AP Government SCOTUS Cases

Everson v. Board of Education (1947)

Everson v. Board of Education (1947)

Clause: Establishment
Constitutional Question: Did a New Jersey saw that funded transportation for private Catholic Schools violate the establishment clause?
Outcome: No, New Jersey did not violate the establishment clause because they did not directly fund the schools.

Clause: Establishment
Constitutional Question: Did reading a non-denominational prayer at the start of the school day violate the Establishment Clause?
Outcome: Yes, it did violate the Establishment Clause, because they were showing preference for a religion

Engel v. Vitale (1962)

Clause: Establishment
Constitutional Question: Does paying for catholic schools to teach public school curriculum violate the establishment clause?
Outcome: Yes, established the Lemon Test

Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)

Clause: Establishment
Constitutional Question: Does setting aside time for student led prayer over the PA during football games violate the establishment clause?
Outcome: Yes, because it creates an entanglement

Santa Fe ISD v. Doe (2000)

Lemon Test

1) Is the purpose of the law/action religious?
2) Is the primary effect of the law/action to promote/inhibit a religion , lack of one, or certain religious practices.
3) Does the law/action create an entanglement between government and religion
If the answer to ANY of these questions is yes, then it is a violation of the establishment clause

Minersville School District v. Gobits (1940) and West Virginia State BOE v. Barnette (1943)

Clause: Free Exercise
Constitutional Question: Does requiring public school students to say the pledge of allegiance despite religious objections violate the FEC?
Minersville--> No, it promotes national unity and relates to national security
WV--> Overturns Minersville, alliance to symbols not as important as constitutional rights

Employment Division v. Smith

Clause: Free Exercise
Constitutional Question: Does firing a state employee for using illegal drugs as part of a religious ceremony violate the FEC
Outcome: No, because the government has an interest in regulating illegal drugs and workplace safety. Applies fairly to all, so not discriminatory.

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014)

Clause: Free Exercise
Constitutional Question: Does the FEC of the FA protect privately owned corporations if it denies its employees health coverage of birth control based on their religious beliefs?
Outcome: Yes, a law cannot compell a corporation to takr action that violates its owners stated religious beliefs. Court did specify this applied soley to the coverage of birth control.

Clause: Free Excercise
Constitutional Question: Do the free exercise rights of school officials allow them to engage in personal religious practices in a school setting.
Outcome: Yes, the school's limitation on employees' religious actions must be narrowly tailored so as to not interfere with their free exercise rights?

Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022)

Clause: Speech
Constitutional Question: Did PERSON'S conviction for violating the espionage act (he attacked the draft) violate the FSC
Outcome: No, established "clear and present danger" precedent. Don't shout fire in a crowded theater.

Schenck v. United States (1919)

Clause: Free Speech
Constitutional Question: Can a states punish political speech and expression it deems violent without violating the FPSC?
Outcome: Yes, citing "clear and present danger", state governments could punish speech that threatens the existence of government. Establishes the doctrine of incorporation (the protections of the BOR are applied to state actions).

Gitlow v. New York (1925)

Gitlow v. New York (1925)

Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)

Clause: Free Exercise
Constitutional Question: Did Wisconsin's requirement that all parents send their children to school at least until age 16 violate the FEC?
Outcome: Yes, FEC rights outway state regulations

Joseph Burstyne inc v. Wilson/Miracle Decision (1952)

Clause: Speech
Constitutional Question: Do state and local censorship of films violate FSC?
Outcome: Yes, overturns mutual decisions protects films under FA.

Clause: Free Press
Constitutional Question: Is libelous expression in the news protected under Freedom of the Press?
Outcome: Yes, especially when involving public officials. Must prove "actual malice" in order to be held liable.

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964)

Clause: Speech
Constitutional Question: Did the ban on armbands in the public schools violate the students' rights to freedom of expression
Outcome: Yes, "rights of the students don't end at the schoolhouse doors". Wearing armbands was symbolic and in no way interfered with the operation of the school.

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent (1969)

Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)

Clause: Speech
Constitutional Question: Did an Ohio law prohibiting public speech that advocates various illegal activities violate the FSC?
Outcome: Yes, clarifies "clear and present danger" standard with the "imminent lawless action" standard. Speech is not protected if the speaker intends to incite violence.

Cohen v. California (1971)

Clause: Speech
Constitutional Question: Did a California law prohibiting displays of offensive messaging violate the FEC? Jacket with Fork the draft, stop the war
Outcome: Yes, because the phrase was not targeted at anybody (not sexual in nature) and there was no evidence that it disrupted the peace.

New York Times Co. v. United States (1971)

Clause: Press
Constitutional Question: Did the Nixon administration's attempts to block the publishing of the "Pentagon Papers" on the grounds of national security violate the FPC?
Outcome: Yes, the government's national security claims must be held to high standards to justify restrictions of FA rights.

Clause: Speech
Constitutional Question: Does the FEC of the FA protect the sale and distribution of obscene material by mail?
Outcome: No, the court determined that "obscene" material is NOT protected by the FA. Established the Miller Test to define obscene.

Miller v. California (1973)

The Miller Test

1) Is the purpose to elicit a sexual response?
2) Does the expression offensively depict sexual and or excretory functions
3)Does the expression, considered as a whole lack artistic, literary, scientific, or political value?
Must be yes to all three to fail the Miller Test

Texas v. Johnson (1989)

Clause: Speech
Constitutional Question: Is burning a US flag a protected form of expression under the FEC?
Outcome: Yes, it is protected speech because as long as it's peaceful, obscene doesn't matter

Clause: Speech
Constitutional Question: Is money spent by corporations and private groups to influence election outcomes a protected form of speech?
Outcome: Yes, attempts to limit corporate funding are prohibited because that funding is a form of speech.

Citizens United v. FEC (2010)