NY BAR REVIEW - IMPORTANT CASES

Question 1

REVERSED in WEST COAST HOTEL CO. V. PARRISH

BAKER V. CARR 1962

Answer 1

Forced Tenn leg to reapportion itself on basis of population,
ending excessively high representation of rural areas in stte leg and
establishing that Sup ct amy intervene in apportionment cases.
Rural areas dominated Tenn and other states’ leg politics. Every
vote carries equal weight regardless of voter’s place of residence.

Question 2

In REYNNOLDS V. SIMS 1964,

Answer 2

required virtually every stte leg
to be reapportioned, causing political power in most stte leg to shift
from rural to urban areas.

Question 3

BOARD OF EDUCATION, ISLAND TREES SCHOOL

DISTRICT V. PICO 1982

Answer 3

Restricted ability of school boards to censor school libraries. Ct
reversed NY decision that allowed a local school board to remove
books it found offensive. While a board may exercise a certain amt
of discretion in creating a library to reflect community values, it
cant arbitrarily impose its own will on effort and trample citizens’
1
st AMEND rts. Books shown to be vulgar or irrelevant may be
removed, but those simply containing unpopular ideas may not.

Question 4

BOWERS V. HARDWICK 1986

Answer 4

Fundamental rt to privacy, guaranteed by const, doesn’t extend to
sex acts regarded as sodomy under stte law, even if those take
place bw consenting adults in confines of home. A gay Ga man
2
arrested in his home for engaging in oral sex w another man in
violation of stte sodomy law. Sup ct upheld constitutionality of Ga
statute on grounds that it reflected a legitimate belief by society
that certain sex acts are immoral and unacceptable. Dissenting,
JUDGE BLACKMUN- that ruling violates 1 of most fundamental
rts of all- “rt to be let alone.”

Question 5

BRADWELL V. ILLINOIS 1873

Answer 5

Upheld Illinois sup ct decision, denied a woman rt to practice law
bc of gender. Appealed to sup ct on ground that stte cts decision
was at odds w privileges and immunities clause of 14th AMEND.
High ct took same narrow view of clause that it had established a
day prior in SLAUGHTERHOUSE CASES- BUTCHERS
BENEVOLENT ASSOC OF NEW ORLEANS V. CRESCENT
CITY LIVESTOCK LANDING AND SLAUGHTERHOUSE.
Sex- discriminatory statutes didn’t begin being struck down on 14th
AMEND grounds till 20th century.

Question 6

BROWN V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF TOPEKA 1954/5

Answer 6

Racial segregation in public schools violated 14th AMEND, saying
that no stte may deny equal protection of laws to any person w/in
its jurisd. Separate educational facilities were inherently unequal.
Brown reversed earlier ruling PLESSY V. FERGUSON that
permitted “separate but equal” public facilities. This was limited to
public schools, but is believed to imply that segregation wasn’t
permissible in other public facilities. Laid out guidelines for ending
segregation and advised that school boards must proceed “w all
deliberate speed” to satisfy guidelines.

Question 7

BUTCHERS BENEVOLENT ASSOC OF NEW ORLEANS V.
CRESCENT CITY LIVESTOCK LANDING AND
SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CO. 1873

Answer 7

Limited protections provided by 14th AMEND (- prohibiting stts
from denying any person “equal protection of law”). A sttesanctioned slaughtering monopoly didn’t abridge other
3
slaughterhouse owners’ privileges and immunities as US citizens
and deprive them of property rts, as had claimed. Ct didn’t extend
federal protection of civil rts to property rts of businesspersons,
consequently, weakening power of 14th AMEND to protect civil rts
of blacks and other minorities.

Question 8

CRUZAN V. MISSOURI DEPT OF HEALTH 1990

Answer 8

Upheld constitutionality of persons rt to refuse life-sustaining
medical treatment as long as clear and convincing evidence is
presented that such refusal is desired by person. Ct ruled that
comatose patient hadn’t sufficiently conveyed her wishes and
therefore that life-sustaining treatment must continue. Ct allowed
that when demonstrable evidence of patient’s wishes is given, lifesustaining treatment may be removed in interest of preserving
individual liberty and quality of life.

Question 9

ENGEL V. VITALE 1962

Answer 9

State-sanctioned prayer in public schools is unconstl. Even when a
prayer is essentially nondenominational and pupils who so desire
may be excused from reciting it, if action is stte sponsored, the
stte’s in violation of constl separation of church and stte.
Devotional exercises in public school go against establishment of
religion clause.

Question 10

ERIE RAILROAD CO. V. TOMPKINS 1938

Answer 10

Required fed cts to apply stte law in diversity, where litigants are
from diff jurisds. Beforehand: SWIFT V. TYSON 1842- diversity
cases decided on basis of what was held to be a kind of federal
common law consisting of “laws of several stts” plus federal cts’
interpretation of those.
Justice Brandeis that earlier ruling uncstl, changing, thus, the
course of diversity proceedings. Theres no federal common law
in diversity cases; only federal application of stte laws.

Question 11

EX PARTE McCARDLE 1869

Answer 11

Sup cts appellate jurisd can be limited by congressional act,
establishing cong’s leg supremacy over exec and jud branches of
fed govt. A Miss editor jailed for sedition after criticizing federal
reconstruction efforts. He appealed to sup ct for a writ of habeas
corpus. Cong passed a law stripping ct of its power of judicial
review in regard to reconstruction measures, ct dismissed his
appeal on ground lacked jurisd over such matters. Peak of radical
republican power to determine natl policy.

Question 12

EX PARTE MILLIGAN 1866

Answer 12

Prohibited federal govt fom establishing military cts to try civilians
except where reg cts were no longer functioning in actual theater
of war. Milligan was arrested in Indiana home in 1864 and tried in
military ct on charges of aiding the confederacy. Sup ct declared
that neither PRESIDENT nor cong had authority to set up such ct.
Milligan had been deprived of constl rt to trial by jury,
consequently, freed.

Question 13

EX PARTE YOUNG 1908

Answer 13

Federal ct may enjoin stte from enforcing a law that’s
constitutionally challenged. Law was a railroad rate reduction
statute in Minnes challenged by railroad co. shareholders on
ground that it deprived them of their property w/o due process of
law. They applied in fed district ct for injunction, granted, yet later
ignored by stte authorities.
Sup ct found for shareholders and district ct, holding
Right to enjoin didn’t violate 11th AMEND restrictions on power
of federal cts to hear suits against stts.

Question 14

FURMAN V. GA 1972

Answer 14

Capital punishment laws, as then enforced, uncstl.
Death penalty itself didn’t violate const but manner of its
application in many stts did. Capital punishment was likely to be
imposed in a discriminatory way and blacks were far more likely
5
to be executed than whites. Required a system for applying death
penalty that would not be discriminatory against any racial or other
minority. Many stts passed laws, since, that meet ct’s requirements
of specifying crimes or circumstances for which death penalty’s to
be considered.

Question 15

GIBBONS V. OGDEN 1824

Answer 15

Stts cant by leg enactment interfere w power of cong to regulate
commerce. NY authorized monopoly on steamboat operation in
stte waters, action upheld by stte chancery ct. Sup ct ruled that
competing steamboat operators were protected by terms of federal
license to engage in trade along coast. Development in the
interpretation of commerce clause, and freeing all navigation of
monopoly control.

Question 16

GIDEON V. WAINWRIGHT 1963

Answer 16

6
th AMEND guarantees defendants rt to counsel and an indigent
def must be provided w court-appointed lawyer in felony cases.
Overruled BETTS V. BRADY 1942- prevented extension of due
process clause of 14th AMEND to stte as well as federal criminal
proceedings. Led to expansion of due process guarantees and other
fundamental rts in trial procedures.

Question 17

GITLOW V. NY 1925

Answer 17

Extended 1st AMEND freedom-of-speech and 14th AMEND equalprotection provisions to stts as well as fed govt. Gitlow’s
conviction in NY ct on criminal anarchy charges upheld by sup ct
“a stte may punish utterances endangering foundations of
organized govt and threatening its overthrow by unlawful means.”
Ct noted that freedoms of speech and press are among
fundamental rts and liberties constlly protected from impairment
by stts.
14th AMEND extended provision of BILL OF RTS to stte action.

Question 18

GREGG V. GA 1976

Answer 18

Upheld constitutionality of death penalty for 1st degree murder as
long as individual character of offender and circumstances of
crime are taken into acct. 2- part proceeding:
1. determine guilt or innocence
2. determine sentence.
Opponents of GA death penalty statute claimed it violated 18th
AMEND guaranteeing against cruel and unusual punishment. Sup
ct found the statute contained sufficient guidelines regarding jury
deliberation and discretion to enable law to be imposed w/o
constituting arbitrary or discriminatory application. In other 2
cases that same day, ct cautioned against stts requiring mandatory
death sentences for certain crimes, since such precluded possibility
of considering mitigating circumstances.

Question 19

GRISWOLD V. CONN 1965

Answer 19

Invalidated law prohibiting use of contraceptives, even by married
persons. Executive of Planned Parenthood League of CONN
convicted of counseling clients to use contraceptives. Conviction
overturned. Justice Douglas- theres a “zone of privacy” w/in a
“penumbra” created by fundamental constl guarantees that
includes rt to personal privacy. CONN was found to have
unconstitutionally interfered w that privacy in enacting and
enforcing the ban on contraception.

Question 20

HAMMER V. DAGENHART 1918

Answer 20

Struck down Keating-Owen Act 1916 regulating child labor.
Sup ct ruled the act exceeding federal authority and representing
unwarranted encroachment on stte powers to determine local labor
conditions. Justice Holmes dissents- evils of excessive child labor,
inability of stts to regulate child labor, and unqualified rt of cong to
regulate interstte commerce, including “rt to prohibit.”
Ct’s ruling overturned in US V. DARBY LUMBER CO. 1941.

Question 21

HEART OF ATL MOTEL V. US 1964

Answer 21

Upheld constitutionality of CIVIL RTS ACT 1964, giving federal
law enforcement officials power to prevent racial discrimination
in use of public facilities. An ATL motel refused to rent rooms to
blacks, claiming the establishment was privately owned and
operated only w/in stte, thus its immune from fed statute. Govt
sued on ground that motel received out-of-state patrons, since
located near 2 interstte hwys, thus coming under both public
accommodations section of CIVIL RTS ACT and interstte
commerce clause of const. ct sustained govt’s position and
enjoined motel from discriminating on basis of race.

Question 22

IN RE DEBS 1895

Answer 22

Upheld govt’s use of injunction against unlawful strikes. Labor
leader Deb’s violation of federal ct injunction against 1894
Pullman Train Car Co. plant strike.
Sup ct upheld injunction on grounds of natl sovereignty and
govt’s authority to remove obstructions to interstte commerce
and mails. PULLMAN INJUNCTION used as a model for strike
stoppages till decisions during New Deal era began to weaken it.

Question 23

INTL SHOE CO. V. WASHINGTON 1945

Answer 23

Expanded stts powers to claim jurisd over out-of-stte parties.
Prior to ruling, stts often couldn’t establish jurisd (in personam)
over outside parties, even when the latter could be shown to have
contracted w or tortiously injuring a stte or its citizens. Sup ct held
that when “minimum contacts” as such are maintained w a stte,
notions of fair play and substl justice require the contacting party
to be made subject to that stt’s laws.
Consequently, stts enacted “long arm” statutes extending their
power to apply in personam jurisd.

Question 24

SHAFFER V. HEITNER 1977

Answer 24

ct applied same “minimum
contacts” standard to cases involving questions of in rem- property,
and quasi in rem- intangible property jurisd.

Question 25

KOREMATSU V. US 1944

Answer 25

Sanctioned govt’s wartime internment of Japanese-American
residents of West Coast. Petitioner Korematsu charged w violating
restricted zone and failing to report to assembly area required
under presidential order creating relocation camps. Ct didn’t
ultimately examine constitutionality of govt forcing people into
detention, but simply debated K’s actions, finding against him.
Judge Murphy dissented, denouncing decision as “legalization of
racism.”

Question 26

LOCHNER V. NY 1905

Answer 26

Struck down NY law setting 10 hrs labor a day as legal max.
A baker contracted w employees for longer than 10 hr working
day. Justice Peckham declared 14th AMEND prohibited stts from
curtailing persons liberty to make their own economic
arrangements w their employees. Justice Holmes Jr. dissented,
consequently, by 1930’s, his opinion was the prevailing
interpretation of 14th AMEND when maximum hr laws were held
to be constl.

Question 27

LOEWE V. LAWLOR (DANBURY HATTERS) 1908

Answer 27

Held that labor unions are subject to antitrust laws. 1902 united
hatters of north America failed to organize firm of Loewe in
Danbury, CONN. They called for a nationwide boycott of firm’s
products. Firm brought suit under SHERMAN ANTITRUST ACT.
1908 union was assessed triple damages. Setback to use of
secondary boycott by unions.

Question 28

MALLOY V. HOGAN 1964

Answer 28

Extended 5th AMEND protection against self-incrimination to
criminal defendants in stte cts.
Previously, pleading the 5th
- choosing to remain silent in course of
criminal investigation or trial reserved only for federal defendants.
A CONN gambler charged w contempt for refusing to identify
owner of pool hall. Ct used due process clause of 14th AMEND to
9
extend provisions of 5th AMEND to stts, consequently, expanding
rts of all criminal defendants.

Question 29

Later, BENTON V. MD 1967,

Answer 29

ct used same process to extend

guarantee against double jeopardy to stte defendants.

Question 30

MAPP V. OHIO 1961

Answer 30

Illegally obtained evidence cant be produced at trial in stte ct to
substantiate criminal charges against def. Ct relied on WEEKS V.
US 1914- exclusionary rule, person whose 14th AMEND
protections against unreasonable search and seizure have been
violated has rt to exclude any evidence so obtained from use in ct
of law.
MAPP- ct held the exclusionary rule had to be applied universally
to all criminal proceedings. Overturned WOLF V. COLORADO
1949. Failed to hold exclusionary rule applicable to stte ct
proceedings, greatly broadening constl protections available to
defendants.

Question 31

US V. LEON 1984-

Answer 31

ct validated an exception to exclusionary
rule. Evidence obtained in “good faith” w search warrant that’s
later ruled invalid remains admissible. In support of decision being
the unacceptable social cost of excluding such evidence.

Question 32

MARBURY V. MADISON 1803

Answer 32

Declared for the 1st time an act of cong uncstl, establishing
doctrine of judicial review. Sup ct held that section 13 of
JUDICIARY ACT of 1789, authorizing ct to issue writ of
mandamus was uncstl, invalid. Chief Justice Marshall declared, in
any conflict bw const and law passed by cong, const takes
precedence.

Question 33

MARTIN V. HUNTER’S LESSEE 1816

Answer 33

Affirmed sup ct’s rt to appellate jurisd. Right to review all stte ct
judgments in cases arising under federal const or law of US.
VA’s superior ct’s refusal to obey an earlier sup ct judgment
concerning title ownership in property dispute. Justice Story
10
rejected VA’s ct position and firmly established SUP CT as
ultimate authority in interpreting const.

Question 34

MARTIN V. MOTT 1827

Answer 34

Affirmed PRESIDENT’S rt as commander in chief to call out stte
militia. Complying w PRESIDENT MADISON’s order during
WAR OF 1812, NY governor called out some militia companies.
Mott- a private in 1 of co.’s refused to obey order.
He was court-martialed and fined. Martin, US MARSHAL, seized
Mott’s property to enforce judgment when Mott didn’t pay fine.
Mott brought a civil suit to recover his property. Ct held that
president validly used his ARTICLE 1 power to call out militia,
and had sole authority to decide whether situation permitting use of
statutory power existed, and his decision was “conclusive upon all
other parties” / states.
Major precedent in support of ABRAHAM LINCOLN’s decision
to assemble troops in cause of defending natl union.

Question 35

McCULLOCH V. MD 1819

Answer 35

Affirmed constl doctrine of congress’ implied powers. Cong has
powers expressly conferred upon it by const and also all authority
appropriate to its carrying out such powers. In this case, including,
authority to establish a national bank.

Question 36

MINOR V. HAPPERSETT 1875

Answer 36

Denied constl basis for right of women to vote, sustaining
disenfranchisement of women till passage of 19th AMEND in
1920. Upheld stts right to bar women from voting. Nothing in
const confers right of suffrage on anyone, and citizenship alone
isn’t sufficient cause.

A yr later, SUSAN B. ANTHONY, suffragist, succeeded in getting
a proposed constl amend introduced to cong, but was defeated that
yr and every yr subsequent… till 1920!

Question 37

MIRANDA V. ARIZONA 1966

Answer 37

Specified code of conduct for police interrogations of criminal
suspects held in custody. MIRANDA WARNINGS. Guidelines
informing arrested person prior to questioning, that have rt to
remain silent, anything they say may be used against them, have
the rt to counsel of an atty. Miranda was convicted on serious
charges after signing a confession w/o 1st being told his rts. Ct held
that prosecution couldn’t use his sttmts unless police had complied
w procedural safeguards to guarantee his 5th AMEND privilege
against self-incrimination. Shocked the law enforcement
community… later decisions by more conservative ct limited scope
of MIRANDA safeguards.

Question 38

MISSOURI V. HOLLAND 1920

Answer 38

Held that cong may enact leg to fulfill terms of treaty, even if such
leg otherwise constitutes invasion of individual stte sovereignty.
Missouri sought to preserve exclusive authority over game laws by
enjoining US game wardens from enforcing MIGRATORY BIRD
TREATY ACT OF 1918, obligating CANADA and US to protect
certain migratory species. Sup ct disallowed injunction. Cong must
be able to act in natl interest, even if by means of unpopular leg
pursuant to intl treaty.

Question 39

MULLER V. OREGON 1908

Answer 39

Sustained stte law limiting daily working hrs of women factory
employees to 10. Grounds: their “maternal functions” might be
impaired. Contrasting to LOCHNER V. NY.
Sees extensive sociological and economic data presented by atty
Brandeis. BRANDEIS’ BRIEF- model for social reformers arguing
cases in ct.

Question 40

MUNN V. ILLINOIS 1877

Answer 40

Upheld power of govt to regulate private industries. Chicago
grain warehouse firm, Munn, guilty of violating stte law
12
concerning max rates that customers are charged for storage and
transportation of grain. Appealed to sup ct.
Sup ct ruled that stte power to regulate extends to private industries
(like grain storage facilities) that affect public interest.
Turning point in struggle for public regulation of private
enterprise.
Later, cts sharply curtailed govt’s power to regulate business.

Question 41

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
V.
JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL CORP. 1937

Answer 41

Sustained constitutionality of NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
ACT 1935 and expanded fed govt’s power to regulate commerce.
Labor management dispute in PENN steel factory, local in nature,
disrupted interstte commerce, subjecting it to govt oversight.

Question 42

NEAR V. MINNESOTA 1931

Answer 42

Stte law prohibiting publication of newspaper that prints malicious
or defamatory articles constitutes prior restraint of press in
violation of 1st AMEND guarantees. IMPORTANT!
Justices invalidated MINN gag rule applied against local
practitioner of yellow journalism.
2 weeks prior STROMBERG V. CALIFORNIA 1931, ct struck
down as unconstl a ban on free speech where CA law prohibited
display of red flag symbolizing communist opposition to govt.

Question 43

NEBBIA V. NY 1934

Answer 43

Upheld price-setting activities of NY dairy control board and
provided legal foundation for govt regulation of business
“affected w public interest.”
Turned down narrow interpretation of Justice McReynolds in
MUNN V. ILLINOIS.

Question 44

NY TIMES CO. V. SULLIVAN 1964

Answer 44

Held that false sttmts about public officials were entitled to
protection under 1st and 14th AMEND- freedom of speech, equal
protection of laws, unless “actual malice” is demonstrated.
Sullivan- Montgomery, Alabama, police commissioner,
implicated, not directly named though, in ad by civil rts grp
published in that paper. Ad was critical of Montgomery police
dept. Sullivan sued for libel and defamation of character.
Ct held, any public official suing for damages b/c of alleged
falsehood must prove the latter had been issued w knowledge that
was false or w reckless disregard of whether was false or not. Ct
found no malice on part of the paper.

Question 45

GERTZ V. WELCH INC. 1974

Answer 45

ct affirmed rt of
private individuals as opposed to public persons to recover libel
damages when only fault rather than “actual malice” is proven.

Question 46

NY TIMES CO. V. US 1971

“PENTAGON PAPERS CASE”

Answer 46

Removed injunction against NY Times designed to stop
publication of classified govt documents. IMPORTANT “PRIOR
RESTRAINT CASE!”
Sup ct held that govt failed to demonstrate “heavy burden of
proof” needed to justify prior restraint of press, now freeing
paper to resume publishing the politically controversial material.
NORTHERN SECURITIES CO. V. US 1904
Revived the SHERMAN ANTITRUST ACT by trust-busting a
holding company and 2 railroads as combination in restraint of
trade. This and following cases “nibbled away” at
US V. E.C.KNIGHT CO., culminating in
STANDARD OIL CO. OF NJ V. US.

Question 47

PALSGRAF V. LONG ISLAND RAILROAD CO. 1928

Answer 47

Developed legal concept of proximate cause. Man running to
catch departing train helped onto it by 2 guards. They pulled him,
and package containing fireworks fell from his arms onto rails and
exploded, resulting in Ms. Palsgraf’s injury from a knocked over
scale.
CHIEF JUSTICE CARDOZO analyzed terms of negligencewhether train attendants breached duty of due care to pl.
No negligence on guards’ part, recovery to pl denied.
Justice Andrews dissents, stating case should have been analyzed
in terms of causation, whether w/o attendants’ actions she
wouldn’t have been injured, and liability should be imposed for
injury to anyone w/in zone/radius of danger that’s a result of
those actions.

Question 48

PIERCE V. SOCIETY OF SISTERS 1925

Answer 48

Declared uncstl stte statutes forbidding private and parochial
elementary and secondary schools.
Catholic nuns filed suit against Oregon officials requiring all
children of school age to attend public rather than private schools.
Sup ct found for sisters, holding that 14th AMEND guarantees
“PERSONAL LIBERTY” including rt of parents to choose
schooling for their children.

Question 49

PLESSY V. FERGUSON 1896

Answer 49

Established legality of racial segregation as long as facilities kept
“separate but equal.”
Organized challenge to Louisiana laws concerning separate rail
cars for blacks and whites brought before stte sup ct, rejected and
taken on appeal to sup ct.
Latter ct held that separate accommodations made a legitimate
social distinction and didn’t infringe on black or white passengers’
political equality.
Justice Marshall Harlan dissents- const is color-blind and neither
knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. Civil rts.
Overturned by BROWN V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF
TOPEKA 1954.

Question 50

POWELL V. ALABAMA 1932

Answer 50

Extended 14th AMEND guarantee of due process of law to stte cts.
1 of SCOTTSBORO CASES, IMPORTANT!
Clarified rts of accused in stte criminal trials involving indigent
defendants.
Several black youths charged w raping 2 white women convicted
in stte ct after receiving only cursory defense by 2 poorly prepared
stte-apptd attys.
Sup ct ruled 14th AMEND required stte trial judges to assign
individual atty to each indigent defendant in capital case and
ensure fair trial, including assistance of counsel be provided in
noncapital cases.
This mandate expanded in GIDEON V. WAINWRIGHT 1963
providing all indigent defendants charged w serious crimes (capital
and non) w assigned counsel.

Question 51

REED V. REED 1971

Answer 51

Declared stte law uncstl on ground that discriminated against
women.
1
ST IN HISTORY!!!
Law in question preferred father over mother as executor of son’s
estate. Despite 2 centuries of upholding constitutionality of genderdiscriminatory laws, ct said:
Father- preference represents “the very kind of arbitrary legislative
choice forbidden by 14th AMEND’s equal protection clause.”

Question 52

RICHMOND NEWSPAPERS INC.V. VA 1980

Answer 52

Affirmed public’s and press’ constl rt to attend criminal trials.
Decision overturned a stte ct ruling that publicity surrounding
murder case entering a 4th trial (b/c of series of mistrials and
reversals) justifies exclusion from ct of members of press and
public.
Sup ct- only when a defendant’s rt to fair trial is demonstrably
threatened, and there’s no alternative to closure, a trial will take
place beyond view of public.
1 yr later, CHANDLER V. FLORIDA 1981- ct allowed that press
access to trials may include tv coverage, but following, in case of
minors, tighter restrictions may apply GLOBE NEWSPAPER CO. V. SUPERIOR CT 1982.

Question 53

ROE V. WADE 1973

Answer 53

Established woman’s rt to have an abortion w/o undue
restrictive interference from govt.
Ct held that woman’s rt to decide for herself to bring or not a
pregnancy to term is guaranteed under 14th AMEND.
Texas law prohibiting abortions was challenged by unmarried
pregnant woman. Ct ruled in her favor, stte violated her rt to
privacy.
Attempting to balance stts’ rts v. individuals’ rts, Justice Blackmun
held:
• stte’s legitimate interest in protecting potential life increases
as pregnancy advances
• stte is allowed to forbid abortions during 3rd trimester
• woman is entitled to obtain abortion freely, after consultation
w doctor, in 1st trimester
• and in authorized clinic in 2nd trimester.

Question 54

ROTH V. US 1957

Answer 54

Held that obscene material isn’t protected speech.
Obscenity= “whether, to average person, applying contemporary
community standards, dominant theme of material taken as whole
appeals to prurient interests.”
Roth, publisher, was convicted for mailing obscene materials.
Appealed to sup ct on ground that 1st AMEND rt to freedom of
speech was violated.
Ct found against him. Ruling was based on attempt to balance
individual freedoms w interests of community.
Subsequent decisions place greater emphasis on local standards in
defining obscenity and broadening protections accorded to
publishers.

Question 55

MILLER V. CALIFORNIA 1973-

Answer 55

ct held, that when a stte
regulates obscene materials, the law must:
• specifically define sexual conduct depicted/ described by
material
• must be limited to material which portrays the conduct in
patently offensive way
• material does not have serious literary, artistic, political, or
scientific value.

Question 56

SAN ANTONIO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT
V.
RODRIGUEZ 1973

Answer 56

Const is silent on matter of person’s rt to education.
Stte financing its schools through local property taxes doesn’t
violate constl principle, even if there are marked economic
disparities among school districts.
Class-action suit brought by parents in property-poor Texas
district. Fed district ct found for parents, holding that stte abridged
their rt to equal protection by allowing property-rich districts to
receive and spend more tax dollars per pupil than were spent in the
parents’ district.
Sup ct reversed this decision on grounds that education isn’t taken
up in const and Texas was providing free basic education to every
child, not discriminating against any class of persons.

Question 57

SANTA CLARA COUNTY
V.
SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD CO. 1886

Answer 57

Coporations are defined as “persons” entitled to same equal
protections rts as individuals.
Didn’t confer citizen status on corporate entities.
Corporate entities are constitutionally guaranteed rt to liberty,
property, due process of law.
“doctrines of laissez-faire” economics develop…

Question 58

SCHECHTER POULTRY CORP. V. US 1935

Answer 58

Repealed NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RECOVERY ACT 1933.
Court held that cong, in enacting the above law,
• exceeded authority to delegate leg powers and regulate
interstte commerce.
• Gave too much discretionary power to PRESIDENT.
Workable solution to national economic emergency created by
Depression (during Roosevelt’s administration) =