Constitutional Amendments and BIG Cases Flashcards
This amendment protects: free expression of religion; freedom of speech and press; right to peaceful assembly
First Amendment
This amendment states: a person charged with a crime has the right to a jury trial; no person may be tried for the same crime twice (double jeopardy); a person is protected from self-incrimination; a person has a right to a fair trial; the government may not take property without just compensation
Fifth Amendment
This amendment is often associated with the “equal protection” clause
Fourteenth Amendment
This amendment states that no state shall make or enforce a law which abridges the privileges and immunities of citizens of the US; no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process; nor deny to any person the equal protection of laws
Fourteenth Amendment
This Supreme Court case found that a person has a right to make alcohol for their own use, but it can be conditioned on its effect on others
Mugler v. Kansas (1887)
These two Supreme Court cases tested which constitutional amendment?
Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty (1926) and Mugler v. Kansas (1887)
Fourteenth Amendment
Which amendment was tested in the Supreme Court case Renton v. Playtime Theatres?
Hint: Playtime theatres was an adult theater.
First Amendment
Several Supreme Court cases have reviewed ordinances which regulate outdoor signage. Which amendment has been applied to these cases?
First Amendment
Which of these court cases relates to the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment?
1) Euclid v. Ambler (1926)
2) Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corp v. Public Service Commission (1980)
3) Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan Catv Corp. (1982)
3) Loretto v. Teleprompter
The Supreme Court ruled that the installation of cable on the property was a taking
What is eminent domain and which constitutional amendment does it relate to?
Eminent domain refers to the government’s power to take private property for public use, provided they provide just compensation; it is related to the Fifth Amendment
The first case to uphold building regulations and limit building height (which set the precedent for zoning) in 1909…
Welch v. Swasey
This 1928 case struck down a zoning ordinance and used the rational basis test to conclude it did not have a valid public purpose (which is a requirement for creating zoning regulations)
Nectow v. City of Cambridge
Which of these cases is NOT related to growth management?
1) Golden v. Planning Board of Ramapo (1972)
2) Loretto v. Teleprompter (1982)
3) Construction Industry of Sonoma County v. City of Petaluma (1975)
4) Associate Home Builders of Greater East Bay v. City of Livermore (1976)
2) Loretto v. Teleprompter is a 5th amendment takings case, the others are all related to growth management
Massachusetts v. EPA (2006) found that the EPA must provide reasonable justification for not regulating ________
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
This case found that the Army Corps of Engineers must determine a significant nexus between wetlands and navigable waterways
Rapanos v. US (2006)
First amendment cases often deal with which issues?
Adult use, signage, religious facilities, and group homes
Reed v. Town of Gilbert, AZ ruled that sign ordinances must be _______ based on the first amendment.
Content-neutral
This federal act of 2000 ruled that land use regulations cannot pose undue burden for religious assemblies or institutions, and if a regulation is necessary for a legitimate government interest, it must impose the least restrictive regulations possible
Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA)
Which of two cases upheld zoning of adult use/sexually oriented businesses to certain districts?
1) Young v. American Mini Theaters (1976)
2) Metro Media v. City of San Diego (1981)
3) City of Renton v. Playtime Theaters (1986)
1) Young v. American Mini Theaters (1976), and
3) City of Renton v. Playtime Theaters (1986)
This was the first case to find that the government can regulate private property for public good (and it is not in violation of the 14th amendment) in 1876.
Munn v. Illinois
This case ruled that zoning ordinances can be used to control the lifestyle and values permitted in a district; this specific case was based on an ordinance that prohibits more than 2 unrelated persons from living in a single-family home
Village of Belle Terre v. Boaraas (1974)
South Burlington County NAACP v. Township of Mount Laurel (1975) was about the towns zoning regulations and found that…
Per the 14th amendment, the town’s zoning needed to be changed to allow all income types to live in the community and was exclusionary.
In this 1977 case, Metro Housing Development Corporation argued that the _______’s ordinance against multifamily housing in certain areas was racially discriminatory, but the court found there was not enough evidence to conclude it was discriminatory.
Village of Arlington Heights (v. Metro Housing Development Corporation)
First significant legal case dealing with historic preservation
US v. Gettysburg Electric Railway Company (1896)
First takings ruling; found that if a regulation goes too far, it can be a taking
Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon (1922)
Berman v. Parker (1954) ruled that aesthetics (IS/IS NOT) a valid public purpose
Aesthetics was ruled as a valid public purpose
Penn Central Transportation Co. v. The City of New York (1978) ruled the NYC Landmark Preservation Law as applied to _____________ was not a taking. Takings were based on diminution of value, interference with investment-backed expectations, and the character of the government action.
Grand Central Terminal
This 1980 case ruled that zoning for low-density did not constitute a taking.
Agins v. City of Tiburon
This 1987 case found that if an ordinance renders a property unusable for a period of time, the ordinance can be set aside and the government can be subject to paying for damages/losses. `
First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los Angeles
The Keystone Bituminous Coal Association v. DeBenedictis (1987) case ruled that the ordinance stating 50% of subsurface coal must be left to support surface structures WAS/WAS NOT a taking
It was not a taking and was justified by public interests
This 1987 case ruled that mandating beach front property owners to maintain beach access for the public served legitimate public interests but that the owner must be justly compensated for public use of their land.
Nollan v. California Coastal Commission
In this 1992 case, the court ruled that if there is a total reduction in value after a regulation is in place then there is a taking.
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council
Dolan v. Tigard (1994) created the _________ test to determine if an exaction is legitimate based on whether the public benefit is roughly proportional to the burden imposed on the public by allowing the proposed land use
Rough Proportionality Test
This 1999 case ruled that the city’s repeated denial of a permit denied the land owner of all economically viable use of the land. (Context: application for a development permit for 190-unit that was in conformance with the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance)
City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey Ltd. (1999)
This case ruled that development moratoria do not constitute a taking
Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (2002)
This 2005 case partially overturned the Agins v. City of Tiburon case by finding that the takings clause includes the severity of the burden that the regulation imposes, not just whether or not it advances legitimate governmental interest
Lingle v. Chevron (2005)
This 2005 case ruled that economic development is a valid use of eminent domain
Kelo v. City of New London (2005)
