Upgrade to remove ads
AP Gov Supreme Court Cases 1-22
Terms in this set (22)
Schenck v. United States 1919
1. During WWI, Schenck mailed circulars to draftees saying the draft was wrong, motivated by capitalism. Charged with conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act.
2. Are Schenck's actions protected by Free Speech?
3. Holmes, in an 8-0 decision, concluded during wartime, utterances tolerable in peacetime can be punished.
Gitlow v. New York 1925
1. Gitlow, a socialist, was arrested for distributing copies of a "left-wing manifesto" Gitlow was convicted under a state criminal anarchy law, which punished advocating the overthrow of the government by force.
2. Is the New York law punishing advocacy to overthrow the government by force an unconstitutional violation of the free speech clause of the First Amendment?
3. 7-2 decision free speech does not shield Gitlow from the NY statute.
Near v. Minnesota 1931
1. Near published a scandal sheet of officials that were charged with implication with gangsters. Minnesota obtained an injunction to prevent these newspapers.
2. Does the Minnesota 'gag law' violate the Free Press Clause of the 1st Amendment?
3. 5-4 decision for Near - under free press, with limited exceptions, government may not censor or prohibit a publication in advance.
West Virginia v. Barnette 1943
1. The West Virginia Board of Education required that the flag salute be part of the program - punishable by expulsion and charges of delinquency.
2. Did the flag salute for public schoolchildren violate the 1st Amendment?
3. Court overruled in a 6-3 decision its Minersville School District v. Gobitis and held that making schoolchildren salute the flag was unconstitutional.
Engel v. Vitale 1962
1. The Board of Regents for the State of New York authorized a short, voluntary prayer for recitation at the start of each school day.
2. Does the reading of a nondenominational prayer at the start of the school day violate the "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment?
3. 6-1 decision for Engel. By providing the prayer, New York officially approved religion. Decision still unpopular today.
Abington v. Schempp 1963
1. Students who attended public schools in the state of Pennsylvania were required to read at least ten verses from the Bible. After completing these readings, school authorities required all Abington Township students to recite the Lord's Prayer.
2. Did this violate the religious freedom of students as protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments?
3. In 8-1 decision, the Court found a violation because activities encroached on both Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause.
Tinker v. Des Moines 1969
1. A group of students wore black armbands to school to show their support for a truce in the Vietnam War.
2. Does a prohibition against the wearing of armbands in public school, as a form of symbolic protest, violate the students' freedom of speech protections guaranteed by the First Amendment?
3. 7-2 decision for Tinker: the armbands represent pure speech that is entirely separate from the actions or conduct of those participating in it.
Lemon v. Kurtzman 1971
1. Each statute made aid available to "church-related educational institutions."
2. Did the Rhode Island and Pennsylvania statutes violate the First Amendment's Establishment Clause by making state financial aid available to "church-related educational institutions"?
3. 8-1 decision for Lemon: The Rhode Island statute is unconstitutional under the religion clause of First Amendment for excessive entanglement of state and church.
Texas v. Johnson 1989
1. In 1984, in front of the Dallas City Hall, Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag. Johnson was tried and convicted under a Texas law outlawing flag desecration.
2. Is the desecration of an American flag, by burning or otherwise, a form of speech that is protected under the First Amendment?
3. In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that Johnson's burning of a flag was protected expression under the First Amendment.
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier 1988
1. The principal found two of the articles in the issue to be inappropriate, and ordered that the pages on which the articles appeared be withheld from publication. Cathy Kuhlmeier and two other former Hazelwood East students brought the case to court.
2. Did the principal's deletion of the articles violate the students' rights under the First Amendment?
3. In a 5-3 decision, the Court held that the First Amendment did not require schools to affirmatively promote particular types of student speech.
Santa Fe ISD v. Doe 2000
1. The District adopted a new policy, which permitted, but did not require, student-initiated and student-led prayer at all the home games.
2. Does the Santa Fe Independent School District's policy permitting student-led, student-initiated prayer at football games violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?
3. In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court held that the District's policy permitting student-led, student-initiated prayer at football games violates the Establishment Clause.
District of Columbia v. Heller 2008
1. Provisions of the District of Columbia Code made it illegal to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibited the registration of handguns. Heller applied for a one-year license for a handgun he wished to keep at home, but his application was denied.
2. Do the provisions of the District of Columbia Code that restrict the licensing of handguns and require licensed firearms kept in the home to be kept nonfunctional violate the Second Amendment?
3. In a 5-4 decision, the ban on registering handguns and the requirement to keep guns in the home disassembled or nonfunctional with a trigger lock mechanism violate the Second Amendment.
Mapp v. Ohio 1961
1. Mapp was convicted of possessing obscene materials after an illegal police search of her home for a fugitive.
2. Were the confiscated materials protected by the First Amendment?
3. In a 6-3 decision for Mapp, the Court ruled that evidence obtained in violation of the Constitution is inadmissible in a state court.
Griswold v. Connecticut 1965
1. Griswold and her colleague were convicted under a Connecticut law which criminalized the provision of counselling, and other medical treatment, to married persons for purposes of preventing conception.
2. Does the Constitution protect the right of marital privacy against state restrictions on a couple's ability to be counseled in the use of contraceptives?
3. In a 7-2 decision for Griswold, the Court ruled that this statute conflicts with the privacy in marital relations.
Roe v. Wade 1973
1. Roe, a Texas resident, sought to terminate a pregnancy, which was only allowed if the pregnant woman's life was in danger.
2. Does the Constitution embrace a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy by abortion?
3. In 7-2 decision for Roe, the Court gave women total autonomy over their pregnancy during the first trimester and defined different levels of state interest during second and third trimester. This affected 46 states.
New Jersey v. T.L.O 1985
1. T.L.O., a high school student, was charged with possession of marijuana. She was found guilty, and the New Jersey Supreme Court reversed, holding that the exclusionary rule of the Fourth Amendment applies to searches and seizures conducted by school officials in public schools.
2. Does the exclusionary rule apply to searches conducted by school officials in public schools?
3. 6-3 decision for New Jersey, - the search resulting in the discovery of the evidence of marijuana dealing by the student was reasonable
Planned Parenthood v. Casey 1992
1. Among the new provisions, the law required informed consent and a 24 hour waiting period prior to the procedure. A minor seeking an abortion required the consent of one parent. A married woman seeking an abortion had to indicate that she notified her husband of her intention to abort the fetus.
2. Can a state require women who want an abortion to obtain informed consent, wait 24 hours, and, if minors, obtain parental consent, without violating their right to abortions as guaranteed by Roe v. Wade?
3. In a 5-4 decision, the Court upheld these provisions except for notifying the husband.
Lawrence v. Texas 2003
1. Houston police entered Lawrence's apartment and saw him and Tyron Garner engaging in homosexual activities, which violated a Texas statute forbidding two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct.
2. Do their criminal convictions for adult consensual sexual intimacy in the home violate their vital interests in liberty and privacy protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
3. In a 6-3 decision, the Court ruled that the Texas statute violated the Due Process Clause, and also overruled Bowers v. Hardwick.
Gideon v. Wainwright 1963
1. Gideon was charged with committing a felony and requested a lawyer. He was not appointed one, represented himself in Court, and was found guilty.
2. Does the 6th Amendment right to counsel extend to felony defendants in state courts?
3. In a unanimous 9-0 decision, the Court ruled that state and federal courts must appoint attorneys for defendants who could not afford their own.
Miranda v. Arizona 1966
1. Ernesto Miranda confessed to a series of crimes after a variety of interrogation techniques without being read his 5th Amendment rights.
2. Do the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination extend to the police interrogation of a suspect?
3. In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that the accused must be informed of their 5th Amendment rights in all settings.
Furman v. Georgia 1972
1. Furman was robbing a home when a family member saw him. He attempted to get away, but tripped and set off a gun that killed a resident of the home.
2. Does the carrying out of the death penalty constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the 8th and 14th Amendment?
3. In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that the death penalty constituted cruel and unusual punishment and violated the Constitution.
Gregg v. Georgia 1976
1. Gregg was found guilty of armed robbery and murder and was sentences to death. He argued saying this was cruel and unusual punishment that violated the 8th and 14th Amendments.
2. Is the imposition of the death sentence prohibited under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments as "cruel and unusual" punishment?
3. In a 7-2 decision, the Court ruled that the death sentence was not cruel and unusual in all cases. It could be appropriate if carefully employed.
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE...
AP Gov Unit 6 Study Guide
AP Gov Chapter 4 Vocab
AP Gov Chapter 4-5: Court Cases
OTHER SETS BY THIS CREATOR
N309 Global Health Test #1
AP Gov Supreme Court Cases 23-40
Canterbury Tales, THE WIFE OF BATH