PSC 101 Exam 4

• Basic political freedoms that protect citizens from
• governmental abuses of power.

Established in Schenk v. United States, this test allows the government to restrict certain types of speech deemed dangerous.

Public expression with the aim of making a profit. It has received greater protection under the 1st Amendment in recent years but remains less protected than political speech.

• Established in Brandenberg v. Ohio, this test protects
• threatening speech under the 1st Amendment unless that speech aims to and is likely to cause imminent “lawless action.”

Being tried twice for the same crime. This is prevented by the 5th Amendment.

Part of the 14th Amendment that forbids states from denying “life liberty or property” to any person without the due process of law. (A nearly identical clause in the 5th Amendment applies only to the national government.)

The idea that laws and legal proceedings must be fair. The Constitution guarantees that the government cannot take away a person’s “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Other specific due process rights are found in the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th amendments, such as protection from self-incrimination and freedom from illegal searches.

• Part of the 1st Amendment that states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” which has been interpreted to
• mean that Congress cannot sponsor or favor any religion.

illegally or unconstitutionally acquired evidence cannot be used in a criminal trial

Words that by their utterance can invoke violence. Can be regulated by the govt but are difficult to define.

1st Amendment - congress cannot prohibit or interfere with the practice of religion

allows the government to prohibit the media from publishing anything related to an ongoing trial

expressions that are offensive or abusive ... protected under 1st amendment

Established in Lemon v. Kurtzman, the Supreme Court uses this test to determine whether a practice violates the 1st Amendment’s establishment clause.

written false statements that damage reputation. Can be regulated by govt but difficult to determine it from permissible speech.

Established in Miller v. California, the Supreme Court uses this three-part test to determine whether speech meets the criteria for obscenity. If so, it can be restricted by the government.

• The list of civil liberties described in the 5th Amendment that must be read to a suspect before anything the suspect says can be used in a
• trial.

A limit on freedom of the press that allows the government to prohibit the media from publishing certain materials.

Liberties protected by several amendments in the Bill of Rights that shield certain personal aspects of citizens’ lives from governmental interference, such as the 4th Amendment’s protection against unreasonable and seizures.

The process through which the civil liberties granted in the Bill of Rights were applied to the states on a case-by-case basis through the 14th Amendment.

spoke false statements that damage a persons reputation. Can be regulated.

nonverbal expression, such as the use of signs or symbols.It benefits from many of the same constitutional protections of verbal speech.

A two-sided court structure in which lawyers on both sides of a case attempt to prove their argument over their opponent’s version of the case.

Latin for “friend of the court,” referring to an interested group or person who shares relevant information about a case to help the Court reach a decision. Usually amicus participants register their opinions in briefs, but they also may participate in oral arguments if one of the parties in the case gives them some of their allotted time.

The intermediate level of federal courts that hear appeals from district courts.

The authority of a court to hear appeals from lower courts and change or uphold the decision.

proving someone guilty. Mainly plaintiffs burden but could be both in civil suit.

cases brought to the supreme court because congress determined that they require the courts attention.

A way of understanding decisions of the Supreme Court based on the political ideologies of the justices.

a system initiated in the supreme court in the 70s in which law clerks screen cases that come to the supreme court and recommend to the justices which cases should be heard.

agreement between the litigants on the desired outcome of a case, causing a federal court to decline to hear the case. more generally, collusion can refer to any kind of conspiracy or complicity.

law based on the precedent of previous court rulings rather than on legislation. It is used in all federal courts and 49 of 50 states.

established under article 3 of the constitution. the supreme court, district courts, and appeals courts.

lower level trial courts that handle most US federal cases

calender of cases

• The idea that the Supreme Court should assert its
• interpretation of the law even if it overrules the elected executive and legislative branches of government.

• The idea that the Supreme Court should defer to the
• democratically elected executive and legislative branches of government rather than contradicting existing laws.

The Supreme Court’s power to strike down a law or executive branch action that it finds unconstitutional.

The law in which Congress laid out the organization of the federal judiciary. The law refined and clarified federal court jurisdiction and set the original number of justices at six. It also created the Office of the Attorney General and established the lower federal courts.

Limited jurisdiction courts created by Congress under Article I of the Constitution.

A way of interpreting the Constitution that takes into account evolving national attitudes and circumstances rather than the text alone.

• The irrelevance of a case by the time it is received by a
• federal court, causing the court to decline to hear the case.

Spoken presentations made in person by the lawyers of each party to a judge or appellate court outlining the legal reasons why their side should prevail.

the theory that justices should surmise the intentions of founders when the language of the constitution is unclear

A legal norm established in court cases that is then applied to future cases dealing with the same legal questions.

A criterion that federal courts use to decide whether a case is ready to be heard. A case’s ripeness is based on whether its central issue or controversy has actually taken place.

A norm in the nomination of district court judges in which the president consults with his party’s senators from the relevant state in choosing the nominee.

a presidential apointee in the department of justice who represents the federal govt when it is a party to a case

amount of evidence needed to determine the outcome of a case. The standard is higher in criminal cases than civil ones.

• The various methods and tests used by the courts for
• determining the meaning of a law and applying it to specific situations.

way of interpreting the constitution based on its language alone.

final decision in a court case

an uncommon way in which a case is brought before the supreme court, wherby an appeals court asks the court to clarify the federal law in regards to a case.

the most common way for a case to reach the supreme court in which at least 4 of the 9 justices agree to hear a case that has reached them via an appeal from the losing party in a lower courts ruling.

orders issued by a higher court to a lower court, govt official, or govt agency to perform acts required by law.

Rights that guarantee individuals freedom from discrimination. These rights are generally grounded in the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment and more specifically laid out in laws passed by Congress, such as the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Relating to actions or circumstances that occur outside the law or “by fact,” such as the segregation of schools that resulted from housing patterns and other factors rather than from laws.

relating to actions or circumstances that occur "by law", such as the legally enforced segregation of schools in the American South before the 60s.

to have been denied the ability to exercise a right, such as the right to vote.

• The idea that discrimination exists if a practice has a
• negative effect on a specific group, whether or not this effect was intentional.

A type of law enacted in several southern states to allow those who were permitted to vote before the Civil War, and their descendants, to bypass literacy tests and other obstacles to voting, thereby exempting whites from these tests while continuing to disenfranchise African Americans and other people of color.

The middle level of scrutiny the courts use when determining whether unequal treatment is justified by the effect of a law; this is the standard used for gender based discrimination cases and for many cases based on sex orientation.

mandated segregation in all public facilities in the South ... between 1876 - 1964

An agreement between pro- and anti-slavery groups passed by Congress in 1820 in an attempt to ease tensions by limiting the expansion of slavery while also maintaining a balance between slave states and free states.

the idea under which some people have tried to rationalize discriminatory policies by claiming that some groups like women or african americans should be denied certain rights for their own safety or well-being.

The use of evidence to suggest that differences in the behavior of two groups can rationalize unequal treatment of these groups, such as charging sixteen- to twenty-one-year-olds higher prices for auto insurance than people over twenty-one because younger people have higher accident rates.

the idea that racial segregation was acceptable as long as the seperate facilities were of equal quality; supported by Plessy v. Ferguson and struck down by Brown v. Board of Education.

The highest level of scrutiny the courts use when determining whether unequal treatment is justified by the effect of a law. It is applied in all cases involving race. Laws rarely pass the strict scrutiny standard; a law that discriminates based on race must be shown to serve some “compelling state interest” in order to be upheld.

One interpretation of the due process clause of the 14th Amendment; in this view the Supreme Court has the power to overturn laws that infringe on individual liberties.

are the political freedoms that protect citizens from govt abuse and they include the right to assemble, to protest, to worship freely, and to keep certain matters private.

The first congress assured the concerns of antifederalist by ratifying ten protections of individual liberties which became the first ten amendments to the constitution.

These rights are only guranteed from the National Govt, but not the states. This was upheld by the Supreme Court from constiutional ratification until the Civil War.

Congressed passed the 13th-15th amendments with the intent to protect civil liberties from the State. Laws were muted by the Govt.

Over time, the Supreme Court let up and slowly they extended the protections to the State Level via 14th amendment. This was known as Selective Incorporation which occured on a case by case basis.

Political Speech is strongly protected though not absolute.

The court does not allow free speech if it fails to pass the Clear and Present Danger test (developed in 1925).

Over they've moved towards greater protection of free speech, establishing the direct incitement test which was developed in 1969.

Supreme Court committed to symbolic speech and has overturned flag burning convictions and allowed people to make contributions to political campaigns.

It is limited: draft card burning is deemed to conflict with Congress's right to raise an army, and political campaign contributions are capped at a certain level.

It is heavily regulated on college campuses, the Supreme Court is remarkably tolerant of hate speech, protecting it as long as it does not present an "intent to intimidate", which is determined by examining the context of the act.

Broadly protected by the Supreme Court. Ruled that peacable assemblies are to be allowed for all groups, no matter how unsavory. However, governments are allowed to regulate the time, manner, and place of seembly, as long as it is content-nuetral.

Widely Protected. The court has not allowed the government to exercise prior restraint even in the case of leaked classified documents to the press. A gag order in a court case does limit the press from describing facts about the case, though these are only issued if the judge believes that the media  contact will undermine a fair trial.

are not protected by the Supreme Court, but the court has placed on high hteshold in determining what constitues an offense, making these difficult to reduce.

has evolved over time, from receiving little protection to getting a significant amount. Currently, advertising may be regulated by the government, but the government must demonstrate a good reason to do so.

Prohibitions on child pornography are almost univeraally supported but beyond this, the court has had a difficult time defining obscenity. Since 1973, the court has adopted the Miller Test, to help determine what the government can restrict.

• Establishment Clause: prohibits Congress from favoring any religion. Difficult to create a boundary.
• Ex) Prayer in Public Schools Allowed Until 1962
• Other areas of controversy are: Displaying the 10 Commandements, Giving Ta Breaks to Churches, and Subsidies for Private Religious Schools.
• The Courts developed the Lemon Test, which prohibits "excessive government entangelment in religions", to help determine when the establishment clause is being violated.

• Prohibits Congress from Interfering with Religious Practice. The court has generally supported the right to exercise freely, though there are significant limitations.
• - while the amish cannot be compelled to send their children to school beyond the 8th grade, they are still subject to traffic regulations.
• - religiously based "conscientious objector", status is genreally permissible to avoid the draft, but polygamy is not allowed, even for religious reasons.
• - for congress to restrict religious practices, the court has required that the government show a "compelling state interest".

• Congress, State, and Local Governments had been granted significant autonomy to define their own gun ownership and carrying rights.
• - exception was the Brady Bill which required a background check and waiting period before purchasing a handgun.

In 2008, the supreme court struck down a Washington DC, handgun ban, though the ruling stopped short of extending the 2nd amendment protections to the states.

The Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments provide criminal defendants a number of civil liberties restricting what the government can do, based on the ideas of fairness and justice. Based on the Magna Carta, the rights of due process are controversial; as we have difficulty defining exactly what is fair or just.

4th amendment protects from unreasonable search and sizure become difficult to definer when we balance ones private freedom with the government obligation to provide security.

Courts generally protect homes from search by issuing warrants before being authorized. There are exclusions such as Cars or Schools Lockers are not subject to the same protection as homes are.

If evidence has been collected illegally, it is subject to the exclusionary Rule, which prohibits it from being admitted in court, no matter how compelling the evidence is. This right has been incorporated into state law, and is not limited to federal cases.

protect individuals from incriminating themselves in court. The court has established the 5th amendamen Miranda Rights which protect suspects from making confessions unless they are aware that it is free choice.

Confessions are inadmissible if the police do not read the suspect his or her rights.

• Exceptions:
• Inevitable Discovery: exceptions to miranda rights due to concern arisen for public safety
• Double Jeopardy: occur if the suspect can be tried in the federal court and state court on the same crime or if the suspect is found innocent of criminal charges, civil charges can still be brought against him or her.

The right to an attorney has been strengthened over time, and it now stipulates that individuals have the right to one who will provide effective legal counsel even if they cannot afford it.

Prior to 1963, if you were accused of a felony but could not afford an attorney, you were forced to represent yourself. Following Gideon v. Wainwright, however, the right to counsel was extended to all individuals.

In addition, individuals have a right to fair and speedy trial, meaning that they cannot be held indefinitely without trial.

At the time of the founding, the death penalty was common but the support waned as time went on.

The Court has struck down state laws for mandatory death penalty in cases of murder or rape.

Recently, the Court has stated the mildly retarded, juveniles, and child rapists cannot be put to death either.

Dealth penalty is inconsistent in its application, particulary to the race of the victime. smoeone who kills a white person is far more likely to be sent to death row than someone who kills a black person.

Privacy rights are never explicitly mentioned in the Constitution: they were established in 1965 in the case of Griswold v. Connecticut, which established that there were implicit “zones of privacy” in the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments.

Because it is never explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, the right to privacy is somewhat vulnerable to changes in the composition of the Supreme Court.

The right to privacy formed the basis of Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion in 1973.

• Privacy rights are also extended to the right to die, which has been subject to intense debate: both for those in “persistent vegetative states” and those who
• are terminally ill and wish to receive assistance in committing suicide

Using the 1803 case, Marbury v. Madison established judicial review, giving the court the power to strike down a law or executive action that it finds unconstitional. Judicial review has allowed the Court to gain equal footing in the system of checks and balances and the seperation of powers.

• When reviewing the constitutionality of law, the Supreme Court can engage in two forms of interpretation:
• Constitutional Interpretation: is determining whether a law is constitutional
• Statutory Interpretation: is determing the contexts in which a law applies

Process of interpreting the Constitution and resolving different interpretations of the law is an extremely political activity.

is someone who brings a case to the court, while the defendant is the person against whom a case is brought.

The final decision of the court is verdict. If a case is settled before the end of the trial, the outcome is called a plea bargain.

Criminal Cases - the amount of evidence to reach a decision, or standard of proof, is much higher than it is for civil cases. In criminal cases, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, who must demonstrate that the defendant is not innocent. However, in civil cases, the burden of proof can apply to either party.

meaning that lawyers on both sides get to present their case and challenge the opposing side.

meaning the law is based on previous court cases rather than legislation.

is a powerful legal norm that applies previous court cases to future cases if they address the same legal questions.

the plaintiff must have standing in the case, meaning that he or she must be justified in bringing a case to the court. Choosing the appropriate court for a case requires understanding which courts have jurisdiction over the specific legal question.

Trial Courts --> Appeals Courts --> Final Appeals Court

• Constitional Courts: established in Article 3 of the Const
• Legislative Courts: created by Congress and are inferior to the Supreme Court

are the workhorses of the legal system as the majority of legal action takes place there. There are 89 federal district courts, handling over 250k legal filings per year.

serve as an intermediate level of the courts, where appeals of a lower court decisions are heard. Most cases end here, though very few decisions reached in the appeals courts can be appealed in the Supreme Court as well.

is the "court of last resort" for cases appealing decisions at the district and appellate court levels. The Supreme Court resolves conflicts between lower courts, or between state and federal law, or between states in an effort to make sure that the Constitution is consistently applied across the USA.

State Level Judges can be selected a number of ways: appointment by the Govenor, appointment by the State legislature, partisan elections, nonpartisan elections, or via the Missouri Plan, where the judge is selected by the Govenor from a list compiled by a nonpartisan steering committee.

are appointed by the president and the "advice and consent" of the Senate. Many nominations are fierce battles and federal judges have significant influence and life tenure. The constitution does not lisist any qualifications for serving on the federal court.

broad discretion in whom they appoint, and often attempt to influence the ideological direction of the court. While the president can make a good guess about how a justice is likely to vote, presidential guesses are not always accurate.

The senate rarely rejects federal court nominees becauses of qualifications but often does so for political and ideological reasons.

Though district and appellate court nominations have been contested lately, the norm of senatorial courtesy is still commonly upheld, meaning that the president will consult with his party's senators from the relevant state in choosing a district court nominee.

• - 1 percent of the appeals are heard by the court
• - Sent to Supreme Court in 1 of 4 Ways:
• 1) Original Jurisdiction -  involves conflicts between two states, foreign ambassadors, or foreign countries
• 2) Cases on Appeal - are those cases that Congress requires the Supreme Court to hear
• 3) A Writ of Certification - is issued when an appeals court asks the Supreme Court to clarify a federal law as it applies to a particular case
• 4) A Writ of Certiorari - is issued when at least four of the nine justices agree to hear a case and is by har the most commo route to the Court.

• Requiring Actual "Cases and Controversies":
• - Collusion - requires that they litigants not agree on the desired outcome of the case, meaning that they are not cooperating or conspiring
• - Mootness - requires that the controversy still be relevant when the Court hears the case.
• - Ripeness - requires that the central issue has taken place. The Court will not preemptively act.

• -Justices prep by reading briefs and interest group briefs known as amicus curiae briefs
• -Hear oral arguments from the lawyers from each party, each side generally getting half an hour to present
• -Justices then meet in conference to discuss and vote on the cases.
• -Senior Justice in the Majorit Decides Who Writes the Opinion -  facilitates a number of goals to ensure smooth operation of the Court, plays to individuals areas of expertise, it allows the Court to act strategically based on external relations, internal politics, and the personal policy goals of the opinion assigner.

Once the majority opinion has been drafted, they are circulated and the justices have the option of joining the majority opinion, writing a seperate concurring opinion, or dissenting.

• Legal Factors
• - ruling based on precedent involves previous decisions on similiar cases to inform current decisions.
• - Language of the Constitution:
• --------Strict Constructionists - argue that the constitution should be interpreted based on its language alone. In places where the wording of the Constituiton are unclear, strict constructivists believe that they should be guided by the original intent of the Founders.
• --------Critics of Strict Constructionists
• - argue in favor of a living constitution that takes into accountthe changes in society and national circumstances

- Political Ideology: rather than following a nuetral application of the law, justices are subject to political influence. The attitudinal approach argues that there is a liberal-conservative divide on issues such as defendants rights, abortion, or national intervention in the states, and that the justices are ideologically consistent in their rulings across issues.

A strategic approach considers how justices calculate their actions based on the preferences of other justices, the president, and Congress. Under this model, the median voter in Court has significant influence.

• Justices clase on how active the court should be in intervention in the other branches of government. -------Supporters of Judicial Restraint argue that the court should be reserved and defer to other branches of govt, not striking down their laws.
• -------Supporters of Judicial Activism argue that the Court should be active in interpreting the law, even if it overrules the actions of the elected branches of govt.

• • Public opinion indirectly influences Supreme Court decision making, because Court nominees are selected and approved by the president and the Senate, al of whom are popularly elected.
  • Further, when the public articulates a clear position on an issue, the Court often agrees with the public.

The court relies on its reputation to gain compliance with its decisions, it often relies on executive or congressional action to support them.

Generally, the Court is careful not to encroach on the power of either the president or Congress unless it is necessary. It does strike down congressional or presidential action occasionally, as when it required Nixon to submit his secret tapes of the Watergate break-in.

an agreement passed by Congress in an attempt to ease tensions by limiting the expansion of slavery while also maintain the balance between slave states and free states.

The Compromise of 1850 overturned the Missouri Compromise and allowed each new state to decide for itself whether to be a slave state or a free state.

All possibility of further compromise was killed by the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision in 1857, in which the Supreme Court ruled that states could not be prevented from allowing slavery, and that slaves were property with no legal rights.

• - the Thirteenth banned slavery, the Fourteenth guaranteed that states could not deny the newly freed slaves equal protection under the law, and the Fifteenth gave African Americans the right to vote.
• - Despite the passing of these amendments, blacks were almost completely disenfranchised, or denied the ability to exercise a right (in this case, to vote).
• - The grandfather clause was enacted in several southern states to allow those who had been able to vote before the Civil War, and their descendents, to bypass literacy tests and other obstacles to voting, thereby exempting whites from these tests while continuing to disenfranchise African Americas and other people of color.

The Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1875 were supposed to outlaw segregation and provide equal opportunity for blacks, but there were not enforcement provisions.

State and local laws that mandated racial segregation in all public facilities in the South, many border states, and some northern communities between 1876 and 1964. The Supreme Court validated these practice in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) in establishing the “separate but equal” doctrine, the idea that racial segregation was acceptable as long as the separate facilities were of equal quality.

Established the “separate but equal” doctrine, the idea that racial segregation was acceptable as long as the separate facilities were of equal quality.

Brown v. Board of Education (1954) rejected “separate but equal” and Brown II (1955) ordered that public schools be desegregated.

Women were not given the right to vote until 1920, when the Nineteenth Amendment was ratified. The fact that women held very few rights was rationalized through protectionism, the idea that some groups, like women or African Americans, should be denied certain rights for their own safety or well-being.

the idea that some groups, like women or African Americans, should be denied certain rights for their own safety or well-being.

• 1) the effects of slavery and the Jim Crow laws are still quite evident
• 2) active discrimination is still evident in our society today.

Those who take the position that we must “move beyond race” argue that we already have achieved a level playing field on which people of different races have equal opportunities to succeed. They argue that efforts to make up for past discrimination only perpetuate racial discrimination by classifying people based on race.

s mostly evident in lower levels of voter turnout among racial minorities relative to whites. While different ranges of voter turnout can by accounted for by education and income, there are many examples of practices and institutions designed to depress minority turnout.

• The racial divide is also evident in social and economic terms. Nearly three times as many black families are below the poverty line as white families. The average white household has nearly six times the assets of a typical nonwhite family. Poverty is not distributed equally throughout the United States, but rather is concentrated in areas where the minority population is the highest.
• The rate of black, adult male unemployment has been about twice as high as that of white adult males for the past forty-five years. Furthermore, on every measure of health--life expectancy, infectious diseases, infant mortality, cancer rates, heart disease, and strokes--the gaps between whites and blacks are large, and in many cases, they are growing.
• The greatest disparity between racial minorities and whites may be in the criminal justice system. Blacks are not only more likely than whites to be convicted for the same crimes, but blacks also serve longer sentences than whites for committing the same crime. African Americans and minorities are also subjected to hate crimes much more frequently than whites.

Our system of separated and shared powers almost ensures that each of the three branches has some say in making policy. The policy-making process in the area of civil rights provides insight into the importance of federalism. While the national government was instrumental in winning equality for blacks, state and local governments have taken the lead role in fighting for gay rights.

Activists have been instrumental in pressuring the political system to change its civil rights policies. The civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s, aimed at ending segregation and gaining equal political and social rights for blacks, is the most famous example of a successful social movement.

• • • • During the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s, the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) was created to coordinate protests. Sit-ins marked an important shift in the tactics of the civil rights movement away from the court-based approach and toward the nonviolent civil disobedience that had been successful in earlier times.

• • • • King wrote his famous “Letter from the Birmingham Jail,” an eloquent statement of the principles of nonviolent civil disobedience. King presented the justification for civil disobedience, writing that everyone had an obligation to follow just laws, but an equal obligation to break unjust laws.

In the early years of the civil rights movement in the 1930s and 1940s, the Supreme Court provided most of the successes, especially in voting rights and desegregation.

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) decided to fight segregation by pointing out the various ways in which states kept blacks out of all-white law schools.

In a landmark decision, the application of the Fourteenth Amendment was expanded in Brown v. Board of Education (1954), which required all public schools in the United States to desegregate.

In 1955, Brown v. Board of Education II addressed the implementation of desegregation and required the states to “desegregate with all deliberate speed.”

In 1971, the Court shifted its focus from de jure segregation—segregation mandated by law—to de facto segregation—segregation that existed because of housing patterns—and approved school busing as a tool to integrate schools

In 2007, the Court invalidated voluntary desegregation plans implemented by public school districts. Endorsing the color-blind approach, the majority opinion said, “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”

In 1971, the Court ruled that employment tests not related to job performance and that discriminate against blacks violate the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Many cases upheld the disparate impact standard, the idea that discrimination exists if a practice has a negative effect on a specific group, whether or not this effect was intentional.

The Roberts and Rehnquist Courts of the past two decades have been gradually imposing a “color-blind jurisprudence” over a broad range of issues. If race is the predominant factor in drawing district lines, the districts are unconstitutional because they violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Supreme Court is increasingly activist in civil rights. The Court is unwilling to defer to any other part of government if that branch disagrees with its view of discrimination and equal protection.

At one time discrimination between men and women was identified using the reasonable basis test, the use of evidence to suggest that differences in the behavior of two groups can rationalize unequal treatment of these groups.

In 1976 the Court established a new intermediate scrutiny standard, the middle level of scrutiny the courts use when determining whether unequal treatment is justified by the effect of a law; this is the standard used for gender-based discrimination cases and for many cases based on sexual orientation.

The strict scrutiny standard is the highest level of scrutiny the courts use when determining whether unequal treatment is justified by the effects of a law. It is applied in all cases involving race. Laws rarely pass the strict scrutiny standard; a law that discriminates based on race must be shown to serve some “compelling state interest” in order to be upheld.

The Supreme Court struck down an amendment to the Colorado state constitution that would have prevented gays from suing for discrimination in employment or housing

The Supreme Court also ruled that the liberty guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause allows homosexuals to have sexual relations. The reasoning is rooted in the substantive due process doctrine, one interpretation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment under which the Supreme Court has the power to overturn laws that infringe on individual liberties.

The bedrock of equal protection that exists today stems from landmark legislation passed by Congress in the 1960s.

barred discrimination in employment based on race, sex, religion, or national origin, banned segregation in public places, and set up the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission as the Enforcement agency for the legislation.

• eliminated direct obstacles to minority voting in the South such as discriminatory literacy tests and other voter registration tests and also provided means to enforce the law.
• 1975: Coverage was extended to language minorities.
• 1982: Certain provisions of the law were extended for twenty-five years and it was made easier to bring a lawsuit 1991: A new Civil Rights Act was passed which increased the cost to employers for intentional, illegal discriminationunder the act.
• 2006: The VRA was extended for another twenty-five years.

barred discrimination in the rental or sale of a house.

barred discrimination based on gender, began to be enforced in 1970.

prohibited sex discrimination in institutions that receive federal funds

allowed women who were the victims of physical abuse and violence to sue in federal court.

provided strong federal protections for the 45 million disabled Americans.

which says that if gay marriages are allowed in one state, they must be recognized in all other states, with the idea of suppressing gay marriage. Congress recently proposed an amendment to the Constitution to ban gay marriage.

President Truman integrated the armed forces in 1948.

President Eisenhower used the National Guard to enforce a court order to integrate Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas in 1957.

Executive orders by Kennedy and Johnson in 1961 and 1965, respectively, established affirmative action.

Clinton attempted to end the ban on gays in the military. Because of strong resistance, a “don’t ask, don’t tell” compromise was met

civil rights concerns in the executive branch has primarily been in two areas in the past fifteen years: racial diversity in presidential appointments and use of the bully pulpit to promote racial concerns and interests.

Obama’s victory may signal the beginning of a new “post-racial politics” that places less emphasis on race and devotes more attention to issues that concern all Americans, such as the economy, education, and health care.

• 1) Our nation must move beyond race. The Supreme Court endorses this perspective with “color-blind” jurisprudence.
• 2) The civil rights movement must continue to fight for the equality of opportunity by enforcing existing laws and pushing for equality of outcomes by protecting and expanding racially targeted affirmative action programs and other policies that address racial inequality.
• 3) Integration is not a realistic goal. African Americans can never gain equality within what they see as the repressive, white-dominated economic and political system.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 ensured that, at least on paper, all Americans would be equal. Blacks still lagged behind whites in socioeconomic status; there was still a gap in the equality of opportunity and the equality of outcomes.

Beginning in 1965, President Johnson tried to address these inequalities with a policy of affirmative action.Special opportunities were given to minorities and women, either to make up for past patterns of discrimination or to pursue the general goals of diversity.

The most passive form is extra effort to recruit women and minorities. A more active form is to include race or gender as a “plus factor” in the admissions or hiring decision.

The strongest form is the use of strict quotas to admit or hire a specific number of applicants from underrepresented groups.

• Affirmative action has been a controversial policy. Many whites view is as “
• "Preferential treatment” - , preferential treatment and even rigid quotas were upheld when the policies were needed to make up for past discrimination. As the Court moved toward a color-blind approach, however, “generalized assertions” of past discrimination were not enough to justify rigid quotas

the Court ruled that rigid racial quotas were unconstitutional, but allowed race to be a “plus factor” used in admissions decisions.

the Court ruled that individuals may not sue federally funded state agencies over policies that have a discriminatory effect on minorities under Title VI.

the government made it clear that it would not engage in racial profiling of Arab Americans, but many commentators argued that such profiling would be justified.

which denied most public benefits to illegal immigrants but was viewed by critics as discriminatory to Mexican Americans.

Republicans favored the proposition, while Democrats opposed it.

Democrats won the 1998 gubernatorial race in California with the strong support of Hispanics. Subsequently, Republicans softened their position on immigration, with President George W. Bush leading the party’s movement in this direction.

Voting Rights Act of 1965

• behavior

protectionism

14th

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

sexual orientation

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)

Civil War Amendments

three

• “compelling state interest”

three

true

TRUE

TRUE

disparate impact standard

TRUE

• FALSE

substantive due process doctrine

University of California Regents v. Bakke (1978)

slave states and free states.

Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC)

• the intangible characteristics

true

presented the justification for civil disobedience, writing that everyone had an obligation to follow just laws, but an equal obligation to break unjust laws.

denied most public benefits to illegal immigrants. Republicans favored the proposition, while Democrats opposed it.

Fair Housing Act of 1968

FALSE

involves courts determining the meaning of laws and applying them to specific situations.

a civil lawsuit brought by a group of individuals

TRUE

False

Typically for political reasons and not because of his/her qualifications.

In a criminal case, an individual must be shown to be guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt”; but in a civil case, a “preponderance of evidence” is necessary to prove guilt.

a justice who agrees with the outcome of a case but disagrees with the legal reasoning employed

Franklin Roosevelt

A plaintiff brings a case, and a defendant is sued or charged with a crime.

FALSE

interest groups

nomination by the state’s senior U.S. senator

False

a legal norm that applies to future cases.

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

FALSE

• -refine and clarify the jurisdiction of federal courts
• -set the number of Supreme Court justices as 6
• -create a system of federal courts

Louisiana

• - original jurisdiction
• - writ of certifcation
• - writ of certiorari

that justices should attempt to defer to the elected branches of government and not contradict their actions.

is highly visible and primarily affects only one party.

Most Powerful

a norm whereby the president consults senators of his party from a state where he is appointing a district court judge.

refers to a court’s authority to hear and decide cases.

allows the Supreme Court to be an equal partner in the institutional balance of power among the branches of the federal government.

the legitimate justification for bringing a civil case to court.

MORE

• -Ripeness
• -Mootness
• -Collusion

searching a home for an escaped prisoner, but arresting the occupant for illegal pornography

hate speech

More

forbids state governments from denying “life, liberty or property” to any person without due process of law.

Libel and slander are forms of false statements meant to damage a person’s reputation.

Libel is written, slander is spoken.

Winning a libel suit generally requires proving that the statement was made “with actual malice.”

One component requires that the work is “patently offensive.”

One component requires that the work lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

The Miller test uses local community interests as a standard.

TRUE

FALSE

DOES

Griswold v. Connecticut

DOES NOT PREVENT

The 2nd Amendment: Right to Bear Arms

Right to attorney (6th Amendment)

True

Find that speech codes are not constitutional because they are not “content neutral”

• ended Jim Crow laws in the South

• -abolish slavery
• -granted civil liberties to former slaves
• -gave voting rights to former male slaves

clear and present danger test

they may be directed at an individual, group, or more.

an Alabama public school practice of observing a one minute moment of silence for “meditation or voluntary prayer”.

Restricts verbal speech more than symbolic speech.

The town had to allow the march and protect the Nazis from violent attacks by the town’s residents, but could not charge a higher permit fee.

Does

determining if governments can force Amish parents to send their children to high school

• -determining if government involvement has a secular legislative purpose
• -deterring if government involvement either advanced or inhibited a religion
• -determining if government involvement fostered an excessive government entanglement with religion

Northern Colonies

Has ruled it as unconstitutional.

the Supreme Court using the 14th Amendment to apply civil liberties in the Bill of Rights to the states on a case-by-case basis.

the Courts allowing the media to publish a leaked, classified document, the Pentagon Papers

Civil rights are guaranteed by the “due process” protection of the 14th Amendment.

IS NOT

• All are appointed \for good behavior"
• All are conrmed by the Senate
• All have salary protection

• John Pickering Insanity (drunkenness and unlawful rulings), 1804
• West Humphreys Secessionist, 1862
• Robert Archbald Corruption, 1912
• Halsted Ritter Corruption / abuse of oce, 1936
• Harry Claiborne Corruption, 1986
• Alcee Hastings Corruption, 1988, acquitted in criminal trial
• Walter Nixon Corruption/perjury, 1989

94 with 5 being territorial and DC

• Decide matters of fact
• Decide matters of law

13 Circuits

• Decide (review) only matters of law
• Look at lower court decisions
• -Did the lower court interpret the law correctly?
• -Did the lower court admit evidence that was inadmissible?
• -Did the lower fail to follow important precedents?
• -Is the law constitutional?

• Partisan Election
• NonPartisan Election
• Appointment by the Governor or Legislature
• Missouri / Merit Plan

• Doctrine that the courts can overturn laws that violate theConstitution
• Nowhere specically granted in Constitution
• Arises from Marbury v. Madison (1803)

However US Sup.Ct. avoids overturning federal laws when it can

• lower court has ignore Supreme Court precedent
• federal district or circuit courts disagree
• federal law has been held unconstitutional in a lower court
• federal law was upheld against a strong constitutional claim
• a state law or constiution was upheld against the challenge that violates federal law or the U.S. Constitution

• Judicial Restaint vs. Judicial Activism
• Original Intent
• Literlaism
• Interpretivism / Living Constiution

Assigned by Most Senior Justice in Majority and Carries Legal Decision and Orders

• Agrees with the decision (afirm or reverse)
• However it disagrees with the reasoning in the Courts opinion

• disagrees with both decision and reasoning
• appeal to the future

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom ofspeech, or of the press; or of the right of the people peaceably toassemble, and to petition the Government for a redress ofgrievances.

was a landmark United States Supreme Court case that determined that it is unconstitutional for state officials to compose an official school prayer and encourage its recitation in public schools.

allowed that a school could show religious orientated movies at the school ..........protected as free speech

• held that the club could hold their meetings, however their sponsor
• could not be paid; this would truly be an endorsement of religion.
• The school's situation was placed under the Equal Access Act because it allowed other ‘limited open forums’. The Lemon Test is used to ensure that the Equal Access Act is constitutional

• 1 Does the law have a rational secular purpose?
• 2 Does the law neither advance nor inhibit religion? (Is itneutral?)
• 3 Does the law create any \excessive entanglements" betweenchurch and state?

• The Court ruled that a Louisiana law requiring that creation science be taught in public schools, along with evolution,
• was unconstitutional because the law was specifically intended to advance a particular religion. It also held that "teaching variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to school children might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction."

The plaintiffs successfully argued that intelligent design is a form of creationism, and that the school board policy violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The judge's decision sparked considerable response from both supporters and critics.

• Principles go back to John Locke (remember him?)
• Facially neutral laws of general application can still punish youfor doing something that your religion tells you to do\
• My religion commands it" does not normally excusedisobedience to the law

• Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. Hialeah 1993
• -Because the ordinance suppressed more religious conduct than was necessary to achieve its stated ends, it was deemed unconstitutional
• Goldman v. Weinberger 1986
• -constituitonal to prohibit yarmulke indoors of military personnel ... justification for this was a need to "foster instinctive obedience, unity, commitment, and esprit de corps."
• Bowen v. Roy 1986
• -The Supreme Court ruled that, the government's use of a Social Security number for the child did not impair her family's freedom to "believe, express and exercise" their religion, the plaintiffs' claim was without merit.
• WI v. Yoder 1972
• - States cannot force amish individuals to attend school when it infringes on their First Amendment rights. In this case, the state of Wisconsin interfered with the practice of a legitimate religious belief.

In other words, the court held, the circumstances of wartime permit greater restrictions on free speech than would be allowed during peacetime.

Ultimately, the case established the "clear and present danger" test, which lasted until 1969 when protection for speech was raised in Brandenburg v. Ohio to "Imminent lawless action".

- the Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is directed to inciting, and is likely to incite, imminent lawless action.

• Other restrictions on speech:
• Time, place, manner, Fighting words

prohibiting someone from publishing something

Actual censorship instead of punishment after the fact

• Near v. MN 1931
• -. The Court ruled that a Minnesota law that targeted publishers of "malicious" or "scandalous" newspapers violated the First Amendment to the United States Constitution

• New York Times v. US 1971
• - The ruling made it possible for the New York Times and Washington Post newspapers to publish the then-classified Pentagon Papers without risk of government censorship or punishment.

publishing something false and defamatory aboutsomeone. Not protected by First Am.

investigative journalists will sometimes publishat-least-technically false things

• New York Times v. Sullivan 1964
• - The actual malice standard requires that the plaintiff in a defamation or libel case prove that the publisher of the statement in question knewthat the statement was false or acted in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity.

Prohibits \unreasonable" searches and seizures

• How to prevent?
• Exclusionary rule { illegal evidence can't be used in court
• Big case: Mapp v. OH, 1961

• Good faith
• Inevitable discovery
• Independent evidence

• Consent
• Incident to arrest
• Hot pursuit
• Motor vehicles
• Plain sight / \open fields"

Powell v. AL, 1932 -decision which determined that in a capital trial, the defendant must be given access to counsel upon his or her own request as part of due process.[1]

Gideon v. Wainright, 1963 - the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that state courts are required under the Fourteenth Amendment to provide counsel in criminal cases for defendants who are unable to afford to pay their own attorneys

Escobedo v. IL, 1964 - holding that criminal suspects have a right to counsel during police interrogations under the Sixth Amendment.

Miranda v. AZ, 1966 - must be informed of rights, givenopportunity to have legal counsel

Furman v. GA, 1972 - current system unconstitutional

Gregg v. GA, 1976 - Revamped system is constitutional(separate sentencing phase)

• The strange case of Mitchell Rupe - Rupe was convicted for aggravated murder for fatally shooting two bank tellers in Olympia, Washington during a bank robbery in 1981. His death sentence was overturned twice, the second time being in 1994 when United States federal judge
• Thomas S. Zilly ruled that Rupe was too heavy to hang. Rupe was over 425 pounds at the time (as high as the scale went) and the judge was concerned that execution by hanging could cause Rupe to be decapitated, which would constitute cruel and unusual punishment.

Griswold v. CT, 1965- ruled that the Constitution protected a right to privacy. The case involved a Connecticut law that prohibited the use of contraceptives.

Roe v. Wade, 1973 - that a right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion, but that right must be balanced against the state's two legitimate interests in regulating abortions: protecting prenatal life and protecting women's health.

• Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 1992 - he Court's plurality opinionupheld the constitutional right to have an abortion and altered the standards.
• 1)Notify of Health Concerns
• 2) Parental Consent
• 3)Spousal Notice
• 4)24 Holding Period
• 5)Instiution Reporting Mandates

• Bowers v. Hardwick, 1986
• - criminalizing oral and anal sex in private between consenting adults when applied to homosexuals.

TX v. Lawrence 2003 - Lawrence invalidated similar laws throughout the United States that criminalized sodomy between consenting adults acting in private, whatever the sex of the participants.

• White primary
• Literacy test
• Poll tax
• Grandfather clause

Guinn v. US 1915 - It was an exemption that favored white voters while it disfranchised black voters, most of whose grandfathers had been slaves and therefore unable to vote before 1866

Smith v. Allwright 1944 - was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court with regard to voting rights and, by extension, racial desegregation. It overturned the Democratic Party's use of all-white primaries in Texas, and other states where the party used the rule.

Gomillion v. Lightfoot 1960 - which held that the Act did violate the provision of the 15th Amendment prohibiting states from denying anyone their right to vote on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude

• 15: Race, color, previous condition of servitude
• 19: Sex
• 23: DC
• 24: Tax payment
• 26: Age (over 18)

• Initially passed 1965
• Extended 1970,75,82,06
• Enforces 14th Amendment \equal protection"
• Plain old law

Bans some electoral practices----- Literacy tests---- Anything with discriminatory intent / effect ---Prohibited everywhere

Requires "preclearance" in parts of US - Changes in electoral law / practice frozen - US (DoJ or DC Dist Ct) must approve changes before take effect - locality must prove no discriminatory intent or effect.

is a landmark United States Supreme Court decision in the jurisprudence of the United States, upholding the constitutionality of state laws requiring racial segregation in public facilities under the doctrine of "separate but equal."[

was a U.S. Supreme Court case that successfully challenged the "separate but equal" doctrine of racial segregation established by the 1896 case Plessy v. Ferguson. The case was influential in the landmark case of Brown v. Board of Education four years later.

The case involved a black man, Heman Marion Sweatt, who was refused admission to the School of Law of the University of Texas, whose president was Theophilus Painter,on the grounds that the Texas State Constitution prohibited integrated education. At the time, no law school in Texas would admit black students, or, in the language of the time, "Negro" students.

the Court declared state laws establishing separate public schools for black and white students unconstitutional. The decision overturned the Plessy v. Ferguson decision of 1896 which allowed state-sponsored segregation. Handed down on May 17, 1954, the Warren Court's unanimous (9–0) decision stated that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal." As a result, de jure racial segregation was ruled a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. This ruling paved the way for integration and was a major victory of the civil rights movement.

students were initially prevented from entering the racially segregated school by Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus, and then attended after the intervention of President Eisenhower, is considered to be one of the most important events in the African-American Civil Rights Movement.

• Must serve compelling state purpose
• Must be narrowly tailored means
• Must be no less restrictive means

• Classication by sex, legitimacy, some armative action
• State must show important purpose (not compelling)
• Means must be \substantially related" to goal (notleast-restrictive)

• Other classications, usually incl.
• sexual orientation
• Legitimate state objective (goal is not forbidden)
• Minimally rational link between means and end

was a landmark civil rights case in which the United States Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, declared Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute, the "Racial Integrity Act of 1924", unconstitutional, thereby overturning Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States.

Drawing some sort of racial distinction now to remedy past discrimination

was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that ruled unconstitutional the admission process of the Medical School at the University of California at Davis,which set aside 16 of the 100 seats for "Blacks," "Chicanos," "Asians,"and "American Indians" (and established a separate admissions process for those 16 spaces).The "diversity in the classroom" justification for considering race as "one" of the factors in admissions policies was different from the original purpose stated by UC Davis Medical School

• Housing markets
• Public accommodations
• Hiring and promotion

• 1948 Shelley v. Kraemer
• is a United States Supreme Court case which held that courts could not enforce racial covenants on real estate. Racially restrictive covenants are legal but unenforceable

• Outlaws discrimination in public accommodations
• Outlaws discrimination in employment

Extends civil-rights protections to housing markets via Fair Housing Act, ext. 1988, 1990

Prohibits discrimination in sale, rental, nancing

Still continues, usually by proxy (redlining)

Courts more willing to nd, protect gay/lesbian rights

• 1996 Romer v. Evans
• is a landmark United States Supreme Court case dealing with civil rights and state laws. It was the first Supreme Court case to deal with LGBT rights since Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), when the Court had ruled that a law criminalizing sodomy was constitutional.