Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Civil Liberties > Exam 1 > Flashcards

Exam 1 Flashcards

1
Q

Ex Parte McCardle (1869)

A

Question: May Congress withdraw jurisdiction from the High Court after that jurisdiction has been given?

Conclusion: yes, Court validated congressional withdrawal of the Court’s jurisdiction on the basis of the Exceptions Clause of Article III Section 2; does not affect the jurisdiction that was previously exercised

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

the Doctrine of Constitutional Avoidance

A

a legal doctrine of judicial review in US constitutional law that dictates that US federal courts should refuse to rule on a constitutional issue if the case can be resolved without involving constitutionality (plurality; does not become precedent)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Duncan v. Louisiana (1968)

A

Issue: Was the State of Louisiana obligated to provide a trial by jury in criminal cases such as Duncan’s?

Ruling: Yes, Louisiana was required to provide trial by jury in criminal cases because the 6th Amendment’s guarantee of trial by jury was fundamental to the American scheme of justice, and states were obligated under the 14th Amendment to provide such trials

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

State Supreme Courts (2)

A
  1. equivalent power to SCOTUS - can only be appealed to SCOTUS if the issue is found in violation of the Constitution or federal statutes
  2. no “fact-finding,” only “issues of law” - no real trials
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

writ of certiorari

A

a petition from the lower court/individual for the higher court to look at a case on its merits and see if it deserves to be heard

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

per curiam opinion

A

no author; quite brief

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

limits on standing requirements (2)

A
  1. third-party standing: a party may only exert their own rights and cannot raise rights of individuals not before the Court
  2. prohibition of generalized grievances: a party cannot bring suit if the injury in question is undifferentiated way from many people
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

A

Issue:
1. Does Marbury have a legal right to the job?
2. Is there a legal remedy for his circumstances?
3. Does the Supreme Court have the right to issue that remedy?

Ruling:
1. Yes, Marbury does possess a legal right to the job.
2. Yes, a writ of mandamus is the appropriate legal action for his circumstance.
3. No, the Supreme Court does not have the authority to issue the writ.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Flast v. Cohen (1968)

A

Question: Did Flast, as a taxpayer, have standing to sue the government’s spending program?

Conclusion: Court rejected the government’s argument that constitutional scheme of separation of powers barred taxpayer suits against federal taxing and spending programs

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Flast v. Cohen (1968) - “requisite personal stake” (2)

A
  1. a nexus between their status as a taxpayer/person involved in the case and the legislative overreach/action must exist
  2. a nexus between the legislative action and the amount/power of Congress to tax and spend
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Baker v. Carr (1962)

A

Question: Did the SC have jurisdiction over questions of legislative apportionment? (Political Question Doctrine)

Conclusion: Court held that there were no such “political questions” to be answered in this case and that legislative apportionment was a justiciable issue

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority (1936) - Justice Brandeis Concurrence

A

Question: Did Congress exceed its power in implementing and administering the TVA?

Conclusion: No, Court held Congress did not abuse its power with the TVA due to the location where the TVA was in business had been built originally in the interest of national defense

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Justice Brandeis’s Rules for “Judicial Self Restraint” (7)

A
  1. the Court is not a means to an alternative end
  2. the Court is not a means for advice or indecision
  3. the Court is minimal
  4. the Court is not baseless
  5. the Court does not interest itself in motions of performance
  6. the Court does not engage in indulgence
  7. the Court will side with constitutionality
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

threshold issues

A

represent a set of preliminary conditions that a case must meet before the court can address the “real” issue in the case

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Barron v. Baltimore (1833)

A

Issue: Does the 5th Amendment deny the states as well as the national government the right to take private property for public use without justly compensating the property’s owner?

Ruling: No, 5th Amendment only applies to federal government, citing the intent of the framers and the development of the Bill of Rights as an exclusive check

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Hurtado v. California (1884)

A

Issue: Does a state criminal proceeding based on an information rather than a grand jury indictment violate the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause?

Ruling: No, this was not a violation of the DP Clause of the 14th Amendment because the words “due process of law” do not necessarily require an indictment by a grand jury and cannot retroactively apply to the states

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

incorporation

A

the process whereby provisions of the Bill of Rights are declared included in the due process guarantee of the 14th Amendment and made applicable to the states

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Palko v. Connecticut (1937)

A

Issue: Does Palko’s second conviction violate the protection against double jeopardy guaranteed by the 5th Amendment because this protection applies to the states by virtue of the 14th Amendment’s DP clause?

Ruling: No, Palko’s second conviction does not violate the protection against double jeopardy because protection against double jeopardy was not a fundamental right and, therefore, not applied to the states

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940)

A

Issue: Did the Cantwells convictions violate the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause as it applies to the states through the DPC of the 14th Amendment?

Ruling: Yes, they were violated because while general regulations on solicitation were legitimate, restrictions based on religious grounds were not

Created the Valid Secular Policy Test

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Valid Secular Policy Test

A

states cannot have regulations that restrict action based on religious grounds; there must be a valid secular purpose to the law

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

laws that burden religion must meet 2 criteria

A
  1. must have an important, neutral, secular end
  2. they must use the least restrictive means
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Sherbert v. Verner (1963)

A

Issue: Did the denial of unemployment compensation violate the 1st and 14th Amendments?

Ruling: Yes, because the state’s eligibility restrictions for unemployment compensation imposed a significant burden on Sherbert’s ability to freely exercise her faith

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Sherbert Standard or Compelling State Interest (2)

A
  1. law must have a compelling state interest to regulate religious action
  2. law must use the least restrictive means possible
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)

A

Did Wisconsin’s requirement that all parents send their children to school at least until age 16 violate the FEC of the 1st Amendment as it applies to the states under the DPC of the 14th Amendment?

Ruling: Yes, it was a violation of the FEC because that individual’s interests in the free exercise of religion under the 1st Amendment outweighed the state’s interest in compelling school attendance beyond the 8th grade

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Employment Division v. Smith (1990)

A

Issue: Can a state deny unemployment benefits to a worker fired for using illegal drugs for religious purposes?

Ruling: Yes, because allowing exceptions to every state law or regulation affecting religion “would open the prospect of constitutionally required exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Church of the Lukumi Babalu v. Hialeah (1993)

A

Issue: Did the city of Hialeah’s ordinance, prohibiting ritual animal sacrifices, violate the FEC of the 1st Amendment as it applies to the states…?

Ruling: Yes, the ordinance did violate the FEC because it singled out the activities of the Santeria faith and suppressed more religious conduct than was necessary to achieve their stated ends

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

incidental impact test

A

religion does not grant an exception from otherwise valid laws

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

City of Boerne v. Flores (1997)

A

Issue: Did Congress exceed its 14th Amendment enforcement powers by enacting the RFRA which, in part, subjected local ordinances to federal regulation?

Ruling: Yes, Congress did exceed its powers because while they may enact such legislation as the RFRA, in an attempt to prevent the abuse of religious freedoms, it may not determine the manner in which states enforce the substance of its legislative restrictions

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014)

A

Issue: Does the RFRA allow a for-profit company to deny its employees health coverage of contraception to which the employees would otherwise be entitled to based on the religious objections of the company’s owners?

Ruling: Yes, because the contraception requirement forces religious corporations to fund something that goes against their stated religious principles, creating a substantial burden that is not the least restrictive method of satisfying the government’s interests

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. CO CRC (2018)

A

Issue: Does the application of Colorado’s public accommodations law to compel a cake maker to design and make a cake that violates religious beliefs about same-sex marriage violate the FEC of the 1st Amendment as it applies…?

Ruling: Yes, it does violate the FEC because while same-sex couples are afforded civil rights protections under the laws and Constitution, religious and philosophical objections to same-sex marriage are protected views and can also be protected forms of expression

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

Fulton v. City of Philadelphia (2021)

A

Issue: Does the government violate the First Amendment by conditioning a religious agency’s ability to participate in the foster care system by taking actions and making statements that directly contradict the agency’s religious beliefs?

Ruling: Yes, it does violate the FEC because the Philadelphia law was not neutral and generally applicable since it allowed for exceptions to the anti-discrimination requirement at the sole discretion of the Commissioner

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

Carson v. Makin (2022)

A

Issue: Does a state law prohibiting students participating in an otherwise generally available student-aid program from choosing to use their aid to attend schools that provide religious, or “sectarian,” instruction violate the Religion Clauses or Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution?

Ruling: Yes, it does violate the FEC because it prohibited families from using otherwise available scholarship funds at religious schools

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

Everson v. Board of Ed (1947)

A

Issue: Did the New Jersey statute violate the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment as made applicable to the states…?

Ruling: No, the law did not violate the Constitution because services like bussing and police/fire protection for parochial schools are “separate and so indisputably marked off from the religious function” that for the state to provide them would not violate the 1st Amendment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)

A

Issue: Was it an abuse of a court’s discretion to allow payment of allocated funds to nonpublic religious schools, after such allocations were found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court? Excessive entanglement?

Ruling: No, the funds did not violate any constitutional interest because the denial of payment would have serious repercussion on the private schools

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

Edwards v. Aguillard (1987)

A

Issue: Did the Louisiana law, which mandated the teaching of “creation science” along with the theory of evolution, violate the EC of the 1st Amendment as it applies…?

Ruling: Yes, the law violated the Constitution because it fails all three prongs of the Lemon Test

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

Kennedy v. Bremerton (2021)

A

Issue: Is the prevention of Kennedy’s speech a violation of the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment as it applies to the states through the DPC of the 14th Amendment?

Ruling: Yes, the prevention does violate the EC because the District cannot show that its prohibition of Kennedy’s prayer serves a compelling purpose and is narrowly tailored to achieving that purpose

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

McCreary v. ACLU (2005)

A

Issue:
1. Do Ten Commandments displays in public schools and in courthouses violate the First Amendment’s establishment clause, which prohibits government from passing laws “respecting an establishment of religion?” 2. Was a determination that the displays’ purpose had been to advance religion sufficient for the displays’ invalidation?

Ruling: Yes and yes. The displays violated the EC because their purpose had been to advance religion.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

Van Orden v. Perry (2005)

A

Issue: Does a Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of a state capitol building violate the First Amendment’s establishment clause, which barred the government from passing laws “respecting an establishment of religion?”

Ruling: No, it does not violate the EC because the monument has historical meaning…“simply having religious content or promoting a message consistent with a religious doctrine does not run afoul of the EC”

38
Q

American Legion v. American Humanist Association (2019)

A

Issue:
1. Is the display and maintenance of the cross unconstitutional? 2. Under what test should the constitutionality of a passive display incorporating religious symbolism be assessed? 3. Does the expenditure of funds to maintain the cross amount to the government’s excessive entanglement with religion?

Ruling: No, it does not violate the EC because, while the cross originated as a Christian symbol, it has also taken on a secular meaning for WWI.

The Lemon Test was not applied.

39
Q

Shurtleff v. Boston (2022)

A

Issue: Does Boston’s refusal to fly a private religious organization’s flag depicting a cross on a city flagpole violate the organization’s First Amendment rights?

Ruling: Yes, the refusal to fly a religious flag does violate the 1st Amendment because the flag-raising program does not constitute government speech

40
Q

Lee v. Wiseman (1992)

A

Issue: Does the inclusion of clergy who offer prayers at official public school ceremonies violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment as it applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment?

Ruling: Yes, the ceremonies violate the EC because the government involvement in this case creates “a state-sponsored and state-directed religious exercise in a public school,” creating subtle and indirect coercion for students to participate

41
Q

Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe (2000)

A

Issue: Does the Santa Fe Independent School District’s policy permitting student-led, student-initiated prayer at football games violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment as it applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment?

Ruling: Yes, the District’s policy permitting student-led prayer does violate the EC because the prayers were public speech authorized by a government policy and taking place on government property at government-sponsored school-related events

42
Q

Town of Greece v. Galloway (2014)

A

Issue: Does the invocation of prayer at a legislative session violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment even in the absence of discrimination in the selection of prayer-givers and content?

Ruling: No, it does not violate the EC because the context and jurisprudence surrounding the 1st Amendment suggested that the EC was never meant to prohibit legislative prayer, which created the proper deliberative mood and acknowledged religion’s role in society

43
Q

influences on thought (2)

A
  1. Montesquieu
  2. Federalist No. 78
44
Q

Montesquieu - influences on thought (4)

A
  1. The Spirit of Law (1748)
  2. foundations of separation of powers (cannot justify the “equal status” to the other two entities)
  3. Puissance de juger - power of judging - the announcement of the law through the settlement of disputes
  4. judicial decisions are there for the protection of the individual and their liberties (Procedural Due Process)
45
Q

Federalist No. 78 - influences on thought (5)

A
  1. Alexander Hamilton (1788)
  2. independent of the judiciary v. accountability of judges
  3. the least dangerous branch
  4. primary concern was that judges would assert their own personal will in interpretations of the law
  5. the power to interpret the fundamentals of the law lies in the hands of judges…
46
Q

judicial review - de Tocqueville

A

the power of a court to review the actions of a government’s executive, legislative, or administrative branches to determine if they are in line with the law

47
Q

kinds of cases SCOTUS hears

A

appeals from the circuit courts or state supreme courts on matters of federal statutory law and federal constitutional law

48
Q

judiciary act of 1789 (5)

A
  1. set number of Justices on the SC (chief justice and 5 associate justices)
  2. set 13 judicial districts
  3. created office of Attorney General
  4. created offices of US Attorney and US Marshal for each district
  5. enabled SCOTUS to issue writs of mandamus
49
Q

writs of mandamus

A

a type of judicial remedy that consists of an order from the body of the court to a government official or entity to perform a task or duty that they are legally required to do or to refrain from doing

50
Q

structure of the courts (3)

A
  1. Supreme Court (1)
  2. appellate courts (13)
  3. district courts (94)
51
Q

district courts (3)

A
  1. lowest level of the federal system
  2. hear both civil and criminal cases
  3. trial courts (first time a case is heard)
52
Q

the Court of Appeals (3)

A
  1. middle level of the court system that handles all cases appealed to them
  2. hears cases in panels of 3 or en banc
  3. creates binding precedent for all federal courts within their circuit
53
Q

US Supreme Court (2)

A
  1. currently has 9 sitting justices (one chief justice and 8 associate justices)
  2. Court of Last Resort - supreme law of the land
54
Q

senatorial courtesy

A

the custom of the president or his proxies to ask for nominees from the Senator’s state

55
Q

“blue slip”

A

an opinion written by the “home state” Senators about the quality of a nominee that is sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee

56
Q

vetting

A

the investigative process that each candidate undergoes for potential problems

57
Q

to “bork”

A

to defame or vilify a person systematically to prevent them from being appointed to public office

58
Q

rule of four

A

the procedure by which the judges vote on whether to hear a case; at least 4 judges are required to vote to hear a case for it to be granted cert and be placed on the docket

59
Q

factors that can influence granting cert (5)

A
  1. lower court disparity or a “circuit split”
  2. number of amicus briefs (3+ on a lower court decision)
  3. government involvement in the issue
  4. conflict between federal and state entities
  5. constitutional issue importance
60
Q

amicus curiae

A

“friend of the court” briefs written by special interest groups to support a client

61
Q

regular concurrence

A

written by a Justice in the majority who agrees with the decision but wishes to emphasize a particular point

62
Q

special concurrence

A

written by a Justice in the majority who agrees with the decision but for different reasons than those laid out in the majority

63
Q

precedent opinion

A

majority opinion has 5 members signed on it

64
Q

plurality opinion

A

less than 5 members signed on it and has no precedential value

65
Q

dissenting opinion

A

Justices detail the reasons why they disagree with the majority opinion

66
Q

methods of interpretation (9)

A
  1. originalism
  2. original meaning
  3. textualism
  4. structural analysis
  5. stare decisis
  6. pragmatism
  7. national identity “ethos”
  8. moral reasoning
  9. historical practices
67
Q

judicial activism

A

the practice of judges to make rulings based on their own policy views or other characteristics that would influence applications of law

68
Q

judicial restraint

A

the practice of judges to make rulings relying on a reluctance to reinterpret the law and a focus on stare decisis

69
Q

jurisdiction

A

the authority of a court to hear and decide legal disputes and to enforce its ruling

70
Q

when can a court preside? (3)

A
  1. does the Court have personal jurisdiction of a case?
  2. does the Court have jurisdiction over the subject matter?
  3. does the Court have the jurisdiction to render the judgment sought?
71
Q

personal jurisdiction

A

question of whether the court may even hear a case involving a particular defendant

72
Q

in personam

A

against the person; concerns the status of a person wherever he/she/they are

73
Q

in rem

A

against a thing; concerns the status of a piece of property or person only when they are in that specific place

74
Q

subject matter jurisdiction - jurisdiction ratione materiae

A

the power of a court to adjudicate a particular type of matter and provide the remedy demanded (bankruptcy court has jurisdiction over bankruptcy cases)

75
Q

original jurisdiction

A

the legal authority of a court of first instance or trial

76
Q

appellate jurisdiction

A

the legal authority of a superior court to review and render judgement on a decision of a lower court

77
Q

discretionary jurisdiction

A

the legal authority of a court to decide whether to hear a case brought before it

78
Q

mandatory jurisdiction

A

the legal authority of a court that states that a court MUST hear a case brought before it

79
Q

formal barriers to judicial action (4)

A
  1. court must have authority to hear the case (jurisdiction)
  2. must be a case or controversy
  3. case must be appropriate for judicial resolution (justiciable)
  4. appropriate party must bring the case (standing)
80
Q

justiciability (5)

A

the ability of a court to determine if a case is “fit” for resolution
1. advisory opinions
2. mootness
3. ripeness
4. collusion
5. political question

81
Q

controversey

A

identifies the scope of the matters in which the federal courts can intervene and what can be considered as a case

82
Q

standing

A

party bringing suit must have suffered a direct and significant injury that is traceable to act in question and can be resolved by judicial decision (injury in fact, causation, and redressability)

83
Q

advisory opinions

A

seeking advice in which no actual issue exists but an opinion is sought; violates the idea of a “case and controversy”

84
Q

mootness

A

judicial action can no longer provide the requested relief due to changes in circumstances since the filing of the case

85
Q

ripeness

A

threat of injury or adverse government action must be “real” the sense that it must be immediate and highly likely to occur

86
Q

political question (3)

A
  1. should avoid questions that are best resolved by the other branches of government
  2. political questions fall outside judicial competence no matter who raises the question, no matter what controversy might burn, or whose interests it affects
  3. grounded in separation of powers
87
Q

3 ways to view the Establishment Clause?

A
  1. a “wall of separation” between church and state
  2. the State cannot/should not show preference to one religion over another
  3. that there should be no establishment of a “national” religion
88
Q

key points from Everson v. Education (2)

A
  1. incorporated the EC to the states via the DPC of the 14th Amendment
  2. adopted the view of a wall separating church and state
89
Q

Abington Township standard for the Court to approach Establishment cases (2)

A
  1. the law must have a secular legislative purpose
  2. the primary effect of the law must neither advance nor inhibit religion
90
Q

Walz v. Tax Commission of New York (1971) created third prong of the standard for Establishment cases:

A

the law must not promote excessive government entanglement beyond the primary effect

91
Q

Lemon Test (3)

A
  1. statue must have a secular legislative purpose
  2. statue’s primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion
  3. statute must avoid “an excessive government entanglement with religion”
92
Q

Impact of Kennedy v. Bremerton (2021)

A

the Lemon Test is “abandoned” in favor of a test that considers the “historical practices and understandings”

93
Q

Significance of Marbury v. Madison (1803)

A

Marshall established the principle of judicial review - the power to declare a law unconstitutional

Civil Liberties (1 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions