Constitutional Amendments and BIG Cases

Question 1

This amendment protects: free expression of religion; freedom of speech and press; right to peaceful assembly

Answer 1

First Amendment

Question 2

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

Answer 2

Fifth Amendment

Question 3

This amendment is often associated with the “equal protection” clause

Answer 3

Fourteenth Amendment

Question 4

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

Answer 4

Fourteenth Amendment

Question 5

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

Answer 5

Mugler v. Kansas (1887)

Question 6

These two Supreme Court cases tested which constitutional amendment?
Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty (1926) and Mugler v. Kansas (1887)

Answer 6

Fourteenth Amendment

Question 7

Which amendment was tested in the Supreme Court case Renton v. Playtime Theatres?
Hint: Playtime theatres was an adult theater.

Answer 7

First Amendment

Question 8

Several Supreme Court cases have reviewed ordinances which regulate outdoor signage. Which amendment has been applied to these cases?

Answer 8

First Amendment

Question 9

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)

Answer 9

3) Loretto v. Teleprompter
The Supreme Court ruled that the installation of cable on the property was a taking

Question 10

What is eminent domain and which constitutional amendment does it relate to?

Answer 10

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

Question 11

The first case to uphold building regulations and limit building height (which set the precedent for zoning) in 1909…

Answer 11

Welch v. Swasey

Question 12

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)

Answer 12

Nectow v. City of Cambridge

Question 13

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)

Answer 13

2) Loretto v. Teleprompter is a 5th amendment takings case, the others are all related to growth management

Question 14

Massachusetts v. EPA (2006) found that the EPA must provide reasonable justification for not regulating ________

Answer 14

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Question 15

This case found that the Army Corps of Engineers must determine a significant nexus between wetlands and navigable waterways

Answer 15

Rapanos v. US (2006)

Question 16

First amendment cases often deal with which issues?

Answer 16

Adult use, signage, religious facilities, and group homes

Question 17

Reed v. Town of Gilbert, AZ ruled that sign ordinances must be _______ based on the first amendment.

Answer 17

Content-neutral

Question 18

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

Answer 18

Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA)

Question 19

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)

Answer 19

1) Young v. American Mini Theaters (1976), and
3) City of Renton v. Playtime Theaters (1986)

Question 20

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.

Answer 20

Munn v. Illinois

Question 21

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

Answer 21

Village of Belle Terre v. Boaraas (1974)

Question 22

South Burlington County NAACP v. Township of Mount Laurel (1975) was about the towns zoning regulations and found that…

Answer 22

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.

Question 23

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.

Answer 23

Village of Arlington Heights (v. Metro Housing Development Corporation)

Question 24

First significant legal case dealing with historic preservation

Answer 24

US v. Gettysburg Electric Railway Company (1896)

Question 25

First takings ruling; found that if a regulation goes too far, it can be a taking

Answer 25

Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon (1922)

Question 26

Berman v. Parker (1954) ruled that aesthetics (IS/IS NOT) a valid public purpose

Answer 26

Aesthetics was ruled as a valid public purpose

Question 27

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.

Answer 27

Grand Central Terminal

Question 28

This 1980 case ruled that zoning for low-density did not constitute a taking.

Answer 28

Agins v. City of Tiburon

Question 29

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. `

Answer 29

First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los Angeles

Question 30

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

Answer 30

It was not a taking and was justified by public interests

Question 31

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.

Answer 31

Nollan v. California Coastal Commission

Question 32

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.

Answer 32

Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council

Question 33

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

Answer 33

Rough Proportionality Test

Question 34

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)

Answer 34

City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey Ltd. (1999)

Question 35

This case ruled that development moratoria do not constitute a taking

Answer 35

Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (2002)

Question 36

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

Answer 36

Lingle v. Chevron (2005)

Question 37

This 2005 case ruled that economic development is a valid use of eminent domain

Answer 37

Kelo v. City of New London (2005)