Final Exam Flashcards
Shelby County v. Holder (2013)
Landmark ruling defined the 10th Amendment. Shelby County in Alabama brought a suit against the U.S. attorney general, claiming that both section five of the Voting Rights Act, which required districts to seek preapproval, and section four, which determined which districts had to seek preapproval, were unconstitutional. In a 5–4 decision, the court found that both sections violated the Tenth Amendment.
Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)
In 2015, the Obergefell v. Hodges case had a sweeping effect when the Supreme Court clearly identified a constitutional right to marriage based on the Fourteenth Amendment.
Constitutional Amendments (13, 14, 15, 19, 21, 26)
13- abolished slavery and involuntary servitude
14- prohibits states from denying citizens rights, criminals can’t vote
15- black people can vote
19- women can vote
21- repealed prohibition
26- 18+ for local elections
Preemption
legal doctrine that states federal law preempts state law when the two are in conflict
Ex post facto
a law that criminalizes an act retroactively; prohibited under the Constitution
Bill of attainder
a legislative action declaring someone guilty without a trial; prohibited under the Constitution
Habeas Corpus
a petition that enables someone in custody to petition a judge to determine whether that person’s detention is legal
Federal/Enumerated powers
- Regulate Currency
- Foreign Commerce
- Maintain a post office
- Make treaties with foreign nations
- Laws regulating immigration
Voting Rights Act (1965)
Gave the federal government power to remove literacy tests and other ways to discriminate based on race. Made exercising the right to vote a reality for Black men and women in the South
Standing doctrine
Standing refers to the capacity of a plaintiff to bring suit in court. The plaintiff must have suffered an actual harm by the defendant, and the harm must be redressable
Ripeness doctrine
Ripeness refers to the maturity of the facts of a case into an actual controversy. A case is not ripe if the harm to the plaintiff has not yet occurred
Judicial Review
Given to the courts through Marbury v. Madison, the process through which courts may strike down laws or policies that are unconstitutional
Establishment Clause
provision of the First Amendment that prohibits the government from endorsing a state-sponsored religion; interpreted as preventing government from favoring some religious beliefs over others or religion over non-religion
Free Exercise Clause
the provision of the First Amendment that prohibits the government from regulating religious beliefs and practices
Due Process Clause
provisions of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments that limit government power to deny people “life, liberty, or property” on an unfair basis
Exclusionary Rule
a requirement, from Supreme Court case Mapp v. Ohio, that evidence obtained as a result of an illegal search or seizure cannot be used to try someone for a crime
Sherbert Test
a standard for deciding whether a law violates the free exercise clause; a law will be struck down unless there is a “compelling governmental interest” at stake and it accomplishes its goal by the “least restrictive means” possible
Bush v. Gore (2000)
Two-part rule: 1st, the manual recount did violate the plaintiff’s right to equal protection. 2nd, 5–4 margin, the court ruled that there was not sufficient time to adjust the recount procedure and conduct a full recount. The effect of this ruling gave the Florida electoral votes, and thus the presidency, to George W. Bush.
Brown v. Board of Education (1954)
challenged “separate but equal” established by Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896. The unanimous decision determined the existence of racially segregated public schools violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The ruling effectively overturned Plessy v. Ferguson and removed the legal supports for segregated schools nationwide.
Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)
the Supreme Court established the Lemon test for deciding whether a law or other government action that might promote a particular religious practice should be allowed to stand.
Roe v. Wade (1973)
A pregnant woman from Texas, “Jane Roe” who desired to terminate her pregnancy appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Constitution provides women the right to terminate an abortion without her life being in danger. The 7–2 decision in Roe v. Wade declared that the right to privacy upheld in the decision in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) included a woman’s right to an abortion. The 2023 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health decision overruled the 1973 decision.
Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)
dealt with the right of Amish parents to homeschool their children, the court said that for a law to be allowed to limit or burden a religious practice, the government must show there was a very good reason for the law in question and that the law was the only feasible way of achieving that goal. (aka Sherbert Test)
McDonald v. Chicago (2010)
The plaintiffs argued that the Fourteenth Amendment had the effect of applying the Second Amendment to the states, not just to the federal government. In a 5–4 decision, the court agreed with McDonald. It concluded that rights like the right to keep and bear arms are important enough for maintaining liberty that the Fourteenth Amendment rightly applies them to the states.
Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
The court decided that evidence obtained without a warrant could not be used as evidence in a state criminal trial, giving rise to the broad application of what is known as the exclusionary rule.
Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
After being found guilty at trial, Miranda appealed to the Supreme Court, insisting that the officers violated his Fifth Amendment rights. The 5–4 decision in Miranda v. Arizona found that the right to not incriminate oneself relies heavily on the suspect’s right to be informed of these rights at the time of arrest.
Korematsu v. United States (1944)
In a 6–3 decision, the Court ruled against him, arguing that the administration had the constitutional power to sign the order because of the need to protect U.S. interests against the threat of espionage.
Employment Division v. Smith (1990)
Involving two men who were members of the Native American Church (a religious organization that uses the hallucinogenic peyote plant as part of its sacraments), after being arrested for possession of peyote, the two men were fired from their jobs as counselors at a private drug rehabilitation clinic. When they applied for unemployment benefits, the state refused to pay. The men appealed the denial of benefits and were initially successful. However, the Supreme Court ruled in a 6–3 decision that the standard should not apply; so long as the law was not designed to target a person’s religious beliefs in particular, it was not up to the courts to decide that those beliefs were more important than the law in question.
original vs. appellate jurisdiction
Original jurisdiction: a case is heard for the first time
Appellate jurisdiction: a court hears a case on appeal from a lower court and may change the lower court’s decision.
Discrimination and rational basis test
Discrimination: the government has to demonstrate only that it has a good reason to do so
RBT: as long as there’s a reason for treating some people differently that is “rationally related to a legitimate government interest,” the discriminatory act or law or policy is acceptable
State vs. federal court jurisdiction
The Supreme Court is rarely given original jurisdiction. SC hears cases from the U.S. courts of appeals (federal level) and state supreme courts. Federal court hears any case that involves a foreign government, patent or copyright infringement, Native American rights, maritime law, bankruptcy, or a controversy between two or more states.
Equal Protection Clause
a provision of the Fourteenth Amendment that requires the states to treat all residents equally under the law
Majority/dissenting/concurring opinions
Majority: an opinion of the Court with which more than half the nine justices agree
Dissenting: an opinion written by a justice who disagrees with the majority opinion of the Court
Concurring: an opinion written by a justice who agrees with the Court’s majority opinion but has different reasons for doing so
Judicial activism
a judicial philosophy in which a justice is more likely to overturn decisions or rule actions by the other branches unconstitutional, especially in an attempt to broaden individual rights and liberties
Freedom of expression/symbolic speech
FoE: free speech, press, assembly, and petition
SS: a form of expression that does not use writing or speech but nonetheless communicates an idea (e.g., wearing an article of clothing to show solidarity with a group)
Rights of Suspects
Protected by the 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Amendments.
5- Miranda Rights
6- fair and speedy trial
7- right to a jury
8- no excessive bail
Eminent domain
the power of government to take or use property for a public purpose after compensating its owner; also known as the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment
Common vs. Code Law System
Common: in which law is largely developed through binding judicial decisions.
Code: provides very detailed and comprehensive laws that do not leave room for much interpretation and judicial decision-making.
De jure vs. de facto segregation
De jure: segregation that results from government discrimination
De facto: segregation that results from the private choices of individuals
Civil Rights Act 1964
- Ended discrimination based on race, color, religion, or national origin in the United States.
- Prohibited discrimination in public places.
- Integrated schools and other public facilities.
- Made employment discrimination illegal.
- A major victory for the civil rights movement against unjust Jim Crow laws.
Lemon Test
Based on religion and has three criteria- The action or law must not lead to excessive government entanglement with religion. The action or law cannot inhibit or advance religious practice; it should be neutral in its effects on religion. The action or law must have some secular purpose; there must be some non-religious justification for the law.
Miller Test
A test to see if something is obscene. “(a) whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.”
Exclusionary Rule
a requirement, from Supreme Court case Mapp v. Ohio, that evidence obtained as a result of an illegal search or seizure cannot be used to try someone for a crime
Strict Scrutiny
the standard used by the courts to decide cases of discrimination based on race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion; the burden of proof is on the government to demonstrate a compelling governmental interest is at stake and no alternative means are available to accomplish its goals
Affirmative Action
the use of programs and policies designed to assist groups that have historically been subject to discrimination
Immediate Scrutiny
the standard used by the courts to decide cases of discrimination based on gender and sex; burden of proof is on the government to demonstrate an important governmental interest is at stake in treating men differently from women
Undue Burden Test
a means of deciding whether a law that makes it harder for women to seek abortions is constitutional
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
- expanded the categories and definition of disability
- prohibits discrimination in employment based on disability
- requires employers to make reasonable accommodations available to workers who need them
- mandates that public transportation and public accommodations be made accessible to those with disabilities.
