. Students will learn how the decision in Marbury v. Madison influenced the structure of the third branch, and how the Court's use of judicial review can be interpreted as activism or restraint. 

But wait, there's more! Looking for a quick and fun way to check student understanding? Use our Kahoot!  in English or in Spanish after students complete this lesson. 

iCivics en español! Student and class materials for this lesson are available in Spanish.

Pedagogy Tags

Teacher Resources

Get access to lesson plans, teacher guides, student handouts, and other teaching materials.

• Judicial Review_Student Docs.pdf
• Judicial Review_Teacher Guide.pdf
• Spanish_Judicial Review_Student Docs.pdf

I find the materials so engaging, relevant, and easy to understand – I now use iCivics as a central resource, and use the textbook as a supplemental tool. The games are invaluable for applying the concepts we learn in class. My seniors LOVE iCivics.

Lynna Landry , AP US History & Government / Economics Teacher and Department Chair, California

Related Resources

Appellate courts: let's take it up.

Argument Wars

Argument Wars Extension Pack

Branches of Power

Court quest, court quest extension pack, double take: the dual court system, in the courts, interpreting the constitution, james bond in a honda (mock trial), see how it all fits together.