McDonald v. Chicago (2010) is a required AP Gov Supreme Court case in which the Court used the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause to apply (incorporate) the Second Amendment's individual right to bear arms to state and local governments, striking down Chicago's handgun ban.
McDonald v. Chicago (2010) is one of the required Supreme Court cases for AP Gov, and it answers a question that District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) left open. Heller said the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own a gun for self-defense, but Heller only applied to the federal government (D.C. is federal territory). Otis McDonald, a Chicago resident who wanted a handgun for protection in his home, challenged Chicago's near-total handgun ban. The Court ruled 5-4 in his favor.
The mechanism is what AP Gov cares about most. The Court held that the right to keep and bear arms is fundamental to ordered liberty, so it is incorporated against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. In plain terms, the Bill of Rights originally limited only the federal government, and McDonald is the case that made the Second Amendment binding on every state, city, and county too. It's selective incorporation in action, applied to gun rights.
McDonald lives in Topic 3.5 (Second Amendment) in Unit 3: Civil Liberties and Civil Rights, and it directly supports learning objective AP Gov 3.5.A, which asks you to explain how the Court's interpretation of the Second Amendment reflects a commitment to individual liberty. The essential knowledge here is that the Court's Second Amendment decisions rest on its constitutional interpretation of the right to bear arms, and McDonald is the decision that turned that interpretation into a nationwide rule. It's also one of the best illustrations of selective incorporation you'll see all year, which means it does double duty across Unit 3. Because it's a required case, you're expected to know its facts, the constitutional clause at issue, the holding, and the reasoning, not just the name.
Keep studying AP Gov Unit 3
District of Columbia v Heller (Unit 3)
Heller and McDonald are a two-step combo. Heller (2008) established that the Second Amendment protects an individual right against the federal government; McDonald (2010) extended that same right to state and local governments. Think of McDonald as Heller going national.
Fourteenth Amendment (Unit 3)
McDonald is useless without the Fourteenth Amendment. The Due Process Clause is the legal vehicle the Court used to incorporate the Second Amendment, the same vehicle used to apply most of the Bill of Rights to the states. If an exam question asks which clause McDonald relied on, the answer is the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, not the Second Amendment alone.
Federalism (Unit 1)
McDonald shifted power away from states and cities. Before 2010, Chicago could ban handguns; after McDonald, no state or local government can ignore the Second Amendment. It's a clean example of the Constitution limiting state policy choices, a recurring tension from Unit 1.
Public Policy (Unit 3 and beyond)
McDonald didn't end gun regulation; it set a constitutional floor. States can still regulate firearms (licensing, restrictions on certain weapons), but they can't enact outright bans on handgun ownership for self-defense. That floor shapes every gun policy debate that follows.
McDonald is one of the 15 required Supreme Court cases, so it's fair game everywhere. In multiple choice, expect stems testing whether you know the holding (Second Amendment applies to states), the mechanism (incorporation through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause), or its relationship to Heller. The biggest payoff is the SCOTUS Comparison FRQ (FRQ 3), where you may be given a nonrequired gun-rights case and asked to compare it to McDonald or Heller. To score, you need to identify the constitutional clause both cases share, state McDonald's holding accurately, and explain how the reasoning transfers. The classic trap is citing only the Second Amendment and forgetting the Fourteenth; the incorporation step is the whole point of this case.
Heller (2008) and McDonald (2010) are the most-confused pair in Unit 3 because they both protect an individual right to bear arms. The difference is who the ruling binds. Heller struck down a federal-level handgun ban in Washington, D.C., so it only limited the federal government. McDonald incorporated that right through the Fourteenth Amendment, so it limits state and local governments too. Quick memory hook: Heller creates the right, McDonald spreads it to the states.
McDonald v. Chicago (2010) held that the Second Amendment's individual right to bear arms applies to state and local governments, striking down Chicago's handgun ban.
The Court used the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause to incorporate the Second Amendment, making this a textbook example of selective incorporation.
McDonald extended D.C. v. Heller (2008), which had recognized an individual right to bear arms but only against the federal government.
It is one of the 15 required Supreme Court cases, so you need its facts, clause, holding, and reasoning for the SCOTUS Comparison FRQ.
McDonald reflects the Court's commitment to individual liberty under LO AP Gov 3.5.A, but it still allows states to regulate guns short of outright bans.
In 2010, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the Second Amendment's individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense applies to state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, invalidating Chicago's handgun ban.
Heller (2008) established an individual right to bear arms but only against the federal government, since D.C. is federal territory. McDonald (2010) incorporated that right against the states, so the same protection applies to state and local laws.
No. McDonald struck down outright handgun bans at the state and local level, but states can still pass gun regulations like licensing requirements and restrictions on certain weapons. It set a constitutional floor, not a ban on regulation.
Yes. It's one of the 15 required Supreme Court cases in the AP Gov CED, tied to Topic 3.5 (Second Amendment), and it can appear in the SCOTUS Comparison FRQ paired with a nonrequired case.
Two work together. The right at issue comes from the Second Amendment, but the Court applied it to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. On the exam, naming only the Second Amendment misses the incorporation step that makes the case matter.