Untitled Flashcards Set

Original Intent

Interpreting cases based on what the founders intended when they wrote the constitution.

Textualism

Deciding cases based on the literal meaning of the Constitution.

Structuralism

Deciding cases with the intent to protect the structures of society, specifically the separation of powers doctrine.

Stare Decisis

Make decisions based on past precedent; 'Let the decision stand.'

Polling Jurisdictions

Deciding cases based on how other state Supreme Courts, courts of appeals, and other countries have decided similar cases.

Legal Pragmatism

Looking at all different potential outcomes and how each will impact individuals and society.

Judicial Review

The primary weapon federal courts have to keep other government branches in check, allowing them to review and strike down government actions incompatible with the Constitution.

Original jurisdiction

Cases taken directly to the Supreme Court, like those involving ambassadors or federal law.

Appellate jurisdiction

Cases heard first in lower courts.

Justiciability

Courts are restricted to hearing 'cases' and 'controversies.' Non-justiciable cases include advisory opinions, collusion, mootness, ripeness, and political questions.

Standing

The appropriate party must bring the case, showing they have suffered a concrete injury or are in imminent danger of suffering harm that can be redressed by the court.

Fundamental Right

Rights implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, essential for liberty and justice to exist.

Separationist view

Separationalists advocate for a practically complete separation between church and state, prohibiting most forms of public aid to religion.

Accommodationist view

Accommodationists believe that the state should not favor one religion over another, but can provide nondiscriminatory support for all religions.

Preferred Freedoms Doctrine

When government actions conflict with the Bill of Rights, special scrutiny is applied, especially concerning the protection of minority or unpopular groups' rights.

Valid Secular Policy

A legitimate reason for government action, like preventing fraud, ensuring public safety, or regulating time and manner of solicitation.

First Amendment speech restrictions

The government can restrict speech related to obscenity, libel, violence, property damage, criminal speech, and encroaching on the rights of others.

Prior Restraint

Government actions that intervene before the expression occurs, only allowed in extraordinary circumstances.

Lemon Test

A test for determining whether a government action violates the Establishment Clause: must have a secular purpose, cannot advance or inhibit religion, and no excessive government entanglement with religion.

Sherbert-Yoder Compelling Interest Test

If a government law burdens free exercise of religion, it must demonstrate a compelling government interest and use the least restrictive means possible.

Smith Test

The free exercise clause does not relieve an individual from complying with a neutral, valid law of general applicability even if it conflicts with religious beliefs.

Clear and Present Danger test

A test to suppress speech if it creates a clear and present danger of bringing about substantive evils.

Bad Tendency Test

Government can restrict speech that has the tendency to incite or cause illegal activity.

Imminent Lawless Action Test

The government can only restrict speech if it incites imminent lawless action and is likely to incite such action.

Miller Test

Determines whether speech or material is obscene, considering contemporary community standards and lack of serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

Lochner Approach

A regulation is constitutional if the government can show a direct relation between the law and the regulation’s goal.

Strict Scrutiny Approach

Laws infringing on liberty or privacy are unconstitutional unless the state can show the policies are the least restrictive means to achieve a compelling interest.

Undue Burden Standard

States may regulate abortion as long as the law does not place an undue burden (substantial obstacle) on a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy.

Hicklin Test

Concerns whether material is obscene, based on whether its parts would be inappropriate for a child to see.

Roth Standard

A work is obscene if it appeals to prurient interest and lacks redeeming social importance.

Ginsberg v. New York case

The Court ruled that a law restricting the sale of obscene material to minors was constitutional because it protected the well-being of minors.

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

Established the principle of judicial review, affirming the Supreme Court's authority to review laws and government actions for constitutionality.

Ex Parte McCardle (1869)

Showed that Congress can withdraw the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

Barron v. Baltimore (1833)

Ruled that the Bill of Rights only applies to the federal government, not the states.

Gitlow v. New York (1925)

First case to incorporate the Bill of Rights to apply to the states, specifically the First Amendment.

Palko v. Connecticut (1937)

The Court ruled that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment did not apply to the states.

Duncan v. Louisiana (1968)

The Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.

Valid Secular Policy test

Used to determine if government actions violate the Establishment Clause.

Smith Test in relation to religious exercise

States that the Free Exercise Clause does not excuse individuals from complying with valid, neutral laws that apply to everyone.

Sherbert v. Verner (1963)

The Court ruled that denying unemployment benefits to someone who refuses to work on their Sabbath due to religious beliefs violates the Free Exercise Clause.

Compelling Government Interest

The government must demonstrate that actions are necessary to achieve an important goal that cannot be achieved in a less restrictive way.

Lemon Test significance

Tests whether a law violates the Establishment Clause based on purpose and effect regarding religion.

Clear and Present Danger test for speech

Determines if speech can be limited when it presents an immediate threat of harm or illegal action.

Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)

Established the 'Imminent Lawless Action' test, which restricts speech if it incites imminent illegal activity.

Texas v. Johnson (1989)

The Court ruled that burning the American flag is a form of symbolic speech protected by the First Amendment.

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942)

The Court held that 'fighting words' are not protected by the First Amendment.

Cohen v. California (1971)

The Court ruled that wearing a jacket with offensive language is protected by the First Amendment as symbolic speech.

Clear and Present Danger test requirements

Speech must be such that it presents a clear and present danger of bringing about substantive evils.

Engel v. Vitale (1962)

The Court ruled that it is unconstitutional for public schools to require students to recite prayers.

Ex Parte McCardle (1869) significance

Validated Congress’s power to repeal its appellate jurisdiction.

Barron v. Baltimore (1833) ruling

The Bill of Rights only applies to the federal government.

Gitlow v. New York (1925) significance

Marked the first time the Supreme Court applied the Bill of Rights to the states.

Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) ruling

Amish parents could withdraw their children from school after 8th grade due to religious objections.

Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) case significance

Established the Lemon Test for government funding for religious institutions.

Schenck v. United States (1919) ruling

Established that speech presenting a clear and present danger could be restricted by the government.

Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) ruling

Students do not lose their First Amendment rights at school unless their actions disrupt the educational process.

Employment Division v. Smith (1990) ruling

The Free Exercise Clause does not exempt individuals from complying with neutral laws of general applicability, such as drug laws.