EXAM #2
Death Penalty (Constitutionality Con)
The relevant legal standard is the standard set forth in the Eighth Amendment. The Constitution there forbids the 'inflict[ion]' of 'cruel and unusual punishments.' Amdt. 8. The Court has recognized that a 'claim that punishment is excessive is judged not by the standards that prevailed in 1685... or when the Bill of Rights was adopted, but rather by those that currently prevail... Indeed, the Constitution prohibits various gruesome punishments that were common... In 1976, the Court thought that the constitutional infirmities in the death penalty could be healed; the Court in effect delegated significant responsibility to the States to develop procedures that would protect against those constitutional problems. Almost 40 years of studies, surveys, and experience strongly indicate, however, that this effort has failed. Today's administration of the death penalty involves three fundamental constitutional defects: (1) serious unreliability, (2) arbitrariness in application, and (3) unconscionably long delays that undermine the death penalty's penological purpose. Perhaps as a result, (4) most places within the United States have abandoned its use... For the reasons I have set forth in this opinion, I believe it highly likely that the death penalty violates the Eighth Amendment."
First Amendment Exceptions
1.) Incitement 2.) False statement of fact 3.) Obscenity 4.)Child Pornography 5.) Speech own by others 6.) Fighting words and offensive speech 7.) Restriction on special capacity of government.
Second Amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Eighth Amendment
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010)
Expands the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms making it universal.
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)
Outcome The Court's Per Curium opinion held that the Ohio law violated Brandenburg's right to free speech. Speech can occur unless it breaks the two-pronged test: The Court used a two-pronged test to evaluate speech acts: (1) speech can be prohibited if it is "directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and (2) it is "likely to incite or produce such action." The criminal syndicalism act made illegal the advocacy and teaching of doctrines while ignoring whether or not that advocacy and teaching would actually incite imminent lawless action. The failure to make this distinction rendered the law overly broad and in violation of the Constitution.
Furman v. Georgia (1972)
Outcome The Court's one-page per curiam opinion held that the imposition of the death penalty in these cases constituted cruel and unusual punishment and violated the Constitution. Other concurrences focused on the arbitrary nature with which death sentences have been imposed, often indicating a racial bias against black defendants. The Court's decision forced states and the national legislature to rethink their statutes for capital offenses to assure that the death penalty would not be administered in a capricious or discriminatory manner.
Regents of Univ. of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978)
Primary Holding Affirmative action programs that take race into account can continue to play a role in the college admissions process, since creating a diverse classroom environment is a compelling state interest under the Fourteenth Amendment. State universities go too far, however, when they set a certain quota for the number of minority students who enroll. There is an equal rights violation, cannot have peer quota under a strict scrutiny standard.
Employment Div. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990)
Primary Holding A law is constitutional under the Free Exercise Clause if it is facially neutral and generally applied. If there is natural law or code of ethics, and it is broken you can be terminated regardless of religion purposes. The business can legally constitutionally fire an employee if it's for a cause that breaks their laws / Ethics. If there is misconducted and the employee was fired for legal reason, the government can legally deny them unemployment. Private companies have the right to institute their own rules.
Death Penalty (Deterrence Pro)
Studies of the death penalty have reached various conclusions about its effectiveness in deterring crime. But... the majority of studies that track effects over many years and across states or counties find a deterrent effect. Indeed, other recent investigations, using a variety of samples and statistical methods, consistently demonstrate a strong link between executions and reduced murder rates... In short, capital punishment does, in fact, save lives."
Death Penalty (Irrevocable Mistake Pro)
Those in support of abolishing the death penalty point to the possibility of an innocent person being executed... The innocent can take solace in knowing that a unanimous jury of 12 citizens must render the death verdict after an exhaustive trial where the accused murderer is represented by two highly competent attorneys and overseen by an independent judge who ensures a fair trial. Justice is a reformed, not eliminated death penalty."
Death Penalty (Deterrence Con)
"[T]here is not the slightest credible statistical evidence that capital punishment reduces the rate of homicide.
Death Penalty ( Morality Con)
Capital punishment is a failed policy. America should no longer accept the myth that capital punishment plays any constructive role in our criminal justice system. It will be hard to bring an end to the death penalty, but we will be a healthier society as a result."
National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012)
Case Study A coalition of states, individuals, and the National Federation of Independent Business challenged the Affordable Care Act (ACA) on the grounds that the law's individual health insurance mandate exceeded Congress' authority to regulate interstate commerce under the Commerce Clause of Article I and did not fall within Congress' power to tax. The plaintiffs also argued that the Medicaid expansion violated the Tenth Amendment by compelling states to follow federal regulations
Death Penalty (Retribution Con)
In my view, the death penalty is morally, socially and politically wrong. Morally, killing is wrong. Killing on behalf of a state is wrong as well. Some may believe that the death penalty is a just and moral punishment for the most serious of crimes; victims and their families are morally entitled to long for revenge. However, the social, political and economic costs of such retribution are, in my opinion, too high... No national interest can justify human rights violations such as the death penalty or torture."
Death Penalty (Retribution Pro)
Retributivists do not justify the death penalty by the general deterrence or safety it brings us. And we reject over-punishing no less than under-punishing. Regardless of future benefits, we justify punishment because it's deserved. Let the punishment fit the crime... Opponents [of the death penalty] wrongly equate retribution and revenge, because they both would inflict pain and suffering on those who have inflicted pain and suffering on us. Whereas revenge knows no bounds, retribution must be limited, proportional and appropriately directed: The retributive punishment fits the crime... We should only execute those who most deserve it. And not randomly. Refine our death penalty statutes and review the sentences of everyone on death row. Release into general population those who don't really deserve to die.
Death Penalty (Constitutionality Pro)
[N]ot once in the history of the American Republic has this Court ever suggested the death penalty is categorically impermissible. The reason is obvious: It is impossible to hold unconstitutional that which the Constitution explicitly contemplates. The Fifth Amendment provides that '[n]o person shall be held to answer for a capital...crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,' and that no person shall be 'deprived of life...without due process of law... Historically, the Eighth Amendment was understood to bar only those punishments that added 'terror, pain, or disgrace' to an otherwise permissible capital sentence...
Regents of Univ. of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978)
Case Study Allan Bakke, a thirty-five-year-old white man, had twice applied for admission to the University of California Medical School at Davis. He was rejected both times. The school reserved sixteen places in each entering class of one hundred for "qualified" minorities, as part of the university's affirmative action program, in an effort to redress longstanding, unfair minority exclusions from the medical profession. Bakke's qualifications (college GPA and test scores) exceeded those of any of the minority students admitted in the two years Bakke's applications were rejected. Bakke contended, first in the California courts, then in the Supreme Court, that he was excluded from admission solely on the basis of race.
Bethel Sch. Dist. v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986)
Case Study At a school assembly of approximately 600 high school students, Matthew Fraser made a speech nominating a fellow student for elective office. In his speech, Fraser used what some observers believed was a graphic sexual metaphor to promote the candidacy of his friend. As part of its disciplinary code, Bethel High School enforced a rule prohibiting conduct which "substantially interferes with the educational process . . . including the use of obscene, profane language or gestures." Fraser was suspended from school for two days.
Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971)
Case Study Both Pennsylvania and Rhode Island adopted statutes that provided for the state to pay for aspects of non-secular, non-public education. The Pennsylvania statute was passed in 1968 and provided funding for non-public elementary and secondary school teachers' salaries, textbooks, and instructional materials for secular subjects. Rhode Island's statute was passed in 1969 and provided state financial support for non-public elementary schools in the form of supplementing 15% of teachers' annual salaries. The appellants in the Pennsylvania case represented citizens and taxpayers in Pennsylvania who believed that the statute violated the separation of church and state described in the First Amendment. Appellant Lemon also had a child in Pennsylvania public school. The district court granted the state officials' motion to dismiss the case. In the Rhode Island case, the appellees were citizens and tax payers of Rhode Island who sued to have the statute in question declared unconstitutional by arguing that it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The district court found in favor of the appellees and held that the statute violated the First Amendment.
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)
Case Study Brandenburg, a leader in the Ku Klux Klan, made a speech at a Klan rally and was later convicted under an Ohio criminal syndicalism law. The law made illegal advocating "crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform," as well as assembling "with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism."
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)
Case Study During the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s, the New York Times published an ad for contributing donations to defend Martin Luther King, Jr., on perjury charges. The ad contained several minor factual inaccuracies. The city Public Safety Commissioner, L.B. Sullivan, felt that the criticism of his subordinates reflected on him, even though he was not mentioned in the ad. Sullivan sent a written request to the Times to publicly retract the information, as required for a public figure to seek punitive damages in a libel action under Alabama law. When the Times refused and claimed that they were puzzled by the request, Sullivan filed a libel action against the Times and a group of African American ministers mentioned in the ad. A jury in state court awarded him $500,000 in damages. The state supreme court affirmed and the Times appealed.
Capitol Square Review and Advisory Bd. v. Pinette, 515 U.S. 753 (1995)
Case Study In 1993, the Ku Klux Klan organization attempted to place an unattended cross on Capitol Square, the state-house plaza in Columbus, Ohio, during the 1993 Christmas season. Ohio law makes Capitol Square a forum for discussion of public questions and for public activities, and gives the Advisory Board responsibility for regulating access to the square. The Board denied the application of the Ku Klux Klan to erect the cross on Establishment Clause grounds.
Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003)
Case Study In 1997, Barbara Grutter, a white resident of Michigan, applied for admission to the University of Michigan Law School. Grutter applied with a 3.8 undergraduate GPA and an LSAT score of 161. She was denied admission. The Law School admits that it uses race as a factor in making admissions decisions because it serves a "compelling interest in achieving diversity among its student body." The District Court concluded that the Law School's stated interest in achieving diversity in the student body was not a compelling one and enjoined its use of race in the admissions process. In reversing, the Court of Appeals held that Justice Powell's opinion in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978), constituted a binding precedent establishing diversity as a compelling governmental interest sufficient under strict scrutiny review to justify the use of racial preferences in admissions. The appellate court also rejected the district court's finding that the Law School's "critical mass" was the functional equivalent of a quota.
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969)
Case Study In December 1965, a group of students in Des Moines held a meeting in the home of 16-year-old Christopher Eckhardt to plan a public showing of their support for a truce in the Vietnam war. They decided to wear black armbands throughout the holiday season and to fast on December 16 and New Year's Eve. The principals of the Des Moines school learned of the plan and met on December 14 to create a policy that stated that any student wearing an armband would be asked to remove it, with refusal to do so resulting in suspension. On December 16, Mary Beth Tinker and Christopher Eckhardt wore their armbands to school and were sent home. The following day, John Tinker did the same with the same result. The students did not return to school until after New Year's Day, the planned end of the protest. Through their parents, the students sued the school district for violating the students' right of expression and sought an injunction to prevent the school district from disciplining the students. The district court dismissed the case and held that the school district's actions were reasonable to uphold school discipline. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the decision without opinion.
Schuette v. Coal. Defend Affirmative Action, Integration & Immigration Rights, 572 U.S. ___ (2014)
Case Study In November 2006 election, a majority of Michigan voters supported a proposition to amend the state constitution to prohibit "all sex-and race-based preferences in public education, public employment, and public contracting." The day after the proposition passed, a collection of interest groups and individuals formed the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration and Immigration Rights and Fight for Equality by Any Means Necessary (Coalition). The Coalition sued the governor and the regents and boards of trustees of three state universities in district court by arguing that the proposition as it related to public education violated the Equal Protection Clause. About a month later, the Michigan Attorney General and Eric Russell, an applicant to the University of Michigan Law School, filed separate motions to intervene as defendants, which were granted. Both sides moved for summary judgment and the plaintiffs moved to have Russell removed from the case as he did not represent interests separate from those of the Michigan Attorney General. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants and granted the motion to remove Russell as an intervenor. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part by holding the proposed amendment unconstitutional and upholding the removal of Russell as a party to the litigation.
Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U.S. ___ (2016)
Case Study Jamie Caetano was convicted of possession of a stun gun in Massachusetts state court. Caetano appealed and claimed her conviction violated her Second Amendment right to possess a stun gun in public for the purpose of self-defense, which was necessary to protect herself from her abusive ex-boyfriend. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts affirmed Caetano's conviction and held that a stun gun is not eligible for Second Amendment protection.
Gun Ownership Under Tyler
Case Study Mr. Tyler, then 23 years old, was committed by state court to a mental institution after enduring "an emotionally devastating divorce" in 1985. His involuntary commitment on January 2, 1986, was based on his risk for suicide. He was then reported to have been unable to sleep and cried "non-stop" (Ref. 5, p 314). For two weeks, he remained at the Ypsilanti Regional Center in Michigan, where he refused prescribed medication. Upon discharge he returned home and remained employed for the next 18 to 19 years. He denied substance abuse and legal involvements. In a 2012 psychological evaluation, he denied having had any further depressive episodes since the initial episode in 1985. The psychologist determined that Mr. Tyler had no criminal history, and his personal physician denied that he had shown evidence of mental illness. The psychologist also concluded that Mr. Tyler showed "no evidence of mental illness" (Ref. 5, p 314) and that his involuntary commitment in 1985 appeared to have been related to "a brief reactive depressive episode in response to his wife divorcing him" (Ref. 5, p 314, citing psychologist's report). On February 7, 2011, Mr. Tyler attempted to purchase a firearm, but was denied. The Hillsdale County Sheriff's Office informed Mr. Tyler that he was not eligible to purchase a firearm because of his previous record of involuntary commitment to a mental institution, as revealed by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Upon appeal to the NICS, he was again informed that under 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(4) he was prohibited from purchasing a firearm. Mr. Tyler's counsel was informed by the NICS section that his appeal was denied.
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
Case Study Provisions of the District of Columbia Code made it illegal to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibited the registration of handguns, though the chief of police could issue one-year licenses for handguns. The Code also contained provisions that required owners of lawfully registered firearms to keep them unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or other similar device unless the firearms were located in a place of business or being used for legal recreational activities. Dick Anthony Heller was a D.C. special police officer who was authorized to carry a handgun while on duty. He applied for a one-year license for a handgun he wished to keep at home, but his application was denied. Heller sued the District of Columbia. He sought an injunction against the enforcement of the relevant parts of the Code and argued that they violated his Second Amendment right to keep a functional firearm in his home without a license. The district court dismissed the complaint. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed and held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep firearms in the home for the purpose of self-defense, and the District of Columbia's requirement that firearms kept in the home be nonfunctional violated that right.
McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010)
Case Study Several suits were filed against Chicago and Oak Park in Illinois challenging their gun bans after the Supreme Court issued its opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller. In that case, the Supreme Court held that a District of Columbia handgun ban violated the Second Amendment. There, the Court reasoned that the law in question was enacted under the authority of the federal government and, thus, the Second Amendment was applicable. Here, plaintiffs argued that the Second Amendment should also apply to the states. The district court dismissed the suits. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed.
Employment Div. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990)
Case Study Two counselors for a private drug rehabilitation organization ingested peyote -- a powerful hallucinogen -- as part of their religious ceremonies as members of the Native American Church. As a result of this conduct, the rehabilitation organization fired the counselors. The counselors filed a claim for unemployment compensation. The government denied them benefits because the reason for their dismissal was considered work-related "misconduct." The state appellate court reversed the denial of benefits, finding that the denial violated their First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion. The state supreme court affirmed the appellate court. The U.S. Supreme Court vacated the Oregon Supreme Court's judgment against the disgruntled employees, and returned the case to the Oregon courts to determine whether or not sacramental use of illegal drugs violated Oregon's state drug laws (485 U.S. 660 (1988)). On remand, the Oregon Supreme Court concluded that while Oregon drug law prohibited the consumption of illegal drugs for sacramental religious uses, this prohibition violated the Free Exercise Clause. The case returned to the U.S. Supreme Court in this new posture.
School District of Abington Township v. Schempp (1963)
Case Study Under Pennsylvania law, public schools were required to read from the bible at the opening of each school day. The school district sought to enjoin enforcement of the statute. The district court ruled that the statute violated the First Amendment, even after the statute had been amended to permit a student to excuse himself. The Court consolidated this case with one involving Maryland atheists who challenged a city rule that provided for opening exercises in the public schools that consisted primarily of reading a chapter from the bible and the Lord's Prayer. The state's highest court held the exercise did not violate the First Amendment. The religious character of the exercise was admitted by the state.
Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557 (2009)
Case Study White and Hispanic candidates for promotion in the New Haven, CT fire department sued various city officials in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut when the New Haven Civil Service Board (CSB) failed to certify two exams needed for the plaintiffs' promotion to Lieutenant and Captain. The CSB did not certify because the results of the test would have promoted a disproportionate number of white candidates in comparison to minority candidates. The plaintiffs argued that their rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e, and the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause were violated. The federal district court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed. It reasoned that the CSB, by refusing to certify the results of the promotional exam, was trying to fulfill its obligations under the rules utilized by the plaintiffs in their argument and therefore was protected in its actions.
Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 U.S. ___ (2018)
Case Study In July 2012, Charlie Craig and David Mullins went to Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, CO, and requested that its owner, Jack C. Phillips, design and create a cake for their wedding. Phillips declined to do so on the grounds that he does not create wedding cakes for same-sex weddings because of his religious beliefs. Phillips believes that decorating cakes is a form of art through which he can honor God and that it would displease God to create cakes for same-sex marriages. Craig and Mullins filed charges of discrimination with the Colorado Civil Rights Division, alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA), §§ 24-34-301 to -804, C.R.S. 2014. After the Division issued a notice of determination finding probable cause, Craig and Mullins filed a formal complaint with the Office of Administrative Courts alleging that Masterpiece discriminated against them in a place of public accommodation in violation of CADA. The Administrative Law Judge issued a written order finding in favor of Craig and Mullins, which was affirmed by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. On appeal, the Colorado Court of Appeals subsequently affirmed the Commission's ruling.
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. ___ (2014)
Case Study 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.
Gregg v. Georgia (1976)
Case Study A jury found Gregg guilty of armed robbery and murder and sentenced him to death. On appeal, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the death sentence except as to its imposition for the robbery conviction. Gregg challenged his remaining death sentence for murder, claiming that his capital sentence was a "cruel and unusual" punishment that violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Furman v. Georgia (1972)
Case Study Furman was burglarizing a private home when a family member discovered him. He attempted to flee, and in doing so tripped and fell. The gun that he was carrying went off and killed a resident of the home. He was convicted of murder and sentenced to death.
Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989)
Case Study In 1984, in front of the Dallas City Hall, Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag as a means of protest against Reagan administration policies. Johnson was tried and convicted under a Texas law outlawing flag desecration. He was sentenced to one year in jail and assessed a $2,000 fine. After the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the conviction, the case went to the Supreme Court.
First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Death Penalty (Irrevocable Mistake Con)
O]ver 150 people in the last few years have been taken off death row because they were innocent. I know there are people who want to believe that no innocent person has ever been executed in this country. But when you have this many people conclusively proved by DNA evidence to be actually innocent, there is no escaping the conclusion that innocent people have been executed... There are cases where prosecutors withheld exculpatory information. They knew that there were bogus pieces of evidence introduced. They knew that there were defendants who were coerced into entering a guilty plea to a crime they had not committed."
Capitol Square Review and Advisory Bd. v. Pinette, 515 U.S. 753 (1995)
Outcome Did the Board's denial of a permit to the Ku Klux Klan violate free speech under the First Amendment? Yes. The display was private religious speech that "is as fully protected under the Free Speech Clause as secular private expression." Because Capitol Square is designated as a traditional public forum, any group may express their views there, and the Board may regulate the content of the Klan's expression on the plaza only if a restriction is necessary and narrowly drawn to serve a compelling state interest.
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. ___ (2014)
Outcome 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? Yes. 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.
Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U.S. ___ (2016)
Outcome In a per curiam opinion, the Court held that, although stun guns are unusual in nature and were not common during the enactment of the Second Amendment, they are included in the Second Amendment's protections. To hold otherwise would be inconsistent with the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, which held that Second Amendment protections extend to arms that were not in existence at the time of the founding. Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. filed a concurring opinion in which he reiterated the importance of access to self-defense and the rights afforded by the Second Amendment. Justice Clarence Thomas joined in the concurring opinion.
School District of Abington Township v. Schempp (1963)
Outcome Public schools cannot sponsor Bible readings and recitations of the Lord's Prayer under the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. In an opinion authored by Justice Clark, the majority concluded that, in both cases, the laws required religious exercises and such exercises directly violated the First Amendment. The Court affirmed the Pennsylvania decision, and reversed and remanded the Maryland decision because the mandatory reading from the bible before school each day was found to be unconstitutional. Justice Stewart dissented, expressing the view that on the records it could not be said that the Establishment Clause had necessarily been violated. He would remand both cases for further hearings.
Bethel Sch. Dist. v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986)
Outcome The Court found that it was appropriate for the school to prohibit the use of vulgar and offensive language. Chief Justice Burger distinguished between political speech which the Court previously had protected in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969) and the supposed sexual content of Fraser's message at the assembly. Burger concluded that The First Amendment did not prohibit schools from prohibiting vulgar and lewd speech since such discourse was inconsistent with the "fundamental values of public school education."
Employment Div. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990)
Outcome The Court has never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that government is free to regulate. Allowing exceptions to every state law or regulation affecting religion "would open the prospect of constitutionally required exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind." Scalia cited as examples compulsory military service, payment of taxes, vaccination requirements, and child-neglect laws.
Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989)
Outcome The Court held that Johnson's burning of a flag was protected expression under the First Amendment. The Court found that Johnson's actions fell into the category of expressive conduct and had a distinctively political nature. The fact that an audience takes offense to certain ideas or expression, the Court found, does not justify prohibitions of speech. The Court also held that state officials did not have the authority to designate symbols to be used to communicate only limited sets of messages, noting that "[i]f there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable."
Gregg v. Georgia (1976)
Outcome The Court held that a punishment of death did not violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments under all circumstances. In extreme criminal cases, such as when a defendant has been convicted of deliberately killing another, the careful and judicious use of the death penalty may be appropriate if carefully employed. Georgia's death penalty statute assures the judicious and careful use of the death penalty by requiring a bifurcated proceeding where the trial and sentencing are conducted separately, specific jury findings as to the severity of the crime and the nature of the defendant, and a comparison of each capital sentence's circumstances with other similar cases. Moreover, the Court was not prepared to overrule the Georgia legislature's finding that capital punishment serves as a useful deterrent to future capital crimes and an appropriate means of social retribution against its most serious offenders.
Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971)
Outcome The Court held that a statute must pass a three-pronged test in order to avoid violating the Establishment Clause. The statute must have a secular legislative purpose, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither promotes nor inhibits religion, and it must not foster "excessive government entanglement with religion." The Court held that both the state statutes in question had secular legislative purposes because they reflected the desire of the states to ensure minimum secular education requirements were being met in the non-public schools. The Court did not reach a holding regarding the second prong of the test, but it did find that the statutes constituted an excessive government entanglement with religion. In the Rhode Island program, the amount of oversight of teachers and curricula required to ensure that there is no unnecessary injection of religion into secular topics would require the government to become excessively involved in the nuances of religious education. The same danger holds true for the Pennsylvania statute, which additionally provides state funding directly to a church-related organization. Government financial involvement in such institutions inevitably leads to "an intimate and continuing relationship" between church and state. The Court also noted the potential political implications of public funding, as there is a risk of religious issues becoming politically divisive.
Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003)
Outcome The Equal Protection Clause does not prohibit the Law School's narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body. The Court reasoned that, because the Law School conducts highly individualized review of each applicant, no acceptance or rejection is based automatically on a variable such as race and that this process ensures that all factors that may contribute to diversity are meaningfully considered alongside race.
Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557 (2009)
Outcome The Supreme Court held that by discarding the exams, the City of New Haven violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Before an employer can engage in intentional discrimination for the purpose of avoiding a "disparate impact" on a protected trait (race, color, religion, national origin), the employer must have a "strong basis in evidence" that it will be subject to "disparate impact liability" if it fails to take the discriminatory action. Here, the Court reasoned that New Haven failed to prove it had a "strong basis in evidence" that failing to discard the results of the exam would have subjected it to liability, as the exams were job-related, consistent with business necessity, and there was no evidence that an equally-valid, less-discriminatory alternative was available.
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969)
Outcome The Supreme Court held that the armbands represented pure speech that is entirely separate from the actions or conduct of those participating in it. The Court also held that the students did not lose their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech when they stepped onto school property. In order to justify the suppression of speech, the school officials must be able to prove that the conduct in question would "materially and substantially interfere" with the operation of the school. In this case, the school district's actions evidently stemmed from a fear of possible disruption rather than any actual interference.
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
Outcome The ban on registering handguns and the requirement to keep guns in the home disassembled or nonfunctional with a trigger lock mechanism violate the Second Amendment. The Court held that the first clause of the Second Amendment that references a "militia" is a prefatory clause that does not limit the operative clause of the Amendment. Additionally, the term "militia" should not be confined to those serving in the military, because at the time the term referred to all able-bodied men who were capable of being called to such service. To read the Amendment as limiting the right to bear arms only to those in a governed military force would be to create exactly the type of state-sponsored force against which the Amendment was meant to protect people.
Schuette v. Coal. Defend Affirmative Action, Integration & Immigration Rights, 572 U.S. ___ (2014)
Outcome The plurality held that this case was not about the constitutionality of race-conscious admissions, but rather about whether the voters of a state can choose to prohibit the use of race preferences in the decisions of governmental bodies, specifically with respect to school admissions. The plurality held that the attempt to define and protect interests based on race ran the risk of allowing the government to classify people based on race and therefore perpetuate the same racism such policies were meant to alleviate. While voters may certainly determine that some race-based preferences should be adopted, it is not the role of the courts to disempower the voters from making such a choice. If certain issues were decided to be too sensitive to be addressed by voters, it would be denying the voters their right to debate and act through the lawful democratic process.
Regents of Univ. of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978)
Outcome There was no single majority opinion. Four of the justices contended that any racial quota system supported by government violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr., agreed, casting the deciding vote ordering the medical school to admit Bakke. However, in his opinion, Powell argued that the rigid use of racial quotas as employed at the school violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The remaining four justices held that the use of race as a criterion in admissions decisions in higher education was constitutionally permissible. Powell joined that opinion as well, contending that the use of race was permissible as one of several admission criteria. So, the Court managed to minimize white opposition to the goal of equality (by finding for Bakke) while extending gains for racial minorities through affirmative action.
Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 U.S. ___ (2018)
Outcome Does the application of Colorado's public accommodations law to compel a cake maker to design and make a cake that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs about same-sex marriage violate the Free Speech or Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment? The Colorado Civil Rights Commission's conduct in evaluating a cake shop owner's reasons for declining to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple violated the Free Exercise Clause. The Court explained that while gay persons and same-sex couples are afforded civil rights protections under the laws and the Constitution, religious and philosophical objections to same-sex marriage are protected views and can also be protected forms of expression. The Colorado law at issue in this case, which prohibited discrimination against gay people in purchasing products and services, had to be applied in a neutral manner with regard to religion. The majority acknowledged that from Phillips' perspective, creating cakes was a form of artistic expression and a component of his sincere religious beliefs.
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)
Outcome To sustain a claim of defamation or libel, the First Amendment requires that the plaintiff show that the defendant knew that a statement was false or was reckless in deciding to publish the information without investigating whether it was accurate. In an unanimous opinion authored by Justice Brennan, the Court ruled for the Times. When a statement concerns a public figure, the Court held, it is not enough to show that it is false for the press to be liable for libel. Instead, the target of the statement must show that it was made with knowledge of or reckless disregard for its falsity. Brennan used the term "actual malice" to summarize this standard, although he did not intend the usual meaning of a malicious purpose. In libel law, "malice" had meant knowledge or gross recklessness rather than intent, since courts found it difficult to imagine that someone would knowingly disseminate false information without a bad intent.
National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012)
Outcome On June 28, 2012, the Supreme Court overturned the judgment of the Eleventh Circuit in a 5-4 decision. The majority opinion was written by Chief Justice John Roberts and joined in part by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. The Court upheld the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate as a legitimate exercise of Congress' Article I power to lay and collect taxes, concluding that the penalty is a tax. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, "The court today holds that our Constitution protects us from federal regulation under the Commerce Clause so long as we abstain from the regulated activity. But from its creation, the Constitution has made no such promise with respect to taxes." The court held, however, that Congress did not have such authority under the Commerce Clause. The court also concluded that, by cutting off all Medicaid funding to states that refused to expand the program, the federal government was engaging in coercion. The court stated that the law transformed the original Medicaid program into "an element of a comprehensive national plan to provide universal health insurance coverage." However, it upheld the Medicaid expansion provision otherwise, effectively making the expansion voluntary on the part of the states. The court did not rule on whether the individual mandate was severable from the law.
Gun Ownership Under Tyler
Outcome Tyler demonstrates that legislation that restricts gun ownership from persons with mental illness may or may not be constitutional in its formulation and implementation. The limitations that Tyler I placed on such legislation involve both the front and back door of gun restriction, whereas Tyler II left §922(g)(4) undisturbed, but addressed the back-door restoration of firearms rights. From the front door of Tyler I, firearms restriction for persons with mental illness must be clear and rational when initiated. A back door to gun restriction, in the form of provision for relief and restoration of gun ownership rights, once the person is no longer has mental illness and is not dangerous, must exist for the policy to be constitutional, according to Tyler I, and for it to be constitutionally applied, according to Tyler II. Such a process should ideally involve a judicial proceeding that is expedient and clinically informed by a qualified mental health professional as to the continuing presence or absence of symptoms associated with dangerousness, risk-elevating factors such as substance abuse and criminal justice involvement, patterns of adherence to recommended treatment, and whether such treatment is effective, and such adherence is necessary to prevent deterioration and recurrence of dangerous behavior. Barring further stipulations from future court decisions, these requirements can be addressed with various approaches, with more or less direct clinical involvement. One novel approach at the level of state statutory authority is the exercise of a civil court order for time-limited removal of firearms by public safety officers based on evidence of significant risk of harm to self or others,24 evidence that clinicians could supply (along the same lines as the aforementioned clinician-informed restoration process) while balancing competing obligations to protect patient privacy. Other approaches involving direct clinical involvement include assessment, identifying and registering individuals who are adjudicated mentally ill and dangerous for the purpose of initiating gun confiscation and restriction of possession, as well as later assessment to determine and register that the affected person no longer has mental illness and is not dangerous. This latter approach amounts to an assessment for competence to own and possess firearms, a competence for which standards and assessment training do not yet exist. You cannot permanently ban someone from receiving the right to bear arms.
Schuette v. Coal. Defend Affirmative Action, Integration & Immigration Rights, 572 U.S. ___ (2014)
Primary Holding A state does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution if it amends its own constitution through the legislative process to ensure that race is not taken into account by the admissions departments of state educational institutions. Referenda directly decided by the voters (Get rid of affirmative action) If the state voters don't want affirmative action, it will get rid of it.
Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission
Primary Holding In showing selective hostility to a baker's sincerely-held beliefs as a basis for his objection to creating a cake for a same-sex couple, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission violated the baker's right to exercise his religion. Class Notes If a private business holds a religious belief, they can deny business. In good faith (facts and circumstances)
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
Primary Holding Private citizens have the right under the Second Amendment to possess an ordinary type of weapon and use it for lawful, historically established situations such as self-defense in a home, even when there is no relationship to a local militia. Private citizen have the right under the 2nd amendment to possess an ordinary kind of weapon and use it for a lawful, historically established situations such as self defense in home even when there is no relationship to a local militia. States can also prevent convicted criminals from carrying weapons and or those declared mentally unfit , limit their use in school zones or government buildings and forbid the carrying of concealed weapons. A dangerous and/or unusual weapon is also an exception.
Bethel Sch. Dist. v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986)
Primary Holding Public schools have the right to discipline a student for giving a speech at a school assembly that is indecent, although not obscene.
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969)
Primary Holding Since First Amendment protections extend to students in public schools, educational authorities who want to censor speech will need to show that permitting the speech would significantly interfere with the discipline needed for the school to function.
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)
Primary Holding Speech that supports law-breaking or violence in general is protected by the First Amendment unless it directly encourages people to take an unlawful action immediately
McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010)
Primary Holding The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment extends the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms to the states, at least for traditional, lawful purposes such as self-defense.
Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989)
Primary Holding The First Amendment protections on symbolic speech prevent states from banning desecrations of the American flag.
Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U.S. ___ (2016)
Primary Holding The Second Amendment covers all weapons that may be defined as "bearable arms," even if they did not exist when the Bill of Rights was drafted and are not commonly used in warfare.
Gregg v. Georgia (1976)
Primary Holding The death penalty could be revived in Georgia, Florida, and Texas because the new law provided sufficient clarity and objectivity in defining which defendants could be eligible for capital punishment and gave juries sufficient discretion in choosing whether to apply it. Capital punishment is constitutional and can be carried out without biases. It's not disproportionate to murder (EYE4EYE). Believe that capital punishment serves as a deterrent. So treason and murder can result in a potential death penalty
Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971)
Primary Holding The test for determining whether a law meets the requirements of the Establishment Clause is whether it has a legitimate secular purpose, does not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion, and does not result in an excessive entanglement of government and religion. Government action violates the Establishment Clause unless it: 1. Has a significant secular (i.e., non-religious) purpose, 2. Does not have the primary effect of advancing or inhibiting religion, and 3. Does not foster excessive entanglement between government and religion.
Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003)
Primary Holding The use of an applicant's race as one factor in an admissions policy of a public educational institution does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment if the policy is narrowly tailored to the compelling interest of promoting a diverse student body, and if it uses a holistic process to evaluate each applicant, as opposed to a quota system. Using a applicants race is a one factor that doesn't violate the equal protection law.
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)
Primary Holding To sustain a claim of defamation or libel, the First Amendment requires that the plaintiff show that the defendant knew that a statement was false or was reckless in deciding to publish the information without investigating whether it was accurate. When a statement concerns a public figure, the Court held, it is not enough to show that it is false for the press to be liable for libel. In libel law, "malice" had meant knowledge or gross recklessness rather than intent, since courts found it difficult to imagine that someone would knowingly disseminate false information without a bad intent.
School District of Abington Township v. Schempp (1963)
Primary Holding Public schools cannot sponsor Bible readings and recitations of the Lord's Prayer under the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. You cannot have an entanglement in a public school or religious school. Cannot force any religious practice on students.
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. ___ (2014)
Primary Holding The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) permits a closely held for-profit corporation to deny its employees the health coverage of contraceptives to which the employees are otherwise entitled by the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA), based on the religious objections of the corporation's owners. Class Notes For-profit (private buiness) Privately own Hobby lobby is a religious based buinessness, A empolyer cannot be force to particpate
Capitol Square Review and Advisory Bd. v. Pinette, 515 U.S. 753 (1995)
Primary Holding The display was private religious speech that is as fully protected under the Free Speech Clause as secular private expression. Compliance with the Establishment Clause may be a state interest sufficiently compelling to justify content-based restrictions on speech. Class Notes When it can create or insight violance in a public form, the gorverment may regulate the content only if a restriction is necessary and narrowly drawn to serve a compelling state interest.
National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012)
Primary Holding The court upheld the individual mandate as constitutional under the Constitution's Taxing and Spending Clause. The court also struck down the provision that would withhold federal Medicaid funds from states that did not expand the program, while upholding the Medicaid expansion in general. You cannot penalize someone for not having healthcare. Therefore, Obama care was a tax that enforced everyone to hold at least a minimum healthcare. Tax and spending clause allowed for this acted to be passed.
Furman v. Georgia (1972)
Primary Holding The death penalty violated the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment and Fourteenth Amendment prohibitions against discrimination because it had been imposed in a seemingly random and inconsistent manner.
Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557 (2009)
Primary Holding There must be a strong basis in evidence that show minorities will be subjected to disparate liability.
Religious Freedom Restoration Act (1993)
Prohibits any agency, department, or official of the United States or any State (the government) from substantially burdening a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except that the government may burden a person's exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person: (1) furthers a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
Death Penalty ( Morality Pro)
the capital punishment system is a filter that selects the worst of the worst... Put another way, to sentence killers like those described above to less than death would fail to do justice because the penalty - presumably a long period in prison - would be grossly disproportionate to the heinousness of the crime. Prosecutors, jurors, and the loved ones of murder victims understand this essential point... Perhaps most importantly, in its supreme gravity it [the death penalty] promotes belief in and respect for the majesty of the moral order and for the system of human law that both derives from and supports that moral order."