AP Govt & Politics: Cases

McCulloch v. Maryland

• Background:

  • First Bank of the US was established on the necessary and proper clause (debate over the constitutionality over this). It was being taxed by Maryland. McCulloch, the Bank teller, refused to pay the tax, and Maryland sued him.

• Questions:

  • Does congress have the power to incorporate a bank? (Yes)

  • Can the state of Maryland tax a branch of the US bank in Maryland? (No)

• Ruling:

  • Congress CAN incorporate a bank under necessary and proper clause; the elastic clause doesn’t refer to what is absolutely necessary, but the best way to proceed.

  • Maryland, can’t tax the US bank, as “the power to tax is the power to destroy” (— john marshall). Interfering with national proceedings is unconstitutional under the supremacy clause

• Significance:

  • First time a state law was struck down

Gibbons v. Ogden

• Background:

  • The state of NY granted a steamboat monopoly to Ogden, between NY and NJ, but Gibbons had a federal license to drive his steamboat around there too 

• Question:

  • who is allowed to use steamboats in the NY area? 

• Ruling:

  • (in favor of Gibbons)

  • Supremacy clause: federal license matters more than the state license; Gibbons has more of a right to be there

  • Commerce Clause: federal govt has a right to issue licenses here, as steamboats constitute as “commerce”

    • expands the definition of commerce

Plessy v. Ferguson

• Background:

  • homer plessy, being ⅞ caucasian (from louisiana) was ordered out of the car for white passengers, and upon refusing to do so, was forcibly jailed and convicted of violating a state statute (separate accommodations for white and colored passengers)

• Question:

  • Does “separate but equal” violate the 14th Amendment? (No)

• Reasoning:

  • It does not violate the 14th amendment because the object of this amendment was to ensure absolute political equality 

  • Stipulate that civil and political rights are enough, constitution cannot put black people on the same plane socially

• Significance:

  •  Provides the basis for segregation in the south for the next 60 years 

Lochner v. New York

• Background:

  • State of NY enacted the bakeshop act, forbidding bakers from working more than 60 hours a week, Lochner was accused of allowing an employee to work more than 60 hours in one week

  • Argued that fourteenth amendment should be interpreted to contain the freedom to contract among the rights encompassed by substantive due process to the supreme court 

• Question:

  • Does the bakeshop act violate the liberty protected by the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment? (Yes)

• Reasoning:

  • Freedom of contract is among rights encompassed by substantive due process

• Significance:

  • usage of substantive due process

  • starts the Lochner era up until 1937

San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez

• Background:

  • Texas elementary and secondary schools relied on local property taxes for supplemental revenue

    • Rodriguez challenged this scheme by arguing that it underprivileged students that lacked a large property tax base that other districts had access to 

    • This reliance on taxes created a disparity between certain districts

  • Appellate level used strict scrutiny, but the supreme court didn’t examine (no fundamental right or suspect classification)

• Question:

  • Did texas’ public education finance system violate the 14th amendment equal protection clause by failing to distribute funding equally among its school districts? (No)

• Reasoning: (5C-4L Ruling)

  • The system didn’t systematically discriminate against all poor people in texas 

  • the texas school system was similar to that of other states, and the funding scheme was not so irrational as to be individually discriminatory 

  • Also, the equal protection clause didn’t require absolute equality or precisely equal advantages 

Zelman v. Simmons-Harris

• Background:

  • The Ohio pilot project scholarship program provided tuition aid in the form of vouchers for certain students in a school district to attend public/private schools that their parents chose

  • Both religious and nonreligious schools were allied to participate

  • Tuition aid was distributed according to financial need; aid is spent depending where the parent chooses to enroll their children

  • 82% of the participating private schools had a religious affiliation; 96% of students in the program were enrolled in these schools

  • Ohio taxpayers wanted to end this program because it violated the establishment clause (govt can’t establish religion)

• Questions:

  • Does the Ohio School voucher program violate the establishment clause? (No)

• Reasoning: (5C-4L)

  • Court responded that ohio’s program is a general undertaking to give educational opportunities to children, the religious institutions that receive aid only comes from the choices of the individual aid recipients

    • Ohio program is neutral when it comes to religion; only defined by financial need and residence

    • Permits individuals to exercise genuine choice - true private choice 

United States v. Lopez

• Background:

  • A 12th grader carried a concealed weapon into his texas high skl, charged under texas law with firearm possession on school premises 

  • The state charges were dismissed after federal agents charged lopez with violating a federal criminal statute: Gun Free School Zones Act

  • Lopez lost to the district court, so Lopez appealed to the appellate court, which declared the federal law unconstitutional

• Question:

  • Is the 1990 Gun-Free school zones act forbidding individuals from knowingly carrying a gun in a school zone, unconstitutional because it exceeds the power of congress to legislate under the commerce clause? (Yes)

• Reason: (5C - 4L)

  •  commerce clause was too broad -- it was being used to do whatever congress wanted

    • Possession of a gun in a local school zone is not an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere have an effect on interstate commerce

      • It doesn’t have anything to do with interstate commerce or any sort of economic activity 

Lawrence v. Texas

• Background:

  • Responded to a report of weapons disturbance, houston police entered lawrence’s apartment discovered another man and lawrence having sex

    • This was determined to be illegal under texas law describing this as “Deviate”

  • District courts are supposed to base their decisions on other court cases

    • They base this off of bowers v. Hardwick 

      • Georgia had a law outlawing sodomy (any sexual act other than heterosexual intercourse) -- outlawed both homosexual and heterosexual sodomy

        • Texas law only outlawed homosexual sodomy 

• Question:

  • Does the texas statute violate the liberty guaranteed by the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment? (Yes)

  • Is the Bowers v. Hardwick still a good law? (No)

• Reasoning:

  • Liberty is designed to protect individuals against undue governmental intrusion 

    • Under due process clause of the 5th and 14th amendments protects liberty 

  • Privacy interests are personal in nature 

    • Bowers decision didn’t appreciate the sense of liberty at stake

      • Laws against sodomy had a long history; but they were directed against both homosexual and heterosexual sodomy

  • Bowers established a precedent where SC upholds sodomy laws, but the supreme court overturns this

    • Essentially says that stare decisis (precedent) is important, but the SC can overturn court cases if needed

Loving v. Virginia

• Even though marriage is a power for states, fed govt can get involved with state marriage laws if unconstitutional

  • Ruled a VA law outlawing interracial marriage as unconstitutional 

US v. Windsor

• Background:

  • Windsor had a same-sex marriage recognized by NY 

  • However, in 1995, the defense of marriage act (DOMA) passes congress (under democratic president, bill clinton)

    • 1. Marriage is defined by a union between a man and a woman (as far as fed govt be concerned)

    • 2. States can do whatever they want, but, other states do not have to recognize these marriages

  • Once one of the partners in windsor’s marriage dies, NY state recognizes that they were legally married and treat the will as if they were married

    • However, fed govt mandated that windsor had to pay more in estate taxes that she wouldn’t have had to pay if her marriage was federal recognized

• Question:

  • Is DOMA unconstitutional? (First part is, Second part isn’t)

• Reasoning:

  • First part of defense act ruled unconstitutional

    • Kennedy held that the purpose and effect of DOMA was to disadvantage (give a separate status and a stigma) on same-sex couples in violation of guarantees of equal protection 

  • Second part of DOMA was upheld 

Obergefell v. Hodges

• Background:

  • Groups of same sex couples sued state agencies in certain states to challenge constitutionality of those states’ bans on the same sex marriage or refusal to recognize legal same sex marriage

  • Everytime a challenge was made at the appellate court level saying that the ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional, the appellate courts agreed

    • The 6th circuit court upholds the ban on same-sex marriage laws 

  • US court of appeal reversed and held that states ban on same sex marriage and refusal to recognize marriages did not violate couples’ 14th amendment rights 

• Questions:

  • 1. Does the fourteenth amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex? (Yes)

  • 2. Does the fourteenth amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex that was legally licensed and performed in another state? (Yes)

• Reasoning: (5 (4L + Kennedy) - 4C)

  • Court held that due process clause of 14th amendment guaranteed the right to marry as a fundamental liberty it protects

  • No difference between same sex-marriage and opposite sex; the exclusion of them to marry violates due process clause

  • violates equal protection clause — denies same-sex couples equal protection under the law

Gonzales v. Raich

• Background:

  • California voters passed the compassionate use act, legalized marijuana for medical use 

  • However, Federal govt had a law known as the controlled substance act (outlawing drugs)

  • After the DEA seized the marijuana from a patient's home, a group of users sued the DEA, and argued against the controlled substance act

  • 2 important constitutional clauses

    • Supremacy

    • commerce

• Questions:

  • Does controlled substances act exceed congress’ power under commerce clause as applied for intrastate cultivation and possession of marijuana for medical use? (No)

• Reasoning:

  • Commerce clause gives congress the authority to prohibit local cultivation and use of marijuana

  • Courts precedent establishes commerce clause power to regulate purely local activities that are a part of class of activities that affect interstate commerce

    • Local marijuana production is part of the national market of marijuana (impacts national market)

South Dakota v. Dole

• Background:

  • 21 year old drinking age everywhere in the country

  • States who don’t comply have 5% of their transportation money taken away 

• Question:

  • Is this act coercive? (No)

• Reasoning:

  • This isn’t a coercive act (something like 80% would be coercive)

  • Not severe enough to give no other choice than to comply 

New York v. United States

• Background:

  • Low-level radioactive waste management act amendments of 1985 required states (alone, or with other states) to dispose of radioactive waste within their borders

  • NY state, allegany, and cortland counties were met with resistance from residents to radioactive waste sites and lack of cooperation from other states

  • NY filed a suit against fed govt, questioning the authority of states to regulate state waste management 

• Questions:

  •  Does the Low-Level waste act violate the 10th amendment and the “guarantee clause” of article 4? (Yes & No)

• Reasoning:

  • Upheld ⅔ of the provisions of the act under review

    • Congress had the authority to use financial rewards and access to disposal sites as incentives for state waste management

  • The last provision, that states have to take legal ownership or liability for low-level waste would force state govts into the service of federal regulatory purposes

    • This part is unconstitutional and violates the 10th amendment

Printz v. United States

• Background:

  • The brady handgun violence prevention act (aka Brady Bill) required law enforcement officers to perform background checks on handgun purchasers until the federal govt establishes a federal system for this process

  • Jay Printz and Richard Mack separately challenged this interim provision

    • In both cases, the district courts found background checks unconstitutional, but ruled that this requirement was still allowable for voluntary background checks

    • Printz then lost at appellate court level

• Questions:

  • Under the necessary and proper clause as justification, can congress require state CLEOs to regulate gun background checks? (No)

• Reasoning: (5-4)

  • state legislatures aren’t subject to federal instruction 

    • While congress may require fed govt to regulate congress directly, the necessary and proper clause in this case doesn’t give congress the power to make state CLEOs to do their job for them (even if it’s temporary)

      • It’s the fed govt’s law, they have to make the background checks 

  • Also added that the bill can’t force CLEOs to perform tasks of disposing of application forms or notifying applicants of the reasons for their refusal in writing

    • Only for those that voluntarily accepted this 

• Implications: anctuary cities (cities where undocumented immigrants can live freely) -- can’t force these cities to report immigrants 

National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius

• Background:

  • Congress passed the patient protection and affordable care act (ACA)

    • Sought to address the fact that many americans didn’t have health insurance, but still participated in the healthcare market; consuming healthcare services that they didn’t pay for

    • Gave a coverage provision saying that non-exempt individuals who didn’t have a minimum level of health insurance have to pay a tax penalty

    • Also had an expansion of medicaid; states had to accept this in order to receive funds for medicaid 

  • After congress passed the ACA, florida and other states brought actions in the US district court saying ACA was unconstitutional

• Questions:

  • Is the suit brought by respondents to challenge the minimum coverage provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act barred by the Anti-Injunction Act, 2 U.S.C. 7421(a)?

  • Does Congress have power under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, specifically under the Commerce Clause or the Taxing and Spending Clause, to require most Americans to purchase health insurance?

  • Is the individual mandate severable from the ACA?

  • Did Congress exceed its enumerated powers and violate principles of federalism when it pressured States into accepting conditions that Congress could not impose directly by threatening to withhold all federal funding under Medicaid, the single largest grant-in-aid program?

• Reasoning:

  • Majority said individual mandate is a tax and therefore valid 

    • people who don’t purchase insurance still participate in the healthcare market

  • The medicaid expansion provisions were coercive; congress can’t threaten states with complete loss of federal funding of medicaid 

    • The remainder of the medicaid expansion provision (without threatening to completely withdraw medicaid funding) was okay under the spending clause 

Shaw v. Reno

• Background:

  • After the 1990 census, NC became entitled to a 12th seat in US house of representatives

    • After the US attorney general said babe no to a plan that said only one predominantly black district, the state created a second with irregularly shaped boundaries that snaked for the length along the interstate

• Questions:

  • Do voters have the right to challenge state officials over apportionment of a congressional district on the basis that the district constitutes a racial gerrymander? (Yes)

• Reasoning: (5C - 4L)

  • The 14th amendment was meant to prevent discrimination on the basis of race; the district looked too much like political apartheid

    • More likely to reinforce racial stereotypes 

    • More likely to represent the members rather than the need of the constituency as a whole 

  • Standard of strict scrutiny was applied

    • This is because of the suspect classification (Race) was involved 

    • The state of NC had to show a compelling interest for why its doing what its doing

      • The majority said that they didn’t have a compelling interest; it violates the 14th amendment

• Implications:

  • Race can be a factor in drawing district lines, but it can’t be the predominant factor 

  • Can’t draw district lines based solely on race; because it violates the equal protection clause of 14th amendment 

Baker v. Carr

• Background:

  • Voters brought a civil action alleging that apportionment of the TN assembly didn’t give voters equal protection of the law

    • Const mandated that there needs to be reapportionment every 10 years; but all proposals during this period didn’t pass

    • The standings of voters in counties had changed significantly

      • People were placed in a position of constitutionally unjustified inequality vs. favored counties 

• Question:

  • Dealing with the issue of malapportionment (uneven numbers in districts)

  • Do federal courts have jurisdiction of cases involving state legislative reapportionment? (Yes) 

  • Does the case state a justiciable cause of action? (Yes)

• Reasoning:

  • Merit to the case

    • Appellants have standing to maintain this suit

    • Voters who have facts showing disadvantage to themselves have standing to sue 

      • Meaning,that they have actually been injured by the TN government; therefore they can sue 

  • Matter presented is justiciable

    • That a suit seeks protection of a political right doesn’t mean that it presents a non justiciable political question 

    • The history prior to carr was that the court doesn’t deal with political questions, however, in this case, it is justiciable, because it seeks protection of a political right

• Implications:

  • All districts of the US are supposed to have equal numbers of people in it 

  • District lines are to be redrawn every 10 years

Rucho v. Common Cause

• Background:

  • A district court struck down NCs congressional map, saying that the plaintiffs conducted partisan gerrymandering

• Question:

  • Do the plaintiffs in this case have standing to pursue their partisan gerrymandering claims? (No)

  • Are the plaintiff’s partisan gerrymandering claims justiciable? (No) 

  • Is North Carolina's 2016 congressional map an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander? (No)

• Reasoning: (5C - 4L)

  • Federal courts have to resolve judicial nature qs, this is a political nature

    • Partisan gerrymandering has existed forevah; framers chose to make this a state legislature issue 

    • State legislatures and federal congress are the ones that have to resolve this gerrymandering

      • Federal courts can talk about racial gerrymandering, but can’t resolve partisan gerrymandering 

Michigan v. EPA

• Background:

  • EPA fined state of michigan a good amount of money 

• Decision: (5C - 4L)

  • EPA was “unreasonably” interpreting the law -- EPA used the law to impose an excessive fine 

SEC v. Jarkesy

• Background:

  • Jarkesy established 2 hedge funds, and the SEC initiated an investigation in which they charged him with fraud, and fined him a couple hundred thousand dollars 

  • When charges from SEC were first told to jarkesy, he wanted to fight it out in a district court

    • He filed a petition based on constitutional basis that he should be able to fight it out in district court 

• Question:

  •  Does the statutory scheme that empowers the securities and exchange commission violate the seventh amendment, or article II of const, or nondelegation doctrine?

• Reasoning: (possible outcomes, case hasn’t been decided yet)

  • Violation of 7th amendment for big money cases, but still ALJ (administrative law judges) for smaller cases

Marbury v. Madison

• Background: 

  • Adams and the federalist-controlled congress passed the judiciary act of 1801

    • Federalists load court system with federalist judges (“midnight appointees”/ “midnight judges”)

  • A number of the commissions adams had given to the new judges were not delivered to the new judges 

    • Madison refused to deliver the new commissions, one of which to william marbury 

    • Marbury takes the case directly to SC because the Judiciary act of 1789 said SC can issue writs of mandamus, requiring madison deliver the commission

• Marshall’s Dilemma:

  • If he ruled in favor of jefferson and madison, it would look like he was weak

  • If he ruled in favor of marbury, madison and jefferson could just ignore, which would make marshall look even weaker 

• Questions:

  • Does the Applicant have a right to the commission he demands? (Yes) 

  • Does the applicant have access to a remedy by the US? (Yes)

  • Is the remedy a mandamus issued from the Supreme Court? (No)

  • Does the supreme court have the power to void an act of national legislation it considers to be unconstitutional? (Yes)

• Reasoning:

  • President signed the commission, Marbury has a right to it

  • If there’s a legal right, there’s a legal remedy

  • can’t have a writ of mandamus, as this isn’t original jurisdiction

  • Marshall argued the constitution was above the law, and as such, the judicial dept has the authority to say what the law is, especially pertaining the unconstitutional law 

    • Judges must enforce fundamental constitutional laws, otherwise, people can just go against the constitution 

• Implications:

  • First time the court declared federal law unconstitutional, only later (Dred Scott v. Sanford), was another federal law unconstitutional

  • Cements judicial review

Gitlow v. New York

• Background:

  • Benjamin Gitlow was convicted in the SC of NY for having published leaflets detrimental to the government. Advocated overthrowing the government by violent/unlawful ways. 

• Question:

  • Does the New York State Criminal Anarchy statute contravene the due process clause of the 14h amendment? (No)

• Reasoning:

  • No absolute right to speak or publish whatever anyone wants. States can punish those who abuse this freedom, especially those that involve danger to the public peace. 

• Implications:

  • First case in which selective incorporation is used

Near v. Minnesota

• Background:

  • Minnesota statute provided for the end of a “malicious, scandalous, defamatory newspaper”. The court attorney brought action against a publication published by defendants in Minneapolis. The periodical charged public officers with neglect of duty or misconduct. 

• Question:

  • Is this an infringement of the liberty of the press as guaranteed by the fourteenth amendment? (yes)

• Reasoning:

  • Liberty of press is protected under fourteenth amendment

  • publications have protection from prior restraint, minnesota can use legal redress after the fact, but not before

Palko v. Connecticut

• Background:

  • Palko was indicted in connecticut for murder in the first degree. Jury found him guilty, and the state appealed this verdict and ordered a retrial (Prejudice of state in lower court). 

    • Palko was sentenced to death, as a verdict of first degree murder was given during the retrial 

    • Appealed the legality of this under due process (14th amendment) and double jeopardy 

• Question:

  • Is the appellant, by new trial and sentence to death, deprived of due process under the 14th amendment? (No)

• Reasoning:

  • Due process clause applies to states only for the provisions that are essential to ordered liberty 

    • Those that are “so rooted in the traditions so as to be ranked as fundamental” - double jeopardy is not a “fundamental” right, wasn’t incorporated

  • No valid charge of double jeopardy 

Engel v. Vitale

• Background:

  •  New york state board of regents recommended that a prayer should be read at the beginning of each school day, the parents of 10 children challenged the use of the prayer 

• Question:

  • Does the use of state imposed prayer violate the establishment clause of the first amendment made applicable to the states by the fourteenth amendment? (Yes)

• Reasoning:

  • Even though it’s a general prayer and students don’t have to say the prayer, this doesn’t matter 

  • Establishment clause is violated, even if those laws don’t coerce - governmentally established religions + persecution go hand in hand 

    • There is an indirect coercive pressure 

• Implication:

  • no prayer in public schools

Lemon v. Kurtzman

• Background:

  • RI and PA established programs to provide state aid to christian elementary and secondary schools 

• Questions:

  • are state programs in question in violation of the establishment clause of the first amendment as applied to the states by the fourteenth? (Yes)

    • What is the appropriate test to be applied in such cases? (🍋test)

      • 1. Law has a secular purpose

      • 2. Effect of the law is to advance or inhibit religion 

      • 3. Law fosters excessive entanglement between church and state 

• Reasoning:

  • Establishment clause meant to avoid sponsorship of govt in religious activity 

  • The laws have a secular purpose (passes #1)

  • The regulations imposed to make sure teachers don’t foster religion foster excessive entanglement between church and state (violates #2 & #3) 

    • Catholic schools are being paid by the state, even for secular subjects - because they can’t guarantee how the teacher is going to teach the material 

    • Enhances religion + excessive entanglement 

Stone v. Graham

• Background:

  • kentucky statute required that the 10 commandments must be posted on the wall of each public school classroom in the state

    • Copies purchased by private contributors 

    • Petition claimed the statute violated the establishment and free exercise clauses 

• Question:

  •  does the Kentucky statute violate the establishment and free exercise clauses of the first amendment?

• Reasoning:

  • Violates first part of lemon test- 10 commandments is a religious text, as it’s a very overtly religious message when its in every classroom 

  • It doesn’t matter that the posted copies are financed by voluntary contributions because posting it provides the official support of the state govt 

Wisconsin v. Yoder

• Background:

  • suit was brought by wisconsin against members of amish church to force them to abide by state’s compulsory school attendance law, which required children to attend public or private school until 16yo. Objection to higher education was that the values of public high school are opposed to the amish way of life 

• Question:

  • Does the Wisconsin compulsory attendance law infringe on the free exercise clause on the first amendment? (yes)

• Reasoning:

  • Doesn’t interfere with other rights 

  • Deep religious conviction, related to daily living 

Oregon v. Smith

• Background:

  • drug rehab counselors were fired from their jobs for ingesting peyote as part of rituals of the N.A. church to which they belonged. Denied unemployment benefits by oregon

    • Oregon court of appeals held that this decision interfered with free exercise rights under first amendment 

    • US supreme court sent back the case to oregon SC to see if oregon state law exempted the use of peyote for religious purposes- they said no but continued to insist the denial of unemployment benefits was a denial of free exercise 

• Question:

  • are appellates entitled to unemployment benefits? (No)

  • Does the free exercise clause of the first and fourteenth amendment require a state to show a compelling interest when a generally applicable law falls with a special force on a particular religion? (No)

• Reasoning: (6 (5C + 1L)-3L)

  • Don’t need to show a Compelling interest, because the law is generally applicable; it’s not targeting the religion, but just burdens them 

  • Court limits the balancing test in Sherbert v. Verner 

    • The sherbert test had to do with someone who violated work policy in conflict with religion, employer was unable to show a compelling interest for why they used it. In this case, it is a fr law that is in conflict 

Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah

• Background:

  • The santeria religion, fusion of roman catholicism and native african religion practices animal sacrifices

  • Church in florida was met with negative public reactions; church argued it was protected by the free exercise clause of first amendment 

    • Local city council adopted a number of ordinances designed to prevent animal sacrifice within the city 

• Question:

  • Did Hialeah’s laws against animal sacrifice violate the free exercise clause of the first amendment as applied to the states through the fourteenth amendment? (Yes)

• Reasoning:

  • Applied strict scrutiny

    • The law is not neutral; stricter scrutiny was needed

    • Law was discriminatory on its face, used specific words that targeted santeria practices 

      • Allowed hunting, slaughtering animals for food, etc., but RULED OUT religious sacrifices 

      • Everything they actually said they were worried about made exceptions for things like hunting, etc. - so its obvious it’s for discrimination 

Schenck v. US

• Background:

  • Background: schenck was the general secretary of the socialist party. Sent 15K leaflets to men who had been called to military service urging them to oppose the conscription act. He was indicted under the espionage act of 1917 due to 

    • 1. Conspiracy to cause insubordination in the military service of the US 

    • 2. Use mails to transmit stuff that is nonmailable under espionage act

    • 3. Unlawful use of mails for the transmission of the same matter 

• Question:

  • does the statue in question violate the freedom of speech and press guaranteed by the first amendment? (No)

• Reasoning:

  • Clear and present danger test (no longer used)

    • Words are used in circumstances that would’ve brought about substantive evils that congress would’ve had a right to prevent 

  • Two sets of freedoms involved, one at freedom and one at wartime 

• Implication: Clear and present danger test

Brandenburg v. Ohio

• Background:

  • brandenburg, a KKK leader, was convicted for remarks that he had been taped making at a rally, when he had used derogatory terms and mentioned the possibility of taking “revengeance”. ohio court of appeals and state SC dismissed his appeal 

• Question:

  • Does Ohio’s criminal syndicalism law violate freedom of speech as guaranteed by the first and fourteenth amendments? (yes)

• Reasoning:

  • Court argued that the law as infirm bc it defined criminal activity in terms of advocacy that was not distinguished from incitement to imminent lawless action 

• Implication: direct incitement test

  • higher standard for restricting free speech

New York Times Company v. US

• Background:

  • The NYT was enjoined from publication of the Pentagon papers. Daniel Ellsberg, a pentagon employee, became angry at the war, turned the papers over to the Times and Washington post. 

    • Critical of the johnson administration and their deceptions during the war of vietnam 

    • Nixon wanted to suppress the publication, and under the idea of inherent powers, he tried to have these papers suppressed 

• Question:

  • Can the judiciary prevent the publication of material that the government deems harmful to the national interest in the absence of a statute on the matter? (No)

• Reasoning:

  • The president can not have an “inherent power” to half publication of news would wipe out the first amendment and destroy the security of the very people the government is trying to make security 

    • Claiming national security/inherent powers is not good enough to censor before the fact

Tinker v. Des Moines

• Background:

  • 3 students were suspended from school after they wore black armbands in class to protest the vietnam war, after the principal’s had announced this would result in suspension. The entire appellate court, as opposed to the 3 judge panel (sitting en banc), was divided. 

• Question:

  • Does the First Amendment (as applied to the states through the fourteenth) protect the rights of public school students to wear black armbands to school in protest of the Vietnam war? (Yes) 

• Reasoning:

  • Wearing black armbands is “pure speech”, entitled to protection under first amendment (symbolic speech is protected)

  • The school’s policy was based on fear of disturbance, but the apprehension of disturbance isn’t enough to overpower the right to free speech

  • Students do not check all of their rights at the “school door” -- students do have the right to freedom of speech (esp political speech)

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

• Background:

  • Several teenagers burned a cross on a black family’s lawn. The police charged one of the teens under an ordinance which prohibits the display of a symbol that arouses anger on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, or gender. The district court sided with teenagers, the state supreme court sided with the police

• Question:

  • Is the ordinance overly broad and impermissibly content-based in violation of the first amendment free speech clause? (yes)

• Reasoning:

  • Ordinance is invalid because it prohibits otherwise allowed speech on the basis that the subjects the speech addresses

    • You can’t silence speech on the basis of content 

• Implication: hate speech is protected speech

Virginia v. Black

• Background:

  • A cross was burned on a black family’s lawn

• Reasoning:

  • Court said that if the intent of the speech was to intimidate, it is not protected by the first amendment

  • Prima facie - just the act of doing something is intimidation (some justices said that this wasn’t enough)

New York Times v. Sullivan

• Background:

  • New York Times published a piece with a number of errors in it, and were sued for libel. 

• Decision:

  • Not done with intent, did not reach the level of libel that was meant to convict

• Implication: higher standard to sue for libel (malicious intent)

Roth v. US

• Background:

  • Samuel Roth had a business in NY that sold books, photos, and magazines

    • He was indicted and convicted of mailing obscene circulars and advertising an obscene book in violation of a federal obscenity statute 

• Question:

  • Do these statutes violate the provisions of the First Amendment? (No)

• Reasoning:

  • The guarantees of freedom of expression does not give absolute protection for every utterance

  • The protection of free speech is for any idea having the slighted redeeming social importance 

    • The test of obscenity (roth test) - whether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to the ‘prurient interest’, where the material is utterly without redeeming social value

Miller v. California

• Background:

  • explicit materials were sent through mails to people who had not indicated interest in receiving such materials; brochures advertising books and a movie

• Question:

  • Under the first amendment, may a state enforce obscenity statutes against publications that offend local community standards as to what is prurient? (Yes)

• Reasoning: (5C - 4L)

  • States can regulate works that depict or describe sexual conduct; local communities can be used, rather than a national standard. Becomes easier to regulate pornography, makes it easier to regulate free speech, and offensive by state law

  • Miller v. california dropped parts of the roth test

    • The utterly in “utterly” without redeeming social value was dropped, as well as the contemporary community standards had been replaced by national standards 

  • *goes against the trend as civil liberties contracted, rather than expanded, overtime 

McDonald v. Chicago

• Background:

  •  city of chicago and oak park had laws banning handguns similar to hte law that the court invalidated in DC v. Heller, Otis McDonald and other chicago residents wanted to keep handguns, argued the heller decision gave them this right 

• Question:

  • Does the Second Amendment protection of the right to bear arms apply to states and localities? (yes) 

• Reasoning: (5C - 4L)

  • Second amendment is incorporated to include the states 

    • “Intrinsic v. inherent” - incorporation of a right does not depend on being intrinsic vs. instrumental

      • Fundamental freedoms are intrinsic to freedom (not gun ownership), but gun ownership has instrumental value

New York State Rifle and Pistol Association Inc v. Bruen

• Background:

  • NY requires a person to show special need for self protection to receive an unrestricted license to carry a concealed firearm outside the home. Nash and Koch challenged the law after NY rejected their concealed carry applications based on failure to show proper cause 

• Question:

  • Does new york’s law requiring that applicants for unrestricted concealed carry licenses demonstrate a special need for self defense violate second amendment? (Yes)

• Conclusion:

  • New york's proper cause requirement violates the 14th amendment 

    • Sensitive places restrictions can be appropriate, but manhattan is not a sensitive place 

    • Gun restrictions are constitutional only if there is tradition of regulation in US history 

  • Kavanaugh & john roberts argued that You can have other steps to get a gun, but you can’t make someone show a special need

Terry v. Ohio

• Background:

  •  a police officer observed terry and two other men walking in front of a store as though they were attempting to case it. After he approached, he patted down terry and found a gun in his overcoat. 

• Question:

  • Did the officer’s actions constitute  a stop and frisk? (Yes)

  • Was such a stop and frisk reasonable under provisions of the fourth and fourteenth amendments? (Yes)

• Reasoning:

  • Limits of exclusionary rule

  • The officer’s search was reasonable 

• Implication: to conduct a pat-down search, you don’t need probable cause to have a reasonable search 

US v. Sokolow

• Background:

  •  Drug enforcement agents stopped sokolow in honolulu international airport after his behavior indicated he may be a drug trafficker

• Question:

  • Did the search violate the fourth amendment? 

• Decision:

  • court upheld the search, reasoned that agents had a reasonable suspicion

    • Validity of searches should be based on totality of circumstances, clear reason of suspicion

• Implication:

  • Reasonable suspicion for a search, pretty low bar established 

Weeks v. US

• Background:

  • Weeks was indicted for 9 counts, including use of mail for transporting illegal lottery tickets. After his arrest, a US marshal and police entered his house without a search warrant and removed certain possessions and papers, which weeks asked to be returned. Lower court ordered the return of the items not needed for trial. Weeks filed an appeal saying that evidence had been improperly gathered in violation of fourth amendment 

• Question:

  • Can evidence gathered illegally without the use of a warrant be used in a criminal federal trial? (No)

• Reasoning:

  • Fourth amendment was meant to embody the idea that you can’t be allowed to search and seize, having deep roots in english law

  • Does not evade those who are legally arrested - if you do allow searches like this, then the fourth amendment might not exist

  • “Fruits of the poisonous tree” -- evidence that comes out of unlawful searches (can’t be used)

Mapp v. Ohio

• Background:

  • Cleveland officers requested admission to a home to find a fugitive hiding there. Received information that a large amount of paraphernalia was hidden in the house, police forced their way into the house, found obscene materials 

• Question:

  • Is evidence obtained in violation of the search and seizure provision of the fourth amendment admissible in a state court? (No)

• Reasoning:

  • However, now the court is saying this is an implicit concept in ordered liberty, and is protected through due process clause 

  • All evidence obtained by illegal searches and seizures is inadmissible in a state court 

• Implication:

  • incorporation of the fourth amendment/exclusionary rule 

Utah v. Strieff

• Background:

  • detective Fackrell received an anonymous tip about drug sales in south salt lake. Saw edward Strieff leaving the residence and stopped him for questioning. Fackrell discovered Strieff had an outstanding warrant and arrested him. During the lawful search after his arrest, Fackrell found meth and a drug pipe on Strieff

• Question:

  •  Should evidence seized incident to a lawful arrest on an outstanding warrant be suppressed because the warrant was discovered during an investigatory stop later found to be unlawful?  (No - admissible evidence)

• Reasoning:

  • Unlawful stop → (intervening event) discover warrant → arrest → search

  • Exclusion is not justified when the link between the unconstitutional conduct and discovered evidence is too weakened

• Implication: established attenuation, an exception to the exclusionary rule 

Miranda v. Arizona

• Background:

  • Law enforcement took a defendant into custody, interrogated him for the purpose of obtaining a confession. At no time did the police advise a defendant of his right to remain silent or his right to consult with his attorney

• Question:

  • Are statements obtained from an individual subjected to custodial police interrogation under these circumstances admissible as evidence?

• Reason: (5-4)

  • Individual must be informed he has the right to consult counsel and to have his lawyer with him during interrogation

• Implication:

  • established miranda rights as a doctrine

Kelo v. New London

• Background:

  •  new london used eminent domain to seize private property to sell to private developers. City said developing the land would create jobs and increase tax revenues. Susette Kelo argued that new london violated the fifth amendment’s taking’s clause

• Question:

  • does a city violate the fifth amendment’s takings clause if the city takes private property and sells it for private development with the hopes the development will help the city’s bad economy? (no)

• Reason: (4L + 1C - 4C)

  • City’s taking of private property qualified as public use within the meaning of the taking’s clause - it was following an economic plan, not just for one group of private individuals

  • Fifth amendment does not require literal public use, but a broader interpretation of public use as “public purpose” 

• Implication:

  • stretches eminent domain 

Gideon v. Wainwright

• Decision:

  • Clarence Gideon was charged in FL state court with having broken and entered into a pool room with intent to commit a misdemeanor, which is a non capital felony. Gideon appeared in court without funds/lawyer, asked for the court to appoint counsel for him, but the court refused because they only provide counsel for capital cases only. 

• Question:

  • Must an indigent defendant be provided counsel in a noncapital case? (Yes)

• Reasoning:

  • The fourteenth amendment backs a provision of the bill of rights that is fundamental to a fair trial, that is an obligation upon the states

    • In an adversary system of criminal justice, those who are too poor to hire a lawyer don’t have a fair trial until they have counsel provided for them

• Implication:

  • Incorporation of right to attorney

Furman v. Georgia

• Background:

  • Furman got the death penalty, and argued that death penalty was handed out on a whim/caprice. 

• Reasoning:

  • the death penalty is used in an arbitrary law, but it is outlawed until all states fix this problem 

    • All states w/ death penalty rewrote their death penalty laws

Gregg v. Georgia

• Background:

  • troy gregg was convicted in a georgia trial of robbery and murder. The trial was in two stages, a guilt stage and a sentencing stage. Fred Simmons and bob Moore gave two hitchhikers a lift in their care. One of the other hitchhikers said that gregg ambushed killed the original occupants. Gregg claimed the killings were in self defense

• Question:

  •  Are the Georgia death penalty statutes a violation of the cruel and unusual provisions under the eight and fourteenth amendments? (No)

• Reasoning:

  • capital Punishment doesn’t violate the 8th and 14th amendments

  • Capital punishment was accepted by the framers, legislative measures adopted by the chosen reps detail the contemporary standards for decency 

Griswold v. Connecticut

• Background:

  •  case involved constitutionality of connecticut birth control law. Provided that anyone who uses contraception was to be subjected to fine, imprisonment, or both. ANy person who assisted another in committing any offense could be prosecuted and punished. Griswold, director of planned parenthood league of CT was convicted of being an accessory 

• Question:

  •  Is the connecticut statute valid under the constitution? (no)

• Reasoning:

  • Right to privacy used ninth amendment as a basis 

    • The right of privacy is a legitimate right, the first 8 amendments have certain most vulnerable rights, but you have other rights too 

  • right to privacy found under a penumbra, in the constitution, as the 1st, 3rd, and 4th amendments in the BoR have an implicit belief in privacy, the right to privacy is protected

• Implication:

  • establishment of the right to privacy (not in the first 8 amendments)

Roe v. Wade

• Background:

  •  texas statutes prohibited abortions except by medical advice in saving the life of the mother. Under pseudonym of jane roe, a federal class action was instituted against the district attorney of Dallas county.

• Question:

  • Does a person as used in the fourteenth amendment include the unborn? (No) 

  • Does the right of privacy include a woman’s decision on an abortion? (yes - to 2nd trimester) 

• Reasoning:

  • Const only refers to people as those who are born, unborn have not been recognized as law. Judiciary is not going to say when life begins 

  • Const does not explicitly recognize any right of privacy, but the court has recognized that personal privacy exists

    • Under 14th amendment of personal liberty and 9th amendment of reservation of rights

    • Right is broad enough to cover the decision as to an abortion

  • During the 1st & 2nd  trimester, no agreement as to the fetus being a person, so the decision is with the woman and her physician (24 weeks, no states can prohibit abortion)

• Implication: abortion is a constitutionally protected right

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization

• Background:

  •  Mississippi passed a law called the gestational age act, prohibits all abortions, with few exceptions after 15 weeks gestational age. Jackson women’s health organization, filed a lawsuit.  DC found that the state had not provided evidence the fetus would be viable at 15 weeks, and SC precedent prohibits states from banning abortions prior to viability. 

• Question:

  • Is mississippi's law banning nearly all abortions after 15 weeks gestational age unconstitutional? (no)

• Reasoning: (6-3 to uphold MI law, 5-4 to overturn Roe v. Wade)

  •  Constitution does not confer a right to abortion. The right to abortion is not deeply rooted in the nations history. Alito gives 5 factors as to why Roe v. Wade should be overruled

• Implication:

Barron v. Baltimore

• Barron had property taken away in Baltimore, and argued his 5th amendment rights to not have property taken away was violated.

  • Marshall said that this only applies to federal government, not state government 

DC v. Heller

• Incorporated the second amendment in DC, a federal enclave

• 5C - 4L decision