AP Government Quiz #4

US vs. Lopez (1995)

Area of law: 10th and ICC Ballot Count: 5-4 Fact Pattern: Alfonso Lopez, a senior at Thomas Edison High School in San Antonio attempted to exchange an unloaded handgun at school for $44. Legal Question: Is the 1990 Gun-Free Zones Act unconstitutional because it exceeds the power of Congress to legislate under the Commerce Clause? Majority holding: Chief Justice Rehnquist authored for the majority. The majority concluded that the possession of a gun in a local school zone is not an economic activity that might have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Concurring: Justice Kennedy concurred because he believed that education and gun control are areas traditionally regulated by the states. Justice Thomas also concurred because he believed the majority's substantial-effects test was too broad. Dissenting: Justice Stevens dissented because he believed future commerce depends upon providing the nation's children with quality education. Justice Souter dissented because he believed the majority's test step backwards. It relies on unworkable distinctions. Lastly, Justice Breyer dissented because he believed that to determine an activity's effect on interstate commerce, they have to consider the cumulative effect.

Heart of Atlanta Motel V. United States (1964)

Area of law: 10th and ICC Ballot Count: 9-0 Fact Pattern: The civil rights amendment is passed, providing protections against discrimination on the basis of race because of the ICC, which allows government to regulate commerce at an interstate level. The owner of Heart of Atlanta motel sues for an injunction against commerce clause, so that civil rights act doesn't apply to hotels so that he won't have to rent to black people. Owner loses in every court, but brings his case before SCOTUS Legal Question: Did congress exceed its commerce clause powers in the civil rights act by not allowing hotels to pick and choose their customers? Majority Holding: Justice Clark states that Heart of Atlanta makes money off of interstate commerce because it is positioned near highways, it advertises in other states and about 75% of profits came from out of state visitors. Creates an interstate commerce test. If more than one state is involved and there is a real relationship of national interest, then there is an ICC question. States that there is an undue burden on black Americans who want to take a road trip because of appellant's opinion. Concurring Opinion: Justice Douglas says that although the owner is clearly in the wrong, there should be reasons beyond interstate commerce as to why black Americans shouldn't be discriminated against Dissenting Opinions: None

DC vs. Heller (2008)

5-4 ballot count - 2nd Amendment violation - Fact Pattern: Dick Heller was special police officer who requested to keep a handgun at home through a one-year license given by the police chief. Heller sought an injunction in the DC code violated his 2nd Amendment. Heller lost in district court, but won in the DC Court of Appeals and at SCOTUS. - Legal Question: Do the provisions in DC that restrict the licensing of handguns and require licensed handguns to be kept at home violate the second amendment? - Majority Opinion: o Written by Antonin Scalia; joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito o The Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess a firearm without being connected with a militia, and to use that firearm for self-defense. A ban on registering handguns to keep in the house disassemble is a violation of the Second Amendment. The Amendment should be read to give the greatest effect to the people. They did not find any evidence that guns should just be for military purposes. - Concurring Opinion: none - Dissenting Opinion: o Written by John Paul Jones § Thought the Second Amendment doesn't create an unlimited right to possess guns for self-defense. He thinks the Second Amendment was created for the use of keeping weapons for military purposes. The Amendment did not say if the people had the right to self-defense using firearms. o Written by Breyer § Argued that the Second Amendment protected militia related issues, and not not self-defense related issues. He said it does provide protection from government intervention in these interests. o Dissent joined by Ruth Ginsberg and David Souter

Baker v. Carr (1962)

6-2 ballot count o Whittaker was not present because he was so torn over the case, so he did not vote due to health issues. - 1st Amendment - Fact Pattern: Charles Baker led other Tennessee citizens to alleging that a 1901 law designed to apportion seats for the state's General Assembly was ignored. - Legal Question: Did the Supreme Court have jurisdiction over questions of legislative appointment? - Majority Opinion: o Written by Associate Justice William J. Brennan Jr.; joined by Associate Justice Black and Chief Justice Earl Warren § The Court held that there were no questions in the case that could be answered and that legislative apportionment was a justiciable issue. - Concurring Opinion: Separately filed by Associate Justices' Douglas, Clark, and Stewart o Douglas: He found that the appellants have the right to challenge the apportionment status. - Dissenting Opinion: Written by Associate Justice Frankfurter; joined by Associate Justice Marshall o Argued that Baker and citizens are permitted to have their votes counted. These people go to polls to cast their ballots, then they send their representatives to their state council. They are complaining that their representatives are not sufficient in quantity or power. They thought the courts over-stepped their boundaries of the judicial role.

Schenck v. United States (1919)

9-0 decision - 1st Amendment - Fact Pattern: Confused socialists, Charles Schenck and Elizabeth Baer, believed the draft violated the 13th Amendment prohibition against involuntary servitude, so they handed out leaflets declaring it. These leaflets urged the public to disobey the draft, but use peaceful action to rebel. Schenck was charged with with conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act of 1917 by tring to create insubordination in the military for purposes of recruitment, Schenck and Baer were both convicted of violating this law, and appealed that their conviction violated the 1st Amendment. - Question: Did Schenck's conviction under the 1975 Espionage Act for criticizing the draft violate his 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech? - Unanimous Opinion: Written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes o The held that the Espionage Act did not violate the freedom of speech in the 1st Amendment as it was appropriate for Congress exercise their wartime powers. Holmes concluded that the 1st Amendment does not protect speech that creates danger for Congress's ability to govern.

McCullough v. Maryland (1819)

Area of Law: 10th & ICC Ballot Count: 7-0 Fact Pattern: 1816 Congress created bank of the United States and placed one in Maryland. Maryland passed an act to tax out of state banks. Legal Question: Does Congress have an implied constitutional power to create a bank? If congress has power can states tax a federal bank? Majority Holding: Justice Marshall says, States cannot interfere with the federal government when it uses its implied power under the necessary and proper clause to further its express constitutional powers. In other words, Congress can create a bank, but states may not tax it. Concurring Opinion(s): N/A Dissenting Opinion(s): N/A

Slaughterhouse Cases (1873)

Area of Law: 10th and ICC Ballot Count: 5-4 Fact Pattern: Animal entrails contaminated New Orleans water from the butcher houses in the New Orleans area. To fix this problem, a New Orleans jury asked for them to move further South, but there was no real weight to this since the slaughterhouses were technically outside of the city. The city then appealed to the state, and, as a result Louisiana passed an act calling for the movement of the butchers. Lots of slaughterhouses as a result were shut down and forced to move away from their homes, all out of their own pockets. The Butchers Benevolent Association joined together to sue the state, which would hopefully stop their removal. Legal Question: Does the due process clause and regarding property apply narrowly or broadly? Majority Holding: The Fourteenth Amendment protects the privileges and immunities of citizenship of the United States, not privileges and immunities of citizenship of a state. (held a narrow interpretation of immunities clause) They held that the amendment was intended primarily to protect former slaves and so could not be broadly applied. Miller, joined by Clifford, Strong, Hunt, Davis Concurring Opinions: none Dissenting Opinion: Justice Field, joined by Chase, Swayne, Bradley, wrote the dissent in which he read the 14th amendment as not confined to protection of freed slaves but embraced the common law presumption in favor of an individual right to pursue a legitimate occupation.

Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

Area of Law: 14th Ballot Count: 9-0 Fact Pattern: Linda Brown, an elementary school student in Topeka, Kansas, had to walk 6 blocks to her bus stop to go to the elementary school for black children over a mile away from her house when there was another elementary school only 7 blocks away from her house, but this school was only for white children. She and others tried to enroll in the white school, but were refused. Olivia Brown, the girl's mother, filed a suit calling for the school district to change their policies on segregation. Legal Question: Is the ideology of separate but equal actually valid? Is the doctrine of separate constitutional? Majority Holding: Chief Warren ruled that even if facilities for blacks are of equal quality than for whites that segregation in itself is harmful to all students and considered unconstitutional because it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth amendment, in the case of public schools only. It puts black students at a social psychological disadvantage. The court overturned Plessy v. Ferguson in so far as primary and secondary schools are involved. Concurring Opinions: None Dissenting Opinion: None

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

Area of Law: 14th amendment Ballot Count: 7-1 Fact Pattern: Plessy was 1/8 black and Louisiana defined a strict standard saying if you have any black in you three generations down then you were considered black (separate but equal) and Plessy broke the law by sitting in the white cart, he wasn't supposed to sit there because he was 1/8 black. Legal question: Is separate equal? Is it constitutional for races to be separate but still equal? Is the Louisiana law requiring racially segregated railway coaches constitutional? Majority holding: The majority thought that separate IS equal. Making everyone equal under the law but wasn't supposed to eliminate distinctions based on race. This law didn't violate the law of the constitution because the facilities were still equal. Concurring opinion(s): N/A Dissenting opinion(s): Harlan thought that the constitution was colorblind. Separation caused inferiority between blacks and whites even if you did separate them in equal facilities. But he still that there was discrimination because they sought to keep black passengers from the carts that were reserved for the white passengers

Shaw v. Reno (1993)

Area of Law: 14th amendment Ballot count: 5-4 Fact Pattern: Janet Reno a US attorney for the state of North Carolina, she realize that racism was bad, and thought there should be more black representation in congress. She wanted NC to go from a one majority black district to split that into two majority black districts. This was because NC had a large African American population that needed to be represented. But by redoing the map she segregated the people of NC by race even though it allowed representation. Legal question: ? Majority holding: even though splitting the one district into two helped the state it still showed segregation by race and segregation is against the law. Authored by Sandra Day O'Connor Concurring opinion: N/A Dissenting opinion: the 14th amendment helped the population and represented the people but wasn't allowed even if the roles were reversed.

Citizens United v. FEC (2010)

Area of Law: 1st Ballot Count: 5-4 Fact Pattern: A conservative organization, Citizens United, wanted to air a film criticising Hillary Clinton on TV right before the 2008 Democratic primary election in which Clinton was running for U.S. President. But, Federal law prohibited any corporation from making an "electioneering communication" within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of an election, or making any expenditure advocating the election or defeat of a candidate at any time. Legal Question: Should the government regulate/restrict political campaigning spending? Majority Holding: Justice Kennedy: The provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act restricting unions, corporations, and profitable organizations from independent political spending and prohibiting the broadcasting of political media funded by them within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary election violate the First Amendment's protections of freedom of speech. United States District Court for the District of Columbia reversed. Political Donations are Political Speech Concurring Opinions: Justice Roberts, joined by Justice Alito: Roberts wrote to explain the difference between judicial restraint and judicial abdication. Roberts explained why the Court must sometimes overrule prior decisions.Roberts argued that SCOTUS can fix past mistakes, but provides no justification for making new laws. Justice Scalia, and Alito in full and Thomas in part: Roberts joined in on the majority holding, but further commented on Steven's dissent. Justice Thomas: He agreed with all but upholding the disclosure provisions Dissenting Opinion: Justice Stevens, joined by Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Breyer, explained in his dissent how he thought that this undermined the integrity of elections across the nation. He felt like it was not of a true democracy to restrict speech in any manner.

Engel V. Vitale (1961)

Area of Law: 1st Ballot Count: 6-1 Fact Pattern: New York state schools authorized a short, voluntary prayer at the start of each school day. A group of organizations joined together to challenge this, claiming that it violated the establishment clause of the 1st amendment. Legal Question: Does the reading of a prayer at the start of a school day violate the establishment clause of the 1st amendment? Majority Holding: Justice black states in the majority opinion that holding prayer in school is a breach of the divide between church and state, and that it stood as a government funded religious program, even if there was no official religious affiliation Concurring Opinion: Justice Douglas states that the state financing is what violated the constitution, not the prayer itself Dissenting Opinion: Justice Stewart claimed that it did not violate the establishment clause because there was no official religion that the prayer was affiliated with.

NYT v. Sullivan (1971)

Area of Law: 1st Ballot Count: 6-3 Fact Pattern: Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara commissioned a classified history of the U.S. role in Indochina in 1967. The New York Times gained access to this history three years later and started to publish classified portions of its contents in articles in 1971. Legal Question: Do the Nixon administration's effort to prevent the publication of the pentagon papers went against the first amendment? Was prior restraint justified? Does releasing this information put national security at risk Majority Holding: Justice Black wrote, the First Amendment overrides the federal government's interest in keeping certain documents, such as the Pentagon Papers, classified. Concurring Opinion(s): Justice Douglas - said the need for a free press as a check on government prevents any governmental restraint on the press. Justice Brennan - wrote separately to explain that the publication of the documents did not qualify as one of the three exceptions to the freedom of expression established in Near V. Minnesota (1931). Justice White and Stewart - agreed that it is the responsibility of the Executive to ensure national security through the protection of its information. Justice Marshall - argued that the term "national security" was too broad to legitimize prior restraint, and also argued that it is not the Court's job to create laws where the Congress had not spoken. Dissenting Opinion(s): Justice Burger joined by Justice Blackmun and Harlan - argued against the faults in the proceedings, and the lack of attention towards national security and the rights of the Executive.

Tinker vs. Des Moines (1965)

Area of Law: 1st Ballot Count: 7-2 Fact Pattern: Tinkers are 3 siblings who wear black armbands to protest the Vietnam war. The school found out about the planned protest and banned black armbands, claiming that they would suspend any students wearing the armbands. Tinkers were suspended until January. Case ran 13 circuits in court of appeals before case was shown before the supreme court Legal Question: Does a prohibition on armbands in public school, as a form of symbolic protest, violate the students' rights to free speech guaranteed in the first amendment? Majority Holding: Yes. The armbands and students wearing them were undisruptive and minors have the same first amendment rights that adults have. Symbolic speech, as it pertains to political arguments, has the same protections as spoken word. Applies Strongberg v California to minors. "Neither students, nor teachers shed their rights when passing through the schoolhouse gates." Concurring opinions: Justice White emphasizes a difference between spoken word and symbolic speech. Justice Stewart doesn't fully equate the rights of adults and minors. Dissenting Opinions: Justice Black argues that children aren't adults and should not be given the full protections of the constitution, and that doing so would jeopardize the school system. Justice Harlon argues that the armbands are legitimately disruptive, and that this outweighs the students right to free speech

McDonald v. Chicago (2010)

Area of Law: 2nd amendment and Interstate commerce clause Ballot count: 5-4 Fact Pattern: Otis McDonald a 76 year old retired maintenance man who lived in a bad part of Chicago that was taken over by drugs and gun violence. Otis wanted to own a handgun for self-defense, but Chicago restricted him from doing so because Chicago had strict handgun rules because they wanted to reduce the gun violence in Chicago. Legal question: Could an individual have the right to bear arms including a handgun for self-defense be apply to the states and cities the same way it does to the federal government? Majority holding: because of the Heller holding we see that the 2nd amendment protects the right to hold a firearm and because Chicago placed a burden on McDonald. Self- defense is the heart of the 2nd amendment and 14th amendment allows the 2nd amendment to trump the state regulations that impairs firearm ownership. Concurring opinion: Clarence Thomas was a concurring opinion because he felt that the majority didn't go far enough with this majority's opinion. There was selective incorporation in the majority's opinion rather that boulder incorporation. He wanted a narrower look on the 2nd and 14th amendment. Dissenting opinion: There is no fundamental right to individual self-defense guaranteed in the 2nd amendment.

Gideon v Waneright (1963)

Area of Law: 6th Ballot Count: 9-0 Fact Pattern: Clarence Earl Gideon was arrested and charged with breaking and entering with the intent to commit petty larceny, based on a burglary that was committed between midnight and 8 A.M. on June 3, 1961 at a pool room in Panama City, Florida.Gideon could not afford a lawyer and requested the court appoint counsel in his defense. His request was refused because Florida law allowed courts to appoint counsel for indigent defendants only in death penalty cases. Gideon undertook his own defense and was convicted. He was sentenced to five years in prison, where he crafted his own appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court by using prison writing materials and legal resources. The basis of his appeal was that his Sixth Amendment rights had been violated through the denial of counsel. Majority Holding: Criminal defendants who cannot afford legal representation will be provided with it on behalf of the state Concurring Opinions: Clark concurred that since the Sixth Amendment does not distinguish on its face between capital and non-capital cases, Clark found that there was no reasoning to read that distinction into it and limit Powell v. Alabama to capital cases. Marshall concurred that criticizing the language about special circumstances in Betts v. Brady, Harlan felt that the existence of any criminal charge in itself was a sufficiently serious circumstance that merited invoking the right to counsel. Douglas concurred that Dissenting Opinions: There are no dissenting opinions

Loving vs. Virginia (1967)

Area of Law: 9th Ballot Count: 9-0 Fact Pattern: Virginia enforced a law that banned marriage between whites and African-Americans (Racial Integrity Act of 1924). Richard and Mildred Loving, a white man and an African-American woman, got married in Washington, D.C. but were convicted upon return to Virginia. Legal Question: Is a state law prohibiting marriage exclusively one the basis of race constitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment? Majority Holding: Justice Warren says, State interracial marriage bans violate both the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause. Concurring Opinion(s): Justice Stewart - Laws criminalizing behavior only when perpetrated by a member of a particular race are repugnant to the Constitution. Dissenting Opinion(s): N/A

Roe v Wade (1973)

Area of Law: 9th Amendment Ballot Count: 7-2 Fact Pattern: Roe, a Texas resident, wanted to get an abortion. Texas law prohibited abortions except to save the pregnant woman's life. A childless married couple (the Does), also attacked the laws, based on possibilities of contraceptive failure, pregnancy, unpreparedness for parenthood, and impairment of the wife's health. Majority Holding: The Court held that a woman's right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy (recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut) protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision gave a woman total autonomy over the pregnancy during the first trimester and defined different levels of state interest for the second and third trimesters. Concurring Opinions: Douglas, Brennan, Marshall, Stewart, Powell, Blackmum, and Burger voted in the plurality with Burger, Douglas, and Stewart Concurring, arguing in Douglas' concurrence that the right to terminate a pregnancy falls under freedom of choice and is a first amendment protection. Stewart argued that the right of privacy was specifically rooted in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and Burger felt that two physicians rather than one should be required to agree to a woman's request for an abortion. Dissenting opinions: In his dissenting opinion, Justice Rehnquist (with Justice White) argued that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment did not intend for it to protect a right of privacy, a right which they did not recognize, and that they definitely did not intend to protect a woman's decision to have an abortion. Justice Rehnquist further argued that the only right to privacy is that which is protected by the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures. Finally, he concluded that because this issue required a careful balance of the interests of the woman against the interests of the state, it was not an appropriate decision for the Court to make, but instead was a question that should have been left up to state legislatures to resolve.

Gonzales (US) vs. Raisch (2005)

Area of law - 10th 3. Ballot count - 6 to 3 4. Legal question - Does the Controlled Substances Act violate the Interstate Commerce Clause? 5. Majority holding - No. Justice Stevens delivered the opinion of the court in that, the same way a wheat farmer growing an abnormal amount of crop during a drought would affect the market, as would marijuana. The majority opinion also deemed it would be inevitable that the marijuana in question would eventually cross state lines. 6. Concurring opinions - Only one concurrence, Justice Scalia, who wanted to differentiate this case from United States vs. Lopez by using the Necessary and Proper Clause to justify the Controlled Substances Act. 7. Dissenting opinions - Justice O'Connor, Thomas and Rehnquist dissented. O'Connor and Rehnquist voiced their concern for congress overstepping their federal power into state sovereignty. Justice Thomas dissented because there was no sale of or proof that said marijuana ever crossed state lines, and therefore no reasonable claim to interstate commerce.

Wisconsin vs. Yoder (1972)

Area of law - 1st 3. Ballot count - 9 to 0 4. Legal question - Did Wisconsin's requirement that parents send their children to school at least until the age of 16 violate the first amendment by making it illegal for parents to hold their children home for religious reasons? 5. Majority holding - Yes. Justice Burger wrote the opinion of the court and found that the fundamental right to freedom of speech, protest, religion, etc. was found to vastly outweigh state's interests in compelling parents to send their children to school. The court found that the values of secondary school conflicted with the Amish religion and one or two additional years of high school would not substantially make a child more valuable to the state. 6. Concurring opinions - N/A 7. Dissenting opinions - Though he voted with the court, Justice Douglas filed a partial dissent, claiming that the choice of whether or not to attend school due of religious reasons shouldn't only fall on the shoulders of the parents. Douglas argued that the first amendment applies to minors as well and the children should also be legally allowed to stay home from school if they choose to do so for religious reasons. Home school, charter school, immunization, moments of silence

Griswold vs. Connecticut (1965)

Area of law - 9th 3. Ballot count - 7 to 2 4. Legal Question - Is it constitutional for the government to decide what kind of sex a couple has (recreational vs. procreational)? 5. Majority holding - No. The constitution does protect privacy from government restrictions on contraception. The first, third, fourth and ninth amendments grant marital relations privacies that the Connecticut statute imposed upon. 6. Concurring opinions - Justice Goldberg, Warren, Brennan, Harlan and White all concurred because they found that the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment protects the right to privacy. 7. Dissenting opinions - Justice Stewart and Black dissented because they believed the Connecticut statue was protected under the 10th amendment

Morse V Fredrick (2007)

Area of law: 1st Ballot Count: 5-4 Fact Pattern: Joseph Fredrick, a student at Juneau-Douglas High school in Alaska held a 14ft. banner that said "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" during an Olympic Relay that passed in front of the school, on January 4th, 2002. Fredrick was suspended for 10 days by his teacher, Deborah Morse. Legal Question: Does the 1st Amendment allow public schools to prohibit students from displaying messages promoting the use of illegal drugs at school/supervised events? Majority holding: The majority holding was written by Justice John Roberts Jr., joined by Justice Scalia and Justice Kennedy. The majority concluded that the school officials did not violate the 1st Amendment. Firstly the incident happened during a "school event". The banner also was "reasonably viewed as promoting drug use". Lastly, that a principle has the legal right to restrict that type of speech. Concurring: Justice Thomas concurred with the majority but believed Tinker should be overturned. He argued the 1st Amendment was never meant to protect student rights in public schools. Justice Alito was worried the decision could be used to punish those advocating constitutionally permissible, political ideas legalizing medicinal marijuana use. Dissenting: Justice Stevens dissented, and Justice Souter, Justice Breyer and Justice Ginsburg joined his dissent. Stevens argued the Court does violence to the 1st Amendment in allowing school to punish Fredrick for expressing a view with which it disagreed.

Zelman V Simmons-Harris (2002)

Area of law: 1st Ballot Count: 5-4 Fact pattern: The Cleveland public schools were performing badly, and in an effort to resolve this issue, the state of Ohio put into effect a school voucher plan under which parents could opt to enroll their children in private schools taking part in the program. Since a great majority of the private schools were affiliated to one or other religious group, Ohio taxpayers filed an action against the program pleading violation of the Establishment Clause. Legal Question: Does Ohio's school voucher program violate the Establishment Clause? Majority holding: Chief Justice Rehnquist authored the majority. He declared that the school program was not in violation of the Establishment Clause. Concurring: Justice O'Conner believed that the program made no clear distinction between religious and non-religious schools and that both were rational education alternatives. Justice Thomas also concurred and based his argument on the civil rights implications of the case: Frederick Douglass. Once said that education... means emancipation. He believed it means light and liberty. Dissenting: Justice Stevens dissented because the Court should not consider the severe educational crisis that confronted the school district when Ohio enacted its voucher program, the wide range of choices that have been made available to students within the public school system, or the voluntary character of the private choice to prefer a private religious education over a public secular education. Justice Souter dissented and presented the voucher program as using the tax payers for religious and secular instruction and card to the verdict of a similar case. ***Rehnquist's 5 Stage Test*** 1. Valid secular purpose to state statute? 2. Money must go to the parents, not the school 3. Broad class of beneficiaries 4. Neutral to religion 5. Adequate non-religious options for parents to consider