SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

1) Jones v. Mayer – NO: There can be no discrimination in the buying and selling of property based on race.

2) Regents UC v. Bakke – YES: Strict government supported racial quotas violated the equal protection clause BUT race could be used as one criteria for admissions, supporting affirmative action.

SCOTUS OUTCOMESRace

3) Grutter v. Bollinger – NO: The school used more than just race to accept or reject an applicant. Diversity as a goal is OK.

4) Ricci v. DeStefano – NO: There was no evidence that the city would be held liable for discrimination if it hired qualified white candidates.

SCOTUS OUTCOMESRace

1) Frontiero v. Richardson – YES: The practice was discriminatory based on gender.

2) Craig v. Boren – YES: It was a law based on gender classification and generalities based on groups.

3) United States v. Virginia – NO: A male only school does not support educational diversity and VWIL did not provide the same type of education opportunity as VMI.

SCOTUS OUTCOMESGender

1) Romer v. Evans - YES: The Colorado law denied certain groups protection from discrimination.

2) Lawrence & Garner v. Texas - YES: Consenting adults may not be prevented from performing intimate acts in their own homes.

3) Hurley v. Irish-American GLIB Association - NO: Private groups or individuals have the right to decide what they want to say or not say.

SCOTUS OUTCOMESSexual Orientation

4) BSA v. Dale - YES: The law violates the right of association of a private organization.

5) Johnson v. City of Biloxi - TBD: Watch your Current Affairs for case outcomes dealing with same sex marriage and “equal protection.”

6) Christian Legal Society v. Martinez – YES: Hastings College’s conditions on recognizing students groups are neutral and reasonable and do not violate the First Amendment.

SCOTUS OUTCOMESSexual Orientation

1) Roe v. Wade - YES: A women’s right to privacy gives her the decision about an abortion in the 1st trimester.

2) Planned Parenthood v. Casey – YES for #1 (24 hours), and NO for #2 (husband notification). It was an “undue burden.” YES for #3 (parental notification)

3) Gonzales v. Carhart - NO: The court held that partial-birth abortion was different from other methods and it was never found to be needed to save the life of a pregnant mother.

SCOTUS OUTCOMESBirth Control & Abortion

1. Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. of Health -NO: The court stated that the interest of incompetent individuals requires heightened scrutiny.

2. Washington v. Glucksberg - NO: Assisted suicide is not protected by “due process.” The state has a legitimate interest in the preservation of human life.

SCOTUS OUTCOMES End of Life

1) Mapp v. Ohio - NO: Evidence obtained in violation of the Constitution, whether the 1st or the 4th amendments, is not admissible.

2) Board of Education v. Earls – NO. There is a diminished expectation of privacy in sports participation and the schools drug testing policy is within the limits of the Fourth Amendment.

3) Kyllo v. U.S. - YES: The device allowed law enforcement to see things that they would otherwise have needed a warrant to physically enter the home.

SCOTUS OUTCOMESCriminal Procedures

4) Cupp v. Murphy - NO: If there is a possibility that evidence might be destroyed law enforcement does not a require warrant.

5) Illinois v. Wardlow - YES: Certain physical locations and emotional behaviors can justify detaining an individual.

6) Terry v. Ohio - NO: The search was limited to the suspect’s person and was considered necessary for the officers safety.

SCOTUS OUTCOMESCriminal Procedure

7) Knowles v. Iowa - NO: An officer can only search without a warrant if their safety is at risk.

8) Miranda v. Arizona - YES: A criminal suspect cannot be denied their ‘due process’ rights.

9) Hiibel v. 6th Dist. Court of Nevada - NO: The search was based on reasonable suspicion and minimal intrusion. Giving their name does not actually incriminate a suspect.

SCOTUS OUTCOMESCriminal Procedures

10) Hudson v. Michigan - NO. Evidence need not be excluded when police violate the "knock-and-announce" rule.

11) Wyoming v. Houghton - YES. So long as there is probable cause to search a stopped vehicle, all subsequent searches of its contents are legal as well.

12) Robinson v. California – YES. Treating drug addiction as a punishable offense is cruel and unusual punishment.

13) Ferguson v. City of Charleston - YES. The diagnostic tests constituted an unreasonable search if the patient has not consented to the procedure.

SCOTUS OUTCOMESCriminal Procedures

1) Roberts v. Louisiana - YES: Mandating the death penalty for certain crimes does not allow for “mitigating circumstances.”

2) Ford v. Wainright - YES: Executing an insane person is “cruel and unusual” and Florida should have followed “due process” to determine sanity/insanity.

3) Roper v. Simmons - YES: Standards of decency have evolved so that executing minors is “cruel and unusual” punishment.

4) Kennedy v. Louisiana - YES: If a crime is not intended to result in death and there are alternative sentencing methods then the death penalty would be “cruel and unusual” punishment.

SCOTUS OUTCOMES Capital Punishment

1) Tinker v. Des Moines School Dist.-YES: It is an expression of ‘pure speech’ and there was no indication that it would interfere with school discipline.

2) Morse v. Fredrick- YES: Messages supporting illegal drug use are not appropriate expressions of free speech especially at public schools.

3) Brandenburg v. Ohio- YES: The law was too broad. Advocating certain ideas does not mean that they will cause violence.

SCOTUS OUCOMESFreedom of Speech

4. Cohen v. California - YES: Speech directed at ideas and not individuals is protected. Laws cannot prevent the expression of emotion or ideas.

5. Miller v. California - NO: Obscene materials do not enjoy Free Speech protection.

6. FCC v. Pacifica Foundation - NO: Broadcasting offensive words may be prohibited depending on the type of words and the circumstances.

SCOTUS OUCOMESFreedom of Speech

7) Hazelwood School Dist. V. Kuhlmeier- NO: If student speech does not meet school or community standards it is not protected.

8) Texas v. Johnson – YES: It is “symbolic speech” related to political expression.

9) Barnes v. Glen Theatre – NO: The government is responsible for maintaining order and morality

10) Reno v. ACLU - YES: The law was vague in defining what it meant to restrict as obscene and indecent speech.

11) Virginia v. Black – YES: A state may not ban cross-burning as a general practice but may criminally prosecute someone who specifically burns a cross to intimidate.

SCOTUS OUCOMESFreedom of Speech

1) Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. Hialeah- YES: The city ordinance was targeting a particular religion and its belief.

2) Everson v. Board of Education- NO: The actions of the school district were providing services for all students regardless of religion.

3) Engel v. Vitale- YES: The prayer represented an officially approved religion by the State of NY.

4) Lemon v. Kurtzman- YES: The law would entangle the states in religious schooling.

SCOTUS OUCOMESFreedom of Religion

5) Lee v. Weisman- YES: The school’s rule to observe prayer constitutes coercion to conform to a religion.

6) Elk Grove United School District v. Newdow – NO: Newdow did not have standing to bring suit because he did not have custody over his daughter.

7) Van Orden v. Perry – NO: The establishment clause did not ban the monument on the grounds of Texas' state capitol building. Though the Commandments are religious "simply having religious content or promoting a message consistent with a religious doctrine does not run afoul of the establishment clause."

SCOTUS OUCOMESFreedom of Religion

5) Zelman v. Simmons-Harris – NO: The voucher program does not violate the Establishment Clause. Ohio's program is part of Ohio's general undertaking to provide educational opportunities to children, and does not promote a certain religion.

6) Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita – YES: The government had failed to prove a compelling interest in regulating the UDV's use of drugs for religious purposes.

SCOTUS OUCOMESFreedom of Religion

1) Printz v. U.S. - NO: The Federal government cannot compel State officials to perform Federal tasks.

2) D.C. v. Heller - YES: The law was so broad that its effect was to ban gun ownership.

SCOTUS OUCOMES2nd Amendment

1) Kelo v. City of New London - NO: The property was taken for public use as part of a broad development plan that would benefit the residents of the city.

2) Florida, Et al v. U.S. - NO: The court concluded that the Individual Mandate penalty is a tax for the purposes of the Constitution's Taxing and Spending Clause and is a valid exercise of Congressional authority.

3) Gonzales v. Raich – NO: The commerce clause gave Congress authority to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana.

4) MGM Studios v. Grokster – YES: Companies that distributed software, and promoted that software to infringe copyrights, were liable for the resulting acts of infringement.

SCOTUS OUCOMESProperty Rights & Commerce

True/False Test.

Look at the general outcome of the case.

To Review for Your TEST