Individual Rights Flashcards
City of Boerne v. Flores
[Limitations on the State]
Congress may not expand substantive First Amendment rights beyond those recognized by the Supreme Court.
Lee v. Weisman
[Establishment Clause - Coercion]
Nondenominational prayer led by a cleric at graduation ceremonies promoted religion.
Lemon v. Kurtzman
[Establishment Clause - Standard]
Governmental action valid if
i) It has a secular purpose;
ii) Its principle and primary effect neither advances nor inhibits religion; and
iii) It does not result in excessive government entanglement with religion.
Zelman v. Simmons-Harris
[Establishment Clause - School Vouchers]
Giving parents tuition vouchers to assist them in paying religious school tuition does not violate clause if vouchers may also be used at non-religious private schools.
Wallace v. Jaffree
[Establishment Clause - School Prayer]
A designated period of silence for “meditation or voluntary prayer” promoted religion.
Wisconsin v. Yoder
[Free Exercise - Targeting religious conduct]
Compulsory school attendance struck down.
United States v. Ballard
[Free Exercise - Religious Belief]
The government may not determine the reasonableness of a belief, although it may determine the sincerity of the person asserting the belief.
Sherbert v. Verner
[Free Exercise - Targeting religious conduct]
Law struck down that required work on day of Sabbath.
Employment Division v. Smith
[Free Exercise - Neutral, Generally Applicable]
No religious exemption required from neutral regulations even though certain groups objected because the regulation interfered with religious conduct (peyote use)
Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC
[Ministerial Exception]
Exception to discrimination laws in a decision to discharge a minister from employment.
Shelly v. Kraemer
[State Involvement]
Enforcement of restrictive covenants constitutes state action even in civil proceeding between private parties.
NCAA v. Tarkanian
[State Involvement - Entwinement with Private]
Coach could not successfully sue NCAA because there was no state action.
Board of Regents v. Roth
[Due Process - Property]
A property interest involves more than an abstract need or desire; there must be a legitimate claim of entitlement.
Goldberg v. Kelly
[Procedural Due Process]
A state must give notice and hold a hearing PRIOR to terminating welfare benefits.
Matthews v. Eldridge
[Procedural Due Process]
A state must give prior notice but only a post-termination evidentiary hearing to terminate disability benefits or public employment
New York Times Co. v. United States
[First Amendment - Prior Restraint]
Prior restraints have been rejected even when national security was at issue.
International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Lee
[Speech - No Viewpoint/Content Discrimination]
Airport terminals are not public terminals, thus it is reasonable to ban solicitation within airport terminals since it presents a risk of fraud of hurrying passengers.
Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp v. Public Service Commission of New York
[Commercial Speech]
Restrictions of lawful, truthful commercial speech require factors:
i) Asserted government interest must be substantial;
ii) Regulation must directly advance the asserted interest;
iii) regulation must be narrowly tailored (“reasonable fit”)
United States v. O’Brien
[Conduct - Draft Card]
Prohibition against burning draft cards upheld as furthering the important governmental interest in a smoothly functioning draft system.
Garcetti v. Ceballos
[Speech by Government Employees]
Speech on matters of public concern made in furtherance of the public employee’s job functions receives less protection than speech made by a person acting outside of his job.
Van Orden v. Perry
[Government Speech]
Monuments in park are government speech. When the government is a speaker it may engage in content-based choices.
Grutter v. Bollinger
[Equal Protection - Diversity in Schools]
The use of racial quotas or of race as a determinative criterion violates equal protection and is unconstitutional.
United States v. Virginia
[Equal Protection - Gender]
Gender receives intermediate scrutiny. Burden on state to show that a regulation that treats gender differently is substantially related to an important governmental interest.
Romer v. Evans
[Equal Protection - Sexual Orientation] Sexual orientation is not a suspect or quasi-suspect class. Government cannot impose a burden or deny a benefit on a group because of animosity toward the class that it affects.
