Study smarter with Fiveable
Get study guides, practice questions, and cheatsheets for all your subjects. Join 500,000+ students with a 96% pass rate.
The Chief Justices you'll encounter on the AP exam aren't just names and dates—they represent pivotal shifts in constitutional interpretation that continue to shape American governance today. You're being tested on your ability to understand how the Court's leadership has expanded or contracted federal power, redefined individual rights, and navigated the tension between judicial activism and judicial restraint. Each Chief Justice embodies a particular judicial philosophy that influenced landmark decisions still cited in contemporary legal debates.
Don't just memorize which Chief Justice presided over which case. Instead, focus on what constitutional principles each one championed and how their Courts shifted the balance between federal and state authority, between government power and individual liberty. When you can explain why John Marshall's nationalism differed from William Rehnquist's federalism, or how Earl Warren's approach to civil rights departed from Roger Taney's, you'll be ready for any FRQ the exam throws at you.
These Chief Justices established foundational principles that expanded federal authority and defined the Court's role in American government. Their decisions created the constitutional framework within which all subsequent Courts have operated.
Compare: John Marshall vs. Charles Evans Hughes—both expanded federal power during national crises, but Marshall created the framework for federal supremacy while Hughes preserved it against political attack. If an FRQ asks about the Court's role in economic regulation, Hughes is your go-to example for the modern era.
These Chief Justices used the Court's power to expand constitutional protections for individuals, particularly in cases involving racial equality and criminal procedure. Their activism redefined the relationship between government and citizens.
Compare: Earl Warren vs. Salmon P. Chase—both advanced civil rights during periods of national transformation, but Chase worked within the political branches before joining the Court, while Warren used judicial power to lead social change. Chase's era created the constitutional amendments; Warren's era enforced them.
These Chief Justices emphasized limiting federal power, deferring to elected branches, and protecting state sovereignty. Their conservative judicial philosophy sought to constrain the Court's role in shaping policy.
Compare: William Rehnquist vs. John Roberts—both conservative Chief Justices who emphasized federalism, but Rehnquist actively rolled back federal power while Roberts has focused on institutional stability and avoiding partisan perception. Roberts's occasional swing votes distinguish his approach from Rehnquist's more consistent conservatism.
These Chief Justices presided during periods of intense national conflict, and their decisions—for better or worse—reflected the era's struggles over fundamental constitutional questions.
Compare: Roger Taney vs. Warren Burger—both presided over Courts that issued deeply divisive rulings on the era's most contentious issues (slavery and abortion). Taney's Dred Scott is universally condemned today, while Burger's Roe remained contested until its 2022 overruling. Both illustrate how the Court's intervention in politically charged issues can define—and haunt—a Chief Justice's legacy.
| Concept | Best Examples |
|---|---|
| Judicial Review & Court Power | John Marshall, Earl Warren |
| Federal Supremacy/Nationalism | John Marshall, Charles Evans Hughes |
| States' Rights/Federalism | William Rehnquist, Roger Taney |
| Civil Rights Expansion | Earl Warren, Salmon P. Chase |
| Judicial Restraint | John Roberts, William Rehnquist |
| Economic Regulation | Charles Evans Hughes, William Howard Taft |
| Controversial/Divisive Rulings | Roger Taney, Warren Burger |
| Court Administration/Reform | William Howard Taft, John Roberts |
Which two Chief Justices are most associated with expanding federal power, and what key decisions illustrate their approach?
Compare and contrast Earl Warren's judicial activism with William Rehnquist's judicial restraint—how did their philosophies differ in their approach to civil rights and federal authority?
If an FRQ asks you to discuss how the Supreme Court has limited congressional power, which Chief Justice and case would provide your strongest example?
How do Roger Taney's and John Marshall's interpretations of federal versus state power differ, and what historical circumstances shaped each approach?
Which Chief Justices would you cite to argue that the Court should defer to elected branches versus actively protect individual rights? Explain the constitutional philosophy behind each position.