Court Cases 2
Terms
undefined, object
copy deck
- MIssouri vs. Holland
- Hunting law by itself is unconstitutional but with a treaty it becomes "law of the land" (Supremacy Clause)
- McCulloch vs. Maryland
-
State can't tax government
"inter-governmental tax immunity" (immplied power) - Cumming vs. Missouri
- Test oath's are illegal because they are "Bills of Attainder" and single out confederate soliders (prohibited powers)
- Marbury vs. Madison
-
Marbury is entitled to position but wouldn't get it because a writ of mandamus (person not doing job) is illegal.
First for Judicial review - Barron vs. Baltimore
- Barron said that Baltimore violated taking clause but court said Bill of Rights only applies to national government
- Dred Scott vs. Sanford
- Blacks couldn't bring case because he wasn't citizen when constitution was written and his freedom took away whites right to won slaves (5th right to property)
- Griswold vs. Connecticut
- Connecticut law unconstitutional because right to privacy to discuss birth control
- Roe vs. Wade
- Abortion legal under right to privacy (9th amendment)
- Gibbons vs. Ogden
-
"Commerce Clause"
Federal government has right to regulate shipment of goods, services and people - NLRB vs. Jones-Laughlin Steel
- Manufacturing is inter-state commerce so Wagner Act can regulate unions
- Fair Labor Standards
- Set minimum wage and weekly hours
- Civil Rights Act of 1964
-
Passed under commerce clause
Prohibits discrimination based on race - Heart of Atlanta Motel vs. US
- Motel was violating commerce clause because it participated in interstate commerce (advertising)
- Katzenburg vs. McClung
- McClung BBQ violated commerce clause and civil rights act because it participated in interstate commerce
- Williams vs. North Carolina
-
Exparter Divorce undr full faith and credit
Couple wasn't divorced because they didn't set up recidency (acts legal in one state is recognized in others) - Slaughter House Cases
-
Priviledges and immunites (states can't discriminate against citizen of other state)
Set stage for segregation because if the state discriminates against it's citizens it can discriminate against other citizens - Reamz vs. Roe
- California violated privileges and immunities by not offering welfare to new citizens
- Kentucky vs. Dennison
- Said that extradition was a "moral duty only"
- Puerto Rico vs. Branstad
- Reversed Kentucky vs. Dennison and said that states have to grant extradition
- Torcaso vs. Watkins
- Test oaths are illegal according to article 6 section 3
- Everson vs. Board of Education
-
Okay to use tax money to pay for busing to parochial schools (Child Benefit Theory)
Establishment clause - Walz vs. Commission
- Not taxing churches isn't violation of Establishment Clause
- U.S. vs. Seeger
-
Under Establishment clause
Must be sincere in your beliefs and have community to be a conciencious objector - Engle vs. Vitale
- Government can't compel school children to pray
- Marsh vs. Chambers
- Paying chaplain to say prayer before senate session not violation of commerce clause because they aren't impressionable and religion is believed by majority
- Widmar vs. Vincent
- Facitilities must be available to all groups or it's a violation of Equal Access
- westside school district vs. mergents
- right to have prayer group and sponsor isn't in vioation of establisment clause
- Lemon vs. Kirtzman
-
Aid to Parochial Schools
can't supplement teachers that teach at parochial schools salaries/ violation of establishment clause - Reynolds vs. U.S.
- Can't have numerous wives because it is ultimatly a contract and doesn't matter what your religious beliefs.
- Minersville vs. Gobitis
-
FLAG SALUTE CASE
Must say pledge because it unites the country - West Virginia vs. Barnette
-
"The Great Reversal"
Don't have to say pledge - Tinker vs. Des Moines
-
Can't outlaw armbands but keep crosses so legal to wear armbands
Freedom of symbolic speech - Texas vs. Johnson
- Burning flag is a form of expression and is legal under freedom of symbolic speech
- Brandenburg vs. U.S.
-
Seditious Speech
Pamphlets that protected during peace time may not be protected during war time - Schenck vs. U.S.
- Words protected during peace time may not be protected during war time
- Brandenburg vs. Ohio
- For words to be seditious there must be a "clear and imminent danger"
- Near vs. Minnesota
- There only few times when government can censor before publication (prior constraint) but generallly they can't.
- N.Y. Times vs. U.S.
- Can't stop prove Clear and Eminent Danger so the government couldn't stop publication of "Pentagon Papers"
- N.Y. Times vs. Sullivan
- Police official couldn't sue because public officials/ public figure can't sue unless they can prove actual malice (total disregard for the truth)
- Weeks vs. U.S.
- Illgeal search and seizure. Must have warrant
- Plessy vs. Ferguson
- established separate but equal doctrine
- Brown vs. Board of Ed.
- Reversed Plessy vs. Ferguson
- Gideon vs. Wainwright
- Court must grant you concil