Gov Exam, you are gonna fail it, tell UT Admissions for McCombs, you had a concussion while studying for it

Civil Liberties:

fundamental rights and freedoms protected from government interfere by the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the US Constitution( ratified in 1791)

Originally, these rights applied only to the federal government:

but through the doctrine of incorporation (via the Fourteenth Amendment, 1868), the Supreme Court gradually applied most Bill of Rights protections to the state and local governments.

The First Amendment guarantees two key religious liberties:

 the Free Exercise Clause, protecting individuals’ rights to practice their faith, and the Establishment Clause, prohibiting government endorsement of religion.  

These two clauses often create tension: as seen in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022).

In this case, Joseph Kennedy, a high school football coach in Bremerton, Washington, prayed at the 50-yard line after games. The court ruled on whether his actions constituted free exercise of religion or violated the Establishment Clause.

Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022):The school district suspended him, fearing his public prayers. might violate the Establishment Clause by appearing to endorse religion

Kennedy sued, claiming his Free Exercise,  Free Speech, and First Amendment rights had been violated

In July 2022, the Supreme Court, in a 6–3 decision, ruled in favor of Kennedy

 Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority, held that “the Constitution neither mandates nor permits the government to suppress such religious expression.”   

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in dissent,

argued that the Court’s ruling undermined the separation of church and state and could pressure students into participating in religious activity. The case illustrates how the Court’s interpretation of religious freedom has become more accommodating of public religious expression in recent decades.

Also protected by the First Amendment,

freedom of speech allows individuals to express opinions without government censorship or punishment.

This includes political speech, symbolic acts (like flag burning, Texas v. Johnson, 1989)

and even certain controversial or unpopular opinions. However, speech that incites violence, constitutes threats, or involves obscenity can be restricted (Schenck v. United States, 1919; Brandenburg v. Ohio, 1969

The Second Amendment (1791) protects

 “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.” Its meaning is highly debated—some view it as guaranteeing individual gun ownership, while others see it as tied to service in a “well-regulated militia.”

The Supreme Court clarified in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008),

 that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess firearms, independent of militia service, though reasonable regulations are still permitted

 The Fourth through Eighth Amendments safeguard

the rights of people accused of crimes prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures (Fourth), guaranteeing due process and protection against self-incrimination (Fifth), ensuring fair and speedy trials (Sixth), and banning cruel and unusual punishment (Eighth).   

Ninth Amendment:

The enumeration of specific rights in the Constitution shall not be construed to deny other rights retained by the people. This has been interpreted to include a general right to privacy and other fundamental rights.

Tenth Amendment:

Powers not delegated by the Constitution to the federal government, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states or to the people.

Establishment clause:

Part of the First Amendment that states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” which has been interpreted to mean that Congress cannot sponsor or favor any religion. 

Free exercise clause:

Part of the First Amendment that states that Congress cannot prohibit or interfere with the practice of religion unless there are important secular reasons for doing so.

Lemon test;

 The Supreme Court uses this test, established in Lemon v. Kurtzman, to determine whether a practice violates the First Amendment’s establishment clause.

Wisconsin v. Yoder:

A 1972 case in which the Supreme Court held that compelling Amish students to attend school past the eighth grade violates the free exercise clause. The ruling opened the door to homeschooling, which is a common practice today. 

The First Amendment (ratified 1791)

guarantees two key protections for religion: the Establishment Clause—“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”—and the Free Exercise Clause—“or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Together, they ensure that government cannot sponsor, endorse, or interfere with religion.

As summarized by President James Madison, “The devotion of the people has been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church from the State.”

The Establishment Clause draws boundaries between church and state. The Supreme Court’s modern interpretation began in Engel v. Vitale (1962)

when it struck down a state-sponsored school prayer in New York, igniting decades of debate. The Court reinforced this stance in Wallace v. Jaffree (1985), invalidating Alabama’s “moment of silence for meditation or voluntary prayer.”  

Later rulings, such as Lee v. Weisman (1992) (graduation prayers) and Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe (2000)

(football game prayers), emphasized that school-related prayers could create coercive pressure, violating the Establishment Clause

However, the Court has permitted some legislative prayers under a more “accommodationist” view.

It upheld prayers before Congress and in Town of Greece v. Galloway (2014)), allowing clergy to open town meetings with prayer. 

Most recently, in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022),

the Court allowed a high school football coach to pray privately after games, signaling a shift away from strict separation.

The Court developed several tests to define establishment boundaries.

 In Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), it created the Lemon Test: a government action must (1) have a secular purpose, (2) neither advance nor inhibit religion, and (3) avoid “excessive entanglement.” 

This Lemon test was later replaced by the more lenient endorsement test

whether a “reasonable observer” would view government action as endorsing religion. In Lynch v. Donnelly (1984), a city’s Nativity display was upheld, and the Court joked that a “three plastic animals rule” (adding reindeer or Santa) could make a display secular enough.

In American Legion v. American Humanist Association (2019),

the Court upheld a 40-foot World War I memorial cross on public land, declaring that religious symbols used for “ceremonial or commemorative purposes” do not necessarily violate the Establishment Clause.The decision effectively ended reliance on the Lemon Test. and replaced it with an interpretation grounded in “historical practices and understandings” of the Founders.

The Court has gradually allowed more government aid to religious schools and organizations.

In Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), funding for parochial teachers was struck down, but in later cases, indirect aid was permitted. 

Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue (2020) ruled that states cannot exclude religious schools from scholarship programs funded by public money.

Similarly, in Carson v. Makin (2022), the Court held that Maine could not deny tuition aid to religious schools in rural districts.

The Free Exercise Clause

protects individuals’ right to practice their faith, though religious conduct can be limited for secular reasons. 

In Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)

the Court exempted Amish children from compulsory schooling beyond eighth grade, while Employment Division v. Smith (1990) allowed Oregon to deny benefits to Native Americans fired for using peyote in religious ceremonies, ruling that “neutral laws of general applicability” do not violate free exercise.

Congress responded with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA, 1993)

restoring the requirement that restrictions on religion meet a “compelling government interest.”

Argersinger v Hamlin (1972):

After Jon Argersinger was convicted and sentenced to jail for a misdemeanor in Florida without having a lawyer, the Supreme Court ruled in Argersinger v. Hamlin (1972) that no one may be imprisoned for any offense unless they were provided an attorney or knowingly waived that right.

Benton v Maryland (1969):

After Peter Benton was re-indicted and convicted for larceny in a new trial even though he had already been acquitted of that charge, the Supreme Court in Benton v. Maryland (1969) overturned the conviction and ruled that the Double Jeopardy Clause applies to the states, forbidding a person from being tried again for a crime they were previously found not guilty of.

Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940):

After Newton Cantwell and his sons were arrested in Connecticut for proselytizing without a permit and allegedly disturbing the peace, the Supreme Court in Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940) unanimously ruled that their outreach was protected religious expression and that the state’s permit system unlawfully allowed officials to judge what counted as a “religious” cause. 

De Jonge v Oregon (1937):

After Dirk De Jonge was arrested in Oregon for merely speaking at a peaceful Communist Party meeting that police raided, the Supreme Court in De Jonge v. Oregon (1937) ruled that his conviction violated the Fourteenth Amendment because the state could not punish someone for attending or helping conduct a lawful assembly, regardless of the group’s political affiliation. 

District of Columbia v. Heller (2008):

After D.C. denied special police officer Dick Heller a permit to keep a handgun at home under laws that effectively banned functional firearms, the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) struck down the city’s handgun ban and storage requirements, ruling that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep a functional firearm in the home for self-defense.

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963):

After Clarence Gideon was forced to stand trial in Florida without a lawyer because the state only appointed counsel in capital cases, the Supreme Court in Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) unanimously ruled that the Sixth Amendment requires states to provide attorneys to indigent defendants in all felony prosecutions.

Gitlow v. New York (1925):

After socialist Benjamin Gitlow was convicted in New York for distributing a manifesto advocating revolutionary socialism, the Supreme Court in Gitlow v. New York (1925) upheld his conviction but, for the first time, held that the First Amendment applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. 

Griswold v Connecticut (1965):

After C. Lee Buxton and Estelle Griswold were arrested for providing contraceptive advice in violation of a Connecticut law, the Supreme Court in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) ruled that the Constitution protects a married couple’s right to privacy, invalidating the state’s ban on the use of contraception.

Malloy v Hogan (1964):

After William Malloy was jailed for refusing to testify about criminal activity, the Supreme Court in Malloy v. Hogan (1964) ruled 5-4 that the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.

Mapp v. Ohio (1961):

 After police conducted an illegal search of Dollree Mapp’s home and seized obscene materials, the Supreme Court in Mapp v. Ohio (1961) ruled that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment cannot be used in state courts, establishing the exclusionary rule for states.

Subsequent cases expanded protections:

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014) allowed closely held corporations to deny contraception coverage based on owners’ religious beliefs, and Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer (2017) required equal access for churches to state grants for secular purposes.

Recent rulings reveal a strong tilt toward accommodationism

favoring broader religious liberty and reduced restrictions. The Court now evaluates religion cases through the lens of history and tradition rather than strict separation. This shift underscores the enduring tension between the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses—balancing the Founders’ vision of religious liberty with the evolving realities of faith in public life

The First Amendment (ratified 1791) protects core civil liberties:

freedom of speech, the press, and assembly. These freedoms ensure that citizens can express ideas, criticize government, and participate in democracy. Yet, the Supreme Court has long struggled to balance these rights against public order, morality, and national security, creating a continuum from most protected political speech to less protected forms such as obscenity or defamation.

Free speech began on uncertain footing with the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798

which criminalized criticism of the U.S. government. Thomas Jefferson opposed the acts, pardoned those convicted, and allowed them to expire in 1801, affirming free expression as a democratic cornerstone. 

During World War I, speech limits reappeared in Schenck v. United States (1919)

 where Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. upheld a conviction for anti-draft leaflets, creating the “clear and present danger” test—speech could be punished if it posed an immediate threat to government objectives (“falsely shouting fire in a theater”). 

The First Amendment (1791)

guarantees freedoms of speech, press, and assembly, forming the foundation of American democracy. These rights protect citizens’ ability to express ideas, criticize government, and participate in public discourse.

Alien and Sedition Acts (1798):

Criminalized criticism of government; opposed by Thomas Jefferson, who pardoned those convicted. 

Schenck v. United States (1919):

 Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. upheld conviction for anti-draft leaflets; introduced “clear and present danger” test.

Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969):

Replaced Schenck with “direct incitement test”, protecting speech unless it incites imminent lawless action. Clarence Brandenburg, KKK leader, had conviction overturned.  

Tinker v. Des Moines (1969):

Students wearing armbands to protest Vietnam War protected; symbolic speech recognized. 

Texas v. Johnson (1989):

Flag burning upheld as protected political expression

Snyder v. Phelps (2011):

Westboro Baptist Church protests at military funerals protected as public issue speech 

Buckley v. Valeo (1976):

Campaign spending as protected speech.

Davis v. FEC (2008):

Struck down “Millionaires’ Amendment.”

Citizens United v. FEC (2010):

Corporations and unions allowed unlimited independent political expenditures. 

R.A.V. v. St. Paul (1992):

Overly broad cross-burning law struck down.

Packingham v. North Carolina (2017):

Law barring sex offenders from social media struck down; Internet recognized as modern public square.

Freedom of Assembly

Protected but subject to time, manner, place restrictions.  Frisby v. Schultz (1988): Ban on residential picketing upheld. McCullen v. Coakley (2014): 35-foot abortion clinic buffer zone struck down as overly restrictive. 

Freedom of the Press

New York Times Co. v. United States (1971): Pentagon Papers case; prior restraint rejected. 

New York Times v. Sullivan (1964): Public officials must prove “actual malice” to win libel suits. 

Hustler Magazine v. Falwell (1988): Satire protected under First Amendment.

The First Amendment protects even offensive or unpopular expression.

From Schenck (1919) to Brandenburg (1969) to Snyder v. Phelps (2011), the Supreme Court has emphasized that free speech, press, and assembly are essential to democracy.

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942):

In this landmark case, Walter Chaplinsky, a Jehovah’s Witness, called a city marshal a “God-damned racketeer” and “damned fascist” during a public confrontation in New Hampshire. He was arrested under a state law prohibiting offensive speech in public.  

The Supreme Court unanimously upheld his conviction

establishing the “fighting words” doctrine. The Court ruled that certain words, by their very utterance, inflict injury or incite immediate violence and are therefore not protected by the First Amendment. This case set a clear boundary for speech that threatens public order.

Central Hudson Gas & Electric v. Public Service Commission (1980): In an 8–1 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that commercial speech is protected, but can be regulated if the regulation meets the Central Hudson Test: the speech must be lawful and not misleading; the government’s interest must be substantial; the regulation must directly advance that interest; and it must not be more extensive than necessary. This case established a standard framework for evaluating limits on commercial speech.

During an energy crisis, the Public Service Commission of New York banned utilities from promoting electricity use through advertising. Central Hudson Gas & Electric challenged the ban, arguing it violated their First Amendment rights.  

Miller v. California (1973): (1) appeals to the prurient interest according to contemporary community standards, (2) depicts sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, and (3) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. This case clarified the legal standard for obscenity and gave local communities significant authority to define it.

Marvin Miller was convicted for distributing unsolicited pornographic materials through the mail. The Supreme Court, in a 5–4 decision, created the Miller Test to determine whether material is obscene and therefore unprotected by the First Amendment. The test requires that the material: 

Strict scrutiny:

The highest level of scrutiny the courts can use when determining whether a law is constitutional. To meet this standard, the law or policy must be shown to serve a “compelling state interest” or goal, it must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal, and it must be the least restrictive means of achieving that goal.

Intermediate scrutiny: must use means that are a close fit to the government’s goal and not substantially broader than is necessary to accomplish that goal. 

The middle level of scrutiny the courts can use when determining whether a law is constitutional. To meet this standard, the law or policy must be “content neutral,” must further an important government interest in a way that is “substantially related” to that interest,

Clear and present danger test:

Established in Schenck v. United States, this test allowed the government to restrict certain types of speech deemed dangerous.

Direct incitement test:

Established in Brandenburg v. Ohio, this test protects threatening speech under the First Amendment unless that speech aims to and is likely to cause imminent “lawless action.”

Symbolic speech:

Nonverbal expression, such as the use of signs or symbols. It benefits from many of the same constitutional protections as verbal speech because of its expressive value.

Hate speech:

Expression that is offensive or abusive, particularly in terms of race, gender, or sexual orientation. It is currently protected under the First Amendment. 

Prior restraint:

A limit on freedom of the press that allows the government to prohibit the media from publishing certain materials. 

Fighting words:

Forms of expression that “by their very utterance” can incite violence. These can be regulated by the government but are often difficult to define.

Slander:

Spoken false statements that damage a person’s reputation. They can be regulated by the government but are often difficult to distinguish from permissible speech.

Libel:

Written false statements that damage a person’s reputation. They can be regulated by the government but are often difficult to distinguish from permissible speech.

Commercial speech:

Public expression with the aim of making a profit. It has received greater protection under the First Amendment in recent years but remains less protected than political speech. 

Miller test;

Established in Miller v. California, this three-part test is used by the Supreme Court to determine whether speech meets the criteria for obscenity. If so, it can be restricted by the government.

Tinker v. Des Moines School District:

In 1969, the Supreme Court ruled that students may wear armbands to protest the Vietnam War. The Court noted that the students “were not disruptive and did not impinge upon the rights of others” and therefore their conduct was protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

Benton v Maryland (1969)

After Peter Benton was re-indicted and convicted for larceny in a new trial even though he had already been acquitted of that charge, the Supreme Court in Benton v. Maryland (1969) overturned the conviction and ruled that the Double Jeopardy Clause applies to the states, forbidding a person from being tried again for a crime they were previously found not guilty of.

New York Times Co. v. United States (1971):

The Supreme Court ruled in 1971 that the government could not prevent the publication of the Pentagon Papers, which revealed lies about the progress of the war in Vietnam 

McDonald v. Chicago(2010):

The Supreme Court ruled in 2010 that the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms for self-defense in one’s home is applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.

Second Amendment

refers to the constitutional provision ratified in 1791 stating: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” For more than two centuries, federal courts interpreted it primarily as a collective right tied to state militias rather than an individual right to own guns. 

Interest groups

such as the National Rifle Association argued that the amendment guarantees personal gun ownership. Critics emphasized the first clause and congressional debates at the time, asserting that it was intended to reassure Antifederalists that state militias, not a standing national army, would ensure security. 

Federal Court Interpretation

refers to the Supreme Court rulings on the Second Amendment. Between 1791 and 2007, the Court issued only four rulings directly addressing gun rights.

The landmark case District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008, authored by Justice Antonin Scalia,

recognized for the first time an individual right to possess firearms for self-defense and hunting. The Court struck down the District of Columbia handgun ban but upheld restrictions on felons and the mentally ill.

In McDonald v. Chicago in 2010

the Court extended this protection to the states, invalidating a Chicago ordinance while reaffirming restrictions on ownership.

Gun Legislation

refers to federal and state laws regulating firearm ownership and usage. Following the 1981 assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan,

 Congress passed

 Congress passed the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act in 1993, requiring federal background checks and a five-day waiting period for handgun purchases.  

Since 2012, 45 states passed 465 new gun safety laws, while 39 states allowed relatively easy concealed carry, and 21 states permitted permitless carry by 2021

 compared with four states in 2014. Florida raised the age to purchase firearms to 21, banned bump stocks, and established a three-day waiting period for long guns after the February 14, 2018, Parkland school shooting where Nikolas Cruz killed 17 students and staff at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.

Gun Violence in the United States refers to mass shootings, active shooter events, and other firearm-related tragedies. In 2021, there were 693 mass shootings defined as incidents with four or more victims excluding the shooter.

Between 2000 and 2020, the FBI recorded 373 active shooter incidents including Orlando in 2016, San Bernardino in 2015, Charleston in 2015, and Parkland in 2018. The deadliest single-gunman shooting occurred in Las Vegas on October 1, 2017, when Stephen Paddock killed 60 people and injured 867 at a country music festival. 

Gun Ownership refers to private possession of firearms. The United States has approximately 393 million privately owned guns, representing 46 percent of the world total with 120.5 guns per 100 people.

Comparatively, Yemen has 52.8 per 100 people, Canada 34.7, Germany 19.6, the United Kingdom 4.9, and Japan 0.3. High gun ownership and strong public support make sweeping federal gun control unlikely. 

Recent Federal Actions

 refers to executive and legislative measures following mass shootings. President Donald Trump issued an executive order banning bump stocks in 2018, later overturned by the Supreme Court in 2024. President Joe Biden, beginning in 2021, issued executive orders targeting ghost guns, promoting safe storage, and funding neighborhood-based violence prevention programs. After the May 24, 2022, Uvalde school shooting,  

Congress passed the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act,

strengthening background checks for 18- to 20-year-olds, restricting gun ownership for unmarried domestic violence offenders, incentivizing red flag laws, and funding school safety and youth mental health programs. Litigation, including New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen in 2022, continues to define the boundaries of permissible gun regulations under the Second Amendment. 

Recent Federal Actions

refers to executive and legislative measures following mass shootings. President Donald Trump issued an executive order banning bump stocks in 2018, later overturned by the Supreme Court in 2024. President Joe Biden, beginning in 2021, issued executive orders targeting ghost guns, promoting safe storage, and funding neighborhood-based violence prevention programs.

After the May 24, 2022, Uvalde school shooting, Congress passed the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, strengthening background checks for 18- to 20-year-olds

restricting gun ownership for unmarried domestic violence offenders, incentivizing red flag laws, and funding school safety and youth mental health programs. Litigation, including New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen in 2022, continues to define the boundaries of permissible gun regulations under the Second Amendment 

Due process rights:

The idea that laws and legal proceedings must be fair. The Constitution guarantees that the government cannot take away a person’s “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Other specific due process rights are found in the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments, such as protection from self-incrimination and freedom from illegal searches. 

Exclusionary rule:

The principle that illegally or unconstitutionally acquired evidence cannot be used in a criminal trial.

Miranda rights

The list of civil liberties described in the Fifth Amendment that must be read to a suspect before anything the suspect says can be used in a trial.

Double jeopardy

Being tried twice for the same crime. This is prevented by the Fifth Amendment