Hius 152B

Front 1

The Civil Rights Cases (1883)

Back 1

[Waite]
1) Civil Rights Act of 1875
2) Congress lacked constitutional authority under the Fourteenth Amendment to outlaw racial discrimination by private individuals and organizations, rather than state and local governments
3) Result of conduct by private individuals, not state law or action, that blacks were suffering
4) Dissent: Congress was attempting to overcome the refusal of the states to protect the rights denied to African-Americans that white citizens took as their birthright

Front 2

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

Back 2

[Fuller]
1) Can the states constitutionally enact legislation requiring persons of different races to use “separate but equal” segregated facilities?
2) Yes
3) Laws permitting and even requiring their separation in places where they are liable to be brought into contact do not necessarily imply the inferiority of either race; within scope of states' police powers
4) Dissent: Should be "color-blind" constitution; likened to Dred-Scott decision

Front 3

Bradwell v. Illinois (1873)

Back 3

[Chase]
1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment provide that one of the privileges and immunities of women as citizens is to engage in any profession?
2) The admission to the bar is a matter reserved to the states and Bradwell’s right to practice law is not protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
3) Historically the right to engage in every profession has not been one of the established fundamental privilege and immunities of the sex.

Front 4

Reynolds v. United States (1878)

Back 4

[Waite]
1) Does the federal anti-bigamy statute violate the First Amendment's free exercise clause because plural marriage is part of religious practice?
2) No, statute can punish criminal activity without regard to religious belief.
3) First Amendment protected religious belief, but it did not protect religious practices that were judged to be criminal such as bigamy. Those who practice polygamy could no more be exempt from the law than those who may wish to practice human sacrifice as part of their religious belief.

Front 5

Lochner v. New York (1905)

Back 5

[Fuller]
"Liberty of Contract"
1) May a state enact a law prescribing working hours for certain privately contracted employees without violating the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
2) A state law interfering with contract freedom between employers and employees is invalid.
3) Such a law can be justified only if it has a direct relation to a legitimate state objective.
4) Dissents (Harlan): the liberty to contract is subject to regulation imposed by a state acting within the scope of its police powers; burden of proof should rest with the party seeking to have such a statute deemed unconstitutional
(Holmes): accused the majority of judicial activism; attacked the idea that the Fourteenth Amendment enshrined the liberty of contract

Front 6

Abrams v. United states (1919)

Back 6

[White]
Defendants distribute anti-war leaflets
1) Do the amendments to the Espionage Act or the application of those amendments in this case violate the free speech clause of the First Amendment?
2) No to both.
3) The leaflets had a tendency to encourage war resistance and to curtail war production, incite violence.
4) *Dissent* (Holmes): Defendant did not violate Esp. Act because the defendants did not have the requisite intent "to cripple or hinder the United States in the prosecution of the war" against Germany; they were objecting only to the United States intervention in the Russian civil war

Front 7

Whitney v. California (1925)

Back 7

[Taft]
1) Did the Criminal Syndicalism Act violate the First or Fourteenth Amendments?
2) No.
3) Freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment was not an absolute right
4) Concurrence (Brandeis): only clear, present, and imminent threats of "serious evils" could justify suppression of speech; "time to answer" test; free speech is key element of democratic society

Front 8

U.S. v. Carolene Products (1938)

Back 8

[Hughes]
Federal law prohibiting filled milk from being shipped in interstate commerce
1) Does the law violate the Commerce Power granted to Congress in Article Section 8 and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment?
2) No, Court upholds act.
3) Applying rational-basis review, the Court held that the law was supported by substantial public-health evidence, and was not arbitrary or irrational.
4) "Footnote Four": symbolizes the end of one era of constitutional Jurisprudence and the dawning of another; laws dealing with economic matters are entitled to a presumption of constitutionality.
- helped bring an end to the Lochner era and a reversal of the judicial standards of review for economic and noneconomic legislation

Front 9

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

Back 9

[Stone]
1) Did the compulsory flag-salute for public schoolchildren violate the First Amendment?
2) 6-3, overruled prior ruling and held that compelling public schoolchildren to salute the flag was unconstitutional.
3) "Compulsory unification of opinion" was doomed to failure and was antithetical to First Amendment values.

Front 10

Korematsu v. United States (1944)

Back 10

[Stone]
1) Did the President and Congress go beyond their war powers by implementing exclusion and restricting the rights of Americans of Japanese descent?
2) The Court sided with the government (6-3) and held that the need to protect against espionage outweighed Korematsu's rights.
3) Held that the need to protect against espionage outweighed Korematsu's rights. Justice Black argued that compulsory exclusion, though constitutionally suspect, is justified during circumstances of "emergency and peril."

Front 11

Brown v. Board of Education (1952)

Back 11

[Warren]
1) Does the segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race deprive the minority children of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the 14th Amendment?
2) 9-0, Yes.
3) Separate but equal is inherently unequal in the context of public education.

Front 12

New York Times v. Sullivan (1964)

Back 12

[Warren]
1) Did Alabama's libel law, by not requiring Sullivan to prove that an advertisement personally harmed him and dismissing the same as untruthful due to factual errors, unconstitutionally infringe on the First Amendment's freedom of speech and freedom of press protections?
2) 9-0, Yes.
3) The Court held that the First Amendment protects the publication of all statements, even false ones, about the conduct of public officials except when statements are made with actual malice.

Front 13

Everson v. Board of Education (1946)

Back 13

[Vinson]
A New Jersey law allowed reimbursements of money to parents who sent their children to school on buses operated by the public transportation system. Children who attended Catholic schools also qualified for this transportation subsidy.
1) Did the New Jersey statute violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment as made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment?
2) 5-4, No.
3) Services like bussing and police and fire protection for parochial schools are "separate and so indisputably marked off from the religious function" that for the state to provide them would not violate the First Amendment.

Front 14

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

Back 14

[Warren]
1) Does the police practice of interrogating individuals without notifiying them of their right to counsel and their protection against self-incrimination violate the Fifth Amendment?
2) 5-4, Yes.
3) Held that prosecutors could not use statements stemming from custodial interrogation of defendants unless they demonstrated the use of procedural safeguards "effective to secure the privilege against self- incrimination." Court specifically outlined the necessary aspects of police warnings to suspects, including warnings of the right to remain silent and the right to have counsel present during interrogations.

Front 15

United States v. E.C. Knight Co. (1895)

Back 15

[Fuller]
Sherman Antitrust Act
1) Did Congress exceed its constitutional authority under the Commerce Clause when it enacted the Sherman Anti-Trust Act?
2) No, but did not apply to manufacturing. 8-1 in favor of E.C. Knight.
3) Manufacturing was not commerce; the law did not reach the admitted monopolization of manufacturing (in this case, refining sugar).

Front 16

Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust (1895)

Back 16

[Fuller]
1) Was the income tax a direct tax in violation of the Constitution (Article I, Section 9)?
2) Yes.
3) Court held that the act violated the Constitution since it imposed taxes on personal income derived from real estate investments and personal property such as stocks and bonds; this was a direct taxation scheme, not apportioned properly among the states; negated by 16th amendment

Front 17

Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918)

Back 17

[White]
Keating-Owen Child Labor Act prohibited the interstate shipment of goods produced by child labor
1) Does the congressional act violate the Commerce Clause, the Tenth Amendment, or the Fifth Amendment?
2) Yes, yes, no. Therefore unconstitutional
3) Production was not commerce, and thus outside the power of Congress to regulate. And the regulation of production was reserved by the Tenth Amendment to the states.

Front 18

Champion v. Ames (1903)

Back 18

[Fuller]
1) Did the transport of lottery tickets by independent carriers constitute "commerce" that Congress could regulate under the Commerce Clause?
2) Yes.
3) Lottery tickets were indeed "subjects of traffic," and independent carriers may be regulated under the Commerce Clause.

Front 19

Hoke v. United States (1913)

Back 19

[White]
1) Regulation of prostitution
2) Could not regulate prostitution per se, as that was strictly the province of the states. Congress could, however, regulate interstate travel for purposes of prostitution or “immoral purposes.”

Front 20

Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Company (1921)

Back 20

[Taft]
Taxing companies that employed children under 14
1) Did Congress violate the Constitution in adopting the Child Labor Tax Law in attempting to regulate the employment of children, a power reserved to the states under the Tenth Amendment?
2) Yes, intruded on the jurisdiction of states to adopt and enforce child labor codes.
3) The tax law in question did much more than simply impose an "incidental restraint" but exerted a "prohibitory and regulatory effect" in a realm over which Congress had no jurisdiction. Taft feared it would threaten state sovereignty.

Front 21

West Coast Hotel v. Parrish

Back 21

SCOTUS upholds maximum hour laws; congress can pass laws that are reasonable, rational basis

Front 22

NLRB v. Jones and Laughlin Steel

Back 22

Context: Supreme Court is now liberal. When workers striked, and a court ordered them to return to work and they refused, they could be sued for any damages even if it wasn’t a specific individual. Congress’s NLRA made it legal for workers to strike.
- SCOTUS upholds the law and states congress may regulate anything that has a substantial effect on interstate commerce under the commerce clause

Front 23

Palko v. Connecticut

Back 23

Context: Does all of the bill of rights apply to the states? Palko was tried twice for the same murder charge and sentenced to death.
-SCOTUS embarked on selective incorporation, and held that only fundamental rights are protected by the constitution in the states
-states now have more freedom to violate the bill of rights because the SCOTUS has to go case by case to establish which rights are protected

Front 24

Wickard v. Filburn

Back 24

Context: The Agricultural Adjustment Act limited production by farmers to lower supply and in doing so raise prices. Farmer Filburn grew too much wheat and argued the congress can’t regulate him on his own farm.
-SCOTUS upheld the law, saying that Filburn had affected interstate commerce so the congress could regulate.

Front 25

US v. Darby

Back 25

Context: Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, Darby lumber was in violation of the law, and argued the federal government cannot regulate the free market (hours and overtime).
-SCOTUS upheld the law, effectively overruling Hammer v. Dagenhart (child labor); congress can regulate employment conditions