American Government Exam 2 Chapters 4 and 5

Civil Libirties

basic individual rights and freedoms, guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

These protect people from government overreach and interference. 

Freedom of speech 

Freedom of religion 

Freedom of Assembly 

Protection from unreasonable searches and seizures.

Due Process of Law:

 ensures that the government acts fairly and follows established rules and procedures before it can deprive a person of life, liberty, or property. It requires that people are given adequate notice of government action against them and a fair opportunity to present their case before an impartial decision-maker. 

Two types of due process

procedural and substantive

procedural due process

which concerns the methods and fairness of the procedures used

substantive due process

which examines whether the laws themselves violate fundamental right

1st Amendment, free expression:

The First Amendment protects the freedoms of expression by prohibiting government interference with speech, press, religion, assembly, and the right to petition.

It guarantees the right to express opinions, even unpopular ones, but this freedom is not absolute, with some categories of speech receiving lesser or no protection, including defamation, true threats, incitement to imminent violence, obscenity, and fraud. 

O.W. Holmes-”Clear and Present Danger:

Oliver Wendell Holmes

was a doctrine adopted by the Supreme Court of the United States to determine under what circumstances limits can be placed on First Amendment freedoms of speech, press, or assembly.

Symbolic Speech; TX v. Johnson (1989)

the Supreme Court ruled that burning the American flag is a form of "symbolic speech" protected by the First Amendment, as it conveyed a particular political message and did not pose a direct threat to public order.

Prior Restraint on Publication; NY Times v. Johnson (1971

also known as the Pentagon Papers case, which addressed prior restraint on publication.

The Supreme Court ruled that the government could not prevent the New York Times from publishing the classified Pentagon Papers, finding that the government had not met the heavy burden of proving that publication would cause immediate, irreparable harm to national security.

The Leak:

1. Daniel Ellsberg, a military analyst, leaked a top-secret history of the U.S. involvement in Vietnam, known as the Pentagon Papers, to the New York Times.

Government Action

1. The Nixon administration sought an injunction to stop the publication, arguing that it would jeopardize national security.

The Legal Challenge

1. The government's attempt to impose "prior restraint" was challenged, and the case made its way to the Supreme Court.

No Justification for Prior Restraint:

1. The Court ruled 6-3 against the government, finding that it had not proven the publication would cause immediate harm to American forces.

Freedom of the Press:

1. The ruling supported the First Amendment's guarantee of a free press, stating that the press must be left free to publish news without prior censorship or restraint.

Incorporation and the 14th Amendment:

is the process by which the U.S. Supreme Court has applied most of the protections in the Bill of Rights to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment (ratified in 1868 after the Civil War).

The Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause prevents states from infringing on rights that were previously only protected against federal government abuses.

This process, also called selective incorporation, applies these rights to states on a case-by-case basis through various Supreme Court rulings. 

Basically, The Bill of Rights originally protected citizens only from the federal government. The Fourteenth Amendment was created to apply protections against state governments as well. 

Gitlow v. NY (1925); selective incorporation of the Bill of Rights

the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment's protection of free speech applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause.

This was a crucial step in the development of selective incorporation, the principle that the Fourteenth Amendment requires states to adhere to specific provisions of the Bill of Rights on a case-by-case basis.

While the ruling established that states couldn't infringe on free speech, the Court upheld Gitlow's conviction, stating that the right is not absolute and can be restricted if it incites violence or endangers public safety. 

Near v. Minnesota (1931)

This Supreme Court case established that prior restraint, or government censorship before publication, is unconstitutional and a violation of the First Amendment.

It affirmed that the government cannot stop a publication in advance, even if it might be punishable later.

Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)

This case established the "imminent lawless action" test for speech, which can be restricted only if it is both directed at and likely to produce imminent lawless action.

It overturned the conviction of a KKK member for advocating violence, arguing that mere advocacy of crime is not enough to restrict speech.

Racial epithets:

While the use of racial epithets is hateful, it is generally protected under the First Amendment as long as it does not incite imminent lawless action.

The Supreme Court has ruled that offensive or hateful speech is protected unless it falls into a narrow exception, such as true threats or incitement.

Time, place, and manner restrictions

These are regulations on speech that control when, where, and how speech can occur, but not the content of the speech itself.

The government can impose these restrictions, but they must be content-neutral and leave open ample alternative channels for communication.

Libel:

A false and defamatory statement that is written or published in a permanent form.

Slander:

 A false and defamatory statement that is spoken or in a transient form.

Defamation:

The umbrella term for both libel and slander, which are civil torts that harm a person's reputation through false statements.

Truth is an absolute defense against claims of libel (written) and slander (spoken) because defamation requires a false statement.

Obscenity- Roth v. US

established that obscenity is not protected speech

Miller v. California

created the current three-part test for determining obscenity, which requires a work to lack serious value.

 NY v. Ferber:

made child pornography a category of unprotected speech, separate from obscenity, because it is linked to the sexual abuse of children.  

Religious Freedom-Engel v. Vitale (1962)

ruled that state-sponsored prayer in public schools is unconstitutional.

McCreary County v. ACLU (2005)

held that displaying the Ten Commandments in courthouses also violates the Establishment Clause, as it was motivated by a secular purpose. 

The Lemon Test, established in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)

 was a three-pronged legal framework for evaluating Establishment Clause violations, though it has since been overturned. The three prongs required that a challenged law or policy must meet 3 conditions:

• It must have a secular, non-religious purpose.

• Its primary effect must not advance or inhibit any religion.

• It must not create excessive entanglement between the government and religion.

The Establishment Clause

prohibits the government from establishing a religion. 

The Free Exercise Clause

protects an individual's right to practice their religion freely.

Creationism,

a belief in a supernatural creation of the universe, has been the subject of legal challenges under these clauses, particularly concerning its place in public school science curricula.

2nd Amendment- Right to Bear Arms; (2008) DC v. Heller:

In the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for self-defense within the home.

This landmark decision struck down the District of Columbia's handgun ban and the requirement that firearms be kept unloaded and disassembled, stating these laws violated the Second Amendment's guarantee of an individual right to keep and bear arms.

The Court clarified that this is not an unlimited right and that many gun control regulations can still be constitutional. 

The right to privacy

is an implied right protected by the Constitution, though not explicitly mentioned. 

The Ninth Amendment

states that the enumeration of rights does not deny other rights retained by the people, and cases like Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) used this and other amendments to establish a "zone of privacy". Roe v. Wade (1973) extended this right to encompass a woman's decision to have an abortion, while Lawrence v. Texas (2003) affirmed the right to privacy in intimate personal matters like same-sex intimacy. 

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965):

The Supreme Court struck down a state law that banned the use of contraception by married couples. The Court ruled that this law violated the right to privacy, which is protected by the "penumbras" (shadows or zones) of various amendments in the Bill of Rights, including the Ninth Amendment. Justice Goldberg, in a concurring opinion, specifically grounded the right to privacy in the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Roe v. Wade (1973):

The Court built on the right to privacy established in Griswold to rule that a woman's decision to have an abortion is protected by the right to privacy.

This case decriminalized abortion nationwide and was seen as a significant expansion of the right to privacy. 

Lawrence v. Texas (2003):

This landmark decision struck down a Texas law that criminalized consensual homosexual sodomy.

The Court held that the law violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, reaffirming the right to privacy in intimate sexual conduct and striking down laws that criminalize private, consensual acts between adults. 

Procedural due process cases 

Mapp v. Ohio

Miranda v. Arizona

Michigan v. Sitz

Board of Pottawatomie County v. Earls (2002) Indianapolis v. Edmunds (2001) 

Mapp v. Ohio (1961)

 case that ruled that illegally seized evidence cannot be used in state criminal trials.

The Court applied the exclusionary rule, which was previously limited to federal courts, to the states.

The ruling stemmed from the search of Dollree Mapp's home without a warrant, which resulted in her conviction for possessing obscene materials, even though the initial police search was for a bombing suspect. 

Miranda v. Arizona (

that established that criminal suspects must be informed of their constitutional rights before police questioning while in custody.

The ruling requires police to tell suspects of their right to remain silent, that anything they say can be used against them, and their right to an attorney, including a court-appointed one if they cannot afford one.

This is known as the "Miranda warning" and is based on the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination.

Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz (1990)

the Supreme Court ruled that suspicionless sobriety checkpoints do not violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures, provided they balance the state's interest in public safety against the intrusion on individual liberty.

The Court held that Michigan's interest in stopping drunk drivers was significant, the checkpoints were minimally intrusive to motorists (averaging 25 seconds or less), and the state had discretion to implement them. 

Board of Pottawatomie County v. Earls (2002):

the Supreme Court ruled that a public school district's policy requiring all middle and high school students to consent to random drug testing for participation in any extracurricular activity did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The Court determined the policy was a reasonable means to further the school's interest in preventing and deterring drug use among students. 

Indianapolis v. Edmunds (2001)

the Supreme Court ruled that the city's vehicle checkpoints were unconstitutional because their primary purpose was general crime control, which violates the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The Court held that checkpoints can be constitutional for specific purposes like checking sobriety or at borders, but not as a general tool for drug interdiction. 

Exclusionary Rule of Evidence:

is a legal doctrine that prevents illegally obtained evidence from being used in a court of law to protect constitutional rights, particularly those under the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.

It mandates that evidence gathered through unconstitutional means, such as an illegal search or seizure, is excluded from a criminal trial. The rule also includes the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine, which excludes evidence that is an indirect result of the illegal action.

Whren v. US (1996):

the Supreme Court ruled that a police officer can stop a vehicle if they have probable cause to believe a traffic violation has occurred, regardless of the officer's subjective intent or if the stop is a pretext for a deeper investigation. The court found that the Fourth Amendment's standard for a "reasonable seizure" is met if there is an objective, legal basis for the stop, and the officer's "ulterior motive" is not relevant.

The Supreme Court unanimously held that the traffic stop was legal because the officers had probable cause to believe a traffic violation had occurred.

Racial Profiling:

is the discriminatory practice of targeting individuals for suspicion or investigation based on their race or ethnicity rather than on individual evidence or behavior. It is a form of racial discrimination that relies on stereotypes, is considered illegal, and is often ineffective as a law enforcement tactic.

It can lead to a breakdown in trust between communities and law enforcement and results in unfair and often frightening detentions, interrogations, and searches for innocent people.

Atkins v. VA (2002)

the Supreme Court ruled that executing individuals with intellectual disabilities is a violation of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

The Court held that there is a national consensus against such executions and that it is excessive and disproportionate to impose the death penalty on those with diminished capacities. 

*The decision barred states from executing individuals with intellectual disabilities and set a new legal precedent in the death penalty's scope.

Chapter 5- Equal Rights 

Equal Protection and Tiers of Review used by Courts

These include strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, and rational basis review. The level applied depends on the nature of the classification and the rights affected.

Courts rely on precedent to decide which standard to use. Courts may also combine elements of two of the three tests to create an ad hoc test.

Strict Scrutiny Intermediate Level:

is a legal standard used by courts to evaluate the constitutionality of certain laws, requiring the government to show the law serves an important government interest and is substantially related to achieving it.

It is less stringent than strict scrutiny but more rigorous than rational basis review.

This standard is typically applied to cases involving discrimination based on gender or illegitimacy and certain commercial speech regulations. 

Strict Scrutiny

refers to the careful examination of laws and actions to determine their constitutionality and legality. It is a key part of the judicial review process where courts analyze government actions against the Constitution.

The intensity of scrutiny varies, from the strict standard for fundamental rights to the minimal rational basis test for other laws. 

Rationality Review:

 It is also referred to as “rational review.”

Under this test, the statute or ordinance must have a legitimate state interest, and there must be a rational connection between the statute's/ordinance's means and goals.

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896):

upheld the constitutionality of state-sponsored racial segregation under the "separate but equal" doctrine.

The ruling established that laws requiring separate public facilities for different races were constitutional as long as the facilities were equal, which legitimized segregation laws across the country until it was overturned by Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. 

Separate but Equal:

was a legal doctrine that upheld racial segregation, establishing that separate public facilities for different races were constitutional as long as they were equal.

The Supreme Court's 1896 decision in Plessy v. Ferguson established this principle, which was used to justify widespread segregation laws in the U.S.

However, the doctrine was overturned in the 1954 case Brown v. Board of Education, which ruled that separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. 

Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

was a landmark 1954 Supreme Court case that unanimously ruled that racial segregation in public schools was unconstitutional.

The decision overturned the "separate but equal" doctrine from the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson case, stating that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal".

The ruling was a major victory for the Civil Rights Movement, signaling the end of legalized racial segregation in schools and galvanizing efforts to end institutionalized racism throughout American society. 

Civil Rights Act of 1964:

outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, ending segregation in public places and schools and prohibiting employment discrimination.

It was a landmark piece of legislation that also banned unequal voter registration requirements and provided federal authority to enforce these provisions.

Signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson on July 2, 1964, it was first proposed by President John F. Kennedy and is considered one of the most significant achievements in American civil rights history. 

Gender Based Discrimination:

is the unfair or unequal treatment of a person due to their gender, gender identity, or gender expression.

This can include unequal pay, limited opportunities, harassment, and restrictive social norms.

It violates human rights and can occur in various settings like the workplace and educational institutions, with laws in place to prohibit it. 

Sexual Harassment- quid pro quo:

is a type of sexual harassment where a supervisor or person in authority demands sexual favors in exchange for employment benefits or threatens negative consequences for refusal.

This Latin phrase means "this for that" and is a form of sex discrimination in which a subordinate's job status, pay, or other employment terms are made contingent on submitting to unwelcome sexual advances. 

Hostile work environment:

is a legally recognized condition where unwelcome conduct based on a protected characteristic, such as race, gender, or religion, creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive workplace.

To be unlawful, the behavior must be severe or pervasive enough to alter the terms of employment and be so abusive that a reasonable person would find it intolerable.

19th Amendment:

prohibits states and the federal government from denying citizens the right to vote based on sex, effectively granting women the right to vote (suffrage).

Passed by Congress in 1919 and ratified in August 1920, it was the culmination of a long and difficult struggle for women's suffrage, though many women of color continued to be disenfranchised until the Voting Rights Act of 1965. 

Glass ceiling:

an unofficially acknowledged barrier to advancement in a profession, especially affecting women and members of minorities. 

FMLA:

The Family and Medical Leave Act

is a U.S. law that provides eligible employees with up to 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave per year for certain family and medical reasons, such as the birth of a child, caring for a seriously ill family member, or for the employee's own serious health condition.

It also requires employers to maintain health benefits during the leave and to restore the employee to the same or an equivalent job upon return.

The law applies to public agencies, public and private elementary and secondary schools, and private employers with 50 or more employees. 

Lau v. Nichols (1974)

 the Supreme Court ruled that public schools must provide meaningful access to education for non-English-speaking students.

The court found that simply providing the same facilities, textbooks, and teachers to students who cannot understand English is not equal treatment and violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

This landmark decision mandated that schools must offer English language support, such as bilingual programs or ESL instruction, to ensure these students could meaningfully participate in their education. 

Assimilation:

is the process by which individuals or groups, particularly immigrants and Native Americans, absorb the culture and ways of the dominant American society, often leading to the loss of their own distinct customs, languages, and traditions.

This process can occur voluntarily under social or economic pressure or be a result of forced policies designed to erase cultural differences. 

ADEA:

Age Discrimination in Employment Act, is a federal law that prohibits age-based discrimination against employees and applicants who are 40 years or older.

It makes it illegal for employers to discriminate in hiring, firing, pay, promotions, and other terms of employment based on age.

The law also prohibits harassment based on age if it is frequent, severe, or creates a hostile work environment. 

ADA:

Americans with Disabilities Act, is a federal civil rights law that prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities in areas like employment, public transportation, and public accommodations.

Enacted in 1990, its purpose is to ensure equal opportunity and access for individuals with disabilities in many facets of public life, from getting a job to using government services and telecommunications. 

Sexual Orientation:

refers to a person's enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and physical attraction to individuals of a particular gender or genders.

It is a fundamental aspect of a person's identity and is distinct from gender identity. 

Examples:

Heterosexual:

Homosexual / Gay

Bisexual

Pansexual

Asexual

Heterosexual:

• attraction to individuals of the opposite sex 

Homosexual / Gay

• attraction to individuals of the same sex 

Bisexual:

• attraction to individuals of both sexes 

Pansexual:

• attraction to individuals of any gender 

Asexual:

• lack of sexual attraction to any gender 

Romer v. Evans:

Supreme Court case that struck down Colorado's "Amendment 2," a state constitutional amendment that prevented state and local governments from passing laws to protect lesbian, gay, and bisexual people from discrimination.

The Court ruled that the amendment violated the Equal Protection Clause, stating that a law cannot be based on a "bare desire to harm" a politically unpopular group.

*The ruling was a landmark victory for gay rights, establishing that LGBTQ+ people are entitled to the same protection against government discrimination as any other group. It made clear that antigay sentiment could not justify laws that singled out and disfavored gay and bisexual people. 

Lawrence v. TX (2003)

 was a landmark Supreme Court case that struck down a Texas law criminalizing same-sex sexual conduct, ruling it violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The 6-3 decision affirmed the constitutional right of consenting adults to engage in private, intimate conduct, effectively overturning the 1986 Bowers v. Hardwick decision and decriminalizing consensual sodomy nationwide.

*The decision invalidated sodomy laws in the states where they remained in force and was a significant step forward for LGBTQ+ rights, providing a constitutional basis for privacy in personal relationships. 

Goodridge v. Mass:

the Supreme Judicial Court case that ruled a state ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional.

The court held that denying marriage to same-sex couples violated the Massachusetts Constitution's guarantees of equal protection and due process.

This landmark decision made Massachusetts the first state in the U.S. to legalize same-sex marriage, with the first licenses issued in 2004.

*The ruling established the right to marriage for same-sex couples in Massachusetts. The first same-sex marriage licenses were issued in May 2004, and the decision paved the way for future legal challenges and ultimately, nationwide marriage equality.

DOMA:

 The Defense of Marriage Act

A law that defined marriage for federal purposes as a union between one man and one woman and allowed states to refuse recognition of same-sex marriages from other states.

It was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in United States v. Windsor (2013), with its provisions later repealed by the Respect for Marriage Act in 2022.

*Respect for Marriage Act (2022)

Congress officially repealed DOMA with the passage of the Respect for Marriage Act.

This law provides a legislative backstop to protect same-sex and interracial marriages in case the Supreme Court's rulings are overturned in the future. 

Full Faith and Credit Clause:

is a provision in the U.S. Constitution (Article IV, Section 1) that requires states to respect the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings" of every other state.

Its purpose is to prevent conflict between states and ensure that a judgment made in one state, such as a court ruling or marriage certificate, is recognized and given the same effect in all other states.

Congress has the power to enforce this clause by establishing rules for how this recognition should happen. 

*This clause is why a driver's license issued in one state is valid in another, or why a divorce decree granted in one state is recognized by all others. It was also used to pass the Respect for Marriage Act, which mandates interstate recognition of same-sex marriages.

Voting Rights Act of 1965

 is a landmark U.S. federal statute that prohibits racial discrimination in voting. It was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson during the height of the civil rights movement on August 6, 1965. Congress later amended the Act five times to expand its protections.

Affirmative Action:

 a set of policies and practices designed to eliminate discrimination and increase opportunities for historically underrepresented groups in education, employment, and other areas.

The goal is to counteract systemic discrimination and address the effects of past disadvantages, though its implementation and effectiveness have been subjects of intense debate, and it faces increasing legal challenges.

Bakke v. U Calif Board of Regents (1973)

In a landmark 1978 ruling, the Supreme Court decided that while the University of California's use of strict racial quotas was unconstitutional, affirmative action policies that consider race as one of many factors in admissions are permissible.

The court ruled 5-4 in favor of Allan Bakke, a white applicant who was denied admission to UC Davis Medical School due to a special admissions program that reserved seats for minority students.

The court ordered Bakke's admission but held that race could be a factor in a holistic admissions process to achieve student body diversity.

The decision was a split ruling, with six separate opinions, creating a nuanced precedent that has influenced affirmative action policies in higher education for decades. It struck down quotas but upheld the principle that race can be a "plus" factor in a university's admissions process.

Gratz v. Bollinger (2003):

the Supreme Court ruled that the University of Michigan's undergraduate admissions policy, which automatically awarded 20 points to underrepresented minority applicants, was unconstitutional.

The Court found this "points-based" system violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it did not provide individualized review and automatically gave a significant boost to certain racial groups. While the Court struck down this specific undergraduate system, this case and its companion case, Grutter v. Bollinger, addressed the broader topic of affirmative action in university admissions. 

Grutter v. Bollinger (2003):

the Supreme Court upheld the University of Michigan Law School's affirmative action policy, ruling that race can be a factor in admissions to achieve a diverse student body.

The Court held that achieving the educational benefits of a diverse student body is a compelling government interest. However, the policy must be narrowly tailored and consider race as one of many factors in a holistic review of each applicant.

*In a companion case, Gratz v. Bollinger, the Court struck down the University of Michigan's undergraduate admissions policy, which used a points system that automatically gave a large number of points to certain minority applicants. This showed that while race can be a factor, it cannot be used in a way that is not narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling interest.

Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2024)

the Supreme Court ruled that Harvard's and the University of North Carolina's race-based admissions programs violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.

The Court's 2023 decision effectively ended race-conscious affirmative action in college admissions by finding that using race as a factor in admissions is unconstitutional, even if done to achieve the benefits of diversity.

While race cannot be a direct factor, the Court noted that essays discussing a student's personal experience with race are permissible if tied to character or ability.

*The decision ended race-based affirmative action in college admissions, requiring universities to seek race-neutral alternatives for achieving diversity. The Court also required that data be firewalled from admissions decisions and that the practice of collecting racial or ethnic data should cease as soon as practicable. 

Busing to achieve racial balance:

 is a policy that transports students from their neighborhood to schools in other parts of a city or district to create a more racially diverse student body.

This practice, which became prominent following the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision, was a controversial tool to desegregate schools and provide equal educational opportunities.

While supporters argued it was a necessary measure for integration, critics often cited increased travel times, potential safety concerns, and opposition to racial mixing.

*The policy led to a phenomenon called "white flight," where white families moved out of urban areas to suburbs to avoid desegregation efforts, which contributed to resegregation in later years. 

Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)

This was a major Supreme Court case where the Court ruled that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry.

The case challenged state bans on same-sex marriage.

The Court held that the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause guarantee the fundamental right to marry to same-sex couples, just like opposite-sex couples.

“Reasonable accommodation:”

 is any modification or adjustment to a job, the work environment, or the way a job is typically performed that enables a qualified individual with a disability to have an equal employment opportunity. 

Examples:

Physical Modification

Job restructuring

Assistive technology

Communication

Modified Policies

Modified procedures

Physical modifications:

• Ramps, accessible restrooms, and changes to the work station or work area. 

Job restructuring:

• Modifying job duties or restructuring the work schedule, such as telework or providing flexible hours. 

Assistive technology:

• Providing or providing access to assistive technology and adaptive equipment, such as screen readers or specialized software. 

Communication:

•  Providing interpreters, readers, or other personal assistance to facilitate communication. 

Modified policies:

Adjusting policies like when or how breaks are taken.

Modified procedures:

•  Changing a supervisory style, such as providing a written list of tasks instead of a verbal one