# McCulloch v. Maryland Facts: - Second bank of the united states - trying to establish parts of the blank - law- tax of 15,000 on any branch of a bank not chartered by maryland Constitutional Principle - - Congress doesn't have the power to create a bank - Lawyers said it was constitutional because of "necessary and proper" Decision unamouis for McCulloch Established supremacy of national law Why? Talked about federlaisma nd power tiped in favor of federal level # United States v. Lopez Facts: Alfonso Lopez brought a gun to school - next day charges were dropped and it was taken to a national level because there was a federal law against guns in schools Constitutional Principle: Commerce Clause - the guns issue was related to the ability of congress to regulate commerce Decision: Sided with Lopez # Baker v. Carr Facts: 1962 tennesse not redistricting when urban and rural populations changed over time- rural votes had more power than urban Principle: 14th amendment - equal protection clause Argument: not all people were being treated equally because certain votes counted more Decision: agonizing Issues of reapportionment were justiciable Why: established one vote on person altered political representation - led to some states needed to redraw boundaries had the supreme court beginning to get involved in political questions # Shaw v. Reno Facts: 1990 - had no North Carolina state reps black despite 20% of state was black drew two majority black districts gerrymandering - racial Principle equal protection clause Argument: its okay to favor the margin because they need to create a more equitable Ruling against reno - unconstitutional Why future cases concerning racial gerrymandering # Marbury v. Madison - Facts: federalists v. democratic republicans - adams wanted to dilute power by packing the judiciary with federalsits - jeffereson said to leave some undelvered - marbury sued jefferson to be able to get his appointment with a writ of mandamus - court order for official to do what thueyre legally required to do CP: Jurisdriction! - must understand this Arguemnts; 1 - does marbury have the right to do 2 - is the writ the proper means 3- does the court have authroity to grant this writ Decision 1- yes 2- yes 3- NO! - within og juridistriction but Marshall said that article 13 of the judiciary act of 1789 conflicted with article 3 of the constitution - article 13 becoma unconsitutional and null and void Why? Invested the supreme court with the power of judicial review! # Engel v. Vitale Facts: 1962 - non demo prayer for after the pledge of allegiance CP: violation of the establishment clause Argue: 14th - applies first amendment to the state Decison: yes, prayer violates first amendment Why: demonstration how the court ruled for individual liberty established groundwork for future casees involving church and school # Wisconsin v. Yoder Facts: 3 amish families removed kids from school because of religion CP: free exercise of religion Argument: exercise of religion or state's interest in education Decision: favor of yoder - state interest in education should not trump exercise of religion Why: sets tone for future cases with state v free exercise of religion # Tinker v. Des Moines Facts: Tinkers wanted to support the christman truce in vietname war CP: protection of free speech Argument: students don't shed their rights at school Decision: violation of students rights - created substantial disruption test - MUST ACTUALLY DISRUPT MATERIAL OR SUBSTANTIAL DISTURBANCE Why: set parameters on free speech on school grounds # Schenck v. United States facts: 1917- espionage act passed schenck (a socialist) wrote pamphlet to discourage young men from entering the draft CP: violation of espionage act, but he argued that his first amendment right to free speech was violated and so that section of the espionage act was unconstitutional decision- ruled unanimously against Schenck argument- actively told men to avoid draft - not protected free speech why? created clear and present danger for silencing speech - now superceded, not used anymore # New York Times v. United States Facts; 60-70s vietnam war happened - nixon uncovered bad details about the US handlement of the war, someone leaked the history prior restraint- wanted to protect the documents CP freedom of the press Decision agreed with NYT, nixon restraining order was unconstitutional Why? victory for free press made it hard to censor the press # McDonald v. Chicago Facts: started with heller v district of columbia - restivtive government gun laws but distict of columbia was loosened because a federal territory Mc Donald wanted to apply this to the states CP: second amendment- right to bear arms Decision: McDonald! gun laws were a violation of their rights 14th amendment - equal protection Why: selective incorporation # Gideon v. Wainwright Facts: 1963- gideon broke into a place, florida didn't appoint a lawyer for him, appealed to supreme court CP: 6th amendment- right to have counsel 14th amendment- applies it to the states Decision: gideons favor- right to lawyer applies to state Why: 6th amendment incorporation # Brown v. Board of Education Facts: series of cases consolidated - racial segregation in schools came after plessy v ferguson family tried getting their daughter in closer school with white people but was denied access CP: 14th amendment Decision: overturned plessy v ferguson unanimously Why: massive judicial victory for civil right movement # Citizens United v. FEC Facts: campaign finance laws- BCRA- illegal for companies or non-profits to engage in electioneering communications 60 days pre election or 30 days pre a primary Citizens United made Hilary the Movie- challeneged this part of the law CP: freedom of speech Decision: favor of citizens united Why: most money, loudest voices? yes with this case