� 1979 Connecticut passed a law that banned the use of anything furthering contraception
� Buxton opened a birth control clinic in New Haven in conjunction with the head of Planned Parenthood
� They were arrested on conviction of violating the law
Facts: Griswold v. Connecticut
Does the Constitution protect the right of marital privacy against state restrictions on a couple's ability to be counseled in the use of contraceptives?
Issue: Griswold v. Connecticut
The Court ruled that the Constitution did in fact protect the right of marital privacy against state restrictions on contraception. A right to privacy can be inferred from several amendments in the Bill of Rights, and this right prevents states from makin
Holding: Griswold v. Connecticut
The court said that the while the Constitution does not explicitly protect the general right to privacy, it is implied within the Bill of Rights.
Reasoning: Griswold v. Connecticut
� Bostock, a gay man, began working for Clayton County, GA as a child welfare services coordinator in 2003
� In 2013 he began playing in a gay recreational softball league
� Shortly after he, when his supervisor was present, one of his fellow employees ma
Facts: Bostock v. Clayton County
Does Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination "because of ...sex" encompass discrimination based on an individual's sexual orientation?
Issue: Bostock v. Clayton County
An employer who fires an individual employee merely for being gay or transgender violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Holding: Bostock v. Clayton County
Title VII prohibits employers from discriminating against any individual "because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." The Court interpreted this to mean that an employer violates Title VII when it intentionally fires an i
Reasoning: Bostock v. Clayton County
� Hively was an openly lesbian, part-time adjunct professor at Ivy Tech Community College.
� She submitted multiple applications for full-time employment, but none were approved, and Ivy Tech instead decided not to renew her contract
Facts: Hively v. Ivy Tech
Does Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination "because of ...sex" encompass discrimination based on an individual's sexual orientation?
Issue: Hively v. Ivy Tech
Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Holding: Hively v. Ivy Tech
The Court said that the extent that the Civil Rights Act of 1864 prohibited discrimination on the basis of race of someone with whom the plaintiff associated, it also prohibited discrimination on the basis of national origin, color, religion or sex of the
Reasoning: Hively v. Ivy Tech
� June 2014, Louisiana passed an act that required all physicians who performed or induced abortions to have active admitting privileges at a hospital located 30 miles or less from the location that the abortion is being done
� It was challenged by aborti
Facts: June Medical Services v. Russo
Does the decision by the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, upholding Louisiana's Law requiring physicians who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at local hospitals conflict with the Court's binding precedent in the Texas Case?
Issue: June Medical Services v. Russo
The Fifth Circuit's judgement, upholding a Louisiana law that requires abortion providers to hold admitting privileges at local hospitals is reversed.
Holding: June Medical Services v. Russo
The court reiterated the law (precedent) in the TX case, which said that courts must conduct an independent review of the legislative findings given in support of an abortion- related statue and weigh the law's "asserted benefits against the burdens" it i
Reasoning: June Medical Services v. Russo
� Police entered Lawrence's apartment after receiving a reported weapons disturbance call and saw them engaging in a private consensual sexual act with another male.
� They both were arrested and convicted of deviate sexual intercourse which violated the
Facts: Lawrence v. Texas
Do the criminal convictions of John Lawrence and Tyron Garner under the Texas "Homosexual Conduct" law, which criminalizes sexual intimacy by same-sex couples, but not identical behavior by different-sex couples, violate the fourteenth amendment guarantee
Issue: Lawrence v. Texas
The Court Held that the Texas statue making it a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct violates the Due Process Clause.
Holding: Lawrence v. Texas
The court reasoned that the cased turned on whether these men were free as adults to engage in the private conduct in the exercise of their liberty under the Due Process Clause.
Reasoning: Lawrence v. Texas
Justice Scalia had a blazing dissent that attacked the majority's decision and accused them of unprincipled "stare decisis" He says that the Court had applied "stare decisis" in its decision in order to uphold abortion rights but it ignores "stare decisis
Dissent: Lawrence v. Texas
� Francis B. Palmer made his last will and testament and he gave small legacies to his two daughters, Mrs. Riggs and Mrs. Preston and the remainder of his estate to his grandson Elmer E. Palmer
� Elmer knew the provisions of the will and in order to preve
Facts: Riggs v. Palmer
Was Elmer E. Palmer, who murdered his grandfather by poison in order to obtain and enjoy the possession of the property left to him by his grandfather's will and testament, be allowed to obtain and possess the same?
Issue: Riggs v. Palmer
The appellate court said that Elmer E. Palmer could not have any of the real estate left by his grandfather.
Holding: Riggs v. Palmer
By reason of the crime of murder committed upon his grandfather, Elmer was deprived of any interest left by the testator as he could not vest himself with title by crime.
Reasoning: Riggs v. Palmer
� General Electric offered its employees a disability plan for non-occupational sickness and accidents, but the plan did not cover disabilities from pregnancy
� A class of female employees of General Electric sued their employer for sex discrimination in
Facts: General Electric v. Gilbert
Does the exclusion of pregnancy-related benefits from the company disability plan violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
Issue: General Electric v. Gilbert
The Court held that employers have the right to exclude any condition from a disability plan with reasonable basis.
Holding: General Electric v. Gilbert
The court referred to a previous decision where they delt with a similar case under the Equal Protection Clause and in that case the court held that the pregnancy exclusion divided the employees into two groups, one that was solely female and the other th
Reasoning: General Electric v. Gilbert
� McCleskey, a black man, was convicted of murdering a police officer in Georgia and sentenced to death
� In a writ of habeas corpus, he argued that a statistical study proved that the imposition of the imposition of the death penalty in Georgia depended
Facts: McCleskey v. Kemp
Did the statistical study prove that McCleskey's sentence violated the 8th and 14th amendments?
Issue: McCleskey v. Kemp
The Court held that since McCleskey could not prove that purposeful discrimination which had a discriminatory effect on him existed in this particular trial, there was no constitutional violation.
Holding: McCleskey v. Kemp
Justice Powell refused to apply the statistical study in this case given the unique circumstances and nature of decisions that face all juries in capital cases. He argued that the data that McCleskey produced is best presented to legislative bodies, not t
Reasoning: McCleskey v. Kemp
Justice Brennan thinks that because there was a very significant chance that race would play a prominent role in determining if McCleskey would live or die, then the study should be taken into consideration if they want to say that the death sentence is b
Dissent: McCleskey v. Kemp
� A gay couple went to Masterpiece Cakeshop in CO and requested that its owner, Jack C. Phillips design and create a cake for their wedding.
� Phillips declined to do so because he said this would violate his religious beliefs and he saw decorating cakes
Facts: Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. V. Colorado Civil Rights Commission
Does the application of Colorado's public accommodations law to compel a cake maker to design and make a cake that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs about same-sex marriage violate the Free Speech or Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment
Issue: Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. V. Colorado Civil Rights Commission
The Court held that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission's conduct in evaluating a cake shop owner's reasons for declining to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple violated the Free Speech Clause. (They did not actually make a decision about the case)
Holding: Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. V. Colorado Civil Rights Commission
The Court explained that while gay persons and same-sex couples are afforded civil rights protections under the laws and the Constitution, religious and philosophical objections to same-sex marriage are protected views and can also be protected forms of e
Reasoning: Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. V. Colorado Civil Rights Commission
� The Women's Health Amendment to the Affordable Care Act requires that women's health insurance include coverage of preventative care, including contraception.
� The rule provided that a nonprofit religious employer who objects to providing contraceptive
Facts: Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania
Did the federal government lawfully exempt religious objectors from the regulatory requirement to provide health plans to include contraceptive coverage?
Issue: Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania
The federal agencies had the authority under the ACA to promulgate the religious and moral exemptions and did so in a manner free of procedural defects under the APA.
Holding: Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania
The Court considered whether the Departments had the statutory authority to promulgate the rules. The relevant provision of the ACA states requires insurers provide women "additional preventive care and screenings... as provided for in comprehensive guide
Reasoning: Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania
Justice Ginsburg dissented and argued that the Court reached the wrong conclusion, that the language of the Women's Health Amendment authorizes HRSA to determine only the type of women's health services, not to undermine the statutory directive to provide
Dissent: Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania
� The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) was investigating Seila Law LLC, a law firm that provides debt-relief services, among others.
� CFPB issued a civil investigative demand to Seila Law that required the firm to respond to several interrogat
Facts: Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Does the vesting of substantial executive authority in the CFPB, an independent agency led by a single director, violate the separation of powers principle?
Issue: Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
The CFPB's leadership by a single director removable only for inefficiency, neglect or malfeasance violates the separation of powers.
Holding: Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Article II of the federal Constitution vests entire "executive power" in the President alone, though lesser executive officers may assist the President in discharging his duties. Congress may grant for-cause removal protection to aa multimember body of ex
Reasoning: Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
� In 1816, Congress chartered The Second Bank of the United States and in 1818 Maryland passed legislation to impose taxes on the bank.
The cashier of the Baltimore branch of the bank, refused to pay the tax.
Facts: McCulloch v. Maryland
Did Congress have the authority to establish the bank? Did the MD law unconstitutionally interfere with congressional powers?
Issue: McCulloch v. Maryland
The Court held that Congress had the power to incorporate the bank and that MD could not tax instruments of the national government employed in the execution of constitutional powers.
Holding: McCulloch v. Maryland
Justice Marshall noted that Congress possessed powers now explicitly outlined in the Constitution. Marshall redefined "necessary" to mean "appropriate and legitimate" covering all methods for furthering objectives covered by the enumerated powers. He also
Reasoning: McCulloch v. Maryland
� President Trump signed Executive Order No. 13,769 which suspended entry for 90 days of foreign nationals from seven countries identified by Congress or the Executive as presenting heightened terrorism-related risks.
� Late he signed Executive Order No.
Facts: Trump v. Hawaii
Are the plaintiffs' claims challenging the president's authority to issue the Proclamation reviewable ("justiciable") in federal court? Does the president have the statutory authority to issue the Proclamation? Is the global injunction barring enforcement
Issue: Trump v. Hawaii
The Court assumed without deciding that the plaintiffs' claims are justiciable and held that the Proclamation does not violate the president's statutory authority or the Establishment clause.
Holding: Trump v. Hawaii
The Court did not resolve the question whether the district court's global injunction is impermissibly over-broad.
Reasoning: Trump v. Hawaii
Justice Sotomayor criticized the majority for "ignoring the facts, misconstruing our legal precedent, and turning a blind eye to the pain and suffering the Proclamation inflicts upon countless families and individuals, many of whom are US citizens." Justi
Dissent: Trump v. Hawaii
� In April of 1952, during the Korean War, President Truman issued an executive order directing Secretary of Commerce Charles Sawyer to seize and operate most of the nation's steel mills.
� This was done in order to avert the expected effects of a strike
Facts: Youngstown Sheet and Lumber v. Sawyer
Did the President have the constitutional authority to seize and operate the steel mills?
Issue: Youngstown Sheet and Lumber v. Sawyer
The President lacks constitutional authority to seize and operate the steel mills.
Holding: Youngstown Sheet and Lumber v. Sawyer
The Court found that there was no congressional statute that authorized the President to take possession of private property. The Court also held that the President's military power as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces did not extend to labor dispute
Reasoning: Youngstown Sheet and Lumber v. Sawyer
� Palsgraf was standing on the platform purchasing a ticket when a train stopped, and two men ran forward to catch it.
� One man fell and dropped a package in the process, and the package contained fireworks, and they exploded in the process.
� As a resul
Facts: Palsgraf v. Long Island RR
In an action for injuries sustained during an explosion when a package was dropped on a nearby rail, was defendant railroad liable for negligence due to its guards' conduct in pushing the man carrying the package?
Issue: Palsgraf v. Long Island RR
The Court of Appeals of NY reversed the judgements of the appellate division and the trial term of the Supreme Court. They ruled in favor of the defendant railroad and dismissed plaintiff passenger's complaint.
Holding: Palsgraf v. Long Island RR
The Court found that the conduct of the railroad's guards was not a wrong or negligence in relation to the plaintiff, standing far away. There was nothing in the situation to suggest to the most cautious mind that the parcel wrapped in newspaper would spr
Reasoning: Palsgraf v. Long Island RR
� A bottle of carbonated beverage broke in a waitress's hand, and right before the accident the waitress had picked up a case of the beverages and set it upon a nearby cabinet near a refrigerator.
� She was putting them one-by-one into the refrigerator.
�
Facts: Escola v. Coca-Cola Bottling
Was the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applicable?
Issue: Escola v. Coca-Cola Bottling
Yes, the Court said that all requirements necessary to allow the waitress to rely on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, to supply an inference of negligence, were present.
Holding: Escola v. Coca-Cola Bottling
Although is was not clear whether the explosion was caused by an excessive charge or defect in the glass, there was sufficient showing that neither cause would ordinarily have been present if due care had been used. The company had exclusive control over
Reasoning: Escola v. Coca-Cola Bottling
� The family of deceased Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder filed a lawsuit against members of Westboro Baptist Church who picketed at his funeral.
� The family accused the church and its founders of defamation, invasion of privacy and the intentional infli
Facts: Snyder v. Phelps
Does the First Amendment protect protesters at the funeral from liability for intentionally inflicting emotional distress on the family of the deceased?
Issue: Snyder v. Phelps
The Court held that the first amendment shields those who stage a protest at the funeral of a military service member from liability.
Holding: Snyder v. Phelps
First Amendment protects it.
Reasoning: Snyder v. Phelps
� Louisiana enacted the Separate Car Act, which requires separate railway cars for blacks and whites
� Plessy, who was technically black under Louisiana law, saw in the "whites only" part of the train
� He was told to leave, and he didn't, so he was arres
Facts: Plessy v. Ferguson
Does the Separate Car Act Violate the Fourteenth Amendment?
Issue: Plessy v. Ferguson
Equal but separate accommodations for whites and blacks imposed by Louisiana do not violate the Equal Protection Clause oof the Fourteenth Amendment.
Holding: Plessy v. Ferguson
The Court held that the state law was constitutional. Justice Brown conceded that the 14th amendment intended to establish absolute equality for the races before the law but held that separate treatment did not imply the inferiority of African Americans.
Reasoning: Plessy v. Ferguson
� This was the consolidation of cases arising in Kansas, SC, Virginia, Delaware and DC relating to the segregation of public schools based on race.
� In each of the cases, African American students had been denied admittance to certain public schools base
Facts: Brown v. Board of Education
Does the segregation of public education based solely on race violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment?
Issue: Brown v. Board of Education
The Court held that separate but equal facilities for racial minorities in inherently unequal, violating the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment.
Holding: Brown v. Board of Education
The court said that the segregation of public education based on race instilled a sense of inferiority that had a hugely detrimental effect on the education and personal growth of African American children. Much of Warren's opinion was based on social sci
Reasoning: Brown v. Board of Education
� The Voting Rights act of 1965 was enacted as a response to the nearly century-long history of voting discrimination. Section 5 prohibits eligible districts from enacting changes to their election laws and procedures without gaining official authorizatio
Facts: Shelby County v. Holder
Does the renewal of Section 5 of the Voter Rights Act under the constraints of Section 4(b) exceed Congress' authority under the 14th and 15th Amendments, and therefore violate the 10th amendment and Article 4 of the Constitution?
Issue: Shelby County v. Holder
Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional.
Holding: Shelby County v. Holder
The Court held that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act imposes current burdens that are no longer responsive to other current conditions on the voting districts in question. While these constrains made sense in the 1960s and 1970s they no longer do and no
Reasoning: Shelby County v. Holder
Justice Ginsburg wrote a dissent in which she argued that Congress' power to enforce the 14th and 15th amendments encompasses legislative actions such as the Voting Rights Act. She thought that the evidence Congress gathered to determine whether to renew
Dissent: Shelby County v. Holder
� Citizens United sought an injunction against the Federal Election Commission in the US District court for DC to prevent the application of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act to its film Hillary: The Movie.
� The BCRA applies aa variety of restriction to
Facts: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
Do the BCRA's disclosure requirements impose an unconstitutional burden when applied to electioneering requirements because they are protected "political speech" and not subject to regulations as "campaign speech"? If a communication lacks aa clear plea t
Issue: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
The First Amendment protects the right to free speech, despite the speaker's identity.
Holding: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
The Majority held that under the 1st amendment corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited. The said that political speech is indispensable to a democracy which is no less true because the speech come fro
Reasoning: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
Justice Stevens argued that corporations re not members of society and that they are compelling governmental interests to curb corporations'' ability to spend money during local and national elections.
Dissent: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
� The Green Family owns and operates Hobby Lobby Stores and they had organized the business around the principles of Christian Faith and had explicitly expressed the desire to run the company according to Biblical precepts, one of which is the belief that
Facts: Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores
Does the Religious Freedom Restoration act of 1993 allow a for-profit company to deny its employees' health coverage of contraception to which the employees would otherwise be entitled based on the religious objections of the company's owners?
Issue: Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores
The Court held that Congress intended for the RFRA to be ready as applying to corporations since they are composed of individuals who use them to achieve desired ends. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act allows for-profit companies to deny contraception
Holding: Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores
Because the contraception requirement forces religious corporations to fund what they consider an abortion, which goes against their stated religious principles, or face significant fines, it creates a substantial burden that is not the least restrictive
Reasoning: Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores
Justice Ginsburg argued that the majority's decision was precluded by the Court's decision in another case in which the court held that there is no violation of the freedom of religion when an infringement on that right is merely an incidental consequence
Dissent: Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores
� VMI boasted a long and proud tradition as VA's only exclusively male public undergraduate higher learning institution
� The US brought a suit against VA and VMI alleging that the school's male-only admission policy was unconstitutional and that it viola
Facts: US v. Virginia
Does VA's creation of a women's-only academy, as a comparable program to a male-only academy, satisfy the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause?
Issue: US v. Virginia
The Court held that VMI's male-only admissions policy was unconstitutional.
Holding: US v. Virginia
They said it was because it failed to show "exceedingly persuasive justification" for VMI's gender-biased admissions policy, VA violated the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. Furthermore, VA's VWIL could not offer women the same benefits as VMI of
Reasoning: US v. Virginia