Chapter 6 Court Cases – Flashcards

Background: This organization revoked James ____, a former Eaglescout and scoutmaster, of his adult membership after finding out that he was a homosexual and gay right's activist. _____then filed a suit against the organization, alleging that they had violated the New Jersey statute prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in places of public accommodation. Since the____ are a private and not public organization, they asserted that homosexuality was inconsistent with their values they wanted to instill in young people. The New Jersey Superior Court held that the law was inapplicable because the _____ were a private, organization. The Appellate Division held that the law applied to the boy scouts due to its connections with various public entities and that they violated the law. The NJ Supreme Court then reaffirmed. Question considered by the Supreme Court:Does the application of New Jersey's public accommodations law violate the _______ First Amendment right of expressive association to bar homosexuals from serving as troop leaders? Article or Amendment: First Amendment Opinion of the Court: The Court held that the NJ law violated the organizations First Amendment right of expressive association. Precedent established: A private organization may ban gays from its membership.

Background: Black children were denied admission to public schools with white children under laws which required or permitted segregation. Linda ____ wanted to attend her neighborhood school which was only available to white children. The only black school she could attend was miles away where there were hazardous conditions she'd have to face to reach the school and back. Her family sued and it ended up in the Supreme Court because of her parents wish to let her attend the white school. Question considered by the Supreme Court:Does the segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race deprive the minority children of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the 14th Amendment? Article or Amendment: 14th Amendment; Equal Protection Clause Opinion of the Court: In it's unanimous opinion, the Court held that segregation in schools was in violation of the Constitution's 14th amendment because racially segregated schools were inherently detrimental to the development of children and was interpreted as a sign of inferiority. Separate but equal did not apply to the education system since it was clearly unequal. Precedent established: Overturned the separate but equal doctrine which was established in Plessy v. Ferguson.

Background: ______, the Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, gave information, along with the medical director, instruction, and other medical advice to married couples concerning birth control. She was convicted under state law which criminalized the provision of counseling and other medical treatment to married persons for purposes of preventing conception. Question considered by the Supreme Court:Does the Constitution protect the right of marital privacy against state restrictions on a couple's ability to be counseled in the use of contraceptives? Article or Amendment: 9th Amendment, First, Third, Fourth Opinion of the Court: The Court held that the various guarantees within the Bill of Rights create zones that establish a right to privacy. Together, the 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 9th, amendments create a new constitutional right, which was the right to privacy in marital relations. The Connecticut statute conflicted with the exercise of that right and was therefore null and void. Precedent established:Found a "right to privacy" in the Constitution that would ban any state law against selling contraceptives

Background: In 1997, ___ applied for admission into UM law school, with a 3.8 undergraduate GPA and LSAT score of 161, yet was denied admission. The school admitted to using race as a factor in admissions decisions in order to make the school more diverse. The District Court ruled in favor of the school though the appellate court rejected the district court's findings that the Law School's "critical mass" was the functional equivalent of a quota. Question considered by the Supreme Court:Does the University of Michigan Law School's use of racial preferences in student admissions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Article or Amendment: 14th amendment; Equal Protection Clause Opinion of the Court: The Court held that the Equal Protection Clause does not prohibit the school's use of race in admissions because it had an interest in educational benefit in diversifying the school. The Court also reasoned that because of the highly individualized review of each applicant, acceptance and rejection cannot be based solely on the variable of race. Precedent established: Using race to diversify a school/promote education does not violate the 14th amendment. Numerical benefits cannot be used to admit minorities into college,but race can be a "plus factor" in making these decisons.

Background: The Houston police entered this poor man's home in response to a weapons disturbance, and saw him with another man, Tyron Garner, engaging in consensual sexual acts. They were both arrested and convicted of sexual intercourse violating a Texas statute forbidding two same sex couples to engage in sexual activities. The Court of Appeals held that the statute was unconstitutional, through Bowers v. Hardwick. Question considered by the Supreme Court:Do the criminal convictions of John _____and Tyron Garner under the Texas "Homosexual Conduct" law, which criminalizes sexual intimacy by same-sex couples, but not identical behavior by different-sex couples, violate the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of equal protection of laws? Do their criminal convictions for adult consensual sexual intimacy in the home violate their vital interests in liberty and privacy protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? Should Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), be overruled? Article or Amendment:Fourteenth; Due Process Clause; 14th amendment Opinion of the Court:No. Yes. Yes. The Court held that the TX statute violated the Due Process Clause. The Court reasoned that the case turned on whether ______ and Garner were free adults to engage in private conduct under the Due Process Clause.Accordingly, the Court overruled Bowers. Precedent established:The government may not intervene with the private relations of civilians through their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause and state law may not ban sexual relations between same-sex partners.

Background: Two residents of Virginia in 1958, a black woman(Mildred Jeter), and a white man(Richard ____) were married in DC. They returned later to VA and were then charged with violating the state's antimiscegenation statute, which banned interracial marriages, They were found guilty and sentenced to one year in prison. Question considered by the Supreme Court: Did Virginia's antimiscegenation law violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? Article or Amendment: Fourteenth; Equal Protection Clause Opinion of the Court: In a unanimous decision, the Court held that distinctions drawn according to race were odious to free people and subject to the most rigid scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause and held that the VA statute had no legitimate purpose. They held that it violated the Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment. Precedent established: Interracial marriage was legal and could not be banned by states.

Background: After amending its abortion law in 1988, and 1989,a law required a informed consent and 24 hr waiting period prior to the procedure. A minor seeking abortion required the consent of one parent and a married woman seeking abortion had to indicate that she notified her husband of her intent to abort the fetus. These provision were challenged by several abortion clinics and physicians. A federal appeals court upheld on the provision except for the husband notification requirement. Question considered by the Supreme Court:Can a state require women who want an abortion to obtain informed consent, wait 24 hours, and, if minors, obtain parental consent, without violating their right to abortions as guaranteed by Roe v. Wade? Article or Amendment: Fourteenth Amendment Opinion of the Court:The Court, in a bitter decision, reaffirmed Roe and upheld most of the PA provisions. The Justices imposed a new standard to determine the validity of laws restricting abortion. The new standard asks whether a state abortion regulation has the purpose or effect of imposing an "undue burden," which is defined as a "substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability." Under this standard, the only provision to fail the undue-burden test was the husband notification requirement. Precedent established: A new standard was developed to test the validity of abortion laws which reaffirmed Roe v. Wade but upheld certain limits on its use.

Background: Louisiana's racist tail enacted a law which required separate railway cars for blacks and whites. Homer ______ who was 7/8th's white took a seat in the whites only car, refused to move to the blacks only car and was arrested. Question considered by the Supreme Court: Is Louisiana's law mandating racial segregation on its trains an unconstitutional infringement on both the privileges and immunities and the equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment? Article or Amendment: Fourteenth Amendment; Equal Protection Clause Opinion of the Court: The Court held that the law did not violate the 14th amendment and stated that separation was constitutional so long as the institutions were equal. (*sighs heavily*) Precedent established: The Seperate-but-Equal Doctrine was first adopted.

Background: The Idaho Probate code specified that males must be preferred to females in appointing administrators of estates. After the death of their adopted son, Sally and Cecil ____ sought to be named the administrator of their son's estate. According to the Probate Code, Cecil was appointed and Sally challenged the law in court. Question considered by the Supreme Court:Did the Idaho Probate Code violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? Article or Amendment: Fourteenth Amendment; Equal Protection Clause Opinion of the Court: In a unanimous decision, the court held that the law's dissimilar treatment of men and women was unconstitutional. The Court argued that "[t]o give a mandatory preference to members of either sex over members of the other, merely to accomplish the elimination of hearings on the merits, is to make the very kind of arbitrary legislative choice forbidden by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. . .[T]he choice in this context may not lawfully be mandated solely on the basis of sex." Precedent established: Gender discrimination violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

Background: Allan ____, a 35 year old white man, had twice applied for the admission to the University of California Medical School at Davis and was rejected both times. The school reserved 16 places in each entering class for 100 qualified minorities as apart of their affirmative action program to redress longstanding and unfair minority exclusions from the medical profession. His qualifications exceeded those of the minority students admitted in the two years and was rejected still. He contended that he was excluded solely on the basis of race. Question considered by the Supreme Court: Did the University of California violate the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, by practicing an affirmative action policy that resulted in the repeated rejection of Bakke's application for admission to its medical school? Article or Amendment: Fourteenth Amendment Opinion of the Court: There was no single majority opinion. Four of the justices contended that any racial quota system supported by government violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964.The remaining four justices held that the use of race as a criterion in admissions decisions in higher education was constitutionally permissible in order to minimize the white opposition to the goal of equality. Precedent established: banning the universities quotas would be unconstitutional and Upheld affirmative action and extended gains for racial minorities through it.

Background: A TX resident, wanted to terminate her pregnancy through abortion but could not due to TX law prohibiting abortions except to save the woman's life. After granting certiorari, the Court held the Argument twice. Question considered by the Supreme Court: Does the Constitution embrace a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy by abortion? Article or Amendment: Fourteenth Amendment Opinion of the Court: The Court held that a woman's right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy and protected by the 14th amendment. Precedent established: Gave women total autonomy over the pregnancy during the first trimester and defined different levels of state interest for the seconds and third trimesters.

Background: After Brown v BOE, little progress was made in desegregating schools, For example, in Charlotte-Mecklenburg, NC, black students attended schools either totally black or more than 99% black. Lower courts had experimented with a number of possible solutions when the case reached the Supreme Court. Question considered by the Supreme Court: Were federal courts constitutionally authorized to oversee and produce remedies for state-imposed segregation? Article or Amendment: Fourteenth Amendment. Opinion of the Court: In a unanimous decision, the Court held that once violations of previous mandates directed at desegregating schools had occurred, the scope of district courts' equitable powers to remedy past wrongs were broad and flexible. The Court ruled that 1) remedial plans were to be judged by their effectiveness, and the use of mathematical ratios or quotas were legitimate "starting points" for solutions; 2) predominantly or exclusively black schools required close scrutiny by courts; 3) non-contiguous attendance zones, as interim corrective measures, were within the courts' remedial powers; and 4) no rigid guidelines could be established concerning busing of students to particular schools. Precedent established: District courts are allowed to oversee the enforcement of violation of court orders and approved busing and district lines as ways of integrating public schools

Background: The VMI boasted a long and proud tradition as VA's only exclusively male public undergraduate higher learning institution. The U.S. brought a suit against VA and CMI alleging that the male only admissions policy was unconstitutional and violated the equal protection clause.Virginia, in response to the Fourth Circuit's reversal, proposed to create the Virginia Women's Institute for Leadership (VWIL) as a parallel program for women. On appeal from the District Court's affirmation of the plan, the Fourth Circuit ruled that despite the difference in prestige between the VMI and VWIL, the two programs would offer "substantively comparable" educational benefits. The United States appealed to the Supreme Court. Question considered by the Supreme Court: Does Virginia's creation of a women's-only academy, as a comparable program to a male-only academy, satisfy the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause? Article or Amendment: Fourteenth Amendment; Equal Protection Clause Opinion of the Court: The Court held that that VMI's only male admissions was unconstitutional because it had no justification and violated the 14th amendment's equal protection clause.When evaluated with such "heightened scrutiny," Virginia's plan to create the VWIL would not provide women with the same opportunities as VMI provides its men and so it failed to meet requirements of the equal protection clause. Precedent established: States cannot fund an all male military school discriminating against women.

Background: Two Native Americans working as counselors for a private drug rehab organization ingest peyote, a hallucinogen, as part of their religious ceremonies as members of the Native American Church. The rehab organization fired the counselors due to this, who later filed a claim for unemployment compensation. The government denied them benefits because the reason for their dismissal was considered work-related "misconduct." The counselors lost their battle in state court. But the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the Oregon Supreme Court's judgment against the disgruntled employees, and returned the case to the Oregon courts to determine whether or not sacramental use of illegal drugs violated Oregon's state drug laws. On remand, the Oregon Supreme Court concluded that while Oregon drug law prohibited the consumption of illegal drugs for sacramental religious uses, this prohibition violated the free exercise clause. The case returned to the U.S. Supreme Court in this new posture. Question considered by the Supreme Court: Can a state deny unemployment benefits to a worker fired for using illegal drugs for religious purposes? Article or Amendment: First Amendment Opinion of the Court: The Court held that an individual's religious beliefs cannot excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law which the government is free it regulate. Allowing exceptions to every state law or regulation affecting religion "would open the prospect of constitutionally required exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind." :( poor guys Precedent established: Law reigns supreme over religious practices.

Background: The Compulsory Education Act of 1922 required parents to send their children between the ages of 8 and 16 to public schools in their district they resided. The SoS was an Oregon corporation which facilitated care for orphans, educated youths, and established and maintained academies or schools. This case was decided together with Pierce v. Hill Military Academy. Question considered by the Supreme Court: Did the Act violate the liberty of parents to direct the education of their children? Article or Amendment: Fourteenth Amendment Opinion of the Court: Yes. The unanimous Court held that "the fundamental liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the State to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only." Precedent established: Children did not have to accept instruction from public schools only and did not have to attend public schools.

Background: Groups of same-sex couples sued their relevant state agencies in Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, and Tennessee to challenge the constitutionality of those states' bans on same-sex marriage or refusal to recognize legal same-sex marriages that occurred in jurisdictions that provided for such marriages. The plaintiffs in each case argued that the states' statutes violated the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and one group of plaintiffs also brought claims under the Civil Rights Act. Question considered by the Supreme Court: (1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?(2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex that was legally licensed and performed in another state? Article or Amendment: Fourteenth Amendment Opinion of the Court: The Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees the right to marry as one of the fundamental liberties it protects, and that analysis applies to same-sex couples in the same manner as it does to opposite-sex couples.Because there are no differences between a same-sex union and an opposite-sex union with respect to these principles, the exclusion of same-sex couples from the right to marry violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment also guarantees the right of same-sex couples to marry as the denial of that right would deny same-sex couples equal protection under the law. Precedent established: Same sex marriages are legal and denial of them is unconstitutional. :)