PSC Final
What was the ruling in Regents v. Bakke
(1) (Was AA plan legitimate) As to the first question, the Court ruled that UC Davis specific admissions guidelines did indeed violate the 14th Amendment's EPC. - AA action is NOT legitimate b/c purpose was discrimination > cannot use discrimination in acceptance based on past historical injustices; its not practical (2) (Whether race can be used reject candidate) Court says race can be used to RANK applicants, but I cannot be used to remedy injustice "the courts below failed to recognize that the State has a substantial interest that legitimately may be served by a properly devised admissions program involving the competitive consideration of race and ethnic origin" reject the possibility of Affirmative Action programs.
What is the ruling in Dennis v. US?
(1) The Smith Act is Constitutional. (2) The Court says that the petitioners do indeed represent a clear and present danger. It tacitly rejects OW Holmes' dissents on the question, and tacitly agree with its ruling in Gitlow, that the government need not weigh such matters in a "jeweler's scale"—thus allowing the danger to grow.
What is the ruling in Planned Parenthood v. Casey
(1)The court *replaces* the trimester system (2)The Court adopts the "Undue Burden" standard. A State may regulate abortion so long as it does not place an undue burden on the right of the women to get an abortion. (3)With the Undue Burden standard now as its justification, the Court then goes through and decides which of PA's provisions are constitutional and which are not: - the law required informed consent and a 24 hour waiting period prior to the procedure. [CONSTITUTIONAL] - A minor seeking an abortion required the consent of one parent (the law allows for a judicial bypass procedure) [CONSTITUTIONAL]. - A married woman seeking an abortion had to indicate that she notified her husband of her intention to abort the fetus [UNCONSTITUTIONAL].
What is the ruling in Buck v. Bell
*No, it does not.* We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, *in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence.* It is better for all the world if, *instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind.* The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Jacobson v. Massachusetts. Three generations of imbeciles are enough. Society has a right to ease burdens cast upon it by degenerates and imbeciles. One way to do this is to decrease their number, and the most human way to decrease their number is sterilization.
What are the 3 reasons the court rules public school prayer in engel v. vitale is not constitutional?
1) Lessons from history, specifically conflicts over the book of common prayer. 2) Redefining the Limits of Coercion 3) A repetition of the History argument.
What is the ruling in Roe v Wade?
2 Section + Parts: Section 1: P 1: Court begins the decision-proper, by shielding itself from the accusation that it is doing something novel: P 2: This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. *The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent.* P 3: The Court is going to implement a system of determining what is and is not a lawful abortion, and therefore, what areas are and are not open to state regulation. We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified, and must be considered against important state interests in regulation.
Some Russians were printing anti-US pamphlets, which both disparaged the war effort and the United States government. Some of the men specifically called for the overthrow of the US government. None of the men were citizens—because none had applied for naturalization, though having lived in the United States 5 to 10 years each. Question:Whether the First Amendment protected these men from prosecution, on account of their anti-US and anti-war propaganda.
Abrams v. US
KKK man indicted under criminal syndicalism law court ruled that though speech was vile and illiterate Whether state laws against advocating lawless actions (criminal syndicalism laws) are constitutional., it WAS protected under the 1st amendment, didn't call for direct violence. didn't pose any real threat *clear and present danger test was THROWN OUT*
Brandenburg v. Ohio
Quote: Finally, what of the hope and promise of Brown? For much of this Nation's history, the races remained divided. It was not long ago that people of different races drank from separate fountains, rode on separate buses, and studied in separate schools. In this Court's finest hour, Brown v. Board of Educationchallenged this history and helped to change it. For Brown held out a promise. It was a promise embodied in three Amendments designed to make citizens of slaves. *It was the promise of true racial equality—not as a matter of fine words on paper, but as a matter of everyday life in the Nation's cities and schools*. It was about the nature of a democracy that must work for all Americans. It sought one law, one Nation, one people, not simply as a matter of legal principle but in terms of how we actually live.[i.e., this is a rejection of the de jure/de facto distinction.] he called the ruling a "radical" step away from established law that would take from communities a critical tool used for many years in the prevention of resegregation
Breyer's Dissent in Parents
Pub school systems are segregated Whether or not the "separate but equal" standard was constitutional, under the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause (EPC). segregation of schools and separate but equal doctrine was unconstitutional "Intangible factors" which led to feeling of inferiority, even if tangible factors are equal
Brown v. Board of Edu
Quote: In the instant cases, that question is directly presented. Here, unlike Sweatt v. Painter, there are findings below that the Negro and white schools involved have been equalized, or are being equalized, with respect to buildings, curricula, qualifications and salaries of teachers, and other *"tangible" factors*. Our decision, therefore, cannot turn on merely a comparison of these tangible factors in the Negro and white schools involved in each of the cases. We must look instead to the effect of segregation itself on public education.
Brown v. Board of Edu
Quote: To separate them from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the communitythat may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone.
Brown v. Board of Edu
A Virginia statute provided for the sterilization of socially degenerate human beings. Carrie buck was an imbecile, whose mother was an imbecile, and whose daughter was likewise an imbecile question: Whether such an act violates the imbecile's 14th Amendment's EPC and DPC rights?
Buck v. Bell
Congress passed a law—the Civil Rights Act of 1875—that extended to blacks the full and equal enjoyment of all public accommodations (inns, transportation, theaters, restaurants, etc). Five lawsuits, in five states (New Jersey, Tennessee, Missouri, Kansas, and California), were consolidated into this Court ruling. Question:Whether the 13th and 14th Amendments required private citizens (as well as State governments) to treat blacks equally, at least in matters of "public accommodation."
Civil Rights Cases
Quote: It is State action of a particular character that is prohibited. Individual invasion of individual rights is not the subject matter of the amendment. It has a deeper and broader scope. It nullifies and makes void all State legislation, and State action of every kind, which impairs the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States or which injures them in life, liberty or property without due process of law, or which denies to any of them the equal protection of the laws. It not only does this, but, in order that the national will, thus declared, may not be a mere brutum fulmen, the last section of the amendment invests *Congress with power to enforce it by appropriate legislation. To enforce what? To enforce the prohibition. To adopt appropriate legislation for correcting the effects of such prohibited State laws and State acts, and thus to render them effectually null, void, and innocuous.* This is the legislative power conferred upon Congress, and this is the whole of it. It does not invest Congress with power to legislate upon subjects which are within the domain of State legislation, but to provide modes of relief against State legislation, or State action, of the kind referred to. It does not authorize Congress to create a code of municipal law for the regulation of private rights, but to provide modes of redress against the operation of State laws and the action of State officers executive or judicial when these are subversive of the fundamental rights specified in the amendment.
Civil Rights Cases
What is the ruling in Santa Fe ISD v. Doe?
Contrary to the District's repeated assertions that it has adopted a "hands-off" approach to the pregame invocation, the realities of the situation plainly reveal that its policy involves both perceived and actual endorsement of religion. In this case, as we found in Lee, the "degree of school involvement" makes it clear that the pregame prayers bear "the imprint of the State and thus put school-age children who objected in an untenable position."
Quote: It has been often asserted that the Constitution was made exclusively by and for the white race. It has already been shown that, in five of the thirteen original States, colored persons then possessed the elective franchise, and were among those by whom the Constitution was ordained and established. If so, *it is not true, in point of fact, that the Constitution was made exclusively by the white race*
Curtis' Dissent in Dredd Scott v. Sandford
Dennis and other members of the American Communist Party are indicted and convicted under secs. 2 & 3 of the *Smith Act of 1940*, for conspiring to advocate the violent overthrow of the United States Government. Questions: (1) *Whether the Smith Act is constitutional*:"The question with which we are concerned here is not whether Congress has such power, but whether the means which it has employed conflict with the First and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution." (2) *Whether the communists in question presented a clear and present danger*:"If, then, this interest may be protected, the literal problem which is presented is what has been meant by the use of the phrase "clear and present danger" of the utterances bringing about the evil within the power of Congress to punish"
Dennis v. US
Quote: "Obviously, the words ["clear and present danger"] cannot mean that, before the Government may act, it must wait until the *putsch* is about to be executed, the plans have been laid and the signal is awaited. If Government is aware that a group aiming at its overthrow is attempting to indoctrinate its members and to commit them to a course whereby they will strike when the leaders feel the circumstances permit, action by the Government is required."
Dennis v. US
Dredd Scott was a slave who had been taken into a Free State and a Free Territory. He later sued for his freedom, on the grounds that having been taken to such places, he was made free as a result. The Court delivered a sprawling ruling, that went so far as to declare the Missouri Compromise (aka The Compromise of 1820) as unconstitutional, i.e., it ruled that Congress could not legally prevent the spread of slavery into new territories.
Dredd Scott v. Sandford
The New York Board of Regents adopted a non-denominational prayer, to be recited at the beginning of each school day. Participation was voluntary, or at least became voluntary by order of the NY state courts. Steven Engel sued to have the prayer banned.
Engel v. Vitale
Whether a non-denominational, voluntary, public-school prayer violates the *establishment clause of the 1st Amendment, as applied to the states by the 14th.*
Engel v. Vitale
What is the ruling in Gonzalez v. Carhart
First reason: Congress believed that partial-birth abortions raise new dangers and complications, not only to mother and child, but to the medical profession itself. The majority agrees. - Court supports the Congressional act b/c Congress found, among other things, that "[a] moral, medical, and ethical consensus exists that the practice of performing a partial-birth abortion ... is a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited." Second reason: The act takes the life of the mother into account. - "Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. *This subsection does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself."*
A woman (Frontiero) was in the U.S. Air Force, she wanted her husband to be counted as a dependent. All wives were automatically counted as dependents, but husband could only be counted a dependent is if they were dependent for more than ½ of their support. Frontiero sued, claiming that *the federal government was violating her 5th Amendment Due Process rights.* question: whether sex was a "class" in the way that race was a class
Frontiero v. Richardson
Quote: There can be no doubt that our Nation has had a long and unfortunate history of sex discrimination. Traditionally, such discrimination was rationalized by an attitude of *"romantic paternalism"* which, in practical effect, put women not on a pedestal, but in a cage. ... As a result of notions such as these, our statute books gradually became laden with gross, stereotyped distinctions between the sexes, and, indeed, throughout much of the 19th century, the position of women in our society was, in many respects, comparable to that of blacks under the pre-Civil War slave codes.
Frontiero v. Richardson
Quote: [S]ince sex, like race and national origin, is an *immutable characteristic determined solely by the accident of birth*, the imposition of special disabilities upon the members of a particular sex because of their sex would seem to violate "the basic concept of our system that legal burdens should bear some relationship to individual responsibility. . . ."
Frontiero v. Richardson
Gitlow was head of socialist party and distributed literature about overthrowing government indicted under criminal syndicalism law sued claiming law violated 1st amendment rights and he lost the case - Gitlow did not merely predict the overthrow of the government (as his lawyers alleged) but directly called for the overthrow of the government. SC found him guilty
Gitlow v. NY
Quote: "*The State cannot reasonably be required to measure the danger from every such utterance in the nice balance of a jeweler's scale. A single revolutionary spark may kindle a fire that, smouldering for a time, may burst into a sweeping and destructive conflagration*. It cannot be said that the State is acting arbitrarily or unreasonably when, in the exercise of its judgment as to the measures necessary to protect the public peace and safety, it seeks to extinguish the spark without waiting until it has enkindled the flame or blazed into the conflagration. "
Gitlow v. NY
The court, in Stenberg v. Carhart (2000) had struck down a law banning partial-birth abortions in Nebraska, in a 5-4 decision, because it placed an "undue burden" on the mother. This was in 2000. People were shocked. Scalia was, of course, the most eloquent in opposition: "[What we have here is] a democratic vote by nine lawyers, not on the question whether the text of the Constitution has anything to say about this subject (it obviously does not); nor even on the question ... whether the legal traditions of the American people would have sustained such a limitation upon abortion (they obviously would); but upon the pure policy question whether this limitation upon abortion is "undue"- i.e., goes too far. In response to the ruling, Congress passed the "Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003." Carhart, the fellow from Nebraska, was used to challenge the national law on the same grounds as he had the Nebraska law. Question:Whether the Congressional act was constitutional under the 5th Amendment's DPC. (Did it adequately take into account the health of the mother?)
Gonzalez v. Carhart
The cases of two people (Griswold, & Buxton) were lumped together here: Griswold gave advice to couples about preventing conception, and Buxton gave similar advice as well as prescribing a contraceptive device to married women. A Connecticut Statute made it a crime for any person to use any drug or article to prevent conception. Question:Did the statue violate the Constitution? (Here is how OYEZ puts it--) Does the Constitution protect the right of marital privacy against state restrictions on a couple's ability to be counseled in the use of contraceptives?
Griswold v. Connecticut
A white student was not admitted to the University of Michigan's Law School. The admission policy at the law school was different from that of the undergraduate school. In the law school *they sought to obtain a "critical mass" of "underrepresented minorities" in order to promote diversity.* There was no point-system similar to the point-system employed by the undergraduate university. Question:Whether discrimination in this form survives the Court's "strict scrutiny" test for legal discrimination.
Grutter v. Bollinger
Court says school CAN rank applicants, but they say what matters is WHY that is done
Grutter v. Bollinger
Quote: All government racial classifications must be analyzed by a reviewing court under strict scrutiny. But not all such uses are invalidated by strict scrutiny. Race-based action necessary to further a compelling governmental interest does not violate the Equal Protection Clause so long as it is narrowly tailored to further that interest. *Context matters when reviewing such action.* Not every decision influenced by race is equally objectionable, and strict scrutiny is designed to provide a framework for carefully examining the importance and the sincerity of the government's reasons for using race in a particular context.
Grutter v. Bollinger
Quote: As part of its goal of "assembling a class that is both exceptionally academically qualified and broadly diverse," *the Law School* seeks to *"enroll a 'critical mass'of minority students."* The Law School's interest is not simply "to assure within its student body some specified percentage of a particular group merely because of its race or ethnic origin." That would amount to outright racial balancing, which is patently unconstitutional. Rather, the Law School's concept of critical mass is defined by reference to the educational benefits that diversity is designed to produce
Grutter v. Bollinger
Quote: In my view, the proper constitutional inquiry in this case is whether this Connecticut statute infringes the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because the enactment violates basic values "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," Palko v. Connecticut. For reasons stated at length in my dissenting opinion in Poe v. Ullman, supra, I believe that it does. While the relevant inquiry may be aided by resort to one or more of the provisions of the Bill of Rights, *it is not dependent on them or any of their radiations.* The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment stands, in my opinion, on its own bottom.
Harlan's Concurrence in Griswold
Quote: But in view of the Constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens. There is no caste here. *Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law. The humblest is the peer of the most powerful. The law regards man as man, and takes no account of his surroundings or of his color when his civil rights as guaranteed by the supreme law of the land are involved.* It is therefore to be regretted that this high tribunal, the final expositor of the fundamental law of the land, has reached the conclusion that it is competent for a State to regulate the enjoyment by citizens of their civil rights solely upon the basis of race.
Harlan's Dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson
Quote: "If what I think the correct test is applied, it is manifest that *there was no present danger of an attempt to overthrow the government by force on the part of the admittedly small minority who shared the defendant's views.* It is said that this manifesto was more than a theory, that it was an incitement. Every idea is an incitement. It offers itself for belief, and, if believed, it is acted on unless some other belief outweighs it or some failure of energy stifles the movement at its birth. The only difference between the expression of an opinion and an incitement in the narrower sense is the speaker's enthusiasm for the result. Eloquence may set fire to reason. But whatever may be thought of the redundant discourse before us, it had no chance of starting a present conflagration. If, in the long run, the beliefs expressed in proletarian dictatorship are destined to be accepted by the dominant forces of the community, the only meaning of free speech is that they should be given their chance and have their way"
Holmes Dissent in Gitlow v. NY
Quote: He first claims the men did not pose a significant threat, and therefore did not pose a "clear and present danger" "Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me perfectly logical. If you have no doubt of your premises or your power, and want a certain result with all your heart, you naturally express your wishes in law, and sweep away all opposition. To allow opposition by speech seems to indicate that you think the speech impotent, as when a man says that he has squared the circle, or that you do not care wholeheartedly for the result, or that you doubt either your power or your premises. But when men have realized that time has upset *many fighting faiths*, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas -- that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That, at any rate, is the theory of our Constitution."
Holmes in Abrams v. US
Ruling in Grutter v. Bollinger
If system looks like racial quota system, its rejected. If it looks like an attempt for diversity of perspectives, it will pass strict scrutiny As part of its goal of "assembling a class that is both exceptionally academically qualified and broadly diverse," the Law School seeks to *"enroll a 'critical mass' of minority students."* The Law School's interest is not simply "to assure within its student body some specified percentage of a particular group merely because of its race or ethnic origin." That would amount to *outright racial balancing*, which is patently unconstitutional. Rather, the Law School's concept of critical mass is defined by reference to the educational benefits that diversity is designed to produce.
What does the court uphold from Roe in Planned Parenthood v. Casey
It must be stated at the outset and with clarity that Roe's essential holding, the holding we reaffirm, has three parts. *First* is a recognition of the right of the woman to choose to have an abortion before viability and to obtain it without undue interference from the State. Before viability, the State's interests are not strong enough to support a prohibition of abortion or the imposition of a substantial obstacle to the woman's effective right to elect the procedure. *Second* is a confirmation of the State's power to restrict abortions after fetal viability, if the law contains exceptions for pregnancies which endanger the woman's life or health. And *third* is the principle that the State has legitimate interests from the outset of the pregnancy in protecting the health of the woman and the life of the fetus that may become a child. These principles do not contradict one another; and we adhere to each.
Alabama had had a statute allowing for a moment of silence "for meditation," which was passed in 1978. Then in 1981 it added "or voluntary prayer." The federal district court for Alabama ruled in Alabama's favor. The eleventh circuit (AL, GA, FL) overturned the district court's ruling. Jaffree initiated the suit. Question:Thus, the narrow question for decision is whether § 16-1-20.1, which authorizes a period of silence for *"meditation or voluntary prayer,"* is a law respecting the establishment of religion within the meaning of the First Amendment.
Jaffree v. Wallace
Affirmative Action in a county transportation job: A man named Johnson, a woman named D. Joyce, and ten others were up for a promotion. Joyce was ranked 4th behind three men. Of those three men, Johnson was recommended for the promotion, but Diane Joyce notified the County's Affirmative Action Office that a man was going to be picked over her. She believed it was unfair. That office put pressure on the man responsible for finalizing the promotion, a man by the name of Graebner, who hired Joyce over Johnson. question: Does this violate Johnson's his rights, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, had been violated by Santa Clara County?
Johnson v. Transportation Agency
quote: In reviewing the composition of its workforce, *the Agency noted in its Plan that women were represented in numbers far less than their proportion of the County labor force in both the Agency as a whole and in five of seven job categories*. Specifically, while women constituted 36.4% of the area labor market, they composed only 22.4% of Agency employees. Furthermore, women working at the Agency were concentrated largely in EEOC job categories traditionally held by women: women made up 76% of Office and Clerical Workers, but only 7.1% of Agency Officials and Administrators, 8.6% of Professionals, 9.7% of Technicians, and 22% of Service and Maintenance Workers.
Johnson v. Transportation Agency
Quote: "These petitioners were not charged with an attempt to overthrow the Government. They were not charged with overt acts of any kind designed to overthrow the Government. They were not even charged with saying anything or writing anything designed to overthrow the Government. The charge was that they agreed to assemble and to talk and publish certain ideas at a later date: *the indictment is that they conspired to organize the Communist Party and to use speech or newspapers and other publications in the future to teach and advocate the forcible overthrow of the Government. No matter how it is worded, this is a virulent form of prior censorship of speech and press, which I believe the First Amendment forbids.* I would hold § 3 of the Smith Act authorizing this prior restraint unconstitutional on its face and as applied."
Justice Black Dissent in Dennis v. US
What is the ruling in U.S. v. Windsor?
Kennedy first rules on Federalism grounds (such decisions should be left to the States) but, of course, the question has little to do with State law. So he justifies striking down DOMA on other grounds as well, mainly, moral grounds.
What is the ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges
Kennedy sets down 4 "principles and traditions" that require the Court to overturn the ruling of the 6th circuit 1) Right to personal choice regarding marriage 2) State must recognize right to marry b/c it supports a two-person union - importance to the committed individuals 3) It safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education. 4) Marriage is the keystone to our social order
Quote: A *first premise of the Court's relevant precedents is that the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy*. This abiding connection between marriage and liberty is why Loving invalidated interracial marriage bans under the Due Process Clause.
Kennedy's 1st of 4 principles that require the court to overturn 6th circuit in Obergefell v. Hodges
Quote: The nature of injustice is that we may not always see it in our own times. *The generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions, and so they entrusted to future generations a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning*. When new insight reveals discord between the *Constitution's central protections and a received legal stricture, a claim to liberty must be addressed.*
Kennedy's four reasons form a sort of edifice built upon what comes next, namely, a more general theory of American jurisprudence. Obergefell v. Hodges "living constitutionalism"
There was a *prayer at a middle school graduation*, with every pain taken to make it non-sectarian. A father sues on behalf of his daughter, to stop the town from ever again praying at a graduation, in middle school or high school. Attendance at the graduation is voluntary, as well is participation in the prayer at graduation.
Lee v. Weisman
This court case redefined coercion: "A school official, the principal, decided that an invocation and a benediction should be given; this is a choice *attributable to the State*, and from a constitutional perspective *it is as if a state statute decreed that the prayers must occur*. The principal chose the religious participant, here a rabbi, and that choice is also *attributable* to the State. The reason for the choice of a rabbi is not disclosed by the record, but the potential for divisiveness over the choice of a particular member of the clergy to conduct the ceremony is apparent."
Lee v. Weisman
Guy wants to be contracted for more than 60 hours/week - bakery State of NY had law prohibiting more than 60 hours/week for employer safety sued claiming right to contract had been violated by state of NY - *14th amendment DPC*
Lochner v. NY
Quote: "It must, of course, be conceded that *there is a limit to the valid exercise of the police power by the State.* There is no dispute concerning this general proposition. Otherwise the Fourteenth Amendment would have no efficacy, and the legislatures of the States would have unbounded power, and it would be enough to say that any piece of legislation was *enacted to conserve the morals, the health or the safety of the people; such legislation would be valid no matter how absolutely without foundation the claim might be.* The claim of the police power would be a mere pretext -- become another and delusive name for the supreme sovereignty of the State to be exercised free from constitutional restraint. This is not contended for."
Lochner v. NY
It must first be shown that there has been a constitutional violation within one district that produces a significant segregative effect in another district. Specifically, it must be shown that racially discriminatory acts of the state or local school districts, or of a single school district have been a substantial cause of inter-district segregation Since the county schools had no such segregative policies, they did not violate the law, and therefore remedial measures cannot be taken against them
Milliken v. Bradley
Quote: Before the boundaries of separate and autonomous school districts may be set aside by consolidating the separate units for remedial purposes or by imposing a cross-district remedy, *it must first be shown that there has been a constitutional violation within one district that produces a significant segregative effect in another district.* Specifically, it must be shown that racially discriminatory acts of the state or local school districts, or of a single school district have been a substantial cause of inter-district segregation. Thus, an inter-district remedy might be in order where the racially discriminatory acts of one or more school districts caused racial segregation in an adjacent district, or where district lines have been deliberately drawn on the basis of race. In such circumstances, an inter-district remedy would be appropriate to eliminate the inter-district segregation directly caused by the constitutional violation. Conversely, without an inter-district violation and inter-district effect, there is no constitutional wrong calling for an inter-district remedy.
Milliken v. Bradley
The city of Detroit had been sued for its public-school policies. The suit alleged that the policies had created a segregated public-school system in the city. The District Judge agreed and drafted plans for desegregating the schools. He decided that it was impossible to do so without busing in kids from the county and busing out kids from the city. But no one was suing the county for its policies, nor had there been any findings of legal discrimination. The District Judge recognized this, but said it was necessary.
Milliken v. Bradley
Which case did the court make a distinction between de jure and de facto segregation
Milliken v. Bradley
WWII - patriotic feelings high children required to say pledge of allegiance Jehovah's witness children believe pledge allegiance to country is impiety and violates Gods sovereign rule - refused to say pledge children SUSPENDED, parents sue *1st amendment right to free exercise of religion was violated by school district* court upheld - for the health, wealth, and morals of people; patriotism of youth is important and has valid reasonable purpose
Minersville v. Gobitis
State laws defining marriage as a legal union of man and woman overturned. "Living constitutionalism" well described as a doctrine of Kennedy's and the liberals generally. - The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the bans on homosexual marriage in several states, under a consolidated case.
Obergefell v. Hodges
Whether a State has the authority to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman, or does the exercise of such authority deprive homosexuals of their rights under the EPC and DPC of the 14th Amendment.
Obergefell v. Hodges
Quote: For schools that never segregated on the basis of race, such as Seattle, or that have removed the vestiges of past segregation, such as Jefferson County, the way "to achieve a system of determining admission to the public schools on a nonracial basis," Brown II, 349 U. S., at 300-301, is to stop assigning students on a racial basis. The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race. Roberts argues that the tendency to racial balancing is unconstitutional
Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District
The Court applied "Strict Scrutiny." Now, these sorts of standards the Court employs—and we will see their use increase exponentially—has been widely critiqued by both the right and the left, in no small part because they seem to do away with legal principle in favor of "balancing rights", i.e., for the Justices' own notion of whose rights should trump whose.
Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District
The schoolboard in Seattle put into places integration policies, namely busing, to achieve racial diversity. Question:Both cases present the same underlying legal question—whether a public school that had not operated legally segregated schools or has been found to be unitary may choose to classify students by race and rely upon that classification in making school assignments .i.e., whether the state can intervene to remedy de facto segregation, rather than merely de juresegregation. In other words, whether the state should treat citizens as individuals or as members of a race.
Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District
whether a public school that had not operated legally segregated schools or has been found to be unitary may choose to classify students by race and rely upon that classification in making school assignments. if there has never been legal segregation in Washington whether the state can intervene to remedy de facto segregation, rather than merely de jure segregation. In other words, whether the state should treat citizens as individuals or as members of a race.
Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District
Which court case dittos Milliken v. Bradley
Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District (2007)
After Roe, the States went back to the drawing board and began drafting and passing legislation either perfectly in-line with the requirements of Roe, or in-line enough to present a real legal challenge to the ruling. This Court case is about the legislation passed in the Pennsylvania. Here is how OYEZ describe it:The Pennsylvania legislature amended its abortion control law in 1988 and 1989. Among the new provisions, the law required informed consent and a *24 hour waiting period* prior to the procedure. A *minor*seeking an abortion required the consent of one parent (the law allows for a judicial bypass procedure). A *married woman* seeking an abortion had to indicate that she notified her husband of her intention to abort the fetus. These provisions were challenged by several abortion clinics and physicians. A federal appeals court upheld all the provisions except for the husband notification requirement.
Planned Parenthood v. Casey
Guys who is 1/8th black gets on white person trolley; later arrested and fined Louisiana statue was violating his rights
Plessy v. Ferguson
Quote: Laws permitting, and even requiring, their separation in places where they are liable to be brought into contact do not necessarily imply the inferiority of either race to the other, and have been generally, if not universally, recognized as within the competency of the state legislatures in the exercise of their police power.
Plessy v. Ferguson
Quote: A statute which implies merely a legal distinction between the white and colored races --a distinction which is founded in the color of the two races and which must always exist so long as white men are distinguished from the other race by color -- has no tendency to destroy the legal equality of the two races, or reestablish a state of involuntary servitude. Indeed, we do not understand that the Thirteenth Amendment is strenuously relied upon by the plaintiff in error in this connection.
Plessy v. Ferguson
Whether "separate but equal" policies violate the 13th and 14th Amendments.
Plessy v. Ferguson
Quote: In enjoining petitioner from ever considering the race of any applicant, however, *the courts below failed to recognize that the State has a substantial interest that legitimately may be served by a properly devised admissions program involving the competitive consideration of race and ethnic origin.* For this reason, so much of the California court's judgment as enjoins petitioner from any consideration of the race of any applicant must be reversed.
Regents v. Bakke
The government cannot legally discriminate against whites to rectify legal discrimination in the past. But it can make factor-in race and ethnicity.
Regents v. Bakke
applied to med school two years in a row and rejected both times, but black students were let in bc of him but had lower scores - sued claiming med school UC Davis had discriminated on account of his race violated 14th amendment EPC
Regents v. Bakke
Quote: *We believe that Roe was wrongly decided, and that it can and should be overruled consistently with our traditional approach to stare decisis in constitutional cases.* We would adopt the approach of the plurality in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989), and uphold the challenged provisions of the Pennsylvania statute in their entirety.
Rehnquists Dissent in Planned Parenthood v. Casey
Quote: *It has been argued that to apply the Constitution in such a way as to prohibit state laws respecting an establishment of religious services in public schools is to indicate a hostility toward religion or toward prayer.*... And there were men of this same faith in the power of prayer who led the fight for adoption of our Constitution and also for our Bill of Rights with the very guarantees of religious freedom that forbid the sort of governmental activity which New York has attempted here. These men knew that the First Amendment, which tried to put an end to governmental control of religion and of prayer, was not written to destroy either. They knew, rather, that it was written to quiet well justified fears which nearly all of them felt arising out of an awareness that governments of the past had shackled men's tongues to make them speak only the religious thoughts that government wanted them to speak and to pray only to the God that government wanted them to pray to. *It is neither sacrilegious nor anti-religious to say that each separate government in this country should stay out of the business of writing or sanctioning official prayers and leave that purely religious function to the people themselves and to those the people choose to look to for religious guidance.*
Response to Anticipated Objection in Engel v. Vitale
Quote: Today, however, *the Court takes the extraordinary step of ordering every State to license and recognize same-sex marriage*. Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I begrudge none their celebration. But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority's approach is deeply disheartening. *Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success PERSUADING THEIR FELLOW CITIZENS—through the democratic process—to adopt their view*. That ends today. Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept. The majority's decision is an act of will, not legal judgment.
Roberts Dissent in Obergefell v. Hodges
Roe, a pseudonym of Texas woman, wanted to have an abortion but Texas law forbade any abortions where childbirth did not threaten the life of the mother. Such prohibitions were in place in a majority of the States at the time. Question:Did the TX statute violate Roe's right to privacy? (Whether that right is in the 14th Amendment's "concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action" or the 9th Amendment is purposively left open by the Court) *Does the Constitution embrace a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy by abortion?*
Roe v. Wade
Quote (State's defense) The State's principal argument in defense of Amendment 2 is that *it puts gays and lesbians in the same position as all other persons*. So, the State says, the measure does no more than deny homosexuals special rights.
Romer v. Evans
Through a statewide referendum, Colorado passed "Amendment 2" to their Constitution. That Amendment reads: *"No Protected Status Based on Homosexual, Lesbian or Bisexual Orientation*. Neither the State of Colorado, through any of its branches or departments, nor any of its agencies, political subdivisions, municipalities or school districts, shall enact, adopt or enforce any statute, regulation, ordinance or policy whereby homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships shall constitute or otherwise be the basis of or entitle any person or class of persons to have or claim any minority status, quota preferences, protected status or claim of discrimination. This Section of the Constitution shall be in all respects self-executing." Question: whether or not the State's reading of the Amendment is possible. The Supreme Court of Colorado and (as we will see) of the United States held that it was not possible, and therefore violated the rights of homosexuals under the 14th Amendment's EPC
Romer v. Evans
Quote: Amendment 2's reach may not be limited to specific laws passed for the benefit of gays and lesbians. It is a fair, if not necessary, inference from the broad language of the amendment that *it deprives gays and lesbians even of the protection of general laws and policies that prohibit arbitrary discrimination in governmental and private settings.*
Ruling by Kennedy in Romer v. Evans
Quote: It is a matter of history that this very practice of establishing governmentally composed prayers for religious services was one of the reasons which caused many of our early colonists to leave England and seek religious freedom in America. *The Book of Common Prayer*, which was created under governmental direction and which was approved by Acts of Parliament in 1548 and 1549, set out in minute detail the accepted form and content of prayer and other religious ceremonies to be used in the established, tax supported Church of England. The controversies over the Book and what should be its content repeatedly threatened to disrupt the peace of that country as the accepted forms of prayer in the established church changed with the views of the particular ruler that happened to be in control at the time.
Ruling in Engel v. Vitale
Quote: Neither the fact that the prayer may be denominationally neutral nor the fact that its observance on the part of the students is voluntary can serve to free it from the limitations of the Establishment Clause... Although these two clauses may, in certain instances, overlap, they forbid two quite different kinds of governmental encroachment upon religious freedom. *The Establishment Clause, unlike the Free Exercise Clause, does not depend upon any showing of direct governmental compulsion and is violated by the enactment of laws which establish an official religion whether those laws operate directly to coerce nonobserving individuals or not.* This is not to say, of course, that laws officially prescribing a particular form of religious worship do not involve coercion of such individuals. When the power, prestige and financial support of government is placed behind a particular religious belief, the indirect coercive pressure* upon religious minorities to conform to the prevailing officially approved religion is plain.
Ruling in Engel v. Vitale
Court ruled in Lochner's favor - but previous slaughter house cases and munn v. illinois, court had upheld state laws that state had police powers to promote health, wealth, & morals of people in their state *changed under Lochner*
Ruling in Lochner v. NY
The Court looked to the *"Lemon Test"—a now-defunct way of determining whether or not a governmental action violated the 1st Amendment Est. Clause.* The Lemon Test had 3 "prongs", which every law/govt action had to satisfy to be constitutional. In this case, the Court only considered the first prong, because it claimed the Alabama law violated this prong and therefore failed the Test. The government's action must have a secular interest, and therefore the purpose cannot be to endorse, or disapprove of, a religion. The Court found that utterances by the bill's sponsor, as well as the Governor, were specifically to promote religion, without any other secular purpose. And therefore, the Court held, the statute was unconstitutional.
Ruling in Wallace v. Jaffree
Quote: The freedom asserted by these appellees does not bring them into collision with rights asserted by any other individual. It is such conflicts which most frequently require intervention of the State to determine where the rights of one end and those of another begin. *But the refusal of these persons to participate in the ceremony does not interfere with or deny rights of others to do so*. Nor is there any question in this case that their behavior is peaceable and orderly. The sole conflict is between authority and rights of the individual. The State asserts power to condition access to public education on making a prescribed sign and profession and at the same time to coerce attendance by punishing both parent and child. The latter stand on a right of self-determination in matters that touch individual opinion and personal attitude.
Ruling in West VA Board v. Barnette
Quote: The District has attempted to disentangle itself from the religious messages by developing the two-step student election process. The text of the October policy, however, exposes the extent of the school's entanglement. The elections take place at all only because the school "board has chosen to permit students to deliver a brief invocation and/or message." App. 104 (emphasis added). The *elections thus "shall" be conducted "by the high school student council" and "[u]pon advice and direction of the high school principal."* Id., at 104-105. The decision whether to deliver a message is first made by *majority vote of the entire student body, followed by a choice of the speaker in a separate, similar majority election*. Even though the particular words used by the speaker are not determined by those votes, the policy mandates that the "statement or invocation" be "consistent with the goals and purposes of this policy," which are* "to solemnize the event,* to promote good sportsmanship and student safety, and to establish the appropriate environment for the competition.
Santa Fe ISD v. Doe
In which Court case did the majority argue: "In addition to involving the school in the selection of the speaker, the policy, by its terms, invites and encourages religious messages. The policy itself states that the purpose of the message is "to solemnize the event." A religious message is the most obvious method of solemnizing an event." *Whether the District violated the 1st Amendment with its policies.*
Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe (2000)
Quote: [B]y foreclosing all democratic outlet for the deep passions this issue arouses, by banishing the issue from the political forum that gives all participants, even the losers, the satisfaction of a fair hearing and an honest fight, *by continuing the imposition of a rigid national rule instead of allowing for regional differences, the Court merely prolongs and intensifies the anguish.* We should get out of this area, where we have no right to be, and where we do neither ourselves nor the country any good by remaining.
Scalia Dissent In Planned Parenthood v. Casey
Quote: In holding that the Establishment Clause prohibits invocations and benedictions at public school graduation ceremonies, the Court-with nary a mention that it is doing so-lays waste a tradition that is as old as public school graduation ceremonies themselves, and that is a component of an even more longstanding American tradition of nonsectarian prayer to God at public celebrations generally. As its instrument of destruction, the bulldozer of its social engineering, *the Court invents a boundless, and boundlessly manipulable, test of psychological coercion*
Scalia Dissent in Lee v. Weisman
Quote: The Court today completes *the process of converting this from a guarantee that race or sex will not be the basis for employment determinations to a guarantee that it often will.* Ever so subtly, without even alluding to the last obstacles preserved by earlier opinions that we now push out of our path, we effectively replace the goal of a discrimination-free society with the quite incompatible goal of proportionate representation by race and by sex in the workplace.
Scalia's Dissent in Johnson v. Transportation Agency
What is the ruling in Roe v. Wade pt 2
Section 2: The State Interests and the Trimester System are set down to determine when state action is and is not permissible. The state has 2 interests: the life of the Mother and the life of the Fetus. A pregnancy is broken into 3rds, roughly 3 months each. - The state May Not regulate abortions that are performed during the 3 months (1st trimester). - The state may regulate abortion for the sake of protecting the mother, after the 1st Trimester. - The state may regulate abortion for the sake of the Viable Fetus, after the 2nd Trimester.
Quote: We admit that, in many places and in ordinary times, the defendants, in saying all that was said in the circular, would have been within their constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done.... The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. It does not even protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect of force. ... The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to *create a clear and present danger* that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree.
Shenck v. US
printed up *anti-war pamphlets* encouraging young americans to resist the draft so he was violating the *espionage act* which had influences from germany and communists in russia whether/not espionage act was constitutional - violated 1st amendment right?
Shenck v. US
*Scope of the 14th amendment case*: Corrupt state of Louisiana, people had to butcher animals in state regulated places; butchers sued state bc of *14th amendment rights were violated by LA* Court ruled they are *NOT* being violated There is a difference between citizenship in a State and national citizenship, this is evident in the 14th Amendment itself some states can require more or less rights
Slaughter House Cases
Quote: [W]hen the effect is to fetter and degrade the State governments by subjecting them to the control of Congress in the exercise of powers heretofore universally conceded to them of the most ordinary and fundamental character; when, in fact, it radically changes *the whole theory of the relations of the State and Federal governments to each other and of both these governments to the people*, the argument has a force that is irresistible in the absence of language which expresses such a purpose too clearly to admit of doubt.
Slaughter House Cases
Police were executing a warrant and found some obscene movies in Stanley's house (a find unrelated to the warrant, but a fact unimportant to the decision). Stanley was charged with violated a Georgia law against the private possession of obscene material. Question:Whether Georgia's law violated Mr. Stanley's 1st Amendment rights, as applied to the States via the 14th.
Stanley v. Georgia
Quote: Georgia asserts that exposure to obscene materials may lead to deviant sexual behavior or crimes of sexual violence. There appears to be little empirical basis for that assertion. But, more important, if the State is only concerned about printed or filmed materials inducing antisocial conduct, we believe that, in the context of private consumption of ideas and information we should adhere to the view that "[a]mong free men, the deterrents ordinarily to be applied to prevent crime are education and punishment for violations of the law. . . ." Whitney v. California
Stanley v. Georgia
Quote: If, as I should surely hope, the law before us does not reflect the standards of the people of Connecticut, the people of Connecticut can freely exercise their true Ninth and Tenth Amendment rights to persuade their elected representatives to repeal it. That is the constitutional way to take this law off the books. This dissent is a good reminder that the 9th and 10th Amendments are not yet incorporated as applying to the States.
Stewart's Dissent in Griswold v. Connecticut
The Court in Lee v. Weisman (1992), forbid the middle school and high school from hiring a chaplain to say even non-sectarian prayers at public graduations. Why?
Students who did not want to participate would feel pressure to go along with the prayer.
Desegregation efforts were underway in Charlotte relatively quickly. Then Charlotte consolidated its school system with the county (Mecklenberg). So there had to be a new system to integrate all the schools. The plan was busing black kids in charlotte out into the county, and kids in the county into Charlotte. This plan was submitted to the District Judge, who rejected the ruling on the grounds that forced integration was not constitutionally permitted. Then, after the Court ruled in Green that it was required, the lawsuit was renewed and went to the Supreme Court. A plan of making wedge-shaped districts (like a pie) was adopted.
Swann v. Charlotte Mecklenburg
Quote: In light of the above, it should be clear that the existence of some small number of one-race, or virtually one-race, schools within a district is not, in and of itself, the mark of a system that still practices segregation by law. The district judge or school authorities should make every effort to achieve the greatest possible degree of actual desegregation, and will thus necessarily be concerned with the elimination of one-race schools. No per se rule can adequately embrace all the difficulties of reconciling the competing interests involved; *but, in a system with a history of segregation, the need for remedial criteria of sufficient specificity to assure a school authority's compliance with its constitutional duty warrants a presumption against schools that are substantially disproportionate in their racial composition.*
Swann v. Charlotte Mecklenburg
Whether busing and other such plans for integration are constitutional. And whether the Civil Rights Act of 1965 prohibited such methods. ruling: It is constitutional In a system with a history of segregation, the need for remedial criteria of sufficient specificity to assure a school authority's compliance with its constitutional duty warrants a presumption against schools that are substantially disproportionate in their racial composition. If law did not originally support segregation, busing is unconstitutional - in Charlotte there was no segregation so busing is NOT constitutional
Swann v. Charlotte Mecklenburg
Quote: The brief preamble sets forth by whom it was formed, for what purposes, and for whose benefit and protection. It declares that it is formed by the people of the United States -- that is to say, by those who were members of the different political communities in the several States -- and its great object is declared to be to secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity. It speaks in general terms of the people of the United States, and of citizens of the several States, when it is providing for the exercise of the powers granted or the privileges secured to the citizen. *It does not define what description of persons are intended to be included under these terms, or who shall be regarded as a citizen and one of the people.* It uses them as terms so well understood that no further description or definition was necessary.
Taney rules in Dredd Scott v. Sandford
What is the ruling in Griswold v. Connecticut?
The Court declines to decide the case under the 14th Amendment - It instead finds a "right to privacy" in the "penumbras" of the Bill of Rights The foregoing cases suggest that specific guarantees in the *Bill of Rights have penumbras*, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance. Various guarantees create *zones of privacy*. The right of association contained in the penumbra of the First Amendment is one, as we have seen. The Third Amendment, in its prohibition against the quartering of soldiers "in any house" in time of peace without the consent of the owner, is another facet of that privacy. The Fourth Amendment explicitly affirms the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." The Fifth Amendment, in its Self-Incrimination Clause, enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender to his detriment. The Ninth Amendment provides: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
What was the ruling in U.S. v. Virginia
The Court ruled AGAINST Virginia
What is the ruling in Stanley v. Georgia?
The Court ruled that there is a real distinction between private possession and public distribution of obscene material. The state has the power to prevent and punish the distribution of obscene material, but it does not have the power to prohibit and punishment the mere possession of obscene materials. If the First Amendment means anything, it means that a State has no business telling a man, sitting alone in his own house, what books he may read or what films he may watch. Our whole constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds.
what is the ruling in frontier v. richardson
The Court sets down 2 rulings. (1) That the traditional views, about differences and roles between the sexes, were mistaken, and childishly foolish. (2) That since *sex is an immutable characteristic* like race, and that since the old views are mistaken, that men and women must not be treated differently by the government, or, at least, very rarely. Yes, military husbands as dependent as wives.
What is the question in Dredd Scott v. Sandford?
The question is simply this: can a negro whose ancestors were imported into this country and sold as slaves become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States, and as such become entitled to all the rights, and privileges, and immunities, guaranteed by that instrument to the citizen, one of which rights is the privilege of suing in a court of the United States in the cases specified in the Constitution?
What is the ruling in Dredd Scott v. Sanford?
The ruling comes in two parts. First, *the Court ruled that former slaves could never be made citizens of the United States*, although they could be citizens in any given State, if it so chose. He ruled that former slaves could not become citizens, because they were not included in either the Declaration or the Constitution ("We the People" did not include former slaves, according to Taney.) second ruling: that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional.
What was the summary of the ruling in the Civil Rights cases
The ruling made the distinction between public and private discrimination - ruled that the Civil Rights Act of 1875, which had prohibited racial discrimination in hotels, trains, and other public places, was unconstitutional.
What was the ruling in Abrams v. U.S.
The ruling of the District Court, that the men were guilty, was Affirmed by the Supreme Court for the following reasons. [T]he plain purpose of their propaganda was *to excite, at the supreme crisis of the war, disaffection, sedition, riots, and, as they hoped, revolution, in this country for the purpose of embarrassing, and, if possible, defeating the military plans of the Government in Europe.* This activity was unlawful under the Espionage Act of 1917. .A technical distinction may perhaps be taken between disloyal and *abusive language* applied to the form of our government or language intended to bring the form of our government into contempt and disrepute, and language of like character and intended to produce like results directed against the President and Congress, the agencies through which that form of government must function in time of war. But it is not necessary to a decision of this case to consider whether such distinction is vital or merely formal, for the *language of these circulars was obviously intended to provoke and to encourage resistance to the United States in the war*, as the third count runs, and the defendants, in terms, plainly urged and advocated a resort to a general strike of workers in ammunition factories for the purpose of curtailing the production of ordnance and munitions necessary and essential to the prosecution of the war as is charged in the fourth count. Thus, it is clear not only that some evidence, but that much persuasive evidence, was before the jury tending to prove that the defendants were guilty as charged in both the third and fourth counts of the indictment
Quote: First, *the Commonwealth contends*, "single-sex education provides important educational benefits," and the option of single-sex education contributes to "diversity in educational approaches," Second, the Commonwealth argues, "the unique VMI method of character development and leadership training," the school's adversative approach, would have to be modified were VMI to admit women. We consider these two justifications in turn.
U.S. v. Virginia
Quote: VMI cadets live in spartan barracks where surveillance is constant and privacy nonexistent; they wear uniforms, eat together in the mess hall, and regularly participate in drills. Entering students are incessantly exposed to the rat line, "an extreme form of the adversative model," comparable in intensity to Marine Corps boot camp. Tormenting and punishing, the rat line bonds new cadets to their fellow sufferers and, when they have completed the 7 -month experience, to their former tormentors. VMI's "adversative model" is further characterized by a hierarchical "class system" of privileges and responsibilities, a "dyke system" for assigning a senior class mentor to each entering class "rat," and a stringently enforced "honor code," which prescribes that a cadet" 'does not lie, cheat, steal nor tolerate those who do.'"
U.S. v. Virginia
Quote: [I]t is uncontested that *women's admission would require accommodations, primarily in arranging housing assignments and physical training programs for female cadets*. ... The parties, furthermore, agree that "some women can meet the physical standards [VMI] now impose[s] on men." In sum, as the Court of Appeals stated, "neither the goal of producing citizen soldiers," VMI's raison detre, "nor VMI's implementing methodology is inherently unsuitable to women."
U.S. v. Virginia
Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), and it was signed into law by President Clinton, in 1996. The Act forbade federal recognition of homosexual marriages. It did not prohibit states from permitting homosexual marriage. Question: Does the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines the term "marriage" under federal law as a "legal union between one man and one woman" deprive same-sex couples who are legally married under state laws of their Fifth Amendment rights to equal protection under federal law?
U.S. v. Windsor
Quote: *DOMA*'s unusual deviation from the usual tradition of recognizing and accepting state definitions of marriage here operates to deprive same-sex couples of the benefits and responsibilities that come with the federal recognition of their marriages. This is strong evidence of a law having the purpose and effect of disapproval of that class. The avowed purpose and practical effect of the law here in question are to impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the States.
U.S. v. Windsor
Quote: *[New York's]* actions were without doubt a proper exercise of its sovereign authority within our federal system, all in the way that the Framers of the Constitution intended. The dynamics of state government in the federal system are to allow the formation of consensus respecting the way the members of a discrete community treat each other in their daily contact and constant interaction with each other.
U.S. v. Windsor
VMI was a male-only military college operated by the State of Virginia. The United States sued Virginia over the college, which had operated since 1839. After VA lost the case in the Appeals Court (4th Circuit), Virginia opened up a women's school for producing women leaders named "Virginia Women's Institute for Leadership." (VWIL) The United States sued again, alleging the same thing as before. Question: Whether a state-operated single sex military college required an admissions policy that *violated the rights of women, protected under the 14th Amendment's EPC.*
US v. Virginia
Which case determined that the 14th amendment was officially applied to the states? "*The Fourteenth Amendment, as now applied to the States, protects the citizen against the State itself and all of its creatures* -- Boards of Education not excepted. These have, of course, important, delicate, and highly discretionary functions, but none that they may not perform within the limits of the Bill of Rights. That they are educating the young for citizenship is reason for scrupulous protection of Constitutional freedoms of the individual, if we are not to strangle the free mind at its source and teach youth to discount important principles of our government as mere platitudes."
West VA Board of Edu v. Barnette
court overturns minersville v. gobitis and jehovah's witness should have a pass to avoid moral disruption therefore cannot compel schoolchildren to say the pledge of allegiance
West Virginia Board of Edu v. Barnette
What is the question in Milliken v. Bradley
Whether or not the type of integration in question is constitutional, i.e., required by Brown.
What is the question in Planned Parenthood v. Casey
Whether the regulations in place in Pennsylvania violated the right to privacy of women, as set out in Roe
Quote: With all due respect, I dissent. I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution tosupport the Court's judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutionalright for pregnant mothers and, with scarcely any reason or authority for itsaction, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortionstatutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionallydisentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of thefetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible impacts on the mother, on the other hand.As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today;but in my view its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicialreview that the Constitution extends to this Court. The Court apparently values the convenience of the pregnant mother more than the continuedexistence and development of the life or potential life that she carries. Whether or not I mightagree with that marshaling of values, I can in no event join the Court's judgment because I findno constitutional warrant for imposing such an order of priorities on the people and legislaturesof the States. In a sensitive area such as this, involving as it does issues over which reasonablemen may easily and heatedly differ, I cannot accept the Court's exercise of its clear power ofchoice by interposing a constitutional barrier to state efforts to protect human life and byinvesting mothers and doctors with the constitutionally protected right to exterminate it. Thisissue, for the most part, should be left with the people and to the political processes the peoplehave devised to govern their affairs.
White Dissents in Roe v. Wade
What is the ruling in Johnson v. Transportation agency?
[I]t was plainly *not unreasonable* for the Agency to determine that it was appropriate to consider as one factor the sex of Ms. Joyce in making its decision.
Ruling in Plessy v. ferguson
the law applies equally to both, they are two separated races. And they are separated for the good of each, i.e., the law equally seeks the good of each race, rather than attempting to subordinate one race to the other.
What does Oliver Wendell Holmes say in his ruling of Shenck v. US?
there is no right to freedom of speech if your speech presents a CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER - his pamphlet was to demoralization of troops... The nation was at war, rather than in a time of peace, and the defendants tried to obstruct the prosecution of that war. *The Court deemed the Espionage Act constitutional*—i.e., it was constitutional for the government to prosecute those whose speech sought to obstruct a war effort.