Civil Liberties Mid Term

Texas V. Johnson (1989)

Court held that a Texas law banning flag desecration violated the First Amendment in _____

Schneck V. United States

______ is the first Supreme Court case dealing with national security and Free Speech.  Holmes’s “clear and present danger was established” in this case.   

Cantrell V. Connecticut (1940)

Court incorporated Free Exercise of Religion through the 14^th Amendment.

Flast V. Cohen (1968)

Court ruled that a taxpayer law suit was justiciable if the litigant could establish a logical connection to an important constitutional right _____

Barron v. Baltimore, 1833 (later → Gitlow)

Court ruled that the Bill of Rights did not apply to state actions. ___

the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the Bill of Rights restricts only the federal government, not state or local governments

Ex parte McCardle

affirmed Congress's constitutional power to limit or withdraw the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction under the Exceptions Clause of Article III

O’Brien vs. U.S. (1968)

that burning a draft card to protest the Vietnam War was not protected symbolic speech under the First Amendment, establishing that the government can penalize expressive conduct if the restriction is content-neutral and serves an important public interest

Add more Cases (assume)

Okay adding more cases

Lemon Test

is a three-part legal framework established by the U.S. Supreme Court to determine whether a government action or law violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment

1. Secular Purpose: The statute must have a legitimate, non-religious purpose.

2. Primary Effect: Its principal or primary effect must neither advance nor inhibit religion.

3. Excessive Entanglement: The law must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion

Overall : The Court created the test to measure whether a statute improperly crosses the line between church and state

Marbury V. Madison

established the principle of judicial review—the power of federal courts to declare legislative and executive acts unconstitutional.

Discuss judicial review (be specific and discuss Marbury).

is the power of courts to examine laws and government actions to see if they break the rules of the U.S. Constitution, declaring them void if they conflict with it.

Outgoing President John Adams appointed William Marbury as a justice of the peace, known as a "midnight judge," just before leaving office. The new Secretary of State, James Madison, refused to deliver the commission under President Thomas Jefferson

Marbury petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court directly to issue a writ of mandamus (a court order forcing a government official to act)

Marshall ruled that the Supreme Court could not issue the writ because Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 expanded the Court's original jurisdiction beyond what Article III of the Constitution allowed.

McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010),

established that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for self-defense applies to state and local governments, not just the federal government.

Discuss selective incorporation and the key cases.

applies protections from the federal Bill of Rights to state and local governments, piece by piece, through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

Gitlow V. New York (1925) : Benjamin Gitlow, a socialist, distributed pamphlets advocating violent overthrow of the government. New York prosecuted him under a state law criminalizing such advocacy. Gitlow argued the First Amendment protected him even from state prosecution. This was the firsts elective incorporation decision. the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment's protection of freedom of speech and press applies to state governments as well as the federal government, marking the birth of the selective incorporation doctrine

McDonald v. Chicago (2010) - The first case in which the Second Amendment right to “keep and bear Arms” was incorporated to the states.The City of Chicago passed a handgun ban in 1982. Chicago resident Otis McDonald filed a lawsuit challenging the ban in 2008 on the basis that he needed a handgun for self-defense.the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for self-defense is fundamental and applies to state and local governments, not just the federal government

Mapp V. Ohio the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on June 19, 1961, that evidence obtained through illegal searches and seizures in violation of the Fourth Amendment is inadmissible in state courts. hey did not find the fugitive, but officers searched her basement and found a trunk containing p*rnographic materials, which were illegal to possess under Ohio law at the time. he U.S. Supreme Court used selective incorporation to apply the Fourth Amendment’s exclusionary rule to state courts through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Palko V. Connecticut Frank Palko was tried for first-degree murder, convicted of second-degree murder, and sentenced to life in prison. Connecticut appealed under a state law, won a new trial due to legal errors, and Palko was retried, convicted of first-degree murder, and sentenced to death. Palko argued this violated the Fifth Amendment's protection against double jeopardy, as applied to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment. ruling that the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause only applies Bill of Rights protections to the states if they are "fundamental to a scheme of ordered liberty".

Discuss the Clear and Present Danger test.

is a historical U.S. Supreme Court standard used to determine when the government can limit free speech under the First Amendment

Schneck V United States : Charles Schenck and Elizabeth Baer distributed leaflets declaring that the draft violated the Thirteenth Amendment prohibition against involuntary servitude. The leaflets urged the public to disobey the draft, but advised only peaceful action Holmes reasoned that the widespread dissemination of the leaflets was sufficiently likely to disrupt the conscription process. Famously, he compared the leaflets to falsely shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theatre, which is not permitted under the First Amendment. 

BrandenBurg V. Ohio : A Ku Klux Klan leader made a speech at a rally containing vaguely derogatory and threatening remarks about African Americans and Jews, leading to a conviction under a state criminal syndicalism statute. Under Brandenburg, the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless it is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.

Go back to section lll (Essays)

Trace the Court’s jurisprudence dealing with Free Speech and assembly as well as obscenity and p*rnography. (Essay) (1/2)

The jurisprudence of the United States Supreme Court regarding Free Speech, assembly, obscenity, and pornography reflects a continuous effort to balance individual liberties with societal order and morality. Protected under the First Amendment, these rights have undergone significant doctrinal shifts from the early 20th century to the digital age.

Schenck v. United States (1919). Under this standard, the government could restrict speech if it posed an immediate threat to national security or public order. This test was frequently used to uphold convictions of political dissidents and anti-war activists.

Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the Court overturned the older standard, establishing the modern "imminent lawless action" test. Under Brandenburg, speech cannot be penalized unless it is directed to inciting imminent lawless action and is likely to produce such action. This set an exceptionally high bar for government censorship of political speech.

Discuss the Court’s jurisprudence regarding the nationalization of the Bill of Rights (Essay)

1. The Early Rule: Inapplicable to the States

• Barron v. Baltimore (1833): Chief Justice John Marshall ruled that the Bill of Rights limits only the national government

• 2). The Doctrine of Selective Incorporation :

• Free Speech: Gitlow v. New York (1925)

• Search and Seizure & Exclusionary Rule: Mapp v. Ohio (1961)

• Right to Bear Arms: McDonald v. Chicago (2010)

3. Unincorporated Provisions : several parts of the original Bill of Rights have not been incorporated or applied to state governments, including

Ninth Amendment: States that the listing of specific rights in the Constitution does not mean people do not retain other rights. The Supreme Court has not incorporated it as a standalone enforceable right against states, though its principles of unlisted rights have informed broader privacy doctrines (such as in Griswold v. Connecticut

Trace the Court’s jurisprudence dealing with Free Speech and assembly as well as obscenity and p*rnography. (2/2)

Unlike political speech, obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment. However, defining what constitutes obscenity has proven to be one of the Court’s most persistent challenges.

To resolve the confusion, the Court established the current three-part test in Miller v. California (1973). Under the Miller test, material is obscene only if:

1. The average person, applying contemporary community standards, finds that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest.

2. The work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, s*xual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law.

3. The work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

In New York v. Ferber (1982), the Court ruled that the prevention of sexual exploitation of children is a government interest of surpassing importance. Therefore, child p*rnography is completely unprotected by the First Amendment, regardless of whether it meets the Miller criteria for obscenity.

• In Reno v. ACLU (1997), the Court struck down provisions of the Communications Decency Act that sought to protect minors by criminalizing the transmission of "indecent" or "patently offensive" messages online. The Court ruled that the internet is entitled to the highest level of First Amendment protection

• (Not a Focus) Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002), further refined this boundary by striking down bans on virtual child p*rnography (computer-generated images using no real children), reiterating that speech cannot be banned merely because it looks like unprotected expression, provided no actual harm or crime was committed in its production.

Write an essay tracing the stare decisis of the Judicial powers and constraints and incorporation doctrine. (Essay)

OUUUU PLEASE NOOOOOO

The Slaughter-House Cases (1873)

By narrowly defining what privileges were protected, the ruling rendered the Privileges or Immunities Clause practically useless in U.S. constitutional law, a stance the Supreme Court has never overturned

The Slaughterhouse Cases were a significant legal confrontation in the United States that arose from a Louisiana law granting a single company exclusive rights to operate slaughterhouses in New Orleans. This legislation effectively created a monopoly, displacing many local butchers who operated small businesses. Represented by former Supreme Court Justice John A. Campbell, the butchers argued that the law violated the privileges or immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which they believed protected their right to work freely in their chosen profession.

Mapp V. Ohio

_____ exclusionary rule applies to state and local criminal trials, making any evidence obtained through unconstitutional searches and seizures inadmissible in court