Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
23 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Loving v. Virginia
|
F: The lovings were an interracial couple, they got married in D.C. (legal in that state), came back to Virginia and were arrested. They were arrested, received a guilty verdict, were sentenced to one year in jail. or they could leave the state for 25 years. They ended up coming back that following Easter. They were arrested and went to ask the TC to vacate the judgement and set aside the sentences under the "equal protection and due process" clause of the 14th Amend. A year later their case still hadn't been taken on, they then filed a class action suit in the U.S. District Courts to claim that Virginia's law was unconstit. Not long after the original TC denied their motion to vacate, then they appealed to the VA Appellate court. The U.S. DC allowed their case be taken to the SC.
They were later convicted of leaving the state to break the law. I: Was Virginia's law banning interracial marriages violate the 14th Amend? R: Equal Protection A: A law claiming a marriage unconstitutional solely on the basis of race violates the equal protection clause C: SC said marriage is a basic right. Therefore they reversed the convictions. |
|
|
U.S. vs. Alvarez
|
F: Stolen valor act said it was illegal to sell or lie about receiving a medal of honor. This was punishable by a fine or up to 6months-1year in prison. Xavier Alvarez lied about receiving a medal of honor, he was arrested, he went to the TC and moved to have his charges dismissed claiming the law infringed on his right to free speech. The TC denied his motion to dismiss, CC reversed the TC decision saying that despite it being a false claim, all claims are protected under the first amend. SC agreed with CC.
I: Was the Stolen Valor act infringing upon the free speech clause in the first amendment? R: Free Speech A: No law passed by Congress can make certain speech illegal. C: The SC agreed. |
|
|
Office of the Solicitor General
|
Primary Tasks:
-Supervise and conduct gov't litigation in the United States Supreme Court. -Determines that cases in which SC review will be sought out by the gov't and the positions the gov't will take before the Court -Review all cases decided adversely to the gov't in the lower courts to determine whether they should be appealed and if so, what position should be taken. Deputies normally look over written briefs. |
|
|
District of Colombia v. Heller
|
F: D.C. passed a law barring the registration of handguns, requiring licenses for all pistols, and mandating that all legal firearms must be kept unloaded and disassembled or trigger locked. Respondent Heller, a D. C. special policeman, applied to register a handgun he wished to keep at home and was denied. He took this "motion(?)" to the D.C. DC(TC) and they did not "grant him relief(?)" holding that the second amendment only applied to "militias"(i.e. National Guard) not to private gun ownership. The DC CoA reversed this decision, stating that the 2nd amendment does in fact protect those private citizens who wish to own a gun.
I: Does the ban violate the "armed militia" portion of the second amendment? Does it infringe upon the rights of those citizens, unaffiliated with a state-regulated militia, to keep and bear arms? R: Second Amendment (The relationship between federal gun laws and the 2nd amendment) A: Yes, the law infringes on the traditionally lawful purposes of owning a gun, such as self- defense within the home C: Yes this D.C. law violates the 2nd amendment b/c the 2nd amendment applies to private citizens not just state/gov't affiliated militias |
|
|
How does a case get to the Supreme Court?
|
1) Original Jurisdiction (outline in Article III, section II of the Constitution) - cases between states or dealing with ambassadors
2) Rule of "4" - applies when the justices are in a private conference and four of them vote to hear a case 3) Federal Question - about federal law 4) Split in the circuit |
|
|
What are the possible rulings for the Supreme Court?
|
1) Affirm
2) Reverse the decision 3) Dismiss the case (?) 4) |
|
|
Snyder v. Phelps
|
F: man burying son, phelps was part of whestboro baptist church. they were holding up offensive signs at Snyder's son's funeral. father did NOT see the signs but saw them later on the news and then sued. Phelps and his party abided by all necessary laws in terms of proper distance, etc.
PP: the U.S. DC awarded Snyder $5mil in damages (emotional), the U.S. CoA revered that and said that the judgement violated the first amendment's protection of freedom of religious expression; further saying their speech is protected no matter how hateful it is I: Does the first amend protect those who intentionally attempt to inflict emotional harm? H: SC held the decision of the DC court saying that their speech was protected no matter how horrible it was A: See above C: See above |
|
|
Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (define for health insurers)
|
GINA Prohibits health insurers to use genetic information about an individual to adjust any sort of plans based on any preexisting condition results, requiring or requesting genetic testing, in addition to using that testing for "underwriting" purposes (?)
|
|
|
Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (define for employers, unions, employment agencies, and labor-management training programs)
|
They cannot request, require, or purchase any genetic info with respect to the employee, individual, union member, or family member for the purpose of using it in employment decisions: hiring, firing, job assignments, or promotion.
|
|
|
What does GINA not cover? (LLDD)
|
Life Insurance
Long Term Care Insurance Driver’s Insurance Disability Insurance |
|
|
The Exclusionary Rule (Define)
|
-Legal principle
-Illegally obtained evidence from law enforcement cannot be used against them in a criminal case -Based on the 4th amend to protect against unlawful search and seizures |
|
|
United States v. Jones
|
FBI attached a GPS tracked to Jones' car without a warrant. They then followed him for a month, once he committed a crime, they arrested him
PP: Jones was taken to trial and it sort of "fell through", Jones was found not guilty on all charges except conspiracy, but his jury was hung. Law enforcement tried to then convict on a single count of conspiracy but in the U.S. CoA called upon an earlier case I: Did the warrantless use of a GPS tracker on public streets infringe upon his fourth amendment rights? H: SC held that the information was illegally obtained. That even though they were public streets, the police still crossed a privacy line (they invaded his privacy) |
|
|
Marbury v. Madison
|
F: Marbury, a justice of the peace, did not get his commission after former pres. Adams sent them out with his messenger to deliver the midnight appointments. The Sec. of the State James Madison found it and didn't return it to him. Marbury wanted a writ of mandamus demanding the secretary to hand over the appointments. The judiciary act of 1789, passed by Congress, gave the SC jurisdiction to handle the case (spec. writ of mandamus). but the SC denied the motion claiming that congress had no power to bestow that responsibility onto the SC.
PP: Went straight to the SC I: The SC had to decide to follow the law or the Constit. and they chose the Constit. The judicial power is given to the SC solely from the Constit. Marbury filed his petition with the wrong court, although it was agreed that he deserved his commission. |
|
|
Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow
|
An atheist man did not want his daughter to say the pledge of allegiance, furthermore he believed that by simply not participating there was a risk of being ostracized by her peers and being in an environment that promoted the "normality" of religion in everyday activities. Newdow further claimed that the very "under God" section violated the establishment clause of the Constit.
PP: He first sued the school district in Fed. DC in Cali, the DC dismissed his case because he had no standing. Mother had complete legal rights of the child. The CoA reversed this decision holding that he can challenge an action or practice that directly interferes with his right "guide" his daughter's religious freedom I: Does Newdow have standing to challenge the school policy, despite the fact the school is leading willing student to participate? Does a public school policy that requires teachers to lead the Pledge of Allegiance violate the establishment clause of the first amendment? H: SC said Newdow had no standing so as opposed to going in and working on this tough issue, they'd rather not address the topic |
|
|
Mosque at Ground Zero (Pros)
|
-Show America's strength
--Tolerence trumps ignorance -Show the tolerism for Islamic beliefs -Religion should not be a factor when deciding to build anything or distribute permits -Freedom of religious exercise -It would be a community center not an extremist church |
|
|
Mosque at Ground Zero (Cons)
|
-"Sacred" ground where thousands of American died
-Unethical against American beliefs (according to public opinion -Potential for harm from the public based on the nature of its sensitivity --> The potential harm is avoidable |
|
|
Wong Sun v. United States
|
F: The police lawfully obtained a search warrant for a certain building, they went into the WRONG BUILDING but they still found illegal contraband. They arrested Wong Sun still. Sun's lawyers moved to SUPPRESS the evidence on the basis of it being illegally obtained, not based on probable cause, they just randomly entered.
H: SC said that because Sun's arrest was without probable cause and not on reasonable grounds, the Court said that the evidence could be suppressed and that Sun could be retried without using the illegally obtained evidence. |
|
|
Withdrawal of Treatment v. Religious Freedom
|
Orthodox Jew: believe when the heart stops beating that is death
WoT: The kid is legally dead, he is medically brain dead, take him off life support |
|
|
Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act
|
Issues:
-Waiting period for firearms -Background checks |
|
|
Tinker v. Des Moines
|
Students held a meeting to plan a public meeting to oppose the war. They planned to wear black armbands and fast. the high school heard about it and said anyone wearing the armband will be asked to remove or be suspended. Parents sued the district for violating their freedom of expression.
PP: DC dismissed the case on the grounds that the school had a right to uphold their school policies. The CoA affirmed their decision and did not give an opinion. I: Does the disallowing of wearing armbands violate/infringe upon the freedom of expression/freedom of speech clause within the first amendment? H: Yes, the students do not lose their right to free speech once they enter the school. The armbands did not interfere on the workings of the school, it caused no harm and was simply a choice of clothing or accessory |
|
|
Morse v. Fredrick
|
At a school-supervised event, a student held up a sign that said "Bong hits 4 Jesus". The principal saw this and confiscated the sign and the student was suspended. She [principal] stated that her actions were appropriate because the message violated the schools anti-drug policy. Fredrick [student] sued upon the basis of free speech.
PP: The DC ruled in favor of Morse, ["The court held that even if there were a violation, the principal had qualified immunity from lawsuit"] -Why??. The 9th C CoA reversed this decision saying the speech did not cause a disturbance, therefore the sign and punishment was applied due to the message that was being conveyed with the banner. Therefore the punishment was unconstit. ["the principal had no qualified immunity, because any reasonable principal would have known that Morse's (principle) actions were unlawful."] I: Does a public school have a right to prohibit students to display a message promoting or referring to illegal drugs at school-supervised events? Does the principle have immunity of a lawsuit because he/she was "doing her job"? ["Does a school official have qualified immunity from a damages lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 when, in accordance with school policy, she disciplines a student for displaying a banner with a drug reference at a school-supervised event?"] H: SC reversed 9th C judgement, school officials can prohibit students from displaying messages that promote illegal drug use. Quote from judge: "although students do have some right to political speech even while in school, this right does not extend to pro-drug messages that may undermine the school's important mission to discourage drug use. " [" In ruling for Morse, the Court affirmed that the speech rights of public school students are not as extensive as those adults normally enjoy, and that the highly protective standard set by Tinker would not always be applied"] |
|
|
Gonzales v. Oregon
|
F: Oregon passed the Death with Dignity Act: "state law authorizing physicians to prescribe lethal doses of controlled substances to terminally ill patients." The attorney general claimed this act violated Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (CSA). [WHYWHYWHY]. Attorney general threatened to revoke the medical licenses of all doctors who took part in the practice. Oregon sued in federal court.
PP: Both the TC and the DC rules the Attorney General's ruling unconstit. and illegal. They both held that the CSA did not grant the Attorney General the power to regulate physician assisted suicide, which was a power GRANTED TO THE STATE. I: Did the CSA grant the Attorney General the power to ban the drug used in the assisted suicides? H: The SC said no, the CSA was crafted "to prevent doctors only from engaging in illicit drug dealing, not to define general standards of state medical practice." Furthermore, "the CSA did not authorize Attorney General John Ashcroft to declare a medical practice authorized under state law to be illegitimate." |
|
|
Tenth Amendment (10)
|
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
|
