Notable Court Cases
AP Government and Politics · Learn by Concept
Help Questions
AP Government and Politics › Notable Court Cases
In which landmark case did the Supreme Court rule that Congress has implied powers under the Necessary and Proper Clause?
McCulloch v. Maryland
Marbury v. Madison
Miranda v. Arizona
Brown v. Board of Education
Plessy v. Ferguson
Explanation
In 1816, Congress wanted to create a national bank in the United States. However, many states disagreed with this decision because creating a national bank led to economic depression. Thus, Maryland passed laws placing a tax on the bank, but a cashier with the bank (James McCulloch) refused to pay the tax. When this case reached the Supreme Court, the Court decided that although the Constitution did not explicitly allow Congress to create a national bank, it did allow Congress to "make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers," a clause found in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. This is known as the "necessary and proper" clause, allowing the federal government to create the bank.
Marbury v. Madison created judicial review. Miranda v. Arizona created Miranda rights. Both Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education involved the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Supreme Court case Marbury v. Madison established that __________.
the Court has the right to overturn an act of Congress
the government has the right to establish a national bank
Congress has the exclusive right to regulate interstate commerce
slaves would count for three-fifths representation when states were apportioning seats in Congress
the Supreme Court has the right to review all constitutional amendments
Explanation
The Supreme Court case of Marbury v. Madison (1803) centered around Secretary of State James Madison trying to block the appointment of certain court justices even though they had been approved by the Senate. The Court's ruling established several different precedents, but by far the most important was that the Court had the right to overturn acts of Congress and deem them unconstitutional. This was not a power explicitly given to the Supreme Court in the Constitution, and the decision was highly controversial at the time.
Which of these were not referred to in the Supreme Court decision Fletcher v. Peck (1810)?
Habeus corpus
Bills of attainder
Ex post facto laws
Legal sale of an estate
The invalidation of Georgia's prior legislation
Explanation
In the Supreme Court decision Fletcher v. Peck, the Court found that Georgia’s voided laws that had, when enacted, granted Peck land were not constitutionally allowed to nullify the land deal between Peck and Fletcher. This deal had occurred years after Peck’s original acquisition. The Court noted that bills of attainder and ex post facto laws are unconstitutional, so the legal sale of the estate from Peck to Fletcher was constitutional. This invalidated Georgia’s legislation.
Habeas corpus is protection from unlawful imprisonment, and does not relate to this case.
The 1973 Supreme Court decisions in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton involved serious consideration of all of the following principles, except __________.
the right of spousal consent in the areas of birth and abortion
the right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment
the state's interest in protecting women's health
the state's interest in protecting the potentiality of human life
a woman's right to make her own decisions concerning her health
Explanation
The 1973 companion cases of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton involved the principles of a woman's rights to privacy and to make decisions concerning her own health, as well as the state's legitimate interests in protecting women's health and the potentiality of human life. In those cases, the Supreme Court extended the right of privacy to a woman's decision to have an abortion. The right of spousal consent in the areas of birth and abortion was dealt with in the 1992 case, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, where the Supreme Court overturned a state law requiring spousal awareness prior to abortions.
In the 2010 Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court defended __________.
the political speech rights of corporations, unions, and not-for-profit organizations
detainees and arrestees from unreasonable searches
the rights of women to make decisions regarding their health
the rights of individuals to make unlimited political contributions
the rights of citizens to be free from discriminatory voting laws
Explanation
In Citizens United v. FEC, the Supreme Court defended the political speech and political contribution rights of corporations, unions, and not-for-profit organizations.
Which legislatively controversial issue is at the center of the Supreme Court decision District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)?
Gun control
Abortion
Gay marriage
Presidential impeachment
Student loans
Explanation
The Supreme Court decision of District of Columbia v. Heller resulted in a win for gun rights advocates. The Court determined that the 2nd Amendment provides the right of gun ownership for an individual, even without military affiliation. The condition on that ruling is that the gun or guns are owned and operated in lawful purposes.
Which Supreme Court Chief Justice presided over the landmark Dred Scott v. Sandford case?
Roger Taney
John Marshall
John Jay
Earl Warren
Salmon Chase
Explanation
The Supreme Court case, Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), was an extremely important case in the build-up to the Civil War. It was presided over by Chief Justice Roger Taney, who delivered the verdict that not only could Scott not sue in a Federal court, due to his being black and thus not being a citizen, but also that the government had no right to regulate the extension of slavery into the territories. Not surprisingly, the verdict inspired widespread outrage among abolitionist parties in the North and furthered the divide between the North and the South.
What Amendment did Congress reinforce and protect in the narrow decision Texas v. Johnson, in which Johnson was charged under Texas law for burning an American flag in political protest_?_
1st Amendment
4th Amendment
5th Amendment
8th Amendment
9th Amendment
Explanation
The Supreme Court determined that Johnson was protected under his 1st Amendment right of free expression, especially because his act was inherently political. It is not in the hands of officials to determine the sanctity of symbols, as that would go directly against the 1st Amendment. Neither disgust nor disapproval constitutes enough legal weight to restrict expressiveness.
Gideon v. Wainwright incorporated a right to what? (HINT: The 6th Amendment)
Counsel for indigents
A right to a speedy trial
A right to a jury trial
The right to be represented by the best lawyer in your state for free
None of the answers are correct
Explanation
Gideon v. Wainwright \[somewhat\] famously incorporated the 6th Amendment's guarantee of representation even to those who cannot afford it (so-called indigent ("poor") counsel). There's also a movie about this case called "Gideon's Trumpets."
The answer, "the right to be represented by the best . . ." may sound tempting, but it is not true. The state must provide you with counsel if you cannot afford it (if you want it, that is), but there's no requirement that your representation be the best.
The other answers are different Amendments that were not relevant to the case.
"With all deliberate speed" is a direct quote from a Supreme Court case declaring unconstitutional racial segregation in schools. What is that case?
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka
Plessy v. Ferguson
Gibbons v. Ogden
Ex parte Milligan
Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm'n
Explanation
Brown v. Board is the correct answer. It was in this case that Chief Justice Warren declared unconstitutional segregation in public education. The language “with all deliberate speed” became nearly as famous as the case itself.
One precautionary note before continuing to the incorrect answers: technically speaking, there are TWO Brown v. Board cases—the first in 1954 (Brown I) the second in 1955 (Brown II). Brown I is the case that says segregation in public schools is unconstitutional. Brown II answers the question of “how fast should we remedy this problem” with “with all deliberate speed.” This is a hyper-technical distinction, but a relevant one nonetheless.
Although Plessy v. Ferguson may sound correct (hopefully it sounds familiar), it is not the correct answer. Brown v. Board actually overturns (that is, says it is incorrect) Plessy. More specifically, Plessy held that, so long as segregation was “separate but equal,” it was OK—that is constitutional. Brown directly contradicts that, saying “The ‘separate but equal’ doctrine adopted in Plessy v. Ferguson has no place in the field of public education.”
Gibbons is incorrect as it is a case dealing with Congress’ ability to regulate commerce.
Citizens United is incorrect as it is a case dealing with the interplay between the First Amendment and election contributions.
Ex parte Milligan is a case dealing with the suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War.