Landmark Cases Flashcards
1
Q
Brown vs Board of Education
A
- school protection
- equal protection
- class action suit w/ linda brown
- overturned seperate but equal
- Warren Court
- unanimous decision w/ brown
2
Q
Dred Scott vs Sanford
A
- Dred scott purchased in missouri and then brought to free state of illinois
- master died, scott sued widow b/c he said he was a free man
- 7-2 decision w/ sanford
- decided that african americans were not citizens as defined by constitution, so they had no jurisdiction
3
Q
Gibbons v. Ogden
A
- ogden had monopoly of steamships granted by ny
- gibbons wanted to also operate steamships, arguing that only Congress was given power of interstate commerce in the constitution
- unanimous decision w/ gibbons
- state rights, commerce clause
4
Q
Gideon vs Wainwright
A
- right to counsel, due process
- gideon accused of burglary, denied lawyer even after asking
- was sent to prison
- wrote letter to supreme court and gave him forma pauperis, allowing him to file for free
- voted unanimously in his favor, 6th amendment always applied
5
Q
Hazelwood vs Kuhlmeier
A
- At Hazelwood high school, students made newspaper and the principal looked over it
- saw 2 possibly offensive articles and pulled them out so they could make the deadline
- censorsihp, student press rights
5-3 kuhlmeier, 1st amendment does not prevent schools from exercising reasonable authority
6
Q
Korematsu vs US
A
- after pearl harbor, japanese rounded and sent to camps, etc.
- korematsu was japanese and challenged, saying that they did not have the power to discriminate based on race
- 6-3 w/ U.S., ,Pres and Congress did followed constitution, did not violate 14 amendment
7
Q
Mapp vs Ohio
A
- Dollree Mapp was suspected of hiding a suspect in a bombing
- went to her house, but denied acces b/c there was no warrant
- after, they came back holding a normal sheet of paper and handcuffed her, searched her house finding porn.
5-3 w/ mapp
-courts exclude evidence obtained in violation of constitution’s ban on unreasonable searches
8
Q
Marbury vs Madison
A
- Marbury wanted to make the Supreme Court give him a job according to the Judiciary Act of 1789
- judicial review, federalism
- unanimous decision that Madison did not have to deliver the job
- they found that the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstiutional
9
Q
McChullo
A
- State of Maryland tried to close branch of Bank of US making it pay $15000, but they wouldn’t pay it
- unanimous in favor of McCulloch
10
Q
Miranda vs Arizona
A
- self incrimination, due process
- ernesto miranda confessed to a crime w/out being told of his 5th amendment right to remain silent or 6th, right to a lawyer
- 5-4 w/ miranda
11
Q
New Jersey vs T.L.O.
A
- student search and seizure
- T.L.O. was smoking in the restroom and caught, and had to turn over her purse w/ marijuana
- 6-3 w/ New Jersey/school
12
Q
Plessy vs. Ferguson
A
- Seperate Car Act, plessy sat in white section and arrested.
- seperate but equal=legal
13
Q
Regents of the U.Cal vs. Bakke
A
- U C. had admissions program based on race
- Bakke rejected, even w/ higher scores than minorities
- race can be taken into account, but cannot be given automatic advantage
- burger court
14
Q
Roe vs Wade
A
Jane Roe wanted to contest the rules against abortions,saying it violated theFourteenth Amendment, which provides equal protection of the laws and a guarantee of personal liberty, and a woman’s right to privacy implicitly guaranteed in the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments
-7-2 w/ roe
15
Q
Texas vs Johnson
A
- johnson set the flag on fire during a protest against reagan
- 5-4 johnson
- rehnquist court
16
Q
Schenck v. United States
A
- upheld espionage act of 1917
- established “clear and present danger” test
- 1st amendment did not apply as much during times of war
17
Q
West Virginia Board of Ed. v. Barnette
A
- overruled minersville school district v. gobitis
- free speech allows students to not salute the american flag or say the pledge
18
Q
Brandenburg v. Ohio
A
- gov CANNOT constitutionally punish advocacy of a violation unless speech is likely to incite “imminent lawleess action
- Warren court
19
Q
Tinker v. Des Moines
A
20
Q
NY Times v. Sullivan
A
- established criteria for malice standard of public officals/firures
- supports freedom of the press
- must prove that publisher knew the statement was falt and acted recklessly
- Warren Court
21
Q
NY Times COmpany v. U.S.
A
- allowed Washington post and NY TImes to publish Pentagon papers w/out gov. censorship
- 1st amendment did protect rights to publish document that could possibly reveal secret documents
22
Q
Engel v. Vitale
A
- unconstitutional for state to make school prayer/encourage recitation in public schools
- 1st amendment
23
Q
Lemon v. Kurtzman
A
- religious schools can receive funding for secular purposes
- created three-prong test for determining legislation regarding religion
- -must have secular legislative purpose
- -not have the primary effect of advanceing/inhibiting religion
- -no excessive gov. entanglement
24
Q
Lynch v. Donnelly
A
- questioned legality of christian decorations on public property
- did not advocate religious message and had “legitimate secular purposes”
–burger
25
McCreary County v. ACLU
- 10 commandments displayed in courthouses and public schools
- violated 1st amendment establishment clause
26
Van Orden v. Perry
- 10 commandments on monument in texas state capitol
- constitutional
- rehnquist
27
Reynolds v. U.S.
utah +polygamy=no
religious duty is not a defense to criminal indictment
28
Sherbert v.Verner
- gov must present compelling government interest before denying unemployment compensation to someone who was fired b/c it conflicted w/ religion
- warren
29
Employment Division v. Smith
- state could fire people for using peyote, even if it was a religious practice
- rehnquist
30
Furman v. Georgia
-requirement for constistency in the application of the death penalty
31
Griswold v. Connecticut
- right to privacy
- connecticut law prohibited use of contraceptives, but invalidated b/c it violated "right to martial privacy"
- warren
32
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey
- constitutionality of pennsylvania regulations on abortion
- constitutional right to an abortion
33
Lawrence and Garner v. Texas
-gay sex okay b/c equal protection clause
34
Barron v. Baltimore
-B.O.R. applies only to the federal government
35
Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education
-gay sex okay b/c equal protection clause
36
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke
- medical school and university of california was unconstitutional b/c they had a quota for minorities
- race cannot be used as a factor to exclude aplicant
37
Gratz v. Bollinger
rehnquist
university of michigan automatically gave20 points to minorities
- diversity contributions of applicants cannot be individually assessed" and was therefore unconstitutional.
38
Grutter v. Bollinger
- upheld university of michigan law school affirmative action policy
- had compelling interest in promoting class diversity
39
McCulloch v. Maryland
- maryland tried to tax all notes not chartered in maryland
- constitution grants congress implied powers for implementing expressed powers
- state may not impede valid constitutional exercises of power by the federal government
- marshall
40
Hammer v. Dagenhart
-congress does not have the power to regulate commerce of goods that are manufactured by children and the keating owen act of 1916 was unconstitutional
41
Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S.
-Congress could use Commerce Clause to force private businesses to abide by the Civil rights act of 1964
42
U.S. v. Lopez
- 1st case since new deal to set limits to congress's power under commerce clause
- limited carrying of handguns
43
Printz v. U.S.
-established unconstitutionality of certain provisions of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act
44
U.S. v. Morrison
-parts of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 were unconstitutional because they exceeded congressional power under the Commerce Clause
45
Gonzales v. Raich
-Commerce Clause may criminalize growing of pot
46
Buckley v. Valeo
struck down several provisions in the 1974 Amendment to a law that limited campaign expenditures, independent expenditures by individuals and groups, and expenditures by a candidate from personal funds. The Court upheld the provision which sets limits on individuals' campaign contributions.
47
McConnell v. Federal Election Commission
-upheld constitutionality of McCain Feingold Act
rehnquist
48
Citizens United v. FEC
49
Bush v. Gore
50
Baker v. Carr
51
U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton
52
Youngtwon Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer
53
U.S. v. Nixon
54
Clinton v. New York
55
