Significance of Supreme Court Cases
The significance of the cases, the tests developed through them, and their verdicts
Terms in this set (45)
Schenck v. US
Created the "Clear and Present Danger Test" which states that speech is seditious if it causes a clear and present danger to the government. If the speech passes this test, then it is not protected by the 1st Amendment Rights. This was also the case in which the famous "crying out Fire in a crowded movie theatre" example was used.
Gitlow v. NY
A selective incorporation case. The court ruled that freedom of speech is a 1st amendment right and thus must apply to the states. However, the court also ruled against Gitlow.
Dennis v. US
The Smith Act is constitutional. The communists created a clear and present danger to the country.
Yates v. US
The Smith Act was minimized because the government said that only advocating an overthrow of the government is permissible.
Richmond v. Croson
The Court ruled that the program that requires 30% of all sub-contracting jobs to go to minority-owned companies is unconstitutional because it is not narrowly tailored.
Adarand Constructors v. Pena
The Court ruled that Article 14, Section 5 allowed federal law to give more laditude to affirmative action. The affirmative action was alright.
Weeks v. US
In federal courts, illegally obtained evidence is not allowed to be used. *Marks the birth of the Exclusionary Rule in federal courts.
Mapp v. US
Overturned the ruling in Wolf v. Colorado. *Marks the birth of the Exclusionary Rule in state courts.
Katz v. US
The Fourth Amendment was ruled to apply to searches and seizures that do not have physical intrusion.
US v. Ross
Led to the automobile exception. If police have reasonable suspicion or probable cause that there is something illegal in the vehicle, then they can search it.
Gideon v. Wainwright
Selective incorporation case. The right to an attorney is a fundamental right. States must abide by the 6th amendment and provide attorneys.
Miranda v. Arizona
Established the Miranda Rights. People accused must be read their rights to remain silent, to have an attorney, and to have everything they say held against them.
Berghuis v. Thompkins
Gratz v. Bollinger
The program that gave 20 points to minorities was not narrowly tailored and so it was unconstitutional.
Grutter v. Bollinger
Race only being considered a factor amongst applicants, with no points being assigned, is constitutional because it is narrowly tailored.
University of California v. Bakke
A compelling government interest is diversity. However, racial quotas are not narrowly tailored, and so the quotas are unconstitutional.
New York Times v. US
The Court ruled that it was okay for the NY Times to publish the papers because not publishing would have violated the free media and led to a less educated public. The publishing of the papers would also not lead to immediate danger.
Near v. Minnesota
The Court ruled that the Minnesota law, allowing prior restraint, is unconstitutional because it violates the 1st amendment right to freedom of speech.
Cantwell v. Connecticut
The Court ruled that the state had a legitimate reason for regulating the time, place, and manner. However, ordinance requiring a permit to solicit their views was ruled unconstitutional because the state does not have the right to regulate the content.
Reynolds v. US
The Court ruled that you cannot use your religion to commmit a crime and so the anti-bigamy laws were constitutional.
Oregon v. Smith
The Court ruled that Oregon not giving unemployment compensation since they committed a felon, using drugs, was constitutional.
Locke v. Davey
Originally, a lot of states excluded the ministries from receiving money. The Court ruled that if a state provides scholarships, it does not have to provide money for religious studies.
New York Times v. Sullivan
The Court ruled that free debate allows people to publish ads, otherwise, they would be too scared to air their own opinion. *Established the Sullivan Test: you can sue for libel if the information is false and the newspaper knew it was false but decided to intentionally publish it
Reed v. Reed
Ruled, using the rational basis tests, that using gender as a factor in a violation of the equal protection clause. *This was the first time that the Court said this.
Craig v. Boren
The Court ruled that regulating alcohol consumption is an important governmental interest, but this goal is not adequately achieved by this law. The law failed the Intermediate Scrutiny Test.
US v. Virginia
The Court ruled that VMI's admission policy was in violation of the higher scrutiny test and was thus unconstitutional.
Powell v. Alabama
the Court ruled that the requirement for an attorney did not apply to the states but not being represented was a violation. Lated, the Court ruled that it was in violation to not have any blacks on the jury.
Griswold v. Connecticut
The Court ruled that the abortion laws should not put an undue burden on the woman.
Webster v. Reproductive Health Services
The Court ruled that the law does not put an undue burden on the women. They are able to put a limit on the use of public funds. Also, the law can put restrictions on the use of abortions within the +/- 4 weeks range of the 20 week point.
Wolf v. Colorado
Ruled that the exclusionary rule does not apply to state courts. Illegally obtained evidence is admissible in courts.
Nix v. Williams
*Established the inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule, if police were already going to discover it, then the evidence can be used. There is also the honest mistake exception and the good faith exception, the officer did not know that there was something technically wrong with the warrant.
New Jersey v. TLO
Ruled that the school only needs reasonable suspicion to conduct a search and this was provided by the rolling paper. Thus, the search was not a violation.
Vernonia v. Acton
The school was acting in loco parentis. The search was admissible.
Synder v. Phelps
Brandenburg v. Ohio
Everson v. Board of Education
Ruled that the busing is not a religious activity; taspayers money in the government must be neutral, not adversary
Engel v. Vitale
Ruled that the prayer is in violation of hte 1st amendment because is is school-sponsored and not truly voluntary
Lemon v. Kurtzman
The state cannnot ensure that religion is not pushed in non-religious classes. *Established the Lemon Test: Form the government to provide aid to schools, the aid must have a secular purpose, the aid cannot enhance or inhibit religion, and there must not be any excessive entanglement of the government and religion.
McDonald v. Chicago
*This applied the 2nd Amendment to states. The ruling stated that the 2nd Amendment is a fundamental right and thus the law banning handgun purchase was unconstitional.
DC v. Heller
The Court ruled that individually, people have the right to bear arms. However, the government is still able to exercise the right to regulate that ownership.
US v. Miller
Ruled that the 2nd Amendment does not protect the right ot possess fully automatic weapons.
Bethel School District v. Fraser
Ruled that the principal's action did not violate the rights of the student because there was inappropriate speech and a school disruption.
Morse v. Frederick
Ruled that this was a school event and the banner promoted illegal drug use. The school has a legitimate interest in dettering drug use.
Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association
Ruled that speech, the videogame, about violence is not obscene and is protected under the 1st Amendment. The California law is unconstitutional.
Hazelwood School District v. Kulmeier
Ruled that due to in loco parentis, the school has a right to be concerned with the content and the school pays for all of the equipment so the censoring was not a violation of the 1st amendment rights
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE...
Grade 10 Academic Vocabulary | Knowsys Level 10 Guide
landmark supreme court cases
landmark supreme court cases
Supreme Court cases
THIS SET IS OFTEN IN FOLDERS WITH...
King Lear Act III Quotes
AP Gov: Chapter 5 Civil Rights
U.S. Supreme Court Cases
Exam 1 (CH 1-3)