COURT CASES

Question 1

Adarand Constructors v. Pena (1995)

Answer 1

Congress and the states must demonstrate a “compelling
governmental interest” (strict scrutiny test) to sustain any affirmative action programs it engages in. In this case, the Court struck down the Department of Transportation’s awarding of a highway construction contract to a minority bidder.

Question 2

Baker v Carr (1962)

Answer 2

“One man, one vote” Ordered state legislative districts to be as near equal as possible in population because of the 14th amendment. Also established that USSC has jurisdiction over questions of legislative apportionment because it can and has stepped in to correct constitutional violations made by state administration and officers.

Question 3

Bob Jones University v U.S. (1983)

Answer 3

tax-exempt status in schools are not absolute. (Schools that discriminate can be taxed)

Question 4

Bowers v Hardwick (1986)

Answer 4

upheld anti-sodomy laws based on Judeo-Christian views (major privacy case)

Question 5

Brandenburg v Ohio (1969)

Answer 5

Direct Incitement Test (direct incitement of imminent lawless action): intent, likely, imminent (expanded free speech)

Question 6

Brown v Board #2

Answer 6

After its decision in Brown (1) which declared racial discrimination in public education unconstitutional, the Court convened to issue the directives which would help to implement its newly announced Constitutional principle. Given the embedded nature of racial discrimination in public schools and the diverse circumstances under which it had been practiced, the Court requested further argument on the issue of relief. QUESTION: What means should be used to implement the principles announced in Brown I? CONCLUSION: The Brown (1) decision shall be implemented “with all deliberate speed” FIRST AMENDMENT!!!

Question 7

Brown v Board of Education (1954) #1

Answer 7

Black children were denied admission to public schools attended by white children under laws requiring or permitting segregation according to the races. The white and black schools approached equality in terms of buildings, curricula, qualifications, and teacher salaries. This case was decided together with Briggs v. Elliott and Davis v. County School Board of Prince Edward County. QUESTION: Does the segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race deprive the minority children of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the 14th Amendment? CONCLUSION: Separate but equal educational facilities for racial minorities is inherently unequal violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
Separate but equal is unconstitutional, overrode Plessy v Ferguson, and ended De Jure segregation in public schools by using the 14th Amendment; unanimous decision

Question 8

Buckley v. Valeo (1976)

Answer 8

1st Amendment protects campaign spending because it’s a form of political expression; legislatures can limit contributions, but not how much one spends of his own money on campaigns. The decision opened the door for PACs to spend unlimited amounts of money for campaigning activities so long as they’re not directly coordinated with a particular campaign

Question 9

Bush v Gore (2000)

Answer 9

Ruled that Florida’s practice of allowing local election
jurisdictions to establish their own procedures for counting ballots and determining voter intent is inconsistent with the Constitution’s Equal Protection
and Due Process Clauses (14th Amendment). The case handed George W. Bush the presidency in 2000.

Question 10

California Regents v Bakke (1978)

Answer 10

Declared strict quotas based on race unconstitutional but states may allow race to be taken into account as one factor in admission decisions. Bakke was admitted; affirmative action was limited

Question 11

Cantwell v Connecticut (1940)

Answer 11

The local ordinance requiring a permit to solicit violated the Free Exercise Clause of the 1st Amendment and violated the 14th Amendment because these restrictions were based on religious grounds

Question 12

Chaplinsky v New Hampshire (NH) (1946)

Answer 12

Fighting Words Doctrine (Supreme Court test) has been overturned

Question 13

Citizens United v. FEC

Answer 13

Citizens United sought an injunction against the Federal Election Commission in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to prevent the application of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) to its film Hillary: The Movie. The Movie expressed opinions about whether Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton would make a good president.
Citizens United argued that: 1) Section 203 violates the First Amendment on its face and when applied to The Movie and its related advertisements, and that 2) Sections 201 and 203 are also unconstitutional as applied to the circumstances. The Supreme Court overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and portions of McConnell v. FEC. (In the prior cases, the Court had held that political speech may be banned based on the speaker’s corporate identity.) By a 5-to-4 vote along ideological lines, the majority held that under the First Amendment corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited.

Question 14

City of Boerne v Flores (1997)

Answer 14

Ruled that Congress exceeded its 14th Amendment enforcement powers by enacting the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 which, in part, subjected local ordinances to federal regulation because although it can enforce constitutional rights established by the Court, it can’t expand/enlarge religious freedom rights

Question 15

Clinton v Jones (1997)

Answer 15

The Court ruled that the president of the U.S. is not temporarily immune from
civil lawsuits, based on actions before entering office, filed during a president’s
term in office

Question 16

Clinton v. NYC (1998)

Answer 16

Banned presidential use of line item veto because it violated the “separation of powers”

Question 17

Cruzan v Director Missouri Department of Health (1990)

Answer 17

Right to privacy and right to die. Court said that competent people have a right to die and incompetent persons must have a surrogate with “clear and convincing” evidence that this is what the incompetent patient desired. Resulted in passage of “living will” statutes in several states.

Question 18

District of Columbia (DC) v Heller (2008)

Answer 18

Upheld individual’s right to bear arms (2nd amendment). Established prefatory vs operative clause

Question 19

Dred Scott v Sandford (1857)

Answer 19

Supreme Court decision that stated that slaves were not citizens. Even if they lived in a free state or territory for many years, they were not free; and declared the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional

Question 20

Employment Division v Smith (1990)

Answer 20

Two Native Americans who worked as counselors for a private drug rehabilitation organization, ingested peyote – a powerful hallucinogen – as part of their religious ceremonies as members of the Native American Church. As a result of this conduct, the rehabilitation organization fired the counselors. The counselors filed a claim for unemployment compensation. The government denied them benefits because the reason for their dismissal was considered work-related “misconduct.” The counselors lost their battle in state court. But the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the Oregon Supreme Court’s judgment against the disgruntled employees, and returned the case to the Oregon courts to determine whether or not sacramental use of illegal drugs violated Oregon’s state drug laws (485 U.S. 660 (1988)). On remand, the Oregon Supreme Court concluded that while Oregon drug law prohibited the consumption of illegal drugs for sacramental religious uses, this prohibition violated the free exercise clause. The case returned to the U.S. Supreme Court in this new posture. QUESTION: Can a state deny unemployment benefits to a worker fired for using illegal drugs for religious purposes? CONCLUSION: Yes. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, observed that the Court has never held that an individual’s religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that government is free to regulate. FIRST AMENDMENT!!!

Question 21

Engel v Vitale (1962)

Answer 21

The Board of Regents for the State of New York authorized a short, voluntary prayer for recitation at the start of each school day. This was an attempt to defuse the politically potent issue by taking it out of the hands of local communities. The blandest of invocations read as follows: “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and beg Thy blessings upon us, our teachers, and our country.” QUESTION: Does the reading of a nondenominational prayer at the start of the school day violate the “establishment of religion” clause of the First Amendment? CONCLUSION: Yes. Neither the prayer’s nondenominational character nor its voluntary character saves it from unconstitutionality. By providing the prayer, New York officially approved religion. This was the first in a series of cases in which the Court used the establishment clause to eliminate religious activities of all sorts, which had traditionally been a part of public ceremonies. Despite the passage of time, the decision is still unpopular with a majority of Americans. FIRST AMENDMENT!!!
Prohibited state-sponsored recitation of prayer in public schools by virtue of the 1st Amendment’s establishment clause and the 14th Amendment’s due process clause. Case was brought up because New York had authorized a voluntary prayer for recitation at the start of each school day

Question 22

Everson v Board of Education (1947)

Answer 22

Held that the New Jersey law reimbursing parents for transportation costs to Catholic schools did not violate the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment, Wall of separation between church and state

Question 23

Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin (2013)

Answer 23

In 1997, the Texas legislature enacted a law requiring the University of Texas to admit all high school seniors who ranked in the top ten percent of their high school classes. After finding differences between the racial and ethnic makeup of the university’s undergraduate population and the state’s population, the University of Texas decided to modify its race-neutral admissions policy. The new policy continued to admit all in-state students who graduated in the top ten percent of their high school classes. For the remainder of the in-state freshman class the university would consider race as a factor in admission.

Abigail N. Fisher, a Caucasian female, applied for undergraduate admission to the University of Texas in 2008. Fisher was not in the top ten percent of her class, so she competed for admission with other non-top ten percent in-state applicants. The University of Texas denied Fisher’s application.

Fisher filed suit against the university and other related defendants, claiming that the University of Texas’ use of race as a consideration in admission decisions was in violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The university argued that its use of race was a narrowly tailored means of pursuing greater diversity. The district court decided in favor of the University of Texas, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. Fisher appealed the appellate court’s decision.QUESTION: Does the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment permit the consideration of race in undergraduate admissions decisions? CONCLUSION: Yes, but only under a standard of strict judicial scrutiny. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy delivered the opinion for the 7-1 majority. FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT!!

Question 24

Gibbons v Ogden (1824)

Answer 24

Expanded the Commerce Clause; determined Congress’ power encompassed virtually every form of commercial activity. Increased power of Congress

Question 25

Gideon v Wainwright (1963)

Answer 25

Ordered states to provide lawyers for those unable to afford them in criminal proceedings (extended right to counsel in 6th amendment to state courts)

Question 26

Gitlow v New York (1925)

Answer 26

Gitlow, a socialist, was arrested for distributing copies of a “left-wing manifesto” that called for the establishment of socialism through strikes and class action of any form. Gitlow was convicted under a state criminal anarchy law, which punished advocating the overthrow of the government by force. At his trial, Gitlow argued that since there was no resulting action flowing from the manifesto’s publication, the statute penalized utterences without propensity to incitement of concrete action. The New York courts had decided that anyone who advocated the doctrine of violent revolution violated the law. QUESTION: Is the New York law punishing advocacy to overthrow the government by force an unconstitutional violation of the free speech clause of the First Amendment? CONCLUSION: The Free Speech Clause does not shield Gitlow from the New York statute. FIRST AMENDMENT!

Question 27

Gratz v Bollinger (2003)

Answer 27

In 1995, Jennifer Gratz applied to the University of Michigan’s College of Literature, Science and the Arts with an adjusted GPA of 3.8 and ACT score of 25. In 1997, Patrick Hamacher applied to the University with an adjusted GPA of 3.0, and an ACT score of 28. Both were denied admission and attended other schools. The University admits that it uses race as a factor in making admissions decisions because it serves a “compelling interest in achieving diversity among its student body.” In addition, the University has a policy to admit virtually all qualified applicants who are members of one of three select racial minority groups - African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans - that are considered to be “underrepresented” on the campus. Concluding that diversity was a compelling interest, the District Court held that the admissions policies for years 1995-1998 were not narrowly tailored, but that the policies in effect in 1999 and 2000 were narrowly tailored. After the decision in Grutter, Gratz and Hamacher petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court pursuant to Rule 11 for a writ of certiorari before judgment, which was granted. QUESTION: Does the University of Michigan’s use of racial preferences in undergraduate admissions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964? CONCLUSION: Yes. In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the Court held that the University of Michigan’s use of racial preferences in undergraduate admissions violates both the Equal Protection Clause and Title VI FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT!!!

Question 28

Gregg v Georgia (1976)

Answer 28

The death penalty is not an 8th amendment violation (cruel and unusual punishment). Proceeding of the penalty is on a state-by-state basis and must be “careful
and judicious”; overturned Furman v. Georgia (1972)

Question 29

Griswold v Connecticut (1965)

Answer 29

Griswold was the Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut. Both she and the Medical Director for the League gave information, instruction, and other medical advice to married couples concerning birth control. Griswold and her colleague were convicted under a Connecticut law which criminalized the provision of counselling, and other medical treatment, to married persons for purposes of preventing conception. QUESTION: Does the Constitution protect the right of marital privacy against state restrictions on a couple’s ability to be counseled in the use of contraceptives? CONCLUSION: Though the Constitution does not explicitly protect a general right to privacy, the various guarantees within the Bill of Rights create penumbras, or zones, that establish a right to privacy. Together, the First, Third, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, create a new constitutional right, the right to privacy in marital relations. The Connecticut statute conflicts with the exercise of this right and is therefore null and void. 1ST, 3RD, 4TH, 9TH AMENDMENTS!!
1st privacy case. Privacy is the great unenumerated (not listed) right found in Penumbra (shadows) of the Bill of Rights 4th, 9th, and 14th Amendments. This particular case established the right of consenting adults to use birth control. Set a precedent for Roe v. Wade

Question 30

Grutter v Bollinger (2003)

Answer 30

In 1997, Barbara Grutter, a white resident of Michigan, applied for admission to the University of Michigan Law School. Grutter applied with a 3.8 undergraduate GPA and an LSAT score of 161. She was denied admission. The Law School admits that it uses race as a factor in making admissions decisions because it serves a “compelling interest in achieving diversity among its student body.” The District Court concluded that the Law School’s stated interest in achieving diversity in the student body was not a compelling one and enjoined its use of race in the admissions process. In reversing, the Court of Appeals held that Justice Powell’s opinion in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978), constituted a binding precedent establishing diversity as a compelling governmental interest sufficient under strict scrutiny review to justify the use of racial preferences in admissions. The appellate court also rejected the district court’s finding that the Law School’s “critical mass” was the functional equivalent of a quota. QUESTION: Does the University of Michigan Law School’s use of racial preferences in student admissions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964? CONCLUSION: No. In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, the Court held that the Equal Protection Clause does not prohibit the Law School’s narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT!!!

Question 31

Heart of Atlanta Motel v US (1964)

Answer 31

Court upholds Civil Rights
Act of 1964; Congress can mandate hotel owners to serve black customers under interstate commerce clause; Congress didn’t exceed Commerce Clause powers in passing Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act by depriving motels of their right to choose their own customers

Question 32

Hunt v. Cromartie (1999)

Answer 32

Court declared that race was one factor that could be considered in drawing districts, if the primary motive was to achieve partisan rather than racial gerrymander.

Question 33

Immigration Naturalization Service v Chadha (1983)

Answer 33

The requirement that the legislative veto is unconstitutional.
“Congress cannot take any action that has the force of law unless the president
concurs in that action.” Despite this ruling, Congress has passed a number of
laws containing legislative vetoes, most notably the War Powers Act (1973)

Question 34

Lawrence v Texas (2003)

Answer 34

Responding to a reported weapons disturbance in a private residence, Houston police entered John Lawrence’s apartment and saw him and another adult man, Tyron Garner, engaging in a private, consensual sexual act. Lawrence and Garner were arrested and convicted of deviate sexual intercourse in violation of a Texas statute forbidding two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct. In affirming, the State Court of Appeals held that the statute was not unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, with Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), controlling QUESTION: Do the criminal convictions of John Lawrence and Tyron Garner under the Texas “Homosexual Conduct” law, which criminalizes sexual intimacy by same-sex couples, but not identical behavior by different-sex couples, violate the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of equal protection of laws? Do their criminal convictions for adult consensual sexual intimacy in the home violate their vital interests in liberty and privacy protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? Should Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), be overruled? CONCLUSION: No, yes, and yes. In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the Court held that the Texas statute making it a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct violates the Due Process Clause. FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT!!!

Question 35

Lemon v Kurtzman (1971)

Answer 35

This case was heard concurrently with two others, Earley v. DiCenso (1971) and Robinson v. DiCenso (1971). The cases involved controversies over laws in Pennsylvania and Rhode Island. In Pennsylvania, a statute provided financial support for teacher salaries, textbooks, and instructional materials for secular subjects to non-public schools. The Rhode Island statute provided direct supplemental salary payments to teachers in non-public elementary schools. Each statute made aid available to “church-related educational institutions.” QUESTION: Did the Rhode Island and Pennsylvania statutes violate the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause by making state financial aid available to “church-related educational institutions”? CONCLUSION: The Rhode Island statute is unconstitutional under the religion clause of First Amendment for excessive entanglement of state and church. FIRST AMENDMENT!!!!

Question 36

Loving v Virginia (1967)

Answer 36

Unanimous decision overturning the 1883 case of Pace v. Alabama that punished interratial fornication more severely than when partners were of the same race. Loving, a white man who married a black woman challenged his conviction under Virginia Law. The court struck down the law as an unconstitutional violation of the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause. In his opinion Warren held that “Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the state.”

Question 37

Mapp v Ohio (1961)

Answer 37

Established the exclusionary rule is applicable to state courts; illegally obtained evidence cannot be used in state courts, applied 4th amendment to states

Question 38

Marbury v Madison (1803)

Answer 38

Court establishes “Judicial Review”

Question 39

Maryland v Garrison (1987)

Answer 39

honest mistake exception to the Exclusionary Rule

Question 40

McConnell v. FEC (2003)

Answer 40

Court upholds provisions strictly regulating “soft money” in Bipartisan Campaign
Finance Reform act of 2002. Provision forbidding people 17 yrs or younger from
contributing to federal campaign struck down as violation of 1st amendment.

Question 41

McCulloch v Maryland (1819)

Answer 41

Established national supremacy (state unable to tax federal institution) (the power to tax involves the power to destroy); defined what “necessary and proper” means, thus establishing implied powers

Question 42

McDonald v Chicago (2010)

Answer 42

Several suits were filed against Chicago and Oak Park in Illinois challenging their gun bans after the Supreme Court issued its opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller. In that case, the Supreme Court held that a District of Columbia handgun ban violated the Second Amendment. There, the Court reasoned that the law in question was enacted under the authority of the federal government and, thus, the Second Amendment was applicable. Here, plaintiffs argued that the Second Amendment should also apply to the states. The district court dismissed the suits. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed. QUESTION: Does the Second Amendment apply to the states because it is incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges and Immunities or Due Process clauses and thereby made applicable to the states? CONCLUSION: The Supreme Court reversed the Seventh Circuit, holding that the Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense applicable to the states. SECOND AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS!!!

Question 43

Miller v California (1973)

Answer 43

Established that the following 3 tests be used in determining whether material is obscene: Would the average person find that the work encourages interest in sexual matters? Does the work depict something defined by law as obscene in a “patently offensive”? Does the work lack in value?; often referred to as the “Miller Test”

Question 44

Miller v Johnson

Answer 44

Race cannot be the sole or predominant factor in redrawing legislative district boundaries. Shaw v. Reno-North Carolina’s District 12-racial gerrymandering-invalidated the district because boundaries were neither contiguous nor compact and were drawn with the intent to discriminate through the use of racial gerrymandering. The court ruled that any racial gerrymandering by the state required a compelling state interest

Question 45

Miranda v Arizona (1966)

Answer 45

Miranda raped a woman and admitted to it after not being informed of the right to not self-incriminate. legally necessary to inform the accused of their various rights, including the right to counsel, 5th amendment, 6th amendment, and 14th amendment rights.

Question 46

Near v Minnesota (1931)

Answer 46

incorporated freedom of the press.

Question 47

New Jersey (NJ) v TLO (1985)

Answer 47

Reasonable Suspicion Rule for school searches. probable cause vs. reasonable suspicion (4th amendment)

Question 48

New York Times v United States (1971)

Answer 48

Speech that addresses matters of public concern may not be censored; came to court because Nixon administration tried to stop NY Times from publishing materials from a classified Defense Department study on the history of US activites in Vietnam

Question 49

NY Times V Sullivan (1964)

Answer 49

Held that statements about public figures are libelous and slander only if shown to have been made with actual malice and reckless disregard for the truth; made it very hard for public figures to win libel cases

Question 50

Obergefell v Hodges (2015) - gay marriage is legal in all states

Answer 50

gay marriage is legal in all states. The 14th Amendment requires both marriage licensing and recognition for same-sex couples because the 14th Amendment guarantees the right to marry as one of the fundamental liberties it protects

Question 51

Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)

Answer 51

States can regulate abortion, but not with regulations that impose “undue burden: upon women”; did not overturn Roe, but gave state more leeway in regulating abortion (e.g., 24-hour waiting period, parental consent for minors)
Plessy v Ferguson (1857) - separate but equal is constitutional in public facilities

Question 52

Plessy v Ferguson (1896)

Answer 52

1. The state of Louisiana enacted a law that required separate railway cars for blacks and whites. In 1892, Homer Adolph Plessy–who was seven-eighths Caucasian–took a seat in a “whites only” car of a Louisiana train. He refused to move to the car reserved for blacks and was arrested. **QUESTION: Is Louisiana’s law mandating racial segregation on its trains an unconstitutional infringement on both the privileges and immunities and the equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment?
2. CONCLUSION: Equal but separate accommodations for whites and blacks imposed by Louisiana do not violate the the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment 14TH AMENDMENTOverturned by Brown, Dissent was later referenced in the 1996 case of Romer v. Evans.

Question 53

Reno v. ACLU (1997)

Answer 53

The Court struck down provisions of the Communications Decency Act of 1996
which attempted to limit minors’ access to internet pornography. The law which
prohibited “indecent” and “patently offensive” material found on the Internet was
too vague and did not define obscene.

Question 54

Reynolds v Sims (1964)

Answer 54

Upholds famous “one man, one vote” standard for state legislative apportionment under the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection clause

Question 55

Ricci v Destefano (2009)

Answer 55

Disparate Impact. Article 7 of Civil Rights Act (1964). narrowed/weakened affirmative action

Question 56

Roe v Wade (1973)

Answer 56

Established national abortion guidelines; protected women’s right to choose to have abortion. Inferred from right of privacy established in Griswold v. Connecticut.

Question 57

Schenck v US (1919)

Answer 57

During World War I, Schenck mailed circulars to draftees. The circulars suggested that the draft was a monstrous wrong motivated by the capitalist system. The circulars urged “Do not submit to intimidation” but advised only peaceful action such as petitioning to repeal the Conscription Act. Schenck was charged with conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act by attempting to cause insubordination in the military and to obstruct recruitment. QUESTION ASKED: Are Schenck’s actions (words, expression) protected by the free speech clause of the First Amendment? CONCLUSION: The Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment does not shield advocacy urging conduct deemed unlawful under the Espionage Act FIRST AMENDMENT

Question 58

Texas v Johnson (1989)

Answer 58

Struck down a law banning the burning of the American flag on the grounds that such action was symbolic speech protected by the 1st Amendment.

Question 59

Texas v Johnson (1989)

Answer 59

Struck down a law banning the burning of the American flag on the grounds that such action was symbolic speech protected by the 1st Amendment.

Question 60

Tinker v Des Moines (1969)

Answer 60

Student expression/symbolic speech is protected by 1st amendment as long as it doesn’t cause a a “material disruption or substantial interference”.

Question 61

U.S. v Nixon (1974)

Answer 61

Executive Privilege is not absolute

Question 62

UC Davis v Bakke (1978)

Answer 62

racial considerations are acceptable, but quotas are illegal.

Question 63

US v Lopez (1995)

Answer 63

Gun Free School Zones Act exceeded Congress’ authority to regulate interstate commerce. The first case to begin reigning in Congress’ authority under the Commerce Clause

Question 64

US v. Morrison (2000)

Answer 64

Questioned whether Congress has the authority to enact the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 under either the Commerce Clause or Fourteenth Amendment; ruled that the commerce clause does not give Congress unlimited powers more appropriately reserved to the states

Question 65

Vacco v Quill (1997)

Answer 65

physician assisted suicide is illegal and unconstitutional. The government has a compelling interest to save lives (Strict Scrutiny test)

Question 66

Walz v New York City (NYC) Tax Commission (1970)

Answer 66

no taxing of religious organizations. Established Benevolent Neutrality

Question 67

Webster v Reproductive Health Services (1989)

Answer 67

took away public funding to Planned Parenthood. narrowed privacy and weakened Roe v Wade

Question 68

Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989)

Answer 68

Upheld Missouri’s legislation that restricted the use of state funds, facilities, and employees in performing, assisting with, or counseling on abortions unless to save the mother’s life because Roe v. Wade didn’t require state aid for abortions that weren’t meant to save the mother’s life

Question 69

Weeks v United States (1914)

Answer 69

Allowing private documents to be seized and then held as evidence against citizens violates the Fourth Amendment declaring the right to be secure against such searches and seizures. This was the first application of what eventually became known as the “exclusionary rule.” 4th amendment

Question 70

Wesberry v. Sanders (1965)

Answer 70

Ordered congressional districts to be as near equal in population as possible.

Question 71

Wickard v Filburn

Answer 71

Filburn was given a wheat acreage allotment of 11.1 acres under a Dept of Agriculture directive which authorized the government to set production quotas for wheat. Filburn harvested nearly 12 acres of wheat above his allotment - penalized - Is the amendment subjecting Filburn to acreage restrictions in violation of the Constitution because Congress has no power to regulate activities local in nature?

Even if an activity is local and not regarded as commerce, “it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce, and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as ‘direct’ or ‘indirect.’”

Question 72

Wolf v Colorado (1949)

Answer 72

The 14th Amendment does not require that evidence obtained in violation of the 4th Amendment be excluded from use by the STATES in criminal prosecutions; overruled by Mapp v Ohio