In Reno, the Court struck the Communications Decency Act because it was:
A. Was overly broad
B. Was overly vague
C. Focused on the Internet which cannot be regulated
D. Took away the power of parents to regulate their own children
With respect to Marbury v. Madison (1803), (a) did Marbury have the right to the
commission he sought? (b) was a writ of mandamus a proper remedy for Marbury to
seek? (c) did Marbury take his case to the proper court?
Answer:*a. varies
Which of the following statements is not true?
A. Cars have less protection against searches than homes.
B. An officer making a traffic stop can order the driver and passengers out of the car.
C. A routine traffic stop where a citation is issued is sufficient to justify a full search of
an automobile.
D. If probable cause justifies a search of a lawfully stopped vehicle, it justifies the
search of every part of the vehicle.
Stare Decisis means: C
A. The Court should ignore past decisions.
B. The Court should honor past decisions.
C. The Court should let the decision stand.
D. B and C
Prior Restraint:
A. Means the government reviews materials after publication.
B. Means the government review materials once published or produced
C. Means the government has the ability to decide what is published.
D. A and C
Which of the following statements is true?
A. In Karcher v. Daggett, the Court upheld congressional redistricting where the
population difference between the largest and smallest district was .6984 percent.
B. The Court has allowed states much greater latitude in devising reapportionment
plans for state legislatures than for federal congressional districts.
C. The Court has created a specified mathematical standard for equality in federal
congressional redistricting that must be followed in all reapportionment decisions.
D. All of the above.
What is the main way in which interest groups try to influence the Supreme Court?
A. They give justices donations each holiday.
B. They meet with the justices twice a year to persuade them to change their votes.
C. They file amicus curiae briefs.
D. They file arguments on the Supreme Court’s Facebook page.
Explain the difference between textualism and original meaning. Give at least one
example.
Answer:*a. varies
The definition of fundamental rights, according to Palko includes:
A. Those rights without which liberty and justice could not exist.
B. Those rights without with the Bill of Rights could not exist
C. Those rights that replace liberty and justice
D. Those rights that replace the Bill of Rights
Gitlow is an important case because it:
A. Banned Freedom of Speech
B. Incorporated the Freedom of Speech
C. Restricted the Freedom of Speech in states
D. Allowed regulation of Freedom of Speech by the federal government only
Discuss the three political factors that scholars believe may affect the justice’s decision
to place a case on the Court’s docket. Give examples of each.
Answer:
*a. varies
When it comes to content regulation:
A. The Court has shown great tolerance for government regulations
B. The Court has ignored government regulations
C. The Court has shown little tolerance for government regulations
Lawrence v. Texas overruled what previous decision?
A. Stanley v. Georgia
B. Bowers v. Hardwick
C. Griswold v. Connecticut
D. Katz v. United States
States have generally:
a. Expanded gun rights
b. Restricted gun rights
c. Banned all guns
County of Allegheny v. ACLU indicated that the Court :
A. Would analyze context when determining whether religious symbols can be
displayed on public property
B. Would not analyze context when determining whether religious symbols can be
displayed on public property
C. Would never allow religious displays on public property
D. Would only allow religious displays on public property
Ex parte McCardle (1869 appeal of a journalist held for trial before a military tribunal):
A. upheld the authority of Congress to alter the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction.
B. struck down the law removing the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction to hear McCardle’s
appeal.
C. held that habeas corpus rights could not be altered by Congress.
D. upheld the constitutionality of criminal libel laws.
In Miller the Court set which standard for the value of a work?
A. It is utterly without redeeming social importance
B. It lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value
C. It possesses redeeming social importance
D. It possesses serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value
In general, how has the Supreme Court ruled on the issue of parental consent for minors
seeking an abortion?
A. It has upheld most requirements of parental consent.
B. It has deemed most requirements of parental consent unconstitutional.
C. It has allowed doctors to determine if parents should be notified.
D. It has yet to hear a case on the issue.
New York Times v. U.S. virtually eradicated:
A. The ability of government to censor expression that is obscene
B. The ability of the government to censor expression that might incite violence
C. The ability of the government to regulate expression to protect national security
The interest in alleviating the corrupting influence of large contributions is served by
the contribution limits and the disclosure provisions. There is, however, nothing
invidious about a candidate carrying a message to the electorate. For this reason we find
the spending limits provision constitutionally invalid.
Concur and Dissent (Burger):
When the Court approves limits on contributions and not on spending it is ignoring that
the arguments for both limits are the two sides of the same First Amendment coin.
Limiting contributions will practically limit expenditures and will therefore put a
ceiling on political activity and debate. People spend money because they wish to
communicate ideas and their interest is the same whether they or someone else utters
the words.
Concur and Dissent (White):
It is critical to obviate the impression that federal elections are purely and simply about
money. The holding here suggests that federal candidates have the constitutional right
to purchase their election. By limiting the importance of personal wealth the law helps
to assure that only individuals with a modicum of support form others will be viable
candidates.
Bates v. State Bar of Arizona (1977)
Relevant Case Facts:
Bates and Van O”Steen graduated from Arizona State University College of Law and
took jobs at a state legal aid society. They then decided to open a legal clinic to provide
services at modes fees to persons of moderate income who did not qualify for
government aid. They also placed an ad in an Arizona newspaper to advertise their
clinic. The state bar found them guilty of violating the tenet against advertising and
gave them a one-week suspension of their legal practice.
Legal Question: May lawyers constitutionally advertise the prices at which certain
routine services will be performed?
Holding: Yes. By a vote of 5-4 the Court ruled in favor of Bates.
Reasoning:
1/ We find that the postulated connection between advertising and the erosion of
professionalism is severely strained. The ABA advises attorneys to reach a clear
agreement with his client on the fees to be charged as soon as possible. It is therefore
inconsistent that an attorney should not let a client know, even before coming to the
office, what a fee will be. Other professionals advertise, and in the law it appears only
to be a matter of etiquette that ads are allowed.
2/We are not persuaded that advertising will be misleading. Although prices may vary
slightly, this does not make advertising misleading so long as the work is completed for
the advertised price. The argument here ultimately assumes that the public is not
sophisticated enough to realize the limits of advertising.
3/ Although ads might increase the use of the judicial system we cannot agree that it is
better for a person to suffer a wrong silently than to redress it by legal action.
4/ The ban on advertising makes it difficult to determine the low cost seller or
acceptable ability. In fact, allowing ads will probably increase competition and
therefore lower prices of legal services to the consumer.
5/ An attorney who is going to give bad service will do so whether or not he advertises.
If more clinics pop up because of advertising maybe it will improve service.
6/ We rule simply that the flow of information may not be restrained.
Dissenting (Rehnquist):
I would hold simply that the advertisement, however truthful, is not the sort of
expression that the Amendment was adopted to protect.
Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission of New York
(1980)
Relevant Case Facts:
After the energy shortage of winter 1973 the New York Public Service Commission
ordered all public utility companies to stop all advertising that promoted the use of
electricity. Three years after the shortage ceased, the commission requested comments
on the ban. Central Hudson opposed the ban on First Amendment Grounds, but the
commission extended the ban to all advertising.
Legal Question: Does the Public Service Commission’s regulation on advertising
violate the First and Fourth Amendments because it completely bans promotional
advertising by an electrical utility?
Holding: Yes. By a vote of 8-1 the Court ruled for Central Hudson.
Reasoning:
1/We have rejected the view that the government has complete power to suppress
advertising or regulate commercial speech, even when the ads communicate only an
incomplete version of relevant facts. The protection available for particular commercial
expression turns on the nature both of the expression and of the governmental interests
served by its regulation. We use a four part analysis to determine whether a regulation
directly advances the governmental interest asserted.
2/ The commission does not claim the expression at issue either is inaccurate or relates
to unlawful activity.
3/ The commission offers two state interests as justification for the ban ” energy
conservation and that rates be fair and efficient. Both are substantial interests.
4/In terms of the relationship between the state’s interest at promoting fairness and
efficiency, and the advertising ban, the arguments for the interest do not justify the
restriction on protected speech. Such conditional and remote eventualities put forth by
the state simply cannot justify silencing appellant’s promotional advertising.
5/ However, there is a direct link between energy conservation and the commission’s
order.
6/Finally, we point out that the energy conservation rationale is not important enough to
justify suppressing information about eclectic devices or services that would cause no
net increase in total energy use. The order here simply prevents appellants from
promoting energy reduction. The commission has also not demonstrated that its interest
cannot be protected by more limited regulation.
Dissenting (Rehnquist):
I disagree that the state-created monopoly is entitled to protection under the First
Amendment. The Court fails to recognize that this regulation is economic in nature.
Finally, the Court substitutes its judgment for that of the state in deciding how a proper
ban should be drafted.
Boy Scouts of American v. Dale (2000)
Relevant Case Facts:
Dale joined the Boy Scouts of American (BSA) in 1978, rose to the rank of Eagle
Scout, and in 1989 was named an assistant scoutmaster. At college Dale acknowledged
that he was gay and joined the Gay/Lesbian Alliance. He was subsequently interviewed
for a newspaper article where he discussed the need for gay teens to have appropriate
role models. Shortly after the publication of the article he received a letter from the
Monmouth Council revoking his membership in the Boy Scouts. The reason given was
that the scouts “specifically forbid membership to homosexuals.” Dale filed suit
claiming that the revocation of membership violated a New Jersey law prohibiting
discrimination based on sexual orientation in public accommodations.
Legal Question: Does the 1st Amendment right to association allow the Boy Scouts of
America to forbid membership to homosexuals?
Which statement best describes the Court’s decision in its first major apportionment
case, Colegrove v. Green?
A. Large apportionment discrepancies in legislative districts violates the Fourteenth
Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.
B. Large apportionment discrepancies in legislative districts violates the Constitution’s
republican form of government guarantee.
C. Racially motivated redistricting violates the 15th Amendment.
D. The authority to draw district boundaries is a “political question,” which should not
be decided in federal courts.
According to the Court in Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia, what two Amendments in
conjunction with each other guarantee the right of the public to attend trials?
A. First and Eighth
B. First and Fourteenth
C. Fifth and Eighth
D. Fifth and Fourteenth
Describe at least three provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that increased
protection against racial discrimination at the voting booth.
How did Congress respond to the Court’s decision in Reno?
A. It overturned the Court’s ruling.
B. It passed the Child Online Protection Act.
C. It did nothing, and agreed with the Court’s decision.
D. None of the above.
In Roth the Court rule that Community Standards are based on:
A. The nation as a whole
B. Individual states
C. Individual localities
D. None of the above, the Court did not define community in Roth
In terms of Freedom of Association, the Rehnquist Court has generally:
A. Made it clear government antidiscrimination interests may outweigh expression
rights of a group
B. Made it clear expression right of a group outweigh government antidiscrimination
interests
C. The government may always regulate freedom of association
D. The government may never regulate freedom of association
What was the test proposed by O”Connor in her Akron dissent?
A. The substantive due process test.
B. The rational basis test..
C. The undue burden test.
D. The abortion protection test.
Name and describe two exceptions to the warrant requirement.
Which of the following best describes the Court’s ruling on eavesdropping in Katz v.
U.S.?
A. Eavesdropping never requires a warrant.
B. Eavesdropping without a warrant is allowed as long as police don”t violate the
“physical penetration” rule.
C. Eavesdropping without a warrant is not permitted in a home, but is constitutional in a
phone booth because there is no expectation of privacy.
D. Eavesdropping constitutes a “search and seizure” and thus requires a warrant.
Why might the justices want to ensure absolute privacy in their conference discussions
Answer:*a. varies
Give two examples of justiciability standards that a case must meet in order for the
Court to decide it.
Answer:*a. varies
How has the Supreme Court’s definition of religion evolved throughout its history of
deciding first amendment cases? Make sure to cite specific cases to explain how the
evolution has taken place. Which definition do you think is most appropriate? Why?
Answer:Answer Varies
The First Amendment is clear in its protection of the freedom of expression: “Congress
shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the
people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of
grievances.” However, only Justices Black and Douglas have ever adhered to a literalist
interpretation of the freedom of expression clause. All other justices have been willing
to place some restrictions on the freedom of expression. Discuss the evolution of
standards the Court has used to adjudicate freedom of expression from Schenk to
Brandenburg. In your answer, explain why the Court has not adhered to a single
position, changing standards depending on the circumstances of the case. Why has the
Court been more willing to restrict freedom of expression in certain times and has
allowed more liberal standards at other times? Are you satisfied with the standards that
the Court has provided? Do you feel that the standards should be more or less precise
allowing for more or less freedom in interpreting the standard? Why?
Why does the Court treat commercial speech cases differently than political speech
cases?
What are the three main provisions of the Double Jeopardy clause? How has the Court
interpreted the “same offense?” Is this adequate to protect the accused from being tried
a second time? Why or why not?
How does the U.S. compare to other nations when it comes to freedom of the press? Do
most nations have free press in the way we do in the U.S.?
According to Salerno what competing interests are at stake when a judge determines
whether to deny bail? Why did Marshall disagree with Rehnquist’s decision?
In his majority opinion in Baker v. Carr what justification did Justice Brennan give for
hearing the case despite the Court’s previous ruling in Colegrove v. Green?
Why did Justice Marshall and others disagree with Justice Brennan’s opinion in
Rosenbloom?
How do abortion rights in the U.S. compare to the rights granted women globally?
Was the Court’s decision in New York Times v. U.S. definitive or are there doubts about
the extent to which there is a national security exception to free press? Why or why not?
What historical argument do gun control supporters make to support the assertion that
the 2nd amendment does not provide an individual right to bear arms?
What effect did lowers courts have on the pornography industry in the 1950s? How did
the public react to such decisions?
According to Chief Justice Marshall in Barron v. Baltimore which level of government
is limited by the Bill of Rights? Why?
Answer:
*a. varies
On June 5, 1989, FBI agent Steve Moe received a tip from a well-known actor in
Minneapolis, that Roger Sviggum, another well-known actor, was manufacturing illegal
drugs (cocaine and heroin) in a laboratory located on his land “up north,” and that he
was growing marijuana on the property surrounding this lake front property. Acting on
this information, Moe dispatched agents to the northern Minnesota property. Over the
course of the next week, these agents observed numerous “strange” cars and other
vehicles going in and out of the ranch.
Based on the initial “tip,” and these observations, Moe sought to obtain a warrant to
search the Sviggum residence. He first approached Magistrate Hottinger. He told him
about the “tip” and the agents’ observations. Hottinger, however, felt insufficient
probable cause existed to issue the warrant. Rather than attempting to build a better
case, Moe went to a second magistrate, Pawlenty, who issued a warrant to search only
the Sviggum residence (i.e., the main building).
1) Should magistrate Pawlenty have issued the warrant? Why or why not?
Moe, along with four other officers, sought to execute the warrant. They drove up to the
Sviggum residence, parking rather far from the house because a silver Mercedes Benz
was blocking the driveway. They knocked on the door to the house, and Sviggum’s wife
opened it. After she told them that Roger was not in the house (he was, according to her,
practicing his lines for a new episode), Moe explained that they had a warrant to search
the home. She let them in and the five began a full search of the house.
The officers found nothing until they spotted a closed door at the side of the house.
They asked Mrs. Sviggum about this, and she told them that they rented out that part of
the home to a boarder, one Monica Hahn. Upon obtaining Mrs. Sviggum’s permission,
the agents entered the Hahn quarters. There, they not only found Ms. Hahn, but a
sophisticated laboratory they suspected was used for the manufacturing of drugs.
2) Was it reasonable for police to have entered Winger’s quarters? Why or why not?
As the agents moved toward Hahn, she began ingesting chemicals located on a table on
which she was working. They immediately, but gently, seized her and placed her under
arrest. Since she swallowed some of the “evidence,” however, two agents rushed her to
a local hospital for stomach X-Rays. At the hospital, Hahn refused to give her consent
for the X-Ray procedure. The doctor, acting under police orders, took them anyway.
And, the resultant pictures revealed the presence of substances used to manufacture
heroin.
3) Was the X-Ray procedure a reasonable search and seizure? Why or why not?
Meanwhile, finding nothing else in the Sviggum residence, agents decided to search the
silver Mercedes in the driveway of the house. The asked Mrs. Sviggum to whom the car
belonged. She replied that it was her car, but that she would not give them consent to
search. Nevertheless, the agents went back into the house, found the car keys, and
opened it themselves. In a suitcase in the trunk of the car, they found large quantities of
heroin. They placed Mrs. Sviggum under arrest and called for back-up officers.
4) Was the search of the car reasonable under the Fourth Amendment? Why or why not?
As soon as other officers arrived on the scene, two FBI agents decided to examine the
rest of the property (the land surrounding the ranch) to see if they could locate Roger,
and to determine if, in fact, the Sviggum’s were growing marijuana on the premises.
They did not have to walk very far to find what they were looking for. Right beyond the
fence enclosing the ranch, they spotted acres of marijuana plants. And, just a quarter
mile further, they saw Roger, dressed in a business suit, talking to two teenage girls.
As the agents rushed toward Roger, eventually arresting him, the girls started quickly
walking away from the scene. One of the officers stopped them and identified himself
as a police officer. Next, he “patted” them down. He found nothing on the first; on the
second, Linda Lewinsky, he felt “something” bulky in her jacket pocket. The agent
reached in and removed the mass, which turned out to be a huge wad of $100 bills and a
negligible amount of heroin. He arrested Ms. Lewinsky.
5) Was this “frisk” reasonable under the Fourth Amendment? Why or why not?
6) Based on your answers to questions 1-5, can you now reach conclusions about the
admissibility of the evidence? Would you exclude any or all of the evidence gathered
against the Sviggum’s, Hahn, and Lewinsky? Why or why not?
7) Would your answers to questions 1-6 be different if the year was 1968, not 2002?
How did the Effective Death Penalty Act change prisoners’ ability to appeal their
convictions?
What are the Court’s two types of jurisdiction?Fully describe each and explain how
cases come to the Court through each type.
Answer:*a. varies
What did Kennedy say about the role of public opinion and the death penalty? How did
Scalia respond to this argument? Which argument do you find more persuasive? Why?
What rationale did the Court use to deny the reporter’s privilege in Branzburg v. Hayes?