MGMT 211 Exam 1: Supreme Court Cases - Flashcards
49 Cards in this Set
Front | Back |
---|---|
Marbury v. Madison (1837)
|
Marbury was appointed by Adams to fill court before Jefferson was inaugurated. Marbury sued Madison for not being appointed. Court said that the law that packed the courts with Federalist judges = unconstitutional. Madison won.
Established Judicial Review (power to declare acts of Con…
|
Texas v. Johnson (1989)
|
Protester of republican party burned flag @ Republican National Convention in Dallas; violated TX law.
Statute found unconstitutional as too restrictive on freedom of speech, federal law later declared unconstitutional.
Example of judicial review
|
US v. Eichman (1990)
|
Federal flag burning law put into effect after Texas v. Johnson case
Flag Protection Act = illegal (restriction/freedom of speech)
|
New State Ice Company v. Leiberman (1932)
|
State law = "laboratory" for setting potential federal system use without risk to rest of country
|
Imm. and Nat Service v. Chadda (1983)
|
Congress passed immigration statute, president signed it. Granted administrative agencies certain powers w/ provision for legislative veto to overrule with majority vote from either house (doesn't require presiden'ts signature)
Found legislative veto portion of an act created by Congr…
|
Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Sawyer (1952)
|
Supreme Court's check on Executive branch:
During Korean War: steel workers planned to go on strike, Truman seizes mill because army needs steel
President doesn't have power to do that without Congress or Constitutional authority.
|
Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)
|
Expansion of Commerce Clause
NY tried to have monopolistic rights on goods travelling b/t NY & NJ with state license
Determined difference b/t interstate and intrastate; gave national power to anything concerning more than 1 state.
|
NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp (1937)
|
Labor dispute at steel mill, work stoppage occured, Congress wanted to intervene;
Gave Congress the right to determine if there was "serious effect" on commerce and if it is substantial;
Congress can regulate labor relations where stoppage would affect interstate commerce.
|
Wickard v. Filburn (1942)
|
Farmer's production of wheat for home use only. How is that interstate commerce?
The cumulative effect of action by people could affect interstate commerce and thus can be regulated (even trivial acts)
|
McLain v. Real Estate Board of New Orleans
|
Even purely local activities must follow under Wickard decision if it substantially affects interstate commerce
|
McCullough v. Maryland
|
MD wanted to tax a national bank within the state; denied by court because Congress has jurisdiction.
Violated Necessary & Proper Clause and Supremecy Clause.
|
Plessy v. Furguson (1896)
|
Established Separate but Equal rule, and Jim Crow Laws are acceptable
|
Smith v. Albright (1944)
|
Texas's use of white primary (Democrat-controlled) deemed unconstitutional
Found issue of separation existed but NOT EQUAL (controlled outcome of national election)
|
Brown v. Board of Education (1954)
|
Doctrine of separate but equal under Plessy was found unconstitutional
|
Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US (1964)
|
White-only motel rule had a huge effect on travel, unconstitutional as a violation of the commerce clause (Congress CAN regulate)
|
Katzenbach v. McClung (1964)
|
Ollie's BBQ: blacks had to eat outside; bought 46% of meat indirectly from out of state
Cumulative effect = adverse affect on "free flow" of interstate commerce (applied Wickard decision)
|
US v. Lopez (1995)
|
HS senior carried gun to school, violating "Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990"
Court found Act to be unconstitutional (bringing a gun to school does not affect interstate commerce: ISD doesn't cross state lines)
Case of judicial review; 1st case so far to give more power to STATES…
|
Printz v. US (1997)
|
Can Federal gov require chief law enforcement officer of each local jurisdiction to do background checks on people buying guns?
Brady Act = unconstitutional bc there was no basis for this; Commerce Clause didn't apply and it violated state sovereignty
|
US v. Morrison (2000)
|
Questioned legality of Violence Against Women Act (again, non-economic, criminal situation)
Wickard ruling does NOT apply
|
Hughes v. Oklahoma (1979)
|
Residents from other states can't bring minnows into OK.
Couldn't find legitimate state interest (no part of economy depended on fishing)
|
Maine v. Taylor (1986)
|
Residents from other states can't bring bait into Maine
Proved state interest (not just trying to make more money): protecting fishing industry/contamination of waters; bait shops plentiful/not unreasonably priced; regulation didn't take it too far
|
Schenck v. US (1919)
|
can't shout "FIRE!" and cause panic
Used "balancing of interests" approach; allows gov to limit right of free speech when other social values predominate
|
Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional (2006)
|
Congress CAN force schools to provide equal access to military recruiters without violating schools' freedom of speech
|
Garcetti et. al. v. Ceballos (2006)
|
(Public Employee Speech) Distinguished official vs. private speech
When employees make statements, they are subject to employer discipline.
Not as protected as private employee speech
|
Valentine v. Chrestensen (1942)
|
purely commercial speech is NOT protected by 1st Amendment.
|
Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. VA Consumer Council (1976)
|
State statute prohibiting advertising prescription prices = invalid restriction on speech.
Economic reasoning did NOT remove it from protection
Overruled Christensen: found purely economic and purely commercial had a balance of interests associated with it
|
Central Hudson Gas and Elec. v. Public Service Commission NY (1980)
|
During arab oil embargo, price tripled overnight; northern states need oil for heat; Law = can't advertise use of energy
Constitutional analysis = 4-part test
1. Legality of speech
2. Substantial governmental interest
3. Direct advancement of governmental interest
4. Least restric…
|
Rubin v. Coors Brewing Co. (1995)
|
Coors wanted to put alc. content on labels, found illegal under fed. restriction
Coors won: Court rejected federal restriction against beer companies putting alcohol content on labels;
Did not directly & materially advance the governmental interest
|
First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (1978)
|
Rejected statute prohibiting corporate political speech
Political speech by a business isn't as protected as by an individual
|
Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990)
|
Michigan law prohibiting corporations from using corporate funds for state campaigns
Upheld statute because compelling governmental interest was found: unfair influence on elections
|
Board of Regents of Univ. Wisconsin v. Southworth (2000)
|
Christian student didn't want general use fees to go to certain activities, felt forced to support issue
University won: schools can impose fees if it supports means of dialogue for dynamic issues, and funds went to both sides of argument
|
County of Allegheny v. ACLU Pittsburgh (1989)
|
Manger scene donated by Catholic group, city set up 18-ft menorah next to 45-ft Christmas tree; ACLU sued to have both removed
Manger scene appeared to take a position on questions of religious belief and it had to be removed, but menorah didn't exactly endorse a specific religion so …
|
Van Orden v. Perry (2005)
|
10 Commandments display put up by TX government received as part of grouping of monuments around capital
Display was legal, TX had valid purpose: Among 21 historical markers & 17 monuments; given to state by Eagles, recognized civic efforts of Eagles
|
McCreary County, KY, et. al. v. ACLU Kentucky (2005)
|
10 commandments display put up by KY government as part of other documents related to government/religion
ACLU won: document was part of "Foundations of American Law and Government Display" obviously showed bias
|
Dept of HR Oregon v. Smith (1990)
|
Employment Division, Dept of Human Resources of the State of Oregon v. Smith '90
Oregon law made it illegal to ingest peyote, worker did under guise of religion
Oregon won: law was upheld bc it did have a valid purpose & did not violate Free Exercise Clause of 1st Amendment; judges d…
|
Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao Do Vegetal (2006)
|
Church-goers drank hallucinogenic tea for communion; did the seizure of hoasca shipment violate the RFRA (Religious Freedom Restoration Act '93)?
Church won: could NOT show a compelling governmental objective barring the use of tea
|
Brigham City v. Stuart (2006)
|
Exception to exclusionary rule: police can enter homes without a warrant if they have reasonable belief that someone is seriously injured or threatened
|
Hudson v. Michigan (2006)
|
"Knock-and-announce" = have to wait before entering or else evidence is excluded
|
Georgia v. Randolph (2006)
|
Warrantless search is valid when you have voluntary consent of a roommate who lives with someone who later rejected the search.
|
Illinois v. Rodriguez (1990)
|
warrantless search is not allowed of a present co-occupant refuses to allow entry, even if the other co-occupant allowed it
|
Kelo v. City of New London (2005)
|
City approved dvpmt plan need 90 acres to revitalize area
-Is the city's proposed use considered a public use?
-Court affirmed authority to take property, reminding the city that if undue hardships are caused the land can be taken back.
The meaning of public purpose for eminent doma…
|
Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942)
|
Statute provided for compulsory sterilization of habitual criminals who have been convicted 2+ times of different areas of law (like grand larceny, but not for criminals in embezzlement cases)
Law = unconstitutional; no logical basis for separation
Case of JUDICIAL REVIEW
|
Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Ward (1985)
|
Alabama tax law that taxed non-resident insurance co's at higher rate than resident companies
Disallowed as not legitimate purpose under equal protection clase of 14th Amendment
|
Griswold v. Connecticut
|
Use of contraceptives was illegal under state statute
Found Connecticut law to be illegal; violated rights of privacy under B of R
|
Roe v. Wade (1972)
|
declared TX law prohibiting abortion in 1st trimester = violation of women's right to privacy
|
Lawrence v. Texas (2003)
|
Crime for same-sex couples to engage in sexual conduct;
Violation of Due Process clause and right of privacy
|
US Trust Co of NY v. NJ (1977)
|
Statute that decreased the value of state guaranteed bonds which had been sold before passage of the statute by increasing their risk after the statute was passed
Declared unconstitutional
|
Allied Structural Steel v. Spannaus (1974)
|
State regulation of private pension funds = unconstitutional
It altered significantly the contractual obligations of employers under perviously existing private, unregulated pension funds
|
Caperton v. Massey Coal Company (2009)
|
...
|