Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

politics paper 3 > scotus case studies > Flashcards

scotus case studies Flashcards

1
Q

NFIB v Sebelius (2012)
- details and outcome

A

-ruled that the ACA was constitutional as congress has the right to raise taxes, which does not contravene states power
-Roberts sided with 4 LC justices in a 5-4 decision ands upheld ACA - stunned reps who wanted to repeal ACA

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

NFIB v Sebelius (2012)
-restraint or active? politicisation?
-limits other branches or states?
-uphold, remove or create new policy?

A

-restraint - states congress has the right to raise taxes , therefore defers to legislative powers. politicisation - 5-5 split decision
-does not limit - outlines congress’ right to raise taxes and this does not limit state power.
-upheld ACA

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

Trump v Hawaii (2018)
- details and outcome

A

-Trump’s Muslim travel ban due to terrorism concerns
-court upheld Trumps EO in a 5-4 decision - based on evidence that these countries were labelled security risks
- deferred action the the executive branch

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

Trump v Hawaii (2018)
-restraint or active? politicisation?
-limits other branches or states?
-uphold, remove or create new policy?

A

-restraint - deferred action the the elected executive branch
-does not limit power - gave executive powers over deportation(deferred action)
-upheld trumps Muslim travel ban EO

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

Whole Woman’s Health v Hellerstedt (2016)
- details and outcome

A

-SC struck down Texas law providing limits on abortion (upholding Roe)
-5-3 decision with Kennedy (swing) joining LC judges

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

Whole Woman’s Health v Hellerstedt (2016)
-restraint or active? politicisation?
-limits other branches or states?
-uphold, remove or create new policy?

A

-active - struck down state law
-limited state power as they struck down state law
-struck down Texas law and upheld previous SC decision

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

US v Texas (2016)
- details and outcome

A

-Texas and 25 other states with republican governors challenged DAPA on the grounds that Obama overstepped his mark and needed congressional approval
-federal courts found he did not have those powers and DAPA breached article 2
-the SC 4-4 tied decision - meant appeals court ruling was upheld striking down DAPA
-Obamas biggest legal defeat

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

US v Texas (2016)
-restraint or active? politicisation?
-limits other branches or states?
-uphold, remove or create new policy?

A

-active - struck down DAPA
-limits executive power and upholds constitution
-struck down DAPA

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

US v Windsor (2013)
- details and outcome

A

-court ruled 5-4 that the defence against marriage act 1996 was unconstitutional - it denied federal benefits to married same sex couples
-creating marriage equality but not legalising same sex marriage

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

US v Windsor (2013)
-restraint or active? politicisation?
-limits other branches or states?
-uphold, remove or create new policy?

A

-active - struck down legislation because it was unconstitutional
-limits legislature as it struck down legislation
-removed defence against marriage act (1996)

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

Trumps Tax Returns
- details and outcome

A

-The House Ways and Means Committee argued it needed Trumps taxes to meaningfully evaluate the IRS ‘s presidential audit program
-committee was considering legislation of presidents financial activity whilst in office - investigating whether current IRS audit program was adequately enforcing nations tax laws against a president
-the case brought by trump to block committee was decided in favour of congress - forcing trump to release tax returns

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

Trumps Tax Returns
-restraint or active? politicisation?
-limits other branches or states?
-uphold, remove or create new policy?

A

-active - had to create new policy to give clarity on presidents financial activity/taxes - best interest for most
-limits presidents power and forces transparency
-created new policy - overview law of presidents financial activity

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

Planned Parenthood Arkansas v Jegley (2018)
- details and outcome

A

-Arkansas law wanted to provide strict limits to when abortions could be given - was appealed against by Planned Parenthood
-SC refused to hear case from PP - shaped public policy by allowing Arkansas law to stand - limiting state access to abortions

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

Planned Parenthood Arkansas v Jegley (2018)
-restraint or active? politicisation?
-limits other branches or states?
-uphold, remove or create new policy?

A

-restraint - upholds federalism and upholds state power
-retains state power
-upheld - case was not even heard by SC and allowed Arkansas abortion laws to stand

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

Biden v Nebraska (2023)
- details and outcome

A

-Biden planned to use HEROES Act to cancel student debt
-SC ruled the act did not give Biden’s sec of education such powers to cancel the $430 billion student loans

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

Biden v Nebraska (2023)
-restraint or active? politicisation?
-limits other branches or states?
-uphold, remove or create new policy?

A

-activism - SC did not allow Biden’s proposed policy to pass
-limit on president power - did not allow him to pass agenda on cancelling student loans
-removed/stopped policy - HEROES act

17
Q

US v Texas (2023)
- details and outcome

A

-Homeland security issued guidelines in 2021 to allocate funds to remove dangerous non-citizens from the US
-Texas and Louisiana challenged as they would have to spend more on law enforcement and social services
-SC rules 8-1 - cannot challenge rules from DHS under increased costs - executive in Article 2 has power to decide whom to arrest or prosecute

18
Q

US v Texas (2023)
-restraint or active? politicisation?
-limits other branches or states?
-uphold, remove or create new policy?

A

-restraint - did not oppose DHS rules due to Article 2 - allowed power to remain with executive
-limit on state power - cannot challenge executive (DHS)
-upheld DHS rules by 8-1 decision

19
Q

Burwell v Hobby Lobby stores (2014)
(first amendment rights)
- details and outcome

A

-part of ACA required family-owned businesses to pay for healthcare insurance coverage for contraception - Christian arts and crafts store hobby lobby objected on religious grounds - claimed it violated their 1st amendment right protected further under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act 1993
-SC ruled 5-4 along ideological lines that this part of the ACA was unconstitutional - weakening the legislation and providing businesses with 1st amendment rights

20
Q

Burwell v Hobby Lobby stores (2014)
(first amendment rights)
-restraint or active? politicisation?
-limits other branches or states?
-uphold, remove or create new policy?

A

-active - ruled part of ACA was unconstitutional in order to uphold 1st amendment rights - politicisation due to 5-4 split
-limits legislative branch by ruling part of ACA unconstitutional

21
Q

Snyder v Phelps (2011)
(first amendment rights)
- details and outcome

A

-Snyder’s father sued the WBC for defamation-they picketed his sons funeral and published statements that his son raised his child for the devil as he was being raised catholic.
-SC ruled 8-1 (alito dissenting) that speech on a matter of public concern, on a public street, cannot be the basis of liability for a tort of emotional distress - even if speech is viewed as offensive

22
Q

Snyder v Phelps (2011)
(first amendment rights)
-restraint or active? politicisation?
-limits other branches or states?
-uphold, remove or create new policy?

A

-active - working alone and not with/deferring to any elected branches
-no limit on other branches of gov - instead upholding 1st amendment right to free speech

23
Q

Citizens United v FEC (2010) & McCutcheon v FEC (2014)
(first amendment rights)
- details and outcome

A

-Citizens united 5-4 found that corporations and interest groups have 1st amendment rights - created a new policy of Super PACs who were allowed to raise unlimited amounts for campaigning
-McCutcheon removed the limit of campaigns that could be donated to during elections
-liberal judges in the 5-4 dissenting opinion wrote that these judgements ‘eviscerated our nations campaign finance laws

24
Q

Citizens United v FEC (2010) & McCutcheon v FEC (2014)
(first amendment rights)
-restraint or active? politicisation?
-limits other branches or states?
-uphold, remove or create new policy?

A

-active - giving rights to interest groups and PACS based on their constitutional interpretations
-struck down federal law (BCRA) therefore limiting the legislative branch
-removed old federal law and created new policy of super PACS being allowed to raise unlimited amounts for campaigning

25
Q

Carson v Makin (2022)
(first amendment rights)
- details and outcome

A

-centred on the limits of school vouchers offered by maine

politics paper 3 (1 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions