Final Flashcards
(43 cards)
process by which legislative seats are distributed among units entitled to representation
Apportionment
A political scientist at Northwestern University challenged the congressional districts in Illinois for failing to be equal in population.
The Court rejected his claim because no law required congressional districts to be:
Compact
Contiguous
Equal in population
Colegrove vs. Greene
A group claimed that TN had failed to reapportion their voting districts causing “debasement” of votes in districts whose populations had swelled relative to other districts.
The majority determined that there was a justiciable claim and remanded the case to the District Court to fashion a remedy.
Justiciable: capable of being decided by a court
Baker vs. Carr
J. Black, writing for the majority, held that “the command of Art. I, §2 that Representatives be chosen ‘by the People of the several States’ means that, asnearly as is practicable, one man’s vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much as another’s.”
Thus, the “one man, one vote” rule was announced, here in reference to congressional districts.
Wesberry vs. Sanders
Extended the “one man, one vote” to state legislatures—both branches.
Instead of using Art. I, Sec. 2, the Court used Equal Protection under the 14th Amendment.
-j Brennan wrote, “Legislators represent people, not trees or acres.”
Reynolds vs Sims
extended the“one man, one vote” rule to counties, cities, and towns
Changed procedures for an estimated 80,000 units of local government
Avery v. Midland County
Military zones and Japanese internment camps
Korematsu v. U.S.
During WWII, 8 German saboteurs landed on American soil (4 on Long Island & 4 in Florida)
Two saboteurs turned themselves in and informed the FBI about their plan and their accomplices
6 sentenced to death
tried by military tribunal
Ex Parte Quirin
the Court agreed that segregation in public schools was unconstitutional, but it did not provide a method to end the problem
Brown vs. board of Education
extended the exclusionary rule to state courts
Gambling ring and porn magazines
6-3 ruling her rights had been violated
Mapp v. Ohio
Court upheld warrantless wiretapping of telephone lines, in part because there was no physical invasion of the defendant’s property
Created the “trespass doctrine”- a search is only “unreasonable” if constitutionally protected area is intruded upon
Olmstead v. United States
Federal agents placed a warrantless wiretap on the public phone booth to listen to conversations of Charles Katz.
Unreasonable?
YES 7-1
Katz v. U.S.
The right to remain silent
If they don’t remain silent, the information they provide may be used in a court of law
They have the right to an attorney
If they cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for them
Miranda v. Arizona
Compelling Governmental Interest
Narrowly Tailored / Least Restrictive Means
Strict Scrutiny
Important Governmental Interests
Law is substantially related
Heightened/Intermediate Scrutiny
Legitimate Governmental Interests
Law is rationally related
Rational Basis
Bakke was twice rejected at the Medical School at UCD.
ISSUE: Does UCD’s affirmative action policy violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment?
HOLDING- YES and NO
Regents of the U. of CA v. Bakke
Gratz was a white resident of Michigan who did not gain acceptance as an undergraduate at the University of Michigan.
Michigan argued that they had a compelling state interest in maintaining an academically capable, diverse student body.
Does UM’s affirmative action point system violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment?
Holding: Yes (6-3 opinion)
UM’s policy is not narrowly tailored
Based on race, 1/5 of the points needed for admission are automatically awarded to some applicants.
This is not an individualized assessment of an applicant’s profile
Gratz v. Bollinger
Rejected from MI Law School
ISSUE: Does UM Law School’s affirmative action “holistic system” violate Equal Protection under the 14th Amendment?
Holding: No (5-4 opinion)
The law school’s policy was narrowly tailored to further the compelling state interest in obtaining the educational benefits of a diverse student body.
Grutter v. Bollinger
Rejected at UT Austin
HOLDING: In a 7-1 opinion, the Court vacated and remanded the Fifth Circuit’s opinion. Justice Kagan recused herself.
Vacate: cancel or annul a judgment
Remand: return a case for further action
Recuse: disqualify oneself due to a conflict of interest
Fisher v. University of Texas
Miller owned a mail-order business that specialized in pornography. He mailed explicit brochures to advertise his products.
The Court crafted new rules to permit state regulation of obscenity:
Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards (not national standards, as some prior tests required), would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;
Whether the work depicts or describes, in apatently offensiveway, sexual conduct or excretory functionsspecifically defined by applicablestate law;
“Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks seriousliterary,artistic,political, orscientificvalue.”
Miller v. CA
He burned a stolen flag in protest outside the 1984 Republican National Convention
A 5-4 majority on the Court held that flag burning is “expressive conduct” that is protected by the 1st Amendment
TX v. Johnson
An Indiana law prohibited public nudity. Dancers were required to wear G-strings and pasties.
The Court determined that nude dancing was expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment.
Barnes v. Glen Theater
The Court upheld a law requiring Internet filters to block pornography and other offensive content.
The restriction was considered permissible in order to protect children.
Adults have a First Amendment right to insist that the filters be lifted so they can enjoy porn in their public library.
U.S. v. American Library Association
