Supreme Court Cases Test

Front 1

Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)
Sit.

Back 1

2 laws allowing teacher to be paid for not allowing religious context enter a nonreligious subject.

Front 2

Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)
Plaintiff

Back 2

Lemon
didn't want tax money going towards religious studies.
establishment clause and 14th amendment

Front 3

Lemon v. Kurtzman
Court decision and cg or ir

Back 3

8-0 Lemon
Individual Rights

Front 4

Lemon v. Kurtzman
Precedent

Back 4

Lemon test created, establishing

Front 5

School District of Abington, Penn v. Schempp (1963)
Sit

Back 5

bible verses were being read to a whole school.
students allowed to be excused from reading but shempp chose not to remove his children

Front 6

SDAP v. Schempp
Plaintiff

Back 6

School
didn't mean for 1st amendment right to be interpreted that no government aid to religion

Front 7

SDAP v. Schempp
Defendent

Back 7

Schempp
bible reading were in contrast with the first amendment as granted to the states in the 14th amendment

Front 8

SDAP v. Schempp
Courts dec and cg or ir

Back 8

8-1 Schempp
Individual Rights

Front 9

SDAP v Schempp
precedent

Back 9

schools cant require and demand religious activities.

Front 10

West Virginia board of educ. v barnette (1943)
Sit

Back 10

school required jehovas witness children to say the pledge and of not they were expelled

Front 11

wvbe v barnette
plaintiff

Back 11

school
weren't showing respect to county by not saying it

Front 12

wvbe v barnette
defenent

Back 12

barnette
violation of 1 and 14 amend

Front 13

wvbe v barnette
courts dec
cg or ir

Back 13

8-1 barnette
individual rights

Front 14

wvbe v barnette
precedent

Back 14

they may say pledge but arent required to do it

Front 15

regants of univ of CA v bakke (1978)
sit

Back 15

bakke applied 1973 and 74 and didn't get in
13 spots available for minorities
sued court for violation of title 6 of civil rights acts and 14 amendment

Front 16

ruc v bakke
plaintiff

Back 16

ruc
increase diversity of medical field

Front 17

ruc v bakke
defendetn

Back 17

bakke
discriminated against for race

Front 18

ruc v bakke
courts dec
cg or ir

Back 18

5-4 bakke
individual rights-discrim
common good-common playing ground for everyone

Front 19

ruc v bakke
precedent

Back 19

you may use race to admittance but race cant be solely the only decision

Front 20

Gonzales v Oregon (2006)
SIT

Back 20

1994 Oregon passed death with dignity act
giving controlled substances to terminally ill patients

Front 21

gonz v Oregon
palintiff

Back 21

gonz
csa establishes inform nation for controlled use of drugs
9th circuit ruling was based on misunderstanding of principals

Front 22

gonz v Oregon
defendent

Back 22

orgeon
csa doesn't prohibit drugs for pas
the state attorney cant regulate medicine

Front 23

gonz v Oregon
courts dec
cg or ir

Back 23

Oregon 6-3
ir

Front 24

gonz v Oregon
precedent

Back 24

states ay determine their own medical choices

Front 25

ca v greenwood (1984)
sit

Back 25

illegal drug use=greenwood arrested
had his trash searched, then his house

Front 26

cs v greenwood
plaintiff

Back 26

greenwood
argued 4th amend rights violated

Front 27

ca v greenwood
defendant

Back 27

ca
public property can be searched without warrant

Front 28

CA V greenwood
courts dec
cg/ir

Back 28

ca 6-2
common good

Front 29

ca v greenwood
prec

Back 29

police can search all discarded items because there is no obligation to it.

Front 30

Thompson v Oklahoma (1988)
sit

Back 30

brothers repeatedly abused sister
murdered sister and sentenced to death
8 amend

Front 31

thomp v Oklahoma
plaintiff

Back 31

Thompson
juvenile found less resitant and unaware of conseq
although tried as adult, they don't need ot be punished as adult
death sentence under 16 is loathsome to current standards

Front 32

thomps v ok
defendant

Back 32

ok
thomps tried as adult
age doesn't matter

Front 33

thomps v ok
courts dec
cg/ir

Back 33

5-3 thomp
ir

Front 34

thomps v ok
prec

Back 34

anyone under 16 cant be given the death penalty and cant be tried as adult. -expanded to 18

Front 35

boy scouts v dale (2000)
sit

Back 35

boy scouts revoked membership to gay members

Front 36

bs v dale
plaintiff

Back 36

bs
argued dale had violated amend of expressive association

Front 37

bs v dale
defendant

Back 37

dale
argued that they violated the new jersey state stature prohibiting discrimination against sexual orientation

Front 38

bs v dale
courts dec
cg/ir

Back 38

5-4 bs
individual rights

Front 39

bs v dale
prec

Back 39

now a group may exclude people because they don't want to convey a certain message to the public

Front 40

Miranda v Arizona (1966)
sit

Back 40

1963 Miranda arrested for kidnap and rape
voluntarily confessed an signed written confession
appeals his case and says 5th amendment violated

Front 41

mir v ari
plaintiff

Back 41

mir
didn't know he had the right to remain silent=cant exercise his rights if he doesn't know them
conviction based on confession and he wanted confession thrown out

Front 42

mir v ari
defendant

Back 42

ari
confession was not forced
why would anyone confess if they had the right to remain silent?

Front 43

mir v ari
courts dec
cg/ir

Back 43

5-4 mir

Front 44

mir v ari
prec

Back 44

Miranda rights... right to remain silent

Front 45

Furman v Georgia (1972)
sit

Back 45

furman was robbing a house and tripped and shot the owner of the house

Front 46

fur v geor
plaintiff

Back 46

geor
serious crimes committed, one must be executed

Front 47

fur v geor
def

Back 47

fur
8th amend and due process-not given a fair trial

Front 48

fur v georg
courts dec
cg/ir

Back 48

fur 5-4

Front 49

fur v georg
prec

Back 49

cant discriminate in courts and against minorites

Front 50

Wisconsin v yoder (1972)
sit

Back 50

nov 1968 yoder removed his son after 8th grade
yoder arrested, tried and convicted for not sending his son to school until 16

Front 51

wis v yoder
plain

Back 51

wis
necessary for kids to attend school until 16

Front 52

wis v yoder
def

Back 52

yoder
violation of 1st amend for free exercise of religion

Front 53

wis v yoder
courts dec
cg/ir

Back 53

7-1 yoder

Front 54

wis v yoder
prec

Back 54

parents should be able to decide. can be pulled out but must provide an educ

Front 55

katz v us (1967)
sit

Back 55

Charles katz charged for giving out illegal gambling info

Front 56

katz v us
plain

Back 56

katz
4th amend req a warrant
FBI met none of those req

Front 57

katz v us
def

Back 57

us
4th amend for unreasonable
no evidence gathered illegally

Front 58

katz v us
courts dec

Back 58

7-1 katz

Front 59

katz v us
prec

Back 59

limited ability for police to survey private property

Front 60

tinker v des moines (1969)
sit

Back 60

7 students banned for wearing arm bands in protest of Vietnam war

Front 61

tink v dm
plain

Back 61

tink
1st amend=free speech
symbolic, causing no disruption

Front 62

tink v dm
def

Back 62

dm
protest interrupted learning environment
school is a place for learning not protesting
obligation and right to prevent interference with school rules

Front 63

tink v dm
courts dec
cg/ir

Back 63

tink 7-2
ir

Front 64

tink v dm
prec

Back 64

reasonable forces of substantial disruption test, allowing school to censor student expression but needs a reason.

Front 65

morse v Frederick (2002)
sit

Back 65

Frederick help sign up across school during Olympic relay that said: bong hits 4 jesus
suspended for 10 days

Front 66

morse v fred
plain

Back 66

morse
banner was disruptive
take action against promo of illegal drugs

Front 67

morse v fred
def

Back 67

fred
relay not a school sponsored event and not used for promo of drugs but instead comedy
not on school grounds and caused no dis

Front 68

morse v fred
courts dec
cg/ir

Back 68

morse 5-4
common good

Front 69

morse v fred
prec

Back 69

school officials have the ability to take away 1st amend rights to free speech if disruptive or promoting illegal drug/activity

Front 70

nyt v dc (1971)
sit

Back 70

gov studied Vietnam... leaked info... nyt published it

Front 71

nyt v dc
plain

Back 71

nyt
could prolong war
authority was to protect the nation from info that endangered the nation

Front 72

nyt v dc
def

Back 72

dc
censorship: violation of 1st amend for press

Front 73

nyt v dc
courts dec
cg/ir

Back 73

nyt 6-3
common good

Front 74

nyt v dc
prec

Back 74

importance of freedom of press unless clear and present danger

Front 75

heller v dc
sit

Back 75

handgun possession banned
registration of handguns prohibited
heller req handgun to use for self defense

Front 76

heller v dc
plain

Back 76

dc
2 amend-well regulated state militia
no self-def purposes

Front 77

heller v dc
def

Back 77

heller
didn't like trigger lock req

Front 78

heller v dc
courts dec
cg/ir

Back 78

5-4 heller
ir

Front 79

heller v dc
prec

Back 79

can use for lawful purposes such as self defense