
	Judicial Studies

First Semester

- The rights of students, personnel, or inmates in schools, military bases, and prisons conflict with the rights of others or interfere with the need to preserve order. When there are these conflicts the courts must balance competing interests in each case.

- the courts allow more freedom of speech in public places (public forum) than the above locations. You can express your rights in these places as long as it doesn�t interfere with the purpose of the facility.

- In Tinker Vs. Des Moines School District in 1969 (student armbands that are anti-Vietnam) the Supreme Court decided that the 1st amendment "does not end at the schoolhouse door" and the armbands were a form of "symbolic speech" and were therefore protected. But it could be suspended if their conduct would "martially and substantially disrupt" the educational process. A disruption didn�t happen or could have been predicted because of the armbands and their suspension was therefore unconstitutional.

- this case set the precedent for what punishments for student speech by public officials violates the 1st amendment. In other cases the courts have to determine the extent that student speech can be controlled as part of school-sponsored activities. Here the courts have to balance the 1st amendment rights against the schools� duty to determine the educational program.

- In Hazelwood Vs. Kuhlmeier in 1988 (the school newspaper censorship case where students wrote about teen pregnancy and divorces. The principal deleted the pages because it might offend students and invade some privacy) the Supreme Court said that the school could control what went into a school newspaper because (1) schools don�t have to permit student speech inconsistent with their basic educational mission and (2) schools should be able to control expression that others may reasonably think the school had endorsed. The decision gives educators editorial control if they are reasonably related to legitimate educational concerns.

-the courts have had to decide whether student decorum is protected expression. Educators argue that clothes with messages promoting violence, gangs, drugs, drinking, and sex are messages inconsistent with school and community values that can lead to disruptions and violence. Parents also worry that their children may be victims of violence for their clothes.

- student gave a speech with sexual references and people were offended or responded with obscenities. He was suspended and sued. The school won b/c they don�t have to allow speech someone might reasonably have endorsed.

- musical made from drama class. When the school found out what it was they canceled the performance. Hazelwood applies.

Burch Vs. Baker: 1988

Students published an underground newspaper and the principal said they couldn�t distribute on school grounds

- couldn�t reasonably assume the school endorsed it so they were allowed.

Island Trees Union Free School District Vs. Pico: 1982

Local school board removed books they found offensive and students complained

- can�t remove books based on their own view of what they don�t like

Smith Vs. Daily Mail Publishing: 1979

State law forbid writing the name of a juvenile delinquent in the paper b/c it may taint the rest of their live. The newspaper found out from witnesses and the police radio

- it was already public knowledge so they couldn�t stop it

Redline Broadcasting Vs. FCC: 1969

FCC issued a fairness doctrine that said broadcasters had to provide time for both sides of each opinion to be aired. They sued saying it�s unconstitutional b/c it forced them to give an opinion that wasn�t theirs.

-not a violation b/c it�s the rights of the people to hear both sides of the story

In Re: Farber: 1978

Doctor was accused of killing his patients and the NY Times printed it. they asked where he got his sources and he refused (shield laws- allowed writers to keep their sources confidential) he was put in jail for contempt of court. In certain instances judges can break shield laws generally it is upheld.

Freedom of Religion- government can�t punish religion

The 1st amendment requires that the government accommodate religious beliefs and practices as long as it doesn�t establish a state religion. Freedom of and from religion. Many things in America elude to or refer to God (i.e.- In God We Trust) and though people complain it was upheld because the majority of Americans are religious.

the establishment clause- forbids governments from establishing, endorsing, or supporting religion. Under it they can�t set up churches, pass laws to help and religion, or favor a specific one. ("wall of separation between church and state")

Lemon Vs. Kurtman: 1971

Excessive entanglement b/c government had a salary supplement for private school teachers

Lemon/endorsement test- 1. law must have secular purpose, 2. primary effect of law can�t effect or inhibit religion, and 3. can�t foster excessive entanglement of government with religion.

the free exercise clause- people could worship what and how they choose though actions on those beliefs can be limited. Valid and neutral law- if it doesn�t specifically target a religious belief it will be upheld. Belief is fine, actions can be regulated (such as polygamy is illegal).

Wisconsin Vs Yoder: 1972

Amish students stopped going to school at 14 when the law says 16 because it�s too worldly and they needed to learn to be Amish. They upheld the religion because more harm would come from prohibiting their religion than from making them go to school (The state wants children to be educated so they can get a job, stay off the streets, and avoid drugs. Amish still ended up being successful in business and being productive members of society)

Religious and Non-Religious Activities- must be treated equal for funding purposes

Engel Vs. Vitale: 1962

- no prayer can be required in public school even if it�s non-denominational

County of Allegenny Vs. ACLU: 1989

Holiday display with a creche, menorah, and Christmas tree in a government owned place.

- the creche was a violation of the establishment clause but the tree and menorah showed diversity so they were allowed

Grand Rapids School District Vs. Ball: 1985

Can�t pay teachers to tutor in private schools

Aguillar Vs. Felton: 1985

Can�t pay teachers to teach kids in private schools

Lee Vs. Weisman: 1992

Can�t have a priest or rabbi give a benediction speech even if it�s non-denominational and graduation attendance is voluntary b/c students shouldn�t have to decide between whether or not they go to graduation

West Virginia Board Of Ed. Vs. Barnette: 1943

Jehovah�s witnesses objected to saying the Pledge of Allegiance b/c it was wrong to venerate a piece of cloth.

-can�t force the pledge of allegiance in school

McDaniel Vs. Patty: 1978

A state law said members of clergy can�t hold certain public offices

- violated free exercise clause

Zobrest Vs. Catalina Foothills School District: 1993

State law said all students with disabilities must be educated. A deaf kid got a translator in public school and they refused to pay for it in private school

- violated establishment clause b/c of the law

Wallace Vs. Jaffrey: 1985

Gave a minute of silence for prayer or meditation

- it was an attempt to endorse prayer in another way and it wasn�t allowed

Stone Vs. Graham: 1980

State law said 10 commandments had to be in all classrooms

-overturned b/c it violated the establishment clause

Frazee Vs. Illinois Dept. of Employment Security: 1989

State said to get unemployment benefits you had to accept any appropriate job. She refused a job b/c it made her work on Sat. so she lost her benefits

- overturned b/c of free exercise clause

Marsh Vs. Chambers: 1971

Can open congress with prayer b/c it was deeply imbedded in American life and it didn�t hurt someone (didn�t affect kids so it�s ok)

The First Amendment In Prisons And The Military

-Compared to prisons and military institutions schools are relatively opened institutions that are to prepare students for life in our constitutional democracy with its emphasis on individual freedom.

- Prisons and the military closely regulate most aspects of life. Prisons especially separate their members from society. In 1987 the Supreme Court upheld a prison regulation prohibiting correspondence between inmates of different institutions. In 1976 the court upheld a regulation on a large military base that prohibited political speeches or the distribution of campaign literature.

- These cases show individual right are limited when balanced with balanced with special needs of the military and prisons for order and discipline.

Due Process- legal fairness from the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments (applies to the accused)

-Procedural Due Process- fair procedures (technical part of criminal process)

-Substantive Due Process- infringement of a law or government action on fundamental liberties

~The 5th Amendment wasn�t binding to the states so the Civil War Amendments were passed to avoid discrimination. The 14th and 5th Amendments are almost identical.

~Every citizen in every state has the same rights as every other citizen in every other state.

~Court most often has upheld legislators as long as the law is rational and there is a compelling interest for it.

~Due process means a citizen must be given notice when he will be affected by a government action and have a chance to comment on that action.

What process is due depends on 1) the seriousness of the harm done to the citizen, 2) the risk of making an error without the procedures, and 3) the cost to the government in time and money of carrying out procedures.

The Right To Die- needs clear and convincing proof that someone wants to die (before removing a machine that will keep them alive), a competent adult can decide not to use artificial life sustaining measures, and it is illegal to aid in suicide due to the state�s interest in preserving life.

Goss Vs. Lopez:1975

- student demonstrators were suspended for up to 10 days and they sued saying their procedural due process rights were violating because they didn�t get a hearing.

- before suspension a student must get 1)oral or written notice of the charges, 2) an explanation of the evidence against them, and 3) an opportunity for students to give their side of what happened.

Search and Seizure- only unreasonable searches are unconstitutional.

To get a warrant there must be probable cause, which is decided by the judge. (Warrant comes after someone files an affidavit with sworn testimony of the facts.) illegal items in plain view can be seized even if not on the warrant. Something found by a reasonable execution of the warrant is used.

Exclusionary Rule- evidence found through an unreasonable search or illegal interrogation is left out as evidence. "Fruits from a Poisonous Tree" such as evidence found from something else that was illegal can�t be used unless it can be proven that it would have inevitably been found.

Mapp Vs. Ohio: 1961

- the cops searched a pornographer�s house without a warrant and they sued

- state courts can�t use evidence illegally obtained- exclusionary rule

Miranda Vs. Arizona:1966

- cops must tell you your rights (the right to remain silent)

Gideon Vs. Wainwright

- a person must be supplied an attorney in all criminal cases if he cannot afford one it will be paid for by the government. (writ of mandamus- legal document written to the Supreme Court requesting a case to be heard)

US Vs. Leon:1984

- Good Faith Exception to Mapp. If the warrant had a small technical problem (like address) the evidence does not have to be excluded.

Quarrles Vs. NY: 1984

- Public Safety exception to Miranda. Public safety takes precedence over Miranda Right. (cops needed to find the gun quickly so they were allowed to ask where it was first)

There are some searches that are reasonable without a warrant:

~Search incident to a lawful arrest- after arresting a person you may search them and the area they were arrested in and have a protective sweep of the area (for armed suspects)

~Stop and frisk a suspicious person (plain feel- touch reveals other illegal objects than a weapon)

~Consent

~Plainview

~Hot pursuit-search area a running suspect may have entered

~Vehicle searches- probable cause to believe that a vehicle has contraband

~Emergency situations (after a bomb threat)

~Border and airport searches- customs agents without probable cause can search people and their bags

California Vs. Greenwood:1988

- a garbage can be searched b/c there is no reasonable expectation of privacy when you throw something out.

Maryland Vs. Buie:1990

- if arrested by your house there can be a protective sweep of the house

Richards Vs. Wisconsin: 1997

- if the cops stop you for running a red light, etc. they can order all passengers out of the car and if you are drunk they can arrest you

Knowles Vs. Iowa: 1984

-police can�t perform a body search for a traffic violation

Minnesota Vs. Dickerson: 1993

- can only stop a person to frisk them for a gun (if something is plain field that the police would reasonably think it was drugs it can be used as evidence)

Michigan Dept. of State Parkway Vs. Sitz: 1984

- random search is not illegal when the government had a compelling interest to protect the people (people drink on holidays so it is reasonable to stop cars and check for drunk drivers on holidays)

T.L.O. Vs. NJ: 1985

- school acts in loco parentis and can search a student�s things with reasonable suspicion , they don�t need probable cause (can search a girl�s purse if a teacher sends them to the principle for smoking)

Vernonia Vs. Acton:1995

-being on a school team is a privilege not a right and because the school has a compelling interest to give drug tests to their athletes to prevent drug use.

TODD Vs. Rush County Schools: 2001

- schools can give random drug tests to kids on any extra curricular activities.

Oregon Vs. Matcheson: 1977

- cops do not have to tell you that you have the right to go, if you don�t ask and you say something it can be used in court.

Esobedo Vs. Illinois

- once you ask for a lawyer all questionin

R�%�

Z>∞ continue as

� and you confess it cannot be used.

R.I. Vs. Innis: 1980

- girl was killed the cops caught the alleged murderer they mirandized him and he asked for a lawyer. They stopped questioning him but talked amongst themselves and he confessed. It was not a custodial interrogation he decided to confess.

Ducksworth Vs. Esan: 1989

-if you can�t afford a lawyer he will be provided for you "if and when you go to court"

Standbury Vs. California: 1994

- if you become a suspect during questioning he doesn�t have to mirandize you because if you ask to go you are allowed. Whatever you say can be used.

~If someone illegally obtains evidence and hands it over to the court it can be used because he isn�t an officer of the government.

~A roommate cannot give police permission to search objects that aren�t her own.

Privacy- not in the constitution

Zones of Privacy- 1st (speech and association), 4th(unreasonable search and seizure), 9th(unspecified rights), 5th(remain silent), and 3rd(home free of soldiers in a time of peace) Amendments

Privacy at Home: "a man�s home is his castle". Can prohibit child pornography at home b/c the state has an interest to protect minors. Does not protect abuse or battery either.

Privacy at School: can search students� desks and lockers and belongings with a warrant or probable cause. Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 said parents could see their child�s files and insist on a written correction if inaccurate, can�t release records without parents� permission, 18 year olds and college students could see their records, and schools had to inform parents and students of these rights.

Privacy doesn�t protect deposit slips and checks but when a federal agent seeks info the person must be notified.

Griswald Vs. Ct.: 1965

Illegal to distribute birth control to married patients and it was illegal to possess

- unconstitutional, invasion of privacy

Eisenstadt Vs. Baird: 1972

Can�t deny birth control to unmarried patients either

Roe Vs. Wade: 1973

Women have a constitutional right to terminate procreation in:

1st trimester unconditionally

2nd trimester can be regulated but not prohibited

3rd (fetus is viable) can only abort to save women�s life

McVeigh Vs. Cohn: 1998

�don�t ask don�t tell� policy of gays in the army. Some guys came across a SN they thought was someone�s in the army and they thought was gay so they asked for the name.

- AOL can�t reveal customers� identities but he was still discharged from the army

Stanley Vs. Georgia: 1969

Porn in his house

- allowed b/c it was in his house, wasn�t for commercial use, and didn�t harm anyone

US Vs. 37 Photographs: 1971

Government can�t prohibit the importation of obscene material for commercial use

Paris Adult Theater Vs. Slaton: 1973

Government can stop the selling of obscene materials even if they only show it to adults who know what they were going to see

Ravin Vs. State: 1975

-Alaska prosecuted for a small amount of weed found in someone�s home

Sate Vs. Murphy: 1977

- Arizona refused to make the same ruling

Bowers Vs. Hardwicke: 1986

Government outlawed sodamy and 2 gays were found engaging in it. at that time they thought the gays spread the gay disease (AIDS)

- upheld (Powel later said it was a mistake)

Skinner Vs. Oklahoma: 1942

A person has the constitutional right to procreate and the government can�t force sterilization

Planned Parenthood Vs. Ashcroft: 1983

Judge or parental consent was required for an abortion

Belotti Vs. Baird: 1979

Minor needed consent from both parents

Planned Parenthood of Missouri Vs. Danforth: 1976

Husbands have no veto power over abortion

Planned Parenthood Vs. Cambose: 1999

Teen needed to inform and get consent from a parent to have am abortion

H.L. Vs. Matheson: 1991

Doctors had to inform parents of unmarried minors who wanted an abortion

Ohio Vs. Akron Center for Reproductive Health: 1983 and 1990

1983- a state can only require parental permission if there is a way for the minor to go to court for a judicial review where a judge can determine she is mature enough to get an abortion without her parents if it is in her best interest and it also said that 1) can�t require that abortion be done in hospitals, 2) can�t require women to hear all other options, and 3) can�t require a 24 hour waiting period.

1990- reaffirmed that minors must be able to have a judicial review to bypass law to get an abortion without parental consent

Planned Parenthood of SE Penn. Vs. Casey: 1992

Women can have abortion before fetus is viable but it can�t be restricted afterwards, except to save woman�s life. Cannot give women an undue burden in order to get their abortion. It also overturned the part of Ohio Vs. Akron Center for Reproductive Health that said abortion had to be in a hospital, women didn�t have to hear all other options, and that they couldn�t require a 24 hour waiting period.

1980- Hyde Amendment passed saying the government would no longer fund abortions

Harris Vs. Macrae: 1980

Upheld Hyde as constitutional

Discrimination- treatment of someone is different due to race, religion, gender, age, etc.

Equality- the limitations of your potential should be solely your own (not manmade)

De Jure- of the law

De Facto- of the fact

Dred Scott Vs. Sanford: 1857

Scott was brought by his owner to a free state so he said he should be free. He sued and lost. The Supreme Court upheld slavery saying slaves are property and you don�t lose your property by going into another state. Free blacks aren�t citizens and therefore have no right to sue. (First time an act of congress was challenged because the Missouri Compromise said you couldn�t bring a slave into a free state and this was overturned.)

Plessy Vs. Furgeson: 1986

Separate but equal is equal. Segregation is legal in schools, restaurants, railroads, cars, and restrooms, etc. is allowed if the facilities are equal. (he actually won because there was no first class for blacks on the train and it was therefore not equal)

Brown Vs. Topeka Board of Ed.: 1954

Reversed Plessy Vs. Furgeson and said schools had to be integrated with all deliberate speed. Thurgood Marshall said separate but equal is not equal. (he later became the first black Supreme Court Justice)- no timetable so until an injunction on Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas the south waited to desegregate. This was in 1957 when the national guard was federalized by Eisenhower and forced the students to be let in. Warren continued until the decision was unanimous, because he didn�t want anyone to have the comfort of saying others were against integration.

The Brown decision was followed by the Civil Rights Movements:

- The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 1965- no discrimination in employment and housing public or private (Title VII)

- Civil Rights Act of 1968- can�t discriminate with housing in public businesses and housing (specific number of rooms)

- The Voting Rights Act of 1965- no more grandfather clauses or literacy tests

- 14th Amendment- no state shall deny to any person equal protection of the law

- 15th Amendment- non-white, male citizens could vote regardless of past servitude.

Can discriminate if it passes one of these four things:

1- Rational Basis Test- logical argument (rational basis btwn classification & purpose)

2- Strict Scrutiny Test- compelling interest and no less intrusive way of satisfying that interest (than discriminating with race)

3- Substantial Relationship Case- laws based on sex must serve and important government purpose and have a close connection btwn the law and its purpose

4- Bona Fide Occupational Qualification (B.F.O.Q.)- special requirements needed in order to be able to do the job

H.D. Thorreau- Man�s Law Vs. Moral Law- it is your duty to civilly disobey immoral laws. Gandhi said you should even break laws to gain sympathy. (this only works in democracy. Martin Luther King used this method to gain sympathy from the American people and change the laws.

Affirmative Action- taking positive steps to remedy past and current discrimination in employment and education. Can be voluntary or mandatory (imposed by gov�t or court for funding�) sometimes uses quotas, goals, preferences, and point system.

Recognizes systematic discrimination in society that handicapped people and tries to deal with it

Compelling interest- diverse communities on college campuses

University of California Vs. Bakke: 1978

Gave advantages to minority applicants to increase minority enrollment. Bakke didn�t get into the school. He sued saying that without such a program he would�ve gotten in. The Supreme Court said the school was acting constitutionally (racial quotas were illegal but they could use race as an admission factor).

Taxman Vs. Board of Ed. Of Piscattaway Township: 1997

NJ adopted an affirmative action plan saying the most qualified be hired and if equal the minority was chosen because they wanted a mixed faculty like the mixed students. When they were laying off teachers they used the same plan to lay off a white teacher instead of a black one when they were equal in seniority and qualification. Settled out of court because civil rights leaders paid money for the case to be dropped rather than risk losing affirmative action with a Supreme Court decision.

Texas Vs. Hopwood: 1997

Had affirmative action quota for minorities and four white students sued when they didn�t get in. The Supreme Court denied cert (hearing the case) so the last ruling, which was against the affirmative action plan.

Gerrymandering- redrawing voting district lines to ensure that a specific group is included in the same district.

Miller Vs. Johnson: 1995

NC used gerrymandering to create a 12th district in which the majority was black so the white sued. Law said districts must be logically shaped or for racial purpose. The Supreme Court said that because of its shape it wasn�t legal or equal to whites. It wasn�t narrowly tailored to achieve interest.

Discriminating Against Women:

- 19th Amendment- gave women equality

- Equal Rights Act- prohibited discriminatory laws being passed and enforced

- Equal Pay Act of 1963- women must receive equal pay

- Education Act of 1972- Title IX- no sex discrimination in school activities, curriculum, hiring, and athletics.

- Civil Rights Act of 1964- Title VII- hiring firing and promoting equality

US Vs. Virginia: 1996

VMI was an all male college so Justice Department sued and they created VWIL for women, but they sued again saying separate but equal is not equal because it denied certain advantages for women.

Rostker v. Goldberg:1980

Draft violated women. But really didn�t, because women weren�t allowed in certain areas of combat. So helping them get drafted wouldn�t change much.

Michael vs. Superior Court of Schoma County: 1981

Women�s rape...

UAW vs. Johnson Controls: 1990

Company had job that they considered too dangerous for women in their childbearing years. It was deemed unconstitutional unanimousally.

Sexual Harrassment:

- Quid Pro Quo- this for that, sexual favor for job/favor (even if offered b/c students can sue) only has to prove you felt it necessary for your job

- Hostile Environment- vulgar comments in work/school environment, invasion of space you have to let the person be aware that they are bothering you or you won�t get anywhere.

Harris Vs. Forklift Systems: 1993

Boss harassed Harris, she complained to him, he apologized, but continued. Supreme Court said hostile or abusive work environment violates Title VII. The victim must show they are offended so it would be noticeable to the person offending them. You don not have to prove psychological harm, only that it was a hostile work environment and made it harder to work.

Reasonable Man�s Defense- would a reasonable person be offended by this?

*Employers can be sued for not setting up preventative measures

Burlington Industries Vs. Elltreh and Farragher Vs. City of Boca Raton: 1998

The employer is liable because they knew or should have know about the sexual harassment and should have done something about it and they therefore can sue the company.

Furgeson Vs. Dupont: 1983

If the co-worker makes vulgar comments and she complains and then makes slightly vulgar comments in response she can still sue (though if she constantly uses overly-vulgar comments it may bar her case.)

Oncale Vs. Sundowner Offshore Services: 1998

Male can also sue if male co-workers subject him to sexual harassment.

Age Discrimination:

-Age Discrimination in Employment Act- protects people from job discrimination because you are 40. (40 to retirement age at 65-70 or so.) can�t reduce pay, or prevent promotion�

*There must be a valid and real reason for the age law.

Mass. Board of Retirement Vs. Murgia: 1976

Law required police to retire at 50 and Murgia sued because he was in pique physical condition because physical fitness generally declines by age so it was therefore allowed.

Disability Discrimination:

Disability- difficulty performing basic functions

Hendrick Hudson Board of Ed. Vs. Rowley: 1982

Amy was deaf and wanted an interpreter but school said she didn�t need one. The Supreme Court said that under the Education For All Handicapped Children Act the school had to give her special instruction but did not have to maximize potential. It must supply some but not all of what is needed.

- Rehabilitation Act of 1973- set up programs to help the disabled. Mainstreaming to combine mentally able and mentally disabled classes unless it is an undue burden

- Individual Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 1975- disabled students must received reasonable accommodations

- Americans with Disabilities (ADA) of 1990- grant equality for disabled people (mental or physical impairment) reasonable accommodations does not include undue burden because its too expensive.

Alcoholics and people with HIV or AIDS are protected under this as well.

- Architectural Barriers Act of 1968- public buildings must be accessible to the disabled (many places needed continuances because it is hard and expensive and takes a long time to get done)

Irving Independent School District Vs. Tipatrio: 1984

Ordered to provide a catheter (someone to change the bags of excretion) for the duration of the school (unanimous vote). Has to have someone help and change them.

Seeder Rapids School District Vs. Garret: 1999

School had to provide all-day nursing and medical care to a student disabled from a motorcycle accident at age four. Opposition said it would strain financial stress.

Doe Vs. District of Columbia: 1992

A guy was accepted to work as a firefighter but when they found out he had HIV they told him not to come saying it was a B.F.O.Q. but the Supreme Court said the odds of transmission was so rare that it didn�t count so he was reinstated anonymously.

Martin Vs. PGA Tour Inc.: 1998

Martin was a golfer who had a degenerative bone disease keeping him from walking long-distance wanted to be allowed to use a golf cart to get around, which was against the rules. The PGA said it was a B.F.O.Q. because walkin was long and exhausting effecting a golfer�s game but since the few feet he had to walk from the golf cart to the whole was equally exhausting for him, Martin won the case.

*weight unless outside a normal range or some defect of a disease, does not constitute an impairment.

Housing Discrimination

Steering- putting specific races in specific areas

Redlining- bank won�t give loans to people in specific neighborhoods

-Community Reinvestment Act of 1977- stopped redlining

Sexual Preference Discrimination:

* don�t ask don�t tell in the army

* gays have no federal protection

Romer Vs. Evans: 1996

Disqualifying given rights to a specific group is a violation of no discrimination laws so when they tried to take away a law that gave gays more rights it was unconstitutional.

Domestic partnership laws- gave gay partners the same rights as spouses would receive

CASES excluding discrimination

Marbury Vs. Madison

-midnight judges- judges appointed by Adams before he left the office

Marbury was appointed but by the time he came to get judgeship Jefferson was in power and denied him that right. He went to the Supreme Court to sue as original jurisdiction using the Judiciary Act of 1789 (said there would be 6 not 9 judges and said he could go directly to the Supreme Court). The Supreme Court said the part about allowing judges to go to the Supreme Court was unconstitutional and overturned it so he had to start at the beginning. (he won in the end�)

Miller Vs. California: 1973

the Supreme Court set a guideline for determining whether or not work is obscene.

1. Does the work depict in an offensive way, sexual conduct specifically outlawed by applicable state law? (showing something illegal positively)

2. Does the work lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value?

3. Would a regular person using contemporary community standards find the material appealing to prurient interest?

Hurly Vs. Irish American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston: 1995

The St. Patrick�s Day Parade sponsored by a private institution, the Irish Catholics/ Church said homosexuals couldn�t march under their own banner and the homosexuals sued for discrimination. Homosexuals violate the ideals of the Church and they lost the case.

Maplethorpe Vs. Cincinatti : 1992

Maplethorpe was a famous photographer who also took some homoerotic photos and after his death they had an art show of his pics but shut it down because people said it was obscene. The Maplethorpe estate sued and won the case because it art.

(funding of offensive but legal material by the gov�t if fair b/c otherwise nothing would get funding)

Jenkins Vs. Georgia: 1974

(for about 50 yrs movies were censored because of movies in the 1920�s-Haye�s Code) about the Carnal Knowledge movie that had some nudity and suggested scenes of oral sex. Georgia lost because it doesn�t go by community standards when it is a nationwide release.

New York Vs. Ferber: 1982

In Ferber�s home there were pics and videos of kids in sexually suggestive poses which is child pornography though not technically obscene. The gov�t often acts �en loco parentis�- in place of pare nts.

Sable Communications Vs. Federal Communications Company: 1989

Sable had a dial up phone line that the FCC closed because it was too easily accessible. Sable sued saying it was a violation of Free Speech. He won because you can�t just ban something because a kid may or may not come across it.

Reno Vs. ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union)

Congress passed the Communications and Decency Act to protect kids from seeing harmful material on the internet. ACLU sued saying�the section that criminalized the knowing transmission of obsene or indecent messages to recipient and prohibits sending/displaying to minors pics of sex and organs in offensive terms was too general. What is offensive?

City of Renton Vs. Playtime Theaters, Inc.: 1986

Tried zoning off where �sex places� can be. It was upheld because it only restricted where the sex places in certain locations, it could still happen somewhere else (time, manner, and place is okay as long as it is reasonable)

Hudnut Vs. American Booksellers Association, Inc. : 1986

Said pornography was illegal because it was demeaning and degrading to women but it wasn�t upheld because it was too broad (just because you don�t like something it doesn�t mean you can censor it)

NY Times Vs. Sullivan: 1964

Sued the NY Times because of an ad in the newspaper. Though it advertised info it wasn�t an ad because it was about society not selling anything. This case set the test for defamation that applies to public figures (who must allow reasonable criticism). Is it true? If it is then the case is finished. Did they know or should they have known? Malice or recklessness (didn�t follow up to check if it was true). Did it hurt your reputation? Damage (award depends on level of damage).

Ariel Sharon Vs. Time Magazine

Said Sharon knew about the massacre in a refugee camp ahead of time, they said it was a lie but didn�t damage his reputation so he won but didn�t get money.

Firestone Vs. Time, Inc.

Set precedence for who a public figure was. Obviously appointed/elected gov�t officials, athletes, and artists of note, performers, etc. Anyone who thrusts himself/ or is thrust into public eye to affect a change or ongoing crisis.

Farber Vs. New York: 1947

Said bad about politicians on street corner and said they should take over the gov�t. (prior restraint- press, previous restraint- stop before anything happens). Can�t stop before printing or marching without proof that there was a pattern of riot or proof that there would be a riot. He was imprisoned because he had no permit, fighting words (called them Nazis), and stopped traffic because people loitered there to listen.

Central Hudson Gas And Electric Vs. Public Service Committee of NY: 1980

Are commercial and political speech equally protected? They could regulate commercial speech more�can�t advertise illegal goods and anything false or misleading.

Gregory Vs. Chicago: 1969

Gregory (comedian and African American political activist) and other Civil Rights protestors staged a march (with a permit) from town hall to Mayor Daley�s house to demand desegregation of the public schools. Bystanders cursed and threatened them. the police asked the demonstrators to leave and when they said no they arrested the demonstrators for disorderly conduct.- there was no proof that the demonstrators were dangerous so there was no reason to arrest them.

Schenk Vs. US and Debs Vs. US: 1918

Opposed the War by giving out booklets saying people should resist the draft but this was against the Sedition Act.

- in a time of peace what he said wouldn�t be a problem but in a time of war his speech was a clear and present danger. Even in a time of peace you don�t have the right to falsely yell fire in a crowded theater and cause a panic.

Dennis Vs. US: 1951

- Balancing Test- balanced free speech against the harm the speaker proposes (the reason national security was an exception to free speech rights)

Smith Vs. Collin: 1978

Nazis wanted to march in Skoaky, Illinois where the residents were mostly Jews and Holocaust survivors. The town passed a law that they needed to buy liability insurance, can�t preach hate speech against a group or race, and can�t wear paramilitary uniforms.

- it wasn�t a content neutral law so it was overturned

Texas Vs. Jonhson: 1989

Flag burning was illegal because the law said you had to respect the law

- overturned, there was no breach of peace and the gov�t can�t prohibit speech just b/c it doesn�t like it.

US Vs. O�Brian: 1968

Burnt his draft card to protest the Vietnam War

- he complicated an administrative process and there was other ways of communicating his ideas so it was considered illegal

Ward Vs. Rock Against Racism: 1989

Had a rock concert with a permit and when the permit ran out the police shut it down. They said it was only because it was rock it was shut down.

- rock music is loud and used amps and speakers, it wasn�t content based and was fair to shut down

Spence Vs. Washington: 1974

He hung a flag upside down in his home to say America was in distress.

- it was 1) in the privacy of his house, 2)his own flag, 3)it was a form of symbolic speech, and 4) it didn�t incite a riot so it was allowed

Forsythe County Vs. Nationalist Movement: 1992

Requiring a permit for a parade is an appropriate use of time, manner, and place.

LA City Council Vs. Taxpayers for Vincent: 1984

Can�t post signs on lampposts

Clark Vs. Community for Creative Non-Violence: 1984

Sleeping in the park isn�t allowed because it�s dangerous

FCC Vs. League of Women Voters: 1984

Law prohibited public radio stations from airing editorials

- it wasn�t content neutral because it was only prohibiting political speech

Metro Media, Inc. Vs. City of San Diego: 1981

Law prohibited all billboards in the town limits b/c it distracted from the town�s beauty

- overruled b/c you can�t prohibit all expression

Greer Vs. Spock: 1976

Showed up at an army base to protest American policy and they threw him out. He claimed it was b/c of what he was saying

- no one is allowed to just walk onto an army base without permission

Tinker Vs. DeMoines: 1969

They wore black armbands to school so the school said if they wore them and refused to remove them they�d be suspended

- not content neutral b/c the rule was made only when they wore the armbands and there hadn�t been any problems or fights yet so there was no reason to stop them

Nebraska Press Association Vs. Stuart: 1976

At a pre-trial there was a confession and the judge ordered a gag ordered

- overturned, before issuing a gag order you have to 1) know it will work, 2) no less drastic way of doing it, and 3) and there will be irreparable harm if not done. He didn�t have it so the judge couldn�t issue a gag order b/c people already knew.

Sheppard Vs. Maxwell: 1966

Convicted of killing his wife. He claimed he didn�t have a fair trial b/c of the publicity so he got a new trial.

New York Times Co. Vs. the US: 1971

Pentagon hired the Rhand Co. Think Tank to evaluate the war so far. One of the members (Daniel Ellsberg?) gave the papers to the NY Times after signing a non-disclosure agreement. They got an injunction to keep the NY Times from printing them. It wasn�t a matter of security so they were allowed to print the Pentagon Papers.

Tinker Vs. Des Moines School District: 1969

(student armbands that are anti-Vietnam) the Supreme Court decided that the 1st amendment "does not end at the schoolhouse door" and the armbands were a form of "symbolic speech" and were therefore protected. But it could be suspended if their conduct would "martially and substantially disrupt" the educational process. A disruption didn�t happen or could have been predicted because of the armbands and their suspension was therefore unconstitutional.

Hazelwood Vs. Kuhlmeier: 1988

(the school newspaper censorship case where students wrote about teen pregnancy and divorces. The principal deleted the pages because it might offend students and invade some privacy) the Supreme Court said that the school could control what went into a school newspaper because (1) schools don�t have to permit student speech inconsistent with their basic educational mission and (2) schools should be able to control expression that others may reasonably think the school had endorsed. The decision gives educators editorial control if they are reasonably related to legitimate educational concerns.

Burch Vs. Baker: 1988

Students published an underground newspaper and the principal said they couldn�t distribute on school grounds

- couldn�t reasonably assume the school endorsed it so they were allowed.

Island Trees Union Free School District Vs. Pico: 1982

Local school board removed books they found offensive and students complained

- can�t remove books based on their own view of what they don�t like

Smith Vs. Daily Mail Publishing: 1979

State law forbid writing the name of a juvenile delinquent in the paper b/c it may taint the rest of their life. The newspaper found out from witnesses and the police radio

- it was already public knowledge so they couldn�t stop it

Redline Broadcasting Vs. FCC: 1969

-not a violation b/c it�s the rights of the people to hear both sides of the story

In Re: Farber: 1978

Lemon Vs. Kurtman: 1971

Excessive entanglement b/c gov�t had a salaray supplement for private school teachers

Lemon/endorsement test- 1. law must have secular purpose, 2. primary effect of law can�t effect or inhibit religion, and 3. can�t foster excessive entanglement of government with religion.

Wisconsin Vs Yoder: 1972

Engel Vs. Vitale: 1962

- no prayer can be required in public school even if it�s non-denominational

County of Allegenny Vs. ACLU: 1989

Holiday display with a cr�che, menorah, and Christmas tree in a gov�t owned place.

- the cr�che was a violation of the establishment clause but the tree and menorah showed diversity so they were allowed

Grand Rapids School District Vs. Ball: 1985

Can�t pay teachers to tutor in private schools

Aguillar Vs. Felton: 1985

Can�t pay teachers to teach kids in private schools

Lee Vs. Weisman: 1992

West Virginia Board Of Ed. Vs. Barnette: 1943

Jehovah�s witnesses objected to saying the Pledge of Allegiance b/c it was wrong to venerate a piece of cloth.

-can�t force the pledge of allegiance in school

McDaniel Vs. Patty: 1978

A state law said members of clergy can�t hold certain public offices

- violated free exercise clause

Zobrest Vs. Catalina Foothills School District: 1993

State law said all students with disabilities must be educated. A deaf kid got a translator in public school and they refused to pay for it in private school

- violated establishment clause b/c of the law

Wallace Vs. Jaffrey: 1985

Gave a minute of silence for prayer or meditation

- it was an attempt to endorse prayer in another way and it wasn�t allowed

Stone Vs. Graham: 1980

State law said 10 commandments had to be in all classrooms

-overturned b/c it violated the establishment clause

Frazee Vs. Illinois Dept. of Employment Security: 1989

State said to get unemployment benefits you had to accept any appropriate job. She refused a job b/c it made her work on Sat. so she lost her benefits

- overturned b/c of free exercise clause

Marsh Vs. Chambers: 1971

Can open congress with prayer b/c it was deeply imbedded in American life and it didn�t hurt someone (didn�t affect kids so it�s ok)

Goss Vs. Lopez: 1975

- student demonstrators were suspended for up to 10 days and they sued saying their procedural due process rights were violating because they didn�t get a hearing.

- before suspension a student must get 1)oral or written notice of the charges, 2) an explanation of the evidence against them, and 3) an opportunity for students to give their side of what happened.

Mapp Vs. Ohio: 1961

- the cops searched a pornographer�s house without a warrant and they sued

- state courts can�t use evidence illegally obtained- exclusionary rule

Miranda Vs. Arizona:1966

- cops must tell you your rights (the right to remain silent)

Gideon Vs. Wainwright

- a person must be supplied an attorney in all criminal cases if he cannot afford one it will be paid for by the gov�t. (writ of mandamus- legal document written to the Supreme Court requesting a case to be heard)

US Vs. Leon:1984

- Good Faith Exception to Mapp. If the warrant had a small technical problem (like address) the evidence does not have to be excluded.

Quarrles Vs. NY: 1984

- Public Safety exception to Miranda. Public safety takes precedence over Miranda Right. (cops needed to find the gun quickly so they were allowed to ask where it was first)

California Vs. Greenwood:1988

- a garbage can be searched b/c there is no reasonable expectation of privacy when you throw something out.

Maryland Vs. Buie:1990

- if arrested by your house there can be a protective sweep of the house

Richards Vs. Wisconsin: 1997

- if the cops stop you for running a red light, etc. they can order all passengers out of the car and if you are drunk they can arrest you

Knowles Vs. Iowa: 1984

-police can�t perform a body search for a traffic violation

Minnesota Vs. Dickerson: 1993

- can only stop a person to frisk them for a gun (if something is plain field that the police would reasonably think it was drugs it can be used as evidence)

Michigan Dept. of State Parkway Vs. Sitz: 1984

- random search is not illegal when the gov�t had a compelling interest to protect the people (people drink on holidays so it is reasonable to stop cars and check for drunk drivers on holidays)

T.L.O. Vs. NJ: 1985

Vernonia Vs. Acton:1995

-being on a school team is a privilege not a right and because the school has a compelling interest to give drug tests to their athletes to prevent drug use.

TODD Vs. Rush County Schools: 2001

- schools can give random drug tests to kids on any extra curricular activities.

Oregon Vs. Matcheson: 1977

- cops do not have to tell you that you have the right to go, if you don�t ask and you say something it can be used in court.

Esobedo Vs. Illinois

- once you ask for a lawyer all questioning stops, if they continue asking and you confess it cannot be used.

R.I. Vs. Innis: 1980

Ducksworth Vs. Esan: 1989

-if you can�t afford a lawyer he will be provided for you "if and when you go to court"

Standbury Vs. California: 1994

- if you become a suspect during questioning he doesn�t have to mirandize you because if you ask to go you are allowed. Whatever you say can be used.

Griswald Vs. Ct.: 1965

Illegal to distribute birth control to married patients and it was illegal to possess

- unconstitutional, invasion of privacy

Eisenstadt Vs. Baird: 1972

Can�t deny birth control to unmarried patients either

Roe Vs. Wade: 1973

Women have a constitutional right to terminate procreation in:

1st trimester unconditionally

2nd trimester can be regulated but not prohibited

3rd (fetus is viable) can only abort to save women�s life

McVeigh Vs. Cohn: 1998

�don�t ask don�t tell� policy of gays in the army. Some guys came across a SN they thought was someone�s in the army and they thought was gay so they asked for the name.

- AOL can�t reveal customers� identities but he was still discharged from the army

Stanley Vs. Georgia: 1969

Porn in his house

- allowed b/c it was in his house, wasn�t for commercial use, and didn�t harm anyone

US Vs. 37 Photographs: 1971

Gov�t can�t prohibit the importation of obscene material for commercial use

Paris Adult Theater Vs. Slaton: 1973

Gov�t can stop the selling of obscene materials even if they only show it to adults who know what they were going to see

Ravin Vs. State: 1975

-Alaska prosecuted for a small amount of weed found in someone�s home

Sate Vs. Murphy: 1977

- Arizona refused to make the same ruling

Bowers Vs. Hardwicke: 1986

Gov�t outlawed sodamy and 2 gays were found engaging in it. at that time they thought the gays spread the gay disease (AIDS)

- upheld (Powel later said it was a mistake)

Skinner Vs. Oklahoma: 1942

A person has the constitutional right to procreate and the gov�t can�t force sterilization

Planned Parenthood Vs. Ashcroft: 1983

Judge or parental consent was required for an abortion

Belotti Vs. Baird: 1979

Minor needed consent from both parents

Planned Parenthood of Missouri Vs. Danforth: 1976

Husbands have no veto power over abortion

Planned Parenthood Vs. Cambose: 1999

Teen needed to inform and get consent from a parent to have am abortion

H.L. Vs. Matheson: 1991

Doctors had to inform parents of unmarried minors who wanted an abortion

Ohio Vs. Akron Center for Reproductive Health: 1983 and 1990

1990- reaffirmed that minors must be able to have a judicial review to bypass law to get an abortion without parental consent

Planned Parenthood of SE Penn. Vs. Casey: 1992

Harris Vs. Macrae: 1980

Upheld Hyde (said the gov�t would no longer fund abortions) as constitutional

Back to Top

Return to Sophomore Review Sheets

� Review Sheets Central