Landmark Supreme Court cases: Difference between revisions

Line 247: Line 247:
</div>
</div>
|
|
* Miller v. Johnson (1995: addressed racial gerrymandering that had created a "geographic monstrosity" in order to have a black-majority of voters)
* [[wikipedia:Miller_v._Johnson|Miller v. Johnson]] (1995: addressed racial gerrymandering that had created a "geographic monstrosity" in order to have a black-majority of voters)
|-
|-
|
|
Line 358: Line 358:
=== Ex parte Milligan ===
=== Ex parte Milligan ===
|1866
|1866
|
|Chase
|n/a
|n/a
|''Can a military court try a citizen?''
|''Can a military court try a citizen?''- prohibited use of military tribunals when civilian courts are available
|
|''habeas corpus''(note that "ex parte" means "on behalf of", thus for a court in which a party to a suit is absent or not notified)
|
| - During the Civil War, the Lincoln administration tried northern dissenters in military courts
- Decision: "marial rule can never exist when the courts are open" and martial law operates only under "military operations, where war really prevails"
|
|
* [[wikipedia:Ex_parte_Merryman|Ex parte Merryman]] (1861 regarding suspemsion of habeas corpus)
* [[wikipedia:Ex_parte_Quirin|Ex parte Quirin]] (1942 regarding military trial of German spies in the U.S.)
|-
|-
|
|
Line 370: Line 374:
|Warren
|Warren
|n/a
|n/a
|
|''Can a public accommodation (a business or other publicly available service) discriminate by race?''- racial discrimination
- upheld Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
|Commerce clause
|Commerce clause
equal protection
equal protection
|(1964: court ruled that the Commerce Clause gave Congress the power to prohibit racial discrimination in "public accommodations", i.e. businesses open to the public)
| - prior desegregation cases focused on public facilities (buses, school), but this case involved a private entity, a motel. However, since a motel is a "public accommodation," i.e. open to the public, the Court upheld the terms of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that prohibited discrimination based on race, religion or national origin.
|
|
* ''[[wikipedia:Katzenbach_v._McClung|Katzenbach v. McClung]] (1964; upheld federal laws prohibiting racial discrimination in restraurants''
|-
|-
|
|
Line 381: Line 387:
|Burger
|Burger
|n/a
|n/a
- this case was overturned in 2022 by [[wikipedia:Kennedy_v._Bremerton_School_District|Kennedy v. Bremerton School District]]) and so is no longer U.S. law and not on the AP US Gov test)
|''Can a state fund teach pay for religious schools?''  
|''Can a state fund teach pay for religious schools?''  
- government entanglement with religion
- government entanglement with religion
Line 386: Line 393:
|Establishment clause
|Establishment clause
(1st amendment)
(1st amendment)
|<< to do
| - consolidated with a Rhode Island case that similarly tested validity of state compensation for religious school teachers
- the "Lemon Test" resulted from this case, although ''Kennedy'' (2022) instructed lower courts to ignore the Lemon Test standard.
- the Lemon Test proposed a "standard" for measuring legislative violation of the Establishment clause , including that the law must
 
# have a secular purpose
# neither advance nor inhibit religion
# not create "excessive government entanglement" with religion, as measured by 1. nature and purpose of the institution; 2) nature of the state aid; 3) resulting relationship between the government and the religious institution
|
|
|-
|-
Line 394: Line 407:
|Burger
|Burger
|n/a
|n/a
(removed from the AP Gov Test in 2022 due to ''Dodd'' decision)
- this case was overturned by ''[[wikipedia:Dobbs_v._Jackson_Women's_Health_Organization|Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization]] (2022)'' and thus removed from the AP Gov Test in 2022 due to ''Dobbs'' decision)
| - right to privacy
| - right to privacy
- right to abortion
- right to abortion