Cases

Question 1

District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)

Answer 1

The Second Amendment confers an individual right to bear arms that is not limited to the weapons or persons who could serve in a militia.

Question 2

McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010)

Answer 2

The Second Amendment individual right to bear firearms is incorporated to the states through the 14th Amendment due process clause, because it is a basic and fundamental right as described in Heller.

Question 3

NY State Rifle v Bruen (2022)

Answer 3

Scraps the former test (which applied strict scrutiny to laws burdening the core right to firearms in the home and intermediate scrutiny to firearms in public) in favor of single-step test:
Government must prove the regulation is consistent with our nation’s historical tradition of firearms rights by looking at text and history.

Question 4

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018)

Answer 4

Colorado’s civil rights commission violated the free exercise clause when it held that a baker’s refusal to bake a cake for a same-sex couple based on his sincerely-held religious beliefs violated public accommodation laws, where it had previously upheld refusals to bake cakes for anti-gay discrimination reasons. This is the state presupposing that some religious views are less legitimate than others, a kind of discrimination the state can’t practice under the free exercise clause.

Question 5

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores (2014)

Answer 5

Hobby Lobby, a closely-held but for-profit corporation, didn’t want to participate in Obamacare healthcare coverage contraceptives mandate because it allowed for 4 drugs it considers to be abortive. RFRA requires no burden on exercise of religion, even from neutral law, without compelling government interest and narrow tailoring. Corporations have a right to express their owners’ religious views and there was a more narrowly-tailored way of responding (which HHS was already using for religious non-profits).

Question 6

Montana v. Dep’t of Revenue (2020)

Answer 6

Montana school tax program that prohibited using the funds at religious schools under Montana’s “no aid” provision violated the free exercise clause. Did not meet strict scrutiny. A state does not have to fund private education but when it does, it can’t discriminate based on religion.

Question 7

Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Beru (2020)

Answer 7

Holding that teachers at Catholic schools experienced employment discrimination in contract non-renewals violated free exercise clause; teachers fell under the “ministerial exception” which allows religious institutions to choose their leaders without interference from the state.

Question 8

Tandon v. Newsom (2021)

Answer 8

Granted injunctive relief pending cert petition over California law that prohibited worship to stop spread of COVID. Strict scrutiny applies whenever government burdens religion if any secular activity doesn’t face similar burdens. Here, hair salons, sporting events and restaurants could all operate so California impermissible burdened religion under the free exercise clause.

Question 9

Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022)

Answer 9

School that disciplined football coach who prayed privately but openly on the football field after games violated the free exercise and free speech clauses. These are not in inherent tension with the Establishment Clause (the violation of which the school was trying to avoid); you can’t burden religious speech when you’re allowing everyone else to speak privately (e.g. by singing fight songs). Kennedy was not acting in his capacity as a school employee.

Question 10

Carson v. Makin (2022)

Answer 10

Maine’s program dedicating taxpayer funds to private schools in remote areas where parents did not have access to public schools, which prohibited the funds from going to religious schools, violated the Free Exercise Clause because it conditioned participation in a neutral public welfare program on making a non-religious choice.

Question 11

Groff v. DeJoy (2023)

Answer 11

Replaced the “more than de minimis” test for when an employer doesn’t have to accommodate an employee’s religious practices under Title VII to something more like a “substantial hardship” test, based on statutory text (requiring “undue hardship.”)

Question 12

303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (2023)

Answer 12

Bespoke wedding website designer was worried Colorado’s anti-discrimination laws would force her to create websites for ideas she disagreed with (like gay marriage). This violated the First Amendment (under strict scrutiny) by compelling speech.

Question 13

Bostock v. Clayton County (2020)

Answer 13

Discrimination based on homosexual/transgender status is discrimination “because of…sex” that violates Title VII of the civil rights act. You start and end with the clear statutory text, even if Congress may not have anticipated the consequence.

Question 14

June Medical Services v. Russo (2020)

Answer 14

Plurality held that Louisiana’s hospital privileges requirement, which was nearly identical to Texas one struck down, placed substantial obstacle in path of women facing abortion. Credited district court’s evaluation of the facts after a 6-day hearing. CJ Roberts concurrence: stare decisis is important, indistinguishable from Texas law.

Question 15

Whole Women’s Health v. Jackson (2021)

Answer 15

Texas passed “heartbeat law” that allowed private citizens to sue abortion providers if they abort after a fetal heartbeat is detected. Abortion providers brought a pre-enforcement suit. Mostly dismissed because the providers can’t sue state court judges or clerks (these are neutrals, no discretion), TX AG (has no role in enforcing suit). Can sue licensing boards since they apparently have the power to enforce.

Question 16

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health (2022)

Answer 16

Overrules Roe and Casey, holds abortion laws are matters for state legislatures and constitutions to decide. Roe lacked foundation in history and precedent, imposed court-created rules, and had no real reliance interests because people don’t plan for abortions.

Question 17

West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency (2022)

Answer 17

Under major questions doctrine, strikes down EPA regulation based on obscure part of authorizing statute, under which EPA purported to change its regulatory authority from covering individual power plants to covering the entire grid.

Question 18

Washington v. Glucksberg (1997)

Answer 18

There is no right to physician-assisted suicide. For substantive due process rights, it must be “deeply rooted in the nation’s history and tradition” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.”

Question 19

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)

Answer 19

Connecticut law making it illegal to provide contraceptives to a married woman was unconstitutional due to “penumbra” of privacy rights provided by the First, Fourth, and Fifth amendments. Sanctity of home and marriage.

Question 20

Janus v. AFSCME (2018)

Answer 20

Overrules Abood in holding that states and public sector unions cannot make non-members pay agency fees. Overrules precedent based on 5 factors: (1) quality of reasoning; (2) workability; (3) reliance; (4) consistency with other decisions; (5) subsequent developments.

Question 21

Biden v. Nebraska (2023)

Answer 21

Biden argued HEROES Act (passed after 9/11), which authorized Secretary of Education to “modify or waive” student loan cancellation requirements, authorized COVID student loan cancellation. States had standing to sue, and program was not authorized due to major questions doctrine.

Question 22

Allen v. Milligan (2023)

Answer 22

Reaffirms use or Gingles standard for Alabama’s redistricting maps. Gingles looks at (1) are there enough of a minority population to constitute a majority in a reasonably-compact district; (2) is the minority politically cohesive; (3) does the majority vote in enough of a bloc to defeat the preferred candidate?

Question 23

Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023)

Answer 23

Using race in university admissions policies violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. Need concrete and measurable goals to survive strict scrutiny if use race as a criteria.

Question 24

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

Answer 24

Everyone is bound by the constitution, including both the executive (in sending commissions) and the courts. Establishes court as both bound by and the interpreters of the constitution.

Question 25

M’Culloch v. Maryland (1819)

Answer 25

Constitution gives the federal government supremacy, and the authorization to enact laws which are not spelled out but “necessary and proper” to carry out enumerated duties. It therefore has the power to create bank. And Maryland can’t tax the bank, because that would be letting a state control (federal) people who aren’t its subjects.

Question 26

NYT v. Sullivan (1964)

Answer 26

Clarified that the standard for libel against a public figure requires “actual malice” - that is, that a statement was made with knowledge or reckless disregard of its falsity.

Question 27

Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)

Answer 27

The due process clause of the 14th Amendment guarantees a right to marry that applies to same-sex couples. The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment also applies.

Question 28

Brady v. Maryland (1963)

Answer 28

A prosecutor’s withholding of information within her possession that is material to a determination of a defendant’s guilt or sentencing violates due process.

Question 29

PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins (1980)

Answer 29

California Constitution protected speech and petitioning in shopping centers even when privately owned, when reasonably exercised. Holding is under CA constitution (but not a taking under 5A), which is more expansive than federal.

Question 30

Moore v. Harper (2023)

Answer 30

Rejected independent state legislature theory in the context of NC redistricting. Affirmed that NC Supreme Court had power to review redistricting map.