Constitutional Law FInal

Constitutional Law Final, important cases to learn for the final test

Meyer v Nebraska

established parental rights for due process clause

Griswold v Conneticut

established right to use contraception under due process clause

Obergell v Hodges

established marital rights under the due process clause (gay marriage)

Parrish v West Coast Hotels

state had power to interfere with individual contracts even if a person chose to sign it

Roe v Wade

established abortion as a right but placed 3 different types of regulations for each trimester

Dobbs v JWHO

overturned Roe v Wade

Yich Wo v Hpokins

neutrally worded laws can still be struck down if used for discrimination

Prima Facie Case

only way to get a law struck down under equal protections clause (has to have discriminatory intent and impact)

Plessy v Ferguson

argued segregation was okay under the equal protections clause as long as each side got equal treatment

Korematsu v United States

said that the military intrest of japanese camps, outweighed the discriminatory impact of the laws

Brown v Board of Education

struck down segregation and aknowledge that itself is discriminatory

Gibbons v Ogden

said that navigation was part of commerce clause

NRLB V Laughlin

said that congress can regualte inner state matters if it had a substantial enough impact on intersatet commerce (like wages and unions)

Maine v Taylor

said that states CAN make laws that burden interstate commerce if they have a compelling interest

Pike v Bruce

developed Pike test to see if the burden outweighed the interest

Youngstown Sheet Tube v Sawyer

gave a rundown of the powers of the president

• with approval and within gifted powers is most powerful

• without approval and withing gifted power is less powerful

• without approval and without gifted power is least powerful

Baker v Carr

racial gerrymandering is unconstiutional

Rucho v Common Clause

political gerrymandering is unconstiutional

Lemon Test

• is it secular?

• is it promoting or inhibiting religion?

• is it unnecessarily tangliling state and church?

Branenburg Test

free speech can be prohibited if:

• promoting imminent criminal action

• is likely to produce such action

• there was intent to cause this action

Kennedy v Bremerton

football coach praying at a game

Navajo Freight Case

mudgaurd case that said it was too much of a burden on interstate commerce

Tinker v Des Moines

established student rights to protest

Hazelwood case

if the speech is representing the school, the school can regulate it

B.L case

cheerleader case

Barnett case

said forcing people to say pledge agaisnt their religion was unconstiutional

American league case

had the 40ft cross

Smith case

the peyote case that said there had to be 2+ fundamental rights infringed for a law to be struck down

Wisconsin v Yoder case

Amish fmaily case (had parental and religious rights infringed so the law was struck down)

Boy Scouts v Dale case

said that the boy scouts can be homphobic if it goes against the groups religious beliefs/ messege

Trinity Lutheran v Comer

said private schools need to get same treatment from the government as public schools (playground tires case)

Engel v Vitale

outlawed teacher led prayer in schools

Wallace v Jeffree

a moment of silence was still a voilation because it was too closely associated with prayer

Van Orden v Perry

symbols of religion displayed for a secular purpose did not voilate the establishment clasue

R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul,

there was a law against doing certain things that arouse anger or disspaointment but the court overruled it because it was overbroad

Rock Against Racism case

even if it mostly affects certain content, the law was a content nuetral time place and manner restriction

Renton v Playtime Theatres

said that a law that was aimed to stop secondary effects was content neutral even if the main people affected were from a certain side

Schneck v United States

said that speech encouraging crime can be subject to regulation

Matal v Tam

said that the band had free speech rights to trademark a slur as their name

Watts v United States

a protestor saying he wanted to shoot the president was protected under free speech

Cohen v California

vulgar langauge is still protected under free speech

Miller test

content can be restricted if yes to all:

• would the average person find it sexy, weird or arousing

• if the content shows sexual stuff

• if the content lacks any perceived value

Brown v Entertainment Merchants

voilence is not obscenity and cannot be restricted in content

Defamation

Defamtion has to be:

• damage reputation

• about the plaintiff

• read by more than author and plaintiff

Sullivan v NYT

said there has to be actual malice in content to warrant it be defamation

Determining Commercial Speech

• an advertisement

• whether it mentions a specific product

• whether the speaker had an economic motivation for the communication.

Regulating Commercial Speech

Cannot be restrcited unless:

• has to be illlegal or misleading

• government has substantial interest

• regulation is narrowly tailored

United States v O’Briend

burning draft card is not considered free speech because it is a crime

Willaimson v Lee Optical case

the optomotresist case, supreme court decided that the law itself was not unconstitutional and that it was the state legislatres job to ensure it doesnt get too wasteful