Psc 422: Final Exam

Front 1

Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School District (1993)

Back 1

5-4 majority ruled that Congress under the Individuals with Disabilities act could provide a sign interpreter for a deaf child who was attending a Catholic school

Front 2

Agostini v. Felton (1997)

Back 2

Another 5-4 majority, which permitted public school teachers to provide remedial educational services to disadvantaged children on the grounds of a religious school.

Front 3

Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002)

Back 3

5-4 vote which sustained a comprehensive spending program designed to aid exceptionally low performing Cleveland schools.

OOTC: this was content neutral bu may dissuade those from going to parochial schools

DISS: If a tax payer doesn't want their money to subsedise religious teaching, they shouldn't have to

Front 4

McCreary County v. ACLU (2005)

Back 4

5-4 vote which declared unconstitutional several efforts by a local government to display the Ten Commandments in the local courthouse

OOTC: the display's unstinting focus was on religious passages, showing that the Counties were posting the Commandments precisely because of their sectarian content.

Front 5

Van Orden v. Perry (2005)

Back 5

5-4 vote decided that Texas could include a monument displaying the Ten Commandments in a collection of other monuments displaying facets of state history.

OOTC: texas capitol grounds monuments as representing the several strands in the State's political and legal history. Dual significance.

Front 6

Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe (2000)

Back 6

6-3 vote: declares student-led but government-supervised prayer at high school football games violates establishment clause

Front 7

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005)

Back 7

Darwinism being taught alongside intelligent design, which was a theory being taught to undermine non-Christian teachings of creationism. DID NOT GO TO SCOTUS; WAS DECIDED IN LOWER COURTS.

OOTC: changed language from creationism to intelligent design; anyone can see that -- it's not a science to be taught.

Front 8

City of Boerne v. Flores (1997)

Back 8

Came after Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA); church wants to expand grounds, can't do that because of zoning, historical preservation. Court strikes down RFRA.

OOTC: congress was doing to work of SCOTUS, which was not their job. No authority to adopt change.

Stevens, OOTC: Unconstitutional because it goes against the Establishment 1 AM Clause

DISS: O'Connor stays SCOTUS made the wrong decision in Smith (1990), should revisit

Front 9

Gonzales v. Carhart (2007)

Back 9

SCOTUS permitted the banning of partial-birth abortions, e en though an overwhelming majority of doctors claimed that partial-birth abortions were sometimes necessary to preserve maternal health.

Front 10

Lawrence v. Texas (2003)

Back 10

Rules 6-3, declares homosexual activity constitutional

OOTC: liberty protects the person from unwanted gov't intrusions into dwelling or other private places; state is not a dominant force in the bedroom.

DISS: if the US is homophobic, then so be it. It's not the Court's place to decide (Scalia).

Front 11

Goodridge v. Dept of Public Health (2003)

Back 11

Lesbians looking to marry, not allowed; State SCOTUS says (4-3) that Massachusetts' law unconstitutional, struck it down

OOTC: Compares the band to ban on interracial marriages; looks to Lawrence v. Texas (2003).

DISS: Marriage is for procreation; this has nothing to do with sexuality. Can't procreate, no marriage.

Front 12

United States v. Windsor (2013)

Back 12

5-4 majority. The Supreme Court held that the United States Government, despite the executive branch's agreement regarding DOMA's unconstitutionality, retains a significant enough stake in the issue to support Supreme Court's jurisdiction

Front 13

Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)

Back 13

5-4 vote that held same-sex couples have a constitutional right to be married.

OOTC: marriage as an institution has changed from men owning women to two women being able to get married; 14AM due process backs this up

Front 14

Romer v. Evans (1996)

Back 14

First case where LGBT citizens are protected by 14AM; SCOTUS calls an Amendment where you can discriminate on sexuality unconstitutional in 6-3 vote

OOTC: Gays are a solitary class, you single them out and say they can't seek compensation from legal discrimination

DISS: you can refuse a job on many qualification, so why is sexuality any different?

Front 15

Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)

Back 15

U of M law school applicant sues because she doesn't get in due to Aff. Action; SCOTUS upholds quota in (6-3) vote because there isn't a point system as in Gratz v. Bollinger (2003)

Front 16

Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 (2007)

Front 17

United States v. Virginia (1996)

Back 17

Women wanted to apply to Virginia Military Institution, a male dominated institution; given "sep but equal" facilities - SCOTUS rules this unconstitutional in 7-1 vote, OPENS SCHOOL

OOTC: all your arguments are BS with women have been admitted to the bar, these facilities are not equal, not the same benefits etc.

DISS: if were're preserving traditional values, then it's OK to discriminate

Front 18

Roper v. Simmons (2005)

Back 18

17 year old sentenced to death for murder, argues habeas corpus under 14+8 AM (5-4 SCOTUS rules executing minors unconstitutional)

OOTC: Atkins v. Virginia (2002), can't execute mentally ill. Other countries don't do it. Have to look at their maturity, peer pressure, other factors, etc.

DISS: Don't look at other international norms, there is no national trend, if you do the crime do the time

Front 19

Bowers v. Hardwick (1986)

Back 19

SCOTUS upholds Georgia's ban on sodomy, stating that America has "always" been against same-sex opportunity because that's the way it should be

Front 20

Gratz v. Bollinger (2003)

Back 20

Undergraduate application point system declared unconstitutional on same day as Gruter v. Bollinger; cannot giver preferential treatment in undergraduate admissions