Poly Sci Final
Bolling v. Sharpe
(1954) segregation of DC public schools unconstitutional. Relied on "liberty" protection of 5th rather than Equal Protection Clause (not incorporated for DC)., (1954) racial discrimination in the public schools of Washington D.C. denied blacks due process of law as protected by the Fifth Amendment. Noting the legal peculiarities of the District of Columbia, Chief Justice Warren recognized that the Fifth Amendment (which applied to the District) did not contain an equal protection clause while the Fourteenth Amendment (which was used as the standard for outlawing school desegregation in Brown v. Board of Education) did.
Plessy v. Ferguson
(1896) Plessy was made to sit in the black train car because he was an octoroon (1/8 black). Railroad company was on his side because they paid too much to maintain seperate cars. Established "seperate but equal" clause
undue burden
intermediate scrutiny, not rational basis, not strict scrutiny. Some cases used are the abortion cases for example Casey v. Planned Parenthood. MUW v.Hogan, states can't place such restrictions to cause on an undue burden on a woman
South Carolina v. Katzenbach
(1966) It rejected a challenge by the state of South Carolina to the preclearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which required that some states submit changes in election districts to the Attorney General. Court held legitimate ends not banned by the Constitution may be pursued through all appropriate means. (McCulloch). Did it violate states rights?No actually the 15th Amendment gave Congress power to prevent racial discrimination in voting
Baker v. Carr
(LBJ) 1962 Baker v. Carr, case decided in 1962 by the U.S. Supreme Court. Tennessee had failed to reapportion the state legislature for 60 years despite population growth and redistribution. Charles Baker, a voter, brought suit against the state (Joe Carr was a state official in charge of elections) in federal district court, claiming that the dilution of his vote as a result of the state's failure to reapportion violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. The court dismissed the complaint on the grounds that it could not decide a political question. Baker appealed to the Supreme Court, which ruled that a case raising a political issue would be heard. This landmark decision opened the way for numerous suits on legislative apportionment.
Reynolds v. Sims
(Population representation) - Held that the apportionment scheme of Alabama which had 1 senator/ senatorial district and at least 1 representative per district, regardless of the population is unconstitutional and that state legislation should be apportioned based on population because each person has the right to direct representation and to have his vote counted equally compared to everyone else.
Rosenberger v. Univ. of Virginia
--UVA had a student activity fund for all student publications, but denied activity funds to a religious publication the student publication is not a "religious organization" due to the content of his message, imposed a financial burden on his speech and amounted to viewpoint discrimination. if it chooses to promote speech at all, it must promote all forms of it equally. The University must provide a financial subsidy to a student religious publication on the same basis as other student publications.
Citizens United v. FEC
-a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited under the First Amendment. The 5-4 decision, in favor of Citizens United, resulted from a dispute over whether the non-profit corporation Citizens United could air a film critical of Hillary Clinton, and whether the group could advertise the film in broadcast ads featuring Clinton, in apparent violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, commonly known as the McCain-Feingold Act.
The Civil Rights Cases of 1883
-most important case prior to Plessy -end results of these acts: prohibited discrimination in public accommidations -Justice Bradly: why? To stop discrimination of former slaves on the basis of race-does congress have the power to pass this law?? -prohibitory in nature-"no state shall" 14th amendment acts on states as corporate, not individual people-what this prohibits is state action against a particular character, does not reach action of private individuals= birth of State Action Doctrine -power given to congress in section 5 isn't a blank check, can find limits on these powers by looking back on section 1 -section 5 powers are remedial (remedy) there has to be a problem before you use a remedy -remedial power v. discriminating state action it is left to state laws after this case to deal with peoples rights against discrimination
Strict Scrutiny
...
Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education
...
Frontiero v. Richardson
14`h Amendment negates a federal law that allowed a woman in the armed forces to claim her husband as a "dependent" only if he depended on her for 50%+ of his support, while a serviceman could claim "dependent" status for his wife regardless of actual dependency.
Reynolds v. Sims
14th amendment requires state legislative districts reflect fair "one person, one vote" rule, (Population representation) - Held that the apportionment scheme of Alabama which had 1 senator/ senatorial district and at least 1 representative per district, regardless of the population is unconstitutional and that state legislation should be apportioned based on population because each person has the right to direct representation and to have his vote counted equally compared to everyone else.
U.S. v. Virginia
A female public high school student filed a complaint with the US department of justice to charge the Virginia Military Institute, a state-supported institution of higher education with illegal sex discrimination in violation of the 14th amendment's guarantee to equal protection of the laws. VMI was an all male military school and refused to accept applications from females. The SC found that the 14th's EQPC of the laws prohibits a state government from maintaining an all-male military institution of higher education.
prior restraint
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 Supreme Court case of Near v. Minnesota.
Rational Basis Test
A standard developed by the courts to test the constitutionality of a law; when applied, a law is constitutional as long as it meets a reasonable government interest.
Sherbert v. Verner
Adell Sherbert, a member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, worked as a textile-mill operator. Two years after her conversion to that faith, her employer switched from a five-day to a six-day workweek, including Saturdays. Since according to her belief, God in Exodus 20:8-11 forbade working on Saturdays, she refused to work that day and was fired. Sherbert could not find any other work and applied for unemployment compensation. The South Carolina Employment Security Commission denied her benefits, finding unacceptable her religious justification for refusing Saturday work. imposed a significant burden on Sherbert's ability to freely exercise her faith
Wallace v. Jaffree
An Alabama law authorized teachers to conduct regular religious prayer services and activities in school classrooms. Secular purpose test, they endorsed religion. Moments of silent prayer at school are unconstitutional---moments of silence are not.
Gomillion v. Lightfoot
An act of the Alabama legislature re-drew the electoral district boundaries of Tuskegee, replacing what had been a region with a square shape with a twenty-eight sided figure. The effect of the new district was to exclude essentially all blacks from the city limits of Tuskegee and place them in a district where no whites lived., racial gerrymandering-ordinance declared unconstitutional
Regents of U.C. Davis v. Bakke
Bakke was a white man who applied twice to UCD but was rejected even though he performed higher than the minorities held affirmative action legal but not quotas. 14th Amendment applies equally to all persons and all races. Diversity in the classroom is a compelling state interest. School can use race as a factor for admissions as long as its not anything like a quota.
Brandenburg v. Ohio
Brandenburg, a leader of the Ku Klux Klan, made a speech at a Klan rally and was later convicted under an Ohio criminal syndicalism law. Law was found unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. States were not allowed to punish or prevent inflammatory speech unless it will lead to imminent lawless action
Grutter v. Bollinger
Case in which Supreme Court held that University of Michigan's law school admission program was sufficiently "narrowly tailored" to consider race as a factor in admission dicisions in order to achieve goal of a diverse student body.
Gratz v. Bollinger
Case in which Supreme Court held that University of Michigan's undergraduate admission program was not sufficiently "narrowly tailored" to consider race as a factor in admission decisions in order to achieve goal of a diverse student body.
Virginia v. Black
Ceremonial cross burning was protected but cross burning on an individual's lawn is not protected speech.
Chaplinksy v. New Hampshire
Chaplinsky, a Jehovah's Witness, called a city marshal a "God-damned racketeer" and "a damned fascist" in a public place. He was arrested and convicted under a state law for violating a breach of the peace.No. Some forms of expression--among them obscenity and fighting words--do not convey ideas and thus are not subject to First Amendment protection. In this case, Chaplinsky uttered fighting words, i.e., words that "inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.""no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to the truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality"
Shaw v. Hunt
Court first questioned standing, they realized that that some of the people complaining didnt have the right to cause they didnt live in that district.Second attempt by NC to reconfigure the congressional unconstitutional fails because not "narrowly tailored to serve compelling government interests"
Miliken v. Bradley
Court took over Detroit school district and ordered remedial programs to be installed and the state of Michigan to bear half the cost. Court said that it was okay
Nevada v. Hibbs
Decision against states rights... states can be sued for violating their employees' federally guaranteed rights, under the 1993 Family and Medical Leave Act. States have sovereign immunity unless it allows for lawsuits. Congress can abrogate immunity. Hibbs wife was sick he wanted paid leave etc.
Oregon v. Smith
Determined that the state could deny unemployment benefits to a person fired for violating a state prohibition on the use of peyote, even though the use of the drug was part of a religious ritual and the state's Supreme Court had determined the prohibition was constitutionally invalid. (Peyote, Free exercise clause)
Schenck v. U.S
During World War I, Schenck mailed circulars to draftees. The circulars suggested that the draft was a monstrous wrong motivated by the capitalist system. Unanimously upheld the Espionage Act of 1917 which declared that people who interfered with the war effort were subject to imprisonment; declared that the 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech was not absolute; free speech could be limited if its exercise presented a "clear and present danger."
Wesberry v. Saunders
Georgia law had a district that was grossly oversized, this diluted a mans vote there and it violated the 14 amendment because it took away the persons vote. It was seen as unconstitutional
Gitlow v. New York
Gitlow "left wing manifesto" he argued since there was no resulting action from the manifesto nothing can happen to him. They applied the first amendment to the states through the 14th amendment.
Content-based restriction
Govt may treat diff forms of speech regarding diffrent content differently for example, movie tickets. Restricting speech due to it's content (i.e. obscene speech is restricted due to sexual content)
Viewpoint discrimination
Govt tries to shut down one side of the argument , A regulation is considered to discriminate on the basis of viewpoint when it attacks a particular individual's or group's message, as opposed to the mode in which that message is conveyed. Such laws are facially unconstitutional and are considered an especially egregious form of content discrimination.
Frontiero v. Richardson
Held that the military had to treat its married women the same as its married men. In this case a male in the military automatically received housing and health benefits for her civilian husband, but a female in the military, in order to the receive the same benefits for her civilian husband, had to show that he was dependent on her for at least half of the family's income.
total incorporation
Hugo Black: An approach arguing that the protections in the Bill of Rights were so fundamental that all of them should be applied to the states by absorbing them into the due process clause of the 14th amendment
Brown v. Board of Education
The 1954 Supreme Court decision holding that school segregation in Topeka, Kans., was inherently unconstitutional because it violated the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection. This case marked the end of legal segregation in the United States.
Lemon v. Kurtzman
In Pennsylvania, a statute provided financial support for teacher salaries, textbooks, and instructional materials for secular subjects to non-public schools. The Rhode Island statute provided direct supplemental salary payments to teachers in non-public elementary schools. The 1971 Supreme Court decision that established that aid to church-related schools must (1) have a secular legislative purpose; (2) have a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion; and (3) not foster excessive government entanglement with religion.
New York Times v. U.S
In what became known as the "Pentagon Papers Case," the Nixon Administration attempted to prevent the New York Times and Washington Post from publishing materials belonging to a classified Defense Department study regarding the history of United States activities in Vietnam. The President argued that prior restraint was necessary to protect national security. This case was decided together with United States v. Washington Post Co. Did the Nixon administration's efforts to prevent the publication of what it termed "classified information" violate the First Amendment?Yes. In its per curiam opinion the Court held that the government did not overcome the "heavy presumption against" prior restraint of the press in this case. Justices Black and Douglas argued that the vague word "security" should not be used "to abrogate the fundamental law embodied in the First Amendment." Justice Brennan reasoned that since publication would not cause an inevitable, direct, and immediate event imperiling the safety of American forces, prior restraint was unjustified.
Texas v. Johnson
Johnson burned the flag in front of Dallas City Hall.1989 case in which the Supreme Court struck down a law banning the burning of the American flag on the grounds that such action was symbolic speech protected by the first amendment
Lee v. Weisman
Lee is a principle at a high school, at graduation a clergyman would be invited to say a prayer over the students. They are given guidelines. No doctrines, must be broad, He did it. Mr. Wismen was a father of a daughter who filed a junction saying it violated the establishment clause First Amendment
Libel/Slander
Libel is the publication of false or malicious statements that damage a person's reputation; Slander is the same, but spoken
Missouri ex rel Gaines v. Canada
Lloyd Gaines, an American, was denied admission to the law school at the all-white University of Missouri. Gaines was fully qualified for admission - except for his race. The State did not have a separate law school for African Americans; The Court held that the separate-but-equal doctrine left Missouri with only two choices: It could either admit Gaines to the State's law school or establish a separate-but-equal school for him. The State gave in admitted Gaines.
Goesaert v. Cleary
Michigan law that forbade women from working as bartenders unless they were the wife or daughter of a male bar owner. Court upheld the law under the state's police power to look out for the welfare of its people, since you might encounter unsavory individuals working at a bar. first case with justice Frankfurter
Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing
New Jersey law had transportation for public school students as-well as Catholic school students. This law did not violate the Est. Clause of the 1st amendment. The law did not support a religion it was simply to get kids to school and it should be protect like the Police or Fire Dept.
Shaw v. Reno
North Carolina drew congressional plan that created black only districts. They sued saying it was because they wanted to have more black representatives.The Court ruled that although it was a legitimate goal for state legislatures to take race into account when they draw electoral districts in order ot increase the voting strength of minorities, they may not make race the sole reason for drawing district lines. (Equal Protection)
O'Brien v. U.S.
O'Brien burned his draft card in front of city hall to protest the war. 1st Amendment does not allow anti-war protest by burning of federal-issued draft cards. 1. object of protest is within the constitutional powers of government 2. restriction is no greater than necessary 3. government's real interest is not to squelch dissent
clear and imminent danger
Offers more protection to speech than the clear and present danger test. This test allows for the threat to be closer to actually happening before the government can act
Zelman v. Simmons-Harris
Ohio's Pilot Project Scholarship Program provides tuition aid in the form of vouchers for certain students in the Cleveland City School District to attend participating public or private schools of their parent's choosing. Both religious and nonreligious schools in the district may participate. Establishment Clause. Giving vouchers for schooling DOES NOT violate the establishment clause because people have a choice not to attend religious institution
Lemon Test
establishment test, three prong test. Lemon v. Kurksman 1. Does the law have a secular purpose 2. does the law inhibit or advance religion? It must be neutral 3. Does the law foster excess entanglement between religion and government
Disestablishment
Religion is a private issue not welcome in public sphere because it is divisive. i.e- Wallace v. Jafree, Lee v. Weisman
imminent lawless action
Requires greater immediacy or new interpretation of permissible anti-government speech. Brandenburg vs. Ohio. Court has gradually allowed for more and more protection of speech overtime
clear and present danger
Schnenk v. U.S. allows government to regulate speech and go pretty far to regulate it. , A standard used to justify limitations on speech wich will lead directly to harm of others.
R.A.V. v. St. Paul
Several teenagers allegedly burned a crudely fashioned cross on a black family's lawn. The police charged one of the teens under a local bias. The St. Paul Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance was struck down both because it was overbroad, proscribing both "fighting words" and protected speech, and because the regulation was "content-based," proscribing only activities which conveyed messages concerning particular topics. Judgment of the Supreme Court of Minnesota reversed.
Selective incorporation
Some of the provisions of the bill of rights but not all
Abington School District v. Schempp
The Abington case concerns Bible-reading in Pennsylvania At the beginning of the school day, students who attended public schools in the state of Pennsylvania were required to read at least ten verses from the Bible. After completing these readings, school authorities required all Abington Township students to recite the Lord's Prayer. Students could be excluded from these exercises by a written note from their parents to the school. Murray and his mother, professed atheists -- challenged the prayer requirement. Did the Pennsylvania law and Abington's policy, requiring public school students to participate in classroom religious exercises, violate the religious freedom of students as protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments? , 1963, overturned law requiring Bible reading and prayer in Philadelphia public schools as a violation of the First Amendment (establishment clause).
Engel v. Vitale
The Board of State Regents in N.Y authorized a short voluntary prayer. Does this violate the establishment of religion clause? Yes because N.Y. officially approved a religion
Boerne v. Flores
The Court rules that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act exceeds Congress's enforcement powers of the 14th Amendment.
Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg
The Court upheld the decision of a district judge ruling that a plan, which assigned pupils to the nearest neighborhood school without regard to race, was inadequate and that the school district had to bus some students to more distant schools to achieve a greater degree of integration. It set the guidelines for all subsequent cases involving school segregation. Federal courts are allowed to produce remedies for state imposed regulation
Cohen v. California
The First Amendment, as applied through the Fourteenth, prohibits states from making the public display of a single four-letter expletive a criminal offense, without a more specific and compelling reason than a general tendency to disturb the peace. Court of Appeal of California reversed.
Lyng v. NICPA
The United States Forest Service was considering building a paved roadway that would cut through the Chimney Rock area of the Six Rivers National Forest. A study commissioned by the Forest Service reported that harvesting the Chimney Rock area would irreparably damage grounds that had historically been used by Native Americans to conduct religious rituals. Doesnt violate 1st Amendment free excerise cause they can still harvest. effects were only incidental and did not constitute an attempt to coerce Native Americans to act in violation of their beliefs
West Virginia v. Barnette
The West Virginia Board of Education required that the flag salute be part of the program of activities in all public schools. If you didnt do so that was insubordination.The Free Speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits public schools from forcing students to salute the American flag and say the Pledge of Allegiance. District Court affirmed; major victory for Jehovah Witnesses.
Wisconsin v. Yoder
The Wisconsin Compulsory School Attendance Law violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment because required attendance past the eighth grade interfered with the right of Amish parents to direct the religious upbringing of their children. Supreme Court affirmed.
Tinker v. Des Moines
The case that ruled that students do not lose Constitutional rights when they entered the building but they can be limited if they cause a disruption; Black armbands in school is free speech, protected by 1st amendment
Locke v. Davey
The court upheld a policy in Washington State excluding those who wish to study Theology from a publicly funded scholarship. Doesn't violate the free excerise clause.The state simply could distribute the scholarship fund to whoever it wanted. The State has merely chosen not to fund a distinct category of instruction
Van Orden v. Perry
Thomas Van Orden sued Texas in federal district court, arguing a Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of the state capitol building represented an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion.A Ten Commandments monument erected on the grounds of the Texas State Capitol did not violate the Establishment Clause because the monument, when considered in context, conveyed a historic and social meaning rather than an intrusive religious endorsement.
total plus incorporation
Total plus unenumerated rights
undue burden test
Undue burden test: basic comes up in the privacy cases, standard that says that a law can not place an undue burden on the exercise of a right, in privacy it says there could be restrictions but a government must have a legitimate interest, not creating a burden too difficult for the person, abortion: having both person consent is burden, one is constitutional, O'Conner famous for using it examples are abortion cases Casey v. Planned Parenthood, MUW v. Hogan
Intermediate Scrutiny
Upheld if the means chosen are substantially related to an important government interest/purpose. (Need not be the least restrictive alternative.) The government has the burden of proof. O'Brien test, undue burden test
Whitney v. California
YEAR / 1927 / upheld the California Criminal Syndicalism Act against a challenge by Charlotte Whitney, who claimed that the statute violated her First Amendment rights of speech and association; the statute made it a crime for anyone to become a member of any group known to espouse political change, particularly change that would effect the distribution of wealth in the country
Bush v. Gore
a United States Supreme Court case heard on December 11, 2000. In a per curiam opinion, by a vote of 7-2, the Court held that the Florida Supreme Court's scheme for recounting ballots was unconstitutional, and by a vote of 5-4, the Court held that no alternative scheme could be established within the time limits established by Florida Legislature.[1]. The per curiam opinion was argued on the basis of Equal Protection.
clear and imminent danger
a standard for judging when freedom of speech can be abridged. Whitley v.Cali. More protection to speech than clear and present danger. Government can supress speech but you have to wait until danger is super close before they do it
Hunt v. Cromartie
conscious consideration of race not automatically unconstitutional if state's primary motivation was potentionally political rather than racial, • Third attempt by NC to reconfigure the congressional districts passes b/c it's based on "politics, not race" standard • They divided the districts based on political party
MUW v. Hogan
enrolled only women at the university, court used intermediate, said need for exceedingly persuasive justification for sex-based discrimination
clear and present danger
phrase used in the Supreme Court decision, Schenck v. United States (1919). It refers to the idea that the government has the right to punish individuals who engage in speech or actions which can be shown to present a serious and immediate danger to the nation or the interests of the government. Schenck had been convicted for having distributed leaflets urging people not to register for the draft during World War I. Although such "speech" would have been within his rights in peacetime, the Supreme Court ruled that the fact that he engaged in that activity in a time of war made his actions pose a "clear and present danger" to the nation.
fundamental rights
rights that are implicitly or explicitly guaranteed by the constitution; laws that interfere with constitutional rights are subject to strict scrutiny
Non-Establishment
state is neutral, but it doesn't have to prefer non religion over religion.
selective plus
the one we follow now. Selective plus unenumerated rights.Some of the rights not incorporated are 3rd some of the 5th and some of the 7th
Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. Hialeah
the practice of Santeria, the ritual of animals, public outcry resulted in many city ordnances banning this sort of behavior ordan 87-52 'whoever... unnecessarily or cruelty...kill any animal' sacrifices is defined as unnecessary "The protection of the free establishment clause pertain if the law at issue discriminates against some or all religious beliefs or regulates or prohibits conduct b/c it is undertaken for religious reasons' -forbids subtle departures from neutrality' law specific to baning of Santeria is 'narrowly tailored' to prohibit only Santeria
Sweatt v. Painter
this case involved a black man who was refused admission to the University Of Texas Austin School Of Law. At the time there was no law school open only to blacks in Texas, according to the Plessy v. Ferguson "separate but equal" requirement. The case continued for six months, while a new school of law for blacks was created in Texas. However, the resulting school was in no way equal to the UT Austin Law School due to the lack of faculty and resources in the library. This case is significant because it does not overturn separate but equal factor and the Supreme Court rules that in the case of graduate education intangibles must be considered as being equal. This decision reflects how severe racial discrimination was, especially within our own school system we attend today and how there is a wide range of races who attend UT Austin today.
Fighting words
words that by their very nature inflict injury on those to whom they are addressed or incited them to acts of violence; very hard to prove
