Civil Liberties Case Comparison
Compare landmark Supreme Court cases by facts, constitutional question, holding, reasoning, and doctrine.
A lesson of AP United States Government and Politics, in Civil Liberties and Civil Rights, about 10 minutes.
Civil Liberties: Required AP Cases and Comparisons
By the end of this lesson, you will be able to analyze the 15 AP required Supreme Court cases on civil liberties and civil rights, connecting them to constitutional principles.
The Required Cases (Civil Liberties/Rights)
The AP Government exam expects you to know these cases and their holdings:
First Amendment:
- Engel v. Vitale (1962): school-sponsored prayer violates Establishment Clause
- Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972): Amish families' Free Exercise right to withdraw children from school at 14 trumped compulsory education law
- Tinker v. Des Moines (1969): students' anti-war armbands protected; "students do not shed constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate"
- New York Times v. United States (1971): no prior restraint on publishing the Pentagon Papers
- Snyder v. Phelps (2011): Westboro Baptist Church protests at military funerals protected (matter of public concern)
Second Amendment:
- District of Columbia v. Heller (2008): Second Amendment protects individual right to keep firearms at home for self-defense; this is not unlimited
Due Process/Criminal Rights:
- Mapp v. Ohio (1961): exclusionary rule applies to states — evidence obtained illegally inadmissible
- Gideon v. Wainwright (1963): states must provide attorneys to defendants who can't afford them
- Miranda v. Arizona (1966): police must inform suspects of rights before custodial interrogation
- Roe v. Wade (1973): abortion right under substantive due process (overturned 2022)
- Obergefell v. Hodges (2015): same-sex marriage is a constitutional right
Equal Protection:
- Brown v. Board of Education (1954): racial segregation in schools is unconstitutional
- Engel v. Vitale (see above)
- Shaw v. Reno (1993): racial gerrymandering of congressional districts raises Equal Protection concerns