Required Supreme Court Cases

Why This Matters

The 15 required Supreme Court cases aren't just historical footnotes—they're the building blocks of every major constitutional principle you'll encounter on the AP exam. These decisions define how the Court interprets federalism, civil liberties, civil rights, and the separation of powers. When you see an FRQ asking about judicial review, the limits of free speech, or the incorporation doctrine, the exam writers expect you to connect abstract principles to specific cases.

Here's the key: you're being tested on patterns of constitutional reasoning, not just case names and dates. The Court uses consistent frameworks—strict scrutiny, balancing tests, incorporation—across different areas of law. Don't just memorize that Gideon guarantees a lawyer; understand that it's part of the selective incorporation process that applies the Bill of Rights to states. Know what concept each case illustrates, and you'll be ready for any question they throw at you.

---

Judicial Power and Federalism

These cases establish the fundamental relationship between branches of government and between federal and state authority. The Constitution doesn't explicitly grant the Court power to strike down laws—these decisions created that authority and defined its limits.

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

• Judicial review—the Court's power to declare laws unconstitutional—was established here, making this the foundation of judicial authority
• Chief Justice John Marshall asserted the judiciary as a co-equal branch by ruling that the Judiciary Act of 1789 conflicted with Article III
• Constitutional supremacy means that when a law conflicts with the Constitution, the Constitution wins—and the Court decides

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

• Implied powers under the Necessary and Proper Clause allow Congress to create a national bank even though it's not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution
• Federal supremacy prevents states from taxing federal institutions—"the power to tax is the power to destroy"
• Broad interpretation of congressional authority established that the Constitution grants flexibility to address national needs

United States v. Lopez (1995)

• Commerce Clause limits—the Court ruled that the Gun-Free School Zones Act exceeded federal authority because gun possession near schools isn't economic activity
• Federalism revival marked the first time in 60 years the Court struck down a law for exceeding Commerce Clause powers
• State police powers over education and local crime were reaffirmed, showing that not everything can be federalized

Arizona v. United States (2012)

• Federal preemption struck down Arizona's "show me your papers" immigration provisions because immigration enforcement belongs to the federal government
• Supremacy Clause prevents states from creating their own immigration enforcement schemes that conflict with federal priorities
• Concurrent vs. exclusive powers—immigration falls under exclusive federal authority, unlike areas where states can act alongside Congress

---

First Amendment Freedoms

The First Amendment protects speech, press, and religion—but none of these rights are absolute. These cases define where constitutional protection ends and government regulation can begin.

Schenck v. United States (1919)

• Clear and present danger test allowed restrictions on speech that creates immediate, serious harm—here, anti-draft pamphlets during World War I
• Wartime speech limits established that context matters; the same words might be protected in peacetime but not during war
• Justice Holmes's analogy—falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater—illustrates that some speech causes harm the government can prevent

Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)

• Students retain constitutional rights—"students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate" is the most-quoted line
• Symbolic speech (black armbands protesting Vietnam) receives First Amendment protection in schools
• Substantial disruption test—schools can only restrict student expression if it materially disrupts the educational environment

New York Times Co. v. United States (1971)

• Prior restraint is presumptively unconstitutional—the government cannot block publication before it happens, even of classified Pentagon Papers
• Heavy burden on government means national security concerns alone don't justify censorship without proof of immediate, irreparable harm
• Press freedom serves democracy by enabling accountability journalism, even when it embarrasses officials

Engel v. Vitale (1962)

• Establishment Clause prohibits state-sponsored prayer in public schools, even if the prayer is nondenominational and voluntary
• Government neutrality toward religion means officials cannot compose or mandate religious exercises
• Separation of church and state in education set precedent for removing religious activities from public institutions

Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)

• Free Exercise Clause protected Amish families' right to end formal education after eighth grade despite compulsory attendance laws
• Balancing test weighed the state's interest in education against the burden on sincere religious practice
• Parental rights combined with religious freedom can override generally applicable laws when the government interest isn't compelling enough

---

Rights of the Accused

The Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments protect individuals in the criminal justice system. Selective incorporation applied these protections to state prosecutions, transforming criminal procedure nationwide.

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

• Right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment applies to state felony prosecutions through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause
• Selective incorporation extended this federal protection to states, ensuring defendants can't be convicted without legal representation
• Equal justice requires that poverty cannot determine whether someone receives a fair trial—states must provide public defenders

---

Civil Rights and Equal Protection

The Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause prohibits discrimination, but the Court's interpretation of what counts as unconstitutional discrimination has evolved dramatically. These cases show how judicial review can either entrench or dismantle systemic inequality.

Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

• "Separate but equal" is inherently unequal—the Court overturned Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), ruling that segregated schools violate the Equal Protection Clause
• Psychological harm to Black children from segregation was cited as evidence that separation itself creates inequality
• Judicial activism critics and defenders both point to Brown—it overturned precedent and invalidated laws across the South

Shaw v. Reno (1993)

• Racial gerrymandering violates the Equal Protection Clause when race is the predominant factor in drawing district lines
• Strict scrutiny applies to race-based redistricting, requiring the government to prove a compelling interest and narrow tailoring
• Bizarre district shapes that can only be explained by racial sorting trigger judicial review, even when intended to help minority representation

---

Privacy and Unenumerated Rights

The Constitution doesn't explicitly mention privacy, but the Court has found it implied in several amendments. These cases illustrate how the Court identifies and protects rights not specifically listed in the text.

Roe v. Wade (1973)

• Right to privacy extends to a woman's decision to terminate a pregnancy, derived from the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
• Trimester framework balanced state interests (protecting potential life, maternal health) against individual rights, with state power increasing as pregnancy progressed
• Substantive due process reasoning—that "liberty" protects fundamental decisions—remains controversial and was central to the case's eventual overruling in Dobbs (2022)

---

Second Amendment Rights

The Second Amendment's scope was long debated—does it protect only militia-related weapons, or individual self-defense? This case resolved the question and applied the right to states.

McDonald v. Chicago (2010)

• Incorporation of the Second Amendment means states and cities cannot ban handgun possession for self-defense in the home
• Individual right to bear arms, established in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), now applies against state and local governments
• Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause was the vehicle for incorporation, continuing the selective incorporation process

---

Campaign Finance and Political Speech

Money in politics raises questions about whether spending is speech and whether corporations have First Amendment rights. This case fundamentally reshaped election law.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010)

• Corporate political speech cannot be restricted—the Court struck down limits on independent expenditures by corporations and unions
• Political spending is protected speech under the First Amendment, meaning the government cannot cap how much groups spend on elections
• Super PACs emerged from this ruling, allowing unlimited independent expenditures and dramatically increasing money in politics

---

Quick Reference Table

---

Self-Check Questions

1. Which two cases both address federalism but reach opposite conclusions about the scope of federal power? What constitutional provisions does each interpret?

2. Gideon v. Wainwright and McDonald v. Chicago both use the Fourteenth Amendment to apply Bill of Rights protections to states. What is this process called, and why does it matter for criminal defendants and gun owners?

3. Compare how the Court balanced government interests against individual rights in Schenck v. United States and Tinker v. Des Moines. Why did anti-war expression lose in one case but win in the other?

4. An FRQ asks you to explain how the Supreme Court has interpreted the Equal Protection Clause in cases involving race. Using Brown v. Board of Education and Shaw v. Reno, explain how the Court's approach to race-conscious government action has evolved.

5. Which required case established that the judiciary can invalidate laws passed by Congress? Why is this case considered the foundation of the Supreme Court's power, even though judicial review isn't mentioned in the Constitution?