Every case the College Board requires you to know cold — facts, constitutional issue, holding, significance, and FRQ comparison tips, organized by theme.
15 required cases
FRQ #3 — SCOTUS Comparison Essay
Multiple choice every year
College Board aligned
The College Board requires AP Gov students to know these 15 cases deeply. They appear in multiple-choice questions and are the foundation of FRQ #3 — the SCOTUS Comparison Essay. In that FRQ, you're given a non-required case and must compare it to one of these 15, identifying the constitutional principle both cases involve and explaining how the reasoning is similar or different.
For each case, know: the facts, the constitutional issue (which amendment or clause), the holding (who won and why), and the significance. Cases are grouped by theme below to help you study comparisons — a skill you'll need on FRQ #3.
📝 FRQ #3 Strategy — SCOTUS Comparison Essay
How to approach the SCOTUS comparison FRQ
You're given a new, non-required case you've never seen. You must: (1) identify a constitutional clause or principle relevant to both cases, (2) explain how the facts of each case relate to that principle, and (3) explain whether the reasoning is similar or different.
Key tip: The new case will always connect to one of these 15. Look for the constitutional issue first — "clear and present danger," "equal protection," "commerce clause," etc. — then find your matching required case. You're not expected to know the new case; you are expected to know the 15 cold.
Memory strategy: Study by theme. Cases on the same theme often appear together in comparisons — Schenck vs. Tinker is the classic speech comparison. McCulloch vs. U.S. v. Lopez is the classic federalism comparison.
Filter by theme:
🏛️
Federalism — 2 cases
1
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) Federal wins
Federalism · Implied Powers · Supremacy Clause
▾
Facts
Maryland tried to tax the Second Bank of the United States. James McCulloch, a federal bank cashier, refused to pay the tax. Maryland sued.
Constitutional Issue
Does Congress have the power to create a national bank? Can a state tax a federal institution? (Necessary & Proper Clause; Supremacy Clause)
Holding
YES — Congress can create a bank under implied powers (Necessary & Proper Clause). NO — states cannot tax federal institutions (Supremacy Clause makes federal law supreme).
Significance
Massively expanded federal power through implied powers. Chief Justice Marshall's "the power to tax is the power to destroy" reasoning established that federal law is supreme over state law when they conflict.
FRQ Comparison Tip
The classic counterpart is United States v. Lopez — McCulloch expanded federal power; Lopez limited it. Both involve the scope of Congressional power, but reach opposite conclusions about how far Congress can reach. In comparisons, emphasize: McCulloch = expansive view of Necessary & Proper; Lopez = limits of Commerce Clause.
Unit 1.7–1.8 — FederalismNecessary & Proper ClauseImplied PowersSupremacy Clause
2
United States v. Lopez (1995) Federal loses
Federalism · Commerce Clause limits
▾
Facts
Congress passed the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, making it a federal crime to possess a gun near a school. Alfonso Lopez was arrested. Congress claimed power under the Commerce Clause.
Constitutional Issue
Did Congress exceed its Commerce Clause powers by banning guns near schools? (Article I, §8 — Commerce Clause)
Holding
YES, Congress overreached. Possessing a gun near a school is NOT economic or commercial activity — the Commerce Clause doesn't reach this far. The law was unconstitutional.
Significance
First time in 60 years the Court limited federal power under the Commerce Clause. Reinforced federalism — not every activity Congress wants to regulate has a sufficient link to interstate commerce.
FRQ Comparison Tip
Pair with McCulloch for federalism comparisons — Lopez set limits on federal power that McCulloch had expanded. Also connects to 10th Amendment reserved powers. Key contrast: Lopez narrowed the reach of Congress; McCulloch broadened implied powers.
Unit 1.7–1.8 — FederalismCommerce Clause10th AmendmentReserved Powers
🗣️
Free Speech — 3 cases
3
Schenck v. United States (1919) Speech not protected
1st Amendment · Limits on Free Speech · "Clear and Present Danger"
▾
Facts
Charles Schenck, a Socialist Party official, distributed leaflets urging men to resist the WWI draft. He was charged under the Espionage Act of 1917.
Constitutional Issue
Does the 1st Amendment protect anti-draft speech during wartime? (1st Amendment — Free Speech)
Holding
NO. Speech that creates a "clear and present danger" is not protected. Holmes's famous analogy: you can't falsely shout "fire" in a crowded theater. Wartime changes the calculus.
Significance
Established that free speech has limits. The "clear and present danger" test gave government authority to restrict speech that poses an immediate threat — especially during wartime emergencies.
FRQ Comparison Tip
The natural comparison is Tinker v. Des Moines — Schenck lost; Tinker won. Both involve political speech, but context matters. In Schenck, wartime + direct threat to military. In Tinker, symbolic protest + no substantial disruption. Key distinction: Schenck = emergency justifies restriction; Tinker = peaceful symbolic speech is protected even in schools.
Unit 3.3 — Free Speech1st Amendment LimitsWartime SpeechEspionage Act
4
Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) Speech protected
1st Amendment · Student Speech · Symbolic Speech
▾
Facts
Mary Beth Tinker and other students wore black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War. School officials suspended them preemptively, fearing disruption.
Constitutional Issue
Can students express political opinions through symbolic speech in public schools? (1st Amendment — Symbolic Speech)
Holding
YES. Students don't "shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate." Symbolic political speech is protected unless it causes a substantial disruption to school operations.
Significance
Established symbolic speech doctrine for students. Set the "substantial disruption" standard — schools can limit speech, but must show actual or reasonably foreseeable disruption, not mere discomfort.
FRQ Comparison Tip
Compare with Schenck: same 1st Amendment principle, opposite outcomes. The key variable is context and immediacy of harm. Tinker is also commonly compared with Citizens United — both protect expressive activity under the 1st Amendment, but Tinker is individual student speech while Citizens United is corporate political spending.
Unit 3.3 — Free SpeechSymbolic SpeechStudent Rights1st Amendment
Citizens United, a conservative nonprofit, wanted to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton close to the 2008 primary. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) prohibited this. Citizens United sued the FEC.
Constitutional Issue
Can the government limit independent political spending by corporations and unions? (1st Amendment — Political Speech)
Holding
NO. Political spending is a form of protected speech. The government cannot restrict independent expenditures by corporations, unions, or associations — doing so violates the 1st Amendment.
Significance
Led directly to the rise of Super PACs. Massive increase in independent political spending. One of the most controversial decisions in recent history — critics argue it equates money with speech and gives corporations outsized political power.
FRQ Comparison Tip
Appears constantly in FRQs about campaign finance, interest groups, and political participation (Unit 5). Compare with Tinker — both protect 1st Amendment expression, but Citizens United extends that protection to corporate spending while Tinker protects individual student speech. Key theme: the Court's expansive reading of "speech" to include financial expenditures.
Unit 5.11 — Campaign Finance1st AmendmentSuper PACsPolitical Participation
📰
Freedom of the Press — 1 case
6
New York Times Co. v. United States (1971) Press wins
1st Amendment · Prior Restraint · Pentagon Papers
▾
Facts
The NYT and Washington Post obtained leaked classified documents — the "Pentagon Papers" — revealing the government had misled the public about the Vietnam War. The Nixon administration sought injunctions to stop publication.
Constitutional Issue
Can the government use prior restraint to stop publication of classified documents in the name of national security? (1st Amendment — Freedom of Press; Prior Restraint)
Holding
NO. There is a heavy presumption against prior restraint. The government did not meet the very high burden needed to justify censoring the press before publication.
Significance
Strengthened freedom of the press. Established that the bar for prior restraint is extremely high — the government must show immediate, direct, grave harm (not just embarrassment) to justify stopping publication.
FRQ Comparison Tip
Often compared with Schenck or Tinker in free speech comparisons. Unique angle: prior restraint (censorship before publication) vs. punishment after speech. The Court has always been more hostile to prior restraint than after-the-fact punishment — this case is the strongest statement of that principle.
Unit 3.4 — Freedom of PressPrior Restraint1st AmendmentNational Security
⚖️
Rights, Religion & Incorporation — 4 cases
7
Engel v. Vitale (1962) Prayer struck down
1st Amendment · Establishment Clause · School Prayer
▾
Facts
New York State Board of Regents wrote a short, nondenominational prayer to be recited daily in public schools. Parents of students in Hyde Park sued, arguing it violated the Establishment Clause.
Constitutional Issue
Does state-sponsored prayer in public schools violate the Establishment Clause? (1st Amendment — Establishment Clause)
Holding
YES. School-sponsored prayer violates the Establishment Clause, even if it is nondenominational and voluntary. Government must be neutral regarding religion.
Significance
Strengthened the separation of church and state in public education. Applied through selective incorporation. Still controversial — regularly challenged in new forms.
FRQ Comparison Tip
Compare with Wisconsin v. Yoder — both involve religion and government, but different clauses. Engel = Establishment Clause (government can't promote religion). Yoder = Free Exercise Clause (government can't burden sincere religious practice). Understanding this Establishment vs. Free Exercise tension is essential.
Unit 3.2 — Freedom of ReligionEstablishment ClauseSchool PrayerSelective Incorporation
8
Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) Religion wins
1st Amendment · Free Exercise Clause · Religious Liberty
▾
Facts
Amish parents refused to send their children to school beyond 8th grade, citing religious beliefs that formal secondary education would harm their children's spiritual development. Wisconsin's compulsory attendance law required schooling through age 16.
Constitutional Issue
Can a state compel Amish students to attend school in violation of their religious beliefs? (1st Amendment — Free Exercise Clause)
Holding
NO. The compulsory attendance law violated the Free Exercise Clause. Religious freedom can outweigh state interests in education when the religious practice is sincere and long-standing.
Significance
Established that sincere religious beliefs can override generally applicable laws in some circumstances. One of the strongest Free Exercise rulings — government must show a compelling interest to burden religious practice.
FRQ Comparison Tip
Classic contrast with Engel v. Vitale: Engel = government cannot support religion (Establishment); Yoder = government cannot burden religion (Free Exercise). Understanding the tension between these two religion clauses is a key AP Gov skill.
Unit 3.2 — Freedom of ReligionFree Exercise ClauseReligious Liberty
9
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) Defendant wins
6th Amendment · Right to Counsel · Selective Incorporation
▾
Facts
Clarence Earl Gideon was charged with felony theft in Florida. Too poor to hire a lawyer, he asked the court to appoint one. Florida's law only provided free counsel in capital cases. He was convicted, representing himself.
Constitutional Issue
Must states provide attorneys to defendants who cannot afford them? (6th Amendment — Right to Counsel; 14th Amendment — Selective Incorporation)
Holding
YES. The 6th Amendment right to counsel is a fundamental right essential to a fair trial. It applies to states through the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause.
Significance
Incorporated the 6th Amendment's right to counsel to the states. Established the right of all felony defendants to a government-appointed lawyer if they cannot afford one. Gideon retried with a lawyer — and was acquitted.
FRQ Comparison Tip
Often paired with McDonald v. Chicago — both use selective incorporation (14th Amendment) to apply Bill of Rights protections to states. Gideon = 6th Amendment right to counsel; McDonald = 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. Key concept: the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause as the vehicle for expanding federal rights protections.
Unit 3.7–3.8 — Rights of Accused6th AmendmentSelective Incorporation14th Amendment
10
McDonald v. Chicago (2010) Gun rights upheld
2nd Amendment · Selective Incorporation · Gun Rights
▾
Facts
Chicago had a strict handgun ban since 1982. After D.C. v. Heller (2008) ruled the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms federally, Otis McDonald challenged Chicago's ban, arguing the 2nd Amendment must apply to states too.
Constitutional Issue
Does the 2nd Amendment apply to state and local governments? (2nd Amendment; 14th Amendment — Selective Incorporation)
Holding
YES. The 2nd Amendment is fully incorporated against the states through the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause. State and local governments cannot ban handgun ownership.
Significance
Incorporated the 2nd Amendment, extending Heller's protections nationwide. Limits state gun control laws — though the precise scope of what regulations are permissible remains actively litigated.
FRQ Comparison Tip
Pair with Gideon for selective incorporation comparisons. Both cases use the 14th Amendment to apply Bill of Rights protections to states — different amendments, same constitutional mechanism. McDonald also connects to federalism: Lopez limited federal power; McDonald limited state power in gun regulation.
Unit 3.5 — 2nd AmendmentSelective Incorporation14th AmendmentFederalism
✊
Civil Rights & Equal Protection — 3 cases
11
Brown v. Board of Education (1954) Segregation struck down
African American students in Topeka, Kansas were denied admission to white public schools under the "separate but equal" doctrine established by Plessy v. Ferguson (1896). The NAACP argued this violated the Equal Protection Clause.
Constitutional Issue
Does racial segregation in public schools violate the Equal Protection Clause? (14th Amendment — Equal Protection Clause)
Holding
YES. "Separate but equal" is inherently unequal. Racial segregation in public schools violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Overturned Plessy v. Ferguson.
Significance
One of the most consequential decisions in American history. Sparked the civil rights movement. Established that de jure (legal) segregation is unconstitutional. Chief Justice Warren wrote for a unanimous Court.
FRQ Comparison Tip
Brown is the go-to case for any FRQ involving equal protection, civil rights, or the 14th Amendment. Compare with Shaw v. Reno — both involve race and Equal Protection, but Shaw limited race-conscious district drawing while Brown required race-conscious remedies for segregation. Key contrast: government using race to segregate (Brown = unconstitutional) vs. government using race in redistricting (Shaw = subject to strict scrutiny).
Unit 3.11–3.12 — Civil RightsEqual Protection Clause14th AmendmentOverturned Plessy
12
Baker v. Carr (1962) Courts can rule
14th Amendment · Redistricting · "One Person, One Vote"
▾
Facts
Tennessee had not redrawn its legislative districts since 1901, despite massive population shifts. Urban areas were severely underrepresented. Charles Baker sued Secretary of State Joe Carr, arguing this violated equal protection.
Constitutional Issue
Can federal courts hear cases about legislative redistricting? (14th Amendment — Equal Protection; justiciability)
Holding
YES. Redistricting cases are justiciable (federal courts have the authority to rule on them) under the Equal Protection Clause. The Court did not yet mandate specific districts, but opened the courthouse doors.
Significance
Established the "one person, one vote" principle — districts must be roughly equal in population. Opened the door for challenges to gerrymandering and malapportionment.
FRQ Comparison Tip
Often paired with Shaw v. Reno for redistricting comparisons. Baker = federal courts can review redistricting for equal protection violations. Shaw = racial gerrymandering specifically triggers strict scrutiny. Both involve the 14th Amendment and fair representation, but Shaw narrows the use of race in drawing the equal districts Baker required.
Unit 2.3 — Congressional BehaviorRedistrictingEqual ProtectionOne Person One Vote
North Carolina drew a bizarrely shaped majority-Black congressional district to comply with the Voting Rights Act. The district was 160 miles long, snaking along a highway. Ruth Shaw challenged the district as unconstitutional racial gerrymandering.
Constitutional Issue
Can race be the predominant factor in drawing congressional districts? (14th Amendment — Equal Protection Clause)
Holding
NO. When race is the predominant factor in drawing districts, it triggers strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause and is presumptively unconstitutional.
Significance
Limited race-based redistricting. Created tension with the Voting Rights Act — which encouraged majority-minority districts. States must now show a compelling interest and narrow tailoring to use race in redistricting.
FRQ Comparison Tip
Classic comparison with Baker v. Carr: both involve redistricting and Equal Protection, but Baker opened courts to redistricting challenges generally while Shaw applied strict scrutiny specifically to racial gerrymandering. Also frequently compared with Brown — both use Equal Protection, but Brown required race-conscious action to remedy segregation while Shaw limits race-conscious redistricting.
Unit 2.3 — GerrymanderingUnit 3.12 — Majority-Minority DistrictsRacial GerrymanderingStrict Scrutiny
🔨
Judicial Power — 1 case
14
Marbury v. Madison (1803) Law struck down
Judicial Review · Article III · Separation of Powers
▾
Facts
In 1801, outgoing President Adams appointed William Marbury as a justice of the peace. New Secretary of State Madison refused to deliver the commission. Marbury asked the Supreme Court to order Madison to deliver it, under the Judiciary Act of 1789.
Constitutional Issue
Can the Supreme Court strike down an act of Congress as unconstitutional? (Article III; Supremacy Clause; separation of powers)
Holding
YES — the Court has the power of judicial review. The Court ruled that the relevant part of the Judiciary Act was unconstitutional and struck it down. Marbury lost his commission, but the Court gained enormous power.
Significance
Established judicial review — the power of courts to declare laws and executive actions unconstitutional. The foundation of all American constitutional law. Chief Justice Marshall cemented the Court as a coequal branch of government.
FRQ Comparison Tip
Marbury underpins almost every constitutional case — the ability to review laws is assumed in all 14 other required cases. Directly tied to Federalist No. 78 (Hamilton's defense of judicial independence and implied support for judicial review). On FRQs, use Marbury to establish judicial power when discussing any branch interaction or constitutional conflict.
Unit 2.8–2.11 — Judicial BranchJudicial ReviewSeparation of PowersFederalist No. 78
🔒
Privacy Rights — 1 case
15
Roe v. Wade (1973) Privacy right recognized
14th Amendment · Right to Privacy · Substantive Due Process · ⚠️ Note: Overturned by Dobbs (2022)
▾
Facts
Norma McCorvey ("Jane Roe") challenged a Texas law banning abortion except to save the mother's life. She argued it violated her constitutional right to privacy.
Constitutional Issue
Does the Constitution protect a right to abortion? (14th Amendment — Substantive Due Process; unenumerated right to privacy)
Holding
YES (at the time). The right to privacy, found in the "penumbras" of the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment's liberty interest, includes a woman's decision to terminate a pregnancy. Established a trimester framework for state regulation.
Significance & Current Status
Overturned by Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022), which held there is no constitutional right to abortion and returned the issue to states. Roe remains required content for understanding unenumerated privacy rights and substantive due process — the legal reasoning still matters even though the holding is gone.
What to Know for the Exam
Roe is no longer a required case for FRQ #3 comparisons (since Dobbs overturned it). However, it remains required content in Topic 3.9. For the exam, know: (1) Roe established an unenumerated right to privacy via the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause, (2) that right was grounded in substantive due process, (3) Dobbs held that right was not "deeply rooted in the nation's history and tradition," and (4) the Roe-to-Dobbs arc illustrates how the Court can reverse prior precedent (stare decisis is not absolute).
Unit 3.9 — Right to PrivacySubstantive Due ProcessUnenumerated Rights14th AmendmentOverturned by Dobbs (2022)
Quick-reference cheat sheet
#
Case
Year
One-sentence holding
Theme
1
Marbury v. Madison
1803
Supreme Court has the power of judicial review over acts of Congress
Judicial
2
McCulloch v. Maryland
1819
Congress has implied powers; states cannot tax the federal government
Federalism
3
Schenck v. United States
1919
Speech creating a "clear and present danger" is not constitutionally protected
Speech
4
Brown v. Board of Education
1954
"Separate but equal" is inherently unequal — school segregation violates Equal Protection
Civil Rights
5
Baker v. Carr
1962
Federal courts can review redistricting under Equal Protection; "one person, one vote"
Civil Rights
6
Engel v. Vitale
1962
State-sponsored school prayer violates the Establishment Clause
Religion
7
Gideon v. Wainwright
1963
States must provide counsel to defendants who cannot afford a lawyer (6th Amendment incorporated)
Incorporation
8
Tinker v. Des Moines
1969
Students have 1st Amendment rights at school; symbolic speech protected absent substantial disruption
Speech
9
NYT Co. v. United States
1971
Heavy presumption against prior restraint — government cannot stop publication of Pentagon Papers
Press
10
Wisconsin v. Yoder
1972
Amish parents cannot be compelled by state law to send children to school past 8th grade (Free Exercise)
Religion
11
Roe v. Wade
1973
Right to privacy includes abortion decision (overturned by Dobbs, 2022 — still required content)
Privacy
12
Shaw v. Reno
1993
Racial gerrymandering that makes race the predominant factor triggers strict scrutiny
Civil Rights
13
United States v. Lopez
1995
Congress exceeded Commerce Clause power — gun-free school zones are not economic activity
Federalism
14
McDonald v. Chicago
2010
2nd Amendment applies to states through the 14th Amendment (selective incorporation)
Incorporation
15
Citizens United v. FEC
2010
Political spending by corporations and unions is protected speech under the 1st Amendment
Speech
📜 Also master the 9 Required Foundational Documents
Documents appear on FRQ #4 (Argumentative Essay) every year. Know author, main argument, and big idea for each.