Sie sind auf Seite 1von 12

Miranda v Arizona 5th Amendment Before being questioned by the police, a person in custody must be informed that he/she

has constitutional rights to remain silent, that anything said can be used against him or her, he/she has a right to have an attorney present during questioning, and can have an attorney appointed if he /she cant afford one; Miranda Warning.

Mapp v Ohio 4th Amendment Evidence that is seized illegally cant be used as evidence in court; the exclusionary rule is applied to the states.

Gideon v Wainright 6th Amendment The right to counsel is fundamental to a fair trial; the state must provide an attorney to poor defendants charged with a felony; the Six Amendment applies to the states through the fourteenth Amendment.

Roe v Wade

Right of Privacy Women have the right to an abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy based on a constitutionally protected right of privacy; the state can impose restrictions in the second and third trimesters.

Webster v Reproductive Health Services Right of Privacy The states may prohibit abortions in public hospitals and clinics and by public employees; limitation on abortion rights.

Griswold v Connecticut Right of Privacy The supreme court overthrew a Connecticut law that prohibited the use of contraceptives, holding that the law violated the right to privacy. Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional to search people to see if they are using contraceptives.

Plessy v Ferguson 14th Amendment Segregation by race was constitutional provided that facilities are equal, Separate but Equal doctrine.

Brown v Board of Education De Jure Segregation The separate but equal doctrine as it applies to public education is unconstitutional; separate schools are inherently unequal.

Gibbons v Ogden

Commerce Clause and Supremacy Clause

The Court ruled that the state of New York could not grant a steamship company a monopoly to operate on an interstate waterway, even though that waterway ran through New York. The ruling increased federal power over interstate commerce by implying that anything concerning interstate trade could potentially be regulated by the federal government. Miller v Johnson Voting Right

Race cannot be the sole or predominant factor in redrawing legislative district boundaries. The case was brought to court by white voters in the Eleventh Congressional District of the state of Georgia. The irregularly shaped district, which stretched 6,784.2 square miles (17,571 km2) from Atlanta to the Atlantic Ocean was created to encompass enough of Georgia's African-American population to create a district where an African-American would have a high chance of being elected. The court ruled against the district, declaring it to be a "geographic monstrosity". It was declared unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, according to the interpretation in Shaw v. Reno (1993).

Swann v Charlotte-Mecklenburg County Board of Education 14th Amendment Remedies for past racial discrimination in public education include racial quotas for both teachers and students, redrawing school district lines, and busing.

Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U.S. 1 (1971) was an important United States Supreme Court case dealing with the busing of students to promote integration in public schools. After a first trial going to the Board of Education, the Court held that busing was an appropriate remedy for the problem of racial imbalance among schools, even where the imbalance resulted from the selection of students based on geographic proximity to the school rather than from deliberate assignment based on race. This was done to ensure the schools would be "properly" integrated and that all students would receive equal educational opportunities regardless of their race. California v Bakke

Racial discrimination is prohibited in any publicly funded institution. Though there was no clear-cut majority opinion, Bakke (based on page 307 of Justice Powell's opinion) came to stand for barring the use of race as the sole criteria for excluding an applicant from consideration for a special college admissions program. Bakke also came to be viewed as affirming a university's right to consider race as one of the factors in an admissions program, but only for the purpose of improving the learning environment through diversity in accordance with the university's constitutionally protected First Amendment right to Academic Freedom (at page 311-315 of the opinion.) Gratz v Bollinger

a United States Supreme Court case regarding the University of Michigan undergraduate affirmative action admissions policy. In a 63 decision announced on June 23, 2003, the Supreme Court ruled the university's point system (which automatically awarded points to underrepresented ethnic groups) was too mechanistic in its use of race as a factor in admissions, and was therefore unconstitutional. Schenk v US 1st Amendment

Freedom of Speech Restriction Freedom of speech is absolute. If there is clear-and-present danger, it is unconstitutional.

Lemon v Kurtzman 1st Amendament Freedom of Religion --Establishment Clause--Restriction In order for it to be constitutional, it must pass the Lemon test: It 1) must have a secular purpose, 2) cant advance/inhibit religion, and 3) doesnt excessively entangle the govt with religion. This case dealt with state laws intending to give money to religious schools or causes. The court held that in order to be consistent with the Establishment Clause, the money had to meet three qualifications: (1) it must have a legitimate secular purpose, (2) it must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion, and (3) it must not result in an excessive entanglement of government and religion. These qualifications are known as the Lemon Test

Pottawatomie v Earls

The Supreme Court ruled that having students take a drug test in order to participate in extracurricular activities is constitutional. This is because extracurricular activities are optional. The majority decision, held that students in extracurricular activities had a diminished expectation of privacy, and that the policy furthered an important interest of the school in preventing drug use among students. Roper v Simmons

It is unconstitutional to force capital punishment for crimes committed by a minor.

Sante Fe Independent School District v Does 1st Amendment NEED United States Supreme Court ruled that a policy permitting student-led, student-initiated prayer at football games violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Dennis v USA 1st Amendment United States Supreme Court found that Dennis , general secretary of the Communist Party USA, did not have a right under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States to exercise free speech, publication and assembly, if that exercise was in furtherance of a conspiracy to overthrow the government. Clear and present danger

New Jersey v TLO 4th Amendment School officials can search a student suspected of violating school policy; school administrators have greater freedom in conducting a search than police or similar authorities in order to maintain an environment where learning can take place. Administrators at the school must ONLY have reasonable suspicion. Police must have plausible clause.

Engle v Vitale

1st Amendment Freedom of Religion --Establishment Clause--Restriction Government-directed prayer in public schools, even if it is denominationally neutral and non-mandatory, violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Abington v Schempp 1st Amendment Freedom of Religion --Establishment Clause--Restriction It is unconstitutional for a state law to require the school day to begin with reading a Biblical passage and reciting the Lord's Prayer.

Brandenburg v Ohio 1st Amendment Brandenburg, a leader of the Ku Klux Klan, made a speech at a Klan rally and was later convicted under an Ohio criminal syndicalism law. Law was found unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. States were not allowed to punish or prevent inflammatory speech unless it will lead to imminent lawless action.

New York Times v US 1st Amendment Freedom of the Press

The supreme court refused to prevent the publication of The Pentagon Papers, a classified documentary history of U.S. involvement in Vietnam, on national security grounds; prior restraint.

New York Times v Sullivan 1st Amendment Freedom of the Press Public figures are bound by a higher standard in slander cases than ordinary citizens. In order to sue, they must show that they have been damaged, the print was false and prove that the media knew it was false and published it anyway showing complete disregard for the truth.

Hazelwood v Kuhlmeier 1st Amendment Freedom of the Press Restriction A principal took out 2 articles from the school newspaper that were about divorce and pregnancy so the children took it to court the court. It ruled that it was constitutional for the principal to censor articles in the school newspaper because it wasn't a public newspaper.

US v Nixon

NEED Executive privilege does not extend to criminal cases

Wesberry v Sanders 14th Amendment NEED Ordered House districts to be near as equal as possibleenshrined the principle of one man, one vote Bush v Gore 14th Amendment NEED the Court ruled that the Florida Supreme Court's method for recounting ballots was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court also ruled that no alternative method could be established within the time limits set by the State of Florida. Texas v Johnson 1st Amendment Freedom of Speech Right It is constitutional to burn a flag. Freedom of speech extends to action. Symbolic speech is allowed.

Tinker v Des Moines 1st Amendment Feedom of Speech Right Students have the freedom of speech in school so long as it is not disruptive to the learning environment.

Collins v Smith 1st Amendment It is unconstitutional to hinder the rights of the minorities. Nazis Must Be Allowed To March Hamdi v Rumsfeld

NEED The Court recognized the power of the government to detain unlawful combatants, but ruled that detainees who are U.S. citizens must have the ability to challenge their detention before an impartial judge. Virginia v Black 1st Amendment It is unconstitutional to burn crosses if there is the intention of intimidating others.

McCreary County v ACLU 1st Amendment It is unconstitutional to display the Ten Commandment for it is a religious object unless it was integrated with a secular message. The court saw no integration because it lacked a demonstrated analytical or historical connection between this and the other documents hung up.

Van Orden v Perry

It is constitutional for the government of Texas to have accepted the order of Eagle with the Ten Commandments written on it because it was a gift and conveyed a historic and social meaning rather than an intrusive religious endorsement.

Atkins v Virginia

It is unconstitutional to execute mentally retarded individuals which would violate the 8th amendment.

Korematsu v US

a landmark United States Supreme Court case concerning the constitutionality of Executive Order 9066, which ordered Japanese Americans into internment camps during World War II. In a 6-3 decision, the Court sided with the government, [2] ruling that the exclusion order was constitutional.

Adarand v Pena

the Supreme Court by a 5-4 vote ruled for the first time that all federal laws that create racial classifications, whether meant to burden or benefit minorities, when challenged, must be tested by the same stringent standard i.e., stric t

scrutiny, this meaning that the government must show that the program was established to meet a compelling state interest and that it is narrowly tailored to achieve that purpose. The decision establishes that federal race-conscious programs will be re viewed by the courts under the due process requirement of the Fifth Amendment, in the same manner that all local and state racial classifications have been reviewed under the Fourteenth Amendment