Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

Politics Paper 3 > US Supreme Court Cases > Flashcards

US Supreme Court Cases Flashcards

1
Q

Marbury v Madison (1803)

A

Courts power of judicial review found in this case when it declared an act of congress unconstitutional.

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

Fletcher v peck (1810)

A

SCOTUS first declared a state law unconstitutional.

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

Dobbs 2022

A

Reversed the Roe v Wade and limiting women’s rights to abortion in some southern states

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

Brown v Board of Education of Topeka (1954)

A

Outlawed racial segregation in state run schools

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

Roe v wade (1973)

A

Women’s rights to abortion declared a constitutionally protected tight.

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

Obergefell v Hodges (2015)
Politicisation/ Activism v Restraint

A

Allowed same sex marriage

Activism - Created new policy
Politicisation - 5-4 ideological (loose with Kennedy as swing)

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

Obergefell v Hodges (2015)
Limits to other branches/states

A

Allowed same sex marriage
Overrides states law on action, limiting federalism

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

Obergefell v Hodges (2015)
Uphold/ remove/ establish

A

Allowed same sex marriage
New policy created, marriage equality through loose interpretation of 14th

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

Bush v Gore (2000)

A

Awarded the presidency to Bush

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

Citizens United v FEC (2010)

A

Overturned BCRA 2002 by classing interest groups and corporations as equal to people with first amendment rights

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

DC v Heller (2008)

A

Allowed individuals to carry firearms for reasons unconnected with militia like self - defence

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

New York State rifle & pistol association v bruen (2022)

A

Allowed for carry of concealed and loaded handguns in public

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

Dobbs v Jackson (2022)

A

Repealed Roe v Wade and have the right to introduce state bans / limits on abortions

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

Whole Woman’s health v Hellerstedt (2016)

A

Continued the defence of Roe v Wade

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

Bucklew v Precythe (2019)

A

Followed precedents on prisoners’ responsibility not the state to demonstrate that execution contravenes the 8th amendment (against cruel and unusual punishment). Gor such wrote the majority opinion that the majority opinion that the 8th does not guard against a painless death, just a cruel and unusual one

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

National federation of independent business NFIB v Sebelius (2012)

A

Upheld congressional law. Ruled ACA was constitutional as congress has the right to raise taxes which does not contravene states power.

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

Trump v Hawaii (2018)

A

Upheld executive order. Trumps Muslim travel ban due to terrorism concerns

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

US v Texas (2016)

A

Limiting power of president: Obama passed DAPA to allow certain illegal immigrants to be granted deferred action status , indefinite delay on deportation but not full citizenship allowing parents of lawful residents to remain in the country

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

Citizens United v FED

A

Citizens United 5-4 found that corporations and interest groups have 1st amendment rights and created a new policy of Super PACS who were allowed to raise unlimited amounts for campaigning

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

Carpenter v US (2018)

A

Charged with aiding and abetting robbery after police obtained his phone location record. He appealed on the ground that his 4th Amendment right to privacy has been violated

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

Trumps tax return

A

The house ways and means committee argued that it needs the information on trumps taxes to meaningfully evaluate the IRS’s presidential audit program

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

Planned parenthood Arkansas v Jegley (2018)

A

Arkansas law wanted to provide strict limits to when abortion could be given and was appealed against by planned parenthood the SC refused to hear the case from planned parenthood and in doing so , shaped policy by allowing the Arkansas law to stand limiting access to medicated abortions in the state

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

Biden v Nebraska (2023)

A

Biden planned to use the Heroes act to cancel student debt, the sc ruled that the act didn’t give Biden Sec of education such powers to cancel the $430 billion student loans

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

Us v Texas (2023)

A

Homeland security issued guidelines in 2021 to allocate funds to remove dangerous noncitizens present in the US. Texas and Louisiana challenged the decision as they would have depend more money on law enforcement and social services

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

Burrell v hobby lobby stores (2014)

A

Part of the ACA required family owed businesses to pay for health insurance coverage for contraception which hobby lobby objected to on religious grounds and claimed it violated their first amendment right protected further under the religious freedom restoration act 1993

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

Snyder v phelps (2011)

A

Snyders father sued the WBC for deformation after they picketed his sons funeral and published statements that his son raised his child for the devil as he was being raised a catholic

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

Carson v makin (2022)

A

The case centred on the limits of school vouchers offered by the state of Maine, which had disallowed the vouchers to be used to pay for religious- based private schools

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

Kennedy v Bremerton

A

The case involved Joseph Kennedy a high school football coach in the public school system of Washington

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

Creative LLC v Elenis (2023)

A

Smith, a graphic design business owner wanted to expand into wedding websites but opposed same-sex marriage on religious grounds and so didn’t wa t to offer this service to those couples. She wanted to post a message explaining her religious expressions

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

McDonald v Chicago (2010)

A

Following DC v Heller, the court ruled that the right to bear arms is protected fundamentally by the second amendment and the due process cause of the fourteenth this right cannot be infringed by state or local government

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

New York State rifle and pistol association v Bruen (2022)

A

2nd amendment right to carry concealed and loaded handguns in public (removing existing legislation after Biden passed bipartisan gun control)

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

Miranda v Arizona

A

Miranda confessed to rape unaware that he had a constitutional right to remain silent

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

Salinas v Texas

A

Salinas was questioned in a non-custodial situation by police concerned in a double murder. During the questioning was asking if his own shotgun would match the shell castings recovered at the scene of the crime, salinas fell silent. The prosecutor used the silence as an admission of guilt

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

Bucklew v Precythe (2019)

A

Bucklew was convicted of murder and argued that a rare physical condition would lead to a longer and more torturous death than usual by lethal injection.

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

Allen v Milligan

A

Alabamas redistributing plan for its house seats lefts the state with one majority black district. They’re accused of gerrymandering to split the black vote, violating section 2 of the voting rights act

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

Regents of the university of California v Bakke (1978)

A

Racial quotas ruled unconstitutional but allowed the continuation of race to be considered in the admissions process

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

Gratz v Bollinger (2003)

A

The court struck down by 6-3 a points-based admissions system Michigan university that awarded an automatic bonus to the admissions score of minority applicants as being too ‘mechanistic’

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

Grutter v bollinger (2003)

A

A separate case decided on the same day as Gratz, 5-4 ruling that Michigan law schools admissions programmes as constitutional because it took an individualised approach when considering the racial profile of applicants

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

Meredith v Jefferson county (2007)

A

5-4 that it was unconstitutional to assign students to public schools solely for the purpose of achieving racial balance. The court protected the equal protection rights (14th ammendments) announced in Brown v Board(1954) and ended schools use of racial quotas to ensure balance in school populations

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

Fisher v Texas (2016)

A

Fisher argued that she’d been discriminated against because minority students with less impressive qualifications were admitted and she was not. SCOTUS originally found that the Texas university policy must be scrutinised more due to the possibility of disband sent the case back to the federal appeals court

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

SFFA v North Carolina

A

The uni of North Carolina admissions programme violated the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment 6-3 majority opinion that the programmed could also not continue

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

SFFA v Harvard

A

The Harvard admissions programmes violated the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment. 6-3 majority opinion that the programme at Harvard could not continue to use race as a determining factor for admissions as it didn’t meet grutters strict conditions

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
43
Q

Shelby county v Holder (2013)

A

SCOTUS ruled against section 4b which effectively meant there could no longer be a preclearance formula on voting rights

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
44
Q

Husted v Randolph insititute (2018)

A

SCOTUS ruled voting caging was constitutional and permitted state action. Voting caging when voters who haven’t voted for a long time are removed from voting register (disproportionately affecting black Americans)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
45
Q

Merrill v Milligan

A

Alabama had changed to its racial population after the census was conducted which led to calls for another majority minority district. However the state didn’t create this district which had led to calls it violates VRA 1965

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
46
Q

Rasul v Bush (2004)

A

Detainees at Guantánamo Bay were entitled to constitutional rights, protections for a fair trial

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
47
Q

Hamdan v Rumsfeld (2006)

A

Detainees could only be subject to military trial with specific authorisation of Congress 

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
48
Q

NFIB v Sebelius restraint or activism?

A

restraint - ruling complied with congress and uphelp ACA

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
49
Q

NFIB v Sebelius politicisation?

A

yes - vote split 5-4 ideologically with roberts acting as swing justice

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
50
Q

Trump v Hawaii - restraint or activism?

A

restraint - complied with President and upheld EO

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
51
Q

Trump v Hawaii politicisation?

A

5-4 partisan split, evidence of politicisation

52
Q

Trump v Hawaii limiting another branch of gov?

A

no - did not limit President’s power

53
Q

Whole Womens Health v Hellerstedt restraint or activism?

A

restraint - not pursuing an ideological goal simply reinforcing previous decisions

54
Q

Whole Womens Health v Hellerstedt limiting another branch of gov?

A

limits on federalism - shows supremacy of federal laws and SC rulings

55
Q

Whole Womens Health v Hellerstedt upheld, removed, or established new policy?

A

Upheld Roe and removed Texas law that contravened

56
Q

US v Texas activism or restraint?

A

activism - acting to create new precedent

57
Q

US v Texas evidence of politicisation

A

the result was roughly split ideologically 4-4 (Scalia passed away and had not been replaced so even number on the bench)

58
Q

US v Texas limits on other branches of gov?

A

limits the power of the President by removing DAPA EO - upholds federalism and the intentions of the states

59
Q

Citizens United v FEC restraint or activism

A

activism - created new policy of super PACs ability to raise infinite money

60
Q

Citizens United v FEC limits on other branches of gov?

A

limited Congress - struck down piece of leg supported by both Pres and Congress

61
Q

Citizens United v FEC upheld, removed, or created new policy?

A

new policy created - allowed for the creation of Super PACs which were able to raise unlimited amounts of money - removed congressional legislation

62
Q

US v Windsor restraint or activism?

A

activism - allowed for marriage equality and went against DOMA (congressional leg)

63
Q

US v Windsor limits on other branches of gov / federalism

A

limited congress - ruled DOMA unconstitutional

64
Q

US v Windsor upheld, removed, or created new policy?

A

removed DOMA and created new policy to ensure marriage rights were equal but did not go as far as to legalise same sex marriage (element of restraint)

65
Q

Obgerfell v Hoges activism or restraint?

A

activism - created provisions for same sex marriage that were unlikely to pass through congress

66
Q

Obgerfell v Hodges limited other branches of gov / federalism?

A

limited federalism as it overrode state laws on the area

67
Q

Obgerfell v Hoges upheld, removed, or created new policy?

A

new policy created - marriage equality created through loose interpretation of 14th ammendment

68
Q

DC v Heller activism or restraint

A

activism - changed old precedent and did not defer to elected body

69
Q

DC v Heller limiting other branches of gov / federalism?

A

did not limit other areas

70
Q

DC v Heller upheld, removed, or created new policy?

A

created new policy - interpretation of 2nd amendment to establish new gun laws

71
Q

Carpenter v US restraint or activism?

A

activism - created new policy and did not defer to the elected body

72
Q

Carpenter v US limiting other branches of gov / federalism?

A

no limits

73
Q

Carpenter v US upheld, removed, or created new policy?

A

established new policy on phone location data

74
Q

Trump’s Tax Returns - activism or restraint

A

activism - created new policy which expanded powers of legislative body

75
Q

Trump’s Tax Returns limiting other branches of gov / federalism

A

limited exec and upheld congressional rights, giving them power over the Pres

76
Q

Trump’s Tax Returns upheld, removed, or created new policy?

A

established new policy which protected the roles of committees in congress and gave them power over the Pres

77
Q

Planned Parenthood Arkansas v Jegley restraint or activism?

A

complete restraint - did not even hear the case - defered to elected bodies

78
Q

Planned Parenthood Arkansas v Jegley limiting other branches of gov / federalism

A

upheld federalism - did not interfere on the rights of the states

79
Q

Planned Parenthood Arkansas v Jegley upheld, removed, or created new policy?

A

no policy created as they did not hear the case so left Arkansas law as is

80
Q

Biden v Nebraska restraint or activism?

A

activism - limiting the actions of the elected body
restraint - simply interpreting the constitution and the limits on Pres powers

81
Q

Biden v Nebraska limiting other branches of gov / federalism?

A

limiting executive through EOs (Biden’s student debt cancellation plans)

82
Q

Biden v Nebraska upheld, removed, or created new policy?

A

upheld powers laid out in constitution but removed EO of Pres (HEROES Act)

83
Q

US v Texas restraint or activism?

A

restraint - deferring to the law created by elected bodies (executive) and the constitution.

84
Q

US v Texas limiting other branches of gov / federalism?

A

limits on federalism as the states must comply with the new guidelines so removes some autonomy, uphold power of executive

85
Q

US v Texas upheld, removed, or created new policy?

A

upheld executive policy and powers of Homeland Security

86
Q
A
87
Q

Burwell v Hobby Lobby Stores restraint or activism?

A

activism - went against ACA (leg created by an elected body) to promote Christian ideology

88
Q

Burwell v Hobby Lobby limits to gov / federalism?

A

limits both exec (Obama at the time) and congress through congressional legislation (ACA) that the SC watered down

89
Q

Burwell v Hobby Lobby established, removed, or upheld policy / rights

A

established new policy that struck down some aspects of the ACA and weaked the right for contraception to be paid for

90
Q

Synder v Phelps restraint or activism?

A

restraint, not creating new policy just sticking by the strict interpretation of the constitution

91
Q

Synder v Phelps limiting gov or federalism?

A

no limits to other branches

92
Q

Synder v Phelps established, removed, or upheld policy / rights

A

did not create new precedent, stuck by the constitution

93
Q

Carson v Makin restraint or activism?

A

activism to promote an evangelical ideology (split down ideological lines 6-3)

94
Q

Carson v makin limiting gov / federalism

A

limits federalsim as it is infringing on the pre-established policy of the states

95
Q

Carson v Makin established, removed, or upheld policy / rights

A

created new precedent regarding 1st amendement

96
Q

Kennedy v Bremerton School District restraint or activism

A

activism - also promoting an evangelical ideology - going against an elected school boards decision

97
Q

Kennedy v Bremerton School District limiting gov / federalism

A

limits federalsim and the state’s rights to regulate education

98
Q

Kennedy v Bremerton School District established, removed, or upheld policy / rights

A

creating new policy regarding 1st amendment rights

99
Q

Creative LLC v Elenis restraint or activism?

A

activism - going against the laws created by the elected body of Colorado

100
Q

Creative LLC v Elenis limiting gov / federalism

A

limits federalism as it overturned Colorado law

101
Q

Creative LLC v Elenis established, removed, or upheld policy / rights

A

upholds 1st amendment and removed Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act.

102
Q

McDonald v Chicago restraint or activism

A

restraint - protected 2nd amendment and stuck to precedent of DC v Heller (stare decisis)

103
Q

McDonald v Chicago limiting gov / federalism?

A

limits federalism as states and local govs cannot infringe on 2nd amendment rights

104
Q

McDonald v Chicago established, removed, or upheld policy / rights

A

upholds 2nd

105
Q

New York Riffle and Pistol Association v Bruen restraint v activism?

A

restraint - simply upholding the constitution
activism - going against elected body of exec and congress by striking down Biden’s bipartisanship gun control legislation

106
Q

New York Rifle and Pistol Association v Bruen limiting gov / federalism?

A

limits both exec and legislature as they are removing bipartisanship gun control legislation

107
Q

New York Rifle and Pistol Association v Bruen established, removed, or upheld policy / rights

A

upheld 2nd, removed Biden’s legislation

108
Q

Miranda v Arizona restraint or activism?

A

restraint - simply applying the 5th amendment instead of going out of their way to create new policy

109
Q

Miranda v Arizona limiting gov /federalism?

A

no limits

110
Q

Miranda v Arizona established, removed, or upheld policy / rights

A

upheld 5th and established precedent that rights should be read out (Miranda rights)

111
Q

Salinas v Texas restraint or activism?

A

Restraint - did not establish new precedent
activism - infringed on the rights outlined in Miranda

112
Q

Salinas v Texas limiting gov / federalism

A

no limits

113
Q

Salinas v Texas established, removed, or upheld policy / rights

A

upheld 5th but weakened rights protected in Miranda - silence can be used as evidence of guilt

114
Q

Bucklew v Preclythe restraint or activism?

A

restraint - not creatimng new precedent but instead interpreting the constitution in a strict way

115
Q

Bucklew v Preclythe limiting gov / federalism?

A

no limits

116
Q

Bucklew v Preclythe established, removed, or upheld policy / rights

A

limited protections under 8th / clarified what the 8th really meant (painless death is not a right)

117
Q

Dobbs v Jackson restraint or activism?

A

activism - purposely changing policy to confirm to their religious beliefs and actively changing the constitutional rights of women, going against precedent created in Roe v Wade and Planned Parenthood v Casey

118
Q

Dobbs v Jackson limiting gov / federalism?

A

upholds federalism as it gives greater power to the states to set own abortion laws but does not uphold individual rights of women

119
Q

Dobbs v Jackson established, removed, or upheld policy / rights

A

removed protections / rights granted in both Roe and Casey and established completely new precedent

120
Q

Shelby County v Holder restraint or activism?

A

activism - actively removing / limiting government legislation
restraint - interpreted the constitution to outline what congress could and could not limit regarding voting rights

121
Q

Shelby County v Holden limiting gov / federalism?

A

limits legislature - struck down aspects of VRA 1965 that they declared unconstitutional due to preclearance requirements - upholds federalism as it ensures that all states have equal rights in regulating the franchise

122
Q

Shelby County v Holden established, removed, or upheld policy / rights

A

upheld state rights, infringed on the 15th amendment equal voting rights element and had a clear negative effect on ethnic minorities

123
Q

Allen v Milligan restraint or activism?

A

restraint - drew on previous precedent (stare decisis)

124
Q

Allen v Milligan limiting gov / federalism

A

limits federalism as state redistricting is denied

125
Q

Allen v Milligan established, removed, or upheld policy / rights

A

upheld congressional legislation (VRA 1965) and the 15th

Politics Paper 3 (2 decks)

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