Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Civil Liberties - Coggle Diagram

- - - - NY Times v. Sullivan: The NY Times published an advertisement criticizing the actions of public officials in the South during the civil rights movement . Sullivan sued the newspaper for libel. The court ruled in favor of NY Times, stating that public officials must prove actual malice in order to win a defamation lawsuit against a media outlet.
      - Reno v. ACLU: The argument was about whether certain provisions of the CDA violated the 1st Amendment's right to freedom of speech. The court ruled that the CDA's provisions were unconstitutional because they were too broad and infringed on free speech rights on the internet.
      - Bethel v. Fraser: Fraser sued Bethel School district after they disciplined him for giving a speech full of sexual innuendos during a school assembly. The court ruled in favor of the school, stating that schools have the authority to regulate vulgar speech to maintain a proper educational environment.
      - Snyder v. Phelps: The argument was about whether the 1st Amendment protected the Westboro Baptist Church's right to picket military funerals with signs displaying controversial and hurtful messages. The court rules in favor of the church, stating their their picketing, although offensive, was protected speech under the 1st Amendment.
      - Hustler v. Falwell: The argument was about whether the 1st Amendment protected a parody advertisement published in Hustler magazine that depicted Jerry Falwell in an offensive manner. The court ruled in favor of the magazine, stating that the parody was protected under the 1st Amendment, even though it was offensive to Falwell.
    - - Board of Education v. Earls: The school board argued that it was necessary to randomly drug test students in order to deter drug use and maintain a safe and drug-free environment. Earls argued that it was a violation of her 4th Amendment privacy rights. The court ruled in favor of the school, stating that the drug testing policy was reasonable and served a legitimate interest in protecting students’ safety and well-being.
      - Pierce v. Society of Sisters: The argument was about whether an Oregon law that required all children to attend public schools violated the 14th Amendment. The society of sisters argued that the law infringed upon parents’ rights to direct the education of their children. The court ruled in favor of the sisters, stating that the law was unconstitutional because it interfered with parents' rights to choose alternative forms of education for their children.
      - Vernonia School District v. Acton: The school district argued that random drug testing was necessary to deter drug use and protect the health and safety of students. Acton argued that it was a violation of their 4th Amendment right to privacy. The court ruled in favor of the school, stating that the drug testing policy was reasonable and served a legitimate interest.
    - - Everson v. Board of Ed.: The argument was about whether New Jersey law that allowed reimbursements to parents of parochial school students for transportation costs violated the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment. The court ruled that the law did not violate the Establishment Clause and did not promote any specific religion
      - Abington School District v. Schempp: The argument was about whether a Pennsylvania law requiring public schools to read the Bible verses and recite the Lord's Prayer violated the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment. The court ruled that the state-sponsored religious activities in public schools were unconstitutional because they violated the Establishment Clause by promoting religion in a public school setting.
      - Santa Fe School Dist. v. Doe: Supreme Court considering if a public school can allow student-led prayer over the loudspeaker at football games. The court ruled that it violated the Establishment Clause because the policy was promoting religion and creating the perception of the school sponsoring religious activities.
      - Elk Grove School District v. Newdow: The argument was about whether the inclusion of the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance recited in public schools violated the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment. The court ruled that the phrase did not violate the Establishment Clause, stating that the recitation of the Pledge with the phrase "under God" was a patriotic exercise, not a religious one.
      - County of Allegheny v. ACLU: There were two separate religious displays - the nativity scene and the menorah display. The nativity scene was inside a county courthouse and the menorah display was outside another government building.
        The court decided that the nativity scene displayed was unconstitutional because it violated the Establishment Clause. However, the menorah display was considered constitutional.
      - Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius : The argument was about whether private, closed held corporations had the right to deny certain types of contraception coverage to their employees based to the corporation owners' religious beliefs. The court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby, stating that closely held corporations could be exempt from providing certain types of contraception coverage if it conflicted with the owners' religious beliefs.
    - - Webster v. Reproductive Health Services: The main argument was about whether a state law that urged restrictions on the use of public facilities and public employees in performing or assisting abortions violated the constitutional right to abortion established in Roe v. Wade. The court ruled in favor of Webster, stating that the restrictions did not impose an “undue burden” on a woman’s right to have an abortion. The decision did not overturn Roe v. Wade and allowed for further state regulation of abortion.
      - Planned Parenthood v. Casey: The main argument was about whether a Pennsylvania law that imposed certain restrictions on abortion, such as mandatory counseling, informed consent, and a 24-hour waiting period, violated the constitutional right to abortion established in Roe v. Wade. The court ruled in favor of Planned Parenthood, stating that a woman has a constitutional right to choose to have an abortion. The decision introduced the “undue burden” standard, which clarified that state regulations could not place a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion.
  - - - Penry v. Johnson: The argument centered around whether it was constitutional to execute individuals with intellectual disabilities. The defendant argued that it violated the 8th Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. They believed that their intellectual disability should be taken into account during punishment. The court ruled in favor of the defendant, stating that executing intellectually disabled individuals was unconstitutional.
      - Roper v. Simmons: The argument was about whether the execution of individuals who were under the age of 18 at the time of their crimes violated the 8th Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. The court ruled that the executing of individuals who committed crimes as juveniles was unconstitutional because it was cruel and unusual punishment.
    - - Nix v. Williams: The main argument was about whether evidence obtained as a result of a statement made by a suspect during an illegal interrogation should be excluded from trial. The court ruled in favor of Nix, stating that the “inevitable discovery” doctrine can be used to admit evidence that would have been discovered lawfully, even if an illegal action occurred.
      - Gideon v. Wainwright : The argument was about whether 6th Amendment's right to counsel applied to state criminal defendants. The court ruled that the 6th Amendment's right to counsel did apply to state criminal defendants, ensuring that individuals facing serious criminal charges have the right to legal representation, even if they cannot afford it.
      - Hamdi v. Rumsfeld: The main argument was about whether the indefinite detention of a US citizen designated as an “enemy combatant” without a trial violated the 5th Amendment’s due process clause. Hamdi argued that he had the right to challenge his detention and have access to legal representation. The court ruled in favor of Hamdi, stating that us citizens detained as enemy combatants have the right to challenge their detention through habeas corpus and have access to a fair hearing
    - - Morse v. Frederick: Supreme Court considering whether a public school could discipline a student for displaying a banner with a controversial message at a school-sponsored event. The court ruled the school’s actions as constitutional because they were promoting a drug-free environment and preventing the promotion of illegal drug use. Schools can have the authority to regulate student speech if it is promoting illegal drug use.
      - Buckley v. Valeo: The prosecution had argued that the FECA's limitations on the use of money for political purposes were in violation of 1st Amendment protections for free expression, since no significant political expression could be made without the expenditure of money. The Court ruled that the government can directly subsidize political campaigns, but that it cannot require candidates to forgo private fundraising if they choose the subsidy instead.
      - Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier: A school principal removed two articles from their school paper and deemed them inappropriate. The court ruled in favor of the school, stating that schools have the authority to regulate student speech in school-sponsored activities.
    - - Raich v. Gonzales: The main argument was about whether the federal government’s enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act, which criminalized the cultivation and use of marijuana even for medical purposes, exceeded its authority under the Commerce Clause. The court ruled in favor of Gonzales, stating that the federal government had the authority to regulate marijuana even if it was grown and used solely within a state.
    - - Van Orden v. Perry: The argument was about whether a Ten Commandments monument displayed on the grounds of the Texas State Capitol violated the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment. The court ruled that the display was constitutional as it had historical significance and did not primarily have a religious purpose. Therefore, not violating the Establishment Clause.
      - Edwards v. Aguillard: The argument was about whether a Louisiana law that required teaching of creationism alongside evolution in public schools violated the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment. The court ruled that the law was unconstitutional because it advanced a particular religious viewpoint, thus violating the separation of church and state.
      - Lemon v. Kurtzman: The Supreme Court examined whether certain state laws providing financial support to non-public religious schools violated the Establishment Clause. The court used the “lemon test" and found the financial support to be unconstitutional because they excessively entangled the government with religion.
      - Zelman v. Simmons-Harris: The Supreme Court examined whether an Ohio program that provided tuition vouchers for students to attend private schools, including religious schools, violated the Establishment Clause. The court ruled that the program was constitutional because it had a secular purpose of providing educational choice and not only being based on religion. It did not violate the Establishment Clause as long as the program was neutral.
      - Sherbert v. Verner: The argument was about whether the denial of unemployment benefits to someone who refused to work on their Sabbath violated their 1st Amendment right to free exercise of religion. The court ruled in favor of Sherbert, stating that the denial of benefits placed a significant burden on her free exercise of religion.
      - Wallace v. Jaffree: The Supreme Court examined whether an Alabama law that authorized a moment of silence for prayer or meditation in public schools was constitutional or not. The court ruled that the law was unconstitutional because it endorsed prayer in public schools. They said it was a violation of the Establishment Clause because the law lacked secular purpose.
      - Lee v. Weisman: Supreme Court considering whether public schools can invite a religious leader to deliver a prayer at a graduation ceremony. The court ruled that it was unconstitutional and that the school was violating the Establishment Clause because it may make students feel pressured to participate.
      - Engel v. Vitale: Public schools tried to require students to recite a prayer. The court ruled that it was unconstitutional and violated the Establishment Clause and prohibited the government from promoting or endorsing religion.
    - - Roe v. Wade: The main argument was whether a state law that criminalized abortion except to save the life of the mother violated a woman’s constitutional right to privacy. The court ruled in favor of Roe, stating that a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion is protected by the 14th Amendment’s right to privacy. This case established the legal framework for abortion rights in the US.
- - - - Lukumi Babalu Aye v. Hialeah: The city of Hialeah, Florida had passed ordinances that targeted the religious practice of animal sacrifice by the Santeria religion.The court ruled the ordinances unconstitutional because they targeted a religion and violated the Free Exercise Clause.
      - Wisconsin v. Yoder: The argument was about whether Wisconsin's compulsory school attendance law violated the constitutional rights of Amish parents to freely exercise their religion by forcing their children to attend school beyond the 8th grade. The court ruled in favor of the Amish parents, statin that the state's interest in education did not justify infringing on the parens' religious freedom.
      - Epperson v. Arkansas: The argument was about whether a state law prohibiting the teaching of evolution in public schools violated the 1st Amendment's Establishment Clause. The court ruled that the law was unconstitutional as it aimed to promote a particular religious belief, which went against the Establishment Clause's requirement of government neutrality towards religion.
    - - Brandenburg v. Ohio: The argument was about whether Ohio's criminal syndicalism law violated the 1st Amendment's protection of free speech. The court had to determine if the law was too vague, potentially infringing on individuals' rights to advocate for political change. The court ruled that the law was unconstitutional as it failed to distinguish between mere advocacy and incitement lawless action, therefore, protecting free speech even for controversial ideas.
      - Texas v. Johnson: Johnson burned an American flag during a political protest which led to his arrest and conviction under a Texas law. The court ruled in favor of Johnson, stating that flag burning is a form of symbolic speech which is protected by the 1st Amendment.
      - Tinker v. Des Moines: Students wore black armbands to protest the Vietnam War. The students believed that their silent protest should be protected by the 1st Amendments freedom of expression. The court ruled in favor of the students and stated that students have the right to express their opinions as long as it doesn’t cause disruption.
      - Near v. Minnesota: A law in Minnesota allowed the government to shut down newspapers if they were considered harmful or defamatory. The court ruled the law as unconstitutional because it violates the 1st Amendments freedom of expression. They cannot censor or stop newspapers from publishing.
      - West Virginia v. Barnette: The argument focused on whether students could be forced to salute the American flag and recite the Pledge of Allegiance against their religious beliefs. The court had to balance the students' 1st Amendment rights to free speech and religious freedom against the state's interest promoting patriotism. The court ruled that the state could not compel students to salute the flag, protecting their freedom of expression.
    - - Ashcraft v. Tennessee: The argument was about whether the police's use of coercive tactics to obtain a confession violated Ashcraft's 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination. The court ruled that the confession obtained through coercive tactics could not be used as evidence in this case.
      - Powell v. Alabama: The argument was about whether Powell was denied due process of law by not having adequate legal representation.The court ruled that Powell was deprived of due process because they did not have sufficient legal representation.
      - Miranda v. Arizona: Miranda was arrested as a suspect of a crime and interrogated and eventually confessed to the crime. But never was Miranda read his Miranda rights or right to counsel by any police official. The court ruled that law enforcement in the United States must warn a person of their constitutional rights before interrogating them, or else the person's statements cannot be used as evidence at their trial.
    - - Furman v. Georgia: The main argument was about the constitutionality of the death penalty. Furman argued that the death penalty was being applied in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner that was violating the 8th Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. The court ruled in favor of Furman, ruling that the death penalty as it was being applied at the time was unconstitutional. This decision led to a temporary halt in the use of the death penalty in the US.
    - - Mapp v. Ohio: The argument was about whether evidence obtained unlawfully by state officers could be used in court. The court had to decide if the exclusionary rule should apply to state criminal proceedings to protect an individual's 4th Amendment rights. They ruled that the exclusionary rule applied to the states, leading to the suppression of illegally obtained evidence in court.
    - - Escobedo v. Illinois: The main argument was about whether the police’s denial of Escobedo’s request to speak with his attorney during custodial interrogation violated his 6th Amendment right to counsel. The court ruled in favor of Escobedo, stating that once a suspect requests to speak with an attorney, they have a right to have their attorney present during questioning.
      - Duncan v. Louisiana: The main argument was about whether the 6th Amendment’s guarantee of a jury trial in criminal cases applied to the states through the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. The court ruled in favor of Duncan, stating that the right to a jury trial is a fundamental right and is applicable to the states. This decision expanded the protections of the 6th Amendment to state criminal trials.
    - - Griswold v. Connecticut: The main argument was about whether a state law that criminalized the use of contraceptives violated the right to privacy. The court ruled in favor of Griswold, stating that the right to privacy is protected by the Constitution and that individuals have the right to make private decisions about contraception.
    - - D.C v Heller: The argument was about whether the 2nd Amendment protects an individual's right to own a firearm for personal use. The court ruled that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual's right to own a firearm for self-defense within their home.
  - - - Virginia v. Black: The Supreme Court examined whether Virginia’s law that criminalized cross burning with the intent to intimidate violated the freedom of speech. The court ruled that the law was constitutional but had limitations. Cross burning with the intent to intimidate was not protected by the 1st Amendment. However, cross burning without the intent to intimidate was protected by the 1st Amendment.
      - Miller v. California: Miller was convicted for distributing explicit adult materials. The prosecution argued that the materials were obscene and therefore not protected by the 1st Amendment. However, Miller argued that the materials were not obscene. The court established the “Miller test” to determine what is obscene and what is not. The test ruled that the materials were obscene and therefore not protected by the 1st Amendment.
      - Grayned v. City of Rockford: Grayned argued that the cities ordinance about restricting noise near schools was too vague and infringed upon individuals' 1st Amendment rights to assemble peacefully. The court ruled that the ordinance was constitutional because it served a significant government interest in maintaining a healthy learning environment for students.
      - Gitlow v. New York: The argument was about whether the state could prohibit speech that advocated for the violent overthrow of the government. The court ruled that states could limit speech that incited violence or danger, marking a shift towards allowing some restrictions on free speech to protect public safety.
      - Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire: The argument was about whether certain types of speech, specifically "fighting words" that provoke violence, are protected under the 1st Amendment. The court ruled the "fighting words" are not protecting speech and can be regulated by the government to maintain public safety.
    - - Gregg v. Georgia: The argument was about whether the death penalty, as applied under Georgia's revised statutes, constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the 8th Amendment. The court ruled the Georgia's revised death penalty statutes were constitutional, reinstating the use of the death penalty in the US
    - - Wolf v. Colorado: The main argument was about whether evidence obtained through an illegal search and seizure by state law enforcement should be admissible in state courts. The defendant argued that it violated their 4th Amendment. The court ruled in favor of the state and allowed the evidence to be used against the defendant.
      - Florida v. Bostick: The main argument was about whether the police’s practice of approaching bus passengers and asking for consent to search their belongings violated the 4th Amendment. The court ruled in favor of Florida, stating that the encounter did not amount to a seizure under the 4th Amendment because Bostick was free to decline the search and leave the bus.
      - Illinois v. Caballes: The main argument was about whether the use of a drug-sniffing dog during a routine-traffic stop violated the 4th Amendment. Caballes argued that the use of the dog without reasonable suspicion was an unreasonable search. The court ruled in favor of Illinois, stating that the use of a drug-sniffing dog during a lawful traffic stop does not constitute a search under the 4th Amendment.
      - Terry v. Ohio: The argument was about whether the police practice of stopping and frisking individuals on the street without probable cause violated the 4th Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. The court ruled that in some circumstances, a limited stop and frisk without a warrant could be permissible if the officer had reasonable suspicion that the person was involved in criminal activity.
      - New Jersey v. T.L.O.: A teacher found 2 students smoking in the bathroom violating school code. One student denied smoking and was further searched upon, they found marijuana and rolling papers in her purse. They also found a list of people and plastic bags, this implied that she would sell marijuana on the school grounds. The court ruled in favor of New Jersey, stating that while students have a reduced expectation of privacy in school, searches conducted by school officials must still be reasonable. This decision established the “reasonable suspicion” standard for searches in public schools.
    - - Kelo v. City of New London: The main argument was about whether the city’s use of eminent domain to take private property for economic development purposes violated the 5th Amendment taking clause. The court ruled in favor of the city, stating that the taking of private property for economic development qualified as a public use and was therefore constitutional.
- - - - Reynolds v. U.S: The argument revolved around whether religious beliefs could be used as a defense against laws banning polygamy. The court had to consider the balance between religious freedom and upholding the law. They ruled that religious duty was not a valid defense to criminal charges.
    - - Roth v. U.S.: The Supreme Court had to decide if certain materials were considered obscene and therefore not protected by the 1st Amendment - if the material was too offensive. The court ruled that obscenity is not protected speech and can be regulated by the government.
      - U.S. v. O’Brien: The argument focused on whether the government could regulate expressive conduct like burning draft cards. The court had to weigh free speech rights against government's interest in maintaining the draft system. The court ruled that the government's interest in regulating the draft outweighed O'Brien's free speech rights in this case.
      - Schenck v. U.S: Schenck distributed leaflets encouraging resistance to the military draft during WW. Government charged him because they thought his actions posed a clear and present danger to the country. The court ruled against Sckneck and said that the government could limit speech if it presented a “clear and present danger”. This case established the “clear and present danger test”.
    - - U.S. v. Nixon: The Watergate scandal led to the subpoena of Nixon's White House tapes that contained potentially incriminating evidence. Nixon argued that he had the right to withhold the tapes based on executive privilege. However, the prosecution argued that the tapes were crucial evidence to a criminal investigation and therefore the executive privilege should not shield Nixon from legal accountability. The court ruled against Nixon, stating that the need for evidence in a criminal trial outweighed the president's claim of executive privilege. Nixon was ordered to release the tapes and it eventually led to his resignation.
      - U.S. v. Leon: The main argument was about whether evidence obtained through a search warrant that was later found to be invalid should be excluded from the trial. The court ruled in favor of the US, stating that the evidence obtained in “good faith” reliance on a search warrant, even if it is later found to be invalid, can still be used in court. This decision established the “good faith exception” to the exclusionary rule.
  - - - Weeks v. U.S.: The main argument was about whether evidence obtained through an illegal search and seizure by federal agents should be excluded from trial. The court ruled in favor of Weeks, stating that the 14th Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and evidence obtained in violation of their right should be excluded.
    - - Dickerson v. U.S.: The main argument was about whether the Miranda warning, which informs suspects of their rights during custodial interrogations, can be overridden by a federal statute. The court ruled in favor of Dickerson, stating that the Miranda warning is a constitutional requirement and cannot be superseded by a federal law.
      - Katz v. U.S.: The government wiretapped a public telephone booth. The argument was about whether warrantless wiretapping was a violation of the 4th Amendment. Katz argued that his right to privacy was violated, as he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the phone booth. The court ruled in favor of Katz, stating that the 4th Amendment protects individuals’ reasonable expectations of privacy, even in public spaces.
    - - New York Times v. U.S.: NY Times published the Pentagon Paper, a classified study on the Vietnam War. The government tried to prevent the newspaper from publishing the papers because it would harm national security. The court ruled in favor of the newspaper, stating that the government did not meet the high burden required to justify restraint.