Supreme Court Cases: Privacy, Property, Due Process, The Accused

Front 1

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)

Back 1

Connecticut law prohibited the use of contraceptives. Supreme Court overruled insofar as couples have a "right to marital privacy." Set the precedent for Roe v. Wade.

Front 2

Roe v. Wade (1973)

Back 2

Woman wanted an abortion, but Texas had a ban on abortions but for rape and to save a mother's life. Established that abortions may be performed, during the 1st Trimester, semi-ok in the 2nd, and errr in the 3rd.

Front 3

Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)

Back 3

Laws in state of Pennsylvania (informed consent of parent/spouse, 24 hour waiting period, etc.) were called into question. SC ruled that abortions were still legal, but only one of the restrictions could not be used..."UNDUE BURDEN TEST"

Front 4

Stenberg v. Carhart (2000)

Back 4

Nebraska law made partial-birth abortions illegal, without providing exceptions. SC struck this down on the grounds that it violated the Due Process Clause as an "Undue Burden" established in PP v. Casey and Roe v. Wade. This case dealt with pre viability-second term abortions.

Front 5

Gonzales v. Carhart (2007)

Back 5

SC ruling upholding the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 finding it not to impose an "undue burden" on the due process right of women to obtain an abortion.

Front 6

Romer v. Evans (1996)

Back 6

Colorado made a state amendment that would have prevented any locality to recognize homosexual citizens as a protected class. SC overturned this as it was not related to a legitimate state interest.

Front 7

Lawrence and Garner v. TX (2003)

Back 7

Individuals were walked in upon having homosexual sex, arrested for sodomy charges. SC ruled that it violated the privacy and liberty of adults to engage in private intimate conduct under the 14th Amendment.

Front 8

Kelo v. City of New London (2005)

Back 8

Government used eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another to further economic development. The Court held that a community enjoyed from economic growth was a permissible use under the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment.

Front 9

Rasul v. Bush (2004)

Back 9

Court has the authority to decide whether foreign nationals were wrongly imprisoned. (Priorly, it was ruled that the Judiciary had no jurisdiction.)

Front 10

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004)

Back 10

A US citizen was being held indefinitely for being an "illegal enemy combatant" (and disallowed habeas corpus)...The Court ruled that habeas corpus was applicable, though it was a difficult situation, as he was a US citizen.

Front 11

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

Back 11

Burglary occurred, and Gideon, but no official declaration of whether or not counsel should be provided at state level was made. The SC ruled that state courts are required, under the 6th Amendment to provide counsel for criminal positions.

Front 12

Mapp v. Ohio (1961)

Back 12

The PD conducted an illegal search of a private residence and claimed to have a warrant (even though they didn't) and found lewd and lascivious material. The court found that under the 4th Amendment, there may not be "unreasonable searches and seizure."

Front 13

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

Back 13

Person was not informed of rights as arrested, and this Court ruled that a person must be notified of their rights at arrest so as to avoid self-incrimination under the 5th Amendment.

Front 14

Terry v. Ohio (1968)

Back 14

Basic searches are logical when patting down the outside of a suspect to make sure that no weapons or contraband are held. In partial separation with the 4th Amendment's exclusionary rule.