Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Civil Liberties > Final > Flashcards

Final Flashcards

1
Q

Case ruling that the 4th and 5th amendments do not protect against government wiretaps; physical penetration rule (as long as govt. does not intrude on private property)

A

Olmstead v. United States (1928)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Case that first used substantive due process and ruled that individuals have the right to enter into private contracts by the 14th amendment

A

Lochner v. New York (1905)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Case ruling that “liberty” in the 14th amendment extends beyond economic rights, particularly the right to marry, acquire knowledge, worship God, etc.

A

Meyer v. Nebraska (1923)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Case that did not get decided on but a dissent from denial of cert. argued that privacy laws should be subject to strict scrutiny

A

Poe v. Ullman (1961)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Case ruling that a right to privacy exists in the Constitution (but did not establish where the right comes from) and is fundamental; states can only restrict privacy under strict scrutiny; the amendments create zones of privacy

A

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Case ruling that wiretaps are unconstitutional and created the “reasonable expectation of privacy” standard; 4th amendment protects tangible and intangible things

A

Katz v. U.S. (1967)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Case ruling that laws cannot prohibit single people from accessing contraceptives; dicta by Justice Brennan cued litigants in future cases

A

Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Case ruling that the right to privacy includes a right to obtain an abortion and created a trimester framework for how and when states could restrict abortions

A

Roe v. Wade (1973)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Case ruling that spousal or parental consent cannot be required by states when a woman wants to obtain an abortion, but opened the door to judicial bypass for parental consent

A

Planned Parenthood v. Danforth (1976)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Case ruling that Medicaid or some form of federal assistance is not required to pay for a woman’s abortion

A

Harris v. McCrae (1980)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Case ruling that certain restrictions on abortions are unconstitutional; more important, O’Connor’s dissent arguing that the trimester framework be abandoned and replaced by undue burden

A

Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health (1983)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Case ruling that public facilities do not have to perform abortions, states may proscribe abortion after viability, Roe did not get overturned

A

Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Case adopting the undue burden test and abandoning the trimester framework, but Roe’s central holding was reaffirmed (righ to abortion)

A

Planned Parenthood of Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Case ruling that the undue burden test is best used as a cost benefit analysis (health benefits of the restriction v. The burden on women)

A

Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt (2016)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Case ruling that the Court would not find a new fundamental right to engage in homosexual activity; fundamental rights are “deeply rooted in history”; rational basis test

A

Bowers v. Hardwick (1986)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Case overruling the decision in Bowers and striking down a law the criminalized homosexual activity; liberty of private adults to conduct their lives (14th amendment due process clause NOT equal protection)

A

Lawrence v. Texas (2003)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Case that denied review of the lower court decision on same-sex marriage, ultimately having the effect that same-sex marriage would remain criminal in California

A

Perry v. Hollingsworth (2013)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Case that struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act which defined marriage as between one man and woman; states could not make distinctions based on sexual orientation

A

U.S. v. Windsor (2013)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Case ruling that the right to marry is a fundamental right under the due process clause; states deny equal protection when same-sex couples are denied the right to marry (same-sex marriage is legal)

A

Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Case ruling that businesses may not serve homosexual individuals if their religion forbids same-sex marriage (freedom of religion)

A

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Case ruling that a “clear and convincing evidence” standard should be used in right to die cases (clear and convincing evidence of the individual’s wishes)

A

Cruzan v. Missouri Department of Health (1990)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Case ruling that states can release names and addresses on petitions because the state has an important interest in protecting the electoral process (petition release does not violate privacy)

A

Doe v. Reed (2010)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Case ruling that Katz has been added to physical penetration rule, not replacing it; monitoring vehicle movement with a tracking device is unconstitutional unless a warrant is obtained and followed

A

United States v. Jones (2012)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Case ruling that police must obtain a search warrant when utilizing cell phone data from cell phone companies

A

Carpenter v. United States (2018)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Case establishing a two-prong test to evaluate anonymous tips to the police (must establish validity and reliability of the information)

A

Aguilar v. Texas (1964) — Aguilar-Spinelli test

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Case abandoning the Aguilar-Spinelli test and establishing the totality of circumstances test when analyzing anonymous tips

A

Illinois v. Gates (1983)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Case ruling that the home is the most protected place against intrusion, even against non-physical intrusion

A

Kyllo v. U.S. (2001)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

Case ruling that the government’s use of trained drug dogs is considered a “search” and must only be done with a warrant

A

Florida v. Jardines (2013)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

Case ruling that routine traffic stops do not justify a full search of the vehicle; goes against privacy

A

Knowles v. Iowa (1998)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

Case ruling that a school’s search of a student is permissible when it is reasonably related to the objectives of the search and not excessively intrusive in the light of the age and sex of the student (reasonable suspicion)

A

Safford Unified School District v. Redding (2009)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

Case ruling that breath tests for drinking and driving do not require a warrant, but blood tests do require a warrant because of their intrusive nature

A

Birchfield v. North Dakota (2016)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

Case ruling that police can search an indivual in public if there is reasonable suspicion to believe that there is criminal activity and the police believes that the person might be armed (govt. interest in police safety)

A

Terry v. Ohio (1968)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

Case ruling that judges must exclude any evidence obtained in violation of the 4th amendment from federal court

A

Weeks v. U.S. (1914)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

Case incorporating the 4th amendment to the states, as protection against searches and seizures is a fundamental right; but the exclusionary rule is not a mandatory way for states to enforce lawful searches and seizures

A

Wolf v. Colorado (1949)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

Case ruling that evidence obtained illegally is inadmissible in federal AND state court; made exclusionary rule mandatory

A

Mapp v. Ohio (1961)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

Case ruling that evidence that is obtained illegally but in good faith by the police can be admitted into court; exclusionary rule is not a deterrent when police are acting in good faith

A

U.S. v. Leon (1984)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

Case ruling that evidence should not be excluded if police violate the knock and announce rule; the rule does not protect an individual from the police taking evidence that is described in a lawful warrant

A

Hudson v. Michigan (2006)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
38
Q

Case ruling that physical violence cannot be used during police interrogations

A

Brown v. Mississippi (1936)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
39
Q

Case ruling that police cannot use psychological coercion during police interrogations

A

Spano v. New York (1959)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
40
Q

Case ruling that an individual has a right to have an attorney present during police interrogations and all subsequent stages

A

Escobedo v. Illinois (1964)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
41
Q

Case ruling that police are required to warn individuals of their rights when being taken into custody to ensure that the individual was aware of these rights when they are waived; primarily protects against self-incrimination

A

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
42
Q

Case ruling that police cannot obatain incriminating statements before the Miranda warnings and then have them repeated after the warnings are given; diminishes Miranda’s purpose; statements made using this tactic cannot be admissible

A

Missouri v. Seibert (2004)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
43
Q

Case ruling that individuals have the right to counsel in unusual situations, including capital offenses, intense public pressure, young, educated, inexperienced

A

Powell v. Alabama (1932)

44
Q

Case ruling that the court must appoint counsel to indigent defendants in federal cases to obtain a fair trial

A

Johnson v. Zerbst (1938)

45
Q

Case that refused to apply certain 6th amendment guarantees to the states, including right to counsel

A

Betts v. Brady (1942)

46
Q

Case ruling that the right to counsel is a fundamental right and should be incorporated to the states; overturned Betts v. Brady

A

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

47
Q

Two cases that created the loss of liberty rule; an indigent defendant charged with a crime that will lead to even one day incarcerated is entitled to counsel

A

Argersinger v. Hamlin (1972) and Scott v. Illinois (1979)

48
Q

Case ruling that the right to counsel extends through the first obligatory appeal, even if the defendant plead guilty

A

Douglas v. California (1963)

49
Q

Case ruling that the right to counsel does not extend past the first appeal stage; any subsequent appeals, the state does not have to provide counsel

A

Ross v. Moffitt (1974)

50
Q

Case ruling that in order to show that a defense attorney was deficient, the defendant must show deficiency and prejudice; high deference to to the attorney

A

Strickland v. Washington (1984)

51
Q

Case ruling that the Bail Reform Act of 1984 did not violate excessive bail; govt. interests should not be limited by excessive bail prohibition, especially safety

A

United States v. Salerno (1987)

52
Q

Case ruling that bail may be denied to aliens with past criminal convictions who are waiting for deportation

A

Demore v. Kim (2003)

53
Q

Case ruling that four criteria should be used to determine what is a speedy trial: length of delay, reason for delay, point when the defendant claims 6th amendment violations, whether the delay prejudiced the case

A

Barker v. Wingo (1972)

54
Q

Case making it difficult for judges to prohibit the use of peremptory challenges by the prosecutors; reinforced peremptory challenges

A

Swain v. Alabama (1965)

55
Q

Case ruling that prosecutors may not strike specific races from a jury through peremptory challenge; created a framework to prove racial discrimination in jury selection

A

Batson v. Kentucky (1986)

56
Q

Case ruling that the decision in Batson should be applied to sex discrimination in jury selection

A

JEB v. Alabama ex rel. T.B. (1994)

57
Q

Cases ruling that unanimity for a verdict is required in federal cases under the 6th, but does not carry over to the states through the 14th (states can have 9-3 verdicts)

A

Johnson v. Louisiana and Apodaca v. Oregon (1972)

58
Q

Case ruling that judges have the responsibility to restrict media in a way to maintain a fair trial; gave judges ammunition in restricting the media

A

Sheppard v. Maxwell (1966)

59
Q

Case ruling that judges can close pretrial proceedings to the media; adverse publicity can be especially dangerous at the pretrial stage

A

Gannet Co. v. DePasquale (1979)

60
Q

Case ruling that the right of the press to attend criminal trials is inherent in the Constitution in the 1st amendment; judges cannot completely close trial proceedings to the media (except pretrial)

A

Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia (1980)

61
Q

Case ruling that abused children can testify via a closed-circuit television rather than in-person in court

A

Maryland v. Craig (1990)

62
Q

Case ruling that witness testimony can only be admitted into court if the witness can be cross-examined in court or if there was prior opportunity for the witness to be cross-examined; applies to witness during police interrogations

A

Crawford v. Washington (2004)

63
Q

Case ruling that state labratory analysts must present their findings in court to be cross-examined

A

Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts (2009)

64
Q

Case ruling that statements made to police at a crime scene that are made in order to help the police with an “ongoing emergency” does not have to be subjected to cross-examination

A

Michigan v. Bryant (2011)

65
Q

Case ruling that the 8th amendment prohibits punishments that are disproportionate to the crime; created three guidelines to determine: gravity of the offense, sentences imposed on similar crimes in the same jurisdiction; sentences imposed in other jurisdictions

A

Solem v. Helm (1983)

66
Q

Case ruling that three strikes laws do not violate the 8th amendment; they take into account the entire criminal history and are therefore not disproportionate; judicial deference to the legislature

A

Ewing v. California (2003)

67
Q

Case ruling that the death penalty violated the 8th amendment as cruel and unusual becasue of the arbitrary manner it was being imposed against blacks; juries had too much discretion, leading to arbitrariness

A

Furman v. Georgia (1972)

68
Q

Case ruling that the death penalty did not violate the 8th and 14th amendments under Georgia’s revised method becasue of the bifurcated trials and aggravating/mitigating factors; no longer arbitrary

A

Gregg v. Georgia (1976)

69
Q

Case ruling that discrimination in death penalty sentencing must be shown in each specific case; does not matter if blacks receive the death penalty more than whites in general

A

McCleskey v. Kemp (1987)

70
Q

Case ruling that lethal injection does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment simply becasue it may cause pain

A

Baez v. Rees (2008)

71
Q

Case ruling that the death penalty cannot be applied to mentally disabled individuals; polling jurisdictions

A

Atkins v. Virginia (2002)

72
Q

Case ruling that the death penalty cannot be applied to anyone 18 and under

A

Roper v. Simmons (2005)

73
Q

Case ruling that the equal protection clause applies to persons other than African Americans and also protects non-citizens

A

Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886)

74
Q

Case utilizing the 5th amendment to bar discrimination by the federal government

A

Bolling v. Sharpe (1954)

75
Q

Case ruling that a black slave could not become a full member of the American community and be entitled to the Constitutional privileges of citizens

A

Scott v. Sandford (1857)

76
Q

Case ruling that separate but equal facilities for different races is constitutional; segregation laws do not necessarily imply the inferiority of one race

A

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

77
Q

Case ruling that paying for out-of-state tuition for African Americans to attend another non-segregated school does not meet the obligations imposed by the 14th

A

Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada (1938)

78
Q

Case ruling that separate but equal status can stand as long as the facilities are actually equal; a new law school for blacks must be equal with the original law school for whites

A

Sweatt v. Painter (1950)

79
Q

Case ruling that race is a suspect class and should be subjected to strict scrutiny

A

Korematsu v. United States (1944)

80
Q

Case ruling that the doctrine of separate but equal has no place in public schools; separating children based on race deprive them of diverse education and denotes inferiority

A

Brown v. Board of Education I (1954)

81
Q

Case ruling that desegregation of public schools should begin with the local school boards, and local courts will step in if need be; “prompt and reasonable start” in terms of time schedule

A

Brown v. Board of Education II (1955)

82
Q

Case ruling that if school boards fail to desegregate their schools, the courts must step in; but the court remedy must not be too harsh

A

Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education (1971)

83
Q

Case ruling that the courts cannot control resegregation based on private residential decisions; court supervision can end as long as state-sanctioned discrimination ended

A

Board of Education of Oklahoma Schools v. Dowell (1991)

84
Q

Case ruling that judges could release school districts from court supervision incrementally as they met desegregation goals

A

Freeman v. Pitts (1992)

85
Q

Cases ruling that schools cannot classify students based on race to achieve integration, especially if the district is not under court supervision

A

PICS v. Seattle and Meredith v. Jefferson County (2007)

86
Q

Case ruling that state mandated racial segregation in housing is unconstitutional

A

Buchanan v. Warley (1917)

87
Q

Case ruling that judicial enforcement of restrictive covenants constitutes state action; therefore, the restrictive covenants are unconstitutional

A

Shelley v. Kraemer (1948)

88
Q

Case ruling that property leased to a private business in a government-owned building must follow constitutional guidelines; the city’s inaction to force the coffee shop to accept black customers constitutes state action

A

Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority (1961)

89
Q

Case ruling that state action is not present simply becasue a private business receives a benefit or service from the state (liquor license); the state did not significantly involve itself with the business by just granting a license

A

Moose Lodge #107 v. Irvis (1972)

90
Q

Case creating the strict scrutiny test in a footnote; the Court has a duty to protect discrete and insular minorities

A

U.S. v. Carolene Products (1938)

91
Q

Case ruling that the legitimate govt. interest of having a capable work force was rationally related to the exclusion of methadone users from being hired

A

NYC Transit Authority v. Beazer (1979)

92
Q

Case ruling that the legitimate interests of a city in requiring a special permit for a home for the mentally disabled are not rationally related to the requirement; rests on an irrational prejudice

A

Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center (1985)

93
Q

Case ruling that antimiscegenation laws violate the 14th amendment; they serve no legitimate purpose except to discriminate; freedom to marry

A

Loving v. Virginia (1967)

94
Q

Case ruling that disproportionate racial effects from laws that are facially neutral cannot be sufficient to constitute discrimination on its own; much harder to show discrimination

A

Washington v. Davis (1976)

95
Q

Case ruling that race can be used as a “plus” in admissions programs, but cannot be used as the sole determining factor for racial quotas; diversity in higher education is a compelling interest

A

Regents of University of California v. Bakke (1978)

96
Q

Case ruling that diversity is a compelling state interest; admissions programs must use race as one factor in addition to other factors to be narrowly tailored

A

Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)

97
Q

Case ruling that the University of Texas special admissions program was lawful becasue there were compelling state interests and it was narrowly tailored

A

Fisher v. University of Texas (2016)

98
Q

Case ruling that women could not practice law becasue females are delicate and unfit for certain occupations

A

Bradwell v. Illinois (1873)

99
Q

Case ruling that the Idaho law giving preference to males over inheritances is unconstitutional becasue the interest of the state that women could not handle business is not a legitimate interest; based on out-dated notions

A

Reed v. Reed (1971)

100
Q

Case ruling that the military’s benefits policy was unconstitutional becasue the policy was overbroad and rested on outdated gender roles

A

Frontiero v. Richardson (1973)

101
Q

Case establishing the heightened/intermediate scrutiny test for gender-based discriminations

A

Craig v. Boren (1976)

102
Q

Case ruling that an all-female nursing school was unconstitutional becasue the interests were based on outdated notions of gender roles

A

Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan (1982)

103
Q

Case ruling that the single-sex policies of VMI were unconstitutional becasue the interests failed to meet the standards of intermediate scrutiny

A

U.S. v. Virginia (1996)

104
Q

Case ruling that a rape law only holding men responsible for rape is constitutional becasue of physical differences between men and women (pregnancy)

A

Michael M. v. Superior Court of Sonoma County (1981)

105
Q

Case ruling that a new amendment meant to disadvantage homosexuals was unconstitutional becasue it placed a special disability on gays alone; defies normal equal protection analysis

A

Romer v. Evans (1996)

Civil Liberties (2 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions