The required Supreme Court cases for AP Government are a set of 15 rulings the College Board expects every student to know for the exam, and they anchor the free-response section’s SCOTUS Comparison question. Each case illustrates a constitutional principle the course is built around: judicial review, federalism, First Amendment freedoms, due process, and equal protection. Knowing the holding is the starting point; knowing the principle each case stands for is what the exam actually tests.
The full list, in chronological order:
- Marbury v. Madison (1803) — judicial review
- McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) — implied powers and federal supremacy
- Schenck v. United States (1919) — limits on wartime speech
- Brown v. Board of Education (1954) — school desegregation and equal protection
- Baker v. Carr (1962) — legislative apportionment as a justiciable question
- Engel v. Vitale (1962) — school prayer and the Establishment Clause
- Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) — right to counsel in state criminal trials
- Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) — student symbolic speech
- New York Times Co. v. United States (1971) — prior restraint on the press
- Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) — Free Exercise Clause
- Roe v. Wade (1973) — right to privacy (later overturned by Dobbs, 2022)
- Shaw v. Reno (1993) — racial gerrymandering
- United States v. Lopez (1995) — limits on the Commerce Clause
- Citizens United v. FEC (2010) — corporate political speech
- McDonald v. Chicago (2010) — Second Amendment incorporation
Federalism and the Power of the Federal Government
Marbury v. Madison (1803)
William Marbury had been appointed a justice of the peace in the final days of President John Adams’s administration, but his commission was never delivered. When Thomas Jefferson took office, Secretary of State James Madison refused to hand it over. Marbury went directly to the Supreme Court under a provision of the Judiciary Act of 1789.
Chief Justice John Marshall ruled that Marbury had a legal right to the commission but that the Court could not help him. The section of the Judiciary Act authorizing the writ of mandamus in original jurisdiction, Marshall concluded, expanded the Court’s power beyond what Article III allowed, and was therefore void. In reaching that conclusion, Marshall established judicial review: federal courts have the authority to strike down laws that conflict with the Constitution. It is, he wrote, “emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”1Federal Judicial Center. Marbury v. Madison Judicial review has since become a settled check on both Congress and the executive branch.2Congress.gov. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)
After Congress chartered the Second Bank of the United States in 1816, Maryland passed a law taxing it. James McCulloch, a cashier at the Baltimore branch, refused to pay. The case raised two questions: whether Congress had the power to charter a national bank, and whether a state could tax a federal institution.
The Court answered yes to the first and no to the second. Marshall held that the Necessary and Proper Clause gives Congress implied powers beyond those explicitly listed, so long as the ends are legitimate and the means are appropriate. Chartering a bank was a permissible way to carry out enumerated powers over taxation and commerce.3National Archives. McCulloch v. Maryland On the tax, Marshall declared that “the power to tax involves the power to destroy” and struck down the Maryland law under the Supremacy Clause.4Oyez. McCulloch v. Maryland Two principles emerged and remain central to American federalism: the federal government has broad implied powers, and federal law is supreme over conflicting state law.
United States v. Lopez (1995)
Where McCulloch expanded federal power, Lopez drew a limit. Alfonzo Lopez, a twelfth-grader in San Antonio, was arrested for carrying a concealed handgun into his high school and charged under the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990.
In a 5–4 decision, the Court struck down the law. Chief Justice Rehnquist held that possessing a gun near a school is not an economic activity that substantially affects interstate commerce, so the Commerce Clause did not reach it. Accepting the government’s reasoning, he warned, would “bid fair to convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the sort retained by the States.”5National Constitution Center. United States v. Lopez It was the first time since the New Deal era that the Court struck down a federal law for exceeding the commerce power.6Oyez. United States v. Lopez
Free Speech and Free Press
Schenck v. United States (1919)
During World War I, Charles Schenck and Elizabeth Baer distributed roughly 15,000 leaflets urging resistance to the military draft. They were convicted under the Espionage Act of 1917.
The Court unanimously upheld the convictions. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. established the “clear and present danger” test: the First Amendment does not protect speech that creates a clear and present danger of bringing about evils Congress has the power to prevent. Holmes compared the leaflets to “falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.”7Justia. Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 Speech permissible in peacetime, he wrote, may be restricted during wartime when it threatens the war effort.8Oyez. Schenck v. United States The standard was later replaced by the stricter test in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), which requires that speech be directed at producing imminent lawless action and be likely to do so.
Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)
In December 1965, Mary Beth Tinker, her brother John, and Christopher Eckhardt wore black armbands to their Des Moines schools to protest the Vietnam War. School officials had preemptively banned the armbands and suspended the students when they refused to remove them.
The Court ruled 7–2 for the students. Justice Abe Fortas wrote that students and teachers do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” Wearing the armbands was protected symbolic speech, and schools may only suppress student expression if they can show it would “materially and substantially interfere” with school operations.9U.S. Courts. Tinker v. Des Moines – Facts and Case Summary Discomfort with an unpopular viewpoint is not enough.10Justia. Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503
New York Times Co. v. United States (1971)
In 1971, the New York Times and Washington Post began publishing excerpts from a classified Defense Department study on U.S. involvement in Vietnam, known as the Pentagon Papers. The Nixon administration sought a court order to halt publication, citing national security.
The Court ruled 6–3 against the government in a rapid per curiam decision. The government had failed to meet the “heavy burden” required to justify any prior restraint, which carries a “heavy presumption against its constitutional validity.”11National Constitution Center. New York Times Co. v. United States Justice Hugo Black wrote that the press exists to serve “the governed, not the governors.” Justice Brennan added that prior restraint could only be justified if publication would “inevitably, directly, and immediately” endanger American forces.12Oyez. New York Times Co. v. United States
Religion Under the First Amendment
Engel v. Vitale (1962)
The New York State Board of Regents authorized a short, nondenominational prayer for recitation at the start of each school day. Students could opt out. Parents challenged the practice under the Establishment Clause.
In a 6–1 decision, the Court held that government-sponsored prayer in public schools is unconstitutional even when participation is voluntary. Justice Hugo Black wrote that the government “had no business drafting formal prayers for any segment of its population to repeat.” The voluntary nature of the prayer did not save it.13Oyez. Engel v. Vitale Justice Potter Stewart dissented, arguing the Establishment Clause was intended to prevent a state church, not all government interaction with religion.14U.S. Courts. Engel v. Vitale
Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)
Jonas Yoder, Wallace Miller, and Adin Yutzy, members of Old Order Amish and Conservative Amish Mennonite communities, refused to send their 14- and 15-year-old children to public school after the eighth grade. Wisconsin law required attendance until age 16.
The Court ruled for the families. Chief Justice Warren Burger held that the Free Exercise Clause, applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, outweighed Wisconsin’s interest in two additional years of compulsory schooling. The Court found the Amish beliefs sincere and their vocational alternative effective, noting the community’s self-sufficiency.15Justia. Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 Only interests of the “highest order” can override a legitimate free exercise claim.16Oyez. Wisconsin v. Yoder Justice William O. Douglas partially dissented, arguing the Court should have considered the children’s own wishes.17National Constitution Center. Wisconsin v. Yoder
Rights of the Accused and the Right to Privacy
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)
Clarence Earl Gideon was charged with breaking and entering a Florida poolroom, a non-capital felony. Too poor to hire a lawyer, he asked the judge to appoint one. The judge refused; Florida law only required appointed counsel in capital cases. Gideon represented himself, was convicted, and was sentenced to five years.
From prison, Gideon petitioned the Supreme Court. In a unanimous decision by Justice Hugo Black, the Court held that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel is a fundamental right “essential to a fair trial” and that the Fourteenth Amendment makes it binding on the states. The Court explicitly overruled Betts v. Brady (1942). A person “too poor to hire a lawyer, cannot be assured a fair trial unless counsel is provided for him,” Black wrote, describing lawyers as “necessities, not luxuries.”18Justia. Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 The ruling led to public defender systems nationwide, and Gideon himself was retried with counsel and acquitted.19National Constitution Center. Gideon v. Wainwright
Roe v. Wade (1973)
In 1970, Jane Roe (a pseudonym) challenged a Texas law that prohibited abortion except to save the mother’s life. In a 7–2 decision, the Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects a fundamental right to privacy that includes a woman’s decision to have an abortion. The right was not absolute. The Court created a trimester framework: no state regulation of the decision in the first trimester, health-related regulation in the second, and after fetal viability the state could ban abortion so long as exceptions existed to protect the mother’s life or health.20Oyez. Roe v. Wade
The Court overruled Roe in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization on June 24, 2022, upholding a Mississippi 15-week ban and holding, 6–3, that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion. Justice Samuel Alito wrote that such a right is not “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,” and the decision returned authority over abortion to the states.21SCOTUSblog. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization State abortion regulations are now reviewed under rational basis rather than strict scrutiny.22Supreme Court of the United States. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 19-1392
Roe remains on the required case list as the illustration of substantive due process and the right to privacy. Dobbs is not itself required but functions on the exam as a modern example of the Court overturning its own precedent and reallocating power to the states.
Equal Protection and Representation
Brown v. Board of Education (1954)
The case consolidated lawsuits from Kansas, South Carolina, Virginia, Delaware, and Washington, D.C., all challenging racial segregation in public schools under the Equal Protection Clause. Lower courts had denied relief on the authority of Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) and its “separate but equal” doctrine.
The Court ruled unanimously that separate educational facilities are “inherently unequal.” Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote that segregation generates “a sense of inferiority” in African American children that harms their development and education. The opinion relied heavily on social science research, and Warren wrote in plain language so that all Americans could follow the reasoning.23Oyez. Brown v. Board of Education A follow-up decision in 1955 ordered desegregation to proceed with “all deliberate speed.”24Congress.gov. Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483
Baker v. Carr (1962)
Tennessee’s constitution required the legislature to reapportion districts every ten years based on population, but the state had not redrawn its lines since 1901. Population had shifted heavily from rural areas to cities like Memphis, giving rural voters far more representation per person than urban voters. Charles Baker, an urban voter, sued Tennessee Secretary of State Joseph Carr, arguing this “debasement” of his vote violated the Equal Protection Clause.
A federal court dismissed the case as a nonjusticiable political question. The Supreme Court reversed, 6–2. Justice William Brennan held that federal courts have jurisdiction over constitutional claims about legislative apportionment and that such claims do not present a political question.25Justia. Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 The decision opened the courthouse doors to apportionment challenges. By 1966, lawsuits had been filed in 46 states, and the case laid the groundwork for Reynolds v. Sims (1964) and the “one person, one vote” standard.26Supreme Court Historical Society. Baker v. Carr
Shaw v. Reno (1993)
After the 1990 census, North Carolina redrew its congressional districts. When the U.S. Attorney General objected under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act to a plan with only one majority-Black district, the state submitted a revised plan with two. One, District 12, was roughly 160 miles long and for much of its length no wider than the Interstate 85 corridor. Five North Carolina residents sued, arguing the district was drawn purely on the basis of race.
In a 5–4 decision by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, the Court held that the challengers had stated a valid Equal Protection claim. A redistricting plan “so bizarre on its face that it is unexplainable on grounds other than race” triggers strict scrutiny, meaning the state must show a compelling interest and narrow tailoring.27Justia. Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 Racial gerrymandering, the Court warned, reinforces the assumption that members of the same race share identical political interests.28Congress.gov. Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 The ruling created an ongoing tension between the Voting Rights Act’s protection of minority voting power and the Fourteenth Amendment’s limits on using race as the dominant factor.
Campaign Finance and the Second Amendment
Citizens United v. FEC (2010)
Citizens United, a nonprofit corporation, produced a documentary called Hillary: The Movie critical of Senator Hillary Clinton during the 2008 presidential primaries. The organization wanted to distribute the film through video-on-demand and run television advertisements. Section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act prohibited corporations and unions from spending general treasury funds on “electioneering communications” within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election.
In a 5–4 decision by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Court struck down the ban on corporate independent expenditures, holding that the First Amendment protects political speech regardless of whether the speaker is a person or a corporation. The Court overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) and parts of McConnell v. FEC (2003). Kennedy rejected the argument that corporate wealth has a “corrosive and distorting” effect on elections.29Oyez. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission The Court did uphold BCRA’s disclosure and disclaimer requirements, and the ban on direct corporate contributions to candidates remained intact.30Cornell Law Institute. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission The practical effect was the rise of Super PACs, which can raise and spend unlimited sums on political advocacy so long as they do not coordinate with candidates.31Justia. Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310
McDonald v. Chicago (2010)
After District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) recognized an individual Second Amendment right in federal enclaves, Chicago residents led by Otis McDonald challenged city ordinances that effectively banned handgun possession. Chicago had stopped accepting new handgun registrations after a 1982 ban, and the plaintiffs argued they needed firearms for self-defense.
The Court ruled 5–4 for McDonald. Justice Samuel Alito held that the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense is “fundamental to our Nation’s scheme of ordered liberty” and “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and traditions.” The Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause therefore incorporates the Second Amendment against state and local governments.32Oyez. McDonald v. Chicago The Court emphasized the right is not unlimited: longstanding restrictions on possession by felons, carrying in sensitive places, and similar regulations remain permissible.33Justia. McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742
How the Cases Pair on the Exam
The SCOTUS Comparison free-response question gives you a non-required case and asks you to compare it with a required one. The scoring rewards identifying the shared constitutional principle and explaining how the reasoning in one case informs or contrasts with the other. The required cases group into pairings that appear again and again:
- Federalism: McCulloch v. Maryland (expanding federal power through implied powers) against United States v. Lopez (limiting federal power under the Commerce Clause).
- Religion under the First Amendment: Engel v. Vitale (Establishment Clause) and Wisconsin v. Yoder (Free Exercise Clause), the two sides of the religion clauses.
- Speech and expression: Schenck, Tinker, New York Times Co. v. United States, and Citizens United, each testing the boundaries of protected expression in a different context — wartime dissent, student protest, national security censorship, campaign spending.
- Incorporation through the Fourteenth Amendment: Gideon v. Wainwright (Sixth Amendment right to counsel) and McDonald v. Chicago (Second Amendment), both applying Bill of Rights protections against the states through the Due Process Clause.
- Equal protection: Brown v. Board of Education, Baker v. Carr, and Shaw v. Reno, each applying the Equal Protection Clause to a different problem — school segregation, malapportioned districts, and racially drawn congressional boundaries.
The comparison question rewards recognition of the underlying constitutional principle across cases from different eras and different areas of law, so studying the 15 required cases in their thematic clusters is more useful than studying them one by one.