Introducing 

Prezi AI.

Your new presentation assistant.

Refine, enhance, and tailor your content, source relevant images, and edit visuals quicker than ever before.

Loading…
Transcript

Required AP Cases of the Supreme Court

Engel v Vitale

A NY state law required public schools to open each day with a denominational prayer. Children were allowed to opt. out of it but a parent sued because it violated the 1st amendment

Engel v Vitale

Question

Does a required prayer in school violate the establishment clause of the 1st amendment which prohibits the governments involvment with religion

Question

Courts Ruling

Yes, even with the ability to opt. out, the mandated prayer would be government interference with religion. I would be unconstitutional to allow schools to hold a non-denominational prayer.

Courts Ruling

Impact

It became illegal for any government agency including public schools to hold group prayers

Impact

Wisonsin v Yoder

Jonas Yoder, Wallace Miller, and Adin Yutzy were all members of the Amish community. They were convicted of breaking the law requiring they send their kids to high school. Sending children to high school is against the Amish religion and sending them to high school would endanger their salvation.

Wisconsin v Yoder

Question

Does the law in Wisconsin requiring parents send their kids to school until age 16 violate the 1st amendment rights of parents who refues to send their kids to school for religious reasons?

Courts ruling

It was the majority belief of the supreme court that forcing parents to send children to school against their religious beliefs is unconsitutional. They believed that the Amish sending their kids to 2 extra years of school would not produce the results needed to warrant forcing them to do something against their religion.

Courts Ruling

Impact

Wisconsin v Yoder offered a new perspective to the debate between parental and state control over education. It led to a series of supreme court decisions concerning parental control over education. (Meyer v. Nebraska, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, and Farrington v. Tokushige). Yoder also helped the supreme court in it's long struggle to properly interpret the establishment clause. The court established the brief action destinction which said that though the First Amendment protected religious beliefs, citizens could still be held responsible for actions emanating from those beliefs that violated state or federal laws.

NY Times v US

In 1967 the Secretary of Defense ordered a secret study on the US involvement in Vietnam. When it was finished it was over 7000 pages and labeled classified with only 15 copies made. In 1971 an employee who worked on the project secretly made copies and distributed them to the the NY Times. When the Nixon Administration caught wind of this they ordered a restraining order that stopped the NY Times from printing stories about the classified information.

NY Times v US

Question

Did the executive branch's effort to censor classified information without the approval of congress violate the 1st amendment freedom of the press?

Question

Courts Ruling

The 6 majority judges had differing but concurrent opinions. Justice Black and Justice Douglas argued that "only a free and unrestrained press can expose corruption in the government. Justice White argued that the executive branch cannot censor the press without the approval of congress. Justice Brennan argued that the vague reasoning for a national security threat did not warrant the censorship. Justice Stewart and Marshall said that without the guidance of congress they could not grant the executive branch broad censorship power. Ultimately the court allowed the NY Times to print stories.

Courts Ruling

Impact

As a result of the ruling the court adopted a “heavy presumption against prior restraint,”. The government must meet a heavy burden of justification before it can restrain the press from exercising its First Amendment right to publish. This would mean the court would find most cases of government censorship of the press unconstitutional.

Schenck v US

During WWI Charles Schenck was handing out pamphlets that urged people to disobey the draft as they considered it a violation of their 13th amendment rights to not be subjected to indentured servitude. He was convicted of violating the espionage act.

Schenck v US

Question

Did the conviction under the espionage act violate Schneck's right to free speech under the 1st amendment? Does teh espionage act violate the 1st amendment during war time?

Courts Ruling

In a unanimous decision written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, the Supreme Court upheld Schenck’s conviction and found that the Espionage Act did not violate Schenck’s First Amendment right to free speech. When it came to the Act’s alleged violation of the First Amendment, the Court found that context was the most important factor. The Court said that, while “in many places and in ordinary times” the leaflet would have been protected, the circumstances of a nation at war allowed for greater restrictions on free speech. In other words, the espionage act was a constitutional use of war-time power.

Courts Ruling

Impact

Schneck v US further solidified the power of congress during wartime. The freedom of speech protection granted in the 1st Amendment could be restricted if the words spoken or printed represented to society a “clear and present danger.” During wartime congress has some power to restrict free speech if it endangers the war effort

McDonald v Chicago

Chicago passed a handgun ban law. Several lawsuits were filed as it was believed that the handgun ban violated the 2nd amendment and challenged a supreme court decision that a handgun ban was illegal in DC. Suits said that the 2nd amendment also applied to states and the ban was therefore unconsitutional.

McDonald v Chicago

Question

Federal law applies to DC because it is not a state so there is no quesiton the 2nd amendment applies there. Should the 2nd amendment apply to the ban in Chicago as it is a state law that banned handguns.

Courts Ruling

In a 5-4 decision the supreme court ruled that the ban in Chicago was unconstitutional. The 2nd amendment was a fundamental freedom. The 2nd amendment also applies to the states through the 14th amendment due process clause.

Courts Ruling

Impact

The impact is that the 2nd amendment and all other federal laws where also applied to states through the due process clause. Federal laws also apply to state laws.

Citizens United v Federal Elections Commision

Citizens United v Federal Election Commision

The campaign reform act of 2002 banned private corporations from direct political spending on contributions to political campaigns. Citizens United was prohibited from presenting an anti-Hilary Clinton mvie.

Question

Does the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 apply to nonprofit organizations or does the free speech clause of the 1st amendment protect those organizations.

Courts Ruling

The political speech of corporations is protected under the 1st amendment. The Supreme Court said that corporations should be treated as people in regard to free speech. This would include political speech which is protected by the 1st amendment.

Courts Ruling

Impact

Had a major impact on the political campaign funds. Allowed unlimited spending by corporations and labor unions fueling super PACS. Led to other rulings, including McCutcheon v. FEC (2014), which would strike down other campaign finance restrictions.

Baker v Carr

The early 1900s saw both population increases and rapid urban migration in America. In Tennessee, more people were voting in urban areas but they still had the same amount of political representation as rural districts with significantly fewer residents. In 1960, roughly two-thirds of Tennessee’s representatives were being elected by one-third of the state’s population. A group of urban voters including Memphis resident Charles Baker sued Tennessee Secretary of State Joseph Carr for more equal representation.

Question

This constitutional question was less about the actual case and more about the authority of the supreme court. Does the supreme court have the authority to hear cases concerning legislative appointment?

Courts Ruling

Because of the 14th amendment issues that the case addressed, the Supreme Court did have the authority to hear the case. Previous court intervention in apportionment affairs and equal protection under the 14th amendment gave the court enough reason to rule on legislative apportionment. Court gained power to rule on apportionment laws.

Impact

This decision opened the floodgates for similar lawsuits that redrew election maps around the country. It opened the door for more challenges to unfair redistricting by the way of teh equal protection clause.

Shaw v Reno

After the 1990 census, the North Carolina General Assembly redrew its congressional districts to account for changes in population. Only one district in this new map was a “majority-minority” district. The US Department of Justice, led by Attorney General Janet Reno, rejected North Carolina’s district plan, instructing the state assembly to add another majority-minority district in order to comply with recent amendments to the Voting Rights Act. The proposed second district was oddly-shaped, following along a highway for nearly the entire length of the state.

Shaw v Reno

Question

Was racial gerrymandering in place when the district was drawn? Does the district raise any issues with the equal protection clause?

Question

Courts Ruling

The majority decision was that the district was shaped in such a way that it was clear there was a very strong effort to separate voters by race. There was strong evidence to suggest racial gerrymandering.

Courts Ruling

Impact

The Court ruled that claims of racial redistricting must be held to a standard of strict scrutiny. Any law that results in classification by race must have a compelling government interest, be narrowly tailored to meet that goal, and be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest.

Learn more about creating dynamic, engaging presentations with Prezi