|Roemer vs. Evans||
|Lawrence v. Texas, 2003||
End to Poll Taxes
|New York Times vs. United States||
|Gratz v. Bollinger||
No quota system in AAct
|due process of law||
protection against arbitrary deprivation of life, liberty, or property.
Equality of Rights...shall not be denied...on the account of sex...Not ratified
|Sherbert v. Verner||
7th-Day Adventist seeks unemployment benefits, but is denied because she refused to work on Saturday. (1961)
Government actions limiting religious conduct must support a compelling government interest.
RULING: Sherbert (The people)
|Hamdan v. Rumsfeld||
Congress and the President cannot arbitrarily assign military tribunals for civilians
those liberties usually spelled out in a bill of rights or a constitution that guarantee the protection of persons, opinions, and property frome the arditrary interference of government officials.
Gives special treatment to members of some previously disadvantaged group
|Lawrence v. Texas||
Responding to a reported disturbance in a private residence, Houston police entered Lawrence's apartment and saw him and Garner, engaging in a private, consensual sexual act. Both were arrested and convicted of deviate sexual intercourse in violation of a Texas statute forbidding two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct. Court of Appeals held that the statute was not unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, with Bowers v. Hardwick controlling. Do the criminal convictions of John Lawrence and Tyron Garner under the Texas "Homosexual Conduct" law, violate the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of equal protection of laws? 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? Should Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), be overruled? No, yes, and yes "Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government," wrote Justice Kennedy. "The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual," continued Justice Kennedy. Accordingly, the Court overruled Bowers.
|Roe v. Wade||
State laws against abortion were unconstitutional.
|Civil Rights Act||
LBJ passed this in 1964. Prohibited discrimination of African Americans in employement, voting, or public accomidations. Also said there could be no discrimination against race, color, sex, religion, or national origin.
|schneck v. united states||
during wartime, man mailed circulars to draftees. Charged w/ conspiracy, NOT protected under first amendment - in wartime.
|West Virginia BoE v. Barnette||
Pledge can not be forced
|Civil Rights Act of 1988||
Justice Department will lead prosecution in cases of discrimination involving housing
|Burlington Industries v. Ellerth 1998||
After working for Burlington Industries for 15 months, Kimberly B. Ellerth quit because she allegedly suffered sexual harassment by her supervisor - Ted Slowik. Despite her refusals of Slowik's advances Ellerth did not suffer any tangible retaliation and was, in fact, promoted once. Moreover, while she remained silent about Slowik's conduct despite her knowledge of Burlington's policy against sexual harassment, Ellerth challenged Burlington claiming that the company forced her constructive discharge. Can an employee, who despite refusing sexually harassing advances by a supervisor suffers no adverse job-related consequences, recover against an employer under Title VII of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964, without showing that the employer was responsible for the supervisor's harassing conduct? Yes. In cases where harassed employee's suffer no job-related consequences, employers may defend themselves against liability by showing that they quickly acted to prevent and correct any harassing behavior and that the harassed employee failed to utilize their employer's protection. Such a defense, however, is not available when the alleged harassment culminates in an employment action, such as Ellerth's.
|Romer v. Evans||
Colorado voters adopted Amendment 2 to their State Constitution precluding any judicial, legislative, or executive action designed to protect persons from discrimination based on their "homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships." Following a legal challenge by homosexual and other aggrieved parties, the state trial court entered a permanent injunction enjoining Amendment 2's enforcement. Does Amendment 2 of Colorado's State Constitution, forbidding the extension of official protections to those who suffer discrimination due to their sexual orientation, violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause? Yes
|Adarand Constructors v. Pena, 1995||
Court overturned the decision regarding broadcast licenses and cast grave doubt on its holding regarding contracts set aside for minority-owned firms.
|Brown v. Board of Education (1954)||
seperate but equal unconstitutional
|Miller vs. California||
Made it illegal to buy, sell, or distribute obscene material that violates community standards
|• Romer v. Evans||
(1996): The U.S. Supreme Court issued its first equal protection
ruling favoring gay and lesbian rights. The challenge involved an amendment to
the Colorado constitution that had been approved in 1992 and that repealed all
local ordinances and statewide policies enacted to protect gays and lesbians from
discrimination. The amendment also prohibited future enactment of such
|Handicapped Children Act||
All children are entitled to a public education
|Loving v. Virginia||
1867 court case that declared all laws against interracial marriage unconstitutional
|Planned Parenthood v. Casey||
Reaffirmed Roe v. Wade but upheld certain limits on its use.
|University of California v. Bakke (1978)||
racial quotas are unconstitutional however race can be taken into consideration in admission decisions for the benifits of diversity in the classroom
|Schneck vs. Pro-Choice Network of Greater New York||
Floating buffer zones illegal, sitting buffer zones legal.
|• Regents of the University of California v. Bakke||
(1978): The Court invalidated
the affirmative action admissions policy at a UC medical school, saying that a
numerical quota for minority admissions violates the Equal Protection Clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment. It allowed race to be considered as a "plus" in
college applications, nevertheless.
|Griggs V Duke Power Co||
Griggs filed suit against Duke Power Co which required a test to work in the lowest paying department, in addition to high school education. violate Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act? Yes Court held that Duke's standardized testing requirement prevented a disproportionate number of African-American employees from being hired by, and advancing to higher-paying departments within, the company, concluded that the subtle, illegal, purpose of these requirements was to safeguard Duke's long-standing policy of giving job preferences to its white employees.
|United States v. Virginia||
State may not finance an all male military school.
|Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)||
slaves were not protected by the consititution.
|Parents V. Seattle School District||
race cannot be used to decide which students may attend especially popular high schools bc this was not narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling goal.
|• Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka||
(1954): The U.S. Supreme Court
determined that separate-but-equal was a contradiction in terms. It added that
"separate" is inherently unequal and a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's
Equal Protection Clause.
|Dred Scott v. Sanford||
US Congress did not have the power to prohibit slavery in federal territories and slaves, as private property, could not be taken away without due process - basically slaves would remain slaves in non-slave states and slaves could not sue because they were not citizens
|Swann v Charlotte Mecklenberg County Schools||
the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously upheld busing programs that aimed to speed up the racial integration of public schools in the United States.
|Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger||
Numerical benefits cannot be used to admit minorities into college, but race can be a "plus factor" in making those decisions.
|Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States||
congress can use its power to regulate interstate commerce to strike down racial segregation