Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

image - Coggle Diagram

- - - - The court said that the death penalty was appropriate here because it was done correctly under the Georgia death penalty laws.
      - A jury found Gregg guilty of armed robbery and murder and was sentenced to death. He argued it was “cruel and unusual” under the 8th amendment.
    - - The court said that the 6th amendment guaranteed trial by jury in criminal cases because it was fundamental to the American scheme of justice.
      - A black teen was found guilty of assaulting a white man. He was sentenced 60 days in jail and 150 in fines. His request for trial by jury was denied.
    - - A man was robbing a home and accidentally killed one. He was sentenced to death. Did this count as cruel and unusual punishment?
      - The court ruled that it was against the Constitution, and suggested states to reconsider death penalties to exclude racial and other biases.
    - - A 17 year old was sentenced to death, and after other trials, the decision was taken to the Supreme Court. The argument was that changing standards had made the execution of minors not wanted in society.
      - The court ruled that the death penalty is a disproportionate punishment for minors, and that the viewpoints of americans had changed and it was not viewed as ethical.
  - - - Yes, because the 5th amendment gives citizens the right to contest their detention before a neutral decision maker.
      - A US Citizen was arrested in Afghanistan after being accused of fighting with the Taliban. He was held in prison indefinitely. Was this against due process?
    - - Although the state supreme court ruled against them, the Supreme Court reversed their convictions because his confession was coerced.
      - Two men were convicted because of murder. They claimed to have been interrogated in an abusive manner and that their confessions had not been voluntary.
    - - The court said that the interrogation that gave this specific evidence was illegal under the 5th amendment’s protection against self-incrimination. The officer had to first inform the suspect of his rights, and then the suspect can choose whether to waive his rights or not.
      - A man was arrested and interrogated by police officers without being told his 5th amendment rights. Using the evidence, a jury found him guilty.
    - - The court ruled that the supplemental instruction was inadequate. The psychiatric report had an impact on the jury, and the claim that 5th amendment rights were violated was ignored.
      - Penry was found guilty for murder, and was sentenced to death. A psychiatric evaluation deemed him a threat if released. At the trial, the jury judge gave the jury advice and supplemental instruction on mitigating evidence.
    - - During questioning, Dickerson confessed to participating in robberies. The FBI stated that they read him his Miranda rights before the confession, while Dickerson said it was after.
      - The court said that Miranda rights were routine, and that even they wouldn’t overrule if it was voluntary or not.
    - - No, the court ruled that it wasn’t because the body would have been found anyway without Williams assistance.
      - Williams was arrested for killing a 10 year old girl. He was read his Miranda rights after his arrest, and gave info to the police without a lawyer present. Was the evidence illegal because it was obtained improperly?
    - - The court said that it did not go against the 5th amendment taking clause. The city had not taken the property to benefit only private developers, but as a part of a public economic development plan.
      - The City took private property to sell it to private developers in hopes of creating jobs and increasing tax revenue. Some owners sued and argued that it wasn’t for public use because it was being sold to private developers.
  - - - The court ruled that the search was within reason in the circumstances it was made on.
      - School officials searched TLO’s purse suspecting she had cigarettes. They found illegal substances and she was sentenced to 1 year in probation. The NJ SC reversed saying the search was against the 4th amendment rights.
    - - The court said that the search by the officer was reasonable, because he acted on a hunch and that any prudent man would have feared they were armed and a threat to the officer’s life while he was investigating their suspicious behavior.
      - A plain clothes police officer searched three men and found concealed firearms after suspecting they were robbing. One of the men, Terry, appealed saying it violated 4th amendment rights.
    - - The court did not consider any 1st amendment rights, but rather said that all evidence seized in violation of the 4th amendment is inadmissible in a state court.
      - Mapp was convicted after police found obscene material in an illegal search. She appealed saying that it violated her freedom of expression.
    - - The court ruled in favor of Illinois, saying that the Constitution didn’t require police to have reasonable suspicion to have a drug detection dog. The dog only alerted of an illegal drug.
      - A drug detection dog alerted of drugs in a car. The police searched and arrested Cabelles. He argued that the search violated the 4th amendment.
    - - In a certain county in Florida, officers boarded buses and asked to search people’s belongings. The passenger could refuse the search. One man let the police search, and the police found illegal drugs. In court, he argued that the search was illegal because the officers didn’t let the passengers leave the bus to avoid questioning.
      - The court ruled in favor of Florida, because the suspect had the option to deny being searched. Furthermore, he knew he had illegal substances, yet still agreed to the search.
    - - Oklahoma adopted a urine test policy for all students participating in extracurricular activities. 2 students sued, arguing it was against the 4th amendment.
      - The court ruled in favor of the Board of Education, because it was in the school’s interest to keep drugs off student and school grounds, and urine tests do not invade privacy.
    - - Yes, because it violated the 4th amendment, and allowing it would make the 4th amendment worthless.
      - Police seized papers that were used for transporting lottery tickets through the mail. This was done without a warrant. Did the search and seizure violate the 4th amendment.
    - - Leon’s house was searched and they found illegal drugs. The police searched with a warrant, but the judge at the trial said that the warrant didn’t have enough probable cause.
      - The court ruled that the police acted in good faith because they acted under the warrant a judge gave them. The exclusionary rule would let this guilty defendant free and people would lose respect for the law.
    - - Suspicious of transmitting gambling information, police wiretapped a phone booth on the outside. He was convicted, but was the way the info was illegal?
      - Yes, because although the police argued it was placed outside the booth, the 4th amendment protects people, not places.
  - - - Yes, because the court said that the trial denied due process and opportunity to secure help in their defense.
      - 9 men were convicted in an extremely quick trial. The attorneys didn’t even consult with their clients. Did this violate due process?
    - - A man was convicted because of breaking and entering, but he was denied a lawyer because of a Florida law that only appointed lawyers to indigent defendants. Was this against the 6th amendment?
      - Yes, because the law assures that an attorney will always be provided.
    - - The court ruled in favor of Escobedo; the police’s actions were in violation of the 6th amendment, and the case investigators had to find other ways of proving murder.
      - Escobedo was arrested because of murder; he asked for a lawyer multiple times and was denied one. He appealed saying that the way the confession was obtained was illegal.
  - - - Yes, because the amendment was meant to apply to the “able-bodied men”. The code let only government personnel carry guns, which is against the reason why the amendment was written in the first place.
      - A new law in DC required registered handguns to be non functional even if kept at home. Heller was an officer, and he applied to register his personal handgun for home, but was denied, so he sued DC arguing that the code violated his 2nd amendment rights. Did it?
  - - - After an investigation of illegal drug-use in schools, the district adopted a policy of random urine tests to protect student from injuries in sports. A student was denied participation in a football game for refusing the urine test.
      - The court ruled in favor of the district, because students enjoy less freedom in school than free adults, and the circumstances were that the school wanted student to be free of injury because of using drugs.
    - - Three people were arrested for conspiracy to perform an abortion. The evidence was seized illegally.
      - The court decided that illegally obtained evidence did not have to be excluded from all trials.
    - - The court said that the law was in Congress’s power, because although this certain use of marijuana was local, it was part of a bigger national drug market, and it was in the federal power to regulate interstate commerce.
      - California passed a law that allowed marijuana for medical use. DEA officers seized it forma certain patient, and medical user of marijuana sued the DEA. They argued that the federal controlled substances laws exceeded congress’s power by the commerce clause.
    - - The court ruled that the law did protect couples from state statutes on contraceptives. The Bill of rights doesn’t provide general right to privacy, but the various rights stated in the Bill of rights give it.
      - Two women were arrested because they opened a birth control clinic in Connecticut, under state law. DId the law protect marital privacy?
    - - The court said that the law does protect a pregnant woman. Setting up 3 parts in pregnancy, only the first ⅓ of the pregnancy is private, and then the remaining can be regulated by the state law.
      - Roe challenged the Texas law making abortion illegal. She argued it invaded her personal privacy and were vague.
    - - The Society of Sisters held education for youths and orphans. A new law required children to go to a public school where they resided. Was this law against the parents freedom to choose their children’s education?
      - Yes, because the law was forcing parents and students to receive instruction from public teachers only.
    - - The court, though divided, said that it didn’t and that it was in the state’s interest to protect potential life. Basically, all the parts challenged of the law were not unconstitutional.
      - A Missouri law prohibited abortion unless it was to save the mother’s life. It also provided counseling for mothers to encourage them to not abort. Did these restrictions violate privacy?
    - - All the other restrictions were constitutional, with the exception of husband-consulting. Therefore, a minor had to have consent of 1 parent, and there had to be a 24 hour wait before the abortion.
      - New Pennsylvania legislature set restrictions on abortion, including consulting with your husband if married. Was this against the precedents set in Roe v Wade?
- - - - Grayned v. City of Rockford
        (1972)
        
        A law prohibited noise that would interfere with learning at a school. Grayned was convicted for those reasons, and he appealed to the Supreme Court saying that the law violated the 1st amendment, was this true?
        
        No, because although the 1st amendment allows free speech and protesting, the way it is done should be within reason, and Grayned's noise was disturbing learning in school.
      - Near v. Minnesota (1931)
        
        A newspaper accused local officials of being implicated with gangsters. Officials were able to get a permanent injunction on these defamatory news. Did this violate the freedom of expression?
        
        Yes, because even though a future publication could be classified as a nuisance, it wasn't a given, and the officials could not stop them from publishing.
    - - Meyer v. Grant (1988)
        
        Paid petition circulation is protected by the 1st amendment.
      - Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation (1999)
        
        Did the State of Colorado's imposition of name, badge, and financial disclosure requirements, on initiative-petition proponents and their circulators, violate the 1st Amendment's freedom of speech protections?
        
        Yes, the court found that the restrictions imposed outweighed the benefits of their initiative-petition process.
      - NAACP v. Button (1963)
        
        The NAACP was prosecuted for violating a Virginia statute which banned "the improper solicitation of any legal or professional business." Was this unconstitutional?
        
        Yes, Virginia could not prohibit that type of expression.
    - - Morse v. Frederick (2007)
        
        Yes; student have limited rights in school, and promoting drug use undermines a school's mission of discouraging drug use.
        
        A student held a sign promoting drug use. The principal took away the sign and suspended the student for 10 days. Did the 1st amendment allow schools to prohibit students from displaying messages promoting illegal drug use?
      - Virginia v. Black (2003)
        
        Yes, but Virginia can ban the burning of a cross when there's an intent to intimidate a person.
        
        Three people were convicted because they burned a cross in a public place, which violated Virginia's statute. Did this statute violate the 1st Amendment?
      - Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)
        
        Yes, because once student enter school, they do not lose their rights. This policy that was made before the student wore the armbands was made on the speculation that it would disturb learning, not that it actually happened.
        
        A group of students wore armbands to protest against the Vietnam War in school. The school principals heard and made a policy to prohibit this, and they were sent home. Taken to court, the courts said it was okay, so it was taken to the Supreme Court. Did this violate the freedom of expression?
      - Schenck v. U.S.(1919)
        
        Not at a time of war. It was a danger to the draft of soldiers during war, and comparable to shouting fire in a theatre, which is not allowed under the first amendment.
        
        Schenck and Baer distributed flyers saying that the draft of soldiers was unconstitutional under the 13th amendment, and that people should disobey peacefully. They were convicted under the Espionage Act; was this ruling against their freedom of expression?
      - Roth v. U.S. (1957)
        
        No, because the court said that obscenity was not within the constitutional rights of speech and press. The test to determine if something was obscene was if the average person, considering current social standards, found the material prurient.
        
        Roth sent obscene material through mail, and this was against the NY obscenity statute. Was this statute against the freedom of speech or press?
      - Near v. Minnesota (1931)
        
        Yes, because even though a future publication could be classified as a nuisance, it wasn't a given, and the officials could not stop them from publishing.
        
        A newspaper accused local officials of being implicated with gangsters. Officials were able to get a permanent injunction on these defamatory news. Did this violate the freedom of expression?
      - Bethel v. Frasier (1986)
        
        NO, because the school has the right to prohibit speech that undermines a school's mission to teach respect and fundamental values.
        
        A student gave a speech nominating a friend for election, but used language that student and principals saw as a sexual metaphor. The student was suspended for two days. Did the policy violate the first amendment?
      - Texas v. Johnson (1989)
        
        A man burned the US flag in form of protest against the Reagan administration. This was against the law in Texas, he was jailed and fined. Was this law against the freedom of speech?
        
        Yes, the 1st amendment does protect this because it's political and expressive. Just because society regards your idea as offensive doesn't mean it should be prohibited by the government.
      - Reno v. ACLU (1997)
        
        Yes, because this although was to protect children, it also affected the rights of adults. Also, this material only had to be available to adults for it to be protected.
        
        The Communications Decency Act of 1996 criminalized obscene and indecent material on the internet. This was challenged and mostly enjoined, so the Attorney appealed to the Supreme court. Did this law violate the 1st amendment by being too broad and vague?
      - Miller v. California (1973)
        
        Miller sent mail brochures advertising adult material, and he was convicted under the California law. Was this against the 1st amendment?
        
        No, because obscene material is not protected under the 1st amendment. Again, because guidelines of obscene material is if the average person sees it under current social standards a prurient.
      - Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)
        
        A member of the KKK made a speech inciting unlawful actions. This was penalized under Ohio law. Was this law unconstitutional because it prohibited certain forms of expression?
        
        Yes, because the law did not account if the speech would actually incite criminal action.
      - Gitlow v. New York
        
        Gitlow published pamphlets that incited class action and strikes to establish socialism. He was convicted under NY law. Was this unconstitutional?
        
        Yes, because the govenrment can punish speech that endangers it's basic existence.
      - U.S. v. O’Brien
        
        No, because the law had nothing to do with limiting speech or expression, but solely on the action of burning a card.
        
        OBrien burned his draft card, and he was penalized for it under federal law. Was this law unconstitutional?
      - Snyder v. Phelps
        (2011)
        
        Yes, because the 1st amendment shields those who stage a protest at a funeral.
        
        A church was protesting at a soldier's funeral, with some insulting words, so the family sued and won 5M in damages. Was this decision violating free speech?
      - Hustler v. Falwell
        
        Yes, because the 1st amendment protects parodies. It was not intended with "actual malice".
        
        A magazine published a parody of an ad of a politician, and he sued and won. However, the magazine appealed to the court. Was this decision violating freedom of speech and press?
      - Grayned v. City of Rockford
        (1972)
        
        No, because although the 1st amendment allows free speech and protesting, the way it is done should be within reason, and Grayned's noise was disturbing learning in school.
        
        A law prohibited noise that would interfere with learning at a school. Grayned was convicted for those reasons, and he appealed to the Supreme Court saying that the law violated the 1st amendment, was this true?
    - - Lee v. Weisman (1992)
        
        Yes, it did, because bringing clergy made student stand still and be respectful/silent, which in a way forces a state religion.
        
        Robert Lee, a middle school principal, invited a rabbi to make a speech and hold a prayer at the graduation ceremony. Weisman challenged this saying that clergy could not be invited to public schools. Did this violate the Establishment Clause?
      - Santa Fe School Dist. v. Doe (2000)
        
        A student-led prayer was held before every football game in a Santa Fe school. Some families challenged this as it was a Christian prayer. While this was going on, the school district adopted new policies where student-led prayers were allowed under conditions. Did this policy violate the Establishment Clause?
        
        Yes, because it was in public school grounds, which are sponsored by the government. Again, the government cannot have policies that endorse religion.
      - Engel v. Vitale
        
        The New York board of regents established an optional nondenominational prayer recital at the beginning of every school day. Was this violating the Establishment Clause?
        
        Yes, the State cannot hold prayers in public in school, even if it's optional. It was against the separation of religion and state.
      - Wallace v. Jaffree (1985)
        
        An Alabama law authorized teachers to conduct prayers and meditations during the school day. Did this law violate the E Clause?
        
        Yes, because it is not neutral towards all religions, and sought to establish religion in schools, which was against the E. Clause.
      - Lukumi Babalu Aye v. Hialeah (1993)
        
        The Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye sacrificed animals in their rituals. The City of Hialeah made ordinances prohibiting these practices soon after the establishment of the church. Was this violating the Free Exercise clause?
        
        Yes, in a unanimous decision, the Court ruled the ordinances unconstitutional because they were targeted to the church directly.
      - County of Allegheny v. ACLU (1989)
        
        Two holiday displays, by a Christian Church and a Jewish group, were put in government buildings in the Allegheny county. The ACLU argued that this showed state endorsement of these religions.
        
        The Court ruled that the displays did endorse these religions. However, the setting of the latter display was constitutional when compared to the setting of the former.
      - Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002)
        
        A scholarship program in Ohio gave scholarships to students that where below a certain economic level, and gave them liberty to choose between religious and secular schools. Some taxpayers filed lawsuit because the majority of recipients enrolled in a religious school. Did this violate the E. Clause?
        
        No, because the scholarship gave the recipient freedom to choose where they used the money to. The statistics presented where only circumstantial because of the demographics of the recipients.
      - Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)
        
        Amish parents did not send their kids to school after 8th grade for religious reasons, while the law required them to go until 10th grade. Did the law violate the 1st amendment?
        
        Yes, because the court deemed the last two years required as not necessary, and the law was in direct conflict with the religion.
      - Sherbert v. Verner (1963)
        
        Sherbert was denied unemployment benefits because she was fired because she didn't want to work on Saturdays because she was Adventist. Was this unconstitutional?
        
        Yes, because the Free Exercise clause prohibits from setting requirements that interfere with a person's religion.
      - Everson v. Board of Ed.
        
        No, because the law did not directly support the religion, but rather helped parents get their kids to school and back.
        
        A NJ law reimbursed transportation money to private schools, most of which were Catholic Schools. Was this law in violation of separation of state and religion.
      - Abington School District v. Schempp (1963
        
        Pennsylvania law required public schools to read the bible in the morning. Was this unconstitutional, even though student could excuse out?
        
        Yes, because public schools, funded by the government, cannot sponsor Bible readings.
      - Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)
        
        Pennsylvania and Rhode Island both had a statute that allowed state funding for private, religious schools. This was challenged by tax-payers in both states, and the question was whether this law violated the E. Clause.
        
        Yes, because this law although was to ensure that private schools where meeting education requirements, it was too entangled in religion.
      - Edwards v. Aguillard (1987)
        
        Louisiana law required the teaching of evolution and creation. Was this against the Establishment clause?
        
        Yes beacuse it taught a religious belief.
      - Epperson v. Arkansas (1968)
        
        A law in Arkansas prohibited the teaching of human evolution. Was this unconstitutional and against the 1st amendment?
        
        Yes, because it was based on the belief of Christians, and this was the government supporting the christianity.
      - Elk Grove School District v. Newdow (2004)
        
        The phrase "under God" in the pledge was brought to court by a father, but since he didn't have full custody of the daughter, it was said that he didn't have full control of his daughter's education. Was this unconstitutional?
        
        The court did not reach a decision because the dad did not have standing because of his partial custody. However, a few justices said that it was constitutional for the law to require the teacher to lead the pledge of Allegiance.
      - Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius (Burwell) 2014
        
        A store chain didn't want to sell contraceptives because of the founder's beliefs. However, the law required them to sell, so they sued. Was this requirement unconstitutional?
        
        Yes, because it forced owners to sell something that was against their beliefs.
      - Van Orden v. Perry (2005)
        
        There was a Ten Commandments monument in state capitol grounds in Texas, so a man sued for this, saying that the law prohibited a state to endorse a religion. Was this monument unconstitutional?
        
        No, because the monument was there for historical meaning, not for religious purposes.
      - Zorach v. Clauson
        
        Students in NY could leave classrooms for religious learning elsewhere, and this was challenged as the government supporting religion. Was this against the separation of state and church?
        
        No, because the program that allowed this did not force students to leave or go toa religious classroom, nor the places where the student were going to sponsored by the government. Furthermore, the government cannot be hostile to any religion.
      - Reynolds v. U.S. (1879)
        
        No, because although Congress cannot ban a belief, it can ban a practice. Marriage is regulated by law, and a person cannot avoid the law due to their religion.
        
        Reynolds married two women. This was under the law in Utah for bigamy. Was this unconstitutional because this was a religious duty?
    - - Snyder v. Phelps
        (2011)
        
        Yes, because the 1st amendment shields those who stage a protest at a funeral.
        
        A church was protesting at a soldier's funeral, with some insulting words, so the family sued and won 5M in damages. Was this decision violating free speech?
      - Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988)
        
        A student newspaper had some school inappropriate sections, and the principal deleted them before publication. This was taken to court as it could be against freedom of press.
        
        No, the school could prohibit speech that was not consistent with the school's values as long as they were "reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns"
      - NY Times v. Sullivan (1964)
        
        The court ruled in favor of the NYT because the court said that they didn't mean it in a malicious way, which would have been libel.
        
        The NYT published some apparent wrong facts. So, Sullivan sent sent a written request to remove the information, and when taken to court, the court eventually gave 500k to Sullivan in damages, so the newspaper appealed to court.