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;
53 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Marbury v. Madison*
|
Date: 1803
Issue: Writs of Mandamus, Court Jurisdiction Holding: Don't have jurisdiction Doctrine: Judicial Review
|
|
|
Dred Scott v. Sandford*
|
Date: 1857 Issue: Slave status, citizen status of black men, the Missouri Compromise Holding: He's a slave, black men aren't citizens, M.C isn't constitutional Doctrine: Due Process, Substantive Due Process, Judicial Review, Judicial Activism, Full Faith and Credit clause |
|
|
The Slaughter-House Cases* |
Date: 1873 Issue: Slaughter-house monopoly Holding: Is not relevant in the 14th amendment Doctrine: Privileges and immunities, due process, equal protection |
|
|
Bradwell v. Illinois* |
Date: 1873 Issue: Male only lawyers in Illinois Holding: That's fine Doctrine: Privileges and immunities etc |
|
|
Minor v. Happerset* |
Date: 1874 Issue: Voting rights for women Holding: Voting isn't a guaranteed right Doctrine: Privileges and immunities etc, suffrage |
|
|
Strauder v. West Virginia* |
Date: 1880 Issue: All white juries in WV Holding: Violates the 14th amendment Doctrine: Privileges and immunities etc |
|
|
The Civil Rights Cases* |
Date: 1883 Issue: The Civil Rights Act of 1875 Holding: Not permitted Doctrine: Privileges and immunities etc |
|
|
Lochner v. New York* |
Date:1905 Issue: Bakeshop Act Holding: Cannot restrict hours for baking Doctrine: Right to Contract, Substantive due process, Lochner era, strict scrutiny (economic) |
|
|
US v. Carolene Products Co* |
Date: 1938 Issue: Filled Milk Act Holding: Act acceptable, Judiciary won't meddle in legislation too much on economics Doctrine: Rational basis test, footnote four, strict scrutiny (minorities etc) |
|
|
Plessy v. Ferguson* |
Date: 1896 Issue: Separate Car Act Holding: Separate but equal is equal Doctrine: Separate but equal, equal protection |
|
|
Brown v. Board of Education* |
Date: 1954 Issue: Segregated schools Holding: Separate but equal is not equal Doctrine: Equal protection, Judicial supremacy (eventually) Related: The Southern Manifesto, The Civil Rights act of 1964 |
|
|
Bolling v. Sharpe* |
Date: 1954 Issue: Segregated schools in DC Holding: Same as Brown, but apply 5th amendment due process Doctrine: 5th am. due process, reverse incorporation |
|
|
Loving v. Virginia* |
Date: 1967 Issue: Anti-Miscegenation laws Holding: These are unconstitutional. And racist. And just the worst. Doctrine: Equal protection et al, substantive due process |
|
|
Grutter v. Bollinger* |
Date: 2003 Issue: Affirmative action admission at University of Michigan Holding: Permissible for the benefits of diversity Doctrine: Strict Scrutiny, equal protection |
|
|
Fisher v. University of Texas, Austin* |
Date: 2013 Issue: Affirmative action admission Holding: Have the appellate court look it over again Doctrine: Judicial restraint |
|
|
Craig v. Boren* |
Date: 1976 Issue: Beer sale laws to men and women Holding: The law is unconstitutional because the stats are insignificant Doctrine: Equal protection, intermediate scrutiny |
|
|
US v. Virginia* |
Date: 1996 Issue: VMI as an all male military institute Holding: Unconstitutional, the alternative (VWIL) is not equal at all Doctrine: Equal protection, intermediate scrutiny |
|
|
Buck v. Bell* |
Date: 1927 Issue: Sterilizing the mentally ill Holding: It is permissible for the health/protection of the state Doctrine: Due Process |
|
|
Romer v. Evans* |
Date: 1996 Issue: Colorado Amendment 2- no legislation stopping discrimination against LGBT can be passed Holding: no. Doctrine: Equal Protection, strict scrutiny |
|
|
US v. Windsor* |
Date: 2013 Issue: Marriage rights, untaxed spouse estate Holding: States must recognize other state's marriages despite their laws Doctrine: Equal Protection, Full Faith and Credit Clause, DOMA |
|
|
Baker v. Carr* |
Date: 1962 Issue: Malapportionment, redistricting in TN Holding: The democratic process is malfunctioning, so must be adjusted Doctrine: Equal protection, footnote 4 |
|
|
Reynolds v. Sims* |
Date: 1964 Issue: Malapportionment, redistricting in TN Holding: The democratic process is malfunctioning, so must be adjusted |
|
|
Shaw v. Reno* |
Date: 1993 Issue: Racial gerrymandering Holding: You can't really do that Doctrine: Equal protection, strict scrutiny |
|
|
Bush v. Gore* |
Date: 2000 Issue: Who won the election? Holding: Bush, I guess. Doctrine: I guess judicial activism maybe |
|
|
Robert H. Bork |
-Constitutional originalist -Judges have no power past the laws in place -Meaning of the words at the time, not necessarily what the framers intended |
|
|
John Hart Ely |
-Constitution isn't perfect and needs to be filled -Minority rights need to be protected, can't be assumed to be in conjunction with majority -Virtual representation is needed -Representatives must be affected by the laws they create |
|
|
William J. Brennan, Jr. |
-Constitution is a living document -Society changes, and we can't be constrained to "long lost generations" |
|
|
Strict Scrutiny |
Means: Narrowly tailored Ends: Compelling State Interest |
|
|
Intermediate Scrutiny |
Means: Substantially related Ends: Important state interest |
|
|
Rational Basis Test |
Means: Rationally related Ends: legitimate state interest |
|
|
Barron v. Baltimore |
Date: 1833 Issue: Can the 5th amendment be applied to the states? Holding: No, it's a federal issue only. So freedoms granted in the BoR don't restrict state governments ` |
|
|
McDonald v. Chicago |
Date: 2010 Issue: Do states have to comply with the 2nd amendment Holding: Yes, it's incorporated in DPC of 14th am |
|
|
United States v. O'Brien |
Date: 1968 Issue: Is burning a draft card protected under the 1st am. Holding: No, the law against it is justified by significant government interest (unrelated to the suppression of speech) |
|
|
Texas v. Johnson |
Date: 1989 Issue: Is flag burning protected in the 1st am.? Holding: Yes. The laws against it were in place only to suppress the speech, no other gov. interests |
|
|
Renton v. Playtime Theaters |
Date: 1986 Issue: Are restrictions on adult theater's locations a violation of the 1st am.? Holding: No, the regulation in question was content neutral and had government interest |
|
|
Buckley v. Valeo |
Date: 1976 Issue: Is regulating campaign contributions a violation of free speech? Holding: Sometimes yes. Gov can regulate contributions and enforcement, but not disclosure rules or expenditures |
|
|
Citizens United v. F.E.C. |
Date: 2010 Issue: Is the rule in Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of not posting videos after a window a violation of free speech? Holding: Yes, the restriction is unconstitutional. This begins the treating of corporations as people with rights. |
|
|
Reynolds v. United States |
Date: 1878 Issue: Does the anti-poligamy law violate Mormon's free exercise of religion? Holding: No, the law on its face is one of general applicability and Mormons can't have a religious exemption. Trying to avoid "every person becoming a law unto himself" |
|
|
Employment Division v. Smith |
Date: 1990 Issue: Is criminalizing the use of Peyote a violation of free exercise for native americans? Holding: No, he can't do that Aftermaths: Liberals concerned this opinion will oppress marginalized people, so pass RIFRA |
|
|
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby |
Date: 2014 Issue: Does Hobby Lobby have to comply with the contraceptive part of the Affordable Care Act when they are religiously opposed? Holding: No, RIFRA means that they can be exempt (though the law is still legal). This adds religious for-profits to the exemption of religious non-profits |
|
|
Engel v. Vitale |
Date: 1962 Issue: Does reading a prayer in school (not required to participate, but required to be read) violate the establishment clause? Holding: Yes, New York was "approving" of a kind of religion here. |
|
|
Corp. of the Presiding Bishop of Church of LDS v. Amos |
Date: 1987 Issue: Does allowing religious employers to choose employees for non-religious jobs by their religion violate the est. clause? Holding: No, they can do this cuz the law exempting them was for a "secular legislative purpose" |
|
|
Lemon v. Kurtzman |
Date: 1971 Issue: Does providing state aid to religious schools violate the est. clause? Holding: Yes, the law "excessively entangles the gov w/ religion", the 3rd part of the Lemon Test established in this case |
|
|
Griswold v. Conneticut |
Date: 1965 Issue: Is a ban on providing contraceptives for married people constitutional? Holding: No, there is a "right to privacy". Incorporates aspects from 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 9th amendment. Discrepancies in the majority on which part is most important |
|
|
Eisenstadt v. Baird |
Date: 1972 Issue: Is the holding in Griswold applicable for non-married people? Holding: Yes, making a distinction between married and non-married people fails the rational basis test |
|
|
Roe v. Wade |
Date: 1973 Issue: ABORTION! Is it legal? Holding: Yep, right to privacy, and the state interest against abortion isn't sufficient enough |
|
|
Planned Parenthood v. Casey |
Date: 1992 Issue: Are all these random regulations to abortion allowed? Holding: Nope. Can't place an "undue burden". No longer right to privacy, now the DPC [liberty] |
|
|
Washington v. Glucksberg |
Date: 1997 Issue: Does a ban on assisted suicide violate the 14th amendment? Holding: No, assisted suicide isn't a right |
|
|
Bowers v. Hardwick |
Date: 1986 Issue: Is a ban on sodomy (which naturally discriminates against gay men) unconstitutional? Holding: No. Majority framed it as a "right for homosexuals to engage in sodomy" (not protected) while dissenters framed it as "right for gay men to be let alone" (protected) |
|
|
Lawrence v. Texas |
Date: 2003 Issue: Does a ban on homosexual sex violate the constitution? Holding: Yes. Yes. All the time yes. The court is turning down moral legislation here |
|
|
Lemon Test |
1. Statue must have a secular, legislative purpose 2. Principal or primary effect cannot advance or inhibit religion 3. It doesn't excessively entangle the government with religion |
|
|
Obergefell v. Hodges |
Date: 2015 Holding: Nope. Be free, BE MERRY. |
|
|
O'Brien Test |
1. Gov regulation is sufficiently justified, and within the constitutional power of the gov 2. Furthers an important/substantial government interest 2. The interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression 4. The "incidental" restriction of expression is not greater than the interest |
