AP Gov Unit 2

Indictment

A formal accusation that a person has committed a criminal offense, or formal words spoken or written by a jury that charge a person with a crime

Grand Jury

A jury of 12 to 23 persons who, in private, hear evidence presented by the government to determine whether persons shall be required to stand trial. If the jury believes there is sufficient evidence that a crime was committed, it issues an indictment.

Petit jury

A jury of 6 to 12 persons who determine guilt or innocence in a civil or criminal action. Trials are generally public, but jury deliberations are private.

Plea bargain

A plea bargain is an agreement between a prosecutor and a defendant in a criminal trial that the defendant will plead guilty to a lesser offense to avoid having to stand trial for a more serious offense.

Search warrant

A search warrant is a needed for searching the home, car, or possessions of a subject. It is a court-ordered legal document.

Affirmative Action

Affirmative Action is any policy that attempts to correct a past racial wrong (especially seen in colleges and businesses). In Regents of University of California v. Bakke (1978), the Court upheld the application of policies that increase diversity in college admission programs, but said that racial quotas could not be used. For example, colleges cannot say that 25% of their population should be black. Following this case, two other cases were filed: Gratz v. Bollinger (2003), and Grutter v. Bollinger (2003). One was filed against the Undergraduate program and one was filed against the law school. Both of these cases upheld the principle of the Bakke decision, but said that race should not be the primary basis for admission. So, a black person with lower test scores and qualifications should not be accepted over a white person with higher scores and qualifications. No private schools had problems with this (though they still use Affirmative Action) because they receive little to no federal funding.

Civil disobedience

Civil disobedience is when someone disobeys a law that they consider unjust or unconstitutional through peaceful protest and accepts the resulting punishments. It reflects a conscious decision.

Class Action lawsuit

Class Action lawsuits are lawsuits where a small number of people sue on behalf of a larger group of citizens in their situation. For example, a Class Action lawsuit could be on behalf of those who have suffered from smoking against cigarette companies.

Criminal trial rights

Criminal trial rights are the rights given to a defendant in which they have a number of legal rights and protections given by the Bill of Rights. These include right to remain silent (this is a right given in the Fifth Amendment which provides that the defendant cannot be forced to speak. If the defendant chooses to not speak, the prosecutor cannot call the defendant as a witness or testify), right against self-incrimination (this right is given in the Self-Incrimination Clause in which provides that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. This allows the defendant to not give any evidence that might be used against them by the prosecution), right to confront witnesses (this is in the "confrontation clause" given in the Sixth Amendment. This allows the defendant to cross-examine witnesses, or require witnesses to come to court and be questioned by the defense. This amendment forbids prosecutors from proving a defendant's guilt with oral or written statements given by non-testifying witnesses), right to a public trial (the Sixth Amendment guarantees public trials for criminal cases. This helps to ensure the public that the government is doing its job and providing rights to the defendant), right to an impartial jury (this means the jury is unbiased, and in doing so jurors are selected at random. Lawyers can also eliminate jurors because the lawyer may feel that the juror would not be sympathetic to his side. However, they can not be asked to leave based on race, sex, religion, or national origin), right to a speedy trial (the Sixth Amendment gives defendants this right, but never states exactly the time limit. Therefore, judges must go through many cases and decide if a case has been prolonged for too long that it must be thrown out), right to be represented by an attorney (the Sixth Amendment provides that in all criminal prosecutions the defendant is allowed an attorney, and if the defendant cannot afford one then one will be be given to the defendant), right to not be placed in double jeopardy (this is a right provided in a clause given in the Fifth Amendment. It protects defendants from harassment by preventing them from being put on trial more than once for the same offense)

Libel

Defamation is an area of law that provides a civil remedy when someone's words end up causing harm to your reputation or your livelihood. Libel is a written or published defamatory statement.

Slander

Defamation is an area of law that provides a civil remedy when someone's words end up causing harm to your reputation or your livelihood. Slander is defamation that is spoken by the defendant.

Double jeopardy

Double jeopardy is when you are tried twice for the same crime. (It doesn't count if you appeal.) Double jeopardy is prohibited in the Fifth Amendment. This was incorporated to the states in 1969 with the Supreme Court case Benton v. Maryland.

Fighting words

Fighting words are words that by their very nature inflict injury upon those to whom they are addressed or cause acts of violence by them. Libel, obscenity, fighting words, and commercial speech, which are not entitled in all circumstances to constitutional protection, are all non-protected speech.

Freedom of Expression

Freedom of expression is an implied right made explicit through Supreme Court opinions. It usually involves symbols or activities that have specific and widely understood meanings (peace sign, middle finger, anarchy symbol, etc.). Money, when given to candidates, was recently classified as free expression.

Probable cause

If there is probable clause, that means that there is evidence sufficient to warrant an arrest or a search and seizure.

Custodial Interrogation

In United States criminal law, a custodial interrogation (or, generally, custodial situation) is a situation in which the suspect's freedom of movement is restrained, even if he is not under arrest.The Miranda warning requirement arises if the suspect is subject to any kind of "custodial interrogation." Police must give warnings if the person is in custody and being interrogated.

Commercial Speech

In law, commercial speech is speech or writing on behalf of a business with the intent of earning a profit. It is economic in nature and usually attempts to persuade consumers to purchase the business's product or service.In other words, they are advertisements and commercials for products and services; they receive less First Amendment protection, primarily to discourage false and misleading ads.

Lemon Test

In many, but not all establishment clause cases, the Supreme Court has applied a test derived from the case of Lemon v. Kurtzman (Lemon test). Under this test, there are three requirements that a state law must meet in order to be constitutional. First, the law must have a secular (non-religious) purpose. Second, the law must not have the primary effect of advancing religion. Third, the test requires that government avoid excessive entanglement with religion.

Preferred Position Doctrine

Interpretation of the First Amendment that holds that freedom of expression is so essential to democracy that governments should not punish persons for what they say, only for what they do.

Assess the strengths and weaknesses of Supreme Court decision as tools of social change. Is this a constitutionally appropriate function of the Court

It's absolutely necessary and constitutionally appropriate for the Supreme Court to be a tool of social change. The Constitution says that people need to be the primary power source of the government, and so Supreme Court decisions are a strong way for their will to be carried out and for it to become law. However, this can be weak because Supreme Court opinions aren't preventatory, they are for after-the-fact, and the judicial branch has limited power under the Constitution. The Supreme Court rulings can also be frequently ignored. For example, the Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education said that the principle of "separate but equal" was "inherently unequal." This case made huge strides toward desegregation, but many follow-up cases were needed until the ruling was actually paid attention to.

Jim Crow Laws

Jim Crow laws were passed by the Southern states after the 14th Amendment because they didn't want to stop segregation. These laws made segregation a common and legal practice in many Southern States. There are two types of Jim Crow Laws: De Jure Segregation (segregation in law) and De Facto Segregation (segregation in fact, or reality). De Jure Segregation was shown in Maryland (1904), when states were required to provide separate railroad cars to black and white people, in Texas and many other states (1995), when Black and White couldn't legally mary, and in North Carolina (1889 through early 1900s) when books weren't allowed to be interchangeable in black and white schools. De Facto Segregation was shown in the concentration of black and white people in neighborhoods, which results in segregation. These cases were less often brought to law, but were common in Northern states, too, and still exist today. They affect psychology, self-image, and sense of worth. These established the idea of "separate but equal," which was later declared unfair because things need to be "inherently equal."

How have the judicial interpretations of civil rights and liberties changed over time. Consider the interpretations on fundamental liberties and to demographic groups.

Many civil rights and liberties were written into the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. But, their interpretation has changed over time. These changes reflect the attitude of the American people. Fundamental personal freedoms of all people that the government cannot abridge without due process are civil liberties. Civil rights ensure citizens right to live without discrimination or repression. Through the 14th Amendment's due process and equal protection clauses, many of these civil rights and liberties have been incorporated and enumerated. For example, privacy and expression have evolved to become fundamental liberties to Americans. Through the civil rights movement, minorities have also come to have civil liberties and civil rights that they didn't have when the Constitution and Amendments.

Obscenity

Obscenity is a statement or act which strongly offends moral standards of the time or community in which it was committed. It has or encourages excessive interest in sexual matters (prurient interests).

What is the value to a democratic society of using the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection clause to support the advancement of equality

One fundamental principle of democracy is individual rights, which says that in American democracy, all individuals' civil rights are protected by the government ("majority rule with minority rights"). Civil rights are citizens' rights to participate in civil and political life without discrimination or repression. This fundamental principle has been incorporated to the government, the states, and the people through the equal protections clause (through selective incorporation), so that all citizens have "equal protection under the law." In other words, it has been used to support the advancement of equality. Without the equal protection clause, and therefore the fundamental principle of individual rights in democracy, the advancement of equality would have no constitutional support or backing.

Prior Restraint

Prior Restraint is the judicial suppression of material that would be published or broadcast, on the grounds that it is libelous or harmful. In US law, the First Amendment severely limits the ability of the government to do this. There are two common forms of prior restraints. The first is a statute or regulation that requires a speaker to acquire a permit or license before speaking, and the second is a judicial injunction that prohibits certain speech. Both types of prior restraint are strongly disfavored, and, with some exceptions, generally unconstitutional. It is a government preventing material from being published. This is a common method of limiting the press in some nations, but it is usually unconstitutional in the United States according to the first amendment and as confirmed in the 1931 case of Near v. Minnesota.

Right to Privacy

Privacy is an implied right made explicit through Supreme Court opinions. It usually involves controversial issues like abortion, assisted suicide, and private personal behaviors.

Reverse discrimination

Reverse discrimination is the accusation that an Affirmative Action (a policy that attempts to correct a past racial wrong) program discriminates against non-minorities. This was demonstrated in Regents v. Bakke (1978), where the Court said that racial quotas could NOT be used. Also, in Gratz v. Bollinger (2003) and Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), where the principle was upheld. These cases protect the occurrence of reverse discrimination, but many people claim to experience non-existent reverse discrimination, too.

Stop and Frisk

Stop and frisk is a temporary detention and "pat down" based on reasonable belief that someone is armed and dangerous. This is highly controversial, as their are often large levels of racial discrimination that go into this action today.

Suspect Classification

Suspect classification is for legal classifications such as race and national origin that have a history of discrimination. Those citizens under suspect classification have a strict scrutiny standard in court.

How has the 14th Amendment and the doctrine of selective incorporation been used to extend the protection of rights and liberties

The 14th Amendment has been used to extend the protection of rights and liberties to the state government as well as to the federal government. This is done through the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses. The Court has selectively applied many of the civil liberties and rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights to the States through the Doctrine of Incorporation. This guarantees citizens "equal protection under the law" for protected classes and "due process of law" for everyone without discrimination.

Due Process Clause

The 5th Amendment first established the due process clause, protecting our rights in court. In the 14th Amendment, this right was also protected on the state level. The 14th Amendment states that no"State [shall] deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.(The 14th Amendment has arguably had a greater impact than any other provision of the U.S. Constitution on state and local government. The impact derives for the amendment's incorporation of the protections afforded by the Bill of Rights, its establishment of national and state citizenship, and the protections afforded by two critical clauses: the due process clause and the equal protections clause.) In interpreting this clause, the Supreme Court has recognized two types of due process: procedural and substantive. Substantive due process addresses whether there are certain areas where government action or regulation is inherently "undue," a quality of action that the government simply cannot take. In 1900 through the 1930s, the Court occasionally ruled certain state regulations on businesses unconstitutional because it felt they were outside the "due" scope of governmental powers. This reasoning is used today by commentators on certain private behaviors and things outside the realm of governmental powers. Procedural due process, the less common of the two, means that when a state or local government seeks to take action against an individual that adversely affects that individual, they must follow certain procedures to protect the individual's rights. This includes, but is not limited to, criminal procedures. The state and local governments are responsible for more than just criminal proceedings, though. They also control institutions such as public universities, school districts, individual schools, and public libraries. Due process applies to them as well.

Americans with Disabilities Act 1990

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) was a wide-ranging civil rights law that prohibits discrimination based on disability, or ability. It set into motion the standards that we now live with. For example, handicap-accessible ramps, textured curbs, etc.

Bad Tendency Test

The Bad Tendency Test permits restriction of freedom of speech by government if it is believed that a form of speech has a sole tendency to incite or cause illegal activity. As speech has become recognized as a "preferred freedom," the Supreme Court and lower federal courts have moved away from use of the bad tendency test.

Why are the Bill of Rights continually being interpreted to balance the power of government and the civil liberties of individual citizens

The Bill of Rights is continually being interpreted to balance the power of government and the civil liberties of individual citizens because of the changing American perspective. Because America is so young, people's civil liberties are constantly being changed. Because the government cannot abridge citizen's civil liberties without due process, this is a constant source of tension between the two. Because, too, some individuals' civil liberties violate other individuals' civil liberties, it can also be a source of tension between the people. The judiciary branch has the role of interpreting the constitution. The Court has selectively applied many of the civil liberties enumerated in the Bill of Rights to the States through the Doctrine of Incorporation. This process is still ongoing, which is one source of the continually changing balance. But another source is the seesaw, the tug-of-war battle, between the government and the people as they struggle to get their rights to the forefront on numerous controversial issues.

Civil Rights Act 1964

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 guaranteed equal access and treatment to black and white people in all public-owned and operated facilities. It guarantee that no individual be subject to discrimination in programs receiving federal financial aid. It also banned employment discrimination. The 24th Amendment (1964) banned poll taxes in federal elections.

Civil Rights Movement

The Civil Rights Movement was a movement in the United States beginning in the 1960s and led primarily by Blacks in an effort to establish the civil rights of individual Black citizens. Civil rights ensure citizens' right to participate in civil and political life without discrimination or oppression. They are given by the government through Constitutional Amendments or Legislation, and concern the treatment and equal protection of individuals. The Civil Rights Movement was specifically for protecting black people's civil rights.

Clear and Present Danger Test

The Clear and Present Danger Test was made explicit in the decision in Schenck v. U.S. It said that speech that created the probability of imminent danger to the government could be declared unconstitutional. This was later overturned by the Imminent Lawless Action Test, which was made explicit in Brandenburg v. Ohio and still exists today.

Loose and Strict construction of the Constitution

The Constitution can be interpreted strictly or loosely. Strict interpretation of the Constitution says that the Constitution should be followed very closely, that the people should do exactly as the Constitution says. It says that the federal government holds only the power listed in the Constitution itself. Loose construction of the Constitution, on the other hand, says that the federal government holds ALL powers that aren't denied by the Constitution. In this way, it follows a looser interpretation.

What is the value to a democratic society of using the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment to prevent the states from infringing upon basic liberties

The Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment says that the government cannot abridge the people's basic and fundamental liberties without due process of law. This is absolutely necessary for the people of a democratic society to remain in control of the nation (the definition of democracy is control by the people). On a federal level, without the Due Process clause, the United States could not even be considered a democracy. If the federal government had power to abridge the people's rights, the nation would collapse. Through selective incorporation, the civil liberties enumerated in the Bill of Rights have come to include the states as well. This prevents states from breaches of the Fourteenth Amendment and basic liberties that could be disastrous in the long run. Democracy is sustained because the states are forced to comply to the people's needs and the balance between the levels of government is returned. This represents a few key ideas of representative democracy (and democracy). The first is limited government, that the government is not all-powerful and may only do the things that the people have given it the power to do. The second is rule of law, that all people, including those who govern, are bound by the law. The third is consent of the governed, that American citizens are the source of all governmental power.

Endorsement Test

The Endorsement Test asks whether a particular government action amounts to an endorsement of religion, violating the establishment clause.

Establishment Clause

The Establishment Clause says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This is one of the clauses in the Constitution (First Amendment) that describes the government's relationship to religion. In other words, this clause says that the government can't support or not support religions. It forbids the establishment or favoring of one religion over another by the government. The establishment clause has generated a good deal of controversy in the last fifty years, especially in the area of school prayer and government funding of parochial (religious) schools. There has not been general agreement on the Supreme Court as to the meaning of this clause, and this has led to inconsistent decisions. In many, but not all establishment clause cases, the Supreme Court has applied a test derived from the case of Lemon v. Kurtzman (Lemon test). Under this test, there are three requirements that a state law must meet in order to be constitutional. First, the law must have a secular (non-religious) purpose. Second, the law must not have the primary effect of advancing religion. Third, the test requires that government avoid excessive entanglement with religion. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

Federal Communications Commission (FCC)

The FCC is an agency of the federal government with authority to develop regulations for the broadcast media.

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)

The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) generally provides that any person has the right to request access to federal agency records or information except to the extent the records are protected from disclosure by any of nine exemptions contained in the law or by one of three special law enforcement record exclusions. The nine exceptions are classified information for national defense or foreign policy, internal personnel rules and practices, information that is exempt under other laws, trade secrets and confidential business information, inter-agency or intra-agency memoranda or letters that are protected by legal privileges, personnel and medical files, law enforcement records or information, information concerning bank supervision, and geological and geophysical information.

Voting Rights Act 1965

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 prohibited different registration standards for the races. For example, literacy tests were suspended. Heavy fines were set for intimidating votes or interfering with voting rights. In Shelby v. Holder (2013), part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was struck down, no longer requiring federal agents to supervise the voting process in Jim Crow states.

Exclusionary Rule

The exclusionary rule states that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's protection against search and seizures is inadmissible in court.

How has the evolution of judicial interpretation influenced different cultural eras

The idea of judicial interpretation, or the judicial branch's ability to interpret and apply the Constitution, has gained a larger role in the United States over time. And with this interpretation, cultural eras have been developed. Over time, Americans have acknowledged that the Constitution is a "living" document, that changes as years pass. This philosophy is what gives the judicial branch and judicial interpretation so much of its importance today. But, this idea has not always been generally accepted. Rather, it has evolved to become so. The idea of judicial review was determined by the Supreme Court case Marbury v. Madison in 1803. With this case, the Supreme Court obtained a significant amount of power and their ability regarding judicial interpretation grew. With this case, and the evolution of judicial interpretation, began a cultural era where individual rights were expanded upon. Because of the Supreme Court's growing power through judicial interpretation, it became known as an instrument of social change, and has continued to be used as such since. In this way, judicial interpretation influenced the civil rights era and many others like it.

What is the Court's primary role as a branch of the federal government

The primary role of the Courts is to uphold the law. They do this in a fair and rational manner. They also have the job of interpreting the Constitution. They do this through a process called judicial review. They can nullify parts of the Constitution if they determine them to be unconstitutional or unlawful. Much of their power comes through interpreting the messages of the Constitution. They do this through rulings of Court cases.

Takings clause

The takings clause, or eminent domain, is the ability of the government to take property for public use, as long as they provide "just compensation." It is in the 5th Amendment and was not incorporated until after the Civil War (so Baron lost in Baron v. Baltimore (1833)). It was later incorporated through the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment by requiring states to provide just compensation. It was the first case to incorporate ANY clause of the Constitution, through the Bill Of Rights and the 14th Amendment, to apply not only to federal, but also to state governments. Kelo v. City of New London, CT (2005) expanded the public purposes that the government can use to exert eminent domain to include economic development projects (motivated by tax payment) in addition to highways, schools, and other government-owned projects. This was a very controversial case. Government is hesitant to use the takings clause (even for Blight -- privately owned property that has been neglected or in violation of local building code, zoning ordinances, etc.).

De facto segregation

There are two types of Jim Crow Laws: De Jure Segregation (segregation in law) and De Facto Segregation (segregation in fact, or reality). De Facto Segregation was shown in the concentration of black and white people in neighborhoods, which results in segregation. These cases were less often brought to law, but were common in Northern states, too, and still exist today. They affect psychology, self-image, and sense of worth.

De jure segregation

There are two types of Jim Crow Laws: De Jure Segregation (segregation in law) and De Facto Segregation (segregation in fact, or reality). De Jure Segregation was shown in Maryland (1904), when states were required to provide separate railroad cars to black and white people, in Texas and many other states (1995), when Black and White couldn't legally mary, and in North Carolina (1889 through early 1900s) when books weren't allowed to be interchangeable in black and white schools.

Free Exercise Clause

This is a second clause that describes the government's duties with religion. Decisions involving the free exercise clause have not been as controversial as those involving the establishment clause. It is clear that all individuals have an absolute right to hold any religious belief, which may not be interfered with by the government. The problem arises as to what extent the government can control conduct that is based on religious belief. States that congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

Civil Rights Act 1968

This was an addition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (kind of like they forgot). It banned discrimination in Housing based on race, color, religion, or gender.

Time, Place, and Manner restrictions

Time, Place, and Manner restrictions are Government regulations that place restrictions on free speech. These regulations, specifying when, where, and in what way speech is allowed, are applied when unrestricted free speech will conflict with the rights of others

Strict Scrutiny Test

When dealing with the Equal Protections clause, there are three levels at which a case can be examined: with "strict scrutiny" (for discrimination based on racial or national origin), "intermediate scrutiny" (for discrimination based on sex), and "rational basis scrutiny" (other reasons). The "strict scrutiny" standard is highest for national and racial discrimination because these cases are "suspect" because of the history of De Jure Segregation and discrimination of minority groups from state governments. All that is needed in these equal protection cases is a compelling reason that advances a legitimate end of government. The state must show that there is a compelling need for the law, and that the differing treatment based on race or national origin is necessary to achieving that compelling need in order for the law not to be struck down in light or the equal protections clause. As a result of this strict standard, most laws that treat people differently because of their race or national origin have been struck down by courts. Found in Korematsu v. United States (1944), the Supreme Court found that there was a compelling reason for discrimination of Japanese Americans, but this is now regarded as a mistake, and few scholars agree with this reasoning. It is considered one of the biggest mistakes in American history.

Rational Basis Test

When dealing with the Equal Protections clause, there are three levels at which a case can be examined: with "strict scrutiny" (for discrimination based on racial or national origin), "intermediate scrutiny" (for discrimination based on sex), and "rational basis scrutiny" (other reasons). The lowest level for laws to clear for treating people differently is "rational basis scrutiny," used for discrimination other than race, nationality, or gender. These laws need only to have a "rational basis" for their existence and be linked to a "legitimate state purpose."

How have the laws and social norms evolved in America following the Supreme Court's decisions regarding racial segregation

When the civil rights movement first started, many of the laws were ignored. As shown when Homer Plessy lost the Plessy v. Ferguson case, Jim Crow laws were used to segregate races ("separate but equal"). Also, in Korematsu v. United States, in 1945, racial discrimination evidently still existed. The Supreme Court sided with the government. Until the 2nd half of the 20th century, the 14th Amendment continued to be ignored (through de jure and de facto segregation). In Brown v. Board of Education, Plessy v. erguson was overturned and things began to slowly improve. Since then, affirmative action was established through Regents v. Bakke, Gratz v. Bollinger, and Grutter v. Bollinger. Now, all cases for discrimination based on racial or national origin are held to a highest level of scrutiny, "strict scrutiny." National perceptions on race are still developing. The fact that we are still having race-based court decisions says this.

What kinds of constitutional issues come most often before the court

Which kinds of cases are considered the most impactful or "landmark" cases? The 14th Amendment has been the Supreme Court's most frequently cited Constitutional amendment since the turn of the 20th century The 14th Amendment has the Due Process and Equal Protections clauses. The 14th Amendment extended the Due Process clause to include the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Amendments to the states. The Equal Protection clauses said that all citizens are entitled to equal protection of the law from abuse and discrimination by government. The most impactful, or "landmark" cases are ones with historical and legal implications, whose significance will carry on. They have had a lasting effect on the application of a certain law, often concerning individual rights or liberties.

Equal Protection Clause

While the Declaration of Independence says that "all men are created equal," this didn't become a part of the U.S. Constitution until the Fourteenth Amendment, or the Equal Protections Clause. This says that "no state shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The fundamental equality of individuals is addressed. This clause does not mean that everyone must be treated equally by the state, but that the state government must provide "equal protection" to the people, or that when it does it must have a reasonable, or compelling, reason to do so.When dealing with the Equal Protections clause, there are three levels at which a case can be examined: with "strict scrutiny" (for discrimination based on racial or national origin), "intermediate scrutiny" (for discrimination based on sex), and "rational basis scrutiny" (other reasons).

Women's suffrage

Women's suffrage is the right of women to vote in elections; a person who advocates the extension of suffrage, particularly to women, is called a suffragist. Women's rights have been fought over in Roe v. Wade (1972), Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989), Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health (1990), and Lawrence v. Texas (2003).