Civil Liberties--- The cases Flashcards
(42 cards)
Engel v. Vitale (1962)
Court held that a non-denominational, voluntary, public school prayer violates the Establishment Clause.
Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)
Court developed the Lemon Test to determine constitutionality of government aid to a religious entity. Constitutionality requires (1) that the purpose of the financial aid is clearly secular; (2) the primary effect of the aid must neither advance nor inhibit religion; and (3) the financial aid must not represent an “excessive government entanglement w/ religion.”
Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002)
Court held that state funded school vouchers for students of a failing school district, to provide educational choice/opportunity, even when students could use state funding to attend parochial schools does not violate the Establishment Clause. Primary purpose is secular (educational opportunity) and the primary effect (because it involves parental choice) does not advance or inhibit religion.
Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. Hialeah (1993)
Court held that a local ordinance prohibiting Santeria religion’s animal sacrifice was unconstitutional as a violation of the Free Exercise clause. The Court stated that where such a law is not neutral or not of general application, it must undergo the most rigorous of scrutiny (strict scrutiny): it must be justified by a compelling governmental interest, and must be narrowly tailored to advance that interest.
Reynolds v. United States (1879)
Court held that a federal law criminalizing polygamy does not violate a Mormon male’s Free Exercise rights, as government may neutrally regulate social/moral order.
Cases that show freedom of religion
Engel v. Vitale Lemon v. Kurtzman Zelman v. Simmons-Harris Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. Hialeah Reynolds v. United States
Schenck v. United States (1919)
The Court developed the “clear and present danger” test and ruled that distributing leaflets opposing the draft was not protected speech during time of war because it posed a “clear and present danger” to the republic.
Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)
The Court incorporates Justice Holmes’ dissent from Abrams (1919, holding that advocacy of illegal action can only be abridged if there is a likelihood of “imminent harm,” referred to, also, as the “direct incitement” test.
NY Times v. Sullivan (1964)
Court held that to defame (libel) a public official, plaintiff must prove “actual malice or reckless disregard for truth or falsity.” (in addition to proving falsity and harm)
Hustler Magazine v. Falwell (1988)
The Court held that a parody, no matter how distasteful (describing Falwell in a drunken, incestuous rendezvous with his mother), remains opinion, and can never amount to a “false statement of fact” made with “actual malice or reckless disregard,” required for defamation of a public figure.
Miller v. California (1973)
The Court developed a three-prong test to determine obscenity, (1) average person, applying “contemporary community standards” finds that the work taken as a whole appeals to prurient interests (tends to excite unwholesome sexual desire); (2) work depicts or describes “patently offensive hardcore” sexual conduct, specifically prohibited by regulating state law; and (3) the work lacks “serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.” Community standards are locally not nationally measured.
Bethel v. Fraser (1986)
Court held that a high school student could be disciplined by school officials for giving a speech riddled w/ sexual innuendo, because action serves a legitimate educational goal.
Unprotected Speech cases: Obscenity and Pornography Defamation; Libel & Slander Anti-Government/National Security Fighting words
Obscenity and Pornography- Schenck v. United States and Brandenburg v. Ohio
Defamation; Libel & Slander- NY Times v. Sullivan and Hustler Magazine v. Falwell
Anti-Government/National Security- Miller v. California and Bethel v. Fraser
Fighting words- The Court has held that hate speech or unpopular speech is generally protected speech, unless it serves as a clear invitation to immediate violence or breach of peace.
Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)
The Court held that students may not be prohibited from wearing black armbands in protest of the government’s Vietnam policy. Symbolic speech such as this is protected unless the gov’t can demonstrate some valid safety, health or public order concern.
Texas v. Johnson (1989)
The Court held that Reagan protestors’ flag burning is protected symbolic political speech and can not be prohibited by Texas on the basis of content expression alone, i.e. because message expresses dissatisfaction w/ gov’t or may be offensive to other citizens. The Court implied that if the burning violated some safety or breach of the peace law, then incidental limitations could be imposed on symbolic speech.
Gregory v. Chicago
The Court held that peaceful and orderly marching in demonstration against the slow pace of public school desegregation in Chicago public schools was protected speech. However, the Court stated that time and manner regulation applied neutrally to promote order and safety would be a legitimate limitation on speech.
NY Times v. United States (1971)
Pentagon Papers. Information regarding Vietnam War leaked to the press. Court held that although publication of the materials may be an embarrassment for the government, no true national security risk was involved so Court can not exercise prior restraint on this political speech.
Freedom of Speech- Protected
Prior Restraint
Speech Plus/Protest Marching
Symbolic Speech
Prior Restraint- NY Times v. United States
Speech Plus/Protest Marching- Gregory v. Chicago
Symbolic Speech- Tinker v. Des Moines and Texas v. Johnson
4th Amendment Cases
Weeks v. U.S. (1914); Mapp v. Ohio (1961
Terry v. Ohio (1968)
Katz v. United States (1967)
New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985)
Weeks v. U.S. (1914); Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
Exclusionary rule for federal violation of fourth amendment; Mapp applies exclusionary rule to the states. Evidence obtained in illegal searches, seizures, or by coerced confessions is inadmissible at trial.
Terry v. Ohio (1968)
Court held that police do not need a warrant to search a person (defendant appeared to be casing a store for robbery) for weapons where reason to believe suspect may be armed and dangerous exists, even if suspicion does not amount to probable cause for arrest yet.
Katz v. United States (1967)
The Court held that electronic surveillance where a person has an expectation of privacy (public telephone booth) falls under search and seizure requirements…i.e. probable cause and warrant.
New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985)
The Court held that school officials are subject to fourth amendment prohibitions and that school children do have an expectation of privacy at school. However, a school official does not need probable cause to search; rather constitutionality is a question of reasonableness both at inception of the search and in terms of its scope/intrusiveness.
5th Amendment
Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
