court cases C963

Question 1

Marbury vs. Madison

Answer 1

Supreme Court has power to declare laws unconstitutional

Question 2

McCulloch vs. Maryland

Answer 2

a State cannot tax a federal institution

Question 3

Gibbons vs. Ogden

Answer 3

Increased power of Federal Govt. When using the commerce clause

Question 4

Barron vs. Baltimore

Answer 4

Ruling that states Bill of Rights did not apply to state or city government. *Civil Liberties are only protected under the Federal Govt.’s laws and actions; not state govts.

Question 5

Sherbert vs. Verner

Answer 5

States cannot deny unemployment benefits to an individual who turned down a job because it required working on the Sabbath (Adeil Sherbert) -> four-pronged test was created to determine if a law violates “Free Exercise of Religion.”

Question 6

Lemon vs. Kurtzman

Answer 6

Supreme Court established a test to decide whether a law or govt action that might promote a particular religious practice should be allowed to stand. The “Three-Pronged” Lemon Test:​

Does the Law have a Secular Purpose (secular meaning non-religious), if not it violates the Establishment Clause​

Is the primary effect either to advance or inhibit religion, if yes it violates the Establishment Clause​

Does it foster “excessive government entanglement with religion?” If yes, it violates the establishment clause​

*The issue in the case involved the use of U.S. taxpayer money to partially pay Catholi school teaachers for the teaching of secular subjects. ​

Question 7

Burwell vs. Hobby Lobby

Answer 7

Court decision declared the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) permits for-profit companies to deny contraception in their health plans when that coverage violates a religious belief.

Question 8

Gillette vs. United States

Answer 8

Supreme Court ruled a person must be opposed to serving in any wars, not just some wars, to not be drafted by claiming to have a conscientious objection to military action that might promote a particular religious practice. .

Question 9

Tinker vs. Des Moines

Answer 9

Students were suspended for wearing black armbands to school to protest the American involvement in the Vietnam war. Supreme Court ruled that the suspensions violated the fr4eedom of speech rights of the students and the symbolic political speech the protest represented.

Question 10

Cohen vs. California

Answer 10

After a man was arrested for disturbing the peace due to wearing a jacket to an event that had a design that opposed the draft, the conviction was overturned by the Supreme Court, sayi8ng his actions were silent, and he made no attempt to otherwise disturb the peace.

Question 11

Brandenburg v. Ohio

Answer 11

This case involved the Ku Klux Klan. The Supreme Court found that only speech or writing that constitute a direct call or plan to imminent lawless action, an illegal act in the immediate future, could be legally suppressed; the advocacy for a hypothetical revolution was not enough.

Question 12

Texas v. Johnson

Answer 12

A protestor had set fire to an American Flag that someone had torn from a flagpole. He was arrested and charged with “desecration of a venerated object.” The Supreme court decide that in this case, burning the flag was a part of symbolic speech protected by the First Amendment, and found the Texas venerated objects law, as applied to the flag, to be unconstitutional.

Question 13

New York Times Co. v. The United States

Answer 13

After the New York Times and the Washington Post publicized the Pentagon Papers, pitting them against President Richard Nixon, the Supreme Court declared that government censorship of the freedom of press could not happen unless whatever the press published would cause “inevitable, direct and immediate harm” to national security​

Question 14

Braznburg v. Hayes

Answer 14

Requiring news reports to disclose “confidential information” to a grand jury did serves a “compelling and paramount state interest” and did NOT violate the 1st amendment protection of free speech. (Media wanted to claim ab absolute right to protect sources.) The case involved a reporter who witnessed people using and manufacturing illegal substances, and the report4er denied two grand jury testimony subpoenas claiming confidentiality was his right and exempt him from testifying.

Question 15

Miller vs. California

Answer 15

The supreme court used this case to establish whether something is obscene, creating the miller test which asks three questions to test obscenity​

Would the average person applying current community standards find that the work appeals to “prurient” interests?​

Does the work depict or describe in a patently offensive way sexual conduct defined by the applicable state law?​

Does the work, taken as a whole, lack serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value?​

​

Question 16

Mapp v. Ohio

Answer 16

This case decided that evidence obtained without a warrant that didn’t fall under one of the designated exceptions could not be used as evidence in a state criminal trial. This became known as the exclusionary rule, first established in 1914 on a federal level in case Weeks v. United States

Question 17

Gideon v. Wainwright

Answer 17

This case perpetuated from the arrest of a man who was accused of breaking into a poolroom and stealing money from a cigarette machine. Not being able to afford a lawyer, and being denied a public defender by the judge, the man defended himself and was subsequently found guilty. Upon his appeal, the Supreme Court declared that the Sixth Amendment required that those facing felony criminal charges be supplied with legal representation.

Question 18

Miranda v. Arizona

Answer 18

The court case that led to the Miranda rights. When a man was arrested and interrogated, he confessed to kidnapping. However, the arresting officers neglected to inform him of his right to not self-incriminate. The man appealed to the Supreme Court upon being found guilty, resulting in the decision that the right to not incriminate oneself relies heavily on a suspect being informed of these rights at the time of arrest. This ensures that all statements are voluntary.

Question 19

Furman v. Georgia

Answer 19

This court laid out guidelines for capital punishment. A man was caught burglarizing a home, as he fled the scene, he tripped causing the gun to fire and accidentally killing the individual who discovered him. This case led to the guidelines for cruel and unusual punishment to be defined.

Question 20

Heller v. District of Columbia

Answer 20

The court ruled that the D.C. handgun law, including a ban on handguns, prohibition of carrying handguns, and the provision that required all unregistered handguns be kept disassembled, was unconstitutional. This ruling stated that the original intent of the 2nd amendment extended beyond the formation of a government sponsored militia and assumed the general right that adult people can have a commonly used weapon, assembled, in their home as a fundamental liberty.

Question 21

McDonald v. Chicago

Answer 21

This confirmed the ruling from Heller v. District of Columbia extended beyond the citizens of D.C. and reached all American citizens. This case solidified the interpretation of the 2nd amendment towards the “right to self defense.”

Question 22

US. V Miller

Answer 22

The Supreme Court upheld the 1934 National Firearm Act’s prohibition of sawed-off shotguns. Largely on the basis that possession of such a weapon was not related to the goal of promoting a “well-regulated militia.”

Question 23

Dred Scott v. Sanford

Answer 23

Concerned the constitutionality of the Missouri Compromise, declaring that certain states will be entirely free of slavery. A slave who was brought to a free territory and then brought back to a slave state sued, claiming his time in a free state made him free. The court declared that the relevant parts of the Missouri Compromise were unconstitutional, and the man remained a slave as a result.

Question 24

Plessy v. Ferguson

Answer 24

A mixed race man sat in a white-only railroad car in an attempt to challenge Louisiana segregation laws. He was arrested and the court refused his appeal that the law was in violation with the equal protection principle, stating that the railroad cars were “separate but equal.”

Question 25

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, KS

Answer 25

This case changed the principle “separate but equal” by challenging the idea with the issue of segregated education. Racially segregated schools were unanimously decided to be unequal and unconstitutional, violating the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

Question 26

Miller v. Johnson

Answer 26

Addresses racial gerrymandering. The case rule that Georgia’s congressional House districts violated the equal protection clause since the oddly shaped district boundaries undermined the concept “one person one vote”, giving someone voters more influence in an intentional way. The court set that non-compactness is a clear sign of racial segregation.

Question 27

Korematsu v. United States

Answer 27

During WWII, citizens of Japanese descent living on the West Coast, whether neutralized immigrants or Japanese Americans born in the US, were removed from their communities and sent to interned camps under Executive Order 9066. When this was challenged, the Supreme Court upheld the actions of the government as a necessary precaution in a time of war.

Question 28

Obergefell v. Hodges

Answer 28

Legalized same-sex marriage. This landmark case answered two important questions: First, the 14th Amendment requires a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex. Secondly, the 14th Amendment require3ws a state to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another state.

Question 29

Griswold v. Connecticut

Answer 29

This case marked the first time the Supreme Court spelled out the right to privacy that extended beyond State Constitutions. The case involved Estelle Griswold, the head of Planned Parenthood in Connecticut. She and a partner opened a clinic that distributed contraception to married couples that was in violated with Connecticut’s Comstock Law that prohibited married couples use of contraceptive materials. The court upheld the 1st, 3rd, 9th, and 14th amendment rights to a right to privacy among married couples to do what they want in the privacy of their relationship. The Comstock Law was ruled as unconstitutional.

Question 30

Roe v. Wade

Answer 30

This case involved a pregnant woman in Texas who wanted to terminate her pregnancy. The case questioned whether a woman’s right to privacy extended to her reproductive choices. The court ultimately decide the right to privacy does exist in reproductive rights, however restricted abortion access to the 1st trimester, stating that beginning the 2nd trimester the government could regulate or prohibit abortion once the fetus became “viable” as long as the regulation or law included exceptions to protect the life or health of the mother.

Question 31

Planned Parenthood v. Casey

Answer 31

This case challenged a Pennsylvania law that set these restrictions to abortions​

1- 24 hour waiting period​

2- Grant informed consent ​

3- A married woman had to indicate she informed her husband of her intent to have an abortion​

4- A minor had to have parental consent (with some exceptions) ​

The court was divided, and upheld the law with the exception of married women needing to inform their husbands. The court also broke the Roe v Wade precedent that created different rules for the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd trimesters. In its place, the Court established a “viable fetus” , arguing the State has a compelling interest in protecting the potentiality of life and could impose legislation regulating abortion once a fetus was deemed viable, even in the 1st trimester.

Question 32

Buckley v. Valeo

Answer 32

A landmark court case that stated spending money in an election was essentially free speech and struck down several provisions of campaign finance law that had previously been in place. The Supreme Court answered two questions in this case:​

Individual restrictions on campaign donations did not violate the first amendment​

The limitation on expenditures by candidates for campaign purposes does violate the first amendment

Question 33

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

Answer 33

A nonprofit organization was prevented by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) from showing a movie about a presidential candidate of the time because it violated the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA). The conclusion of the case was that the restrictions placed by the FEC and BCRA violated the corporation’s 1st amendment right to free expression.