Const Law Exam 1

Front 1

Holder v Humanitarian Law Project (2010)

Back 1

Antiterrorist act of 1996 (AEDPA) prohibits material support or resources to terrorists groups (and patriot act, Terrorist Prevention act of 2004). Humanitarian Law Project was teaching nonviolent advocacy skills to Iraq and Sri Lanka (PKK and LTTE, secessionists). Claimed violated 1st amendment and 5th amendment due process process problems. Quotes U.S v Williams when state inteferes with a right, a more stringent vagueness test must apply, fair notice of what is prohibited, clarity and precise guidance has never been required even of regulations. "Congress allows pure political speech not material support". Proper stamdard of review is set in U.S v Brian. Cohen v California also barred speech, but that was offensiveness and not material support (preamble mentions common defense). Chief Justice Roberts gives opinion of court, Justie Breyer, Ginsburg and Sotomayor dissent, saying all activities involve communications and advocacy of ideas,lawfull means peaceful means, earlier cases freedom of association. No

Front 2

Abrams v. United States (1919)

Back 2

Abrams giving out leftist leaflets. Clarke gave opinion: Says antiwar while in the middle of war, also trying to incite revolution, riots. Mentions forms of government, disconnect from U.S government, etc. Affirmed. Dissent: Schenk, Frohwek and Debs were rightly decided. Does not doubt clear and imminent danger as legit to punish, butright to free speech is same as outside of war. Twenty years of imprisonment for two pamphlets is bs. Brandeis concurs with foregoing opinion.

Front 3

In what case did the Nixon administration brought action in federal court to prevent publication in the New York Times and the Washington Post of certain materials collectively called the Pentagon Papers?

Back 3

New York Times vs. U.S pg 511

Front 4

Texas v. Johnson (1989)

Back 4

Johnson burned flag in front of Dallas City Hall in protest of Reagen admin&corporations, where republicans were gathering and Reagan was being renominated. Convicted of flag desecration. Texas court of Criminal Appeals reversed based on 1st amendment. Brennan Opinion of court: Must determine if expressive. O Brien test (burning of draft card, mix of speech and non speech elements). Two issues: preventing breaches of peace, flag is symbol nationhood. No distrubance of peace, Terminiello v Chicago: function of free speech is to invite dispute. Not fighting words (Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire). Tried on political speech (burning flag considered correct disposal). Can' t ban simply off of offense. Kennedy, Brennan, Rehnquist, White, O'Connor concur. Stevens dissent saying desecration will tarnish value of flag.

Front 5

Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)

Back 5

Brandenburg (KKK leader) convicted under Ohio law for advocating crime/violence for poltiical reform. His conviction affirmed by Ohio appelate court. Per curiam (opinion of court) by Douglas: Fined 1,000 sentenced 10 years. He was not armed. Whitney v. California advocated violence, was allowed to, but has been discredited: Dennis v. U.S. Free speech cannot be bannned cause of advocacy of force or violence except where is inciting imminent lawless action/likely to produce such action. Measured by test, Ohio Criminal Syndicalism Act cannot be sustained. Act condems 1st and 14th amendment, contrary teaching of Whitney v California cannot be supported, decision is reversed. Black & Douglas concurs that "clear and present danger" has no place in 1st amendment interpretation, though cites Dennis, does not concur with clear and present danger. The line is between ideas and overt acts.

Front 6

Branzburg v. Hayes (1972)

Back 6

Branzburg reporter, wrote article about two men who made hashish. Refused to identify. Paul Pappas cameraman/reporter and Caldwell refused to testify about Black Panthers coverage. Action against Kentucky Trial Judge John P. Hayes. Chief justice says Issue is whether requiring newsmen to appear and testify before federal grand jurries abridges freedom of speech, does not. Opinion by White, concur .: Said 1st amendment and parts 1,2,8 of Kentucky const allowed him to refuse. Reported detailed use of drugs. If testified, his effectiveness as reporter would be damaged. Reporters say: to gather news, often neccesary not to reveal source. Court says reporter posses info relevant to a case and is unavailable from other sources. Do not suggest news fathered does not qualify for 1st amend protection. Court says press can keep source anonymous in paper, and they are not censoring paper. Issue is reporting to grand jury questions relevant to crime. 5th amendment protects against SELF incrimination. Evidence fails to i

Front 7

What is the role of the Fifth Amendment regarding due process?

Back 7

5th amendment prevents individuals from being punished w/o due process of law.

Front 8

If a law or other government action limits a fundamental rights, it may be held to violate what constitutional provision?

Back 8

14th amendment Privileges or Immunities Clause

Front 9

Gannet co v. DePasquale (1979)

Back 9

Two defendants for murder/robbery/grand larceny, requested public be excluded from hearing. Said jeopardized fair trial. Judge DePasquale granted the motion, Gannet publishers approved. Judge refuseed immediate access to transcript saying right to fair trial > freedom of press. Stewart opinion: When defendents pleaded guilty, transcripts were finally availble. 6th amendment says "right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury" Nowhere does it mention right of access to a criminal trial. Amici: friend of court. Even if the 6th and 14th amendment had right to public trial, no evidence can go to a pretrial proceedings. Once danger of prejudice was gone, info was given, it was temporary. Burger, Powell, Rehnquist concurred, other mixed opinions.

Front 10

Apodaca v. Oregon (1972)

Back 10

After court agreed in Duncan v. Louisiana that A criminal defendent is entitled to a jury trial in the states, court faced: Could jury verdicts be less the unaNimous even if unanimity is required in federal courts? Apodaca and two other dudes returned less the unanimous verdicts. White judgement (which chief justice, blackmun and Rehnquist joined): Violates right to trial by jury by 6th amendments, and made applicable to states by 14th. See Duncan v. Louisiana. We granted certiorari (formal order seeking judicial review) for that claim, and find without merit. In williams v. Florida, consider issue: whether 6th amendment's right to trial requires are all juries of 12 men, and disregard it now, same conclusion here with requirement of unanimity. 12 men and unanimity part of common law. *Some stuff about founding fathers and common law. One possible inference is unianmity and other accustomed requisites were left out, because were thought of as implicit. Framers explicitly left out common law requisites. Affir

Front 11

New York Times Co. v Sullivan (1964)

Back 11

NY times ad included false statements about Alabama police action taken against civil rights demonstrators. Sullivan brought libel against paper and 4 civil rights leaders. Brennan opinion of court: Whether constitution limits state power to award damages in a libel action brought by a public official against critics. Sullivan elected commission of Montgomery. Never mentions sullivan by name, only police. NY times mentions padlocking dining hall to starve students to submission, Dr King being arrested 7 times. Falsities like: Different song sang at rally, instead of students expelled for demonstration, they were expelled for demanding service at a lunch counter, lunch room was not padlocked. Police were near campus but rang to go there. Police did not bomb Kings house. Because of Governor of Alabama, TImes retracted Ad. Libel injury and accidental injury are the same to one's reputation. Sedition act created meaning for 1st amendment. No evidence of malice. REVERSED AND REMANDED. Black, douglas concur, black

Front 12

Lynch v. Donnelly (1984)

Back 12

Yearly in Pawtucker, RI, city of a Nantucket setup Christmas display in a park owned by non profit organization near shopping district. Display includes nativity scene , say that it is violation of establishment clause, Lynch the mayor defends. District court upheld challenge, 1st circuit affirmed. Justice Burger delivered opinion of court: Many other components, all owned by city. In first week congress approved of establishment clause, it paid for CHaplains for House and Senate. Insufficient evidence that creche is trying to establish a religious message. Question of whether secular purpose. A religious endorsement would be like Board of Ed vs Allen, Everson v. Board of Ed, Tilton v. Richardxson, Roemer v. Board of Public Works, Walz v. Comm'n, which all brought money to religious institutions, or Sunday closing laws : Gowan v. Maryland, time program for religious training: Zorach v. Clauson, or legislative prayers upheld: Marsh v. Chambers. REligion clauses are less concern today. Judgement reversed, O C

Front 13

*Palko v. Connecticut (1937)

Back 13

Tests Double Jeopardy clause. Cardozo looks at individual rights found implicit in concept of ordered liberty. Palko first trial had life imprisonment, second trial was execution. Also in support of slective iconporation of protections by 14th amendment. Cardozo delivered opinion: Retrial because of prejudice: excluding testiomony of a confession, excluding testiomony upon cross examination of defendant to impeach his credibility, and instruction to the jury as to difference between 1st and 2nd degree murder. He made objection of double jeopardy, which was overruled and 2nd trial began. Verdict murder of 1st degree. Supreme court of errors affirmed judgement of conviction, sentence will not deprive him of life w/o proess of law in 14th amendment. Argument for appellant (party who appeals decision) is whatever is forbidden by 5th is forbidden by 14th. 14th says nor shall any state deprive any person of lif, lib property w/o due process. Double jeopardy violates 5th. It applies to states. 14th amendment preent

Front 14

Ballew v. Georgia (1978)

Back 14

In Apodoca v. Oregon jurt verdicts in sates need not be unanimous in federal courts. Court also had to resolve questions of size of jury. Williams v. florida says need not be 12, can be 6. Could it be less? Ballew says Georgia's law of allowing 5 is unconstituional (violates 6th and 14th amendment right to trial by jury). Blackmun announces judgement and delivers opinion in which stevens joined; 14th amendment gurantees right of trial by jury (for all non petty crimes), Duncan applies 6th cause it is fundamental to justice. Right attaches to present case bause maximum penalty for alleged offenses exceeded 6 months imprisonment. In williams v florida, duncan v. louisiana, purpose of jury is to prevent government opression, safeguard. Williams held 6 juries is legit. Williams said common law had 12 cause by historical accident, cases after had it because they assumed it was constitionally compelled. 6th only mandated jury big enough to promote group delibieration. Empirical data says less likely deliberation w

Front 15

What are the two distinct objectives of the religion clauses in the First Amendment?

Back 15

To prevent establishing a religion, but also to keep government from limiting freedom of religious folks.

Front 16

Emerson v. Board of Education (1947)

Back 16

Ewin nj reimbused $$ spent sending kids to school, even catholic schools. Everson filed suit challenging right of Board of Ed reimbursing parochial students. Nj supreme court held unconstitutional, was reversed by court of errors/appeals. Justice Black delivered opinion: Everson charged due to Due Process Clause of 14th amendment, also 1st amendment establishment clause. Words of Jefferson: clause was to create wall of separation (Reynolds v. U.S). Can't support religious institutions w/ tax support, but can't prohibit general state law benefits just cause of religion. Plus many parents rather send their kids to religious schools if it met secular requirements (pierce v. society of sisters). Compares transportation cost to policing. Dissent Justice Jackson: No grounds which support current legislation. Rutledge, Frankfurter, Jacksona nd Burton agree dissenting: Just like Cochran v. Board of Ed opened up oblique ruling *supplying secular texts for religious schools), more laws will widen breach.

Front 17

Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)

Back 17

Lemon (parents) v. Kurtzman (superintendent P.A). 3 judge federal court says law violated neither Establishment or Free exercise. Burger opinion: P.A pays salaries, textbooks, instruction materials in secular subjects, RI pays 15 % of annual salary. They are unconstitutional. Rhode Island Supplementary act enacted in 1969. Salary cannot exceed public school teacher, cannot teach religious subjects, only teaching materials in public schools. Quarter of state pupils accomodated. P.A statute: state buys out secular teachers in religious schools, 20 % of students in state. Board of Ed v. Allen says no excessive entanglement. Also says only intent to enchance secular education. BUT cumulative impact of entire relationship is entanglement, and teachers can't remain religion neutral in religious school. State can't sit and watch these teachers, and to do so is excessive entanglement. ALso in RI teachers going past public school salary are examined to see how much religion and secular ed they teach, this is excessiv

Front 18

Engel v. Vitale (1962)

Back 18

Engel parent brought suit against Vitale (board of ed) against prayer in school. Courts in NY upheld prayer saying you can get out of praying. Black delivered opinion: Government composed prayer. Entanglement. Wall of separation. Founding colonialists story. NY Courts reversed and remanded. Frankfurter and WHite neutral, Douglas concurred: saying its short but still infringes. Stewart dissents saying: blah blah heritage.

Front 19

What are the minimum rights of a n accused according to "due process"?

Back 19

Feds can't take away life liberty or property w/o due process 5th amendment. Ch 11.

Front 20

Wallace v. Jaffree (1985)

Back 20

Alabama 1 minute silence for prayer/meditation. Authorized teachers prayer to creator. Wallace is governor, Jaffree is parent filed suit. Court of 11 th circuit reversed. Stevens delivered opinion: Lemon test, statute had NO secular purpose. Senator holmes supported voluntary prayer, same when asked of intent. Court of appeals affirmed. Powell and Oconner concurred. Burger, White, Rehnquist dissent: say hostility towards religion, only a moment of silence, says only to prohibit establishment of religion.

Front 21

McCreary County v. ACLU (2005)

Back 21

McCreary & Pulaski county: 10 commandments. ACLU brought suit for establishment clause. Countries adopted resolution saying it represented "precedent legal code", saying that Constitution had religion language, also added Magna Carta, lyrics Star Spangled Banner. 6th court denied counties claim of secular message, McCreary county brought to Supreme Court. Souter opinion of court: Stone v. Graham said Commandments in School against establishment. Court rejects county courts rejection of Lemon's purpose test. Lol all the language was religious. Framers wanted to protect religious folks (wallace v. jaffree) but not side on a religious debate. Affirmed 6th court. Oconnor, Scalia, Chief Justice, and THomas concur. Kennedys likes establishment and purpose, but disagrees with neutrality, says rest of court prepusoses religion vs. irreligion. Scalia concludes that no intent to advance religious practices.

Front 22

Powell v. Alabama (1932)

Back 22

Scottsboro case, Powell and other black youths raped two white girls, found guilty given death sentence. Due process problems? Justice Sutherland delivered opinion: 14th amendment issues: not given fair trial, denied right to counsil, tried before jury where blacks weren't allowed. Fight with white guys and two white girls, thrown off train. Not asked if friends can assist/counsel. Until morning of trial, no lawyer appointed. They were ignorant and illiterate, even smart layman are helpless in court. Judgements REVERSED. McReynolds concurs, Butler dissents.

Front 23

In re Gault (1967)

Back 23

15 year old made lewd prank call, arrested without telling parents. Supreme court of Arizona concluded Gault's verdict did not offend due process requirements. Deputy Probation Officer Flagg filed petition, parents didn't know until a few months later at habeus corpus hearing. Only mentioned he was a minor. Complainant, and father was not there. No transcripts, record of substance was prepared. Mother said he handed phone to friend, Judge said he had said lewd comments. No explanation of why in detention home or why released. Further hearing still lacked complainant, still no communication w her. After hearing a referral report made w/o telling parents, and Gault was sent to State Industrial School until 21. Juvenile cases exempt many adult rights (trial by jury ), and maximum offense for adult version of crime is $5 to $50 or jail no more then 2 months. Justice Fortas said notice must be given and must be specific, if proceeding mean institution, parents must be told, and self incrimination applies to juve

Front 24

Duncan v. Louisiana (1968)

Back 24

Justice white delivers opinion. Duncan convicted of battery, punishable maximum by 2 years. He was sentenced to 60 days and $150. He sought jury trial, but was denied due Louisiana Cosntitution which only grants to capital punishment or imprisonment hard labor may be imposed. 14th amendment due process, protects 5th and 6th amendments. Question is whether fundamental principles of liberty lie at political institutions (powell v. alabama). In re oliver, whether in basic system of jurisprodeunce, and a fundamental right, essential to a fair trial in Gideon v. Waitwright. Jury trial 6th amendment. Right to jury came from English, Magna Carta, settlers. In declaration of independence. Crimes carrying penalties up to 6 months dont need jury (Cheff v. Schackenberg), but if penalty is relevant, trial maybe subject to 6th amendment (District of Columbia v. Clawans). Federal system: crimes 6 months <and 500 dollar fine is petty crime. 49 states trial w.o jury in punishable no more then one year. For courts purposes

Front 25

Furman v. Georgia (1972)

Back 25

Furman alongside other folks were convicted of crimes and sentenced to death. Question of whether death penalty = cruel and unusual punishment. Per curiam: Reversed due to violating 8th and 14th amendments. Douglas, BRennan Stewart, White, Marshal support. Chief Justice, Blackmun, Powell, Rehnquist diossent. Douglas concur: Say it'd odd how arbitrarily death is given as penalty.

Brennan: severe punishment it does not inflict on others. Uniquely degrading to human dignity. Executions were dropping until the last 40 years.

Stewart: Death penalty has total irrevocability. Rejects rehabilitation. Many have been convicted of rape or murder haven't had death penalty.

White: Pointless and needless, and thought to justify by social ends.

Marshall: Innocent people being executed. Usually poor illiterate people executed, minority groups, mostly men not women.

Chief justice burger dissents ( w/ whom blackmun, powell, rehnquist join): says cases try to define cruel and unusual. Says ought to have conditions of wh

Front 26

Dickerson v. United States (2000)

Back 26

Dickerson charged w conspiracy to bankrob. District court granted his motion surpress statement he made in violation of Miranda. 4th circuit reversed suppression saying that statute made by Congress would have final say. Rehnquist delivered opinion: Congress can't supercede a decision we made about constitution see City of Boerne v. Flores. Court has said that Miranda warning as prophylactic (NY v. Quarles) and not themselves protected by Constitution (Michigan v. Tucker), Court of appeals took that view. Miranda rights created to protect self incrimination. Though exceptions (NY v. Quarles, Harris v. NY), but also broadened application (Doyle v Ohio, Arizona v. Roberson), decisions show principle. Don't think justification in overruling Miranda. Following stare decisis, we decline to Overrule Miranda, court of appeals REVERSED. Scalia and Thomas Dissent: Radical revision of Miranda: that it is a permanent place in justice. Says volunttarry confession is voluntary even Miranda was not said.

Front 27

Gideon v. United States (2000)

Back 27

In Betts v. Brady, court held that defendant not entitled to be appointed counsel for non capital cases. Black gave opinion: Gideon broke into pool room. Not granted counsel due to Florida law (only granted for capital crime). He asks to reconsider Betts v. Brady. Just like betts case (small crime, no lawyer no funds, prison). Betts held no counsel, said did not violate Due Process of 14th amendment. 6th amendment right to counsel. Powell v. Alabama had concluded right to counsel., Court says in previous cases (Johnson, Avery, Smith) if 6th amendment fails, justice fails. Betts overruled, judgement REVERSED.

Front 28

District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)

Back 28

Heller (a special police officer) sought to register handgun to keept home, DC refused, DC circuit reversed agreeing it violated 2nd amendment. Scalia delivered opinion: Violated 2nd amendment. Right of people seperate from Militia. RIght of people placed in other places (1st, fourth and 9th), all refer to individual rights. Keep and bear arms refers to weapons, fire arms. 9 provisions of constitution have same language. English right as well. Well regulated militia seperate. U.S vs. Cruikshank original opinion said only feds can, Supreme court said individual rights. Limited, no dangerous or unusual weapons. Handgun ban bands most used firearm. It is not role of this Court to pronounce 1nd amendment extinct. Affirm judgement of Appeal Court. Stevens opinion of dissenters (souter, ginsburg, breyer): U.S v. Miller; military right. Breyer dissent: Is not absolute, permits government to govern interest of who it serves.

Front 29

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943)

Back 29

Barnette JW rejected salute to pledge. Jackson delivered opinion of court: Failure to say pledge is expulsion. Not pledging does not take away anyone else's rights. Gobitis took lincoln's delimma of being too strong for liberties or too weak to be strong. 14th amendment protects folks from the states. Purpose of bill of rights was to protect from majorities. Gobitis: National unity is basis of national security. Question is if this is permissible to achieve unity. Those who use coercion to stop dissent will find themselves eliminating dissenters. Bill of rights is there to stop coercion in it's beginnings. Patriotism will flourish voluntarily. Transcends 1st amendment limitations. GOBITIS OVERRULED. But way of saluting flag affirmed, though voluntary only. Murphy, black, douglas concurred. Roberts and Reed dissented, as well as Frankfurter who said freedom of religion should not allow individuals to break laws.

Front 30

Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974)

Back 30

Welch said a murder trial part of communist conspiracy to discredit police. Welch falsely claimed Gertz ,attorney who had defended parents of youth killed by cops was labeled by Welch a "Communist Fronter" and said he had criminal record. Powell gave opinion of court: Nucio cop killed youth named Nelson. Relying on NY v Sullivan, Welch said Gertz had to prove malice. Court of appeals relied on Rosenbloom case "all discussion...matters of public" protected from liability for defamation. Brenan of that case took New York times further suggesting distinction between private and public officials. Under 1st amendment, there are no false ideas. Blackmun concurred. Burger dissented: relinquishes individual for negligence in defamatory statements. Douglas: By this logic no accommodations of freedom in 1st amendment can be proper except made by framers themselves. Brennan: We must strike accommodation between self censorship and protection of individual reputations. White: Now we must figure out what liability w.o