| Terms |
Definitions |
|
DeJonge v. Oregon
|
(1937) incorporated the First Amendment's right to freedom of assembly.
|
|
Mapp v. Ohio
|
Established the exclusionary rule was applicable to the states (evidence seized illegally cannot be used in court)
|
|
Dejonge v Oregon (1937)
|
peaceable assembly for lawful discussion cannot be made a crime, selectively incorporated right to lawful assembly to all state governments. The Court found that the accused had the right to organize a Communist Party and speak at its meetings even though the party advocated "industrial or political change or revolution." However, in the 1950s with the fear of communism on the rise the Court ruled in Dennis v United States (1951) > that Dennis, who was leader of the Communist Party, violated the Smith Act by advocating the forcible overthrow of the United States government.
|
|
Lemon v. Kurtzman
|
(1971) the Court determined that direct government assistance to religious schools is unconstitutional. In the majority opinion, the Court created what has become known as the "Lemon Test" for deciding if a law is in violation of the establishment clause.
|
|
DC v. Heller
|
Ruled that the D.C. constitutions gun regulation rule was unconstitutional. Supreme Court stated that individuals have the right to own a gun as a means of self-defense based on the second amendment.
|
|
Us v Leon
|
Facts of the Case:
The exclusionary rule requires that evidence illegally seized must be excluded from criminal trials. Leon was the target of police surveillance based on an anonymous informant's tip. The police applied to a judge for a search warrant of Leon's home based on the evidence from their surveillance. A judge issued the warrant and the police recovered large quantities of illegal drugs. Leon was indicted for violating federal drug laws. A judge concluded that the affadavit for the search warrant was insufficient; it did not establish the probable cause necessary to issue the warrant. Thus, the evidence obtained under the warrant could not be introduced at Leon's trial.
Question:
Is there a "good faith" exception to the exclusionary rule?
Conclusion:
Yes, there is such an exception. The justices held that evidence seized on the basis of a mistakenly issued search warrant could be introduced at trial. The exclusionary rule, argued the majority, is not a right but a remedy justified by its ability to deter illegal police conduct. In Leon, the costs of the exclusionary rule outweighed the benefits. The exclusionary rule is costly to society: Guilty defendants go unpunished and people lose respect for the law. The benefits of the exclusionary rule are uncertain: The rule cannot deter police in a case like Leon, where they act in good faith on a warrant issued by a judge.
|
|
Lee v Weisman (1992)
|
no prayer at graduations 1st amendment, establishment clause. This decision directed school officials not to invite clergy to recite prayers at graduation ceremonies.
|
|
Gregg v. Georgia (1976)
|
Overturning Furman v. Georgia, the case ruled that Georgia's rewritten death penalty statute is constitutional.
|
|
McConnell v. Federal Election Commission
|
(2003) generally speaking, the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002 does not violate the First Amendment.
|
|
Gregg v. Georgia
|
Upheld the death penalty was NOT cruel and unusual punishment
|
|
Roe v Wade
|
Facts of the Case:
Roe, a Texas resident, sought to terminate her pregnancy by abortion. Texas law prohibited abortions except to save the pregnant woman's life. After granting certiorari, the Court heard arguments twice. The first time, Roe's attorney -- Sarah Weddington -- could not locate the constitutional hook of her argument for Justice Potter Stewart. Her opponent -- Jay Floyd -- misfired from the start. Weddington sharpened her constitutional argument in the second round. Her new opponent -- Robert Flowers -- came under strong questioning from Justices Potter Stewart and Thurgood Marshall.
Question:
Does the Constitution embrace a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy by abortion?
Conclusion:
The Court held that a woman's right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy (recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut) protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision gave a woman total autonomy over the pregnancy during the first trimester and defined different levels of state interest for the second and third trimesters. As a result, the laws of 46 states were affected by the Court's ruling.
|
|
Engel v Vitale
|
Facts of the Case:
The Board of Regents for the State of New York authorized a short, voluntary prayer for recitation at the start of each school day. This was an attempt to defuse the politically potent issue by taking it out of the hands of local communities. The blandest of invocations read as follows: "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and beg Thy blessings upon us, our teachers, and our country."
Question:
Does the reading of a nondenominational prayer at the start of the school day violate the "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment?
Conclusion:
Yes. Neither the prayer's nondenominational character nor its voluntary character saves it from unconstitutionality. By providing the prayer, New York officially approved religion. This was the first in a series of cases in which the Court used the establishment clause to eliminate religious activities of all sorts, which had traditionally been a part of public ceremonies. Despite the passage of time, the decision is still unpopular with a majority of Americans.
|
|
Hamdi v Rumsfeld (2004)
|
Enemy combatants held in the United States have due process rights.
|
|
Gonzales v Oregon (2006)
|
The Supreme Court ruled that the federal government could not block the state's Assisted Suicide Law by moving against physicians who assisted terminally ill patients by giving them medicine that would enable them to commit suicide.
|
|
Texas v. Johnson (1988)
|
the Court overturned the conviction of a Texas man found guilty of setting fire to an American flag.
|
|
Escobedo v. Illinois (1964)
|
Where a police investigation begins to focus on a particular suspect who has been refused counsel, his statements to police are excluded.
|
|
District of Columbia v. Heller
|
(2008 undecuded) the Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed.
|
|
Texas v. Johnson
|
A 1989 case in which the Supreme Court struck down a law banning the burning of the American flag on the grounds that such action was symbolic speech protected by the First Amendment.
|
|
Tinker v Des Moines
|
Facts of the Case:
John Tinker, 15 years old, his sister Mary Beth Tinker, 13 years old, and Christopher Echardt, 16 years old, decided along with their parents to protest the Vietnam War by wearing black armbands to their Des Moines schools during the Christmas holiday season. Upon learning of their intentions, and fearing that the armbands would provoke disturbances, the principals of the Des Moines school district resolved that all students wearing armbands be asked to remove them or face suspension. When the Tinker siblings and Christopher wore their armbands to school, they were asked to remove them. When they refused, they were suspended until after New Year's Day.
Question:
Does a prohibition against the wearing of armbands in public school, as a form of symbolic protest, violate the First Amendment's freedom of speech protections?
Conclusion:
The wearing of armbands was "closely akin to 'pure speech'" and protected by the First Amendment. School environments imply limitations on free expression, but here the principals lacked justification for imposing any such limits.The principals had failed to show that the forbidden conduct would substantially interfere with appropriate school discipline.
|
|
Roe v. Wade (1972)
|
Using the concept of being "secure in their persons," the Supreme Court ruled that abortions are constitutionally protected. It set up a trimester system allowing unrestricted abortions in the first trimester but regulated abortions during the second trimester and allowed the states to ban abortion during the third trimester unless the mother's or baby's life was endangered. This decision has been most controversial and set the stage for a national debate.
|
|
Planned Parenthood v Casey (1992)
|
The Court upheld a Pennsylvania law requiring minors to wait 24 hours after receiving parental approval before getting an abortion as constitutional. The decision also struck down a provision mandating that women obtain "informed spousal consent" and upheld, in principle, Roe v "Wade. States can regulate abortion but not with regulations that impose an "undue burden" on women.
|
|
United States v. Miller (1939)
|
the last time the Supreme Court addressed the constitutionality of the Second Amendment; ruled that the amendment was only intended to protect a citizen's right to own ordinary militia weapons.
|
|
New York Times v US
|
Facts of the Case:
In what became known as the "Pentagon Papers Case," the Nixon Administration attempted to prevent the New York Times and Washington Post from publishing materials belonging to a classified Defense Department study regarding the history of United States activities in Vietnam. The President argued that prior restraint was necessary to protect national security. This case was decided together with United States v. Washington Post Co.
Question:
Did the Nixon administration's efforts to prevent the publication of what it termed "classified information" violate the First Amendment?
Conclusion:
Yes. In its per curiam opinion the Court held that the government did not overcome the "heavy presumption against" prior restraint of the press in this case. Justices Black and Douglas argued that the vague word "security" should not be used "to abrogate the fundamental law embodied in the First Amendment." Justice Brennan reasoned that since publication would not cause an inevitable, direct, and immediate event imperiling the safety of American forces, prior restraint was unjustified.
|
|
District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)
|
The District of Columbia banned the possession of handguns in their district. The plaintiff said that this law violated the 2nd Amendment and wanted the law removed. The Supreme Court decided in a 5-4 vote that the law did violate the 2nd Amendment and had the law changed.
|
|
New York v. Quarles
|
(1984) the Court held that there is a "public safety" exception to the requirement that officers issue Miranda warnings to suspects, such as when the police think that an individual may pose a threat to the safety or well-being of others.
|
|
New York v. Quarles (1984)
|
The Court held that there is a "public safety" exception to the requirement that officers issue Miranda warnings to suspects, such as when the police think that an individual may pose a threat to the safety or well-being of others.
|
