Civil Liberties--- The cases

Question 1

Engel v. Vitale (1962)

Answer 1

Court held that a non-denominational, voluntary, public school prayer violates the Establishment Clause.

Question 2

Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)

Answer 2

Court developed the Lemon Test to determine constitutionality of government aid to a religious entity. Constitutionality requires (1) that the purpose of the financial aid is clearly secular; (2) the primary effect of the aid must neither advance nor inhibit religion; and (3) the financial aid must not represent an “excessive government entanglement w/ religion.”

Question 3

Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002)

Answer 3

Court held that state funded school vouchers for students of a failing school district, to provide educational choice/opportunity, even when students could use state funding to attend parochial schools does not violate the Establishment Clause. Primary purpose is secular (educational opportunity) and the primary effect (because it involves parental choice) does not advance or inhibit religion.

Question 4

Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. Hialeah (1993)

Answer 4

Court held that a local ordinance prohibiting Santeria religion’s animal sacrifice was unconstitutional as a violation of the Free Exercise clause. The Court stated that where such a law is not neutral or not of general application, it must undergo the most rigorous of scrutiny (strict scrutiny): it must be justified by a compelling governmental interest, and must be narrowly tailored to advance that interest.

Question 5

Reynolds v. United States (1879)

Answer 5

Court held that a federal law criminalizing polygamy does not violate a Mormon male’s Free Exercise rights, as government may neutrally regulate social/moral order.

Question 6

Cases that show freedom of religion

Answer 6

Engel v. Vitale 
Lemon v. Kurtzman 
Zelman v. Simmons-Harris 
Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. Hialeah 
Reynolds v. United States

Question 7

Schenck v. United States (1919)

Answer 7

The Court developed the “clear and present danger” test and ruled that distributing leaflets opposing the draft was not protected speech during time of war because it posed a “clear and present danger” to the republic.

Question 8

Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)

Answer 8

The Court incorporates Justice Holmes’ dissent from Abrams (1919, holding that advocacy of illegal action can only be abridged if there is a likelihood of “imminent harm,” referred to, also, as the “direct incitement” test.

Question 9

NY Times v. Sullivan (1964)

Answer 9

Court held that to defame (libel) a public official, plaintiff must prove “actual malice or reckless disregard for truth or falsity.” (in addition to proving falsity and harm)

Question 10

Hustler Magazine v. Falwell (1988)

Answer 10

The Court held that a parody, no matter how distasteful (describing Falwell in a drunken, incestuous rendezvous with his mother), remains opinion, and can never amount to a “false statement of fact” made with “actual malice or reckless disregard,” required for defamation of a public figure.

Question 11

Miller v. California (1973)

Answer 11

The Court developed a three-prong test to determine obscenity, (1) average person, applying “contemporary community standards” finds that the work taken as a whole appeals to prurient interests (tends to excite unwholesome sexual desire); (2) work depicts or describes “patently offensive hardcore” sexual conduct, specifically prohibited by regulating state law; and (3) the work lacks “serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.” Community standards are locally not nationally measured.

Question 12

Bethel v. Fraser (1986)

Answer 12

Court held that a high school student could be disciplined by school officials for giving a speech riddled w/ sexual innuendo, because action serves a legitimate educational goal.

Question 13

Unprotected Speech cases: 
Obscenity and Pornography
Defamation; Libel & Slander
Anti-Government/National Security
Fighting words

Answer 13

Obscenity and Pornography- Schenck v. United States and Brandenburg v. Ohio
Defamation; Libel & Slander- NY Times v. Sullivan and Hustler Magazine v. Falwell
Anti-Government/National Security- Miller v. California and Bethel v. Fraser
Fighting words- The Court has held that hate speech or unpopular speech is generally protected speech, unless it serves as a clear invitation to immediate violence or breach of peace.

Question 14

Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)

Answer 14

The Court held that students may not be prohibited from wearing black armbands in protest of the government’s Vietnam policy. Symbolic speech such as this is protected unless the gov’t can demonstrate some valid safety, health or public order concern.

Question 15

Texas v. Johnson (1989)

Answer 15

The Court held that Reagan protestors’ flag burning is protected symbolic political speech and can not be prohibited by Texas on the basis of content expression alone, i.e. because message expresses dissatisfaction w/ gov’t or may be offensive to other citizens. The Court implied that if the burning violated some safety or breach of the peace law, then incidental limitations could be imposed on symbolic speech.

Question 16

Gregory v. Chicago

Answer 16

The Court held that peaceful and orderly marching in demonstration against the slow pace of public school desegregation in Chicago public schools was protected speech. However, the Court stated that time and manner regulation applied neutrally to promote order and safety would be a legitimate limitation on speech.

Question 17

NY Times v. United States (1971)

Answer 17

Pentagon Papers. Information regarding Vietnam War leaked to the press. Court held that although publication of the materials may be an embarrassment for the government, no true national security risk was involved so Court can not exercise prior restraint on this political speech.

Question 18

Freedom of Speech- Protected
Prior Restraint
Speech Plus/Protest Marching
Symbolic Speech

Answer 18

Prior Restraint- NY Times v. United States
Speech Plus/Protest Marching- Gregory v. Chicago
Symbolic Speech- Tinker v. Des Moines and Texas v. Johnson

Question 19

4th Amendment Cases

Answer 19

Weeks v. U.S. (1914); Mapp v. Ohio (1961
Terry v. Ohio (1968)
Katz v. United States (1967)
New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985)

Question 20

Weeks v. U.S. (1914); Mapp v. Ohio (1961)

Answer 20

Exclusionary rule for federal violation of fourth amendment; Mapp applies exclusionary rule to the states. Evidence obtained in illegal searches, seizures, or by coerced confessions is inadmissible at trial.

Question 21

Terry v. Ohio (1968)

Answer 21

Court held that police do not need a warrant to search a person (defendant appeared to be casing a store for robbery) for weapons where reason to believe suspect may be armed and dangerous exists, even if suspicion does not amount to probable cause for arrest yet.

Question 22

Katz v. United States (1967)

Answer 22

The Court held that electronic surveillance where a person has an expectation of privacy (public telephone booth) falls under search and seizure requirements…i.e. probable cause and warrant.

Question 23

New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985)

Answer 23

The Court held that school officials are subject to fourth amendment prohibitions and that school children do have an expectation of privacy at school. However, a school official does not need probable cause to search; rather constitutionality is a question of reasonableness both at inception of the search and in terms of its scope/intrusiveness.

Question 24

5th Amendment

Answer 24

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

Question 25

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

Answer 25

The Court held that the Fifth Amendment requires that individuals arrested for a crime must be advised of their right to remain silent (self-incrimination) and to have counsel present for questioning.

Question 26

6th Amendment

Answer 26

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963); Betts v. Brady (1942)

Question 27

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963); Betts v. Brady (1942)

Answer 27

Incorporated the right to counsel to states; accepted the standard from Brady “fundamental and essential to a fair trial” as the lithmus test for incorporation, but overruled Brady on their conclusion that right to counsel was not such a right.

Question 28

8th Amendment cases

Answer 28

Furman v. Georgia
McCleskey v. Kemp
Atkins v. Virginia

Question 29

Furman v. Georgia (1972)

Answer 29

The Court held that juries may not have wide discretion in applying the death penalty, because this poses substantial risk that punishment will be inflicted in an arbitrary and capricious manner. In essence the ruling required states to adopt sentencing guidelines that would ensure consistency and fairness.

Question 30

McCleskey v. Kemp (1987)

Answer 30

Court held that studies that show death penalty may be applied disproportionately to minorities in Georgia, do not make the imposition of the death penalty unconstitutional in a given case, where jury was required to utilize rational criteria and was not left wide discretion as in Furman.

Question 31

Atkins v. Virginia (2002)

Answer 31

The Court held that application of the death penalty to a mentally retarded individual violates the 8th Amendment prohibition against Cruel & Unusual punishment.

Question 32

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)

Answer 32

The Court held that a Connecticut statute forbidding use of contraceptives violates the right of marital privacy which is within the penumbra of specific guarantees of the Bill of Rights.

Question 33

Roe v. Wade (1973)

Answer 33

The Court held that abortion must be viewed in three stages: (1) In the first trimester, the woman has an absolute right (w/ medical consultation) to terminate pregnancy; (2) in the second trimester, the state may regulate abortion as it pertains to its interest in preserving the mother’s health; and (3) in the third trimester (post-viability), the state may ban abortion as its interest in the life of the unborn matures

Question 34

Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989)

Answer 34

The Court upheld state-required viability tests in the second trimester, even though these tests would increase the cost of an abortion significantly (thereby obstructing womens’ ability to get abortions) and also upheld a state law withholding public resources from non-therapeutic abortion procedures.

Question 35

Bowers v. Hardwick (1986)

Answer 35

The Court upheld a Georgia law that prohibited consensual heterosexual and homosexual oral or anal sex. The Court refused to extend the right to privacy to invalidate state laws that criminalize some aspects of homosexual behavior

Question 36

Right to Privacy Cases

Answer 36

Griswold v. Connecticut 
Roe v. Wade 
Webster v. Reproductive Health Services 
Planned Parenthood v. Casey 
Bowers v. Hardwick

Question 37

Regents of UC v. Bakke (1978)

Answer 37

The Court held that discrimination based on race, such as an affirmative action college admission process is subject to strict scrutiny standard of review. Powell’s opinion recognized diversity as a compelling state interest, but invalidated UC Davis’ strict quota system for admission. Hopwood (1996) later questions diversity as a valid reason for AA.

Question 38

Adarand Constructors v. Pena (1995)

Answer 38

The Court held that a federal policy of giving general contractors financial incentives to hire subcontractors controlled by “socially and economically disadvantaged individuals” and the government’s use of race-based presumptions in identifying such individuals must be examined under strict scrutiny standard of review as a race based discrimination.

Question 39

14th Amendment- Equal Protection Clause: Affirmative Action cases

Answer 39

Regents of UC v. Bakke

Adarand Constructors v. Pena

Question 40

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

Answer 40

The Court held that laws requiring separate railway carriages for white and colored races, i.e. “separate but equal” facilities in railway transportation were constitutional, and did not violate the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.

Question 41

Brown v. Board of Ed. (1954, 1955)

Answer 41

The Court held that segregated public schooling based on race is inherently unequal, and violated the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause.

Question 42

School Desegregation

Answer 42

Plessy v. Ferguson

Brown v. Board of Ed.