GOVT Final

Per Curiam Opinion

"by the bench" a collective decision of the court in which not one justice claims authorship.

Establishment Clause

"congress shall make no law respect an establishment of religion". Meant to prohibit an official tax supported state run church. A national church concerned the framers and they wanted to take all measures to avoid it.

Non-establishment

(Justice Rehnquist) The govt. may not favor a certain religion over another.

Dis-establishment

(Justice Stevens) The wall of separation. Govt. must be totally neutral.

Voting Rights Act of 1965

(s. carolina v. katzenback) passed to end discriminatory voting practices in the South. (Literacy tests, voting taxes...etc...) "equality of states" principle. If you were found in violation of VRA, Federal Govt. would come in, take over, and suspend state voting laws, and register people to vote who weren't registered. If fewer than 50% of population doesn't vote, there is valid grounds for investigation.

The Clear and Present Danger Test

Are the words used in such circumstances in such a nature that congress has a right to prevent?

Wall of Separation

Church and state cannot touch. Metaphor comes from Jefferson, an Atheist, a letter he wrote.

Morse v. Fredrick (2007) Freedom of Speech

Facts: "BONG HITS 4 JESUS". HS students in Alaska hang this banner during the parade of the Olympic Torch. The vice principle forces them to take the banner down, and suspends the students. Fredrick claims that this suppresses his protected speech. Question: Is Fredrick's speech protected? Conclusion: Tinker v. Des Moines is used as precedent. Because this speech promoted illegal drug use during a school sanctioned event, it was directly in conflict with the school's efforts to discouraged illegal drug use. Significance: Tinker is not overturned, but this case limits student's free speech in school.

*****Citizens United v. FEC (2010) Freedom of Speech

Facts: "Hillary: The Movie" is forbidden from being distributed because it violates certain statutes of BCRA. Question: Conclusion: Significance:

U.S. v. O'Brien (1968) Freedom of Speech

Facts: "Selective Service Act" draft card registration. Federal Law requires all males to be registered with selective service. O'Brien burns his draft card as an anti-Vietnam protest. He is arrested, and he claims it to be free speech even though the act prohibits the destruction of the card. Question: Is O'Brien's act protected by the 1st amendment? Conclusion: O'Brien is not protected. The govt. legislation against the ACTION had an incidental suppression of O'Brien's speech. BUT this is constitutional. Significance: The O'Brien Test

Schneck v. U.S. (1919) Freedom of Speech

Facts: "dangerous speech incitement" Espionage Act 1917, prohibited speech that hindered WWI efforts. Schneck composes a pamphlet and sends it out encouraging men to resist the draft, and discusses the corruption of the govt. He claims he is protected by the first. Question: Is Schneck protected by the 1st? Did his speech intend to cause a violation of the law? Conclusion: This speech poses a clear and present danger for draft resistance. Schneck is not protected. Significance: Clear and Present Danger Test

Strauder v. West Virginia (1880) Equal Protection (Race)

Facts: AA are prohibited from jury service on W. Virginia court by Congressional Law. Strauder is tried for murder on a jury of all whites. Strauder pleas case. Question: Do citizens have a constitutionally protected right to a jury of equal peers without a denial on a basis of race? Does the WV Law violate equal protection? Conclusion: Yes. Civil rights must be protected. WV Law is overturned. Significance: This case set the tone for the way the court would approach civil rights after the civil war.

Wallace v. Jaffree (1985) Establishment Clause

Facts: AL calls for a moment of silence in schools. Students wishing to, may participate in prayer with teachers. Jaffree sues claiming that if his children choose not to participate, they will be ostracized. Question: Is this a violation of the establishment clause? Concusion: Lemon test is applied. There is no secular purpose for the law. This is a clear advancing of religion. The law is overturned. Significance: dis-establishment v. non-establishment

NAACP v. Alabama (1958) Freedom of Association

Facts: AL requires all foreign organizations to provide a full list of their memebers. NAACP refuses to provide a list, and AL denies them the right to operate in AL. NAACP sues and claims that they have the right to keep membership a secret. Question: Did AL requirement violate Due Process? Conclusion: The unanimous court held that the law would suppress legal association among the group's members. Significance:

Reynolds v. Sims (1964) Equal Protection (voting)

Facts: AL state legislature has a law that promises reapportioning seats every 10 years, and there are drastic differences in population ratios. Every county receives ONE senator and ONE representative. Question: Does AL failure to reapportion violate equal protection of voting? Conclusion: AL requires reapportionment on the basis of population. THE FEDERAL COURT INTERPRETS AL CONSTITUTION. However, only AL should be able to do this. Significance: The court looked for vote DENIAL, DESTRUCTION, or DILLUTION. This changed the face of American politics. Now all states must redraw boundary lines.

Wygant v. Jackson Michigan Board of Education (1986) Equal Protection (Race)

Facts: Affirmative Action institutes a program that protects teachers during a lay-off period. seniority protects you, and minority teachers laid off cannot exceed the percentage of those employed. Wygant, a white woman, loses her job. She sues that this violates equal protection. Question: Does the Michigan program violate EP? Conclusion: YES. strict scrutiny is applied. State interests are declared invalid, and is narrowly tailored. Significance: Affirmative Action may not cause someone to LOSE something, only be DENIED something.

Regents of Univ. of California at Davis v. Bakke (1978) Equal Protection (Race)

Facts: Affirmative action and benign racial classifications push UCD med school to institue a "set aside program". 16 seats are reserved for "special students" (minority groups). if you are a member of the minority groups, with a high enough grad for med school, you were admitted. Bakke (white male) is rejected twice even though his scores were higher than some accepted under affirmative action program. Question: Does the equal protection apply to this affirmative action? And how? Conclusion: When race is used to treat people differently, strict scrutiny must be used. California state interests: (1. To reduce deficit of minorities in medical profession, 2. Increase number of doctors that will serve in diverse communities,"Why would we assume that a black doctor will want to serve in an underprivileged area?" 3. countering social discrimination, 4. diversity in medical school class, THIS IS THE ONLY COMPELLING STATE INTEREST.) It is narrowly tailored though because there is a quota of students. RULING: because Cali has a state interest but a bad way of carrying it out, they are required to adopt Harvard's "PLUS" program. race must now be a "soft variable" Significance: Strict quotas violate equal protection, but you may take race into account when evaluating student for admission.

U.S. v. Virginia (1996) "The VMI Case" Equal Protection (Gender)

Facts: All male military school in Lexington, known for extremely brutal and harsh program that produces some of the most renown military heroes. They are found guilty of equal protection by not allowing for women to enroll. SO, they institute an all-womens military. Question: Does this new facility fulfill the requirements of equal protection? Conclusion: Does the gender policy violate equal protection? (Yes, because the women's institution is significantly less brutal.) Because it provides for a different experience, it is in violation of equal protection. VMI is given a second chance to revamp the womens institution to make it more tough. Significance: Clarence Thomas sat this case out because of son's enrollment in the institution. Rehnquist concurs to undercut Ginsberg.

Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) Freedom of Speech

Facts: Anti-Vietnam demonstration at school- students wear black armbands. The school enacted a new rule prohibiting students from wearing black armbands. The students wear their armbands and are sent home. Question: Does the prohibition of students from wearing a black armband suppress the students free speech? Conclusion: the schoolboard passing the ruling becauae of a fear of the fights it COULD cause is not enough grounds to be a legitimate reason. The school engaged in "viewpoint discrimination" in which they directly suppressed Vietnam protesting. It didn't interfere with the school in carrying out its normal functions.

Everson v. Board of Education (1947) Establishment Clause

Facts: Because public school bus system does not service children in private schools, NJ law is enacted allowing parents to keep receipts from public transportation and receive a refund for sending their children to school. Everson sues, claiming this is govt. support for religious institutions. Question: Does the NJ Law violate the 1st establishment clause? Conclusion: This is a case where there is INDIRECT support for religious institutions. Some children attend non-religious private schools. The law does not show favor to religious institutions. It benefits religious and non-religious establishments the same. Significance: WALL OF SEPARATION

Whitney v. California (1927) Freedom of Speech

Facts: CA Criminal Syndicalism Law (Conspiracy), Whitney is charged for her association with the Communist Labor Party of America. Some members of the organization violate the law with speech, and even though Whitney does not participate, she is convicted. Question: Did the Criminal Syndicalism Act violate the 1st of 14th? Conclusion: Whitney is convicted and the law is upheld. The threat of serious evils can be suppressed. Significance: "Clear and Imminent Danger Test" VERY apparent danger.

*****Shelby County v. Holder (2013) Equal protection (voting)

Facts: Civil Rights Act of 1965 requires for 1) official preclearance in order to make changes to election laws, 2)defines the eligible districts as ones that had a voting test in place as of November 1, 1964 and less than 50% turnout for the 1964 presidential election. Holder sues, claiming these requirements as outdated. Question: Does the renewal of Section 5 of the Voter Rights Act under the constraints of Section 4(b) exceed Congress' authority under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, and therefore violate the Tenth Amendment and Article Four of the Constitution? Conclusion: Significance:

Cohen v. California (1971) Freedom of Speech

Facts: Cohen appears in a CA court, wearing a jacket that reads "f*** the draft", in opposition to the Vietnam war. He doesn't confront anyone, but bystanders become offended, so he is arrested. Question: Is Cohen protected by the 1st? Conclusion: These are not fighting words, and do not promote erotic meaning. "innocent viewer problem" the state may protect you from offensive dialogue i your home, but not in public. Cohen's conviction is overturned. The POSSIBILITY of him engaging in a fight is not enough grounds.

Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000) Freedom of Speech: Association, Campaign Finance

Facts: Dale is a gay rights activist and obtains a leadership position with BSoA. His position is revoked when they discover his sexual orientation because they ban homosexuals from participating in their organization. NJ has a statute that outlaws discrimination against sexual orientation when it comes to group enrollment. Question: Does the NJ law infringe upon the BSoA free of association? Conclusion: YES. Homosexuality is inconsistent with the values that they boy scouts wish to instill, therefore Dale's membership would communicate mixed signals. His membership would force BSoA to communicate that homosexual practice is acceptable. Significance: If you are a group, though not everyone will think the same was,the groups message is still protected.

S. Carolina v. Katzenback (1966) Equal Protection (Voting)

Facts: Does the VRA violate federalism? the separation of state and federal govt? Question: Did the VRA violate states rights to implement and control elections? Conclusion: NO. Federal govt. may intervene in cases where discriminatory voting practices may be occurring. Significance:

*****Bush v. Gore (2000) Equal Protection (voting)

Facts: FL 2000 presidential election divided by a few hundred votes. Bush appears to have won the machine count, but Gore wins every re-count. 3 FL counties appear to have"voting issues". So each county manually recounts the under-vote. A board of members decides the intent of the voters. "The hanging chad", "the pregnant chad" LOL. George Bush is declared the winner, and Gore sues: "If a state certifies its electoral votes before 12/9, no member of congress may challenge the vote". Question: Did the FL S.C. violate Article II limits of Constitution by making new election law? Does the standardless manual re-count violate equal protection of citizens votes? Conclusion: Bush wins. The manual recounts must be stopped. This is an equal protection violation. The FL supreme court overstepped its powers, and state legislatures are commissioned the power to overrun elections. Significance:

Nevada Dept. of Human Resources v. Hibbs (2003) Equal Protection (Gender)

Facts: Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) says that the burden of family care is typically upon a woman. Under certain circumstances, any family member may take up to 12 weeks of unpaid medical leave to take care. Hibbs wife is in car crash, and he uses his 12 weeks and doesn't show up for work. He is fired. He sues that this violates the FMLA, and seeks cash damages from state of Nevada. Question: May an individual sue a State for money damages in federal court for violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993? Conclusion: Yes. In sum, the States' record of unconstitutional participation in, and fostering of, gender-based discrimination in the administration of leave benefits is weighty enough to justify the enactment of prophylactic [section] 5 legislation Significance: Persuasive Justification is used.

Buckley v. Valeo (1976) Freedom of Speech: Association, Campaign Finance

Facts: Federal Elections Act of 1974 is passed to navigate away from the corruption of Watergate. Limits: 1)contributions from individuals 2) Contributions from groups to campaigns 3) campaigns and independent groups 4) allows for F.E.C. oversight. Question: Do these limitations violate free speech and association clauses? Conclusion: 1) individual contribution may be limited because it promotes the integrity of and confidence in the electoral system 2) prevention of contributions from family members is not protected. it doesn't have a direct governmental interest. Significance: "Money as speech". BIRTH OF SOFT MONEY LOOPHOLE. You may give money to political parties, just not directly to presidential candidates.

Gomillion v. Lightfoot Equal Protection (voting)

Facts: Gerrymandering. Tuskegee, AL redraws city limits voting boundaries into a 28 sided figure, excluding all but a handful of African American citizens. Gomillion sues Lightfoot (mayor). This redrawing was done so without debate or statement of intent. Question: Do the new boundary lines violate equal protection of the right to vote? Conclusion: This is a political question, therefore the court may not address it. However, states may not use state power to redraw lines without having to provide evidence as to why the action was necessary. the question becomes "what is the legislature trying to accomplish by redrawing these lines?" May not use unconstitutional means to achieve a constitutional ends. Significance: This opens the door for voting equal protection questions.

Town of Greece v. Galloway (2014) Establishment Clause

Facts: Greece, NY opens town council meetings with prayer. Participation is voluntary, and anyone who wishes may be chaplain. Galloway sues claiming that this is an EC violation because it shows a preference to Christianity to other religions. Question: Is this a violation of the EC? Conclusion: Prayer is for the COUNCIL, not the PUBLIC, therefore there is no coercion involved. The practice is upheld. Significance: MOST RECENT RULING ON ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE.

Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan (1982) Equal Protection (Gender)

Facts: Hogan applies for BSN as MUW, and is denied because it is an all womens institute. He sues Question: Does this denial violate equal protection? Conclusion: O'Connor writes for the court. (First woman of the S.C.) "exceedingly persuasive justification test" is applied, and MUW fails. This is in violation because it assumes the traditional roles of men and women in society and perpetuates idea that women are t be nurses. Significance: Doesnt deal with women's rights, but concerns a MALES violation.

Reed v. Reed (1971) Equal Protection (Gender)

Facts: Idaho law provides that men are to be the administrators of distributed assets when not will is written. Cecil and Sally Reed are in the middle of a divorce when their adopted child dies with no written will. The law shows preference to Mr. Reed to be administrator. Mrs. Reed sues. Question: Equal protection violation because the ID law assumes the right to an estate to a male? Conclusion: Yes. The Idaho Law is declared invalid. For a classification to meet equal protection standards, it must be relevant and treat similarly situated people alike. Significance: THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THE COURT INVALIDATES A LAW WITH GENDER EQUAL PROTECTION.

McConnell v. FEC (2003) Freedom of Speech

Facts: In an attempt to combat the "soft money loophole", Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) is passed. Question: Is the "soft money ban" in compliance with the 1st? Conclusion: The law is upheld because it promoted the integrity of the electoral system. "money, like water with always find an outlet", therefore govt. was justified in taking measures in order to regulate this. Significance: Soft money is banned.

Crawford v. Marion County BOE (2008) Equal Protection (voting)

Facts: Indiana passes a law requiring people who vote in person to present a photo ID in order to receive a ballot. Voters who have objections to being photographed are given provisions. Question: Does this place an unduly burden on a citizens right to vote? Conclusion: The law is upheld. 1) the law modernizes elections 2) prevents voter fraud 3) promotes confidence in electoral process. This is an issue of government legitimacy. Citizens consent to give up some rights to ensure the legitimacy of govt. Before the law was passed, Indiana had more voters than residents. Significance: The first test of the voting rights act.

Texas . Johnson (1989) Freedom of Speech

Facts: Johnson burns a flag in the steps of Dallas City Hall with a stolen American flag from a bank. TX has a law prohibiting flag desecration. Johnson is arrested and convicted. Question: Is Johnson's act protected by 1st? Does the TX law suppress too much speech? Conclusion: symbolic/expressive conduct. Johnson IS protected. Under strict scrutiny, the court finds that the law was meant to suppress expression and speech.

McCreary County v. ACLU (2005) Establishment Clause

Facts: Kentucky county has a display of the 10 commandments in a highly trafficked area. ACLU sued, claiming that this is in violation of the establishment clause. Question: Does the display of the 10 commandments violate the establishment clause? Conclusion: YES. advancement of religion. in each case, the court concluded that it was an endorsement of religion. Significance:

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) Equal Protection (race)

Facts: Louisiana Railway Car- separate cars for different races. Plessy is arrested for violating this law. He sues the state, claiming that the law denies him equal protection. Question: Does this LRC Law violate equal protection? Conclusion: Laws that establish a LEGAL distinction between social classes are not constitutional. BUT laws that separate people don't necessarily suggest inferiority. Social equality is the question of this cases BUT it is outside of Congress Police Powers because it doesn't involve interstate matters. THE LAW IS UPHELD. Significance: Harlan's most famous dissent. "The Color Blind Constitution" prohibits the state from discriminating with race. Louisiana claims to passes the law for safety to avoid racial conflict. But Harlan's dissent sets the tone for the cases to come.

Frontiero v. Richardson (1973) Equal Protection (Gender)

Facts: Military Officers Spousal Benefits provide benefits for the wives of military officers. Frontiero, a female officer, tries to claim her husband as a dependent. She is faced with a series of complications, and sues. Question: Is this a violation of due process of equal protection? Conclusion: Under strict scrutiny, the law fails because there is not a good argument for the necessity of the law. Significance: The development of "suspect class theory" Whenever the govt. has used a certain classification in the past to treat people unfairly, it may be used today in court.

Reynolds v. U.S. (1878) Free Exercise Clause

Facts: Mormon faith endorses the practice of polygamy. Federal Law bans the practice of polygamy, Reynolds challenges the law, claiming that plural marriage is a foundational practice of his religion. Question: Does the free exercise clause protect the practice of polygamy? Does the ban on polygamy interfere with free exercise? Conclusion: The Wall of separation- polygamy is nowhere found in the American history. The law is upheld because it doesn't DIRECTLY discriminate the religion. The law is intended to govern actions, not oppress Mormons. Significance: Beginning of Free Exercise Clause Jurisprudence

Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada (1938) Equal Protection (Race)

Facts: NAACP is founded in 1909 with a strategy to undermine the outcome of Plessy. "incremental strategy" is used, they try to reveal the laws for what they really are by violating them peacefully. Gaines applies for Missouri School of Law, and state of Missouri says they will cover the cost for an out of state education because he may not attend their school due to race. They send Gaines to Kansas University. Question: Does this violate equal protection? Conclusion: Yes, the equal protection does not apply to state schools. Missouri is LEGALLY required to admit Gaines to Missouri School of Law. Because when a state creates a benefit, it must be equally available to all qualified citizens. Significance:

Hunt v. Cromartie (1999)

Facts: NC-12 from Shaw v. Reno is redrawn again. Is challenged again as a racial gerrymandering. Question: Is this redrawing STILL in violation of EP? Conclusion: Strict Scrutiny is applied because of question of race. "This was drawn to create a safe democratic district". A district may engage in POLITICAL gerrymandering, just not racial. THIS IS UPHELD Significance: Pack and crack: PACK like-minded voters together, CRACK influence of opposing party. This has began to cause the "disappearing moderate voter".

NY Times v. Sullivan (1963) Freedom of the Press

Facts: NYT publishes an ad for a civil rights activist that criticized Montgomery govt. with untrue statements. Libel charges are then given to NYT for failing to perform a background check on the ad's claims. AL court rules that the ad was clearly libelous. It winds its way up to S.C. Question: Did AL libel law unconstitutionally infringe upon protected speech? Conclusion: Brennan overturns previous judgement. The 1st protects the publication of all statements, even false ones, except when statements are made with actual malice (a knowledge that the statements are false) Significance: Actual Malice Standard

Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) Freedom of Speech

Facts: Ohio Criminal Syndicalism Law. KKK rally is filmed, where threatening statements against minorities are made, and violent action is encouraged against the state. Tape is taken by authorities, and the individuals are tried under Ohio Law. Question: Does the Ohio law violate Brandenburg's freedom of speech? Conclusion: OHIO LAW VIOLATES. The law bans too much speech. Whitney is overruled and convictions are overturned. "You may call for the violent overthrow of the government until there is a VERY VERY VERY clear threat that it will happen." Significance: Imminent Lawless Action

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) Freedom of Speech

Facts: One cannot prove that words "hurt". Chaplinsky, a Jehovah's Witness makes slanderous statement against other religions, highly offending certain individuals. He called the officers that asked him to stop "damned fascists". He is arrested for violated an NH law by breakig the peace. Question: Is Chaplinsky's free speech violated by being convicted under the statute? Conclusion: NO. His speech is not protected. "fighting words" are meant to encourage a breach of the peace and inflict injury. Significance:

Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) Establishment Clause

Facts: PA law provides funds for religious private schools to purchase secular subjects and general education materials. This means that the state is paying for school funding for a religious institution. A taxpayer challenges this and claims it to be a promotion of religion. Question: Does this violate the establishment clause? Conclusion: There is too much potential entanglement here. This could lead to the church potentially becoming the auditor of the church. The law is overturned. Significance: Lemon Test

Abington School District v. Schempp (1963) Establishment Clause

Facts: PA passes a law that requires a reading of certain Bible verses at the beginning of school each day. If students wish to not participate, they are excused. Schempp, Jewish father, sues. Question: Does this violate establishment clause? Conclusion: Use of Bible verses shows a preference for Christianity. If the state can compel you to be at an establishment, then they have a captive audience. Establishment Clause requires total separation. Significance: Schempp Test, ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE TRUMPS FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE

Near v. Minnesota (1931) Freedom of the Press

Facts: Pre-state-1st-incorporation, "public nuisance laws" are passed, enabling the govt. to shut down certain establishments that could be considered a public nuisance. A local newspaper criticized the corruption of local police and county officials. MN courts shut down the newspaper. Mr. Near is prohibited from publishing his paper. "prior restraint": the govt. prohibits a statement from being made, rather than punishing after the fact. This suppresses speech Question: Is the "public nuisance law" a means of prior restraint? Is Near protected by the 1st? Conclusion: Yes and yes. The only times when restraint is allowed is in the interest of justice. Significance: Incorporation of 1st amendment to the states!

Runyon v. McCrary (1976) Freedom of Association

Facts: Private secondary schools have racial admissions policies and deny admission to students solely on the basis of race.This is a private organization, not under the states action doctrine, so are they requires to comply? Question: Should private institutions be allowed to have racially narrowed policies? Conclusion: RACE IS DIFFERENT WHEN IT COMES TO ASSOCIATION. The right to association and privacy is not supported here. Though parents have a legitimate concern of sending their children to a racially segregated school, it is not constitutionally supported. Significance: RACE is the only form of discrimination that the constitution will NEVER permit.

The Civil Rights Cases of 1883 Equal Protection (Race)

Facts: Public Accommodations Provisions of Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1875 state that if a business provides PA, you cannot refuse service to anyone on the basis of race. Many businesses are caught in violation of this, and they sue claiming the law to be outside of the federal governments power. Question: Can the federal government enact a law that requires businesses to comply? Does congress have the constitutional authority to pass such laws with section 5 of the 14th powers? Conclusion: This constitutional power may only be used against STATE action, not against privately owned businesses. The law is overturned. Significance: Birth of state action doctrine. ("No state shall...") The limits congressional power to only go after the states.

Lee v. Weisman (1992) Establishment Clause

Facts: Public middle school graduation recites a prayer given by a local Rabbi. The Rabbi is given a pamphlet from the principle to direct him on what is allowed to be said and not. Weisman sues, claiming that she was forced to attend the ceremony and this was an advancement of religion. Question: Does the inclusion of rabbis in a school sanctioned graduation ceremony violate the establishment clause? Conclusion: Weisman was NOT required to attend the ceremony, so there is no violation there. HOWEVER there is too much govt. involvement because of the pamphlet. This places children in a coerced situation. "The Heckler's Veto" just because one person objects, should we comply to their wishes? This is found in violation. The pamphlet gets too close a state-church. Significance: The court does not question the SINCERITY of one's belief.

Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co. (1989) Equal Protection (Race)

Facts: Richmond passes a law to remedy the past, "set aside"- "if you are going to bid on a city project, 30% of the labor must be outsourced to sub-contractors owned by minority group." Croson submits a bid for a project and tries very hard to meet the 30% rule, but can't. He loses the contract, and sues. Question: Does this violate equal protection? Conclusion: Yes. This would result in minority businesses being given an excessive amount of labor that they would be unable to fulfill. Remedial power can only be exercised very minimally by the states. Fails the narrowly tailored prong of strict scrutiny. Significance:

Sherbert v. Verner (1963) Free Exercise Clause

Facts: Sherbert, a 7th day adventist is committed to her religious belief that the Sabbath should be honored on Saturday. She cannot find a job that will not require her to work on Saturday. She files for unemployment compensation, and is denied because she doesn't qualify. She has options of employment, just won't taken them. She sues. Question: Does Sherbert's denial of unemployment compensation deny her free exercise? Conclusion: A part of govt. neutrality is RECOGNIZING the religion. There IS a suppression of her free exercise rights because Sherbert is placed in a situation of having to choose between a principle tenant of her religion, and eating. The state must give her benefits. Significance: How will the court treat exemptions with court based laws?

RAV v. St. Paul (1992) Freedom of Speech

Facts: St. Paul, MN enacts special penalties for crimes with a racial, gender, or creed bias. No symbol may anger others based on these basis. R.A.V. and friends make a makeshift cross from chair legs and set it on fire in lawn of an AA family, This has strong metaphorical meaning with KKK. R.A.V. is arrested. Question: Is the St. Paul Law suppressing too much speech? Conclusion: The law is too vague. It suppresses the SUBJECT of the speech as opposed to the harm that it could cause. This law commits viewpoint discrimination. The law is narrowly tailored to suppress speech of a certain viewpoint.

Gitlow v. NY (1925) Freedom of Speech

Facts: State Criminal Anarchy Law- prevents citizens for calling for a govt. overthrow. Gitlow helps circulate a "left-wing" manifesto that calls for an overthrow of the govt. and the establishment of a communist regime. He is convicted. Question: Is Gitlow protected by the 1st? and does the law suppress speech? Conclusion: Because there is no evidence that his speech led to any action, he cannot be punished. Only when there is proof of action, can there be valid grounds for conviction. Significance: The Bad Tendency Test, incorporation of the 1st to the states.

Baker v. Carr (1962) Equal Protection (Voting)

Facts: TN state legislature has a law that requires reapportion every 10 years. But they haven't done so since 1901. Districts are very uneven in population distribution. baker sues claiming this is vote dilution. Question: Does this violate voting equal protection? Did the Supreme Court have jurisdiction over questions of legislative apportionment? Conclusion: Yes the court ruled that it had jurisdiction to intervene in this case. the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection issues which Baker and others raised in this case merited judicial evaluation. Significance: In this case, the court appeared to declare themselves as more powerful than the other 2 branches.

Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002) Establishment Clause

Facts: The Cleveland Public School System is in shambles. In order to promote the betterment of education, Ohio state legislature hand outs vouchers that cover part of the tuition cost to send children to private schools. Som of thee schools are religiously affiliated. Is this state funded religion? Question: Does this voucher program violate establishment clause? Conclusion: Lemon test applied. There is a secular legislative purpose, and does NOT promote religion. "direct aid" v. "private choice". Students and parents are given the choice of what school to send the student to. Violations are only incidental. Significance: This ruling contradicts Schempp... this allows a small violation to slide.

Engel v. Vitale (1962) Establishment Clause

Facts: The School Prayer Case. NY law allows for morning prayer composed by school officials. participation is voluntary. Question: Does this violate establishment clause and breech the wall of separation? Conclusion: This prayer clearly establishes a view in recognition of a higher power. Though there is no compulsion to participate, there is an endorsement. When there is govt endorsement of a religion, it violates the establishment clause. NY court is overruled. Significance: COMPULSION V. ENDORSEMENT.

Van Orden v. Perry (2005) Establishment Clause

Facts: The TX State Capital has a posting of the 10 commandments in front. Van Orden claims this is a violation of the establishment clause. The monument was donated in 1961, and has stood for 40 years without any concern. Question: Does this violate the establishment clause? Conclusion: the clause must protection "the preservation of history". LEMON TEST NOT APPLIED. Does not violate. This is a preservation of history. Significance:

*****Shaw v. Reno (1993) Equal Protection (Voting)

Facts: The U.S. Attorney General rejected a North Carolina congressional reapportionment plan because the plan created only one black-majority district. North Carolina submitted a second plan creating two black-majority districts. One of these districts was, in parts, no wider than the interstate road along which it stretched. Five North Carolina residents challenged the constitutionality of this unusually shaped district, alleging that its only purpose was to secure the election of additional black representatives. After a three-judge District Court ruled that they failed to state a constitutional claim, the residents appealed and the Supreme Court granted certiorari. Question: Is the concern of a racially gerrymandered district raise a valid constitutional issue under equal protection clause of the 14th? Conclusion: Yes. The Court held that although North Carolina's reapportionment plan was racially neutral on its face, the resulting district shape was bizarre enough to suggest that it constituted an effort to separate voters into different districts based on race. The unusual district, while perhaps created by noble intentions, seemed to exceed what was reasonably necessary to avoid racial imbalances. After concluding that the residents' claim did give rise to an equal protection challenge, the Court remanded - adding that in the absence of contradictory evidence, the District Court would have to decide whether or not some compelling governmental interest justified North Carolina's plan. Significance: "Political Apartheid", racial gerrymanders go against a colorblind constitution.

Gratz v. Bollinger (2003) Equal Protection (race)

Facts: Univ of Michigan undergrad admissions policy has a point system, 100 total. 20 points are automatically given to individuals of minority groups. Gratz is denied admission and sues. Question: EP violation? Conclusion: Under strict scrutiny, reaffirms that diversity is a compelling state interest, but fails narrowly tailored prong. This program treats people as a group, not individuals. Significance:

Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) Equal Protection (race)

Facts: Univ. of Michigan med school uses race as a "soft factor" that benefits in the admissions process. Question: EP violation? Conclusion: Court reaffirms Bakke. Strict Scrutiny is applied: and it passes because it allows for individual consideration. However, O'Connor says this cannot go on forever. Significance: "In 25 years, this will no longer be Constitutionally permissible." O'Connor

Sweatt v. Painter (1950) Equal Protection (Race)

Facts: University of Texas Law School has a segregated admissions process. However, after the Gaines ruling, they realiz that they must make changes. So, they institutes an all black school of law (Thurgood Marshall School of Law). Sweat sues, and claims that this benefit is still NOT EQUAL. Question: Did the Texas admissions scheme violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? Conclusion: There are very evident distinctions between the schools. Faculty, library, funding... as well as intangible qualities (reputation, alumni, networking...) are unequal. The educations are not equal. Sweatt must be admitted to UT. Significance: Progression in the idea of what equality really means.

Virginia v. Black (2003) Freedom of Speech

Facts: VA bans cross burning in a statute due to strong association with the KKK. Burning a cross commits an intent to intimidate. Convicted individuals under this law argue that it violates the 1st. Question: Does the VA law violate the 1st? Conclusion: States may ban cross burning WITH an intent to intimidate. HOWEVER they can no equivalent cross burning with an intention to intimidate. There is concern that this law will prevent many from speaking due to a fear. This, therefore suppresses too much speech. Significance: The Marketplace of Ideas- (Holmes) exposing the public to a variety of ideas. True threats doctrine- how can you prove that there was a true threat and intent to intimidate?

W. Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) Free Exercise Clause

Facts: WVA passes a law requiring students to pledge alliegience to the flag. Jehovah's witnesses claim this conflicts with their doctrinal belief to not bow down to idols. They refuse to comply, and the children are expelled and parents are fined. They claim that free exercise should protect them. Question: Does the law conflict with free exercise? Conclusion: This is important for national security, bu the means chosen for the ends are not constitutional. Significance: The govt. may not dictate politics religion or opinion.

Zenger Trial (1735) Freedom of the Press

Facts: Zenger, a German immigrant printer is paid to publish statements of seditious libel about William Cosby, New York Governor, by his political opponents. All statements published are true, but defamatory. Question: Is Zenger's speech protected by the 1st, though libel and true? Conclusion: the jury rules Zenger as not guilty despite the facts. This case makes it virtually impossible to prosecute seditious libel cases. Significance: Foundational case for freedom of the press. "meant to protect the ability of the citizens to criticize the govt., officials, and their policies. This is the core of free speech."

Pentagon Papers (NY Times v. U.S.) (1971) Freedom of the Press

Facts: classified reports are smuggle out of the Pentagon, and reveal that LBJ lied to the American public about matters concerning Vietnam. NYT and Washington Post publish them. U.S. claims that this threatens National Security. Question: Did Nixon's administration's efforts to prevent the publication of the information suppress speech and violate the 1st? Conclusion: The govt. must provide compelling evidence for why the information as to why the speech shouldn't be shared with the public. "Because the publication would not cause an inevitable, direct, and immediate event imperilling the safety of American forces, it is unjustified." Significance:

Wesberry v. Saunders (1964) Equal Protection (voting)

Facts: mal-apportionment in GA Congressional districts. District 5 has huge population in comparison to all other districts. Question: Does Article I Give power to protect Federal Voting rights solely to Congress? Conclusion: This dillutes the votes for district 5. Unconstitutional. Significance: NOW districts must contain equal populations.

O'Brien Test

Intermediate, A govt. regulation is sufficiently justified if it furthers an important govt. interest that is related.

Exceedingly Persuasive Justification Test (Intermediate Scrutiny)

Must have: 1) important govt. objective, 2) substantially related to accomplishment of objective.

Viewpoint Discrimination

Regulations are passed that suppress a certain viewpoint.

Equal Protection Clause

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment. Prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of law.

The Lemon Test

Secular legislative purpose? Neither advance nor inhibit religion? does not create excessive entanglement?

Actual Malice Standard

Severely Strict Scrutiny. if a public official wants you sue you for libel, he must prove that there as a direct intention to harm their reputation.

State Action Doctrine

State action doctrine is the American legal concept that the protections of the Constitution — such as the Fourteenth and First Amendments — only apply with any real strength to the coercive power of the state against the individual, rather than the coercive power of the individual against the individual.

The Bad Tendency Test

State can ban speech that leads to certain lawless action.

Undue Burden Test

Substantial obstacles in place that make the process of abortion more difficult for a woman.

Section 5, 14th amendment

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Clear and Imminent Danger Test

The danger has to be very near in order for the govt. to suppress the speech.

Imminent Lawless Action

VERY VERY clear if the speaker intends to incite a violation of the law that is both imminent and likely

Schempp Test

What is the purpose and primary effect of the law? Does the law advance or inhibit religion?