Constitutional Law final

Importance of Marbury v. Madison

Established judicial review and set the judiciary as a coequal branch

Textualism

Judicial interpretation with plain meaning, emphasizes objective meaning of text at the time ratified. Doesn’t ask much of intent of drafters. Wary to refine/revise texts. Pros: predictability in judgements

Cons: fail to answer fundamental questions, not straightforward

Original meaning

Interpret as understood by public at time written. Pros: Adherence to logic that a law has a fixed meaning. Adherence to dem will of founders. Lim judicial discretion. Cons: What is orig meaning? Justices are historians not decision-makers

Judicial precedent

Interpret based on past decisions (usually multiple) Pros: Predictability, consistency, stability. Cons: inflexibility, court opinion > founders

Pragmatism

Interpret by weighing/balancing probable consequences. Two types: type 1 = future. Type 2 = extent can answer. Pros: Adaptable. Cons: Injects in politics

Moral reasoning

Based on moral/ethical reasoning (indiv rights, due process, etc) Pros: General moral concepts underlie much of text. Cons: Not objectively verifiable. Must choose btwn competing morals.

National ethos

Based on a reliance on America’s unique character/ ethos. Pros: More flexible for contemp values, added legitimacy to moral reasoning. Cons: Not objective

Structuralism

Drawing inferences from the design of the Constitution. Formalism (close to rules) - text sets how 3 branches work exactly. Functionalism (flexible to practicality- text sets how 3 branches work at apexes. Pros: Considers entire text, clearer. Cons: harder for pub to understand

Historical practices (tradition)

Based on prior, long-established, historic practices of the poli branches (ex. Congressional prayer). Pros: Objective/neutral, stable. Cons: What practices are relevant? unclear

Argument of Everson v. BoE

Using tax money for transport to religious schools violated Due Process of 14th and Established religion. v. Funding was a neutral pub welfare benefit not just religious

Legal issue of Everson v. BoE

Using the wall of separation, does reimbursing transport to private religious schools with tax money violate the Establish Clause?

Importance of Everson v. BoE

Incorporated the Establishment clause

Legal issue of Lemon v. Kurtzman

Does state financial aid to nonpublic schools violate the Establishment Clause?

Inclusions of the lemon test

Government aid must 1. serve a secular purpose 2. Not advance or inhibit relig 3. No excessive entanglement

Arguments of Agostini v. Felton

Allowing public teachers in religious schools creates excessive entanglement. Affects a system of people, not just indivs.

Importance of Agostini v. Felton

The ruling stating public school teachers in religious schools was not unconstitutional redefined excessive entanglement, and was the first time 60(b)(5) used.

Legal issue of Zelman v. Simmons- Harris

Does Ohio’s tuition aid program, which allows public funds to reach religious schools through private choice, violate the Establishment Clause?

Ruling of Zelman v. Simmons-Harris

Aid was neutral and was reached through indiv choice, so it was allowable. dissent said it weakened separation of church and state and contradicted Everson

Importance of Zelman v. Simmons-Harris

Expanded pub aid to religious schools

Importance of Stone v. Graham

The case involving the mandated posting of the 10 commandments in a classroom continued the trend of strict limits on religious displays in public schools. Stated displays of religious symbols in schools lack a secular purpose.

Lynch v. Donnelly

Ruling on a nativity scene that was part of a larger holiday celebration, said the nativity scene was constitutional but, by the dissent stating that the primary fact is endorsing religion, it introduced the endorsement test and took a step away from the Lemon test.

County of Allegheny v. ACLU

two displays (menorah and creche). Utilizing the Lemon test, it said the constitutionality of public displays of religious symbols relies on their context.

McCreary v. ACLU

Kentucky displayed large, framed copies of the 10 cmdmts. While scrutinizing the Lemon test’s purpose prong and questioning whether the court can identify purpose, it stated gov displays must have a secular purpose.

Van Orden v. Perry

Does the Establishment Clause allow a monument inscribed with the Ten Cmdmts of Texas Capitol grounds? Maj stated the Ten Cmdmts have an undeniable historical meaning. Limited the usefulness of the Lemon test. Difference btwn passive religious displays and active endorsements.

American Legion v. American Humanist Association

Cross on side of highway. Is the display and maintenance of the cross unconstitutional? Do funds to maintain the cross exhibit excessive entanglement? Lemon test not useful. Weakened the Lemon test. Allowed historical religious symbols to remain on public property.

Engel v. Vitale

Regents directed prayer to be said by teachers. Could public school sanction school prayer even if voluntary. First time question of school prayer constitutionality answered.

Abingtton v. Schempp

Does inviting clergy to speak at graduation violate the Establishment Clause, and is the Lemon test valid? Reinforced the usefulness of the Lemon test, ruling the actions unconstitutional.

Santa Fe v. Doe

HS elected student to serve as chaplain. Heightened wall of separation by saying it was an invocation of religion

Kennedy v. Bremerton

HS football coach prayer in the middle of the field. What is the balance between Free Exercise and Establishment? ruled against the power of the Lemon Test and its offshoots (the coercion test and endorsement test) replacing it with historic practices.

Reynolds v. US

Fed anti-polygamy laws challenged. Established the belief-action dichotomy saying the gov could rule over actions just not beliefs.

Sherbert v. Verner

Sherbert denied unemployment benefits bc she refused to work on Saturdaysbc it violated her relig. Did this violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments? Established the Sherbert Test

Sherbert test

Limits to free exercise must have 1. Narrow tailoring 2. Compelling interest 3. No undue burden

Employment Division v. Smith

Free Exercise doesn’t require exemptions from neutral laws. Strict scrutiny only exists to make exemptions. Weakened religious exemptions under the Free Exercise Clause. Overturned strict scrutiny. Led Congress to enact RFRA in 1993. Established Neutrality test: if a law is neutral, it is allowable, even if it harms religious beliefs.

Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah

Do laws that target specific religious acts violate the Free Exercise clause? Along with RFRA, it reversed Smith’s ruling against the weakening of the Free Exercise Clause.

City of Boerne v. Flores

RFRA exceeded 14th amendment’s ability to be a pos grant of power. Limited RFRA’s application only to fed gov not states.

Tinker v. Des Moines

Armbands. Created the Tinker test: School can’t ban speech unless it causes a material and substantial disruption.

Bethel School District v. Fraser

Can a school punish a student for lewd, but non-disruptive, speech at a school-sponsored event? Clarified the Tinker test, stating schools can regulate vulgar, indecent, or offensive speech of student

Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier

What is the extent to which schools have editorial control over school-sponsored speech? Limited Tinker by drawing a distinction between personal speech and school-sponsored speech.

Morse v. Frederick

BongHits4Jesus. Expanded school authority over student speech.

Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L.

Vulgar language abt cheer team and was suspended. Strengthened student speech protections, reverting the trend of decreased protections.

Schenck v Abrams

Dist. of leaflets urging ppl not to sign up for the WWI draft. Established “Clear and present danger” isn’t protected speech. Degree of harm considered.

Abrams v. US

Maj: gov could punish speech with tendency to harm, even if not immediate. Diss: (Holmes) Introduction to “marketplace of ideas” (truth emerges from open discussion) bc it’s the only way we have democracy.

Gitlow v. NY

Incorporated 1st amend to apply to state laws under the 14th

Chaplinsky v. NY

Established fighting words doctrine- words intended to provoke immediate violence not protect.

Brandenburg v. OH

rejected clear and present danger, replacing it w/ imminent lawless acts test (hate speech only rest. if directed at inciting/prod imminent lawless action + likely to incite. heightened protections. Only time danger type free speech overturned, protecting speech

Netchoice

heightened tech comp power bc can do as please w/ no restrictions

Bowers v Hardwick

Argued homosexual sodomy isn’t a fundamental right, have hisorically criminalized bc morality. Also, argued GA law violated right to privacy under due process of 14th amendment. Because sodomy not fundamental right in history or constitution, no protects. Restricted LGBTQ+ rights.

Lawerence v Texas

decriminalized LGBTQ+ activity

US v Windsor

Does DOMA’s def of marriage violate eq protect of 14th and 5th? sig adv to marriage equality. b/c led to many states ruling bans uncons