The flashcards below were created by user
on FreezingBlue Flashcards.
This is a good example of a narrow interpretation
Stevens concurring opinion
we need to have controversies before the court can make a
ruling. No _______ ________, must be an official _____ ___ _________.
- advisory opinions
- case or controversy
We're not in court because we are getting along, we end up
in courts because we have an issue:
adversarial legal process
Where everyone in the court can give their opinion, there is
respectful deliberation. Chief Justice Rehnquist's court is not one of these:
Extra wording in the opinion which does not include the
The final word of the Supreme Court, this is the part of the
opinion that spells out what the court's position is on a case.
This type of opinion agrees with the rule and opinion and
must constitute five out of the nine justices:
This type of opinion lacks more than half of the justices
but the votes added together still results in a particular sides win. So a majority does not exists but one side still holds.
One very popular type of opinion "the constitution is
color blind" comes from the Plessy v. Ferguson case of 1896 by Justice Harlan. He did not agree with the holding, his opinion is a:
This type of opinion agrees with ruling but disagrees with
Was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that held that a criminal defendant has a Sixth Amendment right to counsel at a lineup held after indictment.
US v. Wade 1968
the United States Supreme Court rejected the common-law
medical necessity defense, regardless of their legal status under the laws of states such as California which recognized a medical use for marijuana.
US v. Oakland Cannibus Buyers Cooperation 2001
When Justices of the court write opinions they can be
scrutinized as being ______ or ______. Depending on the languaged used to implement holding.
Narrow or Broad
Was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States which held that temporary visitors of homes, conducting business, lack the right of the fourth amendment of 'expected privacy'.
Minnesota v. Carter 1998
Engel v. Vitale was a case where a public school was
requiring students upon punishment to submit to an official prayer. Which part of the 1st amendment concerns this case?
Where the state must step in to protect the rights of the
whole. This usually is over the rights of the individual
Compeling State Interest
The idea that government cannot stop you from following
religion. Is found in which part of the 1st amendment?
Free Exercise Clause
a man was arrested for bigamy. He argued that through the free exercise clause he had the moral responsibility to perform his duties. Court ruled that the anti-bigamy act of (1862) was not an encrouchment upon free exercise.
Reynolds v. US (1878)
This case happened in (1943), a student at the school was a
Jehovah's witness. State board adopted a rule to force students to pledge allegiance to the flag. If students refused then they could be expelled from school on basis of delinquency and parents be fined.Court ruled that this was an infringment upon free exercise.
W.V. State B. of Ed v. Barnette (1943)
This is the case in 1963 where a 7th day Adventist female
did not work on Saturday and was fired. She refused to work any job which required Saturday labor. She applied for unemployment benefits and was denied by the state. She then sued the state on encrouchment of her free exercise and the court ruled in her favor.
Sherbert v. Verner (1963)
Which test states that government is obligated to do
everything they possibly can to protect a person's right to free exercise.
Strict Scrutiny Test
Justice Scalia, the author of this decision, in the case Organ v Smith declared that 'So long as we treat all religions the same then we can prohibit them from certain actions.' ... what was this decision called?
Valid neutral law
In this 1988 case the government built roads through a
national forest and the Native Americans beleived it interrupted their religious practice. The courts held that the road was not an encroachment upon their free exercise.
Lying v. Northwest Indian (1988)
This case in 1990 determined that the state could deny
unemployment benefits to a person fired for violating a state prohibition on the use of peyote, even though the use of the drug was part of a religious ritual.
Employment Division of OR v. Smith (1990)
This case in 1986 helped to establish limits on freedom of
religion. The courts determined that in order to receive welfare one must supply SSNs. This they declared was "religiously neutral".
Bowen v. Roy (1986)
This case in 1919 concluded that a defendant did not have a
First Amendment right to express freedom of speech against the draft during World War I. Ultimately, the case established the "clear and present danger" test.
Schenck v US (1919)
A 1942 case in which the Court articulated the fighting
words doctrine, a limitation of the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech.
Chaplinsky v New Hampshire (1942)
A 1969 case which held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless it is directed to inciting and likely to incite imminent lawless action.
Brandenburg v Ohio (1969)
This case in 1970 ruled that actors could wear military uniforms—regardless of the production's portrayal of the military—on First Amendment grounds.
Schacht v US (1970)
This case established the 'actual malice' standard which has
to be met before press reports about public officials or before public figures can be considered to have suffered defamation and libel.
New York Times v Sullivan
In this case ruling made it possible for the popular newspapers to publish the then-classified Pentagon Papers without risk of government censor.
New York Times v US
This case focused on publishers of "malicious" or
"scandalous" newspapers. They ruled that this violated the First Amendment to the United States Constitution (as applied through the Fourteenth Amendment).
Near v Minnesota
A case which the court held that prior restraint (gag
orders) was unconstitutional on media coverage during criminal trials. They thought that freedom of press was greater than a fair trial. Especially when a fair trial can be acheived else where.
Nebraska Press Association v Stuart
Was a case based on the First Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution. It held that a state government cannot employ "breach of the peace" statutes against protesters engaging in peaceable demonstrations that may potentially incite violence.
Cox v Louisiana
This case held that protesters have a First and Fourteenth
Amendment right to engage in a peaceful sit-in at a public library.
Brown v Louisiana
A case where Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of
an injunction entered by a Florida state court which prohibits anti-abortion protesters from demonstrating in certain places and in various ways outside of a health clinic that performs abortions.
Madsen v Women's Health Center
A case in which the Court held that a law cannot be so vague that a person of ordinary intelligence can not figure out what is innocent activity and what is illegal.
Chicago v Morales