1. Constitutional Study Guide
Period 1
Dr. Swanson
AP Government
Brad King
Hunter Stapp
Julian Arellano
Justin Causey

2. First Amendment Definition and Interpretation
The first amendment states that the government cannot establish a religion or interfere in the practice of one (Establishment Clause)
The government cannot impede upon one’s right of free speech or the press (even if the press publishes executive documents), and people have the right to assembly and to petition the government without punishment
The First Amendment is crucial to one’s liberty to speak their mind and act according to their own values

3. First Amendment – free speech
Schenck v. United States (1919)
Schenck was convicted under the Espionage Act of 1917 for distributing leaflets, and a unanimous decision from the Supreme Court upheld the ruling
The court stated that if one’s actions created a “clear and present danger,” Congress should have the power to put a stop to them
This set the precedent of the limits on free speech for nearly fifty years
Whitney v. California (1927)
Anita Whitney, a woman who aided in the formation of the Communist Labor Party, was convicted under the Criminal Syndicalism Act
When it was questioned in the Supreme Court whether or not her conviction was consistent with the “due process” and “equal protection” clauses, they ruled unanimously that if one’s speech has a “bad tendency” than a person can be penalized
According to Justice Sanford, a “bad tendency” includes “utterances inimical to the public welfare, tending to incite crime, disturb the public peace, or endanger the foundation of organized government and threaten its overthrow”
This expanded the limits on free speech as previously established in Schenck v. United States

4. First Amendment – free speech
Feiner v. New York (1951)
Feiner was arrested after his speech disrupted the crowd and police thought that a riot was impending
The Supreme Court upheld the decision in a 6-3 majority, stating that he was stopped from speaking because of the bad reaction from the crowd and fear that violence would erupt
The Supreme Court, however, stated that no matter what a speaker is talking about, he or she cannot be arrested solely for what he or she is saying
This protected the basis of speech but redefined how one can be punished for inflammatory speech
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969)
Three children who wore armbands protesting the Vietnam War were suspended from school
Eventually, the case made its way to the Supreme Court where it was decided in a 7-2 ruling that suspending the children for wearing the apparel was a violation of the freedom of speech guaranteed to citizens in the First Amendment
Schools are allowed to ban apparel and behavior that “materially and substantially interfere[s] with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school,” but must give constitutionally-based proof that it doesn’t do more than cause “discomfort and unpleasantness”
This set the guidelines for what actions a school is constitutionally allowed to take in punishing students

5. First Amendment – free speech
Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)
Clarence Brandenburg was a Ku Klux Klan leader who spoke at a rally and encouraged violence against black people and Jews
As a result of his actions, he was convicted under Ohio’s criminal syndicalism statute
The Supreme Court held that if speech did not create “imminent lawless action” and was not likely to, then it cannot be forbidden; Brandenburg’s charges were thus cleared
This effectively nullified the decision made in Whitney v. California and created a three pronged test that reviewed the intent of speech and the imminence and likelihood of its results
It also eschewed the ruling of Dennis v. United States by stating that “mere advocacy” was protected speech
As a result of this case, one cannot be convicted based on indirect encouragement of breaking the law
Buckley v. Valeo (1976)
After many amendments were passed to the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) of 1971, Senator Buckley sued Secretary of State Francis Valeo in an attempt to reverse the new additions to the FECA
Though the Supreme Court upheld full disclosure of contributions and limitations on individual contributions, they rejected other amendments including limitations on personal contributions to a candidate, donations from a person or group, and on the amount of money one can spend on his or her campaign
The Supreme Court upheld the validity of these donations because they believed that they were a form of free speech and should not be suppressed
This allowed for a greater fiscal influence on politics

6. First Amendment – Freedom of the Press
Gitlow v. New York (1925)
Gitlow published the “Left Wing Manifesto” in his paper and was convicted, but Gitlow stated that he was only recording history in his writings
The Supreme Court took on the case, and in a 7-2 ruling upheld his conviction
Although Barron v. Baltimore (1833) previously established that Bill of Rights only pertained to the federal government, Gitlow v. New York established a new precedent that the Bill of Rights applies to both the federal and state governments using the “due process clause” of the Fourteenth Amendment as justification
This case drew upon and expanded the “clear and present danger” test established in Schenck v. United States, and also was influenced by the “bad tendency” test from Abrams v. United States (1919)
Thus, the court established that Gitlow’s conviction was in line with the First Amendment
Near v. Minnesota (1931)
Jay M. Near and Howard A. Guildford ran stories in The Saturday Press maligning and slandering many people, including the Jews and the police force
The publication of the paper was halted, and Near was prosecuted, after which he appealed his case
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that this censorship was unconstitutional in a 5-4 ruling
The U.S. Supreme Court largely invalidated prior restraint in this ruling, stating that it is a violation of the First Amendment in any case besides national security or wartime
This gave a large boost to free press and limited the censorship of papers in advance

7. First Amendment – Freedom of the Press
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964)
The New York Times ran an advertisement that drew a lawsuit in which the Times lost, leading to an appeal
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor the Times and stated that Alabama was violating the guarantees of freedom of speech and of the press
They stated that a public official (such as Sullivan) must have proof of actual malice to gain punitive damages; this means that there must be proof of intentionally falsified defamation for a public official to be awarded compensation
This expanded the rights of freedom of the press, as it is hard to prove that “actual malice” is involved in a publication
This was applied to civil rights campaigns and had great significance for the validity of their publications
New York Times Co. v. United States (1971)
The New York Times and the Washington Post obtained illegal copies of the Pentagon Papers and published them, after which the U.S. district court filed a court order mandating that the documents not be published
The New York Times appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court and won in a 6-3 ruling
In doing so, the court rejected unjustified prior restraint, even when the U.S. government was involved
Justification was also drawn from Near v. Minnesota, as the Supreme Court believed that publishing the papers was not included in the three restrictions placed on freedom of expression by Near v. Minnesota
This case made freedom of the press superior to the wishes of the executive branch when the latter did not have a constitutional backing, setting a precedent that lasts to this day

8. First Amendment – Freedom of the Press
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988)
At Hazelwood East High School, two stories covering relatively controversial topics in the school newspaper were submitted to the principal for approval to run
The principal did not approve of either story, and a four-page paper ran instead of a six-page paper, causing the editor and reporters to sue
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-3 majority in favor of the school administration, stating that they do in fact have the right to moderate the paper
This ruling was distinct from Tinker in that the Supreme Court believed that running the stories was deliberate promotion of student’s free speech while in Tinker the schools were “tolerat[ing]” their speech
This set the precedent that the administration is able to regulate publications when it concerns the school’s reputation or educational integrity

9. First Amendment – Freedom of Religion
Engel v. Vitale (1962)
This case began when kids who attended public school told their parents that their classes recited a prayer at the beginning of school every day
The plaintiffs contended that this violated the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment that stated that federal government “shall make no law respecting an establishment of a religion”
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 6-1 decision that having a prayer at the beginning of each school day was unconstitutional, even if it was voluntary
In this case, arguments of vague wording and voluntary participation made by the defendants were dismissed, establishing a precedent of no tolerance for laws violating the Establishment Clause
Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)
When three Amish kids dropped out of school after the eighth grade due to their religion, the Green County Court used the Wisconsin Compulsory School Attendance Law to fine them $500
The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled in Yoder’s favor, after which Wisconsin took the case to the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Yoder’s favor, stating that the state law could not violate the religious beliefs of Amish people
The Court believed that the Amish religion was legitimate and that it gave back to society, and contended that two years of extra schooling was not proven to have benefits
This was significant because it upheld the freedom of religion for citizens, even when it conflicted with state laws

10. First Amendment – Obscenity in Speech
Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964)
Jacobellis, the manager of a theatre, played an obscene movie and was fined
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Jacobellis because they ruled that the film was not obscene and thus could not be prevented from playing
The court expanded what could be banned for obscenity, stating that material would have to verge on “hard-core pornography” to be banned
Miller v. California (1973)
The controversy that led to this case began what Marvin Miller distributed large amounts of pornographic mail advertising a sexually explicit product
The Supreme Court ruled that Marvin’s distribution of pornographic material is not protected under the statues of the First Amendment, nor is any form of this obscene expression of free speech
The three-part “Miller Test” was established so as to give states guidelines as to what is protected by free speech and what is not
This case established the precedent that obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment

11. Second Amendment
Definition and Interpretation
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed upon.
This amendment basically gave Americans the right to own guns and other weapons, though it does not specify whether it is intended for individual use or solely for a state to be able to organize and arm a militia.

12. Second Amendment 1939 Miller v. U.S.
Miller got caught transporting sawed-off shotguns from Oklahoma to Arkansas
The court ruled that the 2nd amendment only protects the ownership of militia-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia
Miller’s shotguns were not considered appropriate for militia use
2008 District of Columbia v. Heller
D.C. law banned possession of handguns, prohibiting the registration of handguns and making it a crime to carry an unregistered firearm
All lawfully owned firearms had to be kept unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock unless they were being used for lawful recreational activities or located in a place of business
Officer Dick Heller sued when he was denied his application to register a personal handgun
The court held that:
1. D.C.’s total ban on handguns in the home was a violation of the 2nd Amendment because it was a prohibition on an entire class of arms that Americans usually chose for self-defense
2. The requirement that handguns be kept in such a manner also violated the 2nd Amendment because it made it impossible for citizens to use them for the lawful purpose of self-defense
This was an important decision because the Supreme Court finally definitively stated that the 2nd Amendment protected the people’s right to bear arms as individuals, not just the state’s right to organize and arm its militia units

13. Fourth Amendment
Definition and Interpretation
People are protected against unreasonable searches and seizures of their property and a warrant can only be granted with probable cause, describing what is being searched and seized.

14. Fourth Amendment Mapp v. Ohio
Police search house of Dollree Mapp without a warrant when one was requested
There had been a suspicion of a bombing case in Mapp’s house
No bomb was found, but porn materials were found
Mapp arrested for the porn material
The conviction was overturned because the evidence against Mapp was found illegally
This case upholds the people’s right to protection against unreasonable searches, even when a crime is detected under the illegal search

15. Fifth Amendment
Definition and Interpretation
Any person who is held under an accusation of a capital or infamous crime must have the right to a Grand Jury or they must be set free. The only exception to this is if the case arises in the military or militia at eh time of a war.
No person shall be subject to the same offense twice (double jeopardy)
No person shall be forced to be a witness against him/herself or deprived of life, liberty, and property without due Process.
The government cannot take private property without providing equal compensation

16. Fifth Amendment Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy RR v. Chicago
In 1880 Chicago wanted to widen Rockwell street and this required land from private landowners and a Quincy railroad company.
Court unanimously voted that Chicago must award the land owners with equal compensation, upholding the 14th amendment’s Due Process
This also exercised the right of the people that the government can seize property without Due Process
First court case that the Supreme Court applied the Bill Rights to state or local governments.
Mallory v. Hogan
Malloy was on probation for illegal gambling and was forced to testify in court but refused to answer questions about his previous conviction
Malloy was put back in jail, he appealed on the basis of habeas corpus but was denied
The court ruled that he was immune to any punishment if he testified because any information given would not be a self-incrimination.

17. Fifth Amendment Benton v. Maryland
Joshua Benton was charged with larceny and burglary but was only convicted of burglary
The jury of the original case was proven to be chosen under the unconstitutional provision, Benton was given the option of a second trial, he took it
In the second trial he was convicted of both larceny and burglary because Maryland’s State constitution said nothing about double jeopardy
The court ruled that the double jeopardy clause applies to all states and Benton was found not guilty for larceny

18. Sixth Amendment Definition and Interpretation
This amendment states that accused persons have the “right to a speedy and public trial”
A public trial is guaranteed to all persons except in cases where one’s right to due process can be impeded upon
This amendment also guarantees the impartiality of juries, and there are measures in place to reduce bias
The place where the crime was committed determines the location of the trial (vicinage)
One that commits a crime is notified of the nature and cause of his violation
The Confrontational Clause guarantees that someone who is being convicted of a crime is directly confronted by their accuser to allow for such things as cross-examination
One who is accused has the right to call witnesses in his or her favor
One who is accused must be represented by counsel, and if he or she is unable to afford or obtain one, the court must provide it

19. Sixth Amendment United States v. Carll (1881)
In this case, a man was accused of counterfeiting money, but at no time in the case were the nature of the charges or the charges themselves specified to a proper degree
The Supreme Court viewed this as a violation of the Arraignment Clause (which requires that one is informed of the charges against him), and thus overturned the conviction on the man
They ruled that “it is not sufficient to set forth the offense in the words of the statue unless those words of themselves fully, directly, and expressly, without any uncertainty or ambiguity, set forth all the elements necessary to constitute the offense intended to be punished”
This set an extremely important precedent, as one must be fully aware of the charges against him or her for a case to be valid; this gives them the ability to best defend themselves
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)
Gideon was arrested did not have sufficient funds to hire a lawyer, and the court refused to do so for him because he was being charged with a non-capital offense
Gideon attempted to defend himself, but failed and was sentenced to five years in prison
The Supreme Court ruled that Gideon was deprived of a fair trial and of due process of law, and overturned his conviction on the basis that his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated
This ruling nullified the decision made in Betts v. Brady in which the Supreme Court stated that one only needs to be appointed a lawyer in a capital crime
The Supreme Court agreed that one has the unconditional right of representation by counsel, setting a precedent for all future cases

20. Sixth Amendment Sheppard v. Maxwell (1966)
Sam Sheppard was convicted for second-degree murder, but he challenged the ruling based on the fact that a large amount of prejudice was created by the press
The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, and in an 8-1 ruling voted in favor of Sheppard, stating that the “objective” setting of the courtroom was compromised
This showed that even when the First Amendment right of freedom of press is involved, one must above all receive a fair trial that is not biased by outside sources to such a degree as during this case
This ruling placed a limit on the idea of a fully public trial stipulated in the Sixth Amendment
Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
Ernesto Miranda was convicted of kidnapping and raping a woman
After an interrogation, he signed a paper, and in doing so admitted to the crime but was not informed of his right to counsel; Miranda appealed his case
In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court ruled that one must be read their rights before interrogation or a confession is not valid, thus voting in favor of Miranda; in this case, Miranda was not informed of his protection against self-incrimination or of his right to counsel, invalidating the case against him
- This reaffirmed the validity of the representation by counsel that the Sixth Amendment guarantees and established a precedent where one must be read their rights upon arrest

21. Sixth Amendment Duncan v. Louisiana (1968)
Duncan was arrested on a battery charge, and was fined and received a 60 day prison sentence
However, he was not granted a jury trial, causing him to appeal his conviction
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Duncan, stating one has the right to a trial by jury in criminal cases
They elaborated that states do not need to have a trial by jury for a petty crime (where punishment is a payment of $500 or less and up to six months in prison)
The Louisiana law was deemed unconstitutional, and the Sixth Amendment was very significantly applied to the states
Williams v. Florida (1970)
Williams was convicted of a robbery, but he argued that both his Fifth and Sixth Amendments were violated in this case (he believed that since the court requested him to tell the prosecution the names of his alibi witnesses, they requested that he self-incriminate himself; further, he believed that the jury of six that ruled during his case was not conducive with the stipulations of the Sixth Amendment)
The Supreme Court ruled that Williams’ Fifth Amendment was not violated, and that the Sixth Amendment did not require a certain number of jurors
Thus, Williams’ conviction was upheld and it was decided that a jury need not have twelve members to be valid

22. Sixth Amendment Barker v. Wingo (1972)
This case established a four-step conditional review to assess whether one’s right to a speedy trial was upheld:
1) The length of delay (not set limit, but must be reasonable)
2) The reason for delay
3) Time and manner of delay; defendant cannot claim that he was not granted a speedy trail when he requested a delay in the first place
4) The amount of bias the delay caused
Faretta v. California (1975)
Anthony Faretta was committed of grand theft, and was initially given the leeway to defend himself
However, this right was later denied, and after being appointed an attorney he was sentenced to life
The Supreme Court ruled that one has the right to defend himself or herself and refuse appointed counsel, but cannot later complain that his or her representation was insufficient
This set the precedent that one has the right to represent himself or herself in a case regardless of the circumstances

23. Sixth Amendment Taylor v. Louisiana (1975)
Taylor was convicted of kidnapping, but his jury consisted of mostly male people because of a Louisiana law that “conceded systematic impact” on the male to female ratio
The Supreme Court ruled that the registration process for jurors was unconstitutional, as though 53% of eligible jurors were female, only 10% of actual jurors were female
The unfair cross-section of society that was Taylor’s jury was a violation of his right to an impartial jury
The basis for the decision was drawn from Duncan v. Louisiana, and the ruling ultimately overturned Hoyt v. Florida and set the precedent that a jury must be a fair cross-section of society
Ballew v. Georgia (1978)
The Supreme Court ruled that a jury of five or fewer people is unconstitutional, effectively setting the minimum at six jurors
Waller v. Georgia (1984)
This case ruled that the public trial clause of the Sixth Amendment can be ignored, but only under specific circumstances:
1) It is clearly proven that having a public hearing will introduce a large amount of bias into the case.
2) The “closure” of the case cannot exceed what is necessary to reduce prejudice.
3) The court should search for other methods of reducing prejudice other than closure.
4) There must be enough evidence to close a case off from the public.

24. Sixth Amendment
Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of California (1984)
This case concerned the rape and murder of a teenage girl
The Press Enterprise sought to cover the questioning of the jury, but the court denied this coverage
The Supreme Court, however, ruled in favor of the Press Enterprise, setting the precedent that voir dire (questioning the jury) is open to the public for criminal trials
This was important because it reaffirmed the clause in the Sixth Amendment that guarantees a public trial, even in highly controversial cases
Crawford v. Washington (2004)
Mr. Crawford was convicted based largely on the witness statement from his wife that was said outside of court
The Supreme Court ruled that this was a violation of the Confrontation Clause in the Sixth Amendment (because Mrs. Crawford could not be cross-examined), and overturned Mr. Crawford’s conviction
This reaffirmed that statements said out of the court by a witness that cannot be cross-examined cannot be used as evidence in a case

25. Sixth Amendment Davis v. Washington (2006)
Michelle McCottry made a 911 call accusing Davis of physically harming her
The transcript from the call was used in the case against Davis, and although he objected, the Supreme Court ruled that the 911 statement was “non-testimonial” and thus could be used in the case without violating the Confrontation Clause
This partially redefined the outcome of Crawford v. Washington by making an exception to when statements made outside of the court can be used in a case

26. Eighth Amendment
Definition and Interpretation
Protects the people from excessive bail, excessive fines, and cruel and unusual punishment

27. Eighth Amendment Furman v. Georgia (1972)
Furman killed a man while illegally breaking into a house
Sentenced to death because law allows for execution for anyone who kills a  person while committing a felony
Death penalty repealed as it did not clearly define the circumstances of the  penalty
Furman protected against cruel and unusual punishment    
Gregg v. Georgia (1976)
Gregg received death penalty for armed robbery and murder
Death sentence upheld as the requirements for the imposition based on facts  and circumstances of the crime were met
Court ruled that the death sentence was not cruel and unusual punishment in  the situation
Both cases show that punishment cannot be cruel, but has to meet requirements that have to be backed up by facts and clearly define the circumstances of the crime

28. Ninth Amendment
Definition and Interpretation
Made to protect unenumerated rights (rights not specifically mentioned or contained in the Constitution)
The rights enumerated in the Constitution cannot infringe upon the rights of the people
Any right that is not in the Constitution still belongs to the people
Contains the enumeration of rights clause and the rights retained by the people clause, as seen in the text of the amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

29. Ninth Amendment United Public Workers v. Mitchell (1947)
The Hatch Act of 1939 (which stated that a governmental employee cannot support the overthrow of the government) was passed in response to growing fears
In the Supreme Court case, the constitutionality of the Hatch Act and the “doctrine of privilege” (which allowed the government to impose different restrictions on public workers, as it was a privilege to be employed by the government at all) were upheld
Justice Reed stated that the Ninth Amendment is reserved, not enumerated, and he stated that it was not violated by the Hatch Act: “…when objection is made that the exercise of a federal power infringes upon rights reserved by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, the inquiry must be directed toward the granted power under which the action of the Union was taken. If granted power is found, necessarily the objection of invasion of those rights, reserved by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, must fail.”
Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)
At this time, a law was in place in Connecticut that banned the usage of any contraceptives
Griswold and Dr. Buxton opened a clinic for birth control, but they were arrested
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Griswold and stated that the Connecticut law was a violation of privacy
Justice Arthur Goldberg contended that marital privacy is protected by the Ninth Amendment
Justices Madison and Story believed that the Ninth Amendment guaranteed that the first eight amendments wouldn’t be used to alienate the interests or fundamental rights of the people
This had great implications for the future of the interpretation of the Ninth Amendment, such as in Roe v. Wade, and for later rulings based on due process, as Justice Harlan stated that privacy was protected by this part of the Fourteenth Amendment

30. Ninth Amendment Doe v. Bolton (1973)
Georgia had a very strict abortion law that prohibited abortion except in extreme cases, and non-Georgia residents could not get an abortion under any circumstances
With a 7-2 majority, this was overturned, and it was declared by the Supreme Court that abortion is a constitutional right
The freedom of choice in contraception and abortion was expanded and constitutionally guaranteed using largely the Ninth Amendment as a basis for the rationale; set the stage for the ruling of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey
This case was a huge victory for pro-choice peoples
Bowers v. Hardwick (1986)
Michael Hardwick was found engaging in sodomy (oral or anal sex under the definition in Georgia), and he was arrested under the state’s statue
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution did not grant homosexuals the “fundamental right to engage in…sodomy”
The decision of this case lasted until 2003 when it was overturned in Lawrence v. Texas

31. Ninth Amendment Troxel v. Granville (2000)
The Supreme Court ruled on this case after parents complained about third-party child visitations
They ruled that it is a violation of the parents’ right to raise and care for their children if visitations are held against the parents’ wills
This ruling was party based on the Ninth Amendment, and even in the dissenting opinion, Justice Scalia argued that this amendment made it so that the “right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children is…[an]…unalienable right” that cannot be denied
This case displayed the importance of the Ninth Amendment in guaranteeing one’s rights that are not explicitly stated in the Constitution, and made privacy a right “retained by the people”

32. Tenth Amendment
Definition and Interpretation
States that powers not granted to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited to the states, are reserved to the states and people.

33. Tenth Amendment 1992 New York v. U.S.
This case challenged part of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of The act provided three incentives for states to comply with statutory obligations to dispose of low-level radioactive waste.
One incentive obliged states to take title to any waste within their borders that was not disposed of prior to a certain date, and made each state liable for all damages directly related to the waste.
The Court decided that the imposition of that obligation on the states violated the Tenth Amendment.
They declared that federal government is allowed to encourage the states to adopt certain regulations through spending power, or through commerce power, however, Congress cannot directly compel states to enforce federal regulations.
This decision was important because it established a line distinguishing encouragement from coercion that Congress cannot lawfully cross. This kind of coercion would go against the federalist structure of government.

34. Thirteenth Amendment
Definition and Interpretation
Slavery and involuntary servitude are illegal in the United States, except as punishment for a crime where the person has been rightly convicted

35. Thirteenth Amendment United States v. Kozminski (1988)
Two mentally retarded men were found laboring on a farm in poor health
Worked 17 hours a day, at first for $15 a week and eventually for no pay
The two men went to court and filed that the were help under involuntary servitude
The employers were found guilty because they used methods of physical and  psychological coercion 
Thirteenth Amendment used to prevent not only slavery of African-Americans but also other forms of labor similar to slavery
Case explored definition of involuntary servitude and concluded that it requires physical or legal coercion 

36. Fourteenth Amendment
Definition and Interpretation
The Citizenship Clause gives citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States”
This amendment also guarantees that one’s rights of life, liberty, and property cannot be denied without “due process of law”
The Equal Protection Clause guarantees that all people within a state are subject to the same laws; “privileges and immunities” of citizens cannot be denied

37. Fourteenth Amendment Plessy v. Fergusson (1896)
This case sought to determine the constitutionality of “separate but equal” facilities
It was determined in a 7-1 ruling that they were indeed constitutional, and the Supreme Court used the Equal Protection Clause as justification
Although the Court claimed that facilities were equal, they were in fact far from it; this case was contrary to the stipulations of the Fourteenth Amendment and created a precedent of segregation that lasted into the mid-20th century
 Gitlow v. New York (1925)
Gitlow published the “Left Wing Manifesto” in his paper, The Revolutionary Age
He was convicted under the Criminal Anarchy Law of 1902, but Gitlow stated that he was only recording history in his writings
The Supreme Court took on the case, and in a 7-2 ruling upheld his conviction
Although Barron v. Baltimore (1833) previously established that Bill of Rights only pertained to the federal government, Gitlow v. New York established a new precedent that the Bill of Rights applies to both the federal and state governments using the “due process clause” of the Fourteenth Amendment as justification (freedom of speech and of the press are extended to states and protected as a result)

38. Fourteenth Amendment Korematsu v. United States (1944)
Japanese peoples were sequestered in internment camps during World War II
Although this was a blatant violation of civil rights, the Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that the executive order placing them in the camps was constitutional because the nation’s security was more important than individual rights
This set the precedent that, in times of war, one’s rights can be compromised without due process of law if it benefits the nation as a whole
Brown v. Board of Education (1954)
Separate public schools were created for black and white people, and there was large controversy over the constitutionality of this segregation
People held that since schools were “separate by equal,” they should be allowed
However, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that separate facilities violate the Equal Protection Clause and are thus unconstitutional
This was a huge step for the civil rights movement, and the integrity of this clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was restored

39. Fourteenth Amendment Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
In this case, police conducted an unwarranted search of one’s house under suspicions of a bomb threat
The Supreme Court ruled that evidence obtained in a manner that violated the promise of protection from “unreasonable searches and seizures” was a violation one’s individual rights
Since the Fourth Amendment is applied to states by the Fourteenth Amendment
This application of the due process clause to proper searching procedure continues to have a profound impact on police searches; this is just one of many examples of the important application of the due process clause
Roe v. Wade (1973)
In this case, it was determined that a woman’s right to privacy is protected under the 14th Amendment because of the due process clause
The Supreme Court overturned a Texas law that infringed upon a woman’s privacy by regulating the process for obtaining an abortion
This was a big step for pro-choice peoples, and the application of the right to privacy to such a huge controversy was monumental

40. Fourteenth Amendment Gregg v. Georgia (1976)
In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty does not necessarily violate the Fourteenth Amendment
The death penalty is constitutional if discretion is displayed in each individual case
Personal factors are taken into account, and in this way one’s liberties are maintained
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978)
Allan Bakke was rejected from the Davis medical school where sixteen spots were designated for people of a certain race
He sued, and the Supreme Court ruled that a quota system for a school was unconstitutional while affirmative action was not since it did not consider race alone
In this case, the Equal Protection Clause was applied to school admissions and invalidated racial quotas
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992)
The Supreme Court ruled that a spouse did not need the consent of her husband to get an abortion, invalidating this provision but upholding ones that included a 24-hour delay in obtaining an abortion, parental approval, and informed consent
The court used the Ninth Amendment as a “charter for action” to maintain people’s “constitutional ideals” in this case
This set a precedent that the Ninth Amendment was not a disclaimer, but instead a right to enact laws according to the ideas of the Constitution
The Fourteenth Amendment was also used as basis to prevent extra burden on women from this state act

41. Fourteenth Amendment Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)
In this case, a student sued because she believed the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was being violated as a result of admissions being based mostly on race
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the university, stating that upholding diversity by admitting minority groups to school is valuable and is constitutional if it is done through affirmative action
This was in agreement with Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, this case upheld that affirmative action was conducive with the Fourteenth Amendment
Lawrence v. Texas (2003)
In this case, two men were arrested on the merit that they were engaging in sodomy
The Supreme Court overturned their conviction in a 6-3 ruling, nullifying a Texas statute and overturning Bowers v. Hardwick
All sodomy laws were then eschewed, making same-sex sex legal in all fifty states
This was a landmark decision for gay couples across the U.S. and established that such private conduct is protected under the Fourteenth Amendment

42. Fifteenth Amendment Broken down into 2 sections
Definition and Interpretation
Broken down into 2 sections
Section 1: The right to vote shall not be denied by any State based on race, color or previous status of citizen or servitude
Section 2: Congress has the power to enforce this law on every state by appropriate legislation
Although States bypassed this article for a while with the Grandfather Clause and Poll taxes the Supreme Court soon found those to be unconstitutional and were taken away

43. Fifteenth Amendment Guinn v. United States
Proved that the grandfather clause and literacy tests were unconstitutional because they exempted white people and disenfranchised blacks
Any Oklahoma election officer found practicing these restriction was arrested for violating the voters rights act
This ratification also took place in States such as Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, North Carolina, and Virginia
A state statute drafted in such a way as to serve no rational purpose other than to disadvantage the right of African-American citizens to vote violated the 15th Amendment

44. Sixteenth Amendment
Definition and Interpretation
Congress has the power to levy and collect income taxes without apportionment among the states.

45. Sixteenth Amendment Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan and Trust Co.
Supreme Court ruled certain taxes on incomes to be unconstitutionally unapportioned direct taxes
Taxes on income from property should be required to be apportioned because it should be seen as a tax on “property by reason of its ownership.”
Income taxes on wages were still not required to be apportioned 
Taxes on income of interest, dividends, and rent required to be apportioned by population 
Main outcome of the case was that the source of income is relevant in determining whether the tax is direct or indirect.  Direct taxes are required to be apportioned by the states based on population while indirect taxes aren’t. 

46. Seventeenth Amendment
Definition and Interpretation
This amendment established the direct election of senators instead of election by state legislatures
Additionally, the governor of a state has the power to appoint a senator under special circumstances if a senator dies or gets killed until an election is held

47. Nineteenth Amendment Definition and Interpretation
This amendment has two sections, the first of which states that one cannot be denied the vote based on their gender, and the second of which stipulates that Congress has authority to implement this amendment through proper legislation

48. Nineteenth Amendment Leser v. Garnett (1922)
This law was passed based largely on the precedent set by the Fifteenth Amendment (that voting could not be denied based a particular factor inherent in one’s background – in that case race, in this case gender)
Thus, the Supreme Court ruled that the Nineteenth Amendment cannot be rejected based on the reason that they don’t have the authority to amend the Constitution in such a manner
After other slight controversies were resolved, this amendment was passed by a unanimous vote

49. Twentieth Amendment Definition and Interpretation
The terms of the existing President and Vice President are to end on January 20th, and the terms of Senators and House Representatives are to end on January 3rd. The newly elected candidates will then take office.  Unless appointed to a different day, Congress is to meet once a year on January 3rd. The Vice President elect shall be named President in the cases of the death of the President elected, or if the a President has not been elected at the time the term is to begin.  If neither a President of Vice President is able to take office, Congress has the power to choose who should be President, and the Senate is to choose who should be Vice President.

50. Twenty-second Amendment
Definition and Interpretation
This amendment set a limit of two terms for a president and stated that if somebody takes over the presidential post and acts as president for over two years, they can only hold one additional term

51. Twenty-Fourth Amendment
Definition and Interpretation
No person shall be turned away at a State or federal election because of the failure to pay a poll tax
Voting became free and increased the voter turnout and allowed the lower class to voice their opinion

52. Twenty-Fourth Amendment
Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections
Ann E. Harper was unable to register without paying a poll tax which she and other fellow citizens could not afford.
She was previously dismissed by a district court so went straight to the Supreme Court after that
They found that the poll tax was violating the Equal Protection Clause laid out in the 14th amendment and added that the no poll tax law applied to state elections as well
Overturned Breedlove v. Suttle

53. Twenty-Fifth Amendment
Definition and Interpretation
Establishes a set of procedures  for filling a vacancy in the office of the Vice President and for responding to Presidential disabilities
If there is a vacancy in the Vice Presidency, the President will nominate a Vice President who will take office once confirmed by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress
If the President becomes disabled and unable to perform his duties the Vice President becomes Acting President
This amendment also provides for a set of procedures to return the President to his duties once he is capable.

54. Twenty-Sixth Amendment
Definition and Interpretation
All 18 year old U.S. citizens have the right to vote in all elections
No state can deny a citizen’s right to vote based purely off of age

55. Elastic Clause Definition and Interpretation
States that Congress shall have power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution the enumerated powers and all other powers given to the U.S. government by the Constitution.

56. Elastic Clause 1819 McCulloch v. Maryland
The Supreme Court debated whether Congress had the power to establish a national bank.
It decided that it did have this power because of the elastic clause. It considered the establishment of a national bank to be a necessary power for Congress to make use of its expressed powers under the Constitution.
This decision is important because it allowed for a broad interpretation what is “necessary and proper” for U.S. government to make use of its enumerated and implied powers. All federal laws may not be absolutely necessary to be considered necessary and proper.

57. Supremacy Clause Definition and Interpretation
Establishes the U.S. Constitution, Federal Statutes, and U.S. Treaties as “the supreme law of the land”
Federal law is superior to state law or constitution when conflicts arise

58. Supremacy Clause 1819 McCulloch v. Maryland
When the state of Maryland levied a tax on the federally incorporated Bank of the U.S., the court reviewed the tax and found it unconstitutional since, if a state could tax a federally incorporated institution, it would have the power to destroy it. According to the court this made the state law superior to federal law, violating the supremacy clause.
This case established the national bank as constitutional under the Necessary and Proper Clause, and it expanded federal power by deciding that federal laws are always superior to state laws.

59. Commerce Clause Definition and Interpretation
The Commerce Clause is an enumerated power of the Constitution that allows Congress to regulate commerce with foreign Nations, among the states, and with Indian Tribes.  

60. Commerce Clause Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)
State of New York gives Fulton and Livingston the right to navigate waters of New York
Livingston grants Ogden the right to navigate the waters
Gibbons has right to navigate granted by federal government 
Both want control of waters and believe that the individual source they were granted by overrules the other
Court rules in favor of Gibbons as they said Fulton and Livingston had to right to the exclusive navigation of the waters
The court defines that interstate commerce in controlled by Congress alone, rather than the individual states, in order to have uniformity across the nation in interstate commerce. For many years following, the Commerce Clause was loosely interpreted and acted as a limit on state legislation the discriminated against interstate commerce.
United States v. Lopez (1995)
Lopez brings a concealed gun to school
Is charged under Texas law but is later the federal government charges Lopez with violating the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990
Court ruled that the possession of a gun at school has no ties to the economy or interstate commerce 
This case, and other cases of the Rehnquist Court, increased the strictness of the interpretation of the Commerce Clause using the 10th Amendment, which states that powers not specifically granted to the federal government goes to the states or people, as an argument. 

61. Advise and Consent Definition and Interpretation
The president can make treaties with foreign nations with the advice and consent of the senate
The Senate must also approve ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States
This clause checks the president’s power and does not allow him to appoint people of only his party giving him an advantage over the opposing party

62. Full Faith and Credit Clause
Definition and Interpretation
States that states within the U.S. have to respect the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state."
Ensures that the judicial decisions rendered by the courts of one state are recognized and honored in all other states
The U.S. Supreme Court treats judgments and laws differently though.
The Court recognizes a “public policy exception” to the Full Faith and Credit Clause when the law of one state conflicts with the public policy of another, however, the Court maintains that there is no public policy exception for the Full Faith and Credit Clause for judgments.

63. Establishment Clause Definition and Interpretation
This clause is part of the First Amendment
It guarantees that the government will not create (establish) an official religion or impose upon its people to adopt a certain religion
One religion cannot be shown a preference by the federal government, and the establishment of a national religion is unconstitutional

64. Establishment Clause Everson v. Board of Education (1947)
The plaintiff in this case argued that it was against the Establishment Clause for the school boards to reimburse families of children who took the bus to private religious schools, as it was indirectly promoting religion
After Everson lost the case, he appealed to the Supreme Court where they ruled that it was not a violation of the Establishment Clause since reimbursement was provided to all children, regardless of religion, and that reimbursement was not granted specifically to a religious organization
This case resulted in the application of the Establishment Clause to the states and not only the federal government using the due process clause as justification
Justice Black stated that the Establishment Clause set up a “wall of separation between Church and State,” and the language of his opinion influenced many court cases to come (especially those concerning whether religious practices can be included in public schools)
McCollum v. Board of Education (1948)
Vashti McCollum was against religious classes being held during school hours at a public school, and she sued the school district
The case went to the Supreme Court, where in an 8-1 ruling the classes were declared unconstitutional
The court justified its decision but stating that using “tax-supported property” and coalescing the secular and religious spheres of education at a public school was a violation of the Establishment Clause
This set a precedent for the separation of church and state in many future cases, and reaffirmed the Establishment Clause

65. Establishment Clause Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson (1952)
Joseph Burstyn released a film entitled “The Miracle” that grossly depicted people representing Joseph and Mary conceiving a child
The Supreme Court decided that it was a violation of one’s free speech to censor something based on its “sacrilegious nature”
This applies to the Establishment Clause in that even when hotly contested subject matter is at hand, it is not constitutional to regulated one’s free expression of religion and that censoring religious material is a violation of the separation between church and state
Torcaso v. Watkins
Torcaso was refused appointment as a notary public because he refused to admit his belief in the existence of God, causing him to file suit
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that it was unconstitutional to have religious qualifications for a public office
In its decision, the court invoked a violation of the Establishment Clause and wrote that “laws and…requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers” are not constitutional
This ruling ended the practice of religious qualifications for public appointments

66. Establishment Clause Engel v. Vitale (1962)
This case began when kids who attended public school in New Hyde Park, New York told their parents that their classes recited a prayer at the beginning of school every day
The plaintiffs contended that this violated the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment that stated that federal government “shall make no law respecting an establishment of a religion”
Though the New York Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality of the law, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 6-1 decision that having a prayer at the beginning of each school day was unconstitutional, even if it was voluntary
In this case, arguments of vague wording and voluntary participation made by the defendants were dismissed, establishing a precedent of no tolerance for laws violating the Establishment Clause
Abington School District v. Schempp (1963)
Edward Schempp sued the Abington School District on the basis that having designated Bible readings at the beginning of each day is unconstitutional
Drawing from Engel v. Vitale and the Establishment Clause, the Supreme Court ruled that it was a violation of the separation between the church and state to mandate Bible reading
This case against applied the Establishment Clause to the states, and the Supreme Court ruled that it was “wholly applicable…under the Fourteenth Amendment”
Again, it was reinforced that any break in neutrality between secularism and religion involving public schools is unacceptable

67. Establishment Clause Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)
This case created a three-stage test for evaluating the constitutionality of legislation (using the Establishment Clause as a basis):
1) The government’s acts must have a “secular legislative purpose.”
2) The government’s acts must be neutral.
3) The government cannot be overly involved in religion.
Hein v. Freedom of Religion Foundation (2007)
This case centered around the constitutionality of the executive Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives
This office was created in order to increase charity for religious organizations
The Supreme Court decided in a 5-4 ruling that this office is constitutional, and that the Establishment Clause cannot be applied to arguments concerning executive office expenditures
This case set the precedent that spending of the executive branch cannot be questioned, and was a big step against “secular extremism”

68. THE END