Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
64 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
- 3rd side (hint)
Duncan v. Louisiana (1968)
|
Due Process Case
|
A crime requiring a 2-year sentence is sufficiently serious to require the right to a jury trial under the 6th Amendment (speedy & public trial), as applied to the states by the 14th Amendment (due process).
|
|
Lochner v. New York (1905)
|
Due Process Case
|
"The Baker's Case" - NY's regulation of the working hours of bakers was no a justifiable restriction of the right of contract freely under the 14th amendment's guarantee of liberty because no direct effect between the amount of hours and health have been made.
|
|
Nebbia v. New York (1934)
|
Due Process Case
|
In absence of other constitutional prohibitions the due process clause do not prohibit a state from enacting economic policies to further the public good, so long as the policy is not unreasonable or arbitrary.
Because the price controls (on milk) were not "arbitrary, discriminatory, or demonstrably irrelevant" to the policy adopted by the legislature to promote the general welfare, it was consistent with the Constitution. |
|
Williamson v. Lee Optical (1955)
|
Due Process Case
|
Oklahoma law regarding opticians violates the right to do business.
The Court held that the state laws regulating business will only be subject to rational basis review and that the Court need not contemplate all possible reasons for legislation. |
|
Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)
|
Due Process Case
|
|
|
Moore v. City of East Cleveland (1977)
|
Due Process Case
|
|
|
Michael H. v. Gerald D. (1989)
|
Due Process Case
|
|
|
Roe v. Wade (1973)
|
Due Process Case
|
|
|
Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)
|
Due Process Case
|
|
|
Gonzales v. Carhart (2007)
|
Due Process Case
|
|
|
Lawrence v. Texas (2003)
|
Due Process Case
|
|
|
Washington v. Glucksberg (1997)
|
Due Process Case
|
|
|
FCC v. Beach Communications, Inc. (1993)
|
Equal Protection Case: Race Discrimination
|
|
|
Loving v. Virginia (1967)
|
Equal Protection Case: Race Discrimination
|
|
|
Palmore v. Sidoti (1984)
|
Equal Protection Case: Race Discrimination
|
|
|
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)
|
Equal Protection Case: Race Discrimination
|
|
|
Brown v. Board of Education (1954)
|
Equal Protection Case: Race Discrimination
|
|
|
Bolling v. Sharpe (1954)
|
Equal Protection Case: Race Discrimination
|
|
|
Reed v. Reed (1971)
|
Equal Protection Case: Sex Discrimination
|
|
|
Frontiero v. Richardson (1973)
|
Equal Protection Case: Sex Discrimination
|
|
|
Craig v. Boren (1976)
|
Equal Protection Case: Sex Discrimination
|
|
|
Michael M. v. Superior Ct. (1981)
|
Equal Protection Case: Sex Discrimination
|
|
|
U.S. v. Virginia (1996)
|
Equal Protection Case: Sex Discrimination
|
|
|
Washington v. Davis (1976)
|
Equal Protection Case: Purpose Affirmative Action
|
|
|
Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)
|
Equal Protection Case: Purpose Affirmative Action
|
|
|
Graham v. Richardson (1971)
|
Equal Protection Case: Rational Basis, Rational Basis with Bite, and Sexual Orientation
|
|
|
Bernal v. Fainter (1984)
|
Equal Protection Case: Rational Basis, Rational Basis with Bite, and Sexual Orientation
|
|
|
Mathews v. Diaz (1976)
|
Equal Protection Case: Rational Basis, Rational Basis with Bite, and Sexual Orientation
|
|
|
City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center (1985)
|
Equal Protection Case: Rational Basis, Rational Basis with Bite, and Sexual Orientation
|
|
|
Romer v. Evans (1996)
|
Equal Protection Case: Rational Basis, Rational Basis with Bite, and Sexual Orientation
|
|
|
Goodridge v. Department of Public Health (2003)
|
Equal Protection Case: Rational Basis, Rational Basis with Bite, and Sexual Orientation
|
|
|
Gitlow v. New York (1925)
|
Free Speech: Advocacy of Crime
|
|
|
Yates v. U.S. (1957)
|
Free Speech: Advocacy of Crime
|
|
|
Scales v. U.S. (1961)
|
Free Speech: Advocacy of Crime
|
|
|
Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)
|
Free Speech: Advocacy of Crime
|
|
|
Paris Adult Theatre v. Slaton (1973)
|
Free Speech Case: Obscenity, Indecency, and Fighting Words
|
|
|
Miller v. California (1973)
|
Free Speech Case: Obscenity, Indecency, and Fighting Words
|
|
|
Jenkins v. Georgia (1974)
|
Free Speech Case: Obscenity, Indecency, and Fighting Words
|
|
|
Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002)
|
Free Speech Case: Obscenity, Indecency, and Fighting Words
|
|
|
American Booksellers Association v. Hudnut (7th Circuit. 1985)
|
Free Speech Case: Obscenity, Indecency, and Fighting Words
|
|
|
Cohen v. California (1971)
|
Free Speech Case: Obscenity, Indecency, and Fighting Words
|
|
|
Virginia v. Black (2003)
|
Free Speech Case: Obscenity, Indecency, and Fighting Words
|
|
|
Everson v. Board of Education
|
Establishment of Religion Case
|
|
|
Zorach v. Clauson
|
Establishment of Religion Case
|
|
|
Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe (2000)
|
Establishment of Religion Case
|
|
|
Edwards v. Aguillard (1987)
|
Establishment of Religion Case
|
|
|
McCreary County v. ACLU (2005)
|
Establishment of Religion Case
|
|
|
Van Orden v. Perry
|
Establishment of Religion Case
|
|
|
Agostini v. Felton
|
Establishment of Religion Case
|
|
|
Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002)
|
Establishment of Religion Case
|
|
|
Sherbert v. Verner (1963)
|
Religion: The Free Exercise Clause Case
|
The Free Exercise Clause mandates STRICT SCRUTINY for unemployment compensation claims. In this case, there must be a demonstrated COMPELLING GOVERNMENT INTEREST before denying unemployment compensation to someone who was fired because her job conflicted with her religion. - "Sherbert Test"
|
|
Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)
|
Religion: The Free Exercise Clause Case
|
The Wisconsin Compulsory School Attendance Law violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment because it required attendance past the 8th grade, which interfered with the right of Amish parents to direct the religious upbringing of their children.
State interest: government stability through educated citizens who are politically able was argued to be highly speculative of the possibility that Amish children would want to break away from their community. |
|
Employment Division v. Smith (1990)
|
Religion: The Free Exercise Clause Case
|
"The Free Exercise Clause permits the state to prohibit sacramental peyote use and thus, to deny unemployment benefits to persons discharged for such use."
Neutral laws of general applicability do not violate the Free Exercise of the First Amendment. |
|
Cutter v. Wilkinson (2005)
|
Religion: The Free Exercise Clause Case
|
Under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), prisoners in facilities that accept federal funds cannot be denied accommodations necessary to engage in activities for the practice of their own religious beliefs.
|
|
Sherbert Test
|
Test established by Sherbert v. Verner (1963) requiring the demonstration of a compelling state interest in Free Exercise cases.
|
1. Individual: must have a sincere religious belief.
2. Individual: A government action is a substantial burden on the ability to practice the religion. -- 3. Government: The government must have a compelling state interest. 4. Government: Pursuance of interest cannot be achieved with less restrictive means, or less burdensome means, to religion. |
|
Religious Freedom Restoration Act (1993)
|
Federal Act
|
Federal act which reinstated the Sherbert Test, which required strict scrutiny in determining if the Free Exercise Clause has been violated.
|
|
Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (2000)
|
Federal Act
|
No government shall impose a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person residing in or confined to an institution unless the burden furthers a compelling government interest and does so by the least restrictive means.
|
|
Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah (1993)
|
Religion: The Free Exercise Clause Case
|
The states cannot restrict religiously-mandated ritual slaughter of animals, regardless of the purpose of the slaughter.
Statute targeted the religion Santeria. |
|
Incorporation Doctrine
|
The incorporation of the Bill of Rights (or incorporation for short) is the process by which American courts have applied portions of the U.S. Bill of Rights to the states. In the past, the Bill of Rights was held only to apply to the federal government. Under the incorporation doctrine, certain provisions of the Bill of Rights now also apply to the states, by virtue of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.
|
|
|
Standard of Proof
|
Requirement of proof of criminal charges that are beyond reasonable doubt.
"Preposition being presented by the prosecution must be proven to the extent that there is NO REASONABLE DOUBT in the mind of a reasonable person that the defendant is guilty. |
|
|
Rational Basis Test
|
Rational Basis: Government can restrict an ordinary liberty if the restriction is rationally related to serving a legitimate state interest.
Presumption of constitutionality applies. + Ordinary liberty + Rationally related to state interest |
Used for all other discriminatory statutes (i.e. age, disability, political preference, political affiliation, or sexual orientation) & business (commerce) regulation
|
|
Intermediate Scrutiny
|
Intermediate Scrutiny: government interest must be important but the means must be substantially related to the end.
+ Compelling interest + Means substantially related to the end |
Used for quasi-suspect classes (i.e. sex or legitimacy)
|
|
Strict Scrutiny
|
Strict Scrutiny: Government can restrict a fundamental liberty if the restriction is narrowly tailored to serving a compelling state interest. A presumption of unconstitutionality applies
+ Compelling state interest + Narrowly tailored + Least restrictive means |
Used for suspect classes (i.e. national origin and religion)
|
|
Compelling governmental interest
|
List examples
|
|