Help
Options
Didn't know it?
click below
click below
Knew it?
click below
click below
Don't Know
Remaining cards (0)
Know
retry
shuffle
restart
0:00
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
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Con Law 2
CASES
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| free speech | |
| Cantwell v. connecticut | i. Soliciting for religion, played offensive music to anther religion ii. Pure speech: allowed to discuss and share views with others even if they disagee or find it offensive 1. Unless there is a present danger (implication) |
| US. v. O'brien | Gov can limit speech - con power of the gov, futhers an substantial govt int, gov int is unrelated to the suppression of free exp and, incidential restriction on the first amendment freedom is not greater than is essential to the furtherance interests |
| Spence v. Washington | Hung a US flag with a peace sign on it, this is communication Sufficient level of communication so allowed and constitutional |
| Texas v. Johnson | Sufficeenlty imbued with communication TEST a. Whether an intent to convey a particularized message was present AND the likelihood was great the message was understood by those who viewed it |
| Buckely v. valeo | Constitutional to limit finaical donations from others, not the candiaets donation to self or additianl activites of others are okay |
| Citzens United v. FEC | Sturck down a federal law that prohibited corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds to make .. . adovcqting for the election or defeat of a candidate allows org to make indepent films and such |
| Prior restraints: Near v. state of minnisota ex rel Olson | include blockin publish Exceptions that allow - Publications that would jeopardize national security in wartime, obscene publication, publications threatening to incite violence and or violent overthrown of the government - immediate peril |
| Eudune v. Debbs | 1. Put in jail was a socialist/communist 2. Duting war times- more allowed to use espionage and sedition act |
| Nebraska v. sturat | clear and present danger nature and extent of the pretrial news coverage , whether other less restrictive measures would have alleviated the effect of pretrial publicicity , effectiveness of a restraining order in preventing the threatened danger |
| West va v. Barnette | 2. Cant compel speech – this is speech a. Extended to the right to associate Government may not force an expressive association to accept members that will alter the association message NCAAP V.AL |
| Janus v. American federation of states county and municipal employees | Forcing payment to a union, compel speedh bc the union is inherently political Use of exacting scrutiny - Risk of free riders is not a compelling interest to justify this |
| Simon & schuster, inc members of the New York state crime Victims board | Descion of government to say profits from books about crimes go to vicgims, is a financial destive to publish works of a particular content need a compelling intrest- whcih didnt exist |
| Speiser v. randall | Uncons conditions doctrine Gov may not condition a grant of a discretionary benefit on the relinquishment of a cons right condition becomes so coercive that it constitutes an infringement - occurs when the condition is a penalty and not a subsidy |
| rust v. sullivan | gov can decline to subside- give money to a certain viewpioint – gov speech doctrine- does not limit access to services - Distiction between funding, deniing funding, and punishment- this is differnet then denying funding and would be unconstitutional |
| iii. Legal services v. velaquez | 1. Distinguehs rust, ruled unconstitutional – not gov speech – private speech when providing money to indigent cleints |
| a. Police department of the city of Chicago v. mosley | 1. government has no power to restrict expression because of its messages, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content ii. However, this was a TPMr not based on content so is okay |
| hill majority | principle inquiry in determining content neutrality is whether the government has adopted a regulation of speech because of disagreement with the message it conveys |
| gooding v. wilson | Fighting words" are limited to language that has "a direct tendency to cause acts of violence by the person to whom, individually, the remark is addressed." not interpreted the statute narrowly in all past cases, the law, as construe unconstitutional. |
| McCullen v. Coakly | content-neutral TPMR to be narrowly tailored it must not burden substantially more speech than is necessary to further the governments legitimate interest Gov must show that alt measure to burden less speech would fail to achieve the gov int |
| Reed v. town of gilbert | sign code This is a content based distinction Stirct scteiny requires compelling itnrest – failedIssue of underinclusive - Unconstitutional |
| Turner broadcasting system inc v. federal communications commission | Must carry provisions requiring cable operators to carry local commercial and noncommercial broadcast stations Deemed content neutral – intermedditae scrutiny b. Miam v. tarrilino – newspapers- not good |
| City of renton v. Playtime theatres | Zoning ordinance a. Deemed content netural based on secondary effects doctrine i. A facially content- based regulation as content netural 1. ussaly limited to where justifications for regulation have nothing to do with content |
| Brown v. Entertainemnt Merchant ASS | i. Violent video games as obscne ii. Failed strict scrutiny, also concern for underinclusive |
| Ward v. rock against racism | TPMr is intermediate scrutiny – and this passed a. Court rejected the requirement that the regulation be the least intrusive means, emphisizing that narrow tailoring does nto reguire the least restctitive alternative |
| Pleasant Grove city Utah v. summum | GOV. SPEECH DOC- 1st does not apply to government speech a. Consideration of connection and viewers undertsaning – gov can say no ii. Government does not have to adopt message |
| Matal v. Tam | Can be trademarked Trademarking does not make something government speech – get 1st amenedmnet protections Government cant deny trademark based on viewpoint expressed |
| Brandenburg v. ohio | A state may not proscribe advocacy of violence for political reform unless that speech is advocating imminent lawlessness and is likely to produce such violence. |
| NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. | ruled that an economic boycott constitutes a form of constitutionally protected expression akin to speaking and writing, even if violence is threatened as a means of achieving group goals |
| Hess v. Indiana - | Take the streest later- so NOT Imminent |
| Chaplinsky v. new Hampshire | what men of common intelligence would understand would be words likely to cause an average addresse to fight Though more- like intend . .must be directed to person of the hearer, Fighting words prohibtions may not be constitutionaly vague, No idea in it |
| Virginia v. black | True threats are not protected Statement where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individual |
| Watts v. US | At political – if I had a gun shoot the president … |
| Memoirs v. Massachusetts | white coat porn Stanley v. Georgia (1969)- right to have porn, some gov limits United States v. Reidel (1971)- prohibited sending via mail unrequested |
| Miller v. california | , appl cont stan the work, appeals to the prurient interest, work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by state law; and local moral, work lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value |
| v. Paris Adult theatre I v. Slaton | Court held that obscene material does not gain First Amendment protection merely because it is shown to consenting adults States still have legitimate concerns- secondary effects and can regulate obscenity |
| i. New York v. Ferber | Child porn – Categorical ban – protectiong thoses involved in creation not the viewer |
| ii. Ashcroft v. ACLU | virtual child pornography” Speech is porotceted beacsue it does nto relay on harm to children as governemtn intrest - Ferber Justification doesn’t apply |
| i. United states v. stevens | Animal crulty – statute to broad for a categorical ban No full bann of such content- But other speech related to criminal conduct- integeral to it is not protected |
| 1. Virginia state board of Pharmacy v. Virginia citizens consumer council inc | Advertisemnts for selling Content must be truthful- false speech – unprotected Allowed- a right to reciev information purely commercial speech- consumer and societal interest in free flow of commercial information iii. T,M,P Restritons |
| Bolger v. youngs drug products corp | Mailing of controceptives and planning info Also selling a product but important information for people A ban denies consumers access to important information that public has right to receive |
| Central hudson gas & electrical corporation v. public service commission of New York | Not allowed to ban Speech must be truthful & concern lawful activities if not, then speech receives no protection, Substantial government interest , “directly advances” government interest, Regulation no more extensive than necessary |
| Cohen v. California | Not obscene – lacked erotic content, not figihting words- not directed at an indivuduak rejected the argument that the state could criminalize the public display of offensive language to protect public morality or shield unwilling viewers. |
| Feiner v. new York - | heckeler veto issue |
| Morse v. frederick | i. It is not a violation of the 1st Am for public school officials to censor student speech that they reasonably believe encourages illegal drug use. ii. Don’t need disruption here- school connection |
| Brandi levy | School administrators have the power to punish student speech that occurs online or off campus if it genuinely disrupts classroom study.- not hers though |
| tinker | speech or activity cannot be prohibited unless it materially and substantially interferes with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school (disruption)– ii. Students have the right to freedom of expression |
| Hazlewood | limit speech when school connected |
| New York times company v. Sullivan | When not a public official: 1. Statement was false . . check- negligence standard then . . .seems ii. Public official 1. (A) the statements were false 2. (B) and the D had actual malice a. meaning: D knew or was reckless regarding the truth |
| Young v. americantheater | 1. thetaer –zoning-secodary effects– legitimate and importnatn interest |
| Island trees school district borad of edu v. pico | Ordered certain books to ban – filth . . those with no educational |
| Us v. American librabry ass- | porn filters in lirabrues- does need to change it… still enough access and children - TPM |
| RAV v. st paul and content | ii. Seemingly underinclusive- only stopped some fighting words- therefore unconstitutional 1. selective regulation constituted viewpoint discrimination, as it prohibited certain messages while permitting others, depending on betetr alternatvies |
| Davis v. mass- | city can throw people off of it land |
| Hague v. committee for industrial organization | ordinances prohibited public meetings without permits and the distribution of printed materials in public spaces |
| c. Schinder v. state | Held that in baalcne context of streets and park - always side with free speech- First tiem to protect labor organizations |
| d. Perry edu. Association v. perry local edocators association | A collective bargaining agreement between PEA and the School Board granted PEA exclusive access to the interschool mail system and teacher mailboxes, while denying such access to rival unions, including the Perry Local Educators' Association |
| e. Christian legal soc v. martinez | i. colleges all—comers policy is a reasonable viewpoint neutral condition and therefore did not violate th e 1st the court futehr reasoned that considering this constitutional inquiry |
| – Aderly v. Flordia | – prison protest |
| Texas division, sons of confederate veterans | i. Wanted to put confederatre flag on the liscene plate ii. Licsine plate is government speech – 1ST a does not apply - Can then deny |
| The 303 creatve llc v. fleines- | Court holds the 1st a exempts a website design company from a state law that rprohibits the company from denyon wedding services to same sex couples if company choses – issue of compulsion |
| PRUNEYARD SHOPPING CENTER V. ROBINS- | i. Oppostions for un resolution - they were in favor of zionisim, Put it up a private mall ii. Mall had regualtiosn which prohibbited distrubution of lititure and such in mall- was okay |
| Rosenberger v. Rector and visitors of the Univ. of VA | funded by a mandatory student fee 1. Religious group wished to use funding – denied bc religious text a. Content discrimination – is presumed unconstitutional |
| Free excercise | |
| U.S. v. Ballard | No matter how imrpobabel the ds relgious beleifs seem, you cannot question the valdity of those beleifs but question SNICERITY |
| Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Assciation | gov was not anything with religion -road Consider- coercion of individuals to violate religion, would gov action penalize religious activity by denying any person an equal share of the rights, benefits, and privileges enjoyed by other citizens – IB |
| a. Reynolds v. United states | Religion is not an excuse to break the law Laws can no limit belief but may impact practices |
| i. Meyer v. Nebraska | Limits of state power over parent authority- tecahinga forgien language – balancing test- not enough state interest |
| ii. Pierce v. society of sisters | 1. Attempt to focre compulsion of attendance at public school- balancing test- not enough state interest |
| iii. Cantwell and Barnette- | |
| iv. SHERBERT V. VERNER | prohibits government from burdening an individual's religious practices unless a compelling state interest justifies the restriction. No compelling state interest use of strict scrutiny infingement, compeling- alt mean s |
| v. Wisconson v. yoder | does it violate the right of freedom of religion? (or any right)- Is the belief sincerely held/ Does state impose an undue burden on the free exercise of religion DOES states interest significantly outweigh the individual interest |
| i. Employment division of HR v. SMITH | neutral, generally applicable laws, that incidentally burden religious exercise, are subject to rational basis review under the Free Exercise Clause. (when applies) |
| RFRA | designed to make it harder for the federal government to interfere with a persons freedom of religion unless there is a compelling interest |
| Boerne v. flores | RFRA was unconstitutional State Law Sherbert - compelling interest- fedreal , state law- use smith - rational basis |
| Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. Hialeah | Animal sacrifice as part of the religion, rule targetied the religion based on wording, underinclusve, and timing it ws created Targeting requires Strict Scrutiny |
| Groff v. Dejoy | Employers must reasonably accommodate an employee's religious beliefs unless doing so would result in "substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of the employer's particular business |
| iii. Trinity Lutheran church of Colombia v. comer | denying a generally available benefit solely on account of religious identity imposes a penalty on the free exercise of religion that can be justified only by the state interest of the highest order Requires Strict scrutiny |
| Locke v. Davey | scholrship program -said couldn’t choose to purse a theological degree: was permissible to deny- this is more directly connected between state and religion |
| Masterpiece cakeshop v. Colorado civil rights | Gov cant act in a manner that passes judgement upon or presupposes the illegitimacy of the religious beliefs and practices |
| 1. Hosanna- tabor Evangelical Lutheran church and school v. E.E.O.C. | a. Governemtn cant interfree with apointment and firing of ministers - free to select there own b. bars government interference in a religious organization's decision to hire or fire its ministers |
| 2. Serbian eastern orthodox v. Milivojevich | a. first Amendment permits hierarchial religious organizations to establish their own rules and regs for internal discipline and government and to create tribunals for adjudicating dsiputes over thes eamtetrs |
| 3. Corporation of presiding bishop v. amos- 1987 | General example- fired, minesterail exception applied 4. Also applies to policyes of such organization a. Corut cannot evaluate the policyes or if they were followed, even those written by the org |
| 5. Our lady Guadalupe school v. Morrissey – Berru | Very broad – include those shapping the faith -meaning tecahers, ministers, and more.. Lots of autonomy |
| Establishment clause | |
| Everson v. Board of ewing township | authorized local school districts to reimburse parents for transportation costs for children attending public and non-profit private schools, facilitating access to education and ensuring the safety of children traveling to school- wall |
| ii. Mccollum v. Board of education of school district | 2. Court found that the program utilized tax-supported public school property and the state's compulsory education system to assist religious groups in disseminating their doctrines.> a. Violating of Church and state then wall cemented |
| 3. Zoroach v. Clauson | a. ruled 6-3 that programs where students are released for an hour or so early one day a week to obtain religious instruction off campus was permissible |
| iii. Lemon v. Kurtzman | nonpublic schools, requiring that eligible teachers teach only secular subjects test - secular purpose, principal or primay effect, no excessive engamnet |
| Alteration to lemon | |
| a. Entanglement to endorsement | Agostini v. felton, also saten fe, mcmcreay b. Wallace v. Jaffree – 1985 - Struck down momen of silence – bc AL expressly encouraged prayer– government intends to convey a message of endorsement of disapproaval |
| c. American legion v. American humanist association | i. cross is located on public land and has been maintained by the Maryland ii. secular meaning reasonable observed would conclude that avction constituted an endorsement of religion |
| Mitchell v. helms | aid to private schools, the money was netrual and went to schools based on a certain creiteion |
| Zelman v. simmons- Harris | ohio ii. Court rejected the argument that the high percentage of voucher recipients attending religious schools indicated coercion, noting that the program provided genuine secular educational options neutrality |
| shift to more tests | Allegheny v. ACLU Pitsburgh 1. Menhoarh v. creche 2. Lemon consideration – reaosnabel observer – send a message to nonadherents that they are outsiders, not full members of a commutni 3. Neither advances of inhibits religion |
| Divisivness test | i. Government religion interactions cause strife among citizens, which in turn undermines the peace and good will necessary for a function democracy van orden v. perry -pass acko 4. Dynamic interpretivism- ed in out constitution Ceremonial deism: |
| Endorsement test | i. prohibits government from making adherence to a religion relevant in any way to a person's standing in the political community ii. Lynch v. Donelly ceremonial deism - "lost through rote repetition any significant religious content." - reeinderr |
| coercion | by prohibiting only those government religion interactions that fit the chief vice of state established churches- coerced religious belief and practices ii. Lee v. Wiesman - perp resuse and such |
| History and tradition | |
| i. Marsh v. Chambers | 2. Upheled Nebraska legislature practices of opening legislation sessions with prayer that a stae paid chaplin dleieved 3. Precedent- it is not a violation of the 1st a establsimnet clause – |
| Kennedy case | 2. Court found that Kennedy's prayers were private religious exercises protected under the Free Exercise Clause, as they were not neutral or generally applicable restrictions and targeted religious conduct a. Not during official duties |
| KC: | 4. Winegardan v. board of edu a. Cant where buttons - but can distribute in mailbox and billiten board- Concern of political speech |
| KC: implications | a. Teacher prya, Personal expresion- no coercive – good, Policy review, Neautral, genneral applicable rules only |
| School cases using lemon | |
| i. Engel v. vitale | bannings chool prayers- even when nondenominational |
| ii. Wallace v. Jaffree | struck down moment of silence, because Alabama expressly encouraged prayer during this period- government intends to convey message of endorsement |
| iii. Sante Fe Independent School District v. Doe | 1. A student elected as santae fe schools student councel chaplain delivered a prayer over the public address system before each game- football 2. Government endorsement of religion present pressue here |
| iii. Town of Greece New yourk v. Galloway - ht | 1. From 1999 to 200 – ever monthly town meeting opened with prayer from a local celegryman 2. No one was excluded of denined the oppurtuinty to offer prayer but it was not speciffcilay publizced that individuals were wlecomes to deliver prayer to |
| g. Relationship between free speech and establishment: religions proper place in the public forum | |
| i. Windmar v. Vincent | PF- free speech by excluding religious group (CB) – not have a compelling interest for this- Avoid est equal access- secondary public schools- permit religious speech in limited pu0blic forum like Lambs chapel v. center moriches school district |
| a. Lambs chapel v. center moriches school district | Use of classrooms after class time- school prohibits use by any religious group – not allowed |
| summary | ii. Free speech – requires government to admit religious speech into public for a on same terms as other speech 1. Allowing this is not a violation of Establish- gov not overly entagled- NEUTRAL cant do preference things here- open eqaullt to all |
| a. Rosenberger v. uva | the prining of the group newspaper – prrohabition based on rleigon - Meta physical forum i. Not needed for establishment clause- deniaml for CB- VP- NETURALITY- like lamb |
Created by:
Vanderhoof_