American Government - Unit 2

Chapter 4 (Civil Liberties), Chapter 5 (Equal Rights), and Chapter 6 ()

United States v. Jones (2012)

FBI and police secretly put a GPS on Jones’ car and tracked him, leading to his arrest for conspiracy to sell drugs. The Supreme Court ruled that this action constituted a violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, emphasizing the need for a warrant. 9-0 vote in the Supreme Court.

Civil Liberties

The fundamental individual rights of a free society, such as freedom of speech and the right to a jury trial, which in the United States are protected by the Bill of Rights

Points of Civil Liberties

-Freedom of expression is the most basic of democratic rights, but, like all rights, is not unlimited

-”Due Process” refers to legal protections, like procedural safeguards, designed to ensure that individual rights are respected by the government

-Over the course of U.S. History, Americans’ civil liberties have been expanded in law and been more fully protected by the courts (14th Amendment)

-Individual rights are constantly being weighed against the collective interests of society

Bill of Rights

Ratified in 1791, the first ten amendments to the Constitution. Rights such as freedom of speech, religion, and due process for a person accused of crimes.

Reconstruction Act

Came about when southern states enacted laws that denied former slaves their rights. Congress tried to pass an amendment, but the southern states refused to pass it. The Reconstruction act placed southern states under military rule until they did so

Due Process Clause

A clause of the constitution (included in the 14th amendment) that has been used by the judiciary to apply Bill of Rights protections to the actions of the state government (formerly only applied at the Federal level)

Gitlow v. New York

A landmark Supreme Court case in 1925 that held that the First Amendment's protections of free speech apply to states through the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause, thereby extending federal protections to state actions.

Fiske v. Kansas

invalidated state laws restricting expression in the areas of speech

Near v. Minnesota

invalidated state laws restricting expression in the areas of press. Near was a publisher that made defamatory statements about blacks, jews, catholics, and labor union leaders. Minnesota law banned these statements, closing down his paper. The Supreme Court ruled in Near’s favor, saying Minnesota law was the essence of censorship.

Hamilton v. Regents, University of California

invalidated state laws restricting expression in the areas of religion

DeJonge v. Oregon

invalidated state laws restricting expression in the areas of assembly and petition

Mapp v. Ohio (1961)

Police forcibly entered Mapp’s home, saying they got a tip she was harboring a fugitive. They did not find a suspect, but arrested her and searched her possessions, where they found obscene photographs. She was convicted under Ohio law. The Supreme Court ruled in her favor, as the police acted unconstitutionally, citing the 14th amendment on unreasonable search and seizure.

Defendants in state criminal proceedings must be provided a lawyer if…

they cannot afford to hire one, cannot be compelled to testify against themselves, have the right to remain silent and to have legal counsel at the time of arrest, have the right to confront witnesses who testify against them, must be granted a speedy trial, have the right to a jury, and cannot be subjected to double jeopardy

Selective Incorporation

Certain rights contained in the Bill of Rights become applicable through the 14th Amendment to actions by the state govermments

Freedom of Expression

Americans’ freedom to communicate their views, the foundation of which is the first amendment rights of freedom of conscience, speech, press, assembly, and petition

Commercial Speech

Forms of expression not protected by the first amendment (like pharmacy companies being required by law to disclose harmful side effects, or child pornography)

Speech under the First Amendment

Free to say almost anything except that which is obscene, slanders another person, or has a high probability of inciting others to take imminent lawless action

Press under the First Amendment

free to write or publish almost anything except that which is obscene, libels another person, or seriously endangers military action or national security

Assembly under the First Amendment

free to assemble, although government may regulate the time and place for reasons of public convenience and safety, provided such regulations are applied evenly to all groups

Religion under the First Amendment

you are protected from government imposed religious reliefs and are free to believe what you like

Sedition Act of 1798

made it a crime to print newspaper stories that criticized the Nation Government’s authority. TJ referred to it as an “alarming infraction” of the Constitution. He pardoned those who were convicted under it.

Restrictions on Free Speech

Did not start until the 20th century, as the US began to involve itself in world affairs. The government began to restrict expression that it believed was a danger to national security

1917 Espionage Act

prohibited forms of dissent that could harm the nation’s effort in WW1

Schenck v. United States (1919)

Supreme Court upheld the conviction of defendants who had distributed leaflets urging draft-age men to refuse induction into the military. “posed a clear and present danger to the nation’s security)

Clear-and-Present-Danger Test

Test devised by the Supreme Court in 1919 to define the limits of free speech in the context of national security. According to the test, government cannot abridge political expression unless it presents a clear and present danger to the nation’s security (government must demonstrate that spoken or written expression presents a clear and present danger before it can prohibit the expression.

Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)

Speech at a KKK rally, Brandenburg said revenge might have to be taken if the national government “continues to suppress the white race.” He was convicted under an Ohio Law, but the Supreme Court overturned it, saying a state cannot prohibit speech that advocates unlawful use of force unless it meets a two part test. 1) Must be directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action and 2) must be likely to produce such action

Imminent Lawless Action

legal test that says government cannot lawfully suppress advocacy that promotes lawless action unless such advocacy is aimed at producing, and is likely to produce, imminent lawless action

Synder v. Phelps (2011)

Pastor Fred Phelps led a protest demonstration at the funeral of a U.S. Marine killed in Iraq. It was directed at what Phelps and his church believes is America’s tolerance of gays and lesbians. With signs that said “fag troops” and “thank god for dead soldiers.” they were otherwise orderly and stayed a distance from the service. The U.S. Marines’ father sued for emotional distress and was awarded $5 million in a federal trial. The Supreme Court overturned the decision, stating that although the protest was hurtful, it was protected under 1st Amendment

Symbolic Speech

action for the purpose of expressing a political opinion (like burning the flag)

Free Assembly Case: Skokie, Illinois

Skokie had a large Jewish population. Someone had a parade put on by the American Nazi Party. Supreme Court upheld the right of free assembly takes precedence over the mere possibility that the exercise of that right might have bad consequences. Before the government can precent a speech or rally, it has to demonstrate that the event will cause harm and that it lacks an alternative way to prevent harm.

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

Court ruled that the Times’s publication of pentagon papers (revealed how officials had decieved the public about aspects of the Vietnam War) could not be blocked by the government, who claimed ant publication would harm war effort. Court ruled that any system of prior restraints in the press is unconstitutional unless the government can provide a compelling reason the material shouldn’t be published.

Prior Restraint

Government prohibition of speech or publication before the fact, which is presumed by the courts to be unconstitutional unless the justification for it is overwhelming

Libel

the publication of false material that damages a person’s reputation

Slander

Spoken falsehoods that damage a person’s reputation

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964)

Supreme Court overruled an Alabama state court that found the NYT guilty of libel for publishing an ad that claimed Alabama officials had mistreated civil rights activities. SC said that libel of a public official requires proof of malice, aka reckless or knowing disregard for the truth, they could not prove the writers did that. No public official has won a libel case against a news outlet in five decades since this ruling.

Establishment Clause

First amendment provision stating that government may not favor one religion over another or favor religion over no religion and prohibiting Congress from passing laws respecting the establishment of religion

Engel v. Vitale (1962)

Court largely prohibits religious practices in public schools. This case held that the establishment clause prohibits the reciting of prayers in public schools. Later, reading the Bible was not allowed.

Wall-of-Seperation Doctrine

separation of church and state

Accommodation Doctrine

Allows the government ro aid religious activity if no preference is shown toward a particular religion and if the assistance is of a nonreligious nature

Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)

Case that involves state funding of the salaries of religious school instructors who teach secular subjects, like math and English. The court came up with a three-point test (Lemon test). The court held that the state funding of the salaries of religious school teachers failed the test because even an instructor, even though teaching math or science, could allow the time for religious teaching.

Lemon Test

Test to determine whether a law relating to religion is valid under the religious establishment clause. To be valid, a law must have a secure purpose, serve neither to advance nor inhibit religion, and avoid excessive government entanglement with religion.

Free-Exercise Clause

A first amendment provision that prohibits the government from interfering with the practice of religion

Oregon v. Smith (1990)

Court upheld Oregon’s ban on the use of peyote even though the drug was part of a religious ritual, saying that the ban was not aimed at preventing free exercise of religion but rather directed at anyone who would seek the use of peyote.

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores

Court held that companies with few owners are not required to include contraceptives in employees’ health insurance coverage if the owners object on religious grounds. Stemmed from ACA. Court majority said requirement violates owners’ free-exercise rights.

Griswold v. Connecticut

Challenged a state law prohibiting the use of condoms and other birth control devices even by married couples. Supreme Court struck down the law, concluding the state has no business dictating a married couples birth control. Related to the 5th and 14th amendment, the court implied a right of privacy

Right of Privacy

A right implied by the freedoms in the Bill of Rights that grants individuals a degree of personal privacy upon which government cannot lawfully intrude. The right gives individuals a level of free choice in areas such as reproduction and intimate relations

Bowers v. Hardwick

Supreme Court held that the right of privacy did not extend to consensual sexual relations of the same sex

Lawrence v. Texas

Supreme Court ruled that the states’ sodomy laws violate the “right of privacy” implied by the grant of liberty in the 14th amendment’s due process clause. Stated that states cannot lawfully ban sexual relations between consenting same-sex adults. (Supreme Court then legalized same-sex marriage in 2015)

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022)

Court held that women do not have a constitutional right to an abortion, overturning the 1973 decision of Roe v. Wade

Roe v. Wade (1973)

Declared women have a right to privacy that gives them freedom to choose abortion during the first three months of pregnancy. Court held that the right of privacy is “broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.”

Webster v. Reproductive Health Services and Planned Parenthood v. Casey

Both cases that the Supreme Court upheld in favor of laws that restrict abortions

The aftermath of Roe v. Wade being overturned

millions of women took to the streets to support/oppose the ruling. The issue is now being resolved in 50 state legislatures, rather than the Supreme Court. Seen as a leading election issue

Procedural Due Process

Constitutional requirement that government must follow proper legal procedures before a person can legitimately be punished for an alleged offense.

5th and 14th Amendment

Generally, no person can be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of the law

Amendments with specific procedural protections

4th, 5th, 6th, 8th

Fourth Amendment

Search and Seizure: protected from unreasonable searches and seizures, although you forfeit that right if you knowingly wave it

Arrest: You are protected from arrest unless authorities have probable cause to believe that you have committed a crime

Fifth Amendment

Self Incrimination: you are protected against self-incrimination, which means that you have the right to remain silent and to be protected against coercion by law enforcement

Double Jeopardy: you cannot be tried twice for the same crime if the first trial results in an acquittal

Due Process: you cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property without proper legal proceedings

Sixth Amendment

Counsel: you have a right to be represented by an attorney and can demand to speak first with an attorney before responding to questions from law enforcement officials

Prompt and Reasonable Proceedings: You have a right to be arraigned promptly, to be informed of charges, to confront witnesses, and to have a speedy and open trial by an impartial jury

Eighth Amendment:

Bail: You are protected against excessive bails or fines

Cruel and Unusual Punishment: You are protected from cruel and unusual punishment, although this provision does not protect you from the death penalty or from a long prison term for a minor offense

Riley v. California, United States v. Wuire

Court noted that although police upon an arrest can search and seize relevant physical items from the suspect, cell phones/electronic devices are different in that they store large amounts of personal data. In turn, evidence found on the cell phone without a warrant could not be used against criminals in a trial.

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

Miranda confessed to kidnapping and rape during police questioning. However, his conviction was overturned as the police had not informed him of his rights to remain silent and have legal assistance. “Suspects need to know their constitutional rights.” Now, police always read the “miranda rights” during an arrest.

Johnson v. Zerbst (1938) and Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

In Johnson v. Zerbst, SC upheld that criminal defendants in federal cases must be provided a lawyer at the governments expense if they cannot afford one. It then was extended to the states in Gideon v. Wainwright

Exclusionary Role

The legal principle that government is prohibited from using in trials evidence that was obtained by unconstitutional means (like illegal search and seizure)

Good Faith Exceptions

otherwise inadmissible evidence can be used in a trial if police honestly thought they were following proper procedures, as when they obtained a search warrant that turned out to be faulty.

Inevitable Discovery Exception

even if incriminating evidence is wrongly obtained, ir can be used if it would have inevitably been discovered by lawful means

Plain View Exception

holds that evidence found in plain sight is admissible even when the evidence relates to an infraction other than the one for which the individual was stopped, as when a driver is pulled over for speeding and the officer spots illegal drugs in the back seat.

Appeals

The constitution does not promise appeals, but federal and state governments allow for at least one (and typically only one).

Racial Profiling

Targeting individuals from minority groups, particularly Blacks, Hispanics, and Muslims

Korematsu v. United States (1944)

Supreme Court upheld the policy (from FDR and endorsed by Congress) to send tens of thousands of Japanese Americans to detention camps in Arizona after Pearl Harbor.

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006)

After 9/11, Bush set forth harsh detention policies. Bush admin was also using secret military tribunals to try detainees. Court ruled that this was unlawful because the detainees did not have minimal protection, like seeing the evidence against them.

USA Patriot Act

Gave the government additional tools for combating terrorism, like expanded surveillence.

NSA

National Security Agency, collected americans’ phone records to detect activity that could be terrorism related. NSA had to get a warrant before it could tap devices. NSA got leaked in 2013, and was challenged in court for not being approved by Congress. After a long debate, it was approved by Congress, with limits.

Rights that the Bill of Rights is obliged to protect

The right to a jury trial, protection from unreasonable searches, the right to a legal counsel

District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)

DoC had banned the possession of handguns within its boundaries. The court rejected the argument, as the 2nd amendment was used to protect militias, saying instead that the second amendment protects an individuals right to have a gun for traditionally lawful purposes.

United States v. Miller (1939)

Challenged a federal law banning the interstate shipment of sawed-off shotguns. Court upheld the ban, saying that such weapons did not have any relation to the preservation or efficiency of a militia

Weeks v. United States (1914)

Evidence obtained in violation of the defendants right —> exclusionary rule (to deter police from violating people’s rights) —> SC said the tendency of those who execute criminal laws of the country to obtain convictions by means of unlawful searches and enforced confessions… should find no sanction in the judgement of the courts

Equal (Civil) Rights

The right of every person to equal protection under the laws and equal access to society’s opportunities and public facilities

Negative vs. Positive Rights

Negative rights are protected when the government does not act, Positive rights require government action if they are to be realized

Fourteenth Amendment

no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

Equal-Protection Clause

Clause from 14 that forbids any state to deny equal protection of the laws to any individual within its jurisdiction

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

Court ruled that “separate” public facilities for Black citizens did not violate the constitution as long as the facilities were equal. Later on became a justification for the “separate but unequal” treatment of African American citizens

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954)

Linda Brown, a black child in KS, was denied admission to a white elementary school that was a mile closer than the all-black school she walked to everyday. The court ruled that under the 14th amendment/equal protection clause, separate educational facilities were unequal. Did not force states to enact these laws

Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg County Board of Education (1971)

SC upheld the busing of children out of their neighborhoods to achieve racially integrated schools. (This did reduce the racial biases, but made for long bus days and white flight). This was overturned in 2007

Reasonable-Basis Test

a test applied by courts to laws that treat individuals unequally. Such a law may be deemed constitutional if its purpose is held to be reasonably related to a legitimate government interest

Suspect Classifications

Legal Classifications, such as race and national origin, that have invidious discrimination as their purpose and therefore are unconstitutional

Strict-Scrutiny Test

a test applied by courts to laws that attempt a racial or ethnic classification. In effect, the strict-scrutiny test eliminates race or ethnicity as legal classification when it places minority-group members at a disadvantage

Strict-Scrutiny

Race and ethnicity; Suspect category - assumed unconstitutional in the absense of an overwhelming justification

Intermediate Scrutiny

Gender; almost suspect category - assumed unconstitutional unless the law serves a compelling and justified purpose

Reasonable Bias

Not suspect category - assumed constitutional unless no sound rationale for the law can be provide

Loving v. Virginia (1967)

Loving, a white man, and Jeter, an african american and native american woman, got married in DC and returned home to Virginia. Police then invaded their home and arrested them (ban of interracial marriage did not violate the equal-protection clause). SC ruled otherwise, stating Virginia law was subversice to the principle of equality