Case Law Flashcards
(172 cards)
1
Q
Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill
A
did not disclose that he has been charged with a felony on his application. When the company found out, they fired him. He was not given the opportunity to respond to the charges and claimed that he thought his chargers were misdemeanors and not felonies.
2
Q
Castle Rock v. Gonzalez
A
a person who obtained a restraining order under state law does not have a constitutionally protected interest in having police enforce their order.
3
Q
Bi-Metallic Investment Corp. v. State Board
A
If one does not like what a legislature is doing to all people, then challenge it in the democratic election. In this instance, all the affected people (landowners) were able to vote and could vote out decisions they did not like.
4
Q
Paul v. Davis
A
reputation alone is neither a liberty nor property to alone require due process
5
Q
Wisconsin v. Constantineau
A
depriving an individual of their right to obtain liquor like every other citizen is a deprivation of liberty
6
Q
Meachum v. Fano
A
no liberty interest is at stake when transferring a prisoner to a higher security prison
7
Q
Vitek v. Jones
A
before transferring from a prison to a mental hospital, a prisoner is entitled to procedural due process
8
Q
Greenholtz v. Inmates
A
absent statutory entitlement, there is no constitutional liberty interest in the denial of parole
9
Q
Mathews v. Eldridge
A
(1) The private interest was the uninterrupted receipt of benefits pending the final determination of whether he could continue receiving benefits. (2) The procedure used – the medical assessment – is straightforward, easily documented, and premised on narrow information. (3) An evidentiary hearing prior to the termination of his benefits would be high in administrative and societal costs. For example, there could be a financial impact on the increase of hearings and extending benefits for people until their hearings. (Holding) Therefore, an evidentiary hearing is not required.
10
Q
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld
A
ruled that detainees who are U.S. citizens must have the rights of due process, and the ability to challenge their enemy combatant status before an impartial authority.
11
Q
Marsh v. Alabama
A
ehovah’s witnesses violated a law by handing out literature in a town that was privately owned by a shipping company. The town was open to the public and was used for public purposes. First Amendment and 14th amendment protection of speech and religion still apply to individuals when operating in a town if it functions the same as any other public town.
12
Q
Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority
A
When a state leases public property to a private entity and forms a relationship of interdependence with that entity, the private lessee must comply with the 14th amendment prohibition of discriminatory conduct. The parking authority was created by statute and paid for by public funds so their failure to stop the restaurant from discriminating made them part of the problem.
13
Q
Smith v. Alright
A
denying membership by a political party is considered state action. Party membership is essential to voting under the 15th amendment and Texas limits its elections to candidates selected by major parties.
14
Q
Shelley v. Kraemer
A
There was a covenant that restricted blacks from purchasing property in a neighborhood. When a black family bought a home, the whites that signed the agreement sought to enjoin. The covenant itself was not state action, but the court enforcement of it is.
15
Q
Barron v. Baltimore
A
the Bill of rights applies only to the federal government, not state government conduct.
16
Q
Palko v. Connecticut
A
Palko was convicted of 2nd degree murder and then re-convicted of 1st degree murder. Palko claims this violated the double jeopardy clause of the 5th amendment. The Court ruled that the 14th amendment’s due process clause incorporates parts of the bill or rights “fundamental to a scheme of ordered liberty” (but double jeopardy is not one of them in 1937 . . . it is by 1969 in Benton v. Maryland).
17
Q
Timbs v. Indiana
A
The eighth amendment excessive fines provision is incorporated to states through the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment.
18
Q
Society of the Sisters
A
tried to force all children to go to public schools but the court said that would eliminate the constitutional right to use private, religious schools.
19
Q
Skinner
A
law trying to require sterilization of certain criminals is unconstitutional.
20
Q
Buck v. Bell
A
forcibly sterilizing those deemed mentally incompetent. Involuntary sterilization law does not violate the constitution. (If this were to come back to the Supreme Court, would likely be a different result)
21
Q
Meyer
A
forbid language education before 8th grade, which is unconstitutional. There is a right to knowledge.
22
Q
Griswold
A
Court found an implied right of privacy within the Bill of Rights that prohibit states from preventing married couples from using contraception.
23
Q
Loving
A
right to interracial marriage based on it being essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness and a “basic civil right of man”
24
Q
Zablocki
A
could not require court order to marry for all residents required to pay child support
25
Turner
cannot permit inmates to marry only when the warden found compelling reasons for marriage
26
Obergefell
The state argued that it has an interest in child raising and keeping traditional families. Marriage is a fundamental right because it promotes autonomy and commitment; helps children; and it is the keystone of order. Refusing same-sex marriage takes away other rights including taxes, insurance, child custody and support, and spousal evidentiary privilege. Under due process and equal protection, States must issue same-sex marriage and recognize out-of-state licenses.
27
Pavan
Arkansas could not deny same-sex couples the right to have both of their names on a birth certificate
28
Roe
Established fundamental right to an abortion
29
Casey
Affirm Roe holding but establish new test.
A state abortion regulation places an undue burden on a women’s right to an abortion and is invalid if its purpose or effect is to place a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability. State can ban abortion after viability due to their interest. Before viability, they still have an interest, but the burdens they place cannot be undue or substantial.
30
Whole Women's Health
Requiring abortion take place in a surgical center and the physician have admitting privilege in hospital within 30 miles is an undue burden with no health benefits. would result in closure of clinics.
31
Dobbs
Current case waiting on decision. Think about stare decisis and undue burden.
32
Lawrence v. Texas
Police dispatched for weapon disturbance, enter home, and find two men engaging in same-sex sexual acts, which was illegal. There is a liberty interest in certain intimate conduct. Overrules Bowers and holds that there is no a legitimate state interest furthered to justify intrusion on a private and consensual act.
33
Kelley v. Johnson
recognized that the public at large has a liberty interest in personal appearance, but appearance of police posed no interference with a fundamental liberty
34
Railway Express v. NY
New York has a law prohibiting ads on vehicles except if the ad related to the business of the owner of the trucks. The state’s objective is to resolve distraction to drivers and pedestrians. This law is under-inclusive because it does not affect all advertising. State laws that are substantially under-inclusive do not necessarily violate the Equal Protection Clause because the state may rationally decide to address a public problem in phases. The law has a rational relation to its purpose.
35
Romer v. Evans
A law prohibiting anti-discrimination protection for the gay community violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This targets and bears no rational relation to a legitimate state interest. It singles out one group and precludes them from protection through the political process.
36
Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center
Mentally disabled people are not a quasi-suspect class and are thus reviewed under a rational review basis.
37
Plyler v. Doe
law permits local school districts to deny enrollment of undocumented immigrant children in local schools. This law affects undocumented children. The undocumented is not something that a person is born with, it is a voluntary action. Children do not choose to come here or choose education. They will likely become lawful citizens. Texas says they’re trying to stop illegal immigration to the state and increase the quality of education. The Court strikes this down and says that there is no evidence that the law will further state goals.
38
Strauder v. West Virginia
black man convicted of murder by jury limited by law to white males is facially discriminatory.
39
Yick Wo v. Hopkins
no laundromat in wooden building to prevent fire, but then only arrested Chinese people violating the law. This is a neutral classification applied in a discriminatory fashion
40
Godmillion v. Lightfoot
redrew boundaries of city to segregate out 99% of black voters and no white voters. This is an example of a neutral classification motivated by discrimination that produces a discriminatory effect.
41
Brown v. Board of Education
the separate but equal doctrine has no place in education. Education provides good citizenship, cultural values, preparation for professional training, and helps in adjusting to an environment. District Courts are to take actions with school boards to admit to public schools on a racially nondiscriminatory basis.
42
Green v. County School Board
schools have an affirmative duty to eliminate root and branch all past segregation. Freedom of Choice plans are not sufficient to enforce Brown v. Board of Education
43
Regents of Univ. v. Bakke
university implemented a policy where 16/100 spots were given to minorities. The Court declared this unconstitutional because the quota policy is not narrowly tailored. There is no evidence supporting minorities will work in underserved areas and the EPC and 14A are not group rights of minorities, but rather for a person’s individual rights
44
Grutter v. Bollinger
an unofficial policy gave weight to race for law school admissions. Considering race as a factor does not violate the EPC. Supporting student diversity is a compelling state interest. The school must show that it previously made serious, good-faith consideration of race-neutral alternatives. Means here are narrowly tailored because there is no quota system.
45
Gratz v. Bollinger
point-based system and gave points to anyone in certain racial groups. Every single underrepresented minority group getting 20 points is not narrowly tailored
46
Fisher v. University of Texas
the school tried race-neutral diversity methods, which failed. Race cannot be viewed as a defining feature of an application, but it can be a factor.
47
Parents Involved in Comm. Schools
public schools cannot assign kids with the purpose of racial integration. There was no evidence that this plan was beneficial. Narrowly-tailored, race-conscious objectives to achieve general diversity are okay
48
Washington v. David
here was a test for police to measure their verbal, vocab, and reading comprehension. There was a discriminatory impact because blacks were 4x more likely to fail. Showing discriminatory intent or purpose is necessary to gain strict scrutiny.
49
Wygant v. Jackson
layoffs of non-minority teachers simply to keep diversity in staff violates the EPC
50
City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co.
A plan required for contractors to subcontract 30% of the dollar value to contract to minority business enterprises. However, this 30% did not apply to contractors controlled by minority groups. There was no evidence of past discrimination, so the law was unconstitutional for not accomplishing a compelling state interest.
51
Adarand constructions v. Pena
federal program gave bonuses to any contractors who hired subcontractors controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals. All racial classifications by any government (federal, state, or local) must be reviewed with strict scrutiny.
52
Sugarman v. Dougall
NY Statute prohibited aliens from being employed as civil servants. The state has a broad power to define its political community and an interest in limiting participation in government to people within the community but doing so through discrimination is unconstitutional.
53
Reed v. Reed
men were preferred to women in administering wills. It is not rational to assume men are better at finances and administration than women.
54
Craig v. Boren
statute prohibited sale of non-intoxicating beer to males under 21 but permitting it to females over 18. The statistical difference in drinking and driving that led to this law is not enough
55
Michael M. v. Sonoma
statutory rape was by a male and done to a female. This does not violate the EPC because it deters males from engaging in sexual behavior that might lead to illegitimate pregnancies.
56
Rostker v. Goldberg
congressional act that does not require women to register for military draft does not violate the constitutional because women cannot statutorily participate in combat and are not similarly situated
57
J.E.B v. Alabama
peremptory challenges of jurors on the basis of sex is unconstitutional
58
U.S. v. Virginia
there was no exceedingly persuasive justification for admitting only men to public higher education. There are physical difference between man and woman but we cannot use that to make one more inferior
59
Frontiero v. Richardson
denial of spousal benefits to female officers but not male officers violates the EPC of the laws
60
Univ. of Women v. Hogan
cannot admit only women into the nursing program
61
Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections
the right to vote is fundamental and regulations on the right are subject to the strictest scrutiny. Poll taxes are unconstitutional.
62
Kramer v. Union Free School District
state claims a compelling interest in only having those who are primarily interested in school affairs participate in the school elections. However, it is not sufficiently tailored.
63
Williams v. Rhodes
applied strict scrutiny to a law that places unequal burdens on minority groups and favoring republican and democrat parties. The state had no compelling interest in creating a de facto two-party monopoly
64
Dunn v. Blumstein
strict scrutiny is applied to the durational residency requirement
65
Richardson v. Ramierz
minimal scrutiny should apply to laws barring convicted criminals from voting. Minimal scrutiny also applies to denial of absentee ballots for prisoners awaiting trial.
66
Crawford v. Marion County Election Board
State statute required photo ID as a prerequisite to vote. Their interests were to deter and detect voter fraud, stopping dead people from voting, and safeguarding voter confidence and election integrity. This is constitutional when the benefits and the burdens are weighed. Federal statutes indicate that photo id for voters can be beneficial.
67
Reynolds v. Sims
the electoral districts of the state legislative chambers must be equal to the population of the area to stick with the one person, one vote principle. Otherwise, lower populated areas would have an equal vote to highly populated areas. This is just as offensive to the constitution as allowing a person to vote more than once.
68
Bush v. Gore
the EPC requires that a state doing a manual recount of the vote in that state have uniform rules that govern the recount that give equal weight to each vote. The recount procedures are arbitrary and disparate by valuing one person’s vote over another based on the way the voter card was punched.
69
Brandenburg v. Ohio
KKK member on news. States may regulate speech that advocates violence if the speech is intended and likely to incite imminent lawless actions. The statute is over-inclusive if it punishes for teaching as abstract concept
70
Virginia v. Black
statute is unconstitutional if it bans cross burning done with the intent to intimidate and states that the act of burning a cross is itself prima facie evidence of the intent to intimidate. A statute like this would allow the jury to disregard any defense and find the necessary intent every time even when done for artistic or other reasons. Intent to intimidate needs to be proven in every individual case.
71
Hambling
seller needs to know that she is selling obscene materials to be prosecuted. Intent that knew legal standard does not matter
72
Stanley v. GA and US v. Orito
Possessing and sending obscene materials is okay for private use and the state cannot ban it
73
Paris Adult Theatre v. Slaton
adult theatre showing sex and nudity. There is no 1A right to showing obscene films in places of public accommodation. Regulating commerce of obscene materials is necessary to prevent crime and improve the community.
74
NY v. Ferber
state can prohibit exhibitions, sales, or distribution of child porn even if the material does not meet the articulated test for obscenity. State has a compelling interest in safeguarding the physical and psychological well being of minors and preventing sex abuse of children. The production is illegal so advertising and selling should be illegal. 1A doesn’t apply when welfare is harmed.
75
Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Ass’n
a state’s law seeking to prohibit the sale of violent video games to minors must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. There is no link between violent games and incidents of harm. The law is underinclusive because parents can still buy the game and give it to their kids.
76
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire
Fighting words are those that, by their very utterance, inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. Most likely today, the law would be found to be overbroad and not tailored to punish only that speech, and would be overturned.
77
Gooding v. Wilson
law is too overbroad because it is not limited in application to words that have a direct tendency to cause acts of violence by the person to whom, individually, the remark is addressed.
78
Texas v. Johnson
lag burning in a rally would not cause a reasonable onlooker to take it as a direct person insult or an invitation to exchange fisticuffs
79
Cohen v. California
wears a jacket that says fuck the draft and is sentenced under the law for disturbing the peace or quiet by offensive conduct. Absent a particularized and compelling purpose, a state may not criminalize a public display of a single four-letter expletive without violating the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The presumption of the presence of unwitting listeners or viewers does not automatically justify curtailing all potentially offensive speech. Regulation can risk suppressing ideas in the process.
80
Matal v. Tam
patent office denied trademark a slur for an asian band name based on an Act because it disparages people or groups. The disparagement clause of the Lanham Act is unconstitutional because it violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment.
81
R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul
Burned a cross on the lawn of a black family. Law banned hateful symbols such as this which was meant to arouse on the basis of race. Under the First Amendment, states may not regulate categories of unprotected speech, such as “fighting words,” on the basis of content. The statute specifically applies to fighting words that provoke violence “on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, or gender.” Under these terms, fighting words are permissible as long as they do not address one of the disfavored topics and is therefore content-based regulation.
82
Wisconsin v. Mitchell
Beat up white boy after watching movies. The First Amendment permits states to enact statutes imposing stricter penalties (enhanced sentencing) on defendants who choose victims based on their membership in a protected class, such as race.
83
Terminiello v. Chicago
Gave right wing speech that led to protests and disturbances. Free speech is constitutionally protected unless it is likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil beyond public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest.
84
Feiner v. NY
Man gave speech to blacks and whites and encouraged blacks to stand up to whites. When an individual speaks in a way that breaches the peace and attempts to incite a crowd to riot, police officers do not violate the First Amendment by putting a stop to the speech.
85
Edwards v South Carolina
peaceful protest of marching, singing, chanting, dancing does not threaten violence and therefore police have no authority to end it
86
Cox v. Louisiana
man urged the group to go eat at white only lunch counters. Police asked the group to disperse based on the hostility of white. The court held that there was no evidence of threatened violence by protestors or onlookers
87
FCC v. Pacifica Foundation
Under the First Amendment, the Federal Communications Commission may regulate a radio broadcast that is indecent but not obscene.
88
Consolidated Edison v. Public Service Commission & Bolger v. Young Drugs Corp
court said that offended recipients could escape exposure by transferring the bill insert from envelope to wastebasket; journey from mailbox to trashcan
89
Ginsberg v. NY
upheld restrictions on the distribution of non-obscene porn to minors because they’re vulnerable. The same restrictions in this case would not be valid if applied to adults
90
Sable Comm. v. FCC
court invalidated portion of act making dial-a-porn services a crime because the total ban was unjustified based solely on minors. There were less restrictive alternative methods to screen out youth
91
Denver Area Edu Telecommunications v. FCC
Under the First Amendment, regulations of cable providers are reviewed using a flexible standard, balancing First Amendment concerns with important government interests.
92
Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts
Sullivan is extended to public figures. A former university football coach is a public figure. A public figure is a person who is intimately involved in the resolution of important public questions or who, by reason of their fame, shape events in areas of concern to society at large
93
Associated Press v. Walker
a prominent retired general is a public figure and falls under Sullivan rule
94
Time v. Firestone
Palm Beach socialite is not a public figure because she had no especial prominence in public affairs nor did she thrust herself to the forefront of any particular public controversy in order to influence the resolution of issues involved in it
95
Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc
Gertz is an attorney in a semi-important case and a magazine makes false attacks against him. Private individuals can collect defamation damages. See rule sheet for test.
96
US v. Alvarez
Act made it illegal to lie about military decorations or medals. Alvarez lied about having a medal of honor. There is no general First Amendment exception for false statements. The act is invalid, however, because the government has not shown the necessary causal link between the interest and the restriction. Additionally, the government has not shown why lesser restrictive means, such as refutation of the false statement or an online database of Medal of Honor winners, are not more appropriate.
97
Snyder v. Phelps
they protest outside of military funerals and are sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress. They do this for attention. The speech by Westboro Baptist has political content, the offensiveness is based on political content. It is at a military funeral and in a public place
98
Virginia Board of Pharmacy v. VCCC
The First Amendment protects commercial speech relating to the advertisement of prescription drug prices. Society in general also has a strong interest in the free flow of commercial information.
99
Board of Trustees v. Fox
Court upheld a public university regulation barring commercial enterprises on campus as applied to tupperware parties in dorms. The university had an interest in maintaining educational environment on campus and protecting students
100
Thompson v. Western States Med. Center
Ban of advertisement and promotion on drug compounding. The court agreed that the government had an objective in protecting public health, but the ban was more extensive in speech restriction than necessary to serve those interests.
101
Matal in Commercial Speech
it is likely economically motivated making it commercial speech
102
Bates v. State Bar of Arizona
lawyer advertising is constitutionally protected commercial speech
103
Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar
court upheld the suspension of a lawyer for his direct solicitation of an accident victim in a hospital room where she lay traction and sought another on the day she came home from the hospital. They were both especially incapable of making informed judgments or of assessing and protecting their own interests
104
In re Primus
sought representation of a woman sterilized in order to receive public medical assistance. The court held that because there was no financial gain and he was doing it for justice, that he could not be disciplined unless the state could prove harm.
105
Florida Bar v. Went For It
upheld a rule that personal injury victims or their families could not be solicited by direct mail within 30 days after their injury. There is a state interest in protecting the public perception of lawyers and the restriction is narrowly tailored to advance the interest.
106
44 Liquormart v. Rhode Island
Under the First Amendment, a state may not constitutionally prohibit the advertising of prices of alcoholic beverages.
107
Tobacco Ads Case
There was a government interest in prohibiting smokeless tobacco or cigar advertising within a certain distance of a playground due to underage use issues. The regulation was exceedingly broad and would prohibit advertising in a substantial part of the metropolitan area and be a near-complete ban. The ban applied to indoor ads, outdoor ads, and oral statements.
108
Ward v. Rock Against Racism
City of NY required performers at the bandshell to use city sound equipment and a government sound tech to regulate volume due to close proximity to parts of the city. Music is speech so there can be a 1A claim. Under the First Amendment, a regulation of the time, place, or manner of protected speech must be narrowly tailored to serve the government’s significant or important, content-neutral interests, but does not need to be the least restrictive or least intrusive means of doing so. Significant interest is retaining the character and peace of the area. It is narrowly tailored because it does not affect the quality or content, and there are and there are ample alternative channels of communication. (ex: they could have gone somewhere else to perform with not sound regulations)
109
Kovacs v. Cooper
upheld a ban on “sound trucks” that are “loud and raucous.” this is content and viewpoint neutral
110
Schad v. Mount Ephraim
Live entertainment, including nude dancing, is protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution. While local governments may have broad powers to regulate land use through zoning laws, this power is subject to the limitations of the First Amendment. The law was overbroad
111
City of Ladue v. Gilleo
voided a near-total ban on signs and flags displayed on or in residences
112
Frisby v. Schultz
upheld ordinance banning picketing before or about the residence of any individual. It was content-neutral and left open ample alternative like door-to-door solicitation, marches, and mail and phone communication. Narrowly tailored because only banned picketing and served the significant purpose of preserving sanctity of home
113
Hillo v. Colorado
made unlawful to approach person without their consent at any health care facility, to engage in oral protest or counseling, to tender leaflet or handbill, or to display a sign to another. Intended to limit harassment at abortion clinics. Court upheld because it was narrowly tailored. It was content-, viewpoint-neutral, and regulated the place of speech
114
McCullen v. Coakley
Law put in buffer zone from abortion clinic excluding patients and employees. Content neutral because it does not focus on the viewpoint it is limiting. This is not narrowly tailored though because they are burdening substantially more speech than necessary. Other less burdensome options would be criminal penalties on people who harass or obstruct patients.
115
Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky
Law says people cannot wear political gear in a polling place. The law was struck down, not because it was a violation of time, place, or manner, but the law is too vague using the term “political.”
116
United States v. O’Brien
Burning a draft card is symbolic speech but the government has an interest in the administration of the draft system. The burning of the draft card is not speech itself but it is expressive and symbolic but it is subject to a different standard. The government can properly criminalize burning of draft cards because they have an interest in not allowing it.
117
Texas v. Johnson
Protestor outside of GOP convention takes out flag and burns it. Arrested for violating Texas’s law that makes it a crime to mistreat the American flag. Flag burning is expressive conduct because there is a type of particular message present in action. A state statute that criminalizes the burning of an American flag as a means of political protest violates the First Amendment. This is regulating one political message with the American flag. So this is content-based because there is no pro-American flag and strict scrutiny applies.
118
ISKCON v. Lee
Literature distribution and solicitations are restricted. An airport terminal is a nonpublic forum, and thus any regulations of speech within terminals are only evaluated for their reasonableness. Prohibiting solicitations is constitutional because it is reasonable. Prohibiting literature distribution is not permitted under the first amendment (would then perform content-based test), but banning the sale of literature face to face is reasonable
119
Perry v. PLEA
Campus mail boxes (and mailboxes in general) are not public forums. Communications can be regulated as long as it is reasonable and not simply viewpoint discrimination. They are designed for specific use.
120
Widmar v. Vincent
Any RSO can use any classroom for their meetings but not groups that want to use them for religious purposes, so religious RSOs cannot use classrooms. Having made the classrooms open for use, they need a compelling interest to limit speech based on content. Appears to be designated public forum.
121
Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky
people can’t wear political gear inside of a polling place. A polling place is a nonpublic forum. But because the law is too vague, it becomes unreasonable to apply.
122
Walker v. Sons of Confederate Veterans
State allows for specialty license plates. State refused the State Confederate Veterans a specialty plate and the Veterans consider viewpoint discrimination. A license plate is government speech and the court says when the government speaks, it does not need to give equal opportunity for all.
123
Cheerleader case
Cheerleader doesnt make the squad and she writes a message on her snapchat. She did it off campus and it was fine because it’s beyond the scope of what the school can regulate off-campus.
124
Tinker V. Des Moines
School bans the black armbands in protest of the Vietnam War. In a public-school setting, prohibiting an expression of an opinion is unconstitutional unless there is a specific showing that engaging in the forbidden conduct would materially and substantially interfere with appropriate discipline in the operation of the school. A mere fear or risk of disorder does not justify abridging the strong First Amendment interest in promoting free and open discourse in American society, and the school did not prohibit other types of symbolic speech.
125
Morse v. Frederick
suspended high school senior after he displayed a large banner reading “Bong Hits 4 Jesus”. Morse suspended Frederick because she believed the banner promoted illegal drug use. Under the First Amendment, school officials may prohibit student speech that can reasonably be interpreted as promoting illegal drug use. Here, the school has a compelling interest in preventing illegal drug use among young students who would interpret bong hits as marijuana use. He’s not trying to debate the policy.
126
Bethel v. Frasier
speech with sex references in school was a material disruption
127
Near v. Minnesota
published paper that criticized racial groups and published racial slurs which violated the publication of these types of articles under a state statute. Courts may not issue injunctions against the publication of newspapers, magazines, or other periodicals deemed to be “malicious, scandalous, and defamatory” as such a court order would constitute a prior restraint on the freedom of the press protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Prior restraint is the essence of censorship.
128
NY Times v. US
The United States government may be constitutionally permitted to enjoin publication material on the grounds that such publication jeopardizes national security, but the burden for justifying such an injunction is extremely high. Government did not meet the burden to stop publications of excerpts from a top secret study of the Vietnam War. Only an immediate/inevitable threat to active forces will sustain.
129
US v. Progressive
restricted sharing info that would hurt the US. Unlike pentagon papers in NY Times v. US that were historical, lacked proof of damage to the US, and there was no statutory authority for issuance of an injunction
130
Nebraska Press Ass’n v. Stuart
man was accused of mass murder in small town. After considering the three factor test in determining whether publicity would harm enough to allow for restraints on press, the Court found that the prior restraint would likely not have much effect on information already known to the small town
131
NAACP v. Alabama
if disclosure of its membership would result in significant harm to the association or its members, the government’s request for the information will only succeed if it is narrowly tailored to meet a compelling interest
132
Roberts v. US Jaycees
wants to keep membership all male and a law says this is sex discrimination. A state may prohibit a private organization from excluding members on the basis of gender upon a showing of a compelling interest in preventing gender-based discrimination that outweighs competing First Amendment interests in upholding the freedom of association. Excluding women does not relate to expressive activities.
133
Boy Scouts v. Dale
association is expressive whenever it engages in expressive activity, not just when the association is for the purpose of expressing a particular message. 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.
134
Rumsfeld v. FAIR
Act allowed the US military to have access to law schools. Law schools in FAIR did not allow them. A federal law requiring law schools receiving federal funding to allow the military to conduct recruiting activities on their campuses does not violate the First Amendment’s protections of speech, conduct, or expressive association. The law school is not speaking to anyone. It’s the student’s choice to go talk.
135
West Va. State Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette
Jehovah's Witness kids refuse to salute and recite the pledge of allegiance and are expelled. Law is implemented to expel, fine and imprison those who do not. A state may not compel individuals to engage in involuntary expression. Right of thought and belief include the right to refuse the pledge.
136
Wooley v. Maynard
cover up motto on license plate and are arrested. The First Amendment prohibits the required display of a state’s motto on license plates. By requiring people to display the state motto, the state is essentially compelling its citizens to engage in a form of speech and communicate their support of the state’s message. Thus, the law is subject to strict scrutiny and must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest.
137
Buckley v. Valeo
Act limited amount of individual and group political contributions. Established a strict disclosure requirement for campaign donations. Campaign contributions (donations) can be limited by federal law. Contributions feed (1) the appearance of corruption and (2) the actual corruption that outweighs expression rights. Campaign expenditures (spending) cannot be limited by law––not the same corruption risk because spending is not the same as accepting money. Expenditures represent 1A speech by candidates, people, and groups.
138
Caperton v. Massey Coal
A judge is biased and should recuse himself when a contributor’s influence on his election is so substantial that it would offer a possible temptation to the average judge to lead him not to be impartial.
139
The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster
man wanted to start religion to wear a head covering in his driver’s license picture. This was not sincere. Don't look to the truth of the belief of the spaghetti monster though. That's wrong.
140
US v. Ballard
charged with mail fraud for operating a scam as a religion. the judiciary may only inquire into whether a person sincerely holds religious beliefs, not whether those beliefs are factual
141
Sherbert v. Verner
Saturday is the Sabbath day of her faith and her employer requires her to work. A state may not deny unemployment benefits to an applicant who refuses to accept employment offers because a condition of the offered employment violates the applicant's religious beliefs.
142
Wisconsin v. Yoder
rules requiring kids to go to school until 16 which goes against Amish faith requiring kids to leave school after 8th grade. The compelling interest from the state is ensuring that children are prepared for the modern world and well educated to function in society. Court says that the interests that the state offers are in direct opposition to one of the core long standing traditions of the Amish society that they do not live in the modern world.
143
Amish Social Security Hypo
amish saying they don’t need to contribute to social security because they care for their elders. There is a compelling interest in the vitality of the social security system and holding all businesses equal and accountable.
144
Generally religious hypo
claiming generally religious and cannot work on sunday when being required to be available 7 days/week. Free exercise rights would be violated here.
145
Bob Jones Univ. v. US
university has rules on interracial dating, sidewalk usage, etc. based on race. IRS revokes tax-exempt status for discriminating on race and Bob Jones claims that discrimination is part of their religion. There is a compelling interest in eliminating racism.
146
Employment Division v. Smith
a hallucinogenic drug is illegal unless prescribed. Native American churches use the drug as a sacramental substance. They are fired as drug counselors for using peyote. They apply for unemployment benefits for drug misconduct. The difference between the Sherbert case is this is illegal.
147
Church of the Lukumi Babalu v. City of Hialeah
a church that practiced animal sacrifice was opening a church in Florida city. State passes rule forbidding ritual slaughter of animals and killing animals if the primary purpose is not food consumption. Apply strict scrutiny because neutrality and general application are not met. The ordinance uses the word ritual and sacrifice. Here, the asserted public purposes are the protection of the public health and the prevention of cruelty to animals. However, the ordinances are under-inclusive and not narrowly tailored to achieve those ends. The ordinances only prohibit the slaughtering of animals for ritualistic or sacrificial purposes.
148
Larson v. Valente
Act imposed certain registration and reporting requirements upon religious organizations that solicit more than fifty percent of their funds from nonmembers. The Establishment Clause clearly commands that one religious denomination cannot be officially preferred over another. The fifty percent rule of the MCSA clearly grants denominational preferences of the sort consistently and firmly invalidated by prior decisions. Under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, the government may not discriminate among religious groups in its laws unless the discrimination is justified under strict scrutiny.
149
Locke v. Davey
scholarship program does not allow students to use the money to pursue a degree in devotional theology. Under the Free Exercise Clause, a state may constitutionally deny government scholarship funding for the pursuit of devotional theology degrees. The student can use the money to go to a religious institution or take classes. Just not pursue the degree in toto.
150
Trinity Lutheran v. Comer
state program that gives out tires for playgrounds. Religious playgrounds at churches are not allowed to receive public funding from the state. This discriminates on a basis of religion and triggers strict scrutiny and not Smith test. Denying a grant solely because the church is a religious entity effectively forces it to choose between receiving public benefits and remaining a religious institution. That means the policy expressly discriminates against churches because of their religious status, not because of what the church will do with the funds.
151
Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission
asked to create a special cake celebrating the couple's same-sex wedding and refused because he held sincere religious objections to same-sex marriage. Adjudicatory proceedings against a person for unlawful discrimination must give neutral and respectful consideration to the person's defense of sincere religious motivation. The commission demonstrated hostility toward religion's role in public life and therefore found Phillips's position unreasonable. Won free exercise on basis of the hostility of the commissioner but not the law itself.
152
Carson v. Makin
the state of Maine has a program that allows students in rural districts without an actual school to send their kid to a neighboring district or has a number of private schools that they will pay for the kid’s tuition. The rule says that they cannot be religious schools though because the education might be different (e.g., teaching women they belong in the home). Does this violate the free exercise rights of those parents? Appeared likely from oral arguments that the rule will be that the state will be required to send money to any school the parents want the kids to go to.
153
US Navy Seals v. Biden
can navy seals avoid vax policy because of religion? General applicability, then smith rule and if targeting religion, then strict scrutiny. Arguments: public health interest of state outweighs religion here. Sherbert case about people just making up religious exemption to get out of it.
154
Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo
wants to open churches beyond the emergency limits in the city. Exceptions for grocery and big box stores. Look to the differences between list and exceptions. The court strikes it down for lack of narrow tailoring.
155
Hosana-Tabor v. EEOC
Lutheran school hires “called” (does religious guidance) and “lay” teachers––duties are identical. “Called” teacher takes disability leave and the church asks her to resign and then fires her in violation of the ADA. Does the 1A protect the church from ADA lawsuits by these “called” teacher? A ministerial exception to valid laws is necessary to ensure that control over church ministers is left to church alone. Smith framework (neutral law, hybrid exception) not discussed at all.
156
Everson v. Board of Education
The state refunded parents for bus transportation. Even though majority of the funding when to the Catholic schools, the money was given directly to the parents and it was their choice. Establishment clause not violated.
157
Abington v. Schempp
mandated reading of Bible before opening public school amounts to the establishment of religion.
158
Mueller v. Allen
applying Lemon test to tuition and transportation reimbursements through a tax form. the secular purpose of helping defray the costs for parents of sending their children to school and it is available to parents of children in both public and religious schools. The primary effect of the tax deduction is not to advance religion, because the deduction does not directly assist religious schools. These schools do not directly receive funds. The only action required of state officials is determining which textbooks in schools qualify for the deduction. The involvement of these officials with religion is only incidental and by no means excessive entanglement.
159
Zelman v. Simmons-Harris
New plan that allows state to send checks to parents who will then forward them over to the school of their choice. Could violate because most of the money goes to private schools in the area. However, under the Establishment Clause, a state may enact an educational program that provides indirect financial assistance to religious schools if the program truly provides individuals the opportunity to choose even if the selection is predominantly filled with private schools with religious affiliations. “Private choice” programs have consistently been upheld as constitutional.
160
Wolman v. Walter
couldn’t loan materials outside of textbooks to students on the theory that books benefit students but other materials are more adaptable for teaching of religion
161
Meek v. Pittenger
struck down loans of secular instructional materials to religious schools because the primary effect was aiding advancements of religion
162
Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe
Under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, a public school may not permit student-led, student-initiated prayer at school sporting events.
163
Stone v. Graham
A statute that requires public schools to post a copy of the Ten Commandments in each classroom violates the First Amendment Establishment Clause.
164
Epperson v. Arkansas
A state law that prohibits teaching evolution in public schools violates the First Amendment. The law selectively prohibits the teaching of one particular doctrine from the entire body of creation theory due to the fact that it conflicts with a preferred ideology. The law clearly seeks only to promote the advancement of a particular ideological viewpoint.
165
Edwards v. Aguillard
Under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, states may not require the teaching of a religious doctrine in addition to a secular doctrine in public schools when doing so is motivated by an underlying religious purpose. The state law that requires the teaching of “creation science” in addition to “evolution science” is motivated by an underlying religious purpose and thus violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The purpose of “academic freedom” is a sham. This advances the idea of a supernatural creation of the world.
166
Good News Club v. Milford School District
School opens facilities to after hours private groups but not religious groups. This is a limited public forum allowing limitations on content of messages, but here they engage in viewpoint discrimination. Speech discussing otherwise permissible subjects cannot be excluded from a limited public forum on the ground that the subject is discussed from a religious viewpoint. This is not coercive under the establishment clause because any students of the school need parents’ permission to attend after hours clubs.
167
Lynch v. Donnelly
A public display erected in conjunction with a religious holiday does not violate the First Amendment Establishment Clause if it only indirectly or incidentally advances religion. This is a fact specific inquiry and the celebration of a public holiday with traditional symbols has legitimate secular purposes. The context does matter though and adding candy canes, santa, and other religious displays becomes a holiday celebration.
168
Town of Greece v. Galloway
Opening prayer given in town meetings. Only christian ministers are invited. Official prayers can be performed because of history and giving a higher purpose of work. There is no need for all-inclusive prayers and the government would censor religious speech and intrude on free exercise if they required all inclusive prayers and said it could not be a singular denomination. The prayer cannot be used to praise one faith and cast other faiths negatively or prevent other faiths speaking, but do not need special efforts to diversify.
169
McCreary Cty. Ky. v. ACLU
ten commandments in Kentucky courthouse unconstitutional. This had a “substantially religious” purpose of reinstilling a religious message in a county. Been around for 5 years. It is the first thing you see walking in the courthouse door.
170
Van Orden v. Perry
ten commandment monument at Texas Capitol constitutional. This is passive and one does not need to confront it in the course of business with the government. It is one of many monuments. Been around for 40 years and has a historical secular purpose because it was not put up with the purpose of reinstilling and was done when it was less controversial. Can walk around and not even notice it.
171
District of Columbia v. Heller
Provided Heller does not fall within the categories of people prohibited from owning handguns due to safety concerns, the District of Columbia’s prohibition on handgun possession in the home, as well as its requirement that lawful handguns in the home be rendered inoperable for self-defense with trigger-locks, is unconstitutional.
172
Lee v. Weisman
Rabbi invited to give prayer before graduation. Under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, the government may not invite clergy to deliver prayers at a public school graduation ceremony. Graduation attendance is voluntary but it is an important day in the lives of many. Principal choosing the rabbi is acting on behalf of the state. Coercive because of social pressures of the children audience to participate.
