• Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Reading...
Front

Card Range To Study

through

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/10

Click to flip

Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;

Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;

H to show hint;

A reads text to speech;

10 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
Westside Community Schools v. Mergens (1990)-
a. It was a case involving a school district's ability to hold classes on Bible study after school.
b. In an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court held that the club could hold its meetings, but that its sponsor could not be paid; this would only serve to be an endorsement of religion.
Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe (2000)-
a. Does the Santa Fe Independent School District's policy permitting student-led, student-initiated prayer at football games violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?
b. The Court held that the policy allowing the student led prayer at the football games was unconstitutional because it violated the Establishment Clause.
Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002)-
a. An Ohio scholarship program grants tuition aid in the form of vouchers for certain students to attend participating public or private schools of their parent’s choosing. Both private (mostly religious) and public schools are part of the program. The question was, “Does Ohio's school voucher program violate the Establishment Clause?”
b. The Supreme Court ruled that the Ohio program did not violate the Establishment Clause because it passed a five part test developed by the Court for such a case, titled the Private Choice Test.
Ten Commandments Cases: - McCreary County KY v. American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky -
a. 1. Do Ten Commandments displays in public schools and in courthouses violate the First Amendment's establishment clause? 2. Was a determination that the displays' purpose had been to advance religion sufficient for the displays' invalidation?
b. Yes and yes. In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Justice David Souter, the majority held that the displays violated the establishment clause because their purpose had been to advance religion.
Ten Commandments Cases: - Van Orden v. Perry
a. Does a Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of a state capitol building violate the First Amendment's establishment clause?
b. The Supreme Court ruled by a vote of 5 to 4, that the display was constitutional.
*Schenk v. United States (1919)
a. During WWI Schenck mailed letters to draftees, which said that the draft was a ‘monstrous wrong motivated by the capitalist system’ and urged for the peaceful petition and repeal of the Conscription Act. Are Schenck’s actions protected by the free speech clause of the 1st Amendment?
b. In a 9-0 decision, the court held that Schenck's criminal conviction was constitutional and that the First Amendment did not protect speech encouraging insubordination against the government. This case laid out the ‘clear and present danger’ clause.
*Gitlow v. New York (1925)
a. Does the New York law punishing the advocacy of overthrowing the government an unconstitutional violation of the free speech clause of the First Amendment?
b. Threshold issue: Does the First Amendment apply to the states? Yes, by virtue of the liberty protected by due process that no state shall deny (14th Amendment). A state may forbid both speech and publication if they have a tendency to result in action dangerous to public security.
*Near v. Minnesota (1931)
a. Jay Near published a scandal sheet in which he attacked local officials, charging that they were implicated with gangsters. Minnesota officials obtained an injunction to prevent Near from publishing his newspaper under a state law that allowed such action against periodicals. Does the Minnesota "gag law" violate the free press provision of the First Amendment?
b. The U.S. Supreme Court held that, except in rare cases, censorship is unconstitutional.
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964)
a. Can a public figure receive damages in a civil libel action, if malice is not proven?
b. 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.
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969)
a. Does a prohibition against the wearing of armbands in public school, as a form of symbolic protest, violate the First Amendment's freedom of speech protections?
b. The wearing of armbands was "closely akin to 'pure speech'" and protected by the First Amendment. School environments imply limitations on free expression, but here the principals lacked justification for imposing any such limits. The principals had failed to show that the forbidden conduct would substantially interfere with appropriate school discipline.