Government - Unit 3 - Civil Liberties and Civil Rights

1st Amendment

Freedom of Religion (establishment and free exercise clauses), Speech, Press, Assembly, and Petition

2nd Amendment

Right to bear arms and protect one's home. 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.

Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

Facts ▪ This case was the consolidation of cases arising in Kansas, South Carolina, Virginia, Delaware, and Washington D.C. relating to the segregation of public schools on the basis of race. In each of the cases, African American students had been denied admittance to certain public schools based on laws allowing public education to be segregated by race. They argued that such segregation violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Issue ▪ Does the segregation of public education based solely on race violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? Decision (Unanimous) ▪ Yes. Separate but equal educational facilities for racial minorities is inherently unequal violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment Rationale ▪ The Court reasoned that the segregation of public education based on race instilled a sense of inferiority that had a hugely detrimental effect on the education and personal growth of African American children. Warren based much of his opinion on information from social science studies rather than court precedent. The decision also used language that was relatively accessible to non-lawyers because Warren felt it was necessary for all Americans to understand its logic.

Due Process and the Amendments

▪ Mostly - 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, and 14th amendments (i.e. Rights of the Accused) ▪ 2 Types of Due Process - Procedural and Substantive ▪ Procedural Due Process - How was the law carried out, processes and procedures. ▪ Substantive Due Process - Essence of a law (does it violate the right to life, liberty, or property?)

McCullen v. Coakley (2014)

-Struck down Massachusetts buffer zone that made it a crime for anyone to stand on a public road or sidewalk within 35 feet of any abortion clinic. -All nine justices agreed that the law was unconstitutional, but had several different rationales. outlawed the use of Massachusetts' buffer zones as a violation of free speech/assembly rights over women's right to privacy

Roe v. Wade (1973)

Facts ▪ Roe, a Texas resident, sought to terminate her pregnancy by abortion. Texas law prohibited abortions except to save the pregnant woman's life. After granting certiorari, the Court heard arguments twice. The first time, Roe's attorney -- Sarah Weddington -- could not locate the constitutional hook of her argument for Justice Potter Stewart. Her opponent -- Jay Floyd -- misfired from the start. Weddington sharpened her constitutional argument in the second round. Her new opponent -- Robert Flowers -- came under strong questioning from Justices Potter Stewart and Thurgood Marshall. Issue ▪ Does the Constitution embrace a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy by abortion? Decision ▪ Yes. The decision gave a woman total autonomy over the pregnancy during the first trimester and defined different levels of state interest for the second and third trimesters. As a result, the laws of 46 states were affected by the Court's ruling. Rationale ▪ The Court held that a woman's right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy (recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut) protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Gitlow v. New York (1925)

Facts: ▪ Gitlow, a socialist, was arrested in 1919 for distributing a "Left Wing Manifesto" that called for the establishment of socialism through strikes and class action of any form. Gitlow was convicted under New York's Criminal Anarchy Law, which punished advocating the overthrow of the government by force. At his trial, Gitlow argued that since there was no resulting action flowing from the manifesto's publication, the statute penalized utterances without propensity to incitement of concrete action. The appellate division affirmed his conviction, as did the New York Court of Appeals, the highest court in that state. Issue ▪ Does the First Amendment prevent a state from punishing political speech that directly advocates the government's violent overthrow? Decision ▪ No, New York could prohibit advocating violent efforts to overthrow the government under the Criminal Anarchy Law. Rationale ▪ Citing Schenck, the Court reasoned the government could punish speech that threatens its basic existence because of the national security implications. Despite the small scale of Gitlow's actions, the majority was not persuaded that they were too insignificant to have an impact. Dissent ▪ Gitlow had not violated the "clear and present danger" test used in Schenck. Since Gitlow's call to action was abstract and would not resonate with a large number of people, Holmes concluded that there was not sufficient imminence to warrant punishing the speech.

Prior Restraint

Government PREVENTING material from being published ▪ Typically Unconstitutional, AKA Censorship ▪ After publication, the law can be enforced, but prevention cannot take place ▪ Near v. Minnesota set the precedent and incorporated freedom of the press to the states. New York Times Co. v. US

Schenck v. United States (1919)

Limiting free speech that presents "clear and present danger" Facts: ▪ Flyers circulated proclaiming that the military draft violated the 13th Amendment (slavery) Issue: ▪ Did Schenck's conviction under the Espionage Act for criticizing the draft violate his First Amendment right to freedom of speech? Decision: ▪ No, the Espionage Act did not violate the First Amendment and was an appropriate exercise of Congress' wartime authority. Rationale: ▪ Courts owed greater deference to the government during wartime, even when constitutional rights were at stake. The First Amendment does not protect speech that approaches creating a clear and present danger of a significant evil that Congress has power to prevent. The widespread dissemination of the leaflets was sufficiently likely to disrupt the conscription (draft) process. Famously, he compared the leaflets to shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, which is not permitted under the First Amendment.

Exclusionary Rule

Mapp v. Ohio (1961) Facts ▪ Dollree Mapp was convicted of possessing obscene materials after an admittedly illegal police search of her home for a fugitive. She appealed her conviction on the basis of freedom of expression. Issue ▪ Were the confiscated materials protected by the First Amendment? Decision ▪ The majority brushed aside the First Amendment issue and declared that all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Fourth Amendment is inadmissible in a state court. Rationale ▪ The Exclusionary Rule is established. Evidence cannot be seized from a scene unless there is a warrant for that specific piece of evidence. 4th Amendment becomes incorporated (applied to all states)

Public Safety Exception

New York v. Quarles Facts ▪ After receiving the description of Quarles, an alleged assailant, a police officer entered a supermarket, spotted him, and ordered him to stop. Quarles stopped and was frisked by the officer. Upon detecting an empty shoulder holster, the officer asked Quarles where his gun was. Quarles responded. The officer then formally arrested Quarles and read him his Miranda rights. Issue ▪ Should the Court suppress Quarles's statement about the gun and the gun itself because the officer had failed at the time to read Quarles his Miranda rights? Decision ▪ No. The Court held that there is a "public safety" exception to the requirement that officers issue Miranda warnings to suspects. Since the police officer's request for the location of the gun was prompted by an immediate interest in assuring that it did not injure an innocent bystander or fall into the hands of a potential accomplice to Quarles, his failure to read the Miranda warning did not violate the Constitution.

Separate but equal

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) Facts ▪ Louisiana enacted the Separate Car Act, which required separate railway cars for blacks and whites. In 1892, Homer Plessy - who was seven-eighths Caucasian - agreed to participate in a test to challenge the Act. He was solicited by the Comite des Citoyens (Committee of Citizens), a group of New Orleans residents who sought to repeal the Act. They asked Plessy, who was technically black under Louisiana law, to sit in a "whites only" car of a Louisiana train. The railroad cooperated because it thought the Act imposed unnecessary costs via the purchase of additional railroad cars. When Plessy was told to vacate the whites-only car, he was refused and arrested. At trial, Plessy's lawyers argued that the Separate Car Act violated the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments. Issue ▪ Does the Separate Car Act violate the Fourteenth Amendment? Decision ▪ No, Equal but separate accommodations for whites and blacks imposed by Louisiana do not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment Rationale ▪ The majority upheld state-imposed racial segregation. The 14th Amendment intended to establish absolute equality for the races before the law, but held that separate treatment did not imply the inferiority of African Americans. There was not a meaningful difference in quality between the white and black railway cars. In short, segregation did not in itself constitute unlawful discrimination. Dissent ▪ In dissent, John Marshall Harlan argued that the Constitution was color-blind and that the United States had no class system. Accordingly, all citizens should have equal access to civil rights.

Which of the following cases involves a state law that prevents women who are pregnant from seeking abortions?

Roe v. Wade (1973) - Roe is the landmark case contrasting a woman's right to an abortion with the states' rights to regulate abortions. The Court struck down the Texas law prohibiting women from seeking abortions at any time during their pregnancies.

While a right to privacy is not explicitly named in the Constitution, the Supreme Court has interpreted the due process clause to protect the right of privacy from state infringement. This interpretation of the due process clause has been the subject of controversy, such as has resulted from:

Roe v. Wade (1973), which extended the right of privacy to a woman's decision to have an abortion while recognizing compelling state interests in potential life and maternal health The Bill of Rights "cast penumbras" (shadows) of privacy: 3, 4, 9, 14

McDonald v. Chicago (2010)

Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms for self-defense in one's home is applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment Facts: ▪ The Supreme Court issued its opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, which 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. Issue ▪ Does the Second Amendment apply to the states because it is incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment's Privileges and Immunities or Due Process clauses and thereby made applicable to the states? Decision ▪ Yes, the Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense applicable to the states. Rationale ▪ Rights that are "fundamental to the Nation's scheme of ordered liberty" or that are "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition" are appropriately applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. In Heller the right to self-defense was one such "fundamental" and "deeply rooted" right. Because of its holding in Heller, the Second Amendment applied to the states. Dissent ▪ Owning a personal firearm was not a "liberty" interest protected by the Due Process Clause. There is nothing in the Second Amendment's "text, history, or underlying rationale" that characterizes it as a "fundamental right" warranting incorporation through the Fourteenth Amendment.

Which of the following is a doctrine based on the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution that was used in McDonald v. Chicago (2010) to limit the power of states and protect the right to keep and bear arms?

Selective incorporation - Selective incorporation is the doctrine based on the Fourteenth Amendment in which the Court applies the provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states in a piecemeal fashion via the due process clause. State action limiting gun rights deprived persons of "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

The due process clause has been applied to guarantee the right to an attorney and protection from unreasonable searches and seizures. guaranteed the right to an attorney for the poor or indigent in a state felony case Facts: ▪ Clarence Earl Gideon was charged in Florida state court with felony breaking and entering. When he appeared in court without a lawyer, Gideon requested that the court appoint one for him. According to Florida state law, however, an attorney may only be appointed to an indigent defendant in capital cases, so the trial court did not appoint one. Gideon represented himself in trial. He was found guilty and sentenced to five years in prison. Gideon filed a habeas corpus petition in the Florida Supreme Court, arguing that the trial court's decision violated his constitutional right to be represented by counsel. The Florida Supreme Court denied habeas corpus relief. Issue ▪ Does the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel in criminal cases extend to felony defendants in state courts? Decision ▪ Yes. The Sixth Amendment's guarantee of a right to assistance of counsel applies to criminal defendants in state court by way of the Fourteenth Amendment. Rationale ▪ it was consistent with the Constitution to require state courts to appoint attorneys for defendants who could not afford to retain counsel on their own. The Court reasoned that the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of counsel is a fundamental and essential right made obligatory upon the states by the Fourteenth Amendment. The Sixth Amendment guarantees the accused the right to the assistance of counsel in all criminal prosecutions and requires courts to provide counsel for defendants unable to hire counsel unless the right was competently and intelligently waived.

cruel and unusual punishment (8th)

Wilkerson v. Utah (1879) Is the penalty for death by being shot, hanged or beheaded for a capital offense constitute cruel and unusual punishment as administered in the Utah Territory? Answer: No Furman v. Georgia (1972) Is the death penalty cruel and unusual punishment? Answer: Yes (5-4) Gregg v. Georgia (1976) Is the death penalty prohibited under the 8th & 14th Amendment as "Cruel and Unusual" punishment? Answer: No (7-2) Baze v. Rees (2008) Is the 4-drug lethal injection process cruel and unusual punishment? Answer: No (7-2) Glossip v. Gross (2014) Does the use of midazolam in executions constitute cruel and unusual punishment? Answer: No (5-4)

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978)

a case weighing whether or not race can be considered in college admissions, Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell wrote that " . . . Race or ethnic background may be deemed a 'plus' in a particular applicant's file, yet it does not insulate the individual from comparison with all other candidates for the available seats." - equal protection clause

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969)

symbolic speech is protected by the First Amendment, the court ruled that public school students could wear black armbands in school to protest the Vietnam War. Facts: ▪ Students who wore armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War were suspended Issue: ▪ Does a prohibition against the wearing of armbands in public school, as a form of symbolic protest, violate the students' freedom of speech protections guaranteed by the First Amendment? Decision: ▪ Yes, school violated the 1st Amendment. School administration may not restrict student speech unless it causes a substantial disruption Rationale: ▪ The armbands represented pure speech that is entirely separate from the actions or conduct of those participating in it. 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. Dissent: ▪ The First Amendment does not provide the right to express any opinion at any time. Because the appearance of the armbands distracted students from their work, they detracted from the ability of the school officials to perform their duties, so the school district was well within its rights to discipline the students. School officials should be afforded wide authority to maintain order unless their actions can be proven to stem from a motivation other than a legitimate school interest.

School Prayer

■ Engle v. Vitale (1962): Public school sponsored prayer is unconstitutional, even if prayer is voluntary. ■ Lee v. Weisman (1992): Unconstitutional for clergy to pray as a part of a public school graduation. ■ Wallace v. Jaffree (1985): Unconstitutional to provide a one-minute period of silence for voluntary prayer/meditation during the school day. ■ Santa Fe v. Doe (2000): Prayer over the loud speaker at school sponsored events is unconstitutional, even if given by a student. ■ Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971): Government conduct violates the Establishment Clause if its purpose or its effect is to advance religion.

1st Amendment - Key Limitations

■ Seditious Speech: advocating the overthrow of the government by force (January 6, 2021 Insurrection) ■ Obscenity: sexually offensive material - gray area that must be defined by the court. ■ Fighting Words: provokes or results in violence. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. ■ Libel: false and malicious written words to hurt someone's reputation ■ Slander: false and malicious spoken words to hurt someone's reputation ■ False Advertising: providing misleading information to consumers.

Seditious Speech

■ We are free to criticize the government, but may not advocate or attempt to overthrow it by force. ■ Must prove imminent danger or threat to apply. ■ Schenck v. United States: established the clear-and-present danger test. ■ Do the circumstances surrounding the speech create a clear and present danger? ■ For example: Shouting "fire!" in a crowded movie theater.

Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972

▪ "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." ▪ Amendment to the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Civil Rights Act of 1964

▪ Required equal application of voter registration rules ▪ Banned discrimination in public accommodations and public facilities ▪ Empowered the Attorney General to initiate suits against noncompliant schools ▪ Cut off federal funding for discriminating government agencies ▪ Outlawed discrimination in hiring based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin ▪ No business is allowed to turn away a customer based on their status as a member of one of these protected classes. ▪ Anti Discrimination laws vary state to state, and generally a business can refuse service. ▪ Recent court rulings, sexual orientation and gender identity are now also federally protected classes

selective incorporation

▪Selective Incorporation: the gradual application of the Bill of Rights to the states. ▪ The Bill of Rights used to only apply at the federal level, but over time, the Supreme Court has applied specific provisions at the state level. ▪Barron v. Baltimore (1833): The Supreme Court ruled that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states. ▪ Later overturned by Gitlow v. NY (incorporated free speech) ▪ Palko v. Connecticut (1937): all fundamental liberties are to be gradually applied to the states. ▪•In order for a right to be incorporated, a lawsuit must be filed and the court must hear the case. NOT incorporated: 3, 5 (grand jury indictment), 7, 8 (excessive bail and fines)

Pretrial rights of the accused and the prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures are intended to ensure that citizen liberties are not eclipsed by the need for social order and security, including:

-Protection against warrantless searches of cell phone data under the Fourth Amendment -Limitations placed on bulk collection of telecommunication metadata (Patriot and USA Freedom Acts)

4 steps of any nonviolent campaign

1. Collection of the facts to determine whether injustices are alive 2. Negotiation 3. Self-purification 4. Direct Action

Students at a public university hold a peaceful protest to demonstrate against an increase in the cost of college tuition. Which of the following constitutional protections best applies to this scenario?

1st

The police searched a suspect's smartphone without getting a warrant and found photo evidence of criminal activity. After a thorough investigation, the suspect was charged and the evidence obtained from the smartphone was used in the trial. Which of the following amendments contains the Bill of Rights protections that were most likely violated in this scenario?

4th

A person accused of a crime cannot afford an attorney, so the state provides the accused with a public defender. Which of the following amendments in the Bill of Rights best applies in this scenario?

6th - The Court's ruling in Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) extended this protection beyond federal courts to the state courts.

Miller v. California

A 1973 Supreme Court decision that avoided defining obscenity by holding that community standards be used to determine whether material is obscene in terms of appealing to a "prurient interest" and being "patently offensive" and lacking in value. Miller owned business selling pornographic books and videos and sent pamphlets in the mail to a restaurant owner and his mother --> called police 1. Applying community standards: does the work appeal to or excite lust in an unnatural way? 2. It depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct. 3. It lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

Affirmative Action

A policy designed to redress past discrimination against women and minority groups through measures to improve their economic and educational opportunities. Federal law requires that companies that are awarded contracts with the federal government must take affirmative action to recruit and advance qualified minorities, women, and persons with disabilities.

Voting Rights Act of 1965

Allowed Congress and the federal government to oversee state elections in Southern States ▪ Literacy test ended ▪ States needed preclearance on new election laws so that no loopholes could be created

Civil Rights Movement - MLK jr

Before the Civil Rights movement, the concept that "all men are created equal" was openly disputed by some proponents of segregation and legislation that discriminated against African Americans and others clearly existed. Following the movement, a broader application of the concept that all people are created equal improved in both legislation and political culture.

Which of the following cases arose from a state law that mandates public schools to begin the school day with the reading of a nondenominational prayer by a school official?

Engel v. Vitale (1962) - Engel was a First Amendment case involving the invocation of a public school teacher-led prayer that the Supreme Court ruled as a violation of the Establishment Clause.

Freedom of Religion

Establishment Clause ■ "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." ■ prohibits the government from establishing a national religion. ▪ "Wall of Separation" - Thomas Jefferson Free Exercise Clause ■ "...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" ■ guarantees to each person the right to believe whatever religion he or she chooses.

Engel v. Vitale (1962)

Facts: ▪ The New York State Board of Regents authorized a short, voluntary prayer for recitation at the start of each school day in all public schools. Issue: ▪ Does the reading of a nondenominational prayer at the start of the school day violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment? Decision: ▪ Yes, Prayer in public school does violate the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment. The state cannot hold prayers in public schools, even if participation is not required and the prayer is not tied to a particular religion. Rationale: ▪ Neither non-denominational nor voluntary character save it from unconstitutionality. Dissent: ▪ No "official religion" was established by permitting those who want to say a prayer to say it.

4th Amendment

Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures and warrants without probable cause

Shelley v. Kraemer (1948)

Housing covenants are agreements in the deed of a property that restricts the owner from doing certain things with the property. Some covenants prevented owners from selling to individuals of a specific race or ethnic group. In the case Shelley v. Kraemer (1948), the Supreme Court struck down racially restrictive housing covenants under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) how did the Supreme Court's decision address state interests and individual rights?

It balanced the state's interest in compulsory education with the students' free exercise rights. The Supreme Court ruled in Yoder that the Wisconsin statute that required students to attend school beyond the eighth grade (to age sixteen) violated the free exercise of the religious rights of the Amish without a sufficient state interest to do so.

8th Amendment

No cruel or unusual punishment

3rd Amendment

No quartering of soldiers

Rights of the Accused

Probable Cause: Having sufficient grounds to secure a warrant or hold a person in custody. Search Warrant: An order signed by a judge that allows police officers to search a particular person or place. Given with probable cause. Exclusionary Rule: This rule excludes all evidence obtained without a valid search warrant - Fruit of the Poisonous Tree is inadmissible. Inadmissible: Term used to describe evidence that cannot be used in court. Double Jeopardy: Our laws prohibit this practice of being tried for the same exact crime twice. Self-incrimination: Making statements that might expose you to criminal prosecution. Some key distinct exceptions - May be retried for a hung jury or mistrial (error in law or fact) *party files a motion for a new trial, and a court may grant a retrial if there was a significant error of law, a verdict going against the weight of the evidence, irregularity in the court proceeding, jury or prosecutorial misconduct, newly discovered material evidence, or improper damages Grand Jury: A group of people (peers) who vote to determine whether a person will be prosecuted for certain charges. This body will determine whether there is enough evidence for a trial. Capital Punishment: Punishment by death. Miranda Rights: Police must read you these rights before an interrogation. They include the right to remain silent, the right to an attorney, etc.

LOR-3

Protections of the Bill of Rights have been selectively incorporated by way of the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause to prevent state infringement of basic liberties.

7th Amendment

Right to a trial by jury in civil cases (suing not criminal)

6th Amendment

Right to speedy, fair trial and lawyer

Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988)

Supreme Court decision which held that public school curricular student newspapers that have not been established as forums for student expression are subject to a lower level of First Amendment protection. The U.S Supreme Court held for the first time that public schools can limit what appears in school-sponsored student publications. Teen Pregnancy and Divorce articles. Principal pulled both pages along with non-offensive articles.

Free Press

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) can prohibit the use of indecent language on television. • The government generally has placed responsibility for content control on parents and individuals, not broadcasters.

5th Amendment

The Right to Remain Silent/Double Jeopardy, right to due process. Rights of accused: formal charges presented, against double jeopardy and self-incrimination

In Roe v. Wade (1973), the United States Supreme Court used what provision of the United States Constitution to extend the right to privacy to women seeking abortions?

The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment - but The state's interest in prohibiting abortions is greatest during the third trimester of the pregnancy; thus, the state may prohibit women from seeking abortions in some conditions.

9th Amendment

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

10th Amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The case Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) upheld the standard of "separate but equal" in American law. Which of the following explains how this case relates to Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954) ?

The precedent of "separate but equal" was established in the Plessy case but was overturned in Brown.

Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964)

Upheld the Civil Rights Act of 1964; Congress can ban segregation in public accommodations via the commerce clause (Warren Court). dealt with racial discrimination and the violation of the equal protection clause.

majority-minority districts

Voting districts in which a minority group or group of minorities make up a majority. Racial Gerrymandering: Race becomes a primary factor in drawing district lines. Thornburg v. Gingles (1982) - Court ruled in favor of majority-minority districts Shaw v. Reno (1993) - Strict Scrutiny must be applied if race is used as a factor in redistricting Cooper v. Harris (2017) - Districts were unconstitutionally drawn because race was a dominant factor

13th Amendment

abolished slavery

Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)

compelling Amish students to attend school past the eighth grade violates the free exercise clause Facts: • Members of the Amish community refused to send their kids to school after the 8th grade, arguing that high school attendance was contrary to their religious beliefs. Issue: • Did Wisconsin's requirement that all parents send their kids to school until age 16 violate the Free Exercise Clause of the 1st Amendment by criminalizing parents who refused to send kids to school for religious reasons? Decision (unanimous): • Yes, the law violated the 1st Amendment and could NOT require the Amish kids to go to school. Rationale: • Individuals' interests in the free exercise of religion under the First Amendment outweighed the State's interests in compelling school attendance beyond the eighth grade. The benefit of 2 more years of school did not outweigh the groups religious convictions of ending school at high school in an effort to maintain the fundamental mode of life mandated by the Amish.

Civil Liberties

constitutionally established guarantees and freedoms that protect citizens, opinions, and property against arbitrary government interference. Protected in Bill of Rights. - "Due Process" Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, are political freedoms that protect individuals from government interference - Personal freedoms protected from government interference or deprivations: Free Speech, Freedom from Cruel and Unusual Punishment, Freedom from Unlawful Searches - These rights are guaranteed - Designed to protect from tyranny of government

Symbolic Speech

i.e. picketing, wearing symbols Tinker v. Des Moines - black armbands Texas v. Johnson - Flag Burning Case (constitutional) U.S. v. O'Brien - Draft Card Burning Case (not constitutional as it interferes w/ gov power to draft army)

14th Amendment

limits discriminatory state policies by means of the equal protection (civil rights) and due process clauses (civil liberties).

The Civil Rights Act of 1964

outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. provided equal access to public accommodations and prohibited discrimination on the basis of race in the workplace

Civil Rights

protect individuals from discrimination by the government and other individuals "Equal Protection" Clause of the 14th Amendment - you will be equally protected under the law. - Civil Rights Act of 1964 (prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin) - Voting Rights Act of 1965 (outlawed the discriminatory voting practices - literacy tests) - Usually involve things that are not guaranteed, but rather a right that you will not be denied due to discrimination (i.e. a job) Designed to protect from the tyranny of the majority

Shield Laws

protect journalists' right to refuse to testify against their sources while gathering information in their role as journalists. There is no shield law at the federal level. don't have to reveal sources. members of the press may still be forced to reveal sources in criminal investigations.

time, place, and manner restrictions

regulations regarding when, where, or how expression may occur; must be content neutral (can't regulate on what may be said) a school may tell its students that they may not discuss politics during class. A state court may require that no one say anything at all in a courtroom unless they are an attorney or a witness on the stand This test has been implemented by the courts to determine if the freedom of expression in question is protected under the 1st Amendment or not. 1. The law must be content-neutral ▪ Must not suppress the content of the expression 2. The law must serve a significant government interest ▪ EX: Burning draft cards in protest disrupts government's interest in raising an army 3. The law must be narrowly tailored ▪ Avoid laws that suppress speech in broad ways 4. There must be adequate alternative ways of expression ▪ Speech/expression may be suppressed if there are other times, places, and manners in which ideas can be expressed.

Lemon Test (Lemon v. Kurtzman)

standard which determines whether or not parochial schools may receive aid from the government. • 1. Purpose of funding must be clearly secular. • 2. Its effect must not advance nor inhibit religion. • 3. Must avoid an "excessive entanglement of government with religion."

New York Times Co. v. United States

the First Amendment contains strong protections against prior restraint. the Supreme Court bolstered the freedom of the press, establishing a "heavy presumption against prior restraint" even in cases involving national security. Facts: ▪ In what became known as the "Pentagon Papers Case," the Nixon Administration attempted to prevent the New York Times and Washington Post from publishing materials belonging to a classified Defense Department study regarding the history of United States activities in Vietnam. The President argued that prior restraint was necessary to protect national security. This case was decided together with United States v. Washington Post Co. Issue: ▪ Did the Nixon administration's efforts to prevent the publication of what it termed "classified information" violate the First Amendment? Decision: ▪ Yes. The government did not overcome the "heavy presumption against" prior restraint of the press in this case. Rationale: ▪ The vague word "security" should not be used "to abrogate the fundamental law embodied in the First Amendment." Since publication would not cause an inevitable, direct, and immediate event imperiling the safety of American forces, prior restraint was unjustified. The government may not curb speech unless it is a true matter of national security, which was not true of this case.