Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

Constitutional Law > PSC314 Case Summaries > Flashcards

PSC314 Case Summaries Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
MBE flashcards MPRE flashcards Civil Procedure 1L flashcards
1
Q

Baker v. Carr (1962)

A

(1) Courts may decide disputes over the malapportionment of State legislatures (2) “One man, one vote” rule established.

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

Korematsu v. U. S. (1944)

A

Pres. Order evacuating Jap. Descent citizens to camps during WWII upheld

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

Kentucky v. Wasson (1992)

A

KY Sup. Court (Leibson): State const. may increase civil liberties beyond Fed. Without violating Supremacy Clause

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

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954)

A

(1) Public Schools must not be segregated de jure (2) Plessy v. Ferguson (“separate but equal”) overturned.

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

Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857)

A

Blacks are not Article III citizens, and have no standing. Dual Citizenship doctrine established, Mo. Compromise ruled unconstitutional.

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

Cooley v. Board of Wardens (1851)

A

Dormant Commerce Clause

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

Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)

A

Marshall’s “organic commerce doctrine”: whatever “concerns more than one State” is interstate. Congress power is then “plenary.”

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

Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918)

A

Pretext Principle: Congress may not use Commerce power to regulate something else which it doesn’t have the power to do.

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

NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. (1937)

A

Some intra-state activity (labor relations) may impose “burdens & obstacles” on IC sufficient to be regulated by Congress (Hughes)

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

Schechter Poultry Corp. v. U.S. (1936)

A

“Sick Chickens” case: (1) receiving product from outside state, processing and selling in-state is NOT interstate commerce (2) Cong cannot give Exec power to regulate

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

U. S. v. Darby (1941)

A

Congress gets to say when something affects Commerce and, if so, regulate it. Overturns Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918)

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

U. S. v. E. C. Knight Co. (1895)

A

Manufacturing not part of Interstate Commerce

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

Griffith v. Kentucky (1987)

A

New const. rules should apply “retroactively” to criminal cases pending on direct review

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

Linkletter v. Walker (1965)

A

Mapp v. Ohio (1960) exclusionary rule not required to be applied retroactively

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

Rasul v. Bush (2004)

A

Habeus corpus must be provided for “enemy combatants” held in areas under U. S. control, even if not U. S. territory (Gitmo)

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

Thompson v. Utah (1882)

A

Juries must have 12 members, since Amendment VI due process incorporates traditional common law principles

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

Weiss v. U.S. (1994)

A

Rehnquist: JAG-appoint judges in Military trials does not violate due process

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

Williams v. Florida (1970)

A

Juries MAY have fewer than 12 members, pace Thompson v. Utah (1882), if they are “functionally equivalent”

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

Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council (1984)

A

Upheld “bubble policy”: courts to defer to White House directives and agency interpretation when enacting leg. Is ambiguous: “Chevron Doctrine”

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

Clinton v. City of New York (1998)

A

Line item veto violates Presentment Clause I.7.2.

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

Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell (1934)

A

C. J. Hughes: “Emergency does not create power”

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

Humphrey’s Executor v. U.S. (1935)

A

J. Sutherland: some Article II appointments are not “purely executive”?such as FTC commissioner?and therefore Pres. Removal can be limited by Congress

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

In re Neagle (1890)

A

President’s power to faithfully execute laws “not limited to the enforcement of Acts of Congress.” (can appoint sheriffs to protect judges)

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

Int’l Harvester v. Ruckelhaus (1973)

A

Dist. Court (Bazelon) heightens due process reqs on agencies: “strict procedures ensure correct results” instead of “hard look” approach

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

Mistretta v. U.S. (1989)

A

Creating Sentencing Commission authorized to make binding guidelines (members removable by Pres “for cause”) does not violate Separation of Powers. Scalia dissents

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

Morrison v. Olson (1988)

A

C. J. Rehnquist rejects Humphrey, upholds appointment of independent investigator into Executive misconduct

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

Myers v. U.S. (1926)

A

C. J. Taft: President has broad removal powers, including postmasters. Tenure of Office Act (entitling appointees until new appointee approved) held unconstitutional

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

Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan (1935)

A

“Hot Oil” case invalidated NIRA provision allowing Pres. To exclude oil produced in excess of State regs.

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

The Prize Cases (1863)

A

Pres. May do some things (blockade ports) in time of war or rebellion which could not otherwise do

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

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (1978)

A

“Hard Look” approach to agency regs adopted: substantive review of agency decisions. Per Rehnquist.

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

Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Sawyer (1952)

A

President’s power more limited in domestic than foreign, esp. since Congress had earlier decided not to authorize steel mill seizure. J. Jackson concurrence: “twilight zone”

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

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

A

Pentagon Papers case: per curiam against “prior restraint” against publication

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

Goldwater v. Carter (1962)

A

Challenge by Senators to Presidential abrogation of treaty dismissed as political question.

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

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

A

(1) One gov. may not tax another (“the power to destroy”) (2) Elastic Clause allows Leg. Power not explicitly in I.8

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

Snepp v. U. S. (1980)

A

CIA may require former employess to vet writing before publication

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

Eakin v. Raub (Pa, 1805)

A

PA Sup. Ct. Justice Gibson of the PA Supreme Court rejects Marbury on grounds of co-equality of branches, oaths of office

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

Hylton v. US (1796)

A

Congress may levy a carriage tax, implying judicial review

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
38
Q

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

A

(1) Congress may not change original jurisdiction of the Court (2) Courts have power of judicial review

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
39
Q

Rust v. Sullivan (1991)

A

Rehnquist: when statute is ambiguous, courts should defer to Exec. Construction, even when reversing prior interpretation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
40
Q

Sturges v. Crowinshield (1819)

A

C.J. Marshall’s “Plain Meaning” rule: don’t disregard the plain meaning of the words

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
41
Q

The Antelope Case (1825)

A

C.J. Marshall: slavery is abhorrent & against Natural Law, but courts cannot decide on that basis

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
42
Q

US v. Butler (1936)

A
  1. self-restraint is the only real check on the Court 2. tax designed to force farmers to limit production is really not a tax and therefore invades reserved powers of States
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
43
Q

Calder v. Bull (1798)

A

Conflicts between state laws and state constitutions are matters for state courts

44
Q

Chisholm v. Georgia (1793)

A

Citizens of one state may sue another state in federal court, without their consent. Overturned by Amendment XI.

45
Q

Powell v. McCormack (1969)

A

House may exclude duly-elected members only via three Const. criteria

46
Q

U. S. v. The Progressive, Inc. (1979)

A

District Court allowed prior restraint on publication of H-bomb construction details. Notice taken of existence of specific law, rather than mere executive action.

47
Q

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)

A

States may not ban sales of contraceptives to married couples, due to a “right to privacy”

48
Q

ACLU v. NSA (2006)

A

District Court ruled that the President may not order warrantless electronic surveillance when one party is domestic and must follow FISA.

49
Q

Katz v. US (1967)

A

Warrantless wiretaps ARE forbidden under Fourth Amendment; Olmstead (1928) overturned

50
Q

Olmstead v. US (1928)

A

Warrantless wiretaps are not forbidden by the Fourth Amendment

51
Q

U. S. v. U. S. District Court (1972)

A

Executive branch domestic surveillance without warrant or Congression authorization violates Fourth Amendment. Aka the “Keith Case”

52
Q

Carter v. Carter Coal Co. (1936)

A

Guffey Coal Act impermissible delegation of Leg. Authority to set up regs for coal industry

53
Q

INS v. Chadha (1983)

A

Legislative veto not permitted

54
Q

J.W. Hampton v. U.S. (1928)

A

Congress may delegate if they give “intelligible principle” to Exec. Agency.

55
Q

Wayman v. Southard (1825)

A

Sanctioned “delegated powers” as needed to “fill in details” and implement general provisions of legislation

56
Q

Bowsher v. Synar (1986)

A

Congress may not allow comptroller general to make emergency across-the-board spending deductions, since he may be removed by joint resolution, and is therefore a legislative agent.

57
Q

Texas v. Johnson (1989)

A

States may not criminalize flag desecration. Symbolic speech protected in this case.

58
Q

US v. Eichman (1990)

A

Congress cannot criminalize flag desecration

59
Q

Flast v. Cohen (1968)

A

Frothingham modified: taxpayer suits allowed if taxpayers can show (1) logical relationship b/n taxpayer status and challenged legislation AND (2) precise nature of alleged Const’l infringement

60
Q

Frothingham v. Mellon (1923)

A

(1) no standing for person who has alleged no “direct injury” (2) absolute bar to “taxpayer suits” (Sutherland). Overturned by Flast v. Cohen (1960)

61
Q

South Dakota v.Dole (1987)

A

Cong. Withholding highway funds from States w/out 21 drinking age is okay. Pretext principle pretty much abandoned, so long as in pursuit of “general welfare”

62
Q

Steward Machine Co. v. Davis (1937)

A

Taxing and Spending power may include compullsory nat’l unemployment insturance, even if it compels State action.

63
Q

U.S. v. Kahriger (1953)

A

Occupational tax on bookies does not violate reserved police powers, self-incrimination or due process. Legitimate exercise of taxing power.

64
Q

Missouri v. Holland (1920)

A

Treaties can give Congress power it might not otherwise have, e.g., in intra-state commerce and police powers.

65
Q

Ware v. Hylton (1796)

A

Federal treaty takes precendence over State law

66
Q

Ex parte Milligan (1866)

A

When civil courts are still open, citizens cannot be subject to martial law. Habeus corpus not suspended.

67
Q

In re Debs (1895)

A

Debs conviction upheld, injuction against railroad strikes upheld in absence of express Constitutional power

68
Q

Gomillion v. Lightfoot (1960)

A

Electoral district boundaries drawn only to disenfranchise blacks violate the Fifteenth Amendment.

69
Q

Wesberry v. Sanders (1964)

A

The Constitution requires that members of the House of Representatives be selected by districts composed, as nearly as is practicable, of equal population.

70
Q

Reynolds v. Sims (1964)

A

The Court struck down state senate inequality based their decision on the principle of “one person, one vote.”

71
Q

Shaw v. Reno (1993)

A

Redistricting based on race must be held f strict scrutiny while bodies doing redistricting must be conscious of race to ensure compliance with the Voting Rights Act.

72
Q

The Slaughterhouse Cases (1873)

A

Privileges and Immunites of XIV protect on those of U.S. Citizens, not State citizens. Butchers lost.

73
Q

Muller v. Oregon (1908)

A

Oregon limit on women working hours upheld as valid police powers. Locher overturned.

74
Q

Lochner v. New York (1905)

A

Limit on baker’s hours denied as violation of substantive due process of XIV.

75
Q

Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff (1984)

A

The state can use eminent domain powers to redistribute concentrated property ownership to a larger group of people.

76
Q

Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992)

A

A regulation that deprives an owner of all economically beneficial uses of land constitutes a taking unless the proscribed use interests were not part of the title to begin with.

77
Q

West Coast Hotel v. Parrish (1937)

A

Washington’s minimum wage law for women was a valid regulation of the right to contract freely because of the state’s special interest in protecting their health and ability to support themselves. Supreme Court of Washington affirmed. The end of the Lochner days.

78
Q

Lincoln Federal v. Northwestern Iron (1949)

A

Due Process protects right to NOT be in a union as well. Nebraska Constitution said one could not be denied employment for refusal to join.

79
Q

Kelo v. City of New London (2005)

A

The governmental taking of property from one private owner to give to another in furtherance of economic development constitutes a permissible “public use” under the Fifth Amendment. Supreme Court of Connecticut affirmed.

80
Q

Barron v. The Mayor and City of Baltimore (1833)

A

State governments are not bound by the Fifth Amendment’s requirement for just compensation in cases of eminent domain.

81
Q

Hurtado v. California (1884)

A

The words “due process of law” in the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States do not necessarily require an indictment by a grand jury in a prosecution by a State for murder.

82
Q

Palko v. Connecticut (1937)

A

The Fifth Amendment right to protection against double jeopardy is not a fundamental right incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment to the individual states.

83
Q

Adamson v. California (1947)

A

The Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause did not extend to defendants a Fifth Amendment right not to bear witness against themselves in state courts.

84
Q

Rochin v. California (1953)

A

The use at trial of evidence obtained by conduct that “shocks the conscience” violates due process. Second District Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District of California reversed.

85
Q

Printz v. United States (1997)

A

The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act’s interim provision commanding the “chief law enforcement officer” (CLEO) of each local jurisdiction to conduct background checks, ?922(s)(2), is unconstitutional

86
Q

Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919)

A

Defendant’s criticism of the draft was not protected by the First Amendment, because it created a clear and present danger to the enlistment and recruiting practices of the U.S. armed forces during a state of war.

87
Q

Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951)

A

Defendants’ convictions for conspiring to overthrow the U.S. government by force through their participation in the Communist Party were not in violation of the First Amendment. Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.

88
Q

Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925)

A

Though the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits states from infringing free speech, the defendant was properly convicted under New York’s criminal anarchy law for advocating the violent overthrow of the government, through the dissemination of Communist pamphlets.

89
Q

Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)

A

Ohio’s criminal syndicalism statute violated the First Amendment, as applied to the state through the Fourteenth, because it broadly prohibited the mere advocacy of violence rather than the constitutionally unprotected incitement to imminent lawless action.

90
Q

Miller v. California (1973)

A

Obscene materials are defined as those that the average person, applying contemporary community standards, find, taken as a whole, appeal to the prurient interest; that depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law; and that, taken as a whole, lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

91
Q

Rust v. Sullivan (1991)

A

Health and Human Services regulations prohibiting recipients of government funds from advocating, counseling, or referring patients for abortion do not violate statute, First Amendment, or Fourth or Fifth Amendment.

92
Q

FCC v. Pacifica (1978)

A

Because of the pervasive nature of broadcasting, it has less First Amendment protection than other forms of communication. The F.C.C. was justified in concluding that Carlin’s “Filthy Words” broadcast, though not obscene, was indecent, and subject to restriction.

93
Q

Reno v. ACLU (1997)

A

CDA portions are unconstitutional and unenforceable, except for cases of obscenity or child pornography, because they abridge the freedom of speech and are substantially overbroad. Internet is entitled to the full protection given to print media.

94
Q

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964)

A

The First Amendment, as applied through the Fourteenth, protected a newspaper from being sued for libel in state court for making false defamatory statements about the official conduct of a public official, because the statements were not made with knowing or reckless disregard for the truth..

95
Q

Masson v. The New Yorker Magazine (1991)

A

a deliberate alteration of quotations constitutes knowledge of falsity if it ?results in a material change in the meaning conveyed by the statement?

96
Q

Bigelow v. Virginia (1974)

A

Justice Harry Blackmun wrote that the First Amendment “should prevent states from prohibiting advertisements of products or conduct that is clearly legal at the place advertised.”

97
Q

Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly (2001)

A

A Massachusetts ban on tobacco advertising within 1,000 feet of a school or playground is overly broad and violates the First Amendment which protects commercial speech.

98
Q

Engel v. Vitale (1962)

A

Government-directed prayer in public schools, even if it is denominationally neutral and non-mandatory, violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

99
Q

Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)

A

Non-establishment law must have a legitimate secular purpose, the primary effect of neutral re religion, and must not result in excessive entanglement.

100
Q

Abington School District v. Schempp (1963)

A

The Court decided 8-1 in favor of the respondent, Edward Schempp, and declared sanctioned organized Bible reading in public schools in the United States to be unconstitutional.

101
Q

Wallace v. Jaffree (1985)

A

Silent prayer period in public schools violates Establishment Clause.

102
Q

Meyer v. Nebraska (1923)

A

State may not prevent parochial schools from teaching (modern) languages other than English

103
Q

Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925)

A

Interference with “liberty of parents or guardians” in religious upbringing of children confers standing. Parents may enroll children in private schools.

104
Q

Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)

A

Amish parents may home-school children for religious reasons

105
Q

Sherbert v. Verner (1963)

A

Denial of unemployment benefits to one dismissed for failure to work on Saturday Sabbath violates Free Exercise. 4-part test (1) sincere belief (2) restrained by gov’t action. State can still prevail if (3) least restrictive means of enforcing (4) compelling state interest

Constitutional Law (2 decks)

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