AP Gov important cases (unfinished)

Engel vs Vitale (1962)

Facts: A public school adopted a daily prayer. The prayer was non-denominational and optional.

Issues: Is the classroom reading of a non-denominational, optional prayer violate the establishment clause of the first amendment?

Holdings: Yes, the establishment clause prohibits the reading of a prayer in public schools.

Wisconsin vs Yoder (1972)

Facts: Amish families challenged a Wisconsin law that required children attend school until 16 years old. The Amish said it violated their religious beliefs because their religion wanted children to learn skills and values needed within their society.

Issues: Do laws that require school attendance violate the free exercise clause of the first amendment?

Holdings: Yes, they violate the free exercise clause. The state cannot show an interest of “the highest order”, which can’t be achieved another way.

Reynolds vs U.S

Employment Division of the state of Oregon vs Smith (1990)

Facts: Smith was a drug councilor and a practitioner of his Native American religion. Part of his religion was drinking tea with peyote, an illegal hallucinogen. He was fired from his job and tried to get unemployment benefits but was denied due to drug usage. Smith sued and said the state violated the free exercise clause.

Issues: Did Oregon violate the free exercise clause?

Holdings: No, your religious practice is not protected if what you are doing is illegal or harmful.

Schenck vs U.S. (1919)

Facts: Charles Schenck and Elizabeth Baer produced and distributed over 15 thousand fliers encouraging draft age men to avoid conscription during World War One. Both were convicted of violating the Espionage Act of 1917. Schenck argued that their activities were protected by the first amendment.

Issues: Is the publication and distribution of literature urging resistance to a military draft protected speech under the first amendment?

Holdings: No, under a wartime context, the first amendment does not protect speech promotion resistance to the draft; however, it would be protected during peacetime.

Brandenburg vs Ohio (1969)

Facts: Brandenburg was the leader of the KKK. They had a meeting north of Cincinnati in a cornfield. TV recorded him saying “If the govt. did not stop oppression the white race, it’s possible that there might have to be some revengance taken”. He was arrested for seditious speech.

Issues: Did Ohio law, which prohibited advocating for various illegal activities, violate Brandenburg’s right to free speech?

Holdings: Yes, the Ohio law was unconstitutional, because it punished mere abstract advocacy of violence than that was likely to and intended to produce imminent lawless action.

New York Times vs Sullivan

Tinker vs Des Moines (1969)

Facts: Several students wore black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam war. The students did not disrupt anything but were sent home. The parents sued claiming a violating of the students free speech rights

Issues:Does freedom of speech apply to public school students? Is wearing black armbands considered speech?

Holdings: The first Amendment protects student speech. Wearing armbands is a form of speech.

New York Times vs U.S. (1971)

Facts: The NYT and Washington Post obtained extensive content of a classified government report about the war in Vietnam. The NYT began publishing articles on the report, so the government obtained a restraining order on them to stop them. (Prior restraint)

Issues: May the govt. prevent the publication of information that may cause harm to the government or its people?

Holdings: The govt. is not entitled to prevent newspapers from publishing classified information that may be embarrassing or cause harm to the government.

D.C. vs Heller (2008)

Facts: Washington D.C. made it illegal to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibited the registration of handguns. It also required owners to keep them unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock. Anthony Heller sued and claimed it violated his second amendment right.

Issues: Do the provisions of the D.C. code that restrict the licensing of handguns and required licensed firearms kept in the home be kept nonfunctional violate the 2nd amendment?

Holdings: The ban on registering handguns and the requirement to keep guns in the home disassembled or nonfunctional violate the 2nd amendment.

McDonald vs Chicago (2010)

Facts: A Chicago ordinance banned the ownership of handguns. Otis McDonald, a resident who lived in a dangerous neighborhood and victim of crime on several occasions, sued the city for violating his right to keep and bear arms.

Issues: Does the 2nd Amendments guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms apply against infringement by state & local govts?

Holdings: The 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms against infringement by state and local govts.

Mapp vs Ohio (1962)

Facts: Police went to the home of Dollree Mapp, believing she may be hiding a fugitive. Mapp asked if they had a warrant and they did not so they had to leave. They returned later, lying about having a warrant, forced their way in and searched the home. They did not find the fugitive but they did find obscene materials. The evidence was used against Mapp in trial, but she appealed her conviction since the evidence was obtained in violation of her 4th amendment rights.

Issues: May evidence obtained in violation of a suspects constitutional rights be used against them at court?

Holdings: Illegally obtained evidence may not be used against a defendant at trial (exclusionary rule).

Miranda vs Arizona (1962)

Facts: Ernesto Miranda was arrested on suspicion of rape and kidnapping, and interrogated for two hours. He confessed to the crime, and his confession was used as evidence at the trial. Miranda argued that he did not know and was not informed that he had a right to remain silent or to an attorney. His confession was coerced and could not be used against him.

Issues: Must the govt. guarantee that suspects in custody are aware of their constitutional rights?

Holdings: The govt. must ensure that suspects in custody are aware of their rights before being questioned.

Gideon vs Wainwright (1963)

Facts: Gideon was a wandering homeless man and was charged with stealing wine and coins from a cigarette machine. He was too poor to hire an attorney, so he asked the judge for one, but was denied under Florida law. Gideon was convicted of robbery and appealed his conviction on the basis of the 6th amendment right to “have the assistance of a counsel for his defense”.

Issues: Does the 6th amendment right to counsel (lawyer) apply in all cases, not just those involving severe penalties? Does the 6th amendment right to counsel apply to states?

Holdings: The 6th amendment right to counsel applies to all felony cases. The 6th amendment applies to the states under the due process clause of the 14th amendment.