Political Science Court Cases

Front 1

Lemon vs. Kurtzman (1971)
-religious establishment

Back 1

-Any assistance from govt must be secular
-primary effect of that aid must neither advance or inhibit religion
-assitance should not foster excessive govt entanglement
--Lemon test

Front 2

Agostini vs. Felton (1997)

Back 2

the Court allowed public school teachers to tutor private school students in their private schools, even if the schools were primarily religious in nature.

Front 3

Wallace vs. Jaffree (1985)

Back 3

court overturned an Alabama law that allowed teachers to hold moments of silent prayers in class

Front 4

Edwards vs. Aguillard (1987)

Back 4

court struck down Louisiana law requiring the teaching of creation in science as unconstitutional because it did not meet the Lemon test

Front 5

Stone vs. Graham (1980)

Back 5

Kentucky statute requiring the posting of the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms was held invalid
-it violated the first prong of the lemon test, it did not have a secular legislative purpose.

Front 6

Everson vs. Board of Education (1947)

Back 6

court stated that the government was allowed to reimburse the parents of parochial school children for the costs incurred by sending them to school on public busses.

Front 7

Lynch vs. Donnelly (1984)

Back 7

court ruled that it would be constitutional for the city of Pawtucket to continue displaying a nativity scene with its Christmas display.

Front 8

Engle vs. Vitale (1962)

Back 8

The Court ordered the regents to terminate the programme, ruling that the government should not involve itself in the creation of any official religious practice, sectarian or not.

Front 9

Abington School District vs. Schempp (1963)

Back 9

court ruled against of allowing the reciting of the Bible verses and the Lord's Prayer.

Front 10

Sherbert vs. Verner (1963)
-free exercise clause

Back 10

Court ruled in favor of Adell Sherbert's right to refuse to work on her Sabbath without also giving up her right to unemployment benefits.

Front 11

Employment Division vs. Smith (1990)

Back 11

the Supreme Court ruled that the Oregon law was constitutional and that, therefore, the denial of unemployment benefits was permissible

Front 12

County of Allegheny vs. ACLU (1989)

Back 12

Court ruled that while the creche (nativity scene) was unconstitutional, the menorah display was not.

Front 13

Wisconsin vs. Yoder (1972)

Back 13

the Supreme Court ruled that the compulsory education law in Wisconsin violated the Free Exercise Clause.
-amish sued wisconsin because the requirment of continuance of a higher level of education would expose their kids to the "evil world"

Front 14

U.S. vs. Seeger (1965)

Back 14

The Court allowed those people with general theistic belief systems to be declared conscientious objectors.
-This case involved the application of the Universal Military Training and Service Act which exempted people from military service if their religious training or belief makes them opposed to such service
-They claimed that the law unfairly did not exempt non-religious conscientious objectors and that it discriminated between different forms of religious beliefs.

Front 15

U.S. vs. Clay (1971)

Back 15

Therefore the Supreme Court Justices decided (8-0 with Thurgood Marhall abstaining) in favor of Muhammad Ali.
- Ali applied for conscientious objector status but was turned down by both his local draft board and the State Appeal Board
-Muhammad Ali's objection was based upon the "religious training and belief" of the Nation of Islam

Front 16

Reynolds vs. U.S. (1879)

Back 16

The Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment absolutely protected religious belief but not necessarily religious conduct. If this were not the case, the court reasoned, human sacrifice for example would have to be allowed where religion required it. Thus the precedent was clearly established that government could control some types of religious conduct

Front 17

Minersville School District vs. Gobitis (1940)
-the flag-salute cases

Back 17

the Supreme Court found that the school district had a strong interest in creating national unity that was sufficient to permit them to compell students to salute the flag.
-Two Jehovah's Witness school children, 10 (William) and 12 (Lillian) years old, were suspended from school in Minersville, Pennsylvania, because they refused to salute the American flag during mandatory morning exercises. As a result, their father had to pay for them to enroll in a private school.

Front 18

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

Back 18

the Court ruled that the school district violated the rights of students by forcing them to salute the American flag.
-As part of instituting a required curriculum teaching American values, the state of West Virginia forced students and teachers to participate in saluting the flag. Failure to comply with this resulted in expulsion and the student was considered illegally absent until readmitted. A group of Jehovah's Witnesses refused to salute the flag because it represented a graven image that was not to be recognized.

Front 19

Schenck vs. U.S. (1919)
-freedom of speech

Back 19

The Supreme Court held that in a time of war, extraordinary conditions may take effect where Congress has the right to forbid printed materials or speech aimed at hindering the war effort. The test for "a clear and present danger" was formulated to deal with questions regarding freedom of speech.
-Charles Schenck, general secretary of the Socialist Party, was arrested for conspiring to print and circulate leaflets that would obstruct and hinder the enlistment service of the United States. Schenck argued that the Espionage Act violated his rights to freedom of speech and press

Front 20

Dennis vs. U.S. (1951)

Back 20

the Court upheld the convictions of the Communist Party leaders and found that the Smith Act did not "inherently" violate the First Amendment. In the plurality opinion, the Court held that there was a distinction between the mere teaching of communist philosophies and active advocacy of those ideas
-the leaders of the Communist Part of America were arrested and charged with violating provisions of the Smith Act. The Act made it unlawful to knowingly conspire to teach and advocate the overthrow or destruction of the United States government. Party leaders were found guilty and lower courts upheld the conviction.

Front 21

Brandenburg vs. Ohio (1969)

Back 21

The court held that the Ohio law violated Brandenburg's right to free speech-Brandenburg, a leader in the Ku Klux Klan, made a speech at a Klan rally and was later convicted under an Ohio criminal syndicalism law. The law made illegal advocating "crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform," as well as assembling "with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism."

Front 22

Texas vs. Johnson (1989)

Back 22

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 for Johnson. They rejected the claim that the ban was necessary to protect breaches of the peace due to the offense that burning a flag would cause.
-During the 1984 Republican convention in Dallas, Texas, Gregory Lee (Joey) Johnson soaked an American flag in kerosene and burned it in front of the convention building while protesting the polices of Ronald Reagan

Front 23

U.S. vs. Eichman (1990)

Back 23

the Supreme Court held that flag burning was a form of expression protected under the First Amendment.
-Eichman and others were prosecuted under the federal Flag Protection Act for setting fire to American flags. Eichman and the others stated that the Act violated the First Amendment, and courts in Washington State and in the District of Columbia agreed

Front 24

Tinker vs. Des Moines Independent County School District (1969)
-symbolic speech

Back 24

the Supreme Court ruled that the students had the right to wear armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War. He first emphasized that students have First Amendment rights
-In 1965, John Tinker, his sister Mary Beth, and a friend were sent home from school for wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War

Front 25

Chaplinsky vs. New Hampshire (1942)

Back 25

Some forms of expression--among them obscenity and fighting words--do not convey ideas and thus are not subject to First Amendment protection. In this case, Chaplinsky uttered fighting words; words that "inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace."
-Chaplinsky, a Jehovah's Witness, called a city marshal a "God-damned racketeer" and "a damned fascist" in a public place. He was arrested and convicted under a state law for violating a breach of the peace.

Front 26

Cohen vs. California (1971)

Back 26

the Court reasoned that the expletive, while provocative, was not directed toward anyone; besides, there was no evidence that people in substantial numbers would be provoked into some kind of physical action by the words on his jacket
-A 19-year-old department store worker expressed his opposition to the Vietnam War by wearing a jacket emblazoned with "FUCK THE DRAFT. STOP THE WAR"

Front 27

R.A.V. vs City of St. Paul (1992)

Back 27

the justices held the ordinance invalid on its face because "it prohibits otherwise permitted speech solely on the basis of the subjects the speech addresses."
-Several teenagers allegedly burned a crudely fashioned cross on a black family's lawn. The police charged one of the teens under a local bias-motivated criminal ordinance

Front 28

Roth vs. U.S. (1957)
-obscenity

Back 28

Court decided that 'obscene' material has no protection under the First Amendment
-Roth conducted a business in New York in the publication and sale of books, photographs and magazines. He used circulars and advertising matter to solicit sales. He was convicted with mailing obscene circulars

Front 29

Miller vs. California (1973)

Back 29

Miller, after conducting a mass mailing campaign to advertise the sale of "adult" material, was convicted of violating a California statute prohibiting the distribution of obscene material. Some unwilling recipients of Miller's brochures complained to the police, initiating the legal proceedings.-In 1973, Marvin Miller, operator of one of the West Coast's largest mail-order businesses dealing in sexually explicit material, had conducted a mass mailing campaign to advertise the sale of illustrated books, which was known as “adult material

Front 30

New York Times vs. Sullivan (1964)
-freedom of press

Back 30

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 (with knowledge that they are false or in reckless disregard of their truth or falsity). Under this new standard, Sullivan's case collapsed.-Decided together with Abernathy v. Sullivan, this case concerns a full-page ad in the New York Times which alleged that the arrest of the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. for perjury in Alabama was part of a campaign to destroy King's efforts to integrate public facilities and encourage blacks to vote.

Front 31

Near vs. Minnesota (1931)
-prior restraint

Back 31

The Supreme Court held that the statute authorizing the injunction was unconstitutional as applied-Jay Near published a scandal sheet in Minneapolis, in which he attacked local officials, charging that they were implicated with gangsters.

Front 32

New York Times vs. U.S. (1971)

Back 32

the Court ruled in favor of the New York Times
-the New York Times argued: the 1st Amendment's guarantee of freedom of the press protects the newspaper in the publication of these document
-The Pentagon Papers, officially known as “History of U.S. Decision-Making Process on Vietnam Policy,” were illegally copied and then leaked to the press

Front 33

Hustler Magazine vs. Falwell (1988)

Back 33

In a unanimous opinion the Court held that public figures, such as Jerry Falwell, may not recover for the intentional infliction of emotional distress without showing that the offending publication contained a false statement of fact which was made with "actual malice." The Court added that the interest of protecting free speech, under the First Amendment, surpassed the state's interest in protecting public figures from patently offensive speech, so long as such speech could not reasonably be construed to state actual facts about its subject.
-A lead story in the November 1983 issue of Hustler Magazine featured a "parody" of an advertisement, modeled after an actual ad campaign, claiming that Falwell, a Fundamentalist minister and political leader, had a drunken incestuous relationship with his mother in an outhouse

Front 34

Burnette vs. National Enquirer (1981)

Back 34

Jury ruled in favor, unanimously, for Carol Burnett.

Front 35

Feiner vs. New York (1951)

Back 35

The Court ruled that the arrest did not hamper Feiner's right to free speech, stating "it is one thing to say that the police cannot be used as an instrument of suppression of unpopular views
-Feiner was speaking out against President Truman when he was arrested for disorderly conduct.

Front 36

Gitlow vs. New York (1925)
-selected incorporation doctrine

Back 36

Supreme Court ruled in favor of Gitlow. It stated in its decision that "for present purposes, we may assume that freedom of speech and of press...are among the fundamental personal rights and liberties protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from impairment by the State."
-Benjamin Gitlow had been a prominent member of the Socialist party during the 1920s. He was arrested and convicted for violating the New York Criminal Anarchy Law of 1902, which made it a crime to attempt to foster the violent overthrow of government

Front 37

Palko vs. Connecticut (1949)

Back 37

Palko said that if he was retried.. he would be violated ofhis "double jeopardy" rights.. and the court ruled that he be sentenced to the death penalty.. he died in the gas chamber.
-Provided test for determining wich parts of the Bill of rights should be federalized- those wich are explicitly or implicitly necessary for liberty to exist.

Front 38

Weeks vs. U.S. (1914)
-Fourth Amendment

Back 38

Court overturned his conviction of mailing lottery tickets-not because Weeks was innocent-but because the evidence used to convict him was obtained without a warrant.
-Reversed the decision of a district court and held that evidence obtained byunreasonable searches and seizures could not be used against a person in federal court.
-Weeks v. United States marked the creation of the exclusionary rule, which originally stated that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable search and seizure could not be usedagainst a person in federal court.

Front 39

Mapp vs. Ohio (1961)

Back 39

the Court overturned the conviction, and five justices found that the States were bound to exclude evidence seized in violation of the 4th Amendment
-Police came to Mapp's door looking for a bombing suspect; she didnt let them in because they were without a warrant. They later returned with a piece of paper claiming to be a warrant, and when she struggled to not let them in, they handcuffed her, searched her apartment, and then, that's when they found her "obscene" material.

Front 40

Terry vs. Ohio (1968)

Back 40

Court ruled that the police officers may stop an individual for a brief investigatory period provided that they have a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity may be afoot.
-stop and frisk

Front 41

Sheppard vs. Maxwell (1966)

Back 41

Sheppard's conviction was reversed by the Court due to the manner in which the trial was handled.
-Sheppard was being tried for murdering his wife, but was acquitted because the media turned the trial into a "circus" and harassed the witnesses while they were giving their testimonies.

Front 42

U.S. vs. Leon (1984)

Back 42

Police officers initiated surveillance of Leon's (D) activities. A search warrant was issued pursuant to that surveillance. A large quantity of drugs were seized. D was charged with violations of federal drug-trafficking laws. At trial, the court granted D's suppression motion because the warrant was not issued on probable cause. Specifically, the court found that the warrant contained allegations of an untested informant and limited corroboration by the police. The court of appeals affirmed; they refused to accept a good faith exception to the exclusionary rule.

Front 43

Rochin vs. California (1952)
-Fourth and Fifth Amendment

Back 43

the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional for police to pump a criminal suspect's stomach and use the resulting evidence at trial. The Court held that such conduct was "shocking to the conscience" and that the evidence must be suppressed under the "due process clause" of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Front 44

Duncan vs. Louisiana (1968)
-Sixth Amendment

Back 44

Court ruled in favor of Duncan.
-Duncan apparently slap another man in the elbow and was charged with simple battery, which is a misdemeanor. Misdemeanors are only punishable with up to two years of imprisonment and $300 in fines. Duncan was charged with 60 days of imprisonment and $4150 of fines.

Front 45

Powell vs. Alabama (1932)

Back 45

Court reversed convictions and ruled in favor of the nine Scottsboro boys.
-Scottsboro boys were not fairly represented in court and 8 out of 9 of the boys were sentenced to death (excluding the 13 yr old).

Front 46

Johnson vs. Zerbst (1938)

Back 46

After being sentenced to prison, they appealed their conviction stating their 6th Amend rights were violated and the court agreed with them.
-Two U.S. marines were convicted of possessing counterfeit money. Two months before the trial, they had a counsel to work with, however, at the trial itself, they had no one there to represent them.

Front 47

Betts vs. Brady (1942)

Back 47

Court ruled in favor of Betts.
-Betts was indicted of robbery and detained in a Maryland jail. He asked for a counsel but was denied one, and then tried and convicted.

Front 48

Gideon vs. Wainwright (1963)

Back 48

Court ruled in favor of Gideon.
-Gideon was accused of robbing a Pool Hall, and he was denied of having a counsel because the case was not dealing with a capital crime. Since he had to represent himself in trial against an attorney, he lost and was sentenced to 5 yrs in prison. Gideon realized that he had been violated of his right to an attorney, and petitioned his case.

Front 49

Escobedo vs. Illinois (1964)
-Fifth and Sixth Amendment

Back 49

Court overturned the conviction.
-Escobedo was arrested in connection with a murder, was denied of his request to speak with his lawyer, and his lawyer was denied visitation rights with Escobedo. While being interrogated, he admitted to shooting someone, but later appealed the decision stating that he should have had the right to speak to his lawyer.

Front 50

Miranda vs. Arizona (1966)
-Fifth Amendment

Back 50

Court ruled in favor of Miranda and overturned the conviction.
-Miranda, after being interrogated by the police for two hours, confessed to kidnapping and raping a woman. He was convicted, but then was acquitted because he was not aware of his "right to remain silent" (5th amendment rights).

Front 51

Batson vs. Kentucky (1986)

Back 51

Court ruled in favor of the petitioner and reversed the conviction.
-Jurors were dismissed because of "cause" and then peremptory challenges to result in all white men on the jury.

Front 52

Furman vs. Georgia (1972)
-Eighth Amendment

Back 52

Court held that the imposition of the death penalty in these cases constituted cruel and unusual punishment and violated the Constitution
-Furman was burglarizing a private home when a family member discovered him. He attempted to flee, and in doing so tripped and fell. The gun that he was carrying went off and killed a resident of the home. He was convicted of murder and sentenced to death

Front 53

Gregg vs. Georgia (1976)

Back 53

Court held that a punishment of death did not violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments under all circumstances.
-A jury found Gregg guilty of armed robbery and murder and sentenced him to death. On appeal, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the death sentence except as to its imposition for the robbery conviction. Gregg challenged his remaining death sentence for murder, claiming that his capital sentence was a "cruel and unusual" punishment that violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Front 54

Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld (2006)

Back 54

held that neither an act of Congress nor the inherent powers of the Executive laid out in the Constitution expressly authorized the sort of military commission at issue in this case
-Hamdan was Bin Laden's personal chaffeur and was captured and held as a prisoner of war. However, because he was a prisoner of war, he could not be tried.

Front 55

Griswold vs. Connecticut (1965)
-Ninth Amendment

Back 55

Court ruled in favor of Griswold.
-Griswold and her colleague were convicted under a Connecticut law which criminalized the provision of counselling, and other medical treatment, to married persons for purposes of preventing conception.

Front 56

Roe vs. Wade (1973)

Back 56

The Court held that a woman's right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy (recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut) protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
-Roe wanted to terminate her pregnancy.

Front 57

Webster vs. Reproductive Health Services (1989)

Back 57

Court held that none of the challenged provisions of the Missouri legislation were unconstitutional
-public employees and public facilities were not to be used in performing or assisting abortions unnecessary to save the mother's life; encouragement and counseling to have abortions was prohibited; and physicians were to perform viability tests upon women in their twentieth (or more) week of pregnancy

Front 58

Bowers vs. Hardwick (1986)

Back 58

The divided Court found that there was no constitutional protection for acts of sodomy, and that states could outlaw those practices
-Michael Hardwick was observed by a Georgia police officer while engaging in the act of consensual homosexual sodomy with another adult in the bedroom of his home. After being charged with violating a Georgia statute that criminalized sodomy, Hardwick challenged the statute's constitutionality in Federal District Court.

Front 59

Lawrence and Garner vs. State of Texas (2003)

Back 59

Court held that the Texas statute making it a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct violates the Due Process Clause

Front 60

Lee vs. Weisman (1992)

Back 60

, the Court held that government involvement in this case creates "a state-sponsored and state-directed religious exercise in a public school."
-R. E. Lee invited a Rabbi to come speak at their graduation ceremony, and Weisman's daughter was among the graduates, and he didn't approve of having the Rabbi speak.

Front 61

Sante Fe Independent School District vs. Doe (2000)

Back 61

Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the District’s policy permitting student-led, student-initiated prayer at football games violates the Establishment Clause

Front 62

Marsh vs. Chambers (1983)

Back 62

Supreme Court permitted the practice of beginning a legislative session with a prayer delivered by a publicly funded chaplain

Front 63

Norris vs. Alabama (1932)

Back 63

The Court reversed the decision of the Alabama Supreme Court on the basis that due process and equal protection had been denied the youths because blacks were prohibited from serving on Alabama juries.

Front 64

Wolf vs. Colorado (1949)

Back 64

the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment did not subject criminal justice in the states to specific limitations and that illegally obtained evidence did not have to be excluded from trials in all cases.