supreme court case study 53 quizlet

AP® US Government

Key supreme court cases: ap® us government crash course.

• The Albert Team
• Last Updated On: March 1, 2022

The Supreme Court has issued thousands of opinions, but some of its decisions have either had a profound impact on  American history  or continue to influence American government today.

The following is a comprehensive list of these cases. You are certain to be asked about some of them on the AP® US Government & Politics exam.

It is important that you know the bare-bones facts of these cases. It’s not a bad idea to make flashcards with the names and dates of the cases on the front, and the holdings on back, to help you memorize the information.

There’s a decent chance you will be asked to discuss a few cases in more detail, particularly the cases pertaining to the Bill of Rights and civil liberties.

So, let’s take a closer look at a select few of these cases.

Freedom of Religion Cases

In  Engle v. Vitale , the Court struck down a New York state nondenominational prayer that began with the words “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence on thee…”

Lemon v. Kurtzman  set guidelines to help determine whether government action crosses the church-state line. These guidelines are: the purpose of the legislation must be secular, not religious; its primary affect must neither enhance nor inhibit religion; and it must avoid an “excessive entanglement of government with religion.”

Freedom of Speech Cases

In  Schenck v. United States , the majority ruled that Schenck did not have the right to print, speak or distribute materials against US efforts in World War I because a “clear and present danger” existed.

New York Times v. US , famously known as the Pentagon Papers case, held that the government did not have the right to prohibit the New York Times from publishing information about the history of US involvement in the Vietnam War.

Citizens United v. FEC  held that corporate funding of political advertisements that did not specifically endorse a candidate was constitutional under the First Amendment and could not be limited.

Right to Privacy Cases

Griswold v. Connecticut  held that Americans had a right to privacy that was implied by other constitutional protections and that this meant the state could not prohibit the use of contraceptives.

Roe v. Wade  used the concept of being “secure in their persons” to hold that abortions are constitutionally protected.

The federal judiciary provides some more summaries of important cases  here .

A Practice AP® US Government Free-Response Question

Now let’s look at part of a sample  free-response question and figure out how to answer it .

The First Amendment includes two clauses relating to the freedom of religion. 1. Select one of the following cases and identify the First Amendment clause upon which the United States Supreme Court based its decision.

2. Engle v. Vitale  (school prayer)

3. Lemon v. Kurtzman  (state funding for private religious schools) 4. Describe the Supreme Court’s opinion in the decision you selected in (a).

OK, this shouldn’t be too difficult. For (a), let’s pick  Lemon v. Kurtzman .

We know that the First Amendment says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Kurtzman  deals with the Establishment Clause, because it aims to allow for government funding of the secular aims of parochial (religious) schools without funding religion itself.

For part (b), the answer is simple. All we have to do is write down how the case was decided. The Court allowed government funding for parochial schools, as long as three guidelines were met:

1. The purpose of the legislation must be secular, not religious

2. Its primary affect must neither enhance nor inhibit religion

3. it must avoid an “excessive entanglement of government with religion.”

Remember the Most Salient Facts of Cases

The key for doing well on questions about  Supreme Court cases  on the AP® US Government & Politics exam is to memorize the most salient facts about the important cases. Use flashcards, or do drills with a classmate to commit these cases to memory.

Looking for AP® US Government practice?

Kickstart your AP® US Government prep with Albert. Start your AP® exam prep today .

Interested in a school license?​

Popular posts.

AP® Score Calculators

Simulate how different MCQ and FRQ scores translate into AP® scores

AP® Review Guides

The ultimate review guides for AP® subjects to help you plan and structure your prep.

Core Subject Review Guides

Review the most important topics in Physics and Algebra 1 .

SAT® Score Calculator

See how scores on each section impacts your overall SAT® score

ACT® Score Calculator

See how scores on each section impacts your overall ACT® score

Grammar Review Hub

Comprehensive review of grammar skills

AP® Posters

Download updated posters summarizing the main topics and structure for each AP® exam.

• Teacher Opportunities
• AP U.S. Government Key Terms
• Bureaucracy & Regulation
• Campaigns & Elections
• Civil Rights & Civil Liberties
• Comparative Government
• Constitutional Foundation
• Criminal Law & Justice
• Economics & Financial Literacy
• English & Literature
• Environmental Policy & Land Use
• Executive Branch
• Federalism and State Issues
• Foreign Policy
• Gun Rights & Firearm Legislation
• Immigration
• Interest Groups & Lobbying
• Judicial Branch
• Legislative Branch
• Political Parties
• Science & Technology
• Social Services
• State History
• Supreme Court Cases
• U.S. History
• World History

Log-in to bookmark & organize content - it's free!

• Bell Ringers
• Lesson Plans
• Featured Resources

Lesson Plan: AP Government Landmark Supreme Court Cases Review

The Significance of Marbury v. Madison

Author Cliff Sloan and Yale Law Professor Akhil Reed Amar explain the significance of the Supreme Court Case Marbury v. Madison.

Description

This lesson provides students with an opportunity to review the facts and holdings of, and connections between, the fourteen landmark Supreme Court cases selected for inclusion in the redesigned AP Government course (see list below). While the case selection is aligned with the Advanced Placement course, these landmark cases are suitable for use in any government course focusing on key Supreme Court decisions in United States legal history. Landmark Cases: Marbury v. Madision (1803); McCulloch v. Maryland (1819); Schenck v. United States (1919); Brown v. Board of Education (1954); Baker v. Carr (1961); Engel v. Vitale (1962); Gideon v. Wainwright (1963); Tinker v. Des Moines (1969); New York Times v. United States (1971); Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972); Shaw v. Reno (1993); United States v. Lopez (1995); Citizens United v. FEC (2010); McDonald v. Chicago (2010)

Forming Knowledge:

Students, working either individually or in jigsawed groups, peruse the following short video clips, as well as their textbook, class notes, and any other teacher-provided resources, to fact-find about each of the fourteen Key SCOTUS Cases from the redesigned AP Government exam, sharing and comparing information with one another.

Video Clip One: Marbury v. Madison - 1803

Video Clip Two: McCulloch v. Maryland - 1819

Video Clip Three: Schenck v. United States -1919

Video Clip Four: Brown v. Board of Education - 1954

Video Clip Five: Baker v. Carr - 1961

Video Clip Six: Engel v. Vitale - 1962

Video Clip Seven: Gideon v. Wainwright - 1963

Video Clip Eight: Tinker v. Des Moines - 1969

Video Clip Nine: New York Times v. U.S. - 1971

Video Clip Ten: Wisconsin v. Yoder - 1972

Video Clip Eleven: Shaw v. Reno - 1993

Video Clip Twelve: U.S. v. Lopez - 1995

Video Clip Thirteen: Citizens United v. FEC - 2010

Video Clip Fouteen: McDonald v. Chicago - 2010

Enhancing Knowledge & Connections:

Students complete the Key Supreme Court Cases Overview Chart , using the video clips above and/or the more extensive lesson plans hyperlinked within the chart, to extend and enhance their understanding of each case and the connections between cases.

Reviewing Knowledge:

Using the Key SCOTUS Cases Game Cards , students play any of the below games as directed, or a variation of your class's creation, in small groups (sized as works best for your particular classroom).

NOTE: In order to enhance game play, the game cards contain a few cases in addition to those in the College Board's list of 14. As you wish, you can keep those extra cards, discard them, or replace them with cases of your selection. Each set of directions is repeated twice on the first sheet to facilitate creation of class sets of game cards. There are also five variations for review card gameplay in the C-SPAN AP Government Key Founding Documents Review lesson that can be adapted for these document cards!

Variation One:

• Shuffle the cards then deal them out facedown across your table
• When it’s your turn, choose any two cards and turn them face up
• State the Constitutional issue involved in each case, earning one point per case.
• State the ruling of each case, earning one point per case.
• State an AP-worthy comparison between either those two cases OR one of those cases and another relevant SCOTUS case for two additional points
• The first player to 18 points wins!

Variation Two:

• Shuffle the cards and then deal out the top six face up
• Organize the cases you’ve dealt in a manner that makes sense to you.
• Send two members of your group as ambassadors to two other groups and leave the remaining group member(s) at your table to receive ambassadors from other groups
• Explain the way you have grouped your cases to the ambassadors you’ve received
• Welcome your ambassadors back to your table and have them explain how the groups they visited arranged the cases they drew.
• Repeat Steps 1-5!

Variation Three:

• Shuffle the cards then deal them out three cards to each player. Place the remaining cards face down in one pile in the middle of the table.
• Flip over the top card from the face-down deck
• The first person to slap down one of the cards in his/her hand and articulate an AP-worthy comparison between that case and the case dealt in #2 earns one point and draws a card from the top of the stack to add to his/her hand.
• Repeat steps 2 & 3
• The first player to 5 points wins!

Variation Four:

• Shuffle the cards then deal out three cards to each player
• Each player chooses one card and places it face down in front of the player to his/her left. Play then begins with the youngest player and then proceeds counterclockwise around the group.
• For your turn, flip over the card you were passed. Earn one point for accurately stating the Constitutional issue involved in that case and one point for stating the ruling of that case. Earn two additional points for stating the facts and ruling of one of the two cases remaining in your hand and one point for articulating a comparison between that case and the case you were passed.
• The first player to 15 points wins!

Variation Five:

• Shuffle the cards, deal out five to each player, and place the remaining cards face down in the middle of the table. Turn the top card of that pile face up.
• Play begins with the youngest player and then proceeds counterclockwise around the group.
• Choose a card from your hand and place it face up on top of the middle card, articulating an AP-worthy connection between the two.
• If you can’t play, pass your turn. If every player passes in the same turn, flip over another card from the face-down pile.
• The first player to get rid of all of the cards in his/her hand wins!

Reviewing Knowledge Virtually:

The Key SCOTUS Cases VIRTUAL REVIEW Game Cards were designed as variations to the above games that could be printed out individually in student homes and played virtually, on their own initiative or as directed/facilitated by you, using a virtual collaboration platform like Zoom or FaceTime.

There are also five variations for virtual review card gameplay in the C-SPAN AP Government Key Founding Documents Review lesson that can be adapted for these case cards!

Virtual Variation One

• Each of you shuffles your set of cards then deals them out facedown in front of you
• When it’s your turn, choose any two cards and turn them face up. Your first card may not be one you’ve chosen in a previous turn.

Virtual Variation Two

• One of you, serving as the dealer, shuffles the cards and then deals out the top six face up so that everyone can see them
• The first player to yell “Certiorari!” and articulate a connection between three of the face-up cases receives three points.
• The next player(s) to yell “Concurring!” and assert connection between three cases (one or two of three originally articulated may be repeated, but not all three as one set) receive(s) two points
• When no other connections can be identified, the dealer repeats step 1
• The first player to 12 points wins!

Virtual Variation Three

• Each of you shuffles your set of the cards then deals out three cards to yourself. Place your remaining cards face down in one pile in front of you that’s visible to everyone else
• One of you flips over the top card from your face-down deck.
• After the top card has been revealed, the first person to slap down one of the cards in his/her hand (which CANNOT be the same card!) and articulate an AP-worthy comparison between that case and the case dealt in #2 earns one point and draws a card from the top of the stack to add to his/her hand.
• Repeat steps 2 & 3, taking turns flipping over your top card.

Virtual Variation Four

• Each of you shuffles your set of cards then deals out three to yourself (do not reveal them to your opponents)
• Each player chooses one card and places it face down. Play then begins with the youngest player and then proceeds in age order
• For your turn, identify an opponent, flip over the card you placed face down, The identified opponent earns one point for accurately stating the Constitutional issue involved in that case and one point for stating the ruling of that case. He/she earns two additional points for stating the facts and ruling of one of the two cases remaining in his/her hand and one point for articulating a comparison between that case and the case you revealed.

Virtual Variation Five

• One of you, serving as the dealer, shuffles your set of cards, deals out four cards to each player (in some manner that can be seen by everyone), places the remaining cards face down in a stack, and flips over the top card from that stack.
• Play begins with the oldest player and proceeds in reverse age order
• For your turn, choose a card from your hand and have the dealer place it face up on top of the revealed card from the stack, articulating an AP-worthy connection between the two.
• If you can’t play, pass your turn. If every player passes in the same turn, the dealer flips over another card from the face-down pile.
• The first player to get rid of all of the cards in his/her hand wins

Extending Knowledge:

Students engage in one or more of the below activities, either working individually or in groups, to reflect their understanding of the cases.

MIND MAP IT: Create a mind map or similar infographic detailing the key facts of your selected case and key provisions of the ruling.

AMI-CRUSHING IT: For your selected case, determine two groups that might reasonably have filed amicus briefs supporting each side. Write a short explanation for each of the four indicating why you feel they would have been on that side, what you believe the gist of their argument would have been, and a hashtag they might have used to try to build social media support for their position..

MEANING IN THE MEME-ING: Create two memes for your selected case that convey main ideas, along with two opportune hashtags that for each might be used when posting that meme on social media.

CELEBRITY ENDORSEMENT: Choose a famous person whom, in your view, would be an active proponent of the ideas/ruling in your selected case because of the way those the case might apply to his/her life. Print a picture of your celebrity with a thought bubble indicating and explaining your rationale.

PRESS PLAY: Create either a Netflix queue or a song playlist to accompany your selected case. Your list should have 6-8 entries, each an actual film/TV show or song (depending on which option you choose) that, in your view, connects to a significant theme or component of your case, accompanied by an explanation of that connection.

• ADVERTISE YOUR UNDERSTANDING: Create a one-page (8½x11) color magazine ad “promoting” your selected case. Your ad should contain a tagline and a picture, and should clearly communicate 6-8 main ideas from the facts and ruling of your case.

Communicating Knowledge:

Students respond to:

• The SCOTUS Comparison Question from page 28 of the the publicly released AP Government and Politics practice exam .
• and/or this SCOTUS comparison question
• and/or any or all of these four SCOTUS comparison questions
• and/or a SCOTUS comparison question that you've created or found

Kahoot!ing Knowledge

This 35-question Kahoot contains excerpts from each of the 14 key SCOTUS cases and 9 founding documents for students to identify. It can be played in class, over Zoom via a shared screen, or independently by students.

Blooketing Knowledge

This 36-question Blooket contains excerpts from each of the 14 key SCOTUS cases and 9 founding documents for students to identify. It can be played in class, over Zoom, or independently by students.

Blooketing More Knowledge

This 34-question Blooket reviews a series of landmark SCOTUS cases, including the 14 key AP Gov cases.

Quizleting Knowledge

This Quizlet set contains excerpts from each of the 14 key SCOTUS cases and 9 founding documents for students to use as flashcards or for Quizlet gameplay.

Related Article

• How to Read a U.S. Supreme Court Opinion | American Bar Association

Additional Resources

• SCOTUS Case Summaries | Oyez.org
• AP U.S. Government and Politics Required Documents and Supreme Court Cases - Google Docs
• C-SPAN Lesson Plan: AP Government Key Foundational Documents Review

Respond to the writing prompt, presented in the style of the SCOTUS Comparison Question component of the redesigned AP Government and Politics exam.

• 1st Amendment
• Civil Liberties
• Concurring Opinion
• Constitution
• Dissenting Opinion
• Judicial Review
• Landmark Case
• Majority Opinion
• Stare Decisis
• Supreme Court

Supreme Court Cases Quiz

Our free Supreme Court cases quiz will test your knowledge on 30 landmark Supreme Court cases. It is important for every government and politics student to be familiar with each of these important Supreme Court cases. These cases involve individual rights, criminal law, federalism, first amendment rights, and more. This Supreme Court quiz will help you review and memorize these important decisions.

Which Supreme Court case held that religious duty is not a legitimate defense to a criminal indictment?

Which supreme court case held that state courts are required by the fourteenth amendment to provide counsel to defendants in criminal cases, extending this sixth amendment federal requirement to the states, which supreme court case established the basis for the exercise of judicial review under article iii of the constitution, which supreme court case established that the constitution grants implied powers to congress which can be used to implement the constitution's express powers, which supreme court case held that state laws establishing separate public schools for black and white students were unconstitutional, which supreme court case held that the right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples, which supreme court case upheld state laws requiring racial segregation at public facilities under the “separate but equal” doctrine, which supreme court case held that the government, through the use of eminent domain, can claim and pass on privately owned land to another private owner if doing so results in economic development, which supreme court case invalidated laws prohibiting interracial marriage, which supreme court case struck down state funding for religious schools, which supreme court case established that evidence obtained through unreasonable searches and seizures, in violation of the fourth amendment, may not be used in state courts for state law criminal prosecutions, which supreme court case held that the president cannot use executive privilege to withhold evidence that is relevant in a criminal trial, which supreme court case held that people of african descent who were brought to the u.s. and held as slaves (and their descendants) were not u.s. citizens and were not protected by the constitution, which supreme court case upheld the constitutionality of executive order 9066, which ordered japanese americans into internment camps during world war ii, which supreme court case established that police must advise criminal suspects of their constitutional rights before questioning them, which supreme court case held that abortion is a fundamental right under the united states constitution, which supreme court case held that the constitution does not provide a right to abortion, which supreme court case upheld the individual health insurance mandate included in the affordable care act, which supreme court case reaffirmed that obscene material is not protected by the first amendment, and also redefined the constitutional test for determining what constitutes obscene material, which supreme court case held that the first amendment right to free speech doesn't protect speech that presents a “clear and present danger”, which supreme court case held that the government cannot restrict independent political expenditures by corporations, which supreme court case defined the first amendment rights of public school students, which supreme court case invalidated a state law prohibiting the use of contraceptives on the grounds that the law violated the right to marital privacy, which supreme court case held that a search warrant is needed to track an automobile with a gps tracking device, which supreme court case held that the act of burning a flag is protected “speech” under the first amendment, which supreme court case held that it is unconstitutional for state officials to write an official school prayer and to encourage students to recite it, which supreme court case established that a public official suing for defamation must prove that the statement was made with “actual malice”, which supreme court case prohibits race-based admission decisions to institutions of higher education, which supreme court case protects an individual’s right to possess a functioning handgun in their home, which supreme court case held that the commerce clause grants congress the power to regulate any aspect of commerce that crosses state lines, including modes of transportation.

Landmark Supreme Court Cases

Let's learn about some landmark Supreme Court cases and think about how they impacted American law and society!

Landmark Cases Video 1

Download the video viewing guide to get more out of viewing the video.

Landmark Cases Video 2

Landmark cases video 3, landmark cases video 4, showing what you know.

A case study collection to help students demonstrate understanding of the impact of landmark Supreme Court Cases on American law and society.

This will open in your browser as a Word document. Right click to save to your desktop.

A reading activity to help students demonstrate understanding of the impact of Marbury v. Madison (1803) on American law and society.

A reading activity to help students understand aspects of the state and federal trial process and its impact on American society.

A reading and graphic organizart activity to help students demonstrate understanding of Article III and the court system on American law and society.

Helpful Resources

Vocabulary Practice Concept Circle

• Landmark Cases (Bill of Rights Institute)
• Landmark Cases (StreetLaw)
• Landmark Cases (US Courts)
• Landmark Library (iCivics)
• Landmark Cases Gallery Walk (CPALMS)
• Supreme Decision (iCivics)

You are using an outdated browser no longer supported by Oyez. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience.

If you're seeing this message, it means we're having trouble loading external resources on our website.

If you're behind a web filter, please make sure that the domains *.kastatic.org and *.kasandbox.org are unblocked.

To log in and use all the features of Khan Academy, please enable JavaScript in your browser.

AP®︎/College US Government and Politics

Course: ap®︎/college us government and politics   >   unit 1.

• Federal and state powers and the Tenth and Fourteenth Amendments
• The Tenth Amendment
• Enumerated and implied powers of the US federal government
• McCulloch v. Maryland - case facts
• McCulloch v. Maryland

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

• United States v. Lopez
• US v. Lopez (1995)
• Constitutional interpretations of federalism: lesson overview
• Constitutional interpretations of federalism
• In the case McCulloch v. Maryland , the Supreme Court considered whether Congress had the power to create a national bank and whether the state of Maryland had interfered with congressional powers by taxing the national bank.
• The Supreme Court ruled in favor of McCulloch and found that the state of Maryland had interfered with one of Congress’s implied powers .

Background of the case

• (Choice A)   Each state already had a state bank that levied taxes for the federal government, so the creation of a national bank was not necessary A Each state already had a state bank that levied taxes for the federal government, so the creation of a national bank was not necessary
• (Choice B)   States were the only ones who could levy taxes and therefore the national bank was infringing on state powers B States were the only ones who could levy taxes and therefore the national bank was infringing on state powers
• (Choice C)   The power to create a national bank was not explicitly written in the Constitution C The power to create a national bank was not explicitly written in the Constitution

The Constitutional question at stake

• Did Congress have the authority to establish the bank under the Constitution?
• Did the Maryland law unconstitutionally interfere with congressional powers?

“The government which has a right to do an act, and has imposed on it the duty of performing that act, must, according to the dictates of reason, be allowed to select the means . . . The power of creating a corporation is never used for its own sake, but for the purpose of effecting something else. No sufficient reason is, therefore, perceived, why it may not pass as incidental to those powers which are expressly given, if it be a direct mode of executing them.”

• (Choice A)   Enumerated powers are powers given to the federal government and implied powers are powers given to state governments A Enumerated powers are powers given to the federal government and implied powers are powers given to state governments
• (Choice B)   Implied powers are powers that the Constitution explicitly grants to the federal government, whereas enumerated powers are not explicitly written but are necessary for carrying out implied powers B Implied powers are powers that the Constitution explicitly grants to the federal government, whereas enumerated powers are not explicitly written but are necessary for carrying out implied powers
• (Choice C)   Enumerated powers are powers that the Constitution explicitly grants to the federal government, whereas implied powers are not explicitly written but are necessary for carrying out enumerated powers C Enumerated powers are powers that the Constitution explicitly grants to the federal government, whereas implied powers are not explicitly written but are necessary for carrying out enumerated powers

“If the States may tax one instrument, employed by the government in the execution of its powers, they may tax any and every other instrument. They may tax the mail; they may tax the mint; they may tax patent rights; they may tax the papers of the custom-house; they may tax judicial process; they may tax all the means employed by the government, to an excess which would defeat all the ends of government. This was not intended by the American people. They did not design to make their government dependent on the States. . .”

• (Choice A)   Banning pamphlets advertising Communist party meetings A Banning pamphlets advertising Communist party meetings
• (Choice B)   Designating that dry ice can't be mailed B Designating that dry ice can't be mailed
• (Choice C)   Hiring postal workers to deliver the mail C Hiring postal workers to deliver the mail

Why does McCulloch v. Maryland matter?

What do you think, want to join the conversation.

• Upvote Button navigates to signup page
• Downvote Button navigates to signup page
• Flag Button navigates to signup page

Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District

LII note: The U.S. Supreme Court has now decided Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District .

• Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
• special education

Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, what level of educational benefit must school districts provide children with disabilities to secure each child’s right to free appropriate public education?

This case will decide what unified standard public schools must provide students under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”). IDEA requires schools in receipt of federal funds to provide an Individualized Education Program (“IEP”) for each student with a disability. The IEP must comply with each student’s right to Free Appropriate Public Education (“FAPE”). Should the school district fail to comply, parents are permitted to enroll their child into private school and seek reimbursement from the school district. Endrew F. argued that the Douglas County School District did not provide Endrew, a child with autism, the appropriate level of educational care because Endrew did not make any meaningful progress with his IEP. The Douglas County School District responded that Endrew’s receipt of some educational benefit was sufficient to satisfy the FAPE standard, and thus not a violation of the IDEA. The Supreme Court will likely resolve the Circuit conflict between the “meaningful educational benefit” standard adopted by some courts of appeals and the “merely more than de minimis ” educational benefit standard that the Tenth Circuit maintained.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties 

What is the level of educational benefit that school districts must confer on children with disabilities to provide them with the free appropriate public education guaranteed by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq.?

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA") dictates that public schools must provide children with disabilities a Free Appropriate Public Education ("FAPE") . To ensure this, schools must provide an Individualized Education Program ("IEP") , a written document that describes a student’s educational goals and plans to achieve those goals. The 1982 decision in Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley , 458 U.S. 176 (1982), established the standard that the IEP should be “reasonably calculated” to confer an educational benefit on the child. Under IDEA, if parents feel that their children’s schools are not providing a FAPE, parents may enroll their children in private school and seek tuition reimbursement from their school district. The standard for IEP has been interpreted differently across different circuits: some hold that there must be a heightened or “meaningful” educational benefit; others (such as the Tenth Circuit below) maintain that some educational benefit is sufficient, which the Tenth Circuit has interpreted to mean that the educational benefit must merely be more than de minimis .

Petitioner, Endrew F., who at age two was diagnosed with autism, originally attended a public school until the fourth grade. At this point, Endrew was failing to meet his IPE goals, and his parents determined the school was failing to help Endrew learn. In May 2010, Endrew’s parents pulled him out of the public school system and placed him in a private school where he was able to make "academic, social, and behavioral progress”; his parents then sought reimbursement for tuition from the school district.

Endrew initially filed an IDEA complaint with the Colorado Board of Education, stating that the school district had denied Endrew a FAPE and seeking reimbursement for Endrew’s private-school tuition. The Administrative Law Judge denied the complaint and concluded that Endrew’s IEP was clear and that Endrew had made “some academic progress” which was sufficient for IDEA standards.

Endrew then sued the school district in the Federal District Court of Colorado for denial of FAPE and inadequate IEP planning. The District Court held that Endrew had received IDEA-compliant education. This was based on the findings that Endrew had shown “at the least, minimal progress” in the public school, where the standard for IDEA compliance was that the State must provide only “some educational benefit.”

Endrew appealed, but the Tenth Circuit affirmed. IDEA, as interpreted by Rowley , required States to provide “merely more than de minimis ” in providing “some educational benefit” to students under the IDEA. The IEP that the school district had provided Endrew had been adequate under the standard.

APPROPRIATE EDUCATION

Petitioner Endrew F. (“Endrew”) argues that the Tenth Circuit’s de minimis benefit standard contravenes the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act’s (“IDEA”) decree to provide a Free Appropriate Public Education (“FAPE”). Examining the IDEA's text, purpose, and structure, Endrew argues that the IDEA requires school districts to do all they can, within their means, to promote greater academic achievement. In analyzing the text of the IDEA, Endrew juxtaposes “appropriate” and “ de minimis ," activities, the former being specifically suitable, fit or proper, and the later being trifling, eligible or insignificant. In doing so, Endrew contends that the Tenth Circuit’s de minimis standard suggests that a student’s minimum achievement in reading without any achievement in the subject of math would constitute an “appropriate” provision of public education. Endrew argues that this ideal is contrary to the very purpose of the IDEA. Turning to statutory interpretation and Supreme Court precedents, Endrew purports that the word “appropriate” modifies “public education” in the IDEA, in an effort to suggest a “more than merely de minimis ” education standard. Further, Endrew construes the word “appropriate” as embodying Court precedents that consistently recognize the importance of education to both the personal and professional development of individuals. Endrew claims that the IDEA’s provision of “appropriate education” signals to schools that they must attain more than just-above-trivial education standards for their students with disabilities.

Respondent Douglas County School District (“Douglas County”) argues that the word “appropriate” in “free appropriate public education” should not be read expansively in light of the IDEA’s purpose. Douglas County points to Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley , 458 U.S. 176 (1982), which struck down a student’s claim that “appropriate” was synonymous to “specially suitable.” In addition, Douglas County looks to the legislative history to conclude that Congress equated “appropriate education” to the receipt of personalized, but not more than de minimis , services. Douglas County argues that the textual source of the “some educational” benefit standard is explicit. They contend that the sole requirement of the IDEA is that it be reasonably calculated to confer some educational benefit. Douglas County rejects Endrew’s argument that a more than de minimis benefit is a trivial benefit. They argue that any reasonable official reading the IDEA would recognize its aim as providing something more than a trivial benefit.

PURPOSE OF THE IDEA

Endrew argues that one must look at the object and policy of a statute on a whole in order to determine that statute’s purpose. In applying this logic to the IDEA, Endrew contends that historical precedent along with Congress’s explicit intent shine light on the purpose of the IDEA’s “free appropriate public education” provision. Endrew claims that the purpose of this provision, as declared by Congress, is to improve educational results for children with disabilities and to prepare them for additional education, employment opportunities, and independent living. Endrew supports this finding by analyzing historical precedent: before the IDEA was passed, children with disabilities were neither having their educational needs met, nor receiving adequate educational services to ensure full equality of opportunity. Endrew rebukes any notion that a statute designed to promote equal opportunity and effective educational efforts would simultaneously allow states to seek di minimum educational advancements for children with disabilities.

Additionally, Endrew claims that the IEP is the primary vehicle for implementing the IDEA, and thus, sheds light on the “appropriate” purpose of FAPE. Endew questions why the IEP would require annual goals to ensure that a child’s educational needs are met, a description of how meeting these goals will be monitored, and results that measure the child’s ability to improve if schools only needed to provide de minimis educational benefits. Endrew purports that Congress linked the IDEA with the Elementary and Secondary Education Act’s (“ESEA”) insistence on challenging academic standards and individualized assessments because it found that children in special education classes were falling behind academically. In turn, Endrew provides that children with disabilities are to be held to the same standards as all other children in effort to promote equality of opportunity. According to Endrew, this shifts a school’s focus from process accountability to substantive performance accountability, which arguably cannot be met through mere de minimis educational benefits.

Douglas County argues that the IDEA’s obligations are inherently unambiguous.Douglas County reasons that the IDEA was enacted pursuant to the Spending Clause, and thus, its components are to be interpreted much like a contract. Douglas Country contends that the clear-notice requirement regarding obligations that go with federal funds, supports the argument that the IDEA’s standard must remain unambiguous. Accusing Endrew of dubiously shifting from a standard of substantial educational benefit to substantially equal opportunity, Douglas County argues that this shifting standard conflicts with the IDEA’s explicit clear-notice rule. Douglas County also denies Endrew’s claims that the IDEA requires states to provide substantially equal educational opportunity or significant progress; the County argues that an official looking at the definition of the FAPE’s key terms, sub-definitions, requirements, and cross-references could never identify a requirement that states must provide substantial educational progress to children with disabilities. Douglas County asserts that this sort of substantive standard is absent from the IDEA’s language. For instance, Douglas Country argues that the phrase “free appropriate education” is unambiguously defined under the IDEA, and provides that four explicit requirements be met.Douglas County argues that the “some benefits standard” is also consistent with the IDEA’s purpose to provide (a) procedures that IEP teams must follow in developing an individual child’s IEP and (b) systemic requirements that educational agencies must implement state-wide. Because it is through these means that Congress chose promote educational achievements, Douglas County contends that it is unnecessary to infer that a substantive standard stems from Congressional intent.

UNDERSTANDING THE ROWLEY HOLDING

Endrew claims that the Tenth Circuit’s “merely more than de minimis ” benefit test misinterprets Rowley. Endrew agrees with the Court’s decision in Rowley , that the school district was not obliged to provide a disabled student with a potential-maximizing education. Nevertheless, Endrew highlights a portion of the case holding that the Tenth Circuit overlooks; describing the purpose of the IDEA as to supply enough substantial educational benefit to make access “meaningful.” Endrew argues that this provision, mandating that an education be reasonably calculated to enable the child to achieve passing marks, and advance grades, is more creditable than and contradicts the Tenth Circuit’s de minimis benefit approach. In addition to arguing that this de minimis benefit standard negates the idea of making access to public education meaningful, Endrew claims that the Tenth Circuit misinterpreted the “some” educational benefit” clause in Rowley. Endrew asserts that this provision read in isolation may mean a “slight amount,” but when read in the context of the case opinion, it modifies the text to suggest that the IDEA imposes not only procedural, but also a substantive obligation on schools to provide individualized instruction and services. Endrew turns to subsequent amendments to the IDEA in 1997 and 2004, to support his claim that providing a appropriate education must also include substantive provisions of equality of opportunity, while maximizing students’ access to curriculum.

Douglas Country argues that Rowley ’s “some educational benefit standard” is the only level of benefit that a school district must confer on children with disabilities to remain compliant with FAPE requirements. Rebutting Endrew’s claim that schools carry the burden of providing substantive benefits, Douglas County turns to the IDEA’s text to argue that states must only adopt procedures which would result in the instruction for each child. In describing the requirements of these procedural benefits, Douglas County claims that Rowley ’s provision of some educational benefit must not be construed as requiring a particular level of benefit, and that the only insufficient level of benefit is none. Douglas County argues that the Rowley Court explicitly rejected any substantive standard prescribing the level of education to be accorded children with disabilities. Identifying the Court’s reluctance to establish a single substantive test, Douglas County argues that Rowley reflects the Court’s acknowledgement that whether a child’s IEP is reasonable calculated to confer benefit will depend on individualized, but not substantive, circumstances. Douglas County also reproves Endrew’s claim that Rowley ’s provision of “meaningful” access to education must provide more than a de minimis benefit. Douglas Country accords the Rowley ’s holding as providing that a meaningful education need only be sufficient to confer some educational benefit upon a handicapped child. Pointing to case precedent, Douglas County argues that this provision of some specialized benefit must be delinked from any provision of meaningful access to grade achievement. Because stare decisis requires adherence to Rowley , Douglas County argues that the provision of some educational benefit must hold, and that a more than de minimis benefit sufficiently encapsulates the Rowley rule.

FAPE REQUIRMENTS

Endrew argues that the purpose of a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) is to provide a child with disabilities the equal opportunity as that afforded to children without disabilities, to achieve academic success, give back to society, and become self-sufficient. In interpreting the text, purpose, and structure of the IDEA, Endrew contends that IDEA’s FAPE requirement obliges schools to provide children with disabilities with “substantially equal opportunity,” and furthermore, that this provision of equal opportunity is workable. Looking to the IDEA’s text and purpose, Endrew claims that an “appropriate” education ensures equal opportunity without demanding strict equality and that the IDEA’s provisions that implement the FAPE requirement also dictate this standard. Furthermore, Endrew asserts that this equality standard is attainable, flexible, and aligns with the Department of Education’s Education (“DOE”) Program. Endrew points to the DOE’s regulations explaining that a school must adapt its instruction to ensure that a child can meet educational standards that “apply to all children” as evidence that the substantially equal opportunity standard is workable. In addition, Edward claims that the substantially equal opportunity standard has flexibility necessary to be administered effectively, further justifying an IEP requirement that is reasonably calculated to provide a child with a disability a substantially equal chance of academic success. .

Douglas County argues that FAPE requirements must not be met through substantive provisions, such as equal opportunity and individualized treatment, but by both schools complying with the procedures set forth in the IDEA, and ensuring that the IEP is reasonably calculated to enable a child to receive benefits. Douglas County contends that Rowley rejected the idea that FAPE requirements be based on equal opportunity. Douglas County turns to the text of the Rowley to identify a provision that states are not required to maximize the potential of each child with a disability commensurate with the opportunity provided a child without one. In addition, Douglas County argues that Endrew’s proposed standards are unworkable. They argue that the standards’ vagueness, along with their imposition of confusing and onerous legal requirements, make them ill-suited. For instance, Douglas County questions how a state can be tasked with interpreting whether progress promised by an IEP is significant or appropriate in light of each individual’s particular needs. In addition, Douglas County argues that evaluating the IEP’s enforcement mechanisms is a difficult task that should not be left to a court with limited expertise in the field of education. Douglas County acknowledged that there will be many borderline cases under the de minimis standard, as with any standard, but claims that these cases can be resolved best by commonsense judgments without delving into tough questions of educational policy

Discussion 

Unifying standards.

The United States, supporting Endrew, contends that the Supreme Court has held the FAPE requirement the “most fundamental” to IDEA and that questions about how the FAPE can be satisfied arises frequently in litigation and in everyday decisions by schools. . The United States argues that conflicting standards can only be resolved by the Supreme Court to ensure that children with varying levels of disabilities get the same protection under federal law, regardless of where they live. Indeed, the United States asserts that children with different abilities should receive individualized attention and benefits, which would be achievable only under the “meaningful” benefits standard. 118 Members of Congress agree: Congress passed the FAPE requirements to ensure that children with disabilities would not only physically attend school, but receive full educational opportunities and make meaningful progress.

Douglas County argues that Congress has had many opportunities to modify the Rowley standard but has explicitly chosen not to, indicating that Congress “considers Rowley as settled law.” Additionally, Douglas County argues that because IDEA funding generally comes from state budgets, if a higher standard should be imposed, the decision to do so should be left to state legislatures. The National Association of State Directors of Special Education ( “NASDSE”) maintains that when the IDEA was first passed in 1975 and standards set by Rowley in 1982, the law recognized that each individual had different wide range of abilities that schools would need to cater to. According to NASDSE, the law refused to specify any single level of benefits children would be entitled to precisely because of these differences. As Congress revised the IDEA in the decades following, it steadily improved standards from a “baseline of inclusion” to “ensuring equality of opportunity, full participation, and economic self-sufficiency” (in the 1997 Amendments) to having educators set high expectations and preparing students to the “maximum extent possible” to lead independent lives in 2004. Thanks to these standards, says the NASDSE, a standard much more rigorous than the Rowley standard is already practiced daily in schools across the nation.

ANALYZING THE “MERELY MORE THAN DE MINIMIS” STANDARD

The United States contends that states should provide meaningful educational benefits to children with disabilities, and not merely aim for some , or merely more than de minimis , progress. A “merely more than de minimis ” standard, the United States argues, is incompatible with the meaning of “appropriate” education in the context of a child’s potential and would clash with Congressional intent. Indeed, 118 Members of Congress agree that a “merely more than de minimis ” standard would make IDEA’s promises to students “illusory” and would frustrate Congressional intent. Former Officials of the U.S. Department of Education explain that students with disabilities have come a long way in setting high achievement goals and showing educational success; they attribute this to the FAPE standard that has steadily progressed since 1982, and argue that standards and expected outcomes must continue to advance and set higher goals for students.

NASDSE believes that a child should receive more than just-above-trivial educational benefits from public schools, but that standard (more meaningful than just-above-trivial) is actually already the norm today. Similarly, Douglas County contends that the alleged circuit split in standard-setting argued forth by Endrew is merely a difference in word choice; all circuits employ the same standard set forth by Rowley but merely use different adjectives to describe those standards.

Written by 

Acknowledgments , additional resources .

• John Aguilar, U.S. Supreme Court will Hear Douglas County Student with Disabilities Case , The Denver Post (September 29, 2016)
• Greg Stohr, Disabled Students' Rights Draw U.S. Supreme Court Scrutiny , Bloomberg (September 29, 2016)
• Christina A. Samuels, Level of Benefits at Issue in Special Ed. Case , Education Week (October 11, 2016)

Skip to main navigation

• Email Updates
• Federal Court Finder

Supreme Court Landmarks

Participate in interactive landmark Supreme Court cases that have shaped history and have an impact on law-abiding citizens today.

Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser (1987) Holding:  Students do not have a First Amendment right to make obscene speeches in school.

Matthew N. Fraser, a student at Bethel High School, was suspended for three days for delivering an obscene and provocative speech to the student body. In this speech, he nominated his fellow classmate for an elected school office. The Supreme Court held that his free speech rights were not violated.

*This case relates to students.

Board of Education of Independent School District #92 of Pottawatomie County v. Earls (2002) Holding:  Random drug tests of students involved in extracurricular activities do not violate the Fourth Amendment.

In Veronia School District v. Acton (1995), the Supreme Court held that random drug tests of student athletes do not violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures. Some schools then began to require drug tests of all students in extracurricular activities. The Supreme Court in Earls upheld this practice.

Brown v. Board of Education (1954) Holding:  Separate schools are not equal.

In  Plessy v. Ferguson  (1896), the Supreme Court sanctioned segregation by upholding the doctrine of "separate but equal." The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People disagreed with this ruling, challenging the constitutionality of segregation in the Topeka, Kansas, school system. In 1954, the Court reversed its Plessy decision, declaring that "separate schools are inherently unequal." Learn more about this case.

Honor the important figures involved in the related cases  Brown v. Board of Education  and Mendez v. Westminster  using a readers theater presentation. 

Cooper v. Aaron (1958) Holding:  States cannot nullify decisions of the federal courts.

Several government officials in southern states, including the governor and legislature of Alabama, refused to follow the Supreme Court's Brown v. Board of Education decision. They argued that the states could nullify federal court decisions if they felt that the federal courts were violating the Constitution. The Court unanimously rejected this argument and held that only the federal courts can decide when the Constitution is violated.

Engel v. Vitale (1962) Holding : School initiated-prayer in the public school system violates the First Amendment.

In the New York school system, each day began with a nondenominational prayer acknowledging dependence upon God. This action was challenged in Court as an unconstitutional state establishment of religion in violation of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court agreed, stating that the government could not sponsor such religious activities.

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) Holding:  Indigent defendants must be provided representation without charge.

Gideon was accused of committing a felony. Being indigent, he petitioned the judge to provide him with an attorney free of charge. The judge denied his request. The Supreme Court ruled for Gideon, saying that the Sixth Amendment requires indigent criminal defendants to be provided an attorney free of charge.

Learn more about this case.

Goss v. Lopez (1975) Holding:  Students are entitled to certain due process rights.

Nine students at an Ohio public school received 10-day suspensions for disruptive behavior without due process protections. The Supreme Court ruled for the students, saying that once the state provides an education for all of its citizens, it cannot deprive them of it without ensuring due process protections.

Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) Holding:  Colleges and universities have a legitimate interest in promoting diversity.

Barbara Grutter alleged that her Equal Protection rights were violated when the University of Michigan Law School's attempt to gain a diverse student body resulted in the denial of her admission's application. The Supreme Court disagreed and held that institutions of higher education have a legitimate interest in promoting diversity.

Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988) Holding:  Administrators may edit the content of school newspapers.

The principal of Hazelwood East High School edited two articles in the school paper The Spectrum that he deemed inappropriate. The student authors argued that this violated their First Amendment right to freedom of speech. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that administrators can edit materials that reflect school values.

*This case relates to students. Learn more about this case.

Mapp v. Ohio (1961) Holding:  Illegally obtained material cannot be used in a criminal trial.

While searching Dollree Mapp's house, police officers discovered obscene materials and arrested her. Because the police officers never produced a search warrant, she argued that the materials should be suppressed as the fruits of an illegal search and seizure. The Supreme Court agreed and applied to the states the exclusionary rule from Weeks v. United States(1914).

Marbury v. Madison (1803) Holding:  Established the doctrine of judicial review.

In the Judiciary Act of 1789, Congress gave the Supreme Court the authority to issue certain judicial writs. The Constitution did not give the Court this power. Because the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, the Court held that any contradictory congressional Act is without force. The ability of federal courts to declare legislative and executive actions unconstitutional is known as judicial review.

Teach students the significance of Marbury v. Madison which establishes the concept of judicial review.

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) Holding:  The Constitution gives the federal government certain implied powers.

Maryland imposed a tax on the Bank of the United States and questioned the federal government's ability to grant charters without explicit constitutional sanction. The Supreme Court held that the tax unconstitutionally interfered with federal supremacy and ruled that the Constitution gives the federal government certain implied powers.

Miranda v. Arizona (1966) Holding:  Police must inform suspects of their rights before questioning.

After hours of police interrogations, Ernesto Miranda confessed to rape and kidnapping. At trial, he sought to suppress his confession, stating that he was not advised of his rights to counsel and to remain silent. The Supreme Court agreed, holding that police must inform suspects of their rights before questioning.

New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985) Holding : Students have a reduced expectation of privacy in school.

A teacher accused T.L.O. of smoking in the bathroom. When she denied the allegation, the principal searched her purse and found cigarettes and marijuana paraphernalia. A family court declared T.L.O. a delinquent. The Supreme Court ruled that her rights were not violated since students have reduced expectations of privacy in school.

New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) Holding : In order to prove libel, a public official must show that what was said against them was made with actual malice.

The New York Times was sued by the Montgomery, Alabama police commissioner, L.B. Sullivan, for printing an advertisement containing some false statements. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of the newspaper saying the right to publish all statements is protected under the First Amendment.

Roper v. Simmons (2005) Holding : It is cruel and unusual punishment to execute persons for crimes they committed before age 18. 

Matthew Simmons was sentenced to death for the murder of a woman when he was 17 years of age. In the 1988 caseThompson v. Oklahoma, the Supreme Court ruled that executing persons for crimes committed at age 15 or younger constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Roper argued that "evolving standards of decency" prevented the execution of an individual for crimes committed before the age of 18. A majority of the Supreme Court agreed with Roper, and held that to execute him for his crime would violate the Eighth Amendment.

Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe (2000) Holding:  Students may not use a school's loudspeaker system to offer student-led, student-initiated prayer. 

Before football games, members of the student body of a Texas high school elected one of their classmates to address the players and spectators. These addresses were conducted over the school's loudspeakers and usually involved a prayer. Attendance at these events was voluntary. Three students sued the school arguing that the prayers violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. A majority of the Court rejected the school's argument that since the prayer was student initiated and student led, as opposed to officially sponsored by the school, it did not violate the First Amendment. The Court held that this action did constitute school-sponsored prayer because the loudspeakers that the students used for their invocations were owned by the school.

Terry v. Ohio (1968) Holding:  Stop and frisks do not violate the Constitution under certain circumstances.

Observing Terry and others acting suspiciously in front of a store, a police officer concluded that they might rob it. The officer stopped and frisked the men. A weapon was found on Terry and he was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon. The Supreme Court ruled that this search was reasonable.

Texas v. Johnson (1989) Holding:  Even offensive speech such as flag burning is protected by the First Amendment.

To protest the policies of the Reagan administration, Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag outside of the Dallas City Hall. He was arrested for this act, but argued that it was symbolic speech. The Supreme Court agreed, ruling that symbolic speech is constitutionally protected even when it is offensive. Learn more about this case.

Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) Holding : Students do not leave their rights at the schoolhouse door.

To protest the Vietnam War, Mary Beth Tinker and her brother wore black armbands to school. Fearing a disruption, the administration prohibited wearing such armbands. The Tinkers were removed from school when they failed to comply, but the Supreme Court ruled that their actions were protected by the First Amendment.

Learn more about this case.  Teach students the significance of Tinker v. Des Moines which examines student's First Amendment rights. 

U.S. v. Nixon (1974) Holding:  The President is not above the law.

The special prosecutor in the Watergate affair subpoenaed audio tapes of Oval Office conversations. President Nixon refused to turn over the tapes, asserting executive privilege. The Supreme Court ruled that the defendants' right to potentially exculpating evidence outweighed the President's right to executive privilege if national security was not compromised.

Zelma v. Simmons-Harris (2002) Holding:  Certain school voucher programs are constitutional.

The Ohio Pilot Scholarship Program allowed certain Ohio families to receive tuition aid from the state. This would help offset the cost of tuition at private, including parochial (religiously affiliated), schools. The Supreme Court rejected First Amendment challenges to the program and stated that such aid does not violate the Establishment Clause.

DISCLAIMER: These resources are created by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts for educational purposes only. They may not reflect the current state of the law, and are not intended to provide legal advice, guidance on litigation, or commentary on any pending case or legislation.

Topic: Supreme Court Cases

Washington v. texas (1967).

See Incorporation (Nationalization) of the Bill of Rights

Southern Railway Company v. Reid (1912)

Southern Railway Company v. Reid (1912) is an early preemption case in which the Supreme Court invalidated a North Carolina statute requiring common carriers…

Shapiro v. Thompson (1969)

In 1969, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Shapiro v. Thompson that states could not impose durational residency requirements for the receipt of public…

Schilb v. Kuebel (1971)

Robinson v. california (1962), pointer v. texas (1965), parker v. gladden (1966).

See Nationalization of the Bill of Rights

New State Ice Company v. Liebmann (1932)

In this case the Supreme Court manifested its historic dedication to the protection of economic liberty under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth…

Near v. Minnesota (1931)

Mccray v. united states (1904).

This Supreme Court case addresses the scope of Congress’s taxing and spending powers. More specifically, it examines the ability of Congress to use its taxing authority for regulatory…

Luther v. Borden (1849)

In 1849, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to apply Article IV, Section 4, of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees states a “republican form of government,” to a…

Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987)

This 1987 U.S. Supreme Court case dealt with the controversy over the legally permissible scope of state and local government regulatory land-use power under…

Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992)

This 1992 U.S. Supreme Court case addresses the question of what constitutes the proper exercise of state and local government regulation over land use…

Join Our Newsletter

" * " indicates required fields

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the purpose of the center for the study of federalism (csf).

The Center for the Study of Federalism (CSF) is a nonpartisan, interdisciplinary research and education institution dedicated to supporting and advancing scholarship and public understanding of federal theories, principles, institutions, and processes as practical means of organizing power in free societies.

Who are the Fellows at the Center for the Study of Federalism?

All of the CSF Fellows hold advanced degrees, are affiliated with academic institutions, and are scholarly experts in their fields. For more on each Fellow see CSF Fellows .

What is the purpose of the CSF website?

Most political and public issues in the United States are influenced to some extent by its federal system. Yet many do not understand that system. The CSF website seeks to foster a better understanding among the general public and scholars of federal governing systems generally and, specifically, of the federal system of government in the United States of America.

Are the materials on the Center for the Study of Federalism website copyright-protected?

The CSF materials are free to use for educational purposes. If published, please acknowledge CSF as the source. If you intend to use these materials for profit, please, contact the Center for the Study of Federalism for permission. Some materials on the website are not owned by CSF and permission to use those materials should be sought with those holding legal title to the material.

How do I sign-up for the CSF listserv?

Click here  to sign-up to receive notifications about CSF materials and events. We will not share your email with any outside organizations or individuals.

Who do I contact for questions or comments about your programs and the information provided on this website?

Please direct all questions and comments related to this website, and inquiries about the research and teaching grants and awards, to us here . Remember CSF is a nonpartisan, interdisciplinary research and education institution.

Subscribe to our Newsletter

The Center for the Study of Federalism is a nonpartisan, interdisciplinary research and education institution dedicated to supporting and advancing scholarship and public understanding of federal theories, principles, institutions, and processes as practical means of organizing power in free societies. Among other things, the Center publishes Publius: The Journal of Federalism and provides grants for scholarly research on federalism.

• Subscribe to Publius
• Privacy Policy

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

© 2024 Center for the Study of Federalism. All Rights Reserved.

• Why Federalism?
• Where is Federalism in the Constitution?
• Federalism Explained
• Publius: The Journal of Federalism
• Constitutional Provisions
• Fiscal Federalism
• Historical Events
• Institutions
• Intergovernmental Relations
• Legislation
• Models and Theories of Federalism
• Policy Areas
• Supreme Court Cases
• Historical Figures
• Federalism Scholars
• American Federalism
• Other Federal Countries
• Comparative Federalism
• Federalism Digests
• CSF Projects
• The Federalism Report
• Collaborations
• Federalism Podcasts
• U.S. State and Local Firsts
• Teaching Resources
• Annotated Resources
• Teaching Awards
• Mission Statement
• Grants & Awards
• History of CSF
• CSF Fellows
• Elazar Tributes