line - 1,4,10

angle - 3,5,9
r - 6,7,12
a man 0<--< - 2,8,11
MUST FINISH ALL BY END OF THE DAY MONDAY

1. Be familiar with the civil liberties specifically outlined in the Constitution.

Civil Liberties Original Text

● Outlines natural rights

● Writ of habeas corpus

o “The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of
Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”

o Court order

▪ requiring government officials to present a prisoner in court, and

▪ explain to a judge why that person is being held

● Bills of attainder are forbidden

o Legislative act punishing an individual or group without a judicial trial

● Ex post facto laws are forbidden

o Criminal laws that punish retroactively

● Trial by jury in federal courts for criminal cases

● Equal protection of the laws as citizens move from one state to another

● No titles of nobility

● Limits on punishment for treason

● No religious oaths for federal office

● Guarantee of republican government in all states

2. You must be able to articulate the meaning of:

○ The establishment clause of the 1st Amendment

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” (Establishment clause), or

3. Be familiar with all three parts of the Lemon Test.

Secular Purpose: The law or government action must have a non-religious purpose.

Primary Effect: The primary effect of the law or action must neither advance nor inhibit religion.

Entanglement: The law or action must not foster excessive entanglement between government
and religion.

4. You will be responsible for naming and describing several of the seven exceptions to 1st
Amendment free speech rights.

o Freedom of Speech - Limits On

▪ Incitement

● The Supreme Court has held that "advocacy of the use of force" is unprotected when it is
"directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and is "likely to incite or produce such
action". Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)

▪ False statements of fact

● The Supreme Court decided that there is "no constitutional value in false statements of fact".
Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974)

o Commercial Speech

● Commercial speech occupies a unique role as a free speech ▪ exception. While there is no
complete exception, legal advocates recognize it as having "diminished protection".

▪ For example, false advertising can be punished and misleading advertising may be prohibited ▪
Obscenity

● Under the Miller test, speech is unprotected if

o "the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the
[subject or work in question], taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient ["shameful or morbid
interest in sex"] interest", and o "depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, contemporary
community standards, sexual conduct defined by the applicable state law", and

o "the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value". Miller v.
California (1973)

▪ Fighting words

● Fighting words, as defined by the Court, is speech that "tend[s] to incite an immediate breach
of the peace" by provoking a fight, so long as it is a "personally abusive [word] which, when
addressed to the ordinary citizen, is, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to
provoke a violent reaction".

● Additionally, such speech must be "directed to the person of the hearer" and is "thus likely to
be seen as a 'direct personal insult'". Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942)

▪ Emotional Distress

● Speech might be unprotected if it either intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly inflicts severe

● Such a rule (which has never been explicitly decided) would be limited to private figures.

● The Court held that satire which could be seen as offensive to a "public figure" is fully
protected. Hustler v. Falwell (1988)

▪ Threats

● Threats of violence that are directed at a person or group of persons that has the intent of
placing the target at risk of bodily harm or death are generally unprotected.

▪ Speech owned by others

● Speech are based on intellectual property rights.

● Things like copyrights or trademarks fall under this exception. Harper & Row v. Nation
Enterprises (1985)

5. Be able to define procedural due process and substantive due process, and be able to
articulate how they are different.

Procedural due process: Requires the government to follow fair procedures during trials.
Substantive due process: Protects certain rights that the government cannot prohibit.​
6. Be familiar with the following three clauses of the 14th Amendment:

○ Citizenship Clause

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities
of citizens of the United States

○ Due Process Clause

​ nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of
law

○ Equal Protection Clause

nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

7. Be able to describe the difference between civil liberties and civil rights.

civil rights - Rights that guarantee individuals freedom from discrimination as expressed in the
Fourteenth Amendment and laws passed by Congress

civil liberties - Basic legal freedoms that citizens possess to protect them from the abuses of
government

civil liberties focuses on individual freedom but civil rights protect people from discrimination

8. Be able to define and explain the difference between de jure and de facto segregation and
the role school bussing attempted to play in addressing de facto segregation.

De jure- Written in law segreations

De facto- In reality segregation that people do naturally and that is not in a law

With de jure segregation ended, busing sought to end de facto segregation

24th amendment - banned poll taxes to increase access to voting for minorities

Voting Rights Act of 1965 -

1.​ Outlawed literacy tests

10. Be able to explain why the Supreme Court applied the 14th Amendment “equal protection”
clause differently to people based on race and sex.

The 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause has been used in the courts when it comes to
civil liberties for women. Until the 1970s, SCOTUS was more aggressive in applying the equal
protection clause to blacks than to women.

This was because it was the Court’s view that discriminatory local and state laws were used to
harm blacks, but it was the Court’s view that discriminatory local and state laws were intended
to protect women.

11. The Supreme Court cases discussed in our notes on civil rights will all be listed with very
brief summaries of how SCOTUS ruled in each case. Hypothetical scenarios will be presented
and you will need to determine which Supreme Court case would be used as a precedent in
deciding the hypothetical scenario cases.

Plessy v. Furgeson

Segregation not unconstitutional so long as the facilities are equal

■ NAACP (1909)

● Formed to enforce the 14th and 15th Amendments

● Focused their energies in the courts

Meredith v Jefferson County (2007) and Parents Involved in Community Schools v Seattle
School District (2007)

● Meredith = school choice was implemented but no school could have less than 15% or more
than 50% black students
● Parents = race could be used to admit kids with goal of 60% non-white and 40% white to
reflect district

● In both cases the plaintiffs argued that school policies violated the equal protection clause of
the 14th Amendment

Shelby County v Holder (2012)

Regents of the University of California v Bakke(1978)

Schuette v Bamn (2013)

Students for Fair Admissions v Harvard (2023)

United Steelworkers v Weber (1979)

Richmond v Croson (1989)

Rostker v Goldberg (1981)

Roe v Wade (1973)

Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022)

Ledbetter v Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company (2007)

Hardwick v Georgia (1986)

Romer v Evans (1996)

Lawrence v Texas (2003)

United States v Windsor (2013)

Obergefell v Hodges (2015)

12. There will be an extra credit question that asks you to describe a change in the thinking of
the Supreme Court as can be seen from looking at the Supreme Court’s ruling in one of the 1st
Amendment cases studied and presented in groups and then seeing how the Court ruled
differently in a later, second 1st Amendment case studied and presented in groups.

In harris v. McRae (1980) - they restricted federal funding for abortion and the government isn’t
required to fund medically necessary abortions
Through different cases, they expanded or restricted access to abortion.

in stenberg v. carhart (2000) - they made it so that they could abort the baby if the mother was in
danger

Continued to expand so that the decision for aborting babies was up to the state