Pols1170: Constitutional Law - Individual Rights

Front 1

Duncan v. Louisiana (1968)

Back 1

Due Process Case

Hint 1

A crime requiring a 2-year sentence is sufficiently serious to require the right to a jury trial under the 6th Amendment (speedy & public trial), as applied to the states by the 14th Amendment (due process).

Front 2

Lochner v. New York (1905)

Back 2

Due Process Case

Hint 2

"The Baker's Case" - NY's regulation of the working hours of bakers was no a justifiable restriction of the right of contract freely under the 14th amendment's guarantee of liberty because no direct effect between the amount of hours and health have been made.

Front 3

Nebbia v. New York (1934)

Back 3

Due Process Case

Hint 3

In absence of other constitutional prohibitions the due process clause do not prohibit a state from enacting economic policies to further the public good, so long as the policy is not unreasonable or arbitrary.

Because the price controls (on milk) were not "arbitrary, discriminatory, or demonstrably irrelevant" to the policy adopted by the legislature to promote the general welfare, it was consistent with the Constitution.

Front 4

Williamson v. Lee Optical (1955)

Back 4

Due Process Case

Hint 4

Oklahoma law regarding opticians violates the right to do business.

The Court held that the state laws regulating business will only be subject to rational basis review and that the Court need not contemplate all possible reasons for legislation.

Front 5

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)

Back 5

Due Process Case

Front 6

Moore v. City of East Cleveland (1977)

Back 6

Due Process Case

Front 7

Michael H. v. Gerald D. (1989)

Back 7

Due Process Case

Front 8

Roe v. Wade (1973)

Back 8

Due Process Case

Front 9

Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)

Back 9

Due Process Case

Front 10

Gonzales v. Carhart (2007)

Back 10

Due Process Case

Front 11

Lawrence v. Texas (2003)

Back 11

Due Process Case

Front 12

Washington v. Glucksberg (1997)

Back 12

Due Process Case

Front 13

FCC v. Beach Communications, Inc. (1993)

Back 13

Equal Protection Case: Race Discrimination

Front 14

Loving v. Virginia (1967)

Back 14

Equal Protection Case: Race Discrimination

Front 15

Palmore v. Sidoti (1984)

Back 15

Equal Protection Case: Race Discrimination

Front 16

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

Back 16

Equal Protection Case: Race Discrimination

Front 17

Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

Back 17

Equal Protection Case: Race Discrimination

Front 18

Bolling v. Sharpe (1954)

Back 18

Equal Protection Case: Race Discrimination

Front 19

Reed v. Reed (1971)

Back 19

Equal Protection Case: Sex Discrimination

Front 20

Frontiero v. Richardson (1973)

Back 20

Equal Protection Case: Sex Discrimination

Front 21

Craig v. Boren (1976)

Back 21

Equal Protection Case: Sex Discrimination

Front 22

Michael M. v. Superior Ct. (1981)

Back 22

Equal Protection Case: Sex Discrimination

Front 23

U.S. v. Virginia (1996)

Back 23

Equal Protection Case: Sex Discrimination

Front 24

Washington v. Davis (1976)

Back 24

Equal Protection Case: Purpose Affirmative Action

Front 25

Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)

Back 25

Equal Protection Case: Purpose Affirmative Action

Front 26

Graham v. Richardson (1971)

Back 26

Equal Protection Case: Rational Basis, Rational Basis with Bite, and Sexual Orientation

Front 27

Bernal v. Fainter (1984)

Back 27

Equal Protection Case: Rational Basis, Rational Basis with Bite, and Sexual Orientation

Front 28

Mathews v. Diaz (1976)

Back 28

Equal Protection Case: Rational Basis, Rational Basis with Bite, and Sexual Orientation

Front 29

City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center (1985)

Back 29

Equal Protection Case: Rational Basis, Rational Basis with Bite, and Sexual Orientation

Front 30

Romer v. Evans (1996)

Back 30

Equal Protection Case: Rational Basis, Rational Basis with Bite, and Sexual Orientation

Front 31

Goodridge v. Department of Public Health (2003)

Back 31

Equal Protection Case: Rational Basis, Rational Basis with Bite, and Sexual Orientation

Front 32

Gitlow v. New York (1925)

Back 32

Free Speech: Advocacy of Crime

Front 33

Yates v. U.S. (1957)

Back 33

Free Speech: Advocacy of Crime

Front 34

Scales v. U.S. (1961)

Back 34

Free Speech: Advocacy of Crime

Front 35

Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)

Back 35

Free Speech: Advocacy of Crime

Front 36

Paris Adult Theatre v. Slaton (1973)

Back 36

Free Speech Case: Obscenity, Indecency, and Fighting Words

Front 37

Miller v. California (1973)

Back 37

Free Speech Case: Obscenity, Indecency, and Fighting Words

Front 38

Jenkins v. Georgia (1974)

Back 38

Free Speech Case: Obscenity, Indecency, and Fighting Words

Front 39

Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002)

Back 39

Free Speech Case: Obscenity, Indecency, and Fighting Words

Front 40

American Booksellers Association v. Hudnut (7th Circuit. 1985)

Back 40

Free Speech Case: Obscenity, Indecency, and Fighting Words

Front 41

Cohen v. California (1971)

Back 41

Free Speech Case: Obscenity, Indecency, and Fighting Words

Front 42

Virginia v. Black (2003)

Back 42

Free Speech Case: Obscenity, Indecency, and Fighting Words

Front 43

Everson v. Board of Education

Back 43

Establishment of Religion Case

Front 44

Zorach v. Clauson

Back 44

Establishment of Religion Case

Front 45

Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe (2000)

Back 45

Establishment of Religion Case

Front 46

Edwards v. Aguillard (1987)

Back 46

Establishment of Religion Case

Front 47

McCreary County v. ACLU (2005)

Back 47

Establishment of Religion Case

Front 48

Van Orden v. Perry

Back 48

Establishment of Religion Case

Front 49

Agostini v. Felton

Back 49

Establishment of Religion Case

Front 50

Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002)

Back 50

Establishment of Religion Case

Front 51

Sherbert v. Verner (1963)

Back 51

Religion: The Free Exercise Clause Case

Hint 51

The Free Exercise Clause mandates STRICT SCRUTINY for unemployment compensation claims. In this case, there must be a demonstrated COMPELLING GOVERNMENT INTEREST before denying unemployment compensation to someone who was fired because her job conflicted with her religion. - "Sherbert Test"

Front 52

Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)

Back 52

Religion: The Free Exercise Clause Case

Hint 52

The Wisconsin Compulsory School Attendance Law violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment because it required attendance past the 8th grade, which interfered with the right of Amish parents to direct the religious upbringing of their children.

State interest: government stability through educated citizens who are politically able was argued to be highly speculative of the possibility that Amish children would want to break away from their community.

Front 53

Employment Division v. Smith (1990)

Back 53

Religion: The Free Exercise Clause Case

Hint 53

"The Free Exercise Clause permits the state to prohibit sacramental peyote use and thus, to deny unemployment benefits to persons discharged for such use."

Neutral laws of general applicability do not violate the Free Exercise of the First Amendment.

Front 54

Cutter v. Wilkinson (2005)

Back 54

Religion: The Free Exercise Clause Case

Hint 54

Under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), prisoners in facilities that accept federal funds cannot be denied accommodations necessary to engage in activities for the practice of their own religious beliefs.

Front 55

Sherbert Test

Back 55

Test established by Sherbert v. Verner (1963) requiring the demonstration of a compelling state interest in Free Exercise cases.

Hint 55

1. Individual: must have a sincere religious belief.
2. Individual: A government action is a substantial burden on the ability to practice the religion.
--
3. Government: The government must have a compelling state interest.
4. Government: Pursuance of interest cannot be achieved with less restrictive means, or less burdensome means, to religion.

Front 56

Religious Freedom Restoration Act (1993)

Back 56

Federal Act

Hint 56

Federal act which reinstated the Sherbert Test, which required strict scrutiny in determining if the Free Exercise Clause has been violated.

Front 57

Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (2000)

Back 57

Federal Act

Hint 57

No government shall impose a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person residing in or confined to an institution unless the burden furthers a compelling government interest and does so by the least restrictive means.

Front 58

Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah (1993)

Back 58

Religion: The Free Exercise Clause Case

Hint 58

The states cannot restrict religiously-mandated ritual slaughter of animals, regardless of the purpose of the slaughter.

Statute targeted the religion Santeria.

Front 59

Incorporation Doctrine

Back 59

The incorporation of the Bill of Rights (or incorporation for short) is the process by which American courts have applied portions of the U.S. Bill of Rights to the states. In the past, the Bill of Rights was held only to apply to the federal government. Under the incorporation doctrine, certain provisions of the Bill of Rights now also apply to the states, by virtue of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.

Front 60

Standard of Proof

Back 60

Requirement of proof of criminal charges that are beyond reasonable doubt.

"Preposition being presented by the prosecution must be proven to the extent that there is NO REASONABLE DOUBT in the mind of a reasonable person that the defendant is guilty.

Front 61

Rational Basis Test

Back 61

Rational Basis: Government can restrict an ordinary liberty if the restriction is rationally related to serving a legitimate state interest.

Presumption of constitutionality applies.
+ Ordinary liberty
+ Rationally related to state interest

Hint 61

Used for all other discriminatory statutes (i.e. age, disability, political preference, political affiliation, or sexual orientation) & business (commerce) regulation

Front 62

Intermediate Scrutiny

Back 62

Intermediate Scrutiny: government interest must be important but the means must be substantially related to the end.
+ Compelling interest
+ Means substantially related to the end

Hint 62

Used for quasi-suspect classes (i.e. sex or legitimacy)

Front 63

Strict Scrutiny

Back 63

Strict Scrutiny: Government can restrict a fundamental liberty if the restriction is narrowly tailored to serving a compelling state interest. A presumption of unconstitutionality applies
+ Compelling state interest
+ Narrowly tailored
+ Least restrictive means

Hint 63

Used for suspect classes (i.e. national origin and religion)

Front 64

Compelling governmental interest

Back 64

List examples