Study your flashcards anywhere!

Download the official Cram app for free >

  • Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

A key: Read text to speech.a key


Play button


Play button




Click to flip

40 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
Gitlow v. New York (1925)
~Anarchy act stated that it was against the law to say/publish anything about overthrowing the government
~gitlow said that it violated his 1st amendment right as a communist
~established states can keep people from overthrowing the government
~set up the incorporation doctorine (going to pick and choose which BOR rights to apply to states)
Everson v. BOE (1942)
~A New Jersey law authorized payment by local school boards of the costs of transportation to and from schools. As some of these schools were parochial Catholic schools, Arch R. Everson filed a lawsuit alleging that this violated both the New Jersey State Constitution and the First Amendment.
~ruled that the state bill was constitutionally permissible
~incorporated the Establishment Clause
~beginning of a powerful separationist drive by the Court, during which many programs and practices given government sanction were found to have religious purposes or effects and thus invalidated
Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)
~ruled that Pennsylvania's 1968 Nonpublic Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which allowed the state Superintendent of Public Instruction to reimburse nonpublic schools (most of which were Catholic) for teachers' salaries, textbooks and instructional materials, violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
~The Court's decision in this case established the "Lemon test", which details the requirements for legislation concerning religion. It consists of three prongs:
The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose;
The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.
If any of these 3 prongs are violated, the government's action is deemed unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Westside school district v. mergens (1990)
~case involving a school district's ability to hold classes on Bible study after school.
~Westside High School, in District 66, located in Omaha Nebraska, refused to let a group of students wishing to form a Christian Bible Study Club within their school. Bridget Mergens is the name of the student who initiated the process to start the club. She was a senior at the time. It was decided that the club could not take place because they would not allow a staff member to sponsor it (staff sponsoring was required or the club meetings could not take place at the school). The students argued that the district's decision was in violation of the Equal Access Act requiring that groups seeking to express “religious, political, philosophical, or other content” messages not be denied the ability to form clubs.
~In an 8-1 decision the Supreme Court held that the club could hold their meetings, however their sponsor could not be paid; this would truly be an endorsement of religion.
~The school's situation was placed under the Equal Access Act because it allowed other ‘limited open forums’. The Lemon Test is used to ensure that the Equal Access Act is constitutional.
Reynolds v. US (1879)
a Supreme Court of the United States case that held that religious duty was not a suitable defense to a criminal indictment. George Reynolds was a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, charged with bigamy after marrying Amelia Jane Schofield while still married to Mary Ann Tuddenham in Utah Territory
Employment division v. smith (1990)
~case that determined that the state could deny unemployment benefits to a person fired for violating a state prohibition on the use of peyote, even though the use of the drug was part of a religious ritual. Although states have the power to accommodate otherwise illegal acts done in pursuit of religious beliefs, they are not required to do so.
~Alfred Smith (an American Indian) and Galen Black (a white man) were members of the Native American Church and employees at a drug rehabilitation clinic who were fired because they had ingested peyote, a powerful hallucinogen, as part of their religious ceremonies as members of the Native American Church. However, intentional possession of peyote is a crime under Oregon law. The counselors filed a claim for unemployment compensation, which was denied because the reason for their dismissal was deemed work-related "misconduct."
~The U.S. Supreme Court reasoned that if the state could punish the possession of peyote as a crime without infringing a person's right to exercise his religion, it could also withhold unemployment benefits from those who possess peyote without violating the right to exercise religion. But the Oregon Supreme Court had not relied on the fact that possession of peyote was a crime in Oregon, and so the U.S. Supreme Court sent the case back to the Oregon Supreme Court so that it could answer that question. The Oregon Supreme Court held that Oregon law did indeed proscribe the possession of peyote, but that applying Oregon's ban on possession of peyote to deny Smith and Black unemployment benefits violated their right to exercise their religion
Schenck v. U. S.
~Court decision concerning the question of whether the defendant possessed a First Amendment right to free speech against the draft during World War I. Charles Schenck was the Secretary of the Socialist party and was responsible for printing, distributing, and mailing 15,000 leaflets to men eligible for the draft that advocated opposition to the draft.
~unanimous opinion held that Schenck's criminal conviction was constitutional.
~The First Amendment did not protect speech encouraging insubordination
~the court held, the circumstances of wartime permit greater restrictions on free speech than would be allowable during peacetime.
Tinker v. Des Moines
~a decision by the United States Supreme Court that defined the constitutional rights of students in U.S. public schools. The Tinker test is still used by courts today to determine whether a school's disciplinary actions violate students' First Amendment rights.
~John F. Tinker, Mary Beth Tinker, and their friend Christopher Eckhardt decided to wear black armbands showing peace symbols on them to their schools in protest of the Vietnam War... they were suspended
~decision held that the First Amendment applied to public schools, and that administrators would have to demonstrate constitutionally valid reasons for any specific regulation of speech in the classroom
D.C. v. Heller
~landmark legal case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for private use. It was the first Supreme Court case in United States history to directly address whether the right to keep and bear arms is a right of individuals or a collective right that applies only to state-regulated militias.
~the six residents of Washington, D.C. filed a lawsuit in the District Court for the District of Columbia, challenging the constitutionality of provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975, which restricted residents from owning handguns
~Supreme Court struck down the D.C. gun law. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, stated, "In sum, we hold that the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense ... We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals" This ruling upholds the first federal appeals court ruling ever to void a law on Second Amendment grounds
Mapp v. Ohio
landmark case in criminal procedure, in which the United States Supreme Court decided that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects against "unreasonable searches and seizures", may not be used in criminal prosecutions in state courts, as well as federal courts.
Gideon v. Wainwright
~unanimously ruled that state courts are required under the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution to provide counsel in criminal cases for defendants unable to afford their own attorneys or lawyers.
~Gideon wrote appeal to SC on prison stationary
Miranda v. Arizona
The Court held that both inculpatory and exculpatory statements made in response to interrogation by a defendant in police custody will be admissible at trial only if the prosecution can show that the defendant was informed of the right to consult with an attorney before and during questioning and of the right against self-incrimination prior to questioning by police, and that the defendant not only understood these rights, but voluntarily waived them.
Plessy v. Ferguson
~upholding the constitutionality of racial segregation even in public accommodations (particularly railroads), under the doctrine of "separate but equal".
~"Separate but equal" remained standard doctrine in U.S. law until its repudiation in the 1954 Supreme Court decision Brown v. Board of Education.
Korematsu v. US
a landmark United States Supreme Court case concerning the constitutionality of Executive Order 9066, which required Japanese-Americans in the western United States to be excluded from a described West Coast military area.

In a 6-3 decision, the Court sided with the government,[2] ruling that the exclusion order was constitutional. The opinion, written by Supreme Court justice Hugo Black, held that the need to protect against espionage outweighed Fred Korematsu's individual rights, and the rights of Americans of Japanese descent. (The Court limited its decision to the validity of the exclusion orders, adding, "The provisions of other orders requiring persons of Japanese ancestry to report to assembly centers and providing for the detention of such persons in assembly and relocation centers were separate, and their validity is not in issue in this proceeding.")
Brown v. BOE
a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court, which overturned earlier rulings going back to Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896, by declaring that state laws that established separate public schools for black and white students denied black children equal educational opportunities. Handed down on May 17, 1954, the Warren Court's unanimous (9-0) decision stated that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal." As a result, de jure racial segregation was ruled a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

class action suit
Regents of the University of CA v. Bakke
race could be only one of numerous factors used by discriminatory boards, such as those of college admissions.
Griswold v. Connecticutt
a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Constitution protected a right to privacy. The case involved a Connecticut law that prohibited the use of contraceptives (birth control). By a vote of 7-2, the Supreme Court invalidated the law on the grounds that it violated the "right to marital privacy".
Roe v. Wade
a United States Supreme Court case that resulted in a landmark decision regarding abortion.[1] According to the Roe decision, most laws against abortion in the United States violated a constitutional right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision overturned all state and federal laws outlawing or restricting abortion that were inconsistent with its holdings. Roe v. Wade is one of the most controversial and politically significant cases in U.S. Supreme Court history. Its lesser-known companion case, Doe v. Bolton, was decided at the same time.[2]

Roe v. Wade centrally held that a mother may abort her pregnancy for any reason, up until the "point at which the fetus becomes ‘viable.’" The Court defined viable as being "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid. Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."[1] The Court also held that abortion after viability must be available when needed to protect a woman's health, which the Court defined broadly in the companion case of Doe v. Bolton. These rulings affected laws in 46 states.[3]

The Roe v. Wade decision prompted national debate that continues today. Debated subjects include whether and to what extent abortion should be legal, who should decide the legality of abortion, what methods the Supreme Court should use in constitutional adjudication, and what the role should be of religious and moral views in the political sphere. Roe v. Wade reshaped national politics, dividing much of the nation into pro-Roe (mostly pro-choice) and anti-Roe (mostly pro-life) camps, while activating grassroots movements on both sides.
Barron v Baltimore
Barron said Baltimore was violating property rights (amendment 5) with their dirt back wash

SC established that BOR didn't apply to states (just federal govern)
Palko v Ct
double jeopardy not incorportated

in 1969, this was reversed and incorporated
Engel v. Vitale
students had to voluntarly say a prayer during school

violated establishment clause

schools shouldn't write prayers

do elementary schoolers know its neutral/ voluntuntary?
Wallace v. Jaffrece
law allows meditation or voluntary prayer in school

violated S part of lemon test

meditation is ok, but not prayer
Lee v Weisman
prayer at graduation or other school ceremonies

said it violated 1st amendment rights

SC said excess entanglement was telling what clergyman what to say

violated X part of lemon test
Santa Fe v. Doe
prayer led by student before football game

students choosen by votes

SC said this violated 1st amendment because student used government facility
Serbert v. Verner
serbert believed you couldn't work on a saturday

SC refused to give her insurance

serbert test established (senvere religous beleif? govern place burden on individual? compelling interest? least restrictive way to have the law?)

serbert violated 3rd part of test

thrown out in 1990
abrams v US 1919
he was passing out flyers refusing the draft

abrams arrested by espionage act

in times of danger/war, freedoms are restricted

created "bad tendency test' if there is a possibility that words would cause danger- that's enough to limit speech
Burge v Ohio 1969
established imminent threat test- if there si a clear threat, then the speech can be limited
Miller v Ca
miller advertised porn at his store

arrested for obsenity

SC decided how to regulate porn: violate community standard? portray sex offensively? have serious lit, art, pol, or sci value?

leave deciding to local authorities
Bethel v. Fraser
gave a speech in high school with sexual innuendo


SC left it up to school
Hazelwood v Kuhlmeier
principal must approve school newspapers

took out a few articles (about preguancy and divorce)

SC ruled against the reporter even though it is prior restraint
law to force NAACP to give member list to Al govern

violated freedom of association

SC upheld that NAACP doesn't have to
Morse v frederick 2007
boy scouts of america v dale
dale was gay and was a BSA leader and was kicked out

SC held that this was constitutional because BSA was a private organization

can discriminate by gender
weeks v us
police break into week's house w/o warrent and arrest weeks

sc established exclusionary rule (fruit of the poisen tree)

need a warrent for a non poisen search (probable cause)

not incorportated to states (v US)
girl was smoking in school bathroom

her purse was searched and marijuana was found (principal had no warrent)

she was arrested

SC voted taht if there is reasonable reason for school to search because a school rule was broken, than it is constitutional
Furman v GA 1972
black man killed a white man and sentenced to death

more blacks are discriminated against and given death penalty

halted death penalty (SC nullified death penalty procedures- moratorium)
Gregg V GA 1976
GA's new producers for death are questioned

SC approves them and other states copy them
Atkin v Va
unconstitutional to execute a mentally retarded man

evolving standards of decencey
Roper v Simmons 2005
unconstitutional to execute a minor
Kennedy v La 2008
not ok to execute someone unless they commit murder