Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

Con Law II > Final > Flashcards

Final Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
MBE flashcards MPRE flashcards Civil Procedure 1L flashcards
1
Q

Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)

A

Issue: Whether African Americans (enslaved or free) were U.S. citizens and could sue in federal court.
Court’s Holding: The Court ruled that African Americans were not U.S. citizens and could not sue in federal court. The Missouri Compromise was also deemed unconstitutional.
Significance: This decision helped intensify the divisions leading to the Civil War.

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

Bailey v. Alabama (1911)

A

Issue: Whether a law criminalizing sharecropping and penalizing laborers who left their contracts was unconstitutional.
Court’s Holding: The Court held that it violated the Thirteenth Amendment’s prohibition against involuntary servitude.
Significance: This case reinforced the protections against forced labor post-Civil War.

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

Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co. (1968)

A

Issue: Whether Congress could prohibit racial discrimination in private housing under the Thirteenth Amendment.
Court’s Holding: The Court ruled that Congress could prohibit racial discrimination in private housing under the Thirteenth Amendment, affirming the power of Congress to enforce the Amendment.
Significance: Expanded the scope of the Thirteenth Amendment to include private acts of discrimination.

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

United States v. Morrison (2000)

A

Issue: Whether the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) violated the Commerce Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment.
Court’s Holding: The Court held that parts of VAWA were unconstitutional, as Congress did not have the authority under the Commerce Clause to regulate crimes of gender-based violence.
Significance: This case limited the scope of the Commerce Clause.

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

Shelby County v. Holder (2013)

A

Issue: Whether Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) violated the Tenth Amendment and Article IV of the Constitution by imposing federal oversight on certain states’ voting laws.
Court’s Holding: The Court struck down Section 4(b) of the VRA as unconstitutional, arguing that the coverage formula was outdated and no longer reflected current racial discrimination.
Significance: It effectively weakened the Voting Rights Act, particularly its pre-clearance provisions.

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

Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee (2021)

A

Issue: Whether Arizona’s voting laws, which prohibited ballot harvesting and out-of-precinct voting, violated the Voting Rights Act by disproportionately impacting minority voters.
Court’s Holding: The Court upheld Arizona’s voting laws, stating that they did not violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
Significance: This case interpreted Section 2 of the VRA and set standards for evaluating voting restrictions.

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

Thirteenth Amendment

A

“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8)

A

“The Congress shall have Power … To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”
Key Concept: Grants Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce.

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

Voting Rights Act (1965) - Section 2 & Section 4

A

Section 2: Prohibits any voting practice that discriminates on the basis of race or color.
Section 4: Contains the formula for determining which jurisdictions must receive pre-clearance before changing voting laws (struck down in Shelby County v. Holder).

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

Standards for Evaluating Voting Laws

A

Factors to consider (from Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee):
The size of the burden on voters.
The degree to which the state’s interests are served by the law.
The history of voting discrimination in the state.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

A

Homer Plessy, who was 1/8th black, was arrested for sitting in a “whites-only” railroad car in Louisiana, violating the state’s segregation laws. Plessy challenged the constitutionality of the segregation law, arguing that it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Court’s Holding:
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of racial segregation, establishing the “separate but equal” doctrine. The Court ruled that as long as the separate facilities for blacks and whites were equal in quality, segregation did not violate the Equal Protection Clause.

Significance:
This decision legalized racial segregation for nearly 60 years until it was overturned by Brown v. Board of Education.

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

Korematsu v. United States (1944)

A

Fred Korematsu, a Japanese American, defied internment orders during World War II that required Japanese Americans to be relocated to internment camps due to national security concerns. Korematsu challenged the constitutionality of the internment, arguing it violated the Equal Protection Clause.

Court’s Holding:
The Court upheld the internment policy, ruling that the government’s actions were justified by wartime necessity and national security concerns. However, this decision has been heavily criticized over time and was effectively overturned by later rulings.

Significance:
Korematsu is widely regarded as a deeply flawed decision that was eventually condemned for racial discrimination under the guise of national security.

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

Brown v. Board of Education I (1954)

A

The Court declared that racial segregation in public schools violated the Equal Protection Clause, overturning Plessy v. Ferguson as applied to education and marking the start of desegregation.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Brown v. Board of Education II (1955)

A

The Court ordered public school desegregation “with all deliberate speed,” but left the specifics of implementation to local authorities, leading to delays in full integration.

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

Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964)

A

The Court upheld the Civil Rights Act of 1964, ruling that Congress had the authority to regulate private businesses and prohibit racial discrimination under the Commerce Clause.

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

Loving v. Virginia (1967)

A

The Court struck down state laws banning interracial marriage, ruling they violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.

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

Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)

A

The Court upheld the University of Michigan Law School’s use of race as one factor in its admissions process, citing diversity as a compelling interest that justified race-conscious policies.

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

Gratz v. Bollinger (2003)

A

The Court struck down the University of Michigan’s undergraduate admissions policy, which gave automatic points to minority applicants, because it was too mechanistic and violated the Equal Protection Clause.

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

Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 (2007)

A

The Court ruled that using race as a factor in assigning students to schools was unconstitutional, as the school district’s policy did not meet the strict scrutiny standard required for race-based decisions.

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

Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2024)

A

Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that Harvard’s race-based admissions program violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, failing to meet the strict scrutiny standard for racial classifications.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

A

The Equal Protection Clause guarantees that no state shall deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, ensuring that individuals are not discriminated against based on race, gender, or other protected characteristics.

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

Strict Scrutiny

A

Strict scrutiny is the highest level of judicial review applied when a law or government action discriminates based on race or involves fundamental rights. To pass strict scrutiny, the law must serve a compelling government interest and be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Intermediate Scrutiny

A

Intermediate scrutiny is applied when a law discriminates based on gender or legitimacy. To pass this test, the law must serve an important government interest and be substantially related to achieving that interest.

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

Rational Basis Review

A

Rational basis review is applied in cases involving laws that do not involve suspect classifications (like race or gender) or fundamental rights. The law must be rationally related to a legitimate government interest.

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

Frontiero v. Richardson (1973)

A

The Court ruled that laws providing benefits to military personnel’s spouses based on gender violated the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection, as the government’s use of gender as a classification was not justified by an important governmental interest.

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

Craig v. Boren (1976)

A

The Court established the “intermediate scrutiny” test for gender-based classifications, requiring that laws involving gender must serve an important government interest and be substantially related to achieving that interest.

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

United States v. Virginia (1996)

A

The Court ruled that the Virginia Military Institute’s male-only admissions policy violated the Equal Protection Clause because it failed to provide an exceedingly persuasive justification for gender discrimination and was not substantially related to any important governmental interest.

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

Romer v. Evans (1996)

A

The Court struck down Colorado’s Amendment 2, which prohibited any legal protections for LGBTQ individuals, ruling that it violated the Equal Protection Clause by singling out LGBTQ individuals for disfavored treatment without a legitimate government interest.

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

Lawrence v. Texas (2003)

A

The Court invalidated Texas’s anti-sodomy law, ruling that it violated the Due Process Clause by criminalizing consensual sexual conduct between adults of the same sex, affirming the right of individuals to engage in private, consensual behavior.

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

Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)

A

The Court ruled that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right under the Fourteenth Amendment, specifically under the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses, requiring all states to recognize and allow same-sex marriages.

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

Bostock v. Clayton County (2020)

A

The Court ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, holding that discrimination based on these characteristics is a form of sex discrimination.

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

Compelling State Interest

A

A compelling state interest is a fundamental government objective that justifies a law that infringes on a fundamental right or class-based discrimination. It must be demonstrated when the Court applies strict scrutiny, such as in Loving v. Virginia and United States v. Virginia.

33
Q

Exceedingly Persuasive Justification

A

This standard requires that a government policy or action involving gender discrimination must be justified by a reason so strong and compelling that it cannot be outweighed by the disadvantages of the policy. It was used in United States v. Virginia to evaluate gender-based admissions policies at the Virginia Military Institute.

34
Q

Substantive Due Process

A

Substantive due process protects certain fundamental rights from government interference, even if the procedures are fair. In Lawrence v. Texas and Obergefell v. Hodges, the Court applied substantive due process to protect the right to privacy in consensual sexual conduct and the right to marry, respectively.

35
Q

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)

A

The Court struck down a Connecticut law banning contraceptives, establishing the constitutional right to privacy through the “penumbras” of the Bill of Rights.

36
Q

Roe v. Wade (1973)

A

The Court ruled that the right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects a woman’s right to choose an abortion, subject to a trimester framework.

37
Q

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022)

A

The Court overturned Roe and Casey, holding that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion, returning the authority to regulate abortion to the states.

38
Q

Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)

A

It reaffirmed the core holding of Roe but replaced the trimester framework with the “undue burden” test, which prohibits laws placing substantial obstacles before viability.

39
Q

Washington v. Glucksberg (Right to Die Case)

A

The Court held that the Due Process Clause does not include a right to assisted suicide, emphasizing a strict interpretation of substantive due process.

40
Q

Fundamental Rights

A

Fundamental rights are those deeply rooted in the nation’s history and tradition or implicit in ordered liberty, requiring strict scrutiny for government infringement.

41
Q

Undue Burden Test

A

Introduced in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, it prohibits laws that place a substantial obstacle in the path of a person seeking a pre-viability abortion.

42
Q

Viability Standard

A

First established in Roe v. Wade and reaffirmed in Casey, viability marks the point where states can regulate abortion more stringently.

43
Q

Penumbras Doctrine

A

The Court held that privacy rights are implied in the “penumbras” of specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights, such as the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments.

44
Q

Rational Basis Review

A

Rational basis requires laws to be reasonably related to a legitimate government interest, a less stringent test than strict scrutiny, which applies to fundamental rights.

45
Q

Feiner v. New York (1951)

A

The Court upheld the arrest of a speaker for inciting a breach of the peace, establishing the “clear and present danger” standard for speech that provokes violence.

46
Q

Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940)

A

The Court held that requiring a license to solicit religious material violated the First Amendment, incorporating free exercise and free speech against the states.

47
Q

Texas v. Johnson (1989)

A

The Court ruled that flag burning is protected symbolic speech under the First Amendment.

48
Q

R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992)

A

The Court struck down a hate speech ordinance for being overly broad and discriminatory, reaffirming protections for offensive speech under the First Amendment.

49
Q

Matal v. Tam (2017)

A

The Court held that the government cannot deny trademark registration based on viewpoint discrimination, protecting offensive trademarks as free speech.

50
Q

Reed v. Town of Gilbert (2015)

A

The Court ruled that content-based restrictions on signage are subject to strict scrutiny and are unconstitutional unless narrowly tailored to a compelling interest.

51
Q

Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990)

A

The Court upheld a law restricting corporate political expenditures, reasoning it prevented corruption and distortion in the political process.

52
Q

303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (2023)

A

The Court ruled that a business cannot be compelled to create expressive content that violates its owner’s beliefs, balancing free speech against anti-discrimination laws.

53
Q

Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)

A

The Court introduced the imminent lawless action test, protecting speech unless it incites or produces imminent lawless action and is likely to do so.

54
Q

New York Times v. Sullivan (1964)

A

The Court established the “actual malice” standard, requiring public officials to prove false statements were made with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth.

55
Q

New York v. Ferber (1982)

A

The Court upheld a ban on child pornography, creating an exception to First Amendment protections to protect children from exploitation.

56
Q

Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council (1976)

A

The Court ruled that commercial speech, such as advertising drug prices, is protected under the First Amendment.

57
Q

Clear and Present Danger Test

A

Speech can be restricted if it creates a clear and immediate threat of significant harm, as in Feiner v. New York.

58
Q

Imminent Lawless Action Test

A

Established in Brandenburg v. Ohio, it protects speech unless it is intended and likely to incite imminent lawless action. KKK case that violated the 1st and 14th

59
Q

Actual Malice Standard

A

Introduced in New York Times v. Sullivan, it requires public figures to prove false statements were made knowingly or with reckless disregard for the truth.

60
Q

Content-Based vs. Content-Neutral

A

Content-based restrictions (e.g., Reed v. Town of Gilbert) are subject to strict scrutiny, while content-neutral ones are reviewed under intermediate scrutiny.

61
Q

Strict Scrutiny

A

A law must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest, applied in cases like Reed v. Town of Gilbert.

62
Q

Viewpoint Discrimination

A

The government cannot regulate speech based on agreement or disagreement with its viewpoint, as in Matal v. Tam.

63
Q

Reynolds v. United States (1879)

A

The Court ruled that religious beliefs are protected under the First Amendment, but religious practices (e.g., polygamy) may be regulated if they violate general laws.

64
Q

Sherbert v. Verner (1963)

A

The Court held that denying unemployment benefits to someone who refused work due to religious beliefs violated the Free Exercise Clause, creating the Sherbert Test.

65
Q

Employment Division v. Smith (1990)

A

The Court ruled that generally applicable laws that incidentally burden religion do not violate the Free Exercise Clause, rejecting the Sherbert Test.

66
Q

Fulton v. City of Philadelphia (2021)

A

The Court ruled that Philadelphia’s refusal to contract with a Catholic foster agency over religious objections violated the Free Exercise Clause, emphasizing individualized exemptions.

67
Q

Groff v. DeJoy (2023)

A

The Court held that employers must accommodate religious practices unless doing so imposes a substantial undue hardship.

68
Q

Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)

A

The Court established the Lemon Test to determine if government actions violate the Establishment Clause by examining purpose, effect, and entanglement.

69
Q

Town of Greece v. Galloway (2014)

A

The Court upheld legislative prayer as consistent with historical practices, ruling it did not violate the Establishment Clause.

70
Q

Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022)

A

The Court ruled that a football coach’s post-game prayers were protected by the Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses, rejecting the Lemon Test.

71
Q

American Legion v. American Humanist Association (2019)

A

The Court upheld a longstanding cross monument, emphasizing historical context over the Lemon Test for Establishment Clause cases.

72
Q

Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue (2020)

A

The Court ruled that states offering scholarships to private schools cannot exclude religious schools based on their religious status.

73
Q

Carson v. Makin (2022)

A

The Court struck down a Maine law prohibiting state tuition assistance for religious schools, holding it violated the Free Exercise Clause.

74
Q

Sherbert Test

A

The test determines whether a law that burdens religious practices serves a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.

75
Q

Smith Test

A

The Smith Test allows generally applicable laws that incidentally burden religion, without requiring a compelling government interest.

76
Q

Lemon Test

A

A law must (1) have a secular purpose, (2) not advance or inhibit religion, and (3) avoid excessive government entanglement with religion.

77
Q

Coercion Test

A

The government violates the Establishment Clause if it coerces individuals into participating in or supporting religion, as used in Kennedy v. Bremerton.

78
Q

Historical Practices Test

A

This test evaluates whether a practice aligns with the nation’s historical traditions, as seen in Town of Greece and American Legion.

79
Q

Substantial Undue Hardship Standard

A

Employers must prove that accommodating religious practices imposes more than minimal costs, clarified in Groff v. DeJoy.

Con Law II (1 decks)

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