IRAC Cases for Exam 2

Gideon v Wainwright

Issue: Does the Sixth Amendment right to counsel apply to state criminal defendants through the Fourteenth Amendment?

Rule: The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to counsel, and under the Fourteenth Amendment, this right is fundamental and applies to the states.

Application: Gideon was denied an attorney because Florida only provided counsel in capital cases. Without a lawyer, he could not adequately defend himself against the state.

Conclusion: Yes. The Court held Gideon's rights were violated. States must provide attorneys to indigent defendants in felony cases.

Miranda v Arizona

Issue: Are statements made during custodial interrogation admissible if the suspect was not informed of their rights?

Rule: Under the Fifth Amendment, individuals must be informed of their rights (Miranda warnings) before custodial interrogation.

Application: Miranda confessed without being told he could remain silent or request an attorney.

Conclusion: No. The confession was inadmissible.

Green v United States

Issue: Does retrying a defendant for a greater offense after conviction of a lesser offense violate double jeopardy?

Rule: The Fifth Amendment prohibits double jeopardy, including retrial after an implied acquittal.

Application: Green was convicted of second-degree murder, meaning the jury implicitly rejected first-degree murder.

Conclusion: Yes. Retrying him for first-degree murder violated double jeopardy.

Coy v Iowa

Issue: Does placing a screen between a defendant and witnesses violate the Confrontation Clause?

Rule: The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to face-to-face confrontation unless a specific necessity is shown.

Application: Coy could not directly face his accusers because of a screen used to protect child witnesses.

Conclusion: Yes. This violated the Confrontation Clause.

Barker v Wingo

Issue: Was Barker's Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial violated?

Rule: Courts use a 4-factor balancing test:

Length of delay

Reason for delay

Defendant's assertion of the right

Prejudice to defendant

Application: Delay was long, but Barker didn't strongly assert his right and showed little prejudice.

Conclusion: No violation.

Brandenburg v Ohio

Issue: Can the government punish inflammatory speech advocating violence?

Rule (TEST): Speech is protected unless it is: ➡️ (1) Intended to incite imminent lawless action AND ➡️ (2) Likely to produce it

Application: Brandenburg (KKK leader) made racist/violent speech, but it was not imminent or likely to produce immediate action.

Conclusion: Protected speech → conviction overturned.

Ward v Rock Against

Issue: Can the government regulate sound volume at concerts?

Rule (TEST): Time, Place, Manner Test (content-neutral):

Content neutral

Narrowly tailored

Significant government interest

Alternative channels available

Application: NYC controlled volume to prevent noise issues → not about content.

Conclusion: Valid regulation.

Employment Division v Smith

Issue: Can a neutral law burden religious practices?

Rule: Neutral, generally applicable laws → valid even if they burden religion

Application: Ban on peyote use applied to everyone → not targeting religion.

Conclusion: No violation.

Kennedy v. Bremerton School District

Issue: Does a public school violate the Establishment Clause by allowing a coach to pray?

Rule: Private religious expression is protected unless coercive.

Application: Coach prayed after games → not official school speech.

Conclusion: Protected under Free Exercise + Free Speech.

District of Columbia v Heller

Issue: Does the Second Amendment protect an individual right to bear arms?

Rule: Yes — individual right for self-defense in the home.

Application: DC banned handguns → violates individual right.

Conclusion: Unconstitutional.

Plessy v Ferguson

Issue: Is racial segregation constitutional?

Rule: "Separate but equal" allowed.

Application: Segregated railcars deemed equal.

Conclusion: Constitutional (later overturned).

Brown v Board of Education

Issue: Does segregation violate Equal Protection?

Rule: Segregation is inherently unequal.

Application: Separate schools harm minority students.

Conclusion: Unconstitutional.

Craig v Boren

Issue: Is gender discrimination constitutional?

Rule (TEST): Intermediate Scrutiny:

Important government interest

Substantially related

Application: Different drinking ages → weak justification.

Conclusion: Unconstitutional.

Railway Express Agency v New York

Issue: Can government regulate advertising differently?

Rule: Rational basis test

Application: Ad ban applied unevenly but rational.

Conclusion: Constitutional.

Loving v Virginia

Issue: Can states ban interracial marriage?

Rule: Race → strict scrutiny

Application: No compelling interest.

Conclusion: Unconstitutional.

Mathews v Eldridge

Issue: What process is due before benefits are terminated?

Rule (TEST): 3-factor balancing:

Private interest

Risk of error

Government interest

Conclusion: No hearing required before termination.

Lochner v. New York

Issue: Can the state limit working hours?

Rule: Freedom of contract (substantive DP).

Conclusion: Law invalid (now rejected).

Roe v. Wade

Issue: Is abortion protected?

Rule: Privacy right under substantive DP.

Conclusion: Protected (now overturned).

Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization

Issue: Is abortion a constitutional right?

Rule: Only rights deeply rooted in history are protected.

Conclusion: No → Roe overturned.

Palko v. Connecticut

Issue: Does double jeopardy apply to states?

Rule: Only fundamental rights incorporated.

Conclusion: Not incorporated (later changed).