AP Gov Unit Three Cases

Reed vs Reed (1971)

struck down arbitrary gender discrimination

Craig v. Boren (1976)

established medium scrutiny/banned disparate drinking ages

Orr v Orr (1979)

alimony payments can’t be only for women

Title IX

education act links equity to federal funding in schools - cannot exclude women from funding in schools

Ledbetter v Goodyear

makes it easier for people to sue for gender discrimination and the pay gap

Civil Liberties

protections for citizens from improper government actions

Positive Liberty

shall clauses

Negative Liberty

Bill of Rights: shall not clauses

Barron v Baltimore (1833)

Bill of Rights does not apply to states

14th Amendment

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge
the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

Americans with Disabilities Act

reasonable accommodations regime/expands definition of handicap/can’t be fired simply for being sick

Gitlow v New York (1925)

states cannot violate the first amendment (selective vs total incorporation)

Establishment Clause

”Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion...”

lawrence v texas

legalizes homosexual relations

Obergefell v Hodges (2015)

legalizes gay marriage in every state and territory

Free Exercise Laws

“...or restricting free exercise thereof”

Masterpiece Cakeshop v Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018)

court rules for baker ON NARROW GROUNDS citing religious hostility (in this one case, this one guy, but cannot set precedent) —→ keeps broader civil rights laws in place)

Government Accomodation (religion)

state cannot show favoritism to one religion over another

303 Creative v Elenis (2023)

State cannot compel designers to create work that violates their values

Lemon v Kurtzman

Can government provide aid to religious schools

Lemon Test

1. Secular Legislative Purpose

2. Primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion

3. Not foster government entanglement with religion

Affirmative Action

Effort to rectify past discrimination that gives historically marginalized groups a little leg up

UC Regents v Bakke (1978)

no quotas —- cannot reserve seats for people with particular backgrounds because says people got in only because of their race

• can USE race, but only as a point system, not a quota

California Prop 209

Cal States/UCs cannot use race at all in admissions

Students for Fair Admissions v Harvard (2023)

court rules that race based admissions programs violate the 14th amendent’s equal protection clause

W. Virginia v. Barnette (1943)

Public schools cannot compel pledge of allegiance

Everson v Board of Education (1947)

Busing for Catholic Schools—-incorporated first amendment

Zelman v Simmons-Harris (2022)

School vouchers ok

Wisconsin v Yoder (1972)

Don’t have to attend school if you have justifiable religious beliefs

Engel v Vitale (1962)

states cannot hold prayer in public schools even if not tied to particular religion or mandatory

Kennedy v Bremerton (2022)

government cannot be “hostile” to religion —- overturns Lemon v Kurtzman

Reynolds v US (1878)

no polygamy/right to belief not to practice

Sherbert v Verner (1963)

State must have “compelling interest” to interfere with free exercise (7th day adventists)

Employment Division v Smith (1990)

Interference ok if not aimed at a particular religion (neutral)

Church of Lukumi Bablu Aye v City of Hialeah (1993)

Restrictions against Santeria church overturned because targeted particular religion

Schenk v US (1919)

“Clear and Present Danger” Test

General Principles of Free Speech

1. No restrictions based
   on views of the group

2. Restrictions based on
   safety may be ok

3. The government is not
   an arbiter of TRUTH.

4. Only government
   needs to respect rights

Brandenburg v Ohio

replaces “clear and present danger” test with “imminent lawless action” test

Brandenburg Test

All three conditions must be met

1. Intention to speak

2. Likelihood of lawless action

3. imminence of lawless action

Roth v US (1957)

obscenity is not protected by free speech

Cohen v California (1971)

“One man’s vulgarity is another man’s lyric”

Miller v California/Miller Test

all three conditions must be met

1) “the average person applying contemporary community standards determines that ] the work appeals to the prurient interest;
2)“[that] the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically banned by the state;
3)“and [that] the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic and scientific value ”

Buckley v Valeo (1976)

upheld limits on political contributions/struck down limits on political expenditures

Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act/McCain-Feingold Act

“I approve this message”

McConnel v FEC (2003)

limits on soft money/limited timing of media ads

Citizen’s United vs FEC (2010)

Partially overruled McConnel v FEC; cannot limit corporate funding for independent political broadcasts in campaign elections

NY times v Sullivan

libel and slander not protected—-except for public figures

US v Alvarez (2012)

officer lied about serving in the military—-not enough to merit exclusion from 1st amendment protection

Chaplinsky v New Hampshire

fighting words not protected (but like hasn’t really meant anything since the case")

Texas v Johnson (1989)

Flag burning is okay

Virginia v Black (2003)

cross burning is okay as long as it is not mean to intimidate

Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of
Boston (1995)

private organizations are permitted to exclude groups if those groups presented a message
contrary to the one the organizing group wanted to convey

Hazelwood v Kuhlmeier (1988)

School papers get less protection (free speech)

Bethel School District v Frasier (1986)

Innuendo and gestures are not protected at school

Morse v Frederick (2007)

student speech does not extend to promoting drug use

Canady v Bossier Parish school board (2001)

Public schools can require a dress code that is viewpoint neutral

Jacobs v Clark County (2008)

Upheld a dress code that prohibited religious messaging

Charter day school (2023)

requiring skirts for females —- courts ruled against school

Tinker v Des Moines (1962)

Students wear black arm bands promoting Vietnam — students retain rights unless they create a material disruption

NYT v US (1971)

Nixon tried to block NYT from publishing leaked classified documents National Security v a free press. Since publication would not cause an inevitable, direct, and immediate event imperiling the safety of American forces, prior restraint was unjustified

Freedom of Assembly

no restrictions based on group, but time, manner, etc. restrictions are okay —- Nazi March on Skokie

Snyder v Phelps (2011)

Westboro Baptist Church legal in protests

McDonald v Chicago (2010)

2nd amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms

NYSRPA v Bruen

Procedural Due Process

Procedures protect people from government abuse of legitimate laws

Substantive Due Process

Protects people from legislation that exceeds legitimate authority (rights cannot be infringed even with “due process of law”)

4th amendment

Stops unreasonable searches and seizures

Mapp v Ohio (1961)

exclusionary rule —- evidence collected illegally is not allowed to be used

Exclusionary Exceptions

Civil cases
Grand Juries
Evidenced obtained by a private party.
“good faith” rule.
Evidence would have been found later.

Veronia School district v Acton (1995)

schools can use random drug testing as part of a drug control policy

Illinois v Wardlow (2000)

suspects who run from the police create “reasonable suspicion”

Kyllo v US (2001)

thermal imaging to detect marijuana is an unreasonable search and seizure

Warrantless Searches

Plain View
Exigent Circumstances
Motor Vehicles
Border Searches
International Communications, possibly e-mail

New Jersey v TLO (1985)

Reasonable suspicion needed to search, not probable cause at schools

Safford Unified School District v Redding (2009)

content of suspicion must match decree of intrusion

5th Amendment

prevents self-incrimination, just compensation clause

Miranda v Arizona (1966)

Right to remain silent
Anything said can be evidence.
Right to have counsel present.

6th Amendment/Gideon v Wainright (1963)

Right to counsel

Kelo v City of London (2005)

a city, acting in pursuit of its development plan, could seize property and then sell the property to a private developer.

Furman v Georgia (1972)

defacto ban on capital punishment

Gregg v Georgia (1976)

death penalty not cruel nor unusual

Herrera v Collina (1993)

innocence not grounds for federal habeus relief

Griswold v Connecticut (1965)

Struck down bans on physician discussions of birth control as a violation of privacy.

Roe v Wade (1973)

struck down abortion bans because they violated privacy rights

Dobbs v Jackson (2022)

overturns Roe v Wade; states decide on abortion

Riley v California (2014)

digital data on phones has some protection during arrest

Bowers v Hardwick (1987)

upheld georgia anti sodomy laws

Romer v Evans (1996)

Colorado could not prevent local government from protecting gays

Boy Scouts of America v Dale (2000)

right to free association overrides scoutmaster’s right to privacy

Civil Rights

policies designed to protect against arbitrary or discriminatory actions by the government

US v Carolene (1938)

established 3 levels of scrutiny for the 14th amendment

Strict Scrutiny

used when a law makes “inherently suspect” classifications (race/national origin/religion)

1."discrete" or "insular" minority.
2.possess an immutable trait
3.share a history of Discrimination.
4.are powerless to protect themselves via the political process.

Intermediate Scrutiny

Law is unconstitutional unless it is "substantially related"
to an "important" government interest. (GENDER)

Rational Basis Test

Requires that governmental action
be "rationally related" to a "legitimate" government interest (age/disability/political orientation)

1964 Civil Rights Act

basically banned racial discrimination

Korematsu v US (1944)

upheld internment for japanese americans in WWII