Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

American Civil Liberties Project - Coggle Diagram

- - - - Roper v. Simmons
        This case involved Chris Simmons, a mentally disabled 17- year old sentenced to death. So, the argument laid out by Simmons was that the 8th amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment was violated as he was a minor being sentenced to death. The Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that executing minors violated the 8th amendment. They cited the amendment’s protection of cruel and unusual punishment as well as international opinion.
      - Furman v. Georgia
        This case involved Furman, who was caught burglarizing a family members home. When making his escape, his gun fell and shot someone, killing them. He was subsequently convicted and sentenced to death, a sentence he argues violate the 8th amendment’s protection against cruel and unusual punishment. The Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that yes, the punishment did violate Mr. Furman’s 8th amendment rights against unusual punishment. This ruling forced state legislatures to rethink their laws on capital punishment.
      - Gregg v. Georgia
        This case involved Gregg, a Georgia resident who was found guilty of armed robbery and sentenced to death. Gregg appealed his conviction on the grounds that the death penalty was a “cruel and unusual punishment,” which was unconstitutional. In a 7-2 decision, the Court ruled that the death penalty was not a violation of the 8th and 14th amendment and was not ready to overrule GA legislature’s laws.
      - Penry v. Johnson
        The case involved the sentencing of Penry, a mentally disabled individual, to death in Texas. The argument questioned whether the jury received proper instructions to consider Penry's mental condition as a mitigating factor in sentencing. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Penry, holding that the jury instructions were inadequate and violated the Eighth Amendment. The decision established that jurors must be able to consider and give effect to mitigating evidence of mental disability in death penalty cases.
- - - - Engel v. Vitale
        This case centered around the constitutionality of prayer in taxpayer-funded public schools. The argument centered on whether the state-funded prayer in schools violated the Establishment Clause prohibiting religious endorsement by government. The Court ruled that the prayer was unconstitutional by endorsing religious/spiritual activity in a public school and thus violating the Establishment Clause
      - Lee v. Weisman (1992)
        This case pertained to prayer (still in school) at a graduation. The argument centered around whether the school's sponsorship of a prayer held with a priest and clergy violated the Establishment Clause. The Court ruled that it did violate the Clause because of the coercive nature of a public school graduation using state-funded prayer.
      - Santa Fe School Dist. v. Doe
        (2000)
        This case discussed a public school prayer organized by the students at football games. The argument centered around whether this practice violated the Establishment Clause or was free expression on the part of the students. The Court ruled that the student-led prayer and the district’s policy allowing so violated the constitution as it constituted endorsement of religion by government in a public school.
      - Wallace v. Jaffree (1985)
        An Alabama law requiring a moment of silence in public schools was at issue in this case. The debate focused on whether the Establishment Clause was violated by the law. SCOTUS struck down the law and ruled that its it did violate the Establishment Clause by endorsing religious activity in public schools
      - Religious Private School Funding
        
        Zelman v. Simmons-Harris
        This case dealt with an Ohio school voucher (aka defund public schools) program that included religious schools. The argument centered on whether the program violated the Establishment Clause by providing public funds to religious institutions. SCOTUS upheld the voucher program, stating that it had a secular purpose of providing educational choices and did not excessively entangle the government with religion.
        
        Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)
        This case involved state funding for private religious schools in Pennsylvania and Rhode Island. The argument questioned whether the state statutes providing financial aid to these schools violated the Establishment Clause. SCOTUS established the "Lemon Test," a three-pronged test to determine whether a law violates the Establishment Clause. The Court ruled that the state statutes in question were unconstitutional under this test.
        
        Everson v. Board of Ed. (1947)
        This case concerned a challenge to a New Jersey law providing transportation reimbursement to parents of students, including those attending parochial (religious) schools. The argument questioned whether this financial aid violated the Establishment Clause. SCOTUS upheld the law, ruling that the transportation assistance program was a secular purpose that did not constitute an establishment of religion. The decision established a precedent for government aid to religious schools if the aid had a secular purpose.
      - Mandatory Public School Attendance
        
        Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)
        The case involved Amish parents who refused to send their children to school beyond the eighth grade, in violation of state compulsory education laws. The argument questioned whether the state's requirement infringed on the parents' Free Exercise rights. SCOTUS ruled in favor of the Amish parents, stating that the state's interest in education must yield to the parents' First Amendment rights to practice their religion. The decision established a balancing test between religious freedom and state interests.
        
        Pierce v. Society of Sisters
        The case involved an Oregon law mandating attendance at public schools, prohibiting private and parochial schools. The argument questioned whether the law violated parents' and private schools' Fourteenth & First Amendment rights to liberty and property. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Society of Sisters, holding that the law unconstitutionally interfered with parents' rights to direct the education of their children. The decision affirmed the right of parents to choose private and parochial education, establishing a precedent for educational choice.
      - School Curriculum
        
        Epperson v. Arkansas (1968)
        This case involved a challenge to an Arkansas law prohibiting the teaching of evolution in public schools. The argument questioned whether the law violated the First Amendment's protection of academic freedom. SCOTUS struck down the law, ruling that it violated the Establishment Clause by advancing a particular religious view. The decision affirmed the importance of academic freedom and the separation of church and state in public education.
        
        Edwards v. Aguillard (1987)
        The case involved a Louisiana law requiring public schools to teach creationism alongside evolution. The argument questioned whether the law violated the Establishment Clause. SCOTUS struck down the law, ruling that it had a religious purpose and advanced a particular religious viewpoint. The decision reinforced the principle that public schools must maintain religious neutrality and avoid endorsing specific religious beliefs.
        
        Abington School District v.
        Schempp (1963)
        The case challenged state laws requiring Bible reading and prayer in public schools. The argument focused on whether these practices violated the Establishment Clause. SCOTUS ruled that mandatory Bible reading and prayer in public schools were unconstitutional as they violated the Establishment Clause. The decision reinforced the separation of church and state in public education.
      - Mandated Patriotism
        
        West Virginia v. Barnette
        (1943)
        WV State legislation forcing schoolchildren to salute the flag and recite the Pledge of Allegiance was being challenged in this case. Whether the pupils' First Amendment rights were infringed by this forced expression was the subject of debate. SCOTUS ruled that the state law was unconstitutional as it violated the students' freedom of speech and belief. The decision emphasized that the government could not compel individuals to express a particular viewpoint, protecting the freedom of conscience.
        
        Elk Grove School District v.
        Newdow (2004)
        This case dealt with a challenge to the inclusion of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, arguing that it violated the Establishment Clause. The argument questioned whether this phrase endorsed religion in a government-sponsored activity. SCOTUS did not directly address the merits of the case, ruling on procedural grounds that the atheist father lacked standing to bring the suit on behalf of his daughter. The decision did not provide a definitive resolution on the constitutional question regarding the Pledge of Allegiance.
    - - County of Allegheny v. ACLU
        (1989)
        This case pertained to the display of the Birth of Jesus Christ on public property and a wider question of whether religious symbolism was allowed. The arguments on both sides centered around whether Establishment Clause of the First Amendment due to its prohibition of religious endorsement. The Court held that one of the displays violated the Clause and called for the separation of Church and State
      - Virginia v. Black (2003)
        This case concerned a Virginia statute that made cross burning in the state unlawful. The question on debate was whether the statute infringed upon the right to free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment. The Supreme Court upheld the law but made clear that that action could be criminalized when performed with the intent to intimidate (i.e. intimidating African Americans in the 1950s-60s).
      - Van Orden v. Perry (2005)
        On the grounds of the Texas State Capitol stood a monument bearing the Ten Commandments. The debate centered on whether the display's promotion of a specific religious message violated the Establishment Clause. SCOTUS upheld the display, ruling that the monument's placement had a secular purpose and did not constitute government endorsement of religion. The decision emphasized the context of the display within a larger collection of historical monuments.
      - At Work
        
        Sherbert v. Verner (1963)
        This case involved a Seventh-day Adventist who was denied unemployment benefits after refusing to work on Saturdays due to religious observance. The argument questioned whether the denial of benefits violated the Free Exercise Clause. SCOTUS ruled in favor of Sherbert, establishing the Sherbert Test. The test required the government to show a compelling interest for burdening an individual's free exercise of religion, setting a high standard for laws that impinged on religious practices.
      - In Healthcare
        
        Hobby Lobby v. Burwell
        In this case, Hobby Lobby and other closely held businesses contested the Affordable Care Act's need for contraception. The main point of contention was whether the mandate infringed upon these corporations' and their owners' right to freedom of religion. SCOTUS ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby, holding that the contraceptive mandate imposed a substantial burden on the exercise of religion. The decision, based on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, recognized that closely held corporations could claim religious exemptions from certain regulations.
      - Religious Bigotry
        
        Hustler v. Falwell (1988)
        Snyder, the father of a fallen soldier, filed a lawsuit against the utterly insane Westboro Baptist Church for displaying anti-gay signs during his son's funeral. Whether the church's acts were protected by the First Amendment was a point of contention. SCOTUS ruled in favor of Hustler, stating that public figures cannot recover damages for emotional distress caused by parodies that a reasonable person would not take as factual. The decision emphasized the importance of protecting free speech, even when it involves offensive or outrageous expression.
        
        Snyder v. Phelps (2011)
        The case involved a lawsuit by Snyder, the father of a deceased soldier, against the Westboro Baptist Church (absolutely batshit crazy people) for picketing his son's funeral with anti-gay messages. The argument questioned whether the church's actions were protected by the First Amendment. SCOTUS ruled in favor of the Westboro Baptist Church, holding that their speech, though offensive, was protected by the First Amendment. The decision emphasized the importance of protecting even hurtful speech on matters of public concern, because bad people have rights too.
- - - - Exclusionary Rule Applied
        
        Weeks v. U.S.
        This case involved Fremont Weeks’ home being searched without a warrant. The cops found materials which would prove him guilty in trial for transporting lottery tickets via the mail. Weeks argued that this search violated his 4th amendment rights. In a unanimous decision, the Court ruled in favor of Mr. Weeks, arguing that the cops did violate the 4th amendment’s protection of unreasonable search and seizure. This was the first application of the Exclusionary Rule.
    - - Miranda v. Arizona
        These cases represented 4 different cases which involved the same thing: a defendant pleading guilty after an interrogation in which the defendant was not made aware of their 5th amendment rights. The question argued by Ernesto Miranda in particular was if the extraction of a confession of guilt without the defendant being made aware of their rights was unconstitutional? In a 5-4 decision, the liberal majority ruled that in favor of Mr. Miranda, ruling that law enforcement officers must make suspects aware of their constitutional rights before any interrogation. These are now known as Miranda rights as they protected a defendant’s right to not self-incriminate.
      - Dickerson v. U.S.
        The case involved the admissibility of a confession obtained in violation of Miranda rights, as federal law allowed for the admission of voluntary confessions regardless of Miranda warnings. The argument questioned whether Congress could legislate to overturn Miranda v. Arizona. The Supreme Court reaffirmed Miranda v. Arizona, ruling that Congress could not legislate to overrule the Miranda decision. The decision emphasized the constitutional nature of Miranda warnings and the importance of protecting the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
- - - - U.S. v. Leon
        The case involved the execution of a search warrant later found to be unsupported by probable cause. The argument questioned whether evidence obtained under a defective warrant could be admitted if the officers acted in good faith reliance on the warrant. The Supreme Court established the "good faith" exception to the exclusionary rule, allowing evidence to be admitted if law enforcement acted in good faith reliance on a defective warrant. The decision aimed to balance the deterrence of police misconduct with the need for effective law enforcement.
      - Katz v. U.S.
        The case involved the warrantless wiretapping of Katz's telephone booth conversations by federal agents. The argument questioned whether the wiretapping violated the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Supreme Court, in a landmark decision, held that the wiretapping violated the Fourth Amendment, establishing the "reasonable expectation of privacy" test. The decision broadened the scope of Fourth Amendment protection to include situations where individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy, even in public spaces.
      - Drug-Related
        
        Illinois v. Caballes
        This case involved a routine traffic stop during which a drug-sniffing dog was alerted to the presence of narcotics in Caballes vehicle. The argument questioned whether the use of a dog sniffer during a traffic stop violated the 4th amendment’s protection of unreasonable search and seizure. The Supreme Court upheld the use of the drugsniffing dog, ruling that it did not constitute a separate search and did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The decision emphasized that a canine sniff conducted during a lawful traffic stop does not require reasonable suspicion and is not considered a search under the Fourth Amendment.
        
        Florida v. Bostick
        The case involved the warrantless search of a bus passenger's luggage by police, based on the suspicion of drug trafficking. The argument questioned whether the search violated the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Supreme Court upheld the search, stating that it was consensual as the passenger had the option to refuse. The decision established the "voluntariness" standard for encounters between law enforcement and individuals in non-coercive settings.