GED and HiSET social studies — landmark Supreme Court cases

Supreme Court cases turn up on both equivalency tests in two ways: as a name with a principle attached, and far more often as a situation in which you have to recognize which principle applies. This material trains both, with fourteen cases that come up again and again in American civics, from 1803 to 1974.

Each quiz question starts from the facts. William Marbury's commission was never delivered, and the Court used his case to establish judicial review. Maryland tried to tax a branch of the national bank, and McCulloch v. Maryland answered with implied powers and national supremacy. Plessy v. Ferguson accepted "separate but equal" on railroad cars; Brown v. Board of Education rejected it in public schools. Then the rights of people accused of crimes: Mapp v. Ohio and evidence from an illegal search, Gideon v. Wainwright and the lawyer the state must provide, Miranda v. Arizona and the warnings before questioning in custody.

Speech and the press come next. Tinker v. Des Moines protects students' black armbands unless they substantially disrupt school. The speech item is built on current law: the "clear and present danger" test of Schenck v. United States (1919) is no longer the standard, and Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) allows punishment of advocacy only when it is directed to inciting imminent lawless action and likely to produce it. New York Times Co. v. United States, the Pentagon Papers case, sets a heavy presumption against stopping publication in advance.

The last three cases are about equality and the limits of power: Korematsu v. United States, which upheld the wartime exclusion of Japanese Americans and which the Court expressly repudiated in 2018; Loving v. Virginia, which struck down bans on interracial marriage under both equal protection and due process; and United States v. Nixon, which held that executive privilege is not absolute.

The flashcards pair each case with its principle. The written work asks you to explain cases in your own words and to apply them to new situations — a search, a student protest, a heated speech, a subpoena. The oral exam gives you a situation and asks which case governs it and why.

The cases are described in plain words; nothing here is legal advice. Zestly is an independent study tool, not affiliated with GED Testing Service or the HiSET program.

• Match fourteen landmark cases to the principle each established
• Recognize judicial review, implied powers and national supremacy in a set of facts
• Explain how Brown v. Board of Education rejected Plessy's "separate but equal" in public education
• Apply the rights of the accused from Mapp, Gideon and Miranda to realistic situations
• Apply the current tests for student speech (Tinker), advocacy of force (Brandenburg) and prior restraint
• Explain what Korematsu, Loving and United States v. Nixon say about equality and the limits of government power

Practice material written by Zestly on landmark US Supreme Court decisions (Supreme Court opinions are US government works). The case summaries reflect the law as it stands in 2026, including Brandenburg v. Ohio in place of the older clear and present danger test and the Court's 2018 repudiation of Korematsu.