Midterm flashcards (37)
What is Griswold v. CT?
(1965 & Warren Court) CT made a law that banned the use of any drug, medical device, or other instrument in furthering contraception. Griswold opened a birth control clinic and was arrested. The question in this case is if the Constitution protects the right of marital privacy against state restrictions on a couple’s ability to be counseled in the use of contraceptives? The SC sided with Griswold and the MO by Douglas: Const does not explicitly mention privacy, the various guarantees within the BR create penumbras, that establish a right to privacy. the 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 9th amends create the right to privacy in marital relations. Goldberg concurred but said the right to privacy was found in the 9th and 14th amends not penumbras.
What is Roe v. Wade?
(1973 & Burger Court) Roe challenged a TX law making abortion illegal except by a doctor’s orders to save a woman’s life. Does the Constitution recognize a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy by abortion? The SC sided with Roe, MO by Blackmun: The due process clause in 14th amend protects right to privacy, a women’s right to choose falls within that right. TX state law was too broad (didn’t consider stage of pregnancy or other interests). the state does have an interest in protecting the woman and potential life but it is weighed against the woman’s right. So Blackmun uses a trimester system: 1st, just woman. 2nd state may impose regulations related to maternal health. 3rd once fetus is viable state may regulate or ban abortions unless abortion is necessary for life/health of mother
What is Planned Parenthood v. Casey ?
(Rehnquist court) SC upheld Roe but changed stuff a bit. New standard asks whether a state abortion regulation has the purpose or effect of imposing an “undue burden,” which is defined as a “substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability. States may regulate abortions to protect the health of the mother and the life of the fetus, and may outlaw abortions of “viable” fetuses. SC overruled trimester framework used in Roe.
What is Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization?
(2022 & Roberts court)) Mississippi had a law banning abortions after 15 weeks. An abortion clinic sued. SC overruled Roe and Casey. MO by Alito: const doesn’t mention abortion, right to abortion is not deeply rooted in USA history, its not a essential component of ordered liberty. Why the overrulings: “they short-circuited the democratic process”, did not have const, history, or precedent foundation, overruling them would not disrupt concrete reliance interests.
What is Lawrence v. Texas?
(2003 & Rehnquist court) For a different reason police went into an apartment and caught two men (Lawrence and Garner) having sex, they were then arrested under a TX law banning same sex sex. SC sided with Lawrence. MO by Kennedy: TX law violates due process clause in 14th amend, as adults they are free to engage in private conduct because of their liberty in the 14th amend due process. TX doesn’t have legitimate interest in the personal and private life of an individual.
What is Obergefell v. Hodges?
(2015 & Roberts court) Groups of same-sex couples sued their relevant states to challenge the const of those states’ bans on same-sex marriage or refusal to recognize legal same-sex marriages in other states. SC sided with Obergefell MO written by Kennedy: the right to marry is a fundamental liberty, it safeguards children and families by according legal recognition to building a home and raising children, and it has historically been recognized as important. Because there are no differences between a same-sex union and an opposite-sex union with respect to these principles, the exclusion of same-sex couples from the right to marry violates the Due Process Clause and equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
What is Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing?
(1947 & Vinson court) A NJ law authorized reimbursement by local school boards for transportation costs, including private schools. (did this violate the establishment clause in the 1st amend?). SC sided with NJ MO by Black: the law did not violate the const because the law did not pay money to parochial schools, nor did it support them directly in anyway. It was rather enacted to assist parents of all religions with getting their children to school.
What is Lemon v. Kurtzman?
(1971 & Burger Court) PA law provided funding for non-public elementary and secondary school teachers’ salaries, textbooks, and instructional materials for secular subjects. RI law provided state financial support for non-public elementary schools in the form of supplementing 15% of teachers’ annual salaries. (establishment clause?). SC did not side with the states in either case, MO by Burger: SC made a three-pronged test in order to avoid violating the Establishment Clause. (The Lemon Test) (Law has secular purpose, main effect isn’t promoting or inhibiting religion, and it can’t make a “excessive government entanglement with religion.”
What is Lee v. Weisman?
(1991 & Rehnquist court) Robert E. Lee, a middle school principal, invited a rabbi to speak at his school’s graduation ceremony, prayers were recited Weisman took issue with this. SC sided with Weisman MO by Kennedy: SC held that gov involvement in this case creates “a state-sponsored and state-directed religious exercise in a public school.” The school’s rule creates subtle and indirect coercion (students must stand respectfully and silently), forcing students to act in ways which establish a state religion. This violates the Establishment Clause in the 1st amend
What is WI v. Yoder?
(1972 & Burger Court) Amish don’t want to send their kids to school after 8th grade, WI had a law requiring kids to go to school till 16. (The Amish sued). SC sided with Yoder MO by Burger: individual’s interests in the free exercise of religion under the 1st amend outweighed the State’s interests in compelling school attendance beyond the 8th grade. The values and programs of secondary school were “in sharp conflict with the fundamental mode of life mandated by the Amish religion,” and that an additional 1-2 years of high school would not produce the benefits of public education cited by WI to justify the law
What is Zelman v. Simmons-Harris?
(2002 & Rehnquist court) OH’s Scholarship Program provides tuition aid in the form of vouchers (based on financial need) for certain students to attend participating public or private schools of their parent’s choosing. SC held that this does not violate Establishment clause. MO by Rehnquist: Ohio’s program is part of Ohio’s general undertaking to provide educational opportunities to children, government aid reaches religious institutions only by way of the deliberate choices of individual parents, its not gov endorsed.
What is Van Orden v. Perry?
(2005 & Rehnquist court) Van sued TX in federal district court, arguing a Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of the state capitol building represented an unconstitutional gov endorsement of religion. SC sided with Perry, MO by Rehnquist: SC held that the establishment clause did not bar the monument on the grounds of TX state capitol building, it had historical purpose. Breyer in a concurrence said that: That history there indicates a governmental effort substantially to promote religion, not simply an effort primarily to reflect,
historically, the secular impact of a religiously inspired document, also that this monument passes the Lemon Test.
What is American Legion v. American Humanist Association?
(2019 & Roberts court) as part of a memorial park honoring veterans is a 40-foot tall cross, which is the subject of this litigation, it was widely described using Christian terms and celebrated in Christian services. SC said this doesn’t violate estab clause MO by Alito: although the cross originated as a Christian symbol, it has also taken on a secular meaning, the cross became a symbol of WW I as evidenced by its use in the present controversy. Lemon test was overruled when being used for monuments new test: there should be a presumption that the monument is constitutional.
What is Sherbert v. Verner?
(1963 & Warren Court) Adeil Sherbert, was fired from her job after she refused to work on Sat, the Sabbath Day of her faith. The ESC ruled that she couldn’t receive unemployment benefits because her refusal to work on Sat constituted a failure without good cause to accept available work. SC sided with Sherbert MO by Brennan: the state’s eligibility restrictions for unemployment compensation imposed a significant burden on Sherbert’s ability to freely exercise her faith. Furthermore, there was no compelling state interest which justified such a substantial burden on this basic 1st amend right.
What is Kennedy v. Bremerton School District?
(2022 & Roberts court) Joseph Kennedy, a high school football coach, engaged in prayer with a number of students during and after school games, he was asked to not do that by the school he refused and sued. SC sided with Kennedy MO by Gorsuch: In forbidding Mr. Kennedy’s prayers, the District sought to restrict his actions because of their religious character, thereby burdening his right to free exercise, prayers were made after the game so not as his job as coach. SC’s Lemon test, and the related endorsement test, are “abandoned,” replaced by a consideration of “historical practices and understandings.” Using that theres no conflict.
What is Employment Division v. Smith?
(1990 & Rehnquist court) Two counselors for a private drug rehabilitation organization ingested peyote – a powerful hallucinogen – as part of their religious ceremonies as members of the Native American Church. They were fired. SC sided with Employment division MO by Scalia: SC has never held that an individual’s religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that government is free to regulate. Allowing exceptions to every state law or regulation affecting religion “would open the prospect of constitutionally required exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind.” (Ex. compulsory military service, payment of taxes, vaccination requirements, and child-neglect laws)
What is Lukumi Babalu Aye v. Hialeah?
(1993 & Rehnquist court) The Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye practiced the religion of Santeria. Santeria used animal sacrifice as a form of worship. Florida made some ordinances that prohibited possession of animals for sacrifice or slaughter. SC sided with Lukumi, MO by Kennedy: They weren’t neutral or general, Only conduct tied to religious belief was burdened. The ordinances targeted religious behavior, therefore they failed to survive the rigors of strict scrutiny.
What is Schenck v. U.S.?
(1919 & White court), Schenck helped pass out leaflets discouraging people from joining the draft. Scheneck was arrested and convicted under the Espionage Act. (did this violate his 1st amen right to speech?) The SC unanimously sided with the U.S, Justice Holmes wrote the majority opinion which held that the Espionage Act did not violate the 1st amen and was an appropriate exercise of Congress’ wartime authority. Also established the Clear and Present danger test: the 1st amen does not protect speech that creates a clear and present danger to public saftey or national security. (fire in a crowded theater was ex. used)
What is 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis?
(2023 & Roberts court), a wedding website designer said that the Colorado AntiDiscrimination Act could be used to force her to make websites for same-sex couples which would compel her to express a message she disagreed with. The SC sided with her . MO by Gorsuch. Said that wedding websites are expressive content. Which means a business owner can refuse service to certain customers based on their protected characteristic when creating expressive content. In the DO Sotomayer said that this would allow discrimination against gay people, and that the law there overturning doesn’t actually compel speech
What is Gitlow v. NY?
(1925 & Taft Court) Gitlow was arrested for distributing a leaflet that called for the establishment of socialism through strikes and class action of any form. The SC sided with NY. MO by Sanford. Citing Schenck the Court reasoned the gov could punish speech that threatens its basic existence because of the national security implications. This also established the principle of incorporation, which meant that rights guaranteed under the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Const could be extended to the states, under the 14th Amend guarantee of due process and equal protection. In a DO Holmes held that Gitlow had not violated the clear and present danger test. Since Gitlow’s call to action was abstract and would not resonate with a large number of people, and that there was not sufficient imminence to warrant punishing the speech.
What is U.S. v. O’Brien?
(1968 & Warren Court) O’Brien was convicted of burning a draft card, in violation of a statute punishing one who “knowingly destroys” such a card. SC upheld the law and O’Briens conviction, MO by Warren. The govs interest in maintaining an effective draft system outweighed the individual’s right to burn draft cards, and the law was narrowly tailored towards the govs interests. This case also established the O’Brien test which was about if government regulations that impact symbolic speech are justified using four parts (constitutional, furthers gov interest, gov interest is not related to suppressing free expression, and restriction on 1st amen freedoms must be no more than is necessary to achieve the government’s interest). DO by Douglas: gov’s interest in draft cards was only valid during a declared war, and that they should consider whether peacetime conscription was constitutional.
What is Janus v. AFSCME?
(2018 & Roberts Court) Under IL law if you’re not a part of a union you have to pay an agency fee. Janus challenged that by saying if he was forced to pay the agency fee he was being forced to agree with/support the political messages of the union which he did not agree with. The SC sided with Janus. MO by Alito: forcing Janus to pay the fee does force Janus to have to support issues he doesn’t support, which violates his 1st amen rights, said that in the past SC has affirmed that speech includes speaking freely or not speaking at all. this decision overturned the case Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Ed. Kagan dissented and said that in the mj opinion there are no special justifications for overturning Abood, that Abood has proved workable/there haven’t been any issues and that this decision is a clear example of judicial disruption.
What is TX v. Johnson?
(1989 & Rehnquist Court) Johnson burned an American flag in protest of the Reagan administration’s policies. No one was physically injured or threatened with injury; however many witnesses took offense. He was arrested. SC sided with Johnson. MO by Brennan. 1st amen protects symbolic speech, Johnsons actions being political further protects them, gov can’t restrict speech just because its socially reprehensible. In a DO Rehnquist said that the flag has a unique meaning in American tradition and determined that Johnson’s actions were not essential to the ideas he wished to express, and that the flag is not just a political thing and has a special place in US culture
what is RAV v. St. Paul?
(1992 & Rehnquist court) Some teenagers burned a cross on the lawn of the only African-American family in their neighborhood. They were arrested under a St. Paul law. The Supreme Court unanimously declared that the Minnesota law was unconstitutional, but they couldn’t agree on why. MO by Scalia: the 1st amen prevents government from punishing speech and expressive conduct because it disapproves of the ideas expressed, Gov can’t side with one side of the debate. Justice White concurred but disagreed with some of Scalias logic, he said that he would have overturned the law because it was overbroad and therefore violated the 1st amen
