Civil Liberties and First Amendment Cases

Flashcards covering key terms and concepts related to civil liberties and First Amendment cases.

Establishment Clause

Prevents the government from establishing an official religion or unduly favoring one religion over another.

Child Benefit Theory

Legal principle allowing indirect support of religious institutions through benefits to parents, as long as the support is not direct.

Engel v. Vitale (1962)

Supreme Court case ruling that non-denominational prayer in public schools is unconstitutional.

Abington v. Schempp (1963)

Supreme Court ruling that Bible reading in public schools is unconstitutional.

Free Exercise Clause

Protects individuals' rights to practice their religion without government interference, as long as actions do not violate laws.

Schenck v. United States (1918)

Established the 'clear and present danger' test for regulating speech that presents a significant threat.

Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)

Established the 'imminent lawless action' test, providing the highest protection for political speech.

Bad Tendency Test

Allows government to regulate speech if it has a tendency to produce illegal actions, setting a low standard for intervention.

Clear and Present Danger Test

A standard for restricting speech if it poses a clear and immediate threat to public safety.

Imminent Lawless Action Test

Requires government to demonstrate that speech is likely to incite immediate violence or lawless action.

balance between indiv liberty VS. govt power to regulate liberties

The tension between individual freedoms and the government's authority to impose restrictions on those freedoms in order to maintain order and protect the public. This balance often involves legal interpretations of constitutional rights and can vary based on judicial rulings and societal values.

Marbury; CJ Marshall; writ of mandamus; Judiciary Act of 1789 extended original jurisdiction to SC – but CJ Marshall declared that unconstitutional – why?

The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Chief Justice John Marshall, held that the law granting the court the authority to issue a writ of mandamus in this case was unconstitutional.

judicial restrain tends to have a what point of view

conservative point of view

judicial activism tends to have what point of view

liberal point of view

Consider DC vs Heller

The Supreme Court was accused of judicial activism, with critics claiming it was not a decision that favored either conservatives or liberals.

Constraints on Judicial review

2002: Zelman v. Simmons-Harris

Ohio vouchers to parents to use for private/religious schools was constitutionally OK

Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe

THIS was student-led prayer on football field, where the Court said it was NOT constitutional as govt establishment of religion

Reynolds v. US

religious beliefs (protected) vs. action (polygamy not protected) distinction

 Bremerton

Court allowed (as constitutionally protected free exercise) football coach to pray on field after game, despite concern from some students of possible coercion

Cantwell (Jehovah’s Witness Case)

 street proselytizing religion is protected religious free exercise

Bad tendency test: (Pierce, 1920)

favors government, disfavors liberty (test is LOW bar/easy for govt to pass: govt can interfere with your liberty here when your speech is only abstract and not specific: meaning, your speech can be mild, non-threatening, and yet, govt can regulate it with minimal justification)

Clear and present danger: (Schenck, 1918)

 test for govt is a little harder (bar is SLIGHTLY HIGHER for govt to pass this test/to interfere with speech), so, slightly more protection for liberty here than in bad tendency

-Imminent, lawless action: (Brandenburg, 1969

 replaces clear and present danger test; HIGH bar for govt to pass means greatest protection for liberty (meaning, in order for govt to interfere with your liberty, govt needs to prove that serious, violent action will result from your political speech) (think: how would this “test” work re: Jan 6 rioters? Could rioters claim they were exercising political speech that should be protected from government interference? Or would the government be justified in using its power to arrest rioters whose actions went beyond “pure speech” and veered into “imminent lawless action”?