Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Civil Liberties Mind Map - Coggle Diagram
Civil Liberties Mind Map
1st amendment
Religion
Establishment Clause
County of Allegheny v ACLU (1989):Two-public sponsored holiday displays were challenged. One was about a christian nativity scene inside the Allegheny courthouse and the second was about a menorah outside the county-city building. The nativity scene was placed alone and the menorah was covered by a christmas tree and a sign that said salute to liberty. The aclu argued that the displays violated the establishment clause and should be removed. The court decided that the religious symbols endorsed christianity in violation of the establishment clause. By displaying the words “Glory to God for the birth of Jesus Christ”. The county displayed a clear message that it supported and promoted Christian. However, the court also said that not all religious celebrations violate the establishment clause.
Engel v Vitale: New York authorized a voluntary prayer at the beginning of each school day and many people challenged the prayer and claimed it violated the establishment clause. The court ruled that the state could not issue an optional prayer even though it is not connected with any religion. They said that it violated the establishment clause because of the separation of church and state.
Lee v Weisman (1992):A principal invited a rabbi to speak at a middle school graduation, and daniel weisman’s daughter was among the graduates. He didn’t want the rabbi to speak at the graduation so he tried to get a restraining order on the rabbi. There were prayers recited during the ceremony which upset weisman. The court ruled that it violated the establishment clause, and said that it pressured the students to feel like they need to participate in religious activities and shows the importance of separating church and state in schools.
Santa Fe School District v Doe (2000):A student delivered a prayer before each football game at Santa Fe High School. 2 families decided to challenge the fact that they were allowed to have this, and then the Santa Fe district created a new rule that permitted student-led prayer as this challenge was being held. The court ruled that the district permitting student-led prayers violated the establishment clause. The court found that even though the prayers were initiated by students, they still created the perception of school endorsement of religion.
Wallace v Jaffree (1985): Alabama allowed teachers to conduct religious prayers and practices during class. The court ruled that not only did this law stray from alabama’s intent of being neutral to religion, but it also violated the establishment clause
Zelman v Simmons-Harris (2002):The argument was about whether it was constitutional or not for the government to provide vouchers for parents to use at private schools, including religious schools. The court ruled that it was constitutional, and did not violate the establishment clause, as long as the program was neutral and gave parents a genuine choice. However, it did start a ton of debates about the separation of church and state.
Lemon v Kurtzman (1971): The argument was about the state laws in Pennsylvania and if they violated the establishment clause because they provided financial aid to religious schools. The supreme court established the lemon test in order to determine whether a law or government action violated the establishment clause.
Van Orden v Perry (2005): The argument was about whether a monument displaying the 10 commandments on the Texas state capitol grounds violated the establishment clause. The court needed to decide if the monument had a primarily religious purpose or if it had a secular purpose as well. The court ruled that the monument did not violate the establishment clause because it had historical and secular significance.
Gitlow v New York (1925):Gitlow was arrested for distributing a “left wing manifesto” that called for the establishment of socialism through strikes and class action. He argued that since there was no resulting action flowing from the manifestos publication then the statute penalized utterances without propensity to incitement of concrete action. The court ruled in favor of New York, stating that they could prohibit advocating violent efforts to overthrow the government under the Criminal Anarchy law.
Free Exercise Clause
Lukumi Babalu Aye v Hialeah (1993):The church practiced the religion of Santeria, which used animal sacrifices as a form of worship, and after many things were cut from the animal, they would eat it. After the announcement of the church, the city council adopted several things addressing religious sacrifice, which prohibited animal sacrifice unless it is a state licensed activity. The court decided that the city violated the free exercise clause due to the fact that the laws created targeted religious practices. They decided this also due to the fact that the law created did not serve a compelling government interest.
-
Press
Hazelwood v Kuhlmeier (1988): The case involved the removal of 2 articles from a high school newspaper by the school's principal. THe students argued that their first amendment rights were violated, while the school district maintained that it had the right to control the content of the newspaper as part of its educational mission. The court ruled in favor of the school stating that schools have the authority to exercise editorial control over school-sponsored activities to ensure they were consistent with the educational mission
US v Nixon (1971):President Nixon had been subpoenaed to release tapes related to the Watergate scandal. Nixon argued that he had an absolute right to keep the tapes private due to executive privilege.The court ruled against Nixon, stating that executive privilege is not absolute and can be overridden by the need for evidence in a criminal investigation. This case showed that the president's power is limited when it comes to potential criminal wrongdoing.
Buckley v Valeo (1976):The argument was centered around campaign finance reform and the constitutionality of certain provisions of the federal election campaign act. the court had to decide if limits on campaign contributions and expenditures violated the freedom of speech. The case also examined the distinction between contributions and expenditures in terms of their potential for corruption.The court upheld its limits on contributions but struck down limits on expenditures, highlighting the importance of protecting political speech while also addressing concerns about corruption in the electoral process.
New York Times v US (1971): The argument centered around whether the first amendment protected the right of the press to publish classified information, even if it could potentially harm national security. The court had to balance the public's right to know against the government's interest in protecting sensitive information. The court ruled in favor of the New York Times , stating that prior restraint on publication was unconstitutional.
Speech
Obscenity
Roth v US (1957): Roth was convicted under federal obscenity laws for mailing explicit materials. Roth argued that his materials were protected by the first amendment's freedom of speech and press. The court ruled against Roth and said that obscenity was not protected by the first amendment and can be regulated by the government. This case established the roth test for obscenity.
Miller v California (1973):Miller was convicted for distributing adult materials that were deemed obscene, he argued that this obscenity was protected by his freedom of speech in the first amendment. The court ruled that obscene materials were not protected by the first amendment and can be regulated by the states. They established the miller test to determine what is considered obscene.
Libel and Slander
NY Times v Sullivan (1964): The case involved an advertisement published by the New York Times that criticized the treatment of civil rights activists in the south. Sullivan sued the newspaper for libel, claiming that the advertisement contained false statements about him.The court ruled in favor of New York Times stating that public officials must prove actual malice to establish a defamation claim.
Freedom of Speech
Morse v Frederick (2007):Frederick held up a banner that displayed the words “Bong hits 4 Jesus” at a school supervised event. His banner was taken and he was suspended for ten days because the banner promoted illegal drugs. Frederick sued because he said that this violated his freedom of speech. The court ruled that the school could discipline the student because his sign promoted illegal drug use, and schools have the authority to restrict speech that promotes illegal activities. This was also decided based on the fact that students' rights to freedom of speech aren’t taken as seriously as adults.
Virginia v Black (2003): 3 different people were convicted separately of violating a virginia statue, which was burning a cross, because it had the intent to intimidate a person or group. Black argued that there was no evidence that they had the intent to intimidate others. The court ruled that cross burning with the intent to intimidate was not protected by the first amendment, as it poses a threat and incites fear. This was decided based on the principle that certain types of speech can be limited if they pose a genuine danger or threat to others.
Texas v Johnson (1989): Johnson burned an American flag during a protest and was arrested and convicted under Texas law that prohibited flag desecration. Johnson argued that his act of flag burning was a form of symbolic speech and should be protected. The court ruled in Johnson's favor, stating that flag burning was a form of expression and therefore permitted by the first amendment. This case highlighted that even offensive or controversial forms of expression are protected in the first amendment.
Bethel v Fraser (1986): Fraser delivered a speech full of sexual innuendos in a high school assembly. He was suspended and argued that his first amendment rights were violated. The court ruled against Fraser, stating that schools have the authority to discipline students for speech that is lewd, vulgar or inconsistent with the educational mission. This case established that schools could place limits on students' speech in order to maintain a proper learning environment.
Reno v ACLU (1997): The aclu challenged the constitutionality of the communications decency act which sought to regulate and criminalize the transmission of indecent material online. The court ruled in favor of the aclu, stating that the CDA violated the first amendment's protection of free speech. This case established that the government’s ability to regulate online content should be limited to specific categories.
Chaplinsky v New Hampshire (1942): Chaplinsky was distributing literature that supported his beliefs as a Jehovah's Witness and attacked more conventional forms of religion. He was arrested and convicted under a state law that prohibited intentionally offensive or annoying speech to anyone who is lawfully in a street or public area. He argued that the law violated the first amendment and was very vague. The court ruled against Chaplinsky, and identified certain categorical exceptions to the first amendment such as obscenities, profane and slanderous speech, or fighting words. They found that chaplinskys words were fighting words because they caused direct harm to their target and could be construed to advocate an immediate breach of peace.
West Virginia v Barnette (1943): The argument was about freedom of speech and whether students could be forced to salute the flag and recite the pledge of allegiance in public schools. the court had to decide if this requirement violated the students first amendment rights. The court ruled that compelling the students to salute the flag and recite the pledge was a violation for their freedom of speech.
US v O'Brien (1968): The argument was about whether burning a draft card as a form of protest was protected under the first amendment. They considered whether this act of protest fell within the scope of free speech or if it could be regulated for other reasons such as the government's interest in maintaining the draft system. The court ruled that the government's interest in preserving the draft system outweighed the defendant's right to express their opposition through burning a draft card.
Hustler v Falwell (1988): The argument was about the freedom of speech and whether a parody advertisement could be considered libel or intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court had to decide that the first amendment protected the publication of a parody that depicted a public figure in an offensive manner. The court ruled in favor of the magazine stating that the parody was protected speech under the first amendment.
Snyder v Phelps (2011): The argument was about the clash between the freedom of speech and the right to privacy and emotional wellbeing. The court had to decide if the first amendment protected the Westboro Baptist Church's right to picket military funerals with offensive and inflammatory signs. The case raised questions about the limits of free speech and whether the protesters caused emotional distress to the dead soldier's family. The court ruled in favor of the church, stating their speech was protected under the first amendment, even though it caused emotional damage.
Grayned v City of Rockford (1972): The court had to determine if a rockford city ordinance that prohibited noise, commotion, and obstruction near schools violated the students rights of free speech and assembly. The court ruled that this was constitutional because it served a significant government interest in maintaining an appropriate learning environment.
Expression
Near v Minnesota (1931):Jay Near was prevented from publishing a scandalous magazine under a state law that allowed for prior restraint. Near argued that this violated his first amendment rights to freedom of speech and freedom of the press. The supreme court ruled that prior restraint is unconstitutional except in certain circumstances. This case was significant in establishing the principle that the government cannot censor or restrain the press before publication.
Schenck v US (1919):Charles Schenck was charged with violating the espionage act by distributing pamphlets that criticized the draft during ww1. Schenck argued that his actions were protected by the first amendment, specifically the freedom of speech. The court ruled against Schenck stating that speech can be limited if it presents a clear and present danger to the country. This case established the clear and present danger test used to determine the limits of freedom of speech.
Tinker v Des Moines (1969): Tinker and her brother were suspended from school for wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam war. They argued that their actions were a form of symbolic speech protected by the first amendment. The school district claimed that the armbands caused a disruption and violated school policy. The court ruled in favor of the tinkers and stated that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” This case established that students have the right to express their opinions as long as it does not significantly disrupt the educational environment.
Brandenburg v Ohio (1969): Brandenburg was a leader of the KKK and was convicted for making inflammatory and threatening statements during a rally. The supreme court ruled in favor of Brandenburg, stating that the government cannot punish speech unless it is directed to inciting imminent lawless action and is likely to produce such action. This case established a stricter standard for limiting freedom of speech, protecting even offensive or hateful speech unless it directly incites violence.
2nd Amendment
Bear Arms
D.C. v Heller (2008): The argument was centered around whether the District of Columbia's handgun ban and requirement for firearms to be kept disassembled or with trigger locks violated an individual's right to self-defense. The court had to determine if the Second Amendment protected an individual's right to possess firearms for self defense within their own home. The court ruled in favor of Heller, stating that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess firearms for self-defense within the home.
4th amendment
Exclusionary rule
Mapp v Ohio (1961): The argument centered around evidence obtained through an illegal search and if it could be used in state criminal proceedings. The court had to determine if the exclusionary rule applied to state courts as well.The court ruled in favor of Mapp, stating that the exclusionary rule does apply to state courts, providing a safeguard against unlawful search and seizures.
Nix v Williams (1984): The argument centered around the evidence found through an unlawful search and seizure. The court had to determine if evidence that was discovered as a result of an illegal act, but later obtained through separate legal means, could still be used in court.The court ruled the evidence could be admitted if it would have been discovered by lawful means. It was a significant case that established the inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule.
Weeks v US (1914): The argument was about the Fourth Amendment and the exclusionary rule. The court had to determine if evidence obtained through an illegal search and seizure could be used in federal court. The court ruled that evidence found in violation of the Fourth Amendment should be excluded from federal court proceedings. This case established the exclusionary rule, which helps protect individuals from unlawful searches and seizures.
Wolf v Colorado (1949): The argument was centered around the application of the Fourth Amendment and if evidence obtained through an illegal search and seizure could be used in state court. The court ruled that the exclusionary rule does not apply to the states. It was a significant case that limited the reach of the exclusionary rule to federal court proceedings.
Terry v Ohio (1968): The argument centered around whether a police officer's stop of individuals on the street, based on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, violated their Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. The court had to determine if the officer's actions were justified and if the evidence obtained during the search could be used in court. The court ruled that the stop was constitutional under the Fourth Amendment, as long as the officer had reasonable suspicion.
US v Leon (1984): The court had to determine if evidence obtained through a search warrant that was later found to be invalid could still be used if the police officers acted in good faith when obtaining the warrant. The court ruled that evidence found in good faith reliance on a search warrant, even if later found to be invalid, could still be used in court. It was a significant case that created an exception to the exclusionary rule in certain circumstances.
Search Warrants
New Jersey v T.L.O (1985): This argument was about the Fourth Amendment and the search and seizure of students in public schools. The court had to determine if the search conducted by school officials without a warrant violated the student's Fourth Amendment rights. The court ruled that school officials can conduct searches of students if there are reasonable grounds to suspect a violation of school rules or the law.
Katz v US (1967): The argument was focused on the Fourth Amendment and the expectation of privacy. The court had to determine if the government's warrantless wiretapping of a public telephone booth violated Katz's Fourth Amendment rights. The court ruled that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their telephone conversations, even in public places.
Florida v Bostick (1991): The argument was about the constitutionality of police encountering people riding the bus. The court needed to determine if the police's practice of approaching passengers on a bus and asking for consent to search their belongings violated the Fourth Amendment. The court ruled that the practice was constitutional as long as it was voluntary and passengers were free to refuse consent. This case addressed the balance between law enforcement's authority and individuals' Fourth Amendment rights in public transportation settings.
Drug Testing & Search
Board of Education v Earls (2002): In the Board of Education v. Earls case, the main argument was of the constitutionality of mandatory drug testing for students participating in extracurricular activities. The court had to determine if the drug testing policy violated the Fourth Amendment rights of the students. The court ruled that the drug testing policy was constitutional because it served the school's interest in preventing drug use among students involved in extracurricular activities.
Illinois v Caballes (2005): The argument was focused on the use of drug-sniffing dogs during routine traffic stops and if the use of a drug-sniffing dog around a vehicle during a routine traffic stop constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment.The court ruled that the use of a drug-sniffing dog did not violate the Fourth Amendment because it did not constitute a search.
Vernonia School District v Acton (1995): The argument was based on the constitutionality of drug testing for student athletes. The court needed to determine if random drug testing of student athletes violated their Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. The court ruled that the drug testing policy was constitutional because it served the school's interest in deterring drug use among student athletes. It established that schools have a special interest in promoting the health and safety of their students, which can justify certain intrusion on privacy.
5th amendment
Miranda Rights
Miranda v Arizona (1966): The argument contained whether police were required to inform individuals of their rights, including the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney, before questioning them. The court had to determine if the statements made by Miranda were evidence, considering he was not informed of his rights prior to the interrogation.The court ruled that individuals must be informed of their rights, now known as the Miranda rights, before being questioned by the police.
Dickerson v US (2000): The argument was about Miranda rights and if Congress could pass a law that would overrule the Miranda decision, which required law enforcement to inform suspects of their rights before custodial interrogations. The court ruled that the Miranda rights are constitutional and cannot be superseded by a federal statute.
Habeas Corpus
Hamdi v Rumsfeld (2004): The argument was about if the government had the authority to detain a U.S. citizen indefinitely without charge or trial. The court ruled that the detention of U.S. citizens as enemy combatants was constitutional but that they had the right to challenge their detention through habeas corpus.
Eminent Domain
Kelo v New City of London (2005): The argument was centered around the government's power of eminent domain and its use for economic development. The court had to determine if the city's taking of private property for the purpose of economic development qualified as a public use under the Fifth Amendment. The court ruled that the city's use of eminent domain for economic development was constitutional, even if the property was transferred to private developers.
Coerced Confessions
Ashcraft v Tennessee (1944): The argument was about the Fifth Amendment and the use of coerced confessions. The court needed to decide if the confession, which was obtained after an intense interrogation without sleep, could be used as evidence. The court ruled that the confession was involuntary and violated the defendant's rights against self-incrimination. It was important and emphasized ensuring that confessions are obtained freely and voluntarily.
6th amendment
Right to Counsel
Powell v Alabama (1932): The argument was about the Sixth Amendment and the right to counsel. The court had to determine if the defendants, who were accused of a capital offense, were denied their right to counsel when they did not have correct representation during their trial. The court ruled that the defendants were denied their right to counsel and that they should have been provided with competent legal representation. It was a significant case that reinforced the importance of ensuring fair and effective legal representation for defendants in criminal cases.
Gideon v Wainwright (1963): The argument was centered around whether the right to counsel applied to state criminal proceedings. The court had to determine if Gideon had the right to be provided with an attorney, even though he couldn't afford one, during his trial for a felony offense.The court ruled in favor of Gideon, stating that the right to counsel is a fundamental right and should be provided to defendants in state criminal cases. This case ensured that individuals who cannot afford an attorney are still guaranteed legal representation.
Escobedo v Illinois (1964): The argument was about the right to counsel during police interrogations. The court had to decide if the police violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel by denying his request to have his lawyer present during questioning. The court ruled that the defendant's rights were violated, stating that once a suspect has requested an attorney, they have a right to have one present during questioning.
Trial By Jury
Duncan v Louisiana (1968): The argument was about the Sixth Amendment and the right to a trial by jury. The court had to determine if the defendant, who was charged with a serious offense carrying potential imprisonment, had the right to a trial by jury in state criminal proceedings. The court ruled the right to a trial by jury is a fundamental right and should be applied to state criminal cases as well. The case ensured the right to a jury trial for individuals facing serious criminal charges.
-
14th amendment
Compulsory Education Act
Pierce v Society of Sisters (1925): The argument was on the freedom of parents to choose the type of education for their children and if an Oregon law requiring all children to attend public schools violated the parents' rights. The court ruled that the law was unconstitutional because it interfered with the parents' right to make decisions about their children's education.
Right to Privacy
Griswold v Connecticut (1965): The argument was about the right to privacy and the constitutionality of a Connecticut law that criminalized the use of contraceptives. The court had to decide if the law violated the right to privacy, even though it was not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. Ultimately, the court ruled that the law was unconstitutional because it violated the right to privacy between married couples. It was a significant case that established the right to privacy as a fundamental right protected by the Constitution.
Roe v Wade (1973)This argument was focused on women's rights to have an abortion. The court had to determine if a state law that banned abortions except to save the life of the mother was constitutional. The court had ruled that a woman's right to have an abortion fell within the right to privacy protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. This was an extremely significant case and has since been overturned.
Abortion Rights
Webster v Reproductive Health Services (1989): This argument was centered around a Missouri law that imposed certain restrictions on abortion. The court had to determine if the law was constitutional and if it violated the right to abortion established in the Roe v. Wade case. The court upheld the central holding of Roe v. Wade, but it modified the legal standard for evaluating abortion restrictions. This was the case that reaffirmed a woman's right to choose to have an abortion, but also allowed for more restrictions to be imposed by the states.
Planned Parenthood v Casey (1992): The argument was about a Pennsylvania law that imposed certain restrictions on abortion. The court needed to decide if the law was constitutional and if it placed an "undue burden" on a woman's right to seek an abortion, as established in the Roe v. Wade case. The court ruled that some of the restrictions in the law were constitutional, but it did not overturn the core holding of Roe v. Wade. It was a significant case that allowed states to impose certain restrictions on abortion without directly challenging the Roe v. Wade precedent.
Commerce Clause
Raich v Gonzales (2004): The argument was on the federal government's authority to regulate the use of medical marijuana. The court needed to determine if the federal government could prohibit the use of medical marijuana, even in states where it was legalized. The court ruled that the federal government had the authority to regulate and prohibit the use of marijuana, even for medical purposes. This case addressed the balance between state and federal powers in the context of drug regulation.