Studied by 1 personCitizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010)
The Federal Election Campaign Act prohibited corporations from using the general treasury funds to make electioneering communications. The plaintiff released a film about whether Senator Hillary Clinton would make a good president and wanted to pay cable companies to make the film available for free through video-on-demand within 30 days of the 2008 primary elections. They fought the ban on corporate-funded communications, arguing that it violated the First Amendment freedom of speech. The Supreme Court ruled that by limiting the amount of money a corporation could donate to a campaign, the ban limited political speech based on the speaker's identity, which was a violation of the Constitution.
The Federal Election Campaign Act prohibited corporations from using the general treasury funds to make electioneering communications. Citizens United released a film about whether Senator Hilary Clinton would make a good president and wanted to pay cable companies to make the film available for free through video-on-demand within 30 days of the 2008 primary elections. CU fought the ban on corporate-funded communications, arguing that it violated the First Amendment freedom of speech. The Supreme Court ruled that by limiting the amount of money a corporation could donate to a campaign, the ban limited political speech based on the speaker's identity, which was a violation of the Constitution.
*Corporations have the right to spend unrestricted money to influence elections, as long as it is not in coordination with a campaign (First Amendment Freedom of Speech)
Describe Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010).
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010)
Supreme Court case that ruled corporations have the right to spend unrestricted money to influence elections, as long as it is not in coordination with a campaign under the First Amendment freedom of speech
Charles W. Baker alleged that a 1901 law to apportion the seats for Tennessee's General Assembly was ignored, and the state's reapportionment efforts ignored significant growth and population shifts within the state. The Supreme Court ruled that the Tennessee legislature would have to redraw their disproportionately populated districts to comply with the Constitution under the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause. The case asserted the federal court's right to intervene in apportionment cases when a constitutional violation is alleged.
*Federal courts have the right to tell the states to reapportion their districts for more equal representation (14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause)
Describe Baker v. Carr (1962).
Baker v. Carr (1962)
Supreme Court case that ruled federal courts have the right to tell the states to reapportion their districts for more equal representation under the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause
Baker v. Carr (1962)
The plaintiff alleged that a 1901 law to apportion the seats for his state's General Assembly was ignored, and the state's reapportionment efforts ignored significant growth and population shifts within the state. The Supreme Court ruled that the state legislature would have to redraw their disproportionately populated districts to comply with the Constitution under the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause, asserting the federal court's right to intervene in apportionment cases when a constitutional violation is alleged.
Shaw v. Reno (1993)
The plaintiff challenged the constitutionality of an unusually shaped district, alleging that it was drawn to secure the election of additional black representatives. The Supreme Court determined that the shape of the state district separated voters along racial lines and was, therefore, unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause.
North Carolina residents challenged the constitutionality of an unusually shaped district, alleging that it was drawn to secure the election of additional black representatives. The Supreme Court determined that the shape of the North Carolina district separated voters along racial lines and was, therefore, unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause.
*Race cannot be the predominant factor in redrawing legislative boundaries (14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause)
Describe Shaw v. Reno (1993).
Shaw v. Reno (1993)
Supreme Court case that ruled race cannot be the predominant factor in redrawing legislative boundaries under the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause
Gun owner Otis McDonald challenged the strict gun control laws in Chicago, which banned all citizens from owning a handgun. The Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause applied the 2nd Amendment to states and the Chicago laws were, therefore, a violation of the Constitution.
*The 2nd Amendment right to bear and keep arms for self-defense applies to the states.
Describe McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010).
McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010)
The plaintiff challenged the strict gun control laws in his state, which banned all citizens from owning a handgun. The Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause applied the 2nd Amendment to states and the state laws were, therefore, a violation of the Constitution.
McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010)
Supreme Court case that ruled the 2nd Amendment right to bear and keep arms for self-defense applies to the states.
Roe v. Wade (1973)
The plaintiff filed suit against the DA of Dallas County for a state law that banned abortion, arguing that it violated her right to privacy. The Supreme Court ruled that abortion rights fall within the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause's right to privacy, and therefore, the state law violated the Constitution
Roe v. Wade (1973)
Supreme Court case that ruled abortion rights are protected by the privacy implied in the 14th Amendment
Three fathers were fined under a Wisconsin law that required schooling until age 16 for not enrolling their children aged 14-15 in school based on traditional Amish practices. The Supreme Court ruled that the families' religious freedom outweighed state law, therefore applying the 1st Amendment Free Exercise Clause freedom of religion to the states and determining the Wisconsin law a violation of the Constitution.
*The 1st Amendment Freedom of Religion applies to the states.
Describe Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972).
Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)
Supreme Court case that ruled the 1st Amendment Freedom of Religion applies to the states
The Espionage Act of 1917 made it illegal to convey information intended to interfere with World War I. Schenck was charged under the act for mailing printed leaflets critical to the war, calling the military draft "involuntary servitude," but argued that his leaflets were protected under the 1st Amendment Freedom of Speech. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the United States, asserting that free speech rights are not absolute and speech can be banned if the information presents a clear and present danger.
*The 1st Amendment Freedom of Speech is not absolute, and speech with clear and present danger can be banned.
Describe Schenck v. United States (1919).
Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)
Three fathers were fined under a Wisconsin law that required schooling until age 16 for not enrolling their children aged 14-15 in school based on traditional Amish practices. The Supreme Court ruled that the families' religious freedom outweighed state law, therefore applying the 1st Amendment Free Exercise Clause freedom of religion to the states and determining the Wisconsin law a violation of the Constitution.
Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)
Supreme Court case that ruled the 1st Amendment Freedom of Speech is not absolute, and speech with clear and present danger can be bannedWisconsin v. Yoder (1972)
Note
Flashcard