Chap 15 and Chap 16 Study Guide (American Govt)

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby

(2014) Allowed closely-held, for-profit corporations to be exempt from a law its owners religiously object to if there is a less restrictive means of furthering the law's interest. Facts: The Green family owns and operates Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., a national arts and crafts chain with over 500 stores and over 13,000 employees. The Green family has organized the business around the principles of the Christian faith and has explicitly expressed the desire to run the company according to Biblical precepts, one of which is the belief that the use of contraception is immoral. Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), employment-based group health care plans must provide certain types of preventative care, such as FDA-approved contraceptive methods. While there are exemptions available for religious employers and non-profit religious institutions, there are no exemptions available for for-profit institutions such as Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. On September 12, 2012, the Greens, as representatives of Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., sued Kathleen Sebelius, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, and challenged the contraception requirement. The plaintiffs argued that the requirement that the employment-based group health care plan cover contraception violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA). The plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the enforcement of tax penalties, which the district court denied and a two-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court also denied relief, and the plaintiffs filed for an en banc hearing of the Court of Appeals. The en banc panel of the Court of Appeals reversed and held that corporations were "persons" for the purposes of RFRA and had protected rights under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Government Statute or Action in Question: Does the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 allow a for-profit company to deny its employees health coverage of contraception to which the employees would otherwise be entitled based on the religious objections of the company's owners? Contraceptive mandate, Affordable Care Act Are corporations to be treated as people? Constitutional Provision at Issue: Free Exercise Clause of First Amendment through RFA Holding: 5:4 for Hobby Lobby Reasoning of the Majority: Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. delivered the opinion for the 5-4 majority. The Court held that Congress intended for the RFRA to be read as applying to corporations since they are composed of individuals who use them to achieve desired ends. Because the contraception requirement forces religious corporations to fund what they consider abortion, which goes against their stated religious principles, or face significant fines, it creates a substantial burden that is not the least restrictive method of satisfying the government's interests. In fact, a less restrictive method exists in the form of the Department of Health and Human Services' exemption for non-profit religious organizations, which the Court held can and should be applied to for-profit corporations such as Hobby Lobby. Additionally, the Court held that this ruling only applies to the contraceptive mandate in question rather than to all possible objections to the Affordable Care Act on religious grounds, as the principal dissent fears. In his concurrence, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote that the government had not met its burden to show that there was a meaningful difference between non-profit religious institutions and for-profit religious corporations under the RFRA. Because the contraception requirement accommodates the former while imposing a more restrictive requirement on the later without showing proper cause, the requirement violates the RFRA. As applied to closely held for-profit corporations, the Health and Human Services (HHS) regulations imposing the contraceptive mandate violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). HHS's contraceptive mandate substantially burdens the exercise of religion under the RFRA. The Court assumes that guaranteeing cost-free access to the four challenged contraceptive methods is a compelling governmental interest, but the Government has failed to show that the mandate is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest. The court argued that the purpose of extending rights to corporations is to protect the rights of shareholders, officers, and employees.[35] It said that "allowing Hobby Lobby, Conestoga, and Mardel to assert RFRA claims protects the religious liberty of the Greens and the Hahns."[36] The court found that for-profit corporations could be considered persons under the RFRA. It noted that the HHS treats nonprofit corporations as persons within the meaning of RFRA. Major Doctrines: The ruling could have widespread impact, allowing corporations to claim religious exemptions from federal laws. Alternative Solutions: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a dissent in which she argued that the majority's decision was precluded by the Court's decision in Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith in which the Court held that there is no violation of the freedom of religion when an infringement on that right is merely an incidental consequence of an otherwise valid statute. Additionally, judicial precedent states that religious beliefs or observances must not impinge on the rights of third parties, as the sought-after exemption would do to women seeking contraception in this case. Justice Ginsburg also wrote that the majority opinion misconstrued the RFRA as a bold legislative statement with sweeping consequences. Because for-profit corporations cannot be considered religious entities, the burden the respondents claim is not substantial, and the government has shown a sufficiently compelling interest, Justice Ginsburg argued that the contraception mandate does not violate the RFRA. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Justice Stephen G. Breyer, and Justice Elena Kagan joined in the dissent. In their separate dissent, Justice Breyer and Justice Kagan wrote that the Court need not decide whether for-profit corporations or their owners may sue under the RFRA.

Roe v. Wade (1973)

(Abortion rights fall within the privacy implied in the 14th amendment) right of privacy was extended to abortion in this court case - SC ruled in a 7-2 decision that women have a right to abortion during the 1st two trimesters.

Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act

(Act that creates a rolling time frame for filing wage discrimination claims and expands plaintiff field beyond employee who was discriminated against.) amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964 stating that the 180-day statute of limitations for filing an equal-pay lawsuit regarding pay discrimination resets with each new paycheck affected by that discriminatory action.

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

(Ordered states to provide lawyers for those unable to afford them in criminal proceedings. Warren Court's judicial activism in criminal rights.) A Supreme Court case in which the court ruled that a defendant in a felony trial must be provided a lawyer free of charge if the defendant cannot afford one. extending the identical requirement made on the federal government under the 6th Amendment. What Gideon do: • Charged with the felony of breaking and entering, with the intent to commit the misdemeanor of stealing • Under Florida state law What happened in state court? • Gideon asked for the state to appoint him counsel since in was poor and unable to pay for an attorney himself • Denied counsel since the crime committed was not a capital offense • Gideon convicted and sent to prison for 5 years Habeas Corpus The right to due process of the law and to know why you are being held in prison in forma paupers o When a poor person files an appeal to the Supreme Court o Written like an informal letter What were his claims based upon • Gideon claimed that he was denied habeas corpus and the right to due process • Denied counsel • Forced to represent himself 6th Amendment o All persons being charged with a criminal case have to right to counsel Capital Offenses (Felony) Murder, Rape, Armed Robbery Why was Gideon Denied Counsel? • Gideon charged with a misdemeanor by the state of Florida and not the Federal government 14th Amendment o Due process of law cannot be denied by any state How was Gideon Denied Justice? • Gideon denied the right to counsel under the state of Florida • Violated the law that links the federal and state courts Supremacy Clause • The ruling of the Supreme Court sets a precedent for all lower courts to follow Indigent • Poor person Betts vs. Brady (1942) o Betts indicted with robbery in Maryland o Too poor for counsel o Denied counsel because the case was not a federal trial o Betts must represent himself with no knowledge of the law o Found guilty • 8 years in prison o Filled Habeas Corpus • Argued that he didn't have a fair trial because he was denied counsel Based on this precedent, Gideon should be denied counsel Betts v. Brady (1945) Powell v. Alabama (1932) o Deals with due process of law o 9 black boys accused of rape in Alabama o Receives a lawyer minutes before the actual trail starts o Tried and found guilty • Executed o Given the 6th amendment right to counsel o Denied the 14th amendment right to due process (fair and just trial) Johnson v. Zerbst (1938) o Johnson sued for counterfeit o Petitions for habeas corpus • Denied counsel at first • Given counsel by the Court since counterfeit is a felony Justice Hugo Black • Disagreed with the decision of the Betts v. Brady case • Wrote the dissenting argument on how Betts, along with anyone who is trial should be given the right to an attorney o Someone who knows the law • Changed many precedents during the 60's o Included Gideon's case Certiorari • Supreme Court is willing to take on the case • Requests all information on case Gideon's Verdict • The courts decided that the right to counsel was a necessary human right and was to be upheld in federal courts and state courts New Precedent • Any person who is being charged in federal or state courts has the right to an attorney • Its is necessary for the accused to have someone who knows the law to help protect them

Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)

-States can regulate abortion, but not with regulations that impose "undue burden" upon women; did not overturn Roe v. Wade, but gave states more leeway in regulating abortion (e.g., 24-hour waiting period, parental consent for minors) -Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania filed a lawsuit against the state, arguing that the Abortion Control Act violated the Supreme Court's ruling in Roe v. Wade.

Free exercise of religion (I)

1934 Hamilton v. Regents of the University of California - which the Court upheld the "right of California to force its university students to take classes in military training" and reiterated that "[i]nstruction in military science is not instruction in the practice or tenets of a religion."

Freedom of assembly (I) and freedom to petition the government for redress of grievances (I)

1937 DeJonge v. Oregon - held that the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause applies to freedom of assembly

Freedom of assembly (I)

1939 Hague v. CIO

actual malice

Either knowledge of a defamatory statement's falsity or a reckless disregard for the truth.

Symbolic Speech & Examples

Examples: burning of the US flag, Tinker case, "taking a knee", Sit-ins, flag waving, demonstrations, and wearing . . . protest buttons are examples of symbolic speech. nonverbal communication, such as burning a flag or wearing an armband. The Supreme Court has accorded some symbolic speech protection under the first amendment

Brown v. Board of Education II (1955)

School districts and federal courts must implement the Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education, I (1954) "with all deliberate speed." (Warren Court) Facts:After its decision in Brown (1) which declared racial discrimination in public education unconstitutional, the Court convened to issue the directives which would help to implement its newly announced Constitutional principle. Given the embedded nature of racial discrimination in public schools and the diverse circumstances under which it had been practiced, the Court requested further argument on the issue of relief. Conclusion-What means should be used to implement the principles announced in Brown I? -The Court held that the problems identified in Brown I required varied local solutions. Chief Justice Warren conferred much responsibility on local school authorities and the courts which originally heard school segregation cases. They were to implement the principles which the Supreme Court embraced in its first Brown decision. Warren urged localities to act on the new principles promptly and to move toward full compliance with them "with all deliberate speed."

Black codes:

Southern laws designed to restrict the rights of the newly freed black slaves

Flag Protection Act of 1989

Supreme Court ruled that burning the American flag was unconstitutional in 1990 The first attempt to overturn the decision of Texas V. Johnson.

Lynch v. Donnelly (1984)

The Court upheld the right of government entities to celebrate the Christmas holiday with Christmas displays that might include nativity scenes, if secular displays are also sufficiently included.

U.S. v Virginia (1996) Facts

The Virginia Military Institute (VMI) boasted a long and proud tradition as Virginia's only exclusively male public undergraduate higher learning institution. The United States brought suit against Virginia and VMI alleging that the school's male-only admissions policy was unconstitutional insofar as it violated the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause. On appeal from a District Court ruling favoring VMI, the Fourth Circuit reversed. It found VMI's admissions policy to be unconstitutional. Virginia, in response to the Fourth Circuit's reversal, proposed to create the Virginia Women's Institute for Leadership (VWIL) as a parallel program for women. On appeal from the District Court's affirmation of the plan, the Fourth Circuit ruled that despite the difference in prestige between the VMI and VWIL, the two programs would offer "substantively comparable" educational benefits. The United States appealed to the Supreme Court. Government Action or Statute in Question: Does Virginia's creation of a women's-only academy, as a comparable program to a male-only academy, satisfy the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause? Constitutional Provision at Issue: 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause Holding:7-1 for US Reasoning of the Majority:In a 7-to-1 decision, the Court held that VMI's male-only admissions policy was unconstitutional. Because it failed to show "exceedingly persuasive justification" for VMI's gender-biased admissions policy, Virginia violated the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause. Virginia failed to support its claim that single-sex education contributes to educational diversity because it did not show that VMI's male-only admissions policy was created or maintained in order to further educational diversity. Furthermore, Virginia's VWIL could not offer women the same benefits as VMI offered men. The VWIL would not provide women with the same rigorous military training, faculty, courses, facilities, financial opportunities, or alumni reputation and connections that VMI affords its male cadets. Finally, the Fourth Circuit's "substantive comparability" between VMI and VWIL was misplaced. The Court held that the Fourth Circuit's "substantive comparability" standard was a displacement of the Court's more exacting standard, requiring that "all gender-based classifications today" be evaluated with "heightened scrutiny." When evaluated with such "heightened scrutiny," Virginia's plan to create the VWIL would not provide women with the same opportunities as VMI provides its men and so it failed to meet requirements of the equal protection clause. Major Doctrines: Commonwealth of Virginia's exclusion of women from the Virginia Military Institute violated Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Alternative Solutions: Justice Scalia's lone dissent argued that the standard applied by the majority was closer to a strict scrutiny standard than the intermediate scrutiny standard applied to previous cases involving equal protection based on sex. Notably, however, the opinion for the Court eschewed either standard; its language did not comport with the "important governmental interest" formula used in prior intermediate scrutiny cases. Scalia argued that "if the question of the applicable standard of review for sex-based classifications were to be regarded as an appropriate subject for reconsideration, the stronger argument would be not for elevating the standard to strict scrutiny, but for reducing it to rational-basis review."

14th Amendment

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of US; nor shall any State deprive any person of life liberty, or property, without due process of law;nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke 1998

(A 1978 Supreme Court decision holding that a state university could not admit less qualified individuals solely because of their race.) Held that a university may use admissions standards involving race or ethnicity as one part of a complex admissions process but can not have fixed quotas for students of a particular race or ethnicity

Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000)

(A private organization may ban gays from its membership) Facts:1981- James Dale becomes a member of the BSOA 1991- NJ legislature amended its Law Against Discrimination (LAD) to include protection from discrimination based on "affectional or sexual orientation" -President of the Rutger University Lesbians/Gay Alliances - Sued the BSOA after amending LAD because his membership as a result of the amending, had been revoked by the Boy Scouts. Issue:may a state require an organized group to accept unwanted members, including HOMOs, if such members impair in a significant way the groups ability to express its views or force it to send a message contrary to its beliefs? NO; BOY SCOUT WON Opinion: "Dales presence in the BS would, at least, FORCE the organization to send a message, both to the youth members and the world, that the Boy Scouts accepts homosexuals conduct as a legitimate form of behavior." --"having determined that the boy scouts is an EXPRESSIVE ASSOCIATION and that the forced inclusion of Dale would significantly affect its expression.."

National Gay & Lesbian Task Force

(Both focused on political action, trying to change laws, fight job discrimination, engage in protests and petitions (sit ins, marches, fundraising drives, petitions, lobbying government officials) • Starts in 1970's but still in existence)

Duncan v. Louisiana (1968)

(Court established the right to trial by jury in state criminal cases where the accused faces a serious charge and sentencing) Case: gary duncan was convicted of simple battery a misdemeanor Case Results: -Louisiana did not allow for trail by jury in these cases -us supreme court ruled that the 6th amendment entitles a criminal defendants to a jury trial

United States v. Windsor (2013)

(Federal government must provide benefits to legally married same-sex couples?) Facts: The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), enacted in 1996, states that, for the purposes of federal law, the words "marriage" and "spouse" refer to legal unions between one man and one woman. Since that time, some states have authorized same-sex marriage. In other cases regarding the DOMA, federal courts have ruled it unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment, but the courts have disagreed on the rationale. Edith Windsor is the widow and sole executor of the estate of her late spouse, Thea Clara Spyer, who died in 2009. The two were married in Toronto, Canada, in 2007, and their marriage was recognized by New York state law. Thea Spyer left her estate to her spouse, and because their marriage was not recognized by federal law, the government imposed $363,000 in taxes. Had their marriage been recognized, the estate would have qualified for a marital exemption, and no taxes would have been imposed. On November 9, 2010 Windsor filed suit in district court seeking a declaration that the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional. At the time the suit was filed, the government's position was that DOMA must be defended. On February 23, 2011, the President and the Attorney General announced that they would not defend DOMA. On April 18, 2011, the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the House of Representatives filed a petition to intervene in defense of DOMA and motioned to dismiss the case. The district court denied the motion, and later held that DOMA was unconstitutional. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed. Government Statute or Action in Question: Does the executive branch's agreement with the lower court that the act is unconstitutional deprive the Supreme Court of jurisdiction to decide the case? Does the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the House of Representatives have standing in the case? Does the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines the term "marriage" under federal law as a "legal union between one man and one woman" deprive same-sex couples who are legally married under state laws of their Fifth Amendment rights to equal protection under federal law? Constitutional Provision at Issue: 5th Amendment equal protectection Holding:5:4 Windsor Reasoning: No, unanswered, yes. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy delivered the opinion of the 5-4 majority. The Supreme Court held that the United States Government, despite the executive branch's agreement regarding DOMA's unconstitutionality, retains a significant enough stake in the issue to support Supreme Court's jurisdiction. Because the judgment in question orders the U.S. Treasury to refund tax money, the Government stands to suffer a real economic injury and therefore maintains standing in the case. The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) presented substantial arguments for the constitutionality of DOMA that reflected an actual controversy under Article III, which allowed the Supreme Court to address the case without needing to decide whether BLAG would have had standing before a lower court. The Court also held that states have the authority to define marital relationships and that DOMA goes against legislative and historical precedent by undermining that authority. The result is that DOMA denies same-sex couples the rights that come from federal recognition of marriage, which are available to other couples with legal marriages under state law. The Court held that the purpose and effect of DOMA is to impose a "disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma" on same-sex couples in violation of the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection. Major Docrtines: Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, which federally defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, is unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause's guarantee of equal protection. The federal government must recognize same-sex marriages that have been approved by the states. The judgment of the Second Circuit is affirmed. Alternative Solutions Chief Justice John G. Roberts wrote a dissent in which he argued that the Court lacked the jurisdiction to review the case and that interests in uniformity and stability justified Congress' enactment of DOMA. He also argued that the majority's opinion did not address the issue of state definitions of marriage affecting same-sex couples. In his separate dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that the Supreme Court had neither the jurisdiction to review the case nor the power to invalidate democratically enacted legislation. He argued that the majority's opinion wrongly asserted the supremacy of the Supreme Court as the final arbiter of government. However, the majority opinion did not address the issue of whether or not the Equal Protection Clause required laws restricting the definition of marriage to be reviewed under a rational basis or strict scrutiny standard. He also argued that the majority misconstrued DOMA's insidious intent and should not rule based on that presumption. Justice Clarence Thomas and Chief Justice Roberts joined in the dissent. Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. also wrote a separate dissent in which he argued that the United States Government did not have standing in the case because the executive branch declined to defend the statute, but that BLAG did have standing because it chose to defend the otherwise undefended statute. He also argued that the Constitution does not guarantee the right to enter into a same-sex marriage because that right is not "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition." Instead, the issue of the definition of marriage is left to the people to decide, a decision in which DOMA does not interfere. Justice Clarence Thomas partially joined in the dissent.

United States v. Leon (1984)

(Illegally obtained evidence may be used in a trial if it was gathered in good faith without violating the principles of the Mapp decision) Brief:A search warrant was issued to search the Respondent, Leon's (the "respondent") residence wherein a large quantity of illegal drugs was found. The affidavit upon which the search warrant was issued was found to be insufficient on its face. The evidence was suppressed at trial. Issue:Whether evidence obtained under a search warrant issued by a neutral and detached judge, but ultimately found to be unsupported by probable cause shall be excluded? Final Decision:If a warrant is issued based on good faith belief that a situation exists that leads the officer to believe probable cause exists, then later it is determined that the warrant is not valid, the evidence does not have to become inadmissible. However, if it is determined that the officer lied or misrepresented themselves to obtain the warrant, then the evidence must be thrown out or excluded from the trial.

Mapp v. Ohio (1966)

(Mapp was suspected of running a house of ill-repute so the police lied about having a warrant so they could search her house; only found obscene material so she was arrested and convicted even though there was no warrant; Courts ruled that searches and seizures without warrants are unreasonable) a landmark case in criminal procedure, in which the United States Supreme Court decided that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects against "unreasonable searches and seizures," may not be used in state law criminal prosecutions in state courts, as well, as had previously been the law, as in federal criminal law prosecutions in federal courts. The Supreme Court accomplished this by use of a principle known as selective incorporation; in this case this involved the incorporation of the provisions, as construed by the Court, of the Fourth Amendment which are literally applicable only to actions of the federal government into the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause which is literally applicable to actions of the states.

Indian Removal Act of 1830

(Passed by Congress under the Jackson administration, this act removed all Indians east of the Mississippi to an "Indian Territory" where they would be "permanently" housed.) Law passed by Congress in 1830 and supported by President Andrew Jackson allowing the U.S. government to remove the Native Americans from their eastern homelands and force them to move west of the Mississippi River. Many tribes signed treaties and agreed to voluntary removal.

Engel v. Vitale (1962)

(Prohibited state-sponsored recitation of prayer in public schools by virtue of 1st Amendment's establishment clause and the 14th Amendment's due process clause; Warren Court's judicial activism.) School sanctioned prayer in school-violates Establishment Clause (Warren), first amendment establishment clause.

Lee v. Weisman (1992)

(Public schools may not have clergy lead prayers at graduation ceremonies) (1992) the Court ruled that having a clergy-led prayer within the events of a public high school graduation violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954)

(Ruled that separation of the races in public schools is unconstitutional; reversed the Plessy v. Ferguson decision) Oliver Brown (black) with the help of the NAACP brought a case against the Board of Education in Topeka, Kansas. It was about his daughter, 7 year old Linda Brown who had to travel several miles and cross a rail track to get to school rather than go to a whites-only school near to her house. In 1954 the Supreme Court stated that Linda Brown should be able to go to the local school; and that the doctrine of 'separate but equal' had no place in education meaning segregation in education was wrong and must end. Results: which schools had to integrate, which meant many states chose not to desegregate their schools until 1960's. -However, this was seen as a major civil rights victory because segregation in education was now unconstitutional. Background of segregation : It was legal in America for states to have separate schools for black and white children. Those for blacks were always ill equipped. The NAACP complained about the poor quality of black schools compared to white. NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) decided to challenge racist laws through the courts. In 1950 the Supreme Court said that states had to provide equal education for black and white students but did not say the schools had to be integrated.

Plessy v. Ferguson (1892)

(Supreme Court case that established the separate but equal doctrine thus promoting segregation) A case in which the Supreme Court ruled that segregated, "equal but separate" public accommodations for blacks and whites did not violate the 14th amendment. This ruling made segregation legal. Some railroad companies were on Plessy's side because they paid too much to maintain separate cars

Minor v. Happersett (1875)

(This Supreme Court decision held that women could be deprived of the right to vote in the same way as felons.) 1875- Supreme court stated that Virginia Minor could not vote because even though she was granted citizenship, it did not extend the right to vote- the 14th amendment did not add priveledges to citizens

Voting Rights Act of 1965

(a law designed to help end formal and informal barriers to African-American suffrage) signed into law on August 6, 1965, by President Lyndon Johnson. It outlawed the discriminatory voting practices adopted in many southern states after the Civil War, including literacy tests as a prerequisite to voting. who put the voting rights act into place: President Johnson what day did the voting rights act come out: august 6th 1965

Webster vs. Reproductive Health Services (1989)

(a missouri law stated, 1) life began at contraception 2)unborn children have rights 3)public funds cannot be used for abortion counseling . healthcare providers filed suit claiming an intruding into privacy questions outcome: yes you can choose whether or not to fund abortion. state can choose what they want to spend budget on.) Held that the Due Process Clause does not require states to enter into the business of abortion and did not mandate governmental aid; states could restrict abortion although the Court upheld the right to an abortion

Civil Rights Act of 1875

(law that banned discrimination in public facilities and transportation) passed legislation that guaranteed access to transportation and hotels for all blacks; repealed blacks codes and removed restrictions on workers; prohibited racial discrimination in jury selection; became a watered down bill that the Supreme Court eventually struck down

Lawrence & Garner v. Texas (1992)

-Responding to a reported weapons disturbance in a private residence, Houston police entered John Lawrence's apartment and saw him and another adult man, Tyron Garner, engaging in a private, consensual sexual act. -Lawrence and Garner were arrested and convicted of deviate sexual intercourse in violation of a Texas statute forbidding two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct. -In affirming, the State Court of Appeals held that the statute was not unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, with Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), controlling. Conclusion: No, yes, and yes. In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the Court held that the Texas statute making it a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct violates the Due Process Clause. After explaining what it deemed the doubtful and overstated premises of Bowers, the Court reasoned that the case turned on whether Lawrence and Garner were free as adults to engage in the private conduct in the exercise of their liberty under the Due Process Clause. "Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government," wrote Justice Kennedy. "The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual," continued Justice Kennedy. Accordingly, the Court overruled Bowers. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, with whom Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Thomas joined, filed dissents.

Civil Rights Act of 1964 (6 provisions)

1) Made racial discrimination illegal in hotels, motels, restaurants, and other places of accomodation. 2) Forbade discrimination in employment on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, or gender. 3) Created the Equal Employment Oppurtunity Commission (EEOC) to maintain and enforce protections against job discrimination. 4) Provided for withholding federal grants for state and local governments and other instituciones that practiced racial discrimination. 5) Strengthened voting rights legislation. 6) Authorized the US Justice Department to initiate lawsuits to desagregaste public schools and facilities.

Eminent domain (V)

1897 Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy R.R. c. Chicago - which ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution had extended the reach of certain limitations on federal government authority set forth in the First Amendment—specifically the provisions protecting freedom of speech and freedom of the press

Freedom of speech (I)

1925 Gitlow v. New York

Freedom of press (I)

1931 Near v. Minnesota - incorporated the takings clause of the 5th Amendment into the due process clause of the 14th Amendment by requiring states to provide just compensation for seizing private property

Indian Reorganization Act of 1934

1934, also known as the Wheeler-Howard Act or informally, the Indian New Deal, was a U.S. federal legislation which secured certain rights to Native Americans, including Natives. These include a reversal of the Dawes Act's privatization of common holdings of American Indians and a return to local self-government on a tribal basis. The Act also restored to Native Americans the management of their assets (being mainly land) and included provisions intended to create a sound economic foundation for the inhabitants of Indian reservations. 7: 1934-1941.

Non-establishment of state religion (I)

1947 Everson v. Board of Education

Freedom from unnecessary search and seizure (IV) 4th amendment

1949 Wolf v. Colorado - while the Fourth Amendment was not applicable to the states, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment did prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures, but not the exclusionary rule

Freedom from warrant less search and seizure (IV) ("exclusionary rule") 4th amendment

1961 Mapp v. Ohio

Freedom from cruel and unusual punishment (VIII) 8th

1962 Robinson v. California - Robinson was the first case to place substantive limits on who or what the government can criminalize

Right to counsel in any criminal trial (VI) 6th amendment

1963 Gideon v. Wainwright

Right against self-incrimination and forced confessions (V)5th amendment

1964 Mallory v. Hogan, Escobedo v. Illinois

Right to counsel and to remain silent (V)

1966 Miranda v. Arizona

Right against double jeopardy (V)

1969 Benton v. Maryland

1986 congressional legislation re: enforcement of immigration

1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act *banned employing illegal immigrants *employers had to verify workers' eligibility *gave temporary resident status to aliens who had lived illegally in U.S. before January 1, 1982

Schneck vs United States (1919)

1st amendment Freedom of speech can be limited in times of war A socialist named Charles Scheck distributed anti-war materials in the mail. The Supreme Court found him guilty of posing a clear and present danger during wartime (9-0)

Freedoms in 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, & 9th amendments

1st-2 clauses: Establishment Clause: forbids government promotion or establishment of religion 2. Free exercise clause: prevents government from interfering with the exercise of religion unless it is deemed harmful Freedoms: religion, speech, press, expression, and peaceable assembly/ petition 4th-Right to the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures- no warrant less searches 5th- Right to a jury, no person tried twice for same offense (double jeopardy), no person is a witness against himself (self-incrimination), not deprived of life, liberty, or property without the due process of law (due process), and private property can't be taken for public use without just compensation (eminent domain) 6th-(Rights of accused in criminal convictions) 1. Right to a speedy and public trial 2.Impartial jury 3.In the state and district the crime was committed 4.Informed of the nature and cause of the accusation 5. Confronted with the witnesses against him 6. Have the assistance of counsel for his defense (legal representation) 8th-(Punishment for crime) 2 Provisions: 1. Prohibits excessive bails and fines 2. Prohibits cruel and unusual punishments 9th-(Rights retained by the people) Personal autonomy- right to make personal/intimate decisions without government interference -right to privacy -can make laws against some behaviors and characteristics

Right to bear arms (II)

2010 McDonald v. Chicago - that determined whether the Second Amendment applies to the individual states

Affirmative Action

A policy designed to redress past discrimination against women and minority groups through measures to improve their economic and educational opportunities Aims: Example: Affirmative action is a U.S. practice of remedying the effects of past discrimination in matters related to employment, such as recruitment, hiring, training, promotions and termination. Many employers achieve equity and diversity through means other than formal affirmative action measures.

Exclusionary rule

A rule that provides that otherwise admissible evidence cannot be used in a criminal trial if it was the result of illegal police conduct

24th amendment:

Abolishes poll taxes

Tribal Restoration (1934)

Also known as Indian Reorganization Act 1934, also known as the Wheeler-Howard Act or informally, the Indian New Deal, was a U.S. federal legislation which secured certain rights to Native Americans, including Natives. These include a reversal of the Dawes Act's privatization of common holdings of American Indians and a return to local self-government on a tribal basis. The Act also restored to Native Americans the management of their assets (being mainly land) and included provisions intended to create a sound economic foundation for the inhabitants of Indian reservations. 7: 1934-1941

civil rights

Are rights related to the duties of citizenship and the opportunities for the participation in civil life that the government is obligated to protect

de jure and de facto segregation

De jure segregation is segregation by law; de facto segregation is segregation in practice.

Establishment Clause

Engel v. Vitale 1962 - In this Establshment Clause case,RULING:states have to uphold Establishment Clause, it is the incorporation case of the Establishment Clause (landmark case), relates to no prayer in public school,sets up rules- prayer cannot be led by school officials even if non-denominational and voluntary,no prayer before game or at graduation, BUT can have student led prayer/teacher led prayer off-campus, schools can rent facilities to churches

EP & DP clauses (5th & 14th ammend.)

Equal protection:14th amendment-states can't unreasonably discriminate against individuals Due Process-5TH Amendment: NATIONAL gov must observe fair procedures when it denies a person life, liberty, or property 14th Amendment: STATE govs must observe fair procedures when they deny a person life, liberty, or property 4 goodies of the 14th amendment: 1) citizenship 2) privileges and immunities 3) due process 4) equal protection

Gitlow v. New York (1925)

Established precedent of federalizing Bill of Rights (applying them to the states); states cannot deny freedom of speech --protected through due process clause of Amendment 14 established selective incorporation of the Bill of rights; states cannot deny freedom of speech; protected through the 14th amendment

New York Times v. Sullivan (1964)

Established the "actual malice" standard. In cases of libel or slander, public figures must prove that the author had "knowledge of falsity and reckless disregard for the truth."

Bill of rights

First 10 amendments to the Constitution which provide basic political rights

Texas v. Johnson (1984)

Flag burning is *symbolic speech* and is protected by the 1st amendment. Hint: The case involves Texas, but it's not the one you think! ;-) During the 1984 Republican National Convention, Johnson (Defendant) participated in a political demonstration to protest the policies of the Reagan administration. Johnson publicity burned an American flag while protesters chanted. Johnson was convicted of desecration of a "respected" object (flag) in violation of a Texas statute. A STATE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED. However, the TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS REVERTED, holding that the State couldn't punish Johnson for burning the flag in these circumstances. Issue: Whether a Defendant's burning of the flag constituted expressive conduct, permitting him to invoke the 1st Amendment? (Is someone protected by the 1st Amendment if he burn a flag?) Brief Fact: A conviction for burning the U.S. flag based on a Texas law was OVERRULED after the U.S. Supreme Court found the Texas law UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Majority Vote (5 votes for johnson): Justice Brennan: The state's interest in preserving a flag as a symbol of nationhood doesn't justify convicting someone because it is not consistent with the 1st Amendment. (JJ. Marshall, Blackmun, Scalia, Kennedy) Minority Vote (4 against Johnson's) Dissent: The interest of preserving the flag as a symbol of nationhood is legitimate and justified the Defendant's conviction. (JJ. Rehnquist, White, Stevens, O'Connor) Discussion: The case resulted in battle lines being drawn between those in Congress who wanted to amend the Constitution to permit restraints on flag desecration and those who supported new legislation rather than constitutional amendment.

Title VII CRA 1964

Forbids discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin Prohibits discrimination in all areas of employment on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin or gender. This also created the EEOC. This covers employers or unions with15 or more employees.

19th amendment

Gave women the right to vote

Invidious/benign discrimination

Invidious discrimination Benign discrimination

Title IX - Education Amendments of 1972

It is a federal law that prohibits sex-based discrimination in any education program or activity that is federally funded. ""No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."

Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1

It is unconstitutional for a school district to deny a student admission to her chosen school on the basis of race. Facts: The Seattle School District allowed students to apply to any high school in the District. Since certain schools often became oversubscribed when too many students chose them as their first choice, the District used a system of tiebreakers to decide which students would be admitted to the popular schools. The second most important tiebreaker was a racial factor intended to maintain racial diversity. If the racial demographics of any school's student body deviated by more than a predetermined number of percentage points from those of Seattle's total student population (approximately 40% white and 60% non-white), the racial tiebreaker went into effect. At a particular school either whites or non-whites could be favored for admission depending on which race would bring the racial balance closer to the goal. A non-profit group, Parents Involved in Community Schools (Parents), sued the District, arguing that the racial tiebreaker violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as well as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Washington state law. A federal District Court dismissed the suit, upholding the tiebreaker. On appeal, a three-judge panel the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed. Under the Supreme Court's precedents on racial classification in higher education, Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger, race-based classifications must be directed toward a "compelling government interest" and must be "narrowly tailored" to that interest. Applying these precedents to K-12 education, the Circuit Court found that the tiebreaker scheme was not narrowly tailored. The District then petitioned for an "en banc" ruling by a panel of 11 Ninth Circuit judges. The en banc panel came to the opposite conclusion and upheld the tiebreaker. The majority ruled that the District had a compelling interest in maintaining racial diversity. Applying a test from Grutter, the Circuit Court also ruled that the tiebreaker plan was narrowly tailored, because 1) the District did not employ quotas, 2) the District had considered race-neutral alternatives, 3) the plan caused no undue harm to races, and 4) the plan had an ending point. Government Statute or Action in Question: 1) Do the decisions in Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger apply to public high school students? 2) Is racial diversity a compelling interest that can justify the use of race in selecting students for admission to public high schools? 3) Does a school district that normally permits a student to attend the high school of her choice violate the Equal Protection Clause by denying the student admission to her chosen school because of her race in an effort to achieve a desired racial balance? Constitutional Provision at Issue: Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Holding: 5:4 for Parents Involved Reasoning of the Majority: No, no, and yes. By a 5-4 vote, the Court applied a "strict scrutiny" framework and found the District's racial tiebreaker plan unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the plurality opinion that "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." The Court acknowledged that it had previously held that racial diversity can be a compelling government interest in university admissions, but it ruled that "[t]he present cases are not governed by Grutter." Unlike the cases pertaining to higher education, the District's plan involved no individualized consideration of students, and it employed a very limited notion of diversity ("white" and "non-white"). The District's goal of preventing racial imbalance did not meet the Court's standards for a constitutionally legitimate use of race: "Racial balancing is not transformed from 'patently unconstitutional' to a compelling state interest simply by relabeling it 'racial diversity.'" The plans also lacked the narrow tailoring that is necessary for race-conscious programs. The Court held that the District's tiebreaker plan was actually targeted toward demographic goals and not toward any demonstrable educational benefit from racial diversity. The District also failed to show that its objectives could not have been met with non-race-conscious means. In a separate opinion concurring in the judgment, Justice Kennedy agreed that the District's use of race was unconstitutional but stressed that public schools may sometimes consider race to ensure equal educational opportunity. Major Doctrines: The student assignment plan of Seattle Public Schools and Jefferson County Public Schools does not meet the narrowly tailored and compelling interest requirements for a race-based assignment plan because it is used only to achieve "racial balance." Public schools may not use race as the sole determining factor for assigning students to schools. Race-conscious objectives to achieve diverse school environment may be acceptable. Alternative Solutions: All of the dissenting Justices acknowledged that "the Constitution does not impose a duty to desegregate upon districts Breyer: In the Justice's 77-page written opinion he called the ruling a "radical" step away from established law that would take from communities a critical tool used for many years in the prevention of resegregation.

Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) and the Lemon Test

June 28 1971 Issue: Did Pennsylvania and Rhode Island violate the establishment clause by making state financial aid available to church related educational institutions? Why lemon test created:was created to determine if non public schools could receive aid from the government What is the lemon test: a classification system that is used to see whether or not a law that pertains to the funding or the establishment of religious institutions of the state to determine whether a non public school could receive aid form the government the lemon test: 1). have a secular purpose 2). not have any primary effect of either inhabiting or advancing region 3). not result in "excessive government entanglement" with region who filed:Alton Lemon, Pennsylvania instructor Name of guy being sued:David Kurtzman What is Kurtzman's job title?:acting superintendent of department of public Instruction in the state of Pennsylvania law that Pennsylvania passed:Non Public Elementary and Secondary Act of 1968 Non Public Elementary and Secondary Act of 1968:gave direct public aid to non public schools law that Rhode Island passed:15% salary supplement to private school teachers what judge?cheif justice warren burrger establishment clause:prohibits the establishment of a national religion

Equal Pay Act of 1963

Legislation that requires employers to pay men and women equal pay for equal work prohibits employers from discrimination on the basis of sex between employees at the same establishment who perform equal work in equivalent position under similar working conditions

Libel/Slander

Libel and slander are types of defamatory statements. Libel is a written defamatory statement, and slander is a spoken or oral defamatory statement.

Jim Crow Laws

Limited rights of blacks. Literacy tests, grandfather clauses and poll taxes limited black voting rights Laws written to separate blacks and whites in public areas/meant African Americans had unequal opportunities in housing, work, education, and government

Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)

Same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. facts of Obergefell v Hodges: Groups of same-sex couples sued their relevant state agencies in Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, and Tennessee to challenge the constitutionality of those states' bans on same-sex marriage or refusal to recognize legal same-sex marriages that occurred in jurisdictions that provided for such marriages. The plaintiffs in each case argued that the states' statutes violated the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and one group of plaintiffs also brought claims under the Civil Rights Act. In all the cases, the trial court found in favor of the plaintiffs. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed and held that the states' bans on same-sex marriage and refusal to recognize marriages performed in other states did not violate the couples' Fourteenth Amendment rights to equal protection and due process. Obergefell v Hodges question: (1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex? Yes (2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex that was legally licensed and performed in another state? Yes Obergefell v Hodges conclusion -5 to 4 -The Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees the right to marry as one of the fundamental liberties it protects, and that analysis applies to same-sex couples in the same manner as it does to opposite-sex couples. Judicial precedent has held that the right to marry is a fundamental liberty because it is inherent to the concept of individual autonomy, it protects the most intimate association between two people, it safeguards children and families by according legal recognition to building a home and raising children, and it has historically been recognized as the keystone of social order. Because there are no differences between a same-sex union and an opposite-sex union with respect to these principles, the exclusion of same-sex couples from the right to marry violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment also guarantees the right of same-sex couples to marry as the denial of that right would deny same-sex couples equal protection under the law. Marriage rights have traditionally been addressed through both parts of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the same interrelated principles of liberty and equality apply with equal force to these cases; therefore, the Constitution protects the fundamental right of same-sex couples to marry. The Court also held that the First Amendment protects the rights of religious organizations to adhere to their principles, but it does not allow states to deny same-sex couples the right to marry on the same terms as those for opposite-sex couples.

Gratz vs. Bollinger 2003

Stuck down use of bonus points for race in undergrad admissions at university of Michigan Gratz vs. Bollinger was a ruling that stated adding points due to race in the university admission point system was unconstitutional. The ruling was against the University of Michigan's undergraduate admission. Grutter vs. Bollinger was a ruling that upheld the Gratz vs. Bollinger ruling. Violated the Equal Protection Clause.

Substantial/procedural civil liberties

Substantial-are restraints limiting what the government shall have the power to do, such as restricting freedom of speech, freedom of religion, or freedom of the press. Procedural liberties are restraints on how the government can act. Procedural-Areas of personal freedom where government can't interfere - Substantive and procedural restraints together identify the realm of civil liberties. ... The first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution; a series of restrictions (or restraints) imposed upon govt.

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)

Supreme Court decision in which the Court ruled that the Constitution implicitly guarantees citizens' right to privacy. -Connecticut passed a statute stating that "any person who uses any drug, medical article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception" was to be subject to fine or imprisonment or both. -The statue also stated that a person who assisted another in committing this offense could be prosecuted and punished. -Estelle Griswold, executive director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut was convicted of being an accessory. Legal Question & Decision Is the Connecticut statute proscribing birth control valid under the Constitution? Decision: No 7-2 Douglas' Majority Opinion -This is not a law that touch economic problems, business affairs, or social conditions. It operates on an intimate relation of husband and wife and their physician's role in one aspect of that relation. -We can choose how to educate our children or study a particular subject or learn any foreign language although it is not defined in the Constitution nor in the Bill of Rights -specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance. Various guarantees create zones of privacy." Concurrences Ninth Amendment reveal that there are additional fundamental rights. Right of privacy is protected by the Ninth Amendment. To deny right of privacy because it is not mentioned in the first 8 amendments is to deny the Ninth Amendment. The CT statute violated the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment because the law violates the basic values implied in the concept of "liberty." Black's Dissent "Privacy" is a broad, abstract and ambiguous concept..The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to limit the federal government, not to broaden it (against Justice Goldberg) Significance Griswold created a constitutional right to privacy and deemed the right dundamental.

Defense of Marriage Act (1993)

The Defense of Marriage Act (also known as DOMA) was signed into law President Clinton. The act defines marriage as an act as "only legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife. The law also allows states not to recognize same-sex marriages performed legally in other states. The law also prohibits same-sex couples who are legally married or are recognized as a couple as a result of a civil union from collecting any federal benefits that married couples get such as not being able to leave a spouse an inheritance being subject to estate tax regulations and not being able to file joint federal income taws. The law was challenged and the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case in 2013 and ruled in the case of Windsor v. United States that the section denying federal benefits to legally married same-sex couples was unconstitutional, thus enabling legally married gay couples to receive over 1,000 federal benefits.

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

The court ruled that those subjected to in-custody interrogation be advised of their constitutional right to an attorney and their right to remain silent. (all defendants must be informed of legal rights before they are arrested.)

Bradwell v. Illinois (1873)

This Supreme court case ruled that Myra Bradwell did not have the right to be admitted to the bar of the State of Illinois. This upheld and legalized the practice of sex discrimination in professions. The right to practice law is not one of the privileges guaranteed in the 14th Amendment. This ruling effectively validated discrimination against women in hiring decisions

Indian Claims Commission (1946)

This act removed the sovereign status of Indian nations in Alaska by incorporating them into the United States. Approximately 44 million acres of Native-American lands were turned into U.S. assets. The importance of the act is that the incorporation of Native-American lands included the oil beneath and the timber on top.

Civil liberties

Those rights such as freedom of speech and religion that are so fundamental that they are outside the authority of government to regulate

Suspect (strict scrutiny) test

a law or policy that impinges on fundamental liberty/suspect classification is unconstitutional unless there is...Compelling Government Interest law or policy must be narrowly tailored must be least restrictive

Selective Incorporation

case by case application of the Bill of Right's protections to the states use the 14th Amendment's Due Process cause- Basically deciding which protections are fundamental to due process clause aka incorporation or Nationalization of the Bill of Rights,mostly occurs in 1940s-50, most protections have been incorporated Supreme Court is a passive branch- can only make policy if case brought to them

Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)

constitutional amendment passed by Congress but never ratified that would have banned discrimination on the basis of gender What did it say? "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex" why did some find it necessary? Would express a permanent, uniform, and national standard for eliminating sex discrimination by govt at all levels. Would ensure strict scrutiny. Passed: easily by Congress March 22, 1972 ERA ratification quick ratification by states after passed, no state ratified after 1977. Extended deadline to 1982, amendment died. All states that didn't sign were mormon or southern ERA opposition equal rights meant ending special benefits, opposed by Progressive and Union feminists. Opposition from these coalitions and most conservatives ensured its repeated defeat Why did it fail? • Actively lobbied against by Eagle Forums Stop ERA! Phyllis Schlafy. Tied ERA to abortion after Roe v. Wade & Womens lib mvmt. o Trying to degrade traditional role of women & family structure. ERA = demise of family & traditional role of women = threatening o Oppositions threats of implications of ERA killed it o Moved debate from symbolic (equality) to implications (abortions), implications very subjective • & federalism arguments; gave congress power to enforce the amendment, scared states • could have been more successful if more organized, weak lobbying in some states - stronger @ national level Lasting effects • got media time on these issues = public attention on gender inequalities, more discussion -> more women in politics • suggested change in attitudes -> change in courts. Made court reluctant to accept discriminatory laws • may have made cts more hesitant to use strict scrutiny b/c of states where ERA didn't pass. • Rewriting of some legislation • UT, LA, FL opposed ERA but included it in state legislation =>federalism argument

Civil Rights Amendments (13, 14, 15) & ratification dates

defined who a citizen was either through naturalization or birth. Amendment 15. Ratified in 1870. Black Suffrage: rights to vote cannot be denied regardless of previous conditions of servitude. Ratification- The Thirteenth Amendment (proposed in 1864 and ratified in 1865) abolished slavery and involuntary servitude, except for those duly convicted of a crime. The Fourteenth Amendment (proposed in 1866 and ratified in 1868) addresses citizenship rights and equal protection of the laws for all persons.

Indian Civil Rights Act (1968)

formally protected the constitutional rights of all Native Americans Date: 1968 Significance: It extending part of the Bill of Rights to individual Indians against tribal governments. It also guaranteed equal protection of the law. This means that Native Americans' civil rights would be protected but they would also be able to govern themselves in sovereignty. Analysis of progress: Well today Native Americans have the same rights of any American citizen and there government remains in sovereignty.

Prior Restraint

government censorship of information before it is published or broadcast

discrimination

in classical conditioning, the learned ability to distinguish between a conditioned stimulus and stimuli that do not signal an unconditioned stimulus

Sherbert vs. Verner 1963

man refused to work on Saturday and denied unemployment benefits; must have "compelling state interest" to deny him and it violated Free Exercise Rights. After losing the case for both the state court and the supreme court, Sherbert's attorney asked the U.S. Supreme court for a review. Facts Sherbert's employer fired her because she couldn't work on Saturdays based on her religious practice. When seeking out other job opportunities at textile mills she refused the offers because they would not give her Saturday off for her religious beliefs. Sherbert filed for state unemployment which was denied by the state. South Carolina law dictates that to eligible for benefits the person in question must be "available to work". It then becomes ineligible if he or she fails "without good cause". Issues 1) Is the state's rejection of Sherberts unemployment benefit based on religion in violation of the free exercise clause? 2) Is the benefits policy a valid and necessary regulation to advance the state's secular interest? 3) Does the state have the right to discriminate again people who practice a religious belief? 4) Is Sherbert's right to exercise her religious belief greater than the governments need to fairly administer unemployment benefits? 5) Was this in fact a violation of the first and fourteen amendments? Rulings The court ruled this to be a violation of the first and fourteenth amendment based on the right to exercise religion freely. By denying her this right it placed a burden on her first amendment. Findings The court found that indeed the denial of benefits to Sherbert based on religious reasons was ground for violation against her religious rights. They found that her right to free exercise of religion would not be violated if she is given Saturdays. The first amendment prohibits congress from promoting one's religion over another. Thus, alleviating the restriction on the right to practice religion freely. Concurring Mr. Justice Douglus concurring opinion is that the South Carolina law does indeed go against the free exercise of religion clause. He continues to state that people who are religious should not be given "a second-class citizenship. He is stating that whether you are religious or not you should be giving the equal opportunity as everyone else. Concurring Mr. Justice Stewart concurring opinion is that Sherbert's constitutional rights are being infringed upon, but not in the way the court deemed it to be. Stewart stated that in the case of sherbert it is an administrative issue unlike Braunfeld v brown whose case was a criminal statute that in his opinion should be overruled. Dissenting Mr. Justice Harland and Mr. Justice White dissenting opinion is that the court refuses to reject Braunfeld v Brown but rather choose to move on and make an exception to the rule. These two justices sum it up in two points. This first being that in the cause of Braunfeld it wsa not against free exercise of religion to force Braunfeld to shut down his business on Sunday. Being a Sabbatarian means that he's also off on Saturday for religious reason. Harland and White question why he should be forced to close on Sunday when it is not a religious day for him. The second issue is that it is too narrow of an issue spread out through years and by making an exception it does not in fact solve the problem.

2008 Revision of Americans with Disabilities Act

persons with disabilities should have access to the same opportunities: employment opportunities, public services, education, public accommodations, transportation, telecommunications that other citizens enjoy On September 25, 2008, the President signed the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008 (ADA AA). The Act, effective January 1, 2009, emphasizes that the definition of disability should be construed in favor of broad coverage of individuals to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of the ADA.Feb 20, 201

Human Rights Campaign

the largest LGBT civil rights advocacy group and political lobbying organization in the United States

Protectionism

the theory or practice of shielding a country's domestic industries from foreign competition by taxing imports.