Midterm

Question 1

Case that established the power of judicial review: the federal courts have the power to review government actions and invalidate those that are unconstitutional

Answer 1

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

Question 2

Case establishing that Congress has the authority to remove the Court’s appellate jurisdiction as it deems necessary

Answer 2

Ex parte McCardle (1869)

Question 3

Case that deals with political questions and establishes a two-prong standard to determine what is a political question; namely, if the decision rests on another branch of government

Answer 3

Baker v. Carr (1962)

Question 4

Case that establishes that impeachment procedures are not subject to judicial review

Answer 4

Nixon v. United States (1993)

Question 5

Case that said the Constitution should not be applied to the states; state constitutions regulate state actions

Answer 5

Barron v. Baltimore (1833)

Question 6

Case that established that the Court would not use the privileges and immunities clause of the 14th Amendment for incorporation

Answer 6

Slaughterhouse Cases (1873)

Question 7

Case establishing that the due process clause could not be used to apply the entire Bill of Rights to the states, but that clause does protect “fundamental principles of liberty and justice”

Answer 7

California v. Hurtado (1884)

Question 8

Case that ruled on due process: substance, not form, is most important

Answer 8

Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy Railroad v. Chicago (1897)

Question 9

Case that established that trial by jury is not a necessary requisite for due process; ignored the issue of incorporation altogether

Answer 9

Maxwell v. Dow (1900)

Question 10

The case that created the possibility of incorporation by future courts through the due process clause; incorporation would only be accomplished on a case-by-case basis

Answer 10

Twining v. New Jersey (1908)

Question 11

Case that made the first meaningful steps towards selective incorporation by deciding that freedom of speech and press are fundamental rights; made these provisions in the Bill of Rights binding on the states

Answer 11

Gitlow v. New York (1925)

Question 12

Case establishing that fundamental rights are those “of the very essence of a scheme of ordered liberty”; protection against double jeopardy in the 5th Amendment not fundamental to a fair trial

Answer 12

Palko v. Connecticut (1937)

Question 13

Case establishing that trial by jury in criminal cases is fundamental to the scheme of American justice; continued selective incorporation by incorporating the 6th Amendment

Answer 13

Duncan v. Louisiana (1968)

Question 14

Case establishing the clear and present danger test; the words would clearly bring about an immediate substantive evil; content of the words, context they are uttered, the consequences and when those would occur

Answer 14

Schenck v. United States (1919)

Question 15

Case that established the bad tendency test (which diluted the clear and present danger test); “Do the words have a tendency to bring about evil consequences?”; much easier for government to justify regulating speech

Answer 15

Abrams v. United States (1919)

Question 16

Case that strengthened the bad tendency test by making mere membership in a subversive organization a crime: concurrence - return to clear and present test, focusing on behavior

Answer 16

Whitney v. California (1927)

Question 17

Case establishing that laws banning certain speech must not be overly vague; decision that showed greater sympathy to First Amendment claims

Answer 17

Stromberg v. California (1931) and DeJonge v. Oregon (1937)

Question 18

Case that established the preferred freedoms standard; elevated importance to the Bill of Rights freedoms; special role to protect the rights of minorities; laws restricting Bill of Rights freedoms will be presumed unconstitutional

Answer 18

United States v. Carolene Products (1938)

Question 19

Case that combined preferred freedoms standard with clear and present danger test

Answer 19

Thomas v. Collins (1945)

Question 20

The case that established the clear and probable danger test; the gravity of the evil discounted by its improbability

Answer 20

Dennis v. U.S. (1951)

Question 21

Case that established the ad hoc balancing test

Answer 21

Barenblatt

Question 22

Case establishing a two-prong test to evaluate speech laws, focusing on imminent lawless action

Answer 22

Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)

Question 23

The case that established that content-based regulations are subject to strict scrutiny

Answer 23

Chicago Police Department v. Mosley (1972)

Question 24

Case establishing that just because conduct is used to express an idea doesn’t mean it’s automatically protected; burning of the draft card burdened a sufficient government interest

Answer 24

U.S. v. O’Brien (1968)

Question 25

Case establishing that the government may not prohibit expression or an idea just because the view is offensive or disagreeable (content/viewpoint)

Answer 25

Texas v. Johnson (1989)

Question 26

Case that established the fighting words doctrine; words that will cause a breach of peace are not protected

Answer 26

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942)

Question 27

Case establishing that some opinions are unfavorable but should not be suppressed; time, place, and manner restrictions

Answer 27

Cohen v. California (1971)

Question 28

Case that established this test: does the provision of an injunction burden no more speech than is necessary to serve a legitimate government interest?

Answer 28

Madsen v. Women’s Health Center Inc. (1994)

Question 29

Case that formulated a test based on the O’Brien standard, asking if a law is content-neutral, narrowly tailored, and leaves open alternate channels of communication

Answer 29

McCullen v. Coakley (2014)

Question 30

Case reasoning that a city could take action if a parade caused a breakdown in public order but could not stop the event in advance

Answer 30

National Socialist Party v. Skokie (1977)

Question 31

Case establishing that the use of offense symbols cannot be banned because that is content and viewpoint discrimination

Answer 31

R.A.V v. St. Paul (1992)

Question 32

Case establishing that states can impose a greater penalty for crimes motivated by discriminatory hatred

Answer 32

Wisconsin v. Mitchell (1993)

Question 33

Case establishing that speech which is in a public space and a matter of public concern is entitled to special protection

Answer 33

Snyder v. Phelps (2011)

Question 34

Case ruling that laws cannot suppress false statements on one particular subject in limitless times and settings

Answer 34

U.S. v. Alvarez (2012)

Question 35

Case establishing that students do not shed their constitutional rights in school. Laws cannot regulate speech or conduct that does not disrupt the education system

Answer 35

Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)

Question 36

Case establishing that students in a public school do not have the same rights as adults in normal settings; government interest must be sufficient enough for regulation (illegal drug use); the nature of the rights must be appropriate for school and children

Answer 36

Morse v. Frederick (2007)

Question 37

Case establishing that the First Amendment is intended to protect speech, regardless of the speaker; corporations have rights to free speech

Answer 37

First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (1978)

Question 38

Case that extends the First Amendment to commercial speech, but with limitations

Answer 38

Bigelow v. Virginia (1975)

Question 39

Case establishing that the economic nature of ads does not take away First Amendment protection

Answer 39

Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council (1976)

Question 40

Case establishing that lawyers may advertise their services but the state may restrict to counter fraud, deception, and other matters of legitimate government concern

Answer 40

Bates v. State Bar of Arizona (1977)

Question 41

Case establishing a test for commercial speech: if the commercial expression concerns a lawful activity and is not misleading, it merits protection. But the state may regulate if it serves a substantial govt. interest, directly advances the interest, is no more extensive than necessary to achieve it

Answer 41

Central Hudson v. PSC of New York (1980)

Question 42

Case dealing with government speech and concluding that a city’s decision to place or not place a monument on public land is government speech; the city did not create a public forum

Answer 42

Pleasant Grove City v. Summum (2009)

Question 43

Case establishing that license plates are government speech; plates are seen as promoting a state message; no public forum on plates

Answer 43

Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans (2015)

Question 44

Case establishing that trademarks are not government speech; therefore, laws regulating trademarks cannot be content or viewpoint based

Answer 44

Matal v. Tam (2017)

Question 45

Case dealing with flag saluting; deciding that a school’s secular interest in creating national unity was enough to allow them to require students to salute the flag, based on a religious freedom argument

Answer 45

Minersville School District v. Gobitis (1940)

Question 46

Case establishing that a state cannot compel students to salute the flag or say the pledge based on a freedom of speech argument; the individual has a right against coerced expression

Answer 46

West Virginia State Board v. Barnette (1943)

Question 47

Case establishing that states cannot force citizens to endorse a certain slogan on a license plate; the right of a citizen to decline government ideas

Answer 47

Wooley v. Maynard (1977)

Question 48

case establishing that states may withhold funds from law schools as long as the law does not suppress the school’s expression of speech

Answer 48

Rumsfeld v. FAIR Inc. (2006)

Question 49

Case establishing that freedom of association is important but does not apply equally to all private organizations; evaluate the nature of the organization and the relationship between the expressive activities and the effect of the govt. regulation; state interest to eliminate discrimination important interest

Answer 49

Roberts v. United States Jaycees (1984)

Question 50

Case establishing that the forced inclusion of certain groups in parades significantly burdens the expression rights of parade organizers

Answer 50

Hurley v. Irish-American Gay Group of Boston (1995)

Question 51

Case establishing that government regulation of association must not significantly alter the message of the group

Answer 51

Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000)

Question 52

Case establishing that prior restraint runs contrary to the Constituiton; only a few exceptions to prior restraint

Answer 52

Near v. Minnesota (1931)

Question 53

Case establishing that any system of prior restraint comes to the Court bearing a heavy presumption against constitutionality

Answer 53

New York Times v. U.S. (1971)

Question 54

Case establishing that educators are entitled to exercise greater control over school-sponsored activities to make sure that students learn the lesson being taught

Answer 54

Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988)

Question 55

Case establishing that states cannot restrict the publication of truthful and public information (reporting the names of rape victims)

Answer 55

Cox Broadcasting Cooporation v. Cohn (1975)

Question 56

Case establishing that states cannot force a newspaper to publish specific information (reply articles)

Answer 56

Miami Herald v. Tornillo (1974)

Question 57

Case establishing that broadcasting may be treated differently than Print media

Answer 57

Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC (1969)

Question 58

Case establishing that supporters do not get special immunity from subpoenas to conceal their sources; Interest in punishing crime is greater than the press’ freedom of publication

Answer 58

Branzburg v. Hayes (1972)

Question 59

Case establishing that public officials must demonstrate actual malice in libel cases (made with the knowledge that that it was false or reckless disregard for whether it was false or not)

Answer 59

New York Times v. Sullivan (1964)

Question 60

Case establishing that public officials as well as public figures must prove actual malice

Answer 60

Associated Press v. Walker (1967)

Question 61

Case that added a third prong to actual malice: unreasonable and extreme departures from the standards of investigation and reporting normally adhered to by responsible journalists

Answer 61

Curtis Publishing Company v. Butts (1966)

Question 62

Case establishing that the NYT actual malice test applies to all stories of public interest regardless of the public status of the individual

Answer 62

Rosenbloom v. Metromedia (1971)

Question 63

Two cases that moved away from the nature of a libelous story and back to the status of the individual

Answer 63

Gertz v. Welch (1974) and Time, Inc. v. Firestone (1976)

Question 64

Case establishing that public officials and figures may not recover for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress without showing a false statement made with actual malice

Answer 64

Hustler Magazine v. Falwell (1988)

Question 65

Case that established the very first obscenity test which was very strict

Answer 65

Regina v. Hicklin (1868)

Question 66

Case that expanded the Hicklin test by extending its coverage to include materials discussing reproduction

Answer 66

Ex Parte Jackson (1878)

Question 67

Case establishing that the intent of the author to create obscene materials is key

Answer 67

U.S. v. One Book Called Ulysses (1934)

Question 68

Case that rejects the Hicklin obscenity standard but failed to provide an alternative

Answer 68

Butler v. Michigan (1957)

Question 69

Case that established this obscenity standard: “Whether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material, taken as a whole, appeals to prurient interests”

Answer 69

Roth v. U.S. (1957)

Question 70

Case altering the Roth test, by saying that “community standards” equal the nation as a whole and adding “utterly without redeeming social importance” to the test

Answer 70

Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964)

Question 71

Case adding to the Roth obscenity standard by adding “modicum of redeeming social value”

Answer 71

Memoirs v. Massachusetts (1966)

Question 72

Case that moved the obscenity issue to the states, deciding that states shall define obscenity along guidelines provided by the Court: a. Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards (local), would find that work, taken as a whole, appeals to his prurient interests. B. Whether the work depicts, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law. C. Whether the work lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value

Answer 72

Miller v. California (1973)

Question 73

Case establishing that states have greater leeway in regulating child porn; child porn does not have to pass the Miller test; state interest in protecting children is substantial

Answer 73

New York v. Ferber (1982)

Question 74

Case establishing that virtual child porn may not be prohibited unless the material is legally obscene (Miller standard) or purposefully marketed to children

Answer 74

Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002)

Question 75

Case establishing that states may make it illegal to sell a minor any magazine that depicts nudity because the state has a substantial interest in protecting children

Answer 75

Ginsberg v. U.S. (1968)

Question 76

Case establishing that CDA law that controls children’s access to sexual material over the internet is too broad; it would cover speech that is protected

Answer 76

Reno v. ACLU (1997)

Question 77

Case establishing that the law to criminalize depictions of animal cruelty was too broad and would cover speech that is protected

Answer 77

United States v. Stevens (2010)

Question 78

Case establishing that states may not prohibit the sale of violent video games to children because video games express messages and ideas, which is sufficient for protection

Answer 78

Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association (2011)

Question 79

Early case establishing that the right to bear arms is not granted by the constitution; the 2nd Amendment only serves to restrict congress

Answer 79

U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876)

Question 80

Case establishing that the 2nd Amendment should not be incorporated

Answer 80

Presser v. Illinois (1886)

Question 81

Case taking a collective right approach to the right to bear arms

Answer 81

U.S. v. Miller (1939)

Question 82

Case taking an individual right approach to the 2nd Amendment

Answer 82

D.C. v. Heller (2008)

Question 83

Case incorporating the 2nd Amendment

Answer 83

McDonald v. Chicago (2010)