Warren Court Midterm

Front 1

Lochner v. New York (1905)

Back 1

NYC law restricting bakers from working more than 60 hours per week. Law violates liberty of contract under the due process clause of 14th amendment. *substantive due process*

Front 2

Substantive Due Process

Back 2

idea that court can hold legislation unconstitutional on the ground that the legislature lacked a rational basis for enacting it. Formally terminated in Carolene Products.

Front 3

US v. Carolene Products (1938)

Back 3

Law regulating Milk prices, occured after New Deal Majority, deemed constitutional because the law passed the rationality test.
Footnote 4: More judicial review

Front 4

New Deal Majority

Back 4

Follow rationality review and dont 2nd guess legislation. Judicial restraint.
Frankfurter

Front 5

W. Virginia vs. Barnette (1943)

Back 5

Jehovah's witness kids did not salute flag were expelled. SC sided with kids 1st Amendment right, coerced national unity was not beneficial.
Frankfurter dissents-let states decide

Front 6

Adamson v. California

Back 6

Murderer refuses to take stand, but 5th Amendment does not apply because he is in state court. SC agrees, and rejects incorporation.
Black dissent- originalism, of 14th A

Front 7

Slaughter-House Cases (1873)

Back 7

"privileges and immunities" does not apply Bill of Rights to States, again rejecting incorporation.

Front 8

Korematsu vs. US (1944)

Back 8

Japaneese sent to camps to prevent spying because national defense > individual rights, Black said not a case of racism.
Dissents, Murphy - Racism
Jackson - Dangerous Precedent

Front 9

Shelley v. Kraemer (1948)

Back 9

Ruled that covenants preventing black people from living in certain neighborhoods was legal but could NOT be enforced.

Front 10

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

Back 10

"seperate but equal"
Brown- inferiority feeling is blacks fault
Dissent- Harlan- Constitution is colorblind.

Front 11

Sweatt v. Painter (1950)

Back 11

Black student applied to UT law school but was rejected cuz of race. Challeneged Plessy, even if school had equal facilities it could never be equal in terms of faculty, experience, prestige, alumni, therefore not equal.

Front 12

Brown v. BOE (1954)

Back 12

Overruled Plessy. "seperate educational facilities are inherently unequal" therefore racial segregation violated equal protection clause of 14th amendment.
Brown II- discussed how to desegregate, "with all deliberate speed."

Front 13

Bolling v. Sharpe

Back 13

Same as Brown but was in D.C. so state laws didnt apply.

Front 14

Dennis v. United States (1951)

Back 14

First amendment does not protect speech that causes "a clear and present danger."
Communist leaders

Front 15

Yates v. United States (1957)

Back 15

Similar to Dennis except that the speech was teaching, not advocating revolution. Based on Dennis, it is legal to teach revolutionary ideas because they don't pose a clear and present danger.

Front 16

Watkins v. United States (1957)

Back 16

He didn't have to answer questions he didnt want to in a committee about communism. Protected by The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment thus invalidated Watkins' conviction.

Front 17

Barenblatt v. United States (1959)

Back 17

This governmental interest was found to outweigh Professor Barenblatt's First Amendment interest in studying, discussing, and associating with those interested in the theories of Communism. Professor Barenblatt claimed he never sought to overthrow the government through his discussions of Communism. Nevertheless, the Court deferred to Congress's power to investigate for legislative purposes.

Front 18

Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Committee (1963)

Back 18

It held that legislative committee cannot compel a subpoenaed witness to give up the membership lists of his organization.

Front 19

Aptheker v. Secretary of State (1964)

Back 19

Ruled that it was unconstitutional to have a law that allowed the Sec of State to not give passports to people they thought were terrorist. Right to travel is protected by the 5th.

Front 20

United States v. O'Brien (1968)

Back 20

A criminal prohibition against burning draft cards did not violate the First Amendment, because its effect on speech was only incidental, and it was justified by the significant government interest in maintaining an efficient and effective military draft system.

Front 21

Tinker v. Des Moines (1968)

Back 21

The court held that the First Amendment applied to public schools, and that administrators would have to demonstrate constitutionally valid reasons for any specific regulation of speech in the classroom.

Front 22

Trop v. Dulles (1958)

Back 22

The Supreme Court decided, 5-4, that it was unconstitutional for the government to cancel the citizenship of a U.S. citizen as a punishment. The ruling's reference to "evolving standards of decency" is frequently cited precedent in the court's interpretation of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on "cruel and unusual punishment."

Front 23

Whitney v. California

Back 23

was a United States Supreme Court decision upholding the conviction of an individual who had engaged in speech that raised a threat to society.

Front 24

Olmstead v. United States (1928)

Back 24

The Fourth Amendment's proscription on unreasonable search and seizure did not apply to wiretaps.

Front 25

Kyllo v. United States (2001)

Back 25

held that the use of a thermal imaging device from a public vantage point to monitor the radiation of heat from a person's home was a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and thus required a warrant. Because the police in this case did not have a warrant, the Court reversed Kyllo's conviction for growing marijuana.

Front 26

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)

Back 26

Constitution protected a right to privacy. The case involved a Connecticut law that prohibited the use of contraceptives. By a vote of 7-2, the Supreme Court invalidated the law on the grounds that it violated the "right to marital privacy".

Although the Bill of Rights does not explicitly mention "privacy," Justice William O. Douglas wrote for the majority that the right was to be found in the "penumbras" and "emanations" of other constitutional protections.

Used almost all the amendments of the bill of rights to show that each partly protected the right to privacy

Front 27

Katz vs. United States (1967)

Back 27

decision that extended the Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable search and seizure to protect individuals in a telephone booth from wiretaps by authorities without a warrant.
So long as an individual can justifiably expect that his conversation would remain private, his/her conversation is protected from "unreasonable search and seizure" by the Fourth Amendment.

Front 28

United States v. Roth (1957)

Back 28

Obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment, but more strictly defines what is considered "obscene".

Front 29

Chambers v. Florida (1940)

Back 29

Confessions compelled by police through duress are inadmissible at trial.

Front 30

Mapp v. Ohio (1961)

Back 30

evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects against "unreasonable searches and seizures," may not be used in criminal prosecutions in state courts. It was already protected under federal law.

Front 31

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

Back 31

unanimously ruled that state courts are required under the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution to provide counsel in criminal cases for defendants who are unable to afford their own attorneys. Previously it was up to the states, and some states only had public defenders for capital offenses.

Front 32

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

Back 32

The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination requires law enforcement officials to advise a suspect interrogated in custody of his rights to remain silent and to obtain an attorney.

Front 33

Terry v. Ohio (1968)

Back 33

Law enforcement officers may stop and frisk someone for weapons if they have a reasonable suspicion that a crime has taken or is about to take place and the subject is armed and dangerous without violating the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures.

The meaning of the rule is to protect persons from unreasonable searches and seizures aimed at gathering evidence, not searches and seizures for other purposes (like prevention of crime or personal protection of police officers).

Front 34

Baker v. Carr (1962)

Back 34

The reapportionment of state legislative districts is not a political question, and thus is justiciable by the federal courts.

Since its very political, the court does not get involved.

Front 35

Reynolds v. Sims (1964)

Back 35

ruled that state legislature districts had to be roughly equal in population.

Alabama had senatorial districts that were 40 times larger than others, struck that down and tried to achieve 1 person 1 vote

Front 36

Harper v. West Virginia Board of Elections (1966)

Back 36

The Twenty‐fourth Amendment (1964) to the U.S. Constitution banned poll taxes as a condition for voting in national elections. Harper challenged the $1.50 Virginia annual poll tax as a precondition for voting in state elections. A three‐judge U.S. District Court followed Breedlove v. Suttles (1937) and dismissed the claim.

Front 37

Everson v. Board of Education (1947)

Back 37

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment is incorporated against the states. However, the Supreme Court found that the New Jersey law was not in violation of the Establishment Clause because it was not specifically aiding catholic schools, it was helping all kids get to school.

Front 38

Sherbert v. Verner (1963)

Back 38

Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment required that government demonstrate a compelling government interest before denying unemployment compensation to someone who was fired because her job conflicted with her religion.

The court mandates strict scruitiny to prevent anyone just claiming its against their religion to do X.

Front 39

Employment Division v. Smith (1990)

Back 39

determined that the state could deny unemployment benefits to a person fired for violating a state prohibition on the use of peyote, even though the use of the drug was part of a religious ritual and the state's Supreme Court had determined the prohibition was constitutionally invalid. Although states have the power to accommodate otherwise illegal acts done in pursuit of religious beliefs, they are not required to do so.

Front 40

Engel v. Vitale (1962)

Back 40

determined that it is unconstitutional for state officials to compose an official school prayer and require its recitation in public schools. Due to the establishment clause of the FIRST AMENDMENT

Front 41

Epperson v,. Arkansas

Back 41

Arkansas statute that prohibited the teaching of evolution in the public schools. The Court held that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits a state from requiring, in the words of the majority opinion, "that teaching and learning must be tailored to the principles or prohibitions of any religious sect or dogma."

Front 42

Griffin v. Illinois

Back 42

Robbers asked for a transcript of their case in order to file for an appeal, they asked that the normal cost be waived because they couldnt afford it. The court denied it.

In a 5–4 decision authored by Justice Hugo L. Black, the Court reasoned that there is "no meaningful distinction" between denying indigent defendants the right to appeal and denying them a trial. Because Illinois conceded that Griffin and Crenshaw could not file for appeal without a transcript, the Court found that their rights to due process and equal protection had been denied.

Front 43

Douglas v California (1963)

Back 43

Everyone has a right to an attorney even through the appeal process due to their due process.

Front 44

Shapiro v. Thompson (1969)

Back 44

Laws for aid to families with dependent children required a 1 year residence prior to receiving state funds.
The Court held that since the regulation touched "on the fundamental right of interstate movement," it must promote a compelling state interest. Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and Washington DC, all failed to advance any compelling administrative or social reasons for their requirements. The goal of simply preventing indigents from moving to these states was constitutionally impermissible, argued Justice Brennan, given the value the United States has historically placed on the freedom to travel.

Front 45

Goldberg v. Kelly (1970)

Back 45

New Property. Because welfare is a form of property, a hearing needs to occur before the gov can take aware your welfare (just as it would if it was seizing your land or house)