The Supreme Court and Civil Rights Flashcards

Question

The appointment process for Supreme Court justices: What does it mean by a Senate Judiciary Committee hearings linking to the appointment process? (give two examples)

Answer 1

Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Senate Judiciary Committee Hearings (2022): During Ketanji Brown Jackson’s confirmation hearings in March 2022, she was grilled by the Senate Judiciary Committee on her judicial record, her legal philosophy, and specific past rulings. Senators, particularly Republicans, questioned her sentencing decisions in child pornography cases, seeking to portray her as overly lenient. Jackson used her experience and detailed explanations of her decisions to defend her record, stating that her rulings were grounded in law and proportionality. These hearings were a significant part of her confirmation process, with both Democrats and Republicans using the opportunity to make their case for or against her. Brett Kavanaugh’s Senate Judiciary Committee Hearings (2018): Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings in September 2018 were marred by contentious testimony from Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, who accused Kavanaugh of sexual assault during their teenage years. The hearings became a battlefield for partisan politics, with Kavanaugh vehemently denying the allegations and Ford providing emotional testimony. The hearings were further complicated by the last-minute FBI investigation into the claims, but Kavanaugh’s confirmation ultimately moved forward after he was able to secure enough support from the committee. These hearings highlighted the role of the Senate Judiciary Committee in evaluating the nominee’s fitness for the Supreme Court but also showed how highly charged political and personal issues can complicate the confirmation process.

Answer 2

Confirmation of Ketanji Brown Jackson (2022): In April 2022, after a contentious confirmation process, Ketanji Brown Jackson was confirmed by the Senate with a 53-47 vote, making her the first Black woman appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Jackson received support from three Republican Senators—Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, and Mitt Romney—who broke from their party and voted for her, reflecting her bipartisan appeal. This outcome marked a historic moment for the Court and showed that even in a polarized political environment, a well-qualified nominee could garner sufficient support for confirmation. Confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett (2020): In October 2020, Amy Coney Barrett was confirmed by the Senate with a 52-48 vote, just one week before the presidential election. Barrett’s confirmation came along party lines, with all Republicans voting in favor of her and all Democrats voting against her. The rapid timing of her confirmation, just before the election, made her confirmation process one of the most partisan and controversial in recent history. Despite widespread opposition, particularly from Democrats who argued that the next president should make the nomination, Barrett was confirmed, cementing a conservative majority on the Supreme Court.

Answer 3

President Trump’s Nomination of Amy Coney Barrett (2020): When President Trump nominated Amy Coney Barrett in 2020, following the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, he made it clear that he wanted to solidify a conservative majority on the Supreme Court. Barrett’s judicial philosophy was seen as closely aligned with conservative principles, particularly in areas such as abortion and gun rights. Her previous rulings on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals and her outspoken conservative stance on issues like religious freedom made her a natural fit for Trump’s agenda of reshaping the judiciary. Barrett's confirmation ensured that the Court would have a 6-3 conservative majority, reflecting Trump’s commitment to conservative legal principles long after his presidency. President Biden’s Nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson (2022): President Biden’s nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson in 2022 marked a pivotal moment for both the Court and the president’s agenda. Jackson’s nomination, following the retirement of Justice Stephen Breyer, was heavily influenced by Biden’s commitment to increasing diversity in the judiciary, particularly by fulfilling his campaign promise to nominate the first Black woman to the Supreme Court. Jackson’s liberal judicial philosophy, as demonstrated through her past rulings on issues like criminal justice reform, civil rights, and voting rights, aligned with Biden’s progressive policy goals. Her confirmation to the Court reflected Biden’s broader commitment to reshaping the judiciary and ensuring a voice for marginalized communities in legal decision-making.

Answer 4

President Biden’s Nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson (2022): President Biden’s nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson not only focused on ideological alignment but also on her extensive legal qualifications. Before her nomination to the Supreme Court, Jackson had a distinguished career as a federal judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, where she earned a reputation for her fair-mindedness and ability to balance legal principles with practical outcomes. She had also served as a public defender, an experience that made her particularly adept at understanding criminal justice issues from both a legal and human perspective. Her qualifications were integral to her nomination and, ultimately, her successful confirmation, further reinforcing the importance of legal experience in judicial selections. President Obama’s Nomination of Sonia Sotomayor (2009): When President Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor in 2009 to replace Justice David Souter, her qualifications were central to the nomination process. Sotomayor had an extensive legal background, having served as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and as a prosecutor in the District Attorney’s office. Her experience as a judge, where she handled complex legal cases, including civil rights and discrimination claims, gave her the necessary legal acumen for the Supreme Court. Moreover, her life experiences as a Latina woman from a working-class background played a role in her appeal, offering a perspective that would diversify the Court. Sotomayor’s combination of legal expertise, life experience, and judicial temperament made her a standout nominee in Obama’s first Supreme Court appointment.

Answer 5

The current U.S. Supreme Court has nine justices, with a 6-3 conservative majority. Chief Justice John Roberts leads the Court, with six justices appointed by Republican presidents and three by Democratic presidents. The Court's rulings impact major issues like abortion, gun rights, and the environment.

Answer 6

Sticking closely to the Constitution’s original meaning, with a focus on limited government and letting lawmakers make decisions.

Answer 7

Being more flexible with the Constitution, focusing on civil rights and using the Court to address current issues and injustices.

Answer 8

Believes the Constitution can be interpreted broadly, allowing for changes and modern ideas. Think of it like adapting the Constitution to today’s world.

Answer 9

Thinks the Constitution should be followed exactly as it’s written, with little room for change. Only things clearly stated in the Constitution are allowed.

Answer 10

Judges should avoid making big changes. They stick to what the law says and don’t try to create new rules or laws.

Answer 11

Believes the Constitution’s meaning can change over time as society changes. It should adapt to modern times.

Answer 12

Interprets the Constitution based on what the people who wrote it meant at the time. It sticks closely to the original ideas and meanings.

Answer 13

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022): This case involved the Mississippi law banning most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy, which directly challenged Roe v. Wade (1973). The Court overturned Roe, ending the federal constitutional right to abortion and giving states the authority to regulate or prohibit abortion. The decision reflects conservative values of returning power to the states and limiting federal authority. It also aligns with a belief that the Constitution doesn’t guarantee a right to abortion, focusing on a strict interpretation of the text and the idea that issues like abortion should be handled by elected officials, not unelected judges. District of Columbia v. Heller (2008): The Court ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess firearms, independent of service in a militia. This ruling is a conservative stance, focusing on individual rights and interpreting the Constitution in a way that supports personal freedom. The decision was based on the belief that the framers intended for citizens to have the right to own firearms, reflecting a conservative interpretation of the Constitution’s language.

Answer 14

Obergefell v. Hodges (2015): This landmark case legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, ruling that the 14th Amendment guarantees same-sex couples the right to marry. The decision reflects liberal ideology by expanding civil rights protections and interpreting the Constitution as a living document that adapts to contemporary understandings of equality. The Court emphasized that marriage is a fundamental right, and denying it to same-sex couples violated their right to equal protection and due process under the law. National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012): In this case, the Court upheld the Affordable Care Act (ACA), particularly the individual mandate, which required individuals to purchase health insurance. The decision reflects liberal values of expanding government intervention to ensure access to healthcare for all citizens. The Court’s ruling was based on the interpretation that the government has the authority to regulate interstate commerce and tax individuals for not purchasing insurance, emphasizing a broader role for government in addressing societal needs.

Answer 15

National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012): Chief Justice Roberts, who often leaned toward a more flexible approach, upheld the ACA using the argument that the law could be justified under Congress’s taxing power, even though the law was not strictly about regulating commerce. This reflects a loose constructionist approach, allowing the Constitution to adapt to contemporary challenges (like healthcare) even if the original framers couldn’t have foreseen such issues. Grutter v. Bollinger (2003): The Court upheld the use of race as a factor in university admissions, ruling that diversity is a compelling state interest that justifies race-conscious policies. The decision was grounded in the idea that the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause should be interpreted flexibly to promote modern social goals like diversity and inclusivity, even though race is not explicitly addressed in the Constitution.

Answer 16

District of Columbia v. Heller (2008): The Court’s decision that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to own firearms was based on a strict reading of the text. The justices focused on the exact language of the Second Amendment, believing that it guarantees an individual right to bear arms, not just a right related to militia service. This ruling emphasized a literal interpretation of the Constitution and limited any expansive readings. McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010): In this case, the Court extended the individual right to own firearms (guaranteed by the Second Amendment) to apply to the states via the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause. This strict constructionist ruling focused on the original meaning of the Second Amendment, without any attempt to adapt or evolve the interpretation based on modern societal views.

Answer 17

Obergefell v. Hodges (2015): In Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment requires states to allow same-sex marriage and recognize marriages performed in other states. This decision legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, asserting that the right to marry is a fundamental constitutional right protected by due process and equal protection. This decision reflects judicial activism from a liberal perspective because the Court went beyond interpreting existing law and created new rights by determining that marriage is a fundamental right under the 14th Amendment. The ruling was seen by some as the Court stepping in to redefine societal norms around marriage, where previously, states had more autonomy in defining marriage laws. Liberal Activism - National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012): The Court upheld the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in a 5-4 decision, ruling that the individual mandate (requiring individuals to have health insurance) was constitutional under Congress's taxing power, even though many had argued it exceeded Congress's powers under the Commerce Clause. This ruling can be seen as judicial activism in favor of a liberal policy agenda, as the Court interpreted the Constitution in a way that allowed for broad federal intervention in healthcare, despite strong political opposition. By doing so, the Court supported a key component of President Obama’s policy and expanded the role of the federal government, which many conservatives viewed as an overreach

Answer 18

Conservative Activism - Citizens United v. FEC (2010): Ruling and Impact: In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Court ruled that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited under the First Amendment, equating corporate spending with free speech. Explanation: This decision is an example of conservative judicial activism because the Court interpreted the First Amendment to allow for unlimited corporate spending in elections, which conservatives viewed as an affirmation of free speech. Critics argue that this ruling gave corporations undue influence over politics, dramatically changing the political landscape and making it easier for wealthy individuals and corporations to fund political campaigns. Conservative Activism - District of Columbia v. Heller (2008): In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, striking down Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban. This ruling established a broad interpretation of the Second Amendment, allowing individual gun ownership. The decision is an example of conservative judicial activism because the Court expanded the interpretation of the Second Amendment, granting a broad individual right to bear arms. This decision significantly changed the legal landscape regarding gun rights, marking a shift in the Court's approach to balancing gun control regulations with individual rights.

Answer 19

Glossip v. Gross (2015): The Supreme Court upheld the use of a particular drug in lethal injections despite claims it caused cruel and unusual punishment. The majority opinion, written by Justice Alito, rejected the argument that the method was unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment. This decision is an example of the Court not engaging in judicial activism. Instead of expanding rights or addressing broader human rights concerns, the Court deferred to state governments on the implementation of capital punishment, even though many saw it as a violation of constitutional rights. It shows judicial restraint in not interpreting the Constitution expansively to ban the death penalty or halt its use based on evolving standards of decency. Fisher v. University of Texas (2016): The Court upheld the University of Texas’s affirmative action policy in a 4-3 decision, saying it was consistent with the Constitution and the Equal Protection Clause. While many expected the Court to strike down affirmative action policies, the Court showed judicial restraint in this case, choosing not to overturn existing precedents like Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) that allowed affirmative action under certain circumstances. The decision focused on the specific details of the University of Texas’ program and did not broadly expand affirmative action policies, showing restraint rather than activism.

Answer 20

National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012): The Court upheld most of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) but ruled that the federal government could not compel states to expand Medicaid under the ACA. In this case, conservative justices, while upholding the ACA’s individual mandate as a tax, did not engage in judicial activism. They stopped short of broadly expanding federal powers in healthcare or social policy, instead demonstrating restraint by limiting the federal government's ability to force states into Medicaid expansion. This shows conservatism in terms of limiting federal intervention. McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010): The Court incorporated the Second Amendment right to bear arms to apply to the states, but this decision was grounded in historical interpretation and not a broad expansion of rights. Although this decision recognized an individual right to bear arms under the Second Amendment, it did so within a conservative framework that respected traditional interpretations of the Constitution. The Court did not dramatically change or expand gun rights beyond the specific question at hand (whether the Second Amendment applies to the states), demonstrating restraint.

Answer 21

Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022): The Court overturned Roe v. Wade, ruling that abortion is no longer a constitutional right and returning the issue to the states. Explanation: This is an example of not judicial restraint, as the Court overturned nearly 50 years of established precedent to shift the balance of power on abortion rights from the federal courts to individual states. The liberal-leaning justices would likely have preferred a more restrained approach, adhering to the earlier Roe precedent, but the majority decision was an example of activism rather than restraint. King v. Burwell (2015): The Court upheld the subsidies provided under the Affordable Care Act, despite challenges claiming that the law’s wording didn’t authorize them for exchanges not created by the federal government. This case could be seen as an example of not judicial restraint, as the Court actively interpreted the law in a way that upheld the broader goals of the ACA. The ruling expanded the reach of the law, even though the text itself was ambiguous. Some argued the Court was overstepping in reading a broader policy goal into the law, engaging in liberal activism rather than maintaining a more restrained interpretation.

Answer 22

United States v. Lopez (1995): The Supreme Court ruled that the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 exceeded Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause. The Court found that the law did not regulate any activity that substantially affected interstate commerce. This ruling demonstrates judicial restraint as the Court refrained from expanding federal power, sticking to a narrow interpretation of the Commerce Clause. By striking down the law, the Court reaffirmed the principle that Congress’s powers should not extend to non-economic, local matters like gun possession in schools. National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012) Ruling: The Court upheld the ACA’s individual mandate as a tax but ruled that Congress could not force states to expand Medicaid by withholding funding. This case reflects judicial restraint by not broadly endorsing federal power over healthcare. The Court allowed the ACA’s core mandate but limited the federal government’s reach, particularly in how it could coerce states into policy decisions, thus showing restraint in limiting federal control over states.

Answer 23

Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022): The Court overturned Roe v. Wade, ruling that abortion is no longer a constitutional right and returning the issue to the states. This is an example of not judicial restraint, as the Court overturned nearly 50 years of established precedent to shift the balance of power on abortion rights from the federal courts to individual states. The liberal-leaning justices would likely have preferred a more restrained approach, adhering to the earlier Roe precedent, but the majority decision was an example of activism rather than restraint. King v. Burwell (2015): The Court upheld the subsidies provided under the Affordable Care Act, despite challenges claiming that the law’s wording didn’t authorize them for exchanges not created by the federal government. This case could be seen as an example of not judicial restraint, as the Court actively interpreted the law in a way that upheld the broader goals of the ACA. The ruling expanded the reach of the law, even though the text itself was ambiguous. Some argued the Court was overstepping in reading a broader policy goal into the law, engaging in liberal activism rather than maintaining a more restrained interpretation.

Answer 24

Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute (2018): The Court upheld Ohio's policy of removing voters from the rolls if they had not voted in recent elections, arguing that it did not violate the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA). This is an example of not judicial restraint. The Court’s decision expanded state powers and allowed policies that could disenfranchise voters, especially in marginalized communities. Rather than following the principle of judicial restraint, the Court interpreted the NVRA in a way that allowed for more aggressive voter roll purges, despite the potential for disenfranchisement. Trump v. Hawaii (2018): The Court upheld President Trump’s travel ban on several predominantly Muslim countries, citing national security concerns. This decision was not an example of conservative judicial restraint. The Court expanded executive power, deferring to the president’s judgment on national security issues, even though the ban had been criticized as discriminatory. The conservative majority did not exercise restraint in limiting the executive’s authority, instead allowing broader executive action, which raised concerns about the protection of constitutional rights, particularly regarding discrimination.

Answer 25

Obergefell v. Hodges (2015): The Court’s decision to legalize same-sex marriage reflected the living Constitution ideology, as it interpreted the Constitution in light of contemporary ideas about marriage equality and civil rights. The justices applied the principles of equal protection and due process to guarantee marriage rights for same-sex couples, adapting the Constitution’s meaning to the current societal understanding of equality. Gonzales v. Raich (2005): The Court upheld the federal government’s authority to ban medical marijuana, even in states where it was legalized. This decision reflects the living Constitution approach, as the Court applied the Commerce Clause to modern issues that the framers could not have anticipated, allowing federal regulation of new societal problems like medical marijuana.

Answer 26

District of Columbia v. Heller (2008): The decision to protect an individual’s right to own firearms was based on an originalist interpretation of the Second Amendment. The majority of the Court looked at historical context and the framers' intentions in drafting the amendment, concluding that the right to bear arms was an individual right, not tied to service in a militia. McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010): The Court extended the right to bear arms to state and local governments, using originalist principles to argue that the Second Amendment’s protections were meant to apply to all levels of government. The decision was based on the belief that the framers intended the right to bear arms to be a fundamental right, not subject to state restrictions.

Answer 27

Brett Kavanaugh’s Confirmation (2018): Kavanaugh's confirmation process was extended significantly after allegations of sexual misconduct were raised. The Senate Judiciary Committee allowed for additional FBI investigations, and multiple rounds of questioning were conducted. This prolonged process ensured that senators had ample time to review his full record, investigate allegations, and probe his legal views before making a decision. This allowed for more transparency and careful consideration, despite the controversy and delays it caused. Merrick Garland’s Nomination (2016): While Garland’s nomination itself was delayed for political reasons, the potential length of his vetting process highlights the importance of thorough scrutiny. The Senate's refusal to hold hearings for Garland during an election year exemplified how an extended process (or the absence of one) can influence the outcome. The decision to block the nomination was based on the argument that the new president should make the nomination, reflecting how serious the process is, even when delayed. This delayed process allowed for intense public debate on the importance of a balanced judiciary.

Answer 28

Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Confirmation (1993): Ginsburg’s confirmation process was widely praised for being relatively bipartisan. She was nominated by Democratic President Bill Clinton but received significant support from Republicans due to her impeccable legal credentials and fair-minded approach to justice. Her confirmation vote was 96-3, demonstrating that the process was more focused on her qualifications than party lines. Even though Ginsburg was liberal-leaning, the Senate confirmed her based on her judicial competence, showing the strength of a non-politicized process. Elena Kagan’s Confirmation (2010): President Barack Obama nominated Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court in 2010. Despite her ties to the Democratic Party as Solicitor General, Kagan’s confirmation was relatively bipartisan, with 63 senators voting to confirm her. Her extensive legal background and experience in public service were the central focus of her confirmation process, showing that when the process is not overly politicized, the nominee’s qualifications can take precedence over partisan affiliations.

Answer 29

Amy Coney Barrett’s Confirmation (2020): Barrett's confirmation was expedited, taking only about 28 days from her nomination by President Trump to her confirmation vote in the Senate. The swift process, during a presidential election year, sparked criticism as senators had insufficient time to fully investigate her judicial philosophy, prior rulings, and views on critical issues like abortion and healthcare. The compressed timeline left little room for a full public debate or deeper scrutiny, which many felt compromised the thoroughness of the process. John Roberts’ Confirmation (2005): Chief Justice John Roberts was confirmed in a relatively short time—just under two months after his nomination by President George W. Bush. While Roberts had an extensive legal background, the abbreviated process did not allow for as much questioning or discussion on his views on key issues such as presidential power and abortion. Given his importance as the future Chief Justice, some critics argued that the speed of the process prevented senators from fully exploring the breadth of his judicial philosophy.

Answer 30

Brett Kavanaugh’s Confirmation (2018): Kavanaugh’s nomination became deeply partisan after allegations of sexual misconduct were raised during his confirmation hearings. The Senate confirmation vote largely split along party lines, with Republicans pushing for Kavanaugh’s confirmation and Democrats opposing him. The process became more about partisan loyalty than evaluating his legal qualifications, and the political fallout from the hearings, particularly regarding the sexual assault allegations, made the confirmation process seem more like a political battle than a fair judicial evaluation. Merrick Garland’s Nomination (2016): The refusal of Senate Republicans to hold hearings for President Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland, was a clear example of the politicization of the process. Republicans argued that the vacancy should not be filled in an election year, thereby preventing Obama from appointing a moderate nominee to the Court. This political decision, made by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, was based on partisan considerations rather than the qualifications of Garland, which reflected how the appointment process can be hijacked by party politics.

Answer 31

Citizens United v. FEC (2010): Ruling and Impact: The Court ruled that corporations and unions have the right to spend unlimited amounts of money on political campaigns under the First Amendment, viewing such spending as a form of free speech. This decision led to the creation of Super PACs, which can raise and spend unlimited funds to support or oppose candidates. The ruling has dramatically increased the influence of wealthy individuals and organizations in U.S. elections, as they can now funnel money into political ads without needing to directly coordinate with candidates. Critics argue this decision has led to an increase in "dark money," where the sources of political donations are often hidden from the public. Shelby County v. Holder (2013): The Court struck down Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act, which determined which states with a history of racial discrimination needed federal approval (preclearance) before changing voting laws. By invalidating this provision, the Court made it easier for states to pass restrictive voting laws without federal oversight. In the years following the decision, several states, particularly in the South, passed laws requiring voter IDs and reducing early voting, which disproportionately affected minority voters. Critics argue that the ruling has made it easier for states to enact voter suppression measures, reversing key protections from the Civil Rights Movement.

Answer 32

National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012): The Court upheld the Affordable Care Act (ACA), particularly its requirement that individuals obtain health insurance or face a penalty (the individual mandate), ruling that this provision was constitutional under Congress's taxing power. However, the Court ruled that the federal government could not coerce states into expanding Medicaid by threatening to withhold existing Medicaid funding. This decision meant that while millions gained healthcare coverage, states could choose whether or not to expand Medicaid, resulting in a patchwork system where some low-income Americans in non-expansion states remained uninsured. California v. Texas (2021): The Court dismissed a challenge to the ACA, ruling that the plaintiffs (mainly Republican-led states) did not have standing to challenge the law after Congress reduced the penalty for not having insurance to $0. By dismissing the case, the Court preserved the ACA, including provisions like protections for people with pre-existing conditions and the ability for young people to stay on their parents' insurance until age 26. The ruling was a significant win for ACA supporters, ensuring the law remained intact and continued to provide coverage to millions of Americans.

Answer 33

West Virginia v. EPA (2022): The Supreme Court ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) cannot regulate carbon emissions from power plants under the Clean Air Act in a way that forces states to transition away from coal, oil, and gas toward cleaner energy sources unless Congress explicitly grants the EPA such authority. This decision curtails the EPA's power to regulate greenhouse gas emissions broadly, limiting the federal government's ability to address climate change through executive action. The ruling also places the responsibility for addressing climate change on Congress, which may struggle to pass comprehensive climate legislation due to political gridlock. Juliana v. United States (2020): The Supreme Court declined to hear a case brought by young activists, known as the "Youth Climate Case," who sued the federal government for failing to act on climate change in a way that would protect their future. The Court’s decision effectively ended the case, with lower courts having previously dismissed the lawsuit. The ruling was seen as a missed opportunity to set a precedent for holding the government accountable for its role in climate change. The activists' legal team had argued that the government’s inaction violated their constitutional rights to a livable future.

Answer 34

Texas v. Johnson (1989): Ruling and Impact: The Court ruled that burning the American flag as a form of protest is protected by the First Amendment, asserting that the government cannot prohibit symbolic speech. In this case, Gregory Lee Johnson was convicted for flag desecration during the Republican National Convention, but the Court held that such expressive conduct was a form of political speech protected by the First Amendment. This ruling reinforced the protection of free speech, even if it involves controversial or offensive actions. It emphasized that freedom of expression extends beyond spoken words and includes symbolic acts of protest. National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra (2018): The Court struck down a California law that required pro-life pregnancy centers to provide information about state-funded abortion services. The Court ruled that this law violated the First Amendment by compelling speech, as it forced centers to convey a message contrary to their beliefs. This decision reinforced the protection of free speech rights, particularly in the context of speech compelled by the government. It ensured that individuals and organizations could not be forced to speak in a way that goes against their convictions, reinforcing the principle of free expression.

Answer 35

District of Columbia v. Heller (2008): The Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to possess a firearm for self-defense, independent of service in a militia. The decision struck down a Washington, D.C., law that banned the possession of handguns, ruling it unconstitutional. This ruling was a landmark decision for gun rights, affirming that the Second Amendment protects individual gun ownership. It also clarified that restrictions on firearms must not infringe upon the individual right to self-defense. McDonald v. Chicago (2010): The Court extended the principles from District of Columbia v. Heller to the states, ruling that the Second Amendment applies to state and local gun control laws through the Fourteenth Amendment’s incorporation doctrine. The case challenged Chicago’s handgun ban, and the Court found the ban unconstitutional. This decision strengthened the interpretation of the Second Amendment by ensuring that it applies not only to federal laws but also to state and local regulations, further protecting individuals' rights to bear arms.

Answer 36

Roe v. Wade (1973): In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court ruled that a state law banning abortions except to save the life of the mother was unconstitutional. The Court held that the right to privacy, implied by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, extends to a woman’s decision to have an abortion. The ruling legalized abortion nationwide, establishing a framework where women could seek abortions in the first trimester without excessive state interference. It secured the legal right for women to make decisions about their own bodies, ensuring access to safe and legal abortion services. This case formed the basis for decades of legal precedent regarding reproductive rights in the United States. Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022): In Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), ruling that the Constitution does not grant a right to abortion. The Court upheld a Mississippi law banning most abortions after 15 weeks, stating that abortion regulation should be decided by individual states, not the federal government. This ruling ended the federal constitutional protection for abortion rights, leaving the decision to regulate abortion to individual states. The Dobbs decision dramatically reshaped abortion rights in the U.S., allowing states to impose strict restrictions or bans on abortion, resulting in significant variations in access to abortion across the country. Many states quickly moved to ban or severely limit abortion access, leading to a dramatic shift in the legal landscape for reproductive rights.

Answer 37

Obergefell v. Hodges (2015): The Supreme Court ruled that the right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples under the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses. This decision legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, affirming that the states cannot deny marriage rights to same-sex couples. This ruling was a significant victory for LGBTQ+ rights, ensuring that same-sex couples had the same legal rights as heterosexual couples. It marked a key moment in the civil rights movement by extending marriage equality and reinforcing the idea that the government cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Bostock v. Clayton County (2020): The Court ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in the workplace. This decision provided federal protection for LGBTQ+ individuals against employment discrimination. This ruling expanded civil rights protections for LGBTQ+ individuals, affirming that discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity is a form of sex discrimination, ensuring greater workplace equality and protection for a historically marginalized group.

Answer 38

Shelby County v. Holder (2013): Although this decision in 2013 weakened the Voting Rights Act, the case underscores the Court’s ongoing involvement in voting rights issues. The Court ruled that the preclearance provision (Section 4) of the Voting Rights Act, which required certain states to get federal approval before changing voting laws, was unconstitutional. This decision allowed states to impose new voting restrictions without federal oversight. While the ruling itself limited voting protections, the Court’s involvement brought attention to the need for continued advocacy and reforms to protect voting rights, especially for historically disenfranchised groups. The decision has spurred efforts to address voting rights disparities at the state level and highlight the need for modernized legislation to protect voters. Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute (2018): The Court upheld Ohio's process of purging voter rolls if voters had not participated in elections for two years. The Court ruled that Ohio’s practice did not violate the National Voter Registration Act or the Help America Vote Act. This decision, while controversial, highlighted the Court’s role in shaping voting access and underscored the balance between maintaining accurate voter rolls and ensuring that eligible voters are not disenfranchised. Although critics argue the decision could lead to voter suppression, it also reinforced the Court's interpretation of election law and voter roll maintenance.

Answer 39

Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022): The Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade (1973) in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, removing the constitutional right to an abortion and returning the authority to regulate abortion to individual states. This decision reversed nearly 50 years of precedent that protected a woman's right to choose an abortion. The ruling has led to the immediate implementation of strict abortion laws in many states, severely limiting access to reproductive healthcare for millions of women, particularly in conservative states. The Court's decision is seen by many as a significant blow to gender equality and reproductive rights, undermining equal protection under the law for women. Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018): In this case, the Court ruled in favor of a baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, citing religious objections. The Court did not directly rule on whether businesses could refuse service based on sexual orientation but focused on procedural issues, stating that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had shown bias against the baker’s religious beliefs. Although the case did not create a broad precedent, it highlighted a tension between anti-discrimination protections for LGBTQ+ individuals and religious freedom claims. Critics argue that this ruling opens the door for businesses to legally discriminate against LGBTQ+ individuals under the guise of religious freedom, undermining civil rights protections for LGBTQ+ people in public accommodations.

Answer 40

Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee (2021): The Court upheld two voting restrictions in Arizona that were challenged as discriminatory under the Voting Rights Act. These included laws banning "ballot harvesting" (collecting ballots from others) and invalidating ballots cast in the wrong precinct. This ruling weakened provisions of the Voting Rights Act, specifically Section 2, which prohibits voting laws that disproportionately harm racial minorities. The decision allowed restrictive voting laws to be upheld, making it harder for minority communities, particularly Black and Latino voters, to access the voting booth. The Court’s decision underscored its approach to interpreting voting rights laws in a way that may not fully account for the impact of these restrictions on marginalized groups. Shelby County v. Holder (2013): In Shelby County v. Holder, the Supreme Court invalidated the Voting Rights Act, which used a formula to determine which states with a history of voting discrimination needed federal approval before changing voting laws. This decision effectively gutted the preclearance requirement, which had been a crucial tool in preventing voter suppression. While this decision is a bit older, its long-term effects have been felt recently, with several states enacting stricter voting laws without federal oversight. The Court's decision in Shelby County allowed laws that disproportionately affect minority voters, such as stricter voter ID laws, purging of voter rolls, and limits on early voting, to be implemented without preclearance, thereby undermining protections against racial discrimination in voting.

Answer 41

Judicial Independence in Impeachment Trials (2020): During President Trump’s impeachment trial in 2020, he faced charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. The Supreme Court had no direct role in the trial itself, as the impeachment process is a legislative function, but President Trump attempted to use his influence on the judicial branch to dismiss subpoenas and block evidence from being presented. Despite his efforts to pressure the courts, the judiciary remained independent, and key decisions were made in favor of Congress’s ability to access relevant documents. This instance showed that the President cannot manipulate or directly control judicial outcomes related to his personal or political affairs. The impeachment process highlighted the ability of the judicial branch to operate independently, even under pressure from the executive. Supreme Court's Refusal to Overturn the Election Results (2020): After the 2020 presidential election, President Trump and many of his supporters tried to pressure the courts to overturn the election results, claiming widespread voter fraud. The President filed multiple lawsuits across various states, attempting to get courts to nullify the results or change them. However, the Supreme Court declined to hear most of these cases, and many lower courts dismissed them, citing insufficient evidence. This demonstrated that the judiciary remained independent, refusing to be influenced by the President’s claims or political pressure. The Court’s refusal to intervene in the election results affirmed its autonomy from the President, showing that judicial decisions are not easily swayed by the executive branch.

Answer 42

Supreme Court's Ruling on Affordable Care Act (2020): In 2020, President Trump sought to have the Affordable Care Act (ACA), also known as Obamacare, repealed, and his administration filed a case challenging its constitutionality. Despite the President’s efforts, the Supreme Court upheld the ACA in a 7-2 decision, ruling that the mandate penalty was unconstitutional but did not strike down the law. This was a significant example of how the Court can act independently, even when the President has appointed conservative justices. Trump had attempted to dismantle the ACA throughout his presidency, but the judiciary stood firm in its interpretation of the law. The case demonstrated that the President cannot control the Supreme Court’s rulings, even when it concerns his top legislative priorities. Supreme Court’s Ruling on the Citizenship Question in the 2020 Census: In 2019, President Trump attempted to add a question about citizenship to the 2020 Census, which was highly controversial and faced widespread opposition. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the administration's rationale for adding the question was insufficient and sent the case back to the lower courts. Despite Trump’s desire to include the question, the Court’s ruling was a significant check on his ability to implement this policy. This example shows how the Supreme Court can strike down or delay actions by the President, highlighting the Court’s independence in interpreting the law. The decision affirmed that the President does not have the power to dictate the Court's interpretation of laws and policies.

Answer 43

Supreme Court’s Ruling on Trump’s Financial Records (2020): In 2020, President Trump tried to block subpoenas seeking his financial records from Congress and New York prosecutors. The Supreme Court ruled that the records could be obtained, though it also placed certain limits on Congress’s ability to obtain them. This case demonstrated the Court’s ability to operate independently, even when the President sought to protect his personal information. Trump’s attempts to block the subpoenas were unsuccessful, highlighting how the judiciary can act as a check on executive power. The ruling emphasized that the President cannot control the Court, and the judiciary will not act in favor of the executive branch’s wishes if it contradicts the law. Supreme Court’s Decision on the Emoluments Clause (2020): President Trump was embroiled in legal battles over potential violations of the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution, which prohibits the President from receiving gifts or payments from foreign governments. In 2020, the Supreme Court allowed lawsuits to proceed, despite efforts by Trump’s administration to dismiss them. While the President’s legal team attempted to block these suits, the judiciary maintained its independence by allowing the challenges to go forward. The Court’s decision was a significant reminder that the President does not have the power to influence or control judicial decisions regarding constitutional matters. This case illustrates that even when the President seeks to avoid legal scrutiny, the judiciary acts independently to ensure the rule of law is upheld.

Answer 44

Ruling on the Affordable Care Act (2012): In National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012), the Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), passed by Congress in 2010. The Court upheld most of the ACA but ruled that the individual mandate could not be justified under Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce. This was a key example of the Supreme Court using judicial review to check Congress’s legislative power, ensuring that Congress cannot pass laws that overreach its constitutional authority. Despite Congress’s intent to overhaul the healthcare system, the Court curtailed one aspect of the law. This decision demonstrated the Court’s role in ensuring that Congressional legislation adheres to the Constitution. Ruling on the Voting Rights Act (2013): In Shelby County v. Holder (2013), the Supreme Court ruled that a key provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (Section 4(b)) was unconstitutional. The provision required certain states and local governments with a history of voting discrimination to obtain federal approval before changing voting laws. The Court argued that Congress had not updated the formula for which jurisdictions required preclearance, making the law outdated and unconstitutional. This ruling limited Congress's power to regulate voting rights, showing how the Supreme Court can check the legislative branch by determining when its laws are unconstitutional. It underscored the role of the Court in ensuring that Congressional actions do not violate the Constitution, even on issues as significant as voting rights.

Answer 45

Ruling on Same-Sex Marriage (2015): In Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), the Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right under the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses. Although Congress had not passed a nationwide law on same-sex marriage, the Court ensured that states' laws banning same-sex marriage were unconstitutional. The Court’s decision in Obergefell prevented Congress from potentially passing discriminatory laws at the federal level and safeguarded the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals. By recognizing marriage equality, the Court ensured that Congress could not legislate against constitutional protections for personal freedoms. This case is an example of how the Court checks Congress’s potential overreach in infringing upon individual rights. Ruling on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) (2013): In United States v. Windsor (2013), the Supreme Court ruled that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defined marriage as between one man and one woman, was unconstitutional. This law, passed by Congress in 1996, prevented same-sex couples from receiving federal benefits. The Court struck down DOMA as a violation of equal protection rights, reinforcing that Congress cannot legislate in a manner that discriminates against individuals based on sexual orientation. The ruling ensured that Congress’s attempts to regulate marriage did not infringe on citizens’ rights to equal treatment. This decision demonstrated the Court’s role in upholding individual liberties, even when Congress passes laws that might infringe upon them.

Answer 46

Ruling on Campaign Finance (2010): In Citizens United v. FEC (2010), the Supreme Court ruled that corporations and unions could spend unlimited amounts on political campaigns, interpreting the First Amendment as protecting such expenditures. Despite Congressional efforts to regulate campaign finance and curb corporate influence, the Court ruled in favor of broadening free speech protections for corporations. This decision showed how the Supreme Court sometimes defers to Congressional inaction, allowing corporate interests to have a major influence on the political process. Rather than checking Congress, the Court’s ruling enabled corporate spending, which some argue undermines the principle of fair elections. This is an example where the Court did not act as a check on Congress, despite public concern over its implications. Ruling on Gun Rights (2008): In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess firearms, striking down a law in Washington, D.C. that banned handgun ownership. This ruling overruled some efforts by Congress and state governments to implement stricter gun control laws. While some might view this as a check on Congressional actions, others argue that the decision limits Congress’s ability to pass more restrictive laws. This decision indicated that the Court may sometimes favor individual rights over legislative power, even if Congress seeks to implement policies for public safety. In this case, the Court deferred to individual rights over Congress’s efforts to regulate firearms, a decision not seen as a true check on legislative overreach.

Answer 47

Ruling on Abortion Rights (1973): In Roe v. Wade (1973), the Supreme Court ruled that the right to an abortion was constitutionally protected under the 14th Amendment’s right to privacy. While this decision is considered a landmark in protecting individual rights, critics argue that the Court was overstepping by creating a new right not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. By striking down state abortion laws, the Court prevented Congress from legislating on the matter, effectively imposing its will on the legislative branch. Some believe the Court should have deferred to Congress to decide the issue rather than crafting a broad, sweeping decision on abortion. This case demonstrates how the Court’s actions can limit Congress's authority to make laws, raising questions about the appropriate balance of power between the branches. Ruling on Same-Sex Marriage (2015): In Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), the Court ruled that the right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples under the 14th Amendment, effectively legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide. Although the ruling was seen as a victory for civil rights, it was also criticized by some who argued that the Court was imposing its will on an issue that should have been determined by the democratic process in Congress and the states. Critics contend that the Court’s decision in Obergefell amounted to judicial activism, as it bypassed the legislative process and established a nationwide right to same-sex marriage. This example highlights how the Court can sometimes impose decisions that limit Congressional authority to legislate on matters of social policy. It raises questions about whether the Court overstepped its role, particularly on issues that were not fully addressed through the legislative process

Answer 48

The Supreme Court is seen as having too much power, making decisions that should be left to lawmakers or the president. It’s when the Court goes beyond interpreting laws and starts making or changing laws itself.

Answer 49

Obergefell v. Hodges (2015): The Court ruled that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses, legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide. This decision can be seen as judicial overreach, as critics argue that the Court imposed a sweeping social change that was not explicitly addressed in the Constitution. Rather than deferring to the legislative process to address same-sex marriage, the Court acted to create new rights under the Constitution, which many saw as a step beyond judicial interpretation and into the realm of policymaking. This kind of decision is viewed by some as the Court overstepping its authority, creating law rather than interpreting it. National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012): The Court upheld the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate as a tax, which essentially required individuals to purchase health insurance. The ruling in this case is seen by some as an example of judicial overreach because the Court effectively rewrote the law to fit within constitutional boundaries. The majority opinion justified the individual mandate under Congress’s taxing power, a justification not originally part of the ACA’s design, allowing the Court to uphold a controversial and wide-reaching law. Critics argue that this decision was an example of the Court stepping into the role of the legislature, creating a new understanding of taxation, and thus creating policy from the bench.

Answer 50

Gonzales v. Raich (2005): The Court upheld the federal government’s power to prohibit the cultivation and possession of medical marijuana in states where it was legal under state law, under the Commerce Clause. In this case, the Court’s decision was seen by some as an example of imperial judiciary because it expanded federal power, overriding state laws. The ruling allowed the federal government to regulate local, non-economic activity based on a broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause, which critics argued was an overreach. The Court’s decision limited states' rights to set their own policies on issues like marijuana use, demonstrating how the Court's interpretation of the Constitution can undermine state sovereignty in favor of a strong federal government. Shelby County v. Holder (2013): The Court struck down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which required certain states with a history of discrimination to get federal approval before changing voting laws. Critics argue that the Court's ruling in Shelby County was another example of an imperial judiciary, as it effectively limited the federal government’s ability to protect voting rights in states with histories of discrimination. By invalidating the formula for determining which states were subject to preclearance under the Voting Rights Act, the Court left it up to Congress to act, even though many believe that Congress has been ineffective in passing new protections. This ruling was seen as the Court encroaching on the powers of Congress and the executive, altering a major civil rights law in a way that some viewed as overstepping the Court’s role.

Answer 51

District of Columbia v. Heller (2008): The Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, striking down Washington D.C.'s strict gun control laws. This decision can be seen as the Court adhering to a proper interpretation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, without creating new law. The Court simply interpreted the Second Amendment’s clear text, rather than judicially inventing a new right or expanding federal power. By returning to the original meaning of the Second Amendment, the Court restrained itself from imposing new policies, ensuring that its role remained one of interpreting the law rather than creating it. Glossip v. Gross (2015): The Court upheld the use of a controversial drug in lethal injections for the death penalty, ruling that it did not violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. This case shows judicial restraint, as the Court avoided stepping into policymaking and left the question of how to carry out the death penalty to the states and elected officials. The Court’s decision was based on existing legal precedent and the text of the Eighth Amendment, and it did not use the case to impose sweeping changes on the death penalty. This restraint from the Court was an example of it adhering to the Constitution and deferring to the elected branches, rather than engaging in judicial activism.

Answer 52

Printz v. United States (1997): The Court struck down a provision of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act that required local law enforcement officers to conduct background checks on gun purchasers. This ruling can be seen as the Court upholding states' rights and limiting federal overreach. The Court ruled that the federal government could not compel state officials to execute federal law, emphasizing the principle of federalism and protecting the autonomy of state governments. The decision reinforced the idea that the federal government’s powers are limited and that states have the right to govern without undue interference from the national government, demonstrating judicial respect for state sovereignty. NFIB v. Sebelius (2012): The Court ruled that the federal government could not coerce states into expanding Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act by threatening to withhold existing Medicaid funds. This case highlights the Court's role in preserving the balance of power between the federal government and the states. By limiting the federal government’s ability to compel states to expand Medicaid, the Court upheld state sovereignty and emphasized that states should not be forced into federal programs under financial duress. This ruling was consistent with judicial respect for federalism, showing that the Court was protecting states' rights rather than expanding federal power.

Answer 53

Grutter v. Bollinger (2003): The Supreme Court upheld the University of Michigan Law School's use of race as one factor in its admissions process to promote diversity. This decision reinforced the idea that diversity in higher education is a compelling state interest, allowing institutions to use affirmative action to ensure diverse student bodies. Affirmative action policies in this case were seen as effective for achieving diversity, providing opportunities to underrepresented racial and ethnic groups. As a result, universities were able to enrich the educational experience for all students by fostering a more inclusive environment. Fisher v. University of Texas (2016) The Supreme Court ruled that the University of Texas’ affirmative action policy, which considers race as part of its admissions process, was constitutional, confirming that such policies can continue to be used to foster diversity. This ruling showed that affirmative action can be a vital tool for achieving equal educational opportunities, especially in states with significant racial and ethnic disparities. It allowed public universities to use race as one of many factors in admission decisions, which ensured that the student body was reflective of the broader society, providing historically disadvantaged students with access to top-tier educational resources.

Answer 54

Bakke v. Regents of the University of California (1978) The Court ruled that while racial quotas were unconstitutional, race could still be considered as a factor in admissions to promote diversity and remedy past racial discrimination. This case established the principle that affirmative action could be used as a tool to address the effects of historical discrimination. By allowing race to be one of many factors in college admissions, it helped to level the playing field for racial minorities, giving them access to opportunities that were previously denied due to systemic inequality. Gratz v. Bollinger (2003) The Court struck down the University of Michigan’s undergraduate admissions policy, which awarded points based on race, but upheld the broader concept of using race as one of many factors in admissions decisions. While the Court ruled against the specific method used in this case, it reaffirmed that affirmative action could be used to combat the legacy of racial inequality. The ruling emphasized that policies aimed at correcting systemic racial discrimination are vital for achieving equality in educational opportunities.

Answer 55

Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action (2014): The Court upheld Michigan’s ban on the use of race-based affirmative action in public university admissions, citing that voters had the right to end the practice. This decision illustrates the argument against affirmative action by emphasizing that race-based policies may perpetuate racial division rather than foster unity. Critics argue that affirmative action creates an unfair advantage for some groups, even if they are already highly qualified, and thus undermines the merit-based principles that many believe should guide admissions and hiring practices. Fisher v. University of Texas (2013) The Court ruled that the University of Texas’ affirmative action policy needed to meet strict scrutiny standards, calling into question the need for race-conscious admissions policies. Critics of affirmative action see this as evidence that the practice perpetuates racial preferences rather than focusing on merit and individual achievement. They argue that giving preference based on race rather than individual qualifications can lead to resentment and racial tensions, as well as concerns about fairness in college admissions and hiring.

Answer 56

Students for Fair Admissions v. President & Fellows of Harvard College (2019): The Students for Fair Admissions lawsuit against Harvard claimed that its race-conscious admissions process discriminated against Asian American applicants. The group argued that Asian Americans with high academic qualifications were being penalized in favor of applicants from other racial groups. Critics of affirmative action argue that such policies undermine merit-based admissions by prioritizing race over academic achievement. This case highlighted how race-based preferences can distort the admissions process, disadvantaging high-achieving students based on their racial identity, rather than their qualifications or potential. Hopwood v. Texas (1996): In Hopwood v. Texas, the Fifth Circuit Court ruled that the University of Texas could not use race as a factor in its admissions process, challenging the use of affirmative action in the state. The plaintiffs, including white and Asian American applicants, argued that they were denied admission despite their higher qualifications due to racial preferences. The decision reinforced the argument that race-based admissions policies create an unfair advantage for certain racial groups, potentially lowering academic standards. Opponents of affirmative action argue that such policies undermine equal treatment, as they prioritize race over merit and academic performance, leading to an unequal admissions process.

Answer 57

The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals DACA (2012): The program has allowed hundreds of thousands of young undocumented immigrants, known as Dreamers, to work legally in the U.S. This reform helps the economy by enabling them to contribute to the workforce and pay taxes. It also reduces the reliance on social services, as DACA recipients are able to support themselves and their families through employment. Additionally, many Dreamers pursue higher education, leading to a more skilled and educated workforce. Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (Hart-Celler Act): The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 was pivotal in reshaping U.S. immigration by eliminating the racially discriminatory quota system and increasing immigration from Asia, Africa, and Latin America. This reform allowed for a more diverse labor force, addressing shortages in industries like technology, health care, and agriculture. By expanding the pool of immigrants, the U.S. benefited from new skills, innovation, and entrepreneurship. It created a workforce that was not only larger but also more adaptable to the changing needs of the economy.

Answer 58

Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA): The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 granted official pardon to millions of undocumented immigrants who had been in the U.S. for years, leading to their integration into American society. It allowed these individuals to become legal residents, access social benefits, and contribute to the economy without the fear of deportation. This social integration helped immigrants establish roots in the U.S., which enhanced the country's diversity. As immigrants assimilated into various communities, the nation became more culturally rich and inclusive. Immigration Act of 1990: The Immigration Act of 1990 increased the annual number of legal immigrants and emphasized family reunification and the entry of skilled workers. This reform encouraged a more diverse mix of immigrants, which helped foster cultural exchange and mutual understanding. Immigrants from different regions brought unique traditions, foods, languages, and ideas that enriched American society. By promoting diversity and allowing new communities to thrive, the reform reinforced the U.S.'s identity as a "melting pot."

Answer 59

Trump's Immigration Ban (2017): President Trump's travel ban (referred to as the "Muslim Ban") was designed to limit immigration from countries that posed national security risks, as the administration argued that unrestricted immigration might place a strain on American workers. Opponents argued that such immigration increases competition for low-wage jobs, potentially driving wages down for American citizens. This belief is based on the idea that an influx of undocumented workers or asylum seekers could strain government resources, such as healthcare, education, and social services. Critics argue that unrestricted immigration reform could create an unmanageable economic burden, especially in states with high levels of poverty. California's Sanctuary State Laws (2017): California’s sanctuary state laws, which limit local law enforcement’s cooperation with federal immigration authorities, are seen by critics as exacerbating the problem of illegal immigration. They argue that these laws encourage people to cross the border unlawfully and exploit public services, ultimately putting a financial strain on the state’s welfare and education systems. Critics also assert that sanctuary policies undermine the rule of law, leading to an unregulated flow of migrants that could harm job markets and increase competition for public resources. The belief is that without stronger enforcement, economic inequality will rise, especially in lower-income communities.

Answer 60

Secure Fence Act of 2006: The Secure Fence Act authorized the construction of physical barriers along the U.S.-Mexico border to prevent illegal immigration, which critics of immigration reform view as necessary for national security. Supporters argue that without such measures, unrestricted immigration could open the door to individuals with criminal backgrounds or even potential terrorists entering the country undetected. They assert that border security is crucial for protecting citizens from foreign threats and maintaining social cohesion. Critics of lenient immigration reform often believe that open borders may lead to security risks and strain local law enforcement. Muslim Ban Executive Order (2017): The 2017 executive order, often called the "Muslim Ban," restricted entry to the U.S. from several predominantly Muslim countries due to national security concerns. Proponents of restrictive immigration policies argue that such measures are necessary to safeguard American citizens from individuals who might pose a threat to national security. They argue that, while controversial, such policies are essential for protecting the country from terrorism and maintaining social cohesion. These critics argue that unrestricted immigration reform could compromise national security, leading to potential threats entering the U.S. through less stringent vetting processes.

Answer 61

Obergefell v. Hodges (2015): In Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution guarantees the right to same-sex marriage, effectively legalizing it nationwide. The Court held that the denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment. This decision expanded civil rights by ensuring that same-sex couples were treated equally under the law, marking a significant step toward achieving full equality for LGBTQ+ individuals. It granted same-sex couples the same legal rights, including benefits such as tax advantages, healthcare, and inheritance, that were previously reserved for heterosexual marriages. Brown v. Board of Education (1954): Brown v. Board of Education ruled that racial segregation in public schools was unconstitutional, overturning the earlier Plessy v. Ferguson decision that upheld segregation under the "separate but equal" doctrine. The Court found that segregated schools were inherently unequal and violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. This landmark case was a critical step in the civil rights movement, leading to the desegregation of schools and other public facilities. It set a legal precedent that discrimination based on race is inherently harmful and violated the principle of equality, promoting a more inclusive society where all students, regardless of race, could receive equal educational opportunities.

Answer 62

Gill v. Whitford (2018): The Supreme Court ruled that the plaintiffs, who challenged partisan gerrymandering in Wisconsin, did not have standing to bring the case. The Court found they failed to show how the redistricting harmed their individual votes. This decision left partisan gerrymandering unresolved at the federal level, fueling debates about the fairness of district boundaries. Critics argued the Court missed an opportunity to set a standard for when gerrymandering violates voting rights, while others viewed the decision as upholding states' rights. Despite the ruling, Gill v. Whitford sparked further discussions on the need for reforms to prevent unfair manipulation of voting districts. Rucho v. Common Cause (2019): The Supreme Court ruled that partisan gerrymandering is a political issue, not one for the courts to resolve, effectively allowing partisan gerrymandering to continue unchecked in the United States. Critics argue that this decision undermines political equality by allowing political parties to manipulate district boundaries to favor themselves, diluting the voting power of citizens. By not intervening in gerrymandering cases, the Court arguably perpetuates inequality in the political process, where some voters’ voices are weighed more heavily than others.

Answer 63

Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022): In Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade (1973), removing the federal constitutional right to an abortion and allowing individual states to regulate or ban abortions. This decision effectively reversed decades of progress on women’s reproductive rights. Critics argue that this decision undermines gender equality by restricting women’s autonomy over their bodies and healthcare decisions. By leaving the legality of abortion up to individual states, the Court created a patchwork of rights, where women’s access to reproductive healthcare depends on where they live. This ruling is seen as a regression in the fight for gender equality, reducing women’s ability to make fundamental decisions about their lives and futures. Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018) Ruling and Impact: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of a baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, citing religious beliefs, in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The Court ruled that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had not shown proper respect for the baker’s religious beliefs. Opponents argue that this ruling allowed for discrimination against LGBTQ+ individuals under the guise of religious freedom. The decision raised concerns that religious liberty could be used to justify denying equal services to same-sex couples, undermining the progress made in civil rights for LGBTQ+ people. Critics believe that the ruling limits equality by giving precedence to individual religious views over the rights of marginalized groups.

Answer 64

Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2016): In Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, the Supreme Court upheld Arizona's redistricting plan, which was challenged for allegedly diluting Latino voting power. Although the Court upheld the plan, the case reflected ongoing concerns about fairness in political representation. Critics argue that such decisions, where district boundaries are not redrawn to protect minority voting power, perpetuate unequal political representation. The ruling allowed district lines to remain that could disproportionately affect marginalized communities, reducing their influence in the political process. This case highlights how the Court’s refusal to intervene in gerrymandering can lead to unequal voting power and representation. Crawford v. Marion County Election Board (2008): In Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, the Supreme Court upheld Indiana’s strict voter ID law, ruling that it did not violate the Constitution despite concerns it could disenfranchise poor, elderly, and minority voters.This decision was seen as a blow to voting equality, as critics argued that voter ID laws disproportionately impact low-income and minority voters who may not have the required documentation. Supporters of the law argued it was necessary to prevent voter fraud, but opponents believe it creates unnecessary barriers to voting, especially for vulnerable populations, thereby limiting their equal access to the political process.

Answer 65

Baker v. Carr (1962): In Baker v. Carr, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal courts had the authority to intervene in and decide redistricting cases, which had previously been seen as a “political question.” This ruling mandated that legislative districts be drawn based on population to ensure "one person, one vote," rather than by geographic areas that may be underrepresented. This decision ensured fairer representation in state legislatures by requiring districts to reflect the population, providing equal representation for all citizens. It expanded political participation by allowing urban areas with higher populations to be more fairly represented, addressing historical underrepresentation of these communities. The Court's ruling made sure that each vote carried the same weight, promoting fairer electoral outcomes across the country. National Voter Registration Act (1993): This was passed to make it easier for people to register to vote. It required states to offer voter registration at motor vehicle departments, public assistance agencies, and other government offices. The goal was to increase voter turnout and ensure that everyone, especially minorities and low-income groups, had access to voting. By bringing voter registration to everyday locations, it helped ensure that more people, including minorities and historically underrepresented groups, could participate in elections. The National Voter Registration Act is a key example of a law designed to protect and increase political participation for all citizens, regardless of background.

Answer 66

Grutter v. Bollinger (2003): The Supreme Court upheld the University of Michigan Law School’s affirmative action program in Grutter v. Bollinger, affirming that race can be a factor in admissions to promote diversity. This decision aimed to ensure that racial minorities, especially African Americans, have equal access to higher education and representation in professional fields. By upholding affirmative action, the Court ensured that minority groups had greater access to higher education, helping to increase their representation in law, business, and other fields that had historically been dominated by white Americans. The decision reinforced the idea that diversity in education contributes to a richer, more inclusive society. Affirmative Action in Employment: In the years following the 1965 executive order, the Court has upheld the principle that employers must take affirmative action to ensure equal employment opportunities for women and minorities. This has led to significant gains in workplace diversity, as companies and institutions were required to implement practices that promoted equal hiring. It enabled better representation of women and minorities in government contracts, private-sector jobs, and higher positions of authority. Over time, this has allowed for more equitable career opportunities and provided diverse communities with the chance to succeed in areas previously closed to them.

Answer 67

Rucho v. Common Cause (2019): In Rucho v. Common Cause, the Supreme Court ruled that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts. This ruling allowed states to manipulate district lines for political advantage without federal intervention, often diluting the representation of certain groups, particularly those who vote for the opposing party. This decision undermined fair political representation by allowing political parties to draw district boundaries in a way that ensures their dominance in elections, regardless of voter preferences. The ruling essentially removed a check on partisan gerrymandering, allowing for more entrenched political power and unequal representation. Critics argue that this diminishes the power of certain voters, particularly in swing states or minority communities, whose votes are effectively "wasted" through this manipulation. Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2016): The Supreme Court upheld Arizona’s redistricting plan, despite challenges that it diluted Latino voting power. The decision left intact the boundaries drawn by the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, which critics argued unfairly affected the political representation of minority communities. Although the decision was a win for Arizona’s redistricting commission, it left many feeling that it allowed the continued suppression of fair representation for minority communities. Critics argue that by allowing district lines to remain unchanged despite concerns about voter dilution, the Court ignored the needs of a growing Latino population and did not protect their fair political representation. This ruling raised concerns about the potential for political strategies that undermine fair access to the electoral process.

Answer 68

Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2022): The Supreme Court is poised to address the challenge against Harvard University’s affirmative action policies. The case, brought by a group called Students for Fair Admissions, claims that Harvard’s admission policies discriminate against Asian American applicants in favor of other racial minorities. If the Court rules against Harvard, it could roll back affirmative action policies that have helped increase racial and ethnic diversity in higher education. Critics argue that such a ruling could lead to a less diverse student body, diminishing the representation of underrepresented groups. This would likely make it harder for certain racial and ethnic groups to access educational opportunities, undermining efforts for greater equality in higher education. Ricci v. DeStefano (2009): In Ricci v. DeStefano, the Supreme Court ruled that the city of New Haven, Connecticut, violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by discarding a firefighter promotion exam because no Black candidates scored high enough. The Court ruled in favor of white and Hispanic firefighters who claimed they were victims of reverse discrimination. The ruling was seen as a setback for affirmative action efforts in employment, particularly in public sector jobs. The decision raised concerns that reversing actions to ensure racial equality in employment could limit opportunities for minorities to secure jobs or promotions in fields where they have historically been underrepresented. Critics argue that such decisions could lead to the erosion of policies designed to help balance representation in the workforce.

The Supreme Court and Civil Rights Flashcards

(92 cards)