You are on page 1of 4

Lemon v kurtzman (1970)

O @s case was eard concurrenLly wL Lwo oLers Larley v uenso (1971) and 8obnson v
uenso (1971) @e cases nvolved conLroverses over laws n ennsylvana and 8ode lsland ln
ennsylvana a sLaLuLe provded fnancal supporL for Leacer salares LexLbooks and
nsLrucLonal maLerals for secular sub[ecLs Lo nonpublc scools
O @e 8ode lsland sLaLuLe provded drecL supplemenLal salary paymenLs Lo Leacers n non
publc elemenLary scools Lac sLaLuLe made ad avalable Lo curcrelaLed educaLonal
O ud Le 8ode lsland and ennsylvana sLaLuLes volaLe Le lrsL AmendmenLs LsLablsmenL
lause by makng sLaLe fnancal ad avalable Lo curc relaLed educaLonal nsLLuLons?
O es WrLng for Le ma[orLy ef !usLce 8urger arLculaLed a LreeparL LesL for laws dealng
wL relgous esLablsmenL
O emon @esL
4 LaLuLe musL ave a secular legslaLve purpose
4 L musL ave prncpal effecLs wc neLer advance nor nbL relgon
4 L musL noL fosLer an excessve governmenL enLanglemenL wL relgon
O @e ourL found LaL Le subsdaLon of parocal scools furLered a process of relgous
nculcaLon and LaL Le conLnung sLaLe survellance necessary Lo enforce Le specfc
provsons of Le laws would nevLably enLangle Le sLaLe n relgous affars @e ourL also
noLed Le presence of an unealLy dvsve polLcal poLenLal concernng legslaLon wc
appropraLes supporL Lo relgous scools

nenk v Un|ted tates (1914)
O WWl ongress passed Lsponage AcL Lo seL sLff penalLes for crculaLng sLaLemenLs agansL
Le war
O ocalsLs beleved war would only benefL Le rc
O cenk was arresLed and carged wL nsubordnaLon agansL Le u MlLary and was
convcLed based on Le Lsponage AcL of 1917
O Were cenk's polLcal sLaLemenLs n Le form of leafleLs Lo drafLers proLecLed by Le clause of
free speec n 1
O unanmous decson LaL cenk was noL proLecLed by Le 1
O ongress as more resLrcLons on free speec durng war
O lear and presenL danger LesL f free speec creaLes clear and presenL danger" ongress can
resLrcL lberLes
O 8ass for more resLrcLve mmnenL lawless acLon" rule esLablsed n 8randenburg v Co

@|nker v Des Mo|nes (1969)
O !on and Mary 8eL @nker and rs LckardL wore black armbands Lo scool Lo proLesL Le
veLnam War
O cool esLablsed exposLfacLo rule agansL wearng black armbands
O @nkers and LckardL were suspended
O uoes proLesLng durng warLme consLLuLe 1
AmendmenL rgLs?
O 72 rulng n favor of @nker symbolc speec was sLll legal aL scool

-ew ork @|mes Co V Un|ted tates (1971)
O enLagon apers" u governmenL ad a seL of papers regardng mlLary and uou sLudes on
Le veLnam War uou ecreLary under yndon !onson worked Lo escalaLe veLnam War afLer
Le Culf of @onkn resoluLon uou ec wanLed nooldsbarred sLory of all u MlLary acLons
n veLnam ouLlnes n deLal usng governmenL papers Le LoLal and enLre falure of Le
governmenL (1 mllon words) conLrary Lo 8!'s press sLaLemenLs
O uanel Lllsberg one of Le wrLers of Le paper s enraged LaL noLng s done abouL Le
falure of Le governmenL and sLeals a copy and sends L Lo Le n @mes
O nxon admn Lred Lo ave Le n @mes sLop publsng documenLs fled n[uncLon n @mes
wenL Lo upreme ourL
O uoes Le lrsL AmendmenL guaranLee absoluLe freedom of Le press?
O ud Le publsng of Le enLagon apers consLLuLe a sLrong enoug LreaL Lo abrdge Le lrsL
AmendmenL 8gLs?
uecson gnfcance
O 3 n favor of n @mes o
O enLagon papers dd noL consLLuLe enoug f a LreaL Lo abrdge 1
AmendmenL rgLs because
Ley regarded mlLary acLons lo tbe post
O eL Le gross and rreparable" sLandard for pror resLranL ad Lo suffcenLly prove [usLfcaLon
for abrdgng cvl lberLes
O Iety blqb bot nformaLon ad Lo reac before governmenL could censor L

M|||er v Ca||forn|a (1973)
O Marvn Mller was convcLed of malng explcL maLeral n volaLon of a alforna sLaLuLe @e
lLganLs prosecuLed Mller because Ley were offended buL Mller manLaned LaL L was s 1

AmendmenL rgL Lo adverLse s sexually explcL maLeral
O ls Le sale and dsLrbuLon of obscene adulL maLerals by mal proLecLed under Le 1

AmendmenL clause of free speec?
O Cr s L a gross breac of conducL and prosecuLable as a msdemeanor?
O no publc dsLrbuLon of obscene maLeral s noL proLecLed under Le 1
AmendmenL @e
courL ruled agansL Mller 34
O ln prevous cases Le courL was followng stote Jeclsls LaL Ley could noL send ouL obscene
O Mller LesL (emon LesL for pr0n)
4 exually explcL f communLy generally vews L as explcL
4 lf Le maLeral acLually sows sexual conLenL L s vewed as explcL
4 lf L s noL scenLfc |Lerary arLsLc or polLcal (A LesL) L s consdered pr0n

Mapp v C|o (1961)
O uollree Mapp an elderly woman was suspecLed of ousng a bombng fugLve Wen polce
demanded Lo searc er ouse Mapp refused because Le polce lacked a searc warranL
olce reLurned several ours laLer wL a fake warranL onfronLed wL a fake warranL Mapp
snaLced Le warranL and sLuffed L down er srL and slammed Le door n Le offcers' faces
olce evenLually opened Le door and found no fugLve buL a sLas of porn n Le basemenL
Mapp dened knowledge of Le conLenL of Le Lrunk and was prosecuLed on Le bass of
possesson of obscene maLeral Mapp's lawyer appealed Le case all Le way Lo Le upreme
ourL cLng LaL Lems seed llegally cannoL be used as evdence
onsLLuLonal CuesLon
O ud Co volaLe Mapp's proLecLon from unreasonable searces seures under Le 4

O an Le evdence obLaned from llegal searces seures be used n crmnal prosecuLons?
uecson gnfcance
O @e case was decded n Mapp's favor by a voLe of 3 @e courL explcLly sLaLed LaL Le
exclusonary rule apples Lo sLaLes ence Le sLaLe cannoL use evdence ganed by llegal means
Lo convcL @s case was sgnfcanL because snce Len Le exclusonary rule as been broadly
enforced aL Le sLaLe level

|deon v Wa|nwr|gt (1963)
AmendmenL guaranLees rgL Lo an aLLorney
O ln etts v toJy (1942) upreme ourL rules LaL Le rgL Lo an aLLorney was noL absoluLe
sLaLes noL requred Lo provde an aLLorney n every case
O larence Cdeon (8reakng and enLerng case) senLenced Lo 3 years n prson @s appened n
llorda (sLaLe were counsel s noL guaranLeed)
O Wle n prson Cdeon LaugL mself ow Lo read and learns law and apples for a very specfc
Lype of appeal drecLly Lo Le upreme ourL
O uebaLe over weLer e sould ave ad an aLLorney
O uoes Le
AmendmenL wc guaranLees Le accused Le rgLs Lo ave Le AsssLance of
ounsel for s defense" apply Lo Le sLaLe ourLs?
O ould Le rgL Lo an aLLorney be exLended Lo all felony cases?
O Cdeon v WanwrgL s a waLersed case n wc Le 14
AmendmenL apples Lo Le

AmendmenL ensurng all sLaLes provded Le rgL Lo an aLLorney
O voLal aspecL of Le upreme ourL's movemenL n crmnal [usLce durng Le 30s and 0s

M|randa v Ar|zona (1966)
O LrnesLo Mranda arresLed aL ome for rape/kdnappng a menLally dsabled 18yearold grl
O onfessed afLer Lwo ours of nLerrogaLon
O Mranda wasn'L advsed of s rgL Lo an aLLorney aL any ponL
O LrnesLo's background sLory of crme rape LefL
O ls evdence obLaned wLouL legal counsel or warnngs agansL selfncrmnaLon admssble n
Le courL of law?
O @e supreme ourL ruled agansL Arona 34 for Mranda @e polce are now requred Lo
nform defendanLs of Ler rgLs known as Le Mranda rgLs" @e ourL decded LaL Le
sLaLemenLs from Le cusLodal nLerrogaLon of defendanLs are nvald unless rules and
gudelnes Lo proLecL Lem from selfncrmnaLon are followed @e decson of Le case
became a groundbreakng sLaLemenL Lo cLen's rgLs n cases of crmnal law

oe v Wade (1973)
O norma Mcorvey ad unwanLed pregnancy
O @oo poor Lo care for anoLer clde
O @exas sLaLe law probLs aborLon unless moLer's lfe s LreaLened
O norma callenged Le consLLuLonalLy of Le law
O @o avod publcLy adopLed Le alas !ane 8oe
O uoes Le 14
AmendmenL's uue rocess lause exLend Lo sLaLes?
O uoes a woman's rgL Lo prvacy exLend Lo avng an aborLon?
O ourL eld women ave rgL Lo ave aborLon
O regnancy s a rgL Lo prvacy supporLed by 8ll of 8gLs (AmendmenLs 1 4 3 9)
4 no rgL Lo prvacy explcLly guaranLeed buL L s mpled n varous amendmenLs Lo Le
O 8esLrcLons on rgL Lo aborLons
4 1
@rmesLer women ave full rgL Lo geL an aborLon
4 2
@rmesLer sLaLes can make regulaLons f L deals wL maLernal ealL
4 3
@rmesLer once feLus sLaLe can probL aborLon under nonlfeLreaLenng
O LaLe as compellng nLeresL Lo proLecL ealL of moLer and lfe of unborn baby