Ap Government Court Cases 2

Front 1

Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)

Back 1

First amendment. Establishment clause. Does a RI law allowing pay raise for nonpublic schoolteachers teaching nonreligious subjects violate the Establishment Clause?

Yes.
Creates the Lemon Test:
A statute must HAVE
1. A significant legislative purpose
2. Neither advance or inhibit a religion
3. Not create significant government entanglement.

Front 2

Engel v. Vitale (1962)

Back 2

First amendment. Establishment Clause.

NY state law requires prayer to be recited by public schools.

Separation of church and state. No prayer in schools.

Front 3

Santa Fe ISD v. Doe (2000)

Back 3

First amendment. Establishment Clause.

Student led, prayer at football games over the PA system.

Violates establishment clause.

"School is now a form of government"

Front 4

Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)

Back 4

First amendment. Free excersize clause.

State compulsory attendance law annoys Amish who want to take their kids out of school after grade 8.

Apparently, doing this is unconstitutional because forcing them to go to school is religious discrimination that endangers them.

Front 5

Employment Division v. Smith (1988)

Back 5

First amendment. Free establishment.

Peyote - Native Americans. Dude fired for using peyote - Tried to get unemploy, failed.

Though he had the right to smoke the peyote, he does not have the right to smoke in public.

Front 6

Texas v. Johnson (1989)

Back 6

First Amend.

Sent to jail for burning the flag. The flag is a symbol.

Burning the flag is protected.

Front 7

Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)

Back 7

First amendment.

Anti-Vietnam protesting.

Legal precedence for dress code because schools can take action against disruptive behavior.

Front 8

Roth v. US (1957)

Back 8

First amendment.

Roth sending porn in the mail.

Obscenity is not protected speech. Up to every community.

Front 9

Miller v. California (1973)

Back 9

First amendment.

Court finally defines obscenity as demeaning to WOMEN without any real merit.

Front 10

Branderberg v. Ohio (1969)

Back 10

Arrested because a Klan member tries to get the Klan publicized by media.

He doesn't fail so he's okay BUT
Two prong test: speech can be prohibited if it is directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action and it is likely to incite or produce such action.

Front 11

Hazlewood v. Kuhlmeier (1988)

Back 11

First amendment.

School newspaper printing stuff.

Court ruled in favor of school. School can censor their own stuff ok?!

Front 12

Schenck v. US (1919)

Back 12

First Amendment

Schenck trying to get people to dissent from the draft.

“Clear and present danger” Congress has a right to prevent this.

Front 13

Near v. Minnesota (1931)

Back 13

First amendment.

Newspaper was publishing stuff that pissed people off. SURPRISE.

Recognized the freedom of the press.

Front 14

New York Times v. Sullivan (1964)

Back 14

First amendment.

Martin Luther King sympathizers in a newspaper.

Held that the defamation that occurs must be inspired by malice.

Front 15

District of Columbia v. Heller

Back 15

2nd Amendment.

DC prohibition of firearms.

Basically not constitutional... everyone can have a firearm.

Front 16

Terry v. Ohio (1968)

Back 16

4th Amendment.

Terry Frisk.

An officer may perform a Terry frisk if they feel like it. Uhuh.

Front 17

Mapp v. Ohio

Back 17

4th Amendment

Nationalized the exclusionary rule.

Illegally obtained evidence may not be used in a trial.

Front 18

New Jersey v. T.L.O (1985)

Back 18

4th amendment
Smoking in school woowwoo

Probable cause v. Reasonable Suspicionhttp://www.flashcardexchange.com/mycards/list/1727989

Front 19

Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993)

Back 19

4th amend.

Dickerson trying to pass off his search for cocaine as illegally obtained evidence.

Plain view v. Plain feel

When doing a patdown, you can take dangerous stuff even if it isn't a weapon.

Front 20

Wyoming v. Houghton (1999)

Back 20

4th amendment

Person had stuff in their car, argued police can't search it.

You CAN search it.

Front 21

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

Back 21

5th amend.

Miranda arrested but then claimed the evidence used against him wasn't fairly obtained because he wasn't read his rights.

Establishes Miranda warning, subject must know all his rights.

Front 22

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

Back 22

6th amend.

Gideon not given fair trial because he didn't have an attorney.

Must provide counsel in all cases.

Front 23

Escebedo v. Illinois (1964)

Back 23

6th amend.

Escebedo basically gets accused for no reason.

Still given the right to counsel.

Front 24

Gregg v. Georgia (1976)

Back 24

8th amendment.

Guy doesn't want to die, obviously.

Death penalty is not cruel and unusual.

Front 25

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)

Back 25

Privacy case.


Was illegal to manufacture or to give info on how to use contraceptives. And Estelle did this and told a couple how to use them.
Estelle is arrested.
Exists a marital right of privacy.

This only applies to a married couple.

Front 26

Lawrence v. Texas (2003)

Back 26

Privacy.


Tried and convicted for Sodomy.
Right to privacy expanded to same-sex relations.

Front 27

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

Back 27

14th Amend (Equal Protection Clause)

Louisiana transport required seperate but equal services for people.

Provided constitutional justification for segregation.

Front 28

Scott v. Sanford (1856)

Back 28

14th Amend (Equal Protection Cl)

Ruled that slaves were basically property.

No rights as property, congress had no right to infringe upon slaves.

Front 29

Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

Back 29

14th Amend ( EPC)

Set aside precedent of Plessy, saying seperate but equal = unconstitutional.

Front 30

Korematsu v. United States (1944)

Back 30

14 amendment (EPC)

After interment of Japanese.

Upheld internment.

Front 31

Regents of the U of C v. Bakke (1978)

Back 31

14th Amend

Bakke doesn't get into med, sues.

Court says that quotas are illegal.

Front 32

Hopwood v. Texas (1996)

Back 32

14th amend.

Someone didn't get into law school.

Court says that race CANNOT be used in admissions process. Preferential treatment = not allowed.

Front 33

Gratz v. Ballinger (2003)

Back 33

U of M - white female didn't get in.

Race may be used in admissions but it can only be one of several factors.