Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Civil Liberties > Midterm > Flashcards

Midterm Flashcards

1
Q

Case that established the power of judicial review: the federal courts have the power to review government actions and invalidate those that are unconstitutional

A

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Case establishing that Congress has the authority to remove the Court’s appellate jurisdiction as it deems necessary

A

Ex parte McCardle (1869)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Case that deals with political questions and establishes a two-prong standard to determine what is a political question; namely, if the decision rests on another branch of government

A

Baker v. Carr (1962)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Case that establishes that impeachment procedures are not subject to judicial review

A

Nixon v. United States (1993)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Case that said the Constitution should not be applied to the states; state constitutions regulate state actions

A

Barron v. Baltimore (1833)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Case that established that the Court would not use the privileges and immunities clause of the 14th Amendment for incorporation

A

Slaughterhouse Cases (1873)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Case establishing that the due process clause could not be used to apply the entire Bill of Rights to the states, but that clause does protect “fundamental principles of liberty and justice”

A

California v. Hurtado (1884)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Case that ruled on due process: substance, not form, is most important

A

Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy Railroad v. Chicago (1897)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Case that established that trial by jury is not a necessary requisite for due process; ignored the issue of incorporation altogether

A

Maxwell v. Dow (1900)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

The case that created the possibility of incorporation by future courts through the due process clause; incorporation would only be accomplished on a case-by-case basis

A

Twining v. New Jersey (1908)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Case that made the first meaningful steps towards selective incorporation by deciding that freedom of speech and press are fundamental rights; made these provisions in the Bill of Rights binding on the states

A

Gitlow v. New York (1925)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Case establishing that fundamental rights are those “of the very essence of a scheme of ordered liberty”; protection against double jeopardy in the 5th Amendment not fundamental to a fair trial

A

Palko v. Connecticut (1937)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Case establishing that trial by jury in criminal cases is fundamental to the scheme of American justice; continued selective incorporation by incorporating the 6th Amendment

A

Duncan v. Louisiana (1968)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Case establishing the clear and present danger test; the words would clearly bring about an immediate substantive evil; content of the words, context they are uttered, the consequences and when those would occur

A

Schenck v. United States (1919)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Case that established the bad tendency test (which diluted the clear and present danger test); “Do the words have a tendency to bring about evil consequences?”; much easier for government to justify regulating speech

A

Abrams v. United States (1919)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Case that strengthened the bad tendency test by making mere membership in a subversive organization a crime: concurrence - return to clear and present test, focusing on behavior

A

Whitney v. California (1927)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Case establishing that laws banning certain speech must not be overly vague; decision that showed greater sympathy to First Amendment claims

A

Stromberg v. California (1931) and DeJonge v. Oregon (1937)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Case that established the preferred freedoms standard; elevated importance to the Bill of Rights freedoms; special role to protect the rights of minorities; laws restricting Bill of Rights freedoms will be presumed unconstitutional

A

United States v. Carolene Products (1938)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Case that combined preferred freedoms standard with clear and present danger test

A

Thomas v. Collins (1945)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

The case that established the clear and probable danger test; the gravity of the evil discounted by its improbability

A

Dennis v. U.S. (1951)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Case that established the ad hoc balancing test

A

Barenblatt

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Case establishing a two-prong test to evaluate speech laws, focusing on imminent lawless action

A

Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

The case that established that content-based regulations are subject to strict scrutiny

A

Chicago Police Department v. Mosley (1972)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Case establishing that just because conduct is used to express an idea doesn’t mean it’s automatically protected; burning of the draft card burdened a sufficient government interest

A

U.S. v. O’Brien (1968)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Case establishing that the government may not prohibit expression or an idea just because the view is offensive or disagreeable (content/viewpoint)

A

Texas v. Johnson (1989)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Case that established the fighting words doctrine; words that will cause a breach of peace are not protected

A

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Case establishing that some opinions are unfavorable but should not be suppressed; time, place, and manner restrictions

A

Cohen v. California (1971)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

Case that established this test: does the provision of an injunction burden no more speech than is necessary to serve a legitimate government interest?

A

Madsen v. Women’s Health Center Inc. (1994)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

Case that formulated a test based on the O’Brien standard, asking if a law is content-neutral, narrowly tailored, and leaves open alternate channels of communication

A

McCullen v. Coakley (2014)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

Case reasoning that a city could take action if a parade caused a breakdown in public order but could not stop the event in advance

A

National Socialist Party v. Skokie (1977)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

Case establishing that the use of offense symbols cannot be banned because that is content and viewpoint discrimination

A

R.A.V v. St. Paul (1992)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

Case establishing that states can impose a greater penalty for crimes motivated by discriminatory hatred

A

Wisconsin v. Mitchell (1993)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

Case establishing that speech which is in a public space and a matter of public concern is entitled to special protection

A

Snyder v. Phelps (2011)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

Case ruling that laws cannot suppress false statements on one particular subject in limitless times and settings

A

U.S. v. Alvarez (2012)

35
Q

Case establishing that students do not shed their constitutional rights in school. Laws cannot regulate speech or conduct that does not disrupt the education system

A

Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)

36
Q

Case establishing that students in a public school do not have the same rights as adults in normal settings; government interest must be sufficient enough for regulation (illegal drug use); the nature of the rights must be appropriate for school and children

A

Morse v. Frederick (2007)

37
Q

Case establishing that the First Amendment is intended to protect speech, regardless of the speaker; corporations have rights to free speech

A

First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (1978)

38
Q

Case that extends the First Amendment to commercial speech, but with limitations

A

Bigelow v. Virginia (1975)

39
Q

Case establishing that the economic nature of ads does not take away First Amendment protection

A

Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council (1976)

40
Q

Case establishing that lawyers may advertise their services but the state may restrict to counter fraud, deception, and other matters of legitimate government concern

A

Bates v. State Bar of Arizona (1977)

41
Q

Case establishing a test for commercial speech: if the commercial expression concerns a lawful activity and is not misleading, it merits protection. But the state may regulate if it serves a substantial govt. interest, directly advances the interest, is no more extensive than necessary to achieve it

A

Central Hudson v. PSC of New York (1980)

42
Q

Case dealing with government speech and concluding that a city’s decision to place or not place a monument on public land is government speech; the city did not create a public forum

A

Pleasant Grove City v. Summum (2009)

43
Q

Case establishing that license plates are government speech; plates are seen as promoting a state message; no public forum on plates

A

Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans (2015)

44
Q

Case establishing that trademarks are not government speech; therefore, laws regulating trademarks cannot be content or viewpoint based

A

Matal v. Tam (2017)

45
Q

Case dealing with flag saluting; deciding that a school’s secular interest in creating national unity was enough to allow them to require students to salute the flag, based on a religious freedom argument

A

Minersville School District v. Gobitis (1940)

46
Q

Case establishing that a state cannot compel students to salute the flag or say the pledge based on a freedom of speech argument; the individual has a right against coerced expression

A

West Virginia State Board v. Barnette (1943)

47
Q

Case establishing that states cannot force citizens to endorse a certain slogan on a license plate; the right of a citizen to decline government ideas

A

Wooley v. Maynard (1977)

48
Q

case establishing that states may withhold funds from law schools as long as the law does not suppress the school’s expression of speech

A

Rumsfeld v. FAIR Inc. (2006)

49
Q

Case establishing that freedom of association is important but does not apply equally to all private organizations; evaluate the nature of the organization and the relationship between the expressive activities and the effect of the govt. regulation; state interest to eliminate discrimination important interest

A

Roberts v. United States Jaycees (1984)

50
Q

Case establishing that the forced inclusion of certain groups in parades significantly burdens the expression rights of parade organizers

A

Hurley v. Irish-American Gay Group of Boston (1995)

51
Q

Case establishing that government regulation of association must not significantly alter the message of the group

A

Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000)

52
Q

Case establishing that prior restraint runs contrary to the Constituiton; only a few exceptions to prior restraint

A

Near v. Minnesota (1931)

53
Q

Case establishing that any system of prior restraint comes to the Court bearing a heavy presumption against constitutionality

A

New York Times v. U.S. (1971)

54
Q

Case establishing that educators are entitled to exercise greater control over school-sponsored activities to make sure that students learn the lesson being taught

A

Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988)

55
Q

Case establishing that states cannot restrict the publication of truthful and public information (reporting the names of rape victims)

A

Cox Broadcasting Cooporation v. Cohn (1975)

56
Q

Case establishing that states cannot force a newspaper to publish specific information (reply articles)

A

Miami Herald v. Tornillo (1974)

57
Q

Case establishing that broadcasting may be treated differently than Print media

A

Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC (1969)

58
Q

Case establishing that supporters do not get special immunity from subpoenas to conceal their sources; Interest in punishing crime is greater than the press’ freedom of publication

A

Branzburg v. Hayes (1972)

59
Q

Case establishing that public officials must demonstrate actual malice in libel cases (made with the knowledge that that it was false or reckless disregard for whether it was false or not)

A

New York Times v. Sullivan (1964)

60
Q

Case establishing that public officials as well as public figures must prove actual malice

A

Associated Press v. Walker (1967)

61
Q

Case that added a third prong to actual malice: unreasonable and extreme departures from the standards of investigation and reporting normally adhered to by responsible journalists

A

Curtis Publishing Company v. Butts (1966)

62
Q

Case establishing that the NYT actual malice test applies to all stories of public interest regardless of the public status of the individual

A

Rosenbloom v. Metromedia (1971)

63
Q

Two cases that moved away from the nature of a libelous story and back to the status of the individual

A

Gertz v. Welch (1974) and Time, Inc. v. Firestone (1976)

64
Q

Case establishing that public officials and figures may not recover for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress without showing a false statement made with actual malice

A

Hustler Magazine v. Falwell (1988)

65
Q

Case that established the very first obscenity test which was very strict

A

Regina v. Hicklin (1868)

66
Q

Case that expanded the Hicklin test by extending its coverage to include materials discussing reproduction

A

Ex Parte Jackson (1878)

67
Q

Case establishing that the intent of the author to create obscene materials is key

A

U.S. v. One Book Called Ulysses (1934)

68
Q

Case that rejects the Hicklin obscenity standard but failed to provide an alternative

A

Butler v. Michigan (1957)

69
Q

Case that established this obscenity standard: “Whether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material, taken as a whole, appeals to prurient interests”

A

Roth v. U.S. (1957)

70
Q

Case altering the Roth test, by saying that “community standards” equal the nation as a whole and adding “utterly without redeeming social importance” to the test

A

Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964)

71
Q

Case adding to the Roth obscenity standard by adding “modicum of redeeming social value”

A

Memoirs v. Massachusetts (1966)

72
Q

Case that moved the obscenity issue to the states, deciding that states shall define obscenity along guidelines provided by the Court: a. Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards (local), would find that work, taken as a whole, appeals to his prurient interests. B. Whether the work depicts, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law. C. Whether the work lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value

A

Miller v. California (1973)

73
Q

Case establishing that states have greater leeway in regulating child porn; child porn does not have to pass the Miller test; state interest in protecting children is substantial

A

New York v. Ferber (1982)

74
Q

Case establishing that virtual child porn may not be prohibited unless the material is legally obscene (Miller standard) or purposefully marketed to children

A

Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002)

75
Q

Case establishing that states may make it illegal to sell a minor any magazine that depicts nudity because the state has a substantial interest in protecting children

A

Ginsberg v. U.S. (1968)

76
Q

Case establishing that CDA law that controls children’s access to sexual material over the internet is too broad; it would cover speech that is protected

A

Reno v. ACLU (1997)

77
Q

Case establishing that the law to criminalize depictions of animal cruelty was too broad and would cover speech that is protected

A

United States v. Stevens (2010)

78
Q

Case establishing that states may not prohibit the sale of violent video games to children because video games express messages and ideas, which is sufficient for protection

A

Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association (2011)

79
Q

Early case establishing that the right to bear arms is not granted by the constitution; the 2nd Amendment only serves to restrict congress

A

U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876)

80
Q

Case establishing that the 2nd Amendment should not be incorporated

A

Presser v. Illinois (1886)

81
Q

Case taking a collective right approach to the right to bear arms

A

U.S. v. Miller (1939)

82
Q

Case taking an individual right approach to the 2nd Amendment

A

D.C. v. Heller (2008)

83
Q

Case incorporating the 2nd Amendment

A

McDonald v. Chicago (2010)

Civil Liberties (2 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions