Final

Question 1

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)

Answer 1

Olmstead v. United States (1928)

Question 2

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

Answer 2

Lochner v. New York (1905)

Question 3

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

Answer 3

Meyer v. Nebraska (1923)

Question 4

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

Answer 4

Poe v. Ullman (1961)

Question 5

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

Answer 5

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)

Question 6

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

Answer 6

Katz v. U.S. (1967)

Question 7

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

Answer 7

Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972)

Question 8

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

Answer 8

Roe v. Wade (1973)

Question 9

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

Answer 9

Planned Parenthood v. Danforth (1976)

Question 10

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

Answer 10

Harris v. McCrae (1980)

Question 11

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

Answer 11

Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health (1983)

Question 12

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

Answer 12

Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989)

Question 13

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

Answer 13

Planned Parenthood of Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992)

Question 14

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)

Answer 14

Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt (2016)

Question 15

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

Answer 15

Bowers v. Hardwick (1986)

Question 16

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)

Answer 16

Lawrence v. Texas (2003)

Question 17

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

Answer 17

Perry v. Hollingsworth (2013)

Question 18

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

Answer 18

U.S. v. Windsor (2013)

Question 19

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)

Answer 19

Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)

Question 20

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

Answer 20

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018)

Question 21

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)

Answer 21

Cruzan v. Missouri Department of Health (1990)

Question 22

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)

Answer 22

Doe v. Reed (2010)

Question 23

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

Answer 23

United States v. Jones (2012)

Question 24

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

Answer 24

Carpenter v. United States (2018)

Question 25

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

Answer 25

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

Question 26

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

Answer 26

Illinois v. Gates (1983)

Question 27

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

Answer 27

Kyllo v. U.S. (2001)

Question 28

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

Answer 28

Florida v. Jardines (2013)

Question 29

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

Answer 29

Knowles v. Iowa (1998)

Question 30

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)

Answer 30

Safford Unified School District v. Redding (2009)

Question 31

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

Answer 31

Birchfield v. North Dakota (2016)

Question 32

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)

Answer 32

Terry v. Ohio (1968)

Question 33

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

Answer 33

Weeks v. U.S. (1914)

Question 34

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

Answer 34

Wolf v. Colorado (1949)

Question 35

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

Answer 35

Mapp v. Ohio (1961)

Question 36

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

Answer 36

U.S. v. Leon (1984)

Question 37

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

Answer 37

Hudson v. Michigan (2006)

Question 38

Case ruling that physical violence cannot be used during police interrogations

Answer 38

Brown v. Mississippi (1936)

Question 39

Case ruling that police cannot use psychological coercion during police interrogations

Answer 39

Spano v. New York (1959)

Question 40

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

Answer 40

Escobedo v. Illinois (1964)

Question 41

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

Answer 41

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

Question 42

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

Answer 42

Missouri v. Seibert (2004)

Question 43

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

Answer 43

Powell v. Alabama (1932)

Question 44

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

Answer 44

Johnson v. Zerbst (1938)

Question 45

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

Answer 45

Betts v. Brady (1942)

Question 46

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

Answer 46

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

Question 47

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

Answer 47

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

Question 48

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

Answer 48

Douglas v. California (1963)

Question 49

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

Answer 49

Ross v. Moffitt (1974)

Question 50

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

Answer 50

Strickland v. Washington (1984)

Question 51

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

Answer 51

United States v. Salerno (1987)

Question 52

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

Answer 52

Demore v. Kim (2003)

Question 53

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

Answer 53

Barker v. Wingo (1972)

Question 54

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

Answer 54

Swain v. Alabama (1965)

Question 55

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

Answer 55

Batson v. Kentucky (1986)

Question 56

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

Answer 56

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

Question 57

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)

Answer 57

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

Question 58

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

Answer 58

Sheppard v. Maxwell (1966)

Question 59

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

Answer 59

Gannet Co. v. DePasquale (1979)

Question 60

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)

Answer 60

Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia (1980)

Question 61

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

Answer 61

Maryland v. Craig (1990)

Question 62

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

Answer 62

Crawford v. Washington (2004)

Question 63

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

Answer 63

Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts (2009)

Question 64

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

Answer 64

Michigan v. Bryant (2011)

Question 65

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

Answer 65

Solem v. Helm (1983)

Question 66

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

Answer 66

Ewing v. California (2003)

Question 67

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

Answer 67

Furman v. Georgia (1972)

Question 68

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

Answer 68

Gregg v. Georgia (1976)

Question 69

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

Answer 69

McCleskey v. Kemp (1987)

Question 70

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

Answer 70

Baez v. Rees (2008)

Question 71

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

Answer 71

Atkins v. Virginia (2002)

Question 72

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

Answer 72

Roper v. Simmons (2005)

Question 73

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

Answer 73

Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886)

Question 74

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

Answer 74

Bolling v. Sharpe (1954)

Question 75

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

Answer 75

Scott v. Sandford (1857)

Question 76

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

Answer 76

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

Question 77

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

Answer 77

Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada (1938)

Question 78

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

Answer 78

Sweatt v. Painter (1950)

Question 79

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

Answer 79

Korematsu v. United States (1944)

Question 80

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

Answer 80

Brown v. Board of Education I (1954)

Question 81

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

Answer 81

Brown v. Board of Education II (1955)

Question 82

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

Answer 82

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

Question 83

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

Answer 83

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

Question 84

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

Answer 84

Freeman v. Pitts (1992)

Question 85

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

Answer 85

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

Question 86

Case ruling that state mandated racial segregation in housing is unconstitutional

Answer 86

Buchanan v. Warley (1917)

Question 87

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

Answer 87

Shelley v. Kraemer (1948)

Question 88

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

Answer 88

Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority (1961)

Question 89

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

Answer 89

Moose Lodge #107 v. Irvis (1972)

Question 90

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

Answer 90

U.S. v. Carolene Products (1938)

Question 91

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

Answer 91

NYC Transit Authority v. Beazer (1979)

Question 92

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

Answer 92

Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center (1985)

Question 93

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

Answer 93

Loving v. Virginia (1967)

Question 94

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

Answer 94

Washington v. Davis (1976)

Question 95

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

Answer 95

Regents of University of California v. Bakke (1978)

Question 96

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

Answer 96

Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)

Question 97

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

Answer 97

Fisher v. University of Texas (2016)

Question 98

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

Answer 98

Bradwell v. Illinois (1873)

Question 99

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

Answer 99

Reed v. Reed (1971)

Question 100

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

Answer 100

Frontiero v. Richardson (1973)

Question 101

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

Answer 101

Craig v. Boren (1976)

Question 102

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

Answer 102

Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan (1982)

Question 103

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

Answer 103

U.S. v. Virginia (1996)

Question 104

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

Answer 104

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

Question 105

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

Answer 105

Romer v. Evans (1996)