us govt final | james
About this set
Created by:
heartstrings on January 16, 2011
Subjects:
Description:
judicial jargon
important cases
also learn: circumstances based around clauses/rights
Order by
32 terms
Terms | Definitions |
|---|---|
 Marbury v. Madison (1803) | The Supreme Court has the power of judicial review (i.e., the power to determine whether the laws passed by Congress, and the acts of the Executive Branch, violate the Constitution). |
| Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004) | A United States citizen may be detained indefinitely by the President as an "enemy combatant;" but has the right to a review of his status as an "enemy combatant" by a "neutral decision maker." |
| Rasul v. Bush (2004) | A non-US citizen may be detained indefinitely by the President of the United States as an "enemy combatant;" but has the right to a review of his status as an "enemy combatant" by a "neutral decision maker." |
| Boumediene v. Bush (2008) | A non-US citizen detained outside the US cannot be denied access to US courts unless there are adequate substitute procedures. The 2006 procedures violate US law and are inadequate. (The procedures established by Congress in the Military Commissions Act of 2006 for determining whether persons detained indefinitely as "enemy combatants" are, in fact, "enemy combatants" create a "considerable risk of error." Accordingly, they cannot substitute for a civilian court's review of the status of an alleged "enemy combatant.") |
| Everson v. Board of Education (1947) | Under the First Amendment's Establishment Clause, neither the federal government nor a state may "aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another..." |
| Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) | A government action violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment if: 1) it has the primary purpose of advancing religion; 2) it has the primary effect of advancing religion; or 3) it risks "excessive government entanglement with religion." |
| Schenck v. United States (1919) | The First Amendment does not protect speech that presents a "clear and present danger" of public disorder, lawlessness or rebellion. |
| Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) | The First Amendment protects speech that advocates disorder, lawlessness or rebellion unless the speech is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to produce imminent lawless action. |
| New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) | A public official or public figure suing a publisher for libel (i.e., defamation) must prove that the publisher published the libelous story knowing that it was false or with "reckless disregard of its truth or falsity." |
| New York Times Co. v. United States (The Pentagon Papers Case) (1971) | Except in extraordinary circumstances, a court may not prevent the news or entertainment media from publishing or broadcasting material allegedly not protected by the First Amendment. (This is known as the doctrine of "prior restraint.") If the material is not protected by the First Amendment, the government -- or any party claiming to be injured by the publication or broadcast of the material -- may take appropriate action (i.e., criminal prosecution or civil litigation) after publication. |
| Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) | The Sixth Amendment requires the federal government, and the states, to provide government-paid lawyers to criminal defendants who cannot afford lawyers. |
| Miranda v. Arizona (1966) | A person in police custody may not be questioned without his attorney present unless he has been told: 1) that he has the right to remain silent; 2) that he has the right to an attorney (at government expense if he cannot afford one); and 3) that anything he says after he acknowledges that he understands these rights may be used as evidence against him at his trial. |
| Korematsu v. United States (1944) | A law that classifies people on the basis of race or national origin ("suspect classifications"), or imposes burdens on the basis of race or national origin, is subject to "strict scrutiny" -- it can only be justified if it is essential to a compelling government purpose. |
| Ex parte Endo (1944) | The federal government may not subject a loyal US citizen to detention. |
| Brown v. Board of Education (1954) | The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment prohibits racial segregation in public schools (and, by extension, in all other government programs and public facilities). |
| Jurisdiction | The authority of a court to hear a particular case. |
| Original Jurisdiction | The authority of a court to be the first court to hear a particular case |
| Appellate Jurisdiction | The authority of a court to review the decision of a "lower" court in a particular case |
| Concurrent Jurisdiction | A situation in which both a state court and a federal court can hear a particular case. |
| "Federal Question" Jurisdiction | The authority of a federal court to hear a case involving an issue of federal law, or involving the United States government as a party or litigant |
| "Diversity" Jurisdiction | The authority of a federal court to hear a case involving people who live in different states when the amount in dispute is more than $75,000 |
| Plaintiff | The person (or government agency, or corporation, etc.) who files a lawsuit |
| Defendant | The person (or government agency, or corporation, etc.) who is sued |
| Writ of Certiorari | The main procedure used to bring a case to the Supreme Court; the Supreme Court has discretion to decide which cases come before it by this route |
| Brief | A written statement, filed with a court by a litigant, setting forth the facts and law relevant to his or her case and explaining why he or she ought to win the case |
| Amicus Curiae (or "Friend of the Court") Brief | A written statement filed by someone who is not a litigant setting forth the facts and law relevant to a particular case and explaining why one side or the other ought to win the case |
| Opinion | The written statement of a court's reasons for deciding a case in a particular way |
| Per Curiam Opinion | A short unsigned statement of a Supreme Court decision |
| Unanimous Opinion | In a court with multiple judges, a written statement of the reasons of the court for deciding a case in a particular way with which all of the judges agree |
| Majority Opinion | In a court with multiple judges, a written statement of the reasons of the court for deciding a case in a particular way with which most of the judges agree |
| Concurring Opinion | In a court with multiple judges, the written statement of a judge who agrees (or judges who agree) with the decision made about a case by the majority of the judges, but who has different reasons than they do for reaching that decision |
| Dissenting Opinion | In a court with multiple judges, the written statement of a judge who disagrees (or judges who disagree) with the decision made about a case by the majority of the judges, with an explanation of his or her reasons for disagreeing |
First Time Here?
Welcome to Quizlet, a fun, free place to study. Try these flashcards, find others to study, or make your own.