Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
FCLE Landmark Cases 2024 (solved
Typology: Exams
1 / 8
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
Marbury v. Madison (1803) - answer Article III, judicial review McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) - answer Commerce clause Implied powers Supremacy clause Brown v. Board of Education (1954) - answer 14th Amendment - equal protection Mapp v. Ohio (1961) - answer 4th Amendment- Exclusionary Rule, Evidence illegally cannot be used in a court of law. Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) - answer 6th Amendment- right to counsel
Miranda v. Arizona (1966) - answer 5th Amendment - right to due process and be informed of your rights U.S. v. Nixon (1974) - answer Article II, president is not above the law Texas v. Johnson (1989) - answer 1st Amendment- even objectional speech/expression is protected Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) - answer 1st Amendment - freedom of speech extends to students...to a point (not interfering with the learning environment) Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988) - answer 1st Amendment
Schenck v. U.S. - answer 1st Amendment - limits free speech Shaw v. Reno - answer 14th Amendment, Equal Protection regarding racially drawn districts. U.S. v. Lopez - answer Article I - Proper and Necessary Clause... DENIED Wisconsin v. Yoder - answer Amendment 1 - Free Exercise Clause Marbury v. Madison (1803) - answer Established judicial review. Judicial review= The power of the courts to review actions of the legislative and executive branches. McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) - answer 1. The Necessary and Proper Clause gives Congress the implied power to establish banks.
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) - answer Racial segregation did not violate the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. This case established the "separate but equal" doctrine. Schenck v. U.S. (1919) - answer Schenck's conviction under the Espionage Act for criticizing the draft did not violate his 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech. The was the first time the court articulated the "clear and present danger" test. Korematsu v. United States (1944) - answer The evacuation order for Americans of Japanese descent was valid. The Court found that the order did not show racial prejudice but rather was based on national security concerns. Brown v. Board of Education (1954) - answer Separate but equal educational facilities for racial minorities are inherently unequal, violating the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Mapp v. Ohio (1961) - answer All evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the 4th Amendment is inadmissible in a state court. This case incorporated the exclusionary rule. Baker v. Carr (1962) - answer Legislative apportionment is a justiciable issue. 14th Amendment equal protection issues in the redistricting process are subject to judicial evaluation.
United States v. Nixon (1974) - answer The president's right to keep certain information confidential, using his "executive privilege" power, does not mean the president is entirely immune from judicial review. By ruling that presidential power is not absolute, this decision shows a commitment to the rule of law. Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) - answer States cannot use racial quotas in affirmative action programs for college admissions. Other types of affirmative action programs can be used since creating a diverse classroom environment is a compelling state interest under the 14th Amendment. Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988) - answer A principal's decision to delete certain articles in a student newspaper did not violate the students' rights under the 1st Amendment. Texas v. Johnson (1989) - answer The desecration of an American flag, by burning or otherwise, is a form of protected speech under the 1st Amendment. Shaw v. Reno (1993) - answer North Carolina's creation of a racially gerrymandered district raised constitutional issues under the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.
U.S. v. Lopez (1995) - answer The Gun-Free School Zones Act, forbidding individuals from knowingly carrying a gun in a school zone, was unconstitutional because it exceeded the power of Congress to legislate under the Commerce Clause. Bush v. Gore (2000) - answer Florida's scheme for recounting ballots was unconstitutional because it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) - answer Provisions of the DC code that restricted the licensing of handguns and required firearms kept in the home to be nonfunctional violated the 2nd Amendment. McDonald v. Chicago (2010) - answer The Second Amendment applies to the states because it is incorporated by the 14th Amendment. Citizens United v. FEC (2010) - answer Under the 1st Amendment, corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited.
