PoliSci12- Midterm #2

Rucho v. Common Cause (2019)

Facts: A three-judge district court struck down North Carolina’s 2016 congressional map, ruling that the plaintiffs had standing to challenge the map and that the map was the product of partisan gerrymandering. The district court then enjoined the state from using the map after November 2018. North Carolina Republicans, led by Robert Rucho, head of the senate redistricting committee, appealed the decision to the Supreme Court.

Question: Does partisan gerrymandering violate the first amendment, equal protection clause, the elections clause, and articles 1 and 2?

Result: No. Partisan gerrymandering presents political question beyond the reach of the federal courts, not constitutional questions.

Essential: Rucho v. Common Cause was essential because it ruled that federal courts cannot decide cases of partisan gerrymandering, saying they are political—not legal—issues. This left regulation to states, limiting federal checks on unfair district maps and impacting how fairly elections represent voters.

Would you like a one-sentence summary of the majority and dissenting opinions?

Miller v. Johnson (1995)

Facts: Between 1980 and 1990, only one of Georgia's ten congressional districts was majority-black. According to the 1990 decennial census, Georgia's black population of 27% entitled blacks to an additional eleventh congressional seat, prompting Georgia's General Assembly to re-draw the state's congressional districts. After the Justice Department refused pre-clearance of several of the Assembly's proposed new districts, the Assembly was finally successful in creating an additional majority-black district through the forming of an eleventh district. This district, however, was called a "geographic monstrosity" because it extended 6,784.2 square miles from Atlanta to the Atlantic Ocean. In short, "the social, political, and economic makeup of the Eleventh District tells a tale of disparity, not community."

Question: Does racial gerrymandering violate the equal protection clause?

Conclusion: Yes. if race is the overriding and predominant factor in redistricting, but not if race is one among several factors.

Essential: Miller v. Johnson (1995) was essential because the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that racial gerrymandering violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment when race is the predominant factor in drawing electoral districts without a compelling justification.

US v. Eichman (1989)

Facts: In 1989, Congress passed the Flag Protection Act which made it a crime to destroy an American flag or any likeness of an American flag which may be "commonly displayed." The law did, however, allow proper disposal of a worn or soiled flag. Several prosecutions resulted from the Act. Eichman set a flag ablaze on the steps of the U.S. Capitol while protesting the government's domestic and foreign policy. Another prosecution (United States v. Haggerty) resulted from a flag-burning in Seattle protesting the passage of the Flag Protection Act.Both cases (Eichman's and Haggerty's) were argued together.

Question: Did the Act violate freedom of expression protected by the First Amendment?

Result: In a 5-to-4 decision, coming on the heels of a similar holding in Texas v. Johnson (1989), the Court struck down the law because "its asserted interest is related to the suppression of free expression and concerned with the content of such expression." Allowing the flag to be burned in a disposal ceremony but prohibiting protestors from setting it ablaze at a political protest made that clear, argued Justice Brennan in one of his final opinions.

Essential: United States v. Eichman (1990) was essential because it reaffirmed that flag burning is protected free speech under the First Amendment, even when Congress tries to ban it by law.

President Power Expansion

The increase in the authority and influence of the executive branch, often resulting from national emergencies, legislative delegation, or shifts in public expectations.

Elastic Clause

The Elastic Clause, also known as the Necessary and Proper Clause, is a provision in Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 of the U.S. Constitution. It gives Congress the power to make all laws that are "necessary and proper" for carrying out its other powers and the powers of the federal government.

equal protection clause

This clause requires that states treat all people equally under the law. It was originally intended to protect the rights of formerly enslaved people after the Civil War, but over time, it has become a foundation for many civil rights protections in the United States.

elections clause

The Elections Clause allows states to set rules for federal elections (like when and how voting happens), but also gives Congress the authority to change or override those rules if needed.

This ensures that while states manage their own elections, the federal government can step in to protect fairness and consistency for federal offices like the House of Representatives and the Senate.

strict scrunity

presumption of unconstitutionality; burden is on the government to show compelling interest and least restrictive means (free speech cases)  

intermediate scrunity

government must show the law is substantially related to an important government interest (criminal law, gender) 

rational scrunity

 no fundamental right or liberties at issue