Florida Civic Literacy Court cases
1. McDonald v. Chicago (2010) constitutional issue:: In this case, the applicability of the Second
Amendment to the states was argued, andif the 2nd Amendment's right to bear arms (interpreted as an
individual right) also applied to the states. Thisinvolves selective incorporation
2. McDonald v. Chicago (2010) Holdings and principle: It ruled the second amendment's right to
keep and bear arms for self-defense in one's home is applic-able to the states through the fourteenth
amendment.
3. Brown v. Board of Education (1954) summary: This is one Relating to the racial segregation of
schools, African American students had been denied admit- tance to public schools because of these
segregation laws, and many argued thatthis was in violation of the Constitution
4. Brown v. Board of Education (1954) constitutional issue: This was an issueregarding the equal
protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. A previous case, Plessy v. Ferguson, held that
segregated facilities were legal as long as
the facilities were equal (called "separate but equal doctrine.") In this case, racialsegregation in public
school education was argued against based on the equal protection clause
5. Brown v. Board of Education (1954) holdings and principles: The Court heldthat "separate but equal
is inherently unequal," and therefore racial segregation ofpublic schools is unconstitutional. The
segregated schools allowed by the previousPlessy case were declared unconstitutional. This had a
MAJOR IMPACT on the USand require desegregation of all public schools
6. Citizens United v. FEC summary: A 2010 decision by the United States Supreme Court holding
that independent expenditures are free speech protected by the 1st Amendment and so cannot be limited
by federal law. Leads to creation of SuperPACs & massive rise in amount of third party electioneering
(Citizens for aBetter Tomorrow, Tomorrow)
7. Citizens United v. FEC constitutional issue: The First Amendment's free speech clause protected
such political speech.Holding and Constitutional PrincipleThe holding, in this case, was that
corporations should be considered people and, therefore, their funding of "independent political
expenditures cannot be limited."This
is considered a form of political speech, which is protected by the free speech portion of the First
Amendment
8. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission further impact: This led to the development of
Super PACS and a significant increase in money contributed topolitical campaigns.
9. Baker v. Carr (1962) summary: Charles Baker stated that an old law (1901) thatdetailed the
apportionment for Tennessee's General Assembly had been ignored, and stated that reapportionment
did not take into account the significant change that the state had gone through.
10. Baker v. Carr (1962) constitutional issue: The issue here was unique, and was regarding whether the
Supreme Court as a unit had the authority to hear cases thatrelated to legislative apportionment.
11. Baker v. Carr (1962) holdings and principle: The chief justice and the Court concluded that
, because of theFourteenth Amendment issues (through equal pro- tection) that the case seemed to
address, the SupremeCourt did have the authorityto hear this case
12. Baker v. Carr impact: Opened the door to equal protection challenges to redistricting and the
development of the "one person, one vote" doctrine by rulingthat challenges to redistricting did not raise
"political questions" that would keep federal courts from reviewing such challenges
13. Shaw v. Reno (1993) summary: Several North Carolina residents challengeda proposed, unusually
shaped district. They believed that the only purpose of the district was that it would definitely elect
African-American representatives.
14. Shaw v. Reno (1993) constitutional issue: The constitutional issue here was whether racial
gerrymandering took place with this district (it was very narrow) and if the district raised an equal
protection clause question
15. Shaw v. Reno (1993) Holdings and constitutional principle: The Supreme Court held, in a majority
opinion authored by Sandra Day O'Connor, that because the district was shaped in such a clearly odd
way, it was enough to prove that therewas a very apparent effort to separate voters racially
16. Marbury v. Madison (1803) summary: The 1800 election ended in a defeat forJohn Adams to
Thomas Jefferson. Before Adams' term ended, Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1801 (creating
new courts, adding new judges). It was an effort by John Adams to keep his own influence in federal
courts even though he was leaving office (still occurs today.) His appointments to these courts,
however, were not valid until the appointed judges were delivered their commissions by Jefferson's
Secretary of State. Marbury was one of the judges appointed; however,his commission was not
delivered.
17. Marbury v. Madison (1803) holdings and principle: The Court held that although legally, the
commission should have been delivered, the clause of the Judiciary Act of 1789 which enabled
Marbury to bring the case to court was unconstitutional. By declaring a law made by Congress
unconstitutional, the practiceof judicial review was established.
18. United States v. Nixon (1974): The 1974 case in which the Supreme Court unanimously held that
the doctrine of executive privilege was implicit in the Constitu-tion but could not be extended to protect
documents relevant to criminal prosecutions
19. United States v. Nixon holdings and principle: The President cannot shield himself from producing
evidence in a criminal prosecution based on the doctrine ofexecutive privilege,
20. Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857) summary: the U.S. Supreme Court stated thatenslaved people were not
citizens of the United States and, therefore, could not expect any protection from the federal
government or the courts.
21. United States v. Lopez (1995) Short summary: Alfonzo Lopez was a Texas high school senior who
took a concealed weapon inside his school. Federal charges were soon imposed because he violated the
Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. The act stated that individuals could not possess firearms within
school zones based on thepremise of the Commerce Clause.
22. United States v. Lopez (1995) constitutional issue:: This case explored a constitutional issue
1. McDonald v. Chicago (2010) constitutional issue:: In this case, the applicability of the Second
Amendment to the states was argued, andif the 2nd Amendment's right to bear arms (interpreted as an
individual right) also applied to the states. Thisinvolves selective incorporation
2. McDonald v. Chicago (2010) Holdings and principle: It ruled the second amendment's right to
keep and bear arms for self-defense in one's home is applic-able to the states through the fourteenth
amendment.
3. Brown v. Board of Education (1954) summary: This is one Relating to the racial segregation of
schools, African American students had been denied admit- tance to public schools because of these
segregation laws, and many argued thatthis was in violation of the Constitution
4. Brown v. Board of Education (1954) constitutional issue: This was an issueregarding the equal
protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. A previous case, Plessy v. Ferguson, held that
segregated facilities were legal as long as
the facilities were equal (called "separate but equal doctrine.") In this case, racialsegregation in public
school education was argued against based on the equal protection clause
5. Brown v. Board of Education (1954) holdings and principles: The Court heldthat "separate but equal
is inherently unequal," and therefore racial segregation ofpublic schools is unconstitutional. The
segregated schools allowed by the previousPlessy case were declared unconstitutional. This had a
MAJOR IMPACT on the USand require desegregation of all public schools
6. Citizens United v. FEC summary: A 2010 decision by the United States Supreme Court holding
that independent expenditures are free speech protected by the 1st Amendment and so cannot be limited
by federal law. Leads to creation of SuperPACs & massive rise in amount of third party electioneering
(Citizens for aBetter Tomorrow, Tomorrow)
7. Citizens United v. FEC constitutional issue: The First Amendment's free speech clause protected
such political speech.Holding and Constitutional PrincipleThe holding, in this case, was that
corporations should be considered people and, therefore, their funding of "independent political
expenditures cannot be limited."This
is considered a form of political speech, which is protected by the free speech portion of the First
Amendment
8. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission further impact: This led to the development of
Super PACS and a significant increase in money contributed topolitical campaigns.
9. Baker v. Carr (1962) summary: Charles Baker stated that an old law (1901) thatdetailed the
apportionment for Tennessee's General Assembly had been ignored, and stated that reapportionment
did not take into account the significant change that the state had gone through.
10. Baker v. Carr (1962) constitutional issue: The issue here was unique, and was regarding whether the
Supreme Court as a unit had the authority to hear cases thatrelated to legislative apportionment.
11. Baker v. Carr (1962) holdings and principle: The chief justice and the Court concluded that
, because of theFourteenth Amendment issues (through equal pro- tection) that the case seemed to
address, the SupremeCourt did have the authorityto hear this case
12. Baker v. Carr impact: Opened the door to equal protection challenges to redistricting and the
development of the "one person, one vote" doctrine by rulingthat challenges to redistricting did not raise
"political questions" that would keep federal courts from reviewing such challenges
13. Shaw v. Reno (1993) summary: Several North Carolina residents challengeda proposed, unusually
shaped district. They believed that the only purpose of the district was that it would definitely elect
African-American representatives.
14. Shaw v. Reno (1993) constitutional issue: The constitutional issue here was whether racial
gerrymandering took place with this district (it was very narrow) and if the district raised an equal
protection clause question
15. Shaw v. Reno (1993) Holdings and constitutional principle: The Supreme Court held, in a majority
opinion authored by Sandra Day O'Connor, that because the district was shaped in such a clearly odd
way, it was enough to prove that therewas a very apparent effort to separate voters racially
16. Marbury v. Madison (1803) summary: The 1800 election ended in a defeat forJohn Adams to
Thomas Jefferson. Before Adams' term ended, Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1801 (creating
new courts, adding new judges). It was an effort by John Adams to keep his own influence in federal
courts even though he was leaving office (still occurs today.) His appointments to these courts,
however, were not valid until the appointed judges were delivered their commissions by Jefferson's
Secretary of State. Marbury was one of the judges appointed; however,his commission was not
delivered.
17. Marbury v. Madison (1803) holdings and principle: The Court held that although legally, the
commission should have been delivered, the clause of the Judiciary Act of 1789 which enabled
Marbury to bring the case to court was unconstitutional. By declaring a law made by Congress
unconstitutional, the practiceof judicial review was established.
18. United States v. Nixon (1974): The 1974 case in which the Supreme Court unanimously held that
the doctrine of executive privilege was implicit in the Constitu-tion but could not be extended to protect
documents relevant to criminal prosecutions
19. United States v. Nixon holdings and principle: The President cannot shield himself from producing
evidence in a criminal prosecution based on the doctrine ofexecutive privilege,
20. Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857) summary: the U.S. Supreme Court stated thatenslaved people were not
citizens of the United States and, therefore, could not expect any protection from the federal
government or the courts.
21. United States v. Lopez (1995) Short summary: Alfonzo Lopez was a Texas high school senior who
took a concealed weapon inside his school. Federal charges were soon imposed because he violated the
Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. The act stated that individuals could not possess firearms within
school zones based on thepremise of the Commerce Clause.
22. United States v. Lopez (1995) constitutional issue:: This case explored a constitutional issue
