Civil Rights And Liberties Court Cases

Front 1

Barron v. Baltimore (1833)

Back 1

· The 1883 Supreme Court decision holding that theBill of Rights restrained only the national government, not the states andcities.

Front 2

Gitlow v New York (1925)

Back 2

Established that the 1st Amendment's expression rights also limited state governments, though it didn't aid this particular individual in the case.

Front 3

Near v Minnesota (1931)

Back 3

· Established that the 1st Amendment's press freedom guarantees applied to state and local governments as well as federal.

Front 4

Cantwell v Connecticut (1940)

Back 4

Did the arrest and conviction of Cantwell for violating the common law offense of breach of the peace violate his constitutional rights of free speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution (Constitution)?

Yes. While it is obvious that the principles of freedom of speech and religion do not sanction incitement to riot or violence, it is equally obvious that a State may not unduly suppress free communication of views under the guise of maintaining desirable conditions. There was no evidence of assaultive behavior or threatening of bodily harm, no truculent bearing, no profane, abusive, indecent remarks directed to the person of the hearer. Thus, it cannot be said that Cantwell’s actions resulted in a breach of the peace or an incitement to a breach thereof.

By ruling that the facts of this case, speaking to an audience hostile to ones message, does not amount to a breach of the peace, the Supreme Court of the United States (Supreme Court) gives insight into the degree of public disorder it requires to permit a government to regulate free expression on those grounds.

Front 5

Everson v Board of Education (1940)

Back 5

A New Jersey law allowed reimbursements of money to parents who sent their children to school on buses operated by the public transportation system. Children who attended Catholic schools also qualified for this transportation subsidy.

Did the New Jersey statute violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment as made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment?

No. Justice Black argued that services like bussing and police and fire protection for parochial schools are "separate and so indisputably marked off from the religious function" that for the state to provide them would not violate the First Amendment. The law did not pay money to parochial schools, nor did it support them directly in anyway. It was simply a law enacted as a "general program" to assist parents of all religions with getting their children to school.

Front 6

NAACP v Alabama (1947)

Back 6

· The SC protected the right to assemblepeacefully in this 1958 case when it decided the NAACP did not have to revealits membership list and thus subject its members to harassment

Front 7

Heller v District of Columbia (2002)

Back 7

The Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self- defense within the home.

Front 8

Boy Scouts of America v Dale (2000)

Back 8

The Court held that "applying New Jersey's public accommodations law to require the Boy Scouts to admit Dale violates the Boy Scouts' First Amendment right of expressive association." In effect, the ruling gives the Boy Scouts of America a constitutional right to bar homosexuals from serving as troop leaders.

Front 9

Mapp v Ohio (1961)

Back 9

· The 1961 SC decision ruling that the FourthAmendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures must beextended to the states as well as to the federal government.

· The SC ruled that evidence against Mapp had beenseized illegally, and the Court reversed Mapp’s conviction. Since then, the exclusionary rule has beenpart of the 4th amendment and has been incorporated within therights that restrict states, as well as the fed govt.

Front 10

Gideon v Wainright (1963)

Back 10

· The 1963 SC decision holding that anyone accusedof a felony where imprisonment may be imposed, however poor he or she might be,has a right to a lawyer.

Front 11

Duncan v Louisiana (1968)

Back 11

Does a state law granting a jury trial only in cases where the penalty is capital punishment or imprisonment at hard labor violate the Constitution?

Yes. The Constitution was violated when Appellant’s demand for jury trial was refused.Trial by jury in criminal cases is fundamental to the American scheme of justice because it works to prevent governmental oppression

Front 12

Argersinger v Hamlin (1972)

Back 12

The requirement of counsel may well be necessary for a fair trial even in a petty-offense prosecution.”

Front 13

Griswoldv Connecticut (1965)

Back 13

· 1965 – wrestled with the privacy issue· 7 justices decided that various portions of the Billof Rights cast “penumbras” (or shadows) – unstated liberties implied by theexplicitly stated rights – protecting a right to privacy, including a right tofamily planning between husband and wife.

Front 14

Engelv Vitale (1962)

Back 14

· The 1962 Supreme Court decision holding that stateofficials violated the First Amendment when they wrote a prayer to be recitedby New York’s schoolchildren.

Front 15

Abington v Schempp (1963)

Back 15

· A 1963 Supreme Court decision holding that a Pennsylvanialaw requiring Bible reading in schools violated the establishment clause of theFirst Amendment

Front 16

Lemonv Kurtzman (1972)

Back 16

· The 1971 Supreme Court decision that established thataid to church-related schools must (1) have a secular legislative purpose; (2)have a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion; and (3) notfoster excessive government entanglement with religion.· Since then the Court has had to draw a fine linebetween aid that is permissible and aid that is not.

Front 17

Zelman v Simmons-Harris (2002)

Back 17

· The 2002 Supreme Court decision that upheld a stateproviding families with vouchers that could be used to pay for tuition atreligious schools.

Front 18

EmploymentDivision v Smith (1988)

Back 18

· 1988- The Court discarded its previous requirementsfor a compelling interest before agovernment could even indirectly limit or prohibit religious practices.

· The Court decided that state laws interfering withreligious practices but not specifically aimed at religion are constitutional.

· The State of Oregon was allowed to prosecute personswho used the drug peyote as part of their religious rituals.

Front 19

Reynolds v US (1878)

Back 19

Does the federal anti-bigamy statute violate the First Amendment's free exercise clause because plural marriage is part of religious practice?

No. The statute can punish criminal activity without regard to religious belief. The First Amendment protected religious belief, but it did not protect religious practices that were judged to be criminal such as bigamy. Those who practice polygamy could no more be exempt from the law than those who may wish to practice human sacrifice as part of their religious belief.

Front 20

Wisconsin v Yoder (1972)

Back 20

The Supreme Court ruled 6 to 1 that the compulsory education law in Wisconsin violated the Free Exercise Clause. Justice Burger wrote in his majority opinion that Amish parents had legitimate reasons to want to remove their children from school before they reached high school. The qualities emphasized in higher education (self-distinction, competitiveness, scientific accomplishment, etc.) are contrary to Amish values and the government could not require parents to allow them to be instilled.

Front 21

Lukumi Babalu Aye v City ofHialeah (1993)

Back 21

Did the city of Hialeah's ordinance, prohibiting ritual animal sacrifices, violate the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause?

Yes. The Court held that the ordinances were neither neutral nor generally applicable. The ordinances had to be justified by a compelling governmental interest and they had to be narrowly tailored to that interest. The core failure of the ordinances were that they applied exclusively to the church. The ordinances singled out the activities of the Santeria faith and suppressed more religious conduct than was necessary to achieve their stated ends. Only conduct tied to religious belief was burdened. The ordinances targeted religious behavior, therefore they failed to survive the rigors of strict scrutiny.

Front 22

Schenck v United States (1919)

Back 22

· A 1919 decision upholding the conviction of asocialist who had urged young men to resist the draft during WWI. JusticeHolmes declared that government can limit speech if the speech provokes and“clear and present danger” of substantive evils.

Front 23

Brandenburgv Ohio (1968)

Back 23

Did Ohio's criminal syndicalism law, prohibiting public speech that advocates various illegal activities, violate Brandenburg's right to free speech as protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments?

The Court's Per Curiam opinion held that the Ohio law violated Brandenburg's right to free speech. The Court used a two-pronged test to evaluate speech acts: (1) speech can be prohibited if it is "directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and (2) it is "likely to incite or produce such action." 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 24

NewYork Times v US (1971)

Back 24

Established that prior restraint on the press must be justified by clear military or security concerns, or it was not permissible, through violations of the secrecy law could always be punished after publication.

Front 25

Nebraska Press Ass’n v Stewart (1976)

Back 25

The U.S. Supreme Court held that "prior restraints on speech and publication are the most serious and the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights."In this decision the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Nebraska court order that had gagged (silenced) the press against reporting on a sensational murder in a small town. The Nebraska court had muzzled the press to try to ensure a fair trial for the defendant.

Front 26

Branzburgv Hayes (1972)

Back 26

· 1972 – The Supreme Court ruled that in the absence ofshield laws, the right of a fair trial preempts the reporter’s right to protectsources.

Front 27

Zurcher v Stanford Daily (1976)

Back 27

· A 1978 Supreme Court decision holding that a propersearch warrant could be applied to a newspaper as well as to anyone elsewithout necessarily violating the First Amendment rights to freedom of thepress.

Front 28

Roth v United States (1957)

Back 28

· A 1957 Supreme Court decision ruling that “obscenityis not within the area of constitutionally protected speech or press.”

Front 29

Miller v California (1973)

Back 29

· A 1973 Supreme Court decision that avoided defining obscenity by holding that community standards be used to determine whether material is obscene in terms of appealing to a “prurient interest” and being“patently offensive” and lacking in value.

Front 30

Reno v ACLU (1997)

Back 30

Two provisions of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA) that criminalized providing obscene materials to minors by the internet were held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States (Supreme Court).

The CDA is a content-based blanket restriction on speech, as such, cannot be properly analyzed as a form of time, place and manner restriction. The CDA lacks the precision that the First Amendment of the Constitution requires when a statute regulates the content of speech. In order to deny minors access to potentially harmful speech, the statute suppresses a large amount of speech that adults have a constitutional right to receive.

Front 31

NewYork Times v Sullivan (1964)

Back 31

· Decided in 1964, this case established the guidelinesfor determining whether public officials and public figures could win damagesuits for libel.

· 1964 – Supreme Court held that statements about publicfigures are libelous only if made with malice and reckless disregard for the truth.· Public figures have to prove publication wasintentionally malicious, private individuals have to prove author wasnegligent.

Front 32

Hustler v Falwell (1988)

Back 32

Case that explored the line between parody andlibel. Hustler depicted the Reverend Jerry Falwell having had his “firsttime” in an outhouse with his mother. That case tested the limits to which a publication could go to parody orlampoon a public figure. The SC ruledthat they can go pretty far – all nine justices ruled in favor of the magazine.

Front 33

Texas v Johnson (1989)

Back 33

· A 1989 case in which the Supreme Court struck down alaw banning the burning of the American flag on the grounds that such actionwas symbolic speech protected by the first amendment.

Front 34

Tinkerv Des Moines ISD (1968)

Back 34

· In 1965, Mary Beth Tinker and her brother John weresuspended from school when they wore black armbands to protest the Vietnam War.The SC held that the suspension violated the Tinker’s First Amendment rights.The right to freedom of speech, said the Court, went beyond the spoken word.

Front 35

Central Hudson Gas v Public ServiceCommission of NY (1980)

Back 35

· The Public Service Commission of New York (PSC), in the interestof conserving energy, enacted a regulation that prohibited electric utilitiesfrom promoting electricity use. The PSC's regulation distinguished promotionaladvertising from informational advertising, which was permitted.

· Did the PSC's ban on advertising violate the freedom of speechprotected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments?

· Yes. The Court overruled the Court of Appeals of New York and heldthat the New York's ban violated the right to commercial speech. Since theregulation restricted all promotional advertising regardless of its effect onelectricity use, it violated the First and Fourteenth Amendment · Laid out a four-part test for determining when restrictionson commercial speech violated the First Amendment of the UnitedStates Constitution:

o Is the expression protected bythe First Amendment? For speech to come within that provision, it must concernlawful activity and not be misleading.

o Is the asserted governmentalinterest substantial?

o Does the regulation directlyadvance the governmental interest asserted?

o Is the regulation moreextensive than is necessary to serve that interest?

· There must be a "reasonable fit" between thegovernment's ends and the means for achieving those ends.

Front 36

Red Lion Broadcasting v FCC (1969)

Back 36

· A 1969 case in which the SC upheld restrictions onradio and television broadcasting. These restrictions on the broadcast mediaare much tighter than those on the print media because there are only a limitednumber of broadcasting frequencies available.

Front 37

Miami Herald v Tornillo (1974)

Back 37

· A 1974 case in which the SC held that a state couldnot force a newspaper to print replies from candidates it had criticized,illustrating the limited power of government to restrict the print media.

Front 38

United States v Playboy EntertainmentGroup (2000)

Back 38

· 2000 – the Supreme Court held that although govt had alegitimate right to regulate sexually oriented programming, any such regulationmust be narrowly tailored to promote a compelling govt interest. If a lessrestrictive alternative would serve the govt’s purpose, Congress must use thatalternative. The Court concluded thattargeted blocking, in which subscribers can ask their cable companies to blocka signal to their homes, is less restrictive than banning and is a feasible andeffective means of furthering its compelling interests. Thus, the morerestrictive option of banning a signal for most of the day cannot be justified.

Front 39

NSPAv Village of Skokie (1977)

Back 39

In a per curiam opinion, the Court held that Illinois must provide strict procedural safeguards, including appellate review, to deny a stay for an injunction depriving the Nazi Party of protected First Amendment rights. The Court treated the Illinois Supreme Court’s denial of a stay as a final judgment for the purposes of Supreme Court jurisdiction because it involved a right separable from and collateral to the merits of the Nazi Party’s case.

Front 40

Jacobsen v United States (1992)

Back 40

Did the prosecution against Jacobson prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that agencies of the United States Government did not incite his violation of the Child Protection Act?

No. In a majority decision authored by Justice Byron R. White, the Court determined that, the prosecution was unable to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Jacobson was inclined to commit the criminal act of purchasing child pornography independent of government interference. Doubt stems from the fact that government agencies may have actually encouraged Jacobson to break the law in their effort to prosecute him. Since the Court found that the prosecution failed, the decision of the Court of Appeals and Jacobson's conviction were reversed.

Front 41

Crawford v Washington (2004)

Back 41

· 2004 - Defendants have the right to confront the witnesses against them. They SC has held that testimony cannot be introduced into a trial unless the witness can be cross-examined by the accused

Front 42

Hamdanv Rumsfeld (2006)

Back 42

· In this historic 2006 decision, SC has held that theprocedures Pres Bush had approved for trying prisoners in Guanatanamo Baylacked congressional authorization and violated both the Uniform Code ofMilitary Justice and the Geneva Conventions. The flaws the Court cited were the failure to guarantee defendants theright to attend their trial and the prosecution’s ability under the rules tointroduce hearsay evidence, unsworn testimony, and evidence obtained throughcoercion. Equally important, the Constitution did not empower the president toestablish judicial procedures on his own.

Front 43

Hamdiv Rumsfeld / Rasul v Bush (2004)

Back 43

· Supreme Court found that detainees held both in the USand in Cuba had the right to challenge their detention before a judge or otherneutral decision maker.

Front 44

Furman v Georgia (1972)

Back 44

· 1972 – Court case in which the Court first confrontedthe question of whether the death penalty is inherently cruel and unusualpunishment.

· Although Furman sent out a message, it was a confusingone. Four justices said the deathpenalty was not cruel and unusual punishment, yet the Court overturnedGeorgia’s death penalty law bc its imposition was “freakish” and “random.”

Front 45

Greggv Georgia (1976)

Back 45

· The 1976 Supreme Court decision that upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty, stating, “It is an extreme sanction,suitable to the most extreme of crimes.” The court did not, therefore, believe that the death sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.

Front 46

McCleskyv Kemp (1987)

Back 46

· The 1987 Supreme Court decision that upheld theconstitutionality of the death penalty against charges that it violated theequal protection of the law guaranteed under the 14th amendment bcminority defendants were more likely to receive the death penalty than werewhite defendants.

Front 47

Roe v Wade (1973)

Back 47

· The 1973 SC decision holding that a state ban on allabortions was unconstitutional. The decision forbade state control overabortions during the first trimester of pregnancy, permitted states to limitabortions to protect the mother’s health in the second trimester, and permittedstates to protect the fetus during the third trimester.

Front 48

PlannedParenthood v Casey (1992)

Back 48

· A 1992 case in which the SC loosened its standard fore valuating restrictions on abortion from one of “strict scrutiny” of any restraints on a “fundamental right” to one of “undue burden” that permits considerably more regulation.

Front 49

Dred Scott v Sanford (1857)

Back 49

· The 1857 SC decision ruling that a slave who hadescaped to a free state enjoyed no rights as a citizen and that Congress had noauthority to ban slavery in the territories.

Front 50

Plessy v Ferguson (1896)

Back 50

· An 1896 SC decision that provided a constitutionaljustification for segregation by ruling that a Louisiana law requiring “equalbut separate accommodations for the White and colored races” was constitutional.

Front 51

Brownv Board of Education (1954)

Back 51

The 1954 SC decisionholding that school segregation in Topeka, Kansas, was inherentlyunconstitutional bc it violated the 14th Amendment’s guarantee ofequal protection. This case marked theend of legal segregation in the United States.

Front 52

Korematsu v United States (1944)

Back 52

· A 1944 SC decision that upheld as constitutional theinternment of more than 100,000 Americans of Japanese descent in encampmentsduring WW!!.

Front 53

Regentsof UC v Bakke (1978)

Back 53

· A 1978 SC decision holding that a state universitycould not admit less qualified individuals solely bc of their race.

· Could make race one element, but could not set aside aquota of spots for particular groups.

Front 54

Grutter/Gratzv Bollinger (2003)

Back 54

· Grutter, 2003 – The Court upheld the University ofMichigan law school’s use of race as one of many factors in admission.

· The Court found that the law school’s use of race as aplus in the admissions process was narrowly tailored and that it madeindividualistic, holistic reviews of applicants in a nonmechanical fashion.

· Gratz, 2003 – The Court struck down the U ofMichigan’s system of undergrad admissions in which every applicant from anunderrepresented racial or ethnic minority group was automatically awarded 20points of the 100 needed to guarantee admission bc it was tantamount to usingquota

Front 55

AdarandConstructors v Pena (1993)

Back 55

· A 1995 SC decision holding that federal programs thatclassify people by race, even for an ostensibly benign purpose such asexpanding opportunities for minorities, should be presumed to beunconstitutional.

Front 56

Swannv Charlotte-Mecklenburg Co. Schools (1971)

Back 56

· The Court found that if schools were legallysegregated before, authorities had an obligation to overcome pastdiscrimination. This could include the distribution of students and pupils on aracial basis. Some federal judges ordered the busing of students to achieveracially balances schools, a practice upheld (but not required) by the SC inSwann v. Charlotte-Mecklenberg County Schools (1971)

Front 57

Johnson v Santa Clara (1987)

Back 57

The Transportation Agency, Santa Clara, California promoted Diane Joyce to road dispatcher over Paul Johnson. Both candidates were qualified for the job. As an affirmative action employer, the Agency took into account the sex of the applicants in making the promotion decision.

Did the Agency impermissibly take into account the sex of the applicants in the promotion process and violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

The Court affirmed the promotion procedures of the Agency. Justice Brennan argued that it was not unreasonable to consider sex as one factor among many in making promotion decisions, and that the Agency's actions did not create an absolute barrier to the advancement of men (a quota system did not exist).

Front 58

Smith v Allwright (1944)

Back 58

· 1944 – SC declared White primaries unconstitutional

· White primaries: one of the means used to discourageAfrican American voting that permitted political parties in the heavilyDemocratic South to exclude African Americans from primary elections, thusdepriving them of a voice in the real contests

Front 59

Harperv Virginia State Board of Elections (1966)

Back 59

· 1996 SC case in which the SC voided (invalidated) polltaxes in state elections

Front 60

Miller v Johnson (1995)

Back 60

· 1995 – the Court rejected the efforts of the JusticeDepartment to achieve the maximum possible number of minority districts. Itheld that the use of race as a “predominant factor” in drawing district linesshould be presumed to be unconstitutional.

Front 61

Shawv Hunt (1995)

Back 61

· 1995 – SC voided three convoluted districts in Texasand one in North Carolina on the grounds that race had been the primary reasonfor abandoning compact district lines and that the state legislatures hadcrossed the line into unconstitutional racial gerrymandering.

Front 62

Santa Clara Pueblo v Martinez (1978)

Back 62

· 1978 – The Supreme Court strengthened the tribal powerof individual tribe members and furthered self-government by Indians.

Front 63

Reedv Reed (1971)

Back 63

· The landmark case in 1971 in which the SC for thefirst time upheld a claim of gender discrimination

· The Court ruled that any “arbitrary” gender-basedclassification violated the equal protection clause of the 14thamendment. This was the first time theCourt declared any law unconstitutional on the basis of gender discrimination

Front 64

Craigv Boren (1976)

Back 64

· Set a higher drinking age for men then for women

· SC said it's unconst. In this 1976 ruling, the SC established the “mediumscrutiny” standard for determining gender discrimination.

Front 65

Rostker v Goldberg (1981)

Back 65

The Court held that Congress's decision to exempt women from registration "was not the 'accidental by-product of a traditional way of thinking about females'" and did not violate the Due Process Clause. The Court found that men and women, because of combat restrictions on women, were not "similarly situated" for the purposes of draft registration.

Front 66

Dothard v Rawlinson (1977)

Back 66

· 1977 – Supreme Court voided laws and rules barringwomen from jobs through arbitrary height and weight requirements

Front 67

Missisipi v Hogan (1982)

Back 67

· 1982 – Congress voided closing of a state’s nursingschool to men

Front 68

Harris v Forklift Systems(1993)

Back 68

· No single factor, the Court said, is required to win asexual harassment case under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The law isviolated when the workplace environment “would reasonably be perceived, and isperceived as hostile and or abusive”

Front 69

UnitedStates v Virginia (1996)

Back 69

Does Virginia's creation of a women's-only academy, as a comparable program to a male-only academy, satisfy the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause?

No. In a 7-to-1 decision, the Court held that VMI's male-only admissions policy was unconstitutional. Because it failed to show "exceedingly persuasive justification" for VMI's gender-biased admissions policy, Virginia violated the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause

Front 70

Reeves v Sanderson (2000)

Back 70

· 2000 – Supreme Court made it easier to win cases ofjob bias

· Held that a plaintiff’s evidence of an employer’sbias, combined with sufficient evidence to find that the employer’s assertedjustification is false, may permit juries and judges to conclude that anemployer unlawfully discriminated

Front 71

Bowers v Hardwick (1989)

Back 71

· 1986 – SC allowed states to ban homosexual relations.

Front 72

Lawrencev Texas (2003)

Back 72

· 2003 – SC overturned Bowers v Hardwick when it voideda Texas antisodomy law on the grounds that such laws were unconstitutionalintrusions of the right to privacy.

Front 73

Slaughterhouse Cases (1871)

Back 73

Louisiana had created a partial monopoly of the slaughtering business and gave it to one company. Competitors argued that this created "involuntary servitude," abridged "privileges and immunities," denied "equal protection of the laws," and deprived them of "liberty and property without due process of law."

Did the creation of the monopoly violate the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments?

No. The involuntary servitude claim did not forbid limits on the right to use one's property. The equal protection claim was misplaced since it was established to void laws discriminating against blacks. The due process claim simply imposes the identical requirements on the states as the fifth amendment imposes on the national government. The Court devoted most of its opinion to a narrow construction of the privileges and immunities clause, which was interpreted to apply to national citizenship, not state citizenship.

Front 74

State Board of Ed v Barnette (1943)

Back 74

a decision by theSupreme Court of the United States holding that the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution protected students from being forced to salute the American flag and say the Pledge of Allegiance in school.

Front 75

Kelo v City of New London (2005)

Back 75

Does a city violate the Fifth Amendment's takings clause if the city takes private property and sells it for private development, with the hopes the development will help the city's bad economy?

No. In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Justice John Paul Stevens, the majority held that the city's taking of private property to sell for private development qualified as a "public use" within the meaning of the takings clause. The city was not taking the land simply to benefit a certain group of private individuals, but was following an economic development plan.

Front 76

Olmstead v US (1928)

Back 76

was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, in which the Court reviewed whether the use of wiretapped private telephone conversations, obtained by federal agents without judicial approval and subsequently used as evidence, constituted a violation of the defendant’s rights provided by the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. In a 5-4 decision, the Court held that neither the Fourth Amendment nor the Fifth Amendment rights of the defendant were violated. This decision was later overturned by Katz v. United States in 1967.

Front 77

Katz v United States (1967)

Back 77

a United States Supreme Court case discussing the nature of the "right to privacy" and the legal definition of a "search". The Court's ruling refined previous interpretations of the unreasonable search and seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment to count immaterial intrusion with technology as a search, overruling Olmstead v. United States andGoldman v. United States. Katz also extended Fourth Amendment protection to all areas where a person has a "reasonable expectation of privacy".

Front 78

Terry v Ohio (1968)

Back 78

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Courtwhich held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him or her without probable cause

Front 79

New Jersey v TLO (1983)

Back 79

is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United Statesaddressing the constitutionality of a search of a public high school student for contraband after she was caught smoking. A subsequent search of her purse revealed drug paraphernalia, marijuana, and documentation of drug sales. She was charged as a juvenile for the drugs and paraphernalia found in the search. She fought the search, claiming it violated her Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches. The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6-3 ruling, held that the search was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

Front 80

Kyllo v United States (2001)

Back 80

Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001), held that the use of a thermal imaging, or FLIR, 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.

Front 81

Strickland v Washington (1984)

Back 81

a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that established the standard for determining when a criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel is violated by that counsel's inadequate performance.[1]The Court established a two-part test for an ineffective assistance of counsel claim: a criminal defendant must show that 1) counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and 2) that counsel's performance gives rise to a reasonable probability that, if counsel had performed adequately, the result would have been different.

Front 82

Pierce v Society of Sisters (1927)

Back 82

an early 20th-century United States Supreme Court decision that significantly expanded coverage of the Due Process Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The case has been cited as a precedent in more than 100 Supreme Court cases, including Roe v. Wade, and in more than 70 cases in the courts of appeals.