AP U.S. Government Court Cases and Amendments
Terms in this set (67)
Lemon v. Kurtzman
(1st Amendment; Religion) 1971 defining government actionsin dealing with religion--must not inhibit or advance religion and does not entangle the goverment with religion.
Engel v. Vitale (1962)
(1st Amendment; Religion) Prohibited state-sponsored recitation of prayer in public schools by virtue of 1st Amendment's establishment clause and the 14th Amendment's due process clause; Warren Court's judicial activism.
Sante Fe ISD v. Doe (2000)
(1st Amendment; Religion) A school permitted student-led, student initiated prayer before each home football game. Result: The student led prayer violates the Establishment clause as the public speech takes place on government property and government-endorsed events which means the prayer would also have to be promoted. This is unconstitutional.
Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)
(1st Amendment; Religion) Amish people refused to send their children to school past the 8th grade when the state required public schooling for all children until age16. Result: This law is in conflict with the Free Exercise clause. The statute is in direct conflict with Amish beliefs. The Amish may teach themselves.
Reynolds v. U.S. (1878)
(1st Amendment; Religion) X challenged the anti-bigamy law by taking on another wife in Utah but was convicted. Result: The anti-bigamy statue does not violate the 1st Amendment free exercise because the statute may punish without regard to religious belief.
Employment Division v. Smith (1990)
(1st Amendment; Religion) A Native American fellow whose tribe induced smoking something as a ceremony. They go up to their tribal property to conduct this religious ceremony of smoking peoty and is fired from his job for being under that influence. The precedent was that you are free to exercise to practice your religion but that does not excuse you from that consequence of your behavior.
Schenk v. U.S. (1919)
(1st Amendment; Speech) X sent out circulars encouraging men to peacefully protest the draft. Convicted of violating the Espionage Act. Result: X's actions are not protected under free speech in the 1st A. - clear and present danger test
Gitlow v. New York (1925)
(1st Amendment; Speech) X publishes manifesto advocating socialism. Result: SC rules that arresting him is a violation of free speech but if that speech leads to dangerous actions then the legislative branch may decide what is or isn't safe to say. Speech can be punished even if no action is taken. 1st case of selective incorporation
Roth v. U.S. (1957)
(1st Amendment; Speech) obscenity is not protected by the 1st amendment. It is up to individual community standards for what is and is not acceptable.
Tinker v. De Moines (1969)
(1st Amendment; Speech) X siblings wore armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War and were suspended after refusing to remove them. Result: Symbolic speech is protected under the first A. The armbands caused no disturbance.
Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)
(1st Amendment; Speech) KKK case. X is the regional director of the kkk in ohio. 4th clan (largest in indiana and ohio). B is trying to recruit more members. Contacted local tele station. Simply asked if they wanted to come film a KKK rally. Cross burnings, had speeches, all that good stuff. One of the speakers in the film was X said "we need to get rid of blacks, catholics, and jews in the us". File charged : ohio criminal syndicate statute. This law was created to target the mafia. The law made it a criminal act to advocate violence. Convicted and his attorney appealed. Court said you can't punish the mere advocate of violence.
Miller v. California (1973)
(1st Amendment; Speech) X started a mass-mailing campaign of obscene materials and was convicted by a California statute forbidding the mailings. Result: The obscene materials do not enjoy the protection of the 1st A. due to the three prong test established in Roth v. United States. - obscenity test.
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988)
(1st Amendment; Speech) The principal of a school would not permit the publication of an issue of the school paper because it contained inappropriate material written by students. Result: This does not violate the 1st A. because a school has the right to promote particular types of student speech and set standards within reason. Schools may set standards for speech and press and regulate if material goes against the values of the school.
Texas v. Johnson (1989)
(1st Amendment; Speech) X burned an American flag in front of Dallas City Hall to protest the Reagan administration and was arrested. Result: Under the 1st A., X has the right to burn the flag in protest. It cannot be prohibited just because most find it offensive.
R.A.V. v. St. Pail (1992)
(1st Amendment; Speech) burned a cross in front of black neighbors yard. X is a white teen and it is a hate crime if a white teen burns a cross in a black family's yard but not vice versa. So that's what X sued for. The precedent is that it cannot be a hate crime if a race performs a hate crime against another but not switched. It has to work both ways.
Near v. Minnesota (1931)
(1st Amendment; Press) X published a newspaper indicating that public officials were gangsters. The state ordered him to stop publishing such newspapers. Result: SC ruled that this directly violates Free Press in 1st A. prior restraint - may only punish after publication
New York Times v. Sullivan (1964)
(1st Amendment; Press) 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.
District of Colombia v. Heller (2008)
(2nd Amendment) man wanted to take his gun home from work. State said you need a permit from the state, but there is literally nowhere to get a permit. The court said that every law abiding citizen has the right to own a gun and he won.
Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
(4th Amendment) Obscene materials were obtained illegally from X's home. Police tried to use the materials in criminal proceedings. Result: SC ruled that any evidence illegally obtained may not be used in a state court. Exclusionary rule.
Terry v. Ohio (1968)
(4th Amendment) A policeman had been undercover observing X and three other men who were suspected of carrying concealed weapons. X was arrested. Terry presented a threat to the police. Result: The search and seizure was perfectly legal because the policeman had more than a hunch. The search was limited and the purpose was for the officer's safety in the investigation. - Terry pat down.
New Jersey v. T.L.O (1985)
(4th Amendment) A teen was suspected of having drugs in her purse and belongings at school. A search was conducted in her locker and drugs were found and she was sent to a juvenile hall. Result: The search does not violate the 4th A. because the school had reasonable suspicion and the search was conducted to keep order and discipline. Schools do not have to abide by probable cause. - 4th and 14th
California v. Acevedo (1991)
(4th Amendment) this case started out in hawaii in an airport. At this fedex, they had a package being shipped to cali. While it was being processed, they had a drug dog on scene and the dog called out a box. The DEA agent opened the box and found 16 bricks of weed. The DEA agent re packages the box and ships it to cali. Informs the cali police about the box. X gets a bag of the weed, and the police follow him. If law enforcements officers have probable cause to get inside the car or container, you can now get inside both without a warrant.
Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993)
(4th Amendment) From north minneapolis. From one app. Unit, minneapolis police keep making arrests. X is walking east and the squad car is moving north to intercept X since he came out of the crack house. He notices the car and walks quickly in the opposite direction. He cuts into a parking lot to hide and the police find him, do a pat down, and the officer gropes the man's pocket and gets drugs. The judge says that plain feel is as reliable as plain sight, the sc says no and it was an illegal search.
Wyoming v. Houghton (1999)
(4th Amendment) police find a drunk car and pulls it over. Male driver and 2 female passengers in the front seat. The seat was a bench seat so everyone was up front. The man had a syringe in his front pocket. The man sarcastically said that he used it for drugs and the officer had a confession. The officer now can search the car and the man. He finds a purse, searches it, finds photo id and drugs. Wyoming won and stated that if officers have probable cause to search a car, that extends to all the car, driver, and personal property of the passengers and pat down the passengers.
Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
(5th Amendment) In a number of cases, defendants were not informed of their rights under the 5th A. X raped a woman and admitted to it after not being informed of the right to not self-incriminate. Result: The Court cannot use any statements obtained without the statement of "X" rights. Guidelines to police interrogation.
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)
Summary : X was charged in Florida state court with a felony: having broken into and entered a poolroom with the intent to commit a misdemeanor offense. When he appeared in court without a lawyer, Gideon requested that the court appoint one for him. According to Florida state law, however, an attorney may only be appointed to an indigent defendant in capital cases, so the trial court did not appoint one. Gideon represented himself in trial. He was found guilty and sentenced to five years in prison. Gideon filed a habeas corpus petition in the Florida Supreme Court and argued that the trial court's decision violated his constitutional right to be represented by counsel. The Florida Supreme Court denied habeas corpus relief.
Conclusion : The Court held that it was consistent with the Constitution to require state courts to appoint attorneys for defendants who could not afford to retain counsel on their own.
Escobedo v. Illinois (1964)
Question: Was X denied the right to counsel as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment?
Facts: X was arrested and taken to a police station for questioning. Over several hours, the police refused his repeated requests to see his lawyer. Escobedo's lawyer sought unsuccessfully to consult with his client. Escobedo subsequently confessed to murder.
Conclusion: Everyone has "an absolute right to remain silent." X had not been adequately informed of his constitutional right to remain silent rather than to be forced to incriminate himself. Interrogation and confession cases have shifted from the Sixth Amendment to the Fifth Amendment, emphasizing whether the appropriate warnings have been given and given correctly, and whether the right to remain silent has been waived.
Gregg v. Georgia (1976)
(8th Amendment) X was charged and found guilty of robbery and murder and sentenced to death. Result: The death sentence is not cruel and unusual punishment if the crime is a severe criminal case.
Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)
(Privacy) Identified an implied right to privacy in the U.S. Constitution stating that various portions of the Bill of Rights cast "penumbras" (or shadows) of unstated liberties.
Roe v. Wade (1973)
(Privacy) X wished to terminate her pregnancy in Texas where law forbids it unless the woman's life is in danger. Result: A woman's right to an abortion falls under right to privacy protected by the Bill of Rights.
Lawrence v. Texas (2003)
(Privacy) Policemen, entering a private home to follow through with a weapon tip, discovered two men, X and Y, engaging in consensual sex. According to the Homosexual Conduct law, the two men were placed under arrest for engaging in homosexual relations. Result: The Texas law violates both of the men's 14th A. rights to engage in private conduct without intervention from the government. - violates the 14th and 4th A. - no legit state interest.
Scott v. Sandford (1856)
(14th Amendment) X was a slave in Missouri and lived in a free state. When he returned to the state he tried to sue saying that he was free since he lived in a free state. Result: Only Congress may confer citizenship and only a citizen of the U.S. may be a citizen of a state. legalized slavery
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)
(14th Amendment) A train segregated blacks from whites. X being 7/8 white would not move to the black car and was arrested. Result: SC ruled that the separation is constitutional - "separate but equal"
Korematsu v. U.S. (1944)
(14th Amendment) Japanese Americans were put into internment camps during WWII. Result: The need to protect the safety of the U.S. outweighed any single person's rights. Internment= necessary during wartime = constitutional
Brown v. Board of Education
(14th Amendment) Black children were denied admittance to a white public school. Result: Although the separate but equal doctrine should provide for equal facilities, the separation in public education maintains inequality. X 1- overturns Plessy v. Ferguson. X 2 - all schools must comply fully and with speed process for getting rid of segregation.
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978)
(14th Amendment) X was denied both times that he applied to Univ. of CA when the college only had 16 spots available for minorities due to affirmative action. X was more qualified than all of the students admitted in those two years. Result: SC was split. Any racial quota system supported by the government violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Others held that race may be a criterion in admissions to higher education. quotas = unconstitutional. Affirmative action is legal. but this violates the 14th
Adarnad Constructors , Inc. v. Peña (1995)
(Equal pro. component of 5th Due Process) Court held that racial classifications whether imposed by federal, state, or local authorities, must pass scrutiny review. Court also states that compensation programs based on disadvantage rather than race would be evaluated under lower equal protection standards
Hopwood v. Texas (1996)
(14th Amendment) Four white plaintiffs who had been rejected from The University of Texas School of Law challenged the institution's admissions policy on equal protection grounds and prevailed. Court determined that the University could continue to use the racial preferences which had been at issue in the litigation.
Gratz v. Bollinger (2003)
(14th Amendment) Another affirmative action case involving the University of Michigan's admission policy of awarding 20 points to minorities was declared unconstitutional.
Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)
(14th Amendment) Court held that the due process clause of the 14th amendment guarantees the right to marry as a fundamental liberty, and that it applies to same-sex couples
freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition
right to keep and bear arms
bans quartering of soldiers
bans unreasonable searches and seizures
right to due process, no self-incrimination, no double jeopardy
right to fair and speedy trial
right to trial by jury
bans cruel and unusual punishment, no excessive fines or bails
unenumerated rights; government cannot infringe people's rights
powers to state
immunity of states being sued by non-residents of that state
president and Vice President are elected separately
defines citizenship, naturalization, and equal protection for ALL.
universal male suffrage
allows congress to collect income tax
senate is elected directly
prohibition of alcohol (repealed by the 21st amendment)
"lame duck"- fixes dates of term commencements of congress and the president
repeals the 18th amendment
limits the president to 2 terms
provides representation for D.C.
prohibits poll taxes
defines process of presidential succession
18 is a national voting age
changes in congressional salary take effect on its next term
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE...
AP Government Court Cases
AP Government Court Cases
Landmark Supreme Court Cases
Civil Rights and Civil Liberties
OTHER SETS BY THIS CREATOR
AP Government Agencies review
La Vida Contemporanea Vocab
AP Psychology Unit 4 Quiz review
Vocabulario de Familia y La Comunidad