Supreme Court Cases/legisslation For Ap Gov Test

Front 1

Chadha v. INS

Back 1

(1983) Supreme Court rules the one-house veto of executive procedure is unconstitutional (legislative Veto)

Front 2

Clinton v. NYC

Back 2

(1998) Court rules that bills that pass through the House and Senate must be completely accepted or rejected, effectively ruling the "line-item veto" unconstitutional

Front 3

Texas v. Johnson

Back 3

(1989) Court rules that a Texas man who burned a flag was under his first ammendment rights of freedom of speech.

Front 4

Korematsu v. United States

Back 4

(1944)A Japanese American citizen refused to follow the presedential and conressional orders of interment. The Courts ruled that the temporary limitation of his rights was neccessary for national security.

Front 5

Brown v. Board of Ed of Topeka

Back 5

(1954) Seperate but equal facilities are inherently unequal.

Front 6

Regents of U of Cal v. Bakke

Back 6

(1978) Did the University of California violate the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, by practicing an affirmative action policy that resulted in the repeated rejection of Bakke's application for admission to its medical school? Yes, Bakke got admitted, and no, affirmitive action policies are legal.

Front 7

Nixon v. United States

Back 7

(1993) Nixon, a federal court judge, was impeached but he argued the Senate rule violated the impeachement trial clause. Was ruled unjusticiable by the courts.

Front 8

Gitlow v. New York

Back 8

(1925) Gitlow was arressted for passsing out booklets agianst the government, although no action was taken. Reulted in the "dangerous tendency" test.

Front 9

Barron v. Baltimore

Back 9

(1833) Barron suses the city of Baltimore for lost profits. Court rules the Fifth Amendment does not apply to the states, only the national gov't.

Front 10

Fletcher v. Peck

Back 10

(1810) the Court held that laws annulling contracts or grants made by previous legislative acts were constitutionally impermissible

Front 11

Miranda v. Arizona

Back 11

(1966) Establishes Miranda Rights. Requires police to make suspects aware of their rights to remain silent and to have an attorney present during questioning.

Front 12

Gideon v. Wainwright

Back 12

(1963) Required states to provide public defenders for indigent defendents in felony cases.(sixth ammendment and due proccess clause of 14th amendment)

Front 13

Buckley v. Valeo

Back 13

(1976) First, it held that restrictions on individual contributions to political campaigns and candidates did not violate the First Amendment since the limitations of the FECA enhance the "integrity of our system of representative democracy" by guarding against unscrupulous practices. Second, the Court found that governmental restriction of independent expenditures in campaigns, the limitation on expenditures by candidates from their own personal or family resources, and the limitation on total campaign expenditures did violate the First Amendment. Since these practices do not necessarily enhance the potential for corruption that individual contributions to candidates do, the Court found that restricting them did not serve a government interest great enough to warrant a curtailment on free speech and association.

Front 14

Clinton v. Jones

Back 14

(1997) In a unanimous opinion, the Court held that the Constitution does not grant a sitting President immunity from civil litigation except under highly unusual circumstances. After noting the great respect and dignity owed to the Executive office, the Court held that neither separation of powers nor the need for confidentiality of high-level information can justify an unqualified Presidential immunity from judicial process.

Front 15

U.S. Terms Limits v. Thornton

Back 15

(1995) A state congressional term limits amendment is unconstitutional if it has the likely effect of handicapping a class of candidates and "has the sole purpose of creating additional qualifications indirectly

Front 16

Gibbons v. Ogden

Back 16

(1824) Interpreted Congress's rights to regulate interstate commerce to include all forms of business, not just the exchange of goods

Front 17

Baker v. Carr

Back 17

(1962) Granted federal courts jurisdiction over state apportionment systems to assure that all citizen's votes are granted equal

Front 18

Mapp v. Ohio

Back 18

(1961) Extended the federal exclusionary rule to the states; prohibits illegally obtained evidence from being presented in courts.