Upgrade to remove ads
Con Law II Midterm Remaining Cases
Terms in this set (26)
What was the legal dispute in RAV v. St. Paul?
Is convicting a group of teenagers for burning a cross on the lawn of a black family under a local criminal ordinance which prohibited the display of a symbol that "arouses anger, alarm, or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, or gender" a violation of their first amendment rights?
What did the court hold in RAV v. St. Paul?
The ordinance was invalid on its face because "it prohibits otherwise permitted speech solely on the basis of the subjects the speech addresses," thus making it a content-based regulation
What was a flaw of the local bias-motivated criminal ordinance in RAV v. St. Paul
It was too broad for a narrowly tailored government interest - OVERBREADTH
How do content-based regulations such as the local ordinance in RAV v. St. Paul hold up under the First Amendment?
The First Amendment prevents government from punishing speech and expressive conduct because it disapproves of the ideas expressed - the government has no authority to "license one side of a debate to fight freestyle, while requiring the other to follow the Marquis of Queensbury rules"
What degree of scrutiny was applied in RAV v. St. Paul?
Strict scrutiny - statute was struck down, but intermediate in the sense that it created more questions than it answers
What was the legal dispute in Virginia v. Black?
Is convicting people for violating a Virginia statute that makes it a felony "for any person with the intent of intimidating any person or group to burn a cross on another's property, a highway, or other public place" specifying that "any such burning shall be prima facie evidence of an intent to intimidate a person or group" a violation of the First Amendment?
What did the court hold in Virginia v. Black?
this statute DID violate the First Amendment, because while a state may ban cross burning carried out with an intent to intimidate, the prima facie evidence renders the statute unconstitutional in its current form
What is the problem with the prima facie provision of the statute in Virginia v. Black?
The prima facie provision renders the statute over broad because the probability of prosecution chills the expression of free speech - results in the law getting struck down
What was the legal dispute in Wisconsin v. Mitchell?
Is increasing a young black man's sentence of aggravated battery against a young white boy on the basis of race-based victim selection a violation of his Fist Amendment rights?
What did the court hold in Wisconsin v. Mitchell?
The Wisconsin statute did NOT violate the First Amendment, as it paralleled anti-discrimination laws which complied with the First Amendment.
What was a distinction made between Wisconsin v. Mitchell and RAV v. St. Paul?
Beating someone up is NOT a protected action, whereas cross burning is protected speech
What was the legal dispute in Hill v. Colorado?
Is a statute prohibiting any person within 100ft. of a health care facility's entrance to knowingly approach (within 8ft.) another person without their consent in order to pass "a leaflet, handbill, to display a sign, or to engage in oral protest, education, or counseling with that person" a violation of the First Amendment?
What did the TRIAL COURT hold in Hill v. Colorado?
The statute imposed content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest and left open ample alternative channels of communication
What was the Supreme Court's holding of the Trial Court's judgement in Hill v. Colorado?
The Supreme Court vacated that judgement after holding that a provision creating a speeh-free floating buffer zone violated the First Amendment.
What did the court hold in Hill v. Colorado?
The court held that the statute requiring speakers to obtain consent from people within 100 ft. of a healthcare facility's entrance before speaking, displaying signs, or distributing leaflets did NOT violate the First Amendment rights of the speaker
What was the court's reasoning behind the decision in Hill v. Colorado?
The statute is not a regulation of speech, but a regulation of the places where speech may occur, and they applied equally to all demonstrators regardless pf viewpoint, making it content-neutral.
What was the balance struck in the decision of Hill v. Colorado?
The balance between constitutionally protected rights of law-abiding speakers and the interests of unwilling listeners - protestors can still somewhat convey their message but patients have power of consent
What was a difference between the statute in Hill v. Colorado and the one in McCullen v. Coakley that allowed the statute in Hill to be upheld?
The statute in Hill v. Colorado was more narrowly tailored to a government interest
What was the legal dispute in Morse v. Frederick?
Is suspending a student for holding up a banner saying "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" at a school-supervised event a violation of his First Amendment rights?
What did the court hold in Morse v. Frederick?
The First Amendment allows public schools to prohibit students from displaying messages promoting the use of illegal drugs at school-supervised events - the highly rights-protective standard set by Tinker would not always be applied
What was Chief Justice John Roberts' majority opinion in Morse v. Frederick?
Although students to have some right to political speech while in school, this right does not extend to pro-drug messages that may undermine the school's important mission to discourage drug use
What were mitigating factors in Morse v. Frederick?
school setting, content promoting illegality, message not political enough in nature
What degree of scrutiny was applied in Morse v. Frederick?
Intermediate scrutiny - the prohibition was upheld but there was sufficient basis for this to be the case.
What was the legal dispute in McCullen v. Coakley?
Was an MA statute which created a 35-foot buffer zone around the entrances, exits, and driveways of abortion clinics a violation of the First Amendment?
What did the court hold in McCullen v. Coakley?
UNANIMOUS DECISION Although the MA law was content-neutral on its face because it restricted the location of speech and not the speech itself, the law was not sufficiently narrowly tailored to serve a significant govt. interest as it places too great a burden on the petitioners' First Amendment rights
Although the decision in McCullen v. Coakley was unanimous, what was the divide within that consensus?
Justice Scalia held that a blanket prohibition of speech in areas where only one type of politically charged speech is likely to occur cannot be content neutral - it burdens exactly the type of language that the First Amendment was meant to protect.
The liberal perspective held that the statute was content-neutral, and the context of the government's interest in protecting clinic patients must be taken into account (re: Scalia's opinion). However, MA went too far as the buffer zones were too expansive.
THIS SET IS OFTEN IN FOLDERS WITH...
Con Law II Quiz 1
Con Law II Quiz 2
Con Law II Quiz 3
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE...
Freedom of Speech - Key cases
MMC4200 Chapter 2
Wollenberg Final Review
Nationals Q3 cases
OTHER SETS BY THIS CREATOR
CON LAW II MIDTERM !!!!
Latin 3002 Quiz 2 Vocab
Latin For Lawyers Vocab Quiz 4/14/20