Constitutional Law: Key Supreme Court Decisions on Free Speech and Equal Protection, Exams of History

Download Constitutional Law: Key Supreme Court Decisions on Free Speech and Equal Protection and more Exams History in PDF only on Docsity! Final for PLSI 552 Con Law Questions With Complete Solutions Schenck v. United States 249 U.S. 47 (1919) ......Correct Answers ......[Anti-draft leaflets] General Secretary of Socialist Party, mailed leaflets urging resistance to the draft. Charged with violating Espionage Act. Issue: Whether his actions are protected by the free speech clause of the 1st Amendment? Holding: No. Didn't actually interfere with the draft, but it was during wartime. Can regulate speech if it creates a clear and present danger. "Clear and Present Danger" Test ......Correct Answers ... ...If the words used in circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the problems the law is aimed to prevent. Content + Context. "Bad Tendency" Test ......Correct Answers ......Regulating speech on the potential, even remote, of harm resulting. Do the words have a tendency to bring about evil consequences? Gitlow v. New York 268 U.S. 652 (1925) ......Correct Answers ......Socialist arrested for distributing a "left-wing manifesto," violating state's criminal anarchy law. Issue: Whether the statute deprived the defendant of his liberty of expression in violation of the due process clause. Holding: Yes, 1st applies to states by due process through 14th. The Manifesto is the language of direct incitement and urging to action. Establishes test: a state may forbid speech and publication if they have a tendency to result in action dangerous to public security, even though such utterances create no clear and present danger. Preferred Freedoms Test ......Correct Answers .... ..The judiciary will apply special scrutiny to laws that appear to restrict freedom of expression, especially as those laws related to the articulation of unpopular political views. Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951) ......Correct Answers ......11 leaders of Nat'l Board of the Communist Part were indicted for violating the Smith Act (conspiring to teach/advocate the overthrow of the gov. by force) Issue: whether Smith Act's restrictions violate the 1st Amendment? Held: No, upheld conviction. Within power of Congress to prohibit acts intended to overthrow gov. by force/violence. Established Clear & Present Danger Test. 1st Amendment ......Correct Answers ... ..."Congress shall make no law...abridging thefreedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." innate characteristics, such as sex, race, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation. Imminent lawless action ......Correct Answers .... .. Strict Scrutiny ......Correct Answers ......1.) Compelling govt. interest 2.) Least restrictive means of achieving that interest. Use when fundamental rights or suspect classification/immutable rights are involved.Burden of proof is on the govt. to demonstrate that the law is constitutional "Strict Scrutiny" test ......Correct Answers ......1) Compelling Governmental Interest 2) Least restrictive means Use for fundamental rights/suspect classifications Symbolic Speech ......Correct Answers ...... United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968) ......Correct Answers ......[Destroying Draft Cards] Petitioner convicted for violating 1965 Universal Military Training and Service Act to alter, knowingly destroy, knowingly mutilate a draft card, by burning draft card on front step of local courthouse. Issue: whether the 1965 Amendment was unconstitutional/his act was protected "symbolic speech" within 1st amendment? Holding: No. Amendment is constitutional. Conduct to express an idea =/= automatic 1st amendment protection. Government regulation is justified: 1. within constitutional power of gov. 2. if it furthers substantial/important government interest 3. government interest is unrelated to suppression of free speech. 4. if incidental restriction on alleged 1st Amendment freedoms is no greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest. Expressive Conduct ......Correct Answers ......Conduct that also contains elements of speech. Examples of expressive conduct: mass demonstrations, picketing, effigy burnings, and flag desecration. Key question: When does conduct cease to be merely behavior and translate into speech? Texas v. Johnson 491 U.S. 397 (1989) ......Correct Answers ......[Flag Burning] Petitioner burned an American flag in front of city hall to protest policies. Issue: whether desecration of American flag, burning or otherwise, is a form of speech that's protected under 1st Am? Whether it's expressive conduct? Holding: Yes it's expressive conduct. State's restriction/law is content-based: strict scrutiny.Determines when conduct translates into speech. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire 315 U.S. 568 (1942) ......Correct Answers .... ..[Fighting Words] Jehovah's Witness called a city marshal a "***-damned racketeer" in a public space. Arrested and convicted for violating a breach of the peach. Issue: Whether the state law infringes petitioners freedom of speech protected by the 1st Am? Holding: No. Obscenity, fighting words, etc., do not convey ideas and are not protected. He uttered fighting words - words that inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. Outweighed by social interest in order and morality. Cohen v. California 403 U.S. 15 (1971) ......Correct Answers ......[FTD Jacket] Petitioner wore a jacket in the courthouse saying "F∩CK the Draft." Charged under state statute. Issue: Whether state statute - prohibiting display of offensive messages - violate freedom of expression as protected by the 1st Am? Holding: Yes, okay to have offensive words. They were provocative, but not directed at anyone (not a fighting word). One man's vulgarity is another's lyric.Therefore protects: 1) the emotive; expression of emotion, and 2) cognitive; expression of ideas.Can regulate time, place, manner, but not content. Permits from Local Government (1): Content of Message ......Correct Answers ...... that may undermine the school's important mission to discourage drug use. West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette 319 U.S. 624(1943) ......Correct Answers ......[Flag Salute] Requirement for the flag salute to be part of all public schools and honored by all teachers and pupils. Jehovah's witness was expelled for refusing to comply. Issue: Whether compelling & forcing flag-salute violates the 1st Amendment. H: Yes. Gobitis says it would be constitutional because of unexamined power. Here, the USSC examined their power and overruled Gobitis. Fundamental rights are not subject to a vote. Shouldn't let locals decided (Gobitis did). The USSC took a strong stand in favor of the FirstAmendment's and found a right not to speak. Near v. Minnesota 283 U.S. 697 (1931) ......Correct Answers ......[Anti- Semitic Publisher] Jay Near published a scandal sheet where he claimed local officials were implicated with gangsters. Officials obtained an injunction to prevent Near from publishing his newspaper under a state law. Near challenged the law, claiming it was tantamount to censorship. Issue: Whether a statute restraining publications is constitutional? H: Reversed. Statute infringes on liberty of the press. Unconstitutional. Protection against previous restraints is at the heart of the 1st Amendment. Established that, with some narrow exceptions, the government could not censor or otherwise prohibit a publication in advance. New York Times v. United States 403 U.S. 713 (1971) ......Correct Answers .... ..[Pentagon Papers Case] Nixon attempted to prevent NYT from publishing papers regarding history of U.S. activities in Vietnam. Gov. argued that prior restraint was necessary to protect national security. Issue: Whether constitutional freedom of the press outweighs gov.'s claimed need of security of info? H: (per curiam opinion)No. 1st Amendment protects newspaper; gov. can't stop publication. "Security" does not abrogate the 1st Amendment. Enlightened citizenry/informed critical public opinion protects values of democratic gov. Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier 484 U.S. 260 (1988) ......Correct Answers ......[School Newspaper] School's student newspaper planned to publish articles on divorce and teenage pregnancy. Principal excised two pages to protect student privacy. I: Whether the deletion of the articles violate students' rights under the 1st Amendment? H: No, no violation.Schools retain right to refuse to sponsor speech that was "inconsistent with the shared values of a civilized social order." Educators didn't violate 1st amendment as long as their actions were "reasonable related to legit pedagogical concerns." Exclude Info/Include Info ......Correct Answers ...... "Prior Restraint" on Speech ......Correct Answers ......Suppression of material that would be published or broadcast, on the grounds that it is libelous or harmful; a prohibition on speech BEFORE the expression actually takes place. See: [Near v. MN] Branzburg v. Hayes 408 U.S. 665 (1972) ......Correct Answers ......[Reporter Source Privilege] A reporter observed people synthesizing and using drugs and was called before a grand jury to implicate the people. He refused to appear before the grand jury. Issue: whether requiring that news reporters appear and testify before grand juries is an abridgement of the freedoms of speech and press as guaranteed by the 1st Am? H: No. disclosing confidential information serves a "compelling/paramount" state interest and does not violate. Involves no gov. intervention to impose prior restraint. Not privileged to withhold information during a gov. investigation. Facts: Hustler published a provocative 'Campari' ad parody, which offended conservative mega-pastor Jerry Falwell. Issue: Whether Hustler Magazine being found responsible for the intentional infliction of emotional distress upon a widely known public figure is consistent with the 1st and 14th? Holding: No. Falwell was a public figure and, as such, may not recover damages for intentional emotional distress from a magazine that published a piece of obvious satire that had the incidental effect of inflicting emotional distress. Roth v. United States (1957) ......Correct Answers ...... Jacobellis Memoirs ......Correct Answers ...... Miller v. California 413 U.S. 15 (1973) ......Correct Answers ......[Porn postcards] Adult material vendor violated state statute by conducting mass mail campaign to increase sales. Issue: Whether sale/distribution of obscene materials by mail is protected under the 1st Am freedom of speech through the 14th? H: No, obscene materials do not get 1st Am protection. Modified test for obscenity: whether a) average person, applying contemporary standards would find the work appealing to lustful interests b) the work depicts/describes clear sexual conduct as defined by state law c) the work lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. New York v. Ferber 458 U.S. 747 (1982) ......Correct Answers ......[Child porn] Book store owner sold films to undercover cops of underage boys masturbating. 20+ states prohibited distribution of child pornography without requiring that the material be legally obscene. Issue: Whether the state law is constitutional? H: Yes it is. 1. Gov. has compelling interest in preventing exploitation of children. 2. Distribution is related to sexual abuse. 3. Ad's/selling child porn provides economic motives for producing content. 4. Visual depictions of children + sexual activity is not artistically valued. 5. Child porn not protected by 1st Am. Need not be legally obscene before being outlawed. Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association 458 U.S. 747 (2011) ......Correct Answers ......[Video game violence] Plaintiff sued, claiming the State bill prohibiting sale of violent video games to minors violated freedom of speech of 1st and 14th Am's. Issue: Whether 1st Am prevents a state from restricting sale of violent video games to minors? H: Yes. Speech about violence is not obscene, only speech about sex is obscene.Video games & stories (Brothers Grimm) communicate ideas and social messages. "Substantive Due Process" ......Correct Answers ......focuses on the word liberty in the due process clauses to prevent the government from enacting certain laws or regulations. In other words, the due process is not only procedural in nature, but also entails substantive rights. Lochner v. New York (1905) ......Correct Answers ......[Example of Judicial Activism] Four Horsemen struck down a New York law prohibiting bakery employees from working more than ten hours per day and sixty hours per week. "Judicial Activism" .... ..Correct Answers ...... Griswold v. Connecticut 381 U.S. 479 (1965) ......Correct Answers ......[Contraception for Married Couples] Director of Planned Parenthood opened birth control clinic to challenge Poe v. Ullman which criminalized provision of counseling, med. treatment, to married people for preventing conception. I: Whether the constitution protects the right of marital privacy? H: Yes. Statute=unconstitutional. Peripheral rights help specific rights become more secure. Penumbral rights establish a right to privacy. "Invidious Discrimination" (definition) ......Correct Answers ......Legislation which specifically targets a class of people and seeks to deny them equal protection of the laws. AKA: 'discriminatory intent' Rational Basis ......Correct Answers ......Traditional test for analyzing equal protection claim. Asks: Is the challenged discrimination rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest?Hard for plaintiff to win Intermediate Scrutiny ......Correct Answers ......Governmental action must: 1.) serve an important governmental interest, and 2.) law must be substantially relate to the achievement of those objectives Applies to govt. discrimination based on gender and sexual preference Equal Protection Violation Elements ......Correct Answers ......1. State AND, 2. Person AND, 3. Equal Protection [V=(1&2&3)&~(1v2v3)] "state action" requirement ......Correct Answers ......States, Counties, Cities, Towns (and prima facie NOT Fed) Important Governmental Objective & Substantially related ......Correct Answers ...... Exceedingly Persuasive (gender) ......Correct Answers ... ... "Suspect class" ......Correct Answers ... ...A suspect class is a "discrete and insular minority" that has experienced a history of unequal treatment and a lack of political power. Ref: United States v. Carolene Products (1938) "Discrete and Insular Minority" ......Correct Answers ... ... United States v. Carolene Products ......Correct Answers ......Carolene Products Footnote Four (1937) Est. "Preferred Freedoms" -- freedoms so central to the constitutional order, that greater protection should exist for them (including, free speech under the First Amendment) Bolling v. Sharpe (1954) ......Correct Answers .... .. "Reverse Incorporation" ......Correct Answers .... .. Plessy v. Ferguson 163 U.S. 537 (1896) ......Correct Answers ......[Separate but equal = okay] Facts: LA enacted a law that required separate railway cars for blacks and whites. Issue: Whether the statute is a reasonable regulation? Holding: Yes, separate but equal is constitutional. Segregation did not itself constitute unlawful discrimination. Gaines v. Canada (1938) ......Correct Answers .... .. Cycle of Progress & Resistance to Change ......Correct Answers ...... Brown v. Board of Education (I) 347 US 483 (1954) ......Correct Answers .... ..[School Segregation] African American minors had been denied admittance to certain public schools based on public education racial segregation laws. I: Whether the segregation of public education based on race violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment? H: Yes. Not constitutional.Separate but equal educational facilities for racial minorities is inherently unequal violating EPC of the 14th AmendmentSegregation of public education based on race instills a sense of inferiority that has a hugely detrimental effects. Brown v. Board of Education (II) 349 US 294 (1955) ......Correct Answers .... ..[School Desegregation, 'All Deliberate Speed'] Requesting further arguments on remedies after the decision in Brown (1) declared racial discrimination in public education unconstitutional. I: What means should be used to implement the principles announced in Brown I? H: Warren urged localities to act on the new principles promptly and to move toward full compliance with them "with all deliberate speed."The courts will be guided by equitable principles. No consequences for not doing it. Mildred Jeter and Richard Loving charged with evading state's antimiscegenation law by leaving to marry with the intent to return. I: whether a statutory scheme to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classification violates the equal protection/due process clauses of the 14th Amendment? H: Yes, violates.Equal Protection Clause demands that racial classifications by subjected to the "most rigid scrutiny" (Korematsu v. U.S.) and must be necessary to the accomplishment of some permissible state objective, independent of the racial discrimination which is was the object of the 14th Am. to eliminate. Freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the pursuit of happiness. Washington v. Davis (1976) ......Correct Answers ......[EPC claim requires "Discriminatory Intent"] F: After the applications of two blacks were rejected by the District of Columbia Police Department, the two men filed suit against Mayor Walter E. Washington. The men alleged that the Department's recruiting procedures, including a written personnel test, discriminated against racial minorities. They claimed that the test was unrelated to job performance and excluded a disproportionate number of black applicants. I:Did the recruiting procedures violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? In a 7-to-2 decision, the Court held that the procedures and written personnel test did not constitute racial discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause. The Court found that the Clause was designed to prevent official discrimination on the basis of race; laws or other official acts that had racially disproportionate impacts did not automatically become constitutional violations. The Court reasoned that the D.C. Police Department's procedures did not have discriminatory intent and were racially neutral measures of employment qualification. "discriminatory index" ......Correct Answers ...... "discriminatory intent" ......Correct Answers ...... "disparate impact" ......Correct Answers ...... Shelley v. Kraemer 334 US 1 (1948) ......Correct Answers ......[Racially Restrictive Covenants] Property owners filed suit asking the court to divest the Shelley's of their property because of a restrictive covenant from 1911 forbidding respective properties to be occupied by anyone other than Caucasian. I: Whether the equal protection clause of the 14th prevents state courts from enforcing restrictive covenants (agreements) based on race or color? H: Since the restrictive agreements requires judicial enforcement, the state has made available to individuals the full coercive power of gov. which is not allowed/unconstitutional. Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority 365 U.S. 715 (1961) ......Correct Answers ......[Racist Coffee / State Action] Plaintiff, an African-American man, was denied service at the Eagle Coffee Shoppe, located in the Wilmington Parking Authority, (a tax-exempt, private corporation) because of his race. I: Whether their refusal to serve the petitioner constitute a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment? H: Yes. Violation to refuse service based on race.Private conduct abridging individual rights doesn't violate EPC unless the State or any of its manifestations are involved in it. Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Irvis 407 US 163 (1972) ......Correct Answers .... ..[Liquor License =/= State Action] Moose organization lodges limited membership to Caucasian people only - guests included. A white member brought a guest, who was a black man. I: Whether refusing service to a black man in a private club, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment? H: No. State is not involv. ed, no violation of EPC. USSC never held that discrimination by a private entity would violate EPC if the private entity receives any sort of benefit or service from the State or if it's subject to state regulation