SCOTUS A2 cases Flashcards
(26 cards)
Burwell v Hobby Lobby Stores 2014
Part of ACA requiring family owned businesses to pay for health insurance coverage for contraception
court ruled 5-4
Restraint or Activism and politicisation?
Limits to other federal branches or states?
Uphold, remove or establish new policy?
Activism- made strong decision in protecting religious rights
also politicisation as divided 5-4
limited the exec/presidency as it was obama’s policy
removed part of ACA
Snyder v Phelps 2011
Snyder father sued WBC for defamation after picketing son’s funeral and publcishing discriminatory religious statements
ruled 8-1 (Alito dissenting)
Restraint or Activism and politicisation?
Limits to other federal branches or states?
Uphold, remove or establish new policy?
Restraint-didnt rule in favour of snyder and did not get involved in political aspects of case
Limited individual’s liberty
upheld previous leg
Citizens United v FEC (2010)
see 1st scotus cases flashcards
Carson v Makin 2022
limited vouchers by disallowing them for religious based private schools
ruled 6-3 saying Maine’s restrictions violated the Free Exercise Clause
Restraint or Activism and politicisation?
Limits to other federal branches or states?
Uphold, remove or establish new policy?
activism and politicisation
limited power of state leg
removed new policy
Kennedy v Bremerton School District 2022
Kennedy had been praying in fields after each game and skl board wanted him to stop and released his contract when he didnt resulting in kennedy suing them
sc ruled against saying establishment clause used to support lower courts previous ruling didnt allow gov to take hostile view of religioon in considering personal rights under Free Speech and FREE eXERCISE CLAUSE
Restraint or Activism and politicisation?
Limits to other federal branches or states?
Uphold, remove or establish new policy?
ACTIVISM
limited states powers,UPHOLDING INDY RIGHTS WEAKENING POWER OF LOWER COURTS
REMOVED NEW POLICY
CREATIVE LLC v ELENIS 2023
Smith a graphic design owner wanted to expand into wedding websites but opposed same-sex marriage on religious grounds. She wanted to post a message explaining this
the COLORADO ANTI DISCRIMINATION ACT prevents business from discriminating on many characteristics including sexual orientation
6-3 decision SC ruled that Colorado could not force a designer to create expressive messages that the designer disagrees with
LAWS PROTECTING RIGHTS DO NOT COME BEFORE CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS
Restraint or Activism and politicisation?
Limits to other federal branches or states?
Uphold, remove or establish new policy?
ACTIVISIM
involved selves as an unelected body in political process
limited state rights as LAWS PROTECTING RIGHTS DO NOT COME BEFORE CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS
Upheld constitutional law instead of state law
DC vs Heller 2008
see above
Restraint or Activism and politicisation?
Limits to other federal branches or states?
Uphold, remove or establish new policy?
ACTIVISIM
Gun rights to individuals
limit congress +states
new policy
McDonald v Chicago 2010
Following DC vs HELLER the court ruled that the right to bear arms is protected by the second amendment and that the due process clause of the fourteenth this right cannot be infringed by state or local governments
Restraint or Activism and politicisation?
Limits to other federal branches or states?
Uphold, remove or establish new policy?
ACTIVISIM
Gun rights to individuals
limit congress +states
new policy
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v Bruen (2022)
2nd Amendment right to carry concealed and loaded handguns in public (removing existing legislation after Biden passed bipartisan gun control)
Restraint or Activism and politicisation?
Limits to other federal branches or states?
Uphold, remove or establish new policy?
Activisim-1
Gun rights to individuals
limit congress + presidency
new policy + removing existing legislation after Biden passed bipartisan gun control.
Carpenter vs US (2018)
see above
Restraint or Activism and politicisation?
Limits to other federal branches or states?
Uphold, remove or establish new policy?
Activism
new policy
Miranda v Arizona (1996)
Miranda confesses to rape unaware that he had the constitutional right to remain silent
The Court ruled 5-4 that Miranda had been denied this right that every suspect must be read their rights during evidence or else evidence will be inadmissible in court.
Miranda rights are now ingrained in law and US culture
“You have the right to remain silent”
Miranda was still found guilty
Restraint or Activism and politicisation?
Limits to other federal branches or states?
Uphold, remove or establish new policy?
Activism
“You have the right to remain silent”
Limits congress
Upheld previous constitutional law
Salinas v Texas (2013)
Salinas was questioned by police in a non-custodial situation by police concerned in a double murder.
When asked if his shotgun would match shell casings recovered at the crime scene West Salinas went silent
At the trial the prosecutor used it as an admission of guilt
The court agreed that using silence as an admission of guilt did not violate the 5th amendment therefore weakening the the rights secured in Miranda
Restraint or Activism and politicisation?
Limits to other federal branches or states?
Uphold, remove or establish new policy?
Activism
limited courts previous decision
Ordered to uphold constitutional law
established new policy?
Bucklew v Precythe (2019)
Bucklew was convicted of murder and argued a rare physical condition would lead to a longer and more tortuous death than injection
Justice Gorsuch said that majority voted against it as the 8th amendment forbids cruel and unusual methods of capital punishment.
This case was divided on ideological lines
