Book1

Question 1

Lemon v. Kurtzman

Answer 1

Case involved state paying for salaries of private, religious school. Found this unconstitutional but did not rule out all interaction between gov’t and religious organizations.Created Lemon Test.

Question 2

Agostini v. Felton

Answer 2

Allowed for public school teachers to teach secular subjects in parochial schools.

Question 3

Lynch v. Donnelly

Answer 3

A nativity scene on public grounds surrounded by secular (cultural) displays of Christmas. The court allowed it saying it was part of ‘our heritage’, along with the other displays.

Question 4

Engel v. Vitale

Answer 4

Involved the Constitutionality of a school prayer read in public schools. Declared the prayer unconstitutional. Most other attempts at allowing prayer in public schools have also been declared unconstitutional.

Question 5

Sherbert v. Verner

Answer 5

Case involved a 7th Day Adventist refusing to accept a job that would require her to work on Saturday. Unemployment benefits were subsequently denied. She sued, saying she had the right to not work on her holy day. SCOTUS agreed with her.

Question 6

Employment Division v. Smith

Answer 6

Legal use of peyote by Native Americans, specifically their loss of a job and unemployment benefits from using drugs while employed at a drug rehab center. Court ruled that strict scrutiny did not allow for every religious expression.

Question 7

Schenk v. United States

Answer 7

Case involving disruption of recruiting operations during WWI. Clear and present danger test created. Advocacy of ideas vs. incitement created.

Question 8

Gitlow v. New York

Answer 8

Did not allow for the distribution of revolutionary leaflets calling for the overthrow of the gov’t. First attempt at applying Federal guidelines (Bill of Rights) to the states via the 14th Amendment.

Question 9

Brandenburg v. Ohio

Answer 9

KKK leader calls for the actions against blacks and gov’t officials. Speech was allowed because the threat implied was not seen as credible.

Question 10

Tinker v. Des Moines

Answer 10

Anti-Vietnam War armbands worn by students who are suspended until they comply with the anti-protest rule. SCOTUS ruled in favor of the students stating that students do not drop their constitutional rights at the school house door.

Question 11

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire

Answer 11

Chaplinsky calls city marshall several names claiming that they were protected. Using ‘fighting words’ he is not allowed since the threat was specific enough.

Question 12

Cohen v. California

Answer 12

Cohen’s vulgar anti-Vietnam War shirt was upheld since it was not direct at nay one person nor inciting large number of people.

Question 13

Reno v. ACLU

Answer 13

Restriction put upon internet obscenity for children was not ok because it over restricted, taking away from adults as well. Also established the principle that the internet should be treated more as print the media.

Question 14

Roth v. United States

Answer 14

Attempt at defining obscenity, difficult. Average person, contemporary standards and is prurient in nature.

Question 15

Miller v. California

Answer 15

Second attempt at defining obscenity. Reality is that obscenity is difficult to define. Added a local community standard to Roth, and left obscenity up to local standards to define.

Question 16

New York Times v. Sullivan

Answer 16

Involving a incident of malice. NYT published a cartoon that was critical of a public official in Alabama (concerning their handling of MLK). SCOTUS rules that libel against a public figure must be malicious in intent. Setting a higher standard.

Question 17

New York Times v. United States

Answer 17

Famous Pentagon Papers case. Nixon attempted to refuse the publication of the PP, claiming Executive Privilege. SCOTUS disagreed claiming executive privilege was not enough to grant prior restraint. The NYT and Washington Post then published the PP, which outlined the United States’ involvement in Southeast Asia.

Question 18

Near v. Minnesota

Answer 18

Freedom of the press case that involved the publication of stories that were critical of local officials. Paper was forbidden from publishing the stories. SCOTUS said that even though the stories were critical of local officials, they could not be prevented from publishing them.

Question 19

Palko v. Connecticut

Answer 19

Double Jeopardy case. Palko convicted twice of killing two police officers. Claimed double jeopardy. The SCOTUS agreed with him but said that Double Jeopardy should not be incorporated into the states because it was not a fundamental freedom. He was subsequently executed by the state.

Question 20

Duncan v. Louisiana

Answer 20

Right to a jury trial incorporated. Did not specify the size of the jury, nor the necessity of a unanimous decision. Left those to the states to decide.

Question 21

Gideon v. Wainwright

Answer 21

Right to an attorney incorporated. Gideon convicted of theft was not allowed an attorney under Florida law. Sued for that right and won. He was then proved not guilty in the ensuing retrial.

Question 22

Miranda v. Arizona

Answer 22

Freedom from self incrimination incorporated. Miranda not informed of his rights confesses to a crime he most likely committed. SCOTUS said that he needed to be informed of his rights when under ‘interrogation’ (future cases would define when a prisoner is being interrogated).

Question 23

Wolf v. Colorado

Answer 23

Incorporated 4th Amendment Search and Seizure guarantee. Did not include the exclusionary rule, justices believing that this was a judge created rule, and should not then be incorporated.

Question 24

Mapp v. Ohio

Answer 24

Incorporated the exclusionary rule to the states, correction the mistake that the SCOTUS did under Wolf v. CO.

Question 25

United States v. Leon

Answer 25

Allowed for a ‘good-faith exception’ to Searches performed by police when the warrant was not completed correctly. Case involved a miss issued warrant by a judge who did not have probable cause to issue it. The police then executed the warrant and performed the search. Since the police believed that the warrant had been issued correctly, the exclusionary rule then did not apply.

Question 26

Griswold v. Connecticut

Answer 26

Issue involving a law prohibiting the use of birth control. SCOTUS over turned the law, citing a ‘right to privacy’ inherent in the Bill of Rights. Used 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 9th Amendment to make their case.

Question 27

Roe v. Wade

Answer 27

Case that established the right to an abortion. Used the the finding from Griswold to base their case.

Question 28

Bowers v. Hardwick

Answer 28

Anti-sodomy law challenged. Law was declared unconstitutional if it was between heterosexual couples, but constitutional if it was between homosexual couples. Later overturned by Lawrence v. Texas

Question 29

Lawrence v. Texas

Answer 29

Anti-sodomy laws intended for prohibition against homosexual couples struck down.

Question 30

Plessy v. Ferguson

Answer 30

Established racial segregation. Separate but equal

Question 31

Brown v. Board

Answer 31

Landmark case the ended Jim Crow and legalized segregation. Coined the phrase Separation is inherently unequal.

Question 32

Brown v. Board II

Answer 32

Released a year after Brown I, SCOTUS saw that nothing was happening with their previous decision. So insisted that integration begin with ‘all deliberate speed’.

Question 33

Boy Scouts v. Dale

Answer 33

Case involving a private organizations right to discriminate. SCOTUS upheld the Boy Scouts right to deny employment to someone who does not fit their preconceived ideas.

Question 34

California v. Bakke

Answer 34

Case involving reverse discrimination. Bakke had been denied entrance to medical school. When he found out that all of the minority students who were admitted had lower scores than he did, he sued. He won and the medical school that had denied him was forced to admit him.

Question 35

Grutter v. Bollinger

Answer 35

Upheld the University of Michigan law school practice of giving preference to African Americans if it was narrowly tailored.

Question 36

Gaines v. Canada (not the country)

Answer 36

Court ruled that Missouri could not shift its education responsibilities to other states. Gaines had applied to law school, and Missouri had decided that they would export Gaines to another state to receive legal training.

Question 37

Sweatt v. Painter

Answer 37

Court ruled that a separate law school that Texas had provided for Sweatt was not adequate and he should, therefore, be admitted to the regular University of Texas law school.

Question 38

Swann v. Mecklenberg

Answer 38

Courts Ok’d busing to be used as means of desegregating schools.

Question 39

Gratz v. Bollinger

Answer 39

Case challenging U or Michigan practice of giving minority students overwhelming preference in admissions. Struck down this practice claiming that race could be a factor, but could not be the ONLY factor in admissions.