Ap Gov Midterm Court Cases And Legilastion

Front 1

Printz v. United States (1997)

Back 1

the Court struck down a provision of the federal Handgun Violence Prevention Act that required local law enforcement officers to conduct background checks on prospective handgun buyers. The Court said the provision violated the Tenth Amendment because it required state officials – in this case, police officers – to “enforce a federal regulatory program.”

Front 2

Gonzalez v. Raich (2005)

Back 2

The Supreme Court upheld Congress’s power to regulate marijuana use. Nearly a dozen states had passed laws enabling patients to grow and use marijuana. Although the marijuana in question was not shipped across state lines, the Supreme Court held that the commerce clause allows Congress to ban marijuana even for medical purposes.

Front 3

Kentucky v. Dennison (1861)

Back 3

dealt with the extradition clause. The case involved a man named Willis Lago who was wanted in Kentucky for helping a slave girl escape. He had fled to Ohio, where the governor, William Dennison, refused to extradite him back to Kentucky. In this case, the court ruled that, while it was the duty of a governor to return a fugitive to the state where the crime was committed, a governor could not be compelled through a write of mandamus to do so.

Front 4

Puerto Rico v. Branstad (1987)

Back 4

The District Court rejected it, ruling that under Kentucky v. Dennison, the Governor of Iowa was not obligated to return Calder. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court felt differently, ruling unanimously that the Federal Courts did indeed have the power to enforce a writ of mandamus and that Kentucky v. Dennison was outdated.

Front 5

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

Back 5

This case became the foundation for judicial review by federal courts. Chief Justice Marshall declared - that Marbury had a legal right to his commission. The opinion also said, however, that the Supreme Court could not issue him a writ because it lacked the constitutional authority to do so.

Front 6

Powell v. Alabama (1803)

Back 6

determined that in a capital trial, the defendant must be given access to counsel upon his or her own request as part of due process. Holding: “Defendants' conviction was unconstitutional because they were denied the assistance of counsel from the time of their arraignment until the beginning of their trial, in violation of the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause. Under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, counsel must be guaranteed to anyone facing the possibility of a death sentence, whether in state or federal courts.”

Front 7

Loving v. Virginia (1970)

Back 7

declared Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute, the "Racial Integrity Act of 1924", unconstitutional, thereby overturning Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States. The court ruled that Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute violated both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Front 8

Lau v. Nichols

Back 8

a case initiated by a Chinese American family, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that placing public school children for whom English is a second language in regular classrooms without special assistance is a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal-protection clause, because it denies them an equal educational opportunity. The Court did not mandate bilingual instruction, but the Lau decision prompted many school to establish bilingual instruction.

Front 9

PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin (2001)

Back 9

disabled golfer Casey Martin asserted that the PGA Tour could not lawfully deny him the option to ride in a golf cart between shots. The Supreme Court ruled that the PGA Tour had to follow the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Front 10

Tennessee v. Lane (2004)

Back 10

involved the enforcement powers under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. The plaintiffs were disabled Tennesseans who could not access the upper floors in state courthouses. They sued in Federal Court, arguing that since Tennessee was denying them public services because of their disabilities, it was violating Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Under Title II, no one can be denied access to public services due to his or her disability; it allows those whose rights have been violated to sue states for money damages

Front 11

Lawrence v. Texas (2003)

Back 11

a victory for gays and lesbians as it invalidated state laws that prohibited sexual relations between consenting adults of the same sex.

Front 12

Wesberry v. Sanders (1964)

Back 12

the decision requires each state to draw U.S. Congressional districts so that they are approximately equal in population. Nationally, this decision effectively reduced the representation of rural districts in the U.S. Congress. Particularly, the Court held that the population differences among Georgia’s congressional districts were so great as to violate the Constitution.

Front 13

University of California v. Bakke (1978)

Back 13

ruled unconstitutional the admission process of the Medical School at the University of California at Davis, which set aside 16 of the 100 seats for African American students. Dealt with the policy of affirmative action.

Front 14

Gratz v. Bollinger (2003) and Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)

Back 14

At issue were two University of Michigan affirmative action administration policies: Michigan’s point system for undergraduate admission, which granted 20 points (out of a total of 150 possible) to minority applicants, and its law school admission process, in which race was taken into account in admission decisions.

Front 15

Clinton v. New York (1998)

Back 15

Holding: The President's unilateral striking of portions of legislation passed by Congress pursuant to the Line Item Veto Act was without legal force, because the U.S. Constitution did not authorize the President to enact federal law of which both houses of Congress had not previously approved the text. District Court for the District of Columbia affirmed.

Front 16

Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952)

Back 16

limited the power of the president to seize private property in the absence of either specifically enumerated authority from the Constitution or statutory authority conferred by Congress.

Front 17

United States v. Nixon (1974)

Back 17

unanimous 8-0 ruling considered a crucial precedent limiting presidential power. The Supreme Court does have the final voice in determining constitutional questions; no person, not even the president of the United States, is completely above the law; and the president cannot use executive privilege as an excuse to withhold evidence that is "demonstrably relevant in a criminal trial."

Front 18

Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982

Back 18

dealt with immunity from suit to government officials performing discretionary functions when their action did not violate clearly established law. Holding: “The President is entitled to absolute immunity from liability for damages based on his official acts.”

Front 19

Title IX of the Education Amendment of 1972

Back 19

prohibits sex discrimination in education. "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance...”

Front 20

12th Amendment (1804)

Back 20

requires separate electoral ballots for the president and vice president.

Front 21

25th Amendment

Back 21

deals with succession to the Presidency and establishes procedures both for filling a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, as well as responding to Presidential disabilities.

Front 22

24th Amendment (1964)

Back 22

prohibits both Congress and the states from condition the right to vote in federal elections on payment of a poll tax or any other types of tax.

Front 23

14th Amendment (1868)

Back 23

Reconstruction Amendment – designed to grant citizenship to and protect the civil liberties of recently freed slaves. It did this by prohibiting states from denying or abridging the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, depriving any person of his life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or denying to any person within their jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Front 24

15th Amendment (1870)

Back 24

Reconstruction Amendment – “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on the account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”

Front 25

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

Back 25

A first dispute over federalism arose when President George Washington’s secretary of the treasury, Alexander Hamilton, proposed that Congress establish a national bank. Thomas Jefferson opposed it on the grounds that its activities would benefit the rich at the expense of the ordinary people. Hamilton claimed that because the federal government had constitutional authority to regulate currency, it had the “implied power” to establish a bank. In the case, the Court ruled decisively in favor of national authority.

Front 26

Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)

Back 26

The Marshall-led Court rejected a New York law granting a monopoly on a ferry that operated between New York and New Jersey, concluding that New York had encroached on Congress’s power to regulate commerce among the states.

Front 27

Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857)

Back 27

this decision exacerbated the North-South conflict. Dred Scott, a slave who had lived in the North for four years, applied for his freedom when his master died, citing the Missouri Compromise that made slavery illegal in a free state or territory. The Supreme Court ruled against Scott, claiming that persons of African descent were barred from citizenship and thereby could not sue for their freedom.

Front 28

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

Back 28

the Court issued its infamous “separate but equal” ruling. A black man, Homer Adolph Plessy, had been convicted of violating a Louisiana law that required white and black citizens to ride in separate railroad cars.

Front 29

Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

Back 29

the case began when Linda Carol Brown, a black child in Topeka, was denied admission to an all-white elementary school that she passed every day on her way to her all-black school, which was twelve blocks farther away. In its decision, the Court reversed the Plessy decision by declaring that racial segregation of public schools “generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone…. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.”

Front 30

United States v. Lopez (1995)

Back 30

the Court cited the Tenth Amendment in striking down a federal law that prohibited the possession of guns within 1000 feet of a school. Congress had invoked the commerce power in passing the bill, but the Court ruled that the ban had “nothing to do with commerce, or any sort of economic activity.”