Government Case Laws

exclusionary rule

A rule that provides that otherwise admissible evidence cannot be used in a criminal trial if it was the result of illegal police conduct, improperly gathered evidence may not be introduced in a criminal trial. (incorporated in Mapp v Ohio)

incorporation doctrine

Due process clause of 14th amendment requires state and local governments to guarantee the bill of rights

dicta

"by the way" when a supreme court hears a case, they apply the case to another group of people (ex. teachers can be applied to the tinker standard)

in loco parentis

"in place of a parent"; school administrators can search and seize items off students (not teachers though)

stare decisis

"let the decision stand"; or allowing prior rulings to control the current case

fruit of the poisonous tree

Generally, not only must illegally obtained evidence be excluded, but also all evidence obtained or derived from exploitation of that evidence

concurrent opinion

agrees with the majority decision as to the winner of a case, but offers different reasons for the reaching of that conclusion

a pauper's petition

alternative to a petition of certoriari if the writer cannot afford a lawyer

judicial minimalism

court says we should only hear the issues that we absolutely need to hear and the other cases are left up to the other political institutions (courts)

judicial activism

courts says we are in good position to make policy so they make it instead of leaving it up to the other branches of government

medium scrutiny

discrimination against gender; in order to discriminate on the basis of gender, there must be a RATIONAL REASON on gender itself (case: Reed v Reed)

minimum scrutiny

discrimination against juveniles, prison inmates, and K-12 students (temporary positions); is valid only when there is a legitimate reason that is not overboard (case: Tinker v Des Moines)

high scrutiny

discrimination against race, national origin, color, religion (suspect class); State must give a compelling reason why you're discriminating (case: Korematsu v US); you can discriminate if it is a necessary that cannot be achieved any other way

collectively right

every state has the right to form a militia

scope

for a search, the ___ must be related to the inception

qualified immunity

government officials, police officers, and school administrators/non-teaching staff can't be held personally liable for official action if their action meets the test of "objective legal reasonableness"

clear and present danger test

if speech is going to lead to violence or lawlessness that the state can't reasonable present, then the speech is not protected by the first amendment.

furman standard

it is cruel and unusual to use the death penalty in a way that is arbitrary and/or heavily layered with discrimination

dissenting opinions

opinion that does not agree with the court's majority decision

suspect class

people who have historic disadvantages and disadvantages today (not binary, but relative)

tinker standard

students nor teachers can hardly be expected to shed their constitutional rights at the school gates...however if they interfere with the mission of the school, it will not be tolerated.

critical mass

the number of people you need in a certain demographic that allows these people to represent themselves and not an entire race/group

certiorari

the process that the court uses to choose its docket (agenda); an order by the court directing a lower court to send up the record in a given case for its review

inception

the reason for the search; probable-case or reasonable suspicious

compelling public interest test

used to determine the limits of free exercise of religion and speech; must be narrowly tailored

time-place-matter test

used to determine when/where/why/how speech can be limited; (1) narrowly tailored restrictions (as little restrictions as possible) (2) compelling interests (societal need must be reached) (3) content-neutral (can't consider the message of the speech) (4) no chilling effect (undue burden-persuade group not to do the thing)

public forum exception

when a school paper is allowed to not have prior restraint; the paper must be self-funded, not speak on behalf of the school, and be traditionally independent

aggravating criteria

12 levels; need 1 to pass furman standard

sliding scale test

3 factors: (1) danger of the contraband (2) vulnerability of the subject-age (3) directness of reasonable suspicion (case: safford v redding)

prior restraint

Censorship before publication (can be used by the government and some schools)

inevitable discovery rule

Evidence seized in violation of the 5th Amendment's self-incrimination clause may be used in a court of law If a judge rules that it would have been found or discovered even if the incriminating statements had never been made; exception to the exclusionary rule (case: Nix v Williams)

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) 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.

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) 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) 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) 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.

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 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.

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) 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? 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.)

Reed v Reed

Issue: Did the Idaho Probate Code violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment? (Civil Rights) 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) 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.

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) 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.

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) 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.

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) 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.

10 commandment cases (Van Orden v Perry McCrearyCounty v ACLU)

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) 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.

Kelo v New London

Issue: Does a city violate the 5th Amendment's takings clause if the city takes private property and sells it for private development, with the hopes the development will help the city's bad economy? (Eminent Domain) Case Summary: A city in CT, used its eminent domain authority to seize private property to sell to private developers. The city said developing the land would create jobs and increase tax revenues. Those whose property was seized sued the city in state court. The property owners argued the city violated the 5th Amendment's takings clause, which guaranteed the government will not take private property for public use without just compensation. Specifically the property owners argued taking private property to sell to private developers was not public use. The CT Supreme Court ruled in favor of the city. Rule of Law/ Precedent Set: Every community (state) can decide for itself what public use means. Public use must be defined before the project takes place. USSC held that the 5th Amendment's public use requirement was not literal, but intended for the "broader and more natural interpretation of public use as 'public purpose'" . The Constitution requires neither public access nor public ownership to constitute a valid public use.

California v Greenwood

Issue: Does a person have a subjective expectation of privacy in their garbage that society accepts as objectively reasonable? (4th Amendment) 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) 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

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) 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) 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.

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? 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? 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.

Windsor v United States

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? 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? 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? 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) 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.

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) 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) 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.

New Jersey v TLO

Issue: Does the exclusionary rule apply to searches conducted by school officials in public schools? (4th Amendment) 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? 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) 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) 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.

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) 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) 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.

Lemmon 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) 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.

Citizen's United v FEC

Issue: Is section 441b of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act BCRA which criminalizes ads produced by corporations that expressly advocate for or against a candidate within 30 days of the primary elections and within 60 days of the general election is constitutional? (Campaign Finance Reform) Case Summary: In January 2008, the Petitioner, a non-profit organization, released a 90 minute documentary entitled Hillary: The Movie, which expressed whether or not then-senator Hillary Rodham Clinton would be fit for the presidency. The film assaulted Hillary's character and accused her of lying throughout her political career. In essence the goal of the film was to raise doubts about Hillary's honesty and capacity for leadership. The organization first released the film in theaters and then on DVD, but also wanted to make it available on video-on-demand. To raise awareness for the film and persuade people to buy it on-demand, they created one 30-second and two 10-second advertisements. In order to pay for the advertisements, Citizen United planned to use its general treasury funds. Rule of Law/ Precedent Set:The Government may not suppress political speech on the basis of the speaker's corporate identity. The USSC held that a provision of McCain-Feingold (Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act) Act prohibiting corporations and unions from broadcasting "electioneering communications" within 60 days of a general election and 30 days of a primary election is an unconstitutional limitation on the 1st Amendment guarantee of free speech. It also held that corporations and labor unions can spend unlimited amounts of money in campaigns. Hard money can be limited but soft money cannot and candidates & non-candidates have equal access to speech pre-campaigns. Ruling overturned McConnell v. FEC

Agostini v Felton

Issue: Is the Establishment Clause violated when public school teachers instruct in parochial schools? (Establishment Clause of Religion) 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? 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). 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.

Virginia v Atkins

Issue: Is the execution of mentally ill persons "cruel and unusual punishment" prohibited by the 8th Amendment? 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.

South Dakota v Dole

Issue: May Congress withhold funds from states that do not maintain a 21 year old drinking age? (Federalism) 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)

Nix v Williams

Issue: Should evidence resulting in an arrest be excluded from trial because it was improperly obtained? (4th Amendment) 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? 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

Heart of Atlanta Motel v U.S

Issue: What is interstate commerce? (Interstate Commerce) 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) 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) 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) 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.

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) 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 US

Issue:Did the Nixon administration's efforts to prevent the publication of what it termed "classified information" violate the 1st Amendment? (Free Press) 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.

Adarand Co v Pena

Issue:Does the 5th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection require the federal government's racial classifications to withstand strict scrutiny? (Affirmative Action) 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.

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) 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.

lemmon test

Supreme Court standard for determining whether the First Amendment's establishment of religion clause has been violated; prong (1) the law must have secular purpose (2) the effect of the law must be neutral (3) no excessive entanglement between religion and the government

implied powers doctrine

The idea put forth by Hamilton in his argument in favor of the Bank, which held that the government has powers other than those enumerated in the Constitution. These implied powers rise from the government's right to select the means to exercise the powers given it and form the "necessary and proper" clause of the Constitution. Later this was stated even more directly by Chief Justice John Marshall: Let the end be within the scope of the constitution and all means which are appropriate, which are not prohibited, are constitutional

reverse racism

a less qualified person is hired over a more qualified person; attempts to overcome past discrimination have led to disadvantages for members of the dominant group (case: University of California v Bakke)

certificate

a process used when a lower court is not clear about the procedure or the rule of law that should apply in a case

per curium

says who wins and who loses, but doesn't give a reason as to why (usually because of the timing)