A-Level Politics: The US Supreme Court and Civil Rights

This material covers the US Supreme Court and civil rights, part of the comparative politics component of A level Politics (USA). The category's existing comparison material contrasts US and UK courts in general terms; this one studies the Court itself and the civil rights cases that essay questions ask students to use as evidence.

The first strand is the Court as an institution: nine justices, nominated by the president, confirmed by a simple majority of the Senate and serving for life; the origin of judicial review in Marbury v Madison (1803); and the ways a constitutional ruling can be reversed, by amendment (the Sixteenth Amendment is the example) or by the Court overruling itself.

The second strand is how justices interpret the Constitution. Students distinguish originalism from the living constitution approach, and judicial activism from judicial restraint, and learn that activism is not tied to one side of politics: critics have called both Brown and Dobbs activist.

The third strand is landmark cases, each described by what the Court actually decided: Plessy v Ferguson (1896) and Brown v Board of Education (1954) on segregation; Roe v Wade (1973) and Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022) on abortion; Citizens United v FEC (2010) on political spending and the rise of super PACs; Shelby County v Holder (2013) on the Voting Rights Act; Obergefell v Hodges (2015) on same-sex marriage; and Students for Fair Admissions v Harvard (2023) on race-conscious admissions. These are set alongside the Civil Rights Act 1964 and the Voting Rights Act 1965, and the debate over affirmative action.

The quiz has twelve questions on the Court's powers, methods of interpretation and cases, with distractors that test precise knowledge of what each case did and did not do. The flashcards give eighteen cases, terms and Acts. The written work has eight extended questions, from explaining the appointment process to evaluating whether the Supreme Court is too political, each with a reference answer and key points. The oral exam asks questions one at a time and expects cases used accurately.

Cases are described neutrally, with arguments on both sides of contested rulings. The material names no current justices or politicians, so it remains accurate as the Court's membership changes. It is practice material and does not reproduce any exam board's questions.

  • Explain how Supreme Court justices are appointed and why appointments are contested
  • Explain the origin and significance of judicial review
  • Distinguish originalism from the living constitution, and activism from restraint
  • Describe accurately what the Court decided in Brown, Dobbs, Citizens United, Shelby County, Obergefell and the 2023 admissions case
  • Explain the role of the Civil Rights Act 1964 and the Voting Rights Act 1965
  • Evaluate the Court's political role and the checks on it

Practice material written by Zestly, based on the US Supreme Court and civil rights content of the A level Politics comparative component (for example Pearson Edexcel, USA option). Case summaries written in plain language from the published decisions.

Sample question

The US Constitution does not expressly give the Supreme Court the power to declare Acts of Congress unconstitutional. Where does this power of judicial review come from?

See the answer

The Court's own ruling in Marbury v Madison (1803)

In Marbury v Madison the Court, led by Chief Justice John Marshall, held that a section of a federal law conflicted with the Constitution and was therefore void, establishing that the Court can strike down legislation. The power is thus a matter of judicial interpretation rather than an explicit constitutional grant.

← Politics

↑ A-Level