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
CRL Final Exam
Civil Rights and Liberties Final Exam
| Court Case | Issue and Ruling |
|---|---|
| Olmstead v. U.S. (1928) | Issue- What is the extent of the right to privacy? Ruling- ‘The right to be left alone’ is the bedrock of autonomy, but there are times when the state has a compelling interest to restrict privacy. |
| Buck v. Bell (1927) | Issue- Does a compulsory sterilization policy violate the privacy right to procreate? Ruling- SCOTUS said no, the state has a ‘compelling interest’ to prevent certain individuals from having children, ‘those who are manifestly unfit. |
| Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) | Issue- Is a state law that makes use of birth control and counseling about bc a violation of the right to privacy? Ruling- SCOTUS said yes, the law is unnecessarily broad, as it infringed on not only the sale and manufacture, but also the use of bc |
| Issue Roe v. Wade (1973) | Is a restrictive TX law that prohibits abortion in almost all instances a violation of the right to privacy? |
| Ruling Roe v. Wade (1973) | SCOTUS said yes, but for different reasons based on the Justice, however the majority state it was a fundamental right (4 Justices took the pro-choice, privacy position;3 other justices took the 14th route, arguing the law was vague and violated DP |
| City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health (1983) | Issue- Are restrictions on abortions a violation of a woman’s right to privacy? Ruling- SCOTUS struck down the 1st 4 provisions as unconstitutional impediments to a fundamental right; the 5th provision was struck down as vague |
| Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989) | Issue- Are restrictions on abortion a violation of a woman’s right to privacy? Ruling- SCOTUS upheld all of the provisions, it is consistent with earlier funding decisions that can dictate how public funding can be used |
| Planned Parenthood of Southeastern PA v. Casey (1992) | Issue- Are restrictions on abortion a violation of a woman’s right to privacy? Ruling- SCOTUS said no, upheld all restrictions except for the spousal notification |
| Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt (2016) | Issue- Are requirements for admitting privileges and surgical centers ‘undue burdens’ under Casey? Ruling- SCOTUS said yes, the benefits of these requirements do not become undue burden on women |
| Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022) | Issue- Is a Mississippi law banning nearly all abortions after 15 weeks gestational age unconstitutional? Ruling- SCOTUS said no, the Constitution says nothing about abortion, so not a fundamental right |
| Korematsu v. U.S. (1944) | Issue- Dealt with the relocation of Japanese Americans from the West Coast during WWII, supposedly for national security, later determined it was for racial reasons Ruling- SCOTUS upheld the policy at the time, but later lamented that |
| Loving v. Virginia (1967) | Issue- Is a VA law that prohibits inter-racial marriages a violation of the Equal Protection Clause? Ruling- SCOTUS said yes, the state did not have a compelling interest for this law |
| Plessy v. Ferguson (1897) | Issue- Are separate train cars for blacks and whites on public transportation a violation of the EP Clause? Ruling- SCOTUS said no, as long as the facilities are equal, separate facilities are fine under the EP Clause |
| Rostker v. Goldberg (1981) | Issue- Is the requirement that men, but not women, to register with Selective Service a violation of the EP Clause? Ruling- SCOTUS said no, women are not eligible for combat because they are not similarly situated in this matter |
| United States v. Virginia (2003) | Issue- Is an all-male military school (VMI) a violation of the EP Clause? Ruling- SCOTUS said yes, there is no persuasive justification to deny entry to women |
| United States v. Windsor (2012) | Issue- Does DOMA violate the equal protection rights of same-sex couples? Ruling- SCOTUS said yes, DOMA denies the benefits that come from marriage |
| Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) | Issue- Does the 14th require a state to issue a license to recognize marriage of same-sex couples? Ruling- SCOTUS said yes, marriage is a fundamental liberty, both same-sex and opposite marriages safeguard children and families |
| University of California v. Bakke (1978) | Issue- Is a set aside policy for minority applicants at UC- Davis medical school a violation of the EP Clause? Ruling- SCOTUS said yes, this was an unconstitutional quota |
| Gratz v. Bollinger (2003) | Issue- Dealt with UM’s policy of undergraduate admissions Ruling- SCOTUS reaffirmed Bakke, stating that there is compelling interest in increasing diversity, but the method for doing so was not narrowly tailored |
| Issue- Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) | Dealt with UM’s law school admissions policy, which hoped to get a critical mass of minority students, which was calculated to be about 10-20% of the law school body |
| Ruling- Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) | SCOTUS upheld the policy, a compelling interest of a diverse student body; it was narrowly tailored because law school admission is more difficult for minorities, so this ‘quota’ is the best way to do it; it was a short time period |
| Issue- Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration, and Immigration Rights and Fight for Equality By Any Means Necessary (BAMN)(2014) | Dealt with Michigan Constitutional Amendment to ban race-based preferences as part of admissions process for state universities |
| Ruling- Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration, and Immigration Rights and Fight for Equality By Any Means Necessary (BAMN)(2014) | SCOTUS upheld the ban, race-based preferences are permissible if states (voters) wish to use them; however, if states (voters) do not wish to use them, it is their right |
| Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard / UNC (2023) | Issue- Prohibits the use of race as a specific factor in admissions |
| Rucho v. Common Cause and Lamone v. Benisek (2019) | Issue- Challenged alleged racial gerrymandering in NC (Rucho case) and MD (Lamone) Ruling- SCOTUS punted issue, stating federal courts do not have jurisdiction to rule on partisan gerrymandering |
| Bush v. Gore (2000) | Issue- Deal with problematic paper ballots in FL during presidential elections Ruling- FL Supreme Court did not outline an appropriate standard of review for accounting ballots, so SCOTUS stopped recount, stating a violation of the EP Clause |
Created by:
webbol