TOPIC CASE SIGNIFICANCE Elections and Campaigns 1. Citizens United v. FEC, 2010 In a 5-4 decision, the Court struck down parts of the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), holding that political spending is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment, and the government may not keep corporations or unions from spending money to support or denounce individual candidates in elections. However, a ban on direct contributions to candidates was left in place. Further, while corporations or unions may not give money directly to campaigns, they may seek to persuade the voting public through other means, including ads, thus leading to the development of Super PACs to spend unlimited amounts of money for campaigning activities so long as they are not directly coordinated with a particular campaign. (independent expenditures) and 527s for issue advocacy. Civil Liberties 2. Schenck v. United States, 1919 Court established the clear and present danger test to determine when states could place limits on an individual s free speech rights. The Court asserted that, in certain contexts, words can create a "clear and present danger" that Congress may constitutionally prohibit. This is the case in which Justice Holmes used the famous falsely shout fire in a theater and cause a panic analogy in drawing the line on the limits of free speech. Civil Liberties 3. Tinker v. Des Moines School District, 1969 Landmark decision that symbolic speech is protected by the Constitution Student expression (wearing armbands to protest the Vietnam War) is protected so long as it does not cause a material disruption of the educational process or substantial interference. The Court asserted that students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gates. Civil Liberties 4. Texas v. Johnson, 1989 Landmark symbolic speech case - The burning of a flag (which the Court determined to be only a symbol) in public is protected by the 1st Amendment. The majority noted that freedom of speech protects actions that society may find very offensive, but society's outrage alone is not justification for suppressing free speech.the majority further said that the government could not discriminate in this manner based solely upon viewpoint. Civil Liberties 5. NY TIMES v. US, 1971 The decision by the New York Times and Washington Post to print illegally leaked, classified documents (the Pentagon Papers ) about American involvement in the Vietnam War sparked a First Amendment battle between the highest levels of government and two
of the most respected newspapers in the country. In a 6-3 decision, the Court ruled Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government In revealing the workings of government that led to the Vietnam War, the newspapers nobly did that which the Founders hoped and trusted they would do. Thus determining that prior restraint is unconstitutional - speech that addresses matters of public concern may not be censored. Civil Liberties 6. Wisconsin v. Yoder, 1972 Wisconsin compulsory school attendance law was not applicable to the Amish under the free-exercise clause. Civil Liberties 7. Engel v. Vitale, 1962 School prayer- Public school policy that permits, endorses, or encourages prayer violates the 1st Amendment. Prayer in school is allowed if it is student initiated, student-led, and voluntary, rather than state sponsored. Federalism 8. Lemon v. Kurtzman, 1971 Established the Lemon Test, which has three components that a statute must pass: - Statute must have a secular legislative purpose - Its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion. - The statute must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion Civil Liberties 9. Oregon v. Smith, 1990 Free Exercise: Prohibited the use of peyote, an illegal drug, for religious purposes. Writing for the majority, Justice Scalia observed that the Court has never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that government is free to regulate. Selective Incorporation 10. Gideon v. Wainwright, 1963 Landmark rulings dealing with the rights of the accused and the right to counsel. Ruling established right to counsel (5th and 6th Amendments). The Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution requires the states to provide defense attorneys to criminal defendants charged with serious offenses who cannot afford lawyers themselves. Civil Liberties 11. Mapp v. Ohio, 1961 Establishment and development of the Exclusionary Rule - illegally obtained evidence cannot be used against a defendant at trial. Mapp made this rule applicable to the states. Fruit of the poisonous tree Civil Liberties 12. Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965 Landmark ruling in which the Court established that there is a penumbra of rights. These are civil liberties closely attached to the BOR. In this case, the right of consenting adults to use birth control is a privacy right protected under the 4th, 9th, and 14th Amendments. Established that there is a Constitutional right to privacy.
Selective Incorporation 13. Roe v. Wade, 1973 The Court ruled that the Texas statute violated Jane Roe's constitutional right to privacy. The Court argued that the Constitution's First, Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual's "zone of privacy" against state laws and cited past cases ruling that marriage, contraception, and child rearing are activities covered in this "zone of privacy." Further, the Court ruled that the states were forbidden from outlawing or regulating any aspect of abortion performed during the first trimester of pregnancy, could only enact abortion regulations reasonably related to maternal health in the second and third trimesters, and could enact abortion laws protecting the life of the fetus only in the third trimester. Even then, an exception had to be made to protect the life of the mother. Civil Liberties 14. Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 1992 The Court ruled that states may pass restrictions on abortion so long as it does not impose an undue hardship or burden on the mother. No undue burden standard SCOTUS affirmed the basic ruling of Roe v. Wade that the state is prohibited from banning most abortions. However, states may regulate abortions so as to protect the health of the mother and the life of the fetus, and may outlaw abortions of "viable" fetuses. Republicanism 15. Shaw v. Reno, 1993 North Carolina s redistricting map was so irregular on its face that it could only be viewed as an effort to segregate races for the purposes of voting, without regard for traditional districting principles and without sufficiently compelling justification. Redistricting based on race limited; no racial gerrymandering Equal Protection Clause 16. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 1954 (Brown I) Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 1955 (Brown II) State laws that allow for separate but equal public educational facilities based on race violate the Equal Protection Clause. This landmark case overturned Plessy v. Ferguson (1896). It is also important because it is a case that sparked the Civil Rights Movement of the 50 s and 60 s, culminating in the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Brown II decided that the ruling to get rid of segregation in schools be done with all deliberate speed. Republicanism 17. Baker v. Carr, 1962 Established the right of federal courts to review redistricting issues, which had previously been termed "political questions"and thus outside the Court s jurisdiction. The Court s willingness to address legislative reapportionment in this case paved the way for the one man, one vote standard of American representative democracy later used in Wesberry v. Sanders 1964.
Judicial Independence 18. Marbury v. Madison, 1803 Court established judicial review concept: affirms the Court s position as a coequal branch of government having considerable influence on the politics of government and direction of public policy. Federalism 19. McCulloch v. Maryland, 1819 Marshall Court defined what was meant by necessary and proper (aka. Elastic Clause, and thus the legitimacy of implied powers) and established the primacy of federal government power over state government (national supremacy). Federalism 20. Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015 Ruled state laws prohibiting same-sex marriage unconstitutional as violations of both the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment. The Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees the right to marry as one of the fundamental liberties it protects, and that analysis applies to same-sex couples in the same manner as it does to opposite-sex couples. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment also guarantees the right of same-sex couples to marry as the denial of that right would deny same-sex couples equal protection under the law. Federalism 21. Shelby County v. Holder, 2012 The Court (5-4) struck down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which set the formula used to determine which states and local governments must comply with Section 5 s preclearance. Section 4 required states with a history of voting discrimination to have changes in election law cleared by the Department of Justice prior to implementation, no matter how small.. The Court found this was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause and an overreach of federal power. Although the constraints this section places on specific states made sense in the 1960s and 1970s, they do not any longer and now represent an unconstitutional violation of the power to regulate elections that the Constitution reserves for the states. The Court also held that the formula for determining whether changes to a state's voting procedure should be federally reviewed is now outdated and does not reflect the changes that have occurred in the last 50 years in narrowing the voting turnout gap in the states in question. Federalism 22. US v. Lopez, 1995 the Supreme Court ruled that Congress had exceeded its constitutional authority under the Commerce Clause when it passed a law prohibiting gun possession in local school zones. Rehnquist Court decision in what some call the devolution federalism era. For years Congress had used the interstate commerce clause to encroach into a number of areas normally reserved to the states under the 10th Amendment. The Commerce
Clause does not give Congress unlimited powers more appropriately reserved to the states. Selective Incorporation 23. McDonald v. Chicago, 2009 McDonald v. Chicago (2010) Two years later, the Court faced the question of whether to incorporate the Second Amendment and whether the right to keep arms for self-defense was fundamental. In a 5-4 split, the Court struck down a similar gun ban in Chicago, thus applying the Second Amendment right to own guns for self-defense to state and local governments (selective incorporation). Selective Incorporation 24. Palko v. Connecticut, 1937 Court established the fundamental rights test to determine which rights that without which liberty would not exist should be incorporated via the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause This application of parts of the Bill of Rights to state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment is called the doctrine of selective incorporation. In general, the Court would apply a right to the states if it determined that the right was fundamental to ordered liberty, or it if was deeply rooted in this Nation s history and tradition. Selective Incorporation 25. Gitlow v. New York, 1925 Court nationalizes the Bill of Rights for the first time. By the 1960 s, the Court will apply almost all of the provisions of the BOR to the states through the 14th Amendment s Due Process Clause on a cases by cases basis (selective incorporation doctrine). For further study of these cases, visit: www.oyez.org www.scotusblog.com www.billofrightsinstitute.org