Supreme Court Cases and Balancing Tests

Marbury v. Madison

1803 JUDICIAL REVIEW; most important precedent facts: President Adam nominated a number of justices, Senate confirmed them and commissions were prepared, Secretary of State Marshall didn't deliver all commissions before Jefferson took office and Jefferson told new secretary Madison not to deliver them and he was sued on the basis that he was neglecting his constitutional duty conclusion: plaintiffs have the right to receive their commissions and sue for them in court, but the SCOTUS doesn't have the authority to order their delivery significance: though Marbury was entitled to it, the Court was unable to grant it because Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 conflicted with Article II Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution and was therefore null and void (conflicts with constitution = void)

Fletcher v. Peck

1810 Judicial Review is okay v. State Laws facts: Georgia state legislature passed a land grant awarding territory to four companies (1795), next year legislature voided the law, Peck acquired land that was part of original grant and sold it to Fletcher three years later saying past sails were legitimate, Fletcher argued that since sale was invalid Peck had no legal right to sell the land and breached the contract

McCulloch v. Maryland

1819 Supremacy Clause trumps state goals facts: Congress chartered Second Bank of the U.S. (1816), in 1818 Maryland passed law to impose taxes on the bank, McCulloch, cashier of Baltimore bank branch refused to pay the tax conclusion: Maryland may not impose tax on the bank significance: despite states retaining power of taxation the constitution is superior

Gibbons v. Ogden

1824 Congress can regulate interstate commerce facts: NY law gave individuals the right to operate steamboats on waters within state jurisdiction, led to friction because some states required foreign boats to pay fees for navigation privileges, Gibbons challenged the monopoly licence granted to NY by Ogden, NY courts held state monopoly conclusion: under the Constitution's Supremacy Clause, the New York monopoly was void because it conflicted with federal law significance: regulation of navigation by steamboat operators and others for purposes of conducting interstate commerce was a power reserved to and exercised by the Congress

Barron ex rel. Tiernan v. Mayor of Baltimore

1833 Bills of Rights does not apply to states; overturned with Fourteenth Amendment facts: Barron owner of profitable wharf in Baltimore harbor, sand accumulated in it depriving Barron of deep waters which was the key to his successful business, sued city to recover for his financial losses conclusion: the Fifth Amendment does not deny the states as well as the national government the right to take private property for public use without justly compensating the property's owner (Fifth Amendment not applicable to states and limit powers of national government) significance: provisions of the first eight amendments apply only to the national government, not to the states

Dred Scott v. Sanford

1857 slaves are property not citizens, overturned with Fourteenth amendment facts: Scott was a slave in Missouri and lived in Illinois where slave was forbidden when he returned he unsuccessfully sued Missouri courts for his freedom due to where he now lived, master said he can't be a citizen because of Article III conclusion: Dred Scott was still a slave significance: under Article III and IV no one was a citizen of the state unless they're a U.S. citizen, and only Congress can grant citizenship, no descendant from a slave could ever be a citizen

Ex Parte Milligan

1866 no military courts for civilians facts: Milligan was sentenced to death by military commission in Indiana during Civil War because of acts of disloyalty, he sought to release through habeas corpus from a federal court

Plessy v. Ferguson

1896 "Separate but Equal" is okay; opens South to Jim Crow; overturned by Brown facts: Louisiana enacted a law requiring separate railway cars for blacks and whites, Plessy took a seat in the "whites only" car and refused to move and was arrested conclusion: equal but separate accommodations for whites and blacks imposed by Louisiana do not violate the Equal Protections Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment significance: segregation does not in itself constitute unlawful discrimination

Hammer v. Dagenhart

1918 U.S. Congress cannot regulate child labor laws, only states facts: Keating-Owen Child Labor Act prohibited interstate shipment of goods produced by child labor, Dagenhart's father sued on behalf of his freedom to allow his fourteen year old son to work in a textile mill

Schenck v. United States

1919 clear and present danger test facts: during WWI, Schenck mailed circulars to draftees stating the draft was a wrong motivated by the capitalist system, urged them not to submit to intimidation and use only peaceful action, he was charged with conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act because he tried to cause insubordination in the military and obstruct recruitment conclusion: Schenck is not protected in this situation, the current circumstances speak to the degree of punishment (in wartime something said can be less tolerable than during peacetime) significance: Free Speech Clause doesn't shield advocacy urging conduct deemed unlawful under the Espionage Act

Gitlow v. New York

1925 states must respect free speech/press; selective incorporation facts: Gitlow arrested for distributing a "left-wing manifesto" calling for the establishment of socialism, convicted under state criminal anarchy law, he argued there was no consequence to manifesto but it was decided he advocated for violent revolution and therefore violated the law

Near v. Minnesota

1931 no prior restraint; no test recognized freedom of the press facts: Jay Near published a scandal sheet in Minneapolis stating local official were implicated with gangsters, the officials then got an injunction to prevent the publication under a state law which stated if a person published a lewd paper they're guilty of nuisance and could be stopped

National Labor Relations Board v. Jones and Laughlin Steel Corporation

1937 facts: N.L.R. Act of 1935 Congress stated labor-management disputes directly related to flow of interstate commerce so it could be regulated by national government, NLRB charged Jones & Laughlin with discriminating against employees who were union members conclusion: national government has power under the Commerce Clause to regulate labor relations significance: ability of employees to engage in collective bargaining is "an essential condition of industrial peace"

Wickard v. Filburn

1942 greatly expands commerce clause regulation of economy facts: Filburn, Ohio farmer, given 11.1 acres under Department of Agriculture directive authorizing government to set production quotas for wheat, harvest more than allowed and penalized , argued unrelated to commerce since he grew it for his own use conclusion: Congress may use its Commerce Power to regulate or prohibit activities provided the economic effects of such activities are substantial significance: even if an activity is local and not regarded as commerce it may still be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce whether direct or indirect

Korematsu v. United States

1944 Japanese internment during WWII is okay facts: WWII, Executive Order 9066 and congressional statutes gave military authority to exclude Japanese citizens from areas critical to national defense and vulnerable to espionage, Korematsu violated Civilian Exclusion Order No. 34 by remaining in California conclusion: the exclusion order applying to Americans of Japanese descent was lawful significance: discrimination is justified during circumstances of "emergency and peril"

Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer

1952 President cannot force steel workers to work facts: Korean War President Truman issued executive order directing Secretary of Commerce Sawyer to seize and operate most of the nation's steel mills, done to avert expected effects of a strike by the United Steelworkers of America conclusion: president lacks constitutional authority to seize and operate the steel mills significance: President not authorized to seize private property and his military power does not extend to labor disputes, executes laws but not a lawmaker

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka

1954 I: overturns Plessy, no more Separate but Equal, integration of school, precedent for all anti-discrimination facts: consolidation of four cases arising in separate states relating to segregation of public schools on basis of race, argued that segregation violates Equal Protection Clause, plaintiffs denied relief because "separate but equal", in Delaware it was ruled African Americans students had to be admitted to white public schools because of their better quality conclusion: separate but equal educational facilities for racial minorities is inherently unequal violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment significance: had to be done because segregation instilled sense of inferiority among African Americans affecting their education and growth 1955 II: integrate schools with "all deliberate speed" facts: issued directives with how to implement Brown I conclusion: the Brown I decision shall be implemented with all deliberate speed and with full compliance significance: forced the schools to listen to a federal mandate

Mapp v. Ohio

1961 exclusionary rule facts: Mapp was convicted of possessing obscene materials after an proven illegal search of her home, appealed on the basis of freedom of expression conclusion: all illegally obtained evidence from court at all levels of government are inadmissible, was not protected by the Fifth Amendment significance: troubled the Court with determining how and when to apply the exclusionary rule

Baker v. Carr

1962 national government can regulate districting/apportionment; precedent facts: Baker and other Tennessee citizens alleged that a 1901 law designed to apportion the seats for the state's General Assembly was ignored, this suit detailed how reapportionment efforts ignored economic growth and population shifts in the state

Engel v. Vitale

1962 no public officials, like teachers, can lead prayer facts: Board of Regents for the State of NY authorized a voluntary prayer for recitation at the start of each school day, took a politically potent issue by taking it out of the hands of local communities conclusion: the reading of a nondenominational prayer at the start of the school day violates the "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment significance: a prayer's nondenominational character nor its voluntary character saves it from unconstitutionality, eliminated religious activities of all sorts from public places

Gideon v. Wainwright

1963 court-appointed attorneys are required for impoverished facts: Gideon was charged in Florida with a felony (breaking and entering), asked for a lawyer but because he wasn't an indigent defendant in a capital case so he wasn't appointed one, represented himself, convicted, filed habeas corpus petition and stated it violated his rights, was denied conclusion: the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel in criminal cases does extend to felony defendants in state courts significance: federal courts must respect the right of the accused to have the means to put up a proper defense

Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. U.S.

1964 "no discrimination in private places" facts: Title II of Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbade racial discrimination by places of public accommodations if operations affected commerce, motel refused to accept Black Americans conclusion: held that the Commerce Clause allowed Congress to regulate local incidents of commerce including the CRA '64 significance: concluded places of accommodation had no right to select guests as they saw fit free from governmental regulation

Katzenbach v. McClung

1964 "no discrimination in private restaurants" facts: owner of Ollie's Barbecue in Alabama refused to serve blacks violating CRA '64 conclusion: Court found that discrimination in restaurants posed significant burdens on interstate flow of food and movement on products in general, discrimination posed restrictions on blacks who travel within states significance: Congress' solution was appropriate and within its bounds to regulate interstate commerce

Reynolds v. Sims

1964 establishes one person one vote, using Baker facts: Sims and other voters from Jefferson County Alabama challenged the apportionment of the state legislature, state constitution prescribed each county was entitled to at least one representative and there was to be as many senatorial districts as there were senators conclusion: Court held that both houses of bicameral state legislatures had to be apportioned on a population basis significance: states were required to "honest and good faith" efforts to construct districts as nearly of equal population as practicable

Wesberry v. Sanders

1964 reinforces one person one vote facts: Wesberry filed a suit against Governor of Georgia Sanders protesting the state's apportionment scheme, the his district (Fifth) had a population two to three times larger than other districts, he claimed this system diluted his right to vote

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan

1964 actual malice test (decided with Abernathy v. Sullivan) facts: a full-page ad in the NYT stated the arrest of MLK was designed to destroy integration and black voting efforts and targeted the police, Sullivan, the Montgomery city commissioner, said it defamed him personally and filed a libel action, he didn't have to prove harm, defense was that the ad was truthful but was weak because the ad had factual errors

Griswold v. Connecticut

1965 privacy protects sexual activity in home facts: Griswold, Executive Director of Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, and the Medical Director gave medical advice to married couples about birth control and were convicted under the law that prevented informing couples on how to prevent conception

Miranda v. Arizona

1966 Miranda warnings facts: consolidation of four cases where the defendants confessed without being informed of their Fifth Amendment rights, Miranda was questioned on kidnapping and rape, police got a written confession despite not having told him is rights, found guilty, on appeal they found his rights were not violated because he didn't request counsel conclusion: Supreme Court held that the Fifth Amendment's protections against self-incrimination is available in all settings significance: the Fifth Amendment requires that law enforcement officials advise suspects of their right to remain silent and to obtain an attorney during interrogations while in police custody

Loving v. Virginia

1967 interracial marriage must be allowed facts: two residents of Virginia Jeter and Loving (black woman and white man) married in D.C., returned to Virginia and were charged with the state's anti miscegenation statue (banned interracial marriage), convicted conclusion: Virginia's anti miscegenation law did violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment significance: anyone is free to marry or not marry a person of another race which cannot be infringed by a state

Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC

1969 Fairness Doctrine is okay facts: Federal Communications Commission's fairness doctrine presents fair discussion of issues concerning personal attacks and political editorializing, renewal of broadcast licenses were given with compliance of regulations, RLB Co. challenged fairness doctrine application with respect to a particular broadcast

Lemon v. Kurtzman

1971 Lemon test facts: Pennsylvania and Rhode Island statutes provide for the state to pay for aspects of non-secular, non-public education, appellants (Lemon) from PA believed it violated separation of church and state, district court granted state officials' motion to dismiss the case, in RI they wanted statute to be declared unconstitutional saying it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment (won) conclusion: the Rhode Island statute is unconstitutional under the religion clause of First Amendment for excessive entanglement of state and church significance: established Lemon test, stopped religion from being entangled with the government

New York Times Co. v. U.S.

1971 Pentagon Papers Case prior restraint test (decided with WP v. U.S.) facts: Nixon Administration tried to prevent the NYT and Washington Post from publishing classified material concerning the U.S.'s history in Vietnam, President said prior restraint was necessary to protect national security conclusion: prior restraint was unjustified because there would be no immediate and direct danger to the safety of American forces significance: deals with what the gov't has to do to stop media from printing something prior to publication

Swann v. Charlottee-Mecklenburg Board of Education

1971 forced busing to integrate schools facts: Charlotte-Mecklenburg school system had most black students in schools that were totally black or more than 99% black, problem after Brown, tried to solve in lower courts conclusion: Court held that because of Brown power of district courts are broad and flexible so they can remedy wrongs in accordance to Brown, significance: Court ruled 1) remedial plans were to be judged by their effectiveness, and the use of mathematical ratios or quotas were legitimate "starting points" for solutions; 2) predominantly or exclusively black schools required close scrutiny by courts; 3) non-contiguous attendance zones, as interim corrective measures, were within the courts' remedial powers; and 4) no rigid guidelines could be established concerning busing of students to particular schools

Reed v. Reed

1971 first case to prohibit discrimination based on gender; re: wills/estates facts: Idaho Probate Code stated males must be preferred over females when appointing administrators of estates, divorced couple sought to be named administrator of son's estate after his death, husband appointed administrator, wife challenged it conclusion: Idaho Probate Code violated the Fourteenth Amendment significance: women gained more equality

Furman v. Georgia

1972 abolishes death penalty nationwide (decided with Jackson v. Georgia -rape- and Branch v. Texas -murder-) facts: Furman was burglarizing a private home and when fleeing accidentally killed a resident, he was convicted of murder and given the death penalty

Roe v. Wade

1973 privacy extends to women's body; abortion must be legal facts: Roe sought an abortion but in Texas it's forbidden unless to save the women's life conclusion: a woman's right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy significance: gave woman total autonomy over the pregnancy during the first trimester and defined different levels of state interest for second and third trimesters (affected 46 states' laws)

United States v. Nixon

1974 Executive privilege is NOT absolute (decided with Nixon v. United States) facts: grand jury returned indictments against seven of Nixon's aides in Watergate affair, special prosecutor and defendants sought tapes from Nixon of conversations that took place in Oval office, Nixon said he was immune from subpoena because of executive privilege, could withhold information to protect national interest

Buckley v. Valeo

1976 can, to a degree, regulate donations, but not so much spending facts: after Watergate, Congress attempted to stop corruption in political campaigns by restricting financial contributions to candidates, law set limits on amount of money an individual can contribute and required reporting of contributions when above a certain amount, FEC was created to enforce statute conclusion: held that restrictions on individual contributions didn't violate First Amendment, Court found that governmental restriction of independent expenditures in campaigns and limitation on total campaign expenditures did violate it significance: set regulations on donations but not on spending

Gregg v. Georgia

1976 reinstates death penalty, state option (Death Penalty Cases- Jurek v. Texas, Roberts v. Louisiana, Proffitt v. Florida, and Woodson v. North Carolina) facts: Gregg was guilty of armed robbery and murder, sentenced to death, appealed his armed robbery death sentence, and challenged remaining death sentence saying it was "cruel and unusual" punishment in violation of Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke

1978 Affirmative Action is okay; quotas are not okay facts: Bakke, white man, applied to California and was rejected twice, school reserved sixteen places for minorities, Bakke's scores were better than any admitted minorities when he applied, said he was excluded from admissions on the basis of race conclusion: Title VI of the CRA '64 provides Bakke a cause of action significance: minimized white opposition to the goal of equality (by finding for Bakke) while extending gains for racial minorities through affirmative action

INS v. Chadha

1983 Legislative veto is NOT constitutional (decided with United States House of Representatives v. Chadha and United States Senate v. Chadha) facts: in the Immigration and Nationality Act Congress authorized either chamber of Congress to invalidate/suspend deportation ruling of the U.S. Attorney General, Chadha stayed past his visa deadline, conceded to being deported but a judge suspended it, House of Representatives voted without debate or recorded vote

Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council

1984 The Chevron Case; overrules a bureaucratic interpretation, such as rules and regulations, of Congressional statutes, like laws; there are also, court imposed, limits on bureaucratic discretion facts: Clean Air Act requires states which hadn't achieved national air quality standards to establish a permit program regulation sources of air pollution, Environmental Protection Agency under the Act passed a law allowing states to treat all pollution-emitting devices as a single "bubble", bubble provision said plants may install/modify one piece of equipment without needing a permit if total emissions don't increase, environmental groups challenged provision as contrary to the Act, in appeal EPA regulation was said to be inappropriate for a program enacted to improve air quality

Texas v. Johnson

1989 flag burning is okay facts: Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag in protest of the Reagan administration policies, he was tried and sentenced to a year in jail and had to pay a $2,000 fine because of a Texas law outlawing flag desecration, conviction reversed and sent to Supreme Court

Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith (Oregon v. Smith)

1990 Smith test facts: two Native American counselors were fired because they ingested a hallucinogen for religious reasons and were denied unemployment compensation because their actions were considered misconduct, in the end the Oregon Supreme Court ruled that the law prohibiting consumption of illegal drugs for religion was in violation of Free Exercise clause conclusion: the state can deny unemployment benefits to a worker fired for using illegal drugs for religious purposes significance: Court never held that an individual's religion can excuse him from following a law that the government is free to regulate, any exceptions would open the door for anyone else to use religion as excuse for abusing a child etc.

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey

1992 parental permissions for abortion not allowed facts: Pennsylvania abortion control law required informed consent and 24 hour waiting period, minors required consent of one parent, married women were required to inform husband, provisions were challenged by clinics and physicians, federal appeals court upheld all provisions except husband notification

Shaw v. Reno

1993 race cannot be exclusive factor in deciding districts facts: U.S. Attorney General rejected a NC congressional reapportionment plan because the plan create only one black majority district, NC then submitted a second plan with two of them, five residents challenged the unusual shape of the district saying it was only to secure election of black representatives, failed to state a constitutional claim, residents appealed and Supreme Court granted certiorari

United States v. Lopez

1995 limits application of commerce clause; pro-devolution facts: Lopez carried concealed weapon to Texas high school, charged with firearm possession, state charges turned federal given Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, found guilty conclusion: 1990 Gun-Free School Zones Act, forbidding individuals from knowingly carrying a gun in a school zone, is unconstitutional because it exceeds the power of Congress to legislate the Commerce Clause significance: possession of a gun in a local school zone is not an economic activity that has a substantial effect on interstate commerce., law is a criminal statute that has nothing to do with "commerce" or any sort of economic activity

U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton

1995 term limits on Congress is unconstitutional facts: Arkansas adopted Amendment 73 to State Constitution (1992- Term Limitation Amendment) it limited terms of elected officials and provided person who served three/two or more terms as a member of Congress for Arkansas is ineligible re-election

United States v. Virginia

1996 women must be admitted into all male military academies facts: Virginia Military Institute had a male only admissions policy and the U.S. argued it was unconstitutional, in appeal ruled in favor of VMI but reversed in Fourth Circuit, then proposed to create Virginia Women's Institute for Leadership for women which was okay, U.S. then appealed to Supreme Court

Printz v. United States

1997 some Brady bill gun restrictions are not okay under Commerce Clause (decided with Mack v. United States) facts: Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act required local chief officers to perform background checks on handgun purchasers until a system for it is in place, the sheriff Printz challenged its constitutionality on behalf of the officers, checks ruled unconstitutional but a voluntary one could remain, later granted certiorari and consolidated the case

Clinton v. Jones

1997 Presidents can be sued in *civil* court for past behavior facts: Jones sued Bill Clinton claiming that she suffered various sexual advances and that her rejections resulted in punishment by her state superiors, Clinton sought to use his immunity to dismiss the suit and was denied and the stay was reversed because it was like temporary immunity

Clinton v. City of New York

1998 line item budget vetos are unconstitutional facts: consolidates two challenges of two cancellations under Line Item Veto Act, 1) hospital. two hospital associations, and two health care unions challenged President's cancellation of a provision in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, 2) Snake River farmer's cooperative and one of its individual members challenged the President's cancellation of a provision of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, held Act unconstitutional and SCOTUS granted certiorari on expedited appeal conclusion: President's ability to selectively cancel individual portion of bills, under the Line Item Veto Act, did violate the Presentment Clause of Article I significance: Court held that by canceling only selected portions of the bills at issue, President "amended" the laws before him, violating the "finely wrought" legislative procedures of Article I

Bush v. Gore

2000 Bush wins because of Equal Protection of voters from certain Florida counties facts: a divided Supreme Court ruled that the state of Florida's court-ordered manual recount of vote ballots in the 2000 presidential election was unconstitutional conclusion: Florida Court ordered 9000 ballots be counted by hand...these recounts ruled as unconstitutional, can't make new election law and didn't have enough time to recount significance: Standardless manual recounts violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.

Boy Scouts of America v. Dale

2000 limits protections against anti-gay discrimination facts: Boy Scouts revoked Dale's membership when discovered he was gay, Dale alleged they had violated the NJ statue prohibiting discrimination, NJ held that law was inapplicable because Boy Scouts was a private organization and it was their First Amendment right, in appeal the law was applicable because Boy Scouts associates with public entities and was not violating their First Amendment right because it didn't affect their purposes

McConnell v. Federal Election Commission

2002 BCRA is okay, but electioneering restrictions must be softened facts: Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 unrestricted soft money, limits advertising in 60 days prior to election, restricts funds given by political parties, contained unusual provision for early federal trial and direct appeal to SCOTUS bypassing typical federal judicial process, struck down portions of BCRAs soft money donations but upheld restrictions on the kind of advertising parties can engage in, ruling stayed until SCOTUS could hear and decide appeals

Gratz v. Bollinger

2003 race can be *a* factor, but not the *only* factor in admissions (decided with Grutter v. Bollinger) facts: Gratz and Hamacher applied to University of Michigan and though qualified were denied because they were Caucasian, argued they were discriminated against and showed seats were being held for minorities so they were granted summary judgement, in appeal the University's policies were upheld, students then asked Court to grant certiorari

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld

2004 enemy combatant restrictions are okay but citizens can challenge in court facts: American citizen Hamdi accused of fighting for the Taliban, declared "enemy combatant", father filed petition for a writ of habeas corpus in order to have arrest be unconstitutional, argued Fifth Amendment rights had been violated, they countered enemy combatants don't have access to U.S. court system, despite Hamdi's authorized detention, Fifth Amendment due process guarantees enemy combatants the right to contest that detention before a neutral decision maker, rejected the government's argument that the separation of powers prevents the judiciary from hearing a challenge like Hamdi's

Citizens United v. FEC

2010 corporations and unions can use their treasury/profits to campaign, Super PACs facts: allowed for the first time in 100 years corporations and unions to use their general treasuries to fund PACs or shadow campaigns, can't place limits on independent money in campaigns because violates first amendment- can't work with super-PACs if they're independent conclusion: led to super-PACs (super 527 committee, not actual PAC), First Amendment protects the right to free speech, despite the speaker's corporate identity. significance: super-PACs can spend money as long as not affiliated with the campaign

Elections and Voting (Equal Protections Act + "one person one vote")

Baker v. Carr Reynolds v. Sims Wesberry v. Sanders Shaw v. Reno U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton Bush v. Gore McConnell v. Federal Election Commission

Federalism (Commerce Clause v. Tenth Amendment)

Barron v. Baltimore Gibbons v. Ogden Hammer v. Dagenhart Wickard v. Filburn United States v. Lopez Printz v. United States N.L.R.B. v. Jones and Laughlin Steel Corporation

Civil Rights; Discrimination v. Racial Minorities (C.R. Act of 64, Commerce Clause, Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment)

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S. Katzenbach v. McClung Plessy v. Ferguson Dred Scott v. Sanford Loving v. Virginia Swann v. Charlottee-Mecklenburg Boy Scouts of America v. Dale

Campaign Finance (First Amendment v. Democracy)

Buckley v. Valeo Citizens United v. FEC

The Courts and the Executive/Bureaucracy

Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council

Power of President; Regular (Article II)

Clinton v. New York City United States v. Nixon Clinton v. Jones

Civil Liberties; First Amendment (Religion + Establishment/Church and State); Fourteenth Amendment (Due Process + Selective Incorporation)

Engel v. Vitale Lemon v. Kurtzman

Power of the President During Times of Emergency (Bill of Rights v. Executive Power Vesting Clause)

Ex Parte Milligan Korematsu v. United States Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer Hamdi v. Rumsfeld

Civil Liberties; Third, Fourth, + Fifth Amendment -loosely constructed- (Privacy); Fourteenth Amendment (Due Process + Selective Incorporation)

Griswold v. Connecticut Roe v. Wade

Power of Congress

INS v. Chadha

Lemon Test

Lemon v. Kurtzman when is it okay for some religiously connected activity to be performed by public officials? strict unless the act is (1) secular (2) non-religious in intent (3) does not involve government too much in religious affairs

Civil Liberties; Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, or Eighth Amendment (Rights of Criminal Defendants); Fourteenth Amendment (Due Process + Selective Incorporation)

Mapp v. Ohio Gideon v. Wainwright Miranda v. Arizona Furman v. Georgia Gregg v. Georgia

Power of the Courts (Chief Justice John Marshall + Article III)

Marbury v. Madison Fletcher v. Peck McCulloch v. Maryland

strict scrutiny

burden on government to show compelling interest to discriminate or violate liberties

intermediate scrutiny

burden on government to show important interest to discriminate (not really applicable to Civil Liberties cases)

Remember for Balancing Tests

government is either national or states

rational basis scrutiny

government just needs a reasonable justification to discriminate; burden really on plaintiff to show why the government should not be able to discriminate or take away a liberty; goal of government in many cases is to get to rational test

prior restraint test

Pentagon Papers/NYT v. US can government stop paper from printing news? strict scrutiny UNLESS the government can show printing will cause (1) substantial (2) immediate (3) unavoidable harm

Civil Rights; Women (Equal Protection Clause)

Reed v. Reed United States v. Virginia Planned Parenthood v. Casey

Civil Rights; Affirmative Action (LBJ Executive Order + Equal Protection Clause)

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke Gratz v. Bollinger

Table 1: (Classes= what is being examined; scrutiny = standard to overcome/meet)

SCRUTINY LEVEL Strict (state must show compelling) Intermediate (state must show impt) Rational (state must show reasonable) CIVIL LIBERTIES 1st Amendment rights; Interstate Privacy to an extent Assisted Suicide CIVIL RIGHTS Race, Religion, Ethnic Origin Gender; Sexual Orientation?? Alienation, Age, Disability

Clear and Present Danger Test

Schenck Case can government fine or prevent free political expression? strict scrutiny UNLESS the government can show speech will cause (1) obvious (2) serious (3) immediate harm

Civil Liberties; First Amendment (Religion + Free Exercise); Fourteenth Amendment (Due Process + Selective Incorporation)

Smith v. Oregon

Smith Test

Smith v. Oregon when is it okay for the government to regulate the free exercise of religion? strict scrutiny unless the act is (1) unintended in religious impact (2) neutral as to which religions are affected (3) does not seriously restrict a given religion

Civil Liberties; First Amendment (Free Expression); Fourteenth Amendment (Due Process + Selective Incorporation)

Texas v. Johnson Schenck v. United States Gitlow v. New York

Miller Test

Miller v. Cali can a community restrict vulgar free expression? intermediate scrutiny UNLESS government can show that public material is (1) intended to arouse (2) blatantly vulgar (3) has no artistic merit

Actual Malice Test

NYT v. Sullivan can a public figure sue media for defamation of character? only if public figure can show (1) knowingly false or reckless

Civil Liberties; First Amendment (Free Press); Fourteenth Amendment (Due Process + Selective Incorporation)

Near v. Minnesota New York Times Company v. Sullivan Red Lion v. FCC New York Times Company v. U.S.