C122: Constitutional Law - Quiz 1 Cases

Let me know if there is any incorrect information!

Marbury v. Madison, 1803 (Context)

• Battle between President John Adams and incoming President Thomas Jefferson

• President Adams tried to stack the court and appointed Marbury, but James Madison refused to honor the judicial appointment

• Marbury sued a new law, the Judiciary Act of 1789, that gave the Supreme Court power to force the government to comply with its order (Writ of Mandamus)

Marbury v. Madison, 1803 (Ruling)

• Supreme Court held:

  • The law was unconstitutional

  • It attempted to expand the court’s power beyond Article III of the Constitution

• Put the Supreme Court on the map!

• Established the principle of “Judicial Review.”

• The Power of the Supreme Court to decide if an act of Congress was constitutional or Unconstitutional

Eakin v. Raub, 1825 (Context)

• Plaintiffs (lived oversees) sued to kick defendants off the land they owned in the U.S.

• The lower court found for defendants, citing a change in the statute of limitations law, which barred the plaintiff from bringing suit

Eakin v. Raubm 1825 (Ruling)

Pennsylvania Supreme Court held:

• The law was unconstitutional (Citing Marbury v. Madison/Precedent)

• The Court is obligated to invalidate a law that contradicts the Constitution

Frothing v. Mellon, 1923 (Context)

• Federal Tax $$ was given to Infant Care

• Taxpayers wanted to challenge teh fact that their money went to infant care

Frothing v. Mellon, 1923 (Ruling)

Frothington Court held:

• Taxpayers did not have “Standing” to sue on Federal Spending

• No real or direct “injury” sustained

• Must show laws are invalid AND that they suffered a “direct injury”

Flast v. Cohen, 1968 (Context)

• This individual wanted to challenge the Federal Government using tax money for religious schools as a 1st Amendment violation

• The lower court ruled that they had no standing (no personal injury)

Flast v. Cohen, 1968 (Ruling)

The Supreme Court held:

• Taxpayers had standing as they were paying taxes AND

• They were able to argue that the law allowing the expenditures violated the 1st Amendment’s Establishment Clause

Two-Prong Test:

• 1. Taxpayers need to show a relationship between themselves and the law

• 2. And how the law exceeded constitutional limits

• There can be a personal injury or a public injury

Defunis v. Odegaard, 1974 (Context)

• A Washington Law student sued the admission process of the school based on affirmative action when they were originally denied

Defunis v. Odegaard, 1974 (Ruling)

• When the case made its way through the courts, he was already accepted and was about to graduate law school

• The case was MOOT! Issue resolved!

Elk Grove United District v. Newdow, 2004 (Context)

• The school required the Pledge of Allegiance before class

• This man’s daughter was in Kindergarten — he shared physical custody

• Her mother disagreed with him and the lawsuit — she had legal custody

Elk Grove United District v. Newdow, 2004 (Ruling)

The Supreme Court Held:

• This individual did not have STANDING to challenge the Pledge of Allegiance, violating the 1st Amendment

• He had no legal custody, so he suffered no injury

Barron v. Baltimore, 1833 (Context)

• Individual owned a profitable wharf that was damaged as a result of city improvements

• He sued under the Eminent Domain Doctrine - He wanted money since his wharf was damaged and he lost money on the use of the wharf

Barron v. Baltimore, 1833 (Ruling)

The Supreme Court Held:

• The 5th Amendment (Eminent Domain) only applied to the Federal Government

• The Bill of Rights only applies to the Federal Government (“Congress shall make no law…”)

Slaughterhouse Cases, 1873 (Context)

• Louisiana law established a corporation to regulate slaughterhouses

• Butchers sued under the 14th Amendment, arguing that the state law took away their rights by regulating them under one monoploy with regulations

Slaughterhouse Cases, 1873 (Ruling)

The Supreme Court Held:

• Narrow view of the 14th Amendment — to protect citizens from states violating their Federal Rights, not state rights

Hurtado v. California, 1844 (Context)

• Bar fight/Murder/Capital case

• The individual was charged with murder and was convicted. The DA filed an information and not an indictment per the 5th Amendment.

Hurtado v. California, 1844 (Ruling)

• This section of the 5th Amendment did NOT apply to the states

• No right to an indictment, not a “fundamental right” (This is still the law currently)

Gilbert v. Minnesota, 1920 (Context)

• State law prohibited anyone from discouraging someone from enlisting

• Individual gave a speech opposing the draft for WWI

• Tried to convince people NOT to enlist and disobey the draft

• He was arrested and convicted

Gilbert v. Minnesota, 1920 (Ruling)

The Supreme Court held:

• 1st Amendment (Freedom of Speech) does apply to the States, but the conviction was still upheld

• States can limit speech, especially in wartime — Freedom of speech is NOT absolute

Powell v. Alabama, 1932 (Context)

• 9 black teenagers were charged with the sexual assault of a woman — they did not have their own lawyers

• Two were appointed on the day of the trial for ALL 9 defendants

• The jury trial took one day… Guilty verdict!

Powell v. Alabama, 1932 (Ruling)

The Supreme Court held:

• The 14th Amendment Due Process Clause mandates that the right to an attorney applies to States by incorporating the 6th Amendment

Palko v. Connecticut, 1937 (Context)

• Man killed two cops — confession excluded — found guilty of 2nd degree & was sentenced to life in prison

• The State wanted to try him again and get a harsher punishment (Death penalty)

• Appealed the conviction using state law, and the conviction was reversed

• The State tried him again and he got 1st degree

Palko v. Connecticut, 1937 (Ruling)

Supreme Court held:

• Double jeopardy (5th Amendment) did not apply to the States

• Needs to be a “fundamental right”

• He was then executed in 1983

  • The case was overruled by Benton v. Maryland (1969) — OOPS!

Rochin v. California, 1952 (Context)

• Police searched this individual’s house

• He grabbed two pills and swalloweed the unknown capsules before the police took them

• The cops took him to the hospital, forcibly pumped his stomach, and he was arrested/charged with the possession of morphine

Rochin v. California, 1952 (Ruling)

Supreme Court held:

• The Police action “shocks the conscience”

• These actions violated the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment

• Tried to limit the police’s use of coercive measures

Mapp v. Ohio, 1961 (Context)

• Police were looking for a potential bombing suspect

• They kicked down this individual’s door and searched her house without a warrant

• While searching for the suspect, they found “obscene material” in the house and arrested her for violating state obscenity laws = Convicted in State court

Mapp v. Ohio, 1961 (Ruling)

Supreme Court held:

• Conviction was reversed

• 4th Amendment violation by entering her house without a warrant

• Evidence needed to be excluded to deter police from using illegal methods

• Applied the Federal Exclusionary Rule to the State

Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965 (Context)

• This individual wanted to challenge her state’s contraception laws

• It was illegal to use any drug to stop contraception

• She opened a clinic and was arrested for selling birth control

Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965 (Ruling)

Supreme Court held:

• The state contraception law was unconstitutional

• 14th Amendment — Zones of Privacy

  • Implied with the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 9th Amendments

  • The Right to Privacy is inferred and applied through the 14th Amendment (Living, breathing interpretation)

  • Marital privacy in the bedroom (GET OUT!)

Gitlow v. New York, 1925 (Context)

• Individual was a Socialist opposing the war

• Handed out pamphlets about a revolution against the war

Gitlow v. New York, 1925 (Ruling)

Supreme Court held:

• The 14th Amendment did protect 1st Amendment rights/freedom of the press using the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause

• Awesome, rights apply to the States! Sorry, you still lose, conviction affirmed!

• Government interest in stopping violence overrides the personal right, especially in war

Dejonge v. Oregon, 1937 (Context)

• Individual participated in a communist meeting about police brutality

• It was peaceful, and he did not advocate violence

• Conviction under Oregon law, making it illegal to assemble to incite political change or revolution

Dejonge v. Oregon, 1937 (Ruling)

Supreme Court held:

• Conviction overturned

• He participated in a peaceful assembly/lawful discourse

• Freedom of Assembly applied to the States (14th Amendment Due Process)

Cox v. New Hampshire, 1941 (Context)

Jehovah’s Witnesses had a procession without acquiring a license from the town, per local ordinance

Cox v. New Hampshire, 1941 (Ruling)

Supreme Court held:

• Convictions upheld

• A local law can regulate protests as long as it does not regulate the content/purposes of the protest

• The law is valid because it applies equally to all groups who want to protest

• TIME, PLACE, & MANNER can be regulated

Madsen v. Women’s Health Center, 1994 (Context)

• A Florida order allowed a 36-foot buffer adound the business and a buffer from patients entering

• Protesters challenged these restrictions as a 1st Amendment Violation

Madsen v. Women’s Health Center, 1994 (Ruling)

Supreme Court held:

• Restrictions on anti-abortion protests were reasonable to allow the business to function

• Can’t interfere with the purpose of the business

NAACP v. Alabama, 1958 (Context)

• Alabama sued the NAACP for a list of its members

• Attempt to stop them from organizing

NAACP v. Alabama, 1958 (Ruling)

Supreme Court held:

• Struck down the law

• Violated the 1st Amendment via the 14th Amendment (Due Process)

• Freedom of Association is protected, and the list of members is also protected

• Personal rights (1st Amendment) superseded the State’s interest in the list

Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 2000 (Context)

• NJ law prohibited discrimination against homosexuals in public accommodations

• The Boy Scouts refused to admit homosexuals into their organization and into leadership roles — Dale was kicked out of the organization and sued the Boy Scouts using the NJ law

Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 2000 (Ruling)

Supreme Court held:

• The NJ law violated the Boy Scouts’ freedom of association since the group taught against homosexuality as part of their core values

• Boy Scouts has the free speech to teach about the immorality of homosexuality, and can’t be forced to accept homosexuals into their club

• Boy Scouts changed their policy in 2015

Thornhill v. Alabama, 1940 (Context)

• Individual was in a union and picketed his former employer’s business

• State law made it a crime to picket at a business = he was arrested and fined

Thornhill v. Alabama, 1940 (Ruling)

Supreme Court held:

• Art of Picketing = Symbolic Speech = protected by the 1st/14th Amendment

Texas v. Johnson, 1989 (Context)

• Individual burned the American flag outside the Republican National Convention in Texas

• This State’s law prohibited the desecration of the American Flag (48 States)

• He was arrested, fined, and jailed for a year!

Texas v. Johnson, 1989 (Ruling)

Supreme Court held:

• This State’s law violated the 1st Amendment through the 14th

• Symbolic/Political speech = protected to convey a political message

U.S. v. Eichmann (1990) — Congress reacts to ruling banning flag burning, Federal law also struck down attempts to get around the previous ruling

U.S. v. O’Brien, 1968 (Context)

• Federal law made it a crime to burn draft cards (Vietnam War)

• This individual, in protest of the war, burned his draft card and encouraged others to do the same

U.S. v. O’Brien, 1968 (Ruling)

Supreme Court held:

• The law was valid as the draft cards had a legitimate governmental purpose — to raise an army

• The Government has a valid interest in raising an army, superseding 1st Amendment rights of Mr. O’Brien

Wooley v. Maynard, 1977 (Context)

• New Hampshire license plate: “Live free or die.”

• Jehovah’s Witnesses covered it up and were fined/arrested

Wooley v. Maynard, 1977 (Ruling)

Supreme Court held:

• The Law was unconstitutional — can’t force people to display the motto

• Freedom of speech is also the freedom NOT to be forced to speak

• Covering it up was also a form of symbolic speech

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 1943 (Context)

• Students must salute/recited the Pledge of Allegiance

• Jehova’s Witnesses challenged the school policy — Children in school = injury

• Their religion forbids them to salute or pledge to symbols

• Kids refused and were expelled from school

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 1943 (Ruling)

Supreme Court held:

• Illegal to force the pledge of allegiance — salute the flag

• 1st Amendment gives you the right NOT to be forced to speak

Citizens United v. FEC, 2010 (Context)

• Campaign finance laws restricted the amount of money corporations could donate to a cause or a a candidate

Citizens United v. FEC, 2010 (Ruling)

Supreme Court held:

• These laws were unconstitutional

• Corporations have the 1st Amendment right to contribute unlimited amounts of money

• Reversed Precedent!

Roth v. U.S., 1957 (Context)

• Individual owned an adult bookstore in NYC — he was arrested and charged with obscene material for using the mail to send advertisements

Roth v. U.S., 1957 (Ruling)

Supreme Court held:

• Upheld the conviction and applied:

• Test for Obscenity:

  • “Whether an average person applying contemporary community standards would find that the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interests…and without any redeeming social value (Prurient Interest Test).”

Jacobellis v. Ohio, 1964 (Context)

• This State banned the movie “The Lovers” as obscene

• This individual owned a movie theater and showed the movie anyways

Jacobellis v. Ohio, 1964 (Ruling)

Supreme Court held:

• The movie was not obscene

• Added a prong to the Roth test — “Must lack any redeeming social importance.”

Stanley v. Georgia, 1969 (Context)

• Warrant for “bookmaking” (gambling) and entered this man’s residence

• Officers noticed films and decided to watch them

• The individual was convicted of having obscene material in his home

Stanley v. Georgia, 1969 (Ruling)

Supreme Court held:

• Conviction reversed — Protected conduct/material

• “The State has no business telling a man, sitting alone in his home, what books or films he may watch.”

Miller v. California, 1973 (Context)

• Man mailed out adult material/explicit brochures

• A mom in Newport Beach opened up the flyers

• She called the police, and he was arrested and convicted

Miller v. California, 1973 (Ruling)

Supreme Court held:

• Reversed/Remanded the conviction

• Expanded state/local government’s power to control “obscene material” (3-Prong Test)

  • 1. The average person applying contemporary standards finds the material appeals to the prurient interest

  • 2. Work depicts or describes material in an offensive way: “sexual conduct specifically defined by state law.”

  • 3. And work lacks a serious itinerary, artistic, political, or scientific standard (strict standard)

Cohen v. California, 1969 (Context)

• Individual wore a jacket to the L.A. Courthouse — “F*** the Draft.”

• Political statement opposing the Vietnam War

• Arrested under California obscenity laws and served 30 days in jail

Cohen v. California, 1969 (Ruling)

Supreme Court held:

• Offensive words may be protected

• The weight of 1st Amendment rights vs. the right to privacy (others around him/context)

• Conviction was reversed

Schenk v. U.S., 1919 (Context)

• This man sent pamphlets to resist the draft

• Charged with violating the Espionage Act — obstructing recruiting efforts for raising an army

Schenk v. U.S., 1919 (Ruling)

Supreme Court held:

• The government has more leeway in wartime to restrict speech — Conviction upheld!

• Established the Clear and Present Danger doctrine

  • “Words create clear and present danger that would bring about substantive evils which Congress has a right to prevent.”

Brandenburg v. Ohio, 1969 (Context)

• A KKK leader was taped at a rally advocating for violence to undo civil rights with racist words

Brandenburg v. Ohio, 1969 (Ruling)

Supreme Court held:

• Reversed conviction — The law was invalid

  • Can’t punish inflammatory speech

  • Can’t punish mere advocacy or hate speech

• Overthrowing the government is protected speech as long as it does not incite a riot

R.A.V. v. St. Paul, 1992 (Context)

• Defendant burned a cross in a Black person’s front yard (neighbor)

• State Law — can’t display a symbol that you know or should know will cause alarm or resentment on “race, color, creed, religion, or gender.”

R.A.V. v. St. Paul, 1992 (Ruling)

Supreme Court held:

• State law prohibiting the use of hate symbols (nazi, cross burnings, etc.) is not valid — based on content (Not content-neutral)

• The law was viewpoint discrimination

• It punished certain unfavorable viewpoints — unconstitutional

Virginia v. Black, 2003 (Context)

• A Black KKK member had a rally on private property and burned a cross

• State law banned burned corsses with the intent to intimidate and used the act of burning the cross as evidence of “intent.”

Virginia v. Black, 2003 (Ruling)

Supreme Court held:

• Law was invalid

• This law inferred intent — invalid

• Lwa could be valid if they were punished for cross-burning with the “intent” to intimidate — Prosecution would have to prove this element of the offense based on the presumption of innocence

• 1st Amendment does not protect threats — The key is that the intent of the person committing the act must be an element that the government needs to prove

Counterman v. Colorado, 2023 (Context)

• Charged with threatening a person, which causes a reasonable person distress

• In two years, he sent hundreds of Facebook messages

• Super creepy threats — spying on a singer and telling her she was going to die

• She felt threatened

• The stalker was arrested and convicted — he argued his threats were not true and were protected by the 1st Amendmet

Counterman v. Colorado, 2023 (Ruling)

Supreme Court held:

• Invalid law — Violated his 1st Amendment Rights

• Need proof of subjective intent — mens rea

• That he INTENDED to threaten her or was reckless

Tinker v. Des Moines School District, 1969 (Context)

• Students wore black arm bands to protest the Vietnam War (8-16 years)

• Suspended from school — policy of no arm bands

• Parents challenged the school’s policy

Tinker v. Des Moines School District, 1969 (Ruling)

Supreme Court held:

• The law was invalid

• We don’t shed our rights just because we walk through a certain door

• Tinker Test = “Speech can’t cause substantial disruption.”

• Students retain their 1st Amendment rights while at school… as long as they do not cause a substantial disruption

Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 1988 (Context)

• Students wrote articles about teenage pregnancy and divorce for the school newspaper

• School deleted the articles before publication

Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 1988 (Ruling)

Supreme Court held:

• Schools can exercise editorial control over school-sponsored activities/school newspapers — Not a public forum

Near v. State of Minnesota, 1931 (Context)

• Man was critical of public officials & published articles about the corruption

• Governor Olsen filed a complaint against him

• Tried to stop him from publishing additional articles

• State law allowed courts to enjoin newspapers from publishing future articles, based on nuisance laws

Near v. State of Minnesota, 1931 (Ruling)

Supreme Court held:

• The law was invalid

• CAN publish articles

• 1st Amendment protects the press from Prior Restrant

NYT v. U.S., 1971 (Context)

• An employee leaked the Pentagon Papers to the NY Times (Top secret papers about the Vietnam War)

• The NY Times published excerpts of the Pentagon Papers one at a time

• The government obtained an order stopping them from publishing future excerpts

NYT v. U.S., 1971 (Ruling)

Supreme Court held:

• They struck down the court order as the government did not show how it would jeopardize national security

• Heavy presumption against prior restraints

NYT v. Sullivan, 1964 (Context)

• An article was critical of a police chief in Alabama for using certain brutal tactics

• Some accusations were not true, so the chief sued and won in State Court for libel

NYT v. Sullivan, 1964 (Ruling)

Supreme Court held:

• To win a libel suit, a public official must prove that the libel was done with actual malice

• Libel is harder to prove when involving public officials

• This was extended to public figures as well as public officials

Everson v. Board of Education, 1947 (Context)

• NJ law allowed public tax dollars to bus children to private OR public schools (both religious and non-religious schools)

• Challenged by a taxpayer who argued that the Establishment Clause applied to the states

Everson v. Board of Education, 1947 (Ruling)

Supreme Court held:

• The Establishment Clause does apply to the States (14th)

  • Selective Incorporation

• However, the law was constitutional

• It was valid as it applied to all faiths and private schools in the same way

• Providing money for transportation, not instruction

McCollum v. Board of Education, 1948 (Rulings all over the place…)

• The Supreme Court struck down an Illinois law that allowed religious instruction in public classrooms

• Students who opted out could leave early

• The issue was the close cooperation between schools and religious institutions

Zorach v. Clauson, 1952 (Rulings all over the place…)

• The Supreme Court upheld a NY law that allowed students to leave public schools early to get religious instruction off campus grounds

Tilton v. Richardson, 1971 (Rulings all over the place…)

• Upheld federal money to both secular and religious colleges to build structures not used for religious purpose — Government had legitimate secular purposes

Lemon v. Kurtzman, 1971 (Context)

• States (PA and RI) provided aid to religious schools

• Allocated money for teachers/books for secular subjects in private schools

• Challenged by this taxpayer, who had a child in PA

Lemon v. Kurtzman, 1971 (Ruling)

Supreme Court held:

• The law allowing aid was unconstitutional and established:

• 3 Prong Test:

  • 1. Policy must be secular (for a non-religious purpose) — “Purpose Prong.”

  • 2. Primary effect must neither advance nor hinder a particular religion — “Effect Prong.”

  • 3. Policy must avoid excessive entanglement (Nature of aid, relationship between non-secular institutions and the government) — “Entanglement Prong.”

Agostini v. Felton, 1977 (Context)

• NY allowed for paid public school teachers to go into religious schools and teach secular subjects

Agostini v. Felton, 1977 (Ruling)

Supreme Court held:

• Law was constitutional — overturned precedent

• No indoctrination of state-sponsored religion

• Eliminated/Watered down the 3rd prong of the Lemon Test (Excessive Entanglement)

Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School District, 1993 (Context)

• Parents sued their school district to have a sign-language interpreter for their child, who attended a religious school

Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School District, 1993 (Ruling)

Supreme Court held:

• The State can pay for an interpreter in a catholic school with public money

• Accommodation for the student did not provide the non-secular school with a financial advantage

• It benefited the student, not the private school

Mitchell v. Helms, 2000

• Federal funds can be used for computers and media material for both public and private schools

• Benefited all students at all schools — secular/non-secular schools

Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 2002 (Context)

• Low-performing school district in Ohio

• Gave vouchers/money directly to the family

• The family could decide what school to spend their voucher on — public or private

• Money given to the parents → parents give money to the schools: 96% of them were enrolled in religious schools

Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 2002 (Ruling)

Supreme Court held:

• The law was valid using the Lemon Test — watered down the Entanglement Prong

• Benefited the children in this particular school district

• Parents decided where to spend money, not the government

Arizona Christian School v. Winn, 2011 (Context)

• This State’s law allowed parents to “write off” tuition spent at religious schools

Arizona Christian School v. Winn, 2011 (Ruling)

Supreme Court held:

• Taxpayers can’t challenge tax credits

• NO STANDING to bring suit as a taxpayer — no harm done

• The State was not using taxpayer money; it was just allowing tax deductions