Government Exam 2

Front 1

Engel v. Viitale (1962)

Back 1

Non-denominational prayer autorized by the Board of Regents for the State of NY.
Unconstitutional - by providing the prayer, NY officially approved religion.

Front 2

Lemon v. Kurtzman 1971

Back 2

“Establishment” Lemon test.
Limits on religiously motivated actions or compulsions to engage in religiously prohibited action:
1. Must have a secular purpose
2. As its primary effect, must neither advance nor inhibit religion
3. Must not foster “an excessive government entanglement with religion”

Front 3

Lambs Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District (1993)

Back 3

Use of school’s facilities for after-hours use by religious groups, (district rules prohibiting use by any religious group while allowing other groups access to facilities is unconstitutional)

Front 4

Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe (2000)

Back 4

Student led prayer at football games

Front 5

Tilton v. Richardson 1971

Back 5

Upheld government grants of money to church-related colleges and universities for secular purposes

Front 6

Employment Division Oregon v. Smith (1990)

Back 6

Free exercise clause does not protect ritual use of peyote by members of the Native American Church.
When government passes a neutral, generally applicable law to prevent criminal behavior, individuals cannot claim a religious exemption.
Places minority religions at ‘a relative disadvantage’.
But the unfairness is preferred as “an unavoidable consequence of democratic government” rather than “a system in which each conscience is a law unto itself.”

Front 7

Van Orden v. Perry (2005)

Back 7

case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States of America, involving whether a display of the Ten Commandments on a monument given to the government at the Texas State Capitol in Austin violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Court ruled on , by a vote of 5 to 4, that the display was constitutional

Front 8

Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow (2004)

Back 8

– Elk Grove teachers began school days by leading students in a voluntary recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance, including the words "under God" added by a 1954 Congressional act.
In an opinion authored by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Supreme Court found that Newdow did not have standing to bring suit because he did not have sufficient custody over his daughter.

Front 9

Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita  Beneficiente Uniao Do Vegetal (2006)

Back 9

case decided by the United States Supreme Court involving the Federal Government's seizure of a sacramental tea. The Court issued its opinion February 21, 2006, finding that the Government failed to meet its burden under RFRA that barring the substance served a compelling government interest.

Front 10

Everson v. Board of Education (1947)

Back 10

landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court which applied the Establishment Clause in the country's Bill of Rights to State law.
“…In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a “wall of separation between Church and State.”
--Justice Hugo Black

Front 11

Buck v. Bell (1927)

Back 11

decision of the United States Supreme Court, written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., in which the Court ruled that a state statute permitting compulsory sterilization of the unfit, including the mentally retarded, "for the protection and health of the state" did not violate the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The decision was largely seen as an endorsement of negative eugenics—the attempt to improve the human race by eliminating "defectives" from the gene pool.

Front 12

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)

Back 12

Justice William O. Douglas
“specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance. Various guarantees create zones of privacy…. “
“The present case, then, concerns a relationship lying within the zone of privacy created by several fundamental constitutional guarantees..”
First, Third, Fifth and Ninth: Douglas, Clark
Ninth: Goldberg, Brennan, Warren
Fourteenth: Harlan, White
No general right to privacy in the Constitution: Black, Stewart

Front 13

Harris v. McRae (1980)

Back 13

Upheld a ban on public funding of abortions

Front 14

Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1982)

Back 14

Affirmed the Fundamental right of abortion on the basis of the 14th amend. and stare decisis. Elevated abortion to the level of Speech, Press, and Assembly)...Roe v. Wade is "Settled Law", in other words, it is virtually untouchable as far as being reversed. Upheld the right of the state to protect any fetus that reached the point of viability and 24 hour waiting period and parental consent notification.

Front 15

Bowers v. Hardwick (1986)

Back 15

Refused to extend the right of privacy to protect acts of consensual homosexual sodomy performed in the privacy of one’s own home
Privacy had to do with circumstances involving “family, marriage, or procreation”..things that bore “no connection” to homosexual conduct

Front 16

Boy Scouts v. Dale (2000)

Back 16

The First Amendment upheld the right of a private club to freedom of association allowing it to use its own moral code to select troop leaders.

Front 17

Poe v. Ullman (1963)

Back 17

2 individuals sue Connecticut because of a law, Dr. Lee Buxton & Estelle Griswold. Case that held that plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge a Connecticut law that banned the use of contraceptives, and banned doctors from advising their use, because the law had never been enforced.

Front 18

Roe v. Wade (1973)

Back 18

Norma McCorvey. landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of abortion. Court ruled that a right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion. Class: Justice Blackmun’s opinion for the Court states “The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy does exist under the Constitution…The Right of Privacy, whether it be founded in Fourteenth Amendment…or...in the Ninth Amendment…is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.”

Front 19

Webster v. Reproduction Health Services (1989)

Back 19

Upheld state required fetal viability tests in the second trimester …
And a ban on the use of public facilities for abortions.

Front 20

Gonzales v. Carhart (Planned Parenthood) (2007)

Back 20

Congressional law (Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act 2003,) failed to make an exception “for the preservation of the health of the mother”
Could apply to common “D&E” “dilation and evacuation”
ruled by a 5-4 vote that Congress's ban on partial-birth abortion was not nconstitutionally vague and did not impose an undue burden on the right to an abortion for virtually the same reasoning in Gonzales v. Carhart.

Front 21

Romer v. Evans (1996)

Back 21

Colorado Constitutional Amendment 2 designed to protect

Front 22

Lawrence v. Texas (2003)

Back 22

“The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to choose to enter upon relationships in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons.”

Front 23

Dredd Scott v. Sandford (1857)

Back 23

Chief Justice Roger B. Taney –
Quote describing slavery (racism) in America and upholding slave law in Constitution.
Ruled unconstitutional the Missouri Compromise which prohibited slavery north of the geographical boundary of 36 degrees latitude
Slaves were not US citizens
Slaves could not bring suit in a federal court
(Resolved by the Civil War and the 13th Amendment)

Front 24

Bradwell v. Illinois (1873)

Back 24

Bradwell v. State of Illinois, 83 U.S. 130 (1873),[1] was a United States Supreme Court case that solidified the narrow reading of the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and determined that the right to practice a profession was not among these privileges. The case is also notable for being an early legal challenge to sex discrimination in the United States.

Front 25

Minor v. Happersett (1875)

Back 25

(this was the culmination of a series of women’s rights test cases)
Virginia Minor attempted to register to vote in St. Louis Mo. and was refused
Decision: voting was not a privilege of US citizenship

Front 26

Civil Rights Cases (1883)

Back 26

Declared unconstitutional:
Civil Rights Act of 1875 that prohibited racial discrimination in inns, public conveyances, and places of amusement
federal civil rights laws preventing discrimination by private individuals.
Such discrimination had to have relief in the state governments and courts

Front 27

Plessy v. Ferguson 1896

Back 27

Supreme Court establishes the “Separate but equal principle”

Front 28

Missouri ex rel Gaines v. Canada (1938)

Back 28

Court ordered Missouri to admit Lloyd Gaines to University of Missouri Law School or set up a law school for him.

Front 29

Sweatt v. Painter (1950)

Back 29

H.M. Sweatt applied to UT Law School
Court ruled a new law school in Austin consisting of three small basement rooms, a library and three part-time faculty failed to live up to the separate but equal doctrine

Front 30

*Delgado v. Bastrop ISD (1948)

Back 30

the suit charged segregation of Mexican children from other white races and accused the districts of depriving such children of equal facilities, services, and education instruction. The US District Court ordered the cessation of this separation by September 1949.

Front 31

Hernandez v. Texas (1954)

Back 31

The US Supreme Court ruled Mexican Americans were a "special class" entitled to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Front 32

Brown v. Board of Education Topeka (1954)

Back 32

Cisneros v. Corpus Christi ISD (1970)
the first case to extend the U.S. Supreme Court's Brown v. the Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas decision (1954) to Mexican Americans.

Front 33

Cooper v. Aaron (1958)

Back 33

Little Rock school officials requested a 2 ½ year delay
1. whether good faith postponement of desegregation would violate constitutional rights of students
2. whether the governor and legislature of a state are bound by Supreme Court decision
All nine members of the Court signed the opinion
The decision initially fostered southern resistance

Front 34

Cisneros v. Corpus Christi ISD (1970)

Back 34

the first case to extend the U.S. Supreme Court's Brown v. the Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas decision (1954) to Mexican Americans.

It recognized Mexican Americans as a minority group that could be and was frequently discriminated against. Such segregation and discrimination was ruled unconstitutional.

The decision replaced the "other white" argument based on Hernández v. State of Texas, which had provided constitutional rights based on class discrimination where Mexican Americans had not been identified as a separate race.

Front 35

Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg County Board of Education (1971)

Back 35

Upheld: Use of racial balance requirements
“Close scrutiny” by judges of schools
Gerrymandering of school attendance zones as well as clustering or grouping of schools to achieve racial balance
Court-order busing of pupils to achieve racial balance

Front 36

Lau v. Nichols (1974)

Back 36

civil rights case that was brought by Chinese American students living in San Francisco, California who had limited English proficiency. The students claimed that they were not receiving special help in school due to their inability to speak English. The U.S. Supreme Court in 1974 ruled in favor of the students, thus expanding rights of students nationwide with limited English proficiency.

Front 37

Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District (2007)

Back 37

The Seattle School District allowed students to apply to any high school in the District.
…the District used a system of tiebreakers to decide which students would be admitted to the popular schools. The second most important tiebreaker was a racial factor intended to maintain racial diversity. If the racial demographics of any school's student body deviated by more than .. approximately 40% white and 60% non-white, the racial tiebreaker went into effect. By a 5-4 vote, the Court applied a "strict scrutiny" framework and found the District's racial tiebreaker plan unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Front 38

Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education (2007)

Back 38

JCPS’s plan: no school was to have less than 15% or more than 50% black student population.
Students given a choice of schools, otherwise enrollment was decided on residence, school capacity, random chance, and race. By a 5-4 vote, the Court applied a "strict scrutiny" framework and found Jefferson County's enrollment plan unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."

Front 39

Gaston County v. US (1969)

Back 39

Racially neutral literacy test discriminated against African Americans who had been denied equal educational opportunities.
In seniority desegregation cases, the Court held racially integrated departmental classifications continued the effects of past discrimination and were unlawful.

Front 40

Griggs v. Duke Power Company (1971)

Back 40

Required two separate aptitude tests and high school education for promotion.
Violated Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Front 41

University of California Regents v. Bakke (1978)

Back 41

Program was designed to:
1)reduce historical deficit of minorities.
2) counter effects of social discrimination.
3) increase the number of physicians in under served communities.
4) obtain educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body.
Decision: Objectives were legitimate, race may be considered but quotas unavailable to whites violated the Fourteenth Amend. Equal Protection Clause.

Front 42

United Steelworkers of America v. Weber (1979)

Back 42

- 50% minority new training jobs voluntarily established due to employment discrimination claims.
- To eliminate traditional patterns of segregation.
- Did not permanently bar the advancement of whites.
- Did not require the discharge of whites to make room for blacks.
- Decision: upheld.

Front 43

United States v. Paradise (1987)

Back 43

The Court upheld the rigid 50% black quota system for promotions in Alabama Dept. of Safety, which had excluded blacks from the ranks of state troopers prior to 1972 & had not promoted any blacks higher than corporal prior to 1984. In a 5-4 decision, the majority stressed the long history of discrimination in the agency as a reason for upholding the quota system.

Front 44

Hopwood v. Texas (1996)

Back 44

- Sued claiming they were denied admission because the law school gave preferential treatment to African American and Mexican American applicants.
- 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that any consideration of race, even as one factor among many is unconstitutional.
- All affirmative action programs involving race and ethnicity in admission ended at public universities in June 1996.
- The Supreme Court declined to review the case on two petitions.

Front 45

Gratz v. Bollinger (2003)

Back 45

Undergraduate – points for race may not be added for admission scoring, but race may be considered on an individual basis Gratz v. Bollinger (2003)

Front 46

Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)

Back 46

Law school – race may be used as a factor to maintain diversity, even if no past discrimination has been proven. Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)

Front 47

Ricci V. DeStafano (2009)

Back 47

New Haven Civil Service Board failed to certify two exams needed for promotion to Lieutenant and Captain (Fire Department) when the results of the tests would have promoted a disproportionate number of white candidates in comparison to minority candidates.

Front 48

Muller v. Oregon (1908)

Back 48

Impact: state courts began to hold protective [employment] legislation for women Constitutional

Front 49

Reed v. Reed (1971)

Back 49

Idaho statute that required males to be preferred to otherwise equally qualified females as administrators of estates.

Front 50

Craig v. Boren (1976)

Back 50

Oklahoma law prohibiting the sale of 3.2% beer to males under 21 but females over 18.

Front 51

U.S. v. Virginia (1996) VMI case

Back 51

Case in which the Supreme Court of the United States struck down the Virginia Military Institute's long-standing male-only admission policy in a 7-1 decision. (Justice Clarence Thomas recused himself from the case, presumably because his son was enrolled at VMI at the time.)

Front 52

Tennessee v. Lane (2004)

Back 52

Case in the Supreme Court of the United States involving Congress's enforcement powers under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. The plaintiffs were disabled Tennesseans who could not access the upper floors in state courthouses. They sued in Federal Court, arguing that since Tennessee was denying them public services because of their disabilities, it was violating Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The majority ruled that Congress did have enough evidence that the disabled were being denied those fundamental rights that are protected by the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, among those rights being the right to access a court.