Court Cases Flashcards
(39 cards)
1
Q
Marbury v. Madison
A
- Federalist, William Marbury was appointed justice of the peace. Others as well were appointed in the final days of John Adams’ presidency, but the appointments weren’t finalized. The appointees sued for their jobs in Supreme Court
- est. judicial review
- gave power to judicial branch; power of Supreme Ct. to declare Congress acts unconstitutional
2
Q
McCulloch v. MD
A
- 1816- Congress charteres 2nd Bank of US. 1818- MD passed legislation to tax the bank.McCulloch, the cashier of the Baltimore branch of the bank, refused to pay the tax
- Congress can use its implied powers to carry out expressed powers
- national gov. over states
- states can’t interfere with/tax federal gov. activities
3
Q
Gibbons v. Ogden
A
-NY law gave individuals the right to operate steamboats on waters w/in state jurisdiction. Other states adopted the law → conflict b/c some states required foreign boats to pay fees for navigation privileges. Gibbons, a steamboat owner who did business b/w NY & NJ
-federal gov. ability to regulate interstate congress
commerce clause → expansion of fed power
4
Q
Plessy v. Ferguson
A
- Louisiana enacted a law that required separate railway cars for blacks and whites. In 1892, Plessy who was seven-eighths Caucasian took a seat in a “whites only” car & refused to move –> was arrested.
- case questioned Louisiana’s law mandating racial segregation on its trains and questioned if it was an unconstitutional infringement on both the privileges and immunities and the equal protection clauses of the 14th Amend?
- separate but =
- (upheld Jim Crow laws).
5
Q
Weeks v. US
A
- Police entered Weeks’ home w/o search warrant and seized papers, which were used to convict him of transporting lottery tickets through the mail.
- Weeks petitioned for the return of his private possessions. -violated 4th Amendment?
- In a unanimous decision, the Court held that the seizure violated his constitutional rights & refusal to return possessions defied 4th Amendment.
- est. exclusionary rule in federal cases and prohibited evidence obtained by illegal searches and seizures from being admitted in court
6
Q
Schenck v. US
A
- WWI- Schenck mailed circulars to draftees that suggested that the draft was wrong and motivated by the capitalist system. Advised only peaceful action to repeal the Conscription Act.
- Schenck was charged with conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act
- Schenck’s actions were protected by the free speech clause of 1st Amendment?
- The Court concluded that Schenck was not protected in this situation and that the character of every act depends on the circumstances. They ruled that free speech could be limited when it presents a “clear and present danger” & est. the “clear and present danger” test to define conditions under which public authorities can limit free speech.
7
Q
Gitlow v. NY
A
- Gitlow, a socialist, arrested for distributing a manifesto that called for socialism through strikes and class action of any form. convicted under a state criminal anarchy law, which punished advocating the overthrow of the government by force.
- violation of the free speech clause of the 1st Amend?
- decided state may forbid both speech and publication if they have a tendency to result in action dangerous to public security, even though such utterances create no clear and present danger.
- precedent for selective incorporation, thus extending most of the requirements of the bill of Rights to the states.
8
Q
Near v. Minnesota
A
- Near published a scandal sheet in Minneapolis, in which he attacked local officials, charging that they were implicated with gangsters. Minnesota prevented Near from publishing his newspaper under a state law
- did Minnesota “gag law” violate free press in 1st Amend?
- The Supreme Court held that the statute authorizing the injunction was unconstitutional as applied. Government could not censor or otherwise prohibit a publication in advance, even though the communication might be punishable after publication in a criminal or other proceeding.
9
Q
Palko v. CT
A
- Frank Palko killed 2 cops after robbing a music store and had been charged with 1st-degree murder but instead was convicted of the lesser charge of 2nd-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison
- CT won new trial; this time the court found Palko guilty of 1st-degree murder and sentenced him to death.
- did Palko’s 2nd conviction violate the protection against double jeopardy guaranteed by the 5th amend because this protection applies to the states by virtue of the 14th Amend’s due process clause?
- The Supreme Court upheld Palko’s 2nd conviction. Protection against double jeopardy was not a fundamental right. Palko died in CT electric chair
10
Q
Korematsu v. US
A
- WWII, Presidential Executive Order (9066) gave the military authority to send Japanese citizens to relocation camps.
- Korematsu remained in San Leandro, California; was arrested and convicted. He argued that the order violated his 5th amend right.
- did President and Congress go beyond their war powers by implementing exclusion and restricting rights?
- The Court sided with the government and held that the need to protect against espionage outweighed Korematsu’s rights, they argued that compulsory exclusion, though constitutionally suspect, is justified during circumstances such as wartime (necessity).
11
Q
Brown v. BOE 1
A
-Black children were denied admission to public schools attended by white children under laws permitting segregation.
-segregation illegal, violates 14th amendt
reversed Plessy v. Ferguson “separate but equal”
12
Q
Brown v. BOE 2
A
- Court convened to issue directives which would implement the new principle.
- “all deliberate speed”
13
Q
Roth v. US
A
- Roth operated a book-selling business in NY and was convicted of mailing obscene books violating a federal obscenity statute. Roth’s case was combined with Alberts v. California, a similar case which involved advertisements for obscene books.
- ruled that obscenity is not protected free speech
- “prevailing community standards” requires consideration of the work as a whole
14
Q
Mapp v. Ohio
A
- Dollree Mapp was convicted of possessing obscene materials after an admittedly illegal police search of her home for a fugitive. She appealed her conviction on the basis of freedom of expression.
- extended exclusionary rule to states
- selective incorporation through 14th amendment
15
Q
Engel v. Vitale
A
- The Board of Regents for NY authorized a voluntary prayer for recitation at the start of each school day to defuse the contentious issue by taking it out of the hands of local communities.
- prohibited state-sponsored prayer in schools
- Regent’s prayer- unconstitutional violation of Est. clause
16
Q
Baker v. Carr
A
- Charles W. Baker and other TS citizens alleged that a 1901 law to apportion the state’s General Assembly seats was ignored thereby also ignoring economic growth and population shifts within the state.
- ruled Judicial branch can rule on legislative apportionment
- “1 person 1 vote”
- state legislative districts must be equal
17
Q
Abington v. Schempp
A
- Children in PA schools were required to read 10 Bible verses & the Lord’s Prayer. Students could be excluded from these exercises by a written note from their parents to the school. In a related case, Murray v. Curlett, Murray and his mother, professed atheists, challenged the prayer requirement.
- ruled that this violated 1st and 14th amendments –encroaching on Free Exercise Clause and the Est. Clause of the 1st Amendthe ability of a parent to excuse a child from these ceremonies by a written note was irrelevant- did not prevent the school’s actions from violating the Est. Clause.
18
Q
Gideon v. Wainwright
A
- Clarence Earl Gideon charged w/ felony in FL- broke into and entered a poolroom committing misdemeanor offense. Gideon requested that the court appoint a lawyer for him, but FL state law said an attorney may only be appointed to an indigent defendant in capital cases
- Gideon represented himself in trial. He was found guilty and sentenced to five years in prison. Gideon filed a habeas corpus petition and argued that the trial court’s decision violated his constitutional right to be represented by counsel. FL Supreme Court denied habeas corpus relief.
- ruled 6th Amend. right to counsel does apply to criminals who disobeyed state laws
- illustrated incorporation through 6th amend. applied to states through 14th
19
Q
Wesberry v. Sanders
A
-Wesberry sued Governor of GA, Sanders, protesting the state’s apportionment. The Fifth Congressional District, of which Wesberry was a member, had a population 2-3x larger than some of the other districts in the state. Wesberry claimed this system diluted his right to vote compared to other Georgia residents.
-est. “1 person 1 vote” in drawing congressional districts
→ widespread redistributing that gave cities and suburbs grated representation in Congress
20
Q
NY Times v. Sullivan
A
- Decided together with Abernathy v. Sullivan
- ad in the New York Times alleged that the arrest of the MLKJ for perjury in Alabama was part of a campaign to destroy King’s efforts to integrate and encourage blacks to vote.Sullivan, the Montgomery city commissioner, filed a libel action against the newspaper and 4 black ministers listed as endorsers of the ad- claimed the allegations defamed him personally.
- Under AL law, Sullivan did not have to prove that he had been harmed; defense claiming that the ad was truthful was unavailable since the ad contained factual errors. —Sullivan won a $500,000 judgment.
- ruled public officials can’t win suit for defamation unless statement is made w/ “actual malice”
- promoted “uninhibited, robust, and wide open” public debate
21
Q
Griswald v. CT
A
- Griswold-Executive Director of Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut. She and Medical Director gave info, instruction, and other medical advice to married couples concerning birth control. They were convicted under Connecticut law which criminalized the provision of counselling, and other medical treatment, to married persons for purposes of preventing conception.
- ruled that the CT law criminalizing the use of contraceptives violated the right to marital privacy and est. important precedent for Roe v. Wade.
22
Q
Miranda v. AZ
A
- Court called upon to consider the constitutionality of a number of instances, in which defendants were questioned “while in custody or otherwise deprived of [their] freedom in any significant way.” In all these cases, suspects were questioned by police officers, detectives, or prosecuting attorneys in rooms that cut them off from the outside world. In none of the cases were suspects given warnings of their rights at the outset of their interrogation.
- Ruled that police must inform criminal suspects of their constitutional rights before questioning suspects after arrest. required police to read the Miranda rules to criminal suspects.
23
Q
Lemon v. Kurtzman
A
- case heard along w/ Earley v. DiCenso& Robinson v. DiCenso
- In PA, a statute provided financial support for teacher salaries, textbooks, and instructional materials for secular subjects to non-public schools.
- RI statute provided direct supplemental salary payments to teachers in non-public elementary schools. Each statute made aid available to “church-related educational institutions.”
- struck down state funding for private religious schools
24
Q
Miller v. CA
A
- Miller, after conducting a mass mailing campaign to advertise the sale of “adult” material, convicted of violating a California statute prohibiting the distribution of obscene material. Some unwilling recipients of Miller’s brochures complained to the police.
- Court held that obscene materials didn’t have First Amendment protection. Court modified the test for obscenity est. in Roth v. United States and Memoirs v. Massachusetts, saying basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be: (a) appeals to the prurient interest (b) whether the work depicts sexual conduct (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
- Court rejected the “utterly without redeeming social value” test of the Memoirs decision.
25
Roe v. Wade
- Roe, Texas resident, wanted abortion. Texas law prohibited abortions except to save woman's life. After granting certiorari, the Court heard arguments twice. 1st time, Roe's attorney couldn’t locate the constitutional hook of her argument. opponent misfired from the start. Weddington sharpened her constitutional argument in the 2nd round. Her new opponent came under strong questioning from Justices.
- ruled that the decision to obtain an abortion is protected by the right to privacy implied by the Bill of Rights
26
US v. Nixon
- Grand jury returned indictments against 7 of Nixon's closest aides in Watergate. Special prosecutor appointed by Nixon and defendants sought audio tapes of conversations recorded by Nixon in the Oval Office.
- Nixon asserted that he was immune from the subpoena claiming "executive privilege," (right to withhold info to preserve confidential communications within executive branch or to secure national interest).
- ruled that there is no constitutional guarantee of unqualified executive privilege.
27
Buckley v. Valeo
- After Watergate affair, Congress attempted to seek out corruption in political campaigns by restricting financial contributions to candidates. The law set limits on the amt. of $ an individual could contribute to a single campaign and it required reporting of contributions. The FEC was created to enforce the statute.
- Upheld federal limits on campaign contributions struck down the portion of the Federal Election Campaign Act limiting the amount of money individuals can contribute to their own campaign ruled that spending money on one's own campaign is a form of constitutionally protected free speech
28
Gregg v. GA
- Jury found Gregg guilty of armed robbery/murder, sentenced him to death. On appeal, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the death sentence except to its imposition for robbery conviction.
- Gregg sentenced to death for murder. Argued that the application of the death penalty in this case was cruel and unusual punishment.
29
UC Regents v. Bakke
- Allan Bakke, white man, had applied to the University of California Medical School at Davis twice. Rejected both times. The school reserved sixteen places for minorities, as part of affirmative action program, in an effort to redress minority exclusions from the medical profession. Bakke's qualifications exceeded those of any of the minority students.
- Bakke contended, first in the California courts, then in the Supreme Court, that he was excluded from admission solely on the basis of race.
- Ordered the school to admit Bakke ruled that school's strict quota system denied Bakke the equal protection guaranteed by the 14th Amendment
- ruled that race could be used as 1 factor among others in the competition for available places.
30
Texas v. Johnson
-Johnson burned an American flag as a means of protest against Reagan administration policies. Johnson tried and convicted under a Texas law outlawing flag desecration. He was sentenced to 1 yr in jail and assessed a $2,000 fine.
- After the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the conviction, the case went to the Supreme Court.
Ruled that flag burning is a form of symbolic speech protected by the 1st amend
31
Planned Parenthood v. Casey
- law required informed consent and a 24 hour waiting period prior to the procedure. A minor seeking an abortion required the consent of 1 parent (the law allows for a judicial bypass procedure). A married woman seeking an abortion had to indicate that she notified her husband of her intention to abort the fetus.
- violating their right to abortions as guaranteed by Roe v. Wade?
- The new standard asks whether a state abortion regulation has the purpose or effect of imposing an "undue burden," which is defined as a "substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability." Under this standard, the only provision to fail the undue-burden test was the husband notification requirement.
- **It was crafted and authored by three justices.**
32
Shaw v. Reno
- The U.S. Attorney General rejected NC reapportionment plan because the plan created only 1 black-majority district. NC submitted a second plan creating 2
- 5 North Carolina residents challenged the constitutionality of this unusually shaped district, alleging that its only purpose was to secure the election of additional black representatives. After a three-judge District Court ruled that they failed to state a constitutional claim.
- The Court held that although NC's reapportionment plan was racially neutral on its face, the resulting district shape was bizarre enough to suggest that it constituted an effort to separate voters into different districts based on race.
33
US v. Lopez
- Lopez, a 12th grade high school student, carried a concealed weapon into his San Antonio, Texas high school. He was charged under Texas law with firearm possession on school premises. The next day, the state charges were dismissed after federal agents charged Lopez with violating a federal criminal statute, the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990.
- Is the 1990 Gun-Free School Zones Act, forbidding individuals from knowingly carrying a gun in a school zone, unconstitutional because it exceeds the power of Congress to legislate under the Commerce Clause?
- Outcome: possession of gun in school has nothing to do with "commerce" or any sort of economic activity.
34
Clinton v. NY
1.) The City of New York, 2 hospital associations, a hospital, and 2 health care unions, challenged the President's cancellation of a provision in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 which relinquished the Federal Government's ability to recoup nearly $2.6 billion in taxes levied against Medicaid providers by the State of New York. 2.) The Snake River farmer's cooperative and one of its individual members challenged the President's cancellation of a provision of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. The provision permitted some food refiners and processors to defer recognition of their capital gains in exchange for selling their stock to eligible farmers' cooperatives.
Act ruled unconstitutional in district court.
Line Item Veto Act → did it violate the Presentment Clause of Article I?
Yes, the Court held that by canceling only selected portions of the bills at issue, under authority granted him by the Act, the President in effect "amended" the laws before him. Such discretion, the Court concluded, violated the "finely wrought" legislative procedures of Article I as envisioned by the Framers.
35
Bush v. Gore
- Effectively resolved the 2000 presidential election in favor of George W. Bush.
- Ruled that the FL Supreme Court's method for recounting ballots was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The Court also ruled that no alternative method could be est. within the time limits set by FL.
- allowed FL sec of state Katherine Harris's previous certification of George W. Bush as the winner of Florida's electoral votes to stand
36
Zelman v. Zimmons-Harris
- OH's Pilot Project Scholarship Program provides tuition aid in the form of vouchers for certain students in the Cleveland City School District to attend participating public or private schools of their parent's choosing.
- 82 % had a religious affiliation and 96 % in the scholarship program were enrolled in religiously affiliated schools.
- violate the Establishment Clause?
- No, Court said bc OH's program is providing educational opportunities to children, govt aid reaches religious institutions only by way of the deliberate choices of numerous individual recipients and the incidental advancement of a religious mission, or any perceived endorsement, is reasonably attributable to the individual aid recipients not the government.
- “program of true private choice."
37
Ashcorft v. ACLU
- The Child Online Protection Act (COPA) applies only to material displayed on the Web, covers only communications made for commercial purposes, and restricts only "material that is harmful to minors."
- problem with that bc it banned constitutionally protected speech, was not the least restrictive means of accomplishing a compelling governmental purpose, and was substantially overbroad.
- violate the First Amendment?
- No, the Court held that COPA's reliance on community standards to identify what material is harmful to minors does not by itself render the statute substantially overbroad for First Amendment purposes.
38
Lawrence v. TX
- Lawrence and Garner were arrested and convicted of deviate sexual intercourse in violation of a Texas statute forbidding homosexual conduct.
- State Court of Appeals held that the statute was not unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, with Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986)
- Court held that the Texas statute violates the Due Process Clause. Lawrence and Garner were free as adults to engage in the private conduct
39
Grutter v. Bollinger
- 2 students denied @ U of Michigan.
- University admits that it uses race as a factor b/c it serves diversity
- violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amend or Civil Rights Act of 1964?
- Yes, the Court held that the U of M's use of racial preferences in undergraduate admissions violates both.
