To score well on your AP® U.S. Government and Politics Exam, it is important to become familiar with all of the required Supreme Court cases. In the free-response section of your AP U.S. Government Exam, you will have to answer four essay questions. The third of these questions is a SCOTUS comparison essay, in which you will be required to compare a non-required Supreme Court case with a required Supreme Court case, so get to know each required Supreme Court case as well as possible! The required Supreme Court cases for the AP U.S. Government and Politics Exam in 2021 are: Marbury v. Madison (1803) PRECEDENTDistrict of Columbia v. Heller (2008)–a landmark 5-4 decision that the Second Amendment does, in fact, protect an individual’s right to bear arms. The Court declared the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns unconstitutional. FACTS OF THE CASEIn 2010, a retired resident of Chicago named Otis McDonald attempted to legally purchase a handgun for personal home defense. According to McDonald, his neighborhood had gradually become unsafe due to an influx of gang activity and the increased presence of drug dealers. While he legally owned shotguns and was an experienced hunter, he felt that a handgun would provide better protection for his home after a combined five break-in attempts on his house and garage. He was unable to legally purchase a handgun due to a city-wide handgun ban that was enacted in 1982. He joined with three other Chicago residents to sue the city of Chicago for limiting their rights to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment. After progressing through lower courts, the suit was heard by the Supreme Court in 2010. THE DECISIONIn a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled states could not impede their citizens’ rights to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment. The ruling was ultimately based on the Court’s understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment, which argues that states do not have the right to deprive citizens within their borders rights or privileges that are accorded to them under the Constitution. The Court ruled that since the Fourteenth Amendment ensured that the entirety of the Constitution applied to a state’s inhabitants, Chicago could not restrict its citizens’ rights to keep and bear arms by denying them the right to legally purchase a handgun for “lawful purposes.” IMPACTThe ruling in McDonald v. Chicago was claimed as a victory by both pro-gun and anti-gun advocates. Both sides were able to claim victory because the decision was narrowly tailored as to whether the Fourteenth Amendment caused the Second Amendment to pass to the states. Pro-gun advocacy groups felt that the decision set a precedent for overturning state laws restricting handgun ownership. Anti-gun advocacy groups were also able to claim victory because they argued that the narrow margin of victory, and strong dissent from some of the Supreme Court judges that argued that there’s no “private right of armed self-defense,” set the stage for future court battles that could restrict private gun ownership. New cases will undoubtedly open the question of how much, if any, states can restrict the keeping and bearing of arms within their jurisdiction. SUBSEQUENT CASECaetano v. Massachusetts (2016)–ruled that bearable arms that were not in use at the time of the drafting of the Second Amendment, such as stun guns, were still covered under the Second Amendment. This case broadened the types of weapons that could be considered lawful under the Second Amendment to weapons that were not historical and did not have a military purpose. KEY TERMS
The best way to get better at something is by practicing. That’s why it’s so important that you take practice tests to help you get better at the AP U.S. Government and Politics Exam. Only then can you expect to get a good score—and even improve your score. Download your free AP U.S. Government and Politics practice test HERE.Download your printable study guide for all of the required Supreme Court cases HERE.At issue in McDonald v. City of Chicago was whether the individual right to bear arms, recognized in District of Columbia v. Heller, is “incorporated” against state action via the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment.
On February 4, 2009, Constitutional Accountability Center filed a brief in the consolidated 7th Circuit case of McDonald, et al., and National Rifle Association of America, Inc., et al., v. City of Chicago, et al., and Village of Oak Park, arguing that the individual right to bear arms, recognized in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), is “incorporated” against state action via the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment. CAC’s brief was filed on behalf of four preeminent constitutional scholars—Professors Richard Aynes, Jack Balkin, Michael Kent Curtis, and Michael A. Lawrence. Our brief spoke only to the incorporation issue: we did not join in the argument made by the NRA and its fellow plaintiffs that the challenged gun regulations are unconstitutional. On June 2, 2009, just a week after oral argument was held in the case, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued a unanimous ruling holding that only the U.S. Supreme Court could apply the 2nd Amendment to the states for the first time. On July 11, 2009, CAC filed a brief in the Supreme Court asking the Court to grant certiorari to consider the McDonald case. On September 30, 2009, the Supreme Court agreed, and granted certiorari in the case. Read Doug Kendall’s statement applauding the decision here. On November 23, 2009, CAC filed a “friend of the court” brief on the merits of the McDonald case, urging the Supreme Court to restore the Privileges or Immunities Clause to its rightful place as the gem of our Constitution (read more here). This brief—which argued that the 2nd Amendment is “incorporated” against state action via the 14th Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause — reflected CAC’s founding mission of shaking up the debate about the Constitution in this country. CAC’s brief was filed on behalf of eight preeminent and ideologically diverse 14th Amendment scholars, including Jack Balkin of Yale Law School, who is spearheading an effort, co-sponsored by the American Constitution Society, to define a progressive vision of The Constitution in 2020, and Steven Calabresi of Northwestern Law School, who nearly three decades ago co-founded the Federalist Society. (The eight signatories to the brief were, Richard Aynes, Jack Balkin, Randy Barnett, Steven Calabresi, Michael Kent Curtis, Michael Lawrence, William Van Alstyne, and Adam Winkler.) It embodied a remarkable scholarly consensus for the proposition that the Court erred profoundly 136 years ago in The Slaughter-House Cases when it effectively read the Privileges or Immunities Clause out of the 14th Amendment. As Yale Law School’s Akhil Amar has stated: “Virtually no serious modern scholar – left, right, and center – thinks that Slaughterhouse is a plausible reading of the Fourteenth Amendment.” CAC’s brief in McDonald built on our report The Gem of the Constitution: The Text and History of the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which explains why progressives in particular should favor a restoration of the Privileges or Immunities Clause. On June 28, 2009, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in McDonald, concluding that the 14th Amendment requires state and local governments to respect the Second Amendment. Justice Alito’s opinion for the Court rooted the Constitution’s protection of substantive fundamental rights in constitutional text and history and surveyed the debates on the 14th Amendment as well as the landmark civil rights legislation enacted contemporaneously with ratification of that Amendment. Justice Thomas covered much the same ground in his concurring opinion, which expressly rested on the Privileges or Immunities Clause. While the Court majority declined to restore the vitality of the Privileges or Immunities Clause – the specific text in the Fourteenth Amendment designed to protect substantive fundamental rights from state abridgment – its opinion time and again discussed the text and history of the whole Amendment, including the Privileges or Immunities Clause. In fact, the Court’s opinion favorably cited a scholarship from academics across the ideological divide, who have argued that the Privileges or Immunities Clause should be restored. CAC’s brief was cited twice in the majority’s opinion. |