CIVIC LITERACY COURT CASES FINAL
EXAM 2025-2026 EXAM WITH CORRECT
ACCURATE SOLUTIONS
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) summary - answer-In 1816, the Second Bank of the United
States was chartered; soon after, in 1818, however, Maryland decided to pass a law that
imposed taxes on the bank. James McCulloch, who served as a cashier at the
Baltimore branch of the Second Bank, decided not to pay the tax. The state court had
ruled that the Bank was unconstitutional, to begin with, and that the federal
government did not have the authority to charter a bank
United States v. Lopez (1995) Short summary - answer-Alfonzo Lopez was a Texas high
school senior who took a concealed weapon inside his school. Federal charges were
soon imposed because he violated the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. The act
stated that individuals could not possess firearms within school zones based on the
premise of the Commerce Clause.
United States v. Lopez (1995) constitutional issue: - answer-This case explored a
constitutional issue involving the commerce clause, whether the Gun free school Zone
act of 1990 exceeded the power allowed by the cause
United States v. Lopez (1995) holdings and constitutional principle: - answer-In the
ruling, the law was considered unconstitutional since having a gun at the school zone
did not substantially affect interstate commerce,
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) holdings and constitutional principles - answer-Congress
concluded based on the Necessary & Proper Clause thatCongress is not limited by its
expressed powers. It was decided that through Congress' implied powers, theyhad the
ability to create a bank. Congress also concluded based on the Supremacy Clause that
,because thenational laws were superior to state laws, the states were not allowed to
tax the federal government.
McCulloch v. Maryland implied powers: - answer-implied powers expand upon the
enumerated powers that are listed in the Constitution.Congress is allowed to borrow
money, coin money, and tax expressly by the Constitution. The impliedpower of creating
a national bank allows for the federal government to implement this expressed power
Engel v. Vitale (1962) summary - answer-The New York Board of Regents had
authorized that at the beginning of each day, a short but voluntary prayer would be
recited. Several organizations filed suit against the Board of Regents, claiming that the
prayer violated the Constitution. The New York Court of Appeals dismissed their
arguments.
Engel v. Vitale (1962) constitutional issue - answer-This case was significant and
interesting because this prayer was both voluntary and non-denominational. However,
the organizations filed suit based on a violation of the Establishment Clause of the
Constitution, which states that a law could not be made "respecting an establishment
of religion."
Engel v. Vitale (1962) holdings and principle - answer-The court held that states could
not hold prayers in public schoolEVEN IF it was voluntary and EVEN IF the prayer did
not adhere to a specific religion. Because the act ofprayer was considered a religious
activity, having it occur in a public school (which is funded by thegovernment) would go
against the establishment clause of the First Amendment
Engel v. Vitale (1962) main idea - answer-School sponsorship of religious activities =
violation of First Amendment
Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) constitutional issue: - answer-The main question that was
addressed here was whether the prohibition against wearing these armbands (and in
, general - symbolic protest) violated the freedom of speech clause of the First
Amendment.
Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) holdings and principles: - answer-The Supreme Court held
that students still have free speech rights atschool, and in order to justify the
suppression of speech, the speech must substantially interfere withschool operations
(explore the case Bethel School District v. Fraser - it's interesting). As referenced
earlier,this case relates directly to the First Amendment, and the ruling confirmed that
students' right of symbolicspeech was more powerful than the potential disorder that it
could cause
Tinker v. Des Moines majority opinion - answer-A common phrase you might hear is:
"students do not shed their rights at the schoolhouse gate." This quote comes from the
majority opinion in this case
Schenck v. United States (1919) summary - answer-During World War I, socialist
antiwar activists Charles Schenck and Elizabeth Baer mailed 15,000 fliers urging men
to resist the military draft. They were arrested under the Espionage Act of 1917, which
banned interference with military operations or supporting US enemies during
wartime. The resulting Supreme Court case concerned whether the Espionage Act
violated freedom of speech. The Court upheld the Espionage Act, ruling that the speech
creating a "clear and present danger" was not protected by the First Amendment.
Schenck v. United States (1919) constitutional issue: - answer-This was a First
Amendment case, and the question was whether the Espionage Act violated the First
Amendment and if it was an appropriate way that Congress exercised its wartime
authority.
Schenck v. United States (1919) Holdings and principle - answer-The Supreme Court
held that the Espionage Act did not violate the First Amendment and it was an
appropriate exercise of Congress' wartime authority. This was a key limitation of the
First Amendment as the free speech clause does not allow for advocacy of unlawful
behavior.
EXAM 2025-2026 EXAM WITH CORRECT
ACCURATE SOLUTIONS
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) summary - answer-In 1816, the Second Bank of the United
States was chartered; soon after, in 1818, however, Maryland decided to pass a law that
imposed taxes on the bank. James McCulloch, who served as a cashier at the
Baltimore branch of the Second Bank, decided not to pay the tax. The state court had
ruled that the Bank was unconstitutional, to begin with, and that the federal
government did not have the authority to charter a bank
United States v. Lopez (1995) Short summary - answer-Alfonzo Lopez was a Texas high
school senior who took a concealed weapon inside his school. Federal charges were
soon imposed because he violated the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. The act
stated that individuals could not possess firearms within school zones based on the
premise of the Commerce Clause.
United States v. Lopez (1995) constitutional issue: - answer-This case explored a
constitutional issue involving the commerce clause, whether the Gun free school Zone
act of 1990 exceeded the power allowed by the cause
United States v. Lopez (1995) holdings and constitutional principle: - answer-In the
ruling, the law was considered unconstitutional since having a gun at the school zone
did not substantially affect interstate commerce,
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) holdings and constitutional principles - answer-Congress
concluded based on the Necessary & Proper Clause thatCongress is not limited by its
expressed powers. It was decided that through Congress' implied powers, theyhad the
ability to create a bank. Congress also concluded based on the Supremacy Clause that
,because thenational laws were superior to state laws, the states were not allowed to
tax the federal government.
McCulloch v. Maryland implied powers: - answer-implied powers expand upon the
enumerated powers that are listed in the Constitution.Congress is allowed to borrow
money, coin money, and tax expressly by the Constitution. The impliedpower of creating
a national bank allows for the federal government to implement this expressed power
Engel v. Vitale (1962) summary - answer-The New York Board of Regents had
authorized that at the beginning of each day, a short but voluntary prayer would be
recited. Several organizations filed suit against the Board of Regents, claiming that the
prayer violated the Constitution. The New York Court of Appeals dismissed their
arguments.
Engel v. Vitale (1962) constitutional issue - answer-This case was significant and
interesting because this prayer was both voluntary and non-denominational. However,
the organizations filed suit based on a violation of the Establishment Clause of the
Constitution, which states that a law could not be made "respecting an establishment
of religion."
Engel v. Vitale (1962) holdings and principle - answer-The court held that states could
not hold prayers in public schoolEVEN IF it was voluntary and EVEN IF the prayer did
not adhere to a specific religion. Because the act ofprayer was considered a religious
activity, having it occur in a public school (which is funded by thegovernment) would go
against the establishment clause of the First Amendment
Engel v. Vitale (1962) main idea - answer-School sponsorship of religious activities =
violation of First Amendment
Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) constitutional issue: - answer-The main question that was
addressed here was whether the prohibition against wearing these armbands (and in
, general - symbolic protest) violated the freedom of speech clause of the First
Amendment.
Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) holdings and principles: - answer-The Supreme Court held
that students still have free speech rights atschool, and in order to justify the
suppression of speech, the speech must substantially interfere withschool operations
(explore the case Bethel School District v. Fraser - it's interesting). As referenced
earlier,this case relates directly to the First Amendment, and the ruling confirmed that
students' right of symbolicspeech was more powerful than the potential disorder that it
could cause
Tinker v. Des Moines majority opinion - answer-A common phrase you might hear is:
"students do not shed their rights at the schoolhouse gate." This quote comes from the
majority opinion in this case
Schenck v. United States (1919) summary - answer-During World War I, socialist
antiwar activists Charles Schenck and Elizabeth Baer mailed 15,000 fliers urging men
to resist the military draft. They were arrested under the Espionage Act of 1917, which
banned interference with military operations or supporting US enemies during
wartime. The resulting Supreme Court case concerned whether the Espionage Act
violated freedom of speech. The Court upheld the Espionage Act, ruling that the speech
creating a "clear and present danger" was not protected by the First Amendment.
Schenck v. United States (1919) constitutional issue: - answer-This was a First
Amendment case, and the question was whether the Espionage Act violated the First
Amendment and if it was an appropriate way that Congress exercised its wartime
authority.
Schenck v. United States (1919) Holdings and principle - answer-The Supreme Court
held that the Espionage Act did not violate the First Amendment and it was an
appropriate exercise of Congress' wartime authority. This was a key limitation of the
First Amendment as the free speech clause does not allow for advocacy of unlawful
behavior.
