con law final

katz v us part of the constitution in question

4th amendment search and seizure

katz facts

The Feds were investigating Katz because they thought he was transmitting wagering information from California to Miami to Boston

They learned that he made daily phone calls from two specific telephone booths so they placed a listening and recording device on the exterior top of the booth to record his conversation

From that recording they got incriminating evidence that was used again him in court

The Feds did not have judicial authorization to gather conversational evidence from a phone booth but did have a traditional search warrant for physical objects

Katz was convicted and appealed challenging the wiretapping as a violation of the 4^th amendment

katz issue and decision

Does the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures require the police to obtain a search warrant in order to wiretap a public pay phone?

Yes. Katx was entitled to 4^th amendment protection for his conversation. The government’s activities in electronically listening to and recording the petitioner’s words violated the privacy upon which Katz justifiably relied while using the telephone booth

katz rule of law established

The protection of the 4^th amendment, against unreasonable searches and seizures, follows the person and not the place

Harlan “reasonable expectation of privacy” test

1. the person must have exhibited an actual expectation of privacy

2. that expectation must be reasonable

katz opnion reasoning

The Fourth amendment protects people, not places from unreasonable intrusion

Even in a public place, a person may have a reasonable expectation of privacy in his person

Katz had a reasonable expectation of privacy (that the public could not hear his conversation) when he entered the phone booth

A person who enters into a telephone booth may expect the protection of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution as he assumes that the words he utters into the telephone will not be broadcast to the world.

absent a search warrant predicated upon sufficient probable cause, all evidence obtained is inadmissible.

jardines part of the constitution in question

4th amendment search and seizure

jardines facts

On November 3, 2006, the Miami-Dade Police Department received an unverified tip that the home of Jardines was being used to grow marijuana.

Two detectives, along with a trained drug detection dog, approached the residence. The dog signaled that it detected the scent of drugs.

The detective prepared an affidavit and applied for a search warrant, which was issued. A search confirmed that marijuana was being grown inside the home.

Jardines was arrested and charged with trafficking cannabis.

Jardines moved to suppress the evidence seized at the home on the grounds that the drug dog's sniff was an impermissible search under the 4th Amendment.

jardines issue and decision

Does a dog sniff at the front door of a house by a trained drug detection dog constitute a “search” requiring probable cause under the 4^th amendment?

Yes. The area immediately surrounding and associated with the home (in this case, the front porch) is part of the home itself for 4^th amendment purposes

jardines rule of law established

The use of a drug-sniffing dog around the home is search requiring probable cause under the 4^th amendment

jardines opinion reasoning

The officers were gathering information in an area belonging to Jardines and immediately surrounding the house, which the court has held enjoys protection as part of the home itself

The area around the home is “intimately linked to the home, both physically and psychologically” and is where “privacy expectations are most heightened”

Since the officer’s investigation did take place in a constitutionally protected area, we must turn to whether the investigation was accomplished through an unlicensed physical intrusion

• A police officer not armed with a warrant may approach a home and knock because that is no more than any private citizen might do

• However, introducing a trained drug dog to explore the area is not something where there is a customary invitation to do that

Entering a person's porch for the purposes of conducting a search requires a broader license than the one commonly given to the general public.

Without such a license, the police officers were conducting an unlawful search in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

carpenter v us facts

In April 2011, police arrested four men in connection with a series of armed robberies

The FBI relied on the Stored Communications Act, which authorized the federal government to acquire a suspect’s cell phone records by demonstrating to a judge that those records are relevant to an ongoing investigation

The FBI then obtained Carpenter’s cell site location information (time-stamped data of the location of the cell phone)

That data matched the location and times of the robberies

Carpenter argued that the government’s use of cell data was a search, requiring probable cause rather than “relevant to an investigation.”

carpenter v us part of the constitution in question

4th amendment search and seizure

carpenter v us issue and reasoning

Does the warrantless search and seizure of cell phone records, which include the location and movements of cell phone users, violate the Fourth Amendment?

Yes. The government's acquisition of Carpenter's cell-site records was a Fourth Amendment search.

rule of law established by carpenter v us

The government's warrantless acquisition of cell-site records violates the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Due to the deeply revealing nature of cell phone data, the government generally will need a warrant to access cell-site location information.

carpenter v us opinion reasoning

the Fourth Amendment protects property interests and reasonable expectations of privacy.

Expectations of privacy in this age of digital data do not fit neatly into existing precedents

• However, tracking person's movements and location through extensive cell-site records is far more intrusive than the precedents might have anticipated.

• an individual maintains a legitimate expectation of privacy in the record of his physical movements as captured through CSLI.

In light of the deeply revealing nature of CSLI, its depth, breadth, and comprehensive reach, and the inescapable and automatic nature of its collection, the fact that such information is gathered by a third party does not make it any less deserving of Fourth Amendment protection

illinois v gates facts

The Bloomingdale, Illinois Police Department received an anonymous tip that Lance and Susan Gates were selling drugs out of their home.

The police, following up on the tip, observed the defendants conducting specific activities which were outlined in the tip.

Based on the tip and the defendants’ corroborating activities, police obtained a search warrant.

Upon execution of the warrant, the police found drugs, weapons and other contraband in the defendants’ automobile and home.

illinois v gates part of the constitution in question

4th amendment search and seizure

illinois v gates issue and decision

May a magistrate issue a valid warrant based on an anonymous tip where there is no indicia of the informer’s “basis of knowledge” if the information contained in the tip is corroborated with police findings?

Yes. The Court found no constitutional violation, and the warrant followed Spinelli.

illinois v gates rule of law established

Where an anonymous tip is corroborated with actual police findings, a “totality of the circumstances” approach is an appropriate way of determining probable cause instead of using the two-pronged test of “veracity/reliability” and “basis of knowledge” from Spinelli

illinois v gates totality of the circumstances test:

Requires the courts to evaluate the whole picture of police citizen interaction rather than only assessing individual facts in isolation to determine if it was reasonable

Replaced Spinelli as the test when anonymous tips are involves

illinois v gates opinion reasoning

On it’s own, the letter sent to the police would not provide the basis for a magistrate’s determination that there was probable cause

• Detective Mader’s affidavit might be capable of supplementing the letter with information sufficient for probable cause

an informant's veracity, reliability, and basis of knowledge are important in determining probable cause, but those issues are intertwined and should not be rigidly applied to every case

the "totality-of-the-circumstances" approach to probable cause was the correct one to glean from Spinelli, and the law enforcement officials who obtained a warrant abided by it in this case.

The task of the issuing magistrate is simply to make a practical, commonsense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, including the “veracity” and “basis of knowledge” of persons supplying hearsay information, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place

terry v ohio facts

Terry and two other men were observed by a plain clothes policeman passing a store 24 times, chatting after each time they passed and then conferred with a third man

On suspicion that they were planning to rob that store, the officer stopped them, identified himself as a cop, and frisked the three men

He found weapons on two of them.

Terry was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon and sentenced to three years in jail.

Terry challenged the validity of his initial detention and search because the officer lacked probable cause for the stop

terry v ohio part of the constitution in question

4th amendment search and seizure

terry v ohio issue and decicion

Whether a search for weapons without probable cause for arrest is an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment?

• No. The search was reasonable. The weapons seized could be introduced into evidence.

terry stop and frisk

an officer may perform a search for weapons without a warrant, even without probable cause, when the officer reasonably believes that the person may be armed and dangerous

terry v ohio opinion reasoning

The Court attempted to focus narrowly on the facts of this particular case

whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has “seized” that person and a pat down is a “search”

would the facts available to the officer at the moment of the seizure or the search “warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief” that the action taken was appropriate? 

• the officer acted on more than a "hunch" and that "a reasonably prudent man would have been warranted in believing [Terry] was armed and thus presented a threat to the officer's safety while he was investigating his suspicious behavior."

it is argued, the police should be allowed to “stop” a person and detain him briefly for questioning upon suspicion that he may be connected with criminal activity

police should have the power to “frisk” him for weapons

the searches undertaken were limited in scope and designed to protect the officer's safety incident to the investigation

A typical beat officer would be unduly burdened by being prohibited from searching individuals that the officer suspects to be armed.

safford v redding facts

Savana Redding, an eighth grader at Safford Middle School, was strip-searched by school officials based on a tip by another student that she might have ibuprofen (in violation of school policy)

Ms. Redding subsequently filed suit against the school district and the school officials responsible for the search

She alleged her 4^th Amendment right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure was violated.

safford v redding part of the constitution in question

4th amendment search and seizure

safford v redding issue and decision

Does the Fourth Amendment prohibit school officials from strip searching students suspected of possessing drugs in violation of school policy?

o   Yes. Redding’s 4th Amendment rights were violated when school officials searched her underwear for non-prescription painkillers because there were no reasons to suspect the drugs presented a danger or were concealed in her underwear

safford v redding rule of law established

the degree to which 4^th amendment protections apply is often determined by the extent to which freedoms have been deprived (think schools vs. in public vs. done by police vs. prisons)

the standard of reasonable suspicion means that school searches must be: (safford v redding)

1. reasonably related to the objections of the search

2. not excessively intrusive particularly in relation to

   1. the age of the student

   2. the sex of the student

   3. the nature of the infraction

safford v redding opinion reasoning

school settings “require some modification of the level of suspicion of illicit activity needed to justify a search.”

A standard of Reasonable suspicion determines the legality of a school administrator’s search of a student, which requires that:

• measures used by school officials are "reasonably related to the objectives of the search

• not excessively intrusive in light of the age and sex of the student and the nature of the infraction."

Here, school officials did have sufficient suspicion to search Savana’s backpack and outer clothing but they did not have sufficient suspicion to search Savanna’s underwear

There was no indication of danger to the students from the drugs or any reason to suppose that Savana was carrying pills in her underwear

mapp v ohio facts

Three Cleveland cops arrived at Mapp’s home pursuant to information that a bombing suspect was hiding out there and that paraphernalia regarding the bombing was hidden there.

Mapp refused to admit them without a search warrant, so they left and came back. When Mapp failed to answer the door, the officers forcibly entered the residence.

Mapp’s attorney showed up and the cops refused to let Mapp see her attorney.

Mapp demanded to see the search warrant, and when presented, she grabbed it and placed it in her shirt. Police struggled with Mapp, cuffed her, and recovered the warrant.

The officers then conducted a widespread search of the residence. They didn’t find the fugitive but they did find some “allegedly obscene pictures” which were illegal to possess

The petitioner was ultimately convicted of possessing these materials.

mapp v ohio part of the constitution in question

4th amendment search and seizure

mapp v ohio issue and decision

Whether evidence discovered during a search and seizure conducted in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution shall be admissible in a State court?

• No, the exclusionary rule applies to evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s search and seizure clause in all State prosecutions.

the exclusionary rule (mapp v ohio)

all evidence discovered as a result of a search and seizure conducted in violation of the 4th amendment shall be inadmissibile in state court proceddings

mapp v ohio opinion reasoning

Since the 4th Amendment’s right of privacy has been declared enforceable against the States through the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, the same sanction of exclusion is also enforceable against them

The purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter illegally obtaining of evidence and to compel respect for the constitutional guarantee in the only effective manner.

If the criminal is to go free because the constable has blundered, then it must be the law that sets him free.

us v leon facts

The exclusionary rule requires that evidence illegally seized must be excluded from criminal trials.

Leon was the target of police surveillance based on an anonymous tip from a source with no proven reliability

police applied to a judge for a search warrant of Leon's home based on the evidence from their surveillance.

A judge issued the warrant, and the police recovered large quantities of illegal drugs.

Leon was indicted for violating federal drug laws.

Attorney’s tried to claim that the warrant was invalid because the original informant lacked established credibility so the judge did not have probable cause to issue the warrant

A judge concluded that the affidavit for the search warrant was insufficient; it did not establish the probable cause necessary to issue the warrant. Thus, the evidence obtained under the warrant could not be introduced at Leon's trial.

us v leon part of the constitution in question

4th amendment search and seizure

us v leon issue and decision

should the 4^th amendment exclusionary rule be modified to not bar the use of evidence obtained by officers acting in reasonable reliance on a search warrant issued by a detached and neutral magistrate but ultimarely found to be unsupported by probable cause be allowed to be used in the prosecution’s case? Ie: Is there a "good faith" exception to the exclusionary rule?

o   Yes. There is such an exception

us v leon rule of law established

Reasonable reliance upon an otherwise invalid search warrant does not render evidence obtained during the search inadmissible.

The exclusionary rule cannot deter police in a case like Leon, where they act in good faith on a warrant issued by a judge.

us v leon opinion reasoning

Evidence seized on the basis of a mistakenly issued search warrant could be introduced at trial.

The exclusionary rule is not a right but a remedy justified by its ability to deter illegal police conduct.

the costs of the exclusionary rule outweighed the benefits.

The exclusionary rule is costly to society: Guilty defendants go unpunished and people lose respect for the law.

The benefits of the exclusionary rule are uncertain: The rule cannot deter police in a case like Leon, where they act in good faith on a warrant issued by a judge.

escobedo v illinois facts

Danny Escobedo was a 22-year-old Mexican immigrant with very little education

After being arrested and taken into police custody as a suspect in the murder of his brother-in-law, Escobedo asked to speak to his attorney but the police refused.

His attorney arrived at police headquarters soon after Escobedo did and was not allowed to speak to his client as the officers said they had not completed questioning.

Escobedo was denied his attorney throughout questioning, and ultimately confessed to murder

Escobedo was also not warned of his right to remain silent before the interrogation.

he was convicted of murder

escobedo v illinois part of the constitution in question

5th amendment self-incrimination and 6th amendment right to counsel

escobedo issue and decision

If a suspect has been taken into police custody and interrogated by police without their request to see an attorney being honored, nor being advised of their right to remain silent, have they been denied effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment?

• Yes. A suspect who was being interrogated by police while in custody, who had not been warned of his right to remain silent, and who had requested and been denied an opportunity to consult with his lawyer, had been denied the assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment. The statements made are therefore not constitutionally admissible at his trial.

escobedo rule of law established

Not allowing someone to speak with an attorney, and not advising them of their right to remain silent after they have been arrested and before they have been interrogated, is a denial of assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment.

miranda issue and decision

Is the government is required to notify the arrested defendants of their Fifth Amendment constitutional rights against self-incrimination before they interrogate the defendants?

o   Yes. The Fifth Amendment requires that law enforcement officials advise suspects of their right to remain silent and to obtain an attorney during interrogations while in police custody. In order to combat these police pressures and to permit a full opportunity to exercise the privilege against self-incrimination, the accused must be adequately and effectively apprised of his rights and the exercise of those rights must be fully honored.

miranda rights

1. the right to remain silent, that anything i say can and will be used against me in a court of law

2. the right to an attorney, if i cannot afford one then one will be appointed for me

missouri v seibert facts

Siebert’s 12 year old son died in his sleep after suffering with celebral palsy. In an attempt to conceal the facts Siebert and her 2 teenage sons set their mobile home on fire

Seibert was convicted of second-degree murder for the death of Rector, who died in the fire

Several days after the fire, Seibert was interrogated by a police officer.

The officer initially withheld her Miranda warnings, hoping to get a confession from her first.

Once she had confessed (not on the recording), the officer took a short break from questioning, then read her Miranda rights and resumed questioning her after she waived those rights.

He prompted her to restate the confession that she had made earlier. Based on this second, Mirandaized confession, Seibert was convicted.

missouri v seibert part of the constitution in question

5th amendment and 6th amendment

issue and decision missouri v seibert

when an officer intentionally decides to withold miranda warnings to elicit a confession, is a later-mirandized confession admissible?

no. the post-miranda confession is not admissible.

seibert rule of law established

In order to use a post-Mirandized confession, after eliciting an un-Mirandized confession, the police must give the defendant ample opportunity to consider the effect of the Miranda warnings.

cantwell v connecticut facts

In a predominantly Catholic area of Connecticut, Cantwell and his sons, members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses faith, were soliciting contributions as well as playing recordings and distributing literature that were critical of the Catholic faith.

Two passersby took offense at the anti-Catholic messages in the material The next day, police arrested the Cantwells for violating a state law prohibiting individuals “from soliciting money for any cause” without a license.

The law required those who wanted to solicit to obtain a “certificate of approval” from the state’s secretary of the Public Welfare Council.

The state charged this official with determining whether “the cause is a religious one” or one of a “bona fide object of charity.”

If the official found neither, he was authorized to withhold the necessary certificate.

cantwell part of the constitution in question

1st amendment freedom of exercise

cantwell issue and decision

Should the First Amendment’s free exercise clause be incorporated and made applicable to the states through the 14^th amendment?

o   Yes. The 1^st amendment is incorporated to the states via the 14^th amendment.

Did the arrest and conviction of cantwell for violating the common law offense of breach of the peace violate his constitutional rights of free speech under the first amendment

o   Yes. Cantwell’s actions were protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments

cantwell: the valid secular policy. the court will uphold a law even if the legislation has the effect of conflicting with religious practices if:

1. the police serves a legitimate government goal

   1. is not directed at any particular religion

rule of law established cantwell

the free Exercise clause is applicable to state and local governments through the due process clause of the 14^th amendment

sherbert v verner

Sherbert worked a factory job Monday through Friday 7-3 in South Carolina for 35 years

Sherbert was a member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, which held that no work could be performed between sundown on Friday and sundown on Saturday, so she refused shifts on Sat

Sherbert’s employer informed her that work on Saturdays would no longer be voluntary and that to retain her job she would need to work

Her employer fired her after she missed six Saturdays. Sherbert applied for unemployment.

The Employment Security Commission ruled that she could not receive unemployment benefits because her refusal to work on Saturday constituted a failure without good cause to accept available work

sherbert issue and decision

does the disqualification for benefits impose any burden on the free exercise of sherbert’s religion?

yes.

The Sherbert Test determines if government actions violate an individual's right to freely exercise their religion:

o   Substantial Burden: Does the state regulation force an individual to choose between following their religious beliefs or receiving a government benefit/avoiding a penalty?

o   Compelling State Interest: If a burden is found, the state must prove it has an incredibly compelling compelling reason for that restriction.

Least Restrictive Means: Is this the least intrusive way for the government to achieve its objective?

rule of law established sherbert

A state may not constitutionally apply the eligibility provisions of its unemployment compensation scheme so as to constrain a worker to abandon her religious convictions respecting the day of rest.

wisconson v yoder facts

Wisconson had a compulsory education law mandating that children attend public or private school until the age of 16

This law was in contradiction with the norms of the Old Order Amish, who do not permit their children to attend public schools after the 8^th grade and prefer to educate their older kids at home

The school district brought criminal complaints against Yoder, Miller, and Yutzy for removing their children. They were found guikty and fined $5 by the county court.

issue and decision wisconson v yoder

Did Wisconsin's requirement that all parents send their children to school at least until age 16 violate the First Amendment by criminalizing the conduct of parents who refused to send their children to school for religious reasons?

Yes. The individual's interests in the free exercise of religion under the First Amendment outweighed the State's interests in compelling school attendance beyond the eighth grade

oregon v smith facts

Peyote is a hallucinogen that is not widely used and is illegal to possess unless prescribed.

To members of the Native American Church, peyote is a sacramental substance, an object of worship, and a source of divine protection. The peyote is used during religious rituals

Two members of the Native American Church were fired from their jobs as counselors at a private drug and alcohol abuse clinic after they used peyote at a religious ceremony

They were found ineligible for unemployment because they were fired for “misconduct”

oregon v smith issue and decision

-              Does a statute which denies unemployment benefits to a worker fired for using illegal drugs for religious purposes violate the 1^st amendment Free Exercise Clause?

o   No. The right of free exercise does not relive an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law makes criminal conduct that his religion proscribes.

Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye Inc v City of Hialeah facts

-              Santeria is a religion that fused African religion with Roman Catholicism.

-              Santeria used animal sacrifice as a form of worship in which an animal's carotid arteries would be cut and, except during healing and death rights, the animal would be eaten.

-              In response to the news that a Santeria church was to be built in the city of Hialeah, the city council held an emergency public session in order to pass three laws outlawing any animal sacrifices in connection with Santeria rituals.

Violations were punishable by fines not exceeding $500.00 or imprisonment no longer than sixty days, or both.

Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye Inc v City of Hialeah issue and decision

Did the city of Hialeah's ordinance, prohibiting ritual animal sacrifices, violate the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause?

o   Yes. The ordinances were neither neutral nor generally applicable.

rule of law established church of the lukumi babalu aye inc v city of hialeah

-              A law burdening religious practice that is not neutral or not of general application must undergo the most rigorous of scrutiny.

o   The law must advance “interests of the highest order” and must be narrowly tailored in pursuit of those interests (Yoder)

o    

Where the government restricts only conduct protected by the First Amendment and fails to enact feasible measures to restrict other conduct producing substantial harm or alleged harm of the same sort, the interest given in justification of the restriction is not compelling

everson v ewing facts

In 1941, New Jersey passed a law authorizing local school boards that provided “any transportation for public school children to and from school” also to supply transportation to children living in the district who attended nonprofit private schools.

Ewing Township decided to use tax dollars to reimburse parents for transportation costs incurred in sending their children to school.

Because the township had no public high schools of its own, the reimbursement policy covered transportation expenses to parents sending their children to three neighboring public high schools.

It also covered four private schools, all of which were affiliated with the Catholic Church and provided regular religious instruction along with normal secular subjects.

Everson, a taxpayer living in the district, challenged the reimbursements to parents sending their children to religious schools

part of the constitution in question everson v ewing

1st amendment establishment clause

issue and decision everson v ewing

Did the New Jersey statue, in allowing reimbursement for Catholic schools, violate the establishment clause of the First amendment?

No. The legislation at issue did not violate the Establishment Clause because it did nothing to promote the parochial schools; it only provided students of both public and parochial schools equal access to affordable transportation

lemon v kurtzman facts

-              Both Pennsylvania and Rhode Island adopted statutes that provided for the state to pay for aspects of non-secular, non-public education.

-              The Pennsylvania law authorized Kurtzman to “purchase” secular educational services for nonpublic schools.

-              Under the PA law, the superintendent would use state taxes levied on cigarettes to reimburse nonpublic schools for expenses incurred for teachers’ salaries, textbooks, and instructional materials.

-              About 96 percent of the students in nonpublic schools attended religious schools, primarily Catholic ones.

-              The companion case, Earley v. DiCenso, involved a challenge to the Rhode Island Salary Supplement Act. Aimed at improving the quality of private education, this law supplemented the salaries of teachers of secular subjects in private elementary schools by up to 15 percent of their current salaries

lemon issue and decision

Is it constitutional for the state to provide financial assistance to religious schools for the cost of teaching secular subjects?

No. The statutes result in excessive entanglement between the government and religion.

the lemon test: a statue must pass a three pronged test in order to avoid violating the establishment clause:

1. the statute must have a secular legislative purpose

2. its principal or primary effect must be one that neither promotes nor inhibits religion

3. and it must not foster “excessive government entanglement with religion

   1. determined by the character and purpose of the institution benefited, the nature of the aid given, and the resulting relationship between the government and church

zelman v simmons harris facts

-              Ohio's Project Scholarship Program provides school choice vouchers for certain students in the Cleveland City School District to attend participating public or private schools of their parents’ choosing and receive a tuition scholarship, or remain in their own public school with tutorial aid.

-              There was no distinction made in participation eligibility between religious and non-religious schools in the district, nor against public schools in the adjacent district. Both religious and nonreligious schools in the district may participate.

-              Tuition aid is distributed to parents according to financial need, and where the aid is spent depends solely upon where parents choose to enroll their children.

-              In the 1999-2000 school year 82% of the participating private schools had a religious affiliation and 96% of the students participating in the scholarship program were enrolled in religiously affiliated schools. Sixty percent of the students were from families at or below the poverty line.

-              A group of Ohio taxpayers sought to enjoin the program on the ground that it violated the Establishment Clause.

issue and decision zelman v simmons-harris

Is a school voucher program which allows parents to send their children to a private school in violation of the Establishment Clause, where the vast majority of participating private schools are religiously affiliated?

o   No. the Court held that the program does not violate the Establishment Clause.

rule of law established zelman

A school voucher program which allows parents to send their children to a private school is not in violation of the Establishment Clause, where the vast majority of participating private schools are affiliated to religious groups.

edwards v aguillard facts

-              A Louisiana law entitled the "Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science in Public School Instruction Act" prohibited forbids the teaching of evolution in public schools unless accompanied by instruction in “creation science.”

-              No school is required to teach evolution or creation science. If either is taught however, the other must be taught.

Aguillard and other parents of children attending Louisiana public schools, Louisiana teachers, and religious leaders challenged the constitutionality of the Act.

issue and decision edwards v aguillard

Did the Louisiana law, which mandated the teaching of "creation science" along with the theory of evolution, violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment?

o   Yes. The law violated the Establishment Clause by requiring the teaching of a religious point of view.

edwards v aguillard rule of law established

While the Court is normally deferential to the state’s articulation of a secular purpose, it is required that the statement of such purpose be sincere and not without a sham. It is clear that requiring schools to teach creation science with evolution does not advance academic freedom.

van order v perry facts

-              Outside of the Texas capital building is a site that contains 17 monuments. Each monument represents something in connection with Texas’s history. One of those statutes has the Ten Commandments in its entirety on it.

-              Van Orden sued Texas, arguing a Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of the state capitol building represented an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion.

-              Orden argued this violated the First Amendment's establishment clause, which prohibits the government from passing laws "respecting an establishment of religion."

issue and decision van orden v perry

Does a Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of a state capitol building violate the First Amendment's establishment clause?

o   No. A monument with the dual nature of historical reference and religious content is not unconstitutional.

van orden rule of law established

Displays that have both religious and governmental significance will not be held to violate the Establishment Clause

hosanna tabor v eeoc facts

-              Perich filed a lawsuit against the Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School in Michigan, for allegedly violating the Americans with Disabilities Act when they fired her after she became sick in 2004.

-              After several months on disability, Perich was diagnosed and treated for narcolepsy and was able to return to work without restrictions. But she said the school at that point urged her to resign and, when she refused, fired her.

-              Perich filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which ruled in her favor and authorized a lawsuit against the school.

-              Attorneys representing the school argued that the "ministerial exception" under the First Amendment should apply in their client's case. The exception gives religious institutions certain rights to control employment matters without interference from the courts.

issue and decision hosanna tabor v eeoc

Does the ministerial exception, which prohibits most employment-related lawsuits against religious organizations by employees performing religious functions, apply to a teacher at a religious elementary school who teaches the full secular curriculum, but also teaches daily religion classes, is a commissioned minister, and regularly leads students in prayer and worship?

Yes. Perich was a minister for the purposes of the Civil Rights Act's ministerial exception, dismissing Perich's suit and her claims for damages.

rule of law established hosanna

The Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment's religion clauses prohibit lawsuits against religious organizations by employees performing key ministerial functions, protecting a church's autonomy in selecting its own ministers

baker v carr facts

-              Tennessee legislative districts had not been redrawn since 1901

-              Population shifts created unequal representation and urban voters claimed vote dilution

-              The Supreme Court of the United States (Supreme Court) has long held that such challenges present a political question, not addressable by the courts.

issue and decision baker v carr

-              Did the Supreme Court have jurisdiction over questions of legislative apportionment?

o   Yes. State reapportionment claims are justiciable in federal court

rule of law established baker v carr

An apportionment case may be reviewed on Fourteenth Amendment grounds, so long as these grounds are independent from political question elements.

gingles facts

-              The North Carolina General Assembly passed a redistricting plan for the state's Senate and House of Representatives.

-              Black citizens of North Carolina alleged that the plan created seven new districts where blacks would not be able to elect representatives of their choosing.

-              They filed suit in a District Court claiming that this violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments.

-              Before the District Court could hear the case, Congress amended Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in order to clarify that voting violations needed only to have a "discriminatory effect" and required no "discriminatory purpose."

issue and decision gingles

-              Does the North Carolina redistricting plan unlawfully discriminate against black voters in six voting districts?

o   Yes. The Court found that five of the six contested districts discriminated against blacks by diluting the power of their collective vote.

the gingles test

o   The size and composition: The minority group must be large enough and geographically compact enough to form a majority in a single-member district

o   Minority Political Cohesion: the minority group must be politically cohesive, meaning that the majority of minority voters vote for the same candidate

o   Majority Votes as a Bloc: The majority group votes as a bloc to defeat the minority group’s preferred candidate

Then if in the totality of circumstances the court can consider the following (nonexpansive list):

o   Is there a history of discrimination? (education, housing, health)

o   To what degree is this state racially polarized?

o   How unusual are the states districts?

o   Was the campaign characterized by racial

shaw v reno facts

-              As a result of the 1990 census, North Carolina became entitled to a twelfth seat in the United States House of Representatives.

-              The North Carolina General Assembly enacted a reapportionment plan

-              The U.S. Attorney General rejected a North Carolina congressional reapportionment plan pursuant to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act because the plan created only one black-majority district

-              North Carolina submitted a second plan creating two black-majority districts. One of these districts was, in parts, no wider than the interstate road along which it stretched. 

-              Five North Carolina residents challenged the constitutionality of this unusually shaped district, alleging that its only purpose was to secure the election of additional black representatives.

shaw v reno issue and decision

-              Did the North Carolina residents' claim, that the State created a racially gerrymandered district, raise a valid constitutional issue under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause?

o   Yes. The district shape indicates an effort to separate voters into different districts based on race.

rule of law established shaw v reno

-              The deliberate segregation of voters into separate districts on the basis of race violates their constitutional right to participate in a “color-blind” electoral process.

-              Strict scrutiny applies when race is the predominant factor in drawing legislative districts

shelby v holder facts

-              The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was enacted as a response to the nearly century-long history of voting discrimination.

-              Section 5 prohibits eligible districts from enacting changes to their election laws and procedures without gaining official authorization.

-              Section 4(b) defines the eligible districts as ones that had a voting test in place as of November 1, 1964 and less than 50% turnout for the 1964 presidential election. Such districts must prove to the Attorney General or a three-judge panel of a Washington, D.C. district court that the change "neither has the purpose nor will have the effect" of negatively impacting any individual's right to vote based on race or minority status.

-              Section 5 was originally enacted for five years, but has been continually renewed since that time.

-              Shelby County, Alabama, filed suit in district court and sought both a declaratory judgment that Section 5 and Section 4(b) are unconstitutional and a permanent injunction against their enforcement.

-              The district court upheld the constitutionality of the Sections and granted summary judgment for the Attorney General.

shelby v holder issue and decision

-              Does the renewal of Section 5 of the Voter Rights Act under the constraints of Section 4(b) exceed Congress' authority under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, and therefore violate the Tenth Amendment and Article Four of the Constitution?

o   Yes. Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional.

rule of law established in shelby v holder

The deliberate segregation of voters into separate districts on the basis of race violates their constitutional right to participate in a “color-blind” electoral process.

-              Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act imposes current burdens that are no longer responsive to the current conditions in the voting districts in question.

-              Although the constraints this section places on specific states made sense in the 1960s and 1970s, they do not any longer and now represent an unconstitutional violation of the power to regulate elections that the Constitution reserves for the states.

-              the formula for determining whether changes to a state's voting procedure should be federally reviewed is now outdated and does not reflect the changes that have occurred in the last 50 years in narrowing the voting turnout gap in the states in question.

davis v bamdernar facts

-              The Republican-controlled state legislature adopted Indiana’s 1981 state apportionment plan which provided for state senate and house districts of substantially equal population.

-              The Democrats claimed that the plan diluted their votes by using a mix of single and multimembered districts and gerrymandering district lines.