Civil Rights & Liberties Flashcards
Plessy (majority opinion)
Louisiana law (train - racial segregation) is constitutional under the 13th Amendment (abolished slavery and involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for a crime). Judgment upheld. Racial segregation is not discriminatory and does not “necessarily imply the inferiority of either race to the other,” but rather a reasonable exercise of state police power “for the promotion of the public good, and not for the annoyance or oppression of a particular social class. Social prejudices cannot be overcome by legislation.
Plessy (Harlan dissent)
This law: plants the seeds of race hate implies that Blacks are inferior violates the 14th Amendment should be blind of color when it comes to protecting civil rights
Barron
Warf was ruined because of city construction. 5th Amendment forbids the states as well as national government from taking private property. Supreme Court had no jurisdiction. Case dismissed. Marshall said the framers of the Constitution didn’t apply the Bill of Rights to the states (“no state shall”).
Schenck
Distribution of anti-WWI leaflets distributed to drafted men. Violation of Espionage Act of 1917. Judgement Affirmed. 1st Amendment (free speech). Leaflet’s message was “of such nature as to create a clear and present danger that will bring about” results that Congress has a right to prevent. Compared to yelling fire in a crowded theatre.
Palko (rationale)
5th Amendment is not “of the very essence of a scheme of ordered liberty” and its “abolishment would not violate a principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of the American people as to be ranked fundamental.” Bill of Rights (5th Amendment) is not applied to the states under the 14th Amendment. Devised a test to see which rights count. In order to be counted as incorporated, rights need to be ranked as fundamental. We know a right is fundamental because it is rooted in the traditions (history) and conscience (values) of the American people.
Griswold (majority opinion)
Contraceptives. Judgment reversed. 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 5th Amendments all have zones of privacy that are protected. 9th Amendment states that privacy is a fundamental right that does exist even though it is not explicitly stated in the Bill of Rights. There is a privacy right that surrounds marriage.
Griswold (Black dissent)
Contraception. Does not believe that the Bill of Rights inters that there exists a right to privacy nor that the Constitution needs to change with the times. “Right to privacy” is not explicitly stated in the Constitution and therefore does not exist.
Roe v. Wade (Blackmun majority opinion)
Texas statute prohibiting abortions is unconstitutional. The right of a woman to determine whether or not to terminate her pregnancy is a fundamental right of privacy founded in the 14th Amendment’s concept of personal liberty. A fetus is not a person within the meaning of the 14th Amendment and therefore is not entitled to the protections of that Amendment
Roe v. Wade (Rehnquist & White dissent)
Right of privacy is not involved in this case. A transaction resulting in an operation is not “private” in the ordinary usage of the word. The fact that a majority of the states have had restrictions on abortions for at least a century is a strong indication that the right to an abortion is not so deeply rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people to be regarded as fundamental (Palko).
White: decision should be left up to the states.
Casey (Kennedy plurality opinion)
PA law imposing obligations on women seeking abortions. Upheld. Law is invalid only if its purpose or effect is to place a substantial obstacle (an undue burden) in the path of a woman seeking an abortion at a stage of her pregnancy before the fetus attains viability (24th week).
Casey (Rehnquist dissent)
Woman’s decision to terminate pregancy is not a fundamental right. Law should be upheld because of stare decisis.
Casey (Blackmun dissent)
Abortion regulations should be examined with strict scrutiny. Statute provisions requiring content-based counseling, a 24hr delay, informed parental consent, and reporting of abortion-related information must be invalidated. Woman seeking abortion should not be protected.
Cruzan (Rehnquist majority opinion)
Car accident vegetable. Missouri law upheld. Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment protects an interest in life as well as an interest in refusing life-support. Missouri may seek to safeguard life by placing a “heightened evidentiary requirement.” Their adoption of the “clear and convincing” standard of proof is permissible but not required for all states.
Cruzan (Blackmun & Brennan dissent)
Cruzan has a fundamental right to refuse medical treatment. The state would have to prove that Cruzan wanted to be kept on life support. He rejects Rehnquist’s balance of the risks. Brennan sees a risk in unwanted life.
Washington (Rehnquist majority opinion)
Physician-assisted suicide. Washington’s law is constitutional. Criminalizing suicide is a tradition and if overturned would upset laws prohibiting it in almost every state. Supreme Court has already established that everyone has the right to refuse medical treatment. State interests against the right to die by suicide include preserving human life, protecting the vulnerable, and fear that this may lead to involuntary euthanasia.
