supreme court case study 5 quizlet

Supreme Court Cases Quiz

Our free Supreme Court cases quiz will test your knowledge on 30 landmark Supreme Court cases. It is important for every government and politics student to be familiar with each of these important Supreme Court cases. These cases involve individual rights, criminal law, federalism, first amendment rights, and more. This Supreme Court quiz will help you review and memorize these important decisions.

Which Supreme Court case established that evidence obtained through unreasonable searches and seizures, in violation of the Fourth Amendment, may not be used in state courts for state law criminal prosecutions?

Which supreme court case held that abortion is a fundamental right under the united states constitution, which supreme court case held that the constitution does not provide a right to abortion, which supreme court case established that the constitution grants implied powers to congress which can be used to implement the constitution's express powers, which supreme court case struck down state funding for religious schools, which supreme court case held that the president cannot use executive privilege to withhold evidence that is relevant in a criminal trial, which supreme court case held that people of african descent who were brought to the u.s. and held as slaves (and their descendants) were not u.s. citizens and were not protected by the constitution, which supreme court case invalidated a state law prohibiting the use of contraceptives on the grounds that the law violated the right to marital privacy, which supreme court case upheld state laws requiring racial segregation at public facilities under the “separate but equal” doctrine, which supreme court case upheld the individual health insurance mandate included in the affordable care act, which supreme court case established that a public official suing for defamation must prove that the statement was made with “actual malice”, which supreme court case held that state courts are required by the fourteenth amendment to provide counsel to defendants in criminal cases, extending this sixth amendment federal requirement to the states, which supreme court case held that religious duty is not a legitimate defense to a criminal indictment, which supreme court case held that the government, through the use of eminent domain, can claim and pass on privately owned land to another private owner if doing so results in economic development, which supreme court case prohibits race-based admission decisions to institutions of higher education, which supreme court case invalidated laws prohibiting interracial marriage, which supreme court case held that the act of burning a flag is protected “speech” under the first amendment, which supreme court case held that the commerce clause grants congress the power to regulate any aspect of commerce that crosses state lines, including modes of transportation, which supreme court case held that it is unconstitutional for state officials to write an official school prayer and to encourage students to recite it, which supreme court case defined the first amendment rights of public school students, which supreme court case held that the first amendment right to free speech doesn't protect speech that presents a “clear and present danger”, which supreme court case protects an individual’s right to possess a functioning handgun in their home, which supreme court case held that state laws establishing separate public schools for black and white students were unconstitutional, which supreme court case established that police must advise criminal suspects of their constitutional rights before questioning them, which supreme court case reaffirmed that obscene material is not protected by the first amendment, and also redefined the constitutional test for determining what constitutes obscene material, which supreme court case established the basis for the exercise of judicial review under article iii of the constitution, which supreme court case upheld the constitutionality of executive order 9066, which ordered japanese americans into internment camps during world war ii, which supreme court case held that the right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples, which supreme court case held that a search warrant is needed to track an automobile with a gps tracking device, which supreme court case held that the government cannot restrict independent political expenditures by corporations.

Obergefell v. Hodges

Primary tabs.

Obergefell v. Hodges is a landmark case in which on June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States held, in 5-4 decision, that state bans on same-sex marriage and on recognizing same sex marriages duly performed in other jurisdictions are unconstitutional under the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy asserted that the right to marry is a fundamental right “inherent in the liberty of the person” and is therefore protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibits the states from depriving any person of “life, liberty or property without the due process of law.” The marriage right is also guaranteed by the equal protection clause, by virtue of the close connection between liberty and equality. In this decision Justice Kennedy also declared that “the reason marriage is fundamental…apply with equal force to same-sex couples”, so they may “exercise the fundamental right to marry.”  The majority decision was signed by Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan and Sotomayor. Justices Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito dissented.

In addition to giving same-sex couples an opportunity to get legally married the decision also positively influenced other aspects of same-sex couple’s family life, giving them adoption rights; possibility to obtain employment and social security benefits as well as health care; the ability to be a spouse’s next-of-kin for purposes of making medical decisions etc. The decision influenced not only family law but also property law insurance, tax and business. 

In 1972, in the decision in Baker v. Nelson the Supreme Court of the United States declined to hear the case about the denial of the marriage license application for same-sex couple “for want of a substantial federal question.” This ruling blocked federal courts from reviewing same-sex marriage cases for decades, leaving the decision solely in the hands of states.

 In 1973 Maryland became the first state to create a law that explicitly defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and other states were eager to adopt Maryland’s course (Virginia 1975, Florida, California and Wyoming 1977).

In late 1980s and early 1990s same-sex couples were able to see some signs of hope on the marriage front. In 1981, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed an ordinance that allowed homosexual couples and unmarried heterosexual couples to register for domestic partnership, which also granted hospital visitation rights and other benefits.  Three years later the District of Columbia also passed a domestic partnership law, granting same-sex couples a number of important benefits like the possibility of receiving a health care coverage if their partner was employed by the DC government. In 1993 the highest court in Hawaii ruled that a ban on same-sex marriage may violate the state constitution’s Equal Protection Clause- the first time a state court has ever inched toward making same-sex marriage legal, however, the First Circuit court buried the ideas that decision propelled and in 1996 the US Congress added another blow by passing the Defense Marriage Act (DOMA). Even though DOMA did not ban same-sex marriage it provided that only heterosexual couples could be granted federal marriage benefits. Additionally, even if a state made same-sex marriage legal, couples still wouldn’t be able to file income taxes jointly, sponsor spouses for immigration benefits, or receive spousal Social Security payment etc. In 1998 the outlook of the rest of the country on to the same-sex marriage bans got to Hawaii, where voters approved a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in the state.

In 2000, Vermont became the first state to legalize civil unions, a legal status that provided most of the state-level benefits of marriage. Three years later, the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples had the right to marry and began issuing marriage licenses on May 17, 2004. Even though later the same year, the U.S. Senate blocked a Constitutional Amendment supported by President George W. Bush that would outlaw same-sex marriages in the whole country, ten typically conservative estates along with Oregon enacted state-level bans on gay marriages.

In 2010, Massachusetts, the first state to legalize gay marriage, found Section 3 of DOMA that defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman to be unconstitutional, in 2013, in United States v. Windsor , the Supreme Court of the United States struck down Section 3 of DOMA. Although after the United States v. Windsor the U.S. government could not deny federal benefits to married same-sex couples, other parts of DOMA were still active, including Section 2, which declared that states and territories could refuse to recognize the marriage of same-sex couples from other states (DOMA will be declared unconstitutional by Obergefell v. Hodges ) .

By 2015 (the year Obergefell was decided) thirty-six states already issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples and more than 20 counties around the world had already legalized gay marriage, starting with the Netherlands in 2000. A Pew Research Center poll in 2001 found that 57% of the Americans opposed same-sex marriage and only 35% supported it. In 2016, the same poll found almost the complete opposite: 55% of the Americans supported same-sex marriage and 37% opposed.

Obergefell v. Hodges is a consolidation of six-lower court cases from Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee.

Michigan Case

Originally DeBoer v. Snyder (2014) , involved a female couple that was not legally married (only had commitment ceremony due to the state’s ban on same-sex marriages) and wanted to adopt three children. According to the Michigan law adoption was allowed only for single people or married couples. The couple filed a law suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan challenging the state’s ban on same-sex marriage. Judge Friedman, presiding over the case ruled for plaintiffs, “without some overriding legitimate interest, the state cannot use its domestic relations authority to legislate families out of existence. Having failed to establish such an interest in the context of same-sex marriage, the [state marriage ban] cannot stand.”

Ohio case 1: originally Obergefell v. Wymwyslo . Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Windsor , James Obergefell and John Arthur residents of Ohio decided to get married in Maryland. After learning that their state of residence, would not recognize their marriage, they filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio alleging that the state discriminates against same-sex couples legally married out-of-state. Judge Black ruled that Ohio’s refusal to recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions was discriminatory. Judge Black wrote: “When a state effectively terminates the marriage of a same-sex couple married in another jurisdiction, it intrudes into the realm of private marital, family, and intimate relations specifically protected by the Supreme Court.”

Ohio Case 2: originally Henry v. Himes (2014) . This case involved four couples that wanted to be listed on their children’s birth certificates. In Obergefell v. Wymwyslo Judge Black ruled that Ohio must recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions and two days later in this case he stayed the enforcement of his ruling, except for the birth certificates sought by the plaintiffs.

Kentucky Cases

Kentucky case 1: originally Bourke v. Beshear (2014) also dealt with the recognition of the out of state same-sex marriages. Judge Heyburn, at the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky held: “in the end, the Court concludes that Kentucky’s denial of recognition for valid same-sex marriages violates the United States Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection under the law, even under the most deferential standard of review. Accordingly, the Kentucky’s statutes and constitutional amendment that mandate the denial are unconstitutional.”

Kentucky case 2: originally Love v. Beshear (2014) , challenged the state’s ban on same-sex marriages. Two male couples involved in the case were denied their marriage licenses, even though one of the couples had a religious marriage ceremony and the other couple had been living together for thirty years. Judge Heyburn held that “homosexual persons constitute a quasi-suspect class,” and declared that Kentucky’s law banning same-sex marriages violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Tennessee Case

Originally Tanco v. Haslam (2014) , also dealt with the recognition of the out of state same-sex marriages. Judge Trauger from the United States District Court in the Middle District of Tennessee granted a preliminary injunction requiring the state to recognize the marriages of the three plaintiff couples. She wrote, “At this point, all signs indicate that, in the eyes of the United States Constitution, the plaintiffs’ marriages will be place on an equal footing with those of heterosexual couples and that proscriptions against same-sex marriage will soon become a footnote in the annals of American history.”

The six decisions of the four federal district courts were appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit: Obergefell v. Wymyslo (renamed in the process); Tanco v. Haslam ; DeBoer v. Snyder ; Bourke v. Beshear ;  Love v. Beshear ; Henry v. Himes . On November 6, 2014, in a decision styled  DeBoer v. Snyder , the Sixth Circuit ruled 2–1 that Ohio's ban on same-sex marriage did not violate the U.S. Constitution. The court said it was bound by the U.S. Supreme Court's 1972 action in a similar case,  Baker v. Nelson , which dismissed a same-sex couple's marriage claim "for want of a substantial federal question". Writing for the majority, Judge Sutton also dismissed the arguments made on behalf of same-sex couples in this case: "Not one of the plaintiffs' theories, however, makes the case for constitutionalizing the definition of marriage and for removing the issue from the place it has been since the founding: in the hands of state voters."

Review by the Supreme Court of the United States

Claimants  from each of the six district court cases appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States. On November 14, 2014, plaintiffs in DeBoer v. Snyder ,  Obergefell v. Hodges , and  Tanco v. Haslam  filed petitions for writs of  certiorari  with the Court. The same-sex couples in  Bourke v. Beshear  filed their petition for a writ of certiorari with the Court on November 18.

• Petitioners in DeBoer v. Snyder asked the Court whether denying same-sex couples the right to marry violated the  Fourteenth Amendment .
• Petitioners in Obergefell v. Hodges asked the Court whether Ohio's refusal to recognize marriages from other jurisdictions violated the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantees of  due process  and  equal protection , and whether the state's refusal to recognize the adoption judgment of another state violated the U.S. Constitution's  Full Faith and Credit Clause .
• Petitioners in Tanco v. Haslam asked the Court whether denying same-sex couples the right to marry, including recognition of out-of-state marriages, violated the Due Process or Equal Protections Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment; whether refusing to recognize their out-of-state marriages violated same-sex couples' right to interstate travel; and whether  Baker v. Nelson  dismissing same-sex couples' marriage claims, remained binding precedent.
• Petitioners Bourke v. Beshear  asked the Court whether a state violates the Due Process or Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment by prohibiting same-sex couples to marry, and whether it does so by refusing to recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages.

On January 16, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court consolidated the four same-sex marriage cases challenging state laws that prohibited same-sex marriage and agreed to review the case. It set a briefing schedule to be completed April 17. The Court ordered briefing and oral argument on the following questions: 1. Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex? 2. Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?

The Court also told the parties to each of the four cases to address only the questions raised in their particular case. The case had 148  amici curiae briefs  submitted, more than any other U.S. Supreme Court case.

Oral arguments in the case were heard on April 28, 2015. The plaintiffs were represented by civil rights lawyer  Mary Bonauto  and Washington, D.C. lawyer Douglas Hallward-Driemeier. U.S. Solicitor General  Donald B. Verrilli Jr. , representing the United States, also argued for the same-sex couples. The states were represented by former  Michigan Solicitor General   John J. Bursch  and Joseph R. Whalen, an associate solicitor general from Tennessee.

The Majority Opinion

Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion signed by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan. The majority held that state same-sex marriage bans violate the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Citing Griswold v. Connecticut , the Court affirmed that the fundamental rights found the in the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment “extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices that define personal identity and beliefs,” but the “identification and protection” of these fundamental rights “has not been reduced to any formula.” As the Supreme Court has found in cases such as Loving v. Virginia , Zablocki v. Redhail and Turner v. Safley , the extension includes a fundamental right to marry.

The Court listed four reasons why the fundamental right to marry applies to same-sex couples, citing  United States v. Windsor . First, "the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy." Second, "the right to marry is fundamental because it supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals," a principle applying equally to same-sex couples. Third, the fundamental right to marry "safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education"; procreation is not a necessary condition to a legal right, but it is one of the factors that make the right worth protecting. Fourth, "marriage is a keystone of our social order," and "[t]here is no difference between same- and opposite-sex couples with respect to this principle"; and for no reason denying the same-sex couples the right to marry is against the social principles of our society.

The Court emphasized the relationship between the liberty of the Due Process Clause and the equality of the Equal Protection Clause and struck down same-sex marriage bans for violating both clauses, holding that same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry in all fifty states "on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples." The Court also held that states must recognize same-sex marriages legally performed in other states.

The Court emphasized that, while the democratic process may be an appropriate tool for deciding issues such as same-sex marriage, no individual has to rely solely on the democratic process to exercise a fundamental right. "An individual can invoke a right to constitutional protection when he or she is harmed, even if the broader public disagrees and even if the legislature refuses to act," for "fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."

Additionally, the Court rejected the argument that allowing same-sex couples to marry harms the institution of marriage, leading to fewer opposite-sex marriages. Instead, the Court stated that married same-sex couples "would pose no risk of harm to themselves or third parties". The majority also emphasized that the First Amendment protects those who disagree with same-sex marriage, which would later lead to a lot of debates.

Chief Justice John Roberts dissented, his opinion was joined by Justices Scalia and Thomas. Roberts argued that no prior decision had changed the core component of marriage, that it be between one man and one woman; consequently, same-sex marriage bans did not violate the Due Process Clause. Roberts also rejected the idea that same-sex marriage bans violated a right to privacy, because they did not involve any government intrusion or punishment. Addressing the Equal Protection Clause, Roberts argued that same-sex marriage bans did not violate the clause because they were rationally related to a governmental interest of preserving the traditional definition of marriage. Roberts also suggested the majority's opinion conflicts with the right of religious liberty.

Justice Antonin Scalia also wrote a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justice Thomas. Scalia argued that the Court's decision effectively robs the people of "the freedom to govern themselves", and the democratic process should resolve this issue. Addressing the Fourteenth Amendment violation, Scalia claimed that, because a same-sex marriage ban would not have been considered unconstitutional at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment's adoption, such bans are not unconstitutional today. He argued that there is "no basis" for the Court's decision striking down legislation that the Fourteenth Amendment does not expressly forbid, and directly attacked the majority opinion for "lacking even a thin veneer of law."

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justice Scalia. Thomas rejected the principle of substantive due process, which in his opinion "invites judges to roa[m] at large in the constitutional field guided only by their personal views as to the fundamental rights protected by that document" which leads to the judiciary reaching too far and stepping further away from the Constitutional text. Thomas argued that the only liberty that is covered under the Due Process Clause is freedom from "physical restraint". Thomas insisted that "liberty has long been understood as individual freedom  from  governmental action, not as a right  to  a particular governmental entitlement" such as a marriage license.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justices Scalia and Thomas. Referring to  Washington v. Glucksberg , in which the Court stated the Due Process Clause protects only rights and liberties that are "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition", Alito argued that "right" to same-sex marriage would not meet this definition. Alito defended the rationale of the states, accepting that same-sex marriage bans serve to promote procreation and childrearing. Expressing concern for judicial abuse, Alito concluded, "Most Americans—understandably—will cheer or lament today’s decision because of their views on the issue of same-sex marriage. But all Americans, whatever their thinking on that issue, should worry about what the majority’s claim of power portends."

After the decision was issued, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton allegedly called the Court's decision a "lawless ruling" In a tweet, former Governor of Arkansas and then Republican candidate for the 2016 presidential election Mike Huckabee wrote, "This flawed, failed decision is an out-of-control act of unconstitutional judicial tyranny." Austin R. Nimocks, senior counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom, accused the Court's majority of undermining freedom of speech, saying that "five lawyers took away the voices of more than 300 million Americans to continue to debate the most important social institution in the history of the world. . . . Nobody has the right to say that a mom or a woman or a dad or a man is irrelevant." National Catholic Register and Christianity Today, argued that there may be conflict between the ruling and religious liberty, mirroring the arguments of the dissent.

To this day not all states, and definitely not all courts, view same-sex marriage as a settled issue. While the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage throughout the United States, as of June 21, 2017, nine counties in Alabama and Texas still do not issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Those within these counties who wish to marry within the state must travel to another part of the state in order to obtain a license. Additionally, some counties may require at least one person to be a resident of the county in order to receive a marriage license.

In fact, some argue that it’s increasingly apparent that marriage equality opponents have a long-term plan to roll back, and eventually reverse, the effect of the Obergefell  decision. In early 2016, Arkansas asserted that the Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage decision did not require the state to list married same-sex parents on their children’s birth certificate. This argument is flawed: Obergefell compels states to extend “the constellation of [marital] benefits” to same-sex couples, and mandates equal treatment for “birth and death certificates.” And yet, Arkansas Supreme Court upheld the state’s refusal to extend these privileges to same-sex couples. A majority claimed that birth certificates are a record of biology, not a benefit of marriage, and are therefore exempt from Obergefell ’s command of equal treatment. 

On June 26, 2017 in Pavan v. Smith the Supreme Court of the United States reaffirmed Obergefell’ s core holding that states must extend all benefits and privileges of marriage to same-sex couples and reversed the decision of the Arkansas Supreme Court.

[Last updated in February of 2023 by the Wex Definitions Team ]

If you're seeing this message, it means we're having trouble loading external resources on our website.

If you're behind a web filter, please make sure that the domains *.kastatic.org and *.kasandbox.org are unblocked.

To log in and use all the features of Khan Academy, please enable JavaScript in your browser.

AP®︎/College US Government and Politics

Course: ap®︎/college us government and politics   >   unit 7, index of khan resources on required documents and supreme court cases.

• The Declaration of Independence
• The Articles of Confederation
• The Constitution of the United States
• Federalist No. 10
• Brutus No. 1
• Federalist No. 51
• Federalist No. 70
• Federalist No. 78
• Letter from a Birmingham Jail

Required primary documents

Required supreme court cases, want to join the conversation.

• Upvote Button navigates to signup page
• Downvote Button navigates to signup page
• Flag Button navigates to signup page

AP® US Government

Key supreme court cases: ap® us government crash course.

• The Albert Team
• Last Updated On: March 1, 2022

The Supreme Court has issued thousands of opinions, but some of its decisions have either had a profound impact on  American history  or continue to influence American government today.

The following is a comprehensive list of these cases. You are certain to be asked about some of them on the AP® US Government & Politics exam.

It is important that you know the bare-bones facts of these cases. It’s not a bad idea to make flashcards with the names and dates of the cases on the front, and the holdings on back, to help you memorize the information.

There’s a decent chance you will be asked to discuss a few cases in more detail, particularly the cases pertaining to the Bill of Rights and civil liberties.

So, let’s take a closer look at a select few of these cases.

Freedom of Religion Cases

In  Engle v. Vitale , the Court struck down a New York state nondenominational prayer that began with the words “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence on thee…”

Lemon v. Kurtzman  set guidelines to help determine whether government action crosses the church-state line. These guidelines are: the purpose of the legislation must be secular, not religious; its primary affect must neither enhance nor inhibit religion; and it must avoid an “excessive entanglement of government with religion.”

Freedom of Speech Cases

In  Schenck v. United States , the majority ruled that Schenck did not have the right to print, speak or distribute materials against US efforts in World War I because a “clear and present danger” existed.

New York Times v. US , famously known as the Pentagon Papers case, held that the government did not have the right to prohibit the New York Times from publishing information about the history of US involvement in the Vietnam War.

Citizens United v. FEC  held that corporate funding of political advertisements that did not specifically endorse a candidate was constitutional under the First Amendment and could not be limited.

Right to Privacy Cases

Griswold v. Connecticut  held that Americans had a right to privacy that was implied by other constitutional protections and that this meant the state could not prohibit the use of contraceptives.

Roe v. Wade  used the concept of being “secure in their persons” to hold that abortions are constitutionally protected.

The federal judiciary provides some more summaries of important cases  here .

A Practice AP® US Government Free-Response Question

Now let’s look at part of a sample  free-response question and figure out how to answer it .

The First Amendment includes two clauses relating to the freedom of religion. 1. Select one of the following cases and identify the First Amendment clause upon which the United States Supreme Court based its decision.

2. Engle v. Vitale  (school prayer)

3. Lemon v. Kurtzman  (state funding for private religious schools) 4. Describe the Supreme Court’s opinion in the decision you selected in (a).

OK, this shouldn’t be too difficult. For (a), let’s pick  Lemon v. Kurtzman .

We know that the First Amendment says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Kurtzman  deals with the Establishment Clause, because it aims to allow for government funding of the secular aims of parochial (religious) schools without funding religion itself.

For part (b), the answer is simple. All we have to do is write down how the case was decided. The Court allowed government funding for parochial schools, as long as three guidelines were met:

1. The purpose of the legislation must be secular, not religious

2. Its primary affect must neither enhance nor inhibit religion

3. it must avoid an “excessive entanglement of government with religion.”

Remember the Most Salient Facts of Cases

The key for doing well on questions about  Supreme Court cases  on the AP® US Government & Politics exam is to memorize the most salient facts about the important cases. Use flashcards, or do drills with a classmate to commit these cases to memory.

Looking for AP® US Government practice?

Kickstart your AP® US Government prep with Albert. Start your AP® exam prep today .

Interested in a school license?​

Popular posts.

AP® Score Calculators

Simulate how different MCQ and FRQ scores translate into AP® scores

AP® Review Guides

The ultimate review guides for AP® subjects to help you plan and structure your prep.

Core Subject Review Guides

Review the most important topics in Physics and Algebra 1 .

SAT® Score Calculator

See how scores on each section impacts your overall SAT® score

ACT® Score Calculator

See how scores on each section impacts your overall ACT® score

Grammar Review Hub

Comprehensive review of grammar skills

AP® Posters

Download updated posters summarizing the main topics and structure for each AP® exam.

• Teacher Opportunities
• AP U.S. Government Key Terms
• Bureaucracy & Regulation
• Campaigns & Elections
• Civil Rights & Civil Liberties
• Comparative Government
• Constitutional Foundation
• Criminal Law & Justice
• Economics & Financial Literacy
• English & Literature
• Environmental Policy & Land Use
• Executive Branch
• Federalism and State Issues
• Foreign Policy
• Gun Rights & Firearm Legislation
• Immigration
• Interest Groups & Lobbying
• Judicial Branch
• Legislative Branch
• Political Parties
• Science & Technology
• Social Services
• State History
• Supreme Court Cases
• U.S. History
• World History

Log-in to bookmark & organize content - it's free!

• Bell Ringers
• Lesson Plans
• Featured Resources

Lesson Plan: AP Government Landmark Supreme Court Cases Review

The Significance of Marbury v. Madison

Author Cliff Sloan and Yale Law Professor Akhil Reed Amar explain the significance of the Supreme Court Case Marbury v. Madison.

Description

This lesson provides students with an opportunity to review the facts and holdings of, and connections between, the fourteen landmark Supreme Court cases selected for inclusion in the redesigned AP Government course (see list below). While the case selection is aligned with the Advanced Placement course, these landmark cases are suitable for use in any government course focusing on key Supreme Court decisions in United States legal history. Landmark Cases: Marbury v. Madision (1803); McCulloch v. Maryland (1819); Schenck v. United States (1919); Brown v. Board of Education (1954); Baker v. Carr (1961); Engel v. Vitale (1962); Gideon v. Wainwright (1963); Tinker v. Des Moines (1969); New York Times v. United States (1971); Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972); Shaw v. Reno (1993); United States v. Lopez (1995); Citizens United v. FEC (2010); McDonald v. Chicago (2010)

Forming Knowledge:

Students, working either individually or in jigsawed groups, peruse the following short video clips, as well as their textbook, class notes, and any other teacher-provided resources, to fact-find about each of the fourteen Key SCOTUS Cases from the redesigned AP Government exam, sharing and comparing information with one another.

Video Clip One: Marbury v. Madison - 1803

Video Clip Two: McCulloch v. Maryland - 1819

Video Clip Three: Schenck v. United States -1919

Video Clip Four: Brown v. Board of Education - 1954

Video Clip Five: Baker v. Carr - 1961

Video Clip Six: Engel v. Vitale - 1962

Video Clip Seven: Gideon v. Wainwright - 1963

Video Clip Eight: Tinker v. Des Moines - 1969

Video Clip Nine: New York Times v. U.S. - 1971

Video Clip Ten: Wisconsin v. Yoder - 1972

Video Clip Eleven: Shaw v. Reno - 1993

Video Clip Twelve: U.S. v. Lopez - 1995

Video Clip Thirteen: Citizens United v. FEC - 2010

Video Clip Fouteen: McDonald v. Chicago - 2010

Enhancing Knowledge & Connections:

Students complete the Key Supreme Court Cases Overview Chart , using the video clips above and/or the more extensive lesson plans hyperlinked within the chart, to extend and enhance their understanding of each case and the connections between cases.

Reviewing Knowledge:

Using the Key SCOTUS Cases Game Cards , students play any of the below games as directed, or a variation of your class's creation, in small groups (sized as works best for your particular classroom).

NOTE: In order to enhance game play, the game cards contain a few cases in addition to those in the College Board's list of 14. As you wish, you can keep those extra cards, discard them, or replace them with cases of your selection. Each set of directions is repeated twice on the first sheet to facilitate creation of class sets of game cards. There are also five variations for review card gameplay in the C-SPAN AP Government Key Founding Documents Review lesson that can be adapted for these document cards!

Variation One:

• Shuffle the cards then deal them out facedown across your table
• When it’s your turn, choose any two cards and turn them face up
• State the Constitutional issue involved in each case, earning one point per case.
• State the ruling of each case, earning one point per case.
• State an AP-worthy comparison between either those two cases OR one of those cases and another relevant SCOTUS case for two additional points
• The first player to 18 points wins!

Variation Two:

• Shuffle the cards and then deal out the top six face up
• Organize the cases you’ve dealt in a manner that makes sense to you.
• Send two members of your group as ambassadors to two other groups and leave the remaining group member(s) at your table to receive ambassadors from other groups
• Explain the way you have grouped your cases to the ambassadors you’ve received
• Welcome your ambassadors back to your table and have them explain how the groups they visited arranged the cases they drew.
• Repeat Steps 1-5!

Variation Three:

• Shuffle the cards then deal them out three cards to each player. Place the remaining cards face down in one pile in the middle of the table.
• Flip over the top card from the face-down deck
• The first person to slap down one of the cards in his/her hand and articulate an AP-worthy comparison between that case and the case dealt in #2 earns one point and draws a card from the top of the stack to add to his/her hand.
• Repeat steps 2 & 3
• The first player to 5 points wins!

Variation Four:

• Shuffle the cards then deal out three cards to each player
• Each player chooses one card and places it face down in front of the player to his/her left. Play then begins with the youngest player and then proceeds counterclockwise around the group.
• For your turn, flip over the card you were passed. Earn one point for accurately stating the Constitutional issue involved in that case and one point for stating the ruling of that case. Earn two additional points for stating the facts and ruling of one of the two cases remaining in your hand and one point for articulating a comparison between that case and the case you were passed.
• The first player to 15 points wins!

Variation Five:

• Shuffle the cards, deal out five to each player, and place the remaining cards face down in the middle of the table. Turn the top card of that pile face up.
• Play begins with the youngest player and then proceeds counterclockwise around the group.
• Choose a card from your hand and place it face up on top of the middle card, articulating an AP-worthy connection between the two.
• If you can’t play, pass your turn. If every player passes in the same turn, flip over another card from the face-down pile.
• The first player to get rid of all of the cards in his/her hand wins!

Reviewing Knowledge Virtually:

The Key SCOTUS Cases VIRTUAL REVIEW Game Cards were designed as variations to the above games that could be printed out individually in student homes and played virtually, on their own initiative or as directed/facilitated by you, using a virtual collaboration platform like Zoom or FaceTime.

There are also five variations for virtual review card gameplay in the C-SPAN AP Government Key Founding Documents Review lesson that can be adapted for these case cards!

Virtual Variation One

• Each of you shuffles your set of cards then deals them out facedown in front of you
• When it’s your turn, choose any two cards and turn them face up. Your first card may not be one you’ve chosen in a previous turn.

Virtual Variation Two

• One of you, serving as the dealer, shuffles the cards and then deals out the top six face up so that everyone can see them
• The first player to yell “Certiorari!” and articulate a connection between three of the face-up cases receives three points.
• The next player(s) to yell “Concurring!” and assert connection between three cases (one or two of three originally articulated may be repeated, but not all three as one set) receive(s) two points
• When no other connections can be identified, the dealer repeats step 1
• The first player to 12 points wins!

Virtual Variation Three

• Each of you shuffles your set of the cards then deals out three cards to yourself. Place your remaining cards face down in one pile in front of you that’s visible to everyone else
• One of you flips over the top card from your face-down deck.
• After the top card has been revealed, the first person to slap down one of the cards in his/her hand (which CANNOT be the same card!) and articulate an AP-worthy comparison between that case and the case dealt in #2 earns one point and draws a card from the top of the stack to add to his/her hand.
• Repeat steps 2 & 3, taking turns flipping over your top card.

Virtual Variation Four

• Each of you shuffles your set of cards then deals out three to yourself (do not reveal them to your opponents)
• Each player chooses one card and places it face down. Play then begins with the youngest player and then proceeds in age order
• For your turn, identify an opponent, flip over the card you placed face down, The identified opponent earns one point for accurately stating the Constitutional issue involved in that case and one point for stating the ruling of that case. He/she earns two additional points for stating the facts and ruling of one of the two cases remaining in his/her hand and one point for articulating a comparison between that case and the case you revealed.

Virtual Variation Five

• One of you, serving as the dealer, shuffles your set of cards, deals out four cards to each player (in some manner that can be seen by everyone), places the remaining cards face down in a stack, and flips over the top card from that stack.
• Play begins with the oldest player and proceeds in reverse age order
• For your turn, choose a card from your hand and have the dealer place it face up on top of the revealed card from the stack, articulating an AP-worthy connection between the two.
• If you can’t play, pass your turn. If every player passes in the same turn, the dealer flips over another card from the face-down pile.
• The first player to get rid of all of the cards in his/her hand wins

Extending Knowledge:

Students engage in one or more of the below activities, either working individually or in groups, to reflect their understanding of the cases.

MIND MAP IT: Create a mind map or similar infographic detailing the key facts of your selected case and key provisions of the ruling.

AMI-CRUSHING IT: For your selected case, determine two groups that might reasonably have filed amicus briefs supporting each side. Write a short explanation for each of the four indicating why you feel they would have been on that side, what you believe the gist of their argument would have been, and a hashtag they might have used to try to build social media support for their position..

MEANING IN THE MEME-ING: Create two memes for your selected case that convey main ideas, along with two opportune hashtags that for each might be used when posting that meme on social media.

CELEBRITY ENDORSEMENT: Choose a famous person whom, in your view, would be an active proponent of the ideas/ruling in your selected case because of the way those the case might apply to his/her life. Print a picture of your celebrity with a thought bubble indicating and explaining your rationale.

PRESS PLAY: Create either a Netflix queue or a song playlist to accompany your selected case. Your list should have 6-8 entries, each an actual film/TV show or song (depending on which option you choose) that, in your view, connects to a significant theme or component of your case, accompanied by an explanation of that connection.

• ADVERTISE YOUR UNDERSTANDING: Create a one-page (8½x11) color magazine ad “promoting” your selected case. Your ad should contain a tagline and a picture, and should clearly communicate 6-8 main ideas from the facts and ruling of your case.

Communicating Knowledge:

Students respond to:

• The SCOTUS Comparison Question from page 28 of the the publicly released AP Government and Politics practice exam .
• and/or this SCOTUS comparison question
• and/or any or all of these four SCOTUS comparison questions
• and/or a SCOTUS comparison question that you've created or found

Kahoot!ing Knowledge

This 35-question Kahoot contains excerpts from each of the 14 key SCOTUS cases and 9 founding documents for students to identify. It can be played in class, over Zoom via a shared screen, or independently by students.

Blooketing Knowledge

This 36-question Blooket contains excerpts from each of the 14 key SCOTUS cases and 9 founding documents for students to identify. It can be played in class, over Zoom, or independently by students.

Blooketing More Knowledge

This 34-question Blooket reviews a series of landmark SCOTUS cases, including the 14 key AP Gov cases.

Quizleting Knowledge

This Quizlet set contains excerpts from each of the 14 key SCOTUS cases and 9 founding documents for students to use as flashcards or for Quizlet gameplay.

Related Article

• How to Read a U.S. Supreme Court Opinion | American Bar Association

Additional Resources

• SCOTUS Case Summaries | Oyez.org
• AP U.S. Government and Politics Required Documents and Supreme Court Cases - Google Docs
• C-SPAN Lesson Plan: AP Government Key Foundational Documents Review

Respond to the writing prompt, presented in the style of the SCOTUS Comparison Question component of the redesigned AP Government and Politics exam.

• 1st Amendment
• Civil Liberties
• Concurring Opinion
• Constitution
• Dissenting Opinion
• Judicial Review
• Landmark Case
• Majority Opinion
• Stare Decisis
• Supreme Court

Explore the Constitution

• The Constitution
• Read the Full Text

Dive Deeper

Constitution 101 course.

• The Drafting Table
• Supreme Court Cases Library
• Founders' Library
• Constitutional Rights: Origins & Travels

Start your constitutional learning journey

• News & Debate Overview
• Constitution Daily Blog
• America's Town Hall Programs
• Special Projects

Media Library

America’s Town Hall

Watch videos of recent programs.

• Education Overview

Constitution 101 Curriculum

• Classroom Resources by Topic
• Classroom Resources Library
• Live Online Events
• Professional Learning Opportunities
• Constitution Day Resources

Explore our new 15-unit high school curriculum.

• Explore the Museum
• Plan Your Visit
• Exhibits & Programs
• Field Trips & Group Visits
• Host Your Event
• Buy Tickets

New exhibit

The first amendment, classroom resources by topic, landmark supreme court cases, introduction.

When the stories of We the People become cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, and when those cases result in the opinions of the Court, history turns. The ways we think about and live under the Constitution are reflected in the Court’s interpretations in both their historical contexts and their legacies. Some cases—and the Court’s opinions in them—so profoundly alter our constitutional understandings that they can only rightly be called Landmark Cases—markers of where we have traveled as a nation. In this way, the Landmark Cases show us what we have tried, where we have been, and where we are—leaving We the People and future sessions of the Supreme Court to determine how we move forward towards a more perfect union.

Big Questions: 

• What is a landmark case? Why study Landmark Cases?
• How do court cases affect law?
• What are some of the big themes in the Court’s key cases over time?

Big Questions

Video: canonical and landmark cases advanced class.

Video: Case Spotlight: The Dred Scott Decision With Justice Neil Gorsuch

Classroom Materials

Briefing document.

Download via Google Docs

Download via Google Slides

Other Classroom Resources

Podcast: Tinker, Korematsu, and Brown on Landmark Cases

Podcast: harriet scott: the woman behind dred scott v. sandford, town hall video: landmark cases: the launch of a new national constitution center/c-span series, blog: baker v. carr: the supreme court gets involved in redistricting, blog: looking back at the brown v. board decision, blog: schenck v. united states: defining the limits of free speech, blog: the slaughterhouse cases: interpreting the reconstruction amendments, explore judicial review on the interactive constitution.

• Article III, Section 1 Full Text
• Article III, Section 1 Essays
• Video: Interactive Constitution Tutorial

Explore Landmark Supreme Court Cases Questions

Plans of Study

Keep learning, more from the national constitution center.

Constitution 101

Explore our new 15-unit core curriculum with educational videos, primary texts, and more.

Search and browse videos, podcasts, and blog posts on constitutional topics.

Founders’ Library

Discover primary texts and historical documents that span American history and have shaped the American constitutional tradition.

Modal title

Modal body text goes here.

Share with Students

Skip to main navigation

• Email Updates
• Federal Court Finder

Supreme Court Landmarks

Participate in interactive landmark Supreme Court cases that have shaped history and have an impact on law-abiding citizens today.

Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser (1987) Holding:  Students do not have a First Amendment right to make obscene speeches in school.

Matthew N. Fraser, a student at Bethel High School, was suspended for three days for delivering an obscene and provocative speech to the student body. In this speech, he nominated his fellow classmate for an elected school office. The Supreme Court held that his free speech rights were not violated.

*This case relates to students.

Board of Education of Independent School District #92 of Pottawatomie County v. Earls (2002) Holding:  Random drug tests of students involved in extracurricular activities do not violate the Fourth Amendment.

In Veronia School District v. Acton (1995), the Supreme Court held that random drug tests of student athletes do not violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures. Some schools then began to require drug tests of all students in extracurricular activities. The Supreme Court in Earls upheld this practice.

Brown v. Board of Education (1954) Holding:  Separate schools are not equal.

In  Plessy v. Ferguson  (1896), the Supreme Court sanctioned segregation by upholding the doctrine of "separate but equal." The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People disagreed with this ruling, challenging the constitutionality of segregation in the Topeka, Kansas, school system. In 1954, the Court reversed its Plessy decision, declaring that "separate schools are inherently unequal." Learn more about this case.

Honor the important figures involved in the related cases  Brown v. Board of Education  and Mendez v. Westminster  using a readers theater presentation. 

Cooper v. Aaron (1958) Holding:  States cannot nullify decisions of the federal courts.

Several government officials in southern states, including the governor and legislature of Alabama, refused to follow the Supreme Court's Brown v. Board of Education decision. They argued that the states could nullify federal court decisions if they felt that the federal courts were violating the Constitution. The Court unanimously rejected this argument and held that only the federal courts can decide when the Constitution is violated.

Engel v. Vitale (1962) Holding : School initiated-prayer in the public school system violates the First Amendment.

In the New York school system, each day began with a nondenominational prayer acknowledging dependence upon God. This action was challenged in Court as an unconstitutional state establishment of religion in violation of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court agreed, stating that the government could not sponsor such religious activities.

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) Holding:  Indigent defendants must be provided representation without charge.

Gideon was accused of committing a felony. Being indigent, he petitioned the judge to provide him with an attorney free of charge. The judge denied his request. The Supreme Court ruled for Gideon, saying that the Sixth Amendment requires indigent criminal defendants to be provided an attorney free of charge.

Learn more about this case.

Goss v. Lopez (1975) Holding:  Students are entitled to certain due process rights.

Nine students at an Ohio public school received 10-day suspensions for disruptive behavior without due process protections. The Supreme Court ruled for the students, saying that once the state provides an education for all of its citizens, it cannot deprive them of it without ensuring due process protections.

Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) Holding:  Colleges and universities have a legitimate interest in promoting diversity.

Barbara Grutter alleged that her Equal Protection rights were violated when the University of Michigan Law School's attempt to gain a diverse student body resulted in the denial of her admission's application. The Supreme Court disagreed and held that institutions of higher education have a legitimate interest in promoting diversity.

Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988) Holding:  Administrators may edit the content of school newspapers.

The principal of Hazelwood East High School edited two articles in the school paper The Spectrum that he deemed inappropriate. The student authors argued that this violated their First Amendment right to freedom of speech. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that administrators can edit materials that reflect school values.

*This case relates to students. Learn more about this case.

Mapp v. Ohio (1961) Holding:  Illegally obtained material cannot be used in a criminal trial.

While searching Dollree Mapp's house, police officers discovered obscene materials and arrested her. Because the police officers never produced a search warrant, she argued that the materials should be suppressed as the fruits of an illegal search and seizure. The Supreme Court agreed and applied to the states the exclusionary rule from Weeks v. United States(1914).

Marbury v. Madison (1803) Holding:  Established the doctrine of judicial review.

In the Judiciary Act of 1789, Congress gave the Supreme Court the authority to issue certain judicial writs. The Constitution did not give the Court this power. Because the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, the Court held that any contradictory congressional Act is without force. The ability of federal courts to declare legislative and executive actions unconstitutional is known as judicial review.

Teach students the significance of Marbury v. Madison which establishes the concept of judicial review.

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) Holding:  The Constitution gives the federal government certain implied powers.

Maryland imposed a tax on the Bank of the United States and questioned the federal government's ability to grant charters without explicit constitutional sanction. The Supreme Court held that the tax unconstitutionally interfered with federal supremacy and ruled that the Constitution gives the federal government certain implied powers.

Miranda v. Arizona (1966) Holding:  Police must inform suspects of their rights before questioning.

After hours of police interrogations, Ernesto Miranda confessed to rape and kidnapping. At trial, he sought to suppress his confession, stating that he was not advised of his rights to counsel and to remain silent. The Supreme Court agreed, holding that police must inform suspects of their rights before questioning.

New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985) Holding : Students have a reduced expectation of privacy in school.

A teacher accused T.L.O. of smoking in the bathroom. When she denied the allegation, the principal searched her purse and found cigarettes and marijuana paraphernalia. A family court declared T.L.O. a delinquent. The Supreme Court ruled that her rights were not violated since students have reduced expectations of privacy in school.

New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) Holding : In order to prove libel, a public official must show that what was said against them was made with actual malice.

The New York Times was sued by the Montgomery, Alabama police commissioner, L.B. Sullivan, for printing an advertisement containing some false statements. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of the newspaper saying the right to publish all statements is protected under the First Amendment.

Roper v. Simmons (2005) Holding : It is cruel and unusual punishment to execute persons for crimes they committed before age 18. 

Matthew Simmons was sentenced to death for the murder of a woman when he was 17 years of age. In the 1988 caseThompson v. Oklahoma, the Supreme Court ruled that executing persons for crimes committed at age 15 or younger constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Roper argued that "evolving standards of decency" prevented the execution of an individual for crimes committed before the age of 18. A majority of the Supreme Court agreed with Roper, and held that to execute him for his crime would violate the Eighth Amendment.

Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe (2000) Holding:  Students may not use a school's loudspeaker system to offer student-led, student-initiated prayer. 

Before football games, members of the student body of a Texas high school elected one of their classmates to address the players and spectators. These addresses were conducted over the school's loudspeakers and usually involved a prayer. Attendance at these events was voluntary. Three students sued the school arguing that the prayers violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. A majority of the Court rejected the school's argument that since the prayer was student initiated and student led, as opposed to officially sponsored by the school, it did not violate the First Amendment. The Court held that this action did constitute school-sponsored prayer because the loudspeakers that the students used for their invocations were owned by the school.

Terry v. Ohio (1968) Holding:  Stop and frisks do not violate the Constitution under certain circumstances.

Observing Terry and others acting suspiciously in front of a store, a police officer concluded that they might rob it. The officer stopped and frisked the men. A weapon was found on Terry and he was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon. The Supreme Court ruled that this search was reasonable.

Texas v. Johnson (1989) Holding:  Even offensive speech such as flag burning is protected by the First Amendment.

To protest the policies of the Reagan administration, Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag outside of the Dallas City Hall. He was arrested for this act, but argued that it was symbolic speech. The Supreme Court agreed, ruling that symbolic speech is constitutionally protected even when it is offensive. Learn more about this case.

Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) Holding : Students do not leave their rights at the schoolhouse door.

To protest the Vietnam War, Mary Beth Tinker and her brother wore black armbands to school. Fearing a disruption, the administration prohibited wearing such armbands. The Tinkers were removed from school when they failed to comply, but the Supreme Court ruled that their actions were protected by the First Amendment.

Learn more about this case.  Teach students the significance of Tinker v. Des Moines which examines student's First Amendment rights. 

U.S. v. Nixon (1974) Holding:  The President is not above the law.

The special prosecutor in the Watergate affair subpoenaed audio tapes of Oval Office conversations. President Nixon refused to turn over the tapes, asserting executive privilege. The Supreme Court ruled that the defendants' right to potentially exculpating evidence outweighed the President's right to executive privilege if national security was not compromised.

Zelma v. Simmons-Harris (2002) Holding:  Certain school voucher programs are constitutional.

The Ohio Pilot Scholarship Program allowed certain Ohio families to receive tuition aid from the state. This would help offset the cost of tuition at private, including parochial (religiously affiliated), schools. The Supreme Court rejected First Amendment challenges to the program and stated that such aid does not violate the Establishment Clause.

DISCLAIMER: These resources are created by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts for educational purposes only. They may not reflect the current state of the law, and are not intended to provide legal advice, guidance on litigation, or commentary on any pending case or legislation.

Landmark Supreme Court Cases

Let's learn about some landmark Supreme Court cases and think about how they impacted American law and society!

Landmark Cases Video 1

Download the video viewing guide to get more out of viewing the video.

Landmark Cases Video 2

Landmark cases video 3, landmark cases video 4, showing what you know.

A case study collection to help students demonstrate understanding of the impact of landmark Supreme Court Cases on American law and society.

This will open in your browser as a Word document. Right click to save to your desktop.

A reading activity to help students demonstrate understanding of the impact of Marbury v. Madison (1803) on American law and society.

A reading activity to help students understand aspects of the state and federal trial process and its impact on American society.

A reading and graphic organizart activity to help students demonstrate understanding of Article III and the court system on American law and society.

Helpful Resources

Vocabulary Practice Concept Circle

• Landmark Cases (Bill of Rights Institute)
• Landmark Cases (StreetLaw)
• Landmark Cases (US Courts)
• Landmark Library (iCivics)
• Landmark Cases Gallery Walk (CPALMS)
• Supreme Decision (iCivics)

Topic: Supreme Court Cases

Washington v. texas (1967).

See Incorporation (Nationalization) of the Bill of Rights

Southern Railway Company v. Reid (1912)

Southern Railway Company v. Reid (1912) is an early preemption case in which the Supreme Court invalidated a North Carolina statute requiring common carriers…

Shapiro v. Thompson (1969)

In 1969, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Shapiro v. Thompson that states could not impose durational residency requirements for the receipt of public…

Schilb v. Kuebel (1971)

Robinson v. california (1962), pointer v. texas (1965), parker v. gladden (1966).

See Nationalization of the Bill of Rights

New State Ice Company v. Liebmann (1932)

In this case the Supreme Court manifested its historic dedication to the protection of economic liberty under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth…

Near v. Minnesota (1931)

Mccray v. united states (1904).

This Supreme Court case addresses the scope of Congress’s taxing and spending powers. More specifically, it examines the ability of Congress to use its taxing authority for regulatory…

Luther v. Borden (1849)

In 1849, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to apply Article IV, Section 4, of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees states a “republican form of government,” to a…

Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987)

This 1987 U.S. Supreme Court case dealt with the controversy over the legally permissible scope of state and local government regulatory land-use power under…

Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992)

This 1992 U.S. Supreme Court case addresses the question of what constitutes the proper exercise of state and local government regulation over land use…

Join Our Newsletter

" * " indicates required fields

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the purpose of the center for the study of federalism (csf).

The Center for the Study of Federalism (CSF) is a nonpartisan, interdisciplinary research and education institution dedicated to supporting and advancing scholarship and public understanding of federal theories, principles, institutions, and processes as practical means of organizing power in free societies.

Who are the Fellows at the Center for the Study of Federalism?

All of the CSF Fellows hold advanced degrees, are affiliated with academic institutions, and are scholarly experts in their fields. For more on each Fellow see CSF Fellows .

What is the purpose of the CSF website?

Most political and public issues in the United States are influenced to some extent by its federal system. Yet many do not understand that system. The CSF website seeks to foster a better understanding among the general public and scholars of federal governing systems generally and, specifically, of the federal system of government in the United States of America.

Are the materials on the Center for the Study of Federalism website copyright-protected?

The CSF materials are free to use for educational purposes. If published, please acknowledge CSF as the source. If you intend to use these materials for profit, please, contact the Center for the Study of Federalism for permission. Some materials on the website are not owned by CSF and permission to use those materials should be sought with those holding legal title to the material.

How do I sign-up for the CSF listserv?

Click here  to sign-up to receive notifications about CSF materials and events. We will not share your email with any outside organizations or individuals.

Who do I contact for questions or comments about your programs and the information provided on this website?

Please direct all questions and comments related to this website, and inquiries about the research and teaching grants and awards, to us here . Remember CSF is a nonpartisan, interdisciplinary research and education institution.

Subscribe to our Newsletter

The Center for the Study of Federalism is a nonpartisan, interdisciplinary research and education institution dedicated to supporting and advancing scholarship and public understanding of federal theories, principles, institutions, and processes as practical means of organizing power in free societies. Among other things, the Center publishes Publius: The Journal of Federalism and provides grants for scholarly research on federalism.

• Subscribe to Publius
• Privacy Policy

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

© 2024 Center for the Study of Federalism. All Rights Reserved.

• Why Federalism?
• Where is Federalism in the Constitution?
• Federalism Explained
• Publius: The Journal of Federalism
• Constitutional Provisions
• Fiscal Federalism
• Historical Events
• Institutions
• Intergovernmental Relations
• Legislation
• Models and Theories of Federalism
• Policy Areas
• Supreme Court Cases
• Historical Figures
• Federalism Scholars
• American Federalism
• Other Federal Countries
• Comparative Federalism
• Federalism Digests
• CSF Projects
• The Federalism Report
• Collaborations
• Federalism Podcasts
• U.S. State and Local Firsts
• Teaching Resources
• Annotated Resources
• Teaching Awards
• Mission Statement
• Grants & Awards
• History of CSF
• CSF Fellows
• Elazar Tributes

13.4 The Supreme Court

Learning objectives.

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

• Analyze the structure and important features of the Supreme Court
• Explain how the Supreme Court selects cases to hear
• Discuss the Supreme Court’s processes and procedures

The Supreme Court of the United States, sometimes abbreviated SCOTUS, is a one-of-a-kind institution. While a look at the Supreme Court typically focuses on the nine justices themselves, they represent only the top layer of an entire branch of government that includes many administrators, lawyers, and assistants who contribute to and help run the overall judicial system. The Court has its own set of rules for choosing cases, and it follows a unique set of procedures for hearing them. Its decisions not only affect the outcome of the individual case before the justices, but they also create lasting impacts on legal and constitutional interpretation for the future.

THE STRUCTURE OF THE SUPREME COURT

The original court in 1789 had six justices, but Congress set the number at nine in 1869, and it has remained there ever since. There is one chief justice , who is the lead or highest-ranking judge on the Court, and eight associate justice s . All nine serve lifetime terms, after successful nomination by the president and confirmation by the Senate. There was discussion of expanding the court during Franklin D. Roosevelt's presidency and also during the 2020 presidential election. Nothing has come of court expansion, however.

The current court is fairly diverse in terms of gender, religion (Christians and Jews), ethnicity, and ideology, as well as length of tenure. Some justices have served for three decades, whereas others were only recently appointed by President Trump. Figure 13.9 lists the names of the nine justices serving on the Court as of June 2021 along with their year of appointment and the president who nominated them.

Currently, there are six justices who are considered part of the Court’s more conservative wing—Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justices Thomas , Alito , Gorsuch , Kavanaugh , and Barrett —while three are considered more liberal-leaning—Justices Breyer, Sotomayor , and Kagan ( Figure 13.10 ).

Link to Learning

While not formally connected with the public the way elected leaders are, the Supreme Court nonetheless offers visitors a great deal of information at its official website.

For unofficial summaries of recent Supreme Court cases or news about the Court, visit the Oyez website or SCOTUS blog.

In fact, none of the justices works completely in an ideological bubble. While their numerous opinions have revealed certain ideological tendencies, they still consider each case as it comes to them, and they don’t always rule in a consistently predictable or expected way. Furthermore, they don’t work exclusively on their own. Each justice has three or four law clerks, recent law school graduates who temporarily work for the justice, do research, help prepare the justice with background information, and assist with the writing of opinions. The law clerks’ work and recommendations influence whether the justices will choose to hear a case, as well as how they will rule. As the profile below reveals, the role of the clerks is as significant as it is varied.

Insider Perspective

Profile of a united states supreme court clerk.

A Supreme Court clerkship is one of the most sought-after legal positions, giving “thirty-six young lawyers each year a chance to leave their fingerprints all over constitutional law.” 47 A number of current and former justices were themselves clerks, including Chief Justice John Roberts, Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan, and former chief justice William Rehnquist.

Supreme Court clerks are often reluctant to share insider information about their experiences, but it is always fascinating and informative to hear about their jobs. Former clerk Philippa Scarlett , who worked for Justice Stephen Breyer, describes four main responsibilities: 48

Review the cases: Clerks participate in a “ cert. pool” (short for writ of certiorari , a request that the lower court send up its record of the case for review) and make recommendations about which cases the Court should choose to hear.

Prepare the justices for oral argument: Clerks analyze the filed briefs (short arguments explaining each party’s side of the case) and the law at issue in each case waiting to be heard.

Research and draft judicial opinions: Clerks do detailed research to assist justices in writing an opinion, whether it is the majority opinion or a dissenting or concurring opinion.

Help with emergencies: Clerks also assist the justices in deciding on emergency applications to the Court, many of which are applications by incarcerated people to stay their death sentences and are sometimes submitted within hours of a scheduled execution.

Explain the role of law clerks in the Supreme Court system. What is your opinion about the role they play and the justices’ reliance on them?

HOW THE SUPREME COURT SELECTS CASES

The Supreme Court begins its annual session on the first Monday in October and ends late the following June. Every year, there are literally thousands of people who would like to have their case heard before the Supreme Court, but the justices will select only a handful to be placed on the docket , which is the list of cases scheduled on the Court’s calendar. The Court typically accepts fewer than 2 percent of the as many as ten thousand cases it is asked to review every year. 49

Case names, written in italics, list the name of a petitioner versus a respondent, as in Roe v. Wade , for example. 50 For a case on appeal, you can tell which party lost at the lower level of court by looking at the case name: The party unhappy with the decision of the lower court is the one bringing the appeal and is thus the petitioner, or the first-named party in the case. For example, in Brown v. Board of Education (1954), Oliver Brown was one of the thirteen parents who brought suit against the Topeka public schools for discrimination based on racial segregation.

Most often, the petitioner is asking the Supreme Court to grant a writ of certiorari , a request that the lower court send up its record of the case for review. Once a writ of certiorari ( cert . for short) has been granted, the case is scheduled on the Court’s docket. The Supreme Court exercises discretion in the cases it chooses to hear, but four of the nine justices must vote to accept a case. This is called the Rule of Four .

For decisions about cert ., the Court’s Rule 10 (Considerations Governing Review on Writ of Certiorari ) takes precedence. 51 The Court is more likely to grant certiorari when there is a conflict on an issue between or among the lower courts. Examples of conflicts include (1) conflicting decisions among different courts of appeals on the same matter, (2) decisions by an appeals court or a state court conflicting with precedent, and (3) state court decisions that conflict with federal decisions. Occasionally, the Court will fast-track a case that has special urgency, such as Bush v. Gore in the wake of the 2000 election. 52

Past research indicated that the amount of interest-group activity surrounding a case before it is granted cert. has a significant impact on whether the Supreme Court puts the case on its agenda. The more activity, the more likely the case will be placed on the docket. 53 But more recent research broadens that perspective, suggesting that too much interest-group activity when the Court is considering a case for its docket may actually have diminishing impact and that external actors may have less influence on the work of the Court than they have had in the past. 54 Still, the Court takes into consideration external influences, not just from interest groups but also from the public, from media attention, and from a very key governmental actor—the solicitor general.

The solicitor general is the lawyer who represents the federal government before the Supreme Court: He or she decides which cases (in which the United States is a party) should be appealed from the lower courts and personally approves each one presented ( Figure 13.11 ). Most of the cases the solicitor general brings to the Court will be given a place on the docket. About two-thirds of all Supreme Court cases involve the federal government. 55

The solicitor general determines the position the government will take on a case. The attorneys of the office prepare and file the petitions and briefs, and the solicitor general (or an assistant) presents the oral arguments before the Court.

In other cases in which the United States is not the petitioner or the respondent, the solicitor general may choose to intervene or comment as a third party. Before a case is granted cert. , the justices will sometimes ask the solicitor general to comment on or file a brief in the case, indicating their potential interest in getting it on the docket. The solicitor general may also recommend that the justices decline to hear a case. Though research has shown that the solicitor general’s special influence on the Court is not unlimited, it remains quite significant. In particular, the Court does not always agree with the solicitor general, and “while justices are not lemmings who will unwittingly fall off legal cliffs for tortured solicitor general recommendations, they nevertheless often go along with them even when we least expect them to.” 56

Some have credited Donald B. Verrilli, the solicitor general under President Obama, with holding special sway over the five-justice majority ruling on same-sex marriage in June 2015. Indeed, his position that denying same-sex couples the right to marry would mean “thousands and thousands of people are going to live out their lives and go to their deaths without their states ever recognizing the equal dignity of their relationships” became a foundational point of the Court’s opinion, written by then-Justice Anthony Kennedy. 57 With such power over the Court, the solicitor general is sometimes referred to as “the tenth justice.”

SUPREME COURT PROCEDURES

Once a case has been placed on the docket, briefs , or short arguments explaining each party’s view of the case, must be submitted—first by the petitioner putting forth the case, then by the respondent. After initial briefs have been filed, both parties may file subsequent briefs in response to the first. Likewise, people and groups that are not party to the case but are interested in its outcome may file an amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) brief giving their opinion, analysis, and recommendations about how the Court should rule. Interest groups in particular can become heavily involved in trying to influence the judiciary by filing amicus briefs—both before and after a case has been granted cert . And, as noted earlier, if the United States is not party to a case, the solicitor general may file an amicus brief on the government’s behalf.

With briefs filed, the Court hears oral argument s in cases from October through April. The proceedings are quite ceremonial. When the Court is in session, the robed justices make a formal entrance into the courtroom to a standing audience and the sound of a banging gavel. The Court’s marshal presents them with a traditional chant: “The Honorable, the Chief Justice and the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. Oyez! Oyez! Oyez! [Hear ye!] All persons having business before the Honorable, the Supreme Court of the United States, are admonished to draw near and give their attention, for the Court is now sitting. God save the United States and this Honorable Court!” 58 It has not gone unnoticed that the Court, which has defended the First Amendment’s religious protection and the traditional separation of church and state, opens its every public session with a mention of God.

During oral arguments, each side’s lawyers have thirty minutes to make their legal case, though the justices often interrupt the presentations with questions. The justices consider oral arguments not as a forum for a lawyer to restate the merits of the case as written in the briefs, but as an opportunity to get answers to any questions they may have. 59 When the United States is party to a case, the solicitor general (or one of the solicitor general's assistants) will argue the government’s position; even in other cases, the solicitor general may still be given time to express the government’s position on the dispute.

When oral arguments have been concluded, the justices have to decide the case, and they do so in conference , which is held in private twice a week when the Court is in session and once a week when it is not. The conference is also a time to discuss petitions for certiorari , but for those cases already heard, each justice may state their views on the case, ask questions, or raise concerns. The chief justice speaks first about a case, then each justice speaks in turn, in descending order of seniority, ending with the most recently appointed justice. 60 The judges take an initial vote in private before the official announcement of their decisions is made public.

Oral arguments are open to the public, but cameras are not allowed in the courtroom, so the only picture we get is one drawn by an artist’s hand, an illustration or rendering. Cameras seem to be everywhere today, especially to provide security in places such as schools, public buildings, and retail stores, so the lack of live coverage of Supreme Court proceedings may seem unusual or old-fashioned. Over the years, groups have called for the Court to let go of this tradition and open its operations to more “sunshine” and greater transparency. Nevertheless, the justices have resisted the pressure and remain neither filmed nor photographed during oral arguments. 61

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/american-government-3e/pages/1-introduction

• Authors: Glen Krutz, Sylvie Waskiewicz, PhD
• Publisher/website: OpenStax
• Book title: American Government 3e
• Publication date: Jul 28, 2021
• Location: Houston, Texas
• Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/american-government-3e/pages/1-introduction
• Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/american-government-3e/pages/13-4-the-supreme-court

© Jan 5, 2024 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

Advertisement

The Major Supreme Court Cases of 2024

By Adam Liptak ,  Abbie VanSickle and Alicia Parlapiano

No Supreme Court term in recent memory has featured so many cases with the potential to transform American society.

The consequential cases, with decisions arriving by late June or early July, include three affecting former President Donald J. Trump, two on abortion, two on guns, three on the First Amendment rights of social media companies and three on the administrative state.

In recent years, some of the court’s biggest decisions have been out of step with public opinion. Researchers at Harvard, Stanford and the University of Texas conducted a survey in March to help explore whether that gap persists.

Agency Funding

Is there a major precedent involved?

Are there recent rulings on the subject, what was at stake, where does the public stand.

Source: SCOTUSPoll

More on the issue

Wall Street’s Most Hated Regulator Faces a Fundamental Threat

Trump’s ballot eligibility.

Highlights of the Supreme Court’s Opinions on Trump’s Ballot Eligibility

In Trump Cases, Supreme Court Cannot Avoid Politics

Immunity for former presidents, what is at stake.

To Justify His Immunity Defense, Trump Flips the Prosecution Script

Conservative Justices Take Argument Over Trump’s Immunity in Unexpected Direction

Obstruction charges for jan. 6 assault.

Supreme Court’s Review of Jan. 6 Charge Has Already Freed Some Rioters

Abortion pills.

How Common Is Medication Abortion?

Emergency abortion care.

What to Know About the Federal Law at the Heart of the Latest Supreme Court Abortion Case

Tracking Abortion Bans Across the Country

Second amendment rights of domestic abusers.

In the Gun Law Fights of 2023, a Need for Experts on the Weapons of 1791

Gun Law Before Court Is Most Often Used as a Deterrent

Restrictions on the homeless.

The Town at the Center of a Supreme Court Battle Over Homelessness

Homelessness Case Draws Unusual Alliances: Conservatives and California Democrats

Social media platforms’ first amendment rights.

Supreme Court to Decide How the First Amendment Applies to Social Media

Disinformation on social media.

Ruling Puts Social Media at Crossroads of Disinformation and Free Speech

N.r.a. and the first amendment.

The A.C.L.U. Has a New Client: The National Rifle Association

Opioids settlement.

Judge Overturns Purdue Pharma’s Opioid Settlement

Fate of Billions for Opioid Victims From Sacklers Rests With Supreme Court

Racial gerrymandering.

How Maps Reshape American Politics

Nancy Mace’s District Moved Right. Then She Helped Oust McCarthy.

Power of federal agencies.

A Fight Over a Fishing Regulation Could Help Tear Down the Administrative State

A Potentially Huge Supreme Court Case Has a Hidden Conservative Backer

Administrative courts.

Supreme Court Seems Wary of In-House S.E.C. Tribunals

Cross-state air pollution.

E.P.A. Tells Dozens of States to Clean Up Their Smokestacks

Bump stocks for guns.

What Is a Bump Stock and How Does It Work?

Polling data is based on a survey conducted online by YouGov from March 18 to 25 using a representative sample of 2,218 American adults. It comes from the SCOTUSPoll project by Stephen Jessee, University of Texas at Austin; Neil Malhotra, Stanford University; and Maya Sen, Harvard University. Numbers may not add to 100 percent because of rounding. Question wording and responses broken down by political party are available here .

• Share full article