Court Cases

Front 1

Adarand Const v Pena

Back 1

any program that classifies based on race is subject to strict scrutiny

Front 2

Brown v Brd of Education

Back 2

overturns plessy

Front 3

Gideon v Wainwrigt

Back 3

the state has to provide a lawyer if the accused is too poor. Incorporation case.

Front 4

Craig v Boren

Back 4

programs that classify based on gender are subject to medium scrutiny

Front 5

Mapp v Ohio

Back 5

establishes "exclusionary rule"

Front 6

Escobedo v Illinois

Back 6

Have opportunity to talk to lawyer and be informed of the right not to talk

Front 7

Miranda v Arizona

Back 7

Have to be informed of all rights. Established "Miranda warning"

Front 8

Plessy v Ferguson

Back 8

separate but equal

Front 9

Massachusettes v Shepard

Back 9

establishes the "good faith expection" to the exclusionary clause

Front 10

Gregg v Georgia

Back 10

death penalty does not violate the 8th amendment

Front 11

Furman v Georgia

Back 11

states had to rewrite their death penalty laws

Front 12

NJ v TLO

Back 12

gave schools more freedom to conduct searches as "reasonable suspicion" replaced "probable cause" as legal justification

Front 13

Reno v ACLU

Back 13

extends freedom of speech to the internet

Front 14

Ashcroft v ACLU

Back 14

ruled that obscenity was not protected by the first amendment

Front 15

Tinker v Des Moines

Back 15

protects symbolic speech

Front 16

US v Eichman

Back 16

even if it is offensive and disagreeable, you cannot limit symbolic speech

Front 17

Lemon v Kurzman

Back 17

established "lemon test" to rule on violation of church and state

Front 18

Buckley v Valeo

Back 18

spending is speech

Front 19

Texas v Johnson

Back 19

overturned a texas state law banning flag burning

Front 20

NY Times v US

Back 20

court ruled that you can't impose prior restraint unless there is a direct threat to national security

Front 21

Roth v US

Back 21

established the use of community standards to determine what was obscene

Front 22

Schenck v US

Back 22

established the "clear and present danger" test

Front 23

Youngstown Sheet

Back 23

limited the power of the president by stating that the power of the Commander-in-cheif does not extend to labor issues

Front 24

US v Nixon

Back 24

executive privledge does not apply to criminal cases. The president is not above the law

Front 25

Boy Scouts v Dale

Back 25

freedom of association and freedom of speech allow private groups to choose members

Front 26

Marbury v Madison

Back 26

established judicial review

Front 27

Barron v Baltimore

Back 27

ruling that the protections of BOR did not apply to the states

Front 28

Bush v Gore

Back 28

stops recount

Front 29

Reynolds v Sims

Back 29

ruled that legislative districts had to contain roughly the same number of people

Front 30

Griswold v Connecticut

Back 30

established the right of privacy based on the penumbras of the BOR

Front 31

Gibbons v Ogden

Back 31

the federal government can regulate trade; established supremacy of national government

Front 32

Roe v Wade

Back 32

ruled that abortion is an unlimited right. Legalized abortion.

Front 33

Gitlow v NY

Back 33

established selective incorporation to apply BOR to states

Front 34

Reno v Shaw

Back 34

race can't be the primary factor in drawing district boundaries

Front 35

Planned Parenthood v Casey

Back 35

ruled that abortion is a limited or qualified right and states can place restrictions on the access to abortions as long as restrictions dont create an "undue burden"

Front 36

Wesberry v Sanders

Back 36

ruled that legistlatiev districts have to be roughly the same area-geographic size

Front 37

Baker v Carr

Back 37

established "1 man, 1 vote" principle for elections and notion that federal courts can review apportionment

Front 38

Swan v Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education

Back 38

bussing is legal to desegregate schools

Front 39

McCulloh v Maryland

Back 39

established the implied powers based on the elastic clause. Established the supremacy of the national government

Front 40

Engle v Vitale

Back 40

states can't require prayers

Front 41

Cruzan v Missouri

Back 41

incompetent can't refuse treatment w/out evidence that they want withdrawl of treatment

Front 42

UC v Bakke

Back 42

schools can't set admissons quotas, but a diverse student body is a constitutionally permissible goal so race can be considered

Front 43

Hazelwood School District v Kuhlmeier

Back 43

schools need not tolerate speech inconsistent with education mission--schools can censor

Front 44

Santa Fe Independent School District v Doe

Back 44

student led prayer violates the Establishement clause

Front 45

US Term Limits v Thornton

Back 45

states can set term limits, only the US Constitution can limit

Front 46

Bethel School District #403 v Fraser

Back 46

students dont have the same protection of rights as adults do