Con law 2

Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council

Facts: A Virginia State statute prohibited the advertisement of prescription drug prices. Held: The First Amendment protects commercial speech relating to the advertisement of prescription drug prices.

Planned Parenthood v. Casey

1) reaffirms a central holding in Roe v. Wade mandating elective abortion prior to viability, based on principle of stare decisis 2) overrules certain aspects of Roe's trimester system: specifically holds that previability abortion regulations in the first and second trimester can be justified by state's concern with fetal life 3) holds that previability abortion regulations are evaluated under rational basis test so long as they do not constitute an undue burden on abortion liberty -- upheld constitutionality of an informed consent statute with provision of accurate fetal development information with 24 hour waiting period -- upheld (as others had) parental consent provision with judicial bypass -- invalidated spousal notification provision on facial challenge, despite exemptions, for the fear of spousal abuse

Washington v. Davis

Facts: 2 African Americans applied to the D.C. police dept. and were denied admission. They brought suit for racially discriminatory hiring practices by administering a verbal skills test that African Americans that disproportionately failed. Held: Disparate impact or discriminatory effect in itself is insufficient to prove a constitutional violation where the governmental law/policy is facially race-neutral

Gratz v. Bollinger

Facts: 2 white males filed suit after being denied admission to an undergraduate program at the Univ. of Michigan where a point system gave minorities extra points simply based on race Held: A university's admissions policy that automatically gives preference to minority students on the basis of race, without additional individualized consideration, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Pavan v. Smith

Facts: 2 females were married and had a child through an anonymous sperm donor. One female was the birth mother, and the 2 women tried to list both of their names on the birth certificate. Arkansas Health Dept. issued a birth certificate with only the biological mother's name on it. 2 women brought suit against the state for violation of the Constitutional right under Obergefell. Held: The Constitution entitles same-sex couples to civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples. -- married heterosexual couples had both names on the birth certificate but this was not offered to married same sex parents and thus could not have the same legal recognition of parentage as married heterosexual couples -- making it violation of EP

Ex Parte Endo

Facts: 22 year old Japanense-American woman locked in one of the detention camps Held: continued detention of loyal Japanese Americans was unwarranted - decided the same day at Korematsu but a contrasting conclusion on narrow grounds - woman proved her loyalty and that she did not present a problem of espionage or sabotage

McCollum v. Board of Education

Facts: "released time" where public schools set aside a class time for religious instruction Held: SCOTUS invalidated a program in which public school facilities were opened up for religious instruction and the authority of the public school administration was used to promote religious instruction -- "release time" programs unconstitutional under Establishment Clause

Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Iris

Facts: A black man was refused service by a local branch of the national Moose Lodge fraternal organization. Plaintiff sued on the grounds that because the Pennsylvania liquor board issued a private club license that authorized the sale of alcoholic beverages on its premises, the refusal of service to him was "state action" for purposes of the Equal Protection Clause. Held: Where a state does not significantly involve itself with invidious discriminations by a private entity, no state action has occurred, and the private entity is not prohibited from discriminating against people on the basis of race by the Fourteenth Amendment. -- mere public benefits by the state does not automatically turn the private entity into a state actor for purposes of the 14th

American Legion v. American Humanist Association

Facts: A committee erected a memorial with a cross with the names of 49 fallen soldiers on public land at the end of another WWI memorial , the National Defense Highway. Plaintiff sued claiming that the presence of the cross on public lands and its maintenance with public funds violated the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. Held: A presumption of constitutionality applies under the Establishment Clause to longstanding memorials with historically secular purposes and traditions, even if such a memorial uses a religious symbol on public land. -- Lemon test is rejected as a catchall test for all Establishment Clause cases -- case is from 2019 and indicates that history and tradition play a larger role now i.e. if a religious activity related to government is deeply rooted historically it is more likely to be upheld

Good News Club v. Milford Central School

Facts: A school policy allowed community groups to conduct after-school programs for students, but excluded a religious group conducting workshop sessions including a Bible study Held: school policy was unconstitutional -- impermissible, content-based restriction on speech -- no violation of the Establishment Clause as long as religious and non-religious groups were treated equally

Troxel v. Granville

Facts: A statute allowed anyone to petition for visitation rights when the visitation is in the best interests of the child. Grandparents petitioned a court for visitation rights to see their grandchildren, but the mother opposed the petition. Held: Under the Due Process Clause, a state court may not grant visitation rights to a person, even when doing so would be in a child's best interest, if those visitation rights are opposed by the child's parent because doing so interferes with the parent's fundamental liberty interest in rearing his or her child

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke

Facts: A white male who was denied admission to medical school filed suit against the school who had implemented a special admission program intended to raise the enrollments levels of minority students Held: A university admissions program that relies upon race or nationality as the exclusive basis for admissions decisions violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v. Feeney

Facts: A woman challenged a veteran's preference statute on the ground that it discriminates against women in violation of the Equal Protection Clause Held: statute was not violation of EP because there was no discriminatory intent behind the enactment - more men in the military rather was the reason that more men were getting positions than women

Palmore v. Sidoti

Facts: A woman had her child taken away from her after she entered into an interracial marriage. Father of the child sued for custody alleging changed conditions Held: taking a child away from a mother based on being in an interracial relationship is a violation of the Equal Protection and Due Process Clause

McCleskey v. Kemp

Facts: African American convicted for killing a white police officer and at trial he was recommended to be given the death penalty. He claimed that Georgia had a disparate number of African Americans sent to death Held: A criminal defendant alleging an equal protection violation must prove the existence of a discriminatory purpose and a racially disproportionate and discriminatory effect. -- took the principle from Washington v. Davis and applied it to death penalty/criminal justice

Brown v. Board of Education I (1954)

Facts: African American minor children sued that segregated schools violated EP under the 14th Amendment when they were denied admission to public schools with white children under a law allowing segregation based on race Held: separate but equal doctrine unconstitutional and violation of EP clause of 14th Amendment

Romer v. Evans

Facts: Colorado enacted an amendment that prohibited anti-discrimination laws for gays/lesbians Held: invalidated Colorado's Amendment 2 purportedly on an EP basis grounds

Loving v. Virginia

Facts: An interracial couple was married in DC then moved to Virginia where it was illegal to be an interracial married couple. The couple filed suit that the law in VA violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clause Held: Virginia statute was in violation of the EP Clause and a state may not restrict marriages solely on the basis of race

Graham v. Richardson

Facts: Arizona required that to receive federal welfare benefits that a person be a U.S. citizen or have resided in the U.S. for at least 15 years. Plaintiff was a lawfully admitted resident alien in Arizona and was denied benefits simply because of the residency requirements. brought suit for violation of EP Held: the residency requirements were not allowed under equal protection to treat the lawful registered aliens different than U.S. citizens -- **established that where state/local government classifies based on alienage outside the scope of government function doctrine, strict scrutiny applies**

Michael M. v. Superior Court

Facts: California had a statutory rape law that said intercourse with a female under 18 is prohibited so the language makes females the only potential victims. Boy brought suit for violation of EP by statute only protecting women Held: upheld the gender based statutory rape law because the enactment was to further the interest of preventing illegitimate teen pregnancies -- California legislature rationally enacted the law to deter the males from sexual activity

Mitchell v. Helms

Facts: Chapter Two of the ECIA provided funds to public and private schools for educational material and equipment. Private schools must show that the funds will be used for secular, neutral, and non-ideological purposes. Plaintiff filed suit because most of the private schools in her district were religiously affiliated, so this violated the Establishment Clause. Held: Court upheld loans to religious schools of instructional materials, including audiovisual equipment -- aid was constitutional so long as it was offered on a neutral basis (i.e. the aid went to both religious and nonreligious schools) and the aid was secular in content

City of Mobile v. Bolden

Facts: City had an at large system for city commission and officials were elected by a majority vote. There had never been 3 African American members and plaintiffs alleged that the city's electoral system violated the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendment Held: action by state that is racially neutral on its face and enacted without discriminatory effect is not a violation of 14th or 15th amendment

Richmond v. J.A. Crosson Co.

Facts: City of Richmond, Virginia adopted the Minority Business Utilization Plan (MBUP) that required primary contractors to whom the City awarded construction contracts to subcontract at least thirty percent of the dollar value of the contract to one or more Minority Business Enterprises (MBEs). A primary contractor lost its contract with the city after failing to designate 30% of its contract to the MBE's and sued the City of Richmond Held: SCOTUS remanded the case to apply strict scrutiny to the City of Richmond, even though the program was created by the federal government, and the MBUP was held unconstitutional - City did not present evidence of past discrimination against MBE's that would be cured by the MBUP or race-neutral alternatives to accomplish the goal

Palmer v. Thompson

Facts: City operated different pools, 4 for whites and only 1 for blacks. Court found that the segregation was unconstitutional but did not place on injunction. The City closed 4 of its pools. African Americans sued requiring that the pools be reopened on desegregated basis. Held: the closing of the pools was not unconstitutional because it was not based on a discriminatory purpose - could not prove discriminatory intent or discriminatory effect because all pools were closed -- no fundamental right to have access to a swimming pool

Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action

Facts: Michigan voters were responsible for approving an amendment to the state's Constitution prohibiting the use of race in determining state university admissions Held: the majority leaves the decision on whether or not to have affirmative action programs to the democratic process - court cannot invalidate a state's decision to allow voters to determine whether the state's policy of race-based preferences should be continued

Pierce v. Society of Sisters

Facts: Compulsory Education Act required parents to send their children between 8 and 16 to attend public schools. Private school sued. Held: SCOTUS reaffirmed the parental right and invalidated that students attend public schools rather than private or parochial schools

Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition

Facts: Congress passed the federal Child Pornography Protection Act (CPPA) in 1996 to extend federal prohibition against child pornography to sexually explicit images that appear to depict minors but that were actually produced without using real children. Free Speech Coalition brought suit that this violated the First Amendment. Held: CPPA is unconstitutional -- Invalidated because it did not require proof that a child was actually filmed -- not obscene under Miller, and not child porn under Ferber

Coates v. Cincinnati

Facts: Defendant and two others were convicted of violating an ordinance of the city of Cincinnati that made it a criminal offense for three or more people to assemble on a city sidewalk and "there conduct themselves in a manner annoying to persons passing by." Held: An ordinance that prohibits more than three persons from assembling and engaging in annoying conduct on public property is unconstitutionally vague and impermissibly infringes upon the constitutional right to free assembly.

Texas v. Johnson

Facts: Defendant burned an American flag during a political demonstration at the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas. The State of Texas charged Johnson with desecration of a venerated object in violation of a state statute. Held: A state statute that criminalizes the burning of an American flag as a means of political protest violates the First Amendment. -- reviewed under strict scrutiny

United States v. Williams

Facts: Defendant entered a chat room and offered to exchange sexually explicit images of children with other users in the chat. Held: An offer to exchange illegal materials is not speech protected by the First Amendment. -- Can be prosecuted for soliciting/selling child porn if the person reasonably believes the child was actually filmed

Hudgens v. National Labor Relations Board

Facts: Defendant owned a shopping mall. A retail store decided to strike over labor issues and began picketing in the shopping mall and in front of its store. Picketers were told to leave and the NLRB filed a cease and desist order against defendant for a violation of the National Labor Relations Act. Held: A private shopping center can constitutionally exclude peaceful picketers from its premises. -- It is commonly accepted that the First Amendment would have prevented Hudgens' actions if it had been done by a state actor.

New York v. Ferber

Facts: Defendant owned an adult bookstore and was convicted for selling two films that depicted two minor boys masturbating to undercover police officers. Held: a state criminal statute prohibiting persons from knowingly distributing material that promotes sexual performances by children under the age of sixteen does not violate the First Amendment -- state can prohibit the sale even though it does not meet the articulated test for obscenity -- child porn not protected because it presupposes that a child was actually filmed (Smolin)

Miller v. California

Facts: Defendant sent mass mailing campaign advertising the sale of obscene books by sending depiction of sexual acts to unwanted recipients. He was charged under a criminal obscenity state statute Held: the mass mailing depicting sexual acts is obscenity that is not protected by the First Amendment Miller test: In determining whether material in question is obscene, the trier of fact must consider three guiding principles: (1) whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (2) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (3) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co.

Facts: Defendant was a privately-owned electric company that was authorized by the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission to provide services to York, Pennsylvania, and surrounding areas. The Commission allowed defendant to discontinue service to any customer for nonpayments. Plaintiff defaulted on her bills and service was cut off. Plaintiff alleged this violated her Due Process rights to have her service cut off without adequate notice and a hearing in front of an impartial body. Held: Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not restrict the actions of a privately-owned electricity company. -- rejects the affected test with a public interest test: An action of a private entity would only be treated as state action if there is a sufficiently close nexus between the state and the challenged action of the private entity so that the action of the latter may be fairly treated as that of the state itself.

Stanley v. Georgia

Facts: Defendant was charged with possession of obscene matter Held: The First and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit the government from punishing the private possession of obscene material in one's home.

Schenck v. United States

Facts: Defendant was indicted by the United States Government for the charge of "conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act" after he mailed literature to draftees during World War I that criticized the draft. Defendant argued that the Espionage Act violated his 1st Am. right to free speech. Held: Speech that would ordinarily be protected by the First Amendment may nevertheless be prohibited when it is used in such circumstances and is of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger of substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. -- US was in the middle of war and the mail was intended to make draftees not join the draft

Brandenberg v. Ohio

Facts: Defendant was the leader of the KKK in Ohio. He was charged with violating the Ohio Criminal Syndicalism Act when he invited a news reporter to a Klan rally. Defendant challenged conviction as a violation of his First Amendment free speech right. Held: Ohio statute that criminalizes syndicalism violates 1st and 14th am. -- a state may only regulate speech that advocates violence if the speech is intended and likely to incite imminent illegal activity. Test: government cannot proscribe advocacy of the use of force or law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action

United States v. Ballard

Facts: Defendants convicted of fraud by the mail by soliciting funds and membership of the I Am movement by making false claims of being able to cure diseases and ailments and the defendants knew the statements were false Held: The First Amendment prohibits inquiring into the truth or reasonableness of a particular religion so no indictment of fraud allowed for religious beliefs -- judiciary can inquire into if person really holds the beliefs, but cannot inquire into if the beliefs are factual

Wisconsin v. Yoder

Facts: Defendants were charged with violating law that requires children under 16 to attend school because they were Amish and did not believe in higher education, so they pulled the children out after 8th grade Held: state law mandating attendance in school was unconstitutional as applied to Amish children -- A parent's interest in their children's religious upbringing and rights secured in the Free Exercise Clause are fundamental and the state's interest in school attendance cannot override

Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp.

Facts: Development Corp. applied for permit to Village to rezone a fifteen-acre parcel of land from a single-family zone to multiple-family zone. It wanted to build a racially integrated complex that would help low-income families. Village denied the request so Corp. brought suit for racially discriminatory practice that violated the 14th amendment and Fair Housing Act Held: Village's denial of the zoning request was not a violation of EP as it was not for a discriminatory purpose -- the area liked the single-family homes and was designed specifically for them

Marsh v. Chambers

Facts: Each session of Nebraska legislature began with a prayer given by a chaplain, and chaplain was paid by public funds. A member of the legislature challenged the practice of legislative prayer as violation of Establishment Clause. Held: Legislative prayer does not violate the Establishment Clause if the First Congress, which finalized the language of the First Amendment, specifically provided for it.

Shelley v. Kraemer

Facts: Property owners on a street in St. Louis signed a covenant that no one other than white tenants were allowed for the next 50 years. A black family bought a house without knowing of the covenant. The property owners brought suit to enforce the covenant. Held: State court enforcement of a racially restrictive covenant constitutes state action that violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Board of Education of Westside Community Schools v. Mergens

Facts: Equal Access Act states that any school that opens its facilities to noncircular student groups may not deny equal access to any students who wish to conduct meetings on similar terms because of religious, political, philosophical, or other content of their speech. Students at a school who were denied access to form a Christian club sued the school for violating the EAA. Held: The school was prohibited from denying access to the Christian club under the EAA for the content of the club's speech when it permitted other noncircular clubs. -- The Establishment Clause was not violated because there was not an establishment of state religion nor coercion of religious activities. -- EAA also held constitutional under Lemon test with a secular purpose to not allow discrimination on the bases of speech

United States v. O'Brien

Facts: Every male in the United States over the age of 18 was required by the Universal Military Training and Service Act (UMTSA) to register with a local draft board. Defendant was charged with burning his draft card in violation of the UMTSA. Held: If conduct contains both speech and nonspeech elements, an important or substantial governmental interest in regulating the nonspeech element may justify some limitations on constitutionally protected speech elements. -- burning the draft card was a violation O'Brien Test: A government regulation is sufficiently justified if (1) it is within the constitutional power of the government, (2) it furthers an important or substantial governmental interest, (3) the governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression, and (4) the incidental restriction on alleged First Amendment freedoms is no greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest. -- rational basis test, but if (3) is not satisfied and the conduct is related to suppression of free expression, then review under strict scrutiny (as the Court did in Texas v. Johnson)

Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health

Facts: Girl was in an accident that left her in a vegetative state, so a feeding tube was placed by her physicians. Her parents requested the feeding tube be removed, and the hospital would not without a court order. Held: It is constitutional for the state to require a proponent of withdrawal of life-sustaining artificial nutrition and hydration from a person in a persistent vegetative state to prove by clear and convincing evidence that this was consistent with the intent of the patient -- Cruzan is typically read to mean that a competent adult has a fundamental right or liberty interest to refuse even life-saving medical treatment

Engel v. Vitale

Facts: Head of the Board of Education of School District No. 9 in NY directed that a school prayer be spoken aloud by each class every morning at the beginning of the school day. Plaintiff filed suit that state's school prayer requirement violated Establishment Clause. Held: Daily government drafted prayer in public school unconstitutional -- even though denominational neutral and students could remain silent if wanted to

Moore v. City of East Cleveland

Facts: Housing ordinance limited occupancy of a home to members of single family. A woman lived with her son and two grandchildren and was given a violation of the ordinance. Grandmother appealed the conviction. Held: The right of related, extended family members to live together is fundamental and protected by the Due Process Clause, and necessarily encompasses a broader definition of "family" than just members of the nuclear family.

Lochner v. NY

Facts: In 1896, the New York legislature enacted the Bakershop Act which limited the hours bakers were permitted to work to no more than ten per day. Defendant owned a bakery in New York and was fined twice under the law for overworking an employee. Held: A state may not regulate the working hours mutually agreed upon by employers and employees as this violates their Fourteenth Amendment right to contract freely under the Due Process Clause. -- The right to purchase or to sell labor is part of the liberty protected by this Amendment, unless there are circumstances that exclude the right. J. Holmes Dissent: Majority's opinion relies on an economic theory that is largely unsupported by US. It is settled by various precedent decisions and state constitutions that state laws can regulate the lives of individuals in many ways that are not supported by the national legislature. However, the purpose of the United States Constitution is not to require states to exercise their police powers uniformly, but to instead give them the power to make their own judgments about what laws are best for their individual citizens. The "liberty" protected by the Fourteenth Amendment should not function to prevent the exercise of a dominant opinion among states, that opinion being, in this case, that states can constitutionally regulate the work hours of employees within their borders.

Marsh v. Alabama

Facts: Jehovah's Witness in city passing out pamphlets on the sidewalk was told she could not do this without a permit and a permit was not given to her. She protested and was arrested for violating the law in a town where a private corporation owned the town. She argued her actions were protected under the 1st and 14th Amendment. Held: The First and Fourteenth Amendment protections of speech and religion still apply to individuals when operating in a privately-owned town if the town is open to the public and used for public purposes.

Plessy v. Ferguson

Facts: LA Separate Car Act allowed segregation in cars. Black man sat in white car, refused to move, and eventually was thrown out. Sued for violation of EP Held: SCOTUS provided constitutional support for racial segregation and established the famous "separate but equal" doctrine

Craig v. Boren

Facts: Law allowing females over 18 years to drink but males not until they are 21 Held: Court adopted intermediary scrutiny for gender discrimination

Meyer v. Nebraska

Facts: Law prohibited any language besides English being taught and foreign language only allowed after completion of 8th grade. Teacher was charged with violating law and teaching German to 10 year old child at the request of the parents. Held: parents have a fundamental right to direct the education and upbringing of their child, and invalidating prohibition of teaching a modern foreign language prior to eighth grade

Abington School District v. Schempp

Facts: Legislation mandated readings from Christian scripture at the start of each school day. Held: Bible reading and student recitation of the Lord's Prayer at beginning of each public school day unconstitutional under Religious Clauses

Reynolds v. United States

Facts: Married man was charged with violating a federal bigamy law after marrying a second wife, but he said he did it in pursuit of his religion as a Mormon Held: A law criminalizing bigamy does not violate a defendant's constitutional right to the free exercise of religion under the First Amendment. -- religion cannot be a defense when other similarly situated people would be convicted

Grutter v. Bollinger

Facts: Michigan Law School followed an unofficial policy to achieve student body diversity by giving substantial evaluation to race in admissions. White Michigan resident applied and was rejected and filed suit in federal district court against the university president claiming her denial was a violation of Equal Protection under the 14th Held: strict scrutiny test held the use of race for student body diversity in a state law school was constitutional under the 14th am. because student body diversity is a compelling state interest

Mueller v. Allen

Facts: Minnesota's income tax law permits taxpayers to deduct from gross income actual expenses incurred for "tuition, textbooks, and transportation" associated with the education of their dependents in elementary and secondary schools. The deduction applied for dependents attending both public and nonpublic schools. Plaintiff brought suit that tax law violated the Establishment Clause. Held: not a violation of the Establishment Clause and upheld state tax credits available to the parents of students at both public and religious private schools

Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue

Facts: Montana adopted a tax income program to fund scholarship organizations to help low-income families pay for private schools. Montana had a "no-aid" provisions that did not allow payments to religious affiliated schools, so religious schools could not receive aid from the scholarship organizations Held: no-aid provision in the program violated the Free Exercise clause -- barred the religious schools from benefitting solely based on its religious character

Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education

Facts: NAACP brought suit on behalf of African American school-age child, challenging continued segregation by the Board and seeking a judgment from the court that busing of students to different school districts was required for desegregation Held: As part of a state-wide plan to desegregate schools, state boards of education are required to consider the use of racial quotas, rearrangement of school districts, and busing as practical ways to facilitate desegregation

Carey v. Population Services International

Facts: NY statute made it illegal to give contraceptives out to anyone under 16 Held: a blanket prohibition against minors to get contraceptives is a violation of a minor's right to privacy in decision involving procreation

McDonald v. City of Chicago

Facts: Petitioners challenged a law enacted by the City of Chicago that prohibited Chicago residents from possessing handguns, claiming that the law violated the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. Held: the Second Amendment applies to states and invalidates the law by Chicago -- A Bill of Rights guarantee applies to the states if it is fundamental to the nation's scheme of ordered liberty or deeply rooted in the nation's history and tradition.

Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier

Facts: Plaintiff and two others were staff members on the school newspaper. The principal reviewed a draft of the paper and ordered the journalism teacher to delete two articles on teen pregnancy and divorce as inappropriate. Plaintiffs argued the decision violated First Amendment freedoms of speech. Held: Under the First Amendment, educators may exercise editorial control over the style and content of student speech in school-sponsored expressive activities so long as their actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns.

Boy Scouts of America v. Dale

Facts: Plaintiff is a former Eagle Scout whose adult membership with the Scouts was revoked and status as assistant scoutmaster was terminated when the Scouts learned that he is a homosexual man and gay rights activist. He brought suit under state public accommodations law. Held: Under the First Amendment's protection of the freedom of expressive association, a state may not prohibit a private organization from barring homosexuals from membership. -- A state may not compel an organization to accept members where such acceptance would significantly depart from the organization's expressive message

Walz v. Tax Commission

Facts: Plaintiff owned real estate in the city of New York. Walz filed suit in state court seeking an injunction that would prohibit the defendant from acting upon a section of the New York Constitution that conferred an exemption from property taxes upon real estate used solely for religious purposes. Plaintiff argued that the tax exemption violated the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment Held: A property tax exemption for real estate used exclusively for religious purposes does not violate the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment. -- extended exemptions for religious, educational, or charitable purposes

Agostini v. Felton

Facts: Plaintiffs, a group of taxpayers, filed an injunction to prohibit that the school board in NY to use public funds to employ public school teachers to provide remedial education services in religious schools. The funds came in part from the Title I federal program designed to reach children of low-income families with special needs. Held: A state sponsored program that puts public school employees in religious schools for purpose of providing remedial education services does not violate Establishment Clause -- directly overrules decision in Aguilar v. Felton

Rostker v. Goldberg

Facts: President Carter initiated a draft requiring both male and female to enlist but Congress passed Military Selective Service Act that prohibited the president from requiring females to register. Males filed suit for violation of the 5th Held: not a violation of the 5th amendment and Court upheld the MSSA because there were already statutory prohibitions to women participating in combat -- men and women were not similarly situated for the basis of the 5th because of the statute

Korematsu v. United States

Facts: Presidential order requiring Japanese Americans to move from their homes on the Western side of the U.S. to camps in order to avoid Japanese Americans from helping Japan invade the U.S. during war with Japan Held: Court upheld exclusion order as a security measure - terrible decision showing the Court's extreme deference to national security concerns over war

Lee v. Weisman

Facts: Public middle school principal invited a rabbi to say a prayer at the school's graduation. A parent at the school brought an injunction to stop officials from inviting clergy to deliver prayers at public school graduations. Held: Rabbi's prayer at public middle school graduation unconstitutional under Establishment Clause -- graduation essentially a mandatory event for parents and students to attend so government could not compel them to recite prayer before it

Maher v. Roe

Facts: Regulation limiting state Medicaid benefits for first trimester abortions to those that are "medically necessary" and did not cover elective abortions. Woman brought suit for violation of her fundamental right to an abortion under Roe v. Wade and violated EP Clause. Held: the state's regulation was constitutional to deny funding for elective abortions to indigent women -- Roe does not create unlimited, unqualified right to abortion; it just protects women from unduly burdensome interference with her freedom to decide when to terminate pregnancy

Califano v. Webster

Facts: SSA allowed women to exclude up to three more years of low earnings from their overall computation of benefits than males. Male brought suit that statutory scheme privileging women was unconstitutional Held: SSA provision did not violate the EP Clause -- it was enacted to attempt to correct the economic disparities historically facing women in the job market and the SSA was substantially related to achieving this purpose (passes intermediary scrutiny)

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

Facts: Seattle School District and Jefferson County School District voluntarily adopted student assignment plans relied on race to determine what public-school children could attend. PICS sued because their children were denied admission into a school based on solely their race Held: Public schools may not assign students to schools solely on the basis of race for the purpose of achieving racial integration -- did not pass strict scrutiny

Dred Scott v. Standford

Facts: Slave from Missouri went to a free state with his master and claimed he was free Held: SCOTUS issued an opinion providing broad constitutional support for a racial (racist) system of slavery - black slaves were not "citizens" under the word of the Constitution so he could not bring a suit for a constitutional right

Hill v. Colorado

Facts: Speech statute regulated speech-related conduct within one hundred feet of the entrance to a health care facility. Plaintiff was a sidewalk counselor who offered information about abortion alternatives to women entering health care facilities for abortion services. She brought suit in state court seeking to enjoin enforcement of the statute on the grounds that it violated the First Amendment. Held: Under the First Amendment, a state may curtail a person's freedom of speech directed at unwilling listeners as a proper content-neutral, reasonable time, place, and manner restriction. -- evaluated under intermediary scrutiny

West Virgina State Board of Education v. Barnette

Facts: State Board of Education adopted a resolution that required a salute to the American flag during activity programs in all schools. Parents and students brought suit that the required salute violated the 1st and 14th Am. Held: A state may not compel individuals to engage in involuntary expression. **dissent

Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe

Facts: Student elected as the class chaplain gave a Christian prayer over the loud speaker at each varsity football game Held: Student prayers over the public address system before football games at public high school unconstitutional -- unconstitutional because it permits prayers offered by only one student who is elected by a majority of students so only the majority viewpoint being expressed -- Doe does not mean that all student prayers are unconstitutional (the use of the public address system and other role of school officials critical)

Tinker v. Des Moines

Facts: Students protested the Vietnam war by wearing black armbands to school. The children were suspended from school and brought suit challenging the suspension as a violation of free speech. Held: the first amendment protects the free-speech rights of children at public schools -- famous quote: students do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate

Fisher v. University of Texas

Facts: Texas implemented a law that guaranteed admission to the top ten percent of each high school and later added race as a condition to determine admissions outside the top ten law Held: upheld the race-conscious affirmative action program

Sherbert v. Verner

Facts: Woman dismissed by employer for not taking Saturday work for her religion and filed for unemployment. Unemployment denied to her for benefits for not taking viable employment offered to her at her old job. Held: a state may not deny unemployment benefits to an applicant who refuses to accept employment offers because a part of the condition of the employment violates the applicant's religious beliefs -- Violates the Free Exercise Clause and government cannot regulate a person's religious beliefs unless a substantial threat to public safety, order, or peace

West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish

Facts: The State of Washington passed a law which regulated the minimum wages paid to female and minor employees. Plaintiff brought suit to recover the difference between the minimum wage she received at her job and the minimum wage fixed under Washington state law. Defendant argued that the state law violated its due process right to freely contract under the 14t am. Held: A state may regulate the minimum wage paid to female employees when that regulation is for the purpose of promoting employees' health, safety and general welfare. -- overruled Adkins that prohibited a state from making a minimum wage law

U.S. v. Seeger

Facts: The Universal Military Training and Service Act exempts from combatant training and service in the armed forces those persons who are conscientiously opposed to participation in war in any form because of religious beliefsMan objected to the serving in the armed forces based on religious beliefs, but his request was denied for not being based in a traditional religion. Held: Man's beliefs qualified him to be exempt from combat training for his religious beliefs despite not being in a traditional orthodox religion -- court found his beliefs to be sincere, honest, and made in good faith

Zorach v. Clauson

Facts: The city of New York implemented a program that authorized public schools to release students, with parental permission, during certain periods of the school day in order for the students to attend religious services or classes Held: A program authorizing the release of students from public schools to attend religious services or classes does not violate the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment -- distinguished from McCollum because it does not force or coerce students to attend religious functions

Zelman v. Simmons-Harris

Facts: The state of Ohio established program to provide educational choices to families with children residing in the Cleveland City School District. Parents could receive tuitional assistance for a public or private school of their choosing. Plaintiff brought suit for a violation of the Establishment Clause. Held: not violation of Establishment Clause and upheld the voucher or educational choice program in the Cleveland Ohio City School District, which included religious as well as non-religious schools -- reason for program was to provide educational assistance to poor children in a demonstrably failing public school system

Tilton v. Richardson

Facts: Title I of Higher Education Facilities Act provided construction grants for buildings and facilities used exclusively for secular purposes Held: upheld federal grants to religious colleges for the construction of facilities that would not be used for religious purposes

Town of Greece v. Galloway

Facts: Town began many monthly board meetings with a prayer by local clergyman Held: Establishment Clause must be interpreted according to historical practices and understanding with respect to prayer at governmental gatherings -- Benign prayer at beginning of government gathering has been respected practice since Constitution drafted (Marsh case)

Rosenberger v. University of Virginia

Facts: UVA allowed the payment of outside contractors for the printing costs of a variety of student publications. Plaintiff was denied funding to subsidize a student publication, because the publication promoted a certain religious belief. Held: Under the Free Speech Clause and the Establishment Clause, a state university may not provide funding to secular student publications but refuse to provide similar funding to religious student publications on the basis of viewpoint.

Texas Monthly v. Bullock

Facts: Under Texas law, religious organizations were exempt from paying sales tax on periodicals or publications promoting or teaching about the religion. Magazine that did not qualify sued that law was unconstitutional for granting tax exemptions to religious publishers but not to non-religious publishers. Held: invalidated as unconstitutional an exemption from sales tax only granted to periodicals published or distributed by a religious faith -- violation of establishment clause and freedom of press

United States v. Virginia

Facts: VMI only allowed men to attend its school and later created a alternative program for women, but it differed with resources and education Held: standard of review for gender discrimination is intermediary scrutiny - this case creeps towards strict scrutiny, but the test officially remains intermediary scrutiny - includes language of "exceedingly persuasive justification" borrowed from an earlier opinion; not an official part of the test but some Justices use it

Zablocki v. Redhail

Facts: Wisconsin statute prevented certain class of citizens from marrying without first obtaining a court order granting permission. The statute covered citizens who were required to pay child support under a court order or judgment to pay child support to a minor that was not in his custody. Plaintiff had a judgment to pay child support to his daughter but was unable to complete payments. When he filed for a marriage license, the County Clerk did not issue one. He was in the class of citizen required to get a court order and would not have been granted one anyways for his failure to pay the child support. The plaintiff filed suit for the Wisconsin statute being a violation of the EP Clause. Held: Wisconsin statute was unconstitutional. The right to marry is a fundamental right and is subject to strict scrutiny for any statute limiting the right to marry. -- marriage falls within the 14th Amendment fundamental right to privacy

Geduldig v. Aiello

Facts: women filed claims for disabilities that resulted from pregnancy and the state insurance program denied benefits for disabilities resulting from pregnancy Held: discrimination based on pregnancy in a state disability insurance program is subject to rational basis review -- impact of this decision is overruled by Congress's enactment of Pregnancy Discrimination Act

Fronterio v. Richardson

Facts: Woman in the army wanted to claim husband as dependent so he could get money from the armed services.Law did not require a man to prove that his wife was actually dependent to claim her, but women were required to prove that her husband was actually dependent. Women was denied and filed for violation of due process. Held: governmental classifications based on sex are inherently suspect and subject to strict scrutiny (plurality opinion by J. Brennan and not the case today)

Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches

Facts: a school district permitted civic organizations and other private groups to use school facilities after hours for various activities, but the policy did not extend to religious groups Held: Under the First Amendment's Establishment Clause, school districts may not allow private organizations to use school facilities after hours while denying access to religious groups. -- passed the Lemon test -- once it opened up facilities to community groups , it could not discriminate against those engaging in religious speech unless strict scrutiny was met

Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer

Facts: church was denied grant funding to redo its preschool playground because there is prohibition of public funding of religion. church said this violated free exercise clause Held: exempting a church from grant funding solely based on religious character is violation of free exercise clause

Christian Legal Society v. Martinez

Facts: concerned whether a student chapter of the Christian Legal Society at Univ. of California Hastings College of Law could be denied official recognition because it required acceptance of a statement. of faith in order to join, and because of its rules on same-gender conduct. Held: A public university policy requiring Registered Student Organizations to accept all comers is constitutionally reasonable and viewpoint neutral. -- based on nondiscrimination policy that required nondiscrimination as to race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, disability, age, sex or sexual orientation

Orr v. Orr

Facts: divorced couple and man was required to pay alimony to his wife under Alabama statute that only stated husbands have to pay alimony. Husband failed to pay and challenged the statute as violation of EP Held: state alimony law cannot discriminate based on gender - the compensation purpose could be served by gender-neutral classifications

Nguyễn v. INS

Facts: federal law stated that a child born in a foreign country to an American mother was automatically a U.S. citizen, but the law did not give a child born to a father the same privilege Held: not a violation of EP Clause for gender-difference treatment

Matthews v. Diaz

Facts: federal statute denied Medicare benefits based on citizenship/residency requirements. plaintiffs brought suit who were denied benefits so filed suit for EP violation Held: federal assistance programs may use immigration status and length of residency for determining eligibility - **congressional classifications/discrimination based on alienage generally receives a low level of judicial review based on the federal power over the areas of immigration and alienage

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission

Facts: gay couple asked a baker to create a wedding cake for them and the baker declined because of his religious beliefs against same-sex marriage Held: Adjudicatory proceedings against a person for unlawful discrimination must give neutral and respectful consideration to the person's defense of sincere religious motivation; ruled in favor of the baker for the Commission's unfair treatment to him -- violated the baker's free exercise rights by not employing religious neutrality towards his views

Ambach v. Norwick

Facts: law stated that a person could not become a public education teacher if he/she was not a citizen unless the person had manifested intent to become a citizen. 2 teachers did not manifest intent to become citizens even though they were eligible, so they were not given jobs as public school teachers. Brought suit for violation of EP Clause. Held: state could refuse to employ aliens as elementary or secondary teachers who refuse to seek naturalization -- teaching in a public school serves a governmental function, so discrimination based on alienage was reviewed under rational basis -- public education plays a vital role in preparing students for participation as citizens which is legitimate purpose

Eisenstadt v. Baird

Facts: law stated that giving out contraception to anyone but married couples was crime. Man was charged with giving out vaginal foam to a woman at the end of lecture on contraceptive use. Man challenged his conviction under EP violation Held: violation of EP clause to give contraceptive to married couples but not unmarried people -- 4 Justice majority opinion that purported to apply the rational basis test (Smolin)

Griswold v. Connecticut

Facts: law tried to prevent the use of contraceptives by married couples and couple was arrested and brought suit as a violation of the EP clause of 14th amendment Held: the right of privacy protecting the intimate relations of a married couple is an implied right from the Bill of Rights -- the use of prenumbras here that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, but instead represent various "zones of privacy" into which the government cannot intrude

Foley v. Connelie

Facts: man was refused opportunity to become NY State Trooper, because he was not a citizen of the U.S. Man brought suit for violation of EP Clause of 14th Held: state was allowed to apportion its police force to U.S. citizens, because police officers perform basic governmental functions that may be constitutionally reserved for members of the national political community

Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan

Facts: man who applied to an all-female college for nursing school was denied and filed suit that his denial was a violation of the EP Clause Held: Court invalidated the program of single-sex higher education under intermediate scrutiny for lack of an "exceedingly persuasive justification" -- like the Court in VMI case

Michael H. v. Gerald D.

Facts: married woman had a child with another man and the man tried to assert parentage and gain visitation rights. court denied his visitation requests. he sued for violation of his 14th amendment due process rights for not allowing him to an opportunity to establish his paternity Held: The right of a potential natural father to assert parental rights over a child born into a woman's existing marriage with another man is not traditionally recognized in historical jurisprudence and is not a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment -- adulterous father not granted same rights as father in Stanley

Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah

Facts: ordinance enacted that prohibited the ritual of animal sacrifice. church who performed animal sacrifices challenged the ordinance as a violation of the free exercise of religion Held: the ordinance prohibiting the animal sacrifice rituals was unconstitutional and violated the free exercise clause -- objective behind ordinance was solely to suppress religious conduct and was not neutral and generally applicable

Vacco v. Quill

Facts: physicians and terminally-ill patients filed suit against NY Attorney General that the state's ban on physician assisted suicide is a violation of Equal Protection Clause of 14th Amendment Held: upheld state prohibition of assisted suicide against EP attack -- everyone treated the law: Every competent person may refuse unwanted medical treatment and no one is allowed to assist a suicide.

Washington v. Glucksberg

Facts: physicians brought suit against state of Washington that law prohibiting physician-assisted suicide violated a liberty interest protected by 14th amendment Held: upheld the state prohibition of physician-assisted suicide and rejected a claim of a right to physician assisted suicide

Harris v. McRae

Facts: plaintiff filed suit for constitutionality of the Hyde amendment to Medicaid program that prohibited states receiving federal Medicaid grants from funding abortion procedures except in cases where abortion was medically necessary to preserve the life of the mother or in cases of promptly reported rape and incest Held: The Hyde Amendment's prohibitions against the use of federal Medicaid distributions to fund most abortion procedures do not violate the Constitution. -- no fundamental right to an abortion; just cannot restrict access

New York Times v. Sullivan

Facts: plaintiff was the commissioner of the police department, fire dept, dept. of cemetery, and dept. of scales. He sued NY Times for libel after it printed allegedly false and defamatory statements about Sullivan's actions to control African American protesters and his treatment of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Held: If a plaintiff is a public official or is running for public office, he or she can recover damages for defamation only by proving with clear and convincing evidence the falsity of the defamatory statements and the presence of actual malice in the speaker. -- test applies now to public officials or "public figures" -- "presumed damages" are unconstitutional, so the actual damages must be proven

Board of Education of Oklahoma City Public Schools v. Dowell

Facts: plaintiffs filed suit against the Oklahoma Public Schools for de jure segregation and upon a finding of segregation, the district court required the Board to use busing to transport children of different races to different schools for the purpose of eliminating single-race schools. Board challenged the desegregation plan. Held: An injunctive desegregation decree issued to remedy a past instance of segregation in public schools may be constitutionally dissolved under the Fourteenth Amendment upon a showing by the school district that the segregation for which the decree was issued to remedy ceases to exist, making the school truly "unitary."

Employment Division, Dept. of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith

Facts: plaintiffs were fired from their job after ingesting peyote for sacramental purposes at a church service. They could not receive unemployment benefits for being fired for misconduct at their job. Held: a state may constitutionally refuse to carve out an exception from its generally applicable criminal laws for religious practices -- rejects constitutionally-mandated exemptions and appears to reduce the free exercise clause to a non-discrimination policy (Smolin's words)

Brown v. Board of Education II (1955)

Facts: public schools were requesting relief in the task of desegregating schools following the Brown I decision Held: Adequate compliance with the Court's previous holding that racial discrimination in public education is unconstitutional requires public schools to desegregate "with all deliberate speed." - the continued monitoring was to be done by the district courts

Widmar v. Vincent

Facts: state university school prohibited groups at public university from using rooms for religious gathering and discussion Held: policy was unconstitutional as violation of freedom of speech/religion and and violation of equal access to a public forum protected by the 14th Amendment -- the university had created a public forum by opening these places to speech and to exclude a group based on the religious content of the group's intended speech, it would have to satisfy strict scrutiny

Milliken v. Bradley

Facts: suit against Governor of Michigan alleging the existence of unconstitutional segregation in the Detroit, Michigan public school system. District Court required busing by the City of Detroit and 53 surrounding school districts Held: The district court remedy was impermissible and when no evidence shows that school districts in a surrounding metropolitan area are segregated or promote segregation policies, a district court may not seek to remedy segregation in one particular city by imposing desegregation procedures on all city and metropolitan area districts.

Bowers v. Hardwick

Facts: two males were charged with violating a Georgia anti-sodomy statute in a private home Held: adult consensual same-sex acts in the privacy of the home is not a fundamental right -- opinion illustrates a family privacy doctrine by using history and tradition -- upheld under rational basis - not a fundamental liberty that is subject to heightened scrutiny Dissent J. Blacknum: illustrates a sexual autonomy theory of privacy

Lawrence v. Texas

Facts: two men were charged with engaging in same-sex act in their home. Men said this statute violated the EP Clause Held: The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment includes a right to liberty in individual decisions concerning the intimacies of their physical relationship. -- overrules Bowers v. Hardwick

Stanley v. Illinois

Facts: unwed man had children taken from him after the mother died because an unmarried father was presumed to be an unfit parent. he filed suit as violation of EP Held: a state cannot deprive a father of custody solely based on the illegitimacy of his children -- law treated unmarried men differently from married parents, divorced parents, or unwed mothers

Buck v. Bell

Facts: woman was forcibly sterilized under law stating that sterilization of person with mental illness was allowed. Woman brought suit claiming that her substantive due process rights were violated under EP Held: there is not a fundamental right to reproduction

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores

Held: A regulation that requires a closely held corporation to provide health-insurance coverage for contraception violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 if the regulation impinges on the sincerely held religious beliefs of the corporation's owners.

Tandon v. Newsom

Held: California cannot enforce Covid-19 restrictions on private gatherings for at-home religious gatherings

County of Allegheny v. ACLU

Held: Holiday creche scene in Pittsburg at county courthouse unconstitutional, while Chanukah menorah placed just outside City-County Building constitutional -- both under Establishment Clause and "endorsement" of religion by City

Stenberg v. Carhart

Held: SCOTUS invalidates Nebraska ban on partial-birth abortion

Gonzalez v. Carhart

Held: SCOTUS upheld the Congressional ban on partial-birth abortions -- distinguished from Stenberg v. Carhart

Whole Women's Health v. Hellerstedt

Held: The Court invalidated the "admitting-privileges" requirements that provides that physicians performing abortion must have admitting privileges at a hospital no further than 30 miles from the location where abortion performed. The Court invalidated the "surgical-center requirement" that an abortion facility meet the standards for ambulatory surgical centers. -- invalidated both under the undue burden standard -- many regard this case as re-defining the undue burden standard which makes it more likely that abortion regulations will be invalidated

Metro Broadcast Inc.

Held: a benign racial class, at least by the federal government, will receive only intermediary scrutiny -- overruled by Adarand Constructors v. Pena

Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrisey-Berru

Held: a ministerial exception applies to protect religious institutions' First Amendment rights, but it declined to adopt a clear test of when the exception applies

Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC

Held: a teacher at a Catholic school fully performing the functions of teaching religion classes, is a commissioned minister, and regularly leads students in prayer and worship DOES fall within the ministerial exemption

Obergefell v. Hodges

Held: establishes a right of same-sex marriage -- standard of review for EP under sexual orientation still unclear

Osborne v. Ohio

Held: private possession in the home of CHILD pornography may be criminally punished

Aguilar v. Felton

Held: public school remedial education teachers may not provide instruction in private religious schools -- unconstitutional because it might advance religion if teacher started teaching religion but can't regulate it because government could get entangled (3rd prong)

Stone v. Graham

Held: state law requiring posting of Ten Commandments in every public school classroom held unconstitutional

Skinner v. Oklahoma

Held: statute requiring forced sterilization of criminal convicted of crimes for moral turpitude violates the right to marriage and procreation and violates the EP Clause of 14th amendment

Adarand Constructors v. Pena

Held: strict scrutiny for affirmative action applies to all federal, state and local race classifications by governments

District of Columbia v. Heller

Held: the Second Amendment right to keep and bears arms, is a personal, individual right, which applies beyond the context of the Militia -- the DC prohibition on the possession of usable handguns in the home violates the 2nd "vigorous dissent" -- Smolin

Plyler v. Doe

Held: unconstitutional for Texas to deny free public education to children of undocumented aliens -- Created a unique standard of review in this case: to be rational, must achieve some substantial goal of the state - combined words from intermediary scrutiny and rational basis to make this test -- paradoxical holding: undocumented aliens are not a protected class and there is no fundamental right to education

June Medical Services v. Gee

Held: unconstitutional for admitting privileges law requiring physicians that perform abortions to have active admitting privileges at a local hospital -- follow the Hellerstedt precedent **note concurrence by CJ Roberts here to invalidate the very similar law in Hellerstedt on stare decisis and he dissented in Hellerstedt**

Planned Parenthood v. Danworth

Held: unconstitutional for the state to require spousal consent for a woman to procure an abortion in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy

Dunn v. Smith

Held: upheld the right of a prisoner to have a pastor with him as he is executed

Roe v. Wade

Multiple Holdings: 1) right of privacy includes abortion as a fundamental liberty (and by implication alternative choice of birth) 2) the unborn are not constitutional persons for purpose of the 14th Amendment -- meaning not a constitutional person until birth 3) the state's interest in unborn/fetal life is legitimate and grows as pregnancy progresses, but does not become compelling until fetal viability 4) as a consequence of 1, 2, and 3, the Constitution is interpreted to provide for "elective abortion" through viability 5) At viability until birth, abortion may be prohibited, but there must be exceptions for the life and health of the pregnant woman

Lemon v. Kurtzman (Lemon Test)

Violation of any of the three prongs renders a law unconstitutional 1st prong: government's action must have a secular legislative purpose 2nd prong: the government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion 3rd prong: the government's action must not result in excessive government involvement with religion