| Term | Definition |
|---|
| Lemon v. Kurtzman | Law must be clearly secular, not prohibiting or inhibiting religion, and there should be no excessive entanglement |
| Bowen v. Kendrick | Religious organization can obtain federal grants to help solve societal problems [exception to lemon v. kurtzman] |
| Marsh v Chambers, 1983 | Paying legislative chaplains and opening a legislative body with a prayer does not violate the establishment clause. (Long standing tradition, they're adults) [exception to lemon v. kurtzman] |
| Mueller v Allen, 1983 | States may provide school vouchers to parents that may use the money to attend religious school. [exception to lemon v. kurtzman] |
| Engle v Vitale | Mandatory prayer in schools is a violation of the establishment clause |
| Abington SD v Schempp, | declared school sponsored Bible reading in public schools in the United States to be unconstitutional [est. clause and schools] |
| Wallace v Jaffree | Moments of silent prayer at school are unconstitutional---moments of silence are not. [est. clause and schools] |
| Lee v Weisman | public schools may not have clergy lead prayers at graduation ceremonies [est. clause and schools] |
| Santa Fe ISD v Doe | a policy permitting student-led, student-initiated prayer at football games violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment [est. clause and schools] |
| Good News Club v. Milford Central School, | when a government operates a "limited public forum," it may not discriminate against speech that takes place within that forum on the basis of the viewpoint it expresses—in this case, against religious speech engaged in by an evangelical Christian club for children. [est. clause and schools] |
| Equal Access Act | Extended 1981 ruling to high schools for use of facilities by religious groups after hours [est. clause and schools] |
| Free Exercise Act | You may believe whatever you wish, but you may not be able to exercise that belief. |
| Reynolds v US | Man claimed that the court should not find him guilty of polygamy since it was his religious duty. The court disagreed. [Free exercise] |
| Cantwell v Connecticut | incorporation (free exercise) |
| Minersville ISD v Gobitis | The Court ruled that public schools could compel students—in this case, Jehovah's Witnesses—to salute the American Flag and recite the Pledge of Allegiance despite the students' religious objections to these practices. [Free exercise] |
| WVA Board of Ed. v Barnette | held that the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution protected students from being forced to salute the American flag and say the Pledge of Allegiance in school. Overturned MinersvilleISD v Gobitis [Free exercise] |
| Sherbert v Verner | a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment required that government demonstrate a compelling government interest before denying unemployment compensation to someone who was fired because her job conflicted with her religion. |
| Welsh v US | This decision expanded the types of beliefs that can be used to get conscientious objector status. The depth and fervency of the beliefs, rather than their status as part of an established religious system, became fundamental to determining which views could exempt an individual from military service. |
| Wisconsin v Yoder | free exercise of religion not violation of compulsory attendance laws; Amish children do not have to go to school until they are 16---they may stop after the 8th grade |
| Goldman v Weinberger | The objectives of the military allow it to restrict the religious rights of individuals in the interest of cohesiveness. The Court did not endeavor to assess the military's claims concerning the importance of regulating the appearance of its members. The military is left to make the final decision of whether such regulations are necessary; jewish guy couldn't where his yamulke due to army regulations. |
| Oregon v Smith | peyote smoking member of native american church denied unemployment compensation [Free exercise] |
| Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 1993 | Law aimed at preventing laws which substantially burden a person's free exercise of their religion. Also, attempted to reign in the Courts' decisions against religious practices. |
| Lukumi Babalu Aye v City of Hialeah | The Supreme Court, however, held that the ordinances were neither neutral nor generally applicable: rather, they applied exclusively to the church. Because the law was targeted at Santería, the Court held, it was not subject to an undemanding rational basis test: rather, it had to be justified by a compelling governmental interest, and be narrowly tailored to advance that interest. Because the ordinance suppressed more religious conduct than was necessary to achieve its stated ends, it was deemed unconstitutional. |
| Alien Sedition Acts | tightened restrictions on foreign-born Americans and limited speech [free speech] |
| Espionage Act, 1917 | This Act prescribed fines up to $10,000 and prison up to 20 yrs for a variety of loosely defined antiwar activities. [free speech] |
| Sedition Act, 1918 | Congressional measure banning saying "unloyal," things during wartime; violated 1st amendment rights & convicted many [free speech] |
| Smith Act 1940 | illegal to discuss overthrowing the government [free speech] |
| McCarthy Hearings, 1950s | The Army accused chief counsel, Roy Cohn, of pressuring the Army to give preferential treatment to G. David Schine, who was a former McCarthy aide and a friend of Cohn's. McCarthy counter-charged that this accusation was made in bad faith, in retaliation for his recent aggressive investigations of suspected Communists and security risks in the Army [free speech]. |
| Schenck v US, 1919 | concluded that a defendant did not have a First Amendment right to free speech against the draft during World War I. Charles Schenck was the Secretary of the Socialist party and was responsible for printing, distributing, and mailing 15,000 leaflets to men eligible for the draft that advocated opposition to the draft. Founding of CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER [free speech] |
| Abrams v US, 1919 | defendants were charged and convicted for inciting resistance to the war effort and for urging curtailment of production of essential war material. They were sentenced to 20 years in prison. The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that the Act did not violate civil rights under the First Amendment, [free speech] |
| Gitlow v NY, 1925 | "Bad Tendency Doctrine," speech restricted if it has tendency to lead to illegal actions; selectively incorporated freedom of speech to states |
| Dennis v US, 1951 | fed can limit speech that doesn't lead to action (upholding Smith Act, which made it a crime to support any communist organization) |
| Yates v US, 1957 | Ruled that the First Amendment protected radical and revolutionary speech, unless it posed a "clear and present danger". (overt action required) [Free Speech] |
| Brandenburg v Ohio, 1969 | states not allowed to prevent or punish inflammatory speech unless it will lead to imminent lawless action [free speech] |
| Symbolic Speech | nonverbal communication, such as burning a flag or wearing an armband. The Supreme Court has accorded some symbolic speech protection under the first amendment. |
| Tinker v Des Moines ISD, 1969 | The arm band in schools case; First Amendment applied to public schools, and that administrators would have to demonstrate constitutionally valid reasons for any specific regulation of speech in the classroom. [symbolic speech] |
| US v O'Brien, 1969 | (no burning draft card) [symbolic speech] |
| National Socialist Party of America v Skokie, 1977 | The Court ruled that the use of the swastika is a symbolic form of free speech entitled to First Amendment protections and determined that the swastika itself did not constitute "fighting words." [symbolic speech] |
| Texas v Johnson, 1989 | you can burn the flag [symbolic speech] |
| Near v Minnesota, 1931 | selectively incorporates freedom of the press,The Court ruled that a Minnesota law that targeted publishers of "malicious" or "scandalous" newspapers violated the First Amendment |
| New York Times v Sullivan, 1964 | Established the *actual malice* standard. In cases of libel or slander, public figures must prove that the author had "knowledge of falsity and reckless disregard for the truth." |
| New York Times v US, 1971 | "pentagon papers" executive efforts to prevent publication forbidden (Ellsburg & Vietnam) |
| Richmond Newspapers v Virginia, 1978 | announced that the public and the press have a First Amendment right to attend criminal trials. |
| Miller v. California | declared that a work is obscene and may be regulated by the gov if work taken as a whole appeals to prurient interests, work portrays sexual conduct in a patently offensive way and work taken as a whole lacks literary, artistic, political or scientific value [obscenity] |
| FCC v Pacifica, 1978 | defined the power of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) over "indecent" material as applied to broadcasting; some kid over heard Filthy Words routine on TV, so the dad sued. [obscenity] |
| Reno v ACLU, 1997 | ll nine Justices of the Court voted to strike down anti-indecency provisions of the Communications Decency Act (the CDA), finding they violated the freedom of speech provisions of the First Amendment [obscenity] |
| Bethel ISD v Fraser | limitation on the scope of Tinker ruling. prohibiting certain styles of expression that are sexually vulgar. |
| Goss v Lopez | due process in suspension or expulsion |
| Hazelwood ISD v Kuhlmeir | censorship did not violate the student's First Amendment rights of free speech; decision which held that public school curricular student newspapers that have not been established as forums for student expression are subject to a lower level of First Amendment protection than independent student expression or newspapers established (by policy or practice) as forums for student expression. |
| NJ v TLO | Students may be searched by school administrators if they have reasonable belief---this is a lower standard than probable cause. |
| Vernonia ISD v Acton | although the tests were searches under the Fourth Amendment, they were reasonable in light of the schools' interest in preventing teenage drug use. |
| Heller vs. DC, 2008 | The Supreme Court said that the Second Amendment protects a pre-existing, private, individually-held right, to keep arms and to bear arms, without regard to a person's relationship to a militia. |
| Weeks v US, 1914- | established exclusionary rule [4th amendment]; Fremont Weeks was suspected of using the mail system to distribute chances in a lottery, which was considered gambling and was illegal in Missouri. State agents entered his home, searched his room, and took possession of papers and other property belonging to the Plaintiff. Later that day, the State agents returned to the house with a U.S. Marshal in order to collect more evidence and took letters and envelopes from Weeks' chiffonier drawers. In both instances, the police did not have a search warrant. |
| exclusionary rule | evidence collected or analyzed in violation of the defendant's constitutional rights is sometimes inadmissible for a criminal prosecution in a court of law. |
| Wolf v Colorado | the Fourteenth Amendment did not impose specific limitations on criminal justice in the states, and that illegally obtained evidence did not necessarily have to be excluded from trials in all cases. |
| Mapp v Ohio | a landmark case in the area of U.S. criminal procedure, in which the United States Supreme Court decided that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment protection against "unreasonable searches and seizures" may not be used in criminal prosecutions in state courts, as well as federal courts., Established the exclusionary rule was applicable to the states (evidence seized illegally cannot be used in court) |
| Miranda v Arizona, 1966 | all defendants must be informed of legal rights before they are arrested [5th] |
| Gideon v Wainwright, 1963 | If a defendant cannot afford an attorney the state must provide one. Incorporated the 6th amendment. |
| Furman v Georgia, 1972 | halt to all death penalty punishments in nation until a less arbitrary method of sentencing was found [8th] |
| Gregg v Georgia, 1976 | Death penalty is not "cruel and unusual punishment" in cases of murder [8th] |
| Griswold v Connecticut, 1965 | Identified an implied right to privacy in the U.S. Constitution using the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 9th amendment. Hint: This case involved birth control and married couples... relate this somehow to the Griswold family vacation movies? |
Combine with other sets
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace