Busy. Please wait.

show password
Forgot Password?

Don't have an account?  Sign up 

Username is available taken
show password


Make sure to remember your password. If you forget it there is no way for StudyStack to send you a reset link. You would need to create a new account.
We do not share your email address with others. It is only used to allow you to reset your password. For details read our Privacy Policy and Terms of Service.

Already a StudyStack user? Log In

Reset Password
Enter the associated with your account, and we'll email you a link to reset your password.
Don't know
remaining cards
To flip the current card, click it or press the Spacebar key.  To move the current card to one of the three colored boxes, click on the box.  You may also press the UP ARROW key to move the card to the "Know" box, the DOWN ARROW key to move the card to the "Don't know" box, or the RIGHT ARROW key to move the card to the Remaining box.  You may also click on the card displayed in any of the three boxes to bring that card back to the center.

Pass complete!

"Know" box contains:
Time elapsed:
restart all cards
Embed Code - If you would like this activity on your web page, copy the script below and paste it into your web page.

  Normal Size     Small Size show me how

SC cases

SC cases on civil rights and liberties

Everson v. BOE Private (mostly catholic) schools were getting buses which are public transportation. Everson sued saying that they should not be paying taxes to have private schools receive funding. Said that busing is a purely secular service and does not have any religious purpose so busing was allowed.
Lemon v. Kurtzman Philadelphia was giving funding to private schools for books and teachers that were secular, but lemon sued. This was struck down...result was lemon test: 1)Secular Purpose 2)Effect does not advance or inhibit religion 3)does not require excessive entanglement of gov. and religion
Schenck v. United States Head of the socialist party, handed out pamphlets. He was arrested. Appealed to supreme court 9-0 struck down~'clear and present danger"
Tinker v. Des Moines 1969): Students wore black armbands to school and were suspended. They sued for rights to the first amendment. In favor of Tinker, students do not give up their rights at the gate.
New York Times Co. v. US U.S. tried to prevent the NYT from publishing critical papers that contained information about the war in Vietnam and NYT sued U.S. is not allowed to do this because of Prior Restraint
Mapp v. Ohio Mapp was a women whose house was searched without a warrant. They didn't find what they were looking for, but they found some other incriminating evidence and they arrested her. S.C ruled that the courts cannot use the evidence found because it was found without a warrant to search the house.
Westside Community Schools v. Mergens Students who wanted a bible study group. Mergens sued under the Eual Access Act~ She won, the school had to allow the bible study group, but they could not pay the sponser...
Gideon v Wainwright Gideon was not allowed to have an attorney because he was poor, he appealed from the jail...and the supreme court granted centori In favor of Gideon...states cannot deny people the right to counsel...
Miranda v. Arizona Miranda was arrested for rape and other charges. he gave a confession and was convicted, but he was not given his rights and a lawyer struck down conviction and said that police must read people the rights
Plessy v. Ferguson Railroad system in Louisiana and the guy was 7/8 white and was not allowed to sit where he wanted to ALLOWED separate but equal
Korematsu v United States Japanese American did not want to move from California house, but he was forced to Sued, and the move was upheld
Brown v. BOE Linda brown was not allowed to attend a school that was close to her house and was forced to go to another all black school in favor of brown...STRUCK DOWN separate but equal
Regents of University of California v. Bakke Bakke applied to medical school 3 times and was always rejected because of quotas SC struckdown quotas but said affirmative action was okay
Griswold v. Connecticut Law against selling of contraceptions, griswold sued law in favor of connecticut, said there is nothing unconstitutional about it
Roe v. Wade Texas law banning abortions unless affected health SC said this is unconstitutional developed a method. 1st trimester cannot be banned 2nd trimester states can ban unless the mother will be hurt 3. states can completely ban abortions
Gitlow V. New York Gitlow was convicted understate law for distributing copies let wing manifests. Does NY law punishing advocacy of overthrowing the government an unconstitutional vioationof the free speech clause of the 1st amendment Over turned Barron v. Baltimore. Involved incorporation because they said that this is unconstitutional unless it is a dangerous.
Created by: Ismile2