supreme court case study 9 answer key

Explore the Constitution

• The Constitution
• Read the Full Text

Dive Deeper

Constitution 101 course.

• The Drafting Table
• Supreme Court Cases Library
• Founders' Library
• Constitutional Rights: Origins & Travels

Start your constitutional learning journey

• News & Debate Overview
• Constitution Daily Blog
• America's Town Hall Programs
• Special Projects

Media Library

America’s Town Hall

Watch videos of recent programs.

• Education Overview

Constitution 101 Curriculum

• Classroom Resources by Topic
• Classroom Resources Library
• Live Online Events
• Professional Learning Opportunities
• Constitution Day Resources

Explore our new 15-unit high school curriculum.

• Explore the Museum
• Plan Your Visit
• Exhibits & Programs
• Field Trips & Group Visits
• Host Your Event
• Buy Tickets

New exhibit

The first amendment, module 9: the judicial system and current cases.

Article III of the Constitution establishes the judicial branch of the national government, which is responsible for interpreting the laws. At the highest level, the judicial branch is led by the U.S. Supreme Court, which consists of nine Justices. In the federal system, the lower courts consist of the district courts and the courts of appeals. Federal courts—including the Supreme Court—exercise the power of judicial review. This power gives courts the authority to rule on the constitutionality of laws passed (and actions taken) by the elected branches. The Constitution also promotes the principle of judicial independence—granting federal judges life tenure (meaning that they serve until they die, resign, or are impeached and removed from office).

Download all materials for this module as a PDF

Learning Objectives

• Describe judicial review and explain it is a key component of the American constitutional system.
• Describe judicial independence and explain why the Founding generation viewed it as an important feature of the federal judiciary.
• Examine primary source writings on the Supreme Court in Federalist, No. 78.
• Describe how a case gets to the Supreme Court.
• Identify how the judicial nomination process works and how a justice ends up on the Supreme Court.

9.1 Activity: Supreme Court “Class Photo”

• Student Instructions
• Teacher Notes

Purpose Article III of the Constitution establishes the national government’s judicial branch: the federal judiciary, headed by a single Supreme Court. In this activity, you will examine the current justices of the Supreme Court and learn how a Supreme Court nominee gets appointed to the Supreme Court.

Process As a class, discuss what you know about the Supreme Court and what you want to know by the end of this module.

• What do you know about the Supreme Court justices?  
• What do you want to know about them?

Next, review and discuss the Info Brief: SCOTUS Class Photos presentation. Finally, read the Info Brief: Supreme Court document and complete the Activity Guide: Supreme Court worksheet.

Launch Display the image of the Supreme Court for students to view. As a large group, review a simple K- W- L activity to start student discussion based on the following questions:

Next, review the presentation with students and have them complete the worksheet. Ask students to compare and contrast the images of the court over time.

Finally, have students read the Info Brief: Supreme Court document and complete the Activity Guide: Supreme Court worksheet. Have students share highlights with the class.

Activity Synthesis Ask students to write three facts they learned about the Supreme Court and at least one question that they still have. 

Activity Extension (optional) Now that students have a better understanding of the nominating process, students may research the nomination and Senate hearings process for a recent Supreme Court justice. 

9.1 Visual Info Brief: SCOTUS Class Photos

9.1 info brief: supreme court, 9.1 activity guide: supreme court, 9.2 activity: key terms.

Purpose It is important to remember that Article III is a very short provision and doesn’t lay out many details about the Supreme Court and how it works—or even what the federal judiciary as a whole should look like. For example, it doesn’t set the number of Supreme Court justices, how many lower-court judges there should be in the federal judiciary, or when we should have any lower federal courts below the Supreme Court at all.

Furthermore, Article III can be a bit hard to understand without some background first. The basic ideas are simple enough, but the language is a bit more technical than other parts of the Constitution. In this activity, you will review the key terms of the module to help deepen your understanding of Article III.

Process Complete the Activity Guide: Key Terms - Judicial System and Current Cases  worksheet.

After your worksheet is complete, your teacher will guide you through a bingo game using the key terms and definitions of Module 9.

Launch Begin the activity with key terms activity with the students. Have them review the definitions and answer questions. As a review, have students share their answers in the worksheet for all of the key terms. Finally, engage students in a fun, lighthearted activity of word bingo by reading the definitions of the terms. Have students build bingo sheets by placing the key terms on a bingo card or hand out premade cards. If your class needs more words for the bingo card, use a sampling of facts from the Info Brief: Supreme Court document. Don’t forget the FREE spot! If the students have the correct word, they’ll color, cover, or electronically mark in the box on their cards where the answer appears. 

Activity Synthesis Have students apply their knowledge of the terms. Read and mark up a current news article that uses the terms. 

Activity Extension (optional) Now that students have a better understanding of key terms about the judiciary, ask the following questions:

• What is the primary role of the courts in our constitutional system?
• Why is it important for the judiciary to be independent of the other branches of government?
• How do the courts play a key role in our system of checks and balances?
• What part of the process did you learn about today that was new to you?
• What other questions do you have about the courts and their process for hearing cases?

9.2 Activity Guide: Key Terms - Judicial System and Current Cases

9.3 activity: the federalist no. 78 (hamilton).

Purpose The founders’ vision of judicial independence grew out of the colonists’ own experience under the British system. Judges were not independent within this system. Instead, colonial judges were seen as officers of the crown, who carried out the orders of the king and could be removed at his whim.

In this activity, you will learn more about the Founding generation’s original vision for the Supreme Court and the federal court system.

Process Read Federalist No. 78 by Alexander Hamilton and complete the Activity Guide: The Federalist No. 78 worksheet.

Launch The key arguments will fall under these big ideas:

• The judiciary is the weakest of the three branches of government.
• Judges have a duty to exercise judicial review to declare laws that are inconsistent with the Constitution unconstitutional.
• The power of judicial review is rooted in the principles of popular sovereignty—the idea that the powers of the government (and the authority of the Constitution) is derived from “We the People.” That authority is greater than the powers of elected officials.
• Judicial independence is a key component of the constitutional system—protecting judges from the influence of the other branches of government and leaving them free to exercise their independent judgment in a given case.

Each argument must be summarized and at least one quote has to be used to cite as evidence.

Activity Synthesis Have students discuss whether or not they agree with each argument Hamilton discusses in Federalist No. 78. Why, or why not?

Activity Extension (optional) Now that students have a better understanding of the Founding generation's original vision of the judiciary, ask the following questions:

• What recent cases have been in the news about the Supreme Court?
• Poll your family, friends, or community members to ask them their thoughts on the Supreme Court and its role in the government. 
• Use this information to develop a graphic or one-page fact sheet on the history and role of the court, cite evidence from your readings, and share with people in your community.  

9.3 Primary Source: Federalist No. 78

9.3 activity guide: federalist no. 78, 9.4 video activity: history of the supreme court.

Purpose In this activity, you will learn about the history of the Supreme Court.

Process Watch the following video about the history of the Supreme Court.

Then, complete the Video Reflection: History of the Supreme Court worksheet.

Identify any areas that are unclear to you or where you would like further explanation. Be prepared to discuss your answers in a group and to ask your teacher any remaining questions.

Launch Give students time to watch the video and answer the questions. 

Activity Synthesis Have students share their responses in small groups and then discuss as a class.

Activity Extension (optional) Now that students have a better understanding of the history of the Supreme Court, ask the following questions:

• What era of the Supreme Court history do you find most interesting and why?

9.4 Video Reflection: History of the Supreme Court

9.5 activity: how does a case get to the supreme court.

Purpose So, how does a constitutional case get to the Supreme Court? Someone—often a single person—goes to court and argues that a law, an arrest, or a regulation is in conflict with the Constitution. When this happens, they may eventually be able to petition the Supreme Court to hear their case. However, the Supreme Court has broad discretion to choose which cases it decides each year. The Supreme Court receives about 10,000 petitions per year, and only agrees to hear about 65 of them. That’s not a lot! In this activity, you will study a real case and analyze how it got to the Supreme Court.

Process Begin by reading the Common Interpretation: Article III, Section 1 and the Info Brief: How Does a Case Get to the Supreme Court document for background information about Article III and the federal court system. Summarize by writing a paragraph how the judicial branch works today. 

Next, work as a group to chart the path of a case to the Supreme Court. Your group will choose a historical case from the list of choices provided. Read about the case and work with your group to build a simple road map graphic to show the progression of this case to the Supreme Court. Be creative in your design. You can draw the path, sketch it out in a Word document, or use tools such as Piktochart .

Select a case from the historical case list.

Compare your roadmap to the one provided on how the typical case gets to the Supreme Court today .

Launch Have students read Common Interpretation: Article III, Section 1 and Info Brief: How Does a Case Get to the Supreme Court. Then, discuss with students how the judicial branch works and how the cases start with We the People and get to the Supreme Court. 

Activity Synthesis As a final activity, have students select a historical court case to build their path to the Supreme Court infographic. Students should identify the typical path, short-cuts, and areas where cases get blocked by exploring data on how many cases are heard at each level of the court system and analyzing what are the criteria for cases to get past certain checkpoints. 

Activity Extension (optional) Now that students have a better understanding of how a case gets to the Supreme Court, ask the following questions:

• What is one thing you learned about cases that reach the Supreme Court?
• What surprised you about these cases?
• Were there any similarities?
• If you were to write a letter to the people in these cases before they took up the fight, what would you tell them?

9.5 Primary Source: Marbury v. Madison (1803)

9.5 primary source: mcculloch v. maryland (1819), 9.5 primary source: dred scott v. sandford (1857), 9.5 primary source: plessy v. ferguson (1896), 9.5 primary source: west virginia board of education v. barnette (1943), 9.5 primary source: korematsu v. united states (1944), 9.5 primary source: brown v. board of education (1954), 9.5 primary source: tinker v. des moines independent community school district (1969), 9.5 info brief: how does a case get to the supreme court, 9.5 info brief: how does a case get to the supreme court graphic, 9.6 activity: supreme court in review.

Purpose The Supreme Court’s term typically lasts from the first Monday of October to the end of June.

Opinions are released throughout the term, with the last of the opinions (often on the most important and controversial cases) coming out at the end of June—although there’s no deadline because the justices set their own schedule.

In this activity, you will explore some of the most significant cases that the Supreme Court heard last term. 

Cases for 2021–2022 Term: 

• Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022)
• Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022)
• New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen (2022)

Process After you review these three cases of the last term, use the information from the NCC website and SCOTUSblog to complete the Activity Guide: Supreme Court in Review worksheet. 

Be prepared to share your briefs (explainers) you have developed in small groups.

Launch Give students time to review three of the high-profile cases of the last term and write short briefs (explainers) for each case. 

Activity Synthesis Have students share their briefs with one another in small groups. 

Activity Extension (optional) Now that students have a better understanding of current Supreme Court cases, ask students to write a short opinion for the Supreme Court for one case based on the facts presented and the constitutional issues in question. 

9.6 Activity Guide: Supreme Court in Review

9.7 test your knowledge.

Congratulations for completing the activities in this module! Now it’s time to apply what you have learned about the basic ideas and concepts covered.

Complete the questions to test your knowledge.

This activity will help students determine their overall understanding of module concepts. It is recommended that questions are completed electronically so immediate feedback is provided, but a downloadable copy of the questions (with answer key) is also available.

9.7 Interactive Knowledge Check: The Judicial System and Current Cases

9.7 printable knowledge check: the judicial system and current cases, 9.8 extended activity: building consensus.

Purpose The Supreme Court can offer a model for how to offer arguments in a constructive, cooperative way so that people with opposing views can meaningfully listen to one another, consider different viewpoints, learn from one another, and possibly change positions or reach a compromise. 

In this activity, you will explore the process for building consensus and the value of listening to arguments from other perspectives. 

Process Watch the Supreme Court Spotlight video from the National Constitution Center where U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Stephen Breyer (Ret.) provides an insider perspective on what happens behind closed doors at the Supreme Court.

As you watch the video, record the following information:

• Three interesting facts about the Supreme Court presented in the clip.
• Two rules for discussion in the Supreme Court.
• One word that is repeated by Justice Breyer.

Launch Before you begin, have students think about an argument they’ve had recently and write down a few notes about it. Who was involved? What was the issue? Were you able to come to a resolution? Why? Why not? Share with the class if time permits.

Activity Synthesis After viewing the video clip, students can share their 3-2-1 notes in their small group. Ask students to circle any ideas that are shared by more than one person. Have each group choose a representative to share out to the whole class. The teacher may choose to have different groups give their responses for only one aspect of the 3-2-1 notes. However, ask each group to share the one word that was repeated. This is powerful because the same word may be repeated many times signifying its importance. Encourage this because some students may be upset that another group already said their answer.

Activity Extension (optional) Looking for more tools on civil dialogue practice in your classroom? Check out the civil dialogue toolkit and corresponding lessons. 

Previous Module

Module 8: the presidency and executive power, next module, module 10: the first amendment.

The First Amendment protects some of our most cherished rights, including religious liberty, free speech, a free press, the right to assemble, and the right to petition our government for a redress of grievances. Together, these essential rights are connected to the freedom of conscience—protecting our ability to think as we will and speak as we think. As we examine the First Amendment’s text and history, we will explore debates over the First Amendment’s five freedoms, analyze landmark Supreme Court cases, and examine how the First Amendment has been used by ...

Go to the Next Module

More from the National Constitution Center

Constitution 101

Explore our new 15-unit core curriculum with educational videos, primary texts, and more.

Search and browse videos, podcasts, and blog posts on constitutional topics.

Founders’ Library

Discover primary texts and historical documents that span American history and have shaped the American constitutional tradition.

Modal title

Modal body text goes here.

Share with Students

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)

Find what you need to study

3.14 Required Supreme Court Cases

15 min read • may 3, 2023

Akhilesh Shivaramakrishnan

Some Background

AP US Government & Politics students should be thoroughly familiar with 15 Supreme Court Cases for the AP exam. 

Not only should you be familiar with the final decisions, you should be familiar with the reasons for the majority opinion and how they impacted American society. 

According to the College Board, these cases are essential content in college courses and in-depth analysis will help you gain the basis needed for future courses in politics. 

Why Do I Need to Know These?

On your AP exam in May, your FRQ #3 will be a SCOTUS comparison essay.

You will be asked to compare one of the required cases (for which no information will be provided) with a case that is presented to you on the exam.

These required cases tend to appear throughout the AP exam multiple choice.

It is essential that you analyze these cases in depth so you are prepared for the AP Exam!

What Are The Required Cases?

Marbury v. madison (1803), mcculloch v. maryland (1819).

Schenck v. the United States (1919)

Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

Engel v. vitale (1962), baker v. carr (1962), gideon v. wainwright (1963), tinker v. des moines independent community school district (1969).

New York Times Co. v. United States (1971)

Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)

Shaw v. reno (1993), united states v. lopez (1995), mcdonald v. chicago (2010), citizens united v. federal election commission (2010), why these cases.

According to the College Board, these cases are essential to college courses in introductory history and politics. Many of these cases are controversial or were decided 5-4. 

These cases will help you further enhance your knowledge of the AP Government curriculum. You’ll be able to see how the content you learn about in class applies to real situations.

4 Key Points for Each Case

What context does the College Board want you to understand the case through? There is a reason why the College Board wants you to know each of the required Supreme Court cases for the AP exam. In their syllabus documents, they list out the exact reason why a particular case is relevant to government and politics. This can give you context on why each case is important, so make sure to read it!

A short summary of the case : Like an essay for your AP history class, you want to make sure that you provide context in your Supreme Court comparison FRQ. Therefore, it’s crucial that you understand the situation behind each of these cases. 

Might be helpful - the date : Although you will never be asked to recall the exact date of a Supreme Court case, knowing the date can help you put the case into context and can enhance your FRQ response.

Constitutional issues: What does the American government revolve around? You got it - the Constitution! Make sure you understand the constitutional issue that each case presents.

Holding, Constitutional Principle & Majority Opinion: The holding of the case is based on something from the Constitution. Knowing the holding and constitutional principle that was used to decide the case is the most important part . These will help you answer FRQ #3, which will ask you to compare the holding in one of the 15 required cases to a case you will be presented with on the AP exam.

Cases Involving Federalism

College Board Context: “CON-2.B.2: The balance of power between the national and state governments has changed over time based on US Supreme Court interpretation of (these) cases.”

Short Summary : 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

Constitutional Issues: Two questions could be explored in this case. Did Congress have the implied power to create a bank? And secondly, could states tax a federal entity/bank?

Holdings and Constitutional Principles : Congress concluded based on the Necessary & Proper Clause that Congress is not limited by its expressed powers. It was decided that through Congress’ implied powers, they had the ability to create a bank. Congress also concluded based on the Supremacy Clause that because the national laws were superior to state laws, the states were not allowed to tax the federal government.

Implied Powers : 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 implied power of creating a national bank allows for the federal government to implement this expressed power.

Short Summary : Alfonzo Lopez was a Texas high school senior who took a concealed weapon inside his school. Federal charges were soon imposed because of his violation of 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.

Constitutional Issue : This case explored a constitutional issue involving the commerce clause, and whether the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 exceeded the power allowed by the clause.

Holding and Constitutional Principles : In the ruling, the law was considered unconstitutional since having a gun in the school zone did not substantially affect interstate commerce , which is a clear provision in the commerce clause. This case also reaffirmed the Tenth Amendment, which protects states’ rights. It was clear through this case that the commerce clause did not grant Congress limitless power.

Straight from the AP US Government Course Description : this case “(introduced) a new phase of federalism that recognized the importance of state sovereignty and local control.”

Cases Involving the First Amendment

College Board Context: “LOR-2: Provisions of the US Constitution’s Bill of Rights are continually being interpreted to balance the power of the government and the civil liberties of individuals.”

TIP : Do you have trouble remembering the main points the First Amendment addresses? Remember the acronym FEE RAPPS !

F ree E xercise Clause

E stablishment Clause

P etition the Government

Short Summary : 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.

Constitutional Issue : 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.” 

Holding and Constitutional Principles : The court held that states could not hold prayers in public school EVEN IF it was voluntary and EVEN IF the prayer did not adhere to a specific religion. Because the act of prayer was considered a religious activity, having it occur in a public school (which is funded by the government) would go against the establishment clause of the first amendment.

Main Idea? School sponsorship of religious activities = violation of first amendment

Short Summary : Jonas Yoder, as well as other Amish parents, refused to send their children to school after the 8th grade. In accordance with their religion, they did not agree with high school attendance. They were later charged under a Wisconsin law that required students to attend school until age 16.

Constitutional Issue : This case relates to the other major religious clause of the 1st Amendment: the free exercise clause. By requiring Wisconsin parents to send their children to school, without a faith exception, did it violate the parents' rights to freely exercise their religion?

Holding and Constitutional Principles : The court held that the requirement to send children to school beyond the eighth grade was unconstitutional. It stated that an individual’s interest in the free exercise of religion was more powerful than a federal interest in sending children to school beyond the eighth grade. 

Short Summary : A group of students decided to wear black armbands in order to protest the Vietnam War. Mary Beth Tinker and Christopher Eckhardt decided that they would wear their armbands to school despite warnings from school administration. After wearing the armbands to school, they were sent home. The students decided to sue their school district for violating the freedom of expression.

Constitutional Issue : 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.

Holding and Constitutional Principle : The Supreme Court held that students still have free speech rights at school, and in order to justify the suppression of speech, the speech must substantially interfere with school 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 symbolic speech was more powerful than the potential disorder that it could cause.

Majority Opinion : A common phrase you might hear is: “students don’t shed their rights at the schoolhouse gate.” This quote comes from the majority opinion in this case!

New York Times Co v. United States (1971)

Short Summary : This case, also known as the Pentagon Papers case had to do with the First Amendment. The Nixon Administration tried to prevent the New York Times from publishing material that belonged to a Defense Department study about US intervention in Vietnam. President Nixon stated that it was necessary to national security to prohibit it before publication, also known as prior restraint.

Constitutional Issue : The Constitutional issue that revolved around this case was whether the Nixon administration’s prior restraint was constitutional and if preventing the publication of “classified material” was a violation of the First Amendment’s freedom of the press.

Holding and Constitutional Principle : The Supreme Court, in this case, bolstered the freedom of the press guaranteed by the First Amendment. In a 6-3 vote, the Court established that there was a “heavy presumption against prior restraint” even for national security purposes. This is a key case to know for freedom of the press!

Schenck v. United States (1919)

Short Summary : During World War I, a pair of socialists, including Charles Schenck distributed leaflets that stated the draft violated the 13th Amendment - which prohibits involuntary servitude. The leaflet wanted people to disobey the draft. Schenck was charged with violating the Espionage Act of 1917. They appealed on the grounds of the First Amendment.

Constitutional Issue : 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. 

Holding and Constitutional Principle : 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 on the First Amendment as the free speech clause does not allow for advocacy of unlawful behavior.

Cases Involving Selective Incorporation

College Board Context: “LOR-3: Protections of the Bill of Rights have been selectively incorporated by way of the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause to prevent state infringement of basic liberties.”

Short Summary: Clarence Earl Gideon was charged in Florida state court on a felony - breaking and entering charge. During his trial, Gideon requested that he receive a court-appointed lawyer; however, in accordance with Florida State law, an indigent defendant could only have an attorney be appointed in capital crimes/cases. Gideon then filed a habeas corpus suit, stating that the court’s decision violated his rights to be represented.

Constitutional Issue : The constitutional issue in this case involved the Sixth Amendment and whether the right to counsel guaranteed in this amendment also applied to felony defendants in state court.

Holding and Constitutional Principle : The holding was that the Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel applies to state court defendants via the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court stated that because the right of counsel is fundamental, it should be incorporated into the states. 

Roe v. Wade (1973)

*This case is no longer required on the AP Government exam, starting in 2023. However, due to its importance, we would like students to understand the case and its implications.*

Short Summary: Norma McCorvey (Jane Roe) wanted an abortion but could not legally have one in the state of Texas, because of a state law that prohibited abortions except in cases where the mother’s life was in danger. She questioned the legality of this law.

Constitutional Issue : The Constitutional issue in this case was whether a woman’s right to have an abortion was permitted by the Constitution, and whether it fit into the broad right of privacy.

Holding and Constitutional Principle : The Supreme Court held that a woman’s right to an abortion fell within the right of privacy that was clarified in Griswold v. Connecticut, and therefore was protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. Laws in 46 states were affected by this ruling. This ruling expanded the definition of privacy .

Modern Connections : This case is one of the most controversial cases to appear before the Supreme Court. Political candidates are often split along party lines - Democrats often agree with this holding and Republicans often disagree.

Short Summary: Chicago passed a handgun ban law, and several suits were filed against the city challenging the ban after another case ( District of Columbia v. Heller ). In that case, the Court had held that a DC handgun ban violated the Second Amendment. There, since the law was enacted by the federal government, the Second Amendment was applicable. 

Constitutional Issue : In this case, the applicability of the Second Amendment to the states was argued, and if the 2nd Amendment’s right to bear arms (interpreted as an individual right) also applied to the states. This involves selective incorporation!

Holding and Constitutional Principle : In its decision, the Court stated that the handgun ban was unconstitutional in a 5-4 decision. Because the right to self-defense was fundamental , the 2nd Amendment was incorporated to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause.

Cases Involving the Equal Protection Clause

College Board Context: “PRD-1: The Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause as well as other constitutional provisions have often been used to support the advancement of equality.”

Short Summary: This is one of the most famous cases in US history. Relating to the racial segregation of schools, African American students had been denied admittance to public schools because of these segregation laws, and many argued that this was in violation of the Constitution.

Constitutional Issue : This was an issue in terms of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. A previous case, Plessy v. Ferguson, held that segregated facilities were legal as long as the facilities were equal (called “separate but equal doctrine.”) In this case, racial segregation in public school education was argued against based on the Equal Protection Clause.

Holding and Constitutional Principle : The Court held that “separate but equal is inherently unequal,” and therefore racial segregation of public schools is unconstitutional. The segregated schools allowed by the previous Plessy case were declared unconstitutional. This had a MAJOR IMPACT on the US and required desegregation of all public schools

Judicial Review : The Supreme Court is allowed to reverse previous rulings based on the premise of judicial review. See the Marbury v. Madison case for more info about this!

Stare Decisis : The case established that this principle, which states that current courts should look to previous decisions for interpretation, will not always be upheld.

Enforced? : The Court required states to desegregate "with all deliberate speed," and when schools had not desegregated after 10 years, the Court issued another opinion requiring immediate desegregation. This is an example of how judicial decisions may not be enforced by the federal or state executive departments.

Cases Involving Federal Policy

College Board Context: “PRD-2: The impact of federal policies on campaigning and electoral rules continues to be contested by both sides of the political spectrum.”

Short Summary: The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 had previously banned corporations from independent political spending and direct contributions to campaigns or political parties. In 2008, Citizens United was not allowed to show an anti-Hillary Clinton movie.

Constitutional Issue : The issue here was whether the BCRA applied to nonprofits, or if the First Amendment’s free speech clause protected such political speech.

Holding and Constitutional Principle : The holding in this case was that corporations should be considered people and therefore their funding of “independent political expenditures cannot be limited.” This is considered a form of political speech , which is protected by the free speech portion of the First Amendment. 

Further Impact : This led to the development of Super PACS and a significant increase in the amount of money contributed to political campaigns.

Note : In my opinion, this is one of the hardest cases to get straight! This is one I would definitely recommend studying early-on before the exam!

Cases Involving Districting & Representation

College Board Context: “CON-3: The republican ideal in the U.S. is manifested in the structure and operation of the legislative branch.”

Short Summary: Charles Baker stated that an old law (1901) that detailed the apportionment for Tennessee’s General Assembly had been ignored, and stated that reapportionment did not take into account the significant change that the state had gone through.

Constitutional Issue : The issue here was unique, and was regarding whether the Supreme Court as a unit had the authority to hear cases that related to legislative apportionment. 

Holding and Constitutional Principle : The chief justice and the Court concluded that because of the Fourteenth Amendment issues (through equal protection) that the case seemed to address, the Supreme Court did have the authority to hear this case. 

Impact : This case opened the door to more challenges to unfair redistricting by way of the Equal Protection Clause. Eventually, it also led to the development of the one person, one vote doctrine.

Short Summary: Several North Carolina residents challenged a proposed, unusually shaped district. They believed that the only purpose of the district was that it would definitely elect African-American representatives.

Constitutional Issue : The constitutional issue here was whether racial gerrymandering took place with this district (it was very narrow) and if the district raised an Equal Protection Clause question.

Holding and Constitutional Principle : The Supreme Court held, in a majority opinion authored by Sandra Day O’Connor, that because the district was shaped in such a clearly odd way, it was enough to prove that there was a very apparent effort to separate voters racially.

Further Impact : A key fact about this case is that majority-minority districts can be constitutionally challenged if race was the sole factor in their creation.

Cases Involving Judicial Review

College Board Context: “CON-5: The design of the judicial branch protects the Supreme Court’s independence as a branch of government, and the emergence and use of judicial review remains a powerful judicial practice.”

Short Summary: The 1800 election ended in a defeat for John Adams to Thomas Jefferson. Before Adams’ term ended, Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1801 (creating new courts, adding new judges). It was an effort by John Adams to keep his own influence in federal courts even though he was leaving office (still occurs today.) His appointments to these courts, however, were not valid until the appointed judges were delivered their commissions by Jefferson’s Secretary of State. Marbury was one of the judges appointed; however, his commission was not delivered. 

Constitutional Issue : A key issue was whether the Court had the authority to order the delivery of commission, and if a federal judge could even bring the case to court.

Holding and Constitutional Principle : The Court held that although legally, the commission should have been delivered, the clause of the Judiciary Act of 1789 which enabled Marbury to bring the case to court was unconstitutional. By declaring a law made by Congress unconstitutional, the practice of judicial review was established.

How to study the required court cases?

We suggest making sure to create a study plan and set up your study space with a good environment. Then, go over each court case and quiz yourself on the details. To help with your productivity, especially during the last few days before the exam, you should use a pomodoro study timer to break up your sessions into intervals and make time for breaks. It is also hugely beneficial to study with friends so that you can motivate one another and crush the AP Gov exam together! 🙌🏾

About Fiveable

Code of Conduct

Terms of Use

Privacy Policy

CCPA Privacy Policy

AP Score Calculators

Study Guides

Practice Quizzes

Cram Events

Crisis Text Line

Help Center

Stay Connected

© 2024 Fiveable Inc. All rights reserved.

AP® and SAT® are trademarks registered by the College Board, which is not affiliated with, and does not endorse this website.

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

Lesson plan.

Students learn about the landmark case McCulloch v. Maryland, in which the Supreme Court clarified what kinds of actions Congress can take under the “necessary and proper” clause. Students find out what events led to this case, look at some examples of what “necessary and proper” could include, and examine the relationship between state and federal power under the Supremacy Clause.

Pedagogy Tags

Teacher Resources

Get access to lesson plans, teacher guides, student handouts, and other teaching materials.

• McCulloch v. Maryland_Student Docs.pdf
• McCulloch v. Maryland_Teacher Guide.pdf

I find the materials so engaging, relevant, and easy to understand – I now use iCivics as a central resource, and use the textbook as a supplemental tool. The games are invaluable for applying the concepts we learn in class. My seniors LOVE iCivics.

Lynna Landry , AP US History & Government / Economics Teacher and Department Chair, California

Related Resources

Appellate courts: let's take it up.

Argument Wars

Argument Wars Extension Pack

Branches of Power

Court quest, court quest extension pack, double take: the dual court system.

In the Courts

Interpreting the constitution, james bond in a honda (mock trial), see how it all fits together.

Skip to main navigation

• Email Updates
• Federal Court Finder

Facts and Case Summary - Miranda v. Arizona

The Supreme Court’s decision in Miranda v. Arizona addressed four different cases involving custodial interrogations. In each of these cases, the defendant was questioned by police officers, detectives, or a prosecuting attorney in a room in which he was cut off from the outside world. In none of these cases was the defendant given a full and effective warning of his rights at the outset of the interrogation process. In all the cases, the questioning elicited oral admissions and, in three of them, signed statements that were admitted at trial.

• Miranda v. Arizona : Miranda was arrested at his home and taken in custody to a police station where he was identified by the complaining witness. He was then interrogated by two police officers for two hours, which resulted in a signed, written confession. At trial, the oral and written confessions were presented to the jury. Miranda was found guilty of kidnapping and rape and was sentenced to 20-30 years imprisonment on each count. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Arizona held that Miranda’s constitutional rights were not violated in obtaining the confession.
• Vignera v. New York: Vignera was picked up by New York police in connection with the robbery of a dress shop that had occurred three days prior. He was first taken to the 17th Detective Squad headquarters. He was then taken to the 66th Detective Squad, where he orally admitted the robbery and was placed under formal arrest. He was then taken to the 70th Precinct for detention, where he was questioned by an assistant district attorney in the presence of a hearing reporter who transcribed the questions and answers. At trial, the oral confession and the transcript were presented to the jury. Vignera was found guilty of first degree robbery and sentenced to 30-60 years imprisonment. The conviction was affirmed without opinion by the Appellate Division and the Court of Appeals.
• Westover v. United States: Westover was arrested by local police in Kansas City as a suspect in two Kansas City robberies and taken to a local police station. A report was also received from the FBI that Westover was wanted on a felony charge in California. Westover was interrogated the night of the arrest and the next morning by local police. Then, FBI agents continued the interrogation at the station. After two-and-a-half hours of interrogation by the FBI, Westover signed separate confessions, which had been prepared by one of the agents during the interrogation, to each of the two robberies in California. These statements were introduced at trial. Westover was convicted of the California robberies and sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment on each count. The conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
• California v. Stewart : In the course of investigating a series of purse-snatch robberies in which one of the victims died of injuries inflicted by her assailant, Stewart was identified as the endorser of checks stolen in one of the robberies. Steward was arrested at his home. Police also arrested Stewart’s wife and three other people who were visiting him. Stewart was placed in a cell, and, over the next five days, was interrogated on nine different occasions. During the ninth interrogation session, Stewart stated that he had robbed the deceased, but had not meant to hurt her. At that time, police released the four other people arrested with Stewart because there was no evidence to connect any of them with the crime. At trial, Stewart’s statements were introduced. Stewart was convicted of robbery and first-degree murder and sentenced to death. The Supreme Court of California reversed, holding that Stewart should have been advised of his right to remain silent and his right to counsel.

Whether “statements obtained from an individual who is subjected to custodial police interrogation” are admissible against him in a criminal trial and whether “procedures which assure that the individual is accorded his privilege under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution not to be compelled to incriminate himself” are necessary.

Supreme Court holding

The Court held that “there can be no doubt that the Fifth Amendment privilege is available outside of criminal court proceedings and serves to protect persons in all settings in which their freedom of action is curtailed in any significant way from being compelled to incriminate themselves.” As such, “the prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination. By custodial interrogation, we mean questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.”

The Court further held that “without proper safeguards the process of in-custody interrogation of persons suspected or accused of crime contains inherently compelling pressures which work to undermine the individual’s will to resist and to compel him to speak where he would otherwise do so freely.” Therefore, a defendant “must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires.”

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Supreme Court of Arizona in Miranda , reversed the judgment of the New York Court of Appeals in Vignera , reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Westover , and affirmed the judgment of the Supreme Court of California in Stewart .

Argued: Feb. 28, March 1 and 2, 1966

Decided: June 13, 1966

Majority opinion written by Chief Justice Warren and joined by Justices Black, Douglas, Brennan, and Fortas.

Dissenting opinion written by Justice Harlan and joined by Justices Stewart and White.

Dissenting in part opinion written by Justice Clark.

Miranda v. Arizona : After Miranda’s conviction was overturned by the Supreme Court, the State of Arizona retried him. At the second trial, Miranda’s confession was not introduced into evidence. Miranda was once again convicted and sentenced to 20-30 years in prison.

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.

Serial Killer Quick Reference Guides

#1 Stranglers

• Killer.Cloud
• Serial Killers
• Necrophiliacs

Sergei Ryakhovsky

The balashikha ripper, the hippopotamus,   active for 6 years (1988-1993) in russia, confirmed victims, possible victims.

• Serial Killer Profile
• Serial Killer Type
• General Information
• Characteristics
• Cognitive Ability
• Incarceration
• 8 Timeline Events
• Serial Killers Active During Spree
• Boolean Statistical Questions
• 12 Books Written About Sergei Ryakhovsky
• 3 External References

Internal References

Sergei Ryakhovsky (Sergei Vasilyevich Ryakhovsky) a Soviet-Russian serial killer known as the Balashikha Ripper and The Hippopotamus. Ryakhovsky was convicted for the killing of nineteen people in the Moscow area between 1988 and 1993. Ryakhovsky's mainly stabbed or strangulated his victims, he mutilated some bodies, mainly in the genital area. Allegedly Ryakhovsky carried out necrophilic acts on his victims and stole their belongings. Ryakhovsky standing 6’5" tall and weighting 286 pounds, gaining him the nickname, The Hippo. Sergei Ryakhovsky died on January 21st 2005 from untreated tuberculosis while serving his life sentence in prison.

Sergei Ryakhovsky Serial Killer Profile

Serial Killer Sergei Ryakhovsky (aka) the Balashikha Ripper, The Hippopotamus, was active for 6 years between 1988-1993 , known to have ( 19 confirmed / 19 possible ) victims. This serial killer was active in the following countries: Russia

Sergei Ryakhovsky was born on December 29th 1962 in Balashikha, Moscow Oblast, Soviet Union. He had a physically defect. During his education he had academic, social or discipline problems including being teased or picked on.

Sergei Ryakhovsky a necrophile male citizen of Russia.

Prior to his spree he had killed, commited crimes, and served time in jail.

In 1988 (Age 25/26) Sergei Ryakhovsky started his killing spree, during his crimes as a serial killer he was known to rob, commit acts of necrophilia , torture , strangle , rape , mutilate, and murder his victims.

He was arrested on April 13th 1993 (Age 30), sentenced to death by firing squad at a maximum-security penal colony in Solikamsk, Perm Oblast, Russia. He was convicted on charges of murder and other possible charges during his lifetime.

Sergei Ryakhovsky died on January 21st 2005 (Age 42), cause of death: natural causes, untreated tuberculosis at a maximum-security penal colony in Solikamsk, Perm Oblast, Russia.

Profile Completeness: 62%

Sergei Ryakhovsky has been listed on Killer.Cloud since November of 2016 and was last updated 4 years ago.

Sergei Ryakhovsky a known:

( 651 killers ) serial killer.

The unlawful killing of two or more victims by the same offender(s), in separate events. Serial Killer as defined by the FBI at the 2005 symposium.

( 308 killers ) RAPIST

Rape is usually defined as having sexual intercourse with a person who does not want to, or cannot consent.

( 60 killers ) NECROPHILIAC

Necrophilia, also called thanatophilia, is a sexual attraction or sexual act involving corpses. Serial Killer Necrophiliacs have been known to have sex with the body of their victim(s).

( 89 killers ) TORTURER

Torture is when someone puts another person in pain. This pain may be physical or psychological. Tourturers touture their victims.

( 251 killers ) STRANGLER

Strangulation is death by compressing the neck until the supply of oxygen is cut off. Stranglers kill by Strangulation.

Sergei Ryakhovsky Serial Killer Profile:

Updated: 2019-06-30 collected by killer.cloud, 8 timeline events of serial killer sergei ryakhovsky.

The 8 dates listed below represent a timeline of the life and crimes of serial killer Sergei Ryakhovsky. A complete collection of serial killer events can be found on our Serial Killer Timeline .

Back to top Serial Killers Active During

The following serial killers were active during the same time span as Sergei Ryakhovsky (1988-1993).

Craig Price 4 Victims during 3 Years

Damaso rodriguez martin 3 victims during 11 years, andrei chikatilo 52 victims during 13 years, gary ridgway 49 victims during 19 years, serial killers by active year, books that mention sergei ryakhovsky.

Kevin Smith

Serial killer stranglers.

Serial Killer Rapists

Sergey Kuznetsov

Butterfly skin.

Geraldine Fagan

Believing in russia.

Danny Schäfer

Freedom of religion or belief. anti-sect move....

100 of the Most Famous Serial Killers of All...

Stanley M. Burgess

The new international dictionary of pentecost....

External References

• Sergei Ryakhovsky on en.wikipedia.org , Retrieved on Sep 18, 2018 .
• Juan Ignacio Blanco , Sergei Vasilyevich RYAKHOVSKY on murderpedia.org , Retrieved on Sep 18, 2018 .
• Q372816 on www.wikidata.org , Retrieved on Oct 9, 2018 .

Sergei Ryakhovsky is included in the following pages on Killer.Cloud the Serial Killer Database

• #3 of 45[ Page 1 ] of Serial Killers with birthdays in December
• #10 of 60[ Page 1 ] of Serial Killer Necrophiliacs sorted by Confirmed Victims
• #10 of 29[ Page 1 ] of Serial Killers active in Russia
• #10 of 55[ Page 1 ] of Capricorn Serial Killers sorted by Confirmed Victims
• #11 of 89[ Page 1 ] of Serial Killer Torturers sorted by Confirmed Victims
• #27 of 250[ Page 2 ] of Serial Killer Stranglers sorted by Confirmed Victims
• #35 of 307[ Page 3 ] of Serial Killer Rapist sorted by Confirmed Victims
• #63 of 651[ Page 5 ] of serial killers sorted by Confirmed Victims
• #264 of 651[ Page 18 ] of serial killers sorted by Years Active
• #381 of 651[ Page 26 ] of serial killers sorted by Profile Completeness
• #516 of 651[ Page 35 ] of the A-Z List of Serial Killers

• Yekaterinburg
• Novosibirsk
• Vladivostok

• Tours to Russia
• Practicalities
• Russia in Lists

Rusmania • Deep into Russia

Out of the Centre

Savvino-storozhevsky monastery and museum.

Zvenigorod's most famous sight is the Savvino-Storozhevsky Monastery, which was founded in 1398 by the monk Savva from the Troitse-Sergieva Lavra, at the invitation and with the support of Prince Yury Dmitrievich of Zvenigorod. Savva was later canonised as St Sabbas (Savva) of Storozhev. The monastery late flourished under the reign of Tsar Alexis, who chose the monastery as his family church and often went on pilgrimage there and made lots of donations to it. Most of the monastery’s buildings date from this time. The monastery is heavily fortified with thick walls and six towers, the most impressive of which is the Krasny Tower which also serves as the eastern entrance. The monastery was closed in 1918 and only reopened in 1995. In 1998 Patriarch Alexius II took part in a service to return the relics of St Sabbas to the monastery. Today the monastery has the status of a stauropegic monastery, which is second in status to a lavra. In addition to being a working monastery, it also holds the Zvenigorod Historical, Architectural and Art Museum.

Belfry and Neighbouring Churches

Located near the main entrance is the monastery's belfry which is perhaps the calling card of the monastery due to its uniqueness. It was built in the 1650s and the St Sergius of Radonezh’s Church was opened on the middle tier in the mid-17th century, although it was originally dedicated to the Trinity. The belfry's 35-tonne Great Bladgovestny Bell fell in 1941 and was only restored and returned in 2003. Attached to the belfry is a large refectory and the Transfiguration Church, both of which were built on the orders of Tsar Alexis in the 1650s.  

To the left of the belfry is another, smaller, refectory which is attached to the Trinity Gate-Church, which was also constructed in the 1650s on the orders of Tsar Alexis who made it his own family church. The church is elaborately decorated with colourful trims and underneath the archway is a beautiful 19th century fresco.

Nativity of Virgin Mary Cathedral

The Nativity of Virgin Mary Cathedral is the oldest building in the monastery and among the oldest buildings in the Moscow Region. It was built between 1404 and 1405 during the lifetime of St Sabbas and using the funds of Prince Yury of Zvenigorod. The white-stone cathedral is a standard four-pillar design with a single golden dome. After the death of St Sabbas he was interred in the cathedral and a new altar dedicated to him was added.

Under the reign of Tsar Alexis the cathedral was decorated with frescoes by Stepan Ryazanets, some of which remain today. Tsar Alexis also presented the cathedral with a five-tier iconostasis, the top row of icons have been preserved.

Tsaritsa's Chambers

The Nativity of Virgin Mary Cathedral is located between the Tsaritsa's Chambers of the left and the Palace of Tsar Alexis on the right. The Tsaritsa's Chambers were built in the mid-17th century for the wife of Tsar Alexey - Tsaritsa Maria Ilinichna Miloskavskaya. The design of the building is influenced by the ancient Russian architectural style. Is prettier than the Tsar's chambers opposite, being red in colour with elaborately decorated window frames and entrance.

At present the Tsaritsa's Chambers houses the Zvenigorod Historical, Architectural and Art Museum. Among its displays is an accurate recreation of the interior of a noble lady's chambers including furniture, decorations and a decorated tiled oven, and an exhibition on the history of Zvenigorod and the monastery.

Palace of Tsar Alexis

The Palace of Tsar Alexis was built in the 1650s and is now one of the best surviving examples of non-religious architecture of that era. It was built especially for Tsar Alexis who often visited the monastery on religious pilgrimages. Its most striking feature is its pretty row of nine chimney spouts which resemble towers.

Plan your next trip to Russia

Ready-to-book tours.

Your holiday in Russia starts here. Choose and book your tour to Russia.

The Unique Burial of a Child of Early Scythian Time at the Cemetery of Saryg-Bulun (Tuva)

<< Previous page

Pages:  379-406

In 1988, the Tuvan Archaeological Expedition (led by M. E. Kilunovskaya and V. A. Semenov) discovered a unique burial of the early Iron Age at Saryg-Bulun in Central Tuva. There are two burial mounds of the Aldy-Bel culture dated by 7th century BC. Within the barrows, which adjoined one another, forming a figure-of-eight, there were discovered 7 burials, from which a representative collection of artifacts was recovered. Burial 5 was the most unique, it was found in a coffin made of a larch trunk, with a tightly closed lid. Due to the preservative properties of larch and lack of air access, the coffin contained a well-preserved mummy of a child with an accompanying set of grave goods. The interred individual retained the skin on his face and had a leather headdress painted with red pigment and a coat, sewn from jerboa fur. The coat was belted with a leather belt with bronze ornaments and buckles. Besides that, a leather quiver with arrows with the shafts decorated with painted ornaments, fully preserved battle pick and a bow were buried in the coffin. Unexpectedly, the full-genomic analysis, showed that the individual was female. This fact opens a new aspect in the study of the social history of the Scythian society and perhaps brings us back to the myth of the Amazons, discussed by Herodotus. Of course, this discovery is unique in its preservation for the Scythian culture of Tuva and requires careful study and conservation.

Keywords: Tuva, Early Iron Age, early Scythian period, Aldy-Bel culture, barrow, burial in the coffin, mummy, full genome sequencing, aDNA

Information about authors: Marina Kilunovskaya (Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation). Candidate of Historical Sciences. Institute for the History of Material Culture of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Dvortsovaya Emb., 18, Saint Petersburg, 191186, Russian Federation E-mail: [email protected] Vladimir Semenov (Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation). Candidate of Historical Sciences. Institute for the History of Material Culture of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Dvortsovaya Emb., 18, Saint Petersburg, 191186, Russian Federation E-mail: [email protected] Varvara Busova  (Moscow, Russian Federation).  (Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation). Institute for the History of Material Culture of the Russian Academy of Sciences.  Dvortsovaya Emb., 18, Saint Petersburg, 191186, Russian Federation E-mail:  [email protected] Kharis Mustafin  (Moscow, Russian Federation). Candidate of Technical Sciences. Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology.  Institutsky Lane, 9, Dolgoprudny, 141701, Moscow Oblast, Russian Federation E-mail:  [email protected] Irina Alborova  (Moscow, Russian Federation). Candidate of Biological Sciences. Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology.  Institutsky Lane, 9, Dolgoprudny, 141701, Moscow Oblast, Russian Federation E-mail:  [email protected] Alina Matzvai  (Moscow, Russian Federation). Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology.  Institutsky Lane, 9, Dolgoprudny, 141701, Moscow Oblast, Russian Federation E-mail:  [email protected]

Shopping Cart Items: 0 Cart Total: 0,00 € place your order

Price pdf version

student - 2,75 € individual - 3,00 € institutional - 7,00 €

Copyright В© 1999-2022. Stratum Publishing House