Ap Gov Chapter 4: Civil Liberties Supreme Court Cases

Front 1

Board of Education of Westside Community Schools v. Mergens (1990)

Back 1

Holding: In an 8-1 decision for Mergens, the Court ruled that the Equal Access Act does not violate the Establishment Clause.
Rationale: The Court found there was no Establishment Clause violation because the Equal Access Act does not promote or endorse religion, but protects student-initiated and student-led meetings.

Front 2

Florida v. J.L. (2000)

Back 2

Holding: In a unanimous decision for J.L., the Court ruled that an anonymous tip re a person carrying a gun is not enough to stop and frisk.
Rationale: It must be "suitably corroborated" with both the accurate prediction of future activity of the subject and accurate in its assertion of potential criminal activity. (4th Amend. Unreasonable search and seizures)

Front 3

Santa Fe Independent School District v. Jane Doe (1999)

Back 3

Holding: In a 6-3 decision for Doe, The Court ruled that public school-sponsored prayer at high school football game is unconstitutional.
Rationale: Violates the Establishment Clause.

Front 4

Klopfer v. North Carolina (1967)

Back 4

Holding: In a 6-3 decision, the Court ruled for Klopfer, applying the right to a speedy trial to states.
Rationale: States have to follow Sixth Amendment rights as well.

Front 5

Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)

Back 5

Holding: In a unanimous decision, the Court ruled for Lemon holding that the Pennsylvania act violated the Establishment Clause by creating a 3-part test to see if government aid to schools is constitutional.
Rationale: The complicated relationship between church schools and state officials overseeing reimbursements created an excessive "entanglement" between a religious entity and the state.

Front 6

Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health (1989)

Back 6

Holding: In a 5-4 decision for the Missouri Department, the Court ruled that the right of dying patients to refuse medical treatment, causing suicide, under the Due Process clause wasn't allowed.
Rationale: Because there was no guarantee family members would always act in the best interests of incompetent patients, and because erroneous decisions to withdraw treatment were irreversible, the Court upheld the state's heightened evidentiary requirements.

Front 7

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)

Back 7

Holding: In a 7-2 decision the Court ruled for Griswold recognizing the constitutional right to privacy stating that: (1) the appellants had standing to raise the constitutional rights of people with whom they had a professional relationship; and (2) the statute was invalid because it infringed on the constitutionally protected right to “privacy” of married persons.
Rationale: the various guarantees within the Bill of Rights create penumbras, or zones, that establish a right to privacy. Together, the First, Third, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, create a new constitutional right, the right to privacy in marital relations.

Front 8

Barron v. Baltimore (1833)

Back 8

Holding: The Court ruled that Bill of Rights applies only to national government, not the states; State governments are not bound by the Fifth Amendment's requirement for just compensation in cases of eminent domain.
Rationale: (1) binding only on the Fed govt. (2) State constitutions are binding on the States

Front 9

Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989)

Back 9

Holding: The Court ruled for Webster 5-4, stating that states may deny use of state funds or state employees to perform abortions; approving a Missouri law that imposed restrictions on the use of state funds, facilities and employees in performing, assisting with, or counseling on abortions.
Rationale: Did not infringe upon Equal protection Clause of the 14 Amendment.

Front 10

Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission (1969)

Back 10

Holding: Ruling for the FCC, The Court gave the right of rebuttal for politicians attacked on radio or TV.
Rationale: Fairness doctrine was consistent with the First Amendment.

Front 11

NY TImes v. Sullivan (1964)

Back 11

Holding: Ruled for the Times 9-0, The First Amendment, as applied through the Fourteenth, protected a newspaper from being sued for libel in state court for making false defamatory statements about the official conduct of a public official, because the statements were not made with knowing or reckless disregard for the truth.
Rationale: "Actual malice" wasn't proven.

Front 12

Mallory v. United States (1956)

Back 12

Holding: In a unanimous decision for Mallory, the Court held that immunity from self incrimination applied to states.
Rationale: Mallory was not told of his rights to counsel or to a preliminary examination before a magistrate, nor of his right to remain silent violating the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Front 13

Near v. Minnesota (1929)

Back 13

Holding: In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled for Near, stating that the 1st Amendment protects newspapers from prior restraint.
Rationale: The government could not censor or otherwise prohibit a publication in advance, even though the communication might be punishable after publication in a criminal or other proceeding

Front 14

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

Back 14

Holding: The court ruled unanimously for Gideon, extending to the states the 6th Amendment right to counsel for felony trials.
Rationale: 14th Amendment obligated states to follow 6th Amendment and provide counsel to indigent defendants in all criminal trials.

Front 15

Nix v. Williams (1983)

Back 15

Holding: In a 7-2 decision for Nix, the Court created an "inevitable discovery" exception to the exclusionary rule.
Rationale: Exclusionary rule did not apply to the child's body as evidence since it was clear that the volunteer search teams would have discovered the body even absent Williams's statements.

Front 16

Branzburg v. Hayes (1971)

Back 16

Holding: Ruling for Hayes, the Court found that requiring reporters to disclose confidential information to grand juries served a "compelling" and "paramount" state interest and did not violate the First Amendment.
Rationale: The fact that reporters receive information from sources in confidence does not privilege them to withhold that information during a government investigation;

Front 17

Mapp v. Ohio (1960)

Back 17

Holding: In a 6-3 decision for Mapp, the Court applied the 4th Amendment's exclusionary rule to the states.
Rationale: "All evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is, by [the Fourth Amendment], inadmissible in a state court."

Front 18

Wolf v. Colorado (1948)

Back 18

Holding: In a 6-3 decision, the Court applied no unreasonable searches and seizures to the states.
Rationale: The Fourteenth Amendment did not subject criminal justice in the states to specific limitations and that illegally obtained evidence did not have to be excluded from trials in all cases.

Front 19

Board of Regents of University of Wisconsin System v. Southworth (1999)

Back 19

Holding: In a unanimous decision for Board of Regents, the Court upheld the college activity fee over offensive speech objections.
Rationale: 1st Amendment; Students may not always like other viewpoints.

Front 20

Gregg v. Georgia (1976)

Back 20

Holding: In a 7-to-2 decision for Georgia, the Court held that the death penalty does not violate 8th Amendment's no "cruel and unusual punishment."
Rationale: Death penalty did not constitute as "cruel and unusual punishment."

Front 21

Robinson v. California (1961)

Back 21

Holding: In a 6-2 decision for Robinson, the Court applied no cruel and unusual punishment to states.
Rationale: Laws imprisoning persons afflicted with the "illness" of narcotic addiction inflicted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Front 22

Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)

Back 22

Holding: Ruling for Yoder, the Court ruled that Amish parents did not need to send their kids to high school against their religion; the law denied Amish the right to practice their religious beliefs and state's interest in promoting education wasn't strong enough for compliance; requiring the Amish students' attendance violated Amish teachings.
Rationale: Missing 1 or 2 years of school wouldn't impair health or well-being of the children, damage self-sufficiency, or keep them from acquiring skills to be good citizens.

Front 23

Frisby v. Schultz (1987)

Back 23

Holding: In a 6-3 decision for Frisby, the Court ruled that a town may ban picketing in a residential area.
Rationale: 1st Amendment; the ban must satisfy strict standards in order to remain; The city government had a legitimate purpose in protecting the homes of its residents, and did so without favoring one idea over another or eliminating the ability to communicate an idea.

Front 24

Miami Herald Publishing Company v. Tornillo (1973)

Back 24

Holding: In a unanimous decision for the Miami Herald., the Court ruled that states can't force a newspaper to print replies from politicians who were criticized in their paper.
Rationale: Florida's "right to reply" statute violated the freedom of press found in the First Amendment; "press responsibility is not mandated by the Constitution and…cannot be legislated."

Front 25

Miller v. California (1971)

Back 25

Holding: In a 5-4 decision for Miller, the Court ruled that obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment.
Rationale: Didn't pass three part test: the average person, applying contemporary community standards, find, taken as a whole, appeal to the prurient interest; that depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law; and that, taken as a whole, lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

Front 26

NY Times v. United States (1970)

Back 26

Holding: In a 6-3 decision for the NY Times, the Court ruled that there was no prior restraint of the Pentagon Papers.
Rationale: Since publication would not cause an inevitable, direct, and immediate event imperiling the safety of American forces, prior restraint was unjustified.

Front 27

Reno v. ACLU (1996)

Back 27

Holding: In a unanimous decision for ACLU, the Court decided that the Communications Decency Act of 1996 was unconstitutional.
Rationale: The Act failed to clearly define "indecent" communications, limit its restrictions to particular times or individuals (by showing that it would not impact adults), provide supportive statements from an authority on the unique nature of internet communications, or conclusively demonstrate that the transmission of "offensive" material is devoid of any social value.

Front 28

Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1991)

Back 28

Holding: In a 5-4 decision for Planned Parenthood, the Court ruled that states may regulate abortions unless it creates an "undue burden" women.
Rationale: Due Process

Front 29

Roe v. Wade (1971)

Back 29

Holding: In a 7-2 decision for Roe, the Court ruled that states can't ban abortions during the first trimester of pregnancy.
Rationale: A woman's right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy (recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut) protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Front 30

Duncan v. Louisiana (1967)

Back 30

Holding; in a 7-2 decision for Duncan, the Court applied the right to jury trial for serious crimes to the states.
Rationale: States were obligated under the Fourteenth Amendment to provide such trials.

Front 31

Vacco v. Quil (1996)

Back 31

Holding: In a unanimous decision for Vacco, the Court ruled that states may prohibit physician-assisted suicide.
Rationale: No matter how noble a physician's motives may be, he may not deliberately cause, hasten, or aid a patient's death.

Front 32

Hazlewood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1987)

Back 32

Holding: Ruling for the Hazlewood School District, the Court ruled that it was okay for a principal to censor a high school newspaper.
Rationale: Educators did not offend the First Amendment by exercising editorial control over the content of student speech so long as their actions were "reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns."

Front 33

Gitlow v. New York (1925)

Back 33

Holding: The Court ruled for New York, applying the freedom of speech and press to the states.
Rationale: A state may forbid both speech and publication if they have a tendency to result in action dangerous to public security, even though such utterances create no clear and present danger

Front 34

Schenck v. United States (1918)

Back 34

Holding: In a unanimous decision, the Court concluded that Schenck is not protected in this situation; created "clear and present danger" test for limiting speech.
Rationale: 1917 Espionage Act; US Const Amend 1; "The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."

Front 35

Texas v. Johnson (1988)

Back 35

Holding: In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that Johnson's burning of a flag was protected expression under the First Amendment.
Rationale: The Court found that Johnson's actions fell into the category of expressive conduct and had a distinctively political nature. The fact that an audience takes offense to certain ideas or expression, the Court found, does not justify prohibitions of speech.

Front 36

United States v. O'brien (1967)

Back 36

Holding: In a 7-1 decision, the Court held that burning a draft card is not protected speech.
Rationale: 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 37

Zurcher v. Stanford Daily (1977)

Back 37

Holding: In a 5-3 decision for Zurcher, the Court ruled that it did not violate the freedom of the press to search a newspaper company with a warrant.
Rationale: Searches, accompanied by warrants, were legitimate when it had been "satisfactorily demonstrated to the magistrate that fruits, instrumentalities, or evidence of crime is located on the premises;" 4th Amendment.

Front 38

Boerne v. Flores (1996)

Back 38

Holding: In a 6-2 decision for Boerne, the Court declared that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 was unconstitutional.
Rationale: While Congress may enact such legislation as the RFRA, in an attempt to prevent the abuse of religious freedoms, it may not determine the manner in which states enforce the substance of its legislative restrictions; 14th Amendment Enforcement Clause.

Front 39

Stone v. Graham (1980)

Back 39

Holding: Ruling for Stone, the Court ruled that posting of the 10 Commandments on walls of public classrooms was allowed; Kentucky law violated the first part of the test established in Lemon v. Kurtzman, and thus violated the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.
Rationale: The requirement that the Ten Commandments be posted "had no secular legislative purpose" and was "plainly religious in nature."

Front 40

NAACP v. Alabama (1957)

Back 40

Holding: In a unanimous decision for NAACP, the Court ruled that requiring NAACP to release its membership list is unconstitutional.
Rationale: violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Front 41

McCleskey v. Kemp (1986)

Back 41

Holding: In a 5-4 decision for Kemp, the Court ruled that the death penalty is constitutional even if minorities receive it more than Whites.
Rationale: Since McCleskey could not prove that purposeful discrimination which had a discriminatory effect on him existed in this particular trial, there was no constitutional violation; Equal protection.

Front 42

Michigan v. Sitz (1989)

Back 42

Holding: In a 6-3 decision for Michigan, the Court upheld roadside checkpoints to search for drunk drivers.
Rationale: "no one can seriously dispute the magnitude of the drunken driving problem or the States' interest in eradicating it;" empirical evidence supported the effectiveness of the program.

Front 43

School District of Abington Township, Pennsylvania v. Schempp (1962)

Back 43

Holding: In a 8-1 decision for Schempp, the Court ruled that state required Bible reading in schools is unconstitutional.
Rationale: The required activities encroached on both the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment since the readings and recitations were essentially religious ceremonies and were "intended by the State to be so."

Front 44

Brandenburg v. Ohio (1968)

Back 44

Holding; Ruling for Brandenburg, the Court ruled that it was okay to advocate violent overthrow of the government in the abstract if no incitement to imminent lawless action.
Rationale: The criminal syndicalism act made illegal the advocacy and teaching of doctrines while ignoring whether or not that advocacy and teaching would actually incite imminent lawless action. The failure to make this distinction rendered the law overly broad and in violation of the Constitution.

Front 45

Everson v. Board of Education (1947)

Back 45

Holding: In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled for the Board, applying the establishment clause to states.
Rationale: New Jersey's law reimbursements of money to parents who sent their children to school on buses operated by the public transportation system didn't violate Constitution because it was simply a law enacted as a "general program" to assist parents of all religions with getting their children to school.

Front 46

Engel v. Vitale (1961)

Back 46

Holding: Deciding for Engel, the Court ruled that state composed prayer to be read by public school kids is unconstitutional.
Rationale: New York authorization violated the Establishment of Religion Clause.

Front 47

United States v. Leon (1983)

Back 47

Holding: The Court ruled for the U.S., creating a "good-faith" reliance on a search warrant exception to the exclusionary rule.
Rationale: The rule cannot deter police in a case like Leon, where they act in good faith on a warrant issued by a judge.

Front 48

Dickerson v. United States (1999)

Back 48

Holding: In a 7-2 decision for Dickerson, the Court reaffirmed Miranda decision and told Congress it could not change it.
Rationale: Miranda governs the admissibility of statements made during custodial interrogation in both state and federal courts.

Front 49

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

Back 49

Holding: In a 5-4 decision for Miranda, the Court made police read read warnings to suspects to prevent coerced confessions.
Rationale: To secure the privilege against self- incrimination.

Front 50

Roth v. United States (1956)

Back 50

Holding: In a 6-3 decision for the U.S., the Court ruled that obscenity was not "within the area of constitutionally protected speech or press."
Rationale: First Amendment was not intended to protect every utterance or form of expression, such as materials that were "utterly without redeeming social importance."