FINAL court cases Flashcards by sydney cole

New York law that limited bakery employees to working no more than 10 hours per day and 60 hours per week
Lochner was convicted of violating law. he allowed an employee to work more than 60 hours in one week
Lochner challenged the conviction, arguing the law violated the 14th amendment due process clause.
liberty is protected by the due process clause includes the right to enter contracts freely. 5-4 decision struck down the law
court evaluated whether the law served a legitimate purpose and it did so with a direct connection - essential using an early form of what became strict scrutiny for fundamental rights

Lochner v. New York (1905)

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

challenged Connecticut law from 1879 that banned contraceptives, even by married couples
law prohibited physicians from prescribing contraceptives regardless of medical need
Dr.C Lee Buxton, a physician who filed suit on behalf of two women seeking contraception for medical reasons
Connecticut had not enforced the law for decades, no prosecutions had occurred under the state
does the Connecticut ban on contraception use violate the 14th amendment due process clause by infringing on the liberty and privacy rights of married couples?
the majority dismissed the case, because the law had not ben enforced, there was no real controversy or injury, and the case was premature
laid the groundwork for Griswold

Poe v. Ullman (1961)

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

challenged Connecticut law that prohibited the use of contraceptives
Griswold and Dr. Buxton opened a clinic to intentionally violate the law and be arrested. they were convicted for dispensing contraceptives to married couple and appealed their convictions, challenging the constitutionality of the law
law violated the 14th amendment due process clause by infringing on fundamental right to privacy
the law was broad, arbitrary, and not supported by legitimate public health interest
7-2 decision struck down the law
Justice William Douglas wrote the majority opinion, arguing that zones of privacy are created by the “penumbras” of several constitutional amendments, 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 9th

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Jane Roe got pregnant at 21 and wanted an abortion
Texas law allowed abortions to save a mother’s life
she claimed she was raped, but her doctor would not perform the abortion
three-judge federal district court ruled in Roe’s favor based on the 9th Amendment privacy grounds, but not not strike down the law, prompting an appeal to the Supreme Court
Does the Texas law banning abortion except to save the mother’s life dilate a women’s constitutional right, specially the right to privacy protected by the 14th amendment’s due process clause
Roe argument: law violates personal privacy, and bodily autonomy, under the 1st, fourth, 9th, and 14th
Texas has no compelling state interest
Texas/state side: no constitutional right to abortion. even if privacy is a constitutional right, it is not absolute, and the state has a compelling interest in protecting fetal life, especially once pregnancy progresses
7-2 in favor of Roe
the Court recognized that the right to privacy encompassed a women’s decision whether or not to ermine a pregnancy
constitutional right to abortion, grounded int eh right to privacy from Griswold v. Connecticut
national division of pro-life or pro-choice

Roe v. Wade

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

challenged a Pennsylvania law that required a 24 hr waiting period, parental consent for minors, spousal notification, and detailed clinic reporting for abortions
court reaffirmed Roe but replaced the trimester framework with the “indie burden” standard. a law is unconstitutional if ti places a substantial obstacle in the path of a women before viability
upheld: waiting period, parental consent, record keeping
struck down: spousal notification (undue burden)
preserved the right to abostion but gave status more power to regulate.
emphasized the important of precedent while updating legal standards

Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Mississippi passed a law banning most abortions safer 15 weeks of pregnancy, with few exceptions
the state directly asked the Supreme Court to overrule Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, both of which had protected abortion rights before viability
Jackson women’s health organization, the only abortion clinic in Mississippi challenged the law
6-3 ruling, the court overruled Roe and Casey, stating that the constitution doe not confer a right to abortion
the majority led to Justice Alit, held that abortion is not a right “deeply rooted in this nation’s history and tradition”
the court returned the authority to regulate ambition to the states
abortion rights are no longer federally protected
states have full discretion to ban or allow abortion
decision represents a major shift away from substantive due process protections for reproductive rights

Dobbs v. Jackson (2022)

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Ohio banned same-sex marriage and refused to recognize marriages performed in other states
Jame Obergefell married his terminally ill partner John Arthur in Maryland, then sued Ohio for refusing to recognize their marriage on Arthur’s death certificate
Do state bans on same-sex marriage violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment
5-4 ruling, Court struck down same-sex marriage bans. justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, said that the constitution protects the fundamental right to marry, and that right applies equally to same-sex couples
this case legalized same-sex marriage nationwide

Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Larence and Garner were arrested under Texas law banning same-sex sexual activity after police entered Lawrence’s home
does criminalizing private, consensual same-sex conduct violate the due process clause of the 14th amendment?
court ruled 6-3 that the law violated the right to liberty and privacy. it overruled Bowers v. Warwick (1986)
Justice Kennedy: adults have the right to private, consensual relationships. the law infringed on dignity, autonomy, and privacy

Lawrence v. Texas (2003)

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Plessy, was arrested for sitting in an “whites-only” train car in Louisiana. he challenged the law under the 14th amendment’s equal protection clause
Supreme Court upheld the law 7-1, establishing the “separate but equal” doctrine. segregation was ruled constitutional if facilities were equal
Justice Harlan dissented, declaring the constitution is “color-blond” and predicting lasting harm
legalized racial segregation
justified Jim Crow laws
overturned by Brown v. Board of Ed (1945)

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Sweatt was denied admission to the University of Texas Law School. the sate created a separate law school for black students
the Court ruled the schools were not equal, citing differences in resources, faculty, reputation, and opportunities
challenged the “separate but equal” doctrine.
recognized the importance of intangible educational benefits
helped lay the foundation for Brown v. Board of Ed

Sweatt v. Painter (1950)

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Brown challenged school segregation after his daughter was denied entry to a white school in Topeka, Kansas
the court ruled unanimously that segregation in public schools is unconstitutional, overturning Plessy v. Ferguson
Separate but equal is inherently unequal - it harms children and violates the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment
ended school segregation
major victory for the civil rights movement
laid the foundation for broader desegregation

Brown v. Board of Ed (1954)

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

after ruling segregation unconstitutional in Brown I, the Supreme Court heard further arguments on how to implement desegregation in public schools
court ruled that local school boards were responsible for ending phrase allowed for gradual implementation, which led to delays and resistance, especially in the south

-desegregation must proceed ‘with all deliberate speed”. This vague phrase allowed for gradual implementation. which led to delays and resistance, especially in the south

gave federal courts oversight power in desegregation cases
set the stage for long-term struggles over school integration
allowed slow progress, leading to later enforcement cases like Green .v New Kent County and Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklengurg

Brown v. Board of Ed II (1955)

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Charlotte. NC schools remained heavily segregated even after earlier desegregation efforts. A district court approved a busing plan to achieve racial integration across city and county schools
Supreme Court unanimously upheld the district court’s plan, affirming that busing, redistricting, and racial quotas are constitutional tools when used to eliminate the effects of past segregation
courts have broad equitable powers to remedy de jury segregation
remedies must be tailored to the specific violations found
busing is a legitimate tool for desegregation, not limited to lock walk-in schools
expanded federal authority over local desegregation plans
marked a major step in enforcing Brown v. Board mandates
later limited by by ruling Milliken v. Bradley (1974), especially in northern districts without explicit segregation laws

Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg (1971)

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Seattle and Louisville used race as a factor in student school assignments to maintain racial balance. Neither District was under court-ordered desegregation at the time. White students in both cases denied school choice based on racial criteria, and their families sued
the supreme court struck down both school assignment plans in 5-4 decision. Justice Roberts ruled the plans violated the equal protection clause because they were not narrowly tailored to served a compelling government interest

Parents Involved In Community Schools V. Seattle School District

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Allan Bakke, white applicant, was rejected twice by UC Davis medical School. The school had a special admissions program that reserved 16 to 100 seats for minority applicants. Bakke argued this violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment
the court ruled racial quotas unconstitutional but allowed race to be used as one factor among others in admissions
Justice Powell’s opinion was the deciding vote: struck down quotas as too rigid, upheld diversity as a compelling interest
first major Supreme Court decision on affirmative action in higher education
created the principle that race can be used in narrowly tailored ways to promote diversity
laid the groundwork for future decisions like Grutter and Fisher

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978)

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

university of Michigan Law school used race as one factor in a holistic admissions process to enroll a “critical mass” of underrepresented minority students. Barbara Grutter, a white applicant, was denied admission and sued, claiming the policy violated the equal protection clause
5-4 upheld the law school’s policy
Justice O’Conner: diversity is a compelling state interest in higher education. the school’s use of race was narrowly tailored, flexible, and not a quota. Admissions were individuatedm with race as a “plus factor” not the sole factor
affirmed affirmative action if race is uesed carefully and non-deterministically
set guidelines for how colleges can pursue diversity
influenced later cases like Fisher v. Texas

Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)

a group called Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) sued Harvard University and the University of North Carolina. claiming their race-conscious admissions policies discriminated against Asian American applicants and violated the Equal Protection Clause and title VI of the Civil rights act
6-3 decision, the court struck down affirmative action in college admissions, ruling that using race as a factor in admissions violates the Equal Protection Clause
Justice Roberts: race-based admissions programs fail strict scrutiny. Harvard and UNC’s use of race was not narrowly tailored to achieve compelling interest. past discrimination doesn’t justify future racial preferences. race cannot be used as a plus factor unless clearly defined and measured
effectively ended affirmative action in college admissions
overturned the principles upheld the Grutter v. Bollinger
required universities to find-neutral alternatives for achieving diversity

Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (2023)

Demetrio Rodriguez and other parents from the poor, mostly Mexican American Edgewood district in San Antonio sued Texas, claiming its public school funding system - based on local property taxes - discriminated against poor students by underfunding their schools compared to wealthier districts like Alamo Heights
court ruled 5-4 against Rodriguez: education is not a fundamental right under the constitution. property is not a suspect class. therefore, the Texas system only needed to meet a rational basis test, which it passed
the decision upheld unequal school based on local wealth
limited the use of equal protection to challenge economic inequality
shifted the focus of education equity fights from federal to state courts and legislatures

San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez (1973)

the City of Cleburne, Texas denied a special use permit for a group home for intellectually disabled people, citing a zoning ordinance
the group home sued, claiming the denial violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment
the Supreme Court applied rational basis review, refusing to treat the intellectually disabled as a protect class
the Court still struck down the city’s denial, fining it was based on irrational prejudice and not supported by any legitimate government interest
the city’s justifications - like fears about nearby junior high students of flood concerns - were deemed unjustified
the case showed that even under rational basis, courts can reject laws motivated by bias or stereotypes, especially when aimed at vulnerable populations

Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center (1985)

Colorado voters passed Amendment 2, which prohibited any state or local law from protecting individuals from discrimination based on sexual orientation
several individuals and local governments challenged it, arguing it violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment
the court struck down amendment 2, saying it lacked a rational basis and was motivated by animosity toward LGBTQ individuals
the amendment imposed a broad and undifferentiated disability on a single group, making them unequal to everyone else under the law.
Justice Kennedy wrote that the law was based on a “bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group” is not a legitimate government interest
this was the first time the Supreme Court ruled in favor of gay rights under the equal protection clause, laying groundwork for later cases like Lawrence v. Texas and Obergefell v. Hodges

Romer v. Evans (1996)

Edith Windsor legally married her same-sex partner in Canada. When her spouse died, Windsor was denied a federal estate tax exemption for serviving spouses because of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defined marriage as between a man and women
Windsor argued that DOMA violated the Equal Protection guarantee of the fifth amendment by treating same-sex marriages differently under federal law
court struck down section 3 of DOMA as unconstitutional. it held that the federal government cannot deny recognition to same-sex marriages that are lawful under the state law
DOMA’s purpose was to disparage and injure a class of people - same-sex couples - without a legitimate government interest. The law was based on animus, which the constitution does not allow
this case was major step forward for LGBTQ rights, recognizing federal benefits for same-sex couples and paving the way for Obergefell

US v. Windsor (2013)

an Idaho law gave men automatic preference over women when choosing estate administrators. After their son died, both Sally Reed and her ex-husband sought to be appointed, but the court chose the father solely because he was male
Sally Reed challenged the law, arguing it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment
The court struck down the Idaho law, holding that laws that discriminate based on sex must have a legitimate government interest and cannot be arbitrary
the court found that giving preference to men solely based on gender was unconstitutional and irrational, making the first time the court struck down a law for sex-based discrimination
this was a landmark victory for gender equality, laying the foundation for future gender discrimination cases and the development of intermediate scrutiny for sex-based classifications

Reed v. Reed (1971)

Sharron Frontiero, a U.S. Air Force lieutenant, applied for spousal benefits for her husband. At the time, male service members automatically received benefits for their wives, but females service members has to prove their husbands were financially dependent
Frontiero argued that this unequal treatment based on sex violated the equal protection component of the 5th amendment’s due process clause
the court ruled in Frontiero’s favor and struck down the policy, finding it was discriminatory and unconstitutional
a plurality of the court argued that classifications based on sex are inherently suspect and should be subject to strict scrutiny, like race or national origin. However, a majority did not fully adopt strict scrutiny for gender discrimination at that time
this case marked major step forward for gender equality in constitutional law and helped lay the groundwork for the eventual use of intermediate scrutiny in gender discrimination cases

Frontiero v. Richardson (1973)

an Oklahoma law allowed females to buy 3.2% beer at age 18, but males had to be 21. Craig, a male under 21, and a meet vender challenged the law as sex discrimination
the court struck down the law and created a new legal standard for gender discrimination: intermediate scrutiny
the court said law that discriminate based on sex must serve important government objectives and must be substantially related to achieving those objectives
the state’s evidence that men were more likely to drink and drive was not strong enough to justify the discrimination
this case established intermediate scrutiny as the standard for evaluating sex-based classifications under the Equal protection clause, a major step in the evolution of gender equality in constitutional law

Craig v. Boren (1976)

- Joe Hogan, a qualified male nurse, applied to an all-female nursing program at Mississippi University for Women and was denied solely because of his gender. He sued, arguing the policy violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment - court ruled in Hogan's favor and struck down the female-only admissions policy - using intermediate scrutiny, the court held that the state failed to show an "exceedingly persuasive justification" for the gender-based exclusion. the policy actually reinforced outdated stereotypes that nursing is a "women's job" rather than correcting discrimination - the case reinforced that gender-based classifications must serve important government objectives and cannot rely on traditional roles or stereotypes. It also affirmed intermediate scrutiny for sex discrimination

Mississippi University Women v. Hogan (1982)

- Virginia Military Institute (VMI) was a public-all-male military college. the U.S. government challenged its male-only admissions policy, arguing it violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment - Virginia tried to create a separate program for women at Mary Baldwin College, but lacked VMI's prestige, rigor, and resources - court ruled 7-1 that VMI's exclusion of women was unconstitutional -the court applied intermediate scrutiny, requiring an "exceedingly persuasive justification" for sex-based discrimination - Virginia failed to prove that excluding women served an important government objective in a way that was substantially related to that goal - Justice Ginsburg's opinion emphasized that gender-based government action must not rely on stereotypes or over broad generalizations - this case strengthened intermediate scrutiny and clarified that separate but unequal education opportunities based on sex violate the constitution

U.S. v. Virginia (1996)

- department of justice is suing the state of Tennessee over restrictions on gender-affirming medical care for minors. - DOJ argued the Tennessee law violates the equal protection clause and the affordable care act, claiming it discriminates against transgender youth - Tennessee defends the law on medical safety and state authority grounds - the parents of the transgender children are claiming equal protection parental rights

United States v. Skrmetti (2024-25)