civil liberties and rights mid term review COURT CASES Flashcards
(28 cards)
1
Q
- 2 guys do construction own wharf
- Get goods from ships
- Sediment settles at the bottom of the wharf
- Can’t get big ships to come in
- 2 guys angry at the city
- Did the fifth amendment’s protections against government taking private property apply to state governments?
- Ruling: no, the bill of rights applies only to the federal government, not the states
- Established the principle of “dual sovereignty” states were not bound by the bill of rights
- Reinforced limited federal power over the state government
- Ruling was overturned by incorporation doctrine under the 14th amendment
A
Barron v. Baltimore (1833)
2
Q
- Does the 14th amendment’s due process clause require states to provide a grand jury indictment in criminal cases, as required by the 5th amendment
- No, the Supreme Court held that states do not have to provide a grand jury indictment in criminal cases under the due process clause of the 14th amendment
- Limited incorporation: the court ruled that not all rights in the BOR apply to the states
- Due process is flexible: the court argued that due process does not require specific procedures, like grand juries, as long as fair legal proceedings exist
- Later impact, case weakened over time as more BOR protections were incorporate
A
Hurtado v. CA
3
Q
- He refused to testify
- Rule against twining
- 5th amendment: why helpful?
o See if it conflicts with due process
o Look at each case and see if due process is a fundamental principle of liberty and justice - Does the 5th amendment right against self-incrimination apply to state courts through the 14th amendment’s due process clause
- No, the supreme court ruled that the right against self-incrimination is not a fundamental right that must be applied to the states
- Selective incorporation beings: the court suggested that some rights in the BOR might apply to states through “fundamental fairness” under due process, but not all
- Did not incorporate the 5th amendment: unlike later cases, this ruling allowed states to deny the right against self-incrimination
- Later overturned:
A
Twining v. NJ
4
Q
- Can courts determine the truth or falsity of religious beliefs when prosecuting individuals for fraud?
- No, the supreme court ruled that the sincerity of religious beliefs, not their truth, is what matters under the first amendment’s free exercise clause
- Government cannot judge religious truth, courts cannot decide whether religious beliefs are true or false, only whether they are sincerely held
- Fraud religion: the court allowed prosecution for fraudulent religious fundraising, but only if based on intentional deception rather than the truth of religious claims
- Impact on religious freedom: reinforced the idea that religious beliefs are protected, but religious actions can still be regulated
A
US v. Ballard
5
Q
- Did a state law requiring a permit for religious solicitation violate the first amendment’s free exercise clause and the 14th amendment’s due process clause
- Yes, the supreme court ruled that the laws violated religious freedom by giving government officials too much discretion in granting permits
- First incorporation of free exercise clause: this case incorporated the free exercise clause of the first amendment to apply to state governments through the 14th amendment
- Content-based restrictions are unconstitutional: states cannot restrict religious speech based on its content
- Limits a religious practice: the court recognized that while religious beliefs are absolutely protected, religious actions can be regulated if they threaten public safety or order
A
Cantwell v. Connecticut
6
Q
- Did denying unemployment benefits to a seventh-day Adventist who refused to work on Saturdays violate the first amendment’s free exercise clause
- Yes, the supreme court ruled that the state must have a compelling interest to justify a law that burdens religious practice
- Established the sherbert test: (strict scrutiny for free exercise cases)
o It a law substantially burdens religious exercise, the government must prove
It serves a compelling government interest
It is narrowly tailored and uses the least restrictive means
A
Sherbert v. Verner
7
Q
- Did Wisconsin’s compulsory school attendance law violate the 1st amendment’s free exercise clause by forcing Amish children to attend school beyond the 8th grade?
- Yes, the supreme court ruled that forcing Amish students to attend high school violated their religious beliefs and was unconstitutional
- Strengthened religious exemptions
- Applied the sherbert test
- Balanced education vs. religious freedom
A
Wisconsin v. Yoder
8
Q
- Did Oregon violate the 1st amendment free exercise clause by denying unemployment benefits to two native American workers who were fired for using peyote in a religious ceremony
- No, the supreme court ruled that states can enforce neutral, generally applicable laws even if they incidentally burden religious practices
- Weakened free exercise protections
- Shifts away from strict scrutiny
- Led to the religious freedom restoration act (RFRA)
- Sates can enforce neutral laws even if they restrict religious practices
- Only laws targeting religion directly require strict scrutiny
A
Employment Division of Oregon v. Smith
9
Q
- Can a for-proft. Corporation refuse to provide contraceptive coverage to employees based on the religious freedom restoration act?
- Yes, the supreme court ruled that closely held corporations can deny contraception coverage if it violates their religious beliefs
- Closely held businesses can claim religious exemptions under RFRA if a federal law substantially burdens religious exercise and it not the least restrictive means of achieving a government interest
A
Hobby Lobby v. Burwell
10
Q
- Did Philadelphia violate the 1st amendment free exercise clause by refusing to contract with a catholic foster care agency that would not certify same-sex couples as a foster parents
- Yes, the supreme court ruled unanimously (9-0) that Philadelphia’s actions violated the free exercise clause because the city’s policy was not neutral and not generally applicable
- Government cannot discriminate against religious organizations
- Did not overturn employment division v. smith
- The ruling was narrow and did not create broad religious exemptions to anti-discrimination laws
A
Fulton v. City of Philadelphia
11
Q
- Did the Bremerton School District violate the 1st amendment free speech and free exercise clauses by disciplining a public-school football coach for praying on the field after games?
- Yes, the supreme court ruled that the school district violated the Kennedy’s 1st amendment rights, emphasizing that his prayer was private religious expression and not government-endorsed religion
- Public employees have the right to personal religious expression, as long as it is not coercive and does not amount to official government endorsement of religion.
- Strengthened individual religious expression in public schools
- Overturned the Lemon test
o Court took a historical approach
A
Kennedy v. Bremerton
12
Q
- Did a new jersey law allowing public funds to reimburse parents for transportation to private schools violate the Establishment Clause of the 1st amendment
- No, the supreme court upheld the law, ruling that the reimbursement was constitutional because it provided a general benefit to all students, not just religious ones
- Government can provide neutral aid that benefits both secular and religious institutions, but it cannot directly support religious activities
A
Everson v. Board of Education
13
Q
- Did state laws in PA and RI that provided public funding for teacher’s salaries and instrumental materials in private religious schools violate the establishment clause of the 1st amendment
- Yes, Court ruled that government aid to religious schools violated the establishment clause if it created “excessive entanglement” between church and state
- Established the lemon test
- The lemon test set a strict constitutional standard for church-state separation, but it has been weakened and eventually overturned in later cases
A
Lemon v. Kurtzman
14
Q
- Did a public school’s practice of including clergy-led prayers at graduation ceremonies violate the establishment clause of the 1st amendment
- Yes, the Court ruled that prayer at public school graduation led by a clergy member is unconstitutional because it coerces students into participating in a religious exercise
- Established the coercion test
- Schools cannot organize or promote religious practices, even if participation is voluntary, because it creates coercion under the establishment clause
A
Lee v. Weisman
15
Q
- Did Texas school districts policy allowing student-led, student initiated prayer at football games violate the establishment clause of the 1st amendment
- Yes, the Court ruled that the policy was unconstitutional because it amounted to government endorsement of religion in public school settings
- Public schools cannot allow student-led prayers at official events because it creates government endorsement of religion and coerces participation
A
Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe
16
Q
- Did a city’s inclusion of a nativity scene in a holiday display on public property violate the Establishment clause of the 1st amendment
- No, the Court ruled that the nativity scene did not violate the establishment clause because it was part of a larger holiday display that had secular elements
- Religious symbols can be displayed on public property as long as they are part of a broader secular display and not amount to a government endorsement of religion
A
Lynch v. Donnelly
17
Q
- Did the public display of a nativity scene inside a county courthouse and menorah outside a government building violate the establishment clause of the 1st amendment
- Partially yes, the nativity scene inside the courthouse was unconstitutional, but the menorah display was allowed because it had secular elements
- Religious displays on government property are unconstitutional f they appear to endorse religion but may be allowed if part of a larger secular display
A
Allegheny v. ACLU
18
Q
- Did the display of the ten commandments in courthouse by two Kentucky counties violate the establishment clause of the 1st amendment
- Yes, the supreme court ruled that he 10 commandments displays were unconstitutional because they had a clear religious purpose and violated the establishment clause
- Government cannot display religious symbols if the primary intent is to promote religion
- Historical or secular context matters when evaluating religious displays on public property
A
McCreary County v. ACLU
19
Q
- does burning the American flag as a form of political protest constitute protected speech under the 1st amendment
- yes, the Court ruled that flag burning is protected symbolic speech under the 1st amendment
- symbolic speech
- content-based restriction = strict scrutiny
- flag burning is protected speech under the 1st amendment, and the government cannot ban expression just because it is offensive
A
Texas v. Johnson
20
Q
- did a federal law criminalizing the destruction of draft cards violate the 1st amendment’s protection of symbolic speech
- no, the Court upheld the law, ruling that burning a draft card is not protected symbolic speech because the law served an important government interest unrelated to suppressing speech
- established the O’Brien test
- O’Brien test allows the government to regulate symbolic speech of the regulation serves an important purpose unrelated to restricting expression
A
U.S. v. O’Brien
21
Q
- Did the boy scouts of America have a 1st amendment right to exclude a gay scout leader under the freedom of association
- Yes, the Court ruled that forcing the Boy scouts to accept a gay scout leader would violate their 1st amendment right to expressive association
- Private organizations can exclude members of inclusion would interfere with their expressive message, reinforcing 1st amendment protections for freedom of association
A
Boy Scouts of America v. Dale
22
Q
- Did Colorado’s anti-discrimination law, which required business to provide services equally to LGBTQ customers, violate the 1st amendment free speech clause by compelling a website designer to create websites for same-sex weddings
- Yes, the Court ruled that Colorado’s law violated the web designer’s 1st amendment rights by forcing her to create speech that conflicted with her religious beliefs
- Creative professionals cannot be forced to produce speech that conflicts with their beliefs, reinforcing free speech protections while keeping anti-discrimination laws intact for ono-expressive businesses
A
303 Creative LLC v. Elenis
23
Q
- Did a state law requiring students to salute the flag in public schools violate the 1st amendment free speech clause?
- Yes, the Court ruled that the government cannot force individuals to express beliefs, striking down the mandatory flag salute for students
- The government cannot force individuals to express certain viewpoints, reinforcing strong 2st amendment protections against compelled speech
A
West Virginia v. Barnette
24
Q
- Did New Hampshire law criminalizing “offensive, derisive, or annoying words” violate the 1st amendment free speech clause
- no, the Court ruled that “fighting words” are not protected speech under the 1st amendment
- Created the fighting work doctrine: are directed at a person, are likely to incite immediate violence
A
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire
25
- Did California’s obscenity law banning the distribution of pornographic materials violate the 1st amendment’s free speech clause
- No, The Court ruled that obscene material is not protected speech, but set new guidelines to define obscenity
- Miller test for obscenity: prurient interest, depict or describe sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, lack serious literary, artistic, political or scientist value
Miller v. California
26
- Did a public school’s suspension of a student for wearing black armband to protest the Vietnam war violate the 1st amendment free exercise clause
- Yes, the Court ruled that students do not lose their 1st amendment rights at school and their symbolic speech was protected because it did not disrupt school activities
- Student have their 1st amendment rights in school, but speech can be regulated if it disrupts education
Tinker v. DesMoines
27
- Did a public school’s decision to discipline a student for delivering a sexually suggestive speech at a school assembly violate the 1st amendment free speech clause
- No, the Court ruled that schools can restrict lewd, vulgar or inappropriate speech that is inconsistent with educational values
- Schools can regulate speech that is vulgar, lewd, or inappropriate, even it if does not cause a disruption
Bethel School District v. Fraser
28
- Did a public school violate a student’s 1st amendment rights by suspending him for displaying a “bong hits for Jesus” banner at a school sponsored event?
- No, Court ruled that schools can restrict student speech that promotes illegal drug use without violating the 1st amendment
- Schools can restrict student speech that promotes illegal drug use, even it if does not cause disruption
Frederick v. Morse
