Final Flashcards
Case ruling that the 4th and 5th amendments do not protect against government wiretaps; physical penetration rule (as long as govt. does not intrude on private property)
Olmstead v. United States (1928)
Case that first used substantive due process and ruled that individuals have the right to enter into private contracts by the 14th amendment
Lochner v. New York (1905)
Case ruling that “liberty” in the 14th amendment extends beyond economic rights, particularly the right to marry, acquire knowledge, worship God, etc.
Meyer v. Nebraska (1923)
Case that did not get decided on but a dissent from denial of cert. argued that privacy laws should be subject to strict scrutiny
Poe v. Ullman (1961)
Case ruling that a right to privacy exists in the Constitution (but did not establish where the right comes from) and is fundamental; states can only restrict privacy under strict scrutiny; the amendments create zones of privacy
Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)
Case ruling that wiretaps are unconstitutional and created the “reasonable expectation of privacy” standard; 4th amendment protects tangible and intangible things
Katz v. U.S. (1967)
Case ruling that laws cannot prohibit single people from accessing contraceptives; dicta by Justice Brennan cued litigants in future cases
Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972)
Case ruling that the right to privacy includes a right to obtain an abortion and created a trimester framework for how and when states could restrict abortions
Roe v. Wade (1973)
Case ruling that spousal or parental consent cannot be required by states when a woman wants to obtain an abortion, but opened the door to judicial bypass for parental consent
Planned Parenthood v. Danforth (1976)
Case ruling that Medicaid or some form of federal assistance is not required to pay for a woman’s abortion
Harris v. McCrae (1980)
Case ruling that certain restrictions on abortions are unconstitutional; more important, O’Connor’s dissent arguing that the trimester framework be abandoned and replaced by undue burden
Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health (1983)
Case ruling that public facilities do not have to perform abortions, states may proscribe abortion after viability, Roe did not get overturned
Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989)
Case adopting the undue burden test and abandoning the trimester framework, but Roe’s central holding was reaffirmed (righ to abortion)
Planned Parenthood of Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992)
Case ruling that the undue burden test is best used as a cost benefit analysis (health benefits of the restriction v. The burden on women)
Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt (2016)
Case ruling that the Court would not find a new fundamental right to engage in homosexual activity; fundamental rights are “deeply rooted in history”; rational basis test
Bowers v. Hardwick (1986)
Case overruling the decision in Bowers and striking down a law the criminalized homosexual activity; liberty of private adults to conduct their lives (14th amendment due process clause NOT equal protection)
Lawrence v. Texas (2003)
Case that denied review of the lower court decision on same-sex marriage, ultimately having the effect that same-sex marriage would remain criminal in California
Perry v. Hollingsworth (2013)
Case that struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act which defined marriage as between one man and woman; states could not make distinctions based on sexual orientation
U.S. v. Windsor (2013)
Case ruling that the right to marry is a fundamental right under the due process clause; states deny equal protection when same-sex couples are denied the right to marry (same-sex marriage is legal)
Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)
Case ruling that businesses may not serve homosexual individuals if their religion forbids same-sex marriage (freedom of religion)
Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018)
Case ruling that a “clear and convincing evidence” standard should be used in right to die cases (clear and convincing evidence of the individual’s wishes)
Cruzan v. Missouri Department of Health (1990)
Case ruling that states can release names and addresses on petitions because the state has an important interest in protecting the electoral process (petition release does not violate privacy)
Doe v. Reed (2010)
Case ruling that Katz has been added to physical penetration rule, not replacing it; monitoring vehicle movement with a tracking device is unconstitutional unless a warrant is obtained and followed
United States v. Jones (2012)
Case ruling that police must obtain a search warrant when utilizing cell phone data from cell phone companies
Carpenter v. United States (2018)
Case establishing a two-prong test to evaluate anonymous tips to the police (must establish validity and reliability of the information)
Aguilar v. Texas (1964) — Aguilar-Spinelli test
Case abandoning the Aguilar-Spinelli test and establishing the totality of circumstances test when analyzing anonymous tips
Illinois v. Gates (1983)
Case ruling that the home is the most protected place against intrusion, even against non-physical intrusion
Kyllo v. U.S. (2001)
Case ruling that the government’s use of trained drug dogs is considered a “search” and must only be done with a warrant
Florida v. Jardines (2013)
Case ruling that routine traffic stops do not justify a full search of the vehicle; goes against privacy
Knowles v. Iowa (1998)
Case ruling that a school’s search of a student is permissible when it is reasonably related to the objectives of the search and not excessively intrusive in the light of the age and sex of the student (reasonable suspicion)
Safford Unified School District v. Redding (2009)
Case ruling that breath tests for drinking and driving do not require a warrant, but blood tests do require a warrant because of their intrusive nature
Birchfield v. North Dakota (2016)
Case ruling that police can search an indivual in public if there is reasonable suspicion to believe that there is criminal activity and the police believes that the person might be armed (govt. interest in police safety)
Terry v. Ohio (1968)
Case ruling that judges must exclude any evidence obtained in violation of the 4th amendment from federal court
Weeks v. U.S. (1914)
Case incorporating the 4th amendment to the states, as protection against searches and seizures is a fundamental right; but the exclusionary rule is not a mandatory way for states to enforce lawful searches and seizures
Wolf v. Colorado (1949)
Case ruling that evidence obtained illegally is inadmissible in federal AND state court; made exclusionary rule mandatory
Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
Case ruling that evidence that is obtained illegally but in good faith by the police can be admitted into court; exclusionary rule is not a deterrent when police are acting in good faith
U.S. v. Leon (1984)
Case ruling that evidence should not be excluded if police violate the knock and announce rule; the rule does not protect an individual from the police taking evidence that is described in a lawful warrant
Hudson v. Michigan (2006)
Case ruling that physical violence cannot be used during police interrogations
Brown v. Mississippi (1936)
Case ruling that police cannot use psychological coercion during police interrogations
Spano v. New York (1959)
Case ruling that an individual has a right to have an attorney present during police interrogations and all subsequent stages
Escobedo v. Illinois (1964)
Case ruling that police are required to warn individuals of their rights when being taken into custody to ensure that the individual was aware of these rights when they are waived; primarily protects against self-incrimination
Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
Case ruling that police cannot obatain incriminating statements before the Miranda warnings and then have them repeated after the warnings are given; diminishes Miranda’s purpose; statements made using this tactic cannot be admissible
Missouri v. Seibert (2004)
Case ruling that individuals have the right to counsel in unusual situations, including capital offenses, intense public pressure, young, educated, inexperienced
Powell v. Alabama (1932)
Case ruling that the court must appoint counsel to indigent defendants in federal cases to obtain a fair trial
Johnson v. Zerbst (1938)
Case that refused to apply certain 6th amendment guarantees to the states, including right to counsel
Betts v. Brady (1942)
Case ruling that the right to counsel is a fundamental right and should be incorporated to the states; overturned Betts v. Brady
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)
Two cases that created the loss of liberty rule; an indigent defendant charged with a crime that will lead to even one day incarcerated is entitled to counsel
Argersinger v. Hamlin (1972) and Scott v. Illinois (1979)
Case ruling that the right to counsel extends through the first obligatory appeal, even if the defendant plead guilty
Douglas v. California (1963)
Case ruling that the right to counsel does not extend past the first appeal stage; any subsequent appeals, the state does not have to provide counsel
Ross v. Moffitt (1974)
Case ruling that in order to show that a defense attorney was deficient, the defendant must show deficiency and prejudice; high deference to to the attorney
Strickland v. Washington (1984)
Case ruling that the Bail Reform Act of 1984 did not violate excessive bail; govt. interests should not be limited by excessive bail prohibition, especially safety
United States v. Salerno (1987)
Case ruling that bail may be denied to aliens with past criminal convictions who are waiting for deportation
Demore v. Kim (2003)
Case ruling that four criteria should be used to determine what is a speedy trial: length of delay, reason for delay, point when the defendant claims 6th amendment violations, whether the delay prejudiced the case
Barker v. Wingo (1972)
Case making it difficult for judges to prohibit the use of peremptory challenges by the prosecutors; reinforced peremptory challenges
Swain v. Alabama (1965)
Case ruling that prosecutors may not strike specific races from a jury through peremptory challenge; created a framework to prove racial discrimination in jury selection
Batson v. Kentucky (1986)
Case ruling that the decision in Batson should be applied to sex discrimination in jury selection
JEB v. Alabama ex rel. T.B. (1994)
Cases ruling that unanimity for a verdict is required in federal cases under the 6th, but does not carry over to the states through the 14th (states can have 9-3 verdicts)
Johnson v. Louisiana and Apodaca v. Oregon (1972)
Case ruling that judges have the responsibility to restrict media in a way to maintain a fair trial; gave judges ammunition in restricting the media
Sheppard v. Maxwell (1966)
Case ruling that judges can close pretrial proceedings to the media; adverse publicity can be especially dangerous at the pretrial stage
Gannet Co. v. DePasquale (1979)
Case ruling that the right of the press to attend criminal trials is inherent in the Constitution in the 1st amendment; judges cannot completely close trial proceedings to the media (except pretrial)
Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia (1980)
Case ruling that abused children can testify via a closed-circuit television rather than in-person in court
Maryland v. Craig (1990)
Case ruling that witness testimony can only be admitted into court if the witness can be cross-examined in court or if there was prior opportunity for the witness to be cross-examined; applies to witness during police interrogations
Crawford v. Washington (2004)
Case ruling that state labratory analysts must present their findings in court to be cross-examined
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts (2009)
Case ruling that statements made to police at a crime scene that are made in order to help the police with an “ongoing emergency” does not have to be subjected to cross-examination
Michigan v. Bryant (2011)
Case ruling that the 8th amendment prohibits punishments that are disproportionate to the crime; created three guidelines to determine: gravity of the offense, sentences imposed on similar crimes in the same jurisdiction; sentences imposed in other jurisdictions
Solem v. Helm (1983)
Case ruling that three strikes laws do not violate the 8th amendment; they take into account the entire criminal history and are therefore not disproportionate; judicial deference to the legislature
Ewing v. California (2003)
Case ruling that the death penalty violated the 8th amendment as cruel and unusual becasue of the arbitrary manner it was being imposed against blacks; juries had too much discretion, leading to arbitrariness
Furman v. Georgia (1972)
Case ruling that the death penalty did not violate the 8th and 14th amendments under Georgia’s revised method becasue of the bifurcated trials and aggravating/mitigating factors; no longer arbitrary
Gregg v. Georgia (1976)
Case ruling that discrimination in death penalty sentencing must be shown in each specific case; does not matter if blacks receive the death penalty more than whites in general
McCleskey v. Kemp (1987)
Case ruling that lethal injection does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment simply becasue it may cause pain
Baez v. Rees (2008)
Case ruling that the death penalty cannot be applied to mentally disabled individuals; polling jurisdictions
Atkins v. Virginia (2002)
Case ruling that the death penalty cannot be applied to anyone 18 and under
Roper v. Simmons (2005)
Case ruling that the equal protection clause applies to persons other than African Americans and also protects non-citizens
Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886)
Case utilizing the 5th amendment to bar discrimination by the federal government
Bolling v. Sharpe (1954)
Case ruling that a black slave could not become a full member of the American community and be entitled to the Constitutional privileges of citizens
Scott v. Sandford (1857)
Case ruling that separate but equal facilities for different races is constitutional; segregation laws do not necessarily imply the inferiority of one race
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)
Case ruling that paying for out-of-state tuition for African Americans to attend another non-segregated school does not meet the obligations imposed by the 14th
Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada (1938)
Case ruling that separate but equal status can stand as long as the facilities are actually equal; a new law school for blacks must be equal with the original law school for whites
Sweatt v. Painter (1950)
Case ruling that race is a suspect class and should be subjected to strict scrutiny
Korematsu v. United States (1944)
Case ruling that the doctrine of separate but equal has no place in public schools; separating children based on race deprive them of diverse education and denotes inferiority
Brown v. Board of Education I (1954)
Case ruling that desegregation of public schools should begin with the local school boards, and local courts will step in if need be; “prompt and reasonable start” in terms of time schedule
Brown v. Board of Education II (1955)
Case ruling that if school boards fail to desegregate their schools, the courts must step in; but the court remedy must not be too harsh
Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education (1971)
Case ruling that the courts cannot control resegregation based on private residential decisions; court supervision can end as long as state-sanctioned discrimination ended
Board of Education of Oklahoma Schools v. Dowell (1991)
Case ruling that judges could release school districts from court supervision incrementally as they met desegregation goals
Freeman v. Pitts (1992)
Cases ruling that schools cannot classify students based on race to achieve integration, especially if the district is not under court supervision
PICS v. Seattle and Meredith v. Jefferson County (2007)
Case ruling that state mandated racial segregation in housing is unconstitutional
Buchanan v. Warley (1917)
Case ruling that judicial enforcement of restrictive covenants constitutes state action; therefore, the restrictive covenants are unconstitutional
Shelley v. Kraemer (1948)
Case ruling that property leased to a private business in a government-owned building must follow constitutional guidelines; the city’s inaction to force the coffee shop to accept black customers constitutes state action
Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority (1961)
Case ruling that state action is not present simply becasue a private business receives a benefit or service from the state (liquor license); the state did not significantly involve itself with the business by just granting a license
Moose Lodge #107 v. Irvis (1972)
Case creating the strict scrutiny test in a footnote; the Court has a duty to protect discrete and insular minorities
U.S. v. Carolene Products (1938)
Case ruling that the legitimate govt. interest of having a capable work force was rationally related to the exclusion of methadone users from being hired
NYC Transit Authority v. Beazer (1979)
Case ruling that the legitimate interests of a city in requiring a special permit for a home for the mentally disabled are not rationally related to the requirement; rests on an irrational prejudice
Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center (1985)
Case ruling that antimiscegenation laws violate the 14th amendment; they serve no legitimate purpose except to discriminate; freedom to marry
Loving v. Virginia (1967)
Case ruling that disproportionate racial effects from laws that are facially neutral cannot be sufficient to constitute discrimination on its own; much harder to show discrimination
Washington v. Davis (1976)
Case ruling that race can be used as a “plus” in admissions programs, but cannot be used as the sole determining factor for racial quotas; diversity in higher education is a compelling interest
Regents of University of California v. Bakke (1978)
Case ruling that diversity is a compelling state interest; admissions programs must use race as one factor in addition to other factors to be narrowly tailored
Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)
Case ruling that the University of Texas special admissions program was lawful becasue there were compelling state interests and it was narrowly tailored
Fisher v. University of Texas (2016)
Case ruling that women could not practice law becasue females are delicate and unfit for certain occupations
Bradwell v. Illinois (1873)
Case ruling that the Idaho law giving preference to males over inheritances is unconstitutional becasue the interest of the state that women could not handle business is not a legitimate interest; based on out-dated notions
Reed v. Reed (1971)
Case ruling that the military’s benefits policy was unconstitutional becasue the policy was overbroad and rested on outdated gender roles
Frontiero v. Richardson (1973)
Case establishing the heightened/intermediate scrutiny test for gender-based discriminations
Craig v. Boren (1976)
Case ruling that an all-female nursing school was unconstitutional becasue the interests were based on outdated notions of gender roles
Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan (1982)
Case ruling that the single-sex policies of VMI were unconstitutional becasue the interests failed to meet the standards of intermediate scrutiny
U.S. v. Virginia (1996)
Case ruling that a rape law only holding men responsible for rape is constitutional becasue of physical differences between men and women (pregnancy)
Michael M. v. Superior Court of Sonoma County (1981)
Case ruling that a new amendment meant to disadvantage homosexuals was unconstitutional becasue it placed a special disability on gays alone; defies normal equal protection analysis
Romer v. Evans (1996)
