Exam 1 Cases Flashcards
Palko v CT (1937)
14th amendment/due process
- Palko is given life imprisonment for murder, state appeals and sentences him to execution
- Protection against double jeopardy is not a fundamental right
- Palko is executed
- This is later overturned in Benton v Maryland (1969)
Barron v Baltimore (1833)
14th amendment/due process
- Barron claims the city of Baltimore’s construction messed with the profitability of his wharf property, sues for $, wins in trial court, is struck down in appellate court
- The Supreme Court had no jurisdiction in this case since the Fifth Amendment was not applicable to the states
- The framers intended for the 5th Amendment to specifically be for the federal government and not to apply to the states, Barron wasn’t entitled to $
Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Township (1947)
1st amendment/establishment clause
- New Jersey reimbursed parents for transport to schools, including private catholic schools
- Did the state sending funds to catholic school violate the establishment clause which claims the government may not respect the establishment of religion?
- Jersey did not violate the establishment clause, but the clause does apply to the states
- There’s a nonsecular purpose and no difference between police helping kids cross the roads vs this
Engel v.Vitale (1962)
1st amendment/establishment clause
- New York allowed for schools to lead optional prayers prior to class
- Does this violate the Establishment Clause? Yes.
- The voluntary and nondenominational nature of the prayer do not change the direct entanglement of state and religion and that the coercive effect of schools is unreasonable
Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)
1st amendment/establishment clause
- Rhode Island was sending funds to religious private schools to help them during a time of struggle with the understanding that they were teaching academics.
- Does this violate the Establishment Clause? Yes.
- There is no way to audit classrooms to ensure all lessons are secular.
- Established the Lemon Test
Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe (2000)
1st amendment/establishment clause
- a student council member delivered a Christian prayer, over the psa system before each home varsity football game.
- did the school violate the establishment clause by allowing students to deliver religious speeches?
- uh yea. the prayers were public speech authorized by a government policy and involved both perceived and actual government endorsement of the delivery of prayer at important school events
Allegheny County v. Greater Pittsburgh ACLU (1989)
1st amendment/establishment clause
- a christian nativity scene was displayed in a courthouse & a chanukah menorah was displayed outside the City-County building
- Did the public displays violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?
- the nativity scene did violate the establishment clause, prominently displaying the words “Glory to God for the birth of Jesus Christ,” inside a gov building is endorsement
- not all religious celebrations on government property violate the Establishment Clause
McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union (2005)
1st amendment/establishment clause
- framed copies of the Ten Commandments were displayed in courthouses and public schools across Kentucky
- Do Ten Commandments displays in public schools and in courthouses violate the First Amendment’s establishment clause? Yes
- Does a displays intent matter? Yes.
- the displays violated the establishment clause because their purpose had been to advance religion
Van Orden v. Perry (2005)
1st amendment/establishment clause
- Orden sued Texas in federal district court, arguing a Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of the state capitol building represented an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion
- Does a Ten Commandments monument violate the First Amendment’s establishment clause? no
- “simply having religious content or promoting a message consistent with a religious doctrine does not run afoul of the establishment clause.”
Reynolds v. United States (1879)
1st amendment/establishment clause
- Reynolds married two woman at the same time, was charged with breaking the law
- Is religious duty or belief a defense to a criminal charge? No.
- while Congress could not outlaw a belief in the correctness of polygamy, it could outlaw the practice thereof
- people cannot avoid a law due to their religion.
Sherbert v. Verner (1963)
1st amendment/Free Exercise Clause
- Sherbert was fired from her job after she refused to work on Saturday, the Sabbath Day of her faith
- she could not receive unemployment benefits because her refusal to work on Saturday constituted a failure without good cause to accept available work… she sues
- The Free Exercise Clause prohibits the government from setting unemployment benefits eligibility requirements such that a person cannot properly observe key religious principles.
Employment Division of Oregon v. Smith (1990)
1st amendment/Free Exercise Clause
- two counselors at a drug rehab facility did peyote as a part of their religion practices and were fired
- they were denied unemployment
- Can a state deny unemployment benefits to a worker fired for using illegal drugs for religious purposes? Yes.
- an individual’s religious beliefs do not excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct
Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah (1993)
1st amendment/Free Exercise Clause
- Santeria used animal sacrifice as a form of worship
- the city council adopted several ordinances addressing religious sacrifice. The ordinances prohibited possession of animals for sacrifice or slaughter
- Did the city of Hialeah’s ordinance, prohibiting ritual animal sacrifices, violate the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause? Yes.
- the ordinances were neither neutral nor generally applicable, targeted that specific religion
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc (2014)
1st amendment/RFA 1993
- Hobby Lobby claims to be a religious organization and does not supply their employees birth control through their health insurance plan
- Does the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 allow a for-profit company to deny its employees health coverage of contraception to which the employees would otherwise be entitled based on the religious objections of the company’s owners? Yes
