00:00:00
hey everybody welcome back court cases
00:00:01
are a huge part of the AP exam so smash
00:00:04
that like button to find out exactly
00:00:05
what you need to know about all 14 of
00:00:10
them for every case you need to know
00:00:12
four things facts issues holding and
00:00:15
reasoning the facts refers to the
00:00:17
background info before it became a
00:00:18
Supreme Court case the issue is the
00:00:20
legal or constitutional question of the
00:00:22
case the holding is the Court's ruling
00:00:24
and the reasoning is the Court's
00:00:26
explanation of the holding and the
00:00:28
decision combines all four of these when
00:00:30
discussing the outcome of the case first
00:00:32
up mol versus Maryland Congress
00:00:33
established a National Bank even though
00:00:35
nothing in the Constitution said they
00:00:36
could do so and some state governments
00:00:38
didn't like that very much so several of
00:00:40
them including Maryland placed a tax on
00:00:43
the bank there are two issues in this
00:00:44
case can Congress create National Bank
00:00:46
and can States Tax the national
00:00:48
government a unanimous Supreme Court
00:00:49
held that yes Congress can establish a
00:00:51
bank and no States cannot tax the
00:00:53
federal government it's an overwhelming
00:00:55
victory for a stronger federal
00:00:56
government the court reasoned that
00:00:58
through the necessary and proper clause
00:00:59
Congress has implied powers and is not
00:01:02
limited to only its enumerated powers so
00:01:04
it can do things that are not
00:01:06
specifically listed in the Constitution
00:01:08
and it used the supremacy clause to
00:01:09
assert that the federal government is
00:01:10
superior to state governments when the
00:01:12
two conflict so States could not tax the
00:01:14
federal next US versus Lopez a high
00:01:16
school student in Texas allegedly
00:01:18
brought an unloaded gun to school and
00:01:19
was arrested for violating the federal
00:01:21
gun-free School Zones Act of 1990 the
00:01:23
issue before the court was does Congress
00:01:25
even have the power to make this law or
00:01:27
did they exceed their power to legislate
00:01:29
using the Commerce Clause in a five4
00:01:30
ruling the Supreme Court held that the
00:01:32
federal gunfree school Zones Act is
00:01:33
unconstitutional striking down the law
00:01:35
and overturning Lopez's conviction the
00:01:37
court reasoned that possession of a gun
00:01:39
in a school zone does not substantially
00:01:41
affect interstate commerce and the
00:01:43
Commerce Clause does not Grant Congress
00:01:45
endless power and that some powers are
00:01:47
reserved to the states by the 10th
00:01:48
Amendment huge dub for States's rights
00:01:50
next Baker versus Carr in violation of
00:01:52
its state constitution Tennessee didn't
00:01:54
reapportion his congressional seats for
00:01:55
over 60 years leading to districts of
00:01:57
very unequal populations honestly this
00:01:59
case is complex so I'm really
00:02:01
simplifying things in this review
00:02:03
remember I have videos on every single
00:02:05
case so check those out if you need more
00:02:06
details on some of them the most direct
00:02:08
issue before the court was does the
00:02:10
federal Judiciary have jurisdiction to
00:02:12
rule on cases about apportionment and
00:02:14
redistricting the Court held that
00:02:15
apportionment and redistricting
00:02:16
challenges are Justus aable in federal
00:02:18
court because they raise non-political
00:02:20
questions the majority reason that
00:02:22
courts can rule on unequal apportionment
00:02:24
and redistricting plans that may violate
00:02:26
the 14th amendment's equal protection
00:02:27
Clause meaning this is a constitutional
00:02:29
issue and affirming that the appellants
00:02:31
had the right to sue the Court's ruling
00:02:32
in this case led to the one person one
00:02:34
vote principle of voting equality in
00:02:36
house elections meaning that everybody's
00:02:38
vote should have roughly equal power in
00:02:40
all districts this means that drawing
00:02:42
districts of very unequal populations is
00:02:43
unconstitutional Shaw versus Reno is
00:02:45
also about how Congressional Maps can
00:02:47
and can't be drawn North Carolina State
00:02:49
Legislature created a bizarrely shaped
00:02:51
District specifically to increase black
00:02:53
voter representation in Congress they
00:02:54
did this to comply with the section of
00:02:56
the Voting Rights Act of 1965 which
00:02:58
banned racial discrimination in voting
00:03:00
policies the issue before the court was
00:03:01
can State residents challenge in federal
00:03:03
courts racially gerrymandered
00:03:05
congressional districts in a contentious
00:03:07
5-4 ruling the Court held that districts
00:03:08
created under the Voting Rights Act may
00:03:10
be constitutionally challenged by voters
00:03:12
if race is the only factor used in
00:03:14
creating the district practically
00:03:16
speaking this meant that congressional
00:03:17
districts can no longer be drawn based
00:03:19
only on Race the court reason that
00:03:21
drawing a congressional district based
00:03:22
only on Race violated the equal
00:03:24
protection clause and opposes the
00:03:25
colorblind ideal of the Constitution
00:03:27
which would basically prohibit racial
00:03:29
distinctions next up Marb versus Madison
00:03:31
this case is hugely important but the
00:03:33
facts and issues can be a little bit
00:03:34
confusing so don't stress it too much
00:03:36
John Adams made a bunch of appointments
00:03:37
at the end of his term a few of them
00:03:39
didn't officially receive their
00:03:40
appointment before he left office and
00:03:41
James Madison refused to deliver them so
00:03:43
Marberry sued to get his job the issue
00:03:45
before the court was does Marberry have
00:03:47
a right to his commission but more
00:03:49
importantly it morphed into does the
00:03:51
Supreme Court have the authority to
00:03:52
order the delivery of the commission the
00:03:54
Court held that Marberry was entitled to
00:03:56
his commission but the court couldn't
00:03:57
Grant it because part of the Judiciary
00:03:59
Act of 1789 was unconstitutional with
00:04:02
this decision the Supreme Court gave
00:04:03
itself the power of judicial review
00:04:05
tremendously expanding its power the
00:04:07
court reasoned that based on the
00:04:08
supremacy clause the Constitution is
00:04:10
superior to federal laws so if Congress
00:04:13
passes a law that is contrary to the
00:04:14
Constitution it's the Supreme Court's
00:04:16
job to uphold the Constitution by
00:04:18
striking down the unconstitutional law
00:04:20
the next seven cases deal directly with
00:04:22
civil liberties beginning with Engle
00:04:24
versus vital the state of New York
00:04:25
passed a law that public schools would
00:04:26
begin the day by encouraging students
00:04:28
toight of prayer the the issue for the
00:04:30
court was does your citing a
00:04:31
non-denominational prayer in public
00:04:33
schools violate the first amendment's
00:04:34
Establishment Clause the Court held that
00:04:36
states cannot hold prayers in public
00:04:37
schools even if prayers are voluntary or
00:04:40
not specific to a certain religion so
00:04:42
they struck down the New York law the
00:04:44
court reasoned that state sponsored
00:04:45
prayer and religious activities in
00:04:47
public schools violates the first
00:04:48
amendment's Establishment Clause that
00:04:50
says Congress shall make no law
00:04:52
respecting an establishment of religion
00:04:54
the court decided that this also
00:04:55
prevents governments from promoting
00:04:57
religion our next case also deals with
00:04:58
religion Wisconsin University odor
00:05:00
Wisconsin had a law that required all
00:05:02
children to attend public schools until
00:05:03
the age of 16 three Amish students
00:05:06
stopped attending public school at the
00:05:07
end of the 8th grade and the parents
00:05:09
were fined by the state for violating
00:05:10
the law the Amish families argued that
00:05:12
High School promoted values contrary to
00:05:14
their religious beliefs the issue before
00:05:15
the court was did Wisconsin's mandatory
00:05:17
School attendance policy violate the
00:05:19
constitution by punishing families who
00:05:21
didn't want to send their children to
00:05:22
school for religious reasons the Court
00:05:24
ruled in favor of the Amish families
00:05:25
holding that Wisconsin may not force
00:05:27
Amish students to attend public school
00:05:29
Beyond a grade but why the Court's
00:05:31
reasoning is focused on the free
00:05:32
exercise clause while the state has a
00:05:34
legitimate interest in promoting
00:05:35
compulsory School attendance when it
00:05:37
comes into conflict with a person's
00:05:38
religious beliefs and practices the
00:05:40
person's right to freely exercise those
00:05:42
religious beliefs is more important than
00:05:44
the state policy of mandatory School
00:05:46
attendance next up a pair of free speech
00:05:47
cases with opposite outcomes first a
00:05:49
World War I era case shank versus US
00:05:52
opposed to the war Charles shank
00:05:53
distributed leaflets urging men not to
00:05:55
participate in the military draft for
00:05:57
doing so shank was arrested and
00:05:59
convicted for violating the Espionage
00:06:01
Act of 19177 which made it illegal to
00:06:03
obstruct military recruitment the issue
00:06:05
before the court was the seemingly
00:06:06
simple question did shank's conviction
00:06:08
under the Espionage Act violate his
00:06:10
constitutional rights perhaps
00:06:12
surprisingly the court unanimously
00:06:13
upheld his conviction holding that the
00:06:15
Espionage Act was in fact an appropriate
00:06:17
exercise of congress's wartime Authority
00:06:19
the court is basically making an
00:06:21
exception because of the war allowing
00:06:22
Congress to restrict speech that it
00:06:24
wouldn't normally be allowed to restrict
00:06:26
the lasting impact of this case is that
00:06:28
there may be time place and manner
00:06:30
restrictions to speech the court
00:06:31
reasoned that speech creating a clear
00:06:33
and present danger was not protected by
00:06:34
the first amendment's free speech
00:06:36
protections and therefore could be
00:06:38
restricted the court no longer uses the
00:06:39
clear and present danger test but it
00:06:41
does still allow for time place and
00:06:43
manner restrictions on speech our next
00:06:45
case is 50 years later during the
00:06:46
Vietnam war Tinker versus De Moine a
00:06:48
group of students decided to wear black
00:06:49
armbands to protest the war and call for
00:06:51
a truce School administration didn't
00:06:53
like that and so three of them were
00:06:55
suspended for refusing to remove their
00:06:57
armbands the issue for the court was
00:06:58
whether schools prohibited black
00:06:59
armbands as a form of political protest
00:07:01
violates the students Free Speech rights
00:07:04
the majority H that students do in fact
00:07:05
have free speech at school and
00:07:07
prohibiting students from wearing
00:07:08
armbands as a political protest violates
00:07:10
their free speech rights they reason
00:07:12
that students First Amendment right of
00:07:13
political symbolic speech overr school
00:07:16
officials concern for potential disorder
00:07:18
to justify suppressing speech the school
00:07:20
must prove that it would substantially
00:07:22
interfere with the discipline and
00:07:23
operation of the school but make no
00:07:25
mistake the key takeaway is that the
00:07:27
Court definitively established that
00:07:28
students have Free Speech rights at
00:07:30
school next New York Times versus us
00:07:32
another Vietnam erir case has a similar
00:07:33
vibe in 1971 a man leaked 7,000 pages of
00:07:37
a classified document known as the
00:07:38
Pentagon papers a massive report on us
00:07:40
involvement in Vietnam to the New York
00:07:42
Times and Washington Post and the
00:07:43
newspapers began publishing reports on
00:07:45
the document the Nixon Administration
00:07:47
sued to block the publication of the
00:07:48
papers the issue for the Supreme Court
00:07:50
was did the Nixon administrations
00:07:51
attempt to block publication of
00:07:53
classified information violate freedom
00:07:55
of the press the Supreme Court ruled
00:07:56
that government did not have the right
00:07:58
to block publication of the pen on
00:07:59
papers to justify blocking the
00:08:01
publication the government would have
00:08:02
needed to show that publishing the
00:08:03
papers would have caused grave and
00:08:05
irreparable damage not surprisingly the
00:08:07
Court's reasoning is centered around the
00:08:08
freedom of the press as a result of that
00:08:10
freedom there is a heavy presumption
00:08:12
against the Constitutional validity of
00:08:14
governmental claims of prior restraint
00:08:16
and this is true even in cases involving
00:08:18
National Security in simple terms this
00:08:19
means that it's extremely difficult for
00:08:21
the government to justify censorship
00:08:23
even in National Security issues from
00:08:25
National Security let's talk about guns
00:08:26
and McDonald versus Chicago the city of
00:08:28
Chicago created an effective handgun ban
00:08:30
by requiring residents to have a license
00:08:32
for handguns and then denying all
00:08:34
license applications the issue was does
00:08:36
the second amendments right to bear arms
00:08:38
applied to the states through the 14th
00:08:40
Amendment therefore preventing this kind
00:08:42
of gun ban from being implemented by
00:08:43
States and local governments in a
00:08:45
bitterly divided five4 ruling the Court
00:08:46
held that the second amendment's right
00:08:48
to bear arms for the purpose of
00:08:49
self-defense applies to the states
00:08:51
striking down the Chicago handgun ban
00:08:53
the reasoning is that the Second
00:08:54
Amendment establishes an individual
00:08:56
right to bear arms and through the 14th
00:08:58
amendments due process clause it was
00:08:59
made binding on the states thus
00:09:01
weakening state and local governments
00:09:03
that could no longer violate a person's
00:09:05
second amendment rights next up
00:09:06
everybody's favorite Flor man Gideon
00:09:08
versus way wri Gideon allegedly broke
00:09:10
into a pool hall and sold some money
00:09:12
there wasn't a whole lot of evidence but
00:09:13
he was arrested when he appeared in
00:09:15
court Gideon who is homeless asked the
00:09:17
state to provide him with an attorney
00:09:18
since he couldn't afford one however the
00:09:20
judge denied his request insisting that
00:09:22
in Florida the state only had to provide
00:09:23
an attorney in capital cases not
00:09:25
surprisingly Gideon was found guilty the
00:09:28
issue before the court was whether the
00:09:29
sixth amendment's right to counsel or an
00:09:31
attorney applies to felony defendants in
00:09:34
state courts a unanimous Supreme Court
00:09:36
held that states must provide attorneys
00:09:37
for defendants who can't afford one
00:09:39
incorporating the right to an attorney
00:09:41
the Court's reasoning in Gideon means
00:09:43
that the sixth amendment's right to
00:09:44
legal council applies to defendants in
00:09:46
state trials through the 14th
00:09:47
amendment's due process clause next up
00:09:49
the alltime goat civil rights case Brown
00:09:51
versus Board of Education black students
00:09:54
in several states were denied admittance
00:09:55
to certain Public Schools based on race
00:09:58
in this Landmark case a unanimous Court
00:10:00
held that racial segregation of Public
00:10:01
Schools allowed by the separate but
00:10:03
equal principle of py versus Ferguson
00:10:05
was unconstitutional the court reason
00:10:07
that racially segregated schools violate
00:10:09
the 14th amendment's equal protection
00:10:10
Clause the court ordered the
00:10:12
desegregation of public schools however
00:10:14
one of the unfortunate leges of this
00:10:15
case is that it shows the weakness of
00:10:17
the Court as a policy maker many states
00:10:19
refus to desegregate their public
00:10:20
schools and some places even Clos their
00:10:22
schools all together rather than follow
00:10:24
the Court's order okay and finally
00:10:26
Citizens United versus FEC this one gets
00:10:28
complicated but at its route is the 2002
00:10:31
bipartisan campaign Reform Act better
00:10:33
known as bikra bikra made several
00:10:34
changes to campaign Finance laws
00:10:36
including Banning corporations and
00:10:37
unions from an independent political
00:10:39
spending in the weeks before an election
00:10:41
the FEC said that a conservative group
00:10:43
called citizens united violated the law
00:10:45
so citizens united sued there were
00:10:47
several issues before the court we'll
00:10:48
focus on two can political speech of
00:10:50
Corporations labor unions and
00:10:52
associations be banned and can direct
00:10:54
contributions by corporations labor
00:10:56
unions and associations be banned in an
00:10:58
extremely cont is 54 ruling the Court
00:11:00
held that corporate and Union funding of
00:11:02
independent political expenditures
00:11:04
cannot be limited on the other hand the
00:11:06
court upheld bicker ban on corporate
00:11:08
direct contributions to candidates so
00:11:10
let's be clear corporations unions and
00:11:12
associations can raise and spend
00:11:14
unlimited money on independent political
00:11:16
speech but they may not give any money
00:11:18
directly to candidates the Court's
00:11:20
reasoning was that based on the first
00:11:21
amendment's free speech Clause
00:11:23
corporations have the right to engage in
00:11:24
political speech just like individual
00:11:26
people and there you have it everything
00:11:28
you need to know about the required
00:11:29
cases smash that like button if you're
00:11:31
watching this right before the AP exam
00:11:33
and until next time this has been a
00:11:36
money production thanks again for
00:11:39
watching I truly appreciate you so much
00:11:40
if you're stressing about the exam or
00:11:42
your class you might be interested in
00:11:43
checking out the ultimate review packet
00:11:45
three practice exams tons of multiple
00:11:47
choice f frqs plus incredible study
00:11:49
guides you got this and I will see you
00:11:53
in the next video
