Terms : Hide Images
| 266075376 | trial courts | deal with facts. | |
| 266075377 | appeals courts | only issues of law and procedure are brought up. panels make a decision. they consider precedent. | |
| 266075378 | state courts | 99% of cases are tried at this level. they are heard in the state where the crime or dispute occurred. state law applies. | |
| 266075379 | federal courts | deals with federal law, treaties, constitution, civil cases of citizens in different states and dealing with more that $50,000 | |
| 266075380 | laws for all people and constitution are there. powers of federal govt tested. supreme court is final. | why we care about federal courts | |
| 266075381 | US court of claims | jurisdiction over cases involving govt compensation to private citizens. | |
| 266075382 | US tax court | deals with income tax cases | |
| 266075383 | customs court | deals with tariffs | |
| 266075384 | federal appellate courts | more than one judge hears each case. the decisions are final unless the case goes to the supreme court. | |
| 266075385 | 12 | how many court districts there are | |
| 266075386 | en banc hearing | in the federal appellate courts, if a case is controversial, this occurs. | |
| 266075387 | supremacy clause | if federal and state law clash, federal wins | |
| 266075388 | judicial act of 1789 | creates: lower courts, attorney general. makes federal authority trump state law. allows writs of mandamus by supreme court. starts original jurisdiction. | |
| 266075389 | fletcher v peck (1810) | case rules that states can't nullify contracts. art 1, sec 10, clause 1. this was the first time a state law was stricken down. | |
| 266075390 | goes straight to the supreme court due to the constitution | cases of: maritime law, citizens of different states, ambassadors, involve different state govts, if US is a party. | |
| 266075391 | goes straight to the supreme court due to the judiciary act of 1789 | issues of writs of mandamus | |
| 274917749 | to reassure new york that the supreme court wouldn't limit its power | why Hamilton wrote federalist 78 | |
| 274917752 | where law comes from in federalist 78: legislatures (statuatory) | state and federal legislatures that craft criminal and tort statutes. | |
| 274917753 | where law comes from in federalist 78: city-county council | make local laws | |
| 274917754 | where law comes from in federalist 78: bureaucracy (administrative) | state and federal bureaucrats help "fill in the blanks" to create regulations for vague legislation | |
| 274917755 | where law comes from in federalist 78: courts (common) | judges draft rules on how statutes are to be interpreted. | |
| 274917756 | where law comes from in federalist 78: people (constitutional) | state and federal are the highest law in respective lands. state and federal laws trump all others. | |
| 276335078 | the supreme court has no purse, no sword; only opinon | hamilton's explanation of why the supreme court wouldn't be powerful | |
| 276340795 | protection of the minority from the majority | the supreme court's purpose according to federalist 78 | |
| 276340796 | the judiciary act of 1789, the logic of the supremacy clause, fletcher v peck. | where judicial review came from | |
| 276340797 | can the court force jefferson to give marbury a job? | the question of marbury v madison | |
| 276340798 | original jurisdiction | the court to which marbury submitted his case | |
| 276340799 | appellate court | the court congress CAN modify | |
| 276340800 | congress had tried to modify original jurisdiction by placing writs of mandamus under the judiciary act of 1789. this was unconstitutional. | how marbury v madison struck down the judiciary act of 1789 | |
| 276349985 | stare decisis | once the Supreme Court has ruled, all similar cases must have the same outcome | |
| 276349986 | it creates precedent, consistency | why is stare decisis important? | |
| 276349987 | common law | the law applies to all people. | |
| 276349988 | criminal law | one plaintiff is the government. guilt must be determined beyond reasonable doubt. any penalty (prison, death, fines) are possible. | |
| 276349989 | civil law | any type of party can be a plaintiffs. guilt is based on preponderance of evidence (evidence must be > 50% sure). only deals with money. | |
| 276349990 | if the chief is in the majority, (s)he assigns who writes the opinion. | the chief justice's special power. | |
| 276349991 | standing | the law must apply to you. this is a criteria for cert. | |
| 276349992 | facial challenge | attempting to try a law that hasn't affected anyone yet. this prevents the granting of cert. | |
| 276349993 | circuit conflict | circuits disagree. makes court MUCH more likely to grant cert. | |
| 276349994 | egregiousness | the government does something really horrible. increases likelihood of the court granting cert. | |
| 276349995 | personal interest | the court likes a certain topic. this improves chances for being granted cert. | |
| 276349996 | request cert | what the appellant does | |
| 276349997 | reject cert | what the respondent does | |
| 276349998 | per curium | when the court grants cert but no oral arguments. | |
| 276349999 | the senior associate | who assigns opinion when chief justice is in the dissent | |
| 276350000 | it is decided democratically among the dissenters | who writes the dissenting opion | |
| 276350001 | amicus brief | the way to argue an opinion if there's no standing | |
| 276350002 | class action | a group of people with standing who join together to go to court. | |
| 276350003 | solicitor general | the chief litigating attorney. represents the interests of the federal government. BFFs with the Supreme Court. | |
| 276350004 | attorney general | a political figure. in charge of administration of the court. | |
| 277001801 | cases and controversies | a reason not to grant cert. there are no advisory opinions. | |
| 277001802 | mootness | a requirement of being granted cert. the law must still be appicable. | |
| 277001803 | clear denies | an informal reason not to grant cert. it's a political question and an area the Court doesn't want to get into. | |
| 277001804 | the republican guarantees clause | the only real clear denies example in the Court today | |
| 277001805 | lack of percolation | an informal reason not to grant cert. the Court wants to hear cases only if they've gone through the other courts have heard them. | |
| 277001806 | bad facts | an informal reason not to grant cert. the facts of the case aren't clear. | |
| 277001807 | absurd | an informal reason not to grant cert. the topic is ridiculous. | |
| 277001808 | frivolous | an informal reason not to grant cert. the outcome of the case won't make new law. | |
| 277001809 | pipeline | an informal reason not to grant cert. a better case is coming. | |
| 277001810 | intractability | an informal reason not to grant cert. the Court can't see a good way of dealing with the issue. | |
| 277001811 | judicial restraint | justices are less willing to challenge laws | |
| 277001812 | judicial activism | justices are more willing to challenge laws. sometimes seen as legislating from the bench. | |
| 277001813 | "liberal decisions" | follow the policies of the Democratic party | |
| 277001814 | "conservative decisions" | follow the policies of the Republican party | |
| 277001815 | textualism | emphasizes deriving constitutional meaning from the words themselves. | |
| 277001816 | originalism | emphasizes the intent of the framers. | |
| 277001817 | developmentalism | emphasizes the document changing as society does. | |
| 277001818 | positivism | emphasizes deferring to politicians. rehnquist is a strong believer. it's the opposite of natural law. | |
| 277001819 | balancing | this philosophy is followed when there are two conflicting rights and the courts decide which is more important. | |
| 277001820 | civil liberties | individual rights protecting against governmental intrusion. explained in the due process clause. | |
| 277027488 | barron v baltimore (1833) | rules that the bill of rights applies only to the federal government. | |
| 277027489 | 14th amendment (1868) | amendment passed beginning with "no state shall." it was meant to weaken (southern) states to protect slaves. it says that all persons born in US are citizens of the US and the individual state. creates the privileges and immunities clause, which says that states can't violate federal rights. | |
| 277027490 | slaughterhouse cases (1873) | makes incorporation impossible under privileges and immunities. the supreme court rules that privileges and immunities was only for blacks and didn't apply to the entire bill of rights. | |
| 277027491 | chicago v burlington (1897) | the supreme court uses due process to incorporate the 5th amendment to the states. | |
| 277085010 | gideon v wainright (1963) | establishes right to attorney. one will be provided if the accused can't afford one. | |
| 277085011 | escobedo v illinois (1964) | accused have a right to counsel during police interrogation. | |
| 277085012 | miranda v arizona (1966) | upon arrest, people must be informed of their rights. | |
| 277085013 | dickerson v US (2000) | upholds miranda v arizona. | |
| 277085014 | mapp v ohio (1961) | incorporates exclusionary rule to states. | |
| 277085015 | weeks v US (1914) | a warrant is needed to seize items from a house. establishes the exclusionary rule. | |
| 277085016 | griswold v connecticut (1965) | establishes the "right to privacy" although no such right is written in the constitution. | |
| 277085017 | roe v wade (1973) | extends the right to privacy to abortion. creates the trimester system. | |
| 277085018 | lawrence v texas (2003) | reverses a ban on sodomy. makes privacy apply to sodomy as well. | |
| 277085019 | schenck v US (1919) | creates clear and present danger doctrine | |
| 277085020 | gitlow v new york (1925) | incorporates free speech to the states. | |
| 277085021 | brandonberg v ohio (1969) | establishes imminent danger standard. only then can free speech be limited. | |
| 277085022 | cohen v california (1971) | profanity protected. | |
| 277085023 | brown v entertainment merchants' association (2011) | videogames are protected speech. | |
| 277085024 | snyder v phelps (2011) | westoboro baptist church speech protected. | |
| 277085025 | skokie v national socialist party of america (1977) | nazis were allowed to march. it wasn't content neutral. | |
| 277085026 | RAV v st paul (1992) | burning of cross not protected. it wasn't content neutral. | |
| 277085027 | virginia v black (2003) | a ban can be placed on speech that intimidates all people. a ban cannot be place on speech that intimidates against someone based on race, sex, gender. it's not content neutral. | |
| 277085028 | the material must offend community standards, be prurient, patently offensive, and devoid of any serious political, artistic, or scientific value | miller standard on obscenity (must fulfill all four parts) | |
| 277085029 | US v O'Brian (1968) | the accused wasn't allowed to burn draft cards because the government had sufficient interest. | |
| 277085030 | clark v community for creative nonviolence | the accused wasn't allowed to camp because the government had sufficient interest. | |
| 277085031 | tinker v des moines (1969) | student armbands fine if they don't cause clear and substantial disruption | |
| 277085032 | texas v johnson (1986) | flag burning protected. it was under the category of expressive conduct and was political. it doesn't matter that people were offended. | |
| 277085033 | commercial | the most regulated form of speech | |
| 277085034 | pure (explicit, political) | the least regulated form of speech | |
| 277085035 | symbolic | the form of speech that is mediumly protected | |
| 277085036 | bethel v frasier (1986) | speech can be regulated in assemblies | |
| 277085037 | hazelwood v kuhlmeyer (1988) | principal can pull newspaper articles. | |
| 277085038 | bong hits for jesus (2007) | sign promotes drug use, and the school's mission is to prevent drug use. the message wasn't political. | |
| 277114463 | reynolds v Us (1897) | polygamy not protected. you can believe in it, but can't practice it. | |
| 277114464 | cantwell v connecticut (1940) | free exercise incorporated. requiring a permit for jehovah's witnesses to go door-to-door is unconstitutional. | |
| 277114465 | sherbert v verner (1963) | government can restrict religious behavior if compelling state interest. | |
| 277114466 | wisconsin v yoder (1972) | amish kids don't have to go to school after 8th grade. there isn't compelling state interest. | |
| 277114467 | US v lee (1982) | amish have to pay social security. there's compelling state interest. | |
| 277114468 | oregon v smith (1990) | peyote use during religious ceremonies is not allowed. abandoned state interest policy. switched to neutrality. | |
| 277114469 | neutrality | answering the question, "was the government action aimed at persecuting religion?" social conservatives don't like this standard. | |
| 277114470 | church of lukuni v city of haileia (1993) | sacrificing animals was banned. the law was unconstitutional because it wasn't neutral. | |
| 277114471 | religious freedom restoration act (1993) | this act said that any time there's a free exercise claim, there needs to be compelling state interest. struck down because congress can't do that. | |
| 277114472 | city of boerne v flores (1997) | the argument was that the interest wasn't compelling enough. the court rules with the city because it was pissed at congress. | |
| 277114473 | separationist school of thought | jefferson wrote a letter talking about a separation of church and state | |
| 277114474 | non-preferential school of thought | government and religion can have a relationship as long as a specific sect isn't endorsed. | |
| 277139161 | they are coercive. students are malleable. | why schools have different standards regarding religious establishment | |
| 277139162 | everson v bould (1947) | public school busses picked up parochial school kids. supreme court said it was constitutional because it wasn't regarding faith, it was for the cold little kids. | |
| 277139163 | mccullom v board (1948) | religious instruction on school grounds unconstitutional. the government assisted religion too much. | |
| 277139164 | zorach v clausen (1952) | release time for religious instruction is constitutional as long as instruction is off campus. | |
| 277139165 | lemon v kurtsman (1971) | public money can't fund stuff for parochial schools. | |
| 277139166 | needs secular purpose. the primary effect must neither advance nor inhibit religion. it musn't lead to undue entanglement of church and state. | lemon test | |
| 277139167 | engel v vitale (1962) | court rules that state sponsored prayer in schools is unconstitutional. | |
| 277139168 | wallace v jaffrae (1985) | a bill tried to rephrase "setting aside time for moment of silence or prayer." it was struck down because there was no secular purpose. | |
| 277139169 | lee v weisman (1992) | a religious service before graduation was ruled unconstitutional because there was no secular purpose and graduation is an essential high school experience. | |
| 277139170 | santa fe independent school district v joe (2000) | prayer cannot be said before sports games. they are essential high school experience. | |
| 277139171 | march v chamber | prayer in legislature is constitutional. it's voluntary to run, legislators aren't malleable, legislatures can make their own rules. | |
| 277139172 | lynch v donnelly and court of allegheny v ACLU | religious scenes aren't ok alone, but when included with holiday stuff it's fine. | |
| 277139173 | salazar v buono (2010) | a cross can be displayed because it's a memorial symbol. | |
| 277139174 | if they are in a historical context, they are fine | ruling on displays of 10 commandments. | |
| 277432193 | new jersey v TLO (1985) | only reasonable suspicion is needed to search schoolchildren. lockers are fair game because they're public property. | |
| 277432194 | dicta | a statement of opinion or belief considered authoritative though not binding, because of the authority of the person making it. | |
| 277432195 | approach | least serious police action. they can do it all the time. you must provide ID. | |
| 277432196 | limited seizure | middle police action. sometimes called a terry stop. if there's "unusual conduct" and "reasonable suspicion," police may stop, detain, frisk. | |
| 277432197 | arrest | most serious police action. there must be probable cause and you are taken into custody. | |
| 277434749 | doctrinalism | judge law based on precedent. |
