Final - Political Science

Front 1

Substantive Due Process

Back 1

An aspect of American jurisprudence under the Due Process Clause, involving substantive unenumerated rights.

Front 2

Pierce vs. Society of Sisters

Back 2

-Oregon passed the compulsory education act aimed at eliminating parochial schools, including Catholic schools
-Nuns sued governor
-Court found in favor of Nuns, saying that parents could sent their children to private or public schools and that children were not "the mere creatures of the state
-significantly expanded coverage of the Due Process Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment
-

Front 3

Meyer vs. Nebraska

Back 3

-Robert Meyer charged with teaching German to a student
- court held that a 1919 Nebraska law prohibiting the teaching of foreign languages to school children before high school unconstitutionally violated the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Front 4

Griswold v. Connecticut

Back 4

-Connecticut law prohibits the use of contraceptives
-Court invalidated the law on the grounds that it violated the "right to marital privacy".

Front 5

Eisenstadt vs. Baird

Back 5

-William Baird was charged with a felony for distributing contraceptive foams during lectures on population control at Boston University. Under Massachusetts law, contraceptives could be distributed only by registered doctors or pharmacists, and only to married persons.
-Court finds in favor of Baird, saying the law worked irrational discrimination by denying the right to possess contraceptives by unmarried couples

Front 6

Roe vs. Wade

Back 6

-The Court held that a woman may abort her pregnancy for any reason, up until the "point at which the fetus becomes 'viable.'"

Front 7

De Facto Segregation

Back 7

segregation (especially in schools) that happens in fact although not required by law

Front 8

De Jure Segregation

Back 8

segregation that is imposed by law

Front 9

Lawrence vs. Texas

Back 9

-court struck down the sodomy law in Texas
-majority held that intimate consensual sexual conduct was part of the liberty protected by substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment

Front 10

Civil Rights Act of 1866

Back 10

-protects from discrimination identifiable classes of persons who are subjected to intentional discrimination solely because of their ancestry or ethnic characteristics

Front 11

Civil Rights Act of 1875

Back 11

-guaranteed that everyone, regardless of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, was entitled to the same treatment in "public accommodations"
-declared unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court in 1883

Front 12

The Civil Rights Cases

Back 12

-A group of five similar cases consolidated into one issue for the United States Supreme Court to review
-Particularly, the Court held that the Civil Rights Act of 1875 was unconstitutional
-involved five consolidated cases coming from different lower courts in which African-Americans had sued theaters, hotels and transit companies that had refused them admittance or excluded them from "white only" facilities

Front 13

State Action

Back 13

-Any action taken by a government, especially an intrusion on one’s civil rights by a governmental agency, or a requirement that can be enforced only through governmental action, such as correcting a policy of sexual or racial discrimination that requires judicial action to enforce

Front 14

Shelley vs. Kraemer

Back 14

-In 1945, a black family by the name of Shelley purchased a house in St. Louis, Missouri. At the time of purchase, they were unaware that a restrictive covenant had been in place on the property since 1911.
-Neighbors sued to restrain the Shelleys from taking possession of the property they had purchased
-Court held that racially-based restrictive covenants are, on their face, not invalid under the Fourteenth Amendment. Private parties may voluntarily abide by the terms of a restrictive covenant, but they may not seek judicial enforcement of such a covenant

Front 15

Plessy vs. Ferguson

Back 15

-Upholds the constitutionality of racial segregation even in public accommodations (particularly railroads), under the doctrine of "separate but equal".
-Homer Plessy boarded a car and was arrested

Front 16

Separate but Equal

Back 16

-The theory of separate but equal was used to justify segregated public facilities for blacks and whites until in Brown v. Board of Education

Front 17

Affirmative Action

Back 17

-policies that take race, ethnicity, or sex into consideration in an attempt to increase ethnic or other forms of diversity.

Front 18

Grutter vs. Bollinger

Back 18

-Law School denied admission to Grutter, a white Michigan resident with a 3.8 GPA and 161 LSAT score, she filed suit
-Court held that the Constitution "does not prohibit the law school's narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest..." The Court held that the law school's interest in obtaining a "critical mass" of minority students was indeed a "tailored use".
-**O'Connor noted that sometime in the future, perhaps twenty-five years hence, racial affirmative action would no longer be necessary in order to promote diversity. It implied that affirmative action should not be allowed permanent status and that eventually a "colorblind" policy should be implemented.**

Front 19

Bakke vs. Board of Regents

Back 19

-Bakke denied admission to UC Davis med school b/c of affirmative action
-Bakke sues
-Court finds in favor of Bakke but said that it is possible to use race as a plus factor

Front 20

Milliken vs. Bradley

Back 20

-Court held that desegregation in schools by busing students could be implemented across district lines only where there was actual evidence that multiple districts had deliberately engaged in a policy of segregation.

Front 21

Moore vs. City of East Cleveland

Back 21

-Ms. Moore lived in E.Cleveland with her son and two grandsons who are cousins. One grandson’s parent died immediately before living with Ms. Moore. She rec’d a notice of violation citing illegal occupants b/c her family did not fit w/i the ordinance’s definition.
-Court finds in favor of Mrs. Moore

Front 22

Planned Parenthood vs. Casey

Back 22

-Planned Parenthood says that laws concerning abortion are undue burdens on a woman's right to choose
-4 requirements:
1) 24 hr. waiting period
2) parental consent for minors
3) spousal consent if married
4) reporting requirement
-court strikes down #3
-***Court upheld the ability to have an abortion, but did NOT establish a fundamental right to an abortion***

Front 23

Brown vs. Board of Education I

Back 23

-separate is unequal
-decided on the basis of equal protection
-invidious vs. benign discrimination
- Court declared state laws establishing separate public schools for black and white students denied black children equal educational opportunities

Front 24

Benign vs. Invidious discrimination

Back 24

Benign Discrimination
-not unconstitutional

Invidious Discrimination
-has an adverse impact or implies the inferiority of a race
-Unconstitutional

Front 25

Swann vs. Charlotte-Mecklenburg

Back 25

-Court held that once violations of previous mandates directed at desegregating schools had occurred, the scope of district courts' equitable powers to remedy past wrongs were broad and flexible

Front 26

Burger's contrasting opinions

Back 26

Swann - Milliken
Can federal courts provide a proscriptive remedy for defacto segregation?

Scwann: He says YES, but only where de jure segregation has previously existed

Milliken: He says only NO, only if de jure segregation has previously existed in all school districts involved in busing students