Constitutional Law Cases To Remember

Front 1

Case that established the Lemon Test.

Back 1

Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)

Front 2

What are the three parts of the Lemon test?

Back 2

1) The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose;

2) The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;

3) The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.

Front 3

Case that changed establishment clause test from "valid secular policy" to "least restrictive/compelling government interest test" (Sherbert test)

Back 3

Sherbert v. Verner (1963)

Front 4

Case that incorporated the establishment clause to the states and applied Jefferson's language regarding the separation of church and state.

Back 4

Everson v. Board of Education (1947)

Front 5

Case that allowed the government to regulate religious practices that are new or were unknown to the framers.

Back 5

Reynolds v. United States (1879)

Front 6

Case that ruled that the court did not need to consider the validity of a religious belief, only whether it was believed sincerely.

Back 6

United States v. Ballard (1944)

Front 7

Case that removed Sherbert test and replaced with the Smith test, which stated that the government's regulation is valid if it is a neutral law that is generally applicable.

Back 7

Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith (1990)

Front 8

Case that ruled that students had the right to express their opinions peacefully through nonverbal symbolic gestures. Schools could not restrict such behavior in light of the 1st Amendment's free exercise clause.

Back 8

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969)

Front 9

Case which distinguished between abstract advocacy of violence (which is protected speech) from speech that incited imminent violence or otherwise unlawful behavior.

Back 9

Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)

Front 10

Case which established the "clear and present danger" test.

Back 10

Schenck v. United States (1919)

Front 11

Case that ruled that a grand jury was not a required protection of due process, but that did not consider the question of whether or not such a right should be incorporated.

Back 11

Hurtado v. California (1884)

Front 12

Case that ruled that the protection against double jeapordy was not a fundamental right of due process, but established the notion of selective incorporation of fundamental rights.

Back 12

Palko v. Conneticut (1937)

Front 13

Case that incorporated the 6th Amendment to the states due to the fact that the right to trial by jury is a fundamental right.

Back 13

Duncan v. Louisiana (1968)

Front 14

Case that ruled that the 5th amendment does not apply to the states and that the Bill of Rights only applies to the national government.

Back 14

Barron v. Baltimore (1833)

Front 15

Case that established the principle of judicial review.

Back 15

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

Front 16

Case that incorporated the free exercise clause of the 1st Amendment and established valid secular policy test.

Back 16

Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940)

Front 17

Case that established the "fighting words test."

Back 17

Chaplinskey v. New Hampshire (1942)

Front 18

Case that established the bad tendency test for regulating free speech.

Back 18

Abrams v. United States (1919)

Front 19

Case that challenged Tinker ruling, claiming that schools were subject to special environmental restrictions that justified restrictions on their free expression (in this case: "Bong Hits 4 Jesus!")

Back 19

Morse v. Frederick (2007)

Front 20

Case that ruled that religious expression in public areas were acceptable so long as they had historical meaning and were not intended to promote a purely religious viewpoint.

Back 20

Van Orden v. Perry (2005)

Front 21

Case that was the first Supreme Court decision that struck down a state law on constitutional grounds.

Back 21

Fletcher v. Peck (1810)

Front 22

Series of cases that threw out the "privileges and immunities" clause as a legal protection to individuals, since its meaning was vague and unclear.

Back 22

Slaughterhouse Cases (1873)

Front 23

Case that established a "liberty of contract" under the due process clause in the 14th Amendment. Struck down a state law that restricted the amount of time that a baker could work in a week.

Back 23

Lochner v. New York (1905)

Front 24

Case that allowed for the taking of private property from one person and giving it to others. Expanded the meaning of the takings clause.

Back 24

Kelo v. City of New London (2005)

Front 25

Case that extended the right of privacy found in Griswold v. Connecticut to the right to have an abortion. Also an example of substantive due process.

Back 25

Roe v. Wade (1973)

Front 26

Case that ruled that sex-based admission policies at educational institutions are violations of the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause.

Back 26

United States v. Virginia (1996)

Front 27

Case that ruled the government had the authority to wiretap individuals without a warrant. 4th and 5th Amendment did not apply. Justice Brandeis gave a major dissent to this case.

Back 27

Olmstead v. United States (1928)

Note: Justice Brandeis dissent argued for substantive due process.

Front 28

Case that struck down a law which prohibited schools from teaching German and other foreign languages after World War I. Relied upon the principle of substantive due process, ruling that the 14th Amendment's protection of liberty was more valuable than protecting a semblance of public interest.

Back 28

Meyer v. Nebraska (1923)

Front 29

Case that extended the 14th Amendment protection to create a right to privacy that protects the individual from government regulation of their right to birth control. Also, an example of substantive due process.

Back 29

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)

Front 30

Case that was dismissed on procedural grounds. It was concerning the constitutionality of allowing a state government to regulate birth control.

Back 30

Poe v. Ullman (1961)

Note: Justice Harlan's dissent argued that substantive due process could be used to strike down laws prohibiting birth control.

Front 31

Case that grants substantive due process protection for sodomy due to the fact that sexual conduct in the home is private.

Back 31

Lawrence v. Texas (2003)

Front 32

Case that ruled that "separate but equal" doctrine is inherently unequal. Struck down school segregation as a violation of equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

Back 32

Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

Front 33

Case that established the doctrine of "separate but equal," which allowed for racial segregation as long as civil and political rights were also respected.

Back 33

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

Front 34

Case established that the equal protection clause protects the right of two individuals to enter into an interracial marriage.

Back 34

Loving v. VA (1967)

Front 35

Case that disallowed overbroad, sex-based assumptions as violations of the equal protection clause in the 14th Amendment.

Back 35

Reed v. Reed (1971)

Front 36

Case that ruled that racial classifications must be analyzed under a standard of strict scrutiny.

Back 36

Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena (1995)

Front 37

Case that grants substantive due process protection for sodomy due to the fact that sexual conduct in the home is private.

Back 37

Lawrence v. Texas (2003)

Front 38

Case that ruled that "separate but equal" doctrine is inherently unequal. Struck down school segregation as a violation of equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

Back 38

Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

Front 39

Case that established the doctrine of "separate but equal," which allowed for racial segregation as long as civil and political rights were also respected.

Back 39

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

Front 40

Case established that the equal protection clause protects the right of two individuals to enter into an interracial marriage.

Back 40

Loving v. VA (1967)

Front 41

Case that disallowed overbroad, sex-based assumptions as violations of the equal protection clause in the 14th Amendment.

Back 41

Reed v. Reed (1971)

Front 42

Case that ruled that racial classifications must be analyzed under a standard of strict scrutiny.

Back 42

Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena (1995)

Front 43

Case that ruled against quota systems for minorities in education admissions processes. Educational diversity is insufficient Race can only be a "plus" consideration.

Back 43

Regents of University of California v. Bakke (1978)

Front 44

Case that accepted Bakke, but applied the "plus factor" consideration of race, ruling that affirmative action was justified under the "plus factor" test.

Back 44

Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)

Front 45

Case that ruled that the right to vote for presidential electors was a fundamental right once granted by the state legislature. Individual votes need to be counted equally under the 14th Amendment.

Back 45

Bush v. Gore (2000)

Front 46

Case that upheld constitutionality of most of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. Upheld electioneering communication and soft money regulations.

Back 46

McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003)

Front 47

Case held that Indiana law requires voters to provide photo IDs does not violate Constitution.

Back 47

Crawford v. Marion County Election Board (2008)

Front 48

The case that established the exclusionary rule to improperly-gathered evidence.

Back 48

Weeks v. United States (1914)

Front 49

Case that established the reasonable expectation standard: privacy follows persons, not property. Also considered society's expectation of the right to privacy.

Back 49

Katz v. United States (1967)

Front 50

Case that ruled that police must show actual and continuing threat to justify warrantless vehicle search incident to an arrest after vehicle's occupants have been arrested and secured.

Back 50

Arizona v. Gant (2009)

Front 51

Incorporates exclusionary rule to the states.

Back 51

Mapp v. Ohio (1961)

Front 52

How many of the things should you clean?

Back 52

ALL THE THINGS!!!!!!

http://oaxacaborn.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/clean-all-the-things-via-hyperbole-and-a-half.png?w=584&h=438

Front 53

Case ruled that searches must be reasonable to objects and search cannot be excessively intrusive in light of age and sex of student and nature of infraction.

Back 53

Safford US District #1 v. Redding (2009)

Front 54

Can one simply destablize a Ugandan warlord by liking a status?

Back 54

No.

http://i.chzbgr.com/completestore/2012/3/8/5162000d-a114-426f-8dad-5713c1a6740a.jpg

Front 55

Case that ruled that the right to keep and bear arms rests with the individual, that the 1st part of the 2nd Amendment informs the 2nd part, and that the right to keep and bear arms is not absolute.

Back 55

DC v. Heller (2008)

Front 56

Case ruled that President can detain enemy combatants, but that those combatants should be allowed to question their status as an enemy combatant before a neutral decision-maker.

Back 56

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004)

Front 57

Will we be failures in the eyes of Dr. Verbois even if we do not do very well on this exam?

Back 57

Perhaps, but there our worse things we could do to get Dr. Verbois to complain about our abilities.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/potential.png

Front 58

Case ruled that the president could detain unlawful enemy combatants and that they could be tried by military tribunals. Ignored Milligan.

Back 58

Ex Parte Quirin (1942)

Front 59

During wartime, the president may suspend writ of habeus corpus, but if civilian courts exist, then they must conduct the trial. Military courts may not do so unless there are no civilian courts.

Back 59

Ex Parte Milligan (1866)

Front 60

Case that ruled that executive privilege exists, but it has limits. National security or the protection of military secrets counts as a legitimate exercise of executive privilege, but the rule of law dictates that if such considerations are not present in criminal cases, that executive privilege does not apply

Back 60

U.S. v. Nixon (1974)

Front 61

Were those the droids that you were looking for?

Back 61

Yes. Yes, they were.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-FnPFZi_sHm0/TyvzLzgW6FI/AAAAAAAAAeo/7nD4Z3eFwiU/s1600/kitten5.jpg

Front 62

Case that ruled that only Congress could remove private property, not the president, particularly without express approval from Congress. Justice Jackson wrote an important concurring opinion regarding presidential powers.

Back 62

Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952) aka "Steel Seizure case"

Note: Justice Jackson's concurrence identified three levels of presidential power:
1) President with congressional authority
2) Zone of twighlight
3) President without congressional authority

Front 63

Case that ruled that the state has an interest in a high evidential burden for life and death matters.

Back 63

Cruyan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health (1990)

Front 64

Case that upheld the constitutionality of a Georgia anti-sodomy law that criminalized oral and anal sexual relationships between consenting homosexual adults. Later overturned by Lawrence v. Texas.

Back 64

Bowers v. Hardwick (1986)

Front 65

How does the Honey Badger feel about taking this Con Law exam?

Back 65

Honey Badger don't care!

http://s3.amazonaws.com/kym-assets/photos/images/newsfeed/000/140/306/honey-badger.gif

Front 66

Are there any exhaust plorts that go directly to the main reactor on this new Death Star?

Back 66

Exhaust Plorts? Really?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XQGfymPVU0&feature=relmfu

Front 67

Case that ruled that responses made during police interrogations by defendants in custody are inadmissable if the defendant was not informed of 5th Amendment rights and afterwards, voluntarily waived them

Back 67

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

Front 68

Should CIA agent, Joseph Allen, have killed the Russian terrorist, Makarov, much sooner so as to prevent the slaughter of hundreds of innocent people?

Back 68

Yes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VuVRE6BOJc

Front 69

Case that replaced Aquilar-Spinelli test for probable cause with the "totality of the circumstances" test.

Back 69

Illinois v. Gates (1983)

Front 70

Case that overturned Colorado amendment that banned homosexuality. Applied standard of strict scrutiny under equal protection clause.

Back 70

Romer v. Evans (1996)

Front 71

Case that ruled that criminal suspects have a right to counsel during police interrogations under the 6th amendment.

Back 71

Escobedo v. Illinois (1964)

Front 72

Case that upheld the right to abortion but lowered standard of restriction from trimester consideration to an undue burden test.

Back 72

Casey v. Planned Parenthood (1992)

Front 73

What are the exceptions to a warrant requirement?

Back 73

1. Incident to valid arrest
2. Loss of evidence searches
3. Safety
4. Consent
5. Hot pursuit
6. Plain view

Front 74

Case that ruled that statutory or administrative sex classifications had to be subjected to an intermediate standard of judicial review. First articulation of intermediate scrutiny.

Back 74

Craig v. Boren (1976)