Constitutional Law: Rights And Liberties Iii

Front 1

Olmstead v. United States

Back 1

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

Front 2

Katz v. United States

Back 2

Katz’s conviction for illegal gambling is overturned because the Fourth Amendment protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures

Front 3

Terry v. Ohio

Back 3

Terry’s conviction is upheld because police officers may ‘stop and frisk’ (also nicknamed a ‘Terry pat-down’) individuals suspected of crimes (or imminent criminal activity) without a search warrant

Front 4

Mapp v. Ohio

Back 4

Mapp’s conviction is overturned because the exclusionary rule now applies to state officials

Front 5

Herring v. United States

Back 5

Herring’s conviction is upheld because police acted in good faith while conducting search

Front 6

Miranda v. Arizona

Back 6

Miranda’s conviction for rape is overturned because police did not inform him of the right to remain silent during the interrogation

Front 7

Powell v. Alabama

Back 7

Powell’s conviction (along with other individuals) is overturned because he was not afforded the assistance of counsel

Front 8

Gideon v. Wainwright

Back 8

Gideon’s conviction is overturned because he was not afforded the right to counsel in a non-capital crime

Front 9

Gregg v. Georgia

Back 9

Gregg’s sentence of death for crime of murder is upheld because two-stage process for imposing death penalty is not cruel and unusual punishment

Front 10

Scott v. Sanford

Back 10

Federal courts do not have jurisdiction to hear Scott’s lawsuit because he is not a citizen of the United States.

Front 11

Plessy v. Ferguson

Back 11

The state law is upheld because separate but equal is constitutional

Front 12

Brown v. Board of Education I

Back 12

State law promoting racial segregation in public schools is unconstitutional because it violates equal protection

Front 13

Brown v. Board of Education II

Back 13

Schools must integrate with “all deliberate speed” and federal district courts will monitor progress of local school boards

Front 14

Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education

Back 14

The admissions policy in Jefferson County is declared unconstitutional because public schools cannot assign students based on racial criteria

Front 15

Bradwell v. Illinois

Back 15

Denial of license to practice law is not a violation of the Constitution because women are not automatically entitled to seek employment

Front 16

Frontiero v. Richardson

Back 16

Air Force policy of benefit levels is unconstitutional because gender is a suspect class and therefore protected by the 5th Amendment

Front 17

Craig v. Boren

Back 17

State law establishing separate drinking ages for men and women is unconstitutional Law does not pass under intermediate scrutiny

Front 18

United States v. Virginia

Back 18

Virginia’s policy of all male admissions at VMI is unconstitutional because it discriminates based on gender

Front 19

UC-Davis v. Bakke

Back 19

The racial set-aside admissions program at UC Davis is declared unconstitutional because it impermissibly classifies individuals based on race

Front 20

City of Richmond v. Croson

Back 20

Richmond’s program using racial set-asides for government contracts is unconstitutional because it impermissibly classifies based on race

Front 21

Adarand v. Pena

Back 21

Case is remanded to federal district court to determine if the federal program can survive analysis under strict scrutiny

Front 22

Grutter v. Bollinger

Back 22

Law School admissions policy that race as one of several factors is constitutional

Front 23

Reynolds v. Sims

Back 23

Alabama system of apportionment is unconstitutional because it is not based on population

Front 24

Bush v, Gore

Back 24

The order issued by the Florida Supreme Court for a manual recount is unconstitutional because such a process violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment

Front 25

South Carolina v. Katzenbach

Back 25

The Voting Rights Act is upheld because it constitutionally enforces the 15th Amendment

Front 26

Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission

Back 26

Government may regulate corporate political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements but cannot limit campaign contributions (soft money) Declared that corporations are equivalent to persons in terms of electoral participation Thus corporations can spend unlimited amounts of money to endorse political candidates Portions of McConnell v. FEC (2003) overturned and overturns Austin v. Michigan State Chamber of Commerce (1990)