Achievable AP US Government

1. Civil Liberties and Civil Rights

1.1. Civil liberties cases

Our AP United States Government and Politics course is currently in development and is a work-in-progress.

Freedom of religion and constitutional rights

8 min read

These landmark Supreme Court cases establish important constitutional protections related to freedom of religion and individual rights. For the AP U.S. Government exam, you should understand the constitutional issue in each case, the Court’s reasoning, and the precedent it established. You may be asked to identify, compare, or apply these rulings in new constitutional scenarios.

Engel v. Vitale

Amendment and provision: First Amendment (freedom of religion, Establishment Clause).

Facts:

In 1958–59, New York State’s Board of Regents (which was responsible for overseeing New York’s education system) wrote and approved a “voluntary and non-denominational” prayer led by teachers that students would recite at the beginning of every school day. Students were given the option of not participating in the prayer.
A group of parents (that included Steven Engel) objected to the prayer, which said:

Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our country.
The parents, led by Engel, argued that the prayer clearly violated the students’ First Amendment rights, specifically the Establishment Clause.
The parents sued the school board president (William Vitale) while supporters of the prayer said that the policy simply allowed the students to exercise their religious beliefs and freedom of speech. New York’s courts agreed with this idea, forcing the parents to file an appeal to the US Supreme Court.

Question: Does the reading of a nondenominational prayer at the start of the school day violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?

Holdings and reasoning:

The Court ruled that a prayer authorized by the state contradicted the First Amendment and the Establishment Clause.
The Court also ruled that a prayer led by teachers in a classroom at school violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by involving the state, leading to the government endorsing religion.
The Court argued that by enforcing prayer at school, students may feel compelled to pray so that they fit in, even if it is against their own beliefs. It is possible that a student is going to feel uncomfortable leaving a room full of their peers who are participating in the prayer.
The Court also argued that the prayer in a school setting (public domain) makes it seem as if religion is preferred over non-religion. The government is supposed to ensure that public spaces (such as a public school) remain neutral (Establishment Clause).

Wisconsin v. Yoder

Amendment and provision: First Amendment (freedom of religion, Free Exercise Clause).

Facts:

It was a tradition for Amish parents to pull their children out of school after the eighth grade so that the kids could learn skills needed to help their family and community, such as cooking, farming, animal care, handicrafts, and carpentry.
There was a Wisconsin state law that said children had to stay in school until they were 16 so that they could learn how to sustain themselves in the future and be able to integrate into society.
Three Amish parents — Jonas Yoder, Wallace Miller, and Adin Yutzy — refused to keep their children in school past the eighth grade, and they were each fined $5.
They stated that the law conflicted with how they were raising their children and contrasted with their religious beliefs.

Question: Did Wisconsin’s requirement that all parents send their children to school at least until age 16 violate the Free Exercise Clause freedom of religion provision of the First Amendment by criminalizing the conduct of parents who refused to send their children to school for religious reasons?

Holdings and reasoning:

The Court ruled that the Wisconsin state law requiring children to go to school past the eighth grade violates the parents’ constitutional right to direct the religious upbringing of their children.
The Court ruled that the Wisconsin law contradicts the parents’ rights to raise their children by teaching them important life skills that will set them up for a future in the Amish community.
In a majority opinion written by Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, the Court stated that the Amish community’s right to the Free Exercise Clause outweighed the state law requiring education past the eighth grade.
In the same opinion, Chief Justice Burger also stated that the requirements mandated by the school were “in sharp conflict with the fundamental mode of life mandated by the Amish religion.” He added that the additional few years of high school would not provide many added benefits to the Amish children. To the Amish people, education is seen as preparing the children for a life of working on the farm, doing community work, or working in craftsmanship.

McDonald v. Chicago

Amendment and provision: Second Amendment (right to bear arms).

Facts:

Due to the prevalence of gun violence, Chicago had a law effectively banning handguns.
A resident of Chicago, Otis McDonald, an elderly man whose neighborhood had been overrun with gang violence and whose house had been burglarized five separate times, challenged the gun bans after the Supreme Court issued its opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller. In that case, the Supreme Court held that a District of Columbia handgun ban violated the Second Amendment.
In this case, Mr. McDonald asked the Supreme Court to apply the Second Amendment to the states.

Question: Does the Second Amendment right to bear arms apply to states through the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause?

Holdings and reasoning:

The Supreme Court applied the Second Amendment to the states by using the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause.
Justice Samuel A. Alito, writing for the majority, reasoned that rights that are “fundamental to the Nation’s scheme of ordered liberty” or that are “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” are appropriately applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.

Gideon v. Wainwright

Amendment and provision: Sixth Amendment (right to an attorney).

Facts:

There was a burglary that happened in the Bay Harbor Pool Room in Panama City, FL.
Clarence Earl Gideon was arrested after being found with a pint of wine and change in his pockets and charged with a minor felony.
Gideon asked a Florida Circuit Court judge to appoint a lawyer because he could not afford one. He argued that this was his Sixth Amendment right, which entitles everyone to a lawyer.
He was denied his request because Florida law stated that courts could only appoint counsel for defendants in capital cases (death penalty cases), and therefore he was forced to represent himself.
Because he was not educated in law, he did a poor job representing himself and was found guilty of petty larceny and breaking and was given five years in Florida State prison.
While he was in the Florida state prison serving his time, he began studying law, which led him to believe he was correct in saying his rights were violated when his request for a lawyer was denied.
He wrote the Supreme Court from jail, and they agreed to hear his case.

Question: Should the right to an attorney provision of the Sixth Amendment extend to state courts via the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause?

Holdings and reasoning:

In the overturning of Betts v. Brady (a previous case that established that states are not required to provide indigent defendants an attorney), the Supreme Court applied the Sixth Amendment right to an attorney to the states by using the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause.
The Court ruled that denying someone the right to an attorney is equivalent to taking away their fundamental rights that are essential for people to have liberty in society. Applying provisions of the Bill of Rights (guarantees of rights protecting people from the national government) to the states is called selective incorporation.
The Supreme Court in this case ensured that state courts must appoint attorneys for defendants who cannot afford them on their own, because the Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel is a fundamental right made obligatory on the states by the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause.

Definitions

Due process: The principle that the government must follow fair legal procedures before depriving a person of life, liberty, or property
District of Columbia v. Heller: Supreme Court case holding that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm for lawful purposes
Establishment Clause: The First Amendment provision prohibiting the government from establishing or endorsing a religion
Free Exercise Clause: The First Amendment provision protecting an individual’s right to practice their religion
Selective incorporation: The process by which the Supreme Court applies provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause
Wall of separation: The principle that government and religion should remain separate, derived from the Establishment Clause

Next | 1.2 Bill of Rights

Freedom of religion and constitutional rights

Engel v. Vitale

Amendment and provision: First Amendment (freedom of religion, Establishment Clause).

Facts:

In 1958–59, New York State’s Board of Regents (which was responsible for overseeing New York’s education system) wrote and approved a “voluntary and non-denominational” prayer led by teachers that students would recite at the beginning of every school day. Students were given the option of not participating in the prayer.
A group of parents (that included Steven Engel) objected to the prayer, which said:

Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our country.
The parents, led by Engel, argued that the prayer clearly violated the students’ First Amendment rights, specifically the Establishment Clause.
The parents sued the school board president (William Vitale) while supporters of the prayer said that the policy simply allowed the students to exercise their religious beliefs and freedom of speech. New York’s courts agreed with this idea, forcing the parents to file an appeal to the US Supreme Court.

Question: Does the reading of a nondenominational prayer at the start of the school day violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?

Holdings and reasoning:

The Court ruled that a prayer authorized by the state contradicted the First Amendment and the Establishment Clause.
The Court also ruled that a prayer led by teachers in a classroom at school violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by involving the state, leading to the government endorsing religion.
The Court argued that by enforcing prayer at school, students may feel compelled to pray so that they fit in, even if it is against their own beliefs. It is possible that a student is going to feel uncomfortable leaving a room full of their peers who are participating in the prayer.
The Court also argued that the prayer in a school setting (public domain) makes it seem as if religion is preferred over non-religion. The government is supposed to ensure that public spaces (such as a public school) remain neutral (Establishment Clause).

Wisconsin v. Yoder

Amendment and provision: First Amendment (freedom of religion, Free Exercise Clause).

Facts:

It was a tradition for Amish parents to pull their children out of school after the eighth grade so that the kids could learn skills needed to help their family and community, such as cooking, farming, animal care, handicrafts, and carpentry.
There was a Wisconsin state law that said children had to stay in school until they were 16 so that they could learn how to sustain themselves in the future and be able to integrate into society.
Three Amish parents — Jonas Yoder, Wallace Miller, and Adin Yutzy — refused to keep their children in school past the eighth grade, and they were each fined $5.
They stated that the law conflicted with how they were raising their children and contrasted with their religious beliefs.

Holdings and reasoning:

The Court ruled that the Wisconsin state law requiring children to go to school past the eighth grade violates the parents’ constitutional right to direct the religious upbringing of their children.
The Court ruled that the Wisconsin law contradicts the parents’ rights to raise their children by teaching them important life skills that will set them up for a future in the Amish community.
In a majority opinion written by Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, the Court stated that the Amish community’s right to the Free Exercise Clause outweighed the state law requiring education past the eighth grade.
In the same opinion, Chief Justice Burger also stated that the requirements mandated by the school were “in sharp conflict with the fundamental mode of life mandated by the Amish religion.” He added that the additional few years of high school would not provide many added benefits to the Amish children. To the Amish people, education is seen as preparing the children for a life of working on the farm, doing community work, or working in craftsmanship.

McDonald v. Chicago

Amendment and provision: Second Amendment (right to bear arms).

Facts:

Due to the prevalence of gun violence, Chicago had a law effectively banning handguns.
A resident of Chicago, Otis McDonald, an elderly man whose neighborhood had been overrun with gang violence and whose house had been burglarized five separate times, challenged the gun bans after the Supreme Court issued its opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller. In that case, the Supreme Court held that a District of Columbia handgun ban violated the Second Amendment.
In this case, Mr. McDonald asked the Supreme Court to apply the Second Amendment to the states.

Question: Does the Second Amendment right to bear arms apply to states through the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause?

Holdings and reasoning:

The Supreme Court applied the Second Amendment to the states by using the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause.
Justice Samuel A. Alito, writing for the majority, reasoned that rights that are “fundamental to the Nation’s scheme of ordered liberty” or that are “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” are appropriately applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.

Gideon v. Wainwright

Amendment and provision: Sixth Amendment (right to an attorney).

Facts:

There was a burglary that happened in the Bay Harbor Pool Room in Panama City, FL.
Clarence Earl Gideon was arrested after being found with a pint of wine and change in his pockets and charged with a minor felony.
Gideon asked a Florida Circuit Court judge to appoint a lawyer because he could not afford one. He argued that this was his Sixth Amendment right, which entitles everyone to a lawyer.
He was denied his request because Florida law stated that courts could only appoint counsel for defendants in capital cases (death penalty cases), and therefore he was forced to represent himself.
Because he was not educated in law, he did a poor job representing himself and was found guilty of petty larceny and breaking and was given five years in Florida State prison.
While he was in the Florida state prison serving his time, he began studying law, which led him to believe he was correct in saying his rights were violated when his request for a lawyer was denied.
He wrote the Supreme Court from jail, and they agreed to hear his case.

Question: Should the right to an attorney provision of the Sixth Amendment extend to state courts via the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause?

Holdings and reasoning:

In the overturning of Betts v. Brady (a previous case that established that states are not required to provide indigent defendants an attorney), the Supreme Court applied the Sixth Amendment right to an attorney to the states by using the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause.
The Court ruled that denying someone the right to an attorney is equivalent to taking away their fundamental rights that are essential for people to have liberty in society. Applying provisions of the Bill of Rights (guarantees of rights protecting people from the national government) to the states is called selective incorporation.
The Supreme Court in this case ensured that state courts must appoint attorneys for defendants who cannot afford them on their own, because the Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel is a fundamental right made obligatory on the states by the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause.

Definitions

Due process: The principle that the government must follow fair legal procedures before depriving a person of life, liberty, or property
District of Columbia v. Heller: Supreme Court case holding that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm for lawful purposes
Establishment Clause: The First Amendment provision prohibiting the government from establishing or endorsing a religion
Free Exercise Clause: The First Amendment provision protecting an individual’s right to practice their religion
Selective incorporation: The process by which the Supreme Court applies provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause
Wall of separation: The principle that government and religion should remain separate, derived from the Establishment Clause

Engel v. Vitale

Amendment and provision: First Amendment (freedom of religion, Establishment Clause).

Facts:

In 1958–59, New York State’s Board of Regents (which was responsible for overseeing New York’s education system) wrote and approved a “voluntary and non-denominational” prayer led by teachers that students would recite at the beginning of every school day. Students were given the option of not participating in the prayer.
A group of parents (that included Steven Engel) objected to the prayer, which said:

Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our country.
The parents, led by Engel, argued that the prayer clearly violated the students’ First Amendment rights, specifically the Establishment Clause.
The parents sued the school board president (William Vitale) while supporters of the prayer said that the policy simply allowed the students to exercise their religious beliefs and freedom of speech. New York’s courts agreed with this idea, forcing the parents to file an appeal to the US Supreme Court.

Question: Does the reading of a nondenominational prayer at the start of the school day violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?

Holdings and reasoning:

The Court ruled that a prayer authorized by the state contradicted the First Amendment and the Establishment Clause.
The Court also ruled that a prayer led by teachers in a classroom at school violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by involving the state, leading to the government endorsing religion.
The Court argued that by enforcing prayer at school, students may feel compelled to pray so that they fit in, even if it is against their own beliefs. It is possible that a student is going to feel uncomfortable leaving a room full of their peers who are participating in the prayer.
The Court also argued that the prayer in a school setting (public domain) makes it seem as if religion is preferred over non-religion. The government is supposed to ensure that public spaces (such as a public school) remain neutral (Establishment Clause).

Wisconsin v. Yoder

Amendment and provision: First Amendment (freedom of religion, Free Exercise Clause).

Facts:

It was a tradition for Amish parents to pull their children out of school after the eighth grade so that the kids could learn skills needed to help their family and community, such as cooking, farming, animal care, handicrafts, and carpentry.
There was a Wisconsin state law that said children had to stay in school until they were 16 so that they could learn how to sustain themselves in the future and be able to integrate into society.
Three Amish parents — Jonas Yoder, Wallace Miller, and Adin Yutzy — refused to keep their children in school past the eighth grade, and they were each fined $5.
They stated that the law conflicted with how they were raising their children and contrasted with their religious beliefs.

Holdings and reasoning:

The Court ruled that the Wisconsin state law requiring children to go to school past the eighth grade violates the parents’ constitutional right to direct the religious upbringing of their children.
The Court ruled that the Wisconsin law contradicts the parents’ rights to raise their children by teaching them important life skills that will set them up for a future in the Amish community.
In a majority opinion written by Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, the Court stated that the Amish community’s right to the Free Exercise Clause outweighed the state law requiring education past the eighth grade.
In the same opinion, Chief Justice Burger also stated that the requirements mandated by the school were “in sharp conflict with the fundamental mode of life mandated by the Amish religion.” He added that the additional few years of high school would not provide many added benefits to the Amish children. To the Amish people, education is seen as preparing the children for a life of working on the farm, doing community work, or working in craftsmanship.

McDonald v. Chicago

Amendment and provision: Second Amendment (right to bear arms).

Facts:

Due to the prevalence of gun violence, Chicago had a law effectively banning handguns.
A resident of Chicago, Otis McDonald, an elderly man whose neighborhood had been overrun with gang violence and whose house had been burglarized five separate times, challenged the gun bans after the Supreme Court issued its opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller. In that case, the Supreme Court held that a District of Columbia handgun ban violated the Second Amendment.
In this case, Mr. McDonald asked the Supreme Court to apply the Second Amendment to the states.

Question: Does the Second Amendment right to bear arms apply to states through the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause?

Holdings and reasoning:

The Supreme Court applied the Second Amendment to the states by using the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause.
Justice Samuel A. Alito, writing for the majority, reasoned that rights that are “fundamental to the Nation’s scheme of ordered liberty” or that are “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” are appropriately applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.

Gideon v. Wainwright

Amendment and provision: Sixth Amendment (right to an attorney).

Facts:

There was a burglary that happened in the Bay Harbor Pool Room in Panama City, FL.
Clarence Earl Gideon was arrested after being found with a pint of wine and change in his pockets and charged with a minor felony.
Gideon asked a Florida Circuit Court judge to appoint a lawyer because he could not afford one. He argued that this was his Sixth Amendment right, which entitles everyone to a lawyer.
He was denied his request because Florida law stated that courts could only appoint counsel for defendants in capital cases (death penalty cases), and therefore he was forced to represent himself.
Because he was not educated in law, he did a poor job representing himself and was found guilty of petty larceny and breaking and was given five years in Florida State prison.
While he was in the Florida state prison serving his time, he began studying law, which led him to believe he was correct in saying his rights were violated when his request for a lawyer was denied.
He wrote the Supreme Court from jail, and they agreed to hear his case.

Question: Should the right to an attorney provision of the Sixth Amendment extend to state courts via the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause?

Holdings and reasoning:

In the overturning of Betts v. Brady (a previous case that established that states are not required to provide indigent defendants an attorney), the Supreme Court applied the Sixth Amendment right to an attorney to the states by using the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause.
The Court ruled that denying someone the right to an attorney is equivalent to taking away their fundamental rights that are essential for people to have liberty in society. Applying provisions of the Bill of Rights (guarantees of rights protecting people from the national government) to the states is called selective incorporation.
The Supreme Court in this case ensured that state courts must appoint attorneys for defendants who cannot afford them on their own, because the Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel is a fundamental right made obligatory on the states by the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause.

Definitions

Due process: The principle that the government must follow fair legal procedures before depriving a person of life, liberty, or property
District of Columbia v. Heller: Supreme Court case holding that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm for lawful purposes
Establishment Clause: The First Amendment provision prohibiting the government from establishing or endorsing a religion
Free Exercise Clause: The First Amendment provision protecting an individual’s right to practice their religion
Selective incorporation: The process by which the Supreme Court applies provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause
Wall of separation: The principle that government and religion should remain separate, derived from the Establishment Clause