Court Cases

Question 1

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

Answer 1

The federal government was allowed to create a national bank to carry out actions in the commerce clause.

This case introduced that the government had implied powers (as given by the necessary and proper clause)

Question 2

Buckley v. Valeo

Answer 2

After the Federal Campaign Reform Laws of 1974, many people were upset.

In Buckley VS Valeo, the court ruled that you CAN limit individual contributions to a campaign or candidate, but that you CANNOT limit the amount a candidate spends.

Question 3

Nixon v Shrink Massachusetts Government PAC

Answer 3

Similar to Buckley VS Valeo, but for state governments instead of the federal government.
State governments cannot control how much a candidate spends on a campaign, but can regulate/limit individual contributions.

Question 4

McConnell v.FEC

Answer 4

A side effect of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Finance legislation.

The court ruled that…
Congress can ban soft money
The government can take steps to prevent schemes to get around the contribution limit

Question 5

FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life

Answer 5

Addressing the ban on campaign ads 60 days before the general election and 30 days before a primary election, the court ruled that issue ads (where no candidate is identified or mentioned) are OK to run during these time frames.

Question 6

Citizens United v. FEC

Answer 6

Challenging the 2002 legislation, Citizens United was concerned that corporations couldn’t use funds from their general treasuries, had to disclose donors, and didn’t know whether creating a movie about a candidate (not relating to the election) was legal.
The court ruled that…
Corporate funding cannot be restricted due to violating free speech
The ban on direct corporation, association, and union contributions would be upheld
Creating a movie about a candidate, as long as it was not affiliated/relating to the elections and campaigns, was legal due to free speech.

Question 7

Mapp v. Ohio

Answer 7

Police officers entered the home of a bomb suspect (an illegal search) and found obscene materials. They arrested Mapp for the possession of these items.

The court ruled that evidence obtained illegally is protected under free speech, and is not admissible in court.

Question 8

Miranda v. Arizona

Answer 8

Because of this case, the government is required to inform defendants of their 5th amendment rights against self incrimination, that they are allowed to have legal counsel during interrogation and will have legal counsel appointed to them if necessary, and that anything they say can be used in court.

The high pressure of an interrogation can cause a defendant to say something they normally wouldn’t, causing them to violate their right to self-incrimination, unless they are already informed of their 5th amendment rights.

Question 9

Roper v. Simmons

Answer 9

Sentencing a minor with the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment, and violates the 8th amendment.

Question 10

Miller v. Alabama

Answer 10

Life in prison without possibility of parole is cruel and unusual punishment for minors

(the kid who beat a guy up and then burnt the guy’s house up with the guy still slightly alive in it)

Question 11

Tinker v. Des Moines

Answer 11

Came about when several students came to school wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War.

Students have limited first amendment rights in school when their actions “materially and substantially interfere” with the daily functions of the school.

Question 12

Morse v. Frederick

Answer 12

“bong hits 4 jesus”

SCOTUS said principals can prohibit students from promoting potentially harmful messages.

Question 13

Pottawatomie v. Earls

Answer 13

Participation in school extracurricular activities implies a lower expectation of privacy, making the universal drug-testing policy for all students involved in extracurriculars constitutional.

Question 14

US v. Nixon

Answer 14

Executive privilege may not be invoked to deny the courts access to evidence needed in a criminal proceeding. The court forced Nixon to hand over the unedited tapes for the criminal trials of previous administration officials (which linked Nixon to the Watergate burglars) during his trial after the Watergate Scandal.

Question 15

Bush v. Gore

Answer 15

Gore wanted a recount in specific counties of Florida. SCOTUS stopped the recount, calling it unconstitutional, because under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment all of the counties would’ve had to recount, they can’t just do some

Question 16

National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sebelius

Answer 16

Is mandating individuals to purchase health care constitutional? Is medicaid expansion constitutional?

According to SCOTUS, mandating health care is considered a tax, and is constitutional.
However, medicaid expansion doesn’t fall under congress’s spending clause, and is unconstitutionally coercive to the states.

Question 17

Griswold v. Connecticut

Answer 17

The 14th amendment stance on privacy protects a person’s right to contraception. It is unconstitutional to ban contraception.

Question 18

Roe v. Wade

Answer 18

“Jane Roe”, from Texas, was seeking an abortion, and could not afford to travel outside the state lines to do this legally. She believed she had a right to terminate her pregnancy in a safe medical environment, and brought it to the Supreme Court.

A woman’s right to choose is protected under the 14th amendment stance on privacy. A woman has full autonomy over her body during the first trimester, with the state determining regulations during the second and third trimesters.

Question 19

Casey v. Planned Parenthood

Answer 19

Set a new precedent for determining whether or not abortion regulation legislation can stay there or not:
Legislation cannot place an “undue burden” on a woman seeking an abortion. This is further defined as an obstacle preventing a woman from getting an abortion before the fetus reaches viability and will no longer be eligible.

Question 20

Heller v. DC

Answer 20

DC codes made it illegal to carry an unregistered firearm. Owners of lawfully registered firearms had to keep them unloaded and disassembled/bound by a trigger lock unless they are in a place of business or being used for legal recreational activities.

The second part of this code is unconstitutional because it limits a person’s ability to protect themselves in their homes and violates the second amendment.

Question 21

McDonald v. Chicago

Answer 21

Applied the precedent of Heller v. DC (the second amendment protects and individual’s right to have a firearm for protection in their home) to the states. It was incorporated to the states through the 14th amendment due process clause.

Question 22

Dred Scott

Answer 22

Dred Scott claimed that he should be free since he lived in a free state for a while, but the Supreme Court be like “NOPE, YOU AIN’T EVEN A CITIZEN, YOU CAN’T FILE A LAWSUIT”

Question 23

Plessy v. Ferguson

Answer 23

Separate but equal is cool under the equal protection clause, segregation is a’ight

Question 24

Brown v. Board of Education

Answer 24

Separate but Equal is Inherently Unequal.

(really the only thing that matters, caused the ultimate desegregation of schools)
(violates the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amednmend)

Question 25

Swann v. Charlotte

Answer 25

School busing is an appropriate method of desegregating schools to get rid of the segregation caused by the areas where people lived being “naturally” segregated

Question 26

Bakke v. California

Answer 26

Does a racial quota for admittance at a university violate the right to equal protection under the 14th amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

Nope.
Race can be used as long as it is used with other considerations and is used on a case-by-case basis. A school can’t really use “quotas”, persay, but can use Affirmative Action. What’s the difference? Wording.

Question 27

Grutter v. Bollinger

Answer 27

Determined that schools can use race as a determination in acceptance IF it doesn’t cause undue harm to either minorities or non-minorities, and if students aren’t automatically or solely accepted/denied based on race.

Question 28

Shelby County Alabama v. Holder

Answer 28

State voting rules are no longer monitored by the federal government.

Question 29

Schneck v. US

Answer 29

Schneck sent out leaflets to guys who were subject to the draft saying “DONT DO IT, WWI ISN’T COOL”
Said the draft broke the 13th amendment (slavery)

SCOTUS was like yo, we’re at war, we need an army. Stop. The leaflets were not protected under the first amendment

Question 30

Texas v. Johnson

Answer 30

Several states had flag desecration laws. After a dude in Texas burned his flag, Texas was like “aaaaaah!!” and the dude was like “hang on, guys. I’m pretty sure I should be able to do this”

SCOTUS was like “yeah, we’re pretty sure you should be able to do this too. States, no more flag desecration laws”

Flag burning is free speech.

Question 31

Engle v. Vitale

Answer 31

d

Question 32

Gitlow v. NY

Answer 32

Gitlow was handing out socialist manifestos calling for a revolution with strikes and class action lawsuits.

Because of this, SCOTUS decided that free speech (the first amendment) does indeed apply to the states, but Gitlow’s speech is not protected by it because it has a “dangerous tendency”

Question 33

Brandenburg v. Ohio

Answer 33

If a speech doesn’t incite immediate violence, it’s protected under the 1st amendment.

Unfortunately, this meant KKK dude could keep talking about “white suppression”

Question 34

NY Times v. US

Answer 34

Nixon Administration was attempting to prevent NY Times from publishing Defense Department Papers because prior restraint was required to protect national security.

SCOTUS said:

• Security doesn’t limit free speech (coughcough tell that to Edward Snowden)
• NY Times publication wouldn’t immediately harm national security
• Not enough proof from Nixon that it would harm national security

Question 35

Lemon v. Kurtzman

Answer 35

h

Question 36

Reynolds v. US

Answer 36

Polygamy isn’t ok even if you’re Mormon because it’s a law that was established before the religion got there, and exempting a particular religion from it because of the free exercise clause would put religion above the law

Question 37

Employment Division of Oregon v. Smith

Answer 37

A drug counselor tried to get away with using peyote as a piece of his free religious exercise. Supreme Court be like “nope, you ain’t above the law”.

This is because:
Exempting religion from general laws would make religion above the law, and religion should be neither favored nor worked against by the law

Question 38

Tracy Lois Odem v. New Jersey

Answer 38

Search and seizure by school officials is not a violation of the 4th amendment as long as the search is reasonable. Schools must maintain an educational, safe environment, so the requirements for searches and seizures are less strict.