Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

AP Gov > Supreme Court Cases > Flashcards

Supreme Court Cases Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
AP® U.S. Government flashcards U.S. Government Basics flashcards
1
Q

busing of parochial school students on public school buses does NOT violate the Establishment Clause

A

EVERSON v. BD

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

school-sponsored non-denominational prayer in public schools is a violation of the Establishment Clause

A

ENGLE v. VITALE

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

Bible reading by public school teachers to students violates Establishment Clause

A

ABINGTON v. SCHEMPP

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

Lemon Test: have clear secular purpose, neither inhibit nor adv a particular religion, not create an “excessive entanglement” w/ religion

A

LEMON v. KURTZMAN

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

Clear & Present Danger Test: speech can be regulated when it presents danger to speaker and audience

A

SCHENK v. US

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

violated student’s 1st rights when wearing peace protesting bands/Preferred Position Doctrine: 1st freedoms are fundamental and any law regulating them is unconstitutional

A

TINKER v. DES MOINES

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

Fighting Words Exception: if your words may start a riot/disturbance among the ppl, they’re not protected

A

CHAPLINSKY v. NEW HAMPSHIRE

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

“Fuck the draft!”/ can’t be guilty of underlying msg if they don’t do anything wrong/if you’re not intending to start a riot, you’re free to express yourself

A

COHEN v. CA

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

student speech can be regulated when it constitutes a “disruption of the educational process”

A

BETHEL v. FRASER

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

“Bong hits for Jesus”/ student’s speech can be regulated off school grounds if it is contrary to the schools policy

A

MORSE v. FREDERICK

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

flag burning is protected under 1st

A

TEXAS v. JOHNSON

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

cross-burning protected speech under 1st

A

VIRGINIA v. BLACK

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

obscenity defined according to community standards rather than national

A

MILLER v. CA

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

first ruling on the regulation of materials distributed via Internet/challenged overly broad CDA and for violating 1st

A

RENO v. ACLU

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

child pornograpghy/CPPA overbroad in definition and not consistent with Miller & Ferber

A

ASHCROFT v. FREE SPEECH COALITION

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

polygamy/rational basis test: govt can’t regulate religiously-motivated conduct unless it proves basis for doing so

A

REYNOLDS v. US

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

incorporated 1st Free Exercise Clause to states through 14th

A

CONTWELL v. CONNECTICUT

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

state law mandating school attendance to age 16 unduly burdened Amish practice of religion as it forced them to be exposed to “wordly influences” which impinged upon their religious practices

A

WISCONSIN v. YODER

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

Free Exercise Clause allows govt to not exempt sacramental peyote use and thus deny unemployment benefits

A

EMPLOYMENT DIVISION v. SMITH

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

ordinances which appear neutral that burden religious sacrifices/practice are unconstitutional/govt would need to demonstrate “compelling interest” in passing this law

A

CHURCH OF THE LUKUNI BABALU AYE v. CITY OF HIALEAH

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

enabling legislation to reform use of eminent domain (FL, GA, SD, PA)

A

BACKLASH OF KELO

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

TV news can broadcast names listed on public indictments

A

COX BROADCASTING v. COHN

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

names of those who sign public petitions can be published

A

JOHN DOE #1 v. REED

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

judges can bar the press

A

SHEPPARD v. MAXWELL

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

confiscated materials are protected by 4th and are illegally obtained (no warrant for that particular material)/Exclusionary Rule: evidence obtained in absence of warrant is inadmissible in criminal proceedings

A

MAPP v. OHIO

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

Good Faith Exception/ evidence obtained w a warrant that was improperly issued is admissible as long as officers were acting in good faith

A

US v. LEON

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

evidence for case that found defendant guilty after participating in illegally issued search does not need to be suppressed if it was found after the “knock and announce” rule is violated

A

HUDSON v. MICHIGAN

28
Q

random drug tests don’t violate Reasonable Searches and Seizure Clause/reasonableness balanced by individual interests against govts

A

VERONA v. ACTON

29
Q

schools can drug test anyone if it is in the school’s interest (protection)

A

POTTAWATOMIE BOARD OFEDUCATION v. EARLS

30
Q

Reasonable Suspicion/ violates student’s 4th if their stuff is searched bc they’re suspected of violating school rules/criminal activity

A

NJ v. TLO

31
Q

evidence derived which is self-incriminating is dismissed if the person isn’t told their rights before questioning

A

MIRANDA v. ARIZONA

32
Q

“I’m entitled to council!”

A

GIDEON v. WAINWRIGHT

33
Q

you must report discriminating paycheck within 180 days of first paycheck

A

LEDBETTER v. GOODYEAR

34
Q

contraception and abortion are a mother’s privacy

A

ROE v. WADE

35
Q

any state funded hospitals can give abortions

A

WEBSTER v. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES

36
Q

student stated prayer at school violates Establishment Clause

A

SANTE FE v. DOE

37
Q

student led Christian clubs with volunteer advisor do not violate Equal Access Act

A

WESTSIDE v. MERGENS

38
Q

prayer at graduation service violates Establishment Clause

A

LEE v. WEISMAN

39
Q

the restrictions of waiting period for signed and conformed consent are an endued burden on women’s right to privacy (marital not parental)

A

PLANNED PARENTHOOD v. CASEY

40
Q

“Living Will Case”

states can condition the exercise of a patients right to terminate life-sustaining treatment if shown “clear & convincing” evidence of the patient to exercise such right

A

CRUZAN v. MISSOURI

41
Q

“liberty” of the right to assist suicide is not protected by the Due Process Clause

A

WASHINGTON v. GLUCKSBERG

42
Q

doctors can assist with suicide

doctors aren’t dealing drugs they’re prescribing them

A

GONZALES v. OREGON

43
Q

anti-sodomy laws are a violation of right to privacy

A

LAWRENCE v. TEXAS

44
Q

Defensive Marriage Act was a violation of Equal Protection Clause
gays recognized marriage

A

WINDSOR v. US

45
Q

“reverse discrimination case”

the University of California’s policy of affirmative action violated Equal Protection Clause because you can’t set aside spots for minorities

A

REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA v. BAKKE

46
Q

dealt with maintaining campus diversity

A

GRUTTER v. BOLLINGER

47
Q

predetermined points given to minority groups is unconstitutional (college point system)
can’t rely on numbers to rate applications based on racial status

A

GRATZ v. BOLLINGER

48
Q

admission’s policy of only taking top 10% was not unconstitutional

A

FISHER v. UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS

49
Q

states can constitutionally enact Legislation requiring persons of different races to use “separate but equal” segregated facilities

A

PLESSY v. FERGUSON

50
Q

President and Congress did not exceed their war powers by excluding and restricting the rights of Americans from Japanese descent
need to protect espionage outweighed “equal rights”

A

KOREMATS v. US

51
Q

race segregation of children in public schools deprives the minority children of the equal protection of laws
“separate but equal” is inherently unequal in the context of public education

A

BROWN v. BOARD OF EDUCATION

52
Q

mandated teaching of “creation science” as a balance to teaching of evolution is unconstitutional

A

EDWARDS v. AGUILLARD

53
Q

the execution of minors violates the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment found in 8th Amendment

A

ROPER v. SIMMONS

54
Q

anyone under age of 16 cannot be given the death penalty

A

STANFORD v. KENTUCKY

55
Q

life in prison without parole is cruel and unusual punishment for minors 17 and under

A

GRAHAM v. FLORIDA

SULLIVAN v. FLORIDA

56
Q

the 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 9th Amendments create the right to privacy in marital relations

A

GRISWOLD v. CONNECTICUT

57
Q

imposition of the death sentence is not prohibited under 8th and 14th Amendments as cruel and unusual punishment

A

GREGG v. GEORGIA

58
Q

execution of mentally retarded persons cruel and unusual punishment and prohibited by 8th Amendment

A

ATKINS v. VIRGINIA

59
Q

state cannot permit private organization to practice discrimination

A

SMITH v. ALLWRIGHT

60
Q

14th Amendment covers all races not just blacks

A

HERNANDEZ v. TEXAS

61
Q

antimiscegenation statutes violate Equal Protection Clause of 14th Amendment

A

LOVING v. VIRGINIA

62
Q

busing is a constitutional mean of achieving public school desegregation

A

SWANN v. CHARLOTTE MECKLENBERG

63
Q

under Civil Rights Act of 1964, discrimination based of race, color, or national origin in any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance

A

LAU v. NICHOLS

64
Q

places of public accommodation have no “right” to select guests as they see fit, free from government regulation

A

HEART OF ATLANTA MOTEL v. US

65
Q

district court can only maintain control over a school system in the categories which it has failed to abide by its court-ordered desegregation plan

A

FREEMAN v. PITTS

66
Q

ruling clarified for employers the steps they may take in order to maintain a diverse workplace while avoiding discrimination

A

RICCI v. DESTEFANO

AP Gov (5 decks)

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