Terms Flashcards
Civil Liberties
Government limits aka they cannot infringe on your civil liberties (speech, press etc)
Selective Incorporation
Case by case decision where they decide what parts of the Bill of rights apply to states
Barron v Baltimore
Baltimore did some city renovations that messed up Barron’s dock which meant ships couldn’t dock so no businesses.
-This then leads to Barron arguing this was a violation of the 5th amendment specifically the “ nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
-The Supreme Court says the 5th only applies to the federal, not the state government, this then sets the precedent for a lack of a limit on state government
Gitlow v New York
Gitlow distributed “a Left Wing Manifesto” -> was convicted by New York’s Criminal Anarchy Law bc he was advocating for overthrowing the government -> the court decided that it was punishable bc of a national security threat HOWEVER the law itself is unconstitutional
Schenck v US
Schenck was telling people to disobey the draft bc it violated the 13th Amendment -> was charged with the Espionage Act of 1917 -> Argued he was using his First Amendment -> Court said “nuh uh” and ruled that Schenck was a “clear and present danger” by telling people to dodge the draft therefor his 1st amendment was not infringed upon and the charge was fair
Brandenburg v Ohio
Brandenburg is the KKK leader, makes a speech at a KKK rally -> gets convicted under Ohio criminal syndicalism law for advocating “crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform,” -> Court ruled against Ohio law saying speech can only be silenced if it has intent, imminence and likelihood for something to occur
Texas v Johnson
Johnson burns American flag to protest -> convicted under Texas law for desecrating a flag -> gets overturned bc Supreme Court rules that flag burning was protected under the First Amendment because it was a political protest and that is protected by the First Amendment
Matal v Tam
Tam tried to trademark his band name “The Slants” -> was rejected because it was disparaging to people of Asian descent under the Disparagement Clause of the Lanham Act of 1946 -> Supreme Court ruled that the government cannot decide what hate speech -> they can only silence speech when it falls under 3 category (fraud, defamation, and incitement) and the name did not fall under any of these 3
Right to Privacy
Made up constitutional right that has grounds in the 1st, 4th, and 9th Amendments. An area that is meant for you/your close circle but overturning Roe V. Wade has led to questions about its existence/extent of protection
Griswold v Connecticut
Griswold was providing contraceptives to couples -> got arrested -> Griswold is in the right because couples have the right to privacy and this is found in the 1st, 4th, and 9th Amendments.
Eisenstadt v Baird
Eisenstadt gave out contraceptives to unmarried people and got arrested, the law at the time only allowed it for married people -> Court ruled in favor of Eisenstadt because of equal protection law (if married people can get contraceptives so can single people)
Roe v Wade
Roe was going to get an abortion even though they are illegal in Texas, claimed that right to privacy = right to abortion-> Court ruled that as long as it was within the first trimester the court did not have a say; the second trimester would have regulations whilst the third trimester would be banned outright
Casey v Planned Parenthood
Pennsylvania made it super hard to get abortions -> the court ruled that these obstacles were considered “undue burdens” -. changed the requirement of trimester system to viability system
Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization
Mississippi passed a law banning abortion -> Court ruled that Roe was wrong from the start and that it protected a right that never existed in the Constitution -> This then overturned Roe V. Wade and returned abortion laws back to the states
Civil Rights
Equal treatment under the law
Fourteenth Amendment
Everyone has equal protection under the law
Literacy Tests
Tests that were made for African American voters were impossible in order to stop them from voting
Jim Crow
Laws that segregated African Americans from white people in all public institutions such as schools, busses etc.
Plessy v Ferguson
Plessy went onto a whites-only car even though he was 1/8 black and this led to the Supreme Court ruling that segregation was constitutional as long as facilities were equal -> leads to early civil rights movements
Brown v Board of Education
Brown fought for the desegregation of schools and the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Brown; serves as a landmark case and was the first important case in civil rights
Civil Rights Act of 1964
law that prohibits discrimination based on race, gender, or religion. Formally ends segregation in the US
Voting Rights Act of 1965
Local registers were replaced with federal registers and any outlawed anything that would limit someone’s voting rights including the literacy test and grandfather clause
Affirmative Action
Policies that take into account race/gender in hiring, admissions, promotions and grants. Soft affirmative action is removed when the pool is diverse enough; hard affirmative action keeps these factor in consideration all throughout the process
UC Regents v Bakke
Bakke was denied from UC Davis even though he was highly qualified, he argued that this was due to 16/100 seats being reserved for diverse populations -> Court ruled that schools can do this bc it provides benefits to minority groups leading to legal diversity
Gratz v Bollinger/Grutter v Bollinger
Gratz & Grutter were denied admission from University of Michigan bc of affirmative action -> Gratz was denied bc of a point system that gave more points to African American applicants & Grutter was denied based on another system -> the court ruled that the school point system was unconstitutional but other than that they were promoting diversity
SFFA v Harvard/UNC
Asian American applicants were scoring high on academics but low on personal qualities -> leads to affirmative action being overturned on the basis that equal protection cannot mean one thing to another person and a different thing to someone else