AP Government Court Cases

Clinton v. New York

*Issue*: Are provisions in the Line Item Veto Act that allow the President to cancel certain types of provisions of a law constitutional? Does the President have the power to make legislation? (*Separation of Powers*) *Date*: 1998 (Rehnquist Court) *Case Summary*: The Appellees brought an action in the USSC against President Bill Clinton. The Appellees (two City of New York hospital associations and Snake River Potato growers) argued that President Clinton's use of the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 to void a part of Title XIX of the Social Security Act and a part of Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 is an unconstitutional use of legislative power. *Rule of Law/Precedent Set*: The Line Item Veto Act is unconstitutional since there is no provision in the Constitution authorizing the President to enact, amend, or repeal parts of laws and the Act gives the President too much legislative power. The Act violated separation of powers or the Presentment Clause (1.7 paragraph 2), stating that legislation that passes both Houses of Congress must either be entirely approved (i.e. signed) or rejected (i.e. vetoed) by the President.

Morse v. Frederick

*Issue*: Are public schools permitted under law to prevent students from promoting illegal drug use by the display of messages? (*Free Speech*) *Date*: 2007 (Roberts Court) *Case Summary*: Joseph Frederick was a public school student who held up a banner with a cryptic message at a school function which was being televised. The banner read "Bong Hits 4 Jesus". The school principal removed the banner and also suspended Frederick for 10 days, under the school policy which prohibited the display of material which could be reasonably construed to promote illegal drug use. Frederick sued against the suspension on the ground that it violated his right to freedom of speech. The district court found against Frederick on the ground that the principal had qualified immunity in this case. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (most liberal) reversed the decision citing Tinker as precedent, since the speech in this case did not cause disturbance and was therefore protected under the First Amendment. *Rule of Law/Precedent Set*: *de facto school grounds*: whenever the student is directly affecting the school, in loco parentis applies. *in loco parentis* (in place of parents): schools have the right to discipline students, to enforce rules, and to maintain order similar to one's parents. Public schools may lawfully prevent students from promoting the use of illegal drugs by display of banners or other material at any event supervised by the school. School administrators have qualified immunity.

Wickard v. Filburn

*Issue*: Can Congress regulate trivial local, intrastate activities that have an indirect effect on interstate commerce via the commerce power? (*Interstate Commerce*) *Date*: 1942 (Stone Court) *Case Summary*: The Agriculture Adjustment Act of 1938 (AAA) set quotas on the amount of wheat put into interstate commerce and established penalties for overproduction. The goal of the Act was to stabilize the market price of wheat by preventing shortages or surpluses. Filburn harvested nearly 12 acres of wheat above his allotment. Filburn sold part of his wheat crop and claimed that he wanted the wheat for use on his farm, including feed for his poultry and livestock. Fiburn was penalized. He argued that the excess wheat was unrelated to commerce since he grew it for his own use. *Rule of Law/ Precedent set*: The USSC ruled that the effect of the single farmer may well be negligible to interstate commerce, but when viewed taken together (if everyone overgrew wheat "for personal consumption") this decrease in demand would significantly affect the value of wheat in commerce. Basically, Filburn's wheat could still be regulated because by taking himself out of the market, he no longer has to buy wheat thereby decreasing demand.

Ricci v. DeStefano

*Issue*: Can a municipality reject results from an otherwise valid civil service exam when the results unintentionally prevent the promotion of minority candidates? *Date*: 2008 (Robert Court) *Case Summary*: The New Haven, Connecticut fire department administered civil service tests for applicants for positions as captain and lieutenant. The examination resulted in disproportionately higher scores for white applicants than for minority applicants. The department decided not to implement the exam results for fear that doing so would put them in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Therefore, positions remained unfilled. A group of white and Hispanic applicants sued claiming a violation of Title VII and of the equal protection clause. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants, and the 2nd Circuit affirmed. *Rule of Law/Precedent Set*: Violated Procedural Due Process and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the fire department can't scrap a valid test solely because the outcome isn't like. USSC held that employers may violate Title VII when they engage in race-conscious decision making to address adverse impact—unless they can demonstrate a "strong basis in evidence" that, had they not taken the action, they would have been liable under a disparate impact theory.

Employment Division of Oregon v. Smith

*Issue*: Can a state deny unemployment benefits to a worker fired for using illegal drugs for religious purposes? (*Free Exercise of Religion*) *Date*: 1990 (Rehnquist Court) *Case Summary*: Two members of a Native American Church, which has as a part of is religious rituals, the supervised consumption of peyote. Peyote is a controlled substance under Oregon law and possession of peyote is a criminal offense. They were fired from their job at a private drug rehabilitation clinic because they ingested peyote as part of their church's ritual. The Respondent sought unemployment benefits, which where denied as he had been dismissed for work related misconduct. *Rule of Law/ Precedent Set*: Compelling Public Interest exceptions must be narrowly tailored (only allowable in confines of religious purposes). The right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law makes criminal conduct that his religion proscribes. Chief Justice Rehnquist dissented arguing that the time, place, and manner test should have been used instead of compelling public interest.

McCulloch v. Maryland

*Issue*: Did Congress have the authority to establish the bank? Did the Maryland law unconstitutionally interfere with congressional powers? (*Federalism*) *Date*: 1819 (Marshall Court) *Case Summary*: Congress created a national bank that extended onto MD's soil. MD decided to tax the national bank's Baltimore Branch $15k a year. Baltimore refused to pay, so MD sued the head cashier, James McCulloch, for payment. The state courts ruled in favor of MD, so the bank appealed to the US Supreme Court. *Rule of Law and Precedent set*: "The power to tax is the power to destroy" 1. Supremacy of the national government over the states: as long as the national government behaved in accordance with the Constitution, said the Court, its policies took precedence over state policies. (*Constitutional Supremacy*) 2. The national government has certain implied powers that go beyond its enumerated powers (*Implied Powers Doctrine*)/"necessary and proper" clause: Congress has powers that are not articulated in the Constitution but related to the powers that are enumerated in the Constitution.

Brandenburg v. Ohio

*Issue*: Did Ohio's criminal syndicalism law, prohibiting public speech that advocates various illegal activities, violate the Defendant's right to free speech as protected by the 1st and 14th Amendments? (*Free Speech*) *Date*: 1969 (Warren Court) *Case Summary*: The Ohio Criminal Syndicalism Act prohibited the teaching or advocacy of the doctrines of criminal syndicalism. The Defendant, a leader in the Ku Klux Klan, made a speech promoting the taking of vengeful actions against government and was therefore convicted under the Ohio Law. *Rule of Law/Precedent Set*: clear and imminent danger: Speech can be prohibited if it is "directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and it is likely to incite or produce such action. In order to limit a speech on the basis of content the speech must lead to violence (*content bias*). The Ohio Law violated the defendant's right to free speech because his speech was not going to lead to violence rather it was just ideas.

Loving v. Virginia

*Issue*: Did Virginia's antimiscegenation law violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? *Date*: 1967 (Warren Court) *Case Summary*: VA enacted laws making it a felony for a white person to intermarry with a black person or the reverse. The constitutionality of the statutes was called into question. The Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia held that the statutes served the legitimate state purpose of preserving the "racial integrity" of its citizens. *Rule of Law/Precedent Set*: *Strict Scrutiny* There is no necessary goal in restricting the freedom to marry solely on the basis of race. VA statute violates the equal protection clause.

Wisconsin v. Yoder

*Issue*: Did Wisconsin's requirement that all parents send their children to school at least until age 16 violate the First Amendment by criminalizing the conduct of parents who refused to send their children to school for religious reasons? (*Free Exercise of Religion* *Date*: 1972 (Burger Court) *Case Summary*: Three Amish students were prosecuted under Wisconsin's compulsory school-attendance law that required all children to attend public schools until age 16. The three parents refused to send their children to such schools after the eighth grade, arguing that high school attendance was contrary to their religious beliefs. *Rule of Law/ Precedent Set*: *compelling public interest test*: balancing test (similar to medium scrutiny) must weigh two factors against one another. *(1)* *legitimate needs of the religion*: Does that group of people actually believe in what they claim to believe in? (Integrity of the people; tradition plays a role). --In this particular case yes, the Amish expect their children to learn traditional gender roles and become involved in the community post-8th grade. *(2)* *legitimate needs of society*: --In this case, the "needs" of society were two-fold: *(a)* society needs educated voters (political argument) *(b)* Functioning economy full of self-reliant and self-sufficient individuals (economic argument; don't want a society full of people on welfare) *Court Ruled in favor of the Amish because they had already achieved what other students would in two more years of schooling. The religious needs of the Amish outweighed the needs of society.*

Dred Scott v. Sanford

*Issue*: Did a slave become free upon entering a free State? Could a slave—or a black person—actually be entitled to sue in federal courts? Was the transportation of slaves subject to federal regulation? (*Civil rights*) *Date*:1857 (Taney Court) *Case Summary*: Dred Scott, a lifelong slave, was taken on military assignments in the 1830s to free states ILL (free state) and WI (free territory, North of MO Compromise) by his master John Emerson. While in WI Scott married another slave and they had a daughter who was born in a free territory (WI). Emerson took Scott and his family back to MO (slave state) and Scott sued for his freedom as well as his family's. *Rule of Law/Precedent Set*: Blacks could not be US citizens because they did not participate in the creation of the Constitution (social contract) and that Congress had no jurisdiction over slavery in the territories. MO Compromise in unconstitutional and the federal government has no right to interfere with the free movement of *property* throughout the territories. *Extra Notes*: First case to use judicial review on a federal law since Marbury v. Madison. Taney made a judicial activist decision hoping to put an end to the question of slavery; instead, he inflamed the conflict and drove the US closer to the Civil War.

Safford v. Redding

*Issue*: Did school officials violate a 13-year old student's 4th Amendment rights when they searched her bra and underwear based on reasonable suspicion that she had brought forbidden prescription and over-the-counter drugs to school? (*4th Amendment*) *Date*: 2009 (Roberts Court) *Case Summary*: An eighth grader was called to the office of the Assistant Principal who had the student's day planner on his desk, opened her book bag and found several knives, lighters, and a cigarette. She admitted the planner was hers, but that she had lent it to her friend, Marisa, a few days before and none of the items were hers. The planner had been found by a teacher within Marisa's reach. The Asst. Prin. showed respondent four prescription-strength ibuprofen pills and one over-the-counter naproxen pill, both banned under school rules without advance permission, which had been obtained from Marisa. The Asst. Prin. told respondent he received a report that she was giving the pills to fellow students (the report had come from Marisa). She denied this and said she knew nothing about the pills, and agreed to let him search her belongings. He and an administrative assistant searched her backpack and found nothing. He then ordered respondent to the nurse's office for a strip search. The female nurse had her strip down and then pull her bra out and to the side and shake it and pull out the elastic on her underpants. No pills were found. *Rule of Law/ Precedent Set*: --*qualified immunity* granted to non teaching staff. Qualified immunity: there are certain professions where the professional is shielded from liability as long as they are operating within the reasonable confines of their job. --Sliding scales test (medium scrutiny-like) 3 factors must be considered before a school can search a student *(1)* vulnerability of the subject (potential risk to the person being searched) *(2)* Product being searched *(3)* Directness/level of inception for that item --a school search "will be permissible in its scope when the measures adopted are reasonably related to the objectives of the search and not excessively intrusive in light of the age and sex of the student and the nature of the infraction."

Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier

*Issue*: Did school officials violate the students' 1st Amendment rights by deleting two pages of the school paper? *Date*: 1988 (Rehnquist Court) *Case Summary*: The Spectrum, the school-sponsored newspaper, was written and edited by students. The school principal always reviewed the page proofs prior to printing. He found two of the articles in the issue to be inappropriate, and ordered that the pages on which the articles appeared be withheld from publication. The principal had ordered the stories removed from the paper because he believed the story about teen pregnancy was inappropriate for some of the younger students at the school, based on its discussion of sexual activity and birth control. In addition, he decided to censor the divorce article because the writers did not afford the parent of one of the students mentioned in the article a chance to respond to certain comments. *Rule of Law/Precedent Set*: Schools are allowed prior restraint for 3 reasons. *(1)* in loco parentis: school is responsible for the welfare of all students. *(2)* *(a)* Tinker Test: rights of public school students are not necessarily the same as those of adults in other settings (school did not have to follow Tinker ruling) *(b)* Bethel test: interferes with school mission *(3)* Power of the publisher: since the school owns the equipment the students use, the school has the ability to disassociate itself Exceptions to when prior restraint cannot be used 1) self-funded papers 2) paper must overtly state that it is not the independent voice of the school. 3) paper must have a tradition of independence (principal doesn't get to see the paper until everyone else does.)

United States v. Eichman

*Issue*: Did the Act violate freedom of expression protected by the First Amendment? *Date*: 1990 (Rehnquist Court) *Case Summary*: In response to the Supreme Court's unpopular ruling in Texas v. Johnson, Congress passed the Flag Protection Act of 1989 which made it a crime to destroy an American flag or any likeness of an American flag which may be "commonly displayed." The law did, however, allow proper disposal of a worn or soiled flag. Eichman set a flag ablaze on the steps of the U.S. Capitol while protesting the government's domestic and foreign policy. *Rule of Law/Precedent Set*: Congress' Flag Protection Act is unconstitutional. The states nor the national government can prohibit ideas just because they are unpopular.

Reed v. Reed

*Issue*: Did the Idaho Probate Code violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment? (*Civil Rights*) *Date*: 1971 (Burger Court; Unanimous 7 to 0 for Sally) *Case Summary*: The Idaho Probate Code specified that "males must be preferred to females" in appointing administrators of estates. After the death of their adopted son, both Sally and Cecil sought to be named the administrator of their son's estate (the parents were separated). According to the Probate Code, Cecil was appointed administrator and Sally challenged the law in court. *Rule of Law/Precedent Set*: *medium scrutiny*: In order to discriminate on the basis of gender, there must be a rational basis (test) connected to gender itself. The discrimination was arbitrary because there is no way of determining that a male would be a better executor of a will than a female.

Collin v. Smith

*Issue*: Did the Illinois Supreme Court improperly deny the National Socialist Party's request for a stay of the district court's injunction? (*Free Speech/Assembly*) *Date*: 1978 (Burger Court) *Case Summary*: In the 1970s, the National Socialist Party of America (NSPA) chose the village of Skokie, Illinois as the site of a Nazi protest, mainly because of its large population of Jewish people (58%), many of whom were Holocaust survivors. The Village responded by enacting three ordinances intended to prevent the NSPA's protest. 1) In order to march, groups need to post a bond of $350K of insurance. 2) Demonstrators were not allowed to wear military-style uniforms. 3) Demonstrators were not allowed to hand out pamphlets. *Rule of Law/Precedent Set*: *time, place, and manner test*: speech can be limited as long as the content of the speech isn't considered (*content neutral*) but rather where,when, and how the speech takes place. 4 requirements must be met in order to limit speech based on time, place and manner. *(1)* content neutral *(2)* compelling public interest: need of society must be met *(3)* narrowly tailored: done in the least obnoxious way *(4)* no chilling effect: situation where a speech or conduct is suppressed by fear of penalization at the interests of an individual or group. Ruled in favor of the National Socialist Party of America because there was a chilling effect-- when 350K is charged, then a group is obviously attempting to suppress speech. 350K was not intended for a compelling public interest but rather to keep the Socialist Party out.

Powell v. Alabama

*Issue*: Did the Petitioners' have sufficient counsel and was due process of the 14th Amendment violated? *Date*: 1932 (Hughes Court) *Case Summary*: Nine black youths -- described by their attorneys as ignorant and illiterate -- were accused of raping two white women on a freight train headed from Chattanooga to Alabama. Alabama officials sprinted through the legal proceedings: A total of three trials took one day, and all nine were sentenced to death. Alabama law required the appointment of counsel in capital cases, but the attorneys did not consult with their clients and had done little more than appear to represent them at the trial. *Rule of Law/ Precedent Set*: Whenever the death penalty (capital punishment) is a possibility one must have meaningful access to counsel. It is your responsibility to hire a lawyer, but if you cannot afford one then the government is to appoint one to you.

Korematsu v. United States

*Issue*: Did the President and Congress go beyond their war powers by implementing exclusion and restricting the rights of Americans of Japanese descent? (*Civil Rights*) *Date*: 1944 (Stone Court) *Case Summary*: During WWII, FDR issued Executive Order 9066 authorizing the exclusion of Japanese Americans from designated military areas deemed critical to national defense and potentially vulnerable to espionage. Therefore, a military commander ordered all persons of Japanese descent, to leave their homes on the West Coast and to report to internment camps. The apellant, a Japanese-American, was convicted for failing to comply with the order. *Rule of Law/Precedent Set*: --Lacked *standing*: one should be directly harmed by something in order to file suit. --Establishes *strict scrutiny*: the only way to discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity is if a necessary goal cannot be achieved in any other way. The necessary goal, to protect the nation against sabotage and espionage (national security), outweighed the appellant's rights.

Yates v. United States

*Issue*: Did the Smith Act violate the 1st Amendment? *Date*: 1957 (Warren Court) *Case Summary*: Fourteen leaders of the Communist Party in the state of California were tried and convicted under the Smith Act. That Act prohibited willfully and knowingly conspiring to teach and advocate the overthrow of the government by force. *Rule of law/Precedent Set*: The term "organize" was interpreted to mean the creation of a new organization, making the Act inapplicable to the Communist Party since it was created before the Smith Act was passed. There must be a significant difference between ideas/beliefs and actions. Individuals must be urged to perform some action either now or in the future. The government cannot prohibit a group just because they don't agree with their ideas.

Regents of California v. Bakke

*Issue*: Did the University of California violate the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, by practicing an affirmative action policy that resulted in the repeated rejection of Bakke's application for admission to its medical school? (*Affirmative Action*) *Date*: 1978 (Burger Court) *Case Summary*: Allan Bakke, a 35 year-old white man, had twice applied for admission to the UC Davis Medical School. He was rejected both times. The school reserved 16 places in each entering class of 100 for "qualified" minorities, as part of the university's affirmative action program, in an effort to redress unfair minority exclusions from the medical profession. Bakke's qualifications (college GPA and test scores) exceeded those of any of the minority students admitted in the two years Bakke's applications were rejected. Bakke contended that he was excluded from admission solely on the basis of race. *Rule of Law/Precedent Set*: Plurality decision, race may be considered a factor in college admissions but not the sole deciding factor. Affirmative action is legal when the applicant pool is enlarged and the most qualified individuals are accepted. 1) 4 justices: any racial quota supported by the government violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 14th Amendment equal protection 2) 4 justices: use of race as a criterion in college admissions decisions was NOT a violation of 14th Amendment equal protection since it promoted equality 3) 1 justice: Affirmative action is allowable but reverse discrimination is not.

Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah

*Issue*: Did the city's ordinance, prohibiting ritual animal sacrifices, violate the 1st Amendment's Free Exercise Clause? *Date*: 1993 (Rehnquist Court) *Case Summary*: Santeria is a religion that fused African religion with Roman Catholicism. It called for animal sacrifices to keep the spirits alive. In response to the news that a Santeria church was to be built in their city, the city council held an emergency public session in order to pass three ordinances which prohibited possession of animals for sacrifice or slaughter, with specific exemptions for state-licensed activities. *Rule of Law/ Precedent Set*: Compelling public interest test. --Needs of religion: church members gave homage to their god by animal sacrifice. Animal sacrifice was how they connected to spirits as well. Santeria religion had been around for a while. --Needs of society: ethos of animal cruelty; sanitation --USSC ruled in favor of the church because the city's ordinances applied exclusively singled out the activities of the Santeria faith and suppressed more religious conduct than was necessary to achieve their stated ends. --Qualifications: Church members had to follow the same rules of sanitation as butchers or restaurant cooks.

Weeks v. United States

*Issue*: Did the illegal search and seizure of the Petitioner's home violate the 4th Amendment? *Date*: 1914 (White Court) *Case Summary*: Police entered the home of the Petitioner and seized papers which were used to convict him of transporting lottery tickets through the mail. This was done without a search warrant. He took action against the police and petitioned for the return of his private possessions. *Rule of Law/ Precedent Set*: Creation of the *exclusionary rule*: fruit of the poisonous tree; evidence obtained illegally by law enforcement cannot be used in *federal courts*. Exclusionary rule only applied to the national government not the states...yet.

Lynch v. Donnelly

*Issue*: Did the inclusion of a nativity scene in the city's display violate the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment? *Date*:1983 (Burger Court) *Case Summary*: The city of Pawtucket, Rhode Island, annually erected a Christmas display located in the city's shopping district. The display included such objects as a Santa Claus house, a Christmas tree, a banner reading "Seasons Greetings," and a nativity scene. The nativity scene had been included in the display for over 40 years. *Rule of Law/ Precedent Set*: The display did not violate the Establishment Clause as it had a legitimate secular purpose and is appropriate given the historic importance of religion in public life. Such displays, even where they contain some religious representations, are acceptable under the Establishment Clause so long as do not advance religion or foster excessive entanglement between government and religion. (Lemon test)

Woodson v. North Carolina

*Issue*: Did the mandatory death penalty law violate the 8th and 14th Amendments? *Date*: 1976 (Burger Court) *Case Summary*: NC enacted legislation that made the death penalty mandatory for all convicted first-degree murderers. Consequently, when the Petitioner was found guilty of such an offense, he was automatically sentenced to death. He challenged the law, which was upheld by the Supreme Court of North Carolina. *Rule of Law/ Precedent Set*: NC law was unconstitutional, the law passed procedural due process but not substantive due process. The law departed from contemporary standards, the public has generally rejected mandatory death sentences. Also aggravating--factors that make a crime worse-- and mitigating--factors that make a crime less worse must be examined before utilizing the death penalty. The character and record of individual defendants must be examined before inflicting the death penalty. We cannot just close our eyes to substantive due process when it comes to the death penalty.

Bolling v. Sharpe

*Issue*: Did the segregation of the public schools of Washington D.C. violate the due process clause of the *5th Amendment*? (*Discrimination*) *Date*: 1954 (Warren Court, 9-0 Decision for Bolling) *Case Summary*: On account of their race, black children in Washington D.C. were denied admission to the same public schools which white children attended. *Rule of Law/Precedent Set*: Racial segregation violates *5th Amendment* Due Process. The District of Columbia is governed by federal law rather than state law. Thus, the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment, which was used in Brown v. Board of Education, is not applicable. *Reverse Incorporation*, federal government has to respect equal protection clause and separate but equal is still inherently unequal as ruled in Brown.

Kennedy v. Louisiana

*Issue*: Do states violate the 8th Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment by imposing the death sentence for the crime of child rape? *Date*: 2008 (Robert Court) *Case Summary*: A Louisiana Court found the Petitioner guilty of raping his eight-year-old stepdaughter. Louisiana law allows the district attorney to seek the death penalty for defendants found guilty of raping children under the age of twelve. The prosecutor sought, and the jury awarded, such a sentence; Petitioner appealed. *Rule of Law/ Precedent Set*: One can only be executed for murder.

Schenck v. US / Abrams v. US

*Issue*: Do the amendments to the Espionage Act or the application of those amendments violate the free speech clause of the 1st amendment? (*Free Speech*) *Date*: 1919 *Case Summary*: ---The distribution of leaflets using impassioned language claiming that the draft was a violation of the Thirteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and encouraging people to "assert your opposition to the draft" was held not to be protected speech. ---The petitioners' convictions for distributing leaflets advocating strikes during the Russian Revolution were upheld because their speech was not protected by the United States Constitution. *Rule of Law/Precedent Set*: Clear and present danger test: the government can suppress speech that may lead to violence or unlawfulness. Every act depends on the circumstances in which it is done, speech that may be allowable during peacetime isn't always allowable during wartime. (*content bias*)

Lawrence v. Texas

*Issue*: Do the criminal convictions of John Lawrence and Tyron Garner under the TX "Homosexual Conduct" law, which criminalizes sexual intimacy by same-sex couples, but not identical behavior by different-sex couples, violate the 14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection of laws? (*Civil Rights*) *Date*: 2003 (Rehnquist Court) *Case Summary*: Responding to a reported weapons disturbance in a private residence, Houston police entered John Lawrence's apartment and saw him and another adult man, Tyron Garner, engaging in a private, consensual sexual act. Lawrence and Garner were arrested and convicted of deviate sexual intercourse in violation of a Texas statute forbidding two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct. *Rule of Law/Precedent Set*: (*Medium Scrutiny*) Law violates the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment. Justice Kennedy wrote that Lawrence and Garner's right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. There is no rational basis for TX to intervene on the private and personal lives of homosexuals but not have the law also extend to heterosexuals. The government is not allowed in some places i.e. the bedroom.

United States v. Virginia

*Issue*: Does Virginia's creation of a women's-only academy, as a comparable program to a male-only academy, satisfy the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause? (*Civil Rights*) *Date*: 1996 (Rehnquist Court) *Case Summary*: The Virginia Military Institute (VMI) was Virginia's only exclusively male public undergraduate higher learning institution. VMI's mission is to produce "citizen soldiers", (male) leaders of the future. VMI achieves its mission through its "adversative method", which is characterized by physical rigor, mental stress, absolute equality of treatment, absence of privacy, etc. At trial, the District Court acknowledged that women were missing out on a unique educational opportunity, but upheld the school's policy that admitting women could not be done without compromising the school's adversative method. VA then established the Virginia Women's Institute for Leadership (VWIL) for women. VWIL offered fewer courses than VMI and was run without the adversative method. The two military schools were not comparable but rather unequal. *Rule of Law/Precedent Set*: *Medium Scrutiny* VMI's male-only admissions policy was unconstitutional because it failed an exceedingly persuasive justification. Basically, VA (Virginia) failed to show that there was a meaningful equal alternative military school for women.

Van Orden v. Perry

*Issue*: Does a Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of a state capitol building violate the 1st Amendment's establishment clause, which barred the government from passing laws "respecting an establishment of religion?" (*Establishment of religion*) *Date*: 2005 (Rehnquist Court) *10 Commandment Case* *Case Summary*: Outside of the Texas capital building is a site that contains 17 monuments. Each monument represents something in connection with Texas's history. One of those statutes has the Ten Commandments in its entirety on it. This display is challenge. *Rule of Law/ Precedent Set*: The Ten Commandments can be posted publicly as long as a reasonable person doesn't see the commandments as authoritative, mandatory, and endorsing. USSC stated that the monument recognized the Ten Commandments' historical meaning.

Epperson v. Arkansas

*Issue*: Does a law forbidding the teaching of evolution violate either the free speech rights of teachers or the Establishment clause of the 1st Amendment? (*Establishment of Religion*) *Date*: 1968 (Warren Court) *Case Summary*: The Arkansas legislature passed a law prohibiting teachers in public or state- supported schools from teaching, or using textbooks that teach, human evolution. When the administration at her school adopted a new textbook for the upcoming school year, one that included a chapter on evolution, she was faced with a difficult choice. She could either teach the course as directed by the administration, subjecting her to punishment for violation of the statute in question, or comply with the law and place her job in jeopardy. She chose a third option, and brought suit challenging the constitutionality of the law and seeking to enjoin its enforcement. *Rule of Law/ Precedent Set*: States may not prohibit teaching scientific theories unless they have a valid, secular purpose for doing so. While states do have control over school curriculum, they are not free to exercise such control in a way that endorses a particular religion. Moreover, creationism is not a science and cannot be taught as science.

California v. Greenwood

*Issue*: Does a person have a subjective expectation of privacy in their garbage that society accepts as objectively reasonable? (4th Amendment) *Date*: 1988 (Rehnquist Court) *Case Summary*: The Laguna Beach Police Department received information that the respondent might be trafficking narcotics. The police asked the regular trash collector to gather the respondent's trash and keep it separate from the other trash in the neighborhood, so that it might be examined for evidence of narcotics trafficking. Evidence was found in the garbage, and a search warrant was issued to search his house based upon that evidence. Police searched his house and arrested him after discovering narcotics. He later posted bail. The police continued to receive reports of narcotics trafficking at his house. A second search of his trash was conducted and again a search warrant was issued in which more narcotics were found in the house. He was again arrested. *Rule of Law/ Precedent Set*: ---fruit of the poisonous tree: legal metaphor to describe evidence that is obtained illegally. If the source (the "tree") of the evidence or evidence itself is tainted, then anything gained (the "fruit") from it is tainted as well. ---Court held that garbage placed at the curbside is unprotected by the 4th Amendment. The Court argued that there was no reasonable *expectation of privacy* for trash on public streets "readily accessible to animals, children, scavengers, snoops, and other members of the public." *Any place that a reasonable person would not deem private does not require a warrant before being searched.*

Tinker v. Des Moines

*Issue*: Does a prohibition against the wearing of armbands in a public school, a s a form of symbolic protest/speech, violate the students' freedom of speech protections guaranteed by the 1st Amendment? (*Civil Rights*) *Date*: 1969 (Warren Court) *Case Summary*: Three students joined their parents in protesting the Vietnam War. The form of protest was to wear a black armband for a period of two weeks during the holiday season. When the students arrived at school they were told to remove the armband or be suspended. They took the suspension and did not return to school until after the protest period ended, New Year's Eve 1965. *Rule of Law/Precedent Set*: *Tinker Standard*: Justice Abe Fortas stated, "students nor teachers can hardly be expected to shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate, unless they interfere with the mission of the school." Established a precedent of student free-speech rights. *Minimum scrutiny*/reasonableness: The government need only show that the challenged classification is rationally related to serving a legitimate state interest. (applies for juveniles, K-12, and prison inmates) *dicta*: the teachers

Betts v. Brady

*Issue*: Does denying a request for counsel for an indigent defendant violate the due process clause of the 14th Amendment which embraces the defendant's right to counsel guaranteed by the 6th Amendment? *Date*: 1942 (Stone Court) *Case Summary*: Petitioner was indicted for robbery in Maryland. Destitute, he was unable to afford counsel and requested one be appointed for him. The judge in the case denied the request, and he subsequently pled not guilty while maintaining he had a right to counsel and arguing his own defense. *Rule of Law/ Precedent Set*: Powell ruling was narrowed. If there is no capital offense and no other mitigating factors like illiteracy or mental retardation then a perfectly fair trial can be held without counsel.

Lee v. Weisman

*Issue*: Does having a clergy offer prayers at official public school ceremonies violate the 1st Amendment Establishment Clause? *Date*: 1992 (Rehnquist Court) *Case Summary*: A rabbi was invited to deliver a prayer at a public middle school's graduation ceremony. The rabbi was given a copy of a pamphlet that recommended prayers at civic ceremonies be inclusive and sensitive. The Defendant, a student at the school, challenged the practice of having prayers at public school graduations. *Rule of Law/ Precedent Set*: Court held that by including the rabbi's participation created a "a state-sponsored and state-directed religious exercise in a public school." USSC ruled that although attending the graduation was optional, the school's rules regarding such speeches subtely created coercion to sit through prayer even if they disagreed with it, which amounted to compelling students to participate in a state sanctioned religious activity (social expectation). Moreover, religious leaders cannot be instructed on how to lead their sermons.

Town of Greece v. Galloway

*Issue*: Does prayer at a legislative session violate the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment? *Date*: 2013 (Roberts Court) *Case Summary*: A town in NY is governed by a five-member town board that conducts official business at monthly public meetings. Starting in 1999, the town meetings began with a prayer given by an invited member of the local clergy. The town did not adopt any policy regarding who may lead the prayer or its content, but in practice, Christian clergy members delivered the vast majority of the prayers at the town's invitation. The town was 97% Christian and did not even have a local synagogue. An atheist and a Jewish woman later sued the town. *Rule of Law/ Precedent Set*: USSC held that the establishment clause was never meant to limit legislative prayers (Marsh v. NE cited). Legislative prayer is primarily for the members of the legislature, and therefore such prayers do not coerce the public into religious observance. Town meetings are mostly filled with adults who are not considered a vulnerable class since they can choose whether or not to participate in prayers. The dissenting justices argued that legislatures and town meetings are different in that town meetings are a public forum in which people come to participate in the political process and forces individuals who do not agree with the beliefs represented in the prayer to either accept or visibly make their dissent known.

Bethel v. Fraser

*Issue*: Does the 1st Amendment prevent a school district from disciplining a high school student for giving a lewd speech at a high school assembly? (*1st Amendment Speech*) *Date*: 1986 (Burger Court) *Case Summary*: At a school assembly, Matthew Fraser made a speech nominating a fellow student for elective office. In his *political* speech, Fraser used what some observers believed was a graphic sexual metaphor to promote the candidacy of his friend. As part of its disciplinary code, Bethel High School enforced a rule prohibiting conduct which "substantially interferes with the educational process . . . including the use of obscene, profane language or gestures." Fraser was suspended from school for two days. *Rule of Law/Precedent Set*: *Bethel Rule*: A school gets to determine and interpret its own mission.

Snyder v. Phelps

*Issue*: Does the 1st Amendment protect protesters at a funeral from liability for intentionally inflicting emotional distress on the family of the deceased? (*Free Speech*) *Date*: 2011 (Robert's Court) *Case Summary*: The Westboro Baptist Church believe that God punishes the United States for its tolerance of homosexuality, particularly within the military. Westboro picketed Matthew Snyder's funeral displaying signs that stated, for instance, "Thank God for Dead Troops," and "Fag Soldiers." The church notified local authorities in advance that they intended to picket the funeral, staged the picket on public land adjacent to a public street, and complied with all police instructions. Snyder's family accused the church and its founders of defamation, invasion of privacy and the intentional infliction of emotional distress. *Rule of Law/Precedent Set*: (*time, place, and manner test*) USSC ruled in an 8 to 1 decision, that it was constitutional for Westboro to protest since they were not protesting against the Snyder family directly but rather the moral conduct of the United States. The First Amendment shields those who stage a protest at the funeral of a military service member from liability. Speech cannot be limited just because it is distasteful. Justice Alito was the lone dissent and believed that funerals should be considered "sanctuary" as in there are certain places where protesters should not be allowed to go.

Wallace v. Jaffree

*Issue*: Does the 1st Amendment require that a statute be invalidated if it is entirely motivated by a purpose to advance religion? (*Establishment Clause of Religion*) *Date*: 1985 (Burger Court) *Case Summary*: An Alabama statutes allowed voluntary prayer led by public school teachers. Three of the Defendant's children attended a public school in Mobile.The District Court found nothing wrong with the first statute that called for a one minute period of silence for meditation in all public schools. It then found the second and third statutes unconstitutional. These statutes sanctioned voluntary prayer and permitted teachers to lead willing students in a prescribed prayer to Almighty God...the Creator and Supreme Judge of the world. *Rule of Law/ Precedent Set*: Moments of silence are allowed but de facto establishment is not. It was clear that the Alabama statute was merely passed in an effort to return voluntary prayer to the public schools. The statute was clearly meant to advance religion.

McDonald v. Chicago

*Issue*: Does the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms create an individual right of citizens to own firearms, and is that right enforceable against the States through incorporation of the 2nd Amendment through the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment? *Date*: 2010 (Roberts Court) *Case Summary*: A retired maintenance engineer and resident of Chicago, wanted to purchase a handgun for personal protection in his home.He lived in the Southside of Chicago, and had grown frustrated with increasing levels of crime, having been the victim of theft or break-ins on several occasions. Although he legally owned both rifles and shotguns, he believed a handgun would help better protect himself in close quarters. The city required that all handguns be registered with the city in order for ownership to be legal. Chicago's handgun ban was similar to DC's previous gun ban. *Rule of Law/ Precedent Set*: Incorporation of the 2nd amendment and the individual's right to own a firearm. USSC ruled that the right to self-defense was a "fundamental" and "deeply rooted" right and fairness cannot be conceivably had if one cannot protect themselves. Dicta: Ruling does not prevent felons from owning handguns or from stopping individuals from having guns in sensitive places.

Gideon v. Wainwright

*Issue*: Does the 6th Amendment's right to counsel in criminal cases extend to felony defendants in state courts? *Date*: 1963 (Warren Court) *Case Summary*: Petitioner was charged in Florida state court with a felony: having broken into and entered a poolroom with the intent to commit a misdemeanor offense. When he appeared in court without a lawyer, he requested that the court appoint one for him. According to Florida state law, however, an attorney may only be appointed to a poor defendant in capital cases, so the trial court did not appoint one. He represented himself in trial. He was found guilty and sentenced to five years in prison. He filed a habeas corpus petition in the Florida Supreme Court and argued that the trial court's decision violated his constitutional right to be represented by counsel. *Rule of Law/ Precedent Set*: USSC ruled that "in a criminal case lawyers are necessities not luxuries." Expands Powell decision, stating that whenever jail time is a probability, one must have meaningful access to counsel regardless of how poor one might be. *Incorporated 6th Amendment right to counsel.*

Virginia v. Black

*Issue*: Does the Commonwealth of Virginia's cross-burning statute, which prohibits the burning of a cross with the intent of intimidating any person or group of persons, violate the 1st Amendment? (*Free Speech*) *Date*: 2002 (Rehnquist Court) *Case Summary*: Black (KKK member) was prosecuted because of burning a cross, and convicted of the same by a jury, under the cross-burning statute of Virginia which bans cross burning with the object of creating fear in a person or a group. Such an action is taken to be evidence, prima facie, of such an intention, under a section of the law. The Virginia Supreme Court upheld the decision and Black appealed. *Rule of Law/Precedent Set*: If a state's cross-burning statute treats any such incident as being on the face of it a narrow tool of intimidation against another, it violates the constitution.The burning of a cross is always a hate symbol, though it may sometimes also include the idea of threat. The threat may at times be the predominant message. Virginia may prohibit the burning of a cross done with the intent to threaten because it is a very deadly threat (fighting words).

Griswold v. Connecticut

*Issue*: Does the Constitution provide for a privacy right for married couples? (*9th Amendment* Penumbra & Natural Rights Theory) *Date*: 1965 (Warren Court) *Case Summary*: The Petitioner was the Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of CT. Both she and the Medical Director for the League gave information, instruction, and other medical advice to married couples concerning birth control. She and her colleague were convicted under a CT law which criminalized the provision of counseling, and other medical treatment, to married persons for purposes of preventing conception. *Rule of Law/ Precedent Set*: Though the Constitution does not explicitly protect a general right to privacy, the various guarantees within the Bill of Rights create *penumbras*, or zones, that establish a right to privacy. Together, the 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 9th Amendments, create a new constitutional right, the right to privacy in marital relations. CT's statute conflicts with the exercise of this right and is therefore null and void. Also, encompasses 9th Amendment Natural Rights Theory.

Gonzales v. Raich

*Issue*: Does the Controlled Substances Act exceed Congress' power under the commerce clause as applied to the intrastate cultivation and possession of marijuana for medical use? (*Federalism*) *Date*: 2005 (Rehnquist Court) *Case Summary*: California passed the "Compassionate Use Act," which allowed for the use of medical marijuana. The Defendants were compliant with state laws when arrested, but guilty under federal DEA laws (Controlled Substance Act) at the time. The Defendant sued the Attorney General, arguing that Congress had exceeded their interstate commerce clause authority in legislating the behavior of a local citizen, consuming a locally grown herb in his own home. *Rule of Law/Precedent Set*: Court held that the interstate commerce clause gave Congress authority to prohibit and regulate use of marijuana, despite state law to the contrary. The state can still distribute medical marijuana because crime, health, and morality are all reserved state powers. Similar to Wickard v. Filburn decision because production of the commodity meant for home consumption, be it wheat (Wickard) or marijuana, has a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market for that commodity. Case displays the difficulty of regulating federalism.

United States v. Windsor

*Issue*: Does the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage as a legal union between a heterosexual couple deprive same-sex couples who are legally married under state laws of their Fifth Amendment rights to equal protection under federal law? *Date*: 2013 (Roberts Court) *Case Summary*: Edith Windsor is the widow and sole executor of her late spouse's estate. The two were married in Canada and their marriage was recognized by New York state law. The federal government grants over 200 economic benefits to married couples;however, when Windsor's spouse died, the federal government refused to recognize their marriage and imposed $363,000 in taxes. Had their marriage been recognized, the estate would have qualified for a marital exemption (tax break), and no taxes would have been imposed. *Rule of Law/Precedent Set*: The federal government is not allowed to define marriage and must recognize marriages that have been approved by the states. (Argued on a federalism basis rather that equal protection basis)

DC v. Heller

*Issue*: Does the District of Columbia's prohibition on the possession of usable handguns in the home violate the 2nd Amendment? *Date*: 2008 (Roberts Court) *Case Summary*: DC had banned the possession of handguns. DC's laws maintained that individuals could own firearms but that they had to be kept unloaded or the trigger had to be locked, unless they were currently using them during a recreational activity. The law made carrying a concealed weapon - or to have one kept in one's home without a license - a crime. A police officer, wanted to register a gun (not his service weapon) for use at home for self defense, but he sued the DC because he did not want to register it. He argued that DC's ban was unconstitutional on 2nd Amendment grounds, and therefore petitioned for an injunction in the matter regarding his ability to register a gun for his home without a registration. The District Court found that the right to bear arms only applies to militias, and dismissed his lawsuit. *Rule of Law/ Precedent Set*: Acceptance of individual right to own a firearm. The 2nd amendment did not create a right but articulated a right that already existed. Multiple state constitutions stated that individuals had a right to protect/defend themselves which also agrees with the 9th Amendment's Natural Rights theory. USSC ruled that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self- defense within the home.

Barron v. Baltimore

*Issue*: Does the Fifth Amendment deny the states as well as the national government the right to take private property for public use without justly compensating the property's owner? *Date*: 1833 (Marshall) *Case Summary*: John Barron was co-owner of a profitable wharf in the harbor of Baltimore. As the city developed and expanded, large amounts of sand accumulated in the harbor, depriving Barron of the deep waters which had been the key to his successful business. He sued the city for taking his property without just compensation (eminent domain). *Rule of Law/Precedent Set*: The Bill of Rights protects citizens from the national/federal government not state or local governments. The amendments were created to limit the powers of the national government not the state governments. *Pre-Incorporation*

United States v. Lopez

*Issue*: Does the Gun-Free Zones Act exceed Congress's power? What categories of activity may Congress regulate under its commerce power? (*Interstate Commerce*) *Date*: 1995 (Rehnquist Court) *Case Summary*: The Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 (GFSZA) made it unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm within 90 feet of a school zone. Alfonso Lopez, a 12th-grade student, carried a concealed and loaded handgun into his high school and was arrested and charged under Texas law with firearm possession on school premises. The next day, the state charges were dismissed after federal agents charged Lopez with violating the Act. *Rule of Law/Precedent Set*: The GFSZA exceeded Congress' authority under the Commerce Clause. Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce is limited to economic activities *DIRECTLY* affecting the sale, trade, or distribution of goods. USSC *narrowly* defined commerce. Congress later re-passed GFSZA to say that no guns made with parts from another state can be within 90 feet of a school zone. This law has yet to be challenged in the courts.

Near v. Minnesota

*Issue*: Does the Minnesota "gag law" violate the free press provision of the 1st Amendment? (*Free Press*) *Date*: 1931 (Taft Court) *Case Summary*: The Saturday Press published attacks on local officials. The Press claimed that the chief of police had "illicit relations with gangsters." Minnesota officials obtained an injunction in order to abate the publishing of the Press newspaper under a state law that allowed this course of action. The state law authorized abatement, as a public nuisance, of a "malicious, scandalous and defamatory newspaper, or other periodical. A state court order abated the Press and publishers of the Press, from publishing or circulating such "defamatory and scandalous" periodicals. *Rule of Law/Precedent Set*: prior restraint: With some narrow exceptions, the government could not censor or otherwise prohibit a publication in advance, even though the communication might be punishable after publication in a criminal or other proceeding. Minnesota "gag law" violated free press. *Incorporation of Free Press*

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby

*Issue*: Does the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 allow a for-profit company to deny its employees health coverage of contraception to which the employees would otherwise be entitled based on the religious objections of the company's owners? (*Free Exercise*) *Date*: 2014 (Roberts Court) *Case Summary*: The Green family owns and operates a national arts and crafts chain with over 500 stores and over 13,000 employees. Their business is organized around the principles of the Christian faith and has expressed the desire to run the company according to Biblical precepts, one of which is the belief that the use of contraception is immoral. Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), employment-based group health care plans must provide certain types of preventative care, such as FDA-approved contraceptive methods. While there are exemptions available for religious employers and non-profit religious institutions, there are no exemptions available for for-profit institutions such as this craft chain. *Rule of Law/ Precedent Set*: The government could not justify such an imposition on the faith of the corporation/owners of the corporation. Thus, the ruling determined that the law did indeed pose a substantial burden, and that the government should provide another option to for-profit organizations with sincerely held religious beliefs. Corporations are now protected under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Basically, limited liability corporations have the right to free exercise of religion.

Gonzales v. UDV

*Issue*: Does the Religious Freedom Restoration Act protect the right of a small religious group to engage in the sacramental use of hoasca tea, which contains a hallucinogenic substance that is banned by the Controlled Substance Act? (*Free Exercise of Religion*) *Date*: 2006 (Roberts Court; 8 to 0; Alito did not participate) *Case Summary*: The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 says that the federal government may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden applies to everyone, not just one religion. The only exception recognized by the statute requires that the government satisfy the compelling public interest test. The Controlled Substances Act regulates the importation, manufacture, distribution and use of psychotropic substances. Central to the UDV's faith is receiving communion through hoasca, a sacramental tea which contains hallucinogens that are banned by the Controlled Substances Act. In 1999, a customs inspector intercepted a shipment of hoasca. The UDV filed suit asking that the hoasca be released for use and that future shipments not be intercepted so that its members could continue to practice their faith. *Rule of Law/ Precedent Set*: Compelling Public Interest. *(1)* Needs of the religion *(a)* Need to take drug in order to talk to their god. *(2)* Needs of society *(a)* Protecting the health and safety of UDV members *(b)* Possible risks if drug is used for recreational use *(c)* Having uniform application of drug laws Government failed to provide a compelling public interest, the hallucinogen was only taken during religious ceremonies. Moreover, granting an exception to the US branch of this religious sect would not drastically impair the application of the federal drug law. *dicta*: If the specific hallucinogen is used for recreational use then the issue must be revisited.

Michigan University Cases

*Issue*: Does the University of Michigan's use of racial preferences in undergraduate admissions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964? (*Affirmative Action*) *Date*: 2003 (Rehnquist Court) *Includes*: 1) Grutter v. Bollinger -> Law 2) Gratz v. Bollinger -> Undergrad *Case Summary*: *Undergrad*: To help with admission decisions, UMich implements a point system. This point system is out of 100 points. A student that is from an underrepresented minority--African American, Native American, Mexican American- automatically receives 20 points towards his or her over all score. Almost all qualified URMs tended to be accepted under this system while qualified whites were denied. | *Law*: Selects students holistically and continually winnows down applicants until 150 students are selected. White law school applicant challenges a law school's use of race as a factor in the admissions process. *Rule of Law/Precedent Set*: *Strict Scrutiny* *Undergrad*: Method of selecting students was unconstitutional since admission criteria based on race must be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling interest. Achieving undergraduate diversity could have been achieved in other ways aside from awarding 20 points to minorities. Race may be considered in an individual assessment, but not as a sole or contributing factor for admission. | *Law*: Upheld since the Law School selects students holistically and acceptance nor rejection is based solely on one variable such as race. *4 Criteria* *(1)* A university can choose to use affirmative action but cannot be required to. *(2)* A university can accept the most qualified student body, even if it doesn't select the most qualified students. *(3)* Suspect classification can be a factor but not a deciding factor *(4)* critical mass: minimum number of a demographic needed so people can retain their individuality rather than required to carry the weight of their whole demographic.

Boy Scouts v. Dale

*Issue*: Does the application of New Jersey's public accommodations law violate the Boy Scouts' First Amendment right of expressive association to bar homosexuals from serving as troop leaders? (*Civil Rights*) *Date*: 2000 (Rehnquist Court) *Case Summary*: Dale was an Eagle Scout and assistant scoutmaster whose membership in the boy scouts was revoked when the Boy Scouts of America learned that he was a homosexual. Dale filed suit against the Boy Scouts, alleging that the Boy Scouts had violated the New Jersey statute prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in places of public accommodation. The Boy Scouts, a private, not-for-profit organization, asserted that homosexual conduct was inconsistent with the values it was attempting to instill in young people. *Rule of Law/Precedent Set*: A private or non-profit association cannot be compelled to accept a member whose beliefs do not align with its mission. To do so would violate the 1st Amendment constitutional rights (*expressive association*) of the entire organization and its members, who also align themselves with the principals on which the organization stands. *Private and non-profit associations are allowed to discriminate on the basis of their mission;however, they are no longer tax-exempt.*

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire

*Issue*: Does the application of the statute violate Chaplinsky's freedom of speech protected by the 1st Amendment? (*Free Speech*) *Date*: 1942 (Stone Court) *Case Summary*: A NH statute prohibited any person from addressing any offensive, derisive or annoying word to any other person who is on any street or public place or calling him by any derisive name. Chaplinsky, a Jehovah's Witness, called a City Marshal a "Godd--med racketeer" and a "damned fascist" in a public place and was therefore arrested and convicted under the statute. *Rule of Law/Precedent Set*: fighting words--words that "inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace"--are not protected under 1st Amendment free speech. These words are so hateful and heated that there is no other possible action aside from violence.

United States v. Jones

*Issue*: Does the attachment of a GPS tracking device to a vehicle and subsequent use of that device to monitor the vehicle's movements on public streets constitute a search or seizure within the meaning of the 4th Amendment? *Date*: 2012 (Roberts Court) *Case Summary*: Respondent was an owner and operator of a nightclub and came under suspicion of narcotics trafficking. Based on information gathered through various investigative techniques, police were granted a warrant authorizing use of a GPS tracking device on the Respondent's Jeep, but failed to comply with the warrant's deadline. Officials nevertheless installed the device on the undercarriage of the Jeep and used it to track the vehicle's movements. By satellite, the device established communicated the location of the vehicle by cell phone to a government computer, relaying more than 2,000 pages of data. The government ultimately obtained an indictment against Respondent which included charges of conspiracy to distribute cocaine. *Rule of Law/ Precedent Set*: Police cannot attach a GPS or other object to someone's car without a warrant and doing so is considered an unreasonable search and a violation of the 4th amendment.

Lochner v. New York

*Issue*: Does the due process clause of the 14th Amendment protect liberty of contract and private property against unwarranted government interference? *Date*: 1905 (Fuller Court) *Case Summary*: The 1897 Labor Law stated that no employee can be required or permitted to work in a biscuit, bread, or cake bakery or confectionery establishment for more than 60 hours a week or 10 hours per day. *Rule of Law/ Precedent set*: The right to contract and to form one's own contract in relation to his or her own business is part of *substantive due process* and is protected by the 14th Amendment. *Substantive due process*: rules have to inherently fair (shock the conscious when they are not). Ushered in the Lochner Era when the court found liberties not explicitly protected by the Constitution to be impliedly protected by the liberty clause of the 14th Amendment. Era lasted until the beginning of FDR's New Deal.

New Jersey v. TLO

*Issue*: Does the exclusionary rule apply to searches conducted by school officials in public schools? (4th Amendment) *Date*: 1985 (Burger Court) *Case Summary*: A teacher of a high school discovered two girls in a bathroom that smelled like smoke. One of the girls admitted she was smoking, which violated a school rule. The second girl claimed she was not smoking and as such did not break the rule. The principal took the student into his private office and demanded to search her purse. While looking for cigarettes, the principal found a package of cigarette rolling papers. He continued searching the purse and found a small amount of marijuana and a pipe, a number of empty plastic bags and a substantial amount of one dollar bills and an index card with the names of various people who owed the student money. Guilty in lower courts and appealed on the basis of the exclusionary rule. *Rule of Law/ Precedent Set*: What level of *inception* do students have and when can school officials search a student?: school administrators don't need to have a search warrant or probable cause (*just need reasonable suspicion*) before conducting a search because students have a reduced expectation of privacy when in school. Threshold is lowered for school administrators because the school administrator is in the place of one's parents (in loco parentis).

Roper v. Simmons

*Issue*: Does the execution of minors violate the prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishment" found in the 8th Amendment and applied to the states through the incorporation doctrine of the 14th Amendment? *Date*: 2005 (Rehnquist Court) *Case Summary*: Respondent conspired to burglarize and murder a person with two friends. Only one fully participated. They entered the victim's home, kidnapped her, bound her with duct tape and electrical cord, and threw her into a river. Respondent was 17 at the time. He subsequently bragged out the killing. He was taken into custody and confessed. He was put on trial as an adult, convicted, and sentenced to death. *Rule of Law/ Precedent Set*: Executing minors is cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the 8th Amendment.

Furman v. Georgia

*Issue*: Does the imposition and carrying out of the death penalty in these cases constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the 8th and 14th Amendments? (*8th Amendment*) *Date*: 1972 (Burger Court) *Case Summary*: Petitioner was burglarizing a private home when a family member discovered him. He attempted to flee, and in doing so tripped and fell. The gun that he was carrying went off and killed a resident of the home. Although he did not intend to kill the resident, the fact that he nevertheless killed that resident during the commission of a felony, was an aggravating factor, and the one in particular which made him eligible for the death penalty. He appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court on the grounds that his punishment constituted cruel and unusual punishment *Rule of Law/ Precedent Set*: USSC argued not about the death penalty but how the death penalty was applied. USSC held that the imposition of the death penalty in these cases constituted cruel and unusual punishment and violated the Constitution. The lower courts tended to sentence blacks to death disproportionately to whites for acts such as vandalism, burglary, and rape. The Supreme Court stated, "The death penalty has been used in a way that can only be described as 'freakish'. If the death penalty is used arbitrarily or with discrimination then it is cruel and unusual." USSC issued a *moratorium*: the states and the national legislature have to rethink their statutes for capital offenses to assure that the death penalty would not be administered in a capricious or discriminatory manner before they can sentence others to death ( must demonstrate *Furman standard*).

Graham v. Florida

*Issue*: Does the imposition of a life sentence without parole on a juvenile convicted of a non-homicidal offense violate the 8th Amendment's prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishment?" (*8th Amendment*) *Date*: 2010 (Roberts Court) *Case Summary*: When the Petitioner was 16 years old he was convicted of armed burglary and attempted armed robbery. He served a 12 month sentence and was released. Six months later he was tried and convicted by a Florida state court of armed home robbery and sentenced to life in prison without parole. On appeal, he argued that the imposition of a life sentence without parole on a juvenile, on its face, violated the 8th Amendment and moreover constituted cruel and unusual punishment. The District Court of Appeal of Florida disagreed. It held that his sentence neither was a facial violation of the 8th Amendment nor constituted cruel and unusual punishment. *Rule of Law/ Precedent Set*: A sentence of life imprisonment without parole, meted out on a minor for a *non-homicidal* offense is unconstitutional.

Miller v. Alabama

*Issue*: Does the imposition of a life-without-parole sentence on a fourteen-year-old child violate the 8th and 14th Amendments' prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment? *Date*: 2012 (Roberts Court) *Case Summary*: In July 2003, the Petitioner along with his friend, killed Cole Cannon by beating Cannon with a baseball bat and burning Cannon's trailer while Cannon was inside. The Petitioner was 14 years old at the time. In 2004, he was transferred from the Lawrence County Juvenile Court to Lawrence County Circuit Court to be tried as an adult for capital murder during the course of an arson. In 2006, a grand jury indicted him. At trial, the jury returned a verdict of guilty. The trial court sentenced him to a mandatory term of life imprisonment without parole. *Rule of Law/ Precedent Set*: USSC ruled that the 8th Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment forbids the mandatory sentencing of life in prison without the possibility of parole for juvenile *homicide* offenders.

Miranda v. Arizona

*Issue*: Does the police practice of interrogating individuals without notifying them of their right to counsel and their protection against self-incrimination violate the 5th Amendment? (*6th Amendment*) *Date*: 1966 (Warren Court) *Case Summary*: Case 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. *Rule of Law/ Precedent Set*: USSC outlined the necessary guidelines for police questioning of accused persons to protect them against self-incrimination and to protect their right to counsel. Suspects must be told that: *(1)* They have the constitutional right to remain silent and may stop questioning at any time *(2)* What they say can be used against them in a court of law *(3)* They have a right to have a lawyer present during questioning and that the court will provide an attorney if they cannot afford their own.

Brown v. Board of Education

*Issue*: Does the segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race deprive the minority children of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the 14th Amendment? (*Civil Rights*) *Date*: 1954 (Warren Court; 9-0 decision) *Case Summary*: Black children were denied admission to schools attended by white children under laws that permitted or required segregation by race. The children sued, seeking admission to public schools in their communities on a nonsegregated basis. *Rule of Law/Precedent Set*: Strict Scrutiny. Racial segregation in public education has a long-lasting detrimental effect (sociological argument) on minority children because it is interpreted as a sign of inferiority. *Separate* but equal *is inherently unequal* in the context of public education. *Footnotes*: Only applicable in issues dealing with race and possibly ethnicity. Does NOT apply to gender.

Escobedo v. Illinois

*Issue*: If a suspect has been taken into police custody and interrogated by police without their request to see an attorney being honored, nor being advised of their right to remain silent, have they been denied effective assistance of counsel under the 6th Amendment? *Date*: 1964 (Warren Court) *Case Summary*: The defendant was arrested in connection with the murder of his brother-in-law. During the time he was in custody, his attorney attempted to reach him for consultation. He was informed he could not speak to his attorney, and his attorney was informed that he could not speak to his client. During his interrogation, he made statements that were later used against him at trial where he was convicted. *Rule of Law/ Precedent Set*: Once a suspect asks for an attorney, law officials are no longer allowed to interrogate the suspect until that attorney is present. Also, suspects must be advised of their right to remain silent.

United States v. Nixon

*Issue*: Is Presidential "executive privilege", entirely immune from judicial review? *Date*: 1974 (Burger Court) *Case Summary*: The special prosecutor, Archibald Cox, in the Watergate scandal subpoenaed the tape recordings of conversations involving the President and his advisers regarding the scandal. The President's counsel moved to quash the subpoena citing Article II of the United States Constitution and its grant of *executive privelege*--right to withhold information from other government branches to preserve confidential communications within the executive branch or to secure the national interest.. The President's counsel also argued it was a non-justiciable question because it was a disagreement between parts of the executive branch. *Rule of Law/Precedent Set*: Court ruled that while the president has executive privilege, it does not supersede judicial subpoena. Executive privilege is not absolute and must be balanced against other constitutional interests-- under the 4th and 5th Amendments of the constitution citizens are guaranteed the right to face one's their accusers and have fair and speedy trials.

Terry v. Ohio

*Issue*: Is a search for weapons without probable cause for arrest an unreasonable search under the 4th Amendment? (*4th Amendment*) *Date*: 1968 (Warren Court) *Case Summary*: The petitioner and two other men were observed by a plain clothes policeman in what the officer believed to be "casing" a store for a potential robbery. The officer decided to approach the men for questioning, and given the nature of the behavior the officer decided to perform a quick search of the men before questioning. A quick frisking of the three men, produced weapons on two of them. *Rule of Law/ Precedent Set*: --*Terry stop*: a stop of a person by law enforcement officers based upon "reasonable suspicion" that a person may have been engaged in criminal activity. Officer may perform an noninvasive pat down search. --*sliding scale test*: Officers are allowed to make themselves safe and secure a scene. In order to protect their safety they may perform searches that are limited in scope. --The pat down's level of invasiveness must be related to the seriousness of the situation.

Demore v. Kim

*Issue*: Is bail fundamental? *Date*: 2002 (Rehnquist Court) *Case Summary*: The Respondent came to the United States from South Korea when he was six years old. Two years later, he became a permanent lawful resident, making him eligible to apply for naturalized citizenship when he turned 18 which he didn't do. At age 18, he was convicted of first-degree burglary. Less than one year later, in 1997, he was convicted of "petty theft with priors" and sentenced to three years in jail. In 1999, the day after his release from prison, he was taken into custody, without bail, by the Immigration and Naturalization Service ("INS") for deportation to South Korea. The Immigration and Nationality Act directs that non-citizens convicted of aggravated felonies be deported and held *without bail* during the deportation proceedings. *Rule of Law/ Precedent Set*: Bail cannot automatically be denied to undocumented persons. However, being an undocumented person can influence the decision to deny bail. The USSC ruled that detention does not violate due process, because immigration authorities have good reason to believe that any alien felon who is released pending deportation poses a threat to public safety and is likely to flee rather than appear for deportation.

Engel v. Vitale / Abington v. Schempp

*Issue*: Is it a violation of the establishment clause to require public school students to recite a state-composed prayer at the beginning of each school day? (*Establishment of Religion*) *Date*: 1962 & 1963 (Warren Court) *Case Summary*: The Board of Education of Union Free School District No 9, in New Hyde Park, New York, began in the late 1950's to require that all of the children in the schools of the district repeat each morning a prayer. The State Board of Regents, which composed and recommended the prayer, originally thought that it was a proper part of the moral training that all students should receive. *Rule of Law/ Precedent Set*: Unconstitutional to require public school students to recite a mandatory state-composed prayer at the beginning of each school day.

Lemon v. Kurtzman

*Issue*: Is it constitutional for the state to provide financial assistance to religious schools for the cost of teaching secular subjects? (*Establishment Clause of Religion*) *Date*: 1971 (Burger Court) *Case Summary*: Pennsylvania has a statute that reimburses religious schools for teacher salaries, textbooks, and other instructional materials. Rhode Island has a similar statute that allows the state to pay private school teachers a 15% salary supplement. *Rule of Law/ Precedent Set*: Money is fluid and tax dollars may not be used on religious schools. *Lemon Test*: requirements for laws to pass constitutional establishment. *(1)* laws must have secular (worldly) legislative purpose. *(2)* Cannot inhibit or enhance religion. Must be neutral, meaning one religion cannot be favored over another. *(3)* There cannot be excessive entanglements between government and religion.

Roth v. United States

*Issue*: Is obscenity protected speech under the 1st Amendment? (*Free Speech*) *Date*: 1957 (Warren Court) *Case Summary*: Congress passed a law that prohibited the mailing of "obscene, lewd, or lascivious book, pamphlet, picture, or other publication of an indecent character." Roth was convicted of violating this statute because he mailed sexually explicit advertisements and books. *Rule of Law/Precedent Set*: *SLAP Test*: Obscenity is a type of unprotected speech. Obscene material deals with sex in a manner that is appealing to the prurient (sexual) interest. Work taken as a whole must lack significant scientific, literary, artistic, or political value (SLAP).

Agostini v. Felton

*Issue*: Is the Establishment Clause violated when public school teachers instruct in parochial schools? (*Establishment Clause of Religion*) *Date*: 1997 (Rehnquist) *Case Summary*: Congress enacted Title I of Education Act of 1965 to provide full educational opportunity to every child. Students who failed the states Regents Exam were required to see a tutor. Rather than provide tutoring services at parochial schools similar to the public schools, mobile units filled with tutors were located at lease sites or parking lots near the parochial schools. *Rule of Law/ Precedent Set*: While money is fluid, tangible secular goods are not. Parochial schools do not receive tax dollars because they would inevitably use the funds for religious goods. It's fine to give tangible goods (like tutors) to parochial schools since they can't be turned into religious goods. USSC ruled that only those policies which generate an excessive conflict between church and state will be deemed to violate the Establishment Clause.

Gitlow v. New York

*Issue*: Is the New York law punishing advocacy to overthrow the government by force an unconstitutional violation of the free speech clause of the First Amendment? *Date*: 1925 (Taft Court) *Case Summary*: Gitlow, a socialist, published a communist manifesto for distribution in the United States. He was charged with plotting to overthrow the United States government. *Rule of Law/Precedent Set*: The 1st Amendment Free Speech is incorporated on the states because some rights are necessary in order to ensure 14th Amendment due process. *Incorporation Doctrine*: Case by case process in which the Supreme Court deems certain rights as fundamental and said rights must be honored by the states.

Gregg v. Georgia

*Issue*: Is the death penalty itself cruel and unusual punishment? (*8th Amendment*). *Date*: 1976 (Burger Court) *Case Summary*: A jury found Petitioner guilty of armed robbery and murder and sentenced him to death. On appeal, the state Supreme Court affirmed the death sentence except as to its imposition for the robbery conviction. He challenged his remaining death sentence for murder, claiming that his capital sentence was a "cruel and unusual" punishment that violated the 8th and 14th Amendments. *Rule of Law/ Precedent Set*: The death penalty unto itself was not cruel and unusual. USSC also ruled that GA's death penalty statute assures the judicious and careful use of the death penalty by requiring a *bifurcated proceeding* where the trial and sentencing are conducted separately. The trial involved specific jury findings as to the severity of the crime, while the sentencing phase involved investigating the nature of the defendant. GA's sentencing guidelines involved qualifying for the death penalty. In order to qualify, one had to commit murder and meet one of the 10 aggravating circumstances requirements. The Court was not prepared to overrule the Georgia legislature's finding that capital punishment serves as a useful deterrent to future capital crimes and an appropriate means of social retribution against its most serious offenders.

Texas v. Johnson

*Issue*: Is the desecration of an American flag, by burning or otherwise, a form of speech that is protected under the First Amendment? (*Free Speech*) *Date*: 1989 (Rehnquist Court) *Case Summary*: In 1984, in front of the Dallas City Hall, Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag as a means of protest against Reagan administration policies. Johnson was tried and convicted under a Texas law outlawing flag desecration. *Rule of Law/Precedent Set*: Burning of an American flag is symbolic speech and protected expression under the First Amendment. Government cannot prohibit speech just because it is unpopular.

Atkins v. Virginia

*Issue*: Is the execution of mentally ill persons "cruel and unusual punishment" prohibited by the 8th Amendment? *Date*: 2002 (Rehnquist Court) *Case Summary*: The Petitioner was convicted of abduction, armed robbery, and capital murder. In the penalty phase of his trial, the defense relied on one witness, a forensic psychologist, who testified that he was mildly mentally ill. The jury sentenced him to death, but the VA Supreme Court ordered a second sentencing hearing because the trial court had used a misleading verdict form. During resentencing the jury again sentenced him to death. In affirming, the VA Supreme Court rejected his contention that he could not be sentenced to death because he is mentally disabled. *Rule of Law/ Precedent Set*: 2 groups of people can never be executed. *(1)* The mentally disabled (IQ <70) under no circumstances can be executed. Mentally disabled persons probably don't have full understanding of the law and its consequences. Cannot communicate with council in order for them to aid their own defense. Executing mentally disabled persons would shock the conscious. *(2)* People with severe mental illness cannot be executed if their illness is a direct factor in the crime. Some severe mental illnesses include Alzheimer's, Dissociative Identity Disorder, severe depression, and dementia.

Youngstown Sheet and Tube v. Sawyer

*Issue*: Is the president allowed to create an executive order that delves/usurps into congressional powers? *Date*:1952 (Vinson Court) *Case Summary*: In April of 1952, during the Korean War, President Truman issued an executive order directing Secretary of Commerce Charles Sawyer to seize and operate most of the nation's steel mills resulting in wage freezes. This was done in order to avert the expected effects of a strike by the United Steelworkers of America. *Rule of Law/Precedent Set*: The President's power, if any, to issue an order must stem from an act of Congress or the United States Constitution. The Court found that there was no congressional statute that authorized the President to take possession of private property.

Miller v. California

*Issue*: Is the sale and distribution of obscene materials by mail protected under the First Amendment's freedom of speech guarantee? (*Free Speech*) *Date*: 1973 (*Burger Court*) *Case Summary*: Miller, after conducting a mass mailing campaign to advertise the sale of "adult" material, was convicted of violating a California statute prohibiting the distribution of obscene material. Some unwilling recipients of Miller's brochures complained to the police, initiating the legal proceedings. *Rule of Law/Precedent Set*: Avoided defining obscenity by holding that *community standards* be used to determine whether material is obscene in terms of appealing to a "prurient interest" and being "patently offensive" and lacking scientific, literary, artistic or political value (*SLAP*).

Baze v. Rees

*Issue*: Is the use of a four-drug lethal injection process to carry out death sentences a violation of the 8th Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment? *Date*: 2008 (Roberts) *Case Summary*: Two Kentucky inmates challenged the state's four-drug lethal injection protocol. The lethal injection method calls for the administration of four drugs: Valium, which relaxes the convict, Sodium Pentathol, which knocks the convict unconscious, Pavulon, which stops his breathing, and potassium chloride, which essentially puts the convict into cardiac arrest and ultimately causes death. The Kentucky Supreme Court held that the death penalty system did not amount to unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishment *Rule of Law/ Precedent Set*: While it is inevitable that there will be pain associated with the death penalty, the in-advert administration of pain is not a violation of 8th Amendment cruel and unusual punishment. The Court also suggested that a state may violate the ban on cruel and unusual punishment if it continues to use a method without sufficient justification in the face of superior alternative procedures.

United States v. Leon

*Issue*: Is there a "good faith" exception to the exclusionary rule? (*4th Amendment*) *Date*: 1983 (Burger Court) *Case Summary*: The exclusionary rule requires that evidence illegally seized must be excluded from criminal trials. The Respondent was the target of police surveillance based on an anonymous informant's tip. The police applied to a judge for a search warrant of the respondent's home based on the evidence from their surveillance. A judge issued the warrant and the police recovered large quantities of illegal drugs. He was indicted for violating federal drug laws. A judge concluded that the affadavit for the search warrant was insufficient; it did not establish the probable cause necessary to issue the warrant. Thus, the evidence obtained under the warrant could not be introduced at his trial. *Rule of Law/ Precedent Set*: Evidence seized on the basis of a mistakenly issued search warrant could be introduced at trial. The exclusionary rule is not a right but a remedy justified by its ability to deter illegal police conduct. *Good faith exception*:Evidence obtained illegally but only as the result of an honest, legitimate mistake may still be used in a court of law.

Printz v. United States

*Issue*: May Congress compel a state or local government to even temporarily implement and administer a federal regulatory program? (*2nd Amendment*) *Date*: 1997 (Rehnquist Court) *Case Summary*: Congress passed the Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act (The Brady Bill). The Act required the Attorney General to establish a national background check system and a seven day waiting period for non- fully automatic guns. Until the national system became computerized, interim provisions for background checks were established. Those provisions provided that state and local law enforcement officers must do background checks before issuing permits to buy firearms. Two local law enforcement officers challenged the constitutionality of the Bill's interim provisions. *Rule of Law/ Precedent Set*: --Narrow aspect: The federal government can create gun regulations but cannot compel the states to enact or administer a federal regulatory program for them. Background check provisions violated federalism. --Broad aspect: Congress cannot pass unfunded mandates.

United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corporation

*Issue*: May Congress delegate law-making authority to the President in matters of foreign affairs? (*Separation of Powers*) *Date*: 1936 (Hughes Court) *Case Summary*: Congress passed a Joint Resolution authorizing the President to ban the sales of arms to countries involved in the border dispute between Bolivia and Paraguay. The President immediately made an Executive Order banning such sales. The Defendant was indicted for conspiracy to sell fifteen machine guns to Bolivia in violation of the Joint Resolution and the Executive Order. *Rule of Law/Precedent Set*: "The president serves as the sole organ of foreign policy." The President is in a better position to handle foreign affairs than Congress. The system is set up so that the Executive receives classified information that the legislature does not, negotiates treaties where the Congress does not, and is the primary representative of the United States in foreign affairs relations.

South Dakota v. Dole

*Issue*: May Congress withhold funds from states that do not maintain a 21 year old drinking age? (*Federalism*) *Date*: 1987 (Rehnquist Court) *Case Summary*: In 1984, the United States Congress passed the National Minimum Drinking Age Act, which withheld 5% of federal highway funding from states that did not maintain a minimum legal drinking age of 21. Those who did maintain the drinking age received a 7% increase in federal highway funding. South Dakota wanted an increase in federal highway funding even though it wouldn't raise its drinking age. South Dakota, which allowed 19-year-olds to purchase beer challenged the law. Elizabeth Dole, Secretary of Transportation, was the defendant. *Rule of Law/Precedent set*: Categorical grants in which the federal government gives money to the states with strings attached are constitutional because states can refuse them and the federal government should be free to decide how to spend its money. Expands federal powers and moves the nation towards cooperative (marble cake) federalism. Also, the spending power of the Congress has 5 general restrictions: *(1)* must be *related* to the general welfare *(2)* must be *clear* (unambiguous) *(3)* conditions must be related to a *federal interest* *(4)* conditions must be *constitutional* *(5)* states must have the *choice* to refuse the conditions (not coercive)

Vermont v. Brillon

*Issue*: Should a defendant represented by publicly financed counsel be considered more prejudiced against when counsel is responsible for delays that infringe defendant's right to speedy trial than a defendant who retains private counsel? (*6th Amendment*) *Date*: 2009 (Roberts Court) *Case Summary*: In June 2004 after 3 years awaiting trial, the Respondent was convicted in a Vermont court for felony domestic assault. On appeal, he argued that the district court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the charges against him for lack of a speedy trial. The Supreme Court of Vermont agreed and remanded with instructions for the trial court to set aside his conviction and dismiss the charges against him. The court held that respondent's was not prosecuted within a time frame that satisfied his constitutional right to a speedy trial. It reasoned that the state was not relieved of its duty to provide him with a speedy trial merely because the public defenders assigned him were mostly responsible for the delay. Rather, it considered the office of the public defender an arm of the state. *Rule of Law/ Precedent Set*: USSC reasoned that delay caused by a defendant's counsel is ordinarily charged against the defendant. Dicta: Public Defender's office must provide satisfactory counsel.

Chevron USA v. National Resource Defense Council

*Issue*: Should deference be given by the court to the EPA's interpretation of statute where there is no clear guidance by Congress? *Date*: 1984 (Burger Court) *Case Summary*: The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 made requirements applicable to states that had not achieved the national air quality standards established by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in earlier legislation. The Amendments required the "nonattainment" States to establish a permit program regulating "new or modified major stationary sources" of air pollution, pursuant to stringent conditions. The EPA's decision to allow States to treat all pollution-emitting devices within the same industry grouping as though within a single "bubble" was challenged in this case. *Rule of Law/Precedent Set*: *Chevron Test*: Executive agencies have the authority to make rules and regulations as long as said rules and regulations don't directly conflict with the laws that empower them, then the regulations stand. Vote favored Chevron.

Nix v. Williams

*Issue*: Should evidence resulting in an arrest be excluded from trial because it was improperly obtained? (*4th Amendment*) *Date*: 1984 (Burger Court) *Case Summary*: The Respondent was arrested for the murder of a ten-year-old girl who's body he disposed of along a gravel road. State law enforcement officials engaged in a massive search for the child's body. During the search, after responding to an officer's appeal for assistance, Respondent made statements to the police (without an attorney present) which helped lead the searchers to the child's body. The defendant's Miranda rights were only read to him after his arrest. *Rule of Law/ Precedent Set*: *inevitable discovery doctrine* (exception to the exclusionary rule): If evidence obtained illegally would have been found inevitably through legal means it can still be used in a court of law.

Marbury v. Madison

*Issue*: Was the judiciary independent of politics? *Date*: 1803 (Marshall Court) *Case Summary*: To Lengthy for Quizlet *Rule of Law/Precedence Set*: judicial review: A power implied in the Constitution that gives federal courts the right to review and determine the constitutionality of acts passed by Congress and State legislatures

United States v. O'Brien

*Issue*: Was the law an unconstitutional infringement of O'Brien's freedom of speech? (*Free Speech*) *Date*: 1968 (Warren Court) *Case Summary*: O'Brien burned his draft card at a Boston courthouse. He said he was expressing his opposition to war. He was convicted under a federal law that made the destruction or mutilation of drafts card a crime. *Rule of Law/Precedent Set*: --Not allowed to burn draft card. He is allowed to protest the war but cannot destroy the apparatus of government. --USSC Established the *O'Brien Test*: determines whether governmental regulation involving symbolic speech is justified and examines whether the regulation is unrelated to content (content neutral) and narrowly tailored to achieve the government's interest. Government regulation is justified if: *(1)* within the constitutional power of the government *(2)* furthers an important or substantial governmental interest *(3)* governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression *(4)* government's interest outweighs the suppression of speech.

Plessy v. Ferguson

*Issue*: Was the statute requiring separate, but equal accommodations on railroad transportation consistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution? (*Civil Rights*) *Date*: 1896 (Fuller Court) *Case Summary*: The state of Louisiana enacted a law that required separate railway cars for blacks and whites. Homer Plessy--who was seven-eighths Caucasian--took a seat in a "whites only" car of a Louisiana train. He refused to move to the car reserved for blacks and was arrested. *Rule of Law/Precedent Set*: Separate but equal doctrine

Wolf v. Colorado

*Issue*: Were the states required to exclude illegally seized evidence from trial under the 4th and 14th Amendments? (*4th Amendment*) *Date*: 1949 (Vinson Court; 6 to 3 decision) *Case Summary*: The petitioner was convicted of conspiring to commit abortions in a State court and appealed. He alleged that his Fourth Amendment constitutional right to be free from illegal searches and seizures had been violated and that any evidence obtained as a result of the illegal search and seizure should have been excluded from trial as a matter of due process. *Rule of Law/ Precedent Set*: Selective incorporation, the exclusionary rule was not incorporated on the states but the prohibition of unreasonable search and seizures was. USSC ruled that while the exclusion of evidence may have been an effective way to deter unreasonable searches, other methods could be equally effective and would not fall below the minimal standards assured by the Due Process Clause. Civil remedies, such as penalizing officers and public pressure were sufficient enough to cause cops to behave themselves. *Problem*:Doesn't work both ways. There is slippage, cops want to fight crime rather than make sure they aren't violating civil liberties. If officers are penalized for violating civil liberties then they will err on the side of caution and won't be able to fight crime.

Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States

*Issue*: What is interstate commerce? (*Interstate Commerce*) *Date*: 1964 (Warren Court) *Case Summary*: Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in business of public access (restaurants, hotels, etc.) At this hotel, the owner refused to rent rooms to blacks and only allowed whites to rent rooms. He believed the Civil Rights Act has no bearing on his hotel since it is intrastate commerce (as in the hotel only had one branch in Atlanta, GA). However, his hotel was located in between four interstate highways. *Rule of Law/Precedent Set*: defines Interstate Commerce broadly--whenever a meaningful portion of raw materials, finish product, or consumers cross over state lines, it's interstate.

Gibbons v. Ogden

*Issue*: What is the extent of Congress' power under the Commerce Clause (1.8.3)? (*Interstate commerce*) *Date*: 1824 (Marshall Court) *Case Summary*: Inventions are protected by patents but not commercial application of the invention. Enjoined NY (*state* gov) from giving a monopoly over the steamboat line to Robert Fulton, inventor of the vessel. Fulton's invention was protected by a federal (*national* gov) patent, its commercial application was not, patenting encouraged technology but not at the expense of competition. *Rule of Law/ Precedent set*: Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce, encompassing virtually every form of commercial activity (i.e. radio signals, electricity, telephone messages, the Internet etc.). The Supreme Court broadly interpreted commerce.

Brown v. Board of Education II

*Issue*: What means should be used to implement the principles announced in Brown I? (*Civil Rights*) *Date*: 1955 (Warren Court, 9-0 Decision) *Case Summary*: After its decision in Brown I which declared racial discrimination in public education unconstitutional, the Court convened to issue the directives which would help to implement its newly announced Constitutional principle. *Rule of Law/Precedent Set*: Desegregation of public schools with "all deliberate speed".

Herring v. United States

*Issue*: When police errors lead to an unlawful search, and the arresting officers are innocent of wrongdoing, does the 4th Amendment require application of the exclusionary rule? (4th Amendment) *Date*: 2009 (Roberts Court) *Case Summary*: The Petitioner drove to a neighboring Coffee County (AL) to inquire about a truck that had been impounded. After requesting information about the truck, the clerk requested a routine check for outstanding warrants against him. Upon contacting neighboring Dale County, Coffee County law enforcement was informed that there was an outstanding warrant for the petitioner. Deputies performed a routine search of the vehicle and discovered methamphetamine and firearms. Within minutes of initially reporting an outstanding warrant, Dale County officials called back to inform Coffee County officials that they had inaccurately reported an outstanding warrant due to a clerical error. However, the search had already uncovered evidence and the Petitioner was arrested, charged with possession of the drugs and guns. At trial, the petitioner challenged the admissibility of the evidence obtained in the search, claiming that the clerical error resulted in an unreasonable search. *Rule of Law/ Precedent Set*: *good faith exception*: Evidence obtained illegally but only as the result of an honest, legitimate mistake may still be used in a court of law. Dicta: Clerical errors are inevitable in the technology era. If police departments allow for poor record keeping in the future then clerical errors will no longer be considered a good faith mistake.

NAACP v. Alabama

*Issue*: Whether compelled disclosure of membership lists violates the Petitioner's members' rights of freedom of association? (*9th Amendment* Penumbra of Rights theory) *Date*: 1958 (Warren Court) *Case Summary*: As part of its strategy to enjoin the Petitioner from operating, Alabama required it to reveal to the State's Attorney General the names and addresses of all the Petitioner's members and agents in the state. *Rule of Law/ Precedent Set*: USSC ruled that a compelled disclosure of the Petioner's membership and lists would have the effect of suppressing legal association and assembly among the group's members. Nothing short of an "overriding valid interest of the State," something not present in this case, was needed to justify this state's actions.

New York Times v. Sullivan

*Issue*:Did Alabama's libel law, by not requiring Sullivan to prove that an advertisement personally harmed him and dismissing the same as untruthful due to factual errors, unconstitutionally infringe on the First Amendment's freedom of speech and freedom of press protections? (*Free Press*) *Date*: 1964 *Case Summary*: In 1960, the New York Times ran a full-page advertisement paid for by civil right activists. The ad openly criticized the police department in the city of Montgomery, Alabama for its treatment of civil rights protestors. Most of the descriptions in the ad were accurate, but some of the statements were false. The police commissioner, L. B. Sullivan, took offense to the ad and sued the paper in an Alabama court. Sullivan argued that the ad had damaged his reputation, and he had been libeled. The Alabama court ruled in favor of Sullivan, finding that the newspaper ad falsely represented the police department and Sullivan. After losing an appeal in the Supreme Court of Alabama, the New York Times took its case to the United States Supreme Court arguing that the ad was not meant to hurt Sullivan's reputation and was protected under the First Amendment. *Rule of Law/Precedent Set*: In order for a public figure to claim damages for defamation they must prove *actual malice*-- statements made with knowledge that they are false or in reckless disregard of their truth or falsity

New York Times v. United States

*Issue*:Did the Nixon administration's efforts to prevent the publication of what it termed "classified information" violate the 1st Amendment? (*Free Press*) *Date*: 1971 (Burger Court/ *per curiam decision*) *Case Summary*: In what became known as the "Pentagon Papers Case," the Nixon Administration attempted to prevent the New York Times and Washington Post from publishing materials belonging to a classified Defense Department study regarding the history of United States activities in Vietnam. The President argued that prior restraint was necessary to protect national security. *Rule of Law/Precedent Set*: The term "national security" was too broad to legitimize prior restraint, and also argued that it is not the Court's job to create laws where the Congress had not spoken. There was also a lack of case in controversy, the court cannot decide on national security since it was not the issue at hand. *Government had not met the heavy burden of justifying prior restraint.* *Dicta*: National security might be an exception to prior restraint.

Dennis v. United States

*Issue*:Did the Smith Act's restrictions on speech violate the 1st Amendment? (*Free Speech*) *Date*: 1951 (Vinson Court) *Case Summary*: In 1948, the leaders of the Communist Party of America were arrested and charged with violating provisions of the Smith Act. The Act made it unlawful to knowingly conspire to teach and advocate the overthrow or destruction of the United States government. Party leaders were found guilty and lower courts upheld the conviction. *Rule of law/Precedent Set*: Smith Act did not inherently violate the 1st Amendment. In the plurality opinion, the Court held that there was a distinction between the mere teaching of communist philosophies and active advocacy of those ideas and such advocacy created a "clear and present danger" that threatened the government. *For an impediment on free expression to be permissible, the gravity of the evil, discounted by its improbability of coming about, must sufficiently outweigh the invasion of free speech necessary to avoid the danger.*

McCreary County v. ACLU

*Issue*:Do Ten Commandments displays in public schools and in courthouses violate the 1st Amendment's establishment clause, which prohibits government from passing laws "respecting an establishment of religion?" (*Establishment of Religion*) *Date*: 2005 (Rehnquist Court) *10 Commandment Case* *Case Summary*: Local Kentucky ordinances called for the placement of the 10 Commandments in public school classrooms and courtrooms. Some claimed doing so was establishing a religion. Kentucky responded by adding a small disclaimer to the bottom of the Commandments. *Rule of Law/ Precedent Set*: Placing religious documents on court house walls and public school classrooms is a violation of the Establishment Clause and will not be allowed because classrooms and court houses are places of authority.

Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña

*Issue*:Does the *5th Amendment*'s guarantee of equal protection require the federal government's racial classifications to withstand strict scrutiny? (*Affirmative Action*) *Date*: 1995 (Rehnquist Court) *Case Summary*: Adarand Constructors submitted the lowest bid to general contractor on a subcontracting job for a government highway guardrail project. The general contractor awarded the job to Gonzales Construction, a small business controlled by a "socially and economically disadvantaged" person, in order to take advantage of financial incentives (5% bid reduction to any company that was suspect class certified) offered by the Department of Transportation. Adarand Constructors filed suit against the Department of Transportation alleging that the financial incentive for hiring such companies was unconstitutional. *Rule of Law/Precedent Set*: The Court ruled that for the state or national government to require an affirmative action program, they must demonstrate/pass strict scrutiny review. *strict scrutiny*: compelling public interest (need of society) narrowly tailored (done in the least obnoxious way; not creating additional problems). Since the construction industry is already diversified it does not pass strict scrutiny.

Gonzales v. Oregon

*Issue*:Does the Controlled Substance Act authorize the Attorney General to prohibit doctors from prescribing regulated drugs to effect physician-assisted suicide where state law (Death with Dignity Act) specifically authorizing such medical uses? (*Federalism*) *Date*:2006 (Roberts Court) *Case Summary*: Under the terms of the Oregon Death with Dignity Act, licensed physicians were authorized to prescribe lethal drugs to terminally-ill patients, upon the patient's request, where two doctors agreed that the patient was within six months of death resulting from an incurable condition. Then Attorney General John Ashcroft declared that physician-assisted suicide violated the Controlled Substances Act of 1970. Ashcroft threatened to revoke the medical licenses of physicians who took part in the practice. Oregon sued Ashcroft in federal district court and later the 9th Circuit Court. The federal government argued that the transport of the barbiturate was interstate commerce because 3 states produced the drug and none of them were Oregon. *Rule of Law/Precedent Set*: The Court upheld the Death with Dignity Act and ruled that Congress intended the Controlled Substances Act to prevent doctors only from engaging in illicit drug dealing, not to define general standards of state medical practice. Issues of health and morality fall under the state's reserved powers therefore the federal government can't claim that the transport of the drug is interstate commerce just because they want to regulate drugs.

Mapp v. Ohio

*Issue*:May evidence obtained through a search in violation of the 4th Amendment be admitted in a state criminal proceeding? (*4th Amendment)* *Date*: 1961 (Warren Court) *Case Summary*: Cleveland police officers arrived at the petitioner's residence pursuant to information that a firebombing suspect was hiding out there. The petitioner refused to admit the officers without a search warrant after speaking with her attorney. The officers left and returned later with what purported to be a search warrant. When the petitioner failed to answer the door, the officers forcibly entered the residence. The petitioner's attorney arrived and was not permitted to see the petitioner or to enter the residence. The petitioner demanded to see the search warrant and when presented, she grabbed it and placed it in her shirt. Police struggled with the petitioner and eventually recovered the warrant. The petitioner was then placed under arrest for being belligerent and taken to her bedroom on the second floor of the residence. The officers then conducted a widespread search of the residence wherein pornographic materials were found in a trunk in the basement. The petitioner was ultimately convicted of possessing these materials. *Rule of Law/Precedent Set*: *Incorporation of the exclusionary rule*: All evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is, by the 4th Amendment, inadmissible in a state court.The exclusionary rule applied since it is a balance between liberty and order and without it there cannot be fairness under the law. The only way to have a semblance of the 4th amendment and allow officers to still complete their job is via the exclusionary rule.