Study smarter with Fiveable
Get study guides, practice questions, and cheatsheets for all your subjects. Join 500,000+ students with a 96% pass rate.
When you're tested on legal precedents, you're not just being asked to recall case names and dates—you're being tested on how the Supreme Court has shaped the balance of power between government branches, expanded or contracted individual rights, and responded to social change. These cases demonstrate core constitutional principles: judicial review, due process, equal protection, federalism, and the limits of executive power. Understanding the reasoning behind each decision matters more than memorizing outcomes.
Think of precedents as the Court's ongoing conversation with itself and with society. Some cases build on earlier rulings; others explicitly overturn them. The most valuable exam skill you can develop is recognizing which constitutional principle each case illustrates and how cases connect to each other. Don't just memorize facts—know what concept each case demonstrates and be ready to compare rulings that address similar issues in different ways.
These foundational cases define the Court's power itself—the ability to review laws, check other branches, and serve as the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution. Without these precedents, the judiciary's role in American government would look dramatically different.
Compare: Marbury v. Madison vs. United States v. Nixon—both establish judicial authority over other branches, but Marbury checks legislative power while Nixon checks executive power. If an FRQ asks about judicial review in action, Nixon provides a more dramatic modern example.
The Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause has been the battleground for some of the Court's most consequential rulings. These cases show how constitutional interpretation evolves—sometimes expanding rights, sometimes restricting them, and occasionally reversing course entirely.
Compare: Brown v. Board vs. Obergefell—both use the Fourteenth Amendment to expand civil rights, but Brown focuses on equal protection while Obergefell emphasizes both equal protection and substantive due process. Both show the Court responding to social movements demanding equality.
The Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments protect individuals within the criminal justice system. These cases define what those protections actually mean in practice—ensuring that constitutional rights aren't just words on paper but enforceable guarantees.
Compare: Gideon vs. Miranda—both protect defendants in criminal proceedings, but Gideon addresses the trial stage (right to counsel) while Miranda addresses the interrogation stage (right to silence). Together, they create a continuum of protections throughout the criminal justice process.
The Constitution doesn't explicitly mention privacy, yet the Court has recognized implied privacy rights derived from several amendments. These cases—and their reversals—show how constitutional interpretation can expand and contract over time.
Compare: Roe vs. Dobbs—these cases take opposite positions on the same constitutional question, making them essential for understanding how precedent works (and how it can be overturned). An FRQ might ask you to explain why the Court reached different conclusions using the same constitutional text.
The First Amendment protects political speech, but the Court has grappled with how far that protection extends—particularly when money and corporate power enter the equation.
Compare: Citizens United vs. earlier campaign finance cases—the Court shifted from allowing restrictions on corporate political spending (Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 1990) to striking them down. This reversal illustrates how the Court's composition affects constitutional interpretation.
| Concept | Best Examples |
|---|---|
| Judicial Review & Court Authority | Marbury v. Madison, United States v. Nixon |
| Equal Protection (Expanding Rights) | Brown v. Board, Obergefell v. Hodges |
| Equal Protection (Restricting Rights) | Plessy v. Ferguson |
| Rights of the Accused | Gideon v. Wainwright, Miranda v. Arizona |
| Privacy & Substantive Due Process | Roe v. Wade, Obergefell v. Hodges |
| Overturning Precedent | Dobbs (overturning Roe), Brown (overturning Plessy) |
| Checks on Executive Power | United States v. Nixon |
| First Amendment & Political Speech | Citizens United v. FEC |
Which two cases both use the Fourteenth Amendment to expand civil rights, and what distinguishes their constitutional reasoning?
Identify the case that established judicial review and explain why this precedent was necessary for all subsequent Supreme Court rulings to carry constitutional weight.
Compare and contrast Gideon v. Wainwright and Miranda v. Arizona: what stage of the criminal justice process does each protect, and which amendments are involved?
If an FRQ asked you to discuss how the Supreme Court can reverse its own precedent, which pair of cases would provide the strongest example and why?
How does Citizens United v. FEC illustrate the tension between First Amendment protections and concerns about democratic participation—and what constitutional principle did the Court prioritize in its ruling?